Printable View
The last two parts will help clear most of the confusion. It's a great book only if you can stop trying to understand it all the time. Just enjoy the snippets and random images even though they may not form a complete picture until you've finished reading the whole book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
You could also check this out.
I fear I do not find the snippets interesting enough to enjoy for their own sake, the story has failed to capture my attention and engage me. And without having some basic understanding of what I am reading and why I am reading it, I have no investment in any of the characters and don't much care what happens to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrv
This story leaves me with the impression that if I were under the influence of some mind altering substance I would like it a lot more.
It is my 2nd time reading Faulkner and well we just don't get along very well.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Muse. After plowing through one-third of the book, I just got disgusted with the whole thing and quit. I guess there must be something there, as I would hope that an author always deserves the praise he/she gets, and Faulkner gets a lot of praise, but his writing must have been over my head. I very rarely give up on books midway through, but I sure did with this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Yes I know what you mean. I presume that he must be a classic for a reason, and I am not going to claim I know better, but personally I just don't get it. His writing just doesn't speak to me and does leave me feeling underwhelemd in comparison to all the praise he receives.Quote:
Originally Posted by DickZ
three or four of his novels which most can read with enjoyment. The one I have enjoyed the most is Absolom! Absolom! It takes some concentration to get into Faulkner's stream of conscious style. I found As I Lay Dying easier to read than most of his stories, but I didn't care much for it. The instructor I had for it loved the book, and modern American fiction was his forte. For a college professor with a PhD, I found him extremely lacking in reading classic literature. But he did know Faulkner.
The Sound and the Fury was confusing to me on the first go around. So I read various notes on the novel and watched the movie with Yul Brynner. The second time through the novel was a lot better. If you are going to teach literature, you should finish the book and give Faulkner a chance. If you are just reading for enjoyment, it is not necessary to devote a lot of time reading an author who is fairly hard to digest. I have found that if you read a book and understand it thoroughly, you can make a better decision about it: what you like or dislike. If you just give up, you're allowing the book to defeat you.
I don't see the point in torturing oneself in the hope that a full reading will give a better understanding of the book. I have always made it a rule to steer clear of tedious or pretentious novels by reading literary criticism to give me some idea whether it will be the kind of book that I would find worthwhile. The only exception was trying to read The Trial by Franz Kafka which was so mind bendingly tedious that I gave up halfway and have never regretted it. A much more readable novel of totalitarianism, only at first hand, is Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler.Quote:
Originally Posted by dfloyd
What you can't abide today may be a favorite tomorrow. Darkness at Noon is a much easier to read novel than The Trial. I liked the Koestler novel much better than the Kafka at first reading (they were both read at about the same time). I just didn't understand The Trial. Years later when I read The Trial, I saw how Kafka's novel was far superior to Koestler's.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. When a person is going to teach literature at whatever level, he/she should absorb as much as possible. In medical school, the instructors make courses as tough as possible to weed out those students who can't absorb and understand the basics. In engineering, my major, heavy doses of physics and calculus the first two years separate those who will go on in engineering from those who can't grasp basic engineering principles. So I see nothing wrong in separating those who are going to teach literature from those who are taking English literature because they've heard it was easy. If you can't get through a writer like Faulkner or Kafka, You have no business teaching others. It's not a matter of likes or dislikes, but a matter of ability.
I tried TSATF a while back and quit about 2/3 in. I'm willing to give it another go, but I hope the end really does justify the means.
It wasn't that I didn't understand what Kafka was saying in The Trial, but the way in which he chose to say it that rendered the book tedious, and it is worth remembering that Koestler really did spend time in prison: albeit for reasons given by his captors. Using allegory to explain what is abundantly clear to anyone with the slightest interest in politics seems heavy-handed and unnecessary. Those without an interest in politics are unlikely to read it anyway unless instructed to by their teacher.Quote:
Originally Posted by dfloyd
Using some character outlines, I've been able so far (which isn't very far yet) to keep things relatively straight. But I'm a little confused about the carriage scene, where "Mother" is afraid to leave Quentin. Is this present-time, or a flash back? Was I supposed to understand her reason?
I think I am unfortunately too late to start reading this, looks like I will have to wait until the new year to begin with the book club.