Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by nebish
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.
*cough* Hemingway?Quote:
Originally Posted by Morten
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.
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.
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.
Who is it that proclaims "all happy families are alike"?
Leo Tolstoy, at the beginning of Anna Karenina.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oomoo
nevermind... :alien:Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morten
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.
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.
True, but even the simplicity is deceptive and veils an inner complexity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian