Criticalpaper And A Rose For Emily - 1653 Words

During the nineteenth century, many women were pressured to fit into their societal roles. Both Charlotte Perkins Gilman and William Faulkner wrote stories inspired by those nineteenth-century social issues. Even though Faulkner wrote his story, â€Å"A Rose for Emily†, 40 years after Gilman’s story, â€Å"The Yellow Wall-paper†, both stories portray several types of nineteenth-century social issues accurately. Because of their knowledge about these social issues, Gilman and Faulkner were able to portray the main characters’ struggles. Both main characters of these stories, the narrator and Emily, become oppressed by their social environments because of the expectations that were placed on them and the values that were instilled. Because†¦show more content†¦Because of her experience as a woman in the nineteenth century, Gilman based her story on the treatment of â€Å"hysteria†. While Gilman’s story focuses on late nineteen century issues, Faulkner writes about a town stuck in early nineteenth century ideals. Before the Civil War, upper-class women were held to the ideal of a â€Å"southern belle†. The New Encyclopedia of Southern Culture explains that because much of the ideals remained in the late century, the pre-Civil War era women were strongly held to their class hierarchy (268). After the Civil War had ended, the South began to change rapidly. According to The New Encyclopedia of Southern Culture, â€Å"the Civil War changed the class dynamics of the region† (231). Although the story is set throughout the change of the south, many of the older townspeople are stuck treasuring old ideals and expectations. Emily is continuously held to these grand expectations and eventually falls into â€Å"hysteria† because of them. While the contexts of the issues are different, both of the main characters struggle with the expectations and ideals that are placed on them. Through the expectations a nd values of women in the nineteenth century, Gilman is able to portray the reason for the narrator’s â€Å"hysteria†. Throughout the story, the narrator’s husband seems to belittle most of her statements. In her essay, critic Rula Quawas suggests that the