Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.87 AVERAGE
3.87 AVERAGE
challenging
dark
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This is truly amazing, pls read as tangled as it may seem. Great experience.
Had to read this book for my American Lit class. I've liked everything else I read in that class well enough, but this one was just terrible. I could barely get through it. I get how it could be entertaining at times but I was just not interested. The plot felt too thin and there was not enough resolution at all. It felt too wide open and loose. Glad I'm finally done with this.
Hubo una época en que Faulkner lo era todo para mí. Faulkner era el mayor escritor que hubiera podido existir nunca. Afortunadamente ya no soy de esta opinión. Aún así aún soy capaz de disfrutarlo. 'Absalom, Absalom!' es mi obra favorita de Faulkner. La prefiero de lejos a la más famosa 'El ruido y la furia' porque, aunque en Absalom la forma cobra una importancia central, el contenido no queda ofuscado por las birguerías formales. Creo que los flashbacks y los diferentes puntos de vista funcionan a la perfección y se entiende sin necesidad de romperte la cabeza. Y siempre he tenido debilidad por las obras que narran la decadencia de una gran saga familiares. Es una obra poderosa y con unos personajes más grandes que la vida, extremadamente literarios. Y bueno, gana muchos puntos extra porque es una obra que contiene un signo de exclamación en el título.
The prose is so difficult, it made the book really hard to read. Apparently Faulkner set a world record in this book for the longest sentence ever — 1,288 words.
challenging
dark
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm thrilled to introduce the most extraordinary book I've ever read. William Faulkner, my favorite author, is celebrated for his brilliance, creativity, and absolute mastery of the written word. However, my admiration doesn't solely stem from my affection for him. I must confess, navigating Faulkner's literary landscapes is no simple feat. It was nearly a year ago, around these very days, that I concluded my journey with 'The Sound and the Fury,' and that book left an indelible mark as the best I've ever read. Now, after a year, another of his works has claimed this esteemed title.
In comparing 'Absalom, Absalom!' with 'The Sound and the Fury,' I explore the commonalities and distinctions between the two novels.
The differences:
-Faulkner, in 'The Sound and the Fury', had kept descriptions of the environment to a minimum, but in this book, he vividly increased his unique and beautiful portrayals.
-Quentin Compson is a character shared between these two novels. In 'The Sound and the Fury,' we knew Quentin as a young student at Harvard who took his own life, but in this book, he's alive and still a Harvard student.
-The storytelling approach in these two novels had a noticeable difference. In 'The Sound and the Fury,' Faulkner used four specific narrators, shaping his story across four chapters in a stream-of-consciousness manner. However, in this novel, even though Faulkner's style remains consistent, the narrators irregularly and unexpectedly switch their roles.
Similarities:
-The stories unfold in the imaginary world of Faulkner, called Yoknapatawpha. Yoknapatawpha is a country with two cities, Jefferson and Memphis, and a population of 15,611. During the story's timeframe, Jefferson was the only settlement with an inn, six shops, a blacksmith, a stable, a tavern, and three churches, housing only thirty households. Faulkner, through novels like "Sanctuary," "Moses," and "Light In August," portrays the country's evolution over time.
-The narrative style of both novels is stream-of-consciousness.
-Faulkner's central concern remains constant: depicting the lives and challenges of blacks, whites, and reds living together and highlighting the distinctions between the South and the North. In my view, Faulkner's dedication to his people and his abhorrence of human enslavement contribute significantly to his literary eminence.
Now, before I get into the story, let me talk about the book's title. Faulkner doesn't randomly pick titles for his novels. This book follows the same pattern, and I'll explain it like a story:
Approximately three millennia and thirty-three years ago, in the nation-state of Israel, a monarch by the name of David took the throne. During the nascent stages of his rule, David succumbed to the temptation of adultery with the wife of Uriah the Hittite, a woman of striking beauty. This illicit union bore fruit in the form of David's firstborn son, Amnon, whom he officially recognised as the heir to his throne. After considerable time had passed, a court prophet, who had the privilege of serving the Israeli monarch, conveyed a divine message of displeasure regarding the adulterous act. The divine retribution for this moral transgression was decreed to be the demise of David's first son.
David was also wedded to a woman named Maeka, with whom he fathered another son and a daughter. Tragically, his second son was not blessed with longevity and passed away during childhood. His third son, Absalom, was renowned for his beauty and distinctive long hair. The title 'Absalom, Absalom' was borrowed by Faulkner from David's lamentations over his son's premature demise.
The narrative unfolded as follows: Amnon committed a heinous act of sexual assault against his sister, Tamar, who happened to be the daughter of his father's lawful spouse. This abhorrent act incensed David, but his dynastic aspirations for Amnon led him to absolve his son of punishment. Absalom, inherently ambitious and consumed with envy towards his half-brother - the product of the aforementioned adultery, deemed Amnon's violation of their sister as an unforgivable crime. Consequently, he murdered his elder brother, the crown prince, and fled from Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, in fear of paternal repercussions.
