it's functionally incomprehensible until you begin to acclimate somewhere around the middle of chapter 2
then you'll need to start over at chapter 1 once you can understand what's being said
once you get close to the halfway point you should be fully acclimated
by then reading it should be somewhere between mildly challenging and effortless
though I am a southerner so I could be biased
to me, this book came across as front porch gossip put to paper
Similar to all Faulkner, some parts just aren't meant to be understood. The final section is great because you finally get a companion Quinten is talking to who is able to directly ask what the hell is going on.
>The final section is great because you finally get a companion Quinten is talking to who is able to directly ask what the hell is going on.
Yeah and then that companion starts making shit up and saying things like >thank God you can flee, can escape from that massy five-foot-thick maggot-cheesy solidarity which overlays the earth, in which men and women in couples are ranked like ninepins; thanks to whatever Gods for that masculine hipless tapering peg which fits light and glib to move where the cartridge-chambered hips of women hold them fast
I still don't know why the solidarity is maggot-cheesy
I understand the bit about dicks and pussies, but if you could explain the maggot-cheesy solidarity I'd appreciate it, I finished the book months ago but I still can't parse that one line.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Maggot cheese used to be pretty common, either intentionally or as a byproduct of the South being hell on earth. It's a thick mess of a cheese with maggots running through it, it's a visceral image.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Got it, that makes sense. Thanks. I associate "maggot cheese" with that fricked up Sardinian delicacy where the maggots are inside the cheese. I didn't know the other context.
why isn't Faulkner that often mentioned or discussed as one of the greatest writers of all time?
there are tons of writers, often contemporaries of his, who are more broadly discussed (Hemingway or Fitzgerald, for instance), but who never wrote anything close to what he acomplished
is it because of the themes in his books? is it because they're seen as too difficult? too american maybe?
People who actually read literary fiction universally hold Faulker in higher regard than those other two, probably higher than any other 20th century American.
People who don't read heavy fiction have a pretty vague picture of him, they know he's important and highly praised but not much more than that, which is fair since his work is so specific to literary form and difficult to break down in other terms. He's also much too hard for all but a handful of American schoolkids, and would be awkward to fit into a foreign curriculum, so we don't have generation after generation exposed to him like a Fitzgerald type.
At least he's not in danger of being forgotten, like so many other talented writers of his era.
Hemingway and Steinbeck have 2 things going for them which Faulkner doesn’t-none of which are related to actual literary talent. 1.) 90% of American High School students will have assigned to read at least one of them before they graduate (often both). 2.) they lived lavish lifestyles which gives them a tabloid/TMZ appeal.
Faulkner was eccentric but largely kept to himself and didn’t bother globe-trotting, being a party animal, or running around in gay literary circles which were all the rage at the time. Faulkner is also just far more difficult to get into and acts as a pleb filter. You can’t expect HS English teachers to teach a writer they themselves don’t even understand.
But OP hits on something true. Absolom! Absolom! and Light in August are his best
Faulkner's more challenging prose filters a lot of people, especially critics.
The reason they love Hemingway is because he writes so simply, even they can understand.
He was the guy
10/10
Faulkner was a madman
This was my favourite novel when I was abt 23. Should I reread it?
Did Ellen's father abuse her?
He abused himself.
>telling stories is for old women
>listening to stories is for homosexuals
>being a slave owner is fricking awesome
Yep it's based
This is the hardest book I've tried reading. Much of other faulkner is easy to read. This one has been so fricking hard
it's functionally incomprehensible until you begin to acclimate somewhere around the middle of chapter 2
then you'll need to start over at chapter 1 once you can understand what's being said
once you get close to the halfway point you should be fully acclimated
by then reading it should be somewhere between mildly challenging and effortless
though I am a southerner so I could be biased
to me, this book came across as front porch gossip put to paper
Similar to all Faulkner, some parts just aren't meant to be understood. The final section is great because you finally get a companion Quinten is talking to who is able to directly ask what the hell is going on.
>The final section is great because you finally get a companion Quinten is talking to who is able to directly ask what the hell is going on.
Yeah and then that companion starts making shit up and saying things like
>thank God you can flee, can escape from that massy five-foot-thick maggot-cheesy solidarity which overlays the earth, in which men and women in couples are ranked like ninepins; thanks to whatever Gods for that masculine hipless tapering peg which fits light and glib to move where the cartridge-chambered hips of women hold them fast
I still don't know why the solidarity is maggot-cheesy
I'm worried that I understand most of that.
I understand the bit about dicks and pussies, but if you could explain the maggot-cheesy solidarity I'd appreciate it, I finished the book months ago but I still can't parse that one line.
Maggot cheese used to be pretty common, either intentionally or as a byproduct of the South being hell on earth. It's a thick mess of a cheese with maggots running through it, it's a visceral image.
Got it, that makes sense. Thanks. I associate "maggot cheese" with that fricked up Sardinian delicacy where the maggots are inside the cheese. I didn't know the other context.
It's pretty much the same thing.
that is absolute filth
its his best, those last 2 chapters specifically are peak
why isn't Faulkner that often mentioned or discussed as one of the greatest writers of all time?
there are tons of writers, often contemporaries of his, who are more broadly discussed (Hemingway or Fitzgerald, for instance), but who never wrote anything close to what he acomplished
is it because of the themes in his books? is it because they're seen as too difficult? too american maybe?
What
People who actually read literary fiction universally hold Faulker in higher regard than those other two, probably higher than any other 20th century American.
People who don't read heavy fiction have a pretty vague picture of him, they know he's important and highly praised but not much more than that, which is fair since his work is so specific to literary form and difficult to break down in other terms. He's also much too hard for all but a handful of American schoolkids, and would be awkward to fit into a foreign curriculum, so we don't have generation after generation exposed to him like a Fitzgerald type.
At least he's not in danger of being forgotten, like so many other talented writers of his era.
Hemingway and Steinbeck have 2 things going for them which Faulkner doesn’t-none of which are related to actual literary talent. 1.) 90% of American High School students will have assigned to read at least one of them before they graduate (often both). 2.) they lived lavish lifestyles which gives them a tabloid/TMZ appeal.
Faulkner was eccentric but largely kept to himself and didn’t bother globe-trotting, being a party animal, or running around in gay literary circles which were all the rage at the time. Faulkner is also just far more difficult to get into and acts as a pleb filter. You can’t expect HS English teachers to teach a writer they themselves don’t even understand.
But OP hits on something true. Absolom! Absolom! and Light in August are his best
Faulkner's more challenging prose filters a lot of people, especially critics.
The reason they love Hemingway is because he writes so simply, even they can understand.
Maximalism is much harder to pull off. Mid writers can easily hide behind mid prose.
>Tell about the South. What's it like there. What do they do there. Why do they live there. Why do they live at all.
apex jej
great stuff
The Hemingway vs. Faulkner feud is glorious and Hemingways jealously shines through. He was so salty Faulkner got the Nobel before him.
The South.