Miss Minnie Cooper in "Dry September" and Miss Emily Pierson in "A Rose for Miss Emily" are very similar in so many ways. Faulkner nearly recreated Miss Emily in a more youthful manner when presenting Miss Minnie. Both have a nonexistent social life and are bound by social position in their small town. However, they are different because Miss Emily never yearned for a social or romantic life that Miss Minnie longed for. Miss Minnie was not only in need of a social life, but also a romantic life. She wanted attention in all aspects. She vied for the attention of those in her community, especially from men.
Both Miss Minnie and Miss Emily are tragic characters in Faulkner's short stories. Miss Minnie is tragic because she seems to be stuck in her own little fantasy world engulfed in a life of social privilige and image. She's unable to see her wrongful actions in accusing Will Mayes of raping her. Miss Emily is a tragic character become she was left to live a corpse like existence without the company of anyone but her dead husband she slept with every night.
Both characters are two peas in a pod. Even though Miss Emily is a more exaggerated version of Miss Minnie, she both still fit in the same category. Maybe Miss Emily's case was more drastic because she comes from a family of more prestige in her community, therefore she had to adhere to harsher social norms.
Faulkner made me fall in love with his short stories all over again while reading "Dry September" after "A Rose for Emily." He reigns supreme with his short stories.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Poor, Poor Nancy: That Evening Sun Go Down
While reading "That Evening Sun Go Down," I wanted to cry because the character Nancy struck me with so much sadness and sympathy. Nancy reminded me of the old slave mentality that many abused and broken spirited African Americans had. She didn't view herself as being equal to or as important as her white counterparts and employers. Throughout the story I just wanted to give her a hug and let her know that she was worth much more than what she claimed to be.
I could compare Nancy to many other literary characters in novels. For example, Pecola in The Bluest Eye had the same broken spirit and lack of self esteem that Nancy had. When Nancy said, "I'm just a nigger!" it reminded me of the self hatred Pecola had throughout The Bluest Eye as she searched for ways to make her eyes blue like the little white Shirley Temple she admired. Both Nancy and Pecola represent that self hatred many African Americans harbor within themselves because of racial prejudice in society that formed their view of themselves.
Faulkner did a great job with tapping into a woman like Nancy. Even though it would be hard for Faulkner to precisely capture the essence of a black women living in a world of racial prejudice, he did a great job with providing imagery into her situation. I give this one a thumbs up!
I could compare Nancy to many other literary characters in novels. For example, Pecola in The Bluest Eye had the same broken spirit and lack of self esteem that Nancy had. When Nancy said, "I'm just a nigger!" it reminded me of the self hatred Pecola had throughout The Bluest Eye as she searched for ways to make her eyes blue like the little white Shirley Temple she admired. Both Nancy and Pecola represent that self hatred many African Americans harbor within themselves because of racial prejudice in society that formed their view of themselves.
Faulkner did a great job with tapping into a woman like Nancy. Even though it would be hard for Faulkner to precisely capture the essence of a black women living in a world of racial prejudice, he did a great job with providing imagery into her situation. I give this one a thumbs up!
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Beauty Unheard by the Audience
The most touching part of Faulkner's Nobel speech, to me, was when he mentioned the "conflicts of the heart" that are the only things worth writing about.
To me, this is not only true to Faulkner's style, but true in general. It may be true when people say that there is "nothing new under the sun" but that's a limited statement, and Faulkner shows us why. Perhaps the only thing worth writing about is something that is perpetuated in each of us over and over and over, but that doesn't mean we're always writing about the same thing. Faulkner definitely stuck true to his general knowledge, and didn't write about things that he wasn't well saturated in, or things he didn't care about. This produced a body of work so vast, and so beautiful. If he would have attempted to solve all the world's problems, essentially, in his works instead of just writing about what HE cared about, it probably wouldn't be as eloquent or mean as much to an audience.
Writers today, I feel, are often trying to overstep their knowledge range in order to produce what they have in mind to be the new "great american novel." However, going about it that way turns it into a false feat. Like I said before, the reason Faulkner created what he created is because he wrote what was inside of him, what he knew, and what he loved. Even though there are a number of made-up characters and situations, Faulkner wrote his truths. Even when he wrote about the slaves and had a very limited view of the slaves he wrote about, his limited knowledge was, in itself, a truth. He didn't pretend to know more than he did. He didn't try to create a false south. The south bled on all of Faulkner's pages with horror and sadness and death—and also beauty and magic and love.
When Faulkner says "until he learns these things, he will write as though he stood among and watched the end of man" he means that until a writer starts writing what's in his heart, what he cares about, the whole saying that there's "nothing new under the sun" assumes it's presumed fatalistic meaning, and the world of writing is over. Not to say that experimentation is wrong, we can see clearly Faulkner experimented with style and narration and broke all sorts of grammar rules. Also, just because someone is from a certain region in no way limits them to that certain region like Faulkner only wrote about the south. What he's trying to say, though, is don't tell lies on paper. A writer has to basically strip themselves naked in front of their audience, and Faulkner doesn't want writers who claim that they're naked but still have concealed or changed parts of their body. He could see through them, and in this speech, is urging us all to disrobe entirely.
The Reivers
I have been re-reading As I Lay Dying for my paper, so reading The Reivers at the same time really kind of highlighted how different it is from the his others. It reminded me of this movie I used to watch when I was younger, The Journey of Natty Gann, but I don't really know why. I guess it was the time period.
This book reminded me of Huck Finn, and I think that was the intention. With the characters, the young boy and Ned on adventures. It was so much lighter and even funny, and it's striking that this was his last novel. Of all of the things that could have closed out with, it's a comical, light-hearted adventure book. I would have preferred more on the Compsons or the Bundrens, but this was fine. I don't know how he died, so I don't know if he knew this would be the last. Since he had written about so much heavy, sometimes dark stuff about the human condition, it's almost sweet that this is his last. And to make it about a young boy who is put into some strange situations, some pretty questionable. It was good. I don't want to use the word "cute." But it was kind of cute.
In true Faulkner fashion, though, some of the sentences were long and meandering, and initially, I had a hard time breaking past the first few chapters. I
This is kid of off, but my paper is focusing on animals and so it was interesting how a horse came into this one again, as in As I Lay Dying, and how it was an important figure in the novel.
After reading this, I felt a great sense of accomplishment. All that Faulkner. It's nice to be done, though. I just got Absalom, Absalom! on cd and plan on listening to it and sharing how great it is with my boyfriend on the two week road trip we'll be embarking on in May. I think I will be revisiting a few of his novels, for sure.
This book reminded me of Huck Finn, and I think that was the intention. With the characters, the young boy and Ned on adventures. It was so much lighter and even funny, and it's striking that this was his last novel. Of all of the things that could have closed out with, it's a comical, light-hearted adventure book. I would have preferred more on the Compsons or the Bundrens, but this was fine. I don't know how he died, so I don't know if he knew this would be the last. Since he had written about so much heavy, sometimes dark stuff about the human condition, it's almost sweet that this is his last. And to make it about a young boy who is put into some strange situations, some pretty questionable. It was good. I don't want to use the word "cute." But it was kind of cute.
In true Faulkner fashion, though, some of the sentences were long and meandering, and initially, I had a hard time breaking past the first few chapters. I
This is kid of off, but my paper is focusing on animals and so it was interesting how a horse came into this one again, as in As I Lay Dying, and how it was an important figure in the novel.
After reading this, I felt a great sense of accomplishment. All that Faulkner. It's nice to be done, though. I just got Absalom, Absalom! on cd and plan on listening to it and sharing how great it is with my boyfriend on the two week road trip we'll be embarking on in May. I think I will be revisiting a few of his novels, for sure.
Reminscening on a new Faulkner
I’m not sure what to say about The Reivers. It was Faulkner’s last novel and the winner of a Nobel Prize in literature. For a book that was, in a sense, Faulkner’s coup de grace, it is uncharacteristically Faulkner. The style is off, the tone is too light, and the novel was overall too happy to be the Faulkner I know. This doesn’t mean that I didn’t enjoy the novel. I’m a fan of the picaresque novel and believe that it is the dominant form of epic in modernity, so this may have been Faulkner’s step toward an epic (attempting to tie and tie up characters and story lines from his Yoknapatawpha), but this jaunty, reminiscent, “story” is unlike Faulkner from days gone by.
The Reivers does, in fact, carry the markings of Faulknerian novels. It is plagued with convoluted run-on sentences, long and winding paragraphs, and a not-quite but almost stream of consciousness narrative. But the overall effect of the novel is just not like Faulkner’s other novels, like The Sound and the Fury or Absalom, Absalom! It is the story of two members of the McCaslin/Edmonds family from Go Down Moses—Lucius Priest and the black servant/relative Ned NcCaslin—,along with a family retainer—Boon Hogganbeck, also mentioned in Go Down Moses—who steal a car and head to Memphis. Boon wants to go to the city to woo a prostitute, Luscius, only eleven at the time, goes with Boon, and Ned hides out in the back of the car. Once in Memphis, Boon begins to court Miss Corrie, Luscius comes of age and must grapple with his turmoil over explaining what he see with the way he was raised, and Ned sells the car they stole to buy a horse in the hopes of racing it and earning money. The majority of the plot is somewhat irrelevant to my point, so I’ll skip to the end. Luscius’ grandfather, the owner of the car, finds the boys in Memphis. Ned, slyly playing the old man, bets against his own horse in a second race and purposely loses. The whole story ends on the happy note that Boon and his prostitute Miss Corrie have married and have named their first child after Luscius. This “it all works out in the end” feeling is so unlike Faulkner that it is almost jarring to the avid reader. The Reivers was a best seller, adapted later in a film, and think that attests to that fact that it is somehow different that Faulkner’s other works. It is easier to read and relate to than most of the novels we have read so far.
That being said, I still believe that The Reivers is a great work. Luscius Priest’s monologues on virtue, his idea of women, and his conception of smart animals make him a highly complex and intelligent character. I would like to someday take a more in-depth look at Luscius, as his role of narrator of the story adds a great deal to his character than I believe a lot of people see.
The Reivers does, in fact, carry the markings of Faulknerian novels. It is plagued with convoluted run-on sentences, long and winding paragraphs, and a not-quite but almost stream of consciousness narrative. But the overall effect of the novel is just not like Faulkner’s other novels, like The Sound and the Fury or Absalom, Absalom! It is the story of two members of the McCaslin/Edmonds family from Go Down Moses—Lucius Priest and the black servant/relative Ned NcCaslin—,along with a family retainer—Boon Hogganbeck, also mentioned in Go Down Moses—who steal a car and head to Memphis. Boon wants to go to the city to woo a prostitute, Luscius, only eleven at the time, goes with Boon, and Ned hides out in the back of the car. Once in Memphis, Boon begins to court Miss Corrie, Luscius comes of age and must grapple with his turmoil over explaining what he see with the way he was raised, and Ned sells the car they stole to buy a horse in the hopes of racing it and earning money. The majority of the plot is somewhat irrelevant to my point, so I’ll skip to the end. Luscius’ grandfather, the owner of the car, finds the boys in Memphis. Ned, slyly playing the old man, bets against his own horse in a second race and purposely loses. The whole story ends on the happy note that Boon and his prostitute Miss Corrie have married and have named their first child after Luscius. This “it all works out in the end” feeling is so unlike Faulkner that it is almost jarring to the avid reader. The Reivers was a best seller, adapted later in a film, and think that attests to that fact that it is somehow different that Faulkner’s other works. It is easier to read and relate to than most of the novels we have read so far.
That being said, I still believe that The Reivers is a great work. Luscius Priest’s monologues on virtue, his idea of women, and his conception of smart animals make him a highly complex and intelligent character. I would like to someday take a more in-depth look at Luscius, as his role of narrator of the story adds a great deal to his character than I believe a lot of people see.
Faulkner's View...Noble Speech
Since this blog is entitled “Responses to the writing and the world of William Faulkner”, I am going to dedicate my last post to Faulkner’s Noble Prize Speech. Because this speech is as much part of the world of Faulkner, as this week’s reading The Reivers, and I believe it was Ms. Ethridge, who said at the beginning, this course will be used to interpret the different personalities of Faulkner through his work. The speech is given to Faulkner as a life time achievement award for his work so I thought its relevance is undeniable to understanding Faulkner as well as his work.
His Noble Prize speech brought so many things together for me. It seemed as if many others, whom have read his fiction, took Faulkner’s pessimist to heart. Like some of us, they viewed Faulkner only from the surface. They saw him as an author, who viewed life and man in general, as victims of idiocy by our own making due to us ignoring “the problems of the human heart.” However, this was not who Faulkner was at all; in fact, he was a man, who very much believed in the spirit and compassion of man to carry himself through hard times such as the radical transformation of the south after the Civil War or what the south was to its inhabitants before the war. Faulkner was merely documenting a time and place (Yoknapatawpha County) in history that was relative to him, and to us all since the Civil War deeply affected the U.S.
I believed that doom and gloom were simply themes that Faulkner explored on his path to self discovery that as writer he must not forget about the problems that the human heart endure or that the basis of all things is to be afraid; therefore, to leave no room for anything but the old verities and truth of the heart. Faulkner must have gone through these things himself in order to offer such in depth advice about where one should find inspiration to write. I know that the human heart takes on different identities, thus speaking to us in a voice that is not always familiar, yet we go along and discover another part of ourselves or craft. This is what I believe Faulkner went through when he wrote using the writing technique stream of consciousness. Because he was so trusting to undergo this transformation he got really good at it, and people mistakenly believed this was the real William Faulkner, when really he was just playing part in order to tell that character’s story. Faulkner happily did his duty as wanna-be poet/novelist by prompting man, through his work, to endure and prevail. I never viewed Faulkner as pessimistic. I definitly felt at times that I only captured a glance of what he was doing,but after reading this speech it widen my view, more than any criticism, about what was one of his many aims were.
His Noble Prize speech brought so many things together for me. It seemed as if many others, whom have read his fiction, took Faulkner’s pessimist to heart. Like some of us, they viewed Faulkner only from the surface. They saw him as an author, who viewed life and man in general, as victims of idiocy by our own making due to us ignoring “the problems of the human heart.” However, this was not who Faulkner was at all; in fact, he was a man, who very much believed in the spirit and compassion of man to carry himself through hard times such as the radical transformation of the south after the Civil War or what the south was to its inhabitants before the war. Faulkner was merely documenting a time and place (Yoknapatawpha County) in history that was relative to him, and to us all since the Civil War deeply affected the U.S.
I believed that doom and gloom were simply themes that Faulkner explored on his path to self discovery that as writer he must not forget about the problems that the human heart endure or that the basis of all things is to be afraid; therefore, to leave no room for anything but the old verities and truth of the heart. Faulkner must have gone through these things himself in order to offer such in depth advice about where one should find inspiration to write. I know that the human heart takes on different identities, thus speaking to us in a voice that is not always familiar, yet we go along and discover another part of ourselves or craft. This is what I believe Faulkner went through when he wrote using the writing technique stream of consciousness. Because he was so trusting to undergo this transformation he got really good at it, and people mistakenly believed this was the real William Faulkner, when really he was just playing part in order to tell that character’s story. Faulkner happily did his duty as wanna-be poet/novelist by prompting man, through his work, to endure and prevail. I never viewed Faulkner as pessimistic. I definitly felt at times that I only captured a glance of what he was doing,but after reading this speech it widen my view, more than any criticism, about what was one of his many aims were.
Faulkner's reminiscence
This book, The Reivers: A Reminiscence, is the starkest shift in Faulkner's style that I have noticed since that occurring between Soldiers' Pay and Mosquitoes and the Sound & the Fury. It seems that the reason behind this may be the fact that it is a first-person account, narrated as a story. Of course, The Sound & the Fury was primarily in first-person, and As I Lay Dying was completely first-person. But each of these were lacking the light-hearted, story-telling quality seen in The Reivers.
The fact that this novel is told as a story perfectly complements its status as a "Reminiscence." The main character is spanning his coming-of-age years, while also, at times, giving the reader (or, in this case, listener would perhaps be a better designation) an explanation of years prior and beyond. I was rather touched by the fact that Faulkner referred to this novel as a reminiscence. So many of our old Yoknapatawpha friends and acquaintances were mentioned, especially those mentioned in Go Down, Moses. It seems that not only was the main character, Lucius Priest, reminiscing, but Faulker himself was revisiting those old friends and histories, while musing on potentialities of the future, of Yoknapatawpha County.
Of course, this book was also the most technologically aware of Faulkner's, at least as far as I can tell. Not only do Faulkner's characters venture to the city for a large portion of the novel, but there is a long explanation of the first automobile in Jefferson. Henry Ford is even mentioned, giving the first link (that I have noticed) to a prominient figure from the known-world.
I found the character of Boon Hogganback an interesting one, at least in his relation to the automobile. Boon pretty much just appears out of the wilderness. He seems to belong to the wild in a sense: he materialized from there, he has a sensitivity to the horses he handles at the livery. But, by golly, he is the first to jump on the automobile bandwagon. Perhaps he represents something in the shift from the natural to the progressive?
The fact that this novel is told as a story perfectly complements its status as a "Reminiscence." The main character is spanning his coming-of-age years, while also, at times, giving the reader (or, in this case, listener would perhaps be a better designation) an explanation of years prior and beyond. I was rather touched by the fact that Faulkner referred to this novel as a reminiscence. So many of our old Yoknapatawpha friends and acquaintances were mentioned, especially those mentioned in Go Down, Moses. It seems that not only was the main character, Lucius Priest, reminiscing, but Faulker himself was revisiting those old friends and histories, while musing on potentialities of the future, of Yoknapatawpha County.
Of course, this book was also the most technologically aware of Faulkner's, at least as far as I can tell. Not only do Faulkner's characters venture to the city for a large portion of the novel, but there is a long explanation of the first automobile in Jefferson. Henry Ford is even mentioned, giving the first link (that I have noticed) to a prominient figure from the known-world.
I found the character of Boon Hogganback an interesting one, at least in his relation to the automobile. Boon pretty much just appears out of the wilderness. He seems to belong to the wild in a sense: he materialized from there, he has a sensitivity to the horses he handles at the livery. But, by golly, he is the first to jump on the automobile bandwagon. Perhaps he represents something in the shift from the natural to the progressive?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)