|
BeefSupreme posted:As for the racial implications, I didn't find either in this or in other Faulkner things I've read that he had anything in particular to say about race, but that his novels were grounded in the reality of the time. Perhaps, as you say, there is a subtle slant one way or another, but I always felt like he was more interested in Southern family dynamics than anything else. Of course, I'm white, so who knows. Here's the thing, though: any American novel is, to some extent, going to be about race because America is about race. This goes double for novels written about the South, and triple for novels written about the decaying southern aristocracy. So I have to say that race is absolutely a major theme in The Sound and the Fury, whether or not Faulkner intended it to be. So the reason why my knee-jerk reaction was "this is racist" is because the book asks us to sympathize with the aforementioned southern aristocracy and feel at least somewhat bad about its decline (Faulkner definitely had some lost cause sympathies, not that he was a full-on confederate apologist). But I have to say that I've come to believe that the novel's approach to race is actually quite nuanced, and to some extent I agree with what everybody has said about how depicting people accurately and with compassion is inherently an anti-racist mode of writing. I think race is actually sort of always bubbling right below the surface of the novel-- it informs everything, but nobody confronts it directly, which is sort of how the South (and America) worked and continues to work. Think about the relationship between Luster and Benjy-- it's quite fraught. Luster is Benjy's caretaker, but Benjy is theoretically above him in the social heirarchy. Luster is able to speak to Benjy with a level of frankness that he can't use with any other white people without endangering his job and potentially his life. So it's not difficult to believe that when Luster gets angry or frustrated with Benjy, he's venting his frustration with white people in general on the only person who can't hurt him for it. Or think about Quentin's (and everybody else's) obsession with Caddy's sexuality. As we know, protecting "white southern womanhood" was one of the primary justifications employed for lynchings in Faulkner's era. Note also that characters in the novel tend to associate earthiness, mortality, sensuality, and "the flesh" with blackness. Remember, for example, when young Caddy insists that only black people have funerals, that only a black corpse would be "undressed by vultures." I think a lot of Quentin's fixation on Caddy's chastity comes from this notion that she isn't acting "white" (I think he basically says it explicitly at least once in his chapter.) Basically, all this is just to say that race is very much a presence in TSATF. I haven't finished it yet, so I can't say what kind of overall statement it's making, but its absolutely there in a big way.
|
# ? Dec 5, 2014 05:32 |
|
|
# ? Jun 1, 2024 05:04 |
|
Here's a great article (contains spoilers) about Light in August and race and sexuality. Excerpt: quote:Light in August, published in 1932, is Faulkner’s Great American Novel. It was the seventh of what would be 19 novels, an output that was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1949 and that, to borrow a hackneyed but apt phrase, represents nothing less than an embarrassment of riches. A writer of prodigious powers, Faulkner bequeathed to readers a rich fictional panoply of complex characters, incisive social commentary, formal ingenuity, and metaphorical depth. His oeuvre displays an unsentimental compassion, a tragedian’s unblinking vision, and an almost preternatural insight into human motivation and desire. He left behind two highly influential masterpieces of modernist fiction: The Sound and the Fury and As I Lay Dying, works that, along with other modernist texts, radically altered conceptions of narrative linearity and the formal depiction of consciousness. Absalom, Absalom!, often mentioned in the same breath, is celebrated by many as his greatest, most fully realized novel, one of tremendous breadth and a radical consistency of aesthetics. But it is the less mannered Light in August, sometimes overlooked in discussions of his more overtly modernist works, that draws all of Faulkner’s familiar preoccupations—determinism vs. free will, the partially Reconstructed South, religiosity, the draw of female sexuality, and the power of the living past—around one overriding, ineradicably American concern: race.
|
# ? Dec 5, 2014 18:56 |
I have a pet theory/ question on Faulkner and Steinbeck, actually. When I read Faulkner's Sanctuary and Steinbeck's The Wayward Bus I couldn't help but think "whoa, Faulkner and Steinbeck are parodying the poo poo out of pulp lust novels." How much critical support is there for that reading? They both just seemed so over-the-top, but that doesn't seem to be the standard critical view of either of them (though I may just be too far out of the critical loop).
