Faulkner vs Hemingway: Complexity

[Raven Falcon.]

Which author do you think , in terms of experimentation and presentation of complex themes, is superior?

It should be noted that this thread concerns itself only about the complexities of the authors' works.

I think Faulkner is more masterful, not overall because that would be very subjective and I think Hemingway is better in some other areas, when it comes to the complexities of this characters, voices, and imageries.

How do you take this?

[Alexander III]

http://www.glogster.com/media/4/17/75/17/17751755.jpg

[Raven Falcon.]

http://www.glogster.com/media/4/17/75/17/17751755.jpg
I take it as a sign of wrath.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Np, more of a sign of what might come . . . there's been no shortage of debate in another thread on Faulkner and Hemingway.

As for complexity alone, like him or hate him, I don't see how anyone can deny that Faulkner is the more complex of the two. That doesn't make him better or worse.

[Raven Falcon.]

Np, more of a sign of what might come . . . there's been no shortage of debate in another thread on Faulkner and Hemingway.

As for complexity alone, like him or hate him, I don't see how anyone can deny that Faulkner is the more complex of the two. That doesn't make him better or worse.

Well, I would like to know why do you think he is more complex?

[Desolation]

Complexity? Faulkner wins - hands down.

As Hemingway said in his famous back and forth with Faulkner, "you don't need big words to communicate big emotions." This is true. But, Faulkner deals with much bigger issues than Hemingway, and does it in a much more complex manner. Faulkner's world is very deep and very dark, there's incest, retardation, insanity, rape, destruction, poverty, racism, castration (****ing castration!)...Hemingway is a giant, but he's never delved quite that deep. His experience, however, might be more human than Faulkner's.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, I would like to know why do you think he is more complex?
Sentence structure, odd punctuation use, stream-of-consciousness, odd narrators, odd stories, all-around odd grammar. Hemingway is pretty straight-forward with his simplistic prose.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Just look at the oft cited first paragraph of Faulkner's short story, "Barn Burning." You won't find anything like that with Hemingway:

"The store in which the justice of the Peace's court was sitting smelled of cheese. The boy, crouched on his nail keg at the back of the crowded room, knew he smelled cheese, and more: from where he sat he could see the ranked shelves close-packed with the solid, squat, dynamic shapes of tin cans whose labels his stomach read, not from the lettering which meant nothing to his mind but from the scarlet devils and the silver curve of fish - this, the cheese which he knew he smelled and the hermetic meat which his intestines believed he smelled coming in intermittent gusts momentary and brief between the other constant one, the smell and sense just a little of fear because mostly of despair and grief, the old fierce pull of blood. He could not see the table where the Justice sat and before which his father and his father's enemy (our enemy he thought in that despair; ourn! mine and hisn both! He's my father!) stood, but he could hear them, the two of them that is, because his father had said no word yet:"

[Raven Falcon.]

Just look at the oft cited first paragraph of Faulkner's short story, "Barn Burning." You won't find anything like that with Hemingway:

"The store in which the justice of the Peace's court was sitting smelled of cheese. The boy, crouched on his nail keg at the back of the crowded room, knew he smelled cheese, and more: from where he sat he could see the ranked shelves close-packed with the solid, squat, dynamic shapes of tin cans whose labels his stomach read, not from the lettering which meant nothing to his mind but from the scarlet devils and the silver curve of fish - this, the cheese which he knew he smelled and the hermetic meat which his intestines believed he smelled coming in intermittent gusts momentary and brief between the other constant one, the smell and sense just a little of fear because mostly of despair and grief, the old fierce pull of blood. He could not see the table where the Justice sat and before which his father and his father's enemy (our enemy he thought in that despair; ourn! mine and hisn both! He's my father!) stood, but he could hear them, the two of them that is, because his father had said no word yet:"
That's funny because I'd just finished the piece a couple of days ago. Also, I have noted, based on my limited reading of the two authors' works, Faulkner's prose tends to be vocabulary intense. (meaning that difficult, unfamiliar words are more likely to appear on his pages)

[PeterL]

Just look at the oft cited first paragraph of Faulkner's short story, "Barn Burning." You won't find anything like that with Hemingway:



Yes, and we thank the Gods for that. Just because someone strings a lot of words together doesn't mean that that writer does it well. Hemingway would have been less wordy, and he might have said something interesting or useful.

[Alexander III]

Faulkner from a diction point of view, is more complex - but on terms of style - they are both equally complex. I mean to create what Hem does requires just as much talent as to create what Faulk does.

