William Faulkner

[Ryduce]

I read 5 chapters of Light in August and felt like the stupidest person on the planet.I put it down and moved on to another novel.I'm now reading The Sound and the Fury and once again I feel alittle overwhelmed.Does anyone share my Faulkner woes?I want to read him but his books are just difficult to me.

[PeterL]

I read 5 chapters of Light in August and felt like the stupidest person on the planet.I put it down and moved on to another novel.I'm now reading The Sound and the Fury and once again I feel alittle overwhelmed.Does anyone share my Faulkner woes?I want to read him but his books are just difficult to me.

I can understand the feeling. You might read some criticism and explanations of his novels before or whlle you are reading.

[Ryduce]

Yeh but then I feel like I didn't understand it on my own.Thats probably waht I'll have to do though.

[Virgil]

Ryduce

The study guides can be very helpful. They are not going to tell you the deep ideas of the work, but they be helpful to give you the basics, and then you can take it from there. Here are the Spark Notes guides to some of Faulkner's novels: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/index_author_f.html

I hope this helps. I know he's difficult, but Faulkner is too great a writer to give up on.

[bluevictim]

The secret to reading The Sound and the Fury is to stick it out to the end even if you don't really understand and then reread it after you're done. It seemed to work pretty well for me, YMMV. Hopefully your edition has the appendix that Faulkner wrote for it -- it's really helpful.

PS, about The Sound and the Fury: it's totally worth all the effort.

[Anna Seis]

Try to read Faulkner as if you were looking with his eyes:I think Faulkner is perplexed about his characters, and follows them to see where they are going. You and me don't know where they go, but they do. Every Faulkner's book I have readed, I should reread and definitively I would do it again -and in facts I do it from time to time. Don't you feel stupid, just insist. Faulkner is fabulous.

[Ryduce]

I'm gonna try.Thanks to all of you for your advice.

Yeh so I'm half way through The Sound and the Fury and I'm really trying to get into it,but it is not going to well people.I'm like 4 pages from giving up on it again.Sorry I'm just venting my frustration

[PeterL]

I can understand the feeling, and I'm not sure that that isn't the best reaction.

[Virgil]

Yeh so I'm half way through The Sound and the Fury and I'm really trying to get into it,but it is not going to well people.I'm like 4 pages from giving up on it again.Sorry I'm just venting my frustration
What's the problem? You're not following what's going on? Try Spark notes.

[Ryduce]

I did and reread.It takes me like half hour to read a paragraph,Im easily distracted.As of this moment I officialy give up on Faulkner.He's over my head.I'll try it again some other day.

[Virgil]

If you don't mind me asking, how old are you or what level of school are you in? Also I think Faulkner is on the book forum calander for one month this year. We will vote on which novel to select and then we read it camment on it in the forum. I'm going to vote for the Sound and the Fury.

[bluevictim]

I did and reread.It takes me like half hour to read a paragraph,Im easily distracted.As of this moment I officialy give up on Faulkner.He's over my head.I'll try it again some other day.


Fair enough. I'm sure there are plenty of other enjoyable ways for you to spend your time.

By the way, here's another way to make Faulkner easier to read:

Step 1. Read The Wasteland by T.S. Eliot

Step 2. Read Faulkner. All of a sudden Faulkner doesn't seem so hard!

[Basil]

I don't know if this will provide you with the courage to continue or not, but The Sound and the Fury moves from a state of confusion to a state of clarity. The first section isn't just confusing; it is deliberately confusing, and the narrator is incapable of shedding any light on its perplexities. The second section is just as challenging as the first (if not more so), but it makes a little more sense in terms of how the story is told. The third section is a snap compared to first two; the fourth even more so.

If you're thinking of quitting, I'm guessing you're still in the second section. You might consider skimming the rest of that section and moving on to the third. First readings don't really count in Faulkner, anyway. Another thing: the narrator of the third section, Jason, is one of the meanest characters in all of literature, but at times, he's also funny. In a cruel, horrible way . . . he's funny.

[Ryduce]

First of all I am on the second section,I'm 17 and I'm a junior in high school.I think I might continue on it with,but the 1st two sections are really tough.

[Anna Seis]

The sound and the fury is a very complex text. The difficulties doesn't mean that "Faulkner is over you head". He is hard, because the minds of the characters are complicated. He doesn't say, for instance, "incest": he tries to get into the thoughts of persons that are involved in it, and they doesn't think in a clear manner; they think about a thing that is done, and they think for themselves; therefore their discourse is hard to understand for the reader, who is an intruder. As intruders, we must fight to decipher and build our own hypothesis.
This novel is certainly hard. Are you doing a homework about it?
Even if you give up The sound and the fury, please don't give up Faulkner. Try short stories, like Was, The old people, The bear... a Portrait of Elmer (you can laugh a lot with it). You know, some of the Faulkner's short stories were rejected by reviews... they didn't know what they did. Don't you abandon Faulkner. You are so young, don't feel overcomed; just fight with the text.

[Ryduce]

:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:





Yeh it was awesome.

[chmpman]

Which book?

Oh, and congrats

[Basil]

Ready for the quiz? :D

[Xamonas Chegwe]

All of him? Reee-spect!

[Ryduce]

Just Light in August,but this is a huge accomplishment for me because of all the times I tried to read his books and just gave up half way through them.I finished it,and it was one of the best books I've ever read.I just had to be patient like the people on the forum said.You guys are pretty cool.



Word.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

OK - just 1 book - drop 2 of those 'e's from that respect then! :wink:

[Ryduce]

Well I did check out Absalom,Absalom! from the library today,so I will try to go 2 for 2 this week.

[Virgil]

Just Light in August,but this is a huge accomplishment for me because of all the times I tried to read his books and just gave up half way through them.I finished it,and it was one of the best books I've ever read.I just had to be patient like the people on the forum said.You guys are pretty cool.



Word.
Light in August is one of the great books of the 20th century. My persaonal Faulkner favorite, and he's got a lot to enjoy. Congrqatulation Ryduce. It's not an easy read, but well worth it.

[Ryduce]

I really enjoyed it,and I found it much easier to read than The Sound and the Fury.I think I'll wait a while before I try that one again.

[malwethien]

wow! congratulations! I have respect for anyone who can read Faulkner :D Why not try James Joyce next? :D

[Virgil]

Ryduce

Were you the one who was trying to read The Sound and the Fury awhile back and was asking for adice? I remember someone was asking.

[Ryduce]

Yeh that was me.

[Ryduce]

wow! congratulations! I have respect for anyone who can read Faulkner :D Why not try James Joyce next? :D

I've already read Joyce.He was tough,but I didn't feel he was as tough as Faulkner.

[Virgil]

Yeh that was me.
Oh. OK. I remember you then. Hey you're pretty ambitious a reader for your age.

[Ryduce]

Sometimes too ambitious and it makes my brain explode.

[Wendigo_49]

Congratulations. I also had a tough time but found Light in August to be one of the most enjoyable books to read.

[malwethien]

You guys are making me want to read A Light in August now :D

[higley]

I liked As I Lay Dying, because there's lots of little things that aren't said straight forward and you sort of have to figure out what's going on. Light in August was good, too. Joe Christmas was a fascinating guy.

[rachel]

no, you are a seeker and are to be applauded. think how much you will know while still very young that can impact your and other's lives making them more beautiful.

[Virgil]

I liked As I Lay Dying, because there's lots of little things that aren't said straight forward and you sort of have to figure out what's going on. Light in August was good, too. Joe Christmas was a fascinating guy.
Higley - You might want to read The Sound and the Fury. It may be the April book for the book forum and it should be a great discussion. If you want to read along, you can vote for it in the poll and if it's selected I would like to hear your comments, especially since you've read Faulkner before.

[Scheherazade]

I liked As I Lay Dying, because there's lots of little things that aren't said straight forward and you sort of have to figure out what's going on. Light in August was good, too. Joe Christmas was a fascinating guy.I am re-reading As I Lay Dying after 13 years, first one being one of the worst experiences of my career as a reader! Needless to say, greater part of my dislike was due to my lack of understanding of the novel... And now, although I have read only 1/3 of the book yet, I am very glad and relieved to realise that it was mainly due to the fact that my English was not 'mature' enough at the time to appreciate the intricacies of the story line and Faulkner's language. 13 years and some considerable brewing later, I am even able to enjoy the book although there are still parts I have to read multiple times or skip because it is kind of a blur.

Looking forward to reading TSATF with the Book Club as well (Which Book Are You? Quiz (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=168880#post168880) reckons TSATF sums me up!)

[higley]

I am re-reading As I Lay Dying after 13 years, first one being one of the worst experiences of my career as a reader! Needless to say, greater part of my dislike was due to my lack of understanding of the novel... And now, although I have read only 1/3 of the book yet, I am very glad and relieved to realise that it was mainly due to the fact that my English was not 'mature' enough at the time to appreciate the intricacies of the story line and Faulkner's language. 13 years and some considerable brewing later, I am even able to enjoy the book although there are still parts I have to read multiple times or skip because it is kind of a blur.

Looking forward to reading TSATF with the Book Club as well (Which Book Are You? Quiz (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=168880#post168880) reckons TSATF sums me up!)


I understand completely. There were so many parts of that book where I just had to re-read a paragraph and focus hard on every word to make sure I understood just what the heck was going on. Often I found something I missed during the first time reading it.

...I just took that quiz, Scher, and it tells me I'm Huckleberry Finn. :P I've got a straw hat in the closet, somewhere.

[Scheherazade]

I understand completely. There were so many parts of that book where I just had to re-read a paragraph and focus hard on every word to make sure I understood just what the heck was going on. Often I found something I missed during the first time reading it.I might consider reading it one more time in the hope that things might get clearer for me. You know how the saying goes:

You can take the girl out of the ESOL class but you can't take the ESOL out of the girl!

:D

[Pensive]

I think that I should try Faulkner now.

[emily655321]

I started reading The Sound and the Fury today, even though it's not April quite yet. It's so much easier to understand the second time around. Starting with the basic knowledge of the timeline, characters, and plot, I can actually pay attention to the writing technique. The first time it was like, "Wait... the story changed again. Now what's going on? Who's this person? Where am I? I hate you, Faulkner!"

[Ryduce]

I must be retarded, because everytime I read it gets more difficult.

[davoarid]

I understand completely. There were so many parts of that book where I just had to re-read a paragraph and focus hard on every word to make sure I understood just what the heck was going on. Often I found something I missed during the first time reading it.

I just finished reading As I Lay Dying as well, and had the exact same experience. It was veyr rewarding, though.

