In addition to reading William Faulkner’s “A Rose for Emily” this week, please also read David Streitfeld’s New York Times blog post, “As I Lay Dying: The Web Fixes Faulkner” and think about the life of the text after the author writes it. In Streitfeld’s discussion of Faulkner’s story, he notices how the Genius.com incarnation of “A Rose for Emily” mistakenly switched a controversial word for a similar-looking word with an entirely different meaning. Commenters on that blog post engaged with what they thought should have been done differently, or critiqued Streitfeld’s argument.
One way to engage in our discussion this week would be to add an annotation about “A Rose for Emily”–some detail that you think elucidates readers’ understanding of the story–on Genius.com, and then link us there in your discussion comment and explain why you think this is important to add to the understanding of the short story.
Another way might be to write a comment on Streitfeld’s blog post in response to his argument.
Those are both very high-stakes! Lower-stakes versions could be to draft those comments on our site in this discussion and get feedback from your classmates before (or instead of?) posting them in those higher-stakes places. Or to react via a comment in our discussion to someone else’s comment on Streitfeld’s post, or to someone’s annotation on Genius.com.
But what does discussing the substitution of an r for an n in that word do to help us engage with the story? It shows that it’s relevant–Streitfeld’s blog post was recent, from last month–and introduces us to the world of online annotations, in the form of Genius.com. To move our discussion deeper into the story, I ask you to engage in a discussion here with a second comment, about some other aspect of the story. Maybe you want to think about the effect of this different style of narration, how it’s told, or who the characters are, or what genre you think it belongs to (if “The Story of an Hour” had certain leanings into horror, would you say “A Rose for Emily does, too?), or again, thinking of the significance of a detail in our understanding of a story.
Feel free to respond directly to any of these questions by writing in the reply box below, or reply directly to a classmate by clicking Reply below their comment.
And as always, feel free to also ask questions below.
thwarted
(1) to oppose successfully; prevent from accomplishing a purpose.
(2) to frustrate r baffle (a plan, purpose, etc.).
found in “A Rose for Emily” Part 4 paragraph 5
Then we knew that this was to be expected too; as if that quality of her father which had thwarted her woman’s life so many times had been too virulent and too furious to die.
Emily’s father opposed all of the men in Emily’s life and she was never able to purse a proper and healthy relationship and because of this it drove Emily to the point of insanity. Even once her father passed away she was still not able to pursue a proper relationship with Homer Barron.
thwarted (verb)
(1) to oppose successfully; prevent from accomplishing a purpose.
(2) to frustrate or baffle (a plan, purpose, etc.).
found in âA Rose for Emilyâ Part 4 paragraph 5
Then we knew that this was to be expected too; as if that quality of her father which had thwarted her womanâs life so many times had been too virulent and too furious to die.
Emilyâs father opposed all of the men in Emilyâs life and she was never able to purse a proper and healthy relationship and because of this it drove Emily to the point of insanity. Even once her father passed away she was still not able to pursue a proper relationship with Homer Barron.
This glossary entry belongs as its own post, rather than as a comment here. Please add it as a post to get credit for it, and to share it in a way that everyone can easily find it and learn from it. Thanks!
Professor
I commented to the genius.com and categorized it under discussion, week 2. Was I suppose to comment here instead?
I’m not sure what you mean, but if you commented on on Genius.com, please link us to your comment! If you wrote about your comment elsewhere on our site, I haven’t seen it yet–could you add it to this discussion by replying to your question with that comment?
“The town had just left the contracts for paving the sidewalks, and in the summer after her father’s death they began the work. The construction company came with niggers and mules and machinery, and foreman named homer barron, a yankee–a big, dark, ready man, with a big voice, and eyes lighter than his face.”
This paragraph created a huge controversy because of one letter. According to David Streitfeld, the letter N in nigger was switched to R; which has a completely different meaning.
Rigger: A person that specializes in the lifting and moving of extremely large or heavy objects.
Thanks for summarizing the premise of Streitfeld’s blog post. What do you think of this change? How does it affect your reading of the story?
Discussion on Streitfeld
I understand that if someone changes a word in a published text it will lose its definition and readers will not understand the authorâs point of view in the period the story was written or their feelings/views on certain subjects. However, I agree with Genius changing the ânâ word with the letter r. This word has so many derogatory meanings behind it that I wish it were not in the reading. The ânâ word means a black person, any member of a dark skinned race, and a member of a socially disadvantage class (Merriam-Webster). This word carries racism, division, social defeat, war, and many other things that pertain socially, economically, and mentally to people that are black. Even to hear kids on the streets using it as joke makes me cringe because they donât understand the debasement of that word when used and the challenges blacks had to endure for many years because of that word. Another point I want to make is that the time period Faulkner wrote this story was probably during the divide between whites and blacks and the high level of racism going on in that period. This is seen by Faulkner addressing the men that were to pave the sidewalk as a piece of property by stating âthe construction company came with niggers and mules and machineryâŠâ (Faulkner III).
However, by law, not my opinions, the letter ânâ should stay in that word because Genius was going against copyright laws. In The Copyright Laws of the United States it states in Chapter 1, section (§) 106A (3)(A) that it prevents any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of a work, which would be prejudicial to a personâs honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right⊠So, if anyone or entity, including Genius, violates an authorâs right, which includes William Faulkner or his estate, to copyright, they will be in violation of copyright infringement [Chapter 5 Section (§) 501 (a)].
Stephanie raises two very different viewpoints on the issue raised about the Genius.com copy of “A Rose for Emily.” As more of you comment and consider the copyright issue, let me add a complication: this story is now in the public domain. That means that it is no longer under copyright. If you want to do a quick search to share info with others about what that means for a text, please do, and feel free to share any links you find helpful.
Even if we have the right to alter the story, is changing the word to “riggers” the best way? Someone in the comment section suggested removing the word and putting in a note (Genius.com is all about annotations, after all) explaining what the word was and why it shouldn’t still be there.
Do we get any sense of why Faulkner would use the word–was it to himself denigrate African Americans? Or does it do something else in the text?
If we’re going to start removing words or changing them because they’re objectionable, what an effort that would be–and would it just be words, or ideas, too? And who should decide that?
Lets revisit the true reason why Faulker wrote this piece; to share a story about a negro woman that did not care much about anyone except her dad; simply.
Today, that N word is considered contemptuous word use to greet individuals in the street that plan to eat, sleep, work, and etc. in the streets from young to adulthood.
Transitioning form the N word to the R created amnesty for the story to share amongst young scholars.
Back in the 1930s, when this piece was written it was the Great depression. For African Americans was even more rough, due to little or no jobs; white man would fight for low wage negro jobs just to feed his family. At this time African American did anything to earn a penny for survival.
To conclude we must keep in mind that African American was frowned upon during these times not all white man have the same respect for black and the writer William Faulkner from Mississippi is White so it should be easy to understand this style of writing based on just settings.
What suggests to you that Emily is, as you claim, a negro woman? Could you find something in the text that points to that description of her identity? It would seem to me that this change to rigger takes away certain clues that set Emily apart from the nameless characters described using the unedited n-word. Does anyone else see any description that indicates or suggests or implies Emily’s race?
A clue as to why Emily may be a black woman:
“Alive, Miss Emily had been a tradition, a duty, and a care; a sort of hereditary obligation upon the town, dating from that day in 1894 when Colonel Sartoris, the mayor–he who fathered the edict that no Negro woman should appear on the streets without an apron-remitted her taxes, the dispensation dating from the death of her father on into perpetuity.”
When asked to pay taxes by the sheriff she replies, “I have no taxes in Jefferson. Colonel Sartoris explained it to me”
This suggests to me that Emily was the exception made, and therefore is a black woman.
In addition, I love how David Streitfeld started off his blog with Faulkner’s famous saying, “The past is never dead”. Although years have passed since the great depression and we’ve reached strides in black rights and equality, the past is never dead. Although Rap Genius tried to sweeten up the term nigger by replacing the n with an r, people will still see the n no matter what. People will still be reminded of the harshness of the word whether it is a n or an r. People can still read it with an n even if it is changed to the r on Rap Genius.
Emily resonates to me as the symbol for the word. When she died, she was described in this way: “Thus she passed from generation to generation–dear, inescapable, impervious, tranquil, and perverse.” These descriptions means that she is there but nobody can seem to NOT pay attention to her. She may be physically gone, but she is still there. The word nigger may or may not be used but people still read it in that way. Racism may not be openly displayed but it is still practiced.
“The past is never dead”
We ended up talking about this after class. It’s important to know that the double dash or one long dash — is used to set words off in a way similar to how parentheses would. That statement about Colonel Sartoris and his rule about negro women wearing aprons tells us about him, but not about Emily. I’d encourage everyone to look back at that passage. Also, in our version, there’s a mistake in that it includes just one dash after that statement rather than two, so it looks like a hyphenated word rather than the long dash.
A nice link that explain the facts about copyright; out-of-print copyrighted books published between 1923 and 1939. Our story was published around that same time.
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/okbooks.html
Although, the word is a derogatory, I believe Faulkner was using the word because it was a social norm in the era in which he wrote this story. That’s what African Americans were called by and that is how he referred to them in his story. I am not sure if Faulkner used that word to shock his readers in the time this story was made. However, in today’s society, if that word is seen, people are shocked because they know the tension that can come off this one word.
I’ll begin this post by addressing on how genius.com substituted the use of the n-word for the word “rigger”.
The word, regardless of time and place, is, and will always be beyond derogatory and shocking, and therefore its use serves to shock and gather a reaction of disgust and awareness. I think to change it in a piece of writing that looks to portray the ignorance and degradation of a person for impact in a story changes the aspect and feeling of the reader. So, for all intents and purposes, I think it was wrong to change it.
When reading the story and coming upon the word, it causes immediate shock to see it so blatantly said, and used without a thought of care or respect. As a reader, I felt embarrassed and uncomfortable and maybe that wasn’t the reaction to the word in that era, or maybe it was. Regardless, it is, and should always be the case now. The word in the story garnered a strong reaction, and I think to change the word does a injustice to the writer that may have been looking to get that very same reaction.
A piece that is written should never be altered, regardless of law or copyright issues. It is the writers responsibility, then, and in present day, to be responsible with their words and message.
I also agree with Genius changing the word to ‘riggers’ because in society today the N word is really looked in a negative way if its being used. From, what i have experienced when a non-African American uses the word towards one they can easily get offended if they are not close to each other. When the story was written in the 1930s, it was 65 years after the civil war and people were still getting adjusted to having African-Americans live in the same area without being slaves. In 1930 using the N word was accepted back then because it was commonly used by the whites to address African-Americans. Since it was a common word used back then it did not suffer any problems with it being used in stories or it describing a African-American. Since racism is a big part of society today using those kind of words can easily be looked down on, so Genius changing the word has the positive and negative aspects in it. Yes it does change the meaning in story but at the same time it still keeps the description of what the person was doing at that time.
But how does changing the word keep the description of what the person (do you mean the author?) was doing at that time? It would seem to me to erase it. If they had added an annotation about the change, perhaps it would make sense. How as readers can we see past the change of meaning?
“A Rose for Emily”
The setting for William Faulkner’s, A Rose for Emily,” is a small town in the late 1800’s. During this period there was no television or other forms of home entertainment. People amused themselves by staying abreast of the latest town gossip. Miss Emily’s life was fuel for the towns gossip machine. She was a recluse who lived in the town but was not interested in socializing. During her younger years, her father, when he was alive felt no suitor was good enough for his daughter and upon his death Miss Emily remained husbandless. The Grierson family had always been regarded by the towns people as aristocrats and were held in high regards. After her father’s death she refused to have him buried and kept his body in the home for days. The towns people were sympathetic. They felt she was holding on to the thing that robbed her of a better life. Loneliness then overcame her and she became even more reclusive and no one was admitted to her home except for a period when she gave lessons in china painting. It was not until Homer Barron came to town as foreman of the black men working on the pavement that Miss Emily started to socialize by allowing him to visit her home and to take out in public for all to see.
The period of the story was well after slavery was abolished. During this time many affluent homes including Miss Emily’s had black servants. Unfortunately, they were still referred to as negroes or niggers. William Faulkner used the term nigger repeatedly when he mentioned the arrival of Miss Emily’s love interest, Homer Barron. “The construction company came with niggers and mules and machinery, and a foreman named Homer Barron.” Also, Faulkner wrote, “The little boys follow in groups to hear him cuss the niggers, and the niggers singing in time to the rise and fall of picks.” David Streitfeld in his blog made mention of the change by Rap Genius to substitute the letter “R” for the letter “N” in the word nigger. This changed the word to rigger. The word nigger was widely used during slavery and is regarded by many African American as degrading and offensive. According to Streitfeld, Rap Genius has bowdlerized the word nigger. In doing so they removed the offensive nature of the word and weaken its intent to be insulting to one group of people. The replaced word rigger has a completely different meaning but is still plausible to use. As Streitfeld pointed out, a rigger is a person or company that specializes in the lifting and removing of extremely large or heavy objects. As work continued on the towns pavements Miss Emily could be seen more and more in the company of Mr. Barron.
Behaviors that are considered acceptable in todays society were frowned upon in those days. In Miss Emily’s case they were viewed as unladylike. A visit from a clergyman indicated how offensive the towns people regarded a single woman spending time without a chaperone with a man like Homer Barron. Some pitied her and wanted her to marry him. Many still revered her as an aristocrat and felt a day laborer was beneath her stature. Many comments were made, these included, “of course a Grierson would not think seriously of a Northerner, a day laborer.” Some stated that even grief could not cause a real lady to forget noblesse oblige.” This term meant the people felt Miss Emily should not forget her upbringing and she was obligated to behave in a way that was more fitting to her reputation and her position as the town’s aristocrat.
Miss Emily however was hopeful that Mr. Barron would propose to her. Years of loneliness had caused her to lower her standards. She was willing to marry a man who once would not have been considered a suitable escort. Her plans apparently were derailed when she realized no proposal was forthcoming. In a vengeful manner she purchased poison. In her misguided thoughts if he was not willing to marry her she would still spend the rest of her life with him in death. She was successful and Mr. Barron’s body was found in her upper bedroom after her death.
http://genius.com/William-faulkner-a-rose-for-emily-annotated/#
I have added an annotation to the following part in the story: ‘”I want some poison,” she said.
“Yes, Miss Emily. What kind? For rats and such? I’d recom–”
“I want the best you have. I don’t care what kind.”‘
I chose to annotate these lines because I feel it’s a significant part in the story. She was so anxious to buy the poison, which people thought was for herself. In the ending, it’s revealed that Homer Barron’s body was in the bed, and Emily used to lie down next to him. Her love for Homer, and his rejection caused her to kill him, so she can spend the rest of her life with him, or you can say, his body.
To begin i understand why Genius.com changed the N for a R its a sensitive word and use incorrectly can have negative consequences. For me Rigger changed my visual. Instead of thinking of slaves i thought of lower class working men. To be publicly correct one must alter words that have the same meaning with copyright privileges. You cannot take it apon yourself. In a story like “A Rose for Emily” adjusting the words loses the setting the writer is illustrating. For example Tobe who as know was a slave using rigger changes his status he’s now a laborer not a servant. The story takes place in the late 1890’s to early 1900’s when some families still had slaves. The word change confuses the era so i understand why Genius.com had to edit their version. I do get offended with texts that use the N word to loosely there’s so many other words in our vocabulary. The way Faulkner used the N word for setting descrption is acceptable, but not the way Homer Barron used it to against the slaves cussing at them as if he was superior.
Just to be clear, Tobe is Miss Emily’s servant. Slavery had ended before the 1890s or 1900s. When did slavery end officially in the United States? That would be another good bit of research to do and add to these comments.
http://genius.com/4868068
The Miss Emily poison purchase part is what stood out to me because it turned the story to some form of mystery. It brought up some questions like âWhy is she buying poison?â â What is she thinking?â âWho or what is she planning to use it on?â And the big question, âIs she going to kill herself?â At first I thought she was going to use it to kill herself because she was going through some stress but then I realized there was a source to that stress and she probably wanted to eliminate it.
Author is describing Homer Barron as a lower class worker and a nigger as well. This characterization implies how much pressure Miss Emily would get as a lady with noblesse oblige in that society. Although people in contemporary society might get offended if N word is used, changing the word to âriggerâ would change the description of Homer Barron, and authorâs purpose of using the N word would be removed from her story at all. If the readers understand the literature, they should probably know the meaning of N word in that society and the authorâs purpose of using it properly. I think authorâs choice of glossary in stories is very important and those vocabularies of author can give us a lot of information about the authorâs style, setting of the story, theme and/or story itself.
If you look back, you’ll see that Homer Baron is not one of the characters about whom the narrator uses the n-word. There is nothing that really identifies his race, but from context we can understand him to be white. The outrage about Miss Emily being with him is that she has this noble Southern family (even though they have nothing left to support that nobility) and he is a Yankee (i.e. Northerner) and a laborer. If they were of different races, that would certainly have been addressed as a concern.
Well, the word can be offensive for some people. But that time where the story was written nigger was a usual commonly used word. Changing the letter N by R can falsify the meaning. If this has to be done, it would be better to replace the whole word by a synonymic word such as black. If the story is read by someone whose English is a second language, it would be very difficult to figure out that the author means nigger when saying rigger. And that would be my case if I ever see the word rigger for the first time in the text. However, I agree with Genius and changing the nigger into Rigger if and only if the word rigger hasn’t another meaning.
Great point–when we change language, we might understand a connection between the earlier version and the revised one, but those who do not have the same experience with the language might overlook that subtle connection and therefore have a very different experience with the story.