The OP:Quote:
Originally Posted by BadassBookworm
Let's try to keep this thread on topic.
Those who are interested in discussing Harry Potter books can do so in other threads which are dedicated to this purpose solely.
Printable View
The OP:Quote:
Originally Posted by BadassBookworm
Let's try to keep this thread on topic.
Those who are interested in discussing Harry Potter books can do so in other threads which are dedicated to this purpose solely.
I haven't read Light in August, but I know that other Faulkner novels, while difficult, are some of the most rewarding books you'll ever read. They really pay off in the end, all that hard work you put into it. And lots of Faulkner's books are so completely different from each other, I wouldn't write him off just because you found one of his books boring. If you get too tired of reading Light in August, just put it down. No sense wasting your life with something that bores you.
I'd recommend The Sound and the Fury and Absalom, Absalom! though, before writing off Faulkner completely.
Give me a break. You sound about as warm as a gravestone, or Schopenhauer...
Personal insult... always a good strategy when you wish... or need... to avoid thinking. Cold as a gravestone or Schopenhauer? I guess I just haven't read enough hot-blooded Danielle Steele novels.
As if anyone considers Harry Potter novels or Survivor in the same vein as Faulkner.
In case you didn't notice that is just what this discussion devolved into following some declarations that unlike Faulkner Harry Potter wasn't "boring", unlike A.S. Byatt, they represented a real understanding of how imagination works, and unlike the "snooty critics" (who most probably would include a lot of Lit Forum readers) who know the value of nothing, they have engaged millions of minds world 'round (the size of the audience being equated with the artistic worth of the work).
Getting back on topic, I personally love Faulkner. He did absolutely nothing for me when I first read him in high school (years ago), but now I would have no problem placing him among my two or three favorites among American writers, and As I Lay Dying as perhaps my single favorite American novel... at least of the 20th century. In spite of my love for Faulkner and his critical reputation I would never suggest (except perhaps tongue-in-cheek) that you MUST love Faulkner and if you don't something must be wrong with you. Some artists and some works of art just do not speak to us. Sometimes we just may not be ready for them. Sometimes we may never be ready for them. Artists create for an audience that they imagine is not too unlike themselves. For some artists this audience is larger than others. Even those who make a serious attempt cannot honestly like everything that has real artistic merit. Personally, while I acknowledge James Joyce's historical influence and I certainly liked Ulysses... even loved many parts of it... he is not one of my personal favorites. I'd rather read Kafka, Proust, Rilke, Yeats, Calvino, Borges... or Faulkner. As for Harry Potter... I seriously have no interest, but would not set out to dismiss all those who do enjoy the books. My wife absolutely loves them. Perhaps a better method of arguing for the value of such work would be not to suggest that the popularity of the work should be immediately equated with artistic merit or to dismiss writers such as Faulkner and Byatt with the wave of the hand as "boring" and all those who admire such literature as "snooty" or "cold as a gravestone", but rather to suggest just what it is that one finds of such great worth to these books... but that would be another post altogether. Faulkner.... Faulkner... gotta stick to the thread.:p
Okay, I apologize for the personal insult. :) I haven't read any Danielle Steele novels either so I shouldn't judge her writing as garbage, even if I do. I just felt that no one was saying that Harry Potter was considered art, only that it was more engaging than Faulkner.
hey, why you insist on hating my Jonathan Livingston Seagull, St?! c'mon, it's not such a bad book, admit it! Seagull keeps the reader awake, unlike Joyce's Ulysses! and Proust is a snore.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
i think you're a closet Monkees fan, admit it. :p
Luke, just an armchair observation: you don't strike me as a guy to be married to a Harry Potter-reader type. is it possible that you are a closet pop-lit reader too?!?!?!!! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Hey now, what's with all the Harry Potter bashing? Obviously Harry Potter isn't some great literary work of art, and I would never claim it to be. I personally love both Faulkner and Rowling, but I read them for different reasons. If I've just gotten home from a 12 hour day racking my brains at work and trying to absorb the dribble lectures from my professors, I'm not ashamed to say that Harry Potter would be a very suitable read before bed. It's damn well entertaining and my brain can relax and enjoy some easy reading.
Faulkner on the other hand has a completely different purpose. When I really feel like diving into a book and have the energy to give my mind a nice workout, I'm going to read Faulkner and enjoy doing it.
These two books shouldn't even be compared. They're on two different playing fields.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1jt
Wow! Proust - a snore?!?!?! This is one of the most interesting authors I have ever read, his works are wonderful and I can only strongly disagree with you. It's just fascinating how with a simple story an author can say so much things: for the life, the human nature and character, his works are always surprising, at least for me. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbird_9
that's why humans created red wine to take the edge off. go now, begone Harry Potter. enjoy a glass of Pinot Noir, a truly holistic experience. :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexei
yeah i read Swann's Way, which is absolutely awful. it's not the ad nauseum description so much as the simple fact that Proust's life was hopelessly uneventful. he ought to have spent less time standing around observing his snobby relatives' mindless self-indulgence and more time living.
as far as faulkner goes, he's another one, a good cure for insomnia. :)
"reverse snobbery." hey is that anything like reverse discrimination? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
"elitists" --- i could never figure this one out. people throw this term around a lot on here. can anyone help me, what does this term mean exactly?
hey, why you insist on hating my Jonathan Livingston Seagull, St?! c'mon, it's not such a bad book, admit it! Seagull keeps the reader awake, unlike Joyce's Ulysses! and Proust is a snore.
I can understand someone not liking Ulysses... but Proust?! Such sensuality... slow... lush... completely enveloping... it's almost erotic rather in the manner of Wagner's Tristan und Isolde.
i think you're a closet Monkees fan, admit it.
No... but I am quite in the open with my love of Johnny Cash and Bluegrass (the Louvin Brothers, the Stanley Brothers, Hazel Dickens and Alice Gerrard, Bill Monroe... yee haw!:thumbs_up
Luke, just an armchair observation: you don't strike me as a guy to be married to a Harry Potter-reader type. is it possible that you are a closet pop-lit reader too?!?!?!!!
Unfortunately I forgot to give her the pre-nuptial cultural litmus test. She puts up with living in a library and endless trips to Borders and I put up with the in-laws and Harry Potter. Now Danielle Steele or Jonathan Livingston Seagull on the other hand... that's grounds for divorce.:D
that's why humans created red wine to take the edge off. go now, begone Harry Potter. enjoy a glass of Pinot Noir, a truly holistic experience.
Ackk! We agree once more! But then again I'm actually more of a beer man. Give me a Young's Double Chocolate, a Samuel Smith (not Sam Adams!) Imperial Stout or a Ayinger Celebrator Doppelbock and put Kind of Blue on the CD player and I'm a happy camper.
it's not the ad nauseum description so much as the simple fact that Proust's life was hopelessly uneventful. he ought to have spent less time standing around observing his snobby relatives' mindless self-indulgence and more time living.
I never bought the notion of the need for the artist to have lived some fantastically eventful life to create something of real artistic merit. Many of the greatest artists have led lives without the least apparent drama. Perhaps there is something even more magical to being able to create something of artistic beauty and brilliance from the mundane experiences of everyday life (a bit like Blake's "heaven in a wildflower?"). Of course if excitement is the food for art I should be an artistic genius teaching in a big inner city urban school district. First day of school and we already had a knife incident. OK... its not a loaded 12-gauge... but we did have that last year.
it's not the ad nauseum description so much as the simple fact that Proust's life was hopelessly uneventful. he ought to have spent less time standing around observing his snobby relatives' mindless self-indulgence and more time living.
I was always fascinated with the dichotomy of the painter Vermeer's life and his art. He must have lived the most chaotic and noisy existence... never a moment's rest. He lived with 12 daughters, a wife and his wealthy, nagging mother-in-law. He ran an inn or a bed-and-breakfast which would have demanded he be constantly looking after the needs of his guests... which included the drinks from his home brewery. On top of this his acted as an art-dealer/adviser and oversaw his mother-in-law's various rental properties. In spite of all this... Vermeer's art is among the most silent... calm... uneventful... and classically beautiful in all of art history.
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k2...kesguild/2.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
that's a good point. my issue with proust is not his prose - which is excellent - but with his characters who lack that "something" to draw in the reader, or me. i'm not sure what it is. the only half-interesting character is Swann, but even he becomes a bore. i do appreciate how proust is able to tease out the psychological subleties and impressionistic play of time.
i don't know how you conjure the energy and patience to work in the inner city, that's a tough gig, Luke. i should know, i've worked in one. you have to eat, i suppose. :) i was willing to starve---quitting my first teaching job after a similar episode involving a deranged mother who charged into my classroom attacked a female student with her daughter/tag team partner. :alien: a real 'welcome-to-the-hood' moment for me. :lol: thankfully no knives or guns. i should be an artistic genius too after that one. hardly. :lol:
hey i'm a big Miles Davis fan! - Kind of Blue is a favorite along with Coltrane's My Favorite Things. that with a...ahem...bass ale, i'm set. :lol:
Maybe Faulkner just isn't your type. But I think Light in August is one of those books you have to work hard to get into, with worthwhile results. Sort of like Captain Corelli's Mandolin, if you've ever tried reading that - although I wouldn't put Louid deBernieres (or however you spell his damn name) up there with Faulkner. You might reach a point where you suddenly have a revelation: wow, this is actually brilliant.Quote:
Originally Posted by BadassBookworm
I had that the first time I read Catch-22, for example. I hated that book until 2/3 of the way through, when suddenly I realised what all the fuss was about.
There is nothing wrong with you badass. Just because you didnt like faulkner, doesnt mean you are intellectually vapid. Not all writers appeal to every reader, and doesnt makes you less intellectual literarilly because you dont like a writer that someone else does. We are all different, and like different things and nobody should judge or be judged for what they like.Quote:
Originally Posted by BadassBookworm
I didnt like Wuthering heights and got bored stiff half way through that, but thats only because it didnt appeal to me. And admittingly anounce i dont like it, because i dont see the point in saying i liked something cause everyone else does. It just takes away you individual opinion.
i love william faulkner
the interesting part of him is point of view. this is especially true in "absalom, absalom" and "sound and the fury"
"light in august" is a study of racism. eventhough the story only takes place over a few days, it covers multiple generations of different peoples dealing with racism. it all centers around the character christmas who is thought to be mulato. be cognizant of the use of color to delineate levels of racism. the one real bad character is interestingly named brown.
this is faulkner. the storyline is only the means to analyze elements of life.
if you are really interested in getting into faulkner, don't be afraid to get a reference book on his novels. there are also interesting websites that give family trees of his significant families in his fictional mississippi county.
he is not light reading, but well worth the effort.
i will tell you that this is one of the easier faulkner novels. A,A and Fury are two of his best and most complex.
remember the best things are those you have to work for!
Nothing wrong with not liking Faulkner.
He's actually the only author that has engaged me emotionally, but I feel no sort of failure not connecting with those other authors.
Miles Davis/Thelonious Monk Live at the NewPort 1958-1963 (feat. John Coltrane). What an album!:thumbs_upQuote:
Originally Posted by jon1jt
Kind of Blue is GREAT!!Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1jt
So is Bass Ale and so is Faulkner. And the Deathly Hallows perhaps more interesting than one might think. But it does take actually reading it to realize that.
Sanctuary is horrifying. I love Faulkner, but don't start with the Sound and the Fury
Great Vermeer
I agree. I was tense readin it. It was the first novel I'd read of his. It gave me the trust I needed, in him as an author, to follow him where ever his narrative might lead to. I've also read Light in August and greatly enjoyed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by lisahead
If you follow this man to the bottom of the human condition, he will show you humanity.
I love the way you said that Nick. I absolutely agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickAdams
Thanks Virgil. I don't know about you, but I'm hoping Faulkner is one of the authors that are eventually nominated next year.
I was thinking of him when I nominated the USA. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by NickAdams
"Kind Of Blue" is a treasure. Have you listened to "Round Midnight" ? A great piece from Miles.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1jt
"Kind Of Blue" is a treasure. Have you listened to "Round Midnight" ? A great piece from Miles.
Of course. But then I'm a huge jazz fan. I'd also include Bag's Groove, Sketches of Spain, Nefertiti, Relaxin', Cookin', etc... Ellington, Monk and Davis are probably THE giants too me.
Good man. I nominated Ireland for Beckett.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Are you familiar with Billy Strayhorn? I ask, because you mentioned Ellington.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Of course... …"And His Mother Called Him Bill". We'll probably never be able to pin down who composed and who arranged exactly what in the Ellington/Strayhorn partnership.
Either way, we get to enjoy the music. But it's a tragedy for an artist not to be credited.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Davis and Monk are on my short list also. Coletrane, Hancock and Brubeck are also among my favs.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Jazz and reading have been my passions for many years.
Jeff
Well, talk of Ellington and Strayhorn got me in the mood for some their music. Here's one, "Satin Doll": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDDCzb3dv_Y. Enjoy, even though it gets cut off at the end.
"Harold Bloom" ... Gotta love when people quote him. Yes, he's a very well respected literary critic - probably THE literary critic.
But he's an ***. An he's named after, what? The Ullyses character? I guess that cemented his role in life at an early age. Unless your name ends with the word "Emerson" you're not likely to get any praise from him.
As for Harry Potter - I don't understand the hate. At least people were reading books. They were a bit cliched, and they didn't expand any minds (though she did try a bit at the end, with the older/dead teacher being in Harry's head and questioning whether reality was a subjective experience, or whether objective experience mattered at all.)
I admit that I cringed at every one-liner in Harry Potter books, but escapism is its own genre, and the books deserve their place in the literary canon as merited by their own success.
Why not just read the books, enjoy them, don't be a "hater," and judge for yourself? I'm more geared towards high literature, myself... But I read Harry Potter as well as my usual classics.
