Title: Emily Grierson and the Narrator: Two Innocent Fatalities of Patriarchal Domination
Author: Danielle Lensen
What is it about women that places them, by default, as the weakest gender? Whether it
is by a father, boyfriend, or husband, there have been many accounts of women being
overshadowed by men in literature and history. In many cases, men feel obligated to protect
females, which makes them think they are superior to women. However, men are not aware of
the negative effects their "superiority" can have on women: alienation, low self esteem,
incompetence, and even insanity. Two women, from two different short stories, are classic
examples of what can happen when women become victims of a patriarchal society. Although
these women have their differences, both Emily Grierson, from William Faulkner's "A Rose for
Emily", and the narrator, from Charlotte Perkins Gilman's "The Yellow Wall-Paper," are related
as they are both held back by their dominant patriarchal societies, and in turn are forced into
insanity.
The Oxford American Desk Dictionary defines patriarchy as, "a system of society,
government, etc., ruled by a man or men and with descent through the male line." Both Emily
Grierson and the narrator from "The Yellow Wall-Paper" fall victim to patriarchal societies as
they lose control of their own lives and are restricted by the men ruling their lives. Emily
Grierson is smothered by a patriarchal society as she is forced to stay in her home throughout a
vast majority of the short story. Although the reader is never told who the narrator is in "A Rose
for Emily," Helen E. Nebeker, author of the article "Emily's Rose of Love: Thematic
Implications of Point of View in Faulkner's 'A Rose for Emily,'" describes the narrator as a "he"
(3). Nebeker writes, when referring to the narrator, "he is a kind of innocuous, naive, passive
citizen of Jefferson, who relates for the reader the story of Miss Emily's life and death" (3).
Nebeker, as with other critics she cites, automatically refers to the narrator as a male. He is
telling the story of Emily Grierson and recalls times when the townsmen confront Emily about
the taxes or invade her property to halt the smell coming from her house. The male narrator only
allows Emily's voice to be used eight times in the short story, which goes to show how much
control he has over when she is allowed to speak. The voice of the male narrator, the
townspeople, and the mayor drown out the opinions and possible worthwhile views of Emily.
This makes sense to Nebeker as she believes that, "the truth of the Miss Emily episode lies, not
in the character and motivation of Miss Emily, but in the identity of the narrator" (4). With this
sentence, Nebeker states that Faulkner's short story is not about Emily Grierson, but the narrator.
If this is what Nebeker believes, then Emily is not valued as an individual. Instead, she is
defined by individuality and worlds of the male narrator in Faulkner's story. Emily's opinions
are asphyxiated and her views are ignored by the characters in her patriarchal town, just as the
narrator in "The Yellow-Wallpaper" is smothered and dismissed by her dominating husband,
bringing both characters closer to insanity.
Just like Emily, the female narrator in "The Yellow-Wallpaper" is oppressed as well.
Yet, the narrator differs from Emily in that she is not defined by a male narrator or a community.
Instead the narrator in "The Yellow Wall-Paper" is defined by her husband, John. John treats his
wife as if she is a five year old child, and he feels obligated to take care of her constantly as she
has "a slight hysterical tendency" (Gilman 1598). Because he is a doctor, John prescribes many
different medications for his wife. The narrator is not even aware of the medications she is
taking as she says, "So I take phosphates, or phosphites--whichever it is, and tonics, and
journeys, and air, and exercise, and am absolutely forbidden to 'work' until I am well again"
(Gilman 1598). The narrator is forced to take medications that are prescribed by John in order to
cure a disease that was diagnosed by him. He tells her what to take, what she should not take,
what she needs to do, and what she should avoid in order to prevent nervousness.
Paula A. Triechler agrees in her article, "Escaping the Sentence: Diagnosis and Discourse
in 'The Yellow Wallpaper.'" Triechler writes that it is John who "privileges the rational, the
practical, and the observable" (65). Triechler goes on to say that only the "male logic" is taken
seriously while the narrator is completely set off to the side (65). According to Triechler, this
male dominance that John imposes directs how the narrator sees the world (66). The narrator
does not have any choices in regards to what she is diagnosed with or how to cure it on her own.
As a result, the narrator is not able to live as an individual in her society. She is forced to
become dependent on her husband because he controls her medications and other actions. John is
the one who has control in their relationship. He is choosing to dismiss the narrator, all while
molding her into the perfect wife he demands -- one that is not sick or a burden. John, after
hearing his wife say she is mentally unhealthy, shrieks, "I beg of you...for my sake and for our
child's sake, as well as for your own, that you will never for one instant let that idea enter your
mind!" (Gilman 1604). When reading this sentence, Gilman's audience must look at the order of
whose "sakes" John is worried about. He worries about his sake first and his wife's last. This
means that he places himself before his wife, which backs up Triechler's argument that he sets
his wife off to the side. Just like Emily, the narrator of Gilman's short story is being held back
and controlled by her male dominated environment. Just like Emily, the narrator of Gilman's
short story is being held back and pushed around by her male dominated environment.
Another major similarity between Emily Grierson and the narrator is that they are both
characters who are forced into isolation, which according to Michael P. Johnson, in his article,
"Patriarchal Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: Two Forms of Violence Against
Women," places Emily and the narrator as victims of patriarchal terrorism. Johnson writes that
this type of abuse is, "...a product of patriarchal traditions of men's right to control 'their' women ,
[and] is a form of terroristic control of wives by their husbands that involves the systematic use
of not only violence, but economic subordination, threats, isolation, and other control tactics"
(284). There is not any evidence used by Faulkner or Gilman which shows that Emily and the
narrator are victims of physical abuse, but Johnson mentions that there are many cases where the
abuser does not need to resort to physical violence in order to harm his wife (287). Johnson uses
a circle chart to discuss the various types of nonviolent abuse that husbands use to terrorize their
wives. John, the narrator's husband, uses three elements of patriarchal terrorism: male privilege,
or the idea that the man's opinion is valued more than that of woman, the use of isolation, and
coercion. Patriarchal terrorism is also used against Emily as her community and father use male
privilege and isolation to manipulate Emily (Johnson 288). The elements of patriarchal terrorism
that Johnson writes about greatly influence why the narrator frantically tears up her bedroom and
why Emily kills her "man friend" Homer Barron in order to keep him with her forever. The
societies that are found in the stories of Emily and Gilman's narrator are what push them both to
insanity. Both Charlotte Perkins Gilman and William Faulkner use many pieces of evidence
which show how patriarchal terrorism is used by the men in their stories.
John's use of the patriarchal terrorism element isolation is obvious throughout Gilman's
short story. He controls everything about his wife including: where she goes, when she can see
her family members, and what medications she takes. Even the house that John has rented for
his family has a garden with, "box-bordered paths" (Gilman 1598). The narrator is not given the
opportunity to breathe fresh air without having "man"- made, boxed in garden paths to guide her.
The narrator writes that, "It [the house] is quite alone, standing well back from the road, quite
three miles from the village. It makes me think of English places that you read about, for there
are hedges and walls and gates that lock" (Gilman 1598). This word choice by Gilman shows
that even if the narrator wanted to go outside to escape the wallpaper or her husband, she would
not be able to because the elevated walls, hedges, and locked gates cage her in. The house itself,
which John and his male privilege chose, is isolated from the town and makes the narrator even
more secluded. John also keeps the narrator from seeing her family members and threatens to
send her to Weir Mitchell if she does not get better faster (Gilman 1600-1601). John's use of
intimidation, an element of patriarchal terrorism, when threatening to go to Weir Mithchell as a
"last resort" shows how he is manipulating his wife. John makes "all the big decisions" and acts
like the "'master of the castle'" as Michael P. Johnson writes, which shows that John is
controlling his wife (288). While looking at all of this evidence, there should not be any surprise
that the narrator is a ticking time bomb at the end of Gilman's short story.
Emily Grierson is also the victim of patriarchal terrorism as the community of Jefferson
and her father use patriarchal terrorism to manipulate her. In the beginning of Faulkner's short
story, the audience is told that Emily's father has died, but she still owes taxes to the city. Emily
refuses to pay her community as she states, "'See Colonel Sartoris. I have no taxes in Jefferson'"
(Faulkner 623). Emily adamantly denies having to pay her taxes as she had been told that her
father had taken care of it years before with a large loan to the town (Faulkner 622). Emily had
lived with her father her whole life until he died. Did Emily simply refuse to pay the taxes
because she did not want to spend the money? Or, did her father not show her how to pay taxes?
