Evidence that I need to sleep:

"We did not say she was crazy then. We believed she had to do that" ("A Rose for Emily," 28).

This is not going to be one of my most profound blog posts. I would just like to express my confusion and theories about the conflicts within these three short stories. Specifically, I'm going to try to identify the protagonists and the antagonists of all of the stories, which is mostly speculative and kind of difficult for me. I don't expect these to be completely accurate. Then, I will pose a question about "A Rose for Emily."

How I Met My Husband:

• Protagonist: Edie (the central character -- this one is easy to identify)
• Antagonist: Herself (maybe? Specifically, Edie's past self before she became "wiser")

Interpreter of Maladies:

• Protagonist: Mr. Kapasi (alternatively, Mrs. Das, as a lot of action revolves around her)
• Antagonist: Umm, himself (an internal conflict about Mrs. Das, perhaps; if the protagonist is Mrs. Das, I would say the antagonist is herself, as well, due to her unstable family life)

A Rose for Emily:

• Protagonist: Emily (alternatively, the town as a collective "we," but the action revolves more around Emily, I think)
• Antagonist: The town ("we"), who always seem to be working against her (alternatively, Emily if the town is the protagonist)

Here's my question. Let's say that the protagonist of "A Rose for Emily" is indeed Emily. Recalling that the book defines a "happy ending" as the solving of the protagonist's problems, and observing that Emily solved her problem with Homer by murdering him, doesn't "A Rose for Emily" have a happy ending?

Pain or guilt? Or am I the only person who cares about this scrap of paper?

"The paper curled as Mr. Kapasi wrote his address in clear, careful letters. She would write to him, asking about his days interpreting at the doctor's office, and he would respond eloquently, choosing only the most entertaining anecdotes, ones that would make her laugh out loud as she read them in her house in New Jersey" ("Interpreter of Maladies," 89).

The central conflict in this story is emotional, inside Mr. Kapasi, and in response to Mrs. Question Four (that question is a girl), I would argue that the conflict is resolved. During the story, Mr. Kapasi develops of "feeling of intoxication" for Mrs. Das, who his unhappily married like himself (79). The "scrap of paper" (88) on which he wrote his address serves as a metaphor for Mr. Kapasi's fantasy-relationship with Mrs. Das, which changes throughout the plot.

Mr. Kapasi first develops his feelings for Mrs. Das just before he writes his information on the scrap of paper, and once he does, the fantasy begins. "The promise that he would hear from Mrs. Das" (89) makes everything in the world seem right. Later, he develops a desire to be "alone with her" (100) and an obsession with when he will hear back from her (109). The feeling begins to fade when Mrs. Das assumed that Mr. Kapasi had children (147 -- my favorite integer). By the time the paper "fluttered away in the wind" (179), Mr. Kapasi preserves an image of the Das family from the monkey attack, which is not a particularly flattering image.

When the scrap of paper was in Mrs. Das's purse, Mr. Kapasi fantasized about their potential relationship. When the paper was absent from the purse, Mr. Kapasi had no intimate feelings toward Mrs. Das. Thus, the presence of the scrap of paper is a metaphor for that fantasy-relationship.

If I define the major conflict in the story as Mr. Kapasi's internal relationship development with Mrs. Das, then the conflict is resolved. When the scrap of paper flies away, Mr. Kapasi has come to the conclusion that he has different family values than Mrs. Das, and she does not have any feelings for him.