By: ed biblioklept

ed biblioklept — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:40:25 +0000

You make some valid points. I’m in the middle of a Faulkner class right now, so my hostility is somewhat unbridled. I attempted both of the novels you mentioned, but couldn’t finish them…I was about 19 or 20 at the time. I’m going to attempt some Faulkner wrap-up in this blog later, taking your argument into consideration. I think you bring up an interesting question on the size of a writer’s catalog vis-a-vis their canonical position. I think I’ll try to address this in a post as well: there’s a lot to it.

By: micbk

micbk — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:53:12 +0000

wow.
i’m going to have to disagree here. far be it from me to claim being educated in the literary arts, but as for what i’ve read of Faulkner, i’ve been genuinely blown away. elliptical and confusing are both apt descriptions, however whether or not that is a good or bad thing i think depends on the perception of the reader. now, i’ve not read Sanctuary, only The Sound and The Fury and Absalom, Absalom, but for me those novels showed an extraordinary development of style and i want to say “experimentation” though the cyclical nature of the writing in the end makes it seem more calculated. I feel like these novels showed superior character depth, style light years beyond it’s time and just a genuine raw power in it’s descriptiveness and lyrical flow. i can easily understand why some would absolutely detest Faulkner, but i think it may be a bit overboard to call his greatness as an American author a “scam”…i guess it really depends on your definition of greatness. some would think one masterpiece novel constitutes greatness, while others would contend it should require a bibliography of strong work. i’ll state that in my opinion, The Sound and The Fury is a work of absolute genius and for that alone, he’s an American great in my book.

Comments on: Sanctuary–William Faulkner

By: ed biblioklept

By: micbk