Why was “A Rose for Emily” written out of sequence like it is?
In part, it is to confuse you–since you don’t know what happened when, there are multiple explanations for each event. And I also got the feeling that Faulkner was trying to portray narrators who themselves weren’t sure what happened when, much like little kids do when they are told family stories. They often kind of know what happened, but not necessarily in the correct sequence.
The guy did drink.
Also a possibility. 
I always assumed he did it to provide an excellent essay question opportunity.
I kinda thought drunkeness had something to do with it. I live in the south but I quit drinking 15 years ago. If I picked it up again do you think I could become an author of note?
A Rose For Emily.
To the OP – it’s just relayed in a conversational tone by an anonymous narrator. How else could you tell it?
BTW, you’re just curious, and not writing a paper on it, right?
If we’d had the sequence of events in chronological order, the ending would have been totally obvious:
- Emily gets jilted;
- Emily buys poison;
- Homer disappears;
- The stink that goes away after a while.
Dunno about you, but the first time I read it the ending came as a complete surprise to me.
Also, as The Scrivener pointed out, it’s a conversational style. He’s telling us about the events and how the locals perceived them at the time, before anyone had put it all together.
Faulkner tells “A Rose for Emily” in a non-chronological way to heighten suspense. I think that’s the most concise answer possible, as jackalope points out. Faulkner was rather fond of this method of storytelling, along with the multiple character POV technique.
Personally, I think the man’s a genius, and to dismiss him as a drunk, even in jest, is just ridiculous. :rolleyes:
Rubystreak, drunkeness is common with genius. Many authors are known for their excesses, i.e., James Dickey, Tennessee Williams, and Poe It’s just a sad fact.
To The Scrivener, I am not doing a paper on it, but we have been assigned to read it and I was curious. I’ve taken the stance that it was made to look like the narrator had put the story together from anecdotal evidence put together sometime after the events happened maybe like a journalist would.
hlanelee, I was not objecting to the statement that Faulkner was an alcoholic, nor that genius and substance abuse often go hand in hand. Four of the first five American Nobel Laureates in literature were alcoholics (Faulkner, Steinbeck, Hemingway, and Lewis). What I have a problem with is the absurd assertion that Faulkner wrote “A Rose for Emily” or any other of his works in an unusal way, such as out of chronological order, becaues he was drunk. Please. Faulkner wrote it that way because that was the best way to write it; he was way ahead of his time, and in some ways, still is. His genius was at work in that story, not his drink.
Can you tell that Faulkner is one of my favorite authors?
One can retain a sense of humor over his style and still marvel at its brilliance.
Twice in twenty years I have been suckered into believing that the stink was Emily’s father. The man was great!
I have a sense of humor about his style; got my very own copy of the Best of Bad Faulkner. I just don’t find jokes about alcoholism terrifically funny. He apparently died of alcohol withdrawal trying to quit, or so my grad school prof told us. Anyway, I hope you do see the distinction I’m drawing here.
Rubystreakmy father died DWI when I was 19 and his mother died of cirrohsis of the liver tow years before that. When I was 24 I lost everything I had due to my own alcoholism. I joke about alcoholism and drunkenness in general all the time. If I did not make jokes I might hang myself. God likes it best when we laugh, he did make lots of things that are funny.
hlanelee, a hint for you.
I don’t know if this was a continuity error by Faulkner, but Emily has short hair in the story.
The hair that is found by Homer, is a long hair, leaving one to wonder just exactly how long Emily shared her bed with a corpse.
Faulkner could write an exhaust pipe gag like nobody’s business.
ivylass, Homer didn’t find the hair on the pillow. He was the skeleton on the other side of the bed.
Sure, “God” made lots of things that are funny, and if you want to joke about alcoholism, go to. My point, and this is the last time I’m going to make it, is that Faulkner’s style in “A Rose for Emily” and other works, where he toys with chronology and POV, aren’t the result of drunkenness. “Rose” actually unfolds in a very skillful way, and it’s not really that hard to follow. Now, The Sound and the Fury, on the other hand…