The narrative has been examined and researched in several scholarly papers.
Floyd C. Watkins described the structure of "A Rose for Emily" in Modern Language Notes. Faulkner had to meticulously analyze his portions, emphasizing each facet of Emily's existence. Watkins refers to this as a "structural problem," but subsequently compliments the symmetry of the short narrative. Watkins appreciates the entire tale and is delighted with Faulkner's arrangement, since establishing suspense was a crucial part in the response.
John Skinner's critical reaction delves deeply into the interpretations of Faulkner's short tale, while also emphasizing the value of over-analyzing a work of literature. Faulkner published this story in the 1930s. Skinner released his critical reaction in 1985. Many people have studied the story's characters and topic. Several researchers, including S.W. According to M. Johnson, Emily signified a failure to accept, or even acknowledge, the inevitability of change. In contrast, William Going depicts Emily as a rose, "the treasured memory of the Confederate veterans". According to Skinner, the point of view is immediately relevant to the tale since the main character, the narrator, recounts the story's chronology. This narrator provides "round figures" for the main events in the tales. In Studies in Short Fiction, Jack Scherting addresses this point of view, noting that the story is "related by an anonymous narrator in the first person plural."
Alice Petry proposes a new sort of critical reaction that is not limited to the traditional topics. Instead, she relies on complex and provocative words. For example, Hall describes how the statement "Thus she passed from generation to generation - dear, inescapable, impervious, tranquil, and perverse" has been seen as misleading, but it is actually intentionally placed to give foreshadowing and story coherence. The five descriptive words in the statement match to one of the five sections in the order they appear. For example, the adjective "inescapable" refers to Part II, namely the peculiar fragrance emanating from Miss Emily's residence. Faulkner's choice of these adjectives at the end of Part IV acts as a crucial unifying statement, linking all five parts together.
Jim Barloon of the University of St. Thomas writes about a theory offered to him by his students: Homer was homosexual, which could explain his murder. He claims Emily killed Homer not only out of insecurity, but also because he did not return her romantic sentiments. As Barloon points out in his piece, "Positing that Homer Barron is gay not only raises a new set of questions but transforms [the story], or at least our perspective of it."
Emily Grierson's psychology has been extensively studied, with many people determining that she was mentally ill and, as a result, why. Though numerous diagnoses have been made, the most common can be summarized as follows by Nicole Smith in her psychological analysis of the character: "It is reasonable to propose that Miss Emily developed [schizophrenia] as a response to the demanding conditions in which she was living as a Southern woman from an aristocratic family."
Tuncay Tezcan's study of the novel is, "It represents the numerous conflicts in the main character's life, illustrating the effect of social change on the individual." Jack Sherting feels Emily has an Oedipus complex. He thinks Emily and her father had an incestuous relationship, and she was never able to overcome it. Sherting believes Emily exploited Homer as a substitute for her father and never truly loved him, always using him to her advantage.