April/Faulkner Book: The Sound and the Fury

[Pendragon]

Well, this post isn't going to win me any accolades anyway, so I'll keep it very brief. Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury frankly is not my cup of tea. The prose seems stilted, and forced in places, and in others, downright dull. But you must remember I am more of a mystery/sci fi person than a classical reader, so my opinion may be somewhat biased. Still it reads more like a rough draft than a finished novel to me.

[toddhill]

I just had a former student write me and tell me how much she is hating reading Dickens. I have a friend who is a college lit prof and a borderline genius in my opinion, who loves Dickens. Personally, I'm not crazy about Dickens, but I see that as a fault in myself. If I'm used to doritos and cheetos and junk food, I'm going to hate vegetables. (Please don't take this analogy too far, and it is an extreme example.) Faulkner won the Nobel prize and I'll admit I don't appreciate some of his writing, but I try to withhold judgment because maybe I'm just not at the intellectual or artistic level of being able to fully appreciate him.

Anyway, back to the Christ figure stuff. I was just ruminating about it a little and I remembered a couple of things. The Green Mile is a wonderful story about a Christ figure. And he's not all there mentally. (The only Stephen King book I have read is his On Writing. I watched the movie The Green Mile and loved it so I think I want to try a few of King's novels.) Another thing I remembered is that certain Native American tribes considered mentally handicapped people to be sort of gods and they treated them with special dignity and reverence. I think we tend to be somewhat repulsed by the thought of a Benjy as a Christ figure, but it's not so strange or unusual.

[papayahed]

After reading all these posts about Christ figures it seems to me that the "Christ" or Christ-like" figure has such a wide definition that practically anybody can qualify. I'm with Emily on this one, sometimes an idiot is just an idiot.

just had a former student write me and tell me how much she is hating reading Dickens. I have a friend who is a college lit prof and a borderline genius in my opinion, who loves Dickens. Personally, I'm not crazy about Dickens, but I see that as a fault in myself. If I'm used to doritos and cheetos and junk food, I'm going to hate vegetables. (Please don't take this analogy too far, and it is an extreme example.) Faulkner won the Nobel prize and I'll admit I don't appreciate some of his writing, but I try to withhold judgment because maybe I'm just not at the intellectual or artistic level of being able to fully appreciate him.

I don't want to start an arguement, but I completely disagree with this post. A bunch of snobs got together decided something was good - that doesn't mean it is good. It brings up the whole art being subject vs. objective bugaboo.

[Ryduce]

Jason's section is so clear and precise.He is such a brutally cold dude,but he really brings alot of the story together.I believe he is one of the finest characters in literature.

I am absoultely in love with this book!!!!!!!!

[chmpman]

As for being one of the finest characters in literature, don't you think he's a tad bit one-sided to be a truly great character? He demonstrates no internal conflict between good intentions and actions in reality. Now Odysseus; he, my friend, is a great character, and one that has stood the test of time.

Perhaps you can elaborate more on why you find him such a fine character?

[Ryduce]

As for being one of the finest characters in literature, don't you think he's a tad bit one-sided to be a truly great character? He demonstrates no internal conflict between good intentions and actions in reality. Now Odysseus; he, my friend, is a great character, and one that has stood the test of time.

Perhaps you can elaborate more on why you find him such a fine character?

I didn't necessarily mean it in a sense that he is an incredibly complex or a multidimensional character,but I really enjoy his role in the novel.Perhaps there is some conflict there though,because even though he is motivated by his own bitterness about the family he is still taking care of his Mom.Granted he is stealing from her,but I feel there is more to it than that.

[papayahed]

Not to change the subject or anything, but I went to the Barnes and Noble website, they have reading group guides. Generally I don't bring them up but this time one of them has me wondering. Caddie seems to be a central figure throughout the book, why doesn't she have a voice?

[emily655321]

Faulkner himself addressed this, actually (once again, on the page I've linked to twice so far on this thread ).

