Customer Reviews: Read 64 more reviews...
 Brilliant and Untouchable November 1, 2006
3 out of 5 found this review helpful
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.
 Signifying Nothing October 16, 2006
3 out of 13 found this review helpful
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.
The most overrated book ever written September 26, 2006
3 out of 14 found this review helpful
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, cliche 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).
Difficult But Rewarding August 2, 2006
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
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 I was looking in on the deep south at the beginning of the twentieth century, and it was a unique and rewarding experience.
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, 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. Basically, the entire section is experienced rather than processed, with no clear sense of space or time or logical connection, and that's what makes it so confusing. But to me that's also what makes it so amazing (and it's important to point out that the final two sections of the book are easy to read and very moving).
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 this book. It's tough, yes, but it's also a lot of fun. To me, it just depends on what you're looking for and what kind of mood you're in at the time. Faulkner certainly isn't all that accessible, he doesn't do a lot of favors to the reader, and he may be a bit pompous at times...all of that is true to a certain extent, but this time it struck me just right. Loved it.
 More a puzzle than a story January 9, 2006
2 out of 12 found this review helpful
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."
|
