New Author V.S Author SHowdown: Proust VS Joyce VS Faulkner

[Alexander III]

The Dante VS Milton thread has died down, so I figured time for a new one, to get the post x-mass celebrations going. So let's have a modernist stream of consciousness threesome. Proust Vs Joyce Vs Faulkner, who is the best ?

[stlukesguild]

Dante!

[mortalterror]

Since I can't abide Joyce or Proust's nonsense, I'm going with Faulkner.

[hanzklein]

Well, I would say Joyce. Ulysses is a book that will change your life if fully read and comprehended but is also the most difficult read in the whole of literature. Faulkner to me just comes off as a cheap knockoff of Joyce, though still a good writer in his own merits.

[stlukesguild]

Seriously the question is which writer is the best and as much as I admire Faulkner I don't believe he rivals either Proust or Joyce (although he most assuredly is no cheap knock-off of Joyce) who most certainly are the two towering figures of early 20th century prose. Choosing between these two figures I must go with my personal preference for Proust.

Ulysses is... the most difficult read in the whole of literature.

Personally, I found Finnegan's Wake far more difficult. I also must question whether difficulty or inaccessibility is inherently a sign of literary merit (for or against).

[hanzklein]

Seriously the question is which writer is the best and as much as I admire Faulkner I don't believe he rivals either Proust or Joyce (although he most assuredly is no cheap knock-off of Joyce) who most certainly are the two towering figures of early 20th century prose. Choosing between these two figures I must go with my personal preference for Proust.

Ulysses is... the most difficult read in the whole of literature.

Personally, I found Finnegan's Wake far more difficult. I also must question whether difficulty or inaccessibility is inherently a sign of literary merit (for or against).

I've read some of Faulkners works (and enjoyed them), but that's how it just comes off to me. When I read that he actually read Ulysses and loved it, I viewed his work differently.

Finnegans Wake is much easier, in my opinion. You aren't expected to know what the novel is actually 'about', and it is written in a beautiful language which makes the activity of reading it even fun, to an extent. Inaccessibility is also not a sign of literary merit.

[laymonite]

I cannot fairly weight Joyce against the others, as I have only read his short fiction in The Dubliners (a gap which I plan to rectify this year with Finnegans Wake and Ulysses). So, between Proust and Faulkner, I am leaning toward Proust. I just re-read over notes I took down while reading the first two volumes of In Search of Lost Time, and, yeah, Proust's level of delicate yet strong detail, his contribution to psychoanalysis (Proustian, or Involuntary, Memory), and his powerfully constructed digressions outweight anything I've experienced with Faulkner. Though Faulkner has taken me by storm now and then with his writing (I'm thinking of moments toward the end of Light in August and almost all of Absalom! Absalom!), Proust's insights and aphorisms, embedded throughout his seminal work overshadow my favorite Southern Gothic novelist.

[JBI]

It's said that Joyce and Proust once met, neither having read the other's work, and basically just said hi, nice weather and went their ways - we can learn from that, that not every work should be compared, much less reduced to "which is better."

The whole notion of evaluating three authors whose works are so related and yet so different is rather absurd. Simply put, Ulysses is the odyssey of a day, whereas In Search of Lost Time the odyssey of a life, and Faulkner's mature work, generally the odyssey of a dynasty, and to an extent, a cultural history.


IF this is about Stream of Consciousness, then perhaps we aught to just discuss that, before yelling out "he is better, he is better." seems rather silly as all of these authors were quite different from each other.

[Alexander III]

It's said that Joyce and Proust once met, neither having read the other's work, and basically just said hi, nice weather and went their ways - we can learn from that, that not every work should be compared, much less reduced to "which is better."

The whole notion of evaluating three authors whose works are so related and yet so different is rather absurd. Simply put, Ulysses is the odyssey of a day, whereas In Search of Lost Time the odyssey of a life, and Faulkner's mature work, generally the odyssey of a dynasty, and to an extent, a cultural history.