Because Emily is part of a traditional Old Southern family, it is likely that Emily's father was in
charge of the taxes. The Griersons are the oldest family in the town of Jefferson which shows
that many Southern roles and beliefs were passed down to Emily, but she was never taught how
to deal with money. Knowing how to deal with money is a "man's" job during this time, not a
role a Southern woman would need to know. Interestingly enough, Barbara Hochman, when
writing about Charlotte Gilman in her article, "The Reading Habit and 'The Yellow Wallpaper'"
writes that even Gilman believed the word "father" meant knowing how to organize and care for
books (93). Although Hochman's statement is in regards to "The Yellow Wall-Paper," this also
relates to the role of Emily's father. Emily's father would have been in charge of payments and
bookkeeping. Emily was never to know how to care for books or money because that is the job
of the man of the house. This shows that Emily's father had used male privilege as a weapon
against his daughter. As a result, her father's actions affect Emily for the rest of her life. Her
father held an important part of survival away from her. Because of this, Emily grew
increasingly financially incompetent. This causes her to become the talk of her town, which
causes her to become insane.
There is evidence that Emily's father and her family also used isolation as a form of
control, which contributed to her insanity. The narrator of "A Rose for Emily" mentions that,
"People in our town...believed that the Griersons held themselves a little too high for what they
really were. None of the young men were quite good enough for Miss Emily and such" (624).
Emily is highly isolated in her story which may be a direct result of her father and traditional
Southern family not approving of any man for her. Because of her father and his beliefs, Emily
is deprived of relationships with men, which is an important part of growing up, and it is because
of her father and his beliefs. The audience is also given information that Emily's great-aunt
Wyatt "had gone completely crazy" (Faulkner 624) which shows that Emily may not have been
the only one who was held back by the Grierson's strict traditions. As a result of being cooped
up in her house, Emily and her loneliness are seen as a sideshow for her community. It should
not be a surprise that Emily goes to drastic measures to keep a man in her life. She wants a real
relationship, one that is not defined by her meddlesome community or overbearing father. If that
means killing Homer Barron to keep him around, then that is what she needs to do. Her society
and family have placed her in a cage long enough, and now it is her turn to take control.
For most of the story, however, Emily's control is taken away from her by her maledominated community. Emily and the narrator from the "Yellow Wall-Paper" also relate in that
their control is taken away from them, as they are both prisoners in their own homes. This
prisonlike routine of life forces these two characters into insanity. In the narrator's case, her
bedroom is just like a jail cell as she observes that her room, "...was [a] nursery first and then a
playroom and gymnasium, I should judge; for the windows are barred for little children and there
are rings and things in the walls" (Gilman 1599). When she asks John to simply replace the
wallpaper, he declines saying then she would want the gate taken out and then the barred
windows taken off (Gilman 1600). John is literally the narrator's jail keeper, holding the keys to
the gate and refusing to take down the bars on the windows. Everything, right down to the
narrator's bed, which is nailed to the floor, is controlled by John and how he runs his jail (Gilman
1602). The narrator is even allowed visiting hours just as a prisoner would as she writes, "John
thought it might do me good to see a little company, so we just had mother and Nellie and the
children down for a week" (Gilman 1601). In "Doctoring 'The Yellow Wallpaper,'" Jane F.
Thrailkill writes that married life, which is commonly sought after by a man, worsens the
narrator's condition and forces her into a "war zone" of a home (542). Because the narrator is
being treated like an inmate and is forced into isolation by her husband, she has no choice but to
act insane. John dismisses his wife throughout the whole story, which makes acting insane the
only way the narrator can communicate to her husband that she is not mentally healthy. The
narrator is forced into insanity as it is the only way out of her husband's prison and war zone.
Paula A. Treichler, in her article "Escaping the Sentence: Diagnosis and Discourse in 'The
Yellow Wallpaper,'" also agrees that the house the narrator is locked up in is a prison as she
writes, "'The Yellow Wallpaper' challenges both the particular 'sentence' passed on the narrator
and the elaborate sentencing process whose presumed representational power can sentence
women to isolation, deprivation, and alienation from their own sentencing possibilities" (69).
