Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.87 AVERAGE
3.87 AVERAGE
challenging
dark
mysterious
sad
tense
slow-paced
Some folks find Faulkner hard to appreciate, if not even a bit pretentious. I can see where that comes from. But I nonetheless think he is a genius. His writing style is and was revolutionary for its time, and he captures an essence of a rotting, decaying south, in all its moroseness, depression, backwardness, and spiritual sickness that is stunning. He is a master of perspective in story-telling and his often critiqued stream-of-conciousness style, for all its complexity, works. It may be hard at times to follow, but once the rhythm is discovered, it makes sense. Sometimes miraculously so.
A few comments on the actual story: one empathizes at a certain level with Thomas Sutpen and the basic ignorance that drove him to his fate. He was a bastard, to be sure; but it was almost as if his environment condemned him to his fate at the very moment when he experienced some kind of self-awareness epiphany. He just wasn't capable of understanding the swirling ideas and thoughts that accompanied his epiphany as a poor white mountain man in a time of southern slavery and racism.
There is much more to say about the various characters in the story, the incest, the miscegenation, the abuse, etc.; but I only want at this moment to just touch on one thing that stuck out to me which concerns the character of Wash Jones and the very tangential subplot surrounding him. In some ways, Wash Jones strikes me as a mirror image of Thomas Sutpen himself, only with the tables ironically turned. And Thomas Sutpen himself, whose plan or project was precisely to mitigate the circumstances for poor white men in ante-bellum slave cultures, ended up actually treating Wash Jones in the very dismissive and abusive manner in which Sutpen's treatment by the plantation owner of his own youth propelled his own epiphany and quest. It was a very subtle, but poignant irony in the story, I thought. The crux of the book gets so enmeshed in the incest and racial mixing involving Thomas Sutpen's various offspring (Henry, Judith, and Charles Bon), that this little side story with Wash Jones can get lost in the drama. But I also think it is no small thing that it is Wash Jones who is the one who kills Thomas Sutpen, when Thomas Sutpen up to that point was almost as if he were a feared, indestructable, "demon." Thomas Sutpen meets his end by the very mirror image of himself and within the very same context that made him who he became.
For anyone who thinks to tackle this Faulkner masterpiece, I have one suggestion: don't pore and ponder and labor over the grammar and the stream-of-consciousness structure. Don't try to decipher it. That will only make you more frustrated and confused. Just read it, and read it at a fairly quick pace with a fairly regular rhythm. I think if you read it this way and don't let yourself get overwhelmed or awed by what you may have been led to believe about Faulkner's "daunting" style, you will actually find that it's not all that hard after all.
A few comments on the actual story: one empathizes at a certain level with Thomas Sutpen and the basic ignorance that drove him to his fate. He was a bastard, to be sure; but it was almost as if his environment condemned him to his fate at the very moment when he experienced some kind of self-awareness epiphany. He just wasn't capable of understanding the swirling ideas and thoughts that accompanied his epiphany as a poor white mountain man in a time of southern slavery and racism.
There is much more to say about the various characters in the story, the incest, the miscegenation, the abuse, etc.; but I only want at this moment to just touch on one thing that stuck out to me which concerns the character of Wash Jones and the very tangential subplot surrounding him. In some ways, Wash Jones strikes me as a mirror image of Thomas Sutpen himself, only with the tables ironically turned. And Thomas Sutpen himself, whose plan or project was precisely to mitigate the circumstances for poor white men in ante-bellum slave cultures, ended up actually treating Wash Jones in the very dismissive and abusive manner in which Sutpen's treatment by the plantation owner of his own youth propelled his own epiphany and quest. It was a very subtle, but poignant irony in the story, I thought. The crux of the book gets so enmeshed in the incest and racial mixing involving Thomas Sutpen's various offspring (Henry, Judith, and Charles Bon), that this little side story with Wash Jones can get lost in the drama. But I also think it is no small thing that it is Wash Jones who is the one who kills Thomas Sutpen, when Thomas Sutpen up to that point was almost as if he were a feared, indestructable, "demon." Thomas Sutpen meets his end by the very mirror image of himself and within the very same context that made him who he became.
For anyone who thinks to tackle this Faulkner masterpiece, I have one suggestion: don't pore and ponder and labor over the grammar and the stream-of-consciousness structure. Don't try to decipher it. That will only make you more frustrated and confused. Just read it, and read it at a fairly quick pace with a fairly regular rhythm. I think if you read it this way and don't let yourself get overwhelmed or awed by what you may have been led to believe about Faulkner's "daunting" style, you will actually find that it's not all that hard after all.
It was so dense and hard to read. Definitely a harder Faulkner book to get through
dark
slow-paced
Loveable characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Content Warnings
Graphic: Emotional abuse, Incest, Racial slurs, Racism, Sexism, Colonisation
Moderate: Adult/minor relationship, Alcoholism, Misogyny, Slavery, Alcohol, War
I might have to come back and give this book 5 stars someday, with the way it keeps growing in my mind. It's difficult and hate-able for so many reasons (style, narration, story, implications, culture, humanity), but I love and can't forget it for all of them. The implications and thoughts about the South won't leave me for a long time.
challenging
dark
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Fairly difficult to read (well what do you expect, it’s Faulkner), though more consistent in that the difficulty doesn’t fluctuate as much as Sound and the Fury does; it’s easier than the most difficult parts of that book but harder than the easier ones. That said, SOTF is probably more accessible and appropriate for a new reader; the characters in that book are more easily recognizable and memorable (Benjy! Caddy! Quentin!), whereas this one really just focuses on the specter of Thomas Sutpen, aka the definition of Mr. Unlikable, which doesn't make this book any more enjoyable to read. Or well, I enjoyed it, but for different reasons.
(Also, I hate people like Shreve. "Wait/All right/Listen-" shut up Shreve you weren't there. And you sound like Navi from Zelda.)
It’s been too long since I read this already for me to give a more thorough review, but I will say that a few moments from this book still stick with me in the way that good literature always does-- especially the chapter adapted from Faulkner’s previous short story, “Wash.” Holy **** that ending. So good. And that final chapter ain't too shabby either.
It’s Southern (in all storytelling senses of the word: gothic, legendary, tragic, speculative, what-have-you), it’s epic, it’s sad... and it's surprisingly relevant if you want to understand the white American South mentality. It makes me wonder how much of it has really changed, over a century later. So much of what happens in this book, for all its twists and turns and climaxes, didn't really surprise me or change my view in the grander scheme of things: cognitive dissonance, racial hubris, self-serving ambition and victimization. We've all seen this before. Just look at the news in the past year.
It's as they say: "these wounds, they will not heal." (and that's the only time you'll ever hear me quote Linkin Park haha.)
(Also, I hate people like Shreve. "Wait/All right/Listen-" shut up Shreve you weren't there. And you sound like Navi from Zelda.)
It’s been too long since I read this already for me to give a more thorough review, but I will say that a few moments from this book still stick with me in the way that good literature always does-- especially the chapter adapted from Faulkner’s previous short story, “Wash.” Holy **** that ending. So good. And that final chapter ain't too shabby either.
It’s Southern (in all storytelling senses of the word: gothic, legendary, tragic, speculative, what-have-you), it’s epic, it’s sad... and it's surprisingly relevant if you want to understand the white American South mentality. It makes me wonder how much of it has really changed, over a century later. So much of what happens in this book, for all its twists and turns and climaxes, didn't really surprise me or change my view in the grander scheme of things: cognitive dissonance, racial hubris, self-serving ambition and victimization. We've all seen this before. Just look at the news in the past year.
It's as they say: "these wounds, they will not heal." (and that's the only time you'll ever hear me quote Linkin Park haha.)
challenging
emotional
mysterious
sad
tense
slow-paced
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
challenging
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes