Annotated Bibliography
Dilworth, Thomas. "A Romance to Kill for: Homicidal Complicity in Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily"." Studies in Short Fiction, vol. 36, no. 3, 1999, pp. 251-251+. ProQuest, https://ezproxy.queens.edu:2048/login? url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/195691312?accountid=38688.
​
This article went in depth discussing the use of time, specifically the narrator’s manipulation of time, and the theme of societal cognitive dissonance in the story “A Rose for Emily.” For most of the beginning of the article, Dilworth focuses on the townspeople and their treatment of Emily, specifically the way in which they saw her as an “idol” figure, someone who truly represented the idealized upper class southern woman. Because of this view, Dilworth argues, it is likely that they knew about and were complicit in her murder of Homer Barron. The manipulation of the timeline of the story is one of Dilworth’s main points of evidence for this theory. He argues that the out of order, and seemingly random, way in which the different plot points are told is done to hide Emily’s bad deed and the town’s knowledge of it. He argues that by events such as the purchase of the arsenic and the stench surrounding her house being out of order, the narrator is purposely trying to confuse the reader and lead them away from the truth. While this theory may seem complicated, Dilworth executes his findings well in the article. He consistently uses evidence from the story itself and shows deep critical reading skills in his analysis, and he often brings in quotes and theories from other critics of the story as well. His argument can seem scattered at times and difficult to follow, but his findings are on stable ground and he provides a well thought out analysis of the story. However, the organization of the article could definitely improve, especially in the way he brought in seemingly unrelated theories to his already complex thought process, such as his theory surrounding a sexual relationship between Emily and Tobe. The article would benefit from more focus on the main points and the way they are presented, rather than many points all at once.
Kriewald, Gary L. "The Widow of Windsor and the Spinster of Jefferson: A Possible Source for Faulkner’s Emily Grierson." The Faulkner Journal, vol. 19, no. 1, 2003, pp. 3-10. ProQuest, https://ezproxy.queens.edu:2048/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/219160351?accountid=38688.
​
This article was an in-depth analysis of William Faulkner’s possible inspiration for the character of Emily Grierson. Kriewald begins his article by listing several ideas supported by other critics of where Faulkner’s inspiration could have come from, such as a poem from Edgar Allen Poe, a family member with a vaguely similar story, or even Emily Dickinson. However, Kriewald disagrees with these other theories and instead proposes that Emily was based on Queen Victoria. He supports this theory by showing the similarities between the two women and their lives. He also supports this theory by providing evidence surrounding the current publications and popular culture of Faulkner’s time, showing that he could not have avoided information on Queen Victoria and was likely to seek it out. According to Kriewald, Emily and Queen Victoria are similar in the ways that they have power over the community they are in and the ways in which they control that power, their appearances, their exception from the law, their love affairs that were seen as suspicious to their societies, and the devotion they had to their lovers after they were dead. Kriewald was strong in his evidence for this theory, he quoted directly from sources close to Faulkner that would show him likely to be familiar with Queen Victoria and he consistently used quotes from a biography of the Queen and the story of Emily to show their comparisons and provide support. There are no extreme weaknesses to this article, his ideas are stated clearly with an abundance of support, including counterarguments and other theories. This article can almost be seen as a new historicism approach in the way it connects Faulkner’s story with the context of the time period it was written and what was popular in literature at the time, which happened to be a biography of Queen Victoria.
Moore, Gene M. “Of the Time and Its Mathematical Progression..” Studies in Short Fiction, vol. 29, no. 2, Spring 1992, p. 195. EBSCOhost, http://ezproxy.queens.edu:4012/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=abd20f55-fb5c-4314-9d39-5fa0f131001a%40sdc-v-sessmgr02&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=9705052047&db=f6h
​
This article provides an in-depth analysis of the timeline of “A Rose for Emily” and the different ways it has been interpreted and charted since the piece’s original publication in 1930. Moore starts his article by providing several examples of other theories of the chronology of the timeline and he builds his article by referencing them throughout when he is creating his own possible timeline. Moore describes how the year of 1894 is only mentioned once in the story, somewhere in the middle of the different plot points, and it is the only exact year referenced through the entirety of the piece. Moore explains how most of the timelines that have been built have been based off of the different time frames that are given for certain moments, such as Emily being thirty when her father died and the seven or eight years she taught painting classes in her house. However, Moore brings in the point that no one had looked to Faulkner’s original manuscripts before, that did have an exact date for her tax emission, which lead to an exact date for her father’s death. Moore uses this evidence, along with all the other evidence stated, to create his own version of the timeline of the story. His article is very strong in its evidence, Moore consistently quotes from other researchers and their work, showing that he is aware of the other theories surrounding his topic. He carefully explains not only his theory, but also how it matches or goes against the theories of others, therefore providing an abundance of support for the reader to glean their own idea. The only weakness to his article is that, while his timeline is explained in detail and can be understood, it can take some time to match his dates together when his theory is constantly being compared to another in the same paragraph. It would be better for his theories and other theories to have more separation to avoid confusion.