[Perceptor]

I'm curious Ryuduce, how old are you?

i've read the sound and the fury and really enjoyed it... hopefully i'll read as i lay dying over the summer

[Ryduce]

I'm 17.This thread is kind of old though.Since then I've read 4 Faulkner novels,and I'm on my fifth right now.




They're still hard as crap.

[subterranean]

:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:





Yeh it was awesome.


I suppose it's a really something to read all Faulkner's works; I mean you celebrated it with 7 bananas

[superunknown]

My mother is a fish.

I'm 17 too, turned last April. I've read As I Lay Dying and I'd like to go for a few others, but I've got a ton of books on my list to read as it is.

[Scheherazade]

I'm 17.This thread is kind of old though.Since then I've read 4 Faulkner novels,and I'm on my fifth right now.
I'm 17 too, turned last April. I've read As I Lay Dying and I'd like to go for a few others, but I've got a ton of books on my list to read as it is. Oh, this is turning into Faulkner Readers Anonymus! I will join too!

Hey, I am Scher and I am 57. I have read As I Lay Dying and The Sound and the Fury and I would like to read more!

:D

[Il Penseroso]

What's the deal? Caddie and Quentin, Darl and Dewey Dell, what do you think William Faulkner's intentions were in portraying characters with this inclination? Is there some biographical information I'm missing out on?

[Redzeppelin]

Faulkner's men are fairly well beyond mystified when it comes to females. Because Faulkner often potrays women as "earth mother" figures - that which is connected to fertility and - ultimately - the mystery of creation - they become almost mystical beings to men. In Quentin and Caddy's case, it is Quentin's unability to deal with his sister's sexual initiation; he cannot bear to think of his sister with "that knowledge" - the same knowledge that makes Benjy freak out because Caddy no longer (after her deflowering) "smelt like trees." Faulkner portrays his young female charaters in such a way that their loss of virginity changes them in some intangible way - at least in terms of how the men closest to them see them. It is Caddy's sexual awakening that draws Quentin more than an actual sexual attraction; the same is true of Dewey Dell and Darl: he's not sexually attracted to her so much as he is drawn to the idea that his sister (an asexual being as sisters are to brothers) has become a sexual being (she's now pregnant).

Other more skilled critics have discussed this, but I don't have my notes in front of me. I think a large part of this idea comes from the identity males derive from the females in their lives - and the change from virgin to sexual being disorients these brothers (whose brotherly instincts may be to protect virginal sister from "violation" from another man - a sort of "invasion" of territory that the brother may feel protective of).

[Nick Rubashov]

great post redzeppelin, it was a lovely read :)

[Redzeppelin]

Thank you - I feel a little bad, because I really wanted to give a more "solid" response, because I did a lot of research on Faulkner in grad school, but I still can't find my notes because I'm sure I have something scribbled down somewhere about the incest theme in his work.

But thanks again. :)

PS - oh, and re-reading my post reminds me that female characters in Southern literature tend to be metaphors for "the South" - which plays into a whole "post-Civil War" thing that deals with the Northern violation of the south (isn't Dalton Ames - the guy who seduces Caddy, a "northerner"?)

[omegaxx]

PS - oh, and re-reading my post reminds me that female characters in Southern literature tend to be metaphors for "the South" - which plays into a whole "post-Civil War" thing that deals with the Northern violation of the south (isn't Dalton Ames - the guy who seduces Caddy, a "northerner"?)

I was just going to say that:p The whole southern context is, I think, quite important to understanding Faulkner's "infatuation" with incest. Recall that marriage within a very small circle was rather common in the class of the Southern plantation gentility, the original class to which the Compsons belonged. Ashley and Melanie in Gone with the Wind, if I recall correctly, were first cousins. Hand in hand with this phenomenon is also the obsession with the purity of blood lines. If you really believe your bloodline is the purest, the only way you can keep it untainted is by, urg, incest. I am by no means contending that this is a rigorous or even valid argument. Personally, however, this has helped me to at least speculate on the frequency of incest in Faulkner's works, without resorting to concluding that this dude must have had some serious Oedipal issues.

On a side note, I am by no means well-versed in the Bible, but isn't incest also very prevalent in the Old Testament? Greek mythology is also full of it (think the Olympians, Oedipus, Antigone, and Electra). then Faulkner may also be using incest as an echo of ancient Greek and Hebrew texts as a part of his plan to construct a mythology, or Bible, of the Old South. Absalom, Absalom! certainly has a very biblical feel to me, not the least because of the Henry-Judith-Bon triangle. (Which just reminded me: Henry and Charles Bon are both named after English kings, and European royalty are known for their intermarriages.) This certainly points to incest as something other than an idiosyncracy, but a pattern of behaviour persisting through history with an almost mysterious, quasi-religious aura.

John Irwin, a Faulkner scholar, has written a book, Doubling and Incest/Repetition and Revenge, on the incest motif in The Sound and the Fury and Absalom, Absalom!. I skimmed it for my term paper last year and it certainly contained some very interesting points. I'll probably read the book in detail when I have some time in the summer.

[Redzeppelin]

Well said - I forgot about the biblical parallels - Faulkner's big on that (esp. in Absalom - where incest is a huge theme). Irwin is a great critic - his books are excellent.

[chasestalling]

incest is to the aristocracy as adultery is to the bourgeoisie, i've heard it said though from where or from whom i fail to recall. though dirt poor in terms of per capita income, the inhabitants of yoknapataphaw (?) county are not without a strain of aristocratic pride, the foremost among them being, if my memory serves me correct, colonel sartoris.

[LemonBoy]

Hi, I'm looking for a first Faulkner book to take from the library. I started to get interested in American literature after reading Salinger's Catcher in the Rye, which literally changed my life (or, at least ME, to be more accurate). I also got interested in American music from the first half of the 20's century. (folk, acoustic blues, ragtime...) I'm also reading now "The Great Gatsby", which was mentioned in The Catcher. Oh and, to be clear, I'm not American : P
Anyway, I have read that Faulkner is a good, renowned writer of American literature, as well as is Steinbeck - but I heard that Faulkner is more "hardcore" (if that makes any sense), and I want something more "hardcore". :cool:
So what can you suggest?

[metal134]

Faulkner is fabulous; so many good novels to choose from. But if you want something, hardcore, as you put it, you should go with "The Sound and the Fury".

[LemonBoy]

Whoops, you got me a little wrong.. I guess I wasn't clear enough. I was saying that I've chosen Faulkner because I wanted something more hardcore, but as for a book by him I want something more "introductory" - meaning a book that will make it easy for me to get into Faulkner.

[metal134]

Oh, I see. An easier Faulkner book would probably be "Light in August".

[Basil]

You will probably find Faulkner's short stories more accessible than any of his novels. "A Rose for Emily" and "That Evening Sun" are two good ones which you can find here (http://www.ariyam.com/docs/lit/wf_rose.html) and here. (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA01/White/anthology/faulkner.html) This version of "That Evening Sun" is a little different from the version in Collected Stories; this version is how it originally appeared in American Mercury.

[Virgil]

I agree with Basil, some of the short stories might be a better way to start. If you insist on a novel I would go with As I Lay Dying. I would also use a cliff notes or spark notes or something like that to help you with the plot shifts. But he's the greatest novelist.

[Asa Adams]

I think its great, all of these suggestions, but I would argue that Steinbeck isnt as "hardcore" as Faulkner. Both were exceptional writers, and either would be suitable for your reading enjoyment. Both are hardcore writers and in turn it is up to you to decide which you enjoy the most, and to that; which give you the most challenge. Good luck!

Hey, Virg! I saw your D.H.L thread! Greatest writer ever! Great thread!
Asa

[Virgil]

Hey, Virg! I saw your D.H.L thread! Greatest writer ever! Great thread!
Asa

Do you mean the short story thread where Janine and I are analyzing DHL's short stories? If you have the time join us. The short stories are quick reads and as you can see we go slow. Most people don't realize Lawrence was a great short story writer.

[Asa Adams]

yeah. I think I might pop in, once the exams are all finished. Bit busy right now, but Im thinking about!

[Virgil]

yeah. I think I might pop in, once the exams are all finished. Bit busy right now, but Im thinking about!

We would love to have more people. But exams are more important. I understand.

[Janine]

Earlier quote:

Hey, Virg! I saw your D.H.L thread! Greatest writer ever! Great thread!
Asa

Yes, I love Lawrence, Bert, Lorenzo! He is the greatest. I have been studying him for years now. I just read my 3rd biography. I have a 4th planned. Read nearly all his novels and so has Virgil. I am also planning on reading his selected letters. I just read the Travel book - Italy.

Last quote:

yeah. I think I might pop in, once the exams are all finished. Bit busy right now, but Im thinking about!

Oh Asa, I so hope you do join us, after you finish up with your exams. We are doing the stories quite slowly and meticulously, so we won't be to the next story for a while yet. Maybe you can do the next one. We can pick one with the text available on this site. You are always so full of good ideas and keen sensitivity and a good intuitive sense. You would greatly add to our discussions. Thanks for noticing the thread and reading our posts. Ktd has also been thinking of joining, but she is busy with work and school, so for now she is reading some of the posts.
Oh, goody, I hope to see you soon in Lawrence.:)

[LemonBoy]

Hmm, my library doesn't seem to have Faulkner's short stories.
I guess I'll take Light in August.
How is Absalom, Absalom by the way? it is listed in Wikipedia under the Great American Novel article.

[Virgil]

Hmm, my library doesn't seem to have Faulkner's short stories.
I guess I'll take Light in August.
How is Absalom, Absalom by the way? it is listed in Wikipedia under the Great American Novel article.

Absalom, Absalom is probably the hardest novel of all of Faulkner. Light in August is managable if you can find a guide on the time shifts.

[papayahed]

Absalom, Absalom is probably the hardest novel of all of Faulkner. Light in August is managable if you can find a guide on the time shifts.



huh. That's probably why I've only managed the first couple pages of Absalom, Absalom .

[Redzeppelin]

I second Virgil's suggestion of As I Lay Dying - it lacks the highly disorienting time-shifts that make his other masterworkd (Sound & Fury, Absolom) so maddening and difficult to get through (though you must eventually read both if you really want to have "read Faulkner"). Faulkner's short stories are good, but I've never enjoyed them as much as the novels. Light in August is good, but As I Lay Dying provides a great primer to Faulkner's technique. As well, the brevity of the chapters helps with comprehension. Let me know what you think - I loved ALD.

[Asa Adams]

Oh Asa, I so hope you do join us, after you finish up with your exams. We are doing the stories quite slowly and meticulously, so we won't be to the next story for a while yet. Maybe you can do the next one. We can pick one with the text available on this site. You are always so full of good ideas and keen sensitivity and a good intuitive sense. You would greatly add to our discussions. Thanks for noticing the thread and reading our posts. Ktd has also been thinking of joining, but she is busy with work and school, so for now she is reading some of the posts.
Oh, goody, I hope to see you soon in Lawrence.:)

Oh now I really must join :blush: ! See you soon!
Asa

[Janine]

Oh now I really must join :blush: ! See you soon!
Asa

Asa, oh good, I was hoping I could twist your arm and reel you in.:D
Thanks and see you soon, Janine

[LemonBoy]

You convinced me to take As I Lay Dying...
Well in Thursday I'm going to the library to take it.

[Stieg]

I have subscribed to LoA book club, can't wait to receive my Faulkner volumes though it can be awhile.

[ceetee]

Do you know some good William Faulkner novels. I remember reading one many years ago and loved it. But picked up one recently and couldn't get into it at all. I don't know if it's just my tastes that have changed or the first book was better. Trouble is I can't remember the title of either. Anyway I'd love to hear some recommendations.

[Scheherazade]

As I Lay Dying is a good place to start, I think.

[_Shannon_]

Sanctuary is an awesome read! It's rather unlike some of his other things- but it still is tragic and brutal and all of the things Faulkner does like no other.

[Mark F.]

I have only read "Light In August", it's a difficult read but one of the best novels ever written. Faulkner makes you think about every single sentence which creates a very realitic and believable story.

[NickAdams]

Sanctuary is the best thriller I have ever read. There was a tension in my chest during every chapter.

I'm reading Light in August now. It's a strong story and the non-linear approach makes it stronger.

At this rate it will be good-bye Nick Adams, hello Joe Christmas!

[ceetee]

I remember now 'As I Lay Dying' was the one I couldn't get into. I'll try the others. Cheers.

[Redzeppelin]

As I Lay Dying is a good place to start, I think.


Scher's right - ALD is a great book and one of the easier to follow. Faulkner's stream-of-consciousness passages and fractured chronology wreak havoc with any reader expecting a linear story. With Faulkner, the story is rarely told in a straightforward form (and even when it is, his syntax taxes a reader's patience severely). Light is good, but its length makes plot recall pretty tricky; the Sound and the Fury is a bad idea to start with - practiced readers pull their hair out reading that one; Absolom Absolom is just as difficult. If you're patient, ALD will start to make sense. Just remember that each chapter is a different narrator.

[NickAdams]

... Light is good, but its length makes plot recall pretty tricky ...

I am going to read this one twice. Slight mentions in the beginning, like the backless chairs and frictionsmooth tables in a diner, are later revealed as important locations. But when you do remember, it makes one hell of an impact.

[Redzeppelin]

I am going to read this one twice. Slight mentions in the beginning, like the backless chairs and frictionsmooth tables in a diner, are later revealed as important locations. But when you do remember, it makes one hell of an impact.


Very true - one of the astonishing qualities of reading Faulkner - but one hard-won, to be sure.

[nicholas25]

In true Faulkner fashion you should read The Sound and the Fury first, but keep in mind you won't have a clue what you just read. Just know that you will at least realize you have read something extremely powerful and it will pull you back to it time and time again. After you read it a few times the novel is not complicated at all. I've always said the best novel to read first for students who seek out Faulkner is As I Lay Dying because it's simple yet profound. Sartoris is another one, and eventually Absalom is a must. It's a novel that is hard to be drawn to compared to his other works, but that is because it is a bible for the literary. All you have to do is just read a few pages now and then and everything is ok.

[bibliophile190]

I really enjoyed A Rose For Emily. I thought that was an excellent short story. I haven't been able to read his novels though. I tried to read As I Lay Dying, but the stream of conciousness parts really confused me and I just stopped. Then I tried to read The Sound and the Fury, but I had to quit that also because I could never tell which character was doing the narrating, and what event happened when, because it all seemed to jump around all over the place.

[plainjane]

I see most have recommended As I Lay Dying, but I started that and put it down in.....frustration and aggravation. Just didn't like the characters I suppose and at that point swore off of Faulkner. Wrong! Now a year later I am reading Absalom, Absalom and just enjoying myself no end. :D

I think the key is to take him very slowly and try to absorb and reread right away. I reread the first several pages 4 or 5 times until they sunk in, and kept that sort of pace for the first two chapters.....then all of a sudden the thing seemed to click and I could go forward much faster.
What helped me as well in the beginning was to write the family connections inside the back cover...just to keep who was related and how.

I'm still only in the 4th chapter, but it is flowing well now.

[plainjane]

Well, I have just finished my very first Faulkner, Absalom, Absalom!, and I am still reeling. But in a good way! :D I tried As I Lay Dying last year, and couldn't stand it. I suppose I will have to go back and try again, but first I think I want to read the Snopes trilogy. Or maybe The Sound and the Fury....decisions, decisions!

[NickAdams]

I heard Absalom, Absalom! was the toughest. Good job.
I've read Sanctuary and Light in August and found Faulkner the only author to stir me emotionally.
I wanted to read either TSNTF or AILD next, but I'm really interested in Absalom, Absalom.

[Virgil]

Well, I have just finished my very first Faulkner, Absalom, Absalom!, and I am still reeling. But in a good way! :D I tried As I Lay Dying last year, and couldn't stand it. I suppose I will have to go back and try again, but first I think I want to read the Snopes trilogy. Or maybe The Sound and the Fury....decisions, decisions!

Wow, you started Faulkner with Absalom. That is a tough one, but well worth it, if you can get it.

[Nossa]

Congrates :D
I've had The Sound and the Fury on my list for sometime now, I guess I'll add Light in August and As I Lay Dying too :D

[plainjane]

Wow, you started Faulkner with Absalom. That is a tough one, but well worth it, if you can get it.


Agreed. His layering technique is unique to say the least but once settled into is quite soothing.


Congrates :D
I've had The Sound and the Fury on my list for sometime now, I guess I'll add Light in August and As I Lay Dying too :D


NickAdams /I heard Absalom, Absalom! was the toughest. Good job.
I've read Sanctuary and Light in August and found Faulkner the only author to stir me emotionally.
I wanted to read either TSNTF or AILD next, but I'm really interested in Absalom, Absalom.
Thanks y'all. :D

A good friend of mine that happens to be a New Yorker said it must be subliminal picking up of the vibes on my part as I was born and raised near New Orleans. ;) Whatever it is, and actually I agree, it works.

[Walter]

All of my superlatives go to Faulkner and Absalom, Absalom! I think that may be the very best novel I have ever read; Faulkner is certainly the most incredible author I have ever read. Sheer genius!

[Tuesday]

Absalom, Absalom! is the only novel by Faulkner I've read so far, so I can't really make any comparisons here, but I think the hardest thing when tackling the book is to just keep on reading. I think when reading this you're actually supposed to be confused most of the time, especially at the beginning. But page after page things slowly find back to each other and begin to make sense.

So if you read the first chapter and don't understand anything, don't re-read it. Just keep on riding the endless flow of words and sooner or later things will work out.

I've certainly never read a novel like that one. It's just so incredibly dark and wicked and eerie. The part at the end when they visit the old mansion is better than any horror movie.

[NickAdams]

Absalom, Absalom! is the only novel by Faulkner I've read so far, so I can't really make any comparisons here, but I think the hardest thing when tackling the book is to just keep on reading. I think when reading this you're actually supposed to be confused most of the time, especially at the beginning. But page after page things slowly find back to each other and begin to make sense.

So if you read the first chapter and don't understand anything, don't re-read it. Just keep on riding the endless flow of words and sooner or later things will work out.

That's true. I've only re-read sections that have time, character, location, or subject shifts in the same paragraph.


The part at the end when they visit the old mansion is better than any horror movie[/B].

I felt the same about Sanctuary. There's something about Faulkner's houses: Sanctuary, Light in August, A Rose for Emily and Absalom.

[plainjane]

Absalom, Absalom! is the only novel by Faulkner I've read so far, so I can't really make any comparisons here, but I think the hardest thing when tackling the book is to just keep on reading. I think when reading this you're actually supposed to be confused most of the time, especially at the beginning. But page after page things slowly find back to each other and begin to make sense.

So if you read the first chapter and don't understand anything, don't re-read it. Just keep on riding the endless flow of words and sooner or later things will work out.

I've certainly never read a novel like that one. It's just so incredibly dark and wicked and eerie. The part at the end when they visit the old mansion is better than any horror movie.

I did reread the first few pages several times, had to just to get into the flow, but once I realized his method, it was easy. Well, easy as a relative term, you know? :D
I think I have settled on The Sound and the Fury for my next Faulkner...I want to read more about poor Quentin. But not yet. Decompression time.

[storybookauthor]

I cheated when I read Faulkner's As I Lay Dying.

I read a character list when I was halfway through it. :(.

I needed it for a class though, so I had less than 4 days to do it. I was desperate.

-Anna.

[tudwell]

Faulkner is epic.

I cheated too, though, on a lot of his novels. I don't think it hindered my appreciation of his work any; indeed, to the contrary, so I don't regret it or feel ashamed.

Absalom, Absalom! is indeed one of the greatest novels I've ever read. Every sentence is so compelling.

[plainjane]

Faulkner is epic.

I cheated too, though, on a lot of his novels. I don't think it hindered my appreciation of his work any; indeed, to the contrary, so I don't regret it or feel ashamed.

Absalom, Absalom! is indeed one of the greatest novels I've ever read. Every sentence is so compelling.

I don't know I'd call any of that really cheating if it helps. I had a time sorting out the relationships in A,A to begin with, I didn't even notice the listing in the back, and I'm glad I didn't notice, it was more fun working it out myself.....BUT I was not working against the clock either.
I did start writing the genealogy down in the back cover of the book to start to get it straight, and that helped. For some reason Rosa's age really threw me off at first...being younger than Judith I mean.

[Tuesday]

My next Faulkner is going to be Light in August. I've already ordered it on Amazon and it should arrive here within the next week or so. I'm also quite curious about his short stories.

Cheating? I would consider none of the methods you used as cheating...especially when it comes to Faulkner. It's certainly better to read a summary after each chapter than to throw the book out of the window because your confusion slowly turns to anger ;)

[Virgil]

Anything that helps you understand the work is not cheating. Now if you don't read the work for school and just use the helping aids, then that might be cheating. But if you're reading for your own pleasure, then nothing is cheating.

[BadassBookworm]

I've been reading William Faulkner's Light In August for the last week or so. I haven't been having any problems understanding it at all. My problem is that I find it very boring. Faulkner is considered one of the greatest writers ever and so many talk about his genius for writing. However, I'm bored stiff about 2/3 through.

Does anyone else have this problem? Am I intellectually vapid or is Faulkner just "not my type"?

