Dear Mr. William Faulkner,
I realize that you died 44 years ago; however, I think that me still reading your story only attests to your skill as a writer. I read your short story, "A Rose For Emily" (by using the comma I assume that you have written more than one story–you seem to be an accomplished writer–The Sound and the Fury–very impressive–so you probably knew that.)
I like to think of myself as a bit of a writer, so when I read a story I am unimpressed when the story is written in a humdrum way that I could have written it. In "A Rose For Emily" you show your mastery of the shocking ending, and I definitely could not have written it.
Shocking endings are common and easy to produce, but the supported shocking ending–as I have named it–is my favorite and the difficult literary device to use effectively. Plain shocking endings receive the reaction, "what? that makes no sense" or "duh, I saw that coming," but the middle ground between the two reactions to plain shocking endings is the embodiment of the supported shocking ending.
Your use of the supported shocking ending is perfect. The perfect supported shocking ending is marked by the reaction, "how crazy? –Oh but her house did smell, and she did buy arsenic...etc. (et cetera being the flood of all the other details that now, after reading the ending, foreshadowed the ending so vividly, but). The foreshadowing makes the ending logical and since the foreshadowing was lacking and dispersed enough to keep the shocking ending hidden.
Your supported shocking ending is so enhanced through your use of the anonymous narrator in mixed time. The anonymous narrator seems to be a more trusted storyteller since the narrator is not an actual character; character narrators often times twist the story to fit their own view. Since the anonymous character is trusted, when the narrator (speaking for the town) stipulates that “they [Homer and Emily] are married” (45) and that after Emily buys arsenic “she will kill herself” (41) the narrator steers us into not putting these details together in their true relation, that Homer does not leave the house because he was killed–not married–by the arsenic. The narrator also tells the story out of the linear progression of time. The mixed time allows for the foreshadowing to occur, but occur in a way that cloaks the foreshadowing and conceals the shocking ending.
So Mr. Faulkner, I realized the point of your story and I wanted to know if I was correct. But first, all of the affirmations I made to you and about your skill in having a supported shocking ending, to you the supported shocking ending only really functions to highlight your main point: that we need to show appreciation to other people even when they are quite insane, disturbed, or different. So the narrator gives “A Rose” to Emily to show his/her appreciation of Emily. His/Her “rose” for Emily is the story that is impartial and just to all elements of Emily’s life in hopes that the reader will make an unbiased decision about Emily and her life.
I am not sure of your reasoning for this story–maybe it was for you or someone you knew that was unfairly judged or not appreciated. So indeed Mr. Faulkner, I have written this letter as my “rose” to you. Your story was my favorite of this week and I look forward to reading some of your other works. Good job.
Your Fan,
Robert Adrian
1 comment:
Rob--I like the format of this week's post, and I think your concept of the supported shocking ending is a good one. I don't know whether the name will catch on, but it's a good description of this story, especially when combined with the concept of the anonymous narrator in mixed time. Nice touch.
Post a Comment