|
|
# ? Dec 5, 2014 19:10 |
|
What's a pulp lust novel? Not being snarky, I've genuinely never heard of that genre.
|
# ? Dec 5, 2014 20:18 |
|
Falstaff Infection posted:What's a pulp lust novel? Not being snarky, I've genuinely never heard of that genre. This kind of stuff http://www.pinterest.com/sunandheir/lurid-paperback-pulp-covers/ basically novels that generally revolve around a "fallen" woman and her descent into booze, sex, drugs, and lesbianism and often featuring a mix of all the various underworld stereotypes of the 40's-60's Earwicker fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Dec 5, 2014 |
# ? Dec 5, 2014 20:49 |
|
Ah, gotcha. Figured it was something like that. What gets me is that they're all quite obviously wank material, but they try to cloak it in language about "a cautionary tale" or "an expose of the seedy underworld" as if people are reading them and tut-tutting primly.
|
# ? Dec 5, 2014 21:22 |
|
Falstaff Infection posted:Ah, gotcha. Figured it was something like that. What gets me is that they're all quite obviously wank material, but they try to cloak it in language about "a cautionary tale" or "an expose of the seedy underworld" as if people are reading them and tut-tutting primly. That's not because of the people actually reading them. They are from a different era and if they were truly blatant about being wank material they would not have been able to be published or sold almost anywhere. Adding on the cautionary tale morality panic poo poo is what made them just barely socially acceptable enough to exist at that time. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Dec 5, 2014 |
# ? Dec 5, 2014 21:42 |
|
Falstaff Infection posted:Basically, all this is just to say that race is very much a presence in TSATF. I haven't finished it yet, so I can't say what kind of overall statement it's making, but its absolutely there in a big way. You know, in retrospect, this is certainly possible and even probable. I imagine my inattention to this reading of the work probably comes from the lens I went in with--this a story about social and familial structure in the South and its decline, with a side dish of female sexuality in relation to those same structures. I really should re-read it with the intent going in to look for those themes that do, really, seem fairly obvious, even in The Reivers, which I read quite recently. I have, as my previous posts indicate, effectively treated Faulkner's mentions of race as simply reflective of the times, which, to be honest, is at least slightly foolish; how could an author of Faulkner's caliber use race in his works without commenting on it, even if that commentary is subtle? Rabbit Hill posted:Here's a great article (contains spoilers) about Light in August and race and sexuality. Interesting. That excerpt makes me want to read Light in August a lot sooner than I had planned.
|
# ? Dec 5, 2014 22:44 |
|
DO IT MAN One neat stylistic feature of the book is Faulkner's way of telling you what a character is not thinking, so specifically that he puts those thoughts into your head while allowing the character to remain, uh, true to character by remaining ignorant of [whatever situation]. You'll know it when you see it.
|
# ? Dec 5, 2014 23:16 |
|
Rabbit Hill posted:DO IT MAN That sounds really cool, and exactly like the kind of thing Faulkner could pull off quite well. Last time I read Light in August was, again, high school, and all I remember was our teacher belaboring the hell out of the Jesus Christ/Joe Christmas parallels. If there's one thing I hate it's a forced christ allegory. But now I want to check it out again. Maybe this'll be the winter of Faulkner for me? Also, don't wanna derail the Faulkner-chat, but has anybody read Cloudsplitter by Russel Banks (author of the Sweet Hereafter)? It's a fictionalized bio of abolitionist guerilla John Brown. I finished it like two weeks ago and while I thought it ended kinda anticlimactically, there are parts of it that stuck with me majorly. Falstaff Infection fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Dec 6, 2014 |
# ? Dec 5, 2014 23:28 |
|
Yo Hieronymous, whatever happened to that Pride and Prejudice readalong? I loved that thread dude
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 17:34 |
V. Illych L. posted:Yo Hieronymous, whatever happened to that Pride and Prejudice readalong? I loved that thread dude Basically I got excited, read ahead, finished the book, and lost my drive, then other tasks got ahead of it in the queue and I got distracted. I still intend to get back to it and have the annotated edition sitting right here on my desk.
|
|
# ? Dec 6, 2014 18:38 |
|
Can anyone recommend proper novels that explore and critizice utilitarian and nihilist concepts sort of the way Gen Urobuchi does but less anime?
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 09:15 |
|
Mercrom posted:Can anyone recommend proper novels that explore and critizice utilitarian and nihilist concepts sort of the way Gen Urobuchi does but less anime? Aldous Huxley
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 10:16 |
|
Smoking Crow posted:Aldous Huxley
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 14:17 |
|
Mercrom posted:Can you recommend any particular book? I'm not interested in satire. Just to be clear here, you are looking for a book which criticizes particular concepts but in no way alludes to or heavily references these concepts as they occur in the actual lived world.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 15:41 |
|
Mercrom posted:Can anyone recommend proper novels that explore and critizice utilitarian and nihilist concepts sort of the way Gen Urobuchi does but less anime? Dostoyevsky's entire oeuvre.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 15:46 |
|
Mercrom posted:Can you recommend any particular book? I'm not interested in satire. Eyeless in Gaza is probably the most fitting. In it he rejects an unsatisfying middle-class life for some barking mad gibberish about how tall you are. Maybe that's what Ape and Essence is about too, I've not read it yet.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 16:32 |
|
Tree Goat posted:Just to be clear here, you are looking for a book which criticizes particular concepts but in no way alludes to or heavily references these concepts as they occur in the actual lived world.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 16:47 |
|
William Gaddis also interrogates utilitarianism and he's a fun read. He might be a bit satirical for you but I'd say give JR a try.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 16:55 |
|
Mercrom posted:Can anyone recommend proper novels that explore and critizice utilitarian and nihilist concepts sort of the way Gen Urobuchi does but less anime? It's not a novel, but Ursula K. LeGuin's short story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" is a fantastic allegorical examination of the limits of utilitarianism.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 18:30 |
|
Mercrom posted:Can you recommend any particular book? I'm not interested in satire. Brave New World is all about the limits of utilitarianism and how extreme complacency leads to societal decay
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 19:27 |
|
Are you guys talking about the Jeremy Benthem/John Stuart Mill utilitarianism? Because I don't see how brave new world? It's been a decade since I read the book but I don't see how that applies.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 19:40 |
|
Smoking Crow posted:Game of Thrones is drivel. It's another Tolkien rip-off except that the author tries to justify it by being "dark and edgy." Also, why is there so much underage loving? Also, I don't wanna dredge up this old argument, but it's really not. There's so much underage loving because it is, primarily, a series about the horrors of patriarchy. This is also why there's so much castration. Additionally, one thing that GRRM does better than any author I can think of is get you all psyched for righteous war and then pull the rug out from under you by showing how squalid and absurd it all really is. It's a great trick to pull on the reader. When you're reading your typical anti-war novel like, say, Johnny got his Gun, you know the war is terrible and a waste from the get-go because a) you've heard of the book before and b) you've heard of world war one. In ASOIAF, however, the tricks is that you think it's awesome fun fantasy bloodshed where badass vengeance is wreaked, but then the horrors are exposed and you feel ashamed. So, in a way, you're being put through the same process of disillusionment (minus the actual trauma and terror, of course) as, say, an eager young WWI volunteer.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 19:40 |
|
blue squares posted:Are you guys talking about the Jeremy Benthem/John Stuart Mill utilitarianism? Because I don't see how brave new world? It's been a decade since I read the book but I don't see how that applies. I think it's because (and it's been forever since I read it too) the society in Brave New World tries to provide maximum happiness and pleasure (which is *sort of* the Benthamite goal) to all its members by essentially drugging them into a stupor, and the novel criticizes that goal, arguing that happiness is not the be-all and end-all. "'All right then,' said the Savage. 'I'm claiming the right to be unhappy.'"