Minimalism does not mean simple and easy.

I mean the first chapter of Farewell to Arms is just as stunning as any of Faulkner. Faulkner on first glance always appears, that there is a lot more behind there. Hemingway on first glance, it appears straightforward, he is more deceptive than Faulkner in that sense, as with Faulkner one is prompted to think and look and feel deeper - with Hemingway, one may never feel prompted to do that, by the seeming simpleness of his style. But in truth they are both stylistically highly complex and beautiful.

I think Hemingway, however is better at ending that Faulkner. Faulkner usually begins better - but outside of Tolstoy I don't think any one is able to create as beautiful and profound endings as Hemingway in the Novel.

[JCamilo]

but that is not exactly complexity, it is oddity.

You must think this way: Poe or Stevenson, Cortazar or Borges, Faulkner or Hemingway, Joyce or Kafka, Dostoievisky or Tchekhov. Baudelaire or Flaubert.

Sometimes they have the same themes, same deepth, but the style makes then be more dark or obscure. It is he basic classicism or baroque distinction, if you want to test your theory compary Faulkner with other apparently simplistic prose writers, Tchekhov, Borges, Stevenson, Kafka or Flaubert. They all can replace Hemingway in this argument. Would the idea that the themes or characters or narrative are as complex to sustain the position of Faulkner?

[kinesj]

I mean the first chapter of Farewell to Arms is just as stunning as any of Faulkner. Faulkner on first glance always appears, that there is a lot more behind there. Hemingway on first glance, it appears straightforward, he is more deceptive than Faulkner in that sense, as with Faulkner one is prompted to think and look and feel deeper - with Hemingway, one may never feel prompted to do that, by the seeming simpleness of his style. But in truth they are both stylistically highly complex and beautiful.


Actually, it was the opposite for me, Hemingway was always great on the first reading with diminishing returns thereafter. On the the other hand, Faulkner gets better with every reading. Hemingway is more complex than he appears on the surface, but so is Faulkner and to an even greater degree. Due to the complexity and erudition of Faulkner's prose, there is a tendency among the Faulkner novice to thus believe that everything is obvious. This had led to even scholars and critics missing entire themes in his work, only to have them discovered in yet another critical revision decades later.

Take the ending of The Sound and the Fury for example. It was long the established view that the ending represented a return to order and hence a sense of optimism on which to close the novel. Only later did critics realize the clockwise and counter-clockwise nature of the scene and how that ties into the theme of clocks and time that pervades the novel especially Quentin's chapter. When considered in this light, the ending is not a hopeful return to order, but an allusion to the inevitable fatalism of time, of decay and despair. Thus, the same ending long considered a ray of optimism in an otherwise haunting novel, becomes an ineffable cry of despair, of which Benjy's lugubrious effluviums are emblematic. Yet on another level this seems cathartic for Benjy, and Jason (the modern incarnation of Compson) seems at least accepting, this, in turn, is a double-edged sword. Is it a hope of redemption through acceptance and catharsis, or merely a case of being uncognizant (Benjy) or uncaring (Jason) of inevitable torment? Is Faulkner's point, in the final analysis, that apathy and idiocy are the only feasible means of coping with fate? Or is it a testament to the endurance of humanity?

This leads to my next point, which regards quality of endings. Hemingway is very good at making an emotional ending that tugs at the heartstrings, that I will readily concede. However, Faulkner's endings are more haunting, complex, and textured of which the aforementioned is but one example. Thus we have come full circle to my first point rereadability. “Yes,” I said. “Isn’t it pretty to think so?” is a great ending, the first time around. However, "I don’t hate it he thought, panting in the cold air, the iron New England dark; I don’t. I don’t! I don’t hate it! I don’t hate it!" has a greatness that endures.

[JBI]

Hemmingway is more hidden, and more subtle in many regards. Take for instance the interesting collection In Our Time - there is a complexity linking the stories, and linking events together in that, mixed with fragments thrown into the confusion - the prose is simple, but what isn't there confuses, makes it complex beyond belief.

[kinesj]

Hemmingway is more hidden, and more subtle in many regards. Take for instance the interesting collection In Our Time - there is a complexity linking the stories, and linking events together

Likewise could be said of Faulkner's work, Flags in the Dust immediately springs to mind. Faulkner's style, furthermore, is a means of relaying the complexity and chaos of thought. Hemingway, on the other hand, is so self-conscious in his own editing of his prose that his work never approaches this level of authenticity. Thus (not entirely but to a certain degree as a result of this) was Faulkner able to create a living and breathing world that existed beyond each work into others. Hemingway gave us moments, Faulkner gave us history. Therein lies one difference, on an order of magnitude, between the two with regards to depth and complexity.

[JCamilo]

Did Hemingway failed to create worlds that lived beyond his work? I find this vague, specially mentioning a great stabilished writer. It can go as wrong as to go the extremes, Faulkner is either a genius or a howling wolf with a cold. It seems like the same mistake. What would be the argument if Faulkner was tested with other masters of simplicity or economy?

[kinesj]

What would be the argument if Faulkner was tested with other masters of simplicity or economy?

Faulkner did in fact adapt his style to his work. Sanctuary and Light in August, for example, are vastly different stylistically than The Sound and the Fury and Absalom, Absalom! Hemingway, conversely, seems beholden to his even in instances where his work suffered for it.

[JCamilo]

Oh, but that is not what I meant. I mean if the arguments used here were like... Faulkner and Kafka. The stories of Kafka seems empty, almost like concepts, many were not fully devleoped (or were meant to be), he manipulates language with craft, but I doubt he can be said to alter the perpection of time and space like Faulkner. Yet, he can create a idea about time and space as The Castle, which seems as much complex as Sound and Fury.

Was really necessary for Hemingway to be as Faulkner to be remarkable? Because it seems to me that there is a consensus about him being remarkable, so he certainly must have a level of complexity and capacity to go beyond his work which is being too easily dismissed here. I dont think we are talking about light weights here...

[kinesj]

Oh, but that is not what I meant. I mean if the arguments used here were like... Faulkner and Kafka. The stories of Kafka seems empty, almost like concepts, many were not fully devleoped (or were meant to be), he manipulates language with craft, but I doubt he can be said to alter the perpection of time and space like Faulkner. Yet, he can create a idea about time and space as The Castle, which seems as much complex as Sound and Fury.

Was really necessary for Hemingway to be as Faulkner to be remarkable? Because it seems to me that there is a consensus about him being remarkable, so he certainly must have a level of complexity and capacity to go beyond his work which is being too easily dismissed here. I dont think we are talking about light weights here...

I didn't mean to dismiss Hemingway as a lightweight if that is how it came across, merely to illustrate my opinion that Faulkner was the more complex of the two, which was the topic of the OP, as well as attempt to explain I prefer him. The fact that I prefer Faulkner does not preclude my admiration for Hemingway, in fact I do admire him and enjoy his work as well.

[Arrowni]

Complexity in literature means strictly nothing.

That said, I find Faulkner's language more complex, you need more readings to develop its taste.

[stuntpickle]

Complexity is a bad metric. It's sort of like trying to decide which of two cars goes faster based on which one has the most pieces. A car dealer would probably just look at you funny. But if you really want to know whether Hemingway or Faulkner has more pieces, it's really easy to answer. Whereas Hemingway was in the habit of carving canoes out of solid pieces of wood, Faulkner made houses out of toothpicks, so clearly Faulkner is more complex.

Hemingway's "Hills like White Elephants" is a fairly good example of his iceberg theory of fiction, in which what is presented on the page is the merest tip of what lurks below the surface. Is it complex? Probably not. But it is certainly sophisticated.

[kinesj]

That said, I find Faulkner's language more complex, you need more readings to develop its taste.

This is definitely true, I've used the analogy of Scotch whiskey in the past with reference to this. With regards to complexity, it goes beyond mere questions of diction and style, into depth of character, character interaction, and the apocryphal Yoknapatawpha.

[Arrowni]

People don't actually like texts because they're more complex, the cult of complexity actually puzzles me.

[kinesj]

Complexity is a bad metric.

Admittedly that is true, we are essentially using the term as a catch all to delineate differences between the two. In essay or oral argument I tend to be more specific, as do all of us I'm sure, whereas in a forum format specificity is sometimes not sufficiently delineated for the sake of brevity.


People don't actually like texts because they're more complex, the cult of complexity actually puzzles me.

Again, at least for me, that isn't what draws me to Faulkner per se. It is more about the characters their interactions and the level of overall detail. Also, having grown up in the deep south, much of his work resonates with me on a personal level. While many of his themes are universal, and it is certainly true that Faulkner used his setting to explore the nature of man, as opposed to the converse, the idiosyncrasies and atmosphere of that setting really hit close to home for one who came from that part of the country.

Ultimately it does come down to preference between these two, and while I generally admire and enjoy Hemingway, Faulkner happens to be my favorite writer. Literature will resonate to different degrees with different individuals, but honestly this is a good thing. The world would be a stifling and dreadful place if one opinion, or insight, was universal.

