Take a photo of a barcode or cover
2.96 AVERAGE
2.96 AVERAGE
I cannot rate this book. I read it solely because it is part of my "project" to read all of the Pulitizer Prize winners for Fiction as I could find. (I have skipped quite a few that I couldn't find as well as ones that I had previously read such as All The Kings Men and Gone With The Wind"). This was the most difficult read and I must admit that I ended up skimming most of it. Although there were passages that moved me (particularly towards the end), many times I felt as if I had no idea what was going on. I'd like to think of myself as relatively intelligent but much of this book I could not understand or a get a gripe on. I knew the plot prior to reading and often wondered if I was reading the same book as I had previously seen summarized.
I am actually dreading reading one more Faulkner (The Reivers) which is on my list as a result of this book. Faulkner will never be on my "must read" list.
I am actually dreading reading one more Faulkner (The Reivers) which is on my list as a result of this book. Faulkner will never be on my "must read" list.
Ok, I don't usually write reviews, but this book is so complicated and has so much to it that I need to discuss it here.
Did I give this book five stars because I think everybody should read this book? Heck no. This book is extremely dense and hard to parse in almost every single way imaginable, and people have every right to hate this book because of how it is written and how it is structured. No, I gave this book five stars because I believe that this is a monumental piece of literature; it is a book that is wider in scope than anything else I've ever read, and is more proficient with motif and symbolism than the most commonly studied pieces in schools. This is a beautiful work, but one that hides it's beauty under dense, winding prose that obfuscates nearly every single aspect of its story.
I am a Faulkner fan through and through. He is my favorite author, and I have made it my goal to read every single novel of his. This is my eighth Faulkner, and while it is not my favorite, it is the single most Faulkner-esque novel I think Faulkner ever wrote, even more so than *Absalom, Absalom!*. If you are a Faulkner fan, this is the book in which he let go of the reigns, and let the habits that he is known for go wild. This book has hundreds of pages that are naught but recounting of stories that are tangentially related to the main plot, sentences that go on for pages, obscure historical references, and lots, and I mean *lots* of biblical references and allegory.
If you are a casual reader and don't want to read 500 pages of headache-inducing prose and a story that only sometimes focuses on the main plot, then stay away from this book. You are going to hate it. If you are like me and are a Faulkner fan of the highest degree, then consider tackling this book. It is a project. It took me two months to chunk my way through it. But it is one of the most rewarding things you will ever read. Every page feels like an achievement. Every chapter you come out of understanding makes you feel like the smartest reader in the world. Every motif that you pick up on, every symbol that you interpret, every biblical allusion you pick out, makes you feel like a literary scholar of the highest degree. It is the single most rewarding book I have ever read, and if you are willing to go on an extremely difficult journey, and ready to endure everything Faulkner throws at you, then I highly highly recommend it.
So what is this book actually about? Well, it's about a lot of things, in Faulkner fashion, but at the very core of the story is a French regiment of soldiers in World War 1 that mutiny. Around 3,000 soldiers in all, lead by a group of 13 soldiers under the command of The Corporal, completely lay down their weapons, and stop the fighting for the day. The sudden cease-fire causes confusion in the German forces, who also lay down their weapons. This causes confusion in everybody, and the book follows the aftermath and reactions of everybody in the battle zone of this small French village. We follow a military runner, who slowly realizes that the Corporal and his men were right, that we can end the war if we just stop fighting. We follow a young pilot, who observes the higher-ups trying to make sense of what just happened. We follow the sisters of the Corporal, who heard of what he did, and made their way to this small village, and we follow the Corporal himself, who has been sentenced to death along with his other 12 men.
This book is a masterclass in motif and symbolism. The book has a multitude of ideas that it repeats over and over again: tomorrow, "would not" versus "could not", anguish, home and hope, destiny, and many many more. And as you read, this book slowly takes all of these scattered ideas and themes, and brings them together into one idea: the ability for man to endure and the ability for man to prevail.
