This book was by far one of the hardest books for me to read, and it reminded me a lot of 100 years of solitude, in the confusing nature of the people mentioned as well as the switching viewpoints, multiple generations, and overall uninteresting nature. The prose within The Sound and the Fury was overly simplified in some parts, such as the ten page section which contained no punctuation, and overly complicated in others such as the stream of consciousness, style of switching viewpoints which the first section is written in. The fact that Benjamin did not speak yet still had sophisticated thoughts also confused me, as throughout the whole book I was unsure whether he was actually mentally impaired due to the supposed ability he had to tell things about people, such as when he realized Caddy was no longer a virgin by smell.
The most unique part of the book I felt was the switching viewpoints, although it certainly did not make me enjoy the book anymore than I had hoped I would, and it certainly did not aid in the readability of the novel. The part of the book which I did enjoy was the interaction between at the clockmakers shop in chapter four, which seemed to explain more of what Faulkner was trying to get across than any other part of the book, and also did not contain any of the painful to read multiple viewpoints.
After reading The Sound and the Fury, I was rather disappointed all in all, as I was expecting a very entertaining or at least capturing story, as it was a very critically acclaimed book, when in actuality I felt as though I must have missed a large part of the book as it just did not seem to be that great. I also feel that there were no real moral lessons or any overarching archetypes in the novel, which makes me wary and again leads me to believe that I was missing a key part to the structure of the story.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
By page 2, I knew "The Sound and the Fury" wasn't going to be easy (that's a litote for: it looked freakin confusing). Luckily, I had purchased a used copy of the novel and it's previous owner had graciously written when the narrator was slipping between dates and annotated important themes, motifs, and implications. That is mainly what the story is: implication. Nothing is ever explicitly stated. It's simply Faulkner's style of telling a story. Instead of presenting the story with eloquence, Faulkner instead writes as if it were a diary, full of incoherent, random, and chaotic thoughts. It's rawness is, in my opinion, it's genius (though you definitely don't agree I see :P). As the reader you really have to labor to translate-it was like learning the language of someone else's mind. Of course I only came to this understanding after extensive research (Sparknotes is a lifesaver) and lots of pausing to make sure I understood what was occuring. I thought of it as cracking the "Faulkner Code," and once I had, it was easier to see why it is such a critically claimed piece of literature and not some piece of -blank- book sent to earth from the depths of hell to make my life miserable (which I originally thought it was haha). I think that maybe you were so distracted by his complex style that you did miss some key elements. Honestly, I would have too without assistance. I would recommend reading it again (don't hurt me, it's just a suggestion :P)
ReplyDeleteacclaimed*
ReplyDeleteI don't really believe that the purpose of Faulkner's novel was to teach any sort of moral lesson, but rather to explore the complexities of man and to reinforce the inescapable nature of the progression of time. Many of his novels, known as the "Yoknapatawpha novels", revolve around many of the same characters and locations, reiterating the disintegration of the Southern brought on by a changing society and its destructive effects upon the families involved. And yes, the novel proved to be a bit more than difficult to struggle through, yet I feel that for the time Faulkner's novels appeared, his introduction of the stream of consciousness style of writing was in its own right revolutionary and unique. In that way, I can appreciate the book for its novelty, although I may never end up picking it up again. Every novel is written with the opportunity for interpretation by the reader, so I don't think that you should feel that you're missing key elements to the novel so much as not interpreting things exactly as others do.
ReplyDelete*South
ReplyDeletenot Southern :P