Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.86 AVERAGE
3.86 AVERAGE
If I were to write an afterthought of this novel, where would I start?
If you are serious about literature, this is a must-read novel. No question about it. Also, if you can get through this novel (the sheer difficulty of it; the story is compelling but the run-on sentences can take a toll on you), then you can read any difficult novels.
-- So it's the miscegenation, not the incest, which you cant bear. Henry doesn't answer.
What brought Thomas Sutpen down from his dreams of dynastic fatherhood is his insistence on racial purity.
That's, if I have to pinpoint, is the most important theme in the novel. Sure, one can focus on how the history is retold through various narrative and how much people get it wrong about other people's story. However, the theme on race is trenchant in this novel, and the sins of all those who made success by depending on slavery will surface and destroy them, as allegorized by the downfall of Thomas Sutpen.
----------------------------------------------
If you are serious about literature, this is a must-read novel. No question about it. Also, if you can get through this novel (the sheer difficulty of it; the story is compelling but the run-on sentences can take a toll on you), then you can read any difficult novels.
-- So it's the miscegenation, not the incest, which you cant bear. Henry doesn't answer.
What brought Thomas Sutpen down from his dreams of dynastic fatherhood is his insistence on racial purity.
That's, if I have to pinpoint, is the most important theme in the novel. Sure, one can focus on how the history is retold through various narrative and how much people get it wrong about other people's story. However, the theme on race is trenchant in this novel, and the sins of all those who made success by depending on slavery will surface and destroy them, as allegorized by the downfall of Thomas Sutpen.
----------------------------------------------
This is a book about a man who hates the south, but also loves it?
5/5 absolutely nuts and so complex that you will reread paragraphs over and over.
5/5 absolutely nuts and so complex that you will reread paragraphs over and over.
forgot to log when i finished this.
but gorgeous. the south obsessed with its own rot. repeated over and over and over. unable to escape its descent because it loves the slide oh so much.
picked up two faulkners at a bookstore yesterday. the clerk with celtic rune hand tattoos told me that she's noticed that faulkner is getting really popular lately. "everyone seems to be reading him," she says, "makes sense: he's one of those names that actually lives up to it." agreed. but i'd argue that it's a bit more than that: he was so observed, so obsessed with the obsession he grew up around, the elders recounting the civil war and how things didn't always used to be this way, contradicting their own obsessive tales that seem to point towards an inevitability in it always being or at least becoming this way. and then i look around my own world, so full of inevitability; dead-set on a crash course and unwilling to change lanes. and all of a sudden this book takes place in the 1800s and 1908 and 2024 all at once. prophetic corrosion; fucking gross, dude.
but gorgeous. the south obsessed with its own rot. repeated over and over and over. unable to escape its descent because it loves the slide oh so much.
picked up two faulkners at a bookstore yesterday. the clerk with celtic rune hand tattoos told me that she's noticed that faulkner is getting really popular lately. "everyone seems to be reading him," she says, "makes sense: he's one of those names that actually lives up to it." agreed. but i'd argue that it's a bit more than that: he was so observed, so obsessed with the obsession he grew up around, the elders recounting the civil war and how things didn't always used to be this way, contradicting their own obsessive tales that seem to point towards an inevitability in it always being or at least becoming this way. and then i look around my own world, so full of inevitability; dead-set on a crash course and unwilling to change lanes. and all of a sudden this book takes place in the 1800s and 1908 and 2024 all at once. prophetic corrosion; fucking gross, dude.
It took me almost forever to finish it because I actually didn't want to read it. I had many many unknown words and the fact that the same scene was narrated again and again and again was annoying. There were parts that seemed to have no end, commas were missing and the sentences were so long you could easily lose the meaning of what you were reading.
I would give it one star only if the last two chapters weren't a bit better. I actually could go through the book much quicker after the first 220 pages. Still, I don't think I will read again this book.
I would give it one star only if the last two chapters weren't a bit better. I actually could go through the book much quicker after the first 220 pages. Still, I don't think I will read again this book.
All the stars go towards the incredible gothic vibes, and the mythological/biblical allusions. They made the plot interesting. I really liked the novel’s similarities to the biblical tale of Absalom. Aside from that, I find Faulkner’s prose incredibly dry and dense. He called this book the greatest American text written and it reflects in the novel. I felt like he was intentionally trying to be pretentious and confusing by not properly introducing characters or plot-points; he just randomly mic drops a random plot twist and you, as the reader are like “WHAT IS HAPPENING?? WHO IS THIS NEW NAME DROP??” So, that made me want to throw the book across the room.
A lot of people also criticize Faulkner for having no proper or linear plot but it almost felt like plot was all he had; we get to know the characters in a pretty superficial way. We see their backstory and their hubris BUT their story is being told from different narratives and all the characters feel like pawns whose sole purpose is to further the “great tragic epic” aspect of the book.
A lot of people also criticize Faulkner for having no proper or linear plot but it almost felt like plot was all he had; we get to know the characters in a pretty superficial way. We see their backstory and their hubris BUT their story is being told from different narratives and all the characters feel like pawns whose sole purpose is to further the “great tragic epic” aspect of the book.
challenging
dark
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This is a tale about the rise and fall of a man's legacy. It certainly took work to read this novel - long sentences and paragraphs. Different narrations and long elaborations and reflections upon history. Thankfully Quentin's roommate summarizes to reassure the reader they understand and are keeping up with the story.
Well worth the effort.
Well worth the effort.
The past is never dead, it's not even past - Gedanken zur ersten Lektüre von Faulkners Meisterwerk.
Mein Gott, diese 300 Seiten waren dermaßen dicht, ein gewöhnlicher Autor hätte weit über 900 Seiten benötigt, um diesen Stoff zu bewältigen. Aber wenn William Faulkner eines nicht ist, dann ein gewöhnlicher Autor.
Er analysiert in diesem Roman die "Erbsünde" der Südstaaten, also die Sklaverei, durch die Linse der alttestamentarischen Geschichte der Rebellion des Prinzen Absalom gegen dessen Vater König David. Bezugspunkt für diese Parallele ist die Figur des Thomas Sutpen, der es sich zum Ziel gesetzt hat eine eigene "Dynastie" zu gründen, jedoch (wie die biblische Geschichte schon verrät) an seinen Kindern zu Grunde gehen wird. Alle Figuren in diesem Roman versuchen Charakter und Biographie des Thomas Sutpen zu erfassen und begeben sich deshalb in einen Strudel aus (sich teilweise widersprechenden) Berichten von Zeitzeugen oder Nachkommen derselbigen. Das Motiv des "oral storytellings" als ursprünglichste Form des Erzählens wird von Faulkner kongenial aufgegriffen und so ergibt sich ein schier endloser Strom aus kaleidoskopartigen Erzählungen, die jede auf ihre Art versuchen, sich der Figur Thomas Sutpen zu nähern.
Unheimlich stimmungsvoll, reinster "southern gothic" und vor allem eine unglaublich ausgeklügelte, intelligente Erzähltechnik.
Der beste Faulkner bislang und wenn ich den anderen Rezensenten glauben schenken darf, sein bester Roman überhaupt.
Mein Gott, diese 300 Seiten waren dermaßen dicht, ein gewöhnlicher Autor hätte weit über 900 Seiten benötigt, um diesen Stoff zu bewältigen. Aber wenn William Faulkner eines nicht ist, dann ein gewöhnlicher Autor.
Er analysiert in diesem Roman die "Erbsünde" der Südstaaten, also die Sklaverei, durch die Linse der alttestamentarischen Geschichte der Rebellion des Prinzen Absalom gegen dessen Vater König David. Bezugspunkt für diese Parallele ist die Figur des Thomas Sutpen, der es sich zum Ziel gesetzt hat eine eigene "Dynastie" zu gründen, jedoch (wie die biblische Geschichte schon verrät) an seinen Kindern zu Grunde gehen wird. Alle Figuren in diesem Roman versuchen Charakter und Biographie des Thomas Sutpen zu erfassen und begeben sich deshalb in einen Strudel aus (sich teilweise widersprechenden) Berichten von Zeitzeugen oder Nachkommen derselbigen. Das Motiv des "oral storytellings" als ursprünglichste Form des Erzählens wird von Faulkner kongenial aufgegriffen und so ergibt sich ein schier endloser Strom aus kaleidoskopartigen Erzählungen, die jede auf ihre Art versuchen, sich der Figur Thomas Sutpen zu nähern.
Unheimlich stimmungsvoll, reinster "southern gothic" und vor allem eine unglaublich ausgeklügelte, intelligente Erzähltechnik.
Der beste Faulkner bislang und wenn ich den anderen Rezensenten glauben schenken darf, sein bester Roman überhaupt.