A Fable is about facing hardship, but not as an individual. There are plenty of novels out there that explore that, and there were when Faulkner wrote this book. This book is about humanity as a whole. We, us, *our* ability to endure through hardship. As a human race, how do we respond to injustice and evil, conflict fought for the sake of conflict, and how do we come out of that? How do we, after the last bullet has been fired, come out of the trenches? Do we rise, standing erect and proud, or do we slowly crawl out, beaten down by the generals that told us to fight? This book explores this idea, and does it beautifully.
One thing that Faulkner does that really provides support to the idea that this is a discussion regarding all of humanity is his absolute and utter refusal to use names. You will notice this early on as you read the book: characters are not given proper names. They are referred to by their title: the corporal, the sergeant, the runner, the old general, so on. Only rarely to characters have proper names. This is done, I think, to strengthen the tie between the reader and the characters in the story. This book is, in part, a biblical allegory for holy week, with the Corporal standing in for Jesus, but in the actual story of the bible, it's hard to relate to Jesus because you are not Jesus. Jesus was a unique man. There is only one of him, and you are not him. In this book, the Corporal is not Jesus, he does not have a specific identity for a majority of the book. He isn't even properly named until the last 60 pages of the book. He is depersonalized by Faulkner in order to make him more relatable by the reader, and that allows the reader to tap into the message of the book much more.
One thing that I thought when I first bought this book was "wow... this is a long book." And it is. It is Faulkner's longest novel. But in this novel, Faulkner tackles a question and a discussion that is wider in scope than anything he ever did in his career. In his past, he tackled the questions and moral dilemmas that plagued his home of the American south, but in this book, he instead tackles questions that plague humanity as a whole. And for that, he spends a lot of time nailing his points home over and over again because, as a result of how generalist his message is, what he's trying to drive home is really slippery.
This book is very hopeful. While it does take place during one of the most grimy and depressing points in human history, it still sends a message that humanity is tougher than anything else on this planet. We have faced hardships that would have--should have--killed us, but we came out of it alive. Even if we didn't come out of it better, even if we came out of things battered and worse off, we still came out of it, and we should be admired for that. This book is about having faith that we are going to endure past anything we as a species come up against in the future. And reading this after the recent world events, I think this book rings true more so than it ever has.
Did I give this book five stars because I think everybody should read this book? Heck no. This book is extremely dense and hard to parse in almost every single way imaginable, and people have every right to hate this book because of how it is written and how it is structured. No, I gave this book five stars because I believe that this is a monumental piece of literature; it is a book that is wider in scope than anything else I've ever read, and is more proficient with motif and symbolism than the most commonly studied pieces in schools. This is a beautiful work, but one that hides it's beauty under dense, winding prose that obfuscates nearly every single aspect of its story.
I am a Faulkner fan through and through. He is my favorite author, and I have made it my goal to read every single novel of his. This is my eighth Faulkner, and while it is not my favorite, it is the single most Faulkner-esque novel I think Faulkner ever wrote, even more so than *Absalom, Absalom!*. If you are a Faulkner fan, this is the book in which he let go of the reigns, and let the habits that he is known for go wild. This book has hundreds of pages that are naught but recounting of stories that are tangentially related to the main plot, sentences that go on for pages, obscure historical references, and lots, and I mean *lots* of biblical references and allegory.
If you are a casual reader and don't want to read 500 pages of headache-inducing prose and a story that only sometimes focuses on the main plot, then stay away from this book. You are going to hate it. If you are like me and are a Faulkner fan of the highest degree, then consider tackling this book. It is a project. It took me two months to chunk my way through it. But it is one of the most rewarding things you will ever read. Every page feels like an achievement. Every chapter you come out of understanding makes you feel like the smartest reader in the world. Every motif that you pick up on, every symbol that you interpret, every biblical allusion you pick out, makes you feel like a literary scholar of the highest degree. It is the single most rewarding book I have ever read, and if you are willing to go on an extremely difficult journey, and ready to endure everything Faulkner throws at you, then I highly highly recommend it.