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 19:45 |
|
Oh, I see. I'd forgotten a lot of it. Thanks.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 19:46 |
|
To elaborate, Bentham believed society should maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Brave New World argues that there's value in pain.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 19:47 |
|
Falstaff Infection posted:Also, I don't wanna dredge up this old argument, but it's really not. There's so much underage loving because it is, primarily, a series about the horrors of patriarchy. This is also why there's so much castration. Additionally, one thing that GRRM does better than any author I can think of is get you all psyched for righteous war and then pull the rug out from under you by showing how squalid and absurd it all really is. It's a great trick to pull on the reader. When you're reading your typical anti-war novel like, say, Johnny got his Gun, you know the war is terrible and a waste from the get-go because a) you've heard of the book before and b) you've heard of world war one. In ASOIAF, however, the tricks is that you think it's awesome fun fantasy bloodshed where badass vengeance is wreaked, but then the horrors are exposed and you feel ashamed. So, in a way, you're being put through the same process of disillusionment (minus the actual trauma and terror, of course) as, say, an eager young WWI volunteer. I don't really care if people make fun of GoT but the idea that it is a "Tolkien ripoff, but dark and edgy" is pretty laughable. It is just a fictionalized version of the War of the Roses and a few other medieval wars with dragons and magic thrown in as an afterthought to sell books.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 19:59 |
|
Falstaff Infection posted:Also, I don't wanna dredge up this old argument, but it's really not. There's so much underage loving because it is, primarily, a series about the horrors of patriarchy. This is also why there's so much castration. Additionally, one thing that GRRM does better than any author I can think of is get you all psyched for righteous war and then pull the rug out from under you by showing how squalid and absurd it all really is. It's a great trick to pull on the reader. When you're reading your typical anti-war novel like, say, Johnny got his Gun, you know the war is terrible and a waste from the get-go because a) you've heard of the book before and b) you've heard of world war one. In ASOIAF, however, the tricks is that you think it's awesome fun fantasy bloodshed where badass vengeance is wreaked, but then the horrors are exposed and you feel ashamed. So, in a way, you're being put through the same process of disillusionment (minus the actual trauma and terror, of course) as, say, an eager young WWI volunteer. This is an extraordinarily generous reading verging on the delusional. I would argue that a lot of the sex and violence in the series is simply there because he and his readers find it entertaining, not because it stirs up some feelings of shame or thought about patriarchy or whatever. I don't think the average reader comes away with some kind of "futility of war" message the way someone reading All Quiet on the Western Front or La Debacle might, rather its mostly just an endless series of badass warriors and conniving manipulators out-fighting and out-manipulating each other while making quips and showing off how smart and cool they are. And with a bunch of supernatural horror stuff thrown in because that's GRRM's background. That said, it's not really much like Tolkien at all. quote:It is just a fictionalized version of the War of the Roses and a few other medieval wars with dragons and magic thrown in as an afterthought to sell books. Exactly.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 20:05 |
|
blue squares posted:Are you guys talking about the Jeremy Benthem/John Stuart Mill utilitarianism? Because I don't see how brave new world? It's been a decade since I read the book but I don't see how that applies. Also the requester mentioned utilitarianism in the same breath as nihilism so I'm assuming it's a metonym for a bunch of other "dehumanizing" ethics, hence the Dostoevsky and Ursula K. Le Guin.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 20:07 |
|
Maybe if George Ar Ar Martin had wanted to write a good book about the horrors of war he shou;ldn't have written such a lovely book.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 20:14 |
|
Earwicker posted:This is an extraordinarily generous reading verging on the delusional. I would argue that a lot of the sex and violence in the series is simply there because he and his readers find it entertaining, not because it stirs up some feelings of shame or thought about patriarchy or whatever. I don't think the average reader comes away with some kind of "futility of war" message the way someone reading All Quiet on the Western Front or La Debacle might, rather its mostly just an endless series of badass warriors and conniving manipulators out-fighting and out-manipulating each other while making quips and showing off how smart and cool they are. And with a bunch of supernatural horror stuff thrown in because that's GRRM's background. Not to get all authorial intent on you but GRRM was a conscientious objector during Vietnam, so it's really not as much of a stretch as you might think to argue that the series is fundamentally anti-war. Sure, the average reader may not pick up on that reading, but so what? Since when is that the benchmark for deriving the meaning of a work of art? There are people who think The Prince should be taken at face value and didn't understand that Starship Troopers (the film) was satire. That isn't to say that the series can't be enjoyed simply as a straightforward action-adventure, it's just that it has a lot more depth than some people credit it with. I like "real literature" in addition to fantasy, and I firmly believe that ASOIAF is both.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 20:15 |
|
It's a piece of poo.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 20:17 |
|
CestMoi posted:Maybe if George Ar Ar Martin had wanted to write a good book about the horrors of war he shou;ldn't have written such a lovely book. Not to be a dick, but do you ever post anything remotely substantive?
