Ambiguity and Arsenic

Ambiguity in writing is always a plus, especially when the openness of a passage evokes deep discussion and creates exhilarating revelations in a reader. The passages that spark long discussions as one walks to class, or heated debated over what is or what isn't that fills each free moment. It is deeply satisfying to find a story that is presented with a spectacularly vague writing style that still allows for an understanding of intended themes and basic plot while also appearing as unique and thought provoking.

William Faulkner's "A Rose For Emily" is one of these such stories. Told from the brilliant perspective of an outsider, the life of one Miss Emily is speculated on, specifically leading up to the events of her death. The lack of fact, thoughts, or feelings from the character in question allows for the reader to make their own decisions regarding the events surrounding the years of Emily's life. Her biography is told in snippets, giving brief glances from a limited outside perspective. What actually happens versus what is suspected creates a unique set up of the plot, connecting to both the deeper meaning of Faulkner's writing and the actual events themselves.

The prime example of this occurs when the narrator recounts Miss Emily's acquisition of arsenic. She is described as being firm in her desires, asking a druggist for strong poison, then refusing to state what her use would be for. Because of the traditionally set respect the town seems to have for her, the druggist allows her to purchase said poison. It is only after this that it is discovered that her once lover Homer Barron is never seen to leave her secluded home again.

It is never directly stated what the arsenic is used for, which leaves the reasoning open to debate. Homer Barron is discovered to be long dead at the end of the story, yes, but it is never confirmed how he died or what role Miss Emily may have played in it. Faulkner does however, deliberately mention the arsenic purchase before the death is even revealed, perhaps throwing the reader a breadcrumb.

Despite inferences the reader can readily make, Faulkner leaves this part of the story ambiguous. There is no inside perspective to tell what really happened, there is only the outside view. This can lead to many different interpretations of Miss Emily and the plot itself. Did she kill Homer Barron? If so, why? If she didn't use the arsenic to kill him, what else could it have been for? There is technically no right or wrong answer, which makes discussion particularly unique.

This is just one example of the lovely ambiguous style Faulkner embodies. He is able to make the reader go deeper, and work for the answers they desire instead of simply giving them. In short, he isn't boring. Specifically in "A Rose For Emily," Faulkner leaves loose ends to keep the interest, even after one has read through the passage several times. In this, he accomplishes the sought after goal of many authors in all time periods, he makes a reader think.