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."
Printable View
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.""Quote:
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."
Quoting out of context... Either way though, he was completely trashed when he said it anyway.
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.
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.
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.
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.