Take a photo of a barcode or cover
cryo_guy 's review for:
Absalom, Absalom!
by William Faulkner
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.