IF this is about Stream of Consciousness, then perhaps we aught to just discuss that, before yelling out "he is better, he is better." seems rather silly as all of these authors were quite different from each other.

I find your statement rather absurd, everything can be compared and I see no reason why various authors should not be compared. Should we not compare Keats and Pound because they are from two diverse movements ? Should we not compare Homer and Tasso because they lived in different epochs? Should we not compare Shakespeare and Dante because one wrote play's and one wrote epic's and lyrical poetry? The notion that certain authors should not be compared is ridiculous.

I wrote "which is better" because this is a light hearted discussion which looks upon the authors as a whole instead of dissecting them down, and besides everyone here knows what was and what was not implied by "better"

No one was yelling out "he is better, he is better!" everyone merely presents their case and when it is questioned they try to answer the questioner, I hardly believe the members of he forum need to be held by the hand.

Surely JBI, even you all-knowing and all-wise must have a favorite or certain partiality amongst the three ?

[JCamilo]

Comparing is not saying who is better, but it is rather hard to not think some irish wont kick a french *** in a bar fight

[JBI]

I find your statement rather absurd, everything can be compared and I see no reason why various authors should not be compared. Should we not compare Keats and Pound because they are from two diverse movements ? Should we not compare Homer and Tasso because they lived in different epochs? Should we not compare Shakespeare and Dante because one wrote play's and one wrote epic's and lyrical poetry? The notion that certain authors should not be compared is ridiculous.

I wrote "which is better" because this is a light hearted discussion which looks upon the authors as a whole instead of dissecting them down, and besides everyone here knows what was and what was not implied by "better"

No one was yelling out "he is better, he is better!" everyone merely presents their case and when it is questioned they try to answer the questioner, I hardly believe the members of he forum need to be held by the hand.

Surely JBI, even you all-knowing and all-wise must have a favorite or certain partiality amongst the three ?

Alright, lets take your idea now - we can compare things, almost anything, so lets take the idea of discussing which work is greatest, or discussing the works themselves/comparing in a way that doesn't seek to say which one is better the aspects of the respective texts we find interesting. In short, few people commenting have read all three of these authors, and better yet, fewer in their original language, and better yet, even for those who have, this discussion of who is better just wastes time when we could look and say, "what makes these texts so good?" Comparatively then, which thread would be better, if what we are doing is comparing? The thread just saying "I read him and only him so he is better," or the thread that actually says something.

[arrytus]

I think the real choice is between JOSEPH CONRAD v. WILLIAM FAULKNER v. CORMAC MCCARTHY.

But by the criteria of consistency and breadth of work as listed I chose Faulkner because I've read about a dozen of his books and only 'Sanctuary' left me disappointed.

Hard to go wrong with Proust though. Joyce I'm less thrilled about. I liked Ulysses but couldn't finish Finnegan's Wake. And I liked the early works but they aren't my favorites. He gets points for consideration of influence on the post-modern novel, which is either great or horrendous, and vis-a-vis Beckett, his famulus.

[Dimitra]

I really really don't like Joyce (haven't read him in english though)
but love Faulkner and Proust.From those two I voted for Proust,because when I was in a dark time in my life,it was only him and the beauty of his work that could reach me.He's my second favourite author.

[Patrick_Bateman]

Shamefully I haven't read anything by any of them.

[Babak Movahed]

Great poll man! Personally I believe Joyce is the master of point of view, which for those who don't know is the method by which stream of consciousness is conveyed, like when one thinks of Joyce that has to be the first thing that comes to mind. The evidence is in Ulysses, that book switches point of view multiple times just on the same page. You don't even have to read that monstrous work to figure it out, because by like page 10 Joyce has incorporated 3rd person limited, free indirect discourse, and interior monologue. He even uses seldom seen narration in the 7th episode with the way he embeds 4th person narration (narration by the media or press) by using headlines for paragraphs. I will admit that Faulkner's works have better plots and characterization, but in regards to stream of consciousness Joyce takes the cake.