"I tried first to tell it with one brother, and that wasn’t enough. That was Section One. I tried it with another brother, and that wasn’t enough. That was Section Two. I tried the third brother, because Caddy was still to me too beautiful and too moving to reduce her to telling what was going on, that it would be more passionate to see her through somebody else’s eyes, I thought. And that failed and I tried myself—the fourth section— to tell what happened, and I still failed."

http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~egjbp/faulkner/n-sf.html

Faulkner won the Nobel prize and I'll admit I don't appreciate some of his writing, but I try to withhold judgment because maybe I'm just not at the intellectual or artistic level of being able to fully appreciate him.

I'm afraid I don't agree with this, either. I think when people think this way, it often leads to the sort of mass-worship of authors or artists that made you question your own judgment in the first place. Just because someone has a reputation of genius, it doesn't mean you should jump on the band wagon. If you don't like it, don't assume it's because you're somehow not good enough to appreciate it. Sometimes things are just overrated. Sometimes something just isn't, as Pen said, your cup of tea. I don't like Faulkner, either. I don't like Hemingway. It doesn't mean they're bad, it means I don't enjoy them. I think Moby Dick is a load of poorly written c---, and I rail against it constantly. I tend to do this too much, with an unconscious intent to balance the scales of opinion (is it still unconscious if you realize you're doing it?). Anyway, there's plenty of modern art that's stinking up museum walls because people are afraid of questioning the talent of someone who might become the next Van Gogh. They think, "If I say I don't like it, it's an admission that I'm too simple to understand it." No, don't fall into that way of thinking. It does not benefit the common good.

[Virgil]

Not to change the subject or anything, but I went to the Barnes and Noble website, they have reading group guides. Generally I don't bring them up but this time one of them has me wondering. Caddie seems to be a central figure throughout the book, why doesn't she have a voice?

That's a great question. I read that Faulkner felt uncomfortable in women's voices. But I think here it not having her voice makes the novel rise to a higher level. Caddie, arguably I admit, can be considerd the central character of the novel. The three brothers are all defined by their relationship to her. Benjy in his attachment to her; Quentin in his bond with her; Jason in his repulsion ("once a ***** always a *****" is a great line!) of her. I think not having her voice allows us to see various perspectives of her, always changing based on who the eyes we're looking through.


Separate question: How come Scher is not involved in our discussions? I know she wanted to read this novel. You who, Scher, where ever you are, what are your thoughts?

[ishicourt]

i read the sound and the fury a few years ago and it is superb. one of my favourite books of all time--if not my all-time favourite.

if it helps at all, faulkner once remarked that he made the whole book based on one image. that image was of a young girl, with mud on her underwear, climbing a tree to peer through a window where a funeral was taking place. the whole book is about capturing that image, and faulkner later considered the novel a failure because he believed he failed to capture that image. caddie lacks a voice because she is not a character so much as an idealized and unattainable idea. giving her a voice would soil her.

[papayahed]

I'm only partially through Quentin's section so I'm not sure if this is addressed later in the book but was Caddie as devoted to the other brothers as she was to Benjy?

[Virgil]

I'm only partially through Quentin's section so I'm not sure if this is addressed later in the book but was Caddie as devoted to the other brothers as she was to Benjy?

Her and Quentin had a special bond. Let me know what you make of it. Jason and Caddie are just then opposite.

[Ryduce]

Luster totally reminds me of Buckwheat from the Little Rascals.

[chmpman]

What do you guys make of Quentin and what happens to him as an expression of modernity on a person with a relatively provincial background? With his attending Harvard I wonder if Faulkner is saying something about what the forces of modernity can do to an already conflicted individual.

[Virgil]

What do you guys make of Quentin and what happens to him as an expression of modernity on a person with a relatively provincial background?

I don't know if the provinciaal background has anything to do with it. Quentin is a pretty sophisticated kid, don't you think? His problem seems to be not coming to terms with his father. Quentin is idealistic, perhaps a throwback to the modern world. His father is nihilistic. I can't quite yet articulate the relationship, but it's this conflict that drives (perhaps among other things) Quentin to suicide.

With his attending Harvard I wonder if Faulkner is saying something about what the forces of modernity can do to an already conflicted individual.

I think the central theme of the novel is locked up with the individual coming to terms with modernity.

Luster totally reminds me of Buckwheat from the Little Rascals.

Ry, will you get serious.