William Faulkner = Superbore?

Denerick

I really tried today but I've been forced to do something I haven't done in years - give up on a book out of sheer boredom.

Read the first 50 pages of William Faulkner's 'Light in August' and I almost fell asleep in boredom. Am I missing a trick or is all his writing so slow paced and boring?

I usually have a 50 page rule, I judge how a book is around the first fifty pages, if its terrible I'll know around then and if its shaping up into something I'll know then too. I just can't follow his prose, its too dull and unexciting and seems to lack in any internal dialogue.

I've a feeling I'm missing a trick though... Anyone else read Faulkner? Should i give him another go?

godspal

well the slow pace of Faulkner either takes patience or separation like Joyce, what I would advise you to do is to read until your mind begins to even slightly meander and then put the book down and do something else.

Liquorice

I read As I Lay Dying a few weeks back and really enjoyed it. There seems to be a bit of a marmite effect around Faulkner, probably because he is really slow paced. I guess the dichotomy is based on whether you like a great plot or a well-constructed world as the base upon which a novel is built. Not that the plot of As I Lay Dying was a pile of balls, but rather that everything - plot, characters etc. - contributed to creating this impoverished Southern Gothic space.

cashback

Liquorice wrote: »

I read As I Lay Dying a few weeks back and really enjoyed it. There seems to be a bit of a marmite effect around Faulkner, probably because he is really slow paced. I guess the dichotomy is based on whether you like a great plot or a well-constructed world as the base upon which a novel is built. Not that the plot of As I Lay Dying was a pile of balls, but rather that everything - plot, characters etc. - contributed to creating this impoverished Southern Gothic space.

I read As I Lay Dying in one day a few years ago as I had an exam the next day. But I definitely enjoyed it and wouldn't mind reading some more Faulkner.

Eliot Rosewater

I read The Sound and the Fury this week. It's a very difficult novel, but I thought it was excellent. I may re-read it over the summer.

One of the things that struck me about it was the unapologetic honesty of the third section. The narrator Jason is this racist cynic that loads of readers of the book hate, but what I find is that you know exactly why he is like he is. He's in this huge conflict with the housemaid Dilsey, and most readers side with Dilsey and they think she's some kind of angel. But I'm like, No, Jason is right because I know why he does all these comparatively mean things and I sympathize with him.

I think its a good quality of the book. The personalities and the conflict are so real that we can easily take either side.

toomevara

Denerick wrote: »

I've a feeling I'm missing a trick though... Anyone else read Faulkner? Should i give him another go?

Yes! Read Faulkner like you would a poem....just let it was h over you, Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant....

buck65

Read half of "As I Lay Dying" and boy I nearly did.

Damian Duffy

Light in August is probably his most difficult novel. If you havn't read anything by Faulkner before I suggest you read 'As I lay Dying' and if you enjoy it move on to his other works. There is no doubt that his writing is slow paced but the more you invest in it, the more rewards you will get. As mentioned previously, if your mind starts to wander whilst reading it, put it down because it can become very tiresome trying to articulate what's happening when your only 20-30% alert.

He's definitely not an author for everybody though so don't just keep trying to find out why it clicked for somebody else. I tried this with 'For whom the bell tolls' and now I just can't read Hemmingway.

Amazotheamazing

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I read The Sound and the Fury this week. It's a very difficult novel, but I thought it was excellent. I may re-read it over the summer.

One of the things that struck me about it was the unapologetic honesty of the third section. The narrator Jason is this racist cynic that loads of readers of the book hate, but what I find is that you know exactly why he is like he is. He's in this huge conflict with the housemaid Dilsey, and most readers side with Dilsey and they think she's some kind of angel. But I'm like, No, