Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.7 AVERAGE
3.7 AVERAGE
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
tense
slow-paced
challenging
emotional
sad
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Faulkner throws you right in the middle of things without any explanation. I never would have gotten through this book if I hadn't been reading it for a class.
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
THIS FREAKING BOOK! I have so much frustration with this book. I want to love it soooooo much, I want it to be in my top 20 favorite books, but there are certain aspects that detract. Ultimately, I plan on rereading it somewhere down the road in the hope that I stumble across a new look at it. Here's where I stand: The plot is magnificent (I will give no spoilers), it shows the decadence of the Compsons as the once Aristocratic southern family name loses much of its good reputation and loses the respect of the town and even themselves in a way. It's a tragedy and it covers the lives of the siblings Quentin, Caddy, Jason, and Benjy and the sad, unlucky paths they travel. There are four parts to the novel, the first part narrated by Benjy, the second part narrated by Quentin, the third part narrated by Jason and the last part introducing a third-person omniscient view for the conclusion of the novel. Though the question of if the story really resolves is up for debate. The first two parts uses a lot of the narrators' memories to help unravel the story, which gives the novel a sad, sentimental mood/tone that suits the book perfectly. After the first three parts, the chronology of the memories and therefore the plot becomes more clear.
Now, if all of this is good, why do I have such a hard time with this book? Well, the entire first part is written solely in the present tense, regardless if the narration is describing a memory or the present. It even shifts time periods in mid-sentence, sometimes more than once. And many of the descriptions are hard to interpret. This reading is disorienting and you'll be wondering if you read a chapter of a novel or if you just witnessed a typewriter vomiting. Then the second part, Quentin's narrative, is pretty similar to the first part. While this narrator gives a little more indication of time, he obsesses over abstract, intangible concepts and then also in mid-sentence shifts to memories and back to present and then back to the abstract thought, all in one breath. Many of his memories involved dialogue, but disregards the use for quotation marks most of the time, making it hard to tell when a sentence is thought or said or description. As this chapter progresses, Faulkner starts to ignore grammar, mechanics, and structure altogether. This makes this section much harder to navigate than the first part.You'll start to wonder if this was meant on purpose or if Faulkner rushed the balls out of the novel and decided not to have an editor go over the text at all. Then last two sections follow a mostly linear and straightforward narrative. But at this time, everything is just so confusing and muddled. I had to look up a great portion online in order to understand a majority of the text. Once you actually see what's going on, you'll see some reasoning of why Faulkner stylized his novel in such a fashion. I was just so befuddled at the end that I just couldn't accept the writing as it is, even if the plot is great. So one day, maybe soon, I'll reread the book carefully with the knowledge I have now of the plot. Maybe then I'll see the style in a new light. I sure hope so. I'm still wondering if reading it was worth the time and effort or not.
Now, if all of this is good, why do I have such a hard time with this book? Well, the entire first part is written solely in the present tense, regardless if the narration is describing a memory or the present. It even shifts time periods in mid-sentence, sometimes more than once. And many of the descriptions are hard to interpret. This reading is disorienting and you'll be wondering if you read a chapter of a novel or if you just witnessed a typewriter vomiting. Then the second part, Quentin's narrative, is pretty similar to the first part. While this narrator gives a little more indication of time, he obsesses over abstract, intangible concepts and then also in mid-sentence shifts to memories and back to present and then back to the abstract thought, all in one breath. Many of his memories involved dialogue, but disregards the use for quotation marks most of the time, making it hard to tell when a sentence is thought or said or description. As this chapter progresses, Faulkner starts to ignore grammar, mechanics, and structure altogether. This makes this section much harder to navigate than the first part.You'll start to wonder if this was meant on purpose or if Faulkner rushed the balls out of the novel and decided not to have an editor go over the text at all. Then last two sections follow a mostly linear and straightforward narrative. But at this time, everything is just so confusing and muddled. I had to look up a great portion online in order to understand a majority of the text. Once you actually see what's going on, you'll see some reasoning of why Faulkner stylized his novel in such a fashion. I was just so befuddled at the end that I just couldn't accept the writing as it is, even if the plot is great. So one day, maybe soon, I'll reread the book carefully with the knowledge I have now of the plot. Maybe then I'll see the style in a new light. I sure hope so. I'm still wondering if reading it was worth the time and effort or not.
Think a sequel to "Gone With the Wind" written by James Joyce. Not especially fun to read the first time out, but despite my reluctance to like Faulkner (why? dunno.) I can't deny that this is a masterful piece of authorship. It gets both easier and more compelling as you go, and the back half of the book clarifies a lot of the mysteries from the front half. Of the three brothers who narrate the book, the contemptible Jason is paradoxically the most sympathetic; he's a real jerk, but he's been dealt a raw hand.
I'll want to dive into this one again, now that I know what the hell is going on.
2020 Update: As expected, it goes a lot smoother when you know the lay of the land going in. Pretty amazing stuff.
I'll want to dive into this one again, now that I know what the hell is going on.
2020 Update: As expected, it goes a lot smoother when you know the lay of the land going in. Pretty amazing stuff.
challenging
reflective
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
dark
I liked this book, but I did not love it. Benjy’s disorienting lack of time-perception and thoughts, Quentin’s obsession with time and never-quieting head, Jason’s disregard for time and all around him. This book is one that after a second reading, I may rate it higher. For my first reading, though, I cannot honestly say that this book was incredibly enjoyable. Despite that, I do now see how monumental Faulkner’s influence is on modern literature. This book was overall a beautiful read, and I’m glad to have taken it on.
Really hated this and didn't understand it. It was a chore to get through.