Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.87 AVERAGE
3.87 AVERAGE
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
slow-paced
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
sad
slow-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
challenging
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Content Warnings
Graphic: Racial slurs, Slavery, War
I read this book as part of a book club, and quite honestly I'm so happy that's how I ended up tackling it, because I suspect I wouldn't have kept reading without the guidance of our book leader - who teaches this book as a professor. I consider myself a fairly well-read guy but there are many authors and books I've never tackled and this was one of them. It's one of the more unusual books I've read, and I can really understand why it's a classic - it is structured in such a unique way and tells an epic tale in a really different way.
The book is largely centered around Thomas Sutpen, the wealthiest man in the small town in the south - his land is 100 square miles, knows as Sutpen's Hundred. The story is told through many chapters and several narrators (which switch without much notice), and some narrators are actually retelling something they themselves have been told.
For Quentin Coldfield, the story of what happened with Sutpen, his family, his estate is the most important thing that happened in his world, even as he is recalling it in the Northeast at Harvard in his early 20's, years later. Because even though the primary things in the book take place just before, during and after the civil war, the ramifications last for generations - as we still see in the South today.
For others - like Quentin's roomate Shreve, who hails from Canada and is fascinated by the South, the story Quentin is telling is really a story ABOUT the South. Because the downfall of Sutpen is - once you unwind it and understand everything - really a parable about why the South lost the Civil War, and why they were on the wrong side of the argument.
Sutpen grew up incredibly poor - so poor that he wasn't even aware that there was anything beyond what he had, until as a youth his family moved and he saw wealth and how some men could lie in a hammock all day drinking while he had to work hard and was considered so low in esteem that the idea of him even using the front door was egregious. So he crafted a plan to become the man in the hammock - that involved getting wealth, land and slaves, and trying not to let anything stand in his way. He takes a wife not from love, but to have at least one son who will be his legacy. Starting over, he heads to Mississippi and builds Sutpen's Corner. Sutpen cares so little about morals and ethics that he basically keeps the architect who is helping him build his estate captive for the years it takes (one chapter deals with them hunting him down when he tried to escape).
Even though Faulkner wrote this in the early part of the 20th century, he's basically pointing out that one cannot talk about the "glory of the South" and the importance of the culture of the South and its history WITHOUT acknowledging what it was built upon. Even the people in the South who are disgusted by Sutpen yell at people of color with total disregard for their humanity, with almost no ability to self-reflect.
The last question that Shreve asks Quentin () is an interesting one - because it seems so obvious! But Shreve, despite being from Canada, is still a product of his era and not necessarily innocent either (at one point he states that in Canada they never had anything like this, something the First Nations people might argue a bit with.)
In any case, I truly enjoyed this book - somehow managing to be a sprawling epic told in a very small story. It's not the easiest of reads, and having folks to talk it out with helped, but I truly am happy I had a chance to read it.
The book is largely centered around Thomas Sutpen, the wealthiest man in the small town in the south - his land is 100 square miles, knows as Sutpen's Hundred. The story is told through many chapters and several narrators (which switch without much notice), and some narrators are actually retelling something they themselves have been told.
For Quentin Coldfield, the story of what happened with Sutpen, his family, his estate is the most important thing that happened in his world, even as he is recalling it in the Northeast at Harvard in his early 20's, years later. Because even though the primary things in the book take place just before, during and after the civil war, the ramifications last for generations - as we still see in the South today.
For others - like Quentin's roomate Shreve, who hails from Canada and is fascinated by the South, the story Quentin is telling is really a story ABOUT the South. Because the downfall of Sutpen is - once you unwind it and understand everything - really a parable about why the South lost the Civil War, and why they were on the wrong side of the argument.
Sutpen grew up incredibly poor - so poor that he wasn't even aware that there was anything beyond what he had, until as a youth his family moved and he saw wealth and how some men could lie in a hammock all day drinking while he had to work hard and was considered so low in esteem that the idea of him even using the front door was egregious. So he crafted a plan to become the man in the hammock - that involved getting wealth, land and slaves, and trying not to let anything stand in his way. He takes a wife not from love, but to have at least one son who will be his legacy.
Spoiler
This takes a massive setback when he learns his wife has "Negro blood" in her. Even if her son doesn't appear to not be white, Sutpen finds it repellent and also knows he could never live with this.Spoiler
At his core, Sutpen fails because he never stopped to think about the humanity of his mixed race son Charles Bon, he regarded anyone below him just as awfully as he'd been treated - calling the young girl he'd had yet another daughter with (out of wedlock, possibly through non-consensual sex) not as pretty as a horse - all in the pursuit of his own selfish gains.Even though Faulkner wrote this in the early part of the 20th century, he's basically pointing out that one cannot talk about the "glory of the South" and the importance of the culture of the South and its history WITHOUT acknowledging what it was built upon. Even the people in the South who are disgusted by Sutpen yell at people of color with total disregard for their humanity, with almost no ability to self-reflect.
The last question that Shreve asks Quentin (
Spoiler
"Why do you hate the South?"In any case, I truly enjoyed this book - somehow managing to be a sprawling epic told in a very small story. It's not the easiest of reads, and having folks to talk it out with helped, but I truly am happy I had a chance to read it.
Admittedly took a long time with this one, and though I didn’t catch its rhythm until I was about about 75% through with it, I was still considerably moved by the ending. Someday I will probably come back to this with a more dedicated eye and work to understand/feel it a little better. Still an incredible piece of work
challenging
dark
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
"There's nothing accessible about Faulkner's writing. It's the perfect design to weed out the uncommitted."
This quote by Better Than Food sums my feelings about this book perfectly. Faulkner's sentences consisting of several hundred words present a potent challenge, which often forced me to reread certain parts and often relying on secondary literature. However, I'm glad I persevered.
What I got is a tragedy of ancient proportions, filled with the themes of racism, class, and the lost cause. Faulkner is often referred to as a stylist, but he can write a really engaging prose and characters, that is if you get past the learning curve. This is the Faulkner that I was promised, the more I think about this book, the more I want to come back to it. Truly a challenge worth tackling.
This quote by Better Than Food sums my feelings about this book perfectly. Faulkner's sentences consisting of several hundred words present a potent challenge, which often forced me to reread certain parts and often relying on secondary literature. However, I'm glad I persevered.
What I got is a tragedy of ancient proportions, filled with the themes of racism, class, and the lost cause. Faulkner is often referred to as a stylist, but he can write a really engaging prose and characters, that is if you get past the learning curve. This is the Faulkner that I was promised, the more I think about this book, the more I want to come back to it. Truly a challenge worth tackling.
A lot has been said over the past 70 or so years about Absalom, Absalom! and about William Faulkner's style in general, and I don't think I can really add anything intelligible to that dialogue. However, I will say that if you're looking to read a book about the identity of the American South, the heavy cost of pursuing one's dreams, and the nature of family, blood lines, and love, then choose this novel.
There is a definite beauty in the way in which Faulkner depicts the tragedy and loss of the American South, though this doesn't undermine his sharp and cutting portrait of slavery, misogyny, and social hierarchy. My favorite thing about AA! and Faulkner in general is that he perfectly captures the grotesqueness and obscurity of the American South, while somehow making me feel like I've missed out on something rich and deep by not being able to claim Mississippi as my home.
There is a definite beauty in the way in which Faulkner depicts the tragedy and loss of the American South, though this doesn't undermine his sharp and cutting portrait of slavery, misogyny, and social hierarchy. My favorite thing about AA! and Faulkner in general is that he perfectly captures the grotesqueness and obscurity of the American South, while somehow making me feel like I've missed out on something rich and deep by not being able to claim Mississippi as my home.
Somehow I had never read any Faulkner before now. Not sure if this was the best choice for an introduction to his work. It wasn't bad, but I don't have a burning desire to read any more.
The story was interesting, as were the characters. I liked his writing style, but I found it a bit distancing. It came between me and the characters, so I never really got involved with them or cared deeply. The frequent use of the N-word was also a bit off-putting, tho I understand it is historically accurate for the time and place the story is set in.
I normally love Grover Gardner as a narrator. While he does a good job with this book, I'm not sure he's the best choice for the material. His style doesn't lend itself to a southern accent. I wonder if a different narrator might have drawn me in more, and better captured the atmosphere of the place and story.
The story was interesting, as were the characters. I liked his writing style, but I found it a bit distancing. It came between me and the characters, so I never really got involved with them or cared deeply. The frequent use of the N-word was also a bit off-putting, tho I understand it is historically accurate for the time and place the story is set in.
I normally love Grover Gardner as a narrator. While he does a good job with this book, I'm not sure he's the best choice for the material. His style doesn't lend itself to a southern accent. I wonder if a different narrator might have drawn me in more, and better captured the atmosphere of the place and story.