Defending Emily Grierson
by Casey Foster
Emily Grierson is a disturbed woman; there is no doubt about that. In
“A Rose for Emily” by William Faulkner, Emily is a young lady who becomes a
product of her upbringing. After the death of her father, she loses touch with
reality, begins a scandalous affair with a man, and then poisons him and
preserves his body in an upper room of her home as a means to keep him
close to her permanently. Miss Grierson stands accused of first degree
murder in the death of Homer Barron. However, she is entitled by law to a
proper defense. In Emily Grierson’s case, there is relevance for a defense as
well. The evidence will prove that Miss Grierson is not guilty by reason of
insanity.
Imagine if you will, a young, southern girl that has lost her mother and is
left to be raised by an overbearing father. The only other person around to
help is a servant, who is also a man. As the young girl becomes a young
woman, the father becomes more domineering, and isolates her from anyone
or anything that may take her from him. This continues until she’s reached
her thirties. No proper men are left to marry her and even if there were any,
by now she’s developed an unhealthy relationship with her father, which has
been cultivated for decades. Insanity is no stranger to this family either, and
when the woman’s father (the only man who has ever loved her) dies, she
has a mental breakdown and loses her awareness of reality. So much so,
that for three days she won’t let anyone convince her of his death, or dispose
of his remains (Faulkner 1105).
Two years later, there’s a new man in town. He’s a northerner, who also
happens to be a black man. He begins to court the lady, and as the
scandalous affair unfolds, she realizes he’s quite similar to her father in that
he is strong physically and mentally. Inevitably, the unnatural feelings she
had for her father, are now projected onto this man. She hears whispers
from the townspeople that he will leave her, just like her father did. In her
delusional mind, the only way to insure that doesn’t happen is to make him
hers forever. She prepares for a wedding, then poisons the man, and begins
(what she believes to be) a lifetime of matrimony with his decaying corpse
(Faulkner 1109).
That is the story of Emily Grierson. Is there anything about it that
describes a mentally sane person? One can conclude…undeniably no. The
evidence that will be presented, will illustrate that Miss Grierson has two
mental disorders. A mental disorder diagnosis on its own doesn’t meet the
requirement for an insanity defense. However, when you take into
consideration that the unlawful act committed by Miss Grierson is directly
related to her mental disorders, narcissism in the form of Oedipus complex
and necrophilia, the accused must be found not guilty by reason of insanity
(Miller 628). Not only that, but the defense will prove that the townspeople of
Jefferson had prior knowledge of Miss Grierson’s mental instability and plans
to poison someone with arsenic, as well as cognizance of his death, after the
fact. If Miss Grierson is found guilty of this murder, the entire town of
Jefferson will equally need to be held accountable for being accessories to
murder, after the fact.
Consider first, the Oedipus complex. It results from a Freudian
psychoanalytical theory based on narcissism. This is a theory that suggests a
child develops an unhealthy relationship with the parent of the opposite sex
during a crucial stage of development in their early years. The relationship
leads to a desire for sexual involvement with that parent (Scherting 399).
Citizens of the town of Jefferson will testify that Miss Grierson’s father was
controlling, and allowed no one even remotely interested in her to step foot
in the house. In fact, one resident’s sworn statement included:
We had long thought of them as tableau, Miss Emily a slender figure
in white in the background, her father a spraddled silhouette in the
foreground, his back to her and clutching a horsewhip (Faulkner
1105).
Those that study Sigmund Freud and his theories, claim that in Miss
Grierson’s case, her father “prevented her from maturing sexually in a
normal and natural way. Thus repressed, her sexual drives emerged in a
tragic form-that is to say, in abnormal and unnatural behavior” (Scherting
400). They also determine that Miss Grierson’s “desires for her father were
transferred, after his death, to a male surrogate-Homer Barron” (Scherting
399). This is evident, not only in the relationships she had with both males,
but also in the literal sense after their deaths. She reluctantly allowed her
father’s remains to be removed three days after his passing, and eventually
replaced his body with the body of Mr. Barron. Her delusions and break with
reality, caused by the Oedipus complex, became progressively worse until
she felt she had no other choice but to poison Homer Barron and make him
hers forever. The prosecution will present that Miss Grierson also
participated in necrophilia. This will not be disputed by the defense, as
necrophilia is also a documented mental disorder that corroborates insanity
(Miller 627). Forensic psychologists propose that “such behavior suggests in
her a terrible loneliness and desperation for companionship. She idolized and
idealized her father and Homer Barron, even to the point of endowing them
with fictitious life beyond death” (Dilworth 253).
Miss Grierson’s mental instability was well known to the townspeople of
Jefferson. An additional sworn statement from one of its residents regarding
Miss Grierson’s behavior after her father’s death included:
We did not say she was crazy then. We believed she
had to do that. We remembered all the young men
her father had driven away, and we knew that with
nothing left, she would have to cling to that which
had robbed her (Faulkner 1105).
Others recalled mental illness in her family, “remembering how old lady
Wyatt, her great-aunt, had gone completely crazy at last” (Faulkner 1105).
Yet when her behavior became more and more erratic, no one from the town
stepped in to help her. The townspeople had knowledge that Miss Grierson
was going to be poisoning someone when she purchased the arsenic, either
herself, or Mr. Barron. They may not have clearly anticipated Mr. Barron’s
death early on, but there is an indication that they knew about the killing
afterward, which legally implicates the townspeople as accessories to murder
after the fact (Dilworth 252). They had knowledge that Homer never left the
house once he returned from the north, and even some of the men from the
town spread lime in the middle of the night to get rid of the stench left by his
decomposing body (Faulkner 1105). In this era, bodies are not embalmed
and wakes are held in the home. This suggests that people are accustomed
to what a decaying body smells like, and can most likely identify how long it
would take a corpse to decay (Dilworth 258). Yet the townspeople remained
silent. If Miss Grierson is to be found guilty for Mr. Barron’s murder, then the
townspeople will equally need to be held accountable for their part as well.
The Prosecution will argue that the burden of being romanticized by
society was too much for Miss Grierson to bear so she killed Mr. Barron in
order to preserve her image as a “proper high-class southern Christian lady”
(Dilworth 255). There is some truth to the notion that Miss Grierson was
idealized by the society she lived in. However, for Miss Grierson, that
idealization had a terrible price; a lifetime of solitude and denial of natural
sexual affection (Dilworth 254). As a result of her mental illness, poisoning
Mr. Barron and keeping his body in her bed was, in her delusional mind, a
way of appeasing the townspeople, without surrendering him and ending
their relationship. It’s disturbing really, that Miss Grierson’s whole life was on
display for the town of Jefferson, yet no one offered to get her the help she
needed for her psychosis. If someone had intervened on her behalf, maybe
she wouldn’t have poisoned Mr. Barron and spent years sleeping next to his
rotting body. Maybe this tragedy could have been avoided.
The law never clearly defines mental illness. Yet, guidelines that help
outline the law in regards to mental illness, suggest the accused must suffer
from a major psychosis or affective disorder with limitations to disorders that
have significant defects of reality (Miller 627). iss Grierson suffers from an
Oedipus complex. It is narcissistic in nature and led to her psychotic break
with reality, which caused her to transfer the unnatural feelings she had for
her father onto Mr. Barron, ultimately leading to his death and ensuing
necrophilia. Miss Grierson’s deceased father was the subject of her desires,
but Mr. Barron became the object her desire was fixed upon (Scherting
401). Her mental illness alone, does not qualify Ms. Grierson for an insanity
defense. The law states a second condition must be met; the unlawful act
must be directly related to her mental illness. According to the law, in the
case where both conditions are met, “the jury is directed to find the
defendant not guilty by reason of insanity” (Miller 628). Therefore, I urge
you to shadow the law and declare Emily Grierson not guilty by reason of
insanity.
Works Cited
Dilworth, Thomas. "A Romance to Kill For: Homicidal Complicity in Faulkner's
‘A Rose for Emily.’” Studies in Short Fiction 36.3 (1999): 251. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 8 Apr. 2016.
Faulkner, William. “A Rose for Emily.” Making Literature Matter: An
Anthology for Readers and Writers.6th Ed. John Schilb and John Clifford.
Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2015. 1102-1109. Print.
Miller, Glenn H., M.D. "Insanity Standards." Psychiatric Annals 22.12 (1992):
626-31. ProQuest. Web. 8 Apr. 2016.
Scherting, Jack. "Emily Grierson's Oedipus Complex: Motif, Motive, and
Meaning in Faulkner's 'A Rose for Emily'." Studies in Short Fiction 17.4
(1980): 397. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Apr. 2016.
About the Author
I am a 34-year-old non-traditional student, working full time, and I’m
enjoying my time back to school. I have worked for over 16 years at one of
our local hospitals, and have recently decided what I want to be “when I
grow up.”
Reading has always been a passion of mine. It’s only been since I’ve
returned to school that I remembered how much joy writing brings me as
well. This particular paper was a challenge for me. The assignment was to
choose any character from the literature we read in English Comp II, and
write a paper either defending or prosecuting that character. I specifically
approached my argument contrary to my personal opinions and began with
an outline. I have found outlines to be very helpful with focus, and keeping
the audience in the forefront of my thought process.
The further I researched, however, the more challenging and bizarre my
paper became. I questioned whether or not to change my topic altogether.
However, my instructor, Bethany Fitzpatrick, encouraged me to continue my
course. The end result was “Defending Emily Grierson.” Here is my advice to
other writers: If you believe in what you’re writing, and have the evidence to
support your argument…stay the course! The end product may seem crazier
than anything you’ve ever written. But if it makes the reader ask questions,
provoke conversation, or simply enables you—the writer—to think outside the
box, it will always be worth it. I hope you will enjoy reading “Defending Emily
Grierson.”