It's always an interesting thing when an author comments on his or her own work. Frequently, we don't get ANY commentary at all, and sometimes the author's commentary is just as cryptic as the work itself. Faulkner encouraged students to ask him questions about his work, and he answered over 2,000 of them--something a writer like J.D. Salinger would never do.
After reading "A Rose for Emily," read the interview with Faulkner on page 1445. How does this interview change your interpretation of the story, if at all? How would you characterize Faulkner's "voice" in the interview--what is he like? Why would a writer want to (or want NOT to) comment on his or her own work?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In most of the stories we read there’s always ‘hidden meanings’ I find them really annoying, because I want them black and white, not any grey in the middle. I like the fact that Faulkner comes right out and says it means what it says. That any girl wants that love from a man. People wondered if it had anything to do with the south or the north, and he replied no, it has to do what it says in the story, no hidden meaning. Faulkner seems very calm when he talked about his work, he’s very direct, he easily shuts down peoples talk about the north and the south, didn’t beat around the bush. An author may not want to comment on his work because he/she wants the reader to make up their own mind on what it means, have an imagination, while other authors who comments on their writing want to talk about it because they have a direct message to say, no beating around the bush. –Kim Goodwin
ReplyDeleteAt first, I thought Emily wanted to commit suicide as a result of her father’s death and how eager she was to get the rat poison. After reading the interview, I figured that I was looking too deep into it and found that unlike most stories, it meant what it said. From the way William Faulkner answered the questions, it seems that the story came from the way society worked back then. As the author answered, “I was simply trying to write about people” on a question on if he made it to criticize the times. He also seemed to not want to talk about it at time though because he pointed more towards the story instead of talking about society in general.
ReplyDeleteWhen i first read the story, to me, Emily seemed like a odd lady that really had no feelings or aspirations. It seemed as though she only wanted things her way or not at all. After reading the interview with Faulkner it made me have more pity for Emily as a human. All she had wanted was one thing and that was love. She wanted what any other human wants except she was unable to experience a mutual love due to many obstacles. In the interview Faulkner was very straight forward and calm. Just like Kim said, he had no hidden messages in his story he was just telling a story about human nature. Some writers do not want to comment on their work because sometimes they want the writer to think. Different readers can percieve the story as meaning one thing or another and that's what they want to happen.
ReplyDeleteThe interview makes understanding the story easier. It cleared up any hidden mystery that I thought there could be. Faulkner is straight forward and clear in the interview. Emily was just a girl looking for love and desperate to do anything for it, like alot of real life girls. Faulkner's "voice" in the interview is honest. He gives truthful answers to what he was thinking when he was writing the story. He doesn't try to make it more complex for the reader. Some writers may not to comment on his or her own work because they like the reader to form there own opinion, there own story. I prefer Faulkner's position of being straight up. What's the fun in reading a story if you can't understand so when an author explains there work it makes it more relatable. I never would have known that A Rose for Emily was just simply about love and man's dream.
ReplyDeleteThe interview definitely helped me understand the story better. I feel many writers should clear up their work in interviews or make comments on their work because most of the time I do not fully grasp what the writer wants to portray while writing his story. Faulkner seems to be relaxed in his interview because he knows what he is talking about and he does not seem to mind explaining it. He is very informative which helps the reader understand where he was going with A Rose for Emily. He seems like a down to earth man who writes what he sees and feels. Writers may want other's to comment on their work so they know how people perceive what they are trying to portray. On the other hand, they can also want us to portray it however we like because all people do not perceive stories the same way.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading A Rose for Emily I was still confused. I thought that the time like of events jumped all over the place. I still picked up on the fact that she was considered the topic of gossip in the town and no one really knew much about her. I also comprehended that there was an internal struggle for love and finding love. But other then that I got very confused at some points. After reading the interview it was clear that what I comprehended from the story was you could say the bare minimum that the author wanted us to understand. And that there were no greater meaning behind the story. I thought that when the interviewer asked Faulkener if there was any other meaning to the story he flat out said no. Most writers never really set out for a story to have greater meaning then that of what they are writing. Sometimes to take a story for its literal meaning it better then reading too much into the text.
ReplyDeleteAfter I read, A Rose for Emily, I assumed what happened to Emily's Father and Homer since it didn't really tell us. After reading the interview, I was reassured that it really happened. In the interview, Faulkner made it more clear to the audience what the story he wrote was really portraying. He also was sharing his thoughts about why he chose to write this story and how he went about writing it. The interview gave me a better understanding of the whole story rather than reading it. A writer would want to comment on his/her own work because they would want others to understand what they are saying. A writer would not want to comment on his/her own work to give the reader's a chance to make their own decision on what they think the story is about.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Ty when he talks about reading too heavily into the text. I too struggled with the meaning of "A Rose for Emily" because I felt like there were so many different things going on. I also found it interesting that the reason Faulkner wrote this story was because "of man's conditions in which he dreams and hopes". In this I found the true meaning of the story. More so, he made it really clear of what he was trying to do with this story for readers. A reason why a reader might want to comment on an author's work is simply for this reason, and I really enjoyed getting insight from Faulkner on his own work. In summation, I also agree with Nicole when she says that his interview gave readers the ability to depict what they thought the story was about. This to me gives a story great potential to many different meanings.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone who had trouble understanding the story after the first read. After i read, "A Rose for Emily", I was left with many questions about Emily and her motives. I read the story again and got some helpful insight into the underlying tones of love and holding onto that love. I felt bad for her, she was the center of the town's gossip column and she obviously had some issues with her father. I agree with Emily and Krystal, in that Faulkner seems like a guy that wrote a story about human nature and that's it. He actually seems like a cool guy, instead of the man who wrote a story which I had no idea what was about. Sometimes when I read something, I prefer to not see the author's comments about the piece. Sometimes, it's just cool to not fully know and be content with the version you have created, your interpretation. On the other hand, I can also agree with Laura and Nicole about how the author's commentary can help to give the "intended" or more in depth meaning to a piece.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the interview things deffinitely became more clear about the story. I agree with what Kim had to say about a story being black and white rather then it having a hidden or secret meaning. It makes things easier when what you read is what you are actually meant to think. The story didn't change in my mind after the interview, it just helped to understand where Faulkner was coming from. Faulkner appears to be very cool, relaxed, and very sure of himself through out the interview. A writer might want to comment on his or her own work in order to create a better understanding of the material, but a writer might also not want to comment on their own work because in some cases a story is up for your interpretation and your interpreatation only.
ReplyDeleteThe rview with Faulkner opened up a better understanding of the story for me as it put the unspoken words on the page. After reading the text I was left with so many questions, why did she kill theman she loved? What made her quit at life? With faulkers cool and composed interview as Greg stated he seemed willing to share. He just wanted to write about people and that is what he did. He created a life and a situation and wrote about their feelings and actions to the situation they were in. A writer would want to comment a piece of work to get particular message they want to get through to people. But, a writer may also want to stay silent about their work because they had multiple interpreations or want people to interperet the piece themselves rather than have an exact answer of what the story is about.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read the story I didn’t really understand it at all. I thought there could be some hidden meaning that the author wanted the reader to interpret but I couldn’t come up with anything. It just seemed like it was about a poor woman who wasn’t living life at all because she was always trapped inside the house and could not be set free. When I read the interview with Faulkner the story made a little more sense. She was looking for love like everyone else in the world does but couldn’t find it because of her controlling father. In the interview the author seemed to be very laid back and made it clear that the story was about people in general and finding love and was not in any way about the North or South. Sometimes it’s helpful to see what the author wrote about his work to fully understand it better and appreciate it more.
