I read it earlier this year. Popeye intrigued me the most. I wanted to know more about him. I didn't understand the hold he had on Temple. When the end came, and his history uncovered: I felt Faulkner coped out.
Printable View
I read it earlier this year. Popeye intrigued me the most. I wanted to know more about him. I didn't understand the hold he had on Temple. When the end came, and his history uncovered: I felt Faulkner coped out.
Who else has read Sanctuary?
I'm reading it and several other Faulkner bits this summer. I'll let you know. At the moment I'm hesitating to believe that Faulkner copped out of anything, haha.
I hope I didn't spoil anything for you. 'til summer.
I'm more one for analysis than for plot. You could tell me exactly what happens and I'll still end up reading it, haha.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickAdams
I've read it Nick. But I'm afraid I don't remember to that kind of detail. It was a pretty intense novel though. I don't understand why you feel Faulkner coped out. Can you be more specific?
Virgil,
The novel was very intense. I hated everytime I had to stop reading it.
While reading the novel I asked myself, "What are Popeye's motives?"
I didn't understand his seemingly evil acts. I wanted some hint of reason. In the final chapter Faulkner reveals Popeyes childhood and his poor physical health, but with most of the focus on his mother. Now, a Freudian might love this, but I thought Faulkner try to shock the reader by forcing sympathy on Popeye's past.
Side note: Why do you think he used a corn cob?
This was the only novel of his I read. What would you suggest for a follow up. I don't want to get into the Snopes Trilogy yet.
As I lay Dying, Light in August, The Sound and the Fury, or Pylon?
They're all fantastic. I personally prefer A Light in August.
A Light in August it is. I've been curious about this Joe Christmas- don't tell me, don't tell. :eek:
While I'm no Freudian, I think Faulkner was enamored with several of the psychological theories of his day. I don't know if it's Freudian psychology that under pins Sanctuary, but Faulkner certainly was striving for some psychological development link to Popeye's perversions.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickAdams
Well, it's phallic and perverse at the same time. I found an interesting review here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C0A967948260Quote:
Side note: Why do you think he used a corn cob?
I've never read Pylon, but i love both Light In August and Sound and Fury. We did Sound and Fury as a monthly book forum selection here last year, so you can find all my great commentary. ;) But Light In August is my all time favorite Faulkner. Just look up the time line shifts (you can find it on the internet) so that you don't get confused. Let me know what you think.Quote:
This was the only novel of his I read. What would you suggest for a follow up. I don't want to get into the Snopes Trilogy yet.
As I lay Dying, Light in August, The Sound and the Fury, or Pylon?
Thanks for the article.:)
I start reading Light in August tonight. I was going to read Molloy, but I just finished Waiting for Godot and I want some variety.
Sanctuary:
I wished Faulkner explored the triangle of Popeye, Temple and Red. For me, it suggest a lot about Popeye's character.
I think this novel is way underated and overlooked as a tour de force in American Literature. It's a shame that Faulkner himself tainted its reputation, but I think the fact that he suffered with the novel shows that he really put a lot of work into it. He even lied about how long it took him to write it.
It's one of Faulkner's most influential books and the one that I read after TSAF. Both changed my life.
Hey Nick,
I voted no, but to be honest, I would have been happy sans any attempt at a back story. Popeye’s attenuated body, curt dialogue and unspeakable actions would have sufficed without the somewhat shallow look back. I was fine w/ his nebulous evil-doings, as this novel, for me, was driven by Faulkner’s deliberate cadence, suspense building technique and poetic, intricate detail to environmental images. Out of all his novels, Sanctuary is one of his most obviously sequential, but I was also left w/ the impression that he paid particular attention to painting scenes, faces and moods w/ atypical finesse. Walls, hills and streets were treated anthropomorphically, the sensations shifted in favor of touch over sight, smell over sound. His criticism of the novel as a commercial ‘potboiler’ lends me to speculate that he was compensating stylistically by fleshing out the story’s skeleton w/ tools of the trade that he didn’t typically opt for.
The long & short is that I thought the epilogue weakened things a bit. I liked his technique in vaguely describing the emotions of an event, while filling out the nuts & bolts of the detail later, but the back story was unnecessary. Popeye’s malice should have remained elusive. This novel was not one of his psychiatric studies, that’s for sure.