William Faulkner Books

not just a high school cliche. i started it, read it through, turned back to page one and started it again.

This version makes much more sense than the one Faulkner himself dished up. No sorting through who said what to whom. I recommend this whole Cliff series.

Faulkner's use of the stream of conciousness allows the reader to get into, not only the lives of his memorable characters, but their thoughts, their dreams, and their souls. In the Compsons, Faulkner has craeted a family not soon forgotten. It is not a family to be admired and their circumstances should be avoided at all costs, but the Compson family is very easily identified with. The book draws the reader into the thoughts of the dying South and all that the "South" entails. The book is a challenge but gets pleasantly simple after the first two books. Faulkner's style either gets clearer or you as the reader become more accustomed to the style. Either way, the book is truely a classic that I would recommend to any of my friends.

Surprisingly, considering that Williamson authored the excellent Crucible of Race, this book was shorter on relating Faulkner to southern history than on relating Faulkener's sexual history. Long stretches are more about Faulkner and his various mistresses than about Faulkner and southern history (there's even some rather strained meanderings on homosexuality). Literary analysis is shunted mostly to the end, and, when it comes to that, I have read better from English professors. There's a discussion of a lynching that Faulkner may (or may not) have witnessed as a youth. By far the best material on Faulkner and the South deals with the period when he became a liberal (by white southern standards) spokesman on racial issues in the fifties, was viciously attacked and beat an ignominious retreat; but this could have made a journal article. Overall, a neither fish nor fowl book, but still with some interesting sections.

For anyone interested in William Faulkner, this book is far better than any of the other biographies on the market. By illuminating the organic society of the South that is mirrored in Faulker's works, the author has added significant depth to the historical understanding of this great author's works.

For anyone interested in William Faulkner, this book is far better than any of the other biographies on the market. By illuminating the organic society of the South that is mirrored in Faulker's works, the author has added significant depth to the historical understanding of this great author's works.

I really like this book. I like how it spends the first part of the book giving a history of the Acadians, beginning in French (includes regions from where they came and some of their trades), how and where they lived in Canada, and what they did between their expulsion from Canada and before their arrival in Louisiana.
After it has given a rather detailed history, the book goes on to go into more detail about different aspects of Cajun life, such as architecture, weaving, etc.
The book was written in the seventies, so some aspects of it are clearly dated, however the history that it provides is really great.
I recommend this book as a good one to get a pretty detailed overview of Cajun history and Cajun life.

This book covers Cajun history so well it was used to teach the Cajun French III Class at Kaplan High School in Vermilion Parish, Louisiana when I attended back in 1996. When I started RealCajunRecipes.com, I got in touch with the teacher of that class, Ms. Renee Adams, and she was kind enough to send me a copy. She even wrote a few notes for me! I will always cherish this book that covers everything from Moss Farming to the "King of Mobile Home Sales."

I have read and enjoyed most (if not all) of the Toby Peters mysteries, and this was one of the better ones. Toby represents both Bela Lugosi and William Faulkner at the same time -- Lugosi is being stalked, Faulkner is accused of murder -- and the cases quickly become entwined, with Toby not knowing where one case ends and the other begins. One of the differences to this book (that I don't remember in any other) is that it doesn't begin with the "bad guy" chasing or confronting Toby. There *is* some flashback, but it is expository. As usual, the era references are interesting, and in the re-printed version (that came out in October 2000) there is an good afterword by Kaminsky about the Peters novels and about Bela Lugosi.

I read "Never Cross a Vampire" almost ten years ago and I enjoyed the endearing portrait of Bela Lugosi. The book also features a cameo by Boris Karloff and does not shrink from his rivalry with Lugosi. It is fun to read how a "B-Movie Star Villain" can save the day.

Also, the Asian Professor's account on the myth of internation vampires deserves special mention.

I just finished this novel. It was my first experience with Faulkners' fiction. I have since purchased 8 more of his "Mississippi" novels. When Faulkner describes shade he names the exact trees making the shade: locust, gum, cypress, oak, pine, birch, willow. He does the same thing with flowers. I reread whole pages several times awed at Faulkners' power to describe. His characters are complex and distinct. He is able to write dialogue of several characters so clearly you feel like you are a fly on the wall observing. The descriptions of civil war antics of long dead relatives are hilarious. I can't believe this book is out of print. I can't believe it has taken me so long to discover America's greatest author.

Truly indispensable for any Faulkner fan. Considerably less challenging than his later works. A fine study of survivor guilt. Rich and rewarding.

Reviews are by nature subjective. That said, their should be a common element, an underlying current that runs through all reviews which peg the book (in this instance) at a similar level. That established, here I find myself rather baffled as to how anyone can either dredge or salvage anything from this book that would elevate it beyond a three star rating at maximum; there must be an element of consensus, because this book (or indeed any) has a basic content and structure, characters and plot that are capable of evaluation and critique. Let us call a spade a spade and not a shovel, this is a shovel!

I teach literature at university level and I am astounded how this book finds its way onto numerous 'must read' lists that appear on the internet and periodically in print. I can only imagine that the editors of such list either fail to read the entire content of said list, or they are simply keen to perpetuate the tired myths that unfortunately ensure largely worthless texts like this still make college reading lists. Either that or they simply read the dust jacket and go by the advertising copy; which according to the 'Vintage Classic' version I bought, sells this book as being, 'a portrait of extraordinary power - as epic as the old testament, as American as Huckleberry Finn'. Categorically is not, and I defy, nay challenge the publishers or indeed anyone to substantiate such a claim.

How ever you spin it, what ultimately transpires is that for any of the above reasons or others equally illogical, perfectly good texts - especially modern ones, are constantly ignored as white elephants like this go through their umpteenth re-print.

To get down to brass tacks, this book fails for a number of reasons, but amongst those I would cite the following five as being the major points of contention:
i) It is simply VERY boring indeed. A dull tale if ever one was told.
ii) The characters are neither well-established or particularly well-drawn. Faulkner's literary skills presented herein are neither worth of his acclaim nor his many accolades and awards.
iii) Structurally it is a simple narrative (not necessarily a problem), however, his language (except the odd regional accent) is unchallenging and unprovocative.
iv) It essentially fails to offer the reader anything. No new ideas, no philosophical insights, no social observations and no historical documentary per se. I think I picked out and highlighted about four sentences in the whole book, that I felt were interesting.
v) Finally, it fails to establish a new genre, a new mode of expression. Likewise it also fails to re-establish a current mode or extend and develop a literary style. In plain terms that means it belongs nowhere, has no recognisable nor definable style and yet fails to take new steps in establish a new genre; it is amateurish and unaccomplished.

The only plus point that one can give is the use of parallel narration that is quite interesting and mildly revolutionary. That said, the characters are not well enough established, nor well enough drawn as to make full use of this technique and so it simply adds confusion to the overall structure.

I cannot see one logical or justifiable reason why anyone should waste their time or their money in reading this text. Unless it is prescribed reading, in which case I would question the teachers motivations for electing this a a core or supplementary text. I think if you are studying American Literature, literature of death and dying, family structures etc. there are MUCH better books out there than this.

Faulkner at his best & easiest to read. Ordered it for a book club review & gained new readers for Faulkner. (And customers for Amazon; not available locally)

As I Lay Dying is my 2nd Faulkner novel. I read The Sound and the Fury many years ago, and did not care for it, maybe because I was too impatient with it's stylistic complexities. Having read Joyce and Woolf since then, I returned to Faulkner with a greater appreciation of the internal monologue/stream of consciousness technique those other writers employed to perfection. Faulkner uses that method, but hones it to a razor sharp clarity of purpose in this novel.

As I Lay Dying tells the story of the Bundren family, as the mother Addie dies, and according to her wishes, has her husband Anse transport her body for burial to her family home in Jefferson, Miss., a journey by wagon of about 30 miles made under extreme hardship and duress. Each chapter in the novel has the title of a character, and is told for the most part through that character's thought processes. There are characters outside the Bundren family who narrate some of the action and give their own views on the proceedings, but mainly the story is told through the minds of Addie's children, her husband, and even herself.

The character with the most to say is the 2nd oldest son, Darl, the most intelligent and sensitive one of the clan with an uncanny intuitive (almost telepathic) ability to understand others, like his sister Dewey Dell, and his half brother, Jewel. There is also the youngest son, Vardaman, who intuitively, is like Darl, but not mature enough to understand things logically or express his thoughts coherently. If there is a villian in this novel it is surely the father Anse, whose selfishness, stubborness, indolence, ignorance, and cold heartedness, abound, not only through his own voice, but through the voices of his children, wife, and acquaintances.

The Bundren family all suffer from that brand of poverty unique to the rural South in that time period, but each character has a unique and striking personality that shines through, and Darl, the one who asks the most questions, not only about what is happening to his mother and siblings, but about himself, is the one tragic character in the book. This book is about identity, and how it changes under duress, and Darl, the character with the most empathy, most suffers because of it. His identity, and ultimately his sanity, is at risk, not only from outside forces, but from those closest to him.

As I Lay Dying has moments of humor and warmth, but ultimately, it is a harrowing journey, and a masterpiece of it's genre. I will certainly make it my business to re-read The Sound and the Fury, as well as more Faulkner in the future.

I cannot recommend this book. History and time often creates legends out of the mere ordinary. This book and all of Faulkners works are horrible and would not find a publisher if written in 2008. There is not an editor alive that would read past the first chapter of As I lay dying. It is a dud. There is no reason to read it. None. The story is not interesting. Faulkners "stream of consciousness" writing style is not interesting. Nothing about this book is worthwhile, except to say that you've read Faulkner. I can say that rereading this book again I did actually feel pain. I felt like crying, it was horrible. But like all the idiots here leaving 5 star reviews I couldn't put it down because then I wouldn't be able to say I have read Faulkner. A book shouldn't be painful and you should want to read it. Faulkner sucks and I have a problem with anyone that recommends him. I've heard that Limburger cheese is delish, but how do you get rid of that smell while you are eating it? And why would you? I'll tell you why. Just so you can say you've ate Limburger cheese. That is the only reason. Why read Faulkner? Just so you can say you have read Faulkner.

One of the most important writers of the twentieth century in any country, William Faulkner could tell a rousing tale. Check your collective memory. You're sitting around the campfire and the the storyteller begins.

When it is Faulkner, expect the unexpected. As I Lay Dying. As Dead I Am Carried to My Homeplace. The first sentence: "Jewel and I come up from the field, following the path in single file." When they get to the cottonhouse, Darl, the narrator takes the path around, Jewel goes straight--through one window and out the other. Cash, the oldest son, is making a wood coffin. (This is a very impoverished family in an impoverished South.) Their mother Addie is dying in bed and watching the building of the coffin through an open window. "It will give her confidence and comfort," Darl tells us through his first person thoughts.

If you want a study in dysfunctional families, go no further. Anse, the father, is a n'er-do-well, who is basically indifferent to the needs of those around him. Cash, the oldest, is a mighty fine carpenter, but a little slow on the uptake, while Darl, the only one who understands this family's pathos, is mentally ill. Dewey Dell, the only girl, is not conversant with the facts of life and makes this homegoing pilgrimage with hopes of doing away with the life she is carrying. Poor Vardaman, the youngest, will suffer the most in his total lack of understanding. His mother dies. She is in a coffin. He can hear her talk inside the coffin through the drill holes to give her air (she is decomposing in the hot Mississippi heat). And Jewel, the second youngest, is his name to Addie, the special son for a special reason.

When Faulkner wrote, he discarded all notions of what a writer is expected to do: tell a straightforward narrative. Sit where you are and go back in time to any episode. Plan a summer vacation in your mind. That's the premise Faulkner worked with. The mind is not a straightforward narrator. He depicts that backward and forward movement in his stories. He challenges the reader by never indicating where on the time line he is in telling the story.

In "As I Lay Dying," he goes a step further. He never tells who narrates the story until the reader figures out that the title of the chapter is also the narrator. The first chapter is entitled "Darl." He begins the story in his prescient, omniscient knowing.

Make no mistake. The story of the Bundrens taking Addie back to her homeplace for burial is a comic-tragic one. The person who most deserves punishment for his bad deeds is the one who is most rewarded. Faulkner was no optimist. But he was a chronicler of his times and of a defeated South and of resulting decaying values years after the fact.

If you are new to Faulkner, read this novel first, now that you know the secret to its puzzle in narration. Then imagine sitting around that collective campfire and hearing this story just as Faulkner wrote it. Puzzling on paper, clear in the telling. So Faulknerian!

Disturbing images and strong characters are reduced to baffling shadows by Faulkner's extreme stream of consciousness writing style. There is no discernible plot here, although one can sense a general downward trend in family fortunes, in every way: materially, spiritually, genetically, historically, and cooperatively.

And plenty of anger, which seems to infuse every character's interaction with the extended family and the surrounding community. This fury produces plenty of sound, in a sort of "day in the life" view of four different days from four different characters over a span of nearly 20 years, but the net result signifies nothing except a troubling sense of disquiet and collapse.

This is not an easy book to like.

First off yes Fulkner is hard to read sometimes, but he got the poor south dialect down pat. As to his charecters, yes some are uneducated, rascist. These are what people are no matter where one lives. He wrote about a time period and the people who he obsewrved were what they were. Not the southern aristocracy, but the common, uneducated, farmers. Mark Twain wrote about the same things Faulkner did, they are in the same category of writers. Get over it and enjoy the books for what they are good literature.

It's difficult to point to a more complex and tragically beautiful American novel than Faulkner's 'The Sound and the Fury.' Composed with a kind of crazed inspiration, Faulkner traces the decline and ruin of the Compson family from the point of view of four of its members, the severely disabled Benjy, the self-destructive Quentin, and the resigned Jason. Dilsey, the African-American servant to the Compsons, remains one of the richest and most truly felt of all literary characters. This novel is extremely difficult in form; Faulkner's subtle use of first-person stream of consciousness narration and nonlinear chronology is both baffling and fascinating. Additionally, his removed 'appendix' after the completion of the narrative is as modern as anything that has been printed in the last thirty years. Presented as a tragic vision through a blurry bottle, 'The Sound and the Fury' will continue to haunt and perplex for as long as it is read and studied. A true masterpiece.

This is the greatest novel I've ever read. When I read Faulkner's "As I Lay Dying", I was only moderately interested and figured I'd never revisit the man again. Thank god I decided to pick this one up, and just barely at that.
The first portion of the book, concerning Benjy, is a gentle step into the water, and if you can't process this part, forget about understanding Quentin's segment. Quentin's portion of the novel is phenomenal, it simply is unparalleled in comparison to anything else I've ever read, period. There comes a part at the end of this segment where Faulkner even diminishes grammar until he's literally using none at all, and its been said that this is one of the more difficult parts of the work. I should say that I found it the least challenging because it flowed intuitively- it was although I 'felt' it instead of 'read' it because my imagination was already working over time and Faulkner was just orchestrating it at that point. Jason's portion and the character-relative third person portion are easier and much more reminiscent of Faulkner's other work, but the substance of this works exists within Benjy's and Quentin's segment.
All this in mind, I would say if you think you have the ability, try to read this. Probably a good stepping stone into "In Search of Lost Time", "Ulysses" or "Gravity's Rainbow".

As I Lay Dying had piqued my appetite for Faulkner so when I saw the Sound and the Fury on our school reading list, I couldn't wait. I decided to read it on my own before we read it in class. The first section was a different reading experience than I have ever had. It was more like a puzzle than a typical novel. Benjy jumps around in time without telling us where he is going so it is very disorienting and frustrating for a while. The frustration the first time through just adds to the enjoyment you get the second, third, or fourth time through when you have a much clearer picture of what is going on. I would encourage you to try and figure what is happening out on your own, break out some scratch paper and try to follow Benjy's muddled time line. I did that and then got online to find resources and check my work against theirs. It adds to the experience when you do it on your own without constantly SparkNoting it. Benjy's section was good, but Quentin's section was the best reading experience I have had. It could never be done with a movie. By the end of the section, I felt like I knew Quentin unlike any other character I have ever seen on TV, movies or read about in books. Quentin's section gets deep inside of you and affected me profoundly. When I finished the book the first time, it was an accomplishment. The second and third times were more enjoyable. The text is so packed with stuff that repeated re-readings enhance the enjoyment of this book. For any person who wants to enjoy literature, you should give The Sound and the Fury a try. Forget all about grammar, conventional plot lines, and linear story progression and just enjoy learning about these characters.

PS Don't worry so much about the plot, focus on the characters. Characters are primary and plot secondary.

A good value. Faulkner takes a while to adjust to, but a good opportunity to start in on classic American literature.

I had a hard time to finish reading this package but... finally finished reading them after reading other books in between. I am quite surprised Oprah chose these books. In my opinion, she could have chosen a better books. Unless you really like challenge, I doubt you will real find time to finish reading these.

The Oprah's Book Club is a great, inexpensive way to own these literary pearls. If you do not know what you are getting into I suggest you read first Light in August, then As I Lay Dying and finally, after bracing, The Sound and the Fury. I found the second a tad too dry and dark, but that's Faulkner. The last one is a book you will eventually reread. The first reading could be helped by the many high quality institutional web sites where this masterpiece is dissected and even rearranged for ease of approach. I am witholding a star simply because I have formed the opinion that Faulkner is, to put in mildly, racially biased or at least wrote for the racially biased. I would love to hear what Oprah thinks about this aspect of Faulkner's but I do not have the time. Enjoy.

These novels are not to be read for sheer pleasure, but rather for the challenge and the depth. They are not easy to read, though *Light in August* is the easiest of the three. The prose is so difficult at times that I needed to reread again and again. I had to stop and take numerous breaks because my brain got twisted around.

I strongly suggest getting research materials from a university librray if at all possible to help navigate the stories. In the end, the depth of these novels is profound and extremely rewarding. It was only after I finished them (and read a lot of extra research articles) that I truly appreciated them. These novels are definitely amazing and a great account of southern life in the early part of the 20th century (and after the civil war), and I admire Faulkner more than I ever thought I could.

If you thought James Joyce was complex, try Faulkner!

AS I LAY DYING by William Faulkner

I respect what he did, but I read about 15% of this one before I got bored. I don't agree with Oprah that he's difficult. I knew exactly where he was coming from and where he wanted to go. Many relevant themes and he was a damn fine wordsmith. But it's old news to this jaded old redneck. I don't know why. I realize I just dismissed an author who deserved his Pulitzers and his Nobel Prize, in a single short paragraph, but please hold back on the hate mail.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE SOUND AND THE FURY by William Faulkner

Ditto. You hate me, don't you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LIGHT IN AUTUMN by William Faulkner

Ditto. Hoo boy, now you want me dead.

Wanting something to read on vacation, I hurriedly grabbed the Vintage paperback edition from a dusty shelf in the back of my home office. The book had belonged to my stepson many years ago. As I thumbed through the pages, it began to fall apart.

I do not recall having to read The Sound and the Fury in college, but I knew it was famous. Other than that, I came to the book with an open mind but expecting excellence. To that end, I was sorely disappointed, despite some fine passages, but even those often contained unclear elements.

From the start the story came across as gibberish. Time jumped around, and characters appeared with little or no introduction. Gradually a sense of story began to sink in, but by then, what might have been significant in the earlier pages was already lost to me. I wondered what connection the title had to the story. I struggled through the entire book, finding later sections to be more coherent, particularly the last, but I was unable to gain a full appreciation of the story. And I wasn't about to reread the book repeatedly to obtain it.

There seems to be no effort at word economy, particularly in dialogue. There are endless rambling paragraphs and only four "chapters" for the 400 pages of text.

Worst of all, there is inadequate exposition throughout the book. There is no introduction telling the reader how the book is constructed, most notably, that it begins with an account by an idiot. The idea of having a family's story related by several members if fine, so is writing in stream of conscious, but adequate exposition is needed to orient the reader.

Frustrated during the reading, I thumbed through it and discovered the appendix which described the Compson family. Most of this material should have been presented early in the book, but even that would not have provided adequate exposition. After reading the book, I learned that the appendix was added some time after the first edition to help the reader. That should be a big hint that the book is lacking in exposition. I believe that good exposition is the responsibility of a writer.

This book is more of a puzzle than a story, and the latter is sacrificed for the former. The author does not lead you through the story; he throws you into it. For those who marvel at the literary value of this book, I say, "The emperor has no clothes."

While some may think that good work should be "readable and enjoyable," great work is meant to elevate us. Stun us, amaze us, fill us with wonder. Otherwise, See Spot Run would be a masterpiece.

William Faulkner is a writer the likes of which we may never see again. He is not only brilliant of word but of concept. He creates a picture not only by text, but by context and form. In many ways, his works sculpt. How else would we see things from the vistas of the characters, especially those who can't speak but by setting and demonstration?

One reviewer cursed his conveyance of emotion by "using big words." Writing is the art of language interplay, the use of beautiful and succinct language. Faulkner uses language that most of us have never heard of but when we take the time to look up that language, the effect is stunning and makes the experience all the more worth it.

Macbeth V.v 25-30:
"A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Stream-of-consciousness technique (no punctuation), southern accents (no spell check), mixed and matched timecrawls (flashbacks without warning), sequencing narrators (voice change with no scene break), first and third person viewpoints (confused yet?), and slapped-your-faceee! symbolism.

For literature, I choose Hemingway (who can be subtle or direct, but is always clear). Good books should be enjoyable and understandable. I understand the story Faulkner was trying to tell about a Jerry-Springeresque southern family, but I didn't like the novel. If you want to enjoy dysfunctional American families with blistering social commentary watch 'South Park'-- much funnier. I'll let one of Faulkner's contemporaries speak:

"Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don't know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use."
--Ernest Hemingway

Unless you are forced into this book for a literature class, don't buy it and don't read it. If you look hard enough, anything can become meaningful, even this tripe. Victor Hugo, Shakespeare, and those ancient Greeks are excellent in that their works have themes and meanings already. You don't have to over-analyze and create meaning where none exists in order to enjoy those works.

Faulkner is babble and murky and opaque with circular symbolism fading into tempestuous violence only an idiot pretending genius or an eleemosynary pretentious genius enjoying idiocy might love and obtuse run-on sentences longer than this one are exactly what you'll find all over this classical work.

This book is a perfect example of people in ivory towers, and those who are afraid to admit they don't get it, jumping on a 5-star bandwagon. Faulkner titled this book perfectly, calling it The Sound And The Fury, while leaving out the rest of the phrase: signifying nothing. The first chapter is a noble, but failed, attempt at creativity. But almost no one, even the most well-read people, understands that the first chapter is written out of chronological order until they find out someplace else. The chapter's main point was as an excuse to get in Faulkner's description of what instigated the novel, a somewhat kinky description of looking up at the girl Caddy's muddy panties. A fatal flaw in the chapter, which never achieves a rhythm, is that Benjy, whose thoughts comprise the chapter, apparently has a photographic memory and thinks in completely lucid, complete sentences despite being an idiot. Caddy, the main character in a novel of stereotypes and pitiful prose, is actually a despicable trollop. She's characterized as Benjy's friend, but a careful reading shows that she only befriends him when it's convienent for her. Other chapters are even more sick than Benjy's castration, including the one with Caddy's brother lusting after her, or the hackneyed, cliché chapter with the old slave showing how much wiser she is than folk she serves. The Cliffs notes and other reviews perpetuate the idea that the book's theme is the downfall of the old plantation system. This is an invention; not found in the book. S&F, as Faulkner loudly hints in the title, is about nothing other than his infatuation with Caddy. It has no plot. And it is far from a great insight into the way people think. Only perverts think as these characters do. In the end, this novel is just page after page of sheer boredom. It's supposed to be a great book of human tragedy, but to feel tragedy you have to sympathize with the characters ... and all of the white characters in this novel are disgusting. All of its supposed great meaning, and the flip-flop in reviews from castigating to praising the experimental style, weren't dreamed up until 15 years after the first printing flopped, by literary professors who have to keep coming up with new ideas under the "publish or perish" law. It was only revisited because Faulkner did, eventually, write some good books. You want truly great writing? Try Steinbeck, Welty, Hemingway, Harper Lee, Dickens, Twain, Tolkien, Melville, Dostoyevsky, O. Henry, Wells, Verne, Maugham, Crane or even Rowling (Yes, Rowling. Her Potter books are complex, effortlessly intertwine several story lines and sublimely combine strong characterization, suspense and humor).

The first two sections of The Sound And The Fury have a reputation for being extremely difficult, and deservedly so. In fact, the first time I tried to read it, the Benjy Section made me feel dizzy, and I had to stop...I knew I wasn't going to get anywhere without a little orientation courtesy of Cliffs Notes, so I put it off for a while. But when I came back to it a few months later - this time prepared to do a little work to understand the chronology and characters - I felt like Faulkner was transporting me to a whole new world, the deep south at the beginning of the twentieth century, and it was an incredible experience. By the time I was finished, The Sound and the Fury had become one of my favorite books, meaning that I enjoyed reading it and plan to read it again.

This is not to say, however, that Faulkner couldn't have made the book more accessible or easier to read. He certainly could have, and maybe that would have improved it. But, to me at least, it's important to remember that part of Faulkner's greatness was his willingness to experiment with form, to push the envelope of what a novel could do, so I strongly believe this book is worthy of praise just as it is. In fact, to me the Benjy Section isn't supposed to be accessible...it's supposed to make you feel just as confused and disoriented as Benjy felt...and I've never encountered anything else quite like it. It's like being caught up in a whirlwind of sound and color, without a clear sense of space or time, without making logical connections or understanding the broader context of what's going on around you. In other words, the Benjy Section is felt and experienced rather than processed, and that's what makes it so confusing...yet that's what makes it amazing too. Not only that, but I actually enjoyed it. You just can't find many pieces of literature that change the way you look at the world quite like The Sound and the Fury does.

