"A Rose for Emily" #5

I was confused a lot of the story the first time reading it, as I believe, were others. I think that a first person POV would be slightly advantageous at some parts because the speaker was a vague person or maybe the town as a whole. If Emily was telling the story, the reader would know a lot more about her, but less about the town's perceptions of her. If another person told the story in first person, the reader would have to assume that a relationship once occurred or that the person has special knowledge that others didn't. However, if the story was to be told in first person instead of third, that whole mystery would be lost and the confusion of the town would not be as evident. By seemingly rolling the town into one POV, the audience can consider all of the events and the mixed up chronology. The only point of view that is missing really is Emily's and I don't think her view matters that much to the story. As I think about it, I think that the story is not so much about Emily's life, but more about her effect on the people of the town and the history of it. They said at the beginning that she was a "fallen monument" which I think exemplifies her impact on the town perfectly.