After a period of three years and two months, David, confronted with an heirless throne, extended his pardon to Absalom, his sole surviving son, and summoned him back to Jerusalem. Upon his return, Absalom, perceiving himself as a worthy candidate for the throne, staked his claim. This audacious claim incited his father's wrath, leading to an attack on Absalom.
When Absalom discovered his father's impending attack with an overwhelming military force, he attempted to flee. Alas, during his flight, his long hair, billowing in the wind, became entangled in a tree, leading to his unfortunate strangulation. Upon discovering his son's lifeless body beneath the tree, David was consumed with grief, crying out in despair: 'Oh my son Absalom... Oh my son Absalom...'
Please note: This narrative appears to be a fusion of religious and historical accounts. Consequently, some character relationships and events may not correspond accurately with established texts.
I want to give a short summary of the story here. If you don't want spoilers, it's better to read this part after finishing the book:
The tale commences on the evening preceding Quentin's departure for Harvard. He is summoned to the dim, sweltering abode of family friend Rosa Coldfield, who imparts her rendition of the narrative surrounding her brother-in-law, Thomas Sutpen. Sutpen, arriving in the region in the 1830s, acquires the land for Sutpen's Hundred through dubious and potentially illicit means. Establishing a prosperous plantation, he appears destined for affluence and influence. Rosa's portrayal of Sutpen is ominous, consistently depicting him as a devil or demon. She recounts Sutpen as a brutal man who compels his slaves to engage in fights for his entertainment, occasionally participating himself. Marrying Rosa's elder sister Ellen for social status, Sutpen fathers two children, Judith and Henry. Rosa suggests that men like Sutpen led to the South's defeat in the Civil War, a divine punishment according to her beliefs.
Quentin's father recounts the same story with a markedly different tone. Initially a mysterious figure, Sutpen, known for taking rooms in town and purportedly purchasing land with Spanish gold, would disappear for extended periods. He would return with a substantial number of slaves, clearing land and constructing Sutpen's Hundred. Sutpen's wild lifestyle transforms when he courts Ellen Coldfield, dedicating himself to her family. However, suspicions arise about the legality of his wealth acquisition. On the day of his engagement to Ellen, he is arrested but later bailed out by the Coldfields.
Quentin's father provides additional details about Rosa. Her mother's death during childbirth leaves Ellen, already married to Sutpen, as Rosa's older sister. Ellen undergoes a transformation that Rosa despises due to her association with Sutpen. Charles Bon, Judith's fiancé, is introduced, and Rosa, now in poverty, remains at a distance until summoned by Wash Jones, a poor farmer.
Charles's letter to Judith unfolds a complex story, revealing his friendship with Henry and a love affair with Judith. Sutpen tells Henry that Charles has a secret wife of mixed race, leading to a family rupture. Rosa resumes the narrative, stating that Wash Jones summoned her because Henry killed Charles. Engaged to Sutpen briefly, Rosa flees the plantation after an unexplained insult. She informs Quentin that someone has been clandestinely dwelling at Sutpen's Hundred.
In school, Quentin learns of Miss Rosa's demise and shares the story with his roommate, Shreve. Thomas Sutpen's downfall is revealed, involving a relationship with Wash Jones's daughter and his subsequent murder by Wash Jones. Quentin recalls Charles Bon's illegitimate son, raised by Judith, who begets Jim Bond, a simple-minded man. Shreve recounts their exploration of Sutpen's Hundred, confirming Rosa's predictions and discovering more.
Quentin reveals Sutpen's past as a foreman on a West Indies sugar plantation, marrying and fathering Charles Bon. Upon realizing his wife's African heritage, Sutpen leaves and later attempts to thwart Charles's marriage to Judith by claiming they are half-siblings. Henry, enraged by the revelation of Charles's racial background, kills him.
The story concludes with Quentin and Shreve envisioning the day of Charles Bon's death. They speculate on Henry's replacement of Judith's photo with that of his illegitimate family, indicating Charles didn't deserve her grief. Rosa and Quentin find Henry at the house, waiting to die, prompting Rosa to call for an ambulance. Clytie, thinking it's the police, sets the house on fire. When Shreve questions Quentin's apparent hatred for the South, Quentin denies it.
نسخهی فارسی (فاقد محتوای افشا کننده):
خانم ها و آقایان، این شما و این هم بهترین کتابی که تا به امروز خواندهام.
سوال ده میلیونی این است:
اگر آنچه در این کتاب خواندم ادبیات نام دارد، پس محتوای کتابهایی که پیش از این خواندهام چه نام دارد؟ بر کسی پوشیده نیست که ویلیام فاکنر نویسندهی مورد علاقهی من است. او را به خاطر نبوغ، خلاقیت و تسلط کامل بر ادبیات تحسین میکنم اما علاقهی من هیچ ارتباطی با تعاریف من از او ندارد چون او یکی از سلاطین انگشتشمار ادبیات جهان است و آثارش نیازی به تعریف، تمجید یا معرفی من ندارند.