So what is this book actually about? Well, it's about a lot of things, in Faulkner fashion, but at the very core of the story is a French regiment of soldiers in World War 1 that mutiny. Around 3,000 soldiers in all, lead by a group of 13 soldiers under the command of The Corporal, completely lay down their weapons, and stop the fighting for the day. The sudden cease-fire causes confusion in the German forces, who also lay down their weapons. This causes confusion in everybody, and the book follows the aftermath and reactions of everybody in the battle zone of this small French village. We follow a military runner, who slowly realizes that the Corporal and his men were right, that we can end the war if we just stop fighting. We follow a young pilot, who observes the higher-ups trying to make sense of what just happened. We follow the sisters of the Corporal, who heard of what he did, and made their way to this small village, and we follow the Corporal himself, who has been sentenced to death along with his other 12 men.
This book is a masterclass in motif and symbolism. The book has a multitude of ideas that it repeats over and over again: tomorrow, "would not" versus "could not", anguish, home and hope, destiny, and many many more. And as you read, this book slowly takes all of these scattered ideas and themes, and brings them together into one idea: the ability for man to endure and the ability for man to prevail.
A Fable is about facing hardship, but not as an individual. There are plenty of novels out there that explore that, and there were when Faulkner wrote this book. This book is about humanity as a whole. We, us, *our* ability to endure through hardship. As a human race, how do we respond to injustice and evil, conflict fought for the sake of conflict, and how do we come out of that? How do we, after the last bullet has been fired, come out of the trenches? Do we rise, standing erect and proud, or do we slowly crawl out, beaten down by the generals that told us to fight? This book explores this idea, and does it beautifully.
One thing that Faulkner does that really provides support to the idea that this is a discussion regarding all of humanity is his absolute and utter refusal to use names. You will notice this early on as you read the book: characters are not given proper names. They are referred to by their title: the corporal, the sergeant, the runner, the old general, so on. Only rarely to characters have proper names. This is done, I think, to strengthen the tie between the reader and the characters in the story. This book is, in part, a biblical allegory for holy week, with the Corporal standing in for Jesus, but in the actual story of the bible, it's hard to relate to Jesus because you are not Jesus. Jesus was a unique man. There is only one of him, and you are not him. In this book, the Corporal is not Jesus, he does not have a specific identity for a majority of the book. He isn't even properly named until the last 60 pages of the book. He is depersonalized by Faulkner in order to make him more relatable by the reader, and that allows the reader to tap into the message of the book much more.
One thing that I thought when I first bought this book was "wow... this is a long book." And it is. It is Faulkner's longest novel. But in this novel, Faulkner tackles a question and a discussion that is wider in scope than anything he ever did in his career. In his past, he tackled the questions and moral dilemmas that plagued his home of the American south, but in this book, he instead tackles questions that plague humanity as a whole. And for that, he spends a lot of time nailing his points home over and over again because, as a result of how generalist his message is, what he's trying to drive home is really slippery.
This book is very hopeful. While it does take place during one of the most grimy and depressing points in human history, it still sends a message that humanity is tougher than anything else on this planet. We have faced hardships that would have--should have--killed us, but we came out of it alive. Even if we didn't come out of it better, even if we came out of things battered and worse off, we still came out of it, and we should be admired for that. This book is about having faith that we are going to endure past anything we as a species come up against in the future. And reading this after the recent world events, I think this book rings true more so than it ever has.
adventurous
challenging
dark
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
The book is set in WWI France in 1918. The general story is about a French regiment that is being held because they refused to fight. The story jumps around alot from character to character and time period. Some characters get names. Others are just referred as their rank. I had a hard time getting into this book. Writing was fine but didn't like story style.
