analysis
Analysis of an Argument
In the essay, “We all said, ‘She will kill herself’”: The Narrator/Detective in William Faulkner’s, “A Rose for Emily,” Lawrence Rodgers provides an effective argument in which he proves how the narrator in the story may very well serve as the towns’ detective. Rodgers uses John Cawelti’s useful and simple litmus test in order to establish whether the text follows the classical detective formula. The critic argues that “A Rose for Emily” meets three conditions that are: 1) the story must have a mystery that needs solving; 2) there must be concealed facts that a detective has to explore; and 3) these facts must become clear in the end.
In “A Rose for Emily” it is clearly evident that that story meets the conditions of a detective story; Rodgers uses examples from the text such as a case of poisoning, an unlikely suspect, a mysterious locked room whose assortment of clues turns up a corpse, a murderer and finally a solution to a crime; but by all means where is the detective within the story? Rodgers argues that the story inevitably links the narrator to be the detective. He also goes on to inform his readers of the style and pattern of the story. After reading a rose for Emily I was indeed slightly confused as to the order in which the story was written. Faulkner did a way at fowling the formula, which without any prior knowledge had me puzzled as to why he started off with the death of Emily, followed by events leading up to the corpse. As I read the story I found myself trying to unravel the mysteries presented throughout the text and until the very end. As a classical detective story, Rodgers explains that, the audience is made aware of key details that allow a series of events to be placed into a comprehendable order.
The purpose of the argument is to use textual evidence within the story in order to convince the reader not to see the narrator as just a narrator, but as a town’s detective as well, and to give is readers a clear
In the essay, “We all said, ‘She will kill herself’”: The Narrator/Detective in William Faulkner’s, “A Rose for Emily,” Lawrence Rodgers provides an effective argument in which he proves how the narrator in the story may very well serve as the towns’ detective. Rodgers uses John Cawelti’s useful and simple litmus test in order to establish whether the text follows the classical detective formula. The critic argues that “A Rose for Emily” meets three conditions that are: 1) the story must have a mystery that needs solving; 2) there must be concealed facts that a detective has to explore; and 3) these facts must become clear in the end.
In “A Rose for Emily” it is clearly evident that that story meets the conditions of a detective story; Rodgers uses examples from the text such as a case of poisoning, an unlikely suspect, a mysterious locked room whose assortment of clues turns up a corpse, a murderer and finally a solution to a crime; but by all means where is the detective within the story? Rodgers argues that the story inevitably links the narrator to be the detective. He also goes on to inform his readers of the style and pattern of the story. After reading a rose for Emily I was indeed slightly confused as to the order in which the story was written. Faulkner did a way at fowling the formula, which without any prior knowledge had me puzzled as to why he started off with the death of Emily, followed by events leading up to the corpse. As I read the story I found myself trying to unravel the mysteries presented throughout the text and until the very end. As a classical detective story, Rodgers explains that, the audience is made aware of key details that allow a series of events to be placed into a comprehendable order.
The purpose of the argument is to use textual evidence within the story in order to convince the reader not to see the narrator as just a narrator, but as a town’s detective as well, and to give is readers a clear