Scan barcode
micahjames's review against another edition
challenging
dark
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
jennaxherbert's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
4.25
alconn's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
slow-paced
5.0
Read it once. Read it again. Read it one more time. You will have loved it the first time, wept the second and the third read will crystalize this book as one of the best you've ever read
especiallysarah's review against another edition
challenging
dark
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.25
brighteyed's review against another edition
challenging
dark
mysterious
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.25
i read this on audiobook and frankly think i need to physically reread it to grasp some of the narrative style better. i really enjoyed it still, but i feel like i was missing parts
angus_mckeogh's review against another edition
2.0
The Sound is what you hear in your head as your mind mulls over the style of the opening sequence of the book, and the Fury is what you feel upon finishing the book and realizing you wasted 8 hours of your life.
That’s the ideal opening to my review but I wouldn’t say the book was that bad. I landed right in the middle on this polarizing piece. From other reviews it seems like people either hate this book or they think it is the greatest novel ever written in the English language. I’d argue that it’s neither. Invariably the people that hate the book talk about the confusing opening sequence and the “dialect” or writing style of that section. It’s not revealed immediately but late in the first section it’s stated that the narrator is a 5-year-old “probably autistic” deaf and mute person. Unreliable narrator. That explains the difficulty and confusion which results from the narrative in the first section.
The latter sections are written more traditionally but they do naturally conflict with the first section. Now outside of the confusion of the former narrative, the plot was really uneventful and pretty boring. It hits on racism, misogyny, class, money, reputation, and prejudice; however, the story was not appealing. That’s where I would decrease my star rating. Possibly a “progressive” novel at the time, but otherwise bland as hell. Not the worst book I’ve ever read (All the Sad Young Literary Men by Gessen might grab that spot) but certainly not an “entertaining masterpiece”. Perhaps that last phrase is an oxymoron and doesn’t exist.
As an aside I did find it interesting that Faulkner has a juxtaposition between an apparently autistic narrator and the “measles room” these same kids slept in when they had the disease, well before the whole erroneous connection between these diseases and the MMR vaccine was thought to have cropped up 50 years or more later. He wouldn’t have known this would be relevant later in the century. The MMR vaccine was developed in 1971 and Faulkner is writing about an apparently autistic kid in 1929. Prescience.
That’s the ideal opening to my review but I wouldn’t say the book was that bad. I landed right in the middle on this polarizing piece. From other reviews it seems like people either hate this book or they think it is the greatest novel ever written in the English language. I’d argue that it’s neither. Invariably the people that hate the book talk about the confusing opening sequence and the “dialect” or writing style of that section. It’s not revealed immediately but late in the first section it’s stated that the narrator is a 5-year-old “probably autistic” deaf and mute person. Unreliable narrator. That explains the difficulty and confusion which results from the narrative in the first section.
The latter sections are written more traditionally but they do naturally conflict with the first section. Now outside of the confusion of the former narrative, the plot was really uneventful and pretty boring. It hits on racism, misogyny, class, money, reputation, and prejudice; however, the story was not appealing. That’s where I would decrease my star rating. Possibly a “progressive” novel at the time, but otherwise bland as hell. Not the worst book I’ve ever read (All the Sad Young Literary Men by Gessen might grab that spot) but certainly not an “entertaining masterpiece”. Perhaps that last phrase is an oxymoron and doesn’t exist.
As an aside I did find it interesting that Faulkner has a juxtaposition between an apparently autistic narrator and the “measles room” these same kids slept in when they had the disease, well before the whole erroneous connection between these diseases and the MMR vaccine was thought to have cropped up 50 years or more later. He wouldn’t have known this would be relevant later in the century. The MMR vaccine was developed in 1971 and Faulkner is writing about an apparently autistic kid in 1929. Prescience.
bartkeijsers's review against another edition
4.0
Interesting structure, but difficult read. Will have to reread to better appreciate/understand the first part of the book.
richygoodlad's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
d5lefko's review against another edition
4.0
I liked it a lot! I’ll need to reread it at some point, but not for a while. An exhausting read, no doubt.