The possible meanings of both the title and the chronology of William Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily" have been
debated for years.1 What is not under debate, however, is that the chronology deliberately manipulates and delays the reader's final judgment of Emily Grierson by altering the evidence. In other words, what the chronology does is as important as when the events actually take place. In the same way, what the title does reveals as much as the debate over what the rose means. The only rose that Emily actually receives (putting aside symbolic roses for the moment) is the rose in the title, which Faulkner as the author gives to her.2 Just as the story's chronology is a masterpiece of subtle insinuations, so also is the title in its implications for the structure of the story."
After reading the introduction ,Do you agree, disagree, or both agree and disagree with Getty's argument in "On Faulkner's 'A Rose for Emily?'
I agree with Getty's argument. Certainly the chronology of the story is used to transcend time. The narrator in this story is... View the full answer