ReplyDelete-Nicole Pain
When I first read the story, I had a very hard time understanding anything that even happened. I had to ask one of my friends about what the story was even about. After I read the interview, I completely understood the story. I had questioned why the story was called "A Rose for Emily" and the fact that there was almost no meaning outside of a literal meaning was interesting. Actually, the entire story was rather literal in the meanings. His voice seemed rather blunt about what the story was about. It makes me question how many other stories have literal meanings and no hidden messages that people constantly analyze. Certain stories should not have commentary because they have so many theories and hidden messages, revealing the true meaning behind everything could ruin the fun of reading.
ReplyDelete-John Choquette
A lot of people posted that they understood the story a lot better after reading the interview. I agree with them. Faulkner cleared up any misunderstandings I had. I honestly thought the story was about racism until the end which just left me so confused. Faulkner seems like he really wants everyone to understand his work. I like that he will answer questions and give interviews like that. I can understand a writer not wanting to comment on his or her work. Some like to leave room for interpretation. Explaining the true meaning of the story takes all interpretation out of it so I do understand why someone wouldn't want to explain what the point of the story is.
ReplyDeleteI think that writers would want to comment on their stories because it clarifies any confusion the reader might have. Like Gerald, until I read the interview, I thought Emily was using the rat poison to kill herself, not her lover. The interview also made me see Emily as more of a tormented soul, as opposed to just a weird old lady, which was my impression when I first read the story. After reading the interview, I was able to identify more of the underlying issues that Emily had, with her father subduing her, for example. She was clearly struggling with “brow-beaten” past, as Falkner described, as well as her inability to live up to the classic ambition of settling down with a husband and children.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read "A Rose for Emily" I did not understand the story at all, so then I decided to reread to see if that would help me understand what the story was about. It didn't. But after reading the interview of the author, it helped me to better understand what the story was about. At first, like alot of other people, I thought that this story had something to do with racism. But then as I read further into the story I changed my mind and decided that the story was really just about Emily, a sad woman who was gossiped about often. She was really a woman who was controlled by her father. I feel bad for Emily because of what she may have went through with her father, and also because the person she was supposed to marry was going to leave her. After reading the story twice and then finally reading the interview I truly started to understand the story alot better.
ReplyDeleteLike mostly everyone in the class I did not understand the story at first. It took a few times of me reading it over until I finally started to understand it.
ReplyDeleteThe interview with Faulkner definately changes my interpreatation of the story. It says in the interview on page 1446 "Instead of murdering one lover, and then to go and take another and she she used him up to murder him, she was expiating her crime." The way I read this, it was that she had murdered her father as well and than once he was of no use for her she went and, once she found out the only other one to ever love her was going to leave, killed him as well.
I agree with John in the sense that Faulkner did seem rather blunt, he never really gave a direct answer, he had sort of a beat around the bush tactic to the interview.
Also, the fact that Faulkner links the strand of hair on the pillow to the "Rose for Emily" really changed my interpretation. At first I didn't really read too much into the strand of hair on the pillow and the decaying body next to it. Until i reread it and the interview and it was a grey hair, most likely recent, next to a decaying carcus, not so recent. This made the story more creepier by a landslide.
I think a writer, depending on how they want the reader's to view the story may or may not want to answer questions or take comments and see their feedback. For one, if the author wants the reader to take their own interpretation to the story, then there is no reason for him/her to go and give their take on the story. On the other hand, if there is a definative point the author was seeking to send, then he/she may infact want to answer questions or listen to the comments of the readers if they are confused about the ideas in the story.
I think that after having read the interview with Faulkner it gives the reader a bit more clarity on what happend in the story. At first I had this mental image that Emily was just a hermit that stayed locked up in her house all day, but Faulkner clarifies that Emily was kept in the house by her father because he was selfish.
ReplyDeleteIn the interview Faulkner answers the questions in a very straight forward and to the point manner. He knows that the interviewer is trying to dwell too far into the context of the story so he just explains what the words were actually meant to mean.
I think that a writer would like the opportunity for commentary on their own works because then they can show the reader what they were thinking when they wrote the piece. There can be numerous different justifications that people come up with in their minds when they read the story. Some of the conclusions people come up with are not at all what the author had initially set out to say and being able to comment on their own work helps the author get his point across more accurately to the reader.