اعتراف میکنم خواندن آثار فاکنر نه تنها آسان نیستند، بلکه بسیار دشوارند. فاکنر خواننده را با لبخند به رینگ بوکس میکشاند اما وقتی بازی آغاز شد، هیچ رحمی از خود نشان نمیدهد. خواننده باید بسیار صبور باشد و تا سر حد مرگ برای زنده ماندن تلاش کند و گرنه در فصول ابتدایی کتاب جانش را از دست میدهد.
تقریبا سال گذشته در چنین روزهایی بود که «خشم و هیاهو» را از او خواندم و آن کتاب تبدیل به بهترین کتابی شد که تا به آن روز خوانده بودم و حالا پس از گذشت یکسال، کتابی دیگر از او این عنوان را نصیب خود کرد.
در این ریویو به دلیل اهمیت موضوع به تفاوتها و شباهتهای این رمان و «خشم و هیاهو» اشاره میکنم.
تفاوتها:
-فاکنر توصیفهای محیطی را در خشم و هیاهو به حداقل رسانده بود، اما در این کتاب توصیفهای ناب و خاص خود را به شکل محسوسی افزایش داد.
-کوئنتین کامپسون شخصیت مشترک این دو رمان است. ما میدانیم که کوئنتین در خشم و هیاهو، جوانی بود که در هاروارد درس میخواند و خودکشی کرد، اما در این کتاب او زنده است و همچنان در هاروارد درس میخواند.
-فرم روایت در این دو رمان تفاوت محسوسی داشت. در خشم و هیاهو فاکنر از چهار راوی مشخص استفاده کرد و داستانش را در چهار فصل به سبک سیال ذهن خلق کرد، اما در این رمان اگرچه فاکنر همان فاکنر است و سبک قلمش همان است اما راویها به طور نامنظم و غیرمنتظرهای جای خود را به همدیگر میدهند و به شکل مرگباری خطوط زمانی را تغییر میدهند.
شباهتها:
-رویدادهای هر دو شاهکار در سرزمین خیالی فاکنر یعنی یوکناپاتاوفا به وقوع میپیوندد. این کشور دو شهر دارد: جفرسون و ممفیس، و در آن ۱۵۶۱۱ نفر زندگی میکنند. در زمان روایت داستان این کتاب، جفرسون تنها یک آبادی بود که در آن یک کاروانسرا، شش دکان، یک آهنگری، یک اسطبل، یک میخانه و سه کلیسا وجود داشت و جمعیت مردمش تنها سی خانوار بود. با توجه به اینکه فاکنر به جز این کتاب رمانهای «حریم»، «میمیریم همانطور که زندگی کردیم»، «برخیز ای موسی» و «روشنایی در اوت» را نیز روایت کرده است، به نظر میرسد این کشور به مرور زمان در ذهنش به تکامل رسیده است.
-هر دو رمان به سبک سیال ذهن روایت شدهاند.
-دغدغهی فاکنر همان دغدغهای همیشگی است: زندگی و مصائب زندگی سیاهان، سفیدها و سرخها در کنار یکدیگر و تفاوتهای جنوب و شمال. به نظر من تعهد فاکنر نسبت به مردمانش و نفرتش از بردگی انسانها موجبات بزرگی او را فراهم آورده است.
حالا پیش از آنکه به سراغ داستان کتاب بپردازم میخواهم از عنوان کتاب بگویم. فاکنر عناوین رمانهایش را اتفاقی انتخاب نمیکند. در این کتاب نیز همین رویه وجود دارد و به توضیحی در مورد آن میپردازم:
سه هزار و سی و سه سال قبل، کشور اسرائیل را پادشاهی بود به نام داوود. داوود در سالهای ابتدایی سلطنت با همسر «اوریای حتی» که زنی زیباروی بود زنا کرد. حاصل این زنا پسر نخست داوود بود. او نخستین پسر خود را «امنون» نام نهاد و قاعدتا او را ولیعهد تاج و تخت اعلام کرد. مدتها بعد پیشگویی در دربار به خدمت پادشاه اسرائیل شرفیاب شد و به او اطلاع داد، خداوند از زنا خشمگین است و مجازات این زنا آن است که پسر نخست او خواهد مرد. داوود همسری به نام «معکه» داشت و از این زن نیز صاحب فرزندان پسر و دختر دیگری بود. پسر دوم او اقبالش به زندگی بلند نبود و در کودکی از دنیا رفت. پسر سوم ابشلوم نام داشت که بسیار زیبا بود و گیسوان بلندی داشت. فاکنر عنوان ابشلوم ابشلوم را از نالههای داوود بر سر جنازهی پسرش گرفته است. ماجرا چنین بود که امنون به خواهر خود «تامار» که از همسر پدرش بود تجاوز کرد و این موضوع البته که باعث خشم پدر گردید اما به سبب علاقهی او به جانشین رشیدش، او را از تنبیه و مجازات معاف کرد. ابشلوم که از بدو تولد پسری جاهطلب بود و نسبت به برادر بزرگ خود که از مادری دیگر بود و حاصل یک زنا حسادت میورزید، گناه تجاوز او به خواهرش را نابخشودنی برشمرد. او برادر بزرگ و ولیعهد تاج و تخت را به قتل رساند و سپس از ترس مجازات پدر از پایتخت کشور اسرائیل یعنی اورشلیم فرار کرد. پس از گذشت سه سال و دو ماه، داوود که تاج و تخت را بی وارث میدید، تنها پسر باقیماندهاش را عفو کرد و او را به اورشلیم فراخواند. ابشلوم در بازگشت به اورشلیم خود را جوانی رعنا و شایستهی سلطنت دید و این چنین شد که ادعای پادشاهی کرد. این ادعا باعث خشم پدر و لشگرکشی به سوی او شد. ابشلوم که خبردار میشود پدرش با لشگری بیشمار به سویش حملهور شده فرار میکند اما در جریان فرار موهای بلندش که در هوا معلق بود به درختی میپیچد و او را خفه میکند. داوود که جنازهی پسرش را به زیر درخت مییابد سوگوار میشود و بر سر جنازهی پسرش فریاد میزند:
آه پسرم ابشلوم... آه پسرم ابشلوم...
و حالا تلاش میکنم بدون افشای داستان، مقداری به طرح داستان بپردازم:
کوئنتین همان شخصیت مشترک دو شاهکار فاکنر، شب پیش از سفر به هاروارد با دعوت مرموز خانم روزا کوئنفیلد به خانهی تاریک و غمگینش میرود. روزا در این دیدار شروع به تعریف داستان توماس ساتپن شخصیت اصلی رمان میکند.
عالیجناب فاکنر بزرگی خود را در فصل اول به رخ میکشد. جایی که در فصل نخست تمام داستانش را افشا میکند و در ادامهی کتاب با راویهای مختلف که به شکل بیرحمانهای خطوط زمانی را در هم میشکنند، پای خواننده را به جهت یافتن چگونگی وقوع رویدادها به کتابش بند میکند. برای مثال کوئنتین پس از شنیدن حرفهای روزا به سراغ پدرش میرود و حرفهای او را با حرفهایی که شنیده مطابقت میدهد. یا در فصلی با نامهای مفصل که چارلز بون برای جودیث نوشته بود و حقیقتا خود یک صنعت ادبی به شمار میرفت به شکلی دیگری به روایت میپردازد، و یا وقتی کوئنتین به هاروارد میرود داستان را با شریو که او هم در خشم و هیاهو حضور داشت به تطبیق وقایع و حل معما میپردازند.
حرف آخر:
عالیجناب تنها یک رمان ننوشت. او در ابشلوم ابشلوم بدون هیچ گونه تردیدی از «تمام» ظرفیت ادبیات برای خلق شاهمارش بهره برد. فاکنر در ادبیات بینظیر است. کتابهایش را بخوانید و به دوستان خود هدیه دهید اما هشدار میدهم:
هرگز خواندن فاکنر را با ابشلوم ابشلوم و خشم و هیاهو آغاز نکنید.
فایلهای ایپاب کتاب به زبان انگلیسی و پیدیاف ترجمهی فارسی آن را در کانال تلگرام آپلود نمودهام. در صورت نیاز میتوانید آنها را از لینکهای زیر دانلود نمایید. ضمنا خاطرنشان میکنم که نه ترجمهی فارسی را بررسی کردهام و نه مترجم مورد اعتماد من است. صرفا به دلیل آنکه ترجمهی دیگری از کتاب موجود نبود برایتان آپلود نمودهآم.
لینک فایل ایپاب کتاب به زبان انگلیسی
https://t.me/reviewsbysoheil/698
لینک فایل پیدیاف ترجمهی فارسی کتاب
https://t.me/reviewsbysoheil/699
دوم آذرماه یکهزار و چهارصد و دو
In comparing 'Absalom, Absalom!' with 'The Sound and the Fury,' I explore the commonalities and distinctions between the two novels.
The differences:
-Faulkner, in 'The Sound and the Fury', had kept descriptions of the environment to a minimum, but in this book, he vividly increased his unique and beautiful portrayals.
-Quentin Compson is a character shared between these two novels. In 'The Sound and the Fury,' we knew Quentin as a young student at Harvard who took his own life, but in this book, he's alive and still a Harvard student.
-The storytelling approach in these two novels had a noticeable difference. In 'The Sound and the Fury,' Faulkner used four specific narrators, shaping his story across four chapters in a stream-of-consciousness manner. However, in this novel, even though Faulkner's style remains consistent, the narrators irregularly and unexpectedly switch their roles.
Similarities:
-The stories unfold in the imaginary world of Faulkner, called Yoknapatawpha. Yoknapatawpha is a country with two cities, Jefferson and Memphis, and a population of 15,611. During the story's timeframe, Jefferson was the only settlement with an inn, six shops, a blacksmith, a stable, a tavern, and three churches, housing only thirty households. Faulkner, through novels like "Sanctuary," "Moses," and "Light In August," portrays the country's evolution over time.