John may think that he is doing the best for his wife, but in the end it is evident that he knows
nothing about her.
The same can be said about Emily Grierson as her community think that they are trying
to help her as much as they can, when really they are caging her in. In "Hairoglyphics in
Gaulkner's 'A Rose for Emily': Reading the Primal Trace," Mary Arensberg and Sarah E.
Schyfter write, "[Emily's] life has become the obsession of a community that repeatedly
fabricates and interprets the mysterious activities within the Grierson home from which they are
barred" (126). The community prevents Emily from venturing out of her house with their
rumors and nosiness. Emily does not want to be the talk of the town, and as a result is driven
into her home for safety. She is being forced into her decaying prisonlike home to stay away
from her nosey community. The community even does "inmate checkups" to keep an eye on
Emily and keep her house up to date. In "The Structure of 'A Rose for Emily,'" author Floyd C.
Watkins focuses on the numerous intrusions that the townsmen make on Emily's house. Watkins
counts six intrusions that the townsmen commit on Emily's property. He writes that, "In youth
Emily is not wholly separated from her somewhat sympathetic environment. In later life,
however, she withdraws more and more until her own death again exposes her to the
townspeople" (509). The invasions on Emily's home and the nosiness of the townspeople lead
Emily into withdrawal from her community (Watkins 509). Just like the narrator in Gilman's
short story, Emily Grierson is checked upon and forced into a prisonlike home for the rest of her
life because of her patriarchal society.
The final similarity between the narrator and Emily Grierson is the fact that they are both
educated. The narrator in Gilman's story shows that she has been to school or has done
educational reading as the narrator writes in her journal:
I know a little of the principle of design, and I know this thing was not arranged on any
laws of radiation, or alternation, or repetition, or symmetry, or anything else that I ever
heard of. It is repeated, of course, any of the breadths, but not otherwise. Looked at in
one way each breadth stands alone, the bloated curves and flourishes--a kind of 'debased
Romanesque' with delirium tremens--go waddling up and down in isolated columns of
fatuity. (Gilman 1602)
The narrator's application of design principles to the wallpaper in her room shows that she is
more than capable of making decisions on her own. If she is able to comprehend complicated
Romanesque trends and words, she is capable of learning about medicine and what she should be
diagnosed with. Barbara Hochman also agrees with this and writes that the narrator is not just a
woman who is a fan of fictional books full of fluff. She is educated and is more capable than her
husband thinks (Hochman 96). Emily is also an educated woman as she is talented in chinapainting and even made her own studio in her home (Faulkner 626). If Emily is capable of
teaching the children in the community a complicated artistic skill, then she is capable of doing
her own taxes or choosing her own boyfriend growing up.
The numerous similarities between Emily Grierson and the narrator link them together as
two women who are held back and oppressed by their patriarchal societies. They are both driven
towards the breaking points at the end of their short stories. However, the two women also have
their differences. Although both women are thought to be driven crazy at the end of their tales,
insanity is debatable in the case of the narrator in "The Yellow Wall-Paper." The audience needs
to pay attention to who the insane one is in Gilman's tale. Is it John who locked his wife up in a
room and had his sister come to keep an eye on her? Or, is it the narrator who finally fought
against the house and her husband as she tore up her room and took control of herself as she tore
up her room and took control of herself? John is the reason his wife is in the state she is in as she
sits in the corner of her room, obsessively rubbing her shoulder against the wall. Finally the
narrator is free as she said, "'I've got out at last...in spite of you and Jane. And I've pulled off
most of the paper, so you can't put me back!'" (Gilman 1609). The narrator's "insanity" could be
who she really is, as she finally has her own freedom in her hands. John has been smothering her
for years, and it is a possibility that her real personality has just exploded from deep inside her.
Susan S. Lanser, author of "'The Yellow Wallpaper' and the Politics of Color in America," writes
that many critics have agreed that the narrator has finally obtained some freedom as there is "a
kind of sanity in the face of the insanity of male dominance" in the story's ending (418). The
narrator's insanity is really her sanity as she is finally aware of her freedom and what she is
capable of. The actual insane individual is John and his patriarchal rules that have placed the
narrator in the jailhouse of a home she is supposed to live in. She merely appears insane which
sets her apart from Emily Grierson.
The mental condition of Emily Grierson is different than that of the narrator.. Because
Emily kills Homer Barron and sleeps with his dead body at night, Faulkner's audience concludes
that she is mentally unstable. Emily shows extreme, violent, and unpredictable behavior. Had
Emily not been dead when the townspeople stumbled upon Homer's body, Emily would have
been arrested and sent to an asylum. Emily's violently destructive action automatically labels her
as "crazy" because her society prevents the reader from thinking otherwise. The readers are only
allowed to see Emily's character through the eyes of her patriarchal society. As a result, because
her society sees her as crazy, so do the readers of Faulkner's short story.
Another difference between Emily Grierson and Gilman's narrator is the fact that Emily
has more control than the narrator of "The Yellow Wall-Paper" does. Although Emily is
essentially pushed around and held back by her society, she still has some control compared to
the narrator. Emily is intimidating in the eyes of her society. She answers in a "dry and cold"
voice each time she tells the men of the town to leave when they come concerned about the
payment of her taxes (Faulkner 623). The men leave quickly without any other arguments.
Emily's overall appearance also threatens the townspeople in a way as they know they should not
mess with her. Her "ebony cane with a tarnished gold head" mixed with the fact that she is "a
small, fat woman in black" creates an edgy atmosphere around her (Faulkner 623). Emily's
control is also shown in the fact that she decides who to listen to when the men come to tell her
that her taxes are due as her eyes "moved from one fact to another" (Faulkner 623). The
townspeople are obviously nervous in her presence as her eyes choose to look at each visitor that
has intruded into her house once again (Faulkner 623).
The fact that Emily has a male servant living with her also shows that she has more
control over aspects of her life than the narrator of "The Yellow Wall-Paper" does. Before her
death, Emily lives with an African American male servant, Tobe, a man who she can tell to do
the domestic duties; she is able to tell him what to make for breakfast, lunch, and dinner or to do
the laundry. Tobe is a man who she can tell to go into town and get groceries or flowers for her
house. The simple action of having a servant is one way to support the fact that Emily has more
control than the narrator. Tobe could have left many years ago considering he is a man serving
a lonely old woman. Instead, the townsmen see him escape out the back door after Emily's
funeral (Faulkner 627). This action by her servant shows that Emily held some type of control
over Tobe. Once Emily died, he took no more time than he needed to get out of her house.
Emily's ability to have at least a little control in her life differs from the situation of the
narrator. Although the narrator does have control in the sense that she is writing in her diary,
which John forbids, there is more evidence that she has less control in her life than Emily. For
example, on more than one occasion the narrator writes, "What can one do?" (Gilman 1598) in
reference to her sickness and cure. The narrator feels trapped and incapable because she believes
the John is the only one who is educated and strong enough to make decisions for her. Another
example can be seen when the narrator writes about asking John to "let her go" to see her
cousins, but John refuses to let her leave (Gilman 1603). The narrator does not even have
permission to see her own family members because John feels his control over her activities will
make her better faster.
Another example which shows just how little control the narrator has over her life can be
seen in a broader sense. Charlotte Perkins Gilman published "The Yellow Wall-Paper" in 1892,
a time where many women did not have a say regarding when to get married. In many cases, if a
man was interested in a woman during this time period, then her father and family members
would strongly encourage her to marry the man. This seems to be the case of the narrator as she
already seems to be the victim of manipulation by her husband. John has the last say in anything
the narrator does or should do. Seeing the immense among of control John has over his wife, it
may be fair to say that it was John's decision to get married and have a baby. All of these
decisions and life changing events that are out of the narrator's control create a perfect
explanation as to why the narrator suffers from hysteria.