Hmmm... so it is somehow a sign of intellectual weakness to quote a critic or another wroter with whom one happens to agree? Instead one should...? Draw attention to the work's standing on the Bestsellers list? Or perhaps offer our own deep insights rooted in popular culture: "It's gotta good beat, Dick; you can dance to it. I give it a 7". Personally I'm wondering why you imagine Harold Bloom as being such an a**. I admire his lack of political cant... his insistence upon reading for pleasure and not as part of some social agenda to intended to rectify the wrongs of history. I have found him quite insightful at times and will readily admit that I owe to him (or his critical writings) the discovery of some truly great writers unknown to me previous. I also have to admire his defense of the great Romantic poets at the time at which they had fallen out of grace (post-T.S. Eliot) in favor of the Metaphysical poets. Neither do I get the dig at his name... a very common Jewish name from my experience, which may be why Joyce went with it.
As with every critic... or every writer... the reader must decide what they agree with... and what they don't. Neither Bloom nor anyone is the last word in what is or is not of artistic merit in literature. I also happen to have found much of value in Walter Pater, Virginia Woolf, Samuel Coleridge, Samuel Johnson, Octavio Paz, David Denby, Daniel J. Boorstin, Edward Hirsch, Italo Calvino, William Hazlitt, T.S. Eliot, Roger Shattuck, etc... The notion of faulting someone who just happens to have read a lot... including a lot by writers who have elected to write about writing... is in most cases a lame rhetorical ploy... used by those who have read just as much but differ with what they prefer. In other words... its one scholar or intellectual attempting to portray another... with whom they disagree... as a snob... and themselves as good down-to-earth lovers of truth, democracy, and egalitarianism. Its like the comic attempt by politicians to present themselves as just reg'lar folk... in spite of their net worth of a couple 100 million dollars. Either that... or it is simply another example of the sort of anti-intellectualism, which sneers at anything which requires intellect, or achieves a high standard. In either case... YAWN!:redface:
I also have found some of Bloom's ideas interesting. Pretentious, elitist, ***, etc. I enjoy reading critics who have confidence, which is interpreted as ..... .... ... .. ^.
I don't understand why people continue to read things they dislike. I didn't like Harry Potter, so I put it down. And if you haven't read Bloom, there is no validity to your argument. "Hating" is used when one lacks a real argument.
Where were we?
Faulkner anyone?
Where were we?
Faulkner anyone?
Yes... we have gotten off task here, haven't we? Miles Davis, Harry Potter, Billy Strayhorn, Thelonious Monk, elitism, Harold Bloom... what do they all have in common?
William Faulkner?
I just recently came across Faulkner's marvelous Nobel Prize acceptance speech: a truly powerful expression of why he wrote... and not the least comment about needing to appeal to the broadest possible audience or topping the bestseller lists:
William Faulkner's speech at the Nobel Banquet at the City Hall in Stockholm, December 10, 1950
I feel that this award was not made to me as a man, but to my work - a life's work in the agony and sweat of the human spirit, not for glory and least of all for profit, but to create out of the materials of the human spirit something which did not exist before. So this award is only mine in trust. It will not be difficult to find a dedication for the money part of it commensurate with the purpose and significance of its origin. But I would like to do the same with the acclaim too, by using this moment as a pinnacle from which I might be listened to by the young men and women already dedicated to the same anguish and travail, among whom is already that one who will some day stand here where I am standing.
Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only the question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat.
He must learn them again. He must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid; and, teaching himself that, forget it forever, leaving no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart, the old universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed - love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice. Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, of victories without hope and, worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands.
....
from http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/l...er-speech.html
stlukesguild,
I have this on my ipod and posted over my desk; it's a fine speech indeed. What an epitaph to place on his legacy.
Thanks for getting the discussion back to the OP St. Luke's. Faulkner's the best poster we've had on the subject hands down. ;)
Thanks St Lukes. I used to have the central part of that as my signature here on lit net. Perhaps i should bring it back.
Has anybody read William Fawlkner? I think that Cormac Mc Carthy must have been inspired by him!
Luce
Faulkner, and yes, many of us here have. He is perhaps the greatest American novelist (I think) and one of the most influential writers of the modernist movement.
Faulkner is good, but I wouldn't call any individual the greatest. Sometimes I relate him to Joyce or Dostoevsky though, they all can make my head hurt.
Faulkner is not for the casual reader for sure.
I can't remember how many times I threw down The Sound and the Fury in frustration.However,once you grit your teeth and work through it,he is undoubtedly one of the greatest writers ever.He is certainly worth the anguish and patience needed to read his novels.
Since my initial frustrations,I've read maybe 5 of his novels and a few short stories.He has became one of my top 5 favorite writers.I love Light in August,but for a first timer I'd advise you to try As I Lay Dying,it seems to flow quicker than his other ones.
As for McCarthy,I really don't think they are comparable.I've only read one of McCarthy's books though,but I didn't find any similarities in thier style.
For the record,I still haven't made it through Absalom,Absalom.