-The narrative style of both novels is stream-of-consciousness.
-Faulkner's central concern remains constant: depicting the lives and challenges of blacks, whites, and reds living together and highlighting the distinctions between the South and the North. In my view, Faulkner's dedication to his people and his abhorrence of human enslavement contribute significantly to his literary eminence.
Now, before I get into the story, let me talk about the book's title. Faulkner doesn't randomly pick titles for his novels. This book follows the same pattern, and I'll explain it like a story:
Approximately three millennia and thirty-three years ago, in the nation-state of Israel, a monarch by the name of David took the throne. During the nascent stages of his rule, David succumbed to the temptation of adultery with the wife of Uriah the Hittite, a woman of striking beauty. This illicit union bore fruit in the form of David's firstborn son, Amnon, whom he officially recognised as the heir to his throne. After considerable time had passed, a court prophet, who had the privilege of serving the Israeli monarch, conveyed a divine message of displeasure regarding the adulterous act. The divine retribution for this moral transgression was decreed to be the demise of David's first son.
David was also wedded to a woman named Maeka, with whom he fathered another son and a daughter. Tragically, his second son was not blessed with longevity and passed away during childhood. His third son, Absalom, was renowned for his beauty and distinctive long hair. The title 'Absalom, Absalom' was borrowed by Faulkner from David's lamentations over his son's premature demise.
The narrative unfolded as follows: Amnon committed a heinous act of sexual assault against his sister, Tamar, who happened to be the daughter of his father's lawful spouse. This abhorrent act incensed David, but his dynastic aspirations for Amnon led him to absolve his son of punishment. Absalom, inherently ambitious and consumed with envy towards his half-brother - the product of the aforementioned adultery, deemed Amnon's violation of their sister as an unforgivable crime. Consequently, he murdered his elder brother, the crown prince, and fled from Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, in fear of paternal repercussions.
After a period of three years and two months, David, confronted with an heirless throne, extended his pardon to Absalom, his sole surviving son, and summoned him back to Jerusalem. Upon his return, Absalom, perceiving himself as a worthy candidate for the throne, staked his claim. This audacious claim incited his father's wrath, leading to an attack on Absalom.
When Absalom discovered his father's impending attack with an overwhelming military force, he attempted to flee. Alas, during his flight, his long hair, billowing in the wind, became entangled in a tree, leading to his unfortunate strangulation. Upon discovering his son's lifeless body beneath the tree, David was consumed with grief, crying out in despair: 'Oh my son Absalom... Oh my son Absalom...'
Please note: This narrative appears to be a fusion of religious and historical accounts. Consequently, some character relationships and events may not correspond accurately with established texts.
I want to give a short summary of the story here. If you don't want spoilers, it's better to read this part after finishing the book:
The tale commences on the evening preceding Quentin's departure for Harvard. He is summoned to the dim, sweltering abode of family friend Rosa Coldfield, who imparts her rendition of the narrative surrounding her brother-in-law, Thomas Sutpen. Sutpen, arriving in the region in the 1830s, acquires the land for Sutpen's Hundred through dubious and potentially illicit means. Establishing a prosperous plantation, he appears destined for affluence and influence. Rosa's portrayal of Sutpen is ominous, consistently depicting him as a devil or demon. She recounts Sutpen as a brutal man who compels his slaves to engage in fights for his entertainment, occasionally participating himself. Marrying Rosa's elder sister Ellen for social status, Sutpen fathers two children, Judith and Henry. Rosa suggests that men like Sutpen led to the South's defeat in the Civil War, a divine punishment according to her beliefs.
Quentin's father recounts the same story with a markedly different tone. Initially a mysterious figure, Sutpen, known for taking rooms in town and purportedly purchasing land with Spanish gold, would disappear for extended periods. He would return with a substantial number of slaves, clearing land and constructing Sutpen's Hundred. Sutpen's wild lifestyle transforms when he courts Ellen Coldfield, dedicating himself to her family. However, suspicions arise about the legality of his wealth acquisition. On the day of his engagement to Ellen, he is arrested but later bailed out by the Coldfields.
Quentin's father provides additional details about Rosa. Her mother's death during childbirth leaves Ellen, already married to Sutpen, as Rosa's older sister. Ellen undergoes a transformation that Rosa despises due to her association with Sutpen. Charles Bon, Judith's fiancé, is introduced, and Rosa, now in poverty, remains at a distance until summoned by Wash Jones, a poor farmer.
Charles's letter to Judith unfolds a complex story, revealing his friendship with Henry and a love affair with Judith. Sutpen tells Henry that Charles has a secret wife of mixed race, leading to a family rupture. Rosa resumes the narrative, stating that Wash Jones summoned her because Henry killed Charles. Engaged to Sutpen briefly, Rosa flees the plantation after an unexplained insult. She informs Quentin that someone has been clandestinely dwelling at Sutpen's Hundred.
In school, Quentin learns of Miss Rosa's demise and shares the story with his roommate, Shreve. Thomas Sutpen's downfall is revealed, involving a relationship with Wash Jones's daughter and his subsequent murder by Wash Jones. Quentin recalls Charles Bon's illegitimate son, raised by Judith, who begets Jim Bond, a simple-minded man. Shreve recounts their exploration of Sutpen's Hundred, confirming Rosa's predictions and discovering more.
Quentin reveals Sutpen's past as a foreman on a West Indies sugar plantation, marrying and fathering Charles Bon. Upon realizing his wife's African heritage, Sutpen leaves and later attempts to thwart Charles's marriage to Judith by claiming they are half-siblings. Henry, enraged by the revelation of Charles's racial background, kills him.
The story concludes with Quentin and Shreve envisioning the day of Charles Bon's death. They speculate on Henry's replacement of Judith's photo with that of his illegitimate family, indicating Charles didn't deserve her grief. Rosa and Quentin find Henry at the house, waiting to die, prompting Rosa to call for an ambulance. Clytie, thinking it's the police, sets the house on fire. When Shreve questions Quentin's apparent hatred for the South, Quentin denies it.
نسخهی فارسی (فاقد محتوای افشا کننده):
خانم ها و آقایان، این شما و این هم بهترین کتابی که تا به امروز خواندهام.
سوال ده میلیونی این است:
اگر آنچه در این کتاب خواندم ادبیات نام دارد، پس محتوای کتابهایی که پیش از این خواندهام چه نام دارد؟ بر کسی پوشیده نیست که ویلیام فاکنر نویسندهی مورد علاقهی من است. او را به خاطر نبوغ، خلاقیت و تسلط کامل بر ادبیات تحسین میکنم اما علاقهی من هیچ ارتباطی با تعاریف من از او ندارد چون او یکی از سلاطین انگشتشمار ادبیات جهان است و آثارش نیازی به تعریف، تمجید یا معرفی من ندارند.
اعتراف میکنم خواندن آثار فاکنر نه تنها آسان نیستند، بلکه بسیار دشوارند. فاکنر خواننده را با لبخند به رینگ بوکس میکشاند اما وقتی بازی آغاز شد، هیچ رحمی از خود نشان نمیدهد. خواننده باید بسیار صبور باشد و تا سر حد مرگ برای زنده ماندن تلاش کند و گرنه در فصول ابتدایی کتاب جانش را از دست میدهد.
تقریبا سال گذشته در چنین روزهایی بود که «خشم و هیاهو» را از او خواندم و آن کتاب تبدیل به بهترین کتابی شد که تا به آن روز خوانده بودم و حالا پس از گذشت یکسال، کتابی دیگر از او این عنوان را نصیب خود کرد.
در این ریویو به دلیل اهمیت موضوع به تفاوتها و شباهتهای این رمان و «خشم و هیاهو» اشاره میکنم.
تفاوتها:
-فاکنر توصیفهای محیطی را در خشم و هیاهو به حداقل رسانده بود، اما در این کتاب توصیفهای ناب و خاص خود را به شکل محسوسی افزایش داد.
-کوئنتین کامپسون شخصیت مشترک این دو رمان است. ما میدانیم که کوئنتین در خشم و هیاهو، جوانی بود که در هاروارد درس میخواند و خودکشی کرد، اما در این کتاب او زنده است و همچنان در هاروارد درس میخواند.
-فرم روایت در این دو رمان تفاوت محسوسی داشت. در خشم و هیاهو فاکنر از چهار راوی مشخص استفاده کرد و داستانش را در چهار فصل به سبک سیال ذهن خلق کرد، اما در این رمان اگرچه فاکنر همان فاکنر است و سبک قلمش همان است اما راویها به طور نامنظم و غیرمنتظرهای جای خود را به همدیگر میدهند و به شکل مرگباری خطوط زمانی را تغییر میدهند.
شباهتها:
-رویدادهای هر دو شاهکار در سرزمین خیالی فاکنر یعنی یوکناپاتاوفا به وقوع میپیوندد. این کشور دو شهر دارد: جفرسون و ممفیس، و در آن ۱۵۶۱۱ نفر زندگی میکنند. در زمان روایت داستان این کتاب، جفرسون تنها یک آبادی بود که در آن یک کاروانسرا، شش دکان، یک آهنگری، یک اسطبل، یک میخانه و سه کلیسا وجود داشت و جمعیت مردمش تنها سی خانوار بود. با توجه به اینکه فاکنر به جز این کتاب رمانهای «حریم»، «میمیریم همانطور که زندگی کردیم»، «برخیز ای موسی» و «روشنایی در اوت» را نیز روایت کرده است، به نظر میرسد این کشور به مرور زمان در ذهنش به تکامل رسیده است.
-هر دو رمان به سبک سیال ذهن روایت شدهاند.
-دغدغهی فاکنر همان دغدغهای همیشگی است: زندگی و مصائب زندگی سیاهان، سفیدها و سرخها در کنار یکدیگر و تفاوتهای جنوب و شمال. به نظر من تعهد فاکنر نسبت به مردمانش و نفرتش از بردگی انسانها موجبات بزرگی او را فراهم آورده است.
حالا پیش از آنکه به سراغ داستان کتاب بپردازم میخواهم از عنوان کتاب بگویم. فاکنر عناوین رمانهایش را اتفاقی انتخاب نمیکند. در این کتاب نیز همین رویه وجود دارد و به توضیحی در مورد آن میپردازم:
سه هزار و سی و سه سال قبل، کشور اسرائیل را پادشاهی بود به نام داوود. داوود در سالهای ابتدایی سلطنت با همسر «اوریای حتی» که زنی زیباروی بود زنا کرد. حاصل این زنا پسر نخست داوود بود. او نخستین پسر خود را «امنون» نام نهاد و قاعدتا او را ولیعهد تاج و تخت اعلام کرد. مدتها بعد پیشگویی در دربار به خدمت پادشاه اسرائیل شرفیاب شد و به او اطلاع داد، خداوند از زنا خشمگین است و مجازات این زنا آن است که پسر نخست او خواهد مرد. داوود همسری به نام «معکه» داشت و از این زن نیز صاحب فرزندان پسر و دختر دیگری بود. پسر دوم او اقبالش به زندگی بلند نبود و در کودکی از دنیا رفت. پسر سوم ابشلوم نام داشت که بسیار زیبا بود و گیسوان بلندی داشت. فاکنر عنوان ابشلوم ابشلوم را از نالههای داوود بر سر جنازهی پسرش گرفته است. ماجرا چنین بود که امنون به خواهر خود «تامار» که از همسر پدرش بود تجاوز کرد و این موضوع البته که باعث خشم پدر گردید اما به سبب علاقهی او به جانشین رشیدش، او را از تنبیه و مجازات معاف کرد. ابشلوم که از بدو تولد پسری جاهطلب بود و نسبت به برادر بزرگ خود که از مادری دیگر بود و حاصل یک زنا حسادت میورزید، گناه تجاوز او به خواهرش را نابخشودنی برشمرد. او برادر بزرگ و ولیعهد تاج و تخت را به قتل رساند و سپس از ترس مجازات پدر از پایتخت کشور اسرائیل یعنی اورشلیم فرار کرد. پس از گذشت سه سال و دو ماه، داوود که تاج و تخت را بی وارث میدید، تنها پسر باقیماندهاش را عفو کرد و او را به اورشلیم فراخواند. ابشلوم در بازگشت به اورشلیم خود را جوانی رعنا و شایستهی سلطنت دید و این چنین شد که ادعای پادشاهی کرد. این ادعا باعث خشم پدر و لشگرکشی به سوی او شد. ابشلوم که خبردار میشود پدرش با لشگری بیشمار به سویش حملهور شده فرار میکند اما در جریان فرار موهای بلندش که در هوا معلق بود به درختی میپیچد و او را خفه میکند. داوود که جنازهی پسرش را به زیر درخت مییابد سوگوار میشود و بر سر جنازهی پسرش فریاد میزند:
آه پسرم ابشلوم... آه پسرم ابشلوم...
و حالا تلاش میکنم بدون افشای داستان، مقداری به طرح داستان بپردازم:
کوئنتین همان شخصیت مشترک دو شاهکار فاکنر، شب پیش از سفر به هاروارد با دعوت مرموز خانم روزا کوئنفیلد به خانهی تاریک و غمگینش میرود. روزا در این دیدار شروع به تعریف داستان توماس ساتپن شخصیت اصلی رمان میکند.
عالیجناب فاکنر بزرگی خود را در فصل اول به رخ میکشد. جایی که در فصل نخست تمام داستانش را افشا میکند و در ادامهی کتاب با راویهای مختلف که به شکل بیرحمانهای خطوط زمانی را در هم میشکنند، پای خواننده را به جهت یافتن چگونگی وقوع رویدادها به کتابش بند میکند. برای مثال کوئنتین پس از شنیدن حرفهای روزا به سراغ پدرش میرود و حرفهای او را با حرفهایی که شنیده مطابقت میدهد. یا در فصلی با نامهای مفصل که چارلز بون برای جودیث نوشته بود و حقیقتا خود یک صنعت ادبی به شمار میرفت به شکلی دیگری به روایت میپردازد، و یا وقتی کوئنتین به هاروارد میرود داستان را با شریو که او هم در خشم و هیاهو حضور داشت به تطبیق وقایع و حل معما میپردازند.
حرف آخر:
عالیجناب تنها یک رمان ننوشت. او در ابشلوم ابشلوم بدون هیچ گونه تردیدی از «تمام» ظرفیت ادبیات برای خلق شاهمارش بهره برد. فاکنر در ادبیات بینظیر است. کتابهایش را بخوانید و به دوستان خود هدیه دهید اما هشدار میدهم:
هرگز خواندن فاکنر را با ابشلوم ابشلوم و خشم و هیاهو آغاز نکنید.
فایلهای ایپاب کتاب به زبان انگلیسی و پیدیاف ترجمهی فارسی آن را در کانال تلگرام آپلود نمودهام. در صورت نیاز میتوانید آنها را از لینکهای زیر دانلود نمایید. ضمنا خاطرنشان میکنم که نه ترجمهی فارسی را بررسی کردهام و نه مترجم مورد اعتماد من است. صرفا به دلیل آنکه ترجمهی دیگری از کتاب موجود نبود برایتان آپلود نمودهآم.
لینک فایل ایپاب کتاب به زبان انگلیسی
https://t.me/reviewsbysoheil/698
لینک فایل پیدیاف ترجمهی فارسی کتاب
https://t.me/reviewsbysoheil/699
دوم آذرماه یکهزار و چهارصد و دو
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
2.5 stars. I think a lot could be said about this book, so I'm going to stick to my experience of reading it. I didn't love this like other Faulkner books I've read which compensate for Faulkner's arguably laborious writing with either a poignant conclusion, incisive social commentary, or some lighthearted element. As I Lay Dying and The Sound and the Fury lay comfortably in the former, while Light In August and the Reivers included parts of the latter two. This book, however, really challenged me to pay attention and engage with the kind of half-telling of the story as Faulkner does.
Overall, I think the average reader has a real problem with Faulkner's prose. But it's also why people like him. And it's very intentionally done. Faulkner's a modernist. He's purposefully only telling you half the story because he's giving you a character's perspective on events that transpired, which often in reality are less than complete or flat out wrong. He's giving us a realistic portrait of how people perceive events. The problem, is that most readers don't really give a shit about realism. They care about things making sense. Or in technical terms, a straightforward narrative. Now I know Faulkner is not the only author to put us in this situation. And you might be thinking of plenty of novels that engage readers while still withholding things from them. But I think we can both agree that Faulkner does it with a heavy hand, giving just enough details to keep you going and only explaining things at the very end.
So what's the point? Well, most people think Faulkner does this pretty well. And besides the whole narrative thing (or knowing what the fuck is going on), Faulkner's prose has some other impressive and even enjoyable qualities.
So some of the good stuff. It's definitely got that signature Faulkner take on race. It turns out being prejudiced (along racial and class lines) leads to everyone having a bad time, being obsessed with social mores, and ending in tragic fates. There are also some interesting deliberations on these matters if often couched in weirdly opaque individual perspectives. If I had to pick the single best thing it would be the sheer range of perspectives that Faulkner articulates. Certainly this is what Faulkner painstakingly dedicates his craft to. And there are some pretty decent lines.
My enjoyment of the book was less than I hoped and most of the good elements were outweighed by the opaqueness or just plain concealment of details to the extent that sometimes reading became quite a trudge. I described the book to a friend as soporific. But I got through it.
This might be a rare occasion where even though I didn't enjoy the book as much as I expected, I might still say that it's worth reading. But there are still some other Faulkner books I haven't read that might be more worthy.
Overall, I think the average reader has a real problem with Faulkner's prose. But it's also why people like him. And it's very intentionally done. Faulkner's a modernist. He's purposefully only telling you half the story because he's giving you a character's perspective on events that transpired, which often in reality are less than complete or flat out wrong. He's giving us a realistic portrait of how people perceive events. The problem, is that most readers don't really give a shit about realism. They care about things making sense. Or in technical terms, a straightforward narrative. Now I know Faulkner is not the only author to put us in this situation. And you might be thinking of plenty of novels that engage readers while still withholding things from them. But I think we can both agree that Faulkner does it with a heavy hand, giving just enough details to keep you going and only explaining things at the very end.
So what's the point? Well, most people think Faulkner does this pretty well. And besides the whole narrative thing (or knowing what the fuck is going on), Faulkner's prose has some other impressive and even enjoyable qualities.
So some of the good stuff. It's definitely got that signature Faulkner take on race. It turns out being prejudiced (along racial and class lines) leads to everyone having a bad time, being obsessed with social mores, and ending in tragic fates. There are also some interesting deliberations on these matters if often couched in weirdly opaque individual perspectives. If I had to pick the single best thing it would be the sheer range of perspectives that Faulkner articulates. Certainly this is what Faulkner painstakingly dedicates his craft to. And there are some pretty decent lines.
My enjoyment of the book was less than I hoped and most of the good elements were outweighed by the opaqueness or just plain concealment of details to the extent that sometimes reading became quite a trudge. I described the book to a friend as soporific. But I got through it.
This might be a rare occasion where even though I didn't enjoy the book as much as I expected, I might still say that it's worth reading. But there are still some other Faulkner books I haven't read that might be more worthy.
The way Faulkner writes is intimidating. But once I just let it flow over me without trying to understand everything it was actually pretty enjoyable. I can see how the prose helped build the characters and by the end of the book it all still sort of made sense.