What can YOU say in six sentences?
oh no, not another one: first it was bradbury, now it's mr. sound and fury.
slim pickings at the used bookstore this time. thought it would be a good opportunity to catch up on the literary greats that you hear so much about (steinbeck, hemingway, etc). faulkner's is another name that comes up that i don't recall ever reading, so i picked up "the faulkner reader" and finished it off in under a week. it took me an entire day (?) to get through the sound and the fury. now i'm at the end of the book and boy.. his writing (a LOT of stream of consciousness), the time period (post civil war mississippi hell bent on not changing) challenged me as a reader. and makes me sure i don't want to write this way.
so... did you ever read his work? enjoy? what did you get out of his stories or his methods?
I loved "As I Lay Dying." Not so crazy about "Sanctuary."
Haven't drifted his way yet. I'm in a nonfiction mode now, sprinkled with lots of modern fiction...
One of these days...
Read a number of things in high school and shortly after, and read S&F in a Southern Lit course in college. Enjoyed his work very much, but I'm never sure what I "get" out of anything. It was pleasing to me to work my way through his style, and I enjoyed the story although it was a tragic and strange one. I liked the non-linear aspects. Big Literature analysis is not my strength. But I do like,"The past is not dead, it is not even past". That, and "A man is the sum of his misfortunes." Finally, "I can be dead at Oxford" has a certain appeal.
Read it again and start anywhere other than page one. Just anywhere.
I hang my head. Haven't gotten around to Faulkner yet. I know. I know. Eventually.
Faulkner is my favourite author! He is my idol. If you aren't into extremely descriptive stories and oodles of stream of consciousness, then NO, you will not like him whatsoever. Faulkner often times places his work within "aristocratic" old money families that have dwelt in that county for generations and makes sagas. Quentin, as you probably gathered, is insane so his parts are supposed to be crazy. The Sound and the Fury is one of my favourites. Sanctuary is my favourite. I like to write like him, but with a little more clarity to the diction and syntax. I started studying him in high school. I will probably write my dissertation on something of his or on him (like a bunch of others) once I get there. That's still a long ways away, though. Ha, ha. Read it again, please.
He never appealed to me; I remember delving into one of his books back in the sixties, during the era of Hemingway, Styron, Capote, and such, and never getting past the first chapter. I just read a page or two online, and frankly, I'd not waste my time on more of it. What I got out of it was not a lot, except a realization that 'popular" fiction from a certain period almost always rides on that era, and afterwards disappears from sight. Malamud is another, Styron is, as well. The only ones that I can think of worth digging into are Heningway and Truman Capote, who wrote well, and clearly.
Trust your own instincts. And no matter what anyone says, you don't have to finish a book you don't like. Really.
One of my all-time favorites. Faulkner can be seen as the direct forerunner for a lot of post-whatever fiction, but my main passion for him comes from that surrealist, bizarro prose. For me, it evokes landscapes (both internal and external) in a way that simple declarative sentences cannot. If one of the primary purposes of fiction is to put you inside a character (and I humbly submit that it is) then he's a master. Language, tone, tension--these are our rough building blocks, and my man stretched and distended each to new lengths. In so doing, he changed the idea of writing for a lot of people. I don't have any personal favorites, although I've read 5-6 of his books. Just remember to chuck your usual expectations and hold on for a wild ride!
Toby, this collection had neither one of those, so I will check them out. PS: I liked "An Odor of Verbena" of all the stories, but his "Nobel Prize Address" spoke to me the most. strange, huh?
Robert, I'm back into Bradbury for the moment... "Illustrated Man."
Angela: I will take your advice. I'm not a big fan of analyzing the writing, professorily.. But hearing what other people thought, what they enjoyed, HECK, what they'd do differently is fun for me.
Anna: I think he was defintely more interested in the characters, the STORY, than the composition, I think you're right.
Gita: no head hanging. we'll get to it.
Hi Shelby: His stream of conscious writing was part of why I wanted to read him. It was difficult (which made it less enjoyable) but I'm thinking of taking Angela's advice and start in the middle. Then go backerds.
Hi Judy: I definitely appreciate Hemingway more than Mr. Faulkner, but maybe he'll be a grower.
Bill: Had to go back and start from the beginning because I missed the important "moments" of Sound And Fury, I was so busy trying to sort each of the characters out. Once I got them settled, their actions made more sense. I'm amazed at his "method" and it's no wonder he's one of our literary greats.
After reading this short collection, I felt like a mental midget. My response to that is here. Enjoy. ?