The narrator's hysteria hits a breaking point when John and the yellow wallpaper gets the
best of her. The fact that the yellow wallpaper stays in her room for the whole story shows just
how little control the narrator has in her life. In the beginning of her journal entries, she talks
endlessly of how much she hates the revoltingly sick yellow paper. She writes, "I don't like our
room a bit. I wanted one downstairs that opened on the piazza and had roses all over the
window, and such pretty old-fashioned chintz hangings! but [sic] John would not hear of it"
(Gilman 1599). John forces the narrator to like the "repellant" paper because he forbids her to
move into any other room. Had John believed that the disgusting wallpaper negatively affected
the narrator's mood, there would have been a chance of her getting somewhat better. The reader
is aware of how much the wallpaper is affecting the narrator. However, because John dismisses
his wife's concerns as problems of a petty woman, the narrator is forced into a frenzy.
At the end of "The Yellow Wallpaper," the narrator's husband has pushed her towards
"insanity." Gilman does not even give the narrator a name. All the audience knows is that she is
an unstable woman who happens to be a mother and wife. However, the audience is not given
any more information after she crawls over her husband and leaves her room. After her husband
comes out of his fainting episode, it is likely that the narrator will go to an asylum and her child
will be taken out of her custody. At the end of "A Rose for Emily,” Emily simply dies and her
society lives on. Her society will wait for someone else to grow old and suspicious and then
become obsessed with him or her. Patriarchy claims and conquers two victims as it lives on in
both stories. Jane R. Thrailkill, author of “„Doctoring 'The Yellow Wallpaper,‟” writes that
"Gilman's tale was explicitly crafted as a form of shock therapy, a catalyst to social change via
corporeal reform" (545). Both short stories by Faulkner and Gilman are forms of this shock
therapy that Thrailkill writes about. By depicting two women who are heavily oppressed and
forced into insanity by their patriarchal environments, Gilman and Faulkner have “shocked” their
audiences into realizing that women and men need to be treated equally. Even though Emily
Grierson, from William Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily,” and the narrator, from Charlotte Perkins
Gilman's "The Yellow Wall-Paper," have their differences, it is evident that they are both victims
of their overbearing patriarchal societies, as they are forced into insanity.
Works Cited
Arensburg, Mary, and Sara E. Schyfter. "Hairoglyphics in Faulkner's 'A Rose for Emily':
Reading the Primal Trace." Duke UP 15.1-2 (1986-1987): 123-134. JSTOR. 26
November 2009 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/303426>.
Faulkner, William. “A Rose for Emily.” Literature for Composition: Essays, Fiction, Poetry,
and Drama. 6th ed. Eds. Sylvan Barnett, William Burto, William E. Cain, and Marcia
Stubbs. Longman: New York, 2003. 622-627.
Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. “The Yellow Wall-Paper.” The Heath Anthology of American
Literature. Concise ed. Ed. Paul Lauter. Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston, MA,
2004. 1597-1609.
Hochman, Barbara. "The Reading Habit and 'The Yellow Wallpaper.'" American Literature
74.1 (2002): 89-103. Project Muse. 25 November 2009
<http://ezproxy.clarke.edu:2236/journals/american_literature/v074/74.1hochman.pdf>.
Jewell, Elizabeth J., ed. Oxford American Desk Dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford UP: New York,
2002.
Johnson, Michael P. "Patriarchal Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: Two Forms of
Violence Against Women." Journal of Marriage and Family 57.2 (1995): 283-294.
JSTOR. 30 October 2009 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/353683>.
Lanser, Susan S. "'The Yellow Wallpaper,' and the Politics of Color in America." Feminist
Studies, Inc. 15.3 (1989): 415-441. JSTOR. 30 October 2009
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/3177938>.
Nebeker, Helen E. "Emily's Rose of Love: Thematic Implications of Point of View in
Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily." The Bulletin of the Rocky Mountain Modern Language
Association 24.1 (1970): 3-13. JSTOR. 30 October 2009
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/1346461>.
Thrailkill, Jane F. “Doctoring „The Yellow Wallpaper‟.” ELH 69.2 (2002): 525-566. JSTOR.
21 September 2009 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/30032030>.
Treichler, Paula A. "Escaping the Sentence: Diagnosis and Discourse in 'The Yellow
Wallpaper.'" Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature 3.1-2 (1984): 61-71. JSTOR. 28
November 2009 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/463825>.
Watkins, Floyd C. “The Structure of „A Rose for Emily‟.” Modern Language Notes 69.7 (1954)
508-510. JSTOR. 21 September 2009 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3039622>.