[Nossa]

I've never read Faulkner to be frank, but I don't think that just cuz everyone thinks he's great, you should think so as well. I know people who hate Jane Auten's guts...while I think she's the best female writer of all time.
Tastes change, and from what I hear Faulkner can be a bit difficult to keep up with.
There's nothing wrong with you...and nothing is wrong with Light In August as well...it's just that you happened to get bored from this kinda literature..while others didn't.

[Virgil]

I've been reading William Faulkner's Light In August for the last week or so. I haven't been having any problems understanding it at all. My problem is that I find it very boring. Faulkner is considered one of the greatest writers ever and so many talk about his genius for writing. However, I'm bored stiff about 2/3 through.

Does anyone else have this problem? Am I intellectually vapid or is Faulkner just "not my type"?

Ha. Light In August is one of my favorite novels. If you find it boring I'm afraid then yes there is something wrong with you. :p What kind of novels do you like then? Harry Potter? ;)

[andave_ya]

Nah, Faulkner is (don't eat me, Virgil! :D) not my cup of tea either. Or whiskey.

[Virgil]

Nah, Faulkner is (don't eat me, Virgil! :D) not my cup of tea either. Or whiskey.

:lol: No, Faulkner is an acquired taste. Perhaps in several years you may like him afterall.

[Alexei]

:lol: No, Faulkner is an acquired taste. Perhaps in several years you may like him afterall.

Why when you don't like some novel, others considered great and tell this aloud people start told you that you aren't mature enough? :lol: I have said i don't like so much "The Catcher in the Rye" and a whole forum have started all over me ;) (not this one...yet:lol: )

[Lote-Tree]

Harry Potter? ;)

Yes. At least it's not boring :D

Avada Kadabra ===> Virgilus :D

[Lambert]

Yes. At least it's not boring :D

As A.S Byatt said, The Harry Potter books were:

written for people whose imaginative lives are confined to TV cartoons, and the exaggerated (more exciting, not threatening) mirror-worlds of soaps, reality TV and celebrity gossip

Oh, and yes, Faulkner is an aqcuired taste. I adore his work personally, but it has it's dissenters.

[Lote-Tree]

As A.S Byatt said, The Harry Potter books were:


That's why AS Byatt books do not sell like Harry Potter :D

she has no understanding of how imagination works;-)

[thelastmelon]

Lambert said: Oh, and yes, Faulkner is an aqcuired taste. I adore his work personally, but it has it's dissenters.

Lote-Tree said: she has no understanding of how imagination works;-)

My question is: Is this Faulkner a man or a woman, or maybe a lovely combination? ;)

[Lambert]

That's why AS Byatt books do not sell like Harry Potter :D

But she has no understanding of how imagination works.

Really?

I almost believed you for a second, but then I remembered that Byatt has gotten a massive amount of critical praise and Rowling has just gotten a big fat cheque.

So, the imagination is in the bank account, is it?

[Lote-Tree]

Really?
I almost believed you for a second, but then I remembered that Byatt has gotten a massive amount of critical praise and Rowling has just gotten a big fat cheque.


Rowling was able to engage the imaginations of millions worldwide of both children and adults.

Byatt only is able to engage the ego of snotty critics who know the price of everything but value of nothing :D

[Lambert]

Rowling was able to engage the imaginations of millions worldwide of both children and adults.


Her prose style, heavy on cliche, makes no demands upon her readers. In an arbitrarily chosen single page--page 4--of the first Harry Potter book, I count seven cliches, all of the "stretch his legs" variety.

A vast concourse of inadequate works, for adults and for children, crams the dustbins of the ages. At a time when public judgment is no better and no worse than what is proclaimed by the ideological cheerleaders who have so destroyed humanistic study, anything goes. The cultural critics will, soon enough, introduce Harry Potter into their college curriculum, and The New York Times will go on celebrating another confirmation of the dumbing-down it leads and exemplifies.
-- Harold Bloom, Yale Professor i.e. Another "snotty" critic

[Lote-Tree]

-- Harold Bloom, Yale Professor i.e. Another "snotty" critic

Dear old professor has not been able to engage the imaginations of the few let alone millions of readers worldwide :D

[Lambert]

Dear old professor has not been able to engage the imaginations of the few let alone millions of readers worldwide :D
I'll emphasise this and be done.

makes no demands upon her readers.
I think that sums up the popularity Potter claptrap pretty nicely.

Turn off your brain for a couple of hours and stare at banality. That'll get the "imaginations" going. ;)

[Lote-Tree]

Turn off your brain for a couple of hours and stare at banality. That'll get the "imaginations" going. ;)

If it was banal it would not have enticed millions of readers worldwide both adults and children. This is the mark of how engaging her books are compared to AS Byatt.

Byatt has the engaging ability of a nun when it comes to romance.

[Virgil]

Avada Kadabra ===> Virgilus :D

Hahaha, I had to google that to find out what it meant. :lol: I have never read a Harry Potter book. It was only a tongue-in-cheek comment. ;)

[stlukesguild]

If it was banal it would not have enticed millions of readers worldwide both adults and children.

Oh give me a break. And Madonna and Britney Spears and Survivor and Arnold Schwarzenegger are all examples of masterful art because they too have enticed an audience of millions world-wide. The reality is that the masses have nothing to do with deciding which art is great and which art will stand the test of time. Harry Potter or the DaVinci Code are but publishing phenomenas which will be lost to history... period pieces like Jonathan Livingston Seagull, Eric Segal's Love Story or the Monkees. You can dismiss the "snooty critics" all you want but all such a strategy reveals is a reverse snobbery... an anti-intellectualism, which sneers at anything which
requires intellect, or achieves a high standard. You might also want to think upon the fact that all those snooty elitists are in actuality the people (be they critics, professors, artists/writers, or just art/literature lovers) who have invested some time and effort into seriously learning and thinking about the art of writing.

[Riesa]

Give me a break. You sound about as warm as a gravestone, or Schopenhauer, good lord, I am surprised you didn't mention Danielle Steele in there. As if anyone considers Harry Potter novels or Survivor in the same vein as Faulkner.

as far as Faulkner goes, I would choose to read a poetic flash of life via him than any sort of Joyce.

[BadassBookworm]

What kind of novels do you like then? Harry Potter? ;)

Actually, I've never read Harry Potter. I thought The Brothers Karamazov was facinating. The Red Badge of Courage is one of my all time favorites. Heart of Darkness is wonderfully disturbing. I do read from all over the specturm...that only adds to my anxiety. :bawling:

Well, I asked if anything was wrong with me and it started a war between a Harry Potter fan and someone who looks down upon Harry Potter fans for liking Harry Potter. As I was reading this catty little exchange, I realized that if I went around proclaiming that I love Faulkner and everyone must read him to understand what real writing is, I was be a damn hypocrite because I would be promoting something I truely never liked myself.
One can never make someone NOT love something due to another's opposing view wheter it be a book, movie or lover.
I'm not making any judgements about the posters on this thread. This was just a couple random thoughts.

FLAME ON!

[SlavetothePen]

Lambert said: Oh, and yes, Faulkner is an aqcuired taste. I adore his work personally, but it has it's dissenters.

Lote-Tree said: she has no understanding of how imagination works;-)

My question is: Is this Faulkner a man or a woman, or maybe a lovely combination? ;)

Just to clarify Melon, Faulkner is a HE. The she Lote was referring to was A.S. Byatt.
I love how Virgil unintentionally started this war and he has never even read Harry Potter! ---That makes me giggle---By the way Badass, I tried reading “The Sound and the Fury”, and could not get into it so you are not alone. Of course, that was in my younger days and I may actually enjoy it now.

[Scheherazade]

The OP:
I've been reading William Faulkner's Light In August for the last week or so. I haven't been having any problems understanding it at all. My problem is that I find it very boring. Faulkner is considered one of the greatest writers ever and so many talk about his genius for writing. However, I'm bored stiff about 2/3 through.

Does anyone else have this problem? Am I intellectually vapid or is Faulkner just "not my type"?
Let's try to keep this thread on topic.

Those who are interested in discussing Harry Potter books can do so in other threads which are dedicated to this purpose solely.

[tudwell]

I haven't read Light in August, but I know that other Faulkner novels, while difficult, are some of the most rewarding books you'll ever read. They really pay off in the end, all that hard work you put into it. And lots of Faulkner's books are so completely different from each other, I wouldn't write him off just because you found one of his books boring. If you get too tired of reading Light in August, just put it down. No sense wasting your life with something that bores you.

I'd recommend The Sound and the Fury and Absalom, Absalom! though, before writing off Faulkner completely.

[stlukesguild]

Give me a break. You sound about as warm as a gravestone, or Schopenhauer...

Personal insult... always a good strategy when you wish... or need... to avoid thinking. Cold as a gravestone or Schopenhauer? I guess I just haven't read enough hot-blooded Danielle Steele novels.

As if anyone considers Harry Potter novels or Survivor in the same vein as Faulkner.

In case you didn't notice that is just what this discussion devolved into following some declarations that unlike Faulkner Harry Potter wasn't "boring", unlike A.S. Byatt, they represented a real understanding of how imagination works, and unlike the "snooty critics" (who most probably would include a lot of Lit Forum readers) who know the value of nothing, they have engaged millions of minds world 'round (the size of the audience being equated with the artistic worth of the work).

Getting back on topic, I personally love Faulkner. He did absolutely nothing for me when I first read him in high school (years ago), but now I would have no problem placing him among my two or three favorites among American writers, and As I Lay Dying as perhaps my single favorite American novel... at least of the 20th century. In spite of my love for Faulkner and his critical reputation I would never suggest (except perhaps tongue-in-cheek) that you MUST love Faulkner and if you don't something must be wrong with you. Some artists and some works of art just do not speak to us. Sometimes we just may not be ready for them. Sometimes we may never be ready for them. Artists create for an audience that they imagine is not too unlike themselves. For some artists this audience is larger than others. Even those who make a serious attempt cannot honestly like everything that has real artistic merit. Personally, while I acknowledge James Joyce's historical influence and I certainly liked Ulysses... even loved many parts of it... he is not one of my personal favorites. I'd rather read Kafka, Proust, Rilke, Yeats, Calvino, Borges... or Faulkner. As for Harry Potter... I seriously have no interest, but would not set out to dismiss all those who do enjoy the books. My wife absolutely loves them. Perhaps a better method of arguing for the value of such work would be not to suggest that the popularity of the work should be immediately equated with artistic merit or to dismiss writers such as Faulkner and Byatt with the wave of the hand as "boring" and all those who admire such literature as "snooty" or "cold as a gravestone", but rather to suggest just what it is that one finds of such great worth to these books... but that would be another post altogether. Faulkner.... Faulkner... gotta stick to the thread.:p

[Riesa]

Okay, I apologize for the personal insult. :) I haven't read any Danielle Steele novels either so I shouldn't judge her writing as garbage, even if I do. I just felt that no one was saying that Harry Potter was considered art, only that it was more engaging than Faulkner.

[jon1jt]

If it was banal it would not have enticed millions of readers worldwide both adults and children.

Oh give me a break. And Madonna and Britney Spears and Survivor and Arnold Schwarzenegger are all examples of masterful art because they too have enticed an audience of millions world-wide. The reality is that the masses have nothing to do with deciding which art is great and which art will stand the test of time. Harry Potter or the DaVinci Code are but publishing phenomenas which will be lost to history... period pieces like Jonathan Livingston Seagull, Eric Segal's Love Story or the Monkees. You can dismiss the "snooty critics" all you want but all such a strategy reveals is a reverse snobbery... an anti-intellectualism, which sneers at anything which
requires intellect, or achieves a high standard. You might also want to think upon the fact that all those snooty elitists are in actuality the people (be they critics, professors, artists/writers, or just art/literature lovers) who have invested some time and effort into seriously learning and thinking about the art of writing.

hey, why you insist on hating my Jonathan Livingston Seagull, St?! c'mon, it's not such a bad book, admit it! Seagull keeps the reader awake, unlike Joyce's Ulysses! and Proust is a snore.

i think you're a closet Monkees fan, admit it. :p


Give me a break. You sound about as warm as a gravestone, or Schopenhauer...

Personal insult... always a good strategy when you wish... or need... to avoid thinking. Cold as a gravestone or Schopenhauer? I guess I just haven't read enough hot-blooded Danielle Steele novels.

As if anyone considers Harry Potter novels or Survivor in the same vein as Faulkner.

In case you didn't notice that is just what this discussion devolved into following some declarations that unlike Faulkner Harry Potter wasn't "boring", unlike A.S. Byatt, they represented a real understanding of how imagination works, and unlike the "snooty critics" (who most probably would include a lot of Lit Forum readers) who know the value of nothing, they have engaged millions of minds world 'round (the size of the audience being equated with the artistic worth of the work).

Getting back on topic, I personally love Faulkner. He did absolutely nothing for me when I first read him in high school (years ago), but now I would have no problem placing him among my two or three favorites among American writers, and As I Lay Dying as perhaps my single favorite American novel... at least of the 20th century. In spite of my love for Faulkner and his critical reputation I would never suggest (except perhaps tongue-in-cheek) that you MUST love Faulkner and if you don't something must be wrong with you. Some artists and some works of art just do not speak to us. Sometimes we just may not be ready for them. Sometimes we may never be ready for them. Artists create for an audience that they imagine is not too unlike themselves. For some artists this audience is larger than others. Even those who make a serious attempt cannot honestly like everything that has real artistic merit. Personally, while I acknowledge James Joyce's historical influence and I certainly liked Ulysses... even loved many parts of it... he is not one of my personal favorites. I'd rather read Kafka, Proust, Rilke, Yeats, Calvino, Borges... or Faulkner. As for Harry Potter... I seriously have no interest, but would not set out to dismiss all those who do enjoy the books. My wife absolutely loves them. Perhaps a better method of arguing for the value of such work would be not to suggest that the popularity of the work should be immediately equated with artistic merit or to dismiss writers such as Faulkner and Byatt with the wave of the hand as "boring" and all those who admire such literature as "snooty" or "cold as a gravestone", but rather to suggest just what it is that one finds of such great worth to these books... but that would be another post altogether. Faulkner.... Faulkner... gotta stick to the thread.:p

Luke, just an armchair observation: you don't strike me as a guy to be married to a Harry Potter-reader type. is it possible that you are a closet pop-lit reader too?!?!?!!! :p

[blackbird_9]

Hey now, what's with all the Harry Potter bashing? Obviously Harry Potter isn't some great literary work of art, and I would never claim it to be. I personally love both Faulkner and Rowling, but I read them for different reasons. If I've just gotten home from a 12 hour day racking my brains at work and trying to absorb the dribble lectures from my professors, I'm not ashamed to say that Harry Potter would be a very suitable read before bed. It's damn well entertaining and my brain can relax and enjoy some easy reading.
Faulkner on the other hand has a completely different purpose. When I really feel like diving into a book and have the energy to give my mind a nice workout, I'm going to read Faulkner and enjoy doing it.
These two books shouldn't even be compared. They're on two different playing fields.

[Alexei]

hey, why you insist on hating my Jonathan Livingston Seagull, St?! c'mon, it's not such a bad book, admit it! Seagull keeps the reader awake, unlike Joyce's Ulysses! and Proust is a snore.

i think you're a closet Monkees fan, admit it. :p


Wow! Proust - a snore?!?!?! This is one of the most interesting authors I have ever read, his works are wonderful and I can only strongly disagree with you. It's just fascinating how with a simple story an author can say so much things: for the life, the human nature and character, his works are always surprising, at least for me. :)

[jon1jt]

Hey now, what's with all the Harry Potter bashing? Obviously Harry Potter isn't some great literary work of art, and I would never claim it to be. I personally love both Faulkner and Rowling, but I read them for different reasons. If I've just gotten home from a 12 hour day racking my brains at work and trying to absorb the dribble lectures from my professors, I'm not ashamed to say that Harry Potter would be a very suitable read before bed. It's damn well entertaining and my brain can relax and enjoy some easy reading.
Faulkner on the other hand has a completely different purpose. When I really feel like diving into a book and have the energy to give my mind a nice workout, I'm going to read Faulkner and enjoy doing it.
These two books shouldn't even be compared. They're on two different playing fields.


that's why humans created red wine to take the edge off. go now, begone Harry Potter. enjoy a glass of Pinot Noir, a truly holistic experience. :D


Wow! Proust - a snore?!?!?! This is one of the most interesting authors I have ever read, his works are wonderful and I can only strongly disagree with you. It's just fascinating how with a simple story an author can say so much things: for the life, the human nature and character, his works are always surprising, at least for me. :)


yeah i read Swann's Way, which is absolutely awful. it's not the ad nauseum description so much as the simple fact that Proust's life was hopelessly uneventful. he ought to have spent less time standing around observing his snobby relatives' mindless self-indulgence and more time living.

as far as faulkner goes, he's another one, a good cure for insomnia. :)


If it was banal it would not have enticed millions of readers worldwide both adults and children.

Oh give me a break. And Madonna and Britney Spears and Survivor and Arnold Schwarzenegger are all examples of masterful art because they too have enticed an audience of millions world-wide. The reality is that the masses have nothing to do with deciding which art is great and which art will stand the test of time. Harry Potter or the DaVinci Code are but publishing phenomenas which will be lost to history... period pieces like Jonathan Livingston Seagull, Eric Segal's Love Story or the Monkees. You can dismiss the "snooty critics" all you want but all such a strategy reveals is a reverse snobbery... an anti-intellectualism, which sneers at anything which
requires intellect, or achieves a high standard. You might also want to think upon the fact that all those snooty elitists are in actuality the people (be they critics, professors, artists/writers, or just art/literature lovers) who have invested some time and effort into seriously learning and thinking about the art of writing.

"reverse snobbery." hey is that anything like reverse discrimination? :D

"elitists" --- i could never figure this one out. people throw this term around a lot on here. can anyone help me, what does this term mean exactly?

[stlukesguild]

hey, why you insist on hating my Jonathan Livingston Seagull, St?! c'mon, it's not such a bad book, admit it! Seagull keeps the reader awake, unlike Joyce's Ulysses! and Proust is a snore.

I can understand someone not liking Ulysses... but Proust?! Such sensuality... slow... lush... completely enveloping... it's almost erotic rather in the manner of Wagner's Tristan und Isolde.

i think you're a closet Monkees fan, admit it.

No... but I am quite in the open with my love of Johnny Cash and Bluegrass (the Louvin Brothers, the Stanley Brothers, Hazel Dickens and Alice Gerrard, Bill Monroe... yee haw!:thumbs_up

Luke, just an armchair observation: you don't strike me as a guy to be married to a Harry Potter-reader type. is it possible that you are a closet pop-lit reader too?!?!?!!!

Unfortunately I forgot to give her the pre-nuptial cultural litmus test. She puts up with living in a library and endless trips to Borders and I put up with the in-laws and Harry Potter. Now Danielle Steele or Jonathan Livingston Seagull on the other hand... that's grounds for divorce.:D

that's why humans created red wine to take the edge off. go now, begone Harry Potter. enjoy a glass of Pinot Noir, a truly holistic experience.

Ackk! We agree once more! But then again I'm actually more of a beer man. Give me a Young's Double Chocolate, a Samuel Smith (not Sam Adams!) Imperial Stout or a Ayinger Celebrator Doppelbock and put Kind of Blue on the CD player and I'm a happy camper.

it's not the ad nauseum description so much as the simple fact that Proust's life was hopelessly uneventful. he ought to have spent less time standing around observing his snobby relatives' mindless self-indulgence and more time living.

I never bought the notion of the need for the artist to have lived some fantastically eventful life to create something of real artistic merit. Many of the greatest artists have led lives without the least apparent drama. Perhaps there is something even more magical to being able to create something of artistic beauty and brilliance from the mundane experiences of everyday life (a bit like Blake's "heaven in a wildflower?"). Of course if excitement is the food for art I should be an artistic genius teaching in a big inner city urban school district. First day of school and we already had a knife incident. OK... its not a loaded 12-gauge... but we did have that last year.

it's not the ad nauseum description so much as the simple fact that Proust's life was hopelessly uneventful. he ought to have spent less time standing around observing his snobby relatives' mindless self-indulgence and more time living.

I was always fascinated with the dichotomy of the painter Vermeer's life and his art. He must have lived the most chaotic and noisy existence... never a moment's rest. He lived with 12 daughters, a wife and his wealthy, nagging mother-in-law. He ran an inn or a bed-and-breakfast which would have demanded he be constantly looking after the needs of his guests... which included the drinks from his home brewery. On top of this his acted as an art-dealer/adviser and oversaw his mother-in-law's various rental properties. In spite of all this... Vermeer's art is among the most silent... calm... uneventful... and classically beautiful in all of art history.

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/2.jpg

[jon1jt]

I never bought the notion of the need for the artist to have lived some fantastically eventful life to create something of real artistic merit. Many of the greatest artists have led lives without the least apparent drama. Perhaps there is something even more magical to being able to create something of artistic beauty and brilliance from the mundane experiences of everyday life (a bit like Blake's "heaven in a wildflower?").