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 20:17 |
|
Anyway, I'm sorry for starting this derail. We really shouldn't be talkign about GRRM in the "grown-up books" thread. What do people think of Zadie Smith? I really love her essays, but I've always had a hard time getting through her novels.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 20:20 |
|
Falstaff Infection posted:I think it's because (and it's been forever since I read it too) the society in Brave New World tries to provide maximum happiness and pleasure (which is *sort of* the Benthamite goal) to all its members by essentially drugging them into a stupor, and the novel criticizes that goal, arguing that happiness is not the be-all and end-all. blue squares posted:Are you guys talking about the Jeremy Benthem/John Stuart Mill utilitarianism? Because I don't see how brave new world? It's been a decade since I read the book but I don't see how that applies. I'm also interested in the concept of the ends justifying the means. I find that a very tough and interesting subject, where it's not a matter of one side being right or wrong, but a matter of degrees of tolerance.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 20:21 |
|
Mercrom posted:
The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas. Seriously. Also, Brave New World isn't really satire. For one thing, it's not at all funny.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 20:23 |
|
Falstaff Infection posted:Not to get all authorial intent on you but GRRM was a conscientious objector during Vietnam, so it's really not as much of a stretch as you might think to argue that the series is fundamentally anti-war. I don't see how his objection to the Vietnam war several decades before writing this series is necessarily even relevant. Objecting to that war in particular does not mean everything an author writes that involves war, for the rest of their life, has any relation. quote:Sure, the average reader may not pick up on that reading, but so what? Since when is that the benchmark for deriving the meaning of a work of art? Well I would say if you are writing an anti-war book and most of the readers come away with "yeah! cool! badass sword fights and battles!" then its probably a pretty bad anti-war book. If you really feel that reading those books involves anything like the "process of disillusionment" undergone by a WW1 soldier good for you I guess, but I do not believe the books are generally effective at delivering such feeling like that. Granted I only read the first three.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 20:31 |
|
Falstaff Infection posted:Anyway, I'm sorry for starting this derail. We really shouldn't be talkign about GRRM in the "grown-up books" thread. What do people think of Zadie Smith? I really love her essays, but I've always had a hard time getting through her novels. I thought White Teeth was great up until the end, at which point it seemed like she'd written herself into a corner and didn't really know what to do. I have not read subsequent works but I've heard good things about NW.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2014 20:32 |
|
|
# ? Jun 1, 2024 05:04 |
|
Earwicker posted:I don't see how his objection to the Vietnam war several decades before writing this series is necessarily even relevant. Objecting to that war in particular does not mean everything an author writes that involves war, for the rest of their life, has any relation. In order to qualify as a conscientious objector in the U.S., you have to object to war in general, not just a specific war. Also, a huge proportion of people who watch Apocalypse Now come away talking about how badass it was when those helicopters strafed the village while "ride of the Valkyries" was playing. Does that make it a bad anti-war movie or does it make them bad viewers? Falstaff Infection fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Dec 8, 2014 |
# ? Dec 8, 2014 20:35 |