[Arrowni]

Faulkner uses his complexity for something, when complexity helps you realize something, it can be a well placed tool, but making things more complex won't help them make things more clear. Faulkner has a nice balance, because his text comes impersonal and blunt, which gives a very alien perspective -which can be a new perspective if you haven't read that kind of things-. Changing perspectives is important to become a competent reader, and arguably Faulkner helps you to that end in a different way than Hemingway does.

[brucebond007]

No question. Faulkner was a master of stylistic complexity. Hemingway was a master of stylistic simplicity.

[Rores28]

People don't actually like texts because they're more complex, the cult of complexity actually puzzles me.

I dont think this is true, at least not for me. I can like a book solely because it is complex. To love the book it has to be more than that, but for me raw complexity goes a long way.

[Arrowni]

I like the complexity in a book, but not the book itself. When faced with complexity that I like I always wonder where it may live much more than how it is used, but that by itself is no book. So I don't know, maybe an example could clarify this, personally most of the complex books I've read are somewhat mediocre.

[Emil Miller]

Reading Faulkner is like wading through mud but reading Hemingway is often like floating on air.

[kinesj]

Reading Faulkner is like wading through mud but reading Hemingway is often like floating on air.

I see it more along the lines of reading Faulkner is like reminiscing scenes from a memory whereas Hemingway is reading the headlines of a newspaper.

[Vautrin]

I've heard both sides state their case and believe I have enough information to make a decision. After careful consideration I've decided to go with Tupac.

[Arrowni]

Too much time floating into air means you are touching nothing. From the mud you can build civilizations.

I just love to tear metaphors apart.

[NiMROD]

I'm going to say Hemingway is more complex. Faulkner's writings contains these flourishing, beautiful lines that capture the complexity of human interaction and the thoughts between.

I read Hemingway and he tells so much between the lines. I find great complexity in his icebergs. From birds-eye view these 'bergs are dots you have to connect and he has so painstakingly placed them as to let the reader fill in the rest of the picture without deviating from his point.

Having thrown those two cents in though I couldn't give you an opinion on who is actually "better". They're just great. :)

[Emil Miller]

Too much time floating into air means you are touching nothing. From the mud you can build civilizations.

I just love to tear metaphors apart.

Well go right on living there in the Yoknapatawpha County mud. I'll spend my time with Hemingway in France, Spain, Italy etc. Some people are stick in the mud and others like to travel.

[kinesj]

If Faulkner's prose tends to soar and circle. involved and prolonged, if his scenes become halls of mirrors repeating tableaux in a progressive magnification, if echoes multiply into the dissonance of infinite overtones, it is because the meanings his stories unfold are complex, mysterious, obscure, and incomplete. There is no absolute, no eternal pure white radiance in such presentations, but rather the stain of many colors, refracted and shifting in kaleidoscopic suspension, about the center of man's enigmatic behavior and fate, within the drastic orbit of mortality. Such being Faulkner's view of life, such is his style.

[Emil Miller]

If Faulkner's prose tends to soar and circle. involved and prolonged, if his scenes become halls of mirrors repeating tableaux in a progressive magnification, if echoes multiply into the dissonance of infinite overtones, it is because the meanings his stories unfold are complex, mysterious, obscure, and incomplete. There is no absolute, no eternal pure white radiance in such presentations, but rather the stain of many colors, refracted and shifting in kaleidoscopic suspension, about the center of man's enigmatic behavior and fate, within the drastic orbit of mortality. Such being Faulkner's view of life, such is his style.

Wow! You've obviously been reading too much Faulkner. Have you ever thought of going into advertising?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You should know all about advertising, Emil, with your little Hemingway campaign. :rolleyes5:

[Raven Falcon.]

Wow! You've obviously been reading too much Faulkner. Have you ever thought of going into advertising?

I don't know, but non-american readers are more likely to relate to Faulkner as his stories speak of universal themes, whilst Hemingway stories are centralized on the "american" soul.

You might find this amusing, as Faulkner stories, setting wise, are largely if not almost entirely based on the fictional american south of Yoknapatawpha County, as opposed to Hemingway, whose stories have settings that range from Cuba to Spain and Africa.

Faulkner built a highly-detailed, authentic fictional universe. Creating Middle-Earth requires powerful imagination, but creating Yoknapatawpha County requires not only that, it also demands a deliberate examination upon the physical world and the psyche of the diverse persona to whom the setting is home.

Benji's part in The Sound and Fury would not be realistic if it his thoughts were represented in the same way normal people think and remember.
The same applies to Quentin's part, whereby the prose is long-winding, and to add the complexity, the narrator abruptly goes on a poetic rant at certain points. As a highly educated and articulate character, it can only be believable that Quentin's part, which represents his mind, is inhabited by long-sentences often constructed from high-level vocabularies.

[kinesj]

Wow! You've obviously been reading too much Faulkner. Have you ever thought of going into advertising?

A writer's style reflects his own perspective and worldview. However, Faulkner was capable of adapting his style to the exigencies of the narrative. For examples of this, merely read Absalom, Absalom! and The Sound and the Fury then read Sanctuary and Light in August. In his colloquial passages Faulkner is as objectively dramatic as Hemingway, in his streams of acute consciousness he evokes the perspicacious insight of Joyce, and he is superlatively skillful at both. Such is indicative of a stylistic virtuosity that Hemingway decidedly lacked.

[Arrowni]

Well go right on living there in the Yoknapatawpha County mud. I'll spend my time with Hemingway in France, Spain, Italy etc. Some people are stick in the mud and others like to travel.

Don't get me started with Hemingway's "travels", that's like loving to travel by getting as far from the places as you can possibly be and look at your belly the entire time.

You're reading too much Hemingway :brow:

[Emil Miller]

Don't get me started with Hemingway's "travels", that's like loving to travel by getting as far from the places as you can possibly be and look at your belly the entire time.

You're reading too much Hemingway :brow:

Actually I haven't read a great deal of Hemingway and, as for travel, I have travelled fairly widely and appreciate Hemingway's description of those countries I have visited that are also featured in his novels. Were I to visit the US, Lafayette County would not be on my list of places to see.

[kinesj]

Actually I haven't read a great deal of Hemingway and, as for travel, I have travelled fairly widely and appreciate Hemingway's description of those countries I have visited that are also featured in his novels. Were I to visit the US, Lafayette County would not be on my list of places to see.

Somehow I think a travel and leisure guide was not exactly what Faulkner has in mind with the conception of Yoknapatawpha. Rather, he is moving a flashlight from here to there across time and space, revealing now this, now that -- but regardless of how much is shown at any one time, we sense the pieces are all integrally tied together, and that they in turn are tied to the far larger and more intricately complex story of mankind and nature. Yoknapatawpha is no "microcosm". We don't see the world portrayed here in miniature. Rather the world is all one huge, fascinating fabric of story, and this is a piece of it.

[brucebond007]

Cripes. What an explosive subject this is turning out to be.

I will say this though - when I began reading Hemingway I was bedazzled! As I kept reading him I was merely awed. And then finally I read across the river and into the trees and kind of just felt physically sick. And I never read any more of his works. I think the pessimism gets to you after a while...

[Scheherazade]

~

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your comments

Posts containing such remarks will be removed without further notice.

~

[kinesj]

I will say this though - when I began reading Hemingway I was bedazzled!

Just to reiterate, my preference of Faulkner is in no way intended as a slight at Hemingway. Hemingway is, in fact, one of my favorite writers, Faulkner just happens to be my favorite of all. I do wish that Hemingway had been more experimental, and sometimes his work has diminishing returns on reread. However, there is no question that he has produced some tremendous work, much of which I quite enjoy.

[Rores28]

I see it more along the lines of reading Faulkner is like reminiscing scenes from a memory whereas Hemingway is reading the headlines of a newspaper.

Haha, I enjoyed this.

[Vautrin]

Which author do you think , in terms of experimentation and presentation of complex themes, is superior?

It should be noted that this thread concerns itself only about the complexities of the authors' works.

I think Faulkner is more masterful, not overall because that would be very subjective and I think Hemingway is better in some other areas, when it comes to the complexities of this characters, voices, and imageries.

How do you take this?

A unique technique in story telling can sometimes be mistaken for superior writing. A new approach to literature - as impressive as it might be - is essentially a successful gimmick. Doing it differently gets you attention and puts you on the map. However, the most difficult feat in literature for a writer is to do everything everyone else is doing, but better.

Faulkner is a first rate artist, as is Hemingway. Who is more complex? Well it depends on what you think is more important: a new way of telling a story (Faulkner) or excellently crafted prose in a more conventional narrative format (Hemingway).

In the end, it boils down to personal preference, one's definition of complexity, and the effectiveness of the author's approach in delivering the message they intended to convey.

[Arrowni]

Literature is essentially a succesful gimmick.