I don’t doubt it. I did say upthread that my only experience was one time nearly 20 years ago and that what I mostly remember is my reaction to it at the time. I made quite sure to phrase my opinion in such a way to emphasize that this was a limited opinion formed years ago. My more recent post was simply a clarification about why I disliked him the time (long ago) that I did read him. I didn’t like the implication that not liking Faulkner = not liking challenging writing.
Feel free to report the post. Yours to lissener was rather more inappropriate.
The fact that you don’t like him doesn’t make him a horrible writer. By several standards, including the Nobel committee, you are wrong. Your hyperbole in condemning him doesn’t make you particularly credible as a critic in this case, nor does your entirely gratuitous personal insult to lissener. I have to wonder if you really think your bad experience reading one Faulkner novel qualifies you to tell someone that reading him is like eating broken glass.
To the OP: forget the haters. Give Faulkner a shot. You’ll be glad you did.
It = not liking this particular kind of challenging writing. Using non-standard grammar to portray a disorganized, emotional, or mentally ill mind is a technique that he uses to great effect if you can get into the spirit of it and experience it as it is intended. If you dismiss out of hand that technique as something you don’t like, then you are rejecting Faulkner’s style in certain books. It’s by no means true of all his work, so stating that as a reason for the OP not to read him isn’t a completely valid point. My comment not a condemnation of you as a reader or anything.
I might… if I actually cared what you had to say. Luckily, I don’t.
Is that why you keep replying to me?
His mother is a fish.
I also respond to dog crap on my shoe, skin rashes, and the flu, so you’re in good company.
If it helps for you to understand, think of yourself as a template. You type what you want, and, if I see something in there that I can use to make a funny, or a point, I’ll use it. That doesn’t mean I think you have anything worthwhile to say. Only that I can use your posts to let my genius spring forth, like a beautiful orchid from the dung.
You take me, yourself, and my comments on Faulkner, way to seriously. You’ll give yourself an ulcer.
Actually, she’s a hamster. And my father smells of elderberries.
Rimshot. Applause, applause.
No, I think the real problem for you is that I don’t take them seriously at all. You’re the one insulting lissener and getting all upset that we don’t take your literary criticism of Faulkner with the consideration you think it deserves. Chill out. Go read some Danielle Steele in the bubble bath or something.
Reading Faulkner gave me a much greater appreciation of Hemmingway. Make of that what you will.
He obviously incites passion, whichever way you feel about him afterward.
I suggest Sanctuary as a first read, simply because it was mine.
You do have to go into reading him kind of like wading into a lake - take it slow and enjoy the acclimation to the climate. Drink in the imagery. A glass of bourbon helps.
When I was at work the other night one of the regulars was well into his second or tenth drink and was talking about his uncle and telling stories from a while ago. His uncle spoke of riding out to the “middle of no-goddam-where” and talking to Uncle Bill. It was kind of surreal for me. But hell, I’m in MS. It’s not like there are enough people here to not run into a connection sooner or later…
Of course, he could have been lying.
My apologies. i can see how from my post, you could conclude I was a dilettante. I should clarify that Sound and Fury was the only Faulkner I was able to complete, and that only because it was required reading. I have tried multiple times with multiple works of his and given up in disgust. Your mileage of course may vary.
I still believe the gentleman was laughing at us when he took the title from Macbeth: “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing,” Act 5, Scene 5
How very apt, from my point of view.