Circumstantial Evidence Against Emily Grierson in Faulkner's Story
This essay examines William Faulkner's short story "A Rose for Emily" through a legal lens, arguing that despite numerous carefully placed narrative hints suggesting Emily Grierson murdered Homer Barron and kept his corpse, the evidence presented would remain purely circumstantial in a court of law. The paper explores Faulkner's technique of building suspicion through details such as arsenic purchases, Emily's refusal to release her father's body, the discovery of a skeleton, and a strand of iron-gray hair—while also noting the absence of definitive proof. The essay concludes that Faulkner may have intentionally constructed this ambiguity to parody sensationalized reporting or to invite readers to reach their own verdict.
- Introduction: The Question of Emily's Guilt: Thesis frames Emily's likely exoneration in court
- Hints of Innocence and Guilt in the Narrative: Narrative clues point both ways on guilt
- Emily's History and the Buildup of Circumstantial Evidence: Emily's strange behavior builds suspicion over time
- The Shortage of Compelling Proof: Key evidence examined but found legally insufficient
- Conclusion: Faulkner's Deliberate Ambiguity: Faulkner may have intended an unresolvable mystery
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The essay takes an original analytical angle—reading the story through a legal lens—which gives the argument a clear, testable thesis rather than a vague thematic claim.
- It balances evidence of guilt against evidence of innocence, demonstrating that the student engaged critically with the text rather than accepting the surface-level reading.
- Close reading is evident throughout: the student notices specific word choices such as "the nightshirt" versus "a nightshirt," showing attention to Faulkner's deliberate language.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates textual evidence analysis paired with counterargument construction. By acknowledging the hints that point toward guilt while simultaneously questioning their evidentiary weight, the student models the kind of critical dialectic expected in literary analysis. This approach prevents a one-sided reading and strengthens the central thesis.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens with a thesis framing Emily's potential exoneration, then moves through the narrative hints of both innocence and guilt, examines her psychological history as circumstantial context, scrutinizes the specific material evidence and its limitations, and closes by attributing the ambiguity to Faulkner's artistic intent. The structure follows the arc of a legal argument layered onto a literary analysis.
Introduction: The Question of Emily's Guilt
In William Faulkner's short story "A Rose for Emily," the author does not provide strong evidence that Emily Grierson actually killed Homer Barron—and even less that she slept beside his corpse for years. Faulkner teases the reader into believing Emily committed these horrific acts. In doing so, he produces what amounts to a satire of sensationalized, hackneyed reporting. Despite Faulkner's careful attention to detail in portraying Emily as a possible murderer, a sharp attorney could counter the circumstantial evidence in a court of law, and Emily would be exonerated.
Hints of Innocence and Guilt in the Narrative
One of the strengths of this story is how brilliantly Faulkner drops hints—without providing any proof—that Emily either was or was not the perpetrator of this heinous crime. A hint suggesting she was not guilty came when the community tried to determine the source of a terrible smell. Judge Stevens said it was "probably just a snake or a rat that nigger of hers killed in the yard." Blame thus falls on the Black man who worked for her—this was still the Jim Crow era in the South. The word "rat" also appeared when people wondered why Emily had purchased arsenic; the druggist suggested it might be "for rats and such," again deflecting blame away from her.
A hint that she may have killed Homer is embedded in the narrator's suggestion that Emily was mentally unstable. A great-aunt had gone "completely crazy," and so when Emily turned thirty and remained single, the narrator implies that "even with insanity in the family" she would not have turned away potential suitors—yet she did, suggesting she must be disturbed. Furthermore, no one can confirm whose skeleton lies in Emily's bed. The narrator states only that "the man himself lay in the bed," and the flimsy evidence that it was Homer rests on a neighbor's account of apparently seeing Emily's hired worker, a Black man, let Homer into the kitchen "at dusk one evening. And that was the last we saw of Homer Barron."
Emily's History and the Buildup of Circumstantial Evidence
As far as the community was concerned, Emily could certainly have been considered the culprit in Homer's death and disappearance, partly because of her established history of strange behavior. It took three days for neighbors, the minister, and doctors to persuade her to allow the disposal of her father's body after he died. That was deeply unsettling and should have aroused suspicions. Faulkner used that scene effectively, because readers can easily infer that Emily harbored some bizarre fascination with dead bodies—a detail that colors everything that follows.
The circumstantial evidence continues to accumulate with Homer's disappearance and the discovery of a skeleton in Emily's bed. Her hair "grew grayer and grayer," and right up to her death it was described as a "vigorous iron-gray." This detail becomes significant because on the pillow beside the skeleton there was a "long strand of iron-gray hair." Moreover, there were two pillows, and an "indentation of a head" lay next to the skeleton—an image Faulkner clearly intended to suggest that Emily had been sleeping there.
Conclusion: Faulkner's Deliberate Ambiguity
One can imagine that thousands of readers in high school and college have read this story and concluded that Emily probably killed Homer. There are so many cleverly placed hints and suggestions throughout the narrative that a reader cannot be blamed for assuming her guilt. Yet the case remains unproven. This reader believes the outcome was a deliberate plot device—Faulkner may have intended to parody a sensationalized tabloid story, or simply to weave a mystery that allows each reader to reach his or her own verdict: did she or didn't she?
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.