Of course if excitement is the food for art I should be an artistic genius teaching in a big inner city urban school district. First day of school and we already had a knife incident. OK... its not a loaded 12-gauge... but we did have that last year. it's not the ad nauseum description so much as the simple fact that Proust's life was hopelessly uneventful. he ought to have spent less time standing around observing his snobby relatives' mindless self-indulgence and more time living.


that's a good point. my issue with proust is not his prose - which is excellent - but with his characters who lack that "something" to draw in the reader, or me. i'm not sure what it is. the only half-interesting character is Swann, but even he becomes a bore. i do appreciate how proust is able to tease out the psychological subleties and impressionistic play of time.

i don't know how you conjure the energy and patience to work in the inner city, that's a tough gig, Luke. i should know, i've worked in one. you have to eat, i suppose. :) i was willing to starve---quitting my first teaching job after a similar episode involving a deranged mother who charged into my classroom attacked a female student with her daughter/tag team partner. :alien: a real 'welcome-to-the-hood' moment for me. :lol: thankfully no knives or guns. i should be an artistic genius too after that one. hardly. :lol:

hey i'm a big Miles Davis fan! - Kind of Blue is a favorite along with Coltrane's My Favorite Things. that with a...ahem...bass ale, i'm set. :lol:

[Noisms]

I've been reading William Faulkner's Light In August for the last week or so. I haven't been having any problems understanding it at all. My problem is that I find it very boring. Faulkner is considered one of the greatest writers ever and so many talk about his genius for writing. However, I'm bored stiff about 2/3 through.

Does anyone else have this problem? Am I intellectually vapid or is Faulkner just "not my type"?

Maybe Faulkner just isn't your type. But I think Light in August is one of those books you have to work hard to get into, with worthwhile results. Sort of like Captain Corelli's Mandolin, if you've ever tried reading that - although I wouldn't put Louid deBernieres (or however you spell his damn name) up there with Faulkner. You might reach a point where you suddenly have a revelation: wow, this is actually brilliant.

I had that the first time I read Catch-22, for example. I hated that book until 2/3 of the way through, when suddenly I realised what all the fuss was about.

[Niamh]

I've been reading William Faulkner's Light In August for the last week or so. I haven't been having any problems understanding it at all. My problem is that I find it very boring. Faulkner is considered one of the greatest writers ever and so many talk about his genius for writing. However, I'm bored stiff about 2/3 through.

Does anyone else have this problem? Am I intellectually vapid or is Faulkner just "not my type"?

There is nothing wrong with you badass. Just because you didnt like faulkner, doesnt mean you are intellectually vapid. Not all writers appeal to every reader, and doesnt makes you less intellectual literarilly because you dont like a writer that someone else does. We are all different, and like different things and nobody should judge or be judged for what they like.
I didnt like Wuthering heights and got bored stiff half way through that, but thats only because it didnt appeal to me. And admittingly anounce i dont like it, because i dont see the point in saying i liked something cause everyone else does. It just takes away you individual opinion.

[tscherff]

i love william faulkner
the interesting part of him is point of view. this is especially true in "absalom, absalom" and "sound and the fury"
"light in august" is a study of racism. eventhough the story only takes place over a few days, it covers multiple generations of different peoples dealing with racism. it all centers around the character christmas who is thought to be mulato. be cognizant of the use of color to delineate levels of racism. the one real bad character is interestingly named brown.
this is faulkner. the storyline is only the means to analyze elements of life.

if you are really interested in getting into faulkner, don't be afraid to get a reference book on his novels. there are also interesting websites that give family trees of his significant families in his fictional mississippi county.
he is not light reading, but well worth the effort.
i will tell you that this is one of the easier faulkner novels. A,A and Fury are two of his best and most complex.
remember the best things are those you have to work for!

[NickAdams]

Nothing wrong with not liking Faulkner.

He's actually the only author that has engaged me emotionally, but I feel no sort of failure not connecting with those other authors.



hey i'm a big Miles Davis fan! - Kind of Blue is a favorite along with Coltrane's My Favorite Things. that with a...ahem...bass ale, i'm set. :lol:

Miles Davis/Thelonious Monk Live at the NewPort 1958-1963 (feat. John Coltrane). What an album!:thumbs_up

[Virgil]

hey i'm a big Miles Davis fan! - Kind of Blue is a favorite along with Coltrane's My Favorite Things. that with a...ahem...bass ale, i'm set. :lol:

Kind of Blue is GREAT!!

[Walter]

So is Bass Ale and so is Faulkner. And the Deathly Hallows perhaps more interesting than one might think. But it does take actually reading it to realize that.

[lisahead]

Sanctuary is horrifying. I love Faulkner, but don't start with the Sound and the Fury

Great Vermeer

[NickAdams]

Sanctuary is horrifying.

I agree. I was tense readin it. It was the first novel I'd read of his. It gave me the trust I needed, in him as an author, to follow him where ever his narrative might lead to. I've also read Light in August and greatly enjoyed it.

If you follow this man to the bottom of the human condition, he will show you humanity.

[Virgil]

I agree. I was tense readin it. It was the first novel I'd read of his. It gave me the trust I needed, in him as an author, to follow him where ever his narrative might lead to. I've also read Light in August and greatly enjoyed it.

If you follow this man to the bottom of the human condition and he will show you humanity.

I love the way you said that Nick. I absolutely agree.

[NickAdams]

Thanks Virgil. I don't know about you, but I'm hoping Faulkner is one of the authors that are eventually nominated next year.

[Virgil]

Thanks Virgil. I don't know about you, but I'm hoping Faulkner is one of the authors that are eventually nominated next year.

I was thinking of him when I nominated the USA. :)

[jlb4tlb]

hey i'm a big Miles Davis fan! - Kind of Blue is a favorite along with Coltrane's My Favorite Things. that with a...ahem...bass ale, i'm set. :lol:

"Kind Of Blue" is a treasure. Have you listened to "Round Midnight" ? A great piece from Miles.

[stlukesguild]

"Kind Of Blue" is a treasure. Have you listened to "Round Midnight" ? A great piece from Miles.

Of course. But then I'm a huge jazz fan. I'd also include Bag's Groove, Sketches of Spain, Nefertiti, Relaxin', Cookin', etc... Ellington, Monk and Davis are probably THE giants too me.

[NickAdams]

I was thinking of him when I nominated the USA. :)

Good man. I nominated Ireland for Beckett.


"Kind Of Blue" is a treasure. Have you listened to "Round Midnight" ? A great piece from Miles.

Of course. But then I'm a huge jazz fan. I'd also include Bag's Groove, Sketches of Spain, Nefertiti, Relaxin', Cookin', etc... Ellington, Monk and Davis are probably THE giants too me.

Are you familiar with Billy Strayhorn? I ask, because you mentioned Ellington.

[stlukesguild]

Of course... …"And His Mother Called Him Bill". We'll probably never be able to pin down who composed and who arranged exactly what in the Ellington/Strayhorn partnership.

[NickAdams]

Of course... …"And His Mother Called Him Bill". We'll probably never be able to pin down who composed and who arranged exactly what in the Ellington/Strayhorn partnership.

Either way, we get to enjoy the music. But it's a tragedy for an artist not to be credited.

[jlb4tlb]

"Kind Of Blue" is a treasure. Have you listened to "Round Midnight" ? A great piece from Miles.

Of course. But then I'm a huge jazz fan. I'd also include Bag's Groove, Sketches of Spain, Nefertiti, Relaxin', Cookin', etc... Ellington, Monk and Davis are probably THE giants too me.

Davis and Monk are on my short list also. Coletrane, Hancock and Brubeck are also among my favs.

Jazz and reading have been my passions for many years.

Jeff

[Virgil]

Well, talk of Ellington and Strayhorn got me in the mood for some their music. Here's one, "Satin Doll": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDDCzb3dv_Y. Enjoy, even though it gets cut off at the end.

[KidTruth]

"Harold Bloom" ... Gotta love when people quote him. Yes, he's a very well respected literary critic - probably THE literary critic.

But he's an ***. An he's named after, what? The Ullyses character? I guess that cemented his role in life at an early age. Unless your name ends with the word "Emerson" you're not likely to get any praise from him.

As for Harry Potter - I don't understand the hate. At least people were reading books. They were a bit cliched, and they didn't expand any minds (though she did try a bit at the end, with the older/dead teacher being in Harry's head and questioning whether reality was a subjective experience, or whether objective experience mattered at all.)

I admit that I cringed at every one-liner in Harry Potter books, but escapism is its own genre, and the books deserve their place in the literary canon as merited by their own success.

Why not just read the books, enjoy them, don't be a "hater," and judge for yourself? I'm more geared towards high literature, myself... But I read Harry Potter as well as my usual classics.

[stlukesguild]

Hmmm... so it is somehow a sign of intellectual weakness to quote a critic or another wroter with whom one happens to agree? Instead one should...? Draw attention to the work's standing on the Bestsellers list? Or perhaps offer our own deep insights rooted in popular culture: "It's gotta good beat, Dick; you can dance to it. I give it a 7". Personally I'm wondering why you imagine Harold Bloom as being such an a**. I admire his lack of political cant... his insistence upon reading for pleasure and not as part of some social agenda to intended to rectify the wrongs of history. I have found him quite insightful at times and will readily admit that I owe to him (or his critical writings) the discovery of some truly great writers unknown to me previous. I also have to admire his defense of the great Romantic poets at the time at which they had fallen out of grace (post-T.S. Eliot) in favor of the Metaphysical poets. Neither do I get the dig at his name... a very common Jewish name from my experience, which may be why Joyce went with it.

As with every critic... or every writer... the reader must decide what they agree with... and what they don't. Neither Bloom nor anyone is the last word in what is or is not of artistic merit in literature. I also happen to have found much of value in Walter Pater, Virginia Woolf, Samuel Coleridge, Samuel Johnson, Octavio Paz, David Denby, Daniel J. Boorstin, Edward Hirsch, Italo Calvino, William Hazlitt, T.S. Eliot, Roger Shattuck, etc... The notion of faulting someone who just happens to have read a lot... including a lot by writers who have elected to write about writing... is in most cases a lame rhetorical ploy... used by those who have read just as much but differ with what they prefer. In other words... its one scholar or intellectual attempting to portray another... with whom they disagree... as a snob... and themselves as good down-to-earth lovers of truth, democracy, and egalitarianism. Its like the comic attempt by politicians to present themselves as just reg'lar folk... in spite of their net worth of a couple 100 million dollars. Either that... or it is simply another example of the sort of anti-intellectualism, which sneers at anything which requires intellect, or achieves a high standard. In either case... YAWN!:redface:

[NickAdams]

I also have found some of Bloom's ideas interesting. Pretentious, elitist, ***, etc. I enjoy reading critics who have confidence, which is interpreted as ..... .... ... .. ^.

I don't understand why people continue to read things they dislike. I didn't like Harry Potter, so I put it down. And if you haven't read Bloom, there is no validity to your argument. "Hating" is used when one lacks a real argument.

Where were we?

Faulkner anyone?

[stlukesguild]

Where were we?

Faulkner anyone?

Yes... we have gotten off task here, haven't we? Miles Davis, Harry Potter, Billy Strayhorn, Thelonious Monk, elitism, Harold Bloom... what do they all have in common?

William Faulkner?

I just recently came across Faulkner's marvelous Nobel Prize acceptance speech: a truly powerful expression of why he wrote... and not the least comment about needing to appeal to the broadest possible audience or topping the bestseller lists:

William Faulkner's speech at the Nobel Banquet at the City Hall in Stockholm, December 10, 1950



I feel that this award was not made to me as a man, but to my work - a life's work in the agony and sweat of the human spirit, not for glory and least of all for profit, but to create out of the materials of the human spirit something which did not exist before. So this award is only mine in trust. It will not be difficult to find a dedication for the money part of it commensurate with the purpose and significance of its origin. But I would like to do the same with the acclaim too, by using this moment as a pinnacle from which I might be listened to by the young men and women already dedicated to the same anguish and travail, among whom is already that one who will some day stand here where I am standing.
Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only the question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat.
He must learn them again. He must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid; and, teaching himself that, forget it forever, leaving no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart, the old universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed - love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice. Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, of victories without hope and, worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands.
....


from http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1949/faulkner-speech.html

[NickAdams]

stlukesguild,

I have this on my ipod and posted over my desk; it's a fine speech indeed. What an epitaph to place on his legacy.

[Petrarch's Love]

Thanks for getting the discussion back to the OP St. Luke's. Faulkner's the best poster we've had on the subject hands down. ;)

[Virgil]

Thanks St Lukes. I used to have the central part of that as my signature here on lit net. Perhaps i should bring it back.

[Luce]

Has anybody read William Fawlkner? I think that Cormac Mc Carthy must have been inspired by him!
Luce

[JBI]

Faulkner, and yes, many of us here have. He is perhaps the greatest American novelist (I think) and one of the most influential writers of the modernist movement.

[B-Mental]

Faulkner is good, but I wouldn't call any individual the greatest. Sometimes I relate him to Joyce or Dostoevsky though, they all can make my head hurt.

[Ryduce]

Faulkner is not for the casual reader for sure.

I can't remember how many times I threw down The Sound and the Fury in frustration.However,once you grit your teeth and work through it,he is undoubtedly one of the greatest writers ever.He is certainly worth the anguish and patience needed to read his novels.

Since my initial frustrations,I've read maybe 5 of his novels and a few short stories.He has became one of my top 5 favorite writers.I love Light in August,but for a first timer I'd advise you to try As I Lay Dying,it seems to flow quicker than his other ones.

As for McCarthy,I really don't think they are comparable.I've only read one of McCarthy's books though,but I didn't find any similarities in thier style.

For the record,I still haven't made it through Absalom,Absalom.

[JBI]

In terms of genre, Faulkner and McCarthy book write in a Southern Gothic mode. As well, they both seem to have similar thematic elements, and similar narrative styles.

[metal134]

Faulkner is one of my favorite authors. I think McCarthy was definitley inspired by him, but I look at Cormac McCarthy as a blend of Faulkner and Hemmingway. That is, the disjointed surreal manner of Faulkner with the utter simplicity of structure (simple sentances, lack odf description, etc.) of Hemmingway.

[Kent Edwins]

I just recently read "As I Lay Dying". It was good, well worth reading. If all Faulkner's stuff is up to this level, then he is indeed a genius. And yes, my head was hurting as I read the book and tried to piece the plot together based on the difficult and sometimes seemingly meaningless first person narratives of the characters involved.

[Kafka's Crow]

I love many of the Southern writers: Tennessee Williams, John Kennedy Toole, Walker Percy, Tom Robbins etc. but I could not bring myself to like Faulkner. I 'had' to read As I Lay Dying at the university and I found it extremely boring. I hate reading about uncouth and idiotic families. Maybe if I read more of his works I might change my mind. I managed to avoid reading The Sound and the Fury back in '89.

[Oomoo]

I love As I Lay Dying. Faulkner does not have a definite magnum opus, but this is book is absolutely amazing. Pay close attention to the writing: he manages to give each character a unique voice in the way they think, the syntax, the tendency of the mind to wander, and even their psychological development as the novel progresses. I think it should have been a much longer novel because there's too much depth there waiting to be explored, but I don't know how you can The Sound and the Fury and not this one.

If you wanna start with Faulkner I suggest Light in August. It's easy to follow the plot, it's thrilling, and the style is pretty traditional.

Antiquarian: you still have to recommend me some of Faulkner's lesser known works... :) Have you read Requiem for a Nun, The Hamlet, Soldiers' Pay, etc?

[chasestalling]

Faulkner, and yes, many of us here have. He is perhaps the greatest American novelist (I think) and one of the most influential writers of the modernist movement.

To JBI:

The 'perhaps' is good; the (I think) even better. :lol:

Chasestalling

[Morten]

Very likely the most important American writer of the 20th Century. At least the first half of it. Ranks alongside the greatest writers of that period; Proust, Joyce, Broch, Woolf, Musil.

[Kafka's Crow]

Very likely the most important American writer of the 20th Century. At least the first half of it. Ranks alongside the greatest writers of that period; Proust, Joyce, Broch, Woolf, Musil.

He is called the Southern Joyce, that was what caused me to shun him. There is only one Joyce and there is only one Proust. All the rest are cheap imitations.

[Nossa]

I have two books by Faulkner, but from the way people here talk about him, I must say that I'm quite intimidated to read him.

[scfaulkner]

Hi, and hello.
I just wanted to mention, that I don't recall Faulkner ever calling himself the southern Joyce.
That would be a statement made by a critic, a teacher, or some other person who was not the man itself.
Seems unfair to judge the work of a man who was considered by many as the greatest American novelist because of an appellation laid down by a third party.

Mostly, the term cheap imitation seems terribly unfair taking into account your self proclaimed lack of experience with his work.



Note: This is my first post. Hello to all.
Note 2.0: I'm not a huge student of Faulkner's work. Loved As I lay Dying and some of his shorts, but I'm by no means an expert.

[kandaurov]

I have two books by Faulkner, but from the way people here talk about him, I must say that I'm quite intimidated to read him.

Haha, how I feel your pain, the very same thing happens to me!

[moose gurl]

Faulkner is my favorite author of all time. His works are inspiringly beautiful and incredible. I have tried to read everything by him that I can, and have two collections of his short stories. I have also read a few biographies. He is THE MAN!

McCarthy was, in fact, inspired in part by Faulkner. McCarthy borrowed Faulkner's idea of being "above grammar," and he admitted that he considers The Sound and the Fury one of the best four works in literature (his favorite being Moby Dick). McCarthy used Faulkner's idea of writing out of a single image, and allowing the image to tell the story. Has anyone read The Road? Very clearly, he studied Faulkner's form, without chapters, quotations, just dialog. Parallels Quentin's section from The Sound and the Fury. The occasionally overlap in subject matter, but McCarthy took more from Faulkner's form and style than story or plot, or even characterization. Both are incredible writers.

Faulkner's work isn't too hard, depending on what you read. The Sound and the Fury can be infuriating, especially if you are just trying to read it without any extra material. But it can be done. Books such as Sanctuary and A Light in August are a little more straightforward. Reading Faulkner is like staring at a painting really up close so you can't see the whole picture, only the brush strokes, and slowly zooming out until you get the big picture. He paints with his words, so instead of reading the words you "digest" phrases and images and you are given an image. It can be a little intimidating at first, but within 30 pages you should have the hang of it.

Faulkner the man was pretty incredible too, and drank a lot, as everyone knows. However, he was strictly against mixing drinking with writing, since he considered literature a high career. He wrote sober, which is a common misnomer--a lot of people are under the impression he drank to unleash creativity, but he adamantly rebuked this notion. Instead, he drank to escape his financial/love problems, and wrote to ease his mind. It was like another drunkenness when he was writing. But he never mixed the two.
Even though Faulkner was pretty poor (bought too much booze, and then drank because he had no money) he never wrote for money, because he thought that this would dilute the importance of his work. The only novel he ever openly admitted was a "cash-in" was Sanctuary, but it's still pretty incredible. As a result, it's a bit easier to read, though VERY CREEPY.

Ok, I'm done with my rambling, but needless to say I LOVE THIS MAN.

[Morten]

He is called the Southern Joyce, that was what caused me to shun him. There is only one Joyce and there is only one Proust. All the rest are cheap imitations.

So, you shunned him because he was compared to Joyce? That's odd. He is nothing at all like Joyce. There are parallels in style, yes, but that's it. He is not a Joyce imitation at all.

[nebish]

Just a word or two Miss Moose about Faulkner's attitude towards race would be in order. I agree,Faulkner is a fine, original, endlessly readable writer, but I do have misgivings over his views and presentation of race. McCarthy's work has some similarly questionable aspects: in his presentation of Native Americans, in his utter disregard of female significance to both personal and public history; and some of his Mexicans are suspiciously near to stereotype bandidos. However, Suttree stands apart and above all else he has published, a generous and warm novel rich in thought and compassion.

[Lambert]

Just a word or two Miss Moose about Faulkner's attitude towards race would be in order. I agree,Faulkner is a fine, original, endlessly readable writer, but I do have misgivings over his views and presentation of race. McCarthy's work has some similarly questionable aspects: in his presentation of Native Americans, in his utter disregard of female significance to both personal and public history; and some of his Mexicans are suspiciously near to stereotype bandidos. However, Suttree stands apart and above all else he has published, a generous and warm novel rich in thought and compassion.

You're confusing author and narrator, dangerously I'd say.

Faulkner created narrators that used racial epithets for the purposes of realism and thematic issues. How could Faulkner discuss racial conflict in the south in the early twentieth century accurately and intelligently without using the language that was used in that time period. In terms of presentation of race, if you're faulting Faulkner because, normally, black people in his work are depicted as servants and as having little education, then you need to step back look at a broader context. Faulkner is not saying "All African-Americans are inferior to White Anglo-Saxons and I am depicting them as such", he is saying "Historical forces created a situation where a majority of White Anglo-Saxons erroneously believed themselves to be superior to African-Americans and this is the damage it caused." Faulkner consistently showed African-Americans as better than racist characters, such as with Dilsey at the end of The Sound and The Fury, where she is shown to be morally and ethically stronger than the Compson family.