challenging
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
N/A
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
N/A
What can I say? It's Faulkner. Even when he's not at his best (which I think applies to 'A Fable'), he's still a magnificent writer and a literary genius. I started this one a long time ago, and then got sidetracked by other things at about one-third of the way in. Because of the time lapse since when I put it down and because it's Faulkner, I just started all over again. And it's a hard slog in the beginning. The farther along you muddle through, though, the clearer everything gets. That's the beauty of Faulkner: you might not think you are absorbing what he is writing, but trust the process: it's in the brain and its meaning will reveal itself as you go along. I could clearly see the religious parallels creatively imbued in this story of the "unknown soldier" who, in this case, paused the Great War (WWI). Don't want to comment much on that aspect of the story, as it's well-trodden ground. I'll just say that this novel constitutes an indictment on the horror of war, the dangers of nationalism and militaristic patriotism, and the inevitable nature of humanity's embrace of violent conflict to resolve disputes. I'm still absorbing a lot of the meandering that Faulkner did in the beginning sections of the novel (and I think, to be honest, that some of that meandering was as much a bit of Faulkner being careless and resting on his reputation for this kind of writing as it was some profound plumbing of the psychological and philosophical depths). Some of the meandering was, I think, not as intentionally meaningful as one might impute to it. In fact, I do think some of it is just intellectual psychobabble. But also probably not as much as some who tire of Faulkner's style might also think. I love Faulkner, and I think all of his novels should have won Pulitzers. This one is deserving, though I know that others of his novels that didn't win are better and more deserving. There are very few writers in the same league as Faulkner. And I am kinda glad that I have now, this moment, completed my goal of reading every single Pulitzer fiction winner with a Faulkner novel.
'Do you know what the loneliest experience of all is? But of course you do: you just said so. It's breathing.'
Pretty in-line with his other novels— a tough read but ultimately rewarding.
This was my first foray into a Faulkner novel that I actually finished, having really no idea about the book before hand. I picked it up in a local used book store simply because I was intrigued by the cover (I'm a weary agnostic with Catholic tendencies, put that in your Tinder profile). After starting it, I learned that it is an extremely divisive novel in his canon; with many contemporary critics thinking it scattered and confusing, or Faulkner embracing his stylized prose with perhaps TOO much confidence. Overall I enjoyed the book, and thought it was well worth reading! Some pros and cons:
Pros
- If you love World War 1 as a setting, there is plenty to enjoy here. I think Faulkner really hits on the existentially brutal nature of the war, as well as has some really great insights on what we'd call today the "military-industrial complex".
- When Faulkner hits, he HOMERS. There are some stunning, stunning passages in this. The book's final quarter is truly amazing, and the Generalissimo - Corporal conversations on the mountain are amazing.
- I found it really did have something interesting to say about man, and our propensity for self destruction. That we would fight to keep the death going is more relevant in today's forever war environment than ever before. His visions of machinations of death might not have been accurate (not huge mechs but silent drones destroying us all), but the feeling of plodding our way to hell was spot on.
Cons
- Too many metaphors. Just gets lost in the sauce. Passion of the Christ allegory is a great one, but my GOODNESS sometimes its ham-fisted.
- It is truly a difficult read. I had many, many times where I re-read full pages twice before I got my head around just who was even speaking. It got better as it went, or at least my brain got better at decoding it.
Excited to read more Faulkner, especially since this is considered one of his worst. Next up (at some point) is A Light in August.
Pros
- If you love World War 1 as a setting, there is plenty to enjoy here. I think Faulkner really hits on the existentially brutal nature of the war, as well as has some really great insights on what we'd call today the "military-industrial complex".
- When Faulkner hits, he HOMERS. There are some stunning, stunning passages in this. The book's final quarter is truly amazing, and the Generalissimo - Corporal conversations on the mountain are amazing.
- I found it really did have something interesting to say about man, and our propensity for self destruction. That we would fight to keep the death going is more relevant in today's forever war environment than ever before. His visions of machinations of death might not have been accurate (not huge mechs but silent drones destroying us all), but the feeling of plodding our way to hell was spot on.
Cons
- Too many metaphors. Just gets lost in the sauce. Passion of the Christ allegory is a great one, but my GOODNESS sometimes its ham-fisted.
- It is truly a difficult read. I had many, many times where I re-read full pages twice before I got my head around just who was even speaking. It got better as it went, or at least my brain got better at decoding it.
Excited to read more Faulkner, especially since this is considered one of his worst. Next up (at some point) is A Light in August.