Who is it that proclaims "all happy families are alike"?
Who is it that proclaims "all happy families are alike"?
Leo Tolstoy, at the beginning of Anna Karenina.Originally Posted by Oomoo
nevermind...
I don't understand people who have a hard time reading Faulkner. He's not a difficult writer. Complex, yes, but is that not a prerequisite for all good literature? His style, in some works, might take some getting used to for those new to him, but I don't see why anyone would get a headache over him.
There is far more to his work than meets the eye, kind of like Robert Frost, or William Butler Yeats. For instance, he usually has double interpretations, such as the fact that he reveals most things through the point of view of second hand characters, thereby distorting the truth somewhat, in addition to his stream-of-consciousness which isn't always accurate either. Yes, some of his works are accessible, but others are extremely complex, and even the easy ones tend to have complex layers that add lots, for instance Light in August has large amounts of religious content, as well as a huge amount of biblical references and parallels in both structure, content, and character.
I just realized that this is a thread I made when I was 17.It was more than likely my first thread here.
Man,I feel old.
Spoiler Warning
Woah...
First of all, Faulkner wasn't a racist. He was very much against racism, the same way he was against corrupt religion. A Light in August can be seen as very anti-religious, on first glance, but upon further inspection one realizes that he isn't against religion, but rather corrupt religion. All of religious characters in this novel have severe problems, and comparing Jesus Christ to Joe Christmas is...well, blasphemous, almost. Gail Hightower and McEachern have their own very anti-Christian habits. But Faulkner takes pity, especailly on Hightower, who strives to lead a good life, Lena, and he does so to demonstrate that he is a pious man, but has no pity or tolerance for corruption.
The same kind of subtleties can be found in his writings on race...Charles Bon, in Absalom! Absalom! does very little harm and doesn't deserve his fate at Henry's hands. Henry doesn't necessarily realize that he is wrong, but Quentin surely does, and it bothers him if no one else. It is supposed to disturb the reader that Henry committed murder, mostly based on race (although Bon was trying to marry their sister). Faulkner's reading should be read as commentary, not literal instruction.
However, I don't see how this common misconception is a reason to call someone a "poor reader" or ignorant. I can understand where the mistake was made. He can come off as very violent and racist, if you don't pick up on his sarcasm or satire. And it can be subtle. Let's try not to jump to conclusions about people's characters based on the way they interpret literature or narration...that's almost as bad as confusing narrator with author, wouldn't you agree? Same mistake, basically. So no need to attack people here.
"Memory believes before knowing remembers."
--Faulkner
True, but even the simplicity is deceptive and veils an inner complexity.
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."
You forgot Henry Jameswow! congratulations! I have respect for anyone who can read FaulknerWhy not try James Joyce next?
This is what you'll look like after.
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.""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.
Thank you JBI. Good to see people on this forum putting a stop that kind of ideological nonsense.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote