William Faulkner

[antonius]

I was surprised that this website doesn't have William Faulkner among the other great thinkers...
I enjoyed his novels a lot...
He stands among the best American writers...
Do you agree with me?

[Logos]

William Faulkner (1897-1962) does not have any works in the public domain which is why you won't see any of them on LitNet :)

Mod note: thread moved from "Book Requests" forum...

[Riesa]

doesn't that get old? I was all excited about a new Faulkner thread. :(

[mayneverhave]

Here you go,

Faulkner was a good writer.

[semi-fly]

I can understand not having eBooks, etc. on the site but what of general discussion of the author and/or individual works (novels or poems)?

[Bumbeli]

Just start it!
I really enjoyed Light in August a few months ago, although I read it in german.
Just yesterday I got myself The Sound and the Fury and a few days back I ordered As I lay dying, really looking forward to those books.

[semi-fly]

Are there any suggestions for which William Faulkner book to read after Light in August? I have As I Lay Dying on my to-read list but are there any other books I should read prior to it?

[Bumbeli]

I heard As I lay dying and The Sound and the Fury are pretty much the peak of his work, so I think there can't be anything wrong with reading either one of those, but I don't really know Faulkner very good, so someone knowing a little bit more about him might give you a better advice.

[mayneverhave]

I would recommend The Sound and the Fury, as it is my favorite novel, but As I Lay Dying and Absalom, Absalom! are also very good.

[Dark Muse]

I do not wish to judge an author based on only one book, I am not that familair with Faulkner but I am nearly done with Light in August now and from what I have read I was not completely blown away impressed and do not think his writing ranks above other American authors I have read.

I do not by any means say it is bad and that I am not enjoying it, but I was not really gripped into the story, and it does feel a bit slow, there are moments of some interest, and bits of particuarly good prose but I am not overly impressed.

I will say that his plot is complex and it is interesting the way in which some of his ideas are woven together, and ther interconnections and the development of his characters.

While reading this book I find myself on the fence and waver back and forth about him.

[semi-fly]

I do not wish to judge an author based on only one book, I am not that familiar with Faulkner but I am nearly down with Light in August now and from what I have read I was not completely blown away impressed and do not think his writing ranks above other American authors I have read.

I do not by any means say it is bad and that I am not enjoying it, but I was not really gripped into the story, and it does feel a bit slow, there are moments of some interest, and bits of particularly good prose but I am not overly impressed.

I will say that his plot is complex and it is interesting the way in which some of his ideas are woven together, and the interconnections and the development of his characters.

While reading this book I find myself on the fence and waver back and forth about him.
I have had similar thoughts while reading the book, like you I do not wish to simply judge him after reading just one of his books thus my asking for recommendations for other books of his. After another two or three books if I feel the same way as I do now about the author I will most likely discontinue reading any of his other work save for his poetry perhaps.

[Joreads]

I have had similar thoughts while reading the book, like you I do not wish to simply judge him after reading just one of his books thus my asking for recommendations for other books of his. After another two or three books if I feel the same way as I do now about the author I will most likely discontinue reading any of his other work save for his poetry perhaps.

I am glad it is not just me. I am going to read some of his other works at least I am telling myself that I will

[mayneverhave]

This isn't Dickens. In Faulkner, plot takes a backseat to the intricacies of the writing and the poetry of the language. This is especially evident in Absalom, Absalom! where sentences are so complex that they actually become the content of the novel itself and we see the "truth" of the plot of the novel questioned in the endless reverberations and ruminations of the mind.

In the Sound and the Fury, it is again character and language driven. It is a work of the greatest pathos, and struck me in a way that no other work has ever struck me.

That being said, I have not read A Light In August (backed up with uni. reading at the moment) so I can not mount an adequate defence.

[Virgil]

Don't underestimate the plot. It's true about the writing, the language, the characters, the psychology, but plot is very important as well. Things happen and develop. Nothing is static from beginning to end in a Faulkner novel. It's just that Faulkner has a way of keeping it under the radar. In fact I would encourage you to look for the plot and draw conclusions from it. Faulkner is a full novelist. He uses every tool.

[JBI]

I find in Faulkner Plot is more premise than centre - sure the plot is forgrounded and essential, but the actual plot content, in terms of the graphs they teach one to draw in gradeschool, is rather pointless. The narrative functions around how characters are formed by the plot, now how the plot is formed by the characters, and because of that, it would seem the plot is backdrop for the characters, rather than the characters support for the plot. In keeping with that, it could be said that the journey in As I lay Dying, the odyssey, is a mere exploration for the characters personal journeys, from before Addie dyed, to after, and the plot serves to create a focus, a common interest, as they all adapt to their lives - Darl and Jewel to Maturity, Dewey Dell to pregnancy, and to coming to terms with her condition, and the loss of innocence, and the unmasking of the ugliness of the world, Vardaman to the trauma of losing a mother at such a young age, and Cash towards a more balanced life, after his leg is essentially destroyed by the cement, and he realizes one needs to move away from the cold utilitarianism perspective of his previous self.

The most static main character then, is Anse, who really doesn't change much. The journey, the trip to Jefferson then, acts as a bringing together of the whole family, serving as a structure for the family narrative Faulkner was trying to create.

[Joreads]

Don't underestimate the plot. It's true about the writing, the language, the characters, the psychology, but plot is very important as well. Things happen and develop. Nothing is static from beginning to end in a Faulkner novel. It's just that Faulkner has a way of keeping it under the radar. In fact I would encourage you to look for the plot and draw conclusions from it. Faulkner is a full novelist. He uses every tool.

Your right Virgil. I am looking forward to the discussion it is amazing talking to people who have read the same book as you and finding out what they saw and you missed.

[arabian night]

Guys I did not want to open a new thread since this one is already available, but i have a favour to ask..

I am trying to find some books that analyses Faulkner's Sutpen and Bronte's Heathcliff ..Can you suggest any? I'd appreciate it!

Thank you so much in advance


Bushra Al-Sayegh

[atena_63]

I love his novels . I've read : As I lay Dying " and " The Sound And The Fury " .
As you know Falkner is an impressionist writer . his use of " stream of consciousness " makes it difficult to catch the straight meaning of the novels . in these novels the author concentrates on the description of transitory mental impressions as felt by an observer , rather than on the explanation of their external causes . Actually in these kind of novels we 're dealt with mental life of the characters which is disjointed and intuitive rather than logical . :)

[DisPater]

I love his novels . I've read : As I lay Dying " and " The Sound And The Fury " .
As you know Falkner is an impressionist writer . his use of " stream of consciousness " makes it difficult to catch the straight meaning of the novels . in these novels the author concentrates on the description of transitory mental impressions as felt by an observer , rather than on the explanation of their external causes . Actually in these kind of novels we 're dealt with mental life of the characters which is disjointed and intuitive rather than logical . :)

question: and where is impressionism in "As I Lay Dying"?
and the most important: in a novel (or poetry), who cares about the author?

[oopsycandy]

I'm reading Light in August for the discussion thread that was started a few weeks ago. I have to admit I really preferred As I lay dying.

The problem I'm having with Light in August is character based, some of them seem almost farcical to me, saying that I really like the actual writing and language that Faulkner uses and find myself re-reading paragraphs as sometimes the words don't seem to make a lot of sense but the feeling is carried across

[atena_63]

I agree with u ( DisPater ) . in terms of which literary school can we analyze the novel ?

[DisPater]

I agree with u ( DisPater ) . in terms of which literary school can we analyze the novel ?

impressionism is not a "literary school". "Russian formalism" or "Circle of Prague" were schools.
and again, who said that we must analyze a novel (or book) through the terms of a certain literary school?!
impressionism is literary movement that proved (in time) to be a inefficient way in analyzing a book. where do you place the perspective of the narrator in the impressionism? what you do with the metatext in the impressionist approach? and so on....
in my opinion, the best way to "look" at a book (novel in this case) is though the "lenses" of structuralism/post-structuralism. impressionism is a big waste of time; but, of course, this is only my opinion.