It's the same with McCarthy. You say you have misgivings about his depiction of Native Americans in his work, but you need to see that works such as Blood Meridian were praised for depicting both White Anglo-Saxons and Native Americans as violent. McCarthy isn't criticising a specific race of people, he is criticising Humanity in general.

You're criticism of his glossing over "female significance to both personal and public history" is a bit silly. You could make the same criticism of nearly 90-95% of all the writers who have ever lived. Every writer is not obligated to discuss the role of women in human history. Some chose to do so because it interests them; others chose not to because they are interested in different themes. McCarthy's work is about violence and evil. Faulting him for not finding room to discuss the role of women more is being a bit pedantic.

In your criticism of McCarthy's supposed "stereotyping" of Mexicans, I'll again say you're confusing author and narrator.

Narrators, even if they are in the third person, can be a composite of social norms, beliefs, opinions, ideologies etc. found in the novel's setting and time period. If a narrator uses racial terms or stereotypes, that does not mean the author is inherently racist or bigoted. The author is framing an atmosphere where race is an issue and where the reader examine how it is discussed.

McCarthy constantly plays with the Western genre and with the stereotypes created as a result of it. He is trying to show us how stereotypes imprint themselves in our culture and how hollow they really are.

Faulkner did not create those racial epithets; McCarthy did not create those stereotypes: History and society did. And both these writers are not attempting to perpetuate those epithets, presentations and stereotypes. They are building a frame of commentary around these issues.

[nebish]

Beyond the author exist the culture and its ideology; Faulkner was a product of his time, place and its ideology - white aristocratic superiority with a genteel paternalistic outlook.
McCarthy is, unfortunately, an unreconstructed phallocentric.
Both are guilty of ignoring radical solutions; judgement of their negligence is absolute..if you're caught speeding, no excuse others were also.

[Lambert]

Beyond the author exist the culture and its ideology; Faulkner was a product of his time, place and its ideology - white aristocratic superiority with a genteel paternalistic outlook.
McCarthy is, unfortunately, an unreconstructed phallocentric.
Both are guilty of ignoring radical solutions; judgement of their negligence is absolute..if you're caught speeding, no excuse others were also.

That's complete relativistic nonsense, and you know that. The fact that you can't see an author and a narrator as two completely separate entities, and know that the latter is a carefully constructed rhetorical device moulded by the former, shows that you have no idea how to read literature.

[metal134]

I never got the impression that Faulkner was a racist. On the contrary, I've always seen his stories, particulary a novel like "Light in August", as being a commentary on racism in the Jim Crow era south.

[superunknown]

Very likely the most important American writer of the 20th Century. At least the first half of it.
*cough* Hemingway?

I've only read As I Lay Dying a couple years ago. I'll admit I had to resort to SparkNotes cause just reading it on my own I couldn't make head or tail of it; I just thought it was weird and confusing and made no sense, but when I read through the SparkNotes it became a lot clearer. If you're going to read Faulkner I would suggest reading it with some sort of guide that will point out the details and subtleties that you're going to miss (and you WILL miss them, sometimes you might even miss the entire plot and be completely baffled as I was) on first reading. I bought Light in August last week but I don't think I'll be getting round to it for a while, I've still got lots of other stuff on my list.

[metal134]

You shouldn't have any trouble with "Light in August". Faulkner doesn't use stream of conciousness or anything like that in that one. It's pretty much as straight-forward as anything of his that I've read.

[JBI]

Faulkner racist? Are you kidding. If anything he was anti-racist, and the fact that he donated a large portion of his nobel-prize winnings to support African-American scholarship funds proves you are, a) a mediocre reader, and b) a pseudo-political complainer who talks without the facts. That's like calling Harper Lee racist, or Mark Twain, or even Walt Whitman.

[Oomoo]

Who is it that proclaims "all happy families are alike"?

[JBI]

Who is it that proclaims "all happy families are alike"?

Leo Tolstoy, at the beginning of Anna Karenina.

[Oomoo]

Leo Tolstoy, at the beginning of Anna Karenina.

nevermind... :alien:

[Morten]

I don't understand people who have a hard time reading Faulkner. He's not a difficult writer. Complex, yes, but is that not a prerequisite for all good literature? His style, in some works, might take some getting used to for those new to him, but I don't see why anyone would get a headache over him.

[JBI]

I don't understand people who have a hard time reading Faulkner. He's not a difficult writer. Complex, yes, but is that not a prerequisite for all good literature? His style, in some works, might take some getting used to for those new to him, but I don't see why anyone would get a headache over him.
There is far more to his work than meets the eye, kind of like Robert Frost, or William Butler Yeats. For instance, he usually has double interpretations, such as the fact that he reveals most things through the point of view of second hand characters, thereby distorting the truth somewhat, in addition to his stream-of-consciousness which isn't always accurate either. Yes, some of his works are accessible, but others are extremely complex, and even the easy ones tend to have complex layers that add lots, for instance Light in August has large amounts of religious content, as well as a huge amount of biblical references and parallels in both structure, content, and character.

[Ryduce]

I just realized that this is a thread I made when I was 17.It was more than likely my first thread here.

Man,I feel old.

[moose gurl]

Spoiler Warning

Woah...
First of all, Faulkner wasn't a racist. He was very much against racism, the same way he was against corrupt religion. A Light in August can be seen as very anti-religious, on first glance, but upon further inspection one realizes that he isn't against religion, but rather corrupt religion. All of religious characters in this novel have severe problems, and comparing Jesus Christ to Joe Christmas is...well, blasphemous, almost. Gail Hightower and McEachern have their own very anti-Christian habits. But Faulkner takes pity, especailly on Hightower, who strives to lead a good life, Lena, and he does so to demonstrate that he is a pious man, but has no pity or tolerance for corruption.
The same kind of subtleties can be found in his writings on race...Charles Bon, in Absalom! Absalom! does very little harm and doesn't deserve his fate at Henry's hands. Henry doesn't necessarily realize that he is wrong, but Quentin surely does, and it bothers him if no one else. It is supposed to disturb the reader that Henry committed murder, mostly based on race (although Bon was trying to marry their sister). Faulkner's reading should be read as commentary, not literal instruction.
However, I don't see how this common misconception is a reason to call someone a "poor reader" or ignorant. I can understand where the mistake was made. He can come off as very violent and racist, if you don't pick up on his sarcasm or satire. And it can be subtle. Let's try not to jump to conclusions about people's characters based on the way they interpret literature or narration...that's almost as bad as confusing narrator with author, wouldn't you agree? Same mistake, basically. So no need to attack people here.

[Morten]

I don't think complexity is necessarily a prerequisite for good literature unless you also mean "depth." William Trevor's work, and Chekhov's, is quite deep and filled with meaning, but it's pared down and not complex.

True, but even the simplicity is deceptive and veils an inner complexity.

[nebish]

Guess who said: "If it came to fighting I'd fight for Mississippi against the United States even if it meant going out into the street and shooting Negroes."

[Sir Bartholomew]

wow! congratulations! I have respect for anyone who can read Faulkner :D Why not try James Joyce next? :D

You forgot Henry James :banana: This is what you'll look like after.

[JBI]

Guess who said: "If it came to fighting I'd fight for Mississippi against the United States even if it meant going out into the street and shooting Negroes."
Yeah, and in the same interview he also said, "the Negro has a right to equality... The Negroes are right - make sure you've got that - they're right.""

Quoting out of context... Either way though, he was completely trashed when he said it anyway.

[Lambert]

Yeah, and in the same interview he also said, "the Negro has a right to equality... The Negroes are right - make sure you've got that - they're right.""

Quoting out of context... Either way though, he was completely trashed when he said it anyway.

Thank you JBI. Good to see people on this forum putting a stop that kind of ideological nonsense.

[JBI]

Thank you JBI. Good to see people on this forum putting a stop that kind of ideological nonsense.

Now you are twisting my words. I have nothing wrong with certain approaches that reveal things about texts. But this is just quoting out of context. I have no problem with people criticizing Joseph Conrad, or Richard Wagner, or any other bigot. I have problems with people doing it without any substantial evidence to support it. And either way, it is the art that matters. I'm Jewish, and I'm a huge fan of Wagner's music. There is no reason why the views of the author, unless directly linked to the actual texts, have anything to do with the quality of the work. People should judge the literature (Faulkner's being very anti-racist), and not the author.

[Luce]

I love Fawlkner, but I don't think he is for everybody and you shouldn't insist in wanting to read him...maybe it's not the right time.
"The sound and the fury" is particularly difficult, although beautiful.
And I agree you need to re-read it in order to understand it better...Much of it is poetry and it might not be what you are looking for at the moment.
..Try "The Reevers": it's incredibly funny and an easy introduction to Fawlkner.

[Oomoo]

I'm Jewish too, but I think Wagner is vulgar.

I think I was a bit too subtle with the comment about happy families. A quick glance at my profile and you'll see why. The author very often gives his own voice to his work and I think it's safe to say that Proust the man explains that other people create our social personality and that Tolstoy the person with the beard talks about families. Ronald Barthes has an interesting and very famous article about the subject but I have never read it.

With that said, we confuse racist people (Dostoevsky), racist works (The Merchant of Venice), racist characters (Percy Grimm) and racist narrators (no example comes to mind). Faulkner's work are not racist, they reflect reality accurately. Some of his characters are racist because some people are racist and it is absurd not to include racist characters in a work about the South, like Lambert said. And even if it is racist, Faulkner's work are of such rare beauty and profound meaning that nobody should care.

Mortem and Antiquarian: you are simply looking for another term: artistic complexity. Minimalistic music might be technically simple but artistically demanding; similarly, bands such as Dream Theater have great technical complexity but relatively little artistic merit.

[JBI]

The Merchant Of Venice isn't even racist... There is nothing against being Jewish in there. In fact, if anything Shakespeare is commenting on the corruption in society. The fact that Shylock happens to be Jewish is just a means for setting up the plot since there were only Jewish money lenders in Venice.

The authors voice may make it into pieces of literature, but unless he is deliberately referring to himself (which Faulkner isn't, seeing as he writes fiction) there is really no point looking for it, other than to unveil more aspects of the content. As StLukes said on another thread, which character is Shakespeare in his plays? No one knows, and it doesn't matter.

[Sir Bartholomew]

I adore all of his books, especially The Portrait of a Lady and The Golden Bowl.

I'm a fan of the Golden Bowl too, but it took me pains to get acquainted with him and how he lately wrote. I remember squinting all throughout the Ambassadors and the Wings of the Dove.