Now, I'm not saying I would recommend this book for beach reading necessarily, or as a page turner in the traditional sense. And I like to read those kinds of books too...I proudly acknowledge that I've read every Harry Potter book at least twice. But if you're looking for incredible dialogue, for symbolism, for experimentation, for a powerful sense of time and place, for imagination and a sense of humor, for an exploration of how the same events can be interpreted differently by different people, for a unique and compelling vision, for a challenge...then I'd recommend The Sound and the Fury without reservation. It's tough, yes, but I also found it deeply rewarding and even exhilarating. To me, it just depends on what you're looking for. Faulkner certainly isn't all that accessible, he doesn't do a lot of favors to the reader, he may be a bit pompous at times...all of that is true to a certain extent. But it's still very possible and even easy to love reading his books anyway, just for the simple pleasure of it. Personally, my advice is this: if you're interested, read it. Then make up your own mind.

I am by no means an expert in literature. Most of my reading is the current fiction of today with some non-fiction mixed in. So I decided to try my hand/mind at something written by one of the great authors of yesteryear. A couple of quick thoughts:
- very difficult to read
- extremely difficult to know which characters are talking and which are being talked to.
- imperative re-reading of sections to see if something was missed, because the plot changed directions and I wasn't on the same page.

Now, those things being said, after 100 pages or so, I couldn't wait to get back at the book. The characters are richer and deeper than anything I've read in years (except maybe "The Main" by Trevanian). The short dialogue segments, the way things are said and not said are not found in today's writings and make the characters stick with you after the book is finished. This writing gives us a very real peek into life it the United States in the late `20s and early `30s; it's a slice of Americana that you can hardly read today. The simple text that tells of complex human interactions was beautifully written and therefore I was excited to get to the climax. And then...

There was no climax. The book ended, the story ended and nothing. Emptiness. The conclusion was anticlimactic without the climatic part of the story. So I'm giving it a 3, but I was very close to a 4 just for the beauty of the writing. And it isn't beauty for beauty's sake; it is necessary explanation that tells the story slowly and carefully. You get to pick up things about the characters in this short novel that the fiction novel of today couldn't even come close to. As you forget the books quickly that you read with today's authors, you will likely remember Popeye, Tommy and Temple for long while.

We can't have any corn cobs lying around.

If you've read the book, you know what I'm alluding to.

Sanctuary is a grimey novel. It deals with grimey people in grimey situations. The story is just so weird; it's almost surrealistic.

Spoilers

Temple Drake is the 17 year old daughter of a judge. She is dating a guy named Gowan Stephens who is a drunk. They end up at some "in the middle of nowhere" house owned by a guy named Lee Goodwin in an attempt for Gowan to get more illegal liquor. Lee Goodwin is a shady character, but nice compared to the company he keeps. Gowan deserts Temple more than once: at first by being passed out from drinking, and then by completely leaving to go home. Once alone, Temple is at the mercy of the shady characters, specifically Popeye. Popeye hasn't had his spinach, therefore he is impotent, mentally and sexually. Temple is attacked and kidnapped by Popeye after witnessing a murder, and is forced into a brothel where she prostitutes herself and hooks up with more shady characters.

This is just a partial summary of the story. There is much more concerning Lee Goodwin, his girlfriend Ruby, and a lawyer named Benbow who has deserted his family.

Bottom Line: A twisted tale woven by a literary master who needed to write something sensationalistic in order to make some money. Certainly not one of his best, but certainly not terrible.

For many readers, "Sanctuary" doesn't seem to fit into Faulkner's canon. Although the prose is recognizably his, the tone and subject matter seem more appropriate to the genre of pulp fiction--closer to Hammett than to O'Connor. And, for the time it was published, it is shockingly gruesome and graphic. (Arnold Bennett said that it was a "terrible" book and "a great novel.") Once you figure out who everyone is and what's going on, however, it's an unlikely page-turner. Faulkner presents his tale not simply as a mystery but as a puzzle of characters who can barely figure out their own roles and who challenge the reader to sort out their stories

The central plot revolves around Temple Drake, a well-off, fast-living college student who gets wowed by Gowan Stevens, a handsome young alcoholic who takes her to the inaccessible estate of a backwoods bootlegger. Gowan soon passes out, and the traumatized Temple suddenly understands she is stuck in a situation from which she can't easily extract herself--and her circumstances worsen when Gowan abandons her to the gangsters and drunks bumming around the house.

Even though it was published after "As I Lay Dying," which he completed at the end of 1929, "Sanctuary" could be considered Faulkner's fifth novel rather than his sixth. Earlier that year, he sent the manuscript for "Sanctuary" to his publisher. It seems likely he had been toying with it in some form for quite a while, since at least one passage has been found in his papers with a date of 1925.

There are a number of colorful tales surrounding the history of this book's publication--some of them possibly apocryphal and probably invented by Faulkner himself. (A fuller accounting can be found in Joseph Blotner's invaluable biography of Faulkner.) Faulkner later wrote that he "invented the most horrific tale I could imagine," and he claimed that his publisher told him after reading it, "Good God, I can't publish this. We'd both be in jail." Whatever the reason for the delay, the publisher changed his mind and--to Faulkner's surprise--ultimately set the book into galleys. The interval of nearly two years convinced Faulkner that the book couldn't be published in its current form, so he heavily revised and rearranged the book in proof.

Faulkner also claimed that he "began to think of books in terms of possible money." Although the book did indeed sell well--better than any of his books until "The Wild Palms"--some scholars contend that Faulkner is being somewhat coy about his motives for writing this particular book. (Reading his correspondence, one gets the impression that that he was always writing with an eye towards his financial situation.)

So how is it? The easy answer is that "Sanctuary" is not "Sound and the Fury," "As I Lay Dying," or "Light in August." But judged as a piece of noir, I think it's as good as the best Depression-era crime novels. As in many of Faulkner's other books, the story leaps back and forth across time, and often the same scene is described from the perspective of different characters. Although the use of jump cuts, flashbacks, and misdirection can be a challenge, I thought the technique heightened the suspense and made the characters more intriguing. Faulkner probably could not have published this book if he had described its scenes more straightforwardly; even the end requires close reading to figure out exactly what happened to Temple at the bootlegger's homestead (in part because it's so horrific). If you like the type of book that makes you turn back through the pages digging up the clues you missed along the way, I'd recommend this one.

Sanctuary is a shocking book, especially because of the time period in which it was written. Most modern readers have been desensitized to highly sexual themes, but in the early 30s, this book was a best seller.

Here we have the story of a young girl named Temple Drake. She is the daughter of a judge and a tease around town. She dates many men but never loses her morality to them. One day, she meets up with Gowan, a drunk around town. He takes her for a drive, and since he is completely drunk, he smashed up his car. The two take to walking, and they stumble upon a bootlegger's hideout. Gowan proceeds to get drunk there again while Temple fears the nasty stares she gets from the men. The three men Lee, Popeye, and Tommy outnumber the only woman living there. She warns Temple to leave as soon as she can before night falls, but Gowan is uncooperative and Temple too innocent to heed the warning appropriately. She stays, and her life changes forever at the hands of the violent and twisted Popeye.

In the meantime, Horace Benbow takes on the murder case against Lee. The whole town is against him succeeding, but Benbow believes in his client's innocence. He even believes in him after discovering Temple's story.

I decided to read this book in lieu of seeing the film version starring Miriam Hopkins titled The Story of Temple Drake. It is hard to find, but notoriously scandalous. I imagined that the book would be a good substitute.

Unfortunately, the book is significantly slower paced than the average pre-code film, and the descriptions are often slow and erratic. It is sometimes difficult to figure out who is talking and who is doing what. There are also some boring patches due to the writing style. The dismal setting is certainly appropriate, but it brings the mood of the writing down, making it a less exciting read.

Perhaps it is because I get extremely bored when I read "stream of conscious" types of books. This book simply bored me to death. The technique is written in prose form, I respect it, to some degrees, it is a type of art. However, the backcover of this book did a poor job of explaining what this book was supposed to convey. Maybe it is because there's nothing to review about! All said, this book showed the heart of evil as well as violence through the bleak characters of Popeye, Gowan and Red. They kidnapped the promiscous girl named Temple and took her to Memphis, where we meet a even more feared underground criminal gangs and bootleggars.

Overall, I'm really disappointed in this book because I thought that William Faulkner, one of the best writers in the last century, should've done better. A lot of has to do with the style that he writes in, but overall, a very boring book.