[atena_63]

impressionism is not a "literary school". "Russian formalism" or "Circle of Prague" were schools.
and again, who said that we must analyze a novel (or book) through the terms of a certain literary school?!
impressionism is literary movement that proved (in time) to be a inefficient way in analyzing a book. where do you place the perspective of the narrator in the impressionism? what you do with the metatext in the impressionist approach? and so on....
in my opinion, the best way to "look" at a book (novel in this case) is though the "lenses" of structuralism/post-structuralism. impressionism is a big waste of time; but, of course, this is only my opinion.


You mean that the best way of analyzing a literary work is through structuralism ?
I don’t know much about structuralism but so far as I know it is a scientific method and in structuralism the critic doesn’t pay attention to the meaning of the text .Actually it is the analysis of the structure not the content and meaning . don't you think that a criticism based on formalism and structuralism is somehow prosaic ?

[JBI]

You mean that the best way of analyzing a literary work is through structuralism ?
I don’t know much about structuralism but so far as I know it is a scientific method and in structuralism the critic doesn’t pay attention to the meaning of the text .Actually it is the analysis of the structure not the content and meaning . don't you think that a criticism based on formalism and structuralism is somehow prosaic ?

Depends where you stand. Structuralism is useful, but isn't the only method. Generally there isn't a "best way" and most contemporary critics, if they are any good, don't only stick to one method, though perhaps for scholarship, they may focus on one aspect, especially if they are working with older texts. Really though, post-structuralism, and deconstructionism especially are far better than Structuralism (I say that in the Frye sense). Deconstruction takes into account structuralism, but gets beyond it.

[JBI]

impressionism is not a "literary school". "Russian formalism" or "Circle of Prague" were schools.
and again, who said that we must analyze a novel (or book) through the terms of a certain literary school?!
impressionism is literary movement that proved (in time) to be a inefficient way in analyzing a book. where do you place the perspective of the narrator in the impressionism? what you do with the metatext in the impressionist approach? and so on....
in my opinion, the best way to "look" at a book (novel in this case) is though the "lenses" of structuralism/post-structuralism. impressionism is a big waste of time; but, of course, this is only my opinion.

Impressionism in literature I find to be not a school, but a style. If you divide the prose styles in English into categories, you come up with really 4 for novels.

1) didactic: Mostly 18th century and early 19th century, Tom Jones, Pamela, The History of Emily Montague, and almost all the so called "novels of ideas". This is pretty much dead now.

2) low mimetic: Generally comic, and not focused on drama, but focused on "low born" characters, or non-classical heroes. A good example would be anything by Jane Austen, or Henry James (who was a great admirer of Austen), and comedic literature in general, especially those doing with marriage, and manners.

3) high mimetic: Heavy drama, usually tragic, dealing with high heroes, in the classical sense. Much of late-19th century fiction, such as works by Hardy, and some of Dickens, and Frankenstein by Mary Shelley.

4) impressionist: a 20th century phenomenon in general, basically the prose is formed around a perception, or impression of the focalizer. I think of Joyce, Faulkner, or Virgina Woolf is this case. Stream of Consciousness in general is an impressionist mode.

Of course, when dealing with an impression, one must realize that it isn't as reliable as past fiction. The 19th century for the most part is dominated by omniscient narrators, leaving the text unambiguous. But when you deal with impressions, there is a lot more room for interpretation, or unreliability.


As it is though, Impressionism in literature, like I have said, is more of a style than anything else. Stream of Consciousness is a very impressionistic attribute, given that it is portraying an impression of thoughts and events from a heavily focalized medium.

[DisPater]

@JBI, did I said that "impressionism" is a literary school? I said 'movement', which is a different thing. But, in a way, you are right. It can be considered a style; but as style, I think, we tend to minimize some of its aspects.
Yes, Virginia Woolf is an impressionist writer, but I do not consider Joyce and Faulkner impressionist writers. The way in which Woolf uses stream of consciousness technique is different from Joyce and Faulkner; or is this way seems to me.

@atena_63, what meaning? A novel has only one meaning? There is a universal truth in a novel, a universal truth that we all must accept it because someone said that? The meaning of a novel differs from reader to reader. It is different even to the author, when the author re-reads his work after a period of time (see Wolfgang Iser's Acts of Reading).
I consider structuralism/post-structuralism a much better approach because it is oriented toward the text.