Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Guest Blogger: Michael B.
The past few weeks we have been doing a lot of work with perspectives so I guess I’ll explore that some more. As we have read the past few books, Turn of the Screw, Ethan Frome, and As I Lay Dying, we’ve experienced a wide variety of these perspectives. In Turn of the Screw it was really more of just an introduction into the idea of not just an outside all-knowing narrator, and by changing that, the story itself was changed. In As I Lay Dying, this was taken even further as we were placed inside of almost every character in the book to see their perspectives on the events occurring with the death of Addie and the family’s trip to Jefferson. Now this past weekend we read A Rose for Emily, and saw another perspective, first person, but plural with we rather than the typical singular and using I. This seems to be a very interesting idea; no longer does an author necessarily have to show agreement from each individual in a community using a multiple perspective approach as in As I Lay Dying. Yet using we still gives a greater sense of importance, and a more believable opinion than if an outside narrator said, “The town thought she was crazy”. This use of we, in A Rose for Emily, allows the town’s collective thoughts to be heard, “We did not say she was crazy then. We believed she had to do that.” (Faulkner 5). This is seen again in the first paragraph of the short story as well, “…our whole town went to her funeral…” (Faulkner 1). Without this first person plural perspective, the town would lose the “our” emphasis, no longer would the reader feel as connected to the town, whereas by using we and our, Faulkner helps connect the reader. In A Rose for Emily, this helps to further the contrast between the generations as well. Faulkner is able to use the different perspective to create a space around Emily, while still maintaining a more intimate feel of the first person narrative. In the final paragraph of the short story, the difference between first person with I and first person with we is shown again when Faulkner writes, “Then we noticed that in the second pillow was the indentation of a head. One of us lifted something from it…” (Faulkner 10). Faulkner continues his sense of a community, and actions done are done by the community with his use of we noticed. When one of the members of the group lifts something off the pillow, rather than a typical “I” if written in first person singular, Faulkner uses one of us, still linking the community to the action. I thought this was very interesting, all the different perspectives, but especially using we as a point of view. What do you think, interesting? Weird? Confusing? Also, what other types of perspectives can or might an author write from?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Senia Lee
I really like the fact that you stated about Faulkner used "one of us" instead of "I." When Faulkner writes with the perspective of the community using "we, us, etc." it also puts the reader in their situation of not knowing why Emily did what she had done. When I read from this that perspective, I myself was questioning Emily's motives, wondering what was going on in the house, and felt curious about Homer's disappearance. Having that perspective also leaves intensity in the passage. For example, finding out that Homer was rotting in the room at the very end after all the waiting. Otherwise, we could have made assumptions the community might have had about Homer being a dead man considering he never left the house and because of the knowledge we possessed; Emily purchasing Arsenic.
It's interesting to note the different effects of "I" and "We." "I" does put one in the shoes of the narrator, but that is simply one person's ideas. "We" puts a reader in the shoes of a whole community, and gets a giant meld of different ideas. I can write in first person singular, but writing a story from a first plural perspective seems like it would be infinitely more difficult, mostly as a matter of trying to balance the general thoughts of a community with the thoughts of individuals in said community.
Brian Reuland
I really like the way Sam summed up the use of I and we. To me, if I'm reading a book, a perspective of many different people is just going to seem more authentic and believable. If I read a book from say, Mr. Edmonds perspective only, I might believe it, I might not. But if a book was written from the perspective of the entire JM staff, I'd be more likely to find the piece authentic and believable.
Post a Comment