WWTBAM Bored

Decided to tackle The Sound and the Fury.

It is actually pretty easy now as there are tons of stuff on Youtube and synopses and such all over the internet.

I can not begin to fathom how anybody approaching it blind in the 1930's would have stuck with it. Obviously, they did as it was his Faulkner's breakthrough novel.

I can't believe that there was that large a market for super confusing stream-of-consciousness novels in the 1930's.

On another topic-there is a guy who I often see at the local café who talks in stream-of-consciousness. Nobody has any idea of what he is talking about more than 25% of the time.

I saw him yesterday and started laughing to myself as he is straight out of Faulkner-I told the kid that you need a spreadsheet to keep track of what he is talking about.

Back in the early days of WWTBAM, I tackled some of the easier Faulkner and while I didn't understand a lot, I remember running across certain passages that were transcendent. I am hoping to hit that in "Sound" and I found one so far.

He's a slog...

tlynn78 wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 04, 2023 10:14 am

He's a slog...

Yes-and I am not sure why I decided to do Sound as I am more drawn to trying "Absalom, Absalom."

I remember in the early days of the Bored there was a lady bookseller/ book person from Iowa who considered "Sound" as a great novel.

And as far as being a slog-I just can't imagine my grandfather/grandmother( born in 1902 and 1906 and so the prime age for the book.) or their peers as being drawn to the book.

i do remember they had To Kill a Mockingbird in their house-so they read other books of their era.

I can't believe I did a report in highschool on Faulkner. I can't remember one single thing about the books. I also asked for Ulysses for a Christmas present. I think I must have had a mind portal back then. Unreal. Beyond slogs like many "classics".

Beebs52 wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 04, 2023 1:59 pm

I can't believe I did a report in highschool on Faulkner. I can't remember one single thing about the books. I also asked for Ulysses for a Christmas present. I think I must have had a mind portal back then. Unreal. Beyond slogs like many "classics".

You 70's rebel you.

I do remember a movie made from his last book-"The Reivers" which is probably his most accessible work and had Steve McQueen in it was on TV all the time on one of our few channels in the 1970's/early 1980's.

I'm surprised that you'd read such a liberal story.

Bob Juch wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 04, 2023 7:08 pm

I'm surprised that you'd read such a liberal story.

Weird, right? Not everyone chooses to limit their intake to 'approved' material.

tlynn78 wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 04, 2023 7:39 pm

Bob Juch wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 04, 2023 7:08 pm

I'm surprised that you'd read such a liberal story.

Weird, right? Not everyone chooses to limit their intake to 'approved' material.

Actually, I think of Faulkner as a "Rural" writer, not a liberal writer. I remember thinking 20 years ago when I read him some that some of the parts that I found transcendent spoke loudest to the rural reader.

For example, I doubt that a lifetime urban apartment dweller could really get Faulkner. Oh, they might get the tricks and congratulate themselves on how smart they are for reading him. But, I don't think they can "Get" him like someone with a rural/land background.

For example, can someone without a love for the land really understand what a sacrifice it was for the Compson family to sell the pasture so Quentin could go to Harvard? Do they realize that they weren't just selling real estate? Instead, it was like selling a family member.

To say nothing of all the hunting stories and episodes.

Liberal and rural are not opposites. There are many empathetic rural citizens.

Beebs52 wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 04, 2023 1:59 pm

I can't believe I did a report in highschool on Faulkner. I can't remember one single thing about the books. I also asked for Ulysses for a Christmas present. I think I must have had a mind portal back then. Unreal. Beyond slogs like many "classics".

They are indeed classics, without the quotation marks. It is also difficult to read and not for everyone.

Not everything has to be easily digestible. A lot of great achievements are complex, and should not be belittled for that.

Bob Juch wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 05, 2023 12:04 am

Liberal and rural are not opposites. There are many empathetic rural citizens.

Liberal and empathetic are not synonyms. Plenty of liberals as hateful and mean. Plenty of conservatives that are empathetic.

franktangredi wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 05, 2023 8:24 am

Beebs52 wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 04, 2023 1:59 pm

I can't believe I did a report in highschool on Faulkner. I can't remember one single thing about the books. I also asked for Ulysses for a Christmas present. I think I must have had a mind portal back then. Unreal. Beyond slogs like many "classics".

They are indeed classics, without the quotation marks. It is also difficult to read and not for everyone.

Not everything has to be easily digestible. A lot of great achievements are complex, and should not be belittled for that.

I wasn't belittling calling them classics. I meant many classics in general. I should be belittled for core dumping knowledge I used to have.

Bob Juch wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 05, 2023 12:04 am

Liberal and rural are not opposites. There are many empathetic rural citizens.

Never said that they were. My argument is that Faulkner is best understood and appreciated by those with a rural background.

Nobody is more empathetic than my mother, a life-long rural woman.

Otoh, empathy is not exactly the first word that crosses my mind when I think of you. So I don't know where that came from.

I said earlier in this thread that I kind of wondered how much of a market there was for Faulkner's books among his contemporaries. Apparently, not much.

In conjunction with The Sound and Fury I am reading a Faulkner bio (One Matchless Time). In 1940, after all his important works had been completed he got a whopping $350 in book royalties.

Spock wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 07, 2023 6:54 pm

I said earlier in this thread that I kind of wondered how much of a market there was for Faulkner's books among his contemporaries. Apparently, not much.

In conjunction with The Sound and Fury I am reading a Faulkner bio (One Matchless Time). In 1940, after all his important works had been completed he got a whopping $350 in book royalties.

That's a bit deceptive. His original publisher went bankrupt, which dried up most of his royalties. As a result, he moved to Hollywood where he spent the next 20 years or so writing screenplays and did quite well financially. He probably wrote about 50 screenplays during that time, but most of them were uncredited. Howard Hawks was the only producer who let Faulkner put his name to a couple of classic films, To Have and Have Not and The Big Sleep. It's fascinating that Faulkner adapted the works of two other great writers, Hemingway and Chandler. To Have and Have Not is the only time that one Nobel Prize winner adapted another's work.

There's a story that Howard Hawks once took Faulkner and Clark Gable hunting. Gable had no idea who Faulkner was but when Hawks and Faulkner started discussing literature, Gable asked him who the best living writers were. Faulkner mentioned a couple of names and added himself at the end. Gable asked "Oh, do you write, Mr. Faulkner?" and Faulkner replied, "And what do you do, Mr. Gable?"

I heard another Faulkner story tonight at my book club meeting and thought Spock might like it. Back in the 1940s, the Ellery Queen Mystery Magazine ran a contest in which authors could submit stories and the winner was chosen as the Best Mystery Story of the year by the magazine. This was before the Edgar Awards got started, which were more formal. One year, Faulkner submitted a story and expected to win. They announced the winner at a big banquet each year with the finalists in attendance. It turned out that Manley Wade Wellman, who was best known for writing pulp horror and fantasy stories won. The two writers who co-wrote the Ellery Queen mysteries were among the judges, as was Rex Stout. Faulkner did not take losing well, especially to whom he lost, and wrote a nasty letter to the magazine complaining about it. To make matters worse, the Queen writers (Frederick Dannay and Manfred Lee, who were a pair of cousins) took great care in the next few issues of the magazine to point out how excellent Wellman's story was, essentially rubbing Faulkner's nose in it. Faulkner wrote about his loss (which paid him $500 for second place):

What a commentary. In France I am the father of a literary movement. In Europe I am considered the best modern American, and among the first of all writers. In America, I eke out a hack's motion picture wages by winning second prize in a manufactured mystery story contest.

As a final touch, when Faulkner died, he was Writer-in-Residency at the University of Virginia. After his death, the university offered the position to Wellman (who turned it down).

Those of us who are science-fiction fans love Wellman. I would highly recommend him. All fantasy set in Appalachia & inspired by ballads. Never seen any oof the pulp-horror you refer to.

ghostjmf wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 18, 2023 9:38 pm

Those of us who are science-fiction fans love Wellman. I would highly recommend him. All fantasy set in Appalachia & inspired by ballads. Never seen any oof the pulp-horror you refer to.

Never read him - sounds like I need to check him out..

Just about done with the Faulkner bio (One Matchless Time)-My god, the alcoholism. I knew he was a drinker, but not to that extent. Countless hospitalisms to dry out and many injuries while drunk-it is heartbreaking.

It seems to me that Faulkner really finally clicked with the reading public in the late 1940's with the publication of some collected works and such

Obviously, Hemingway also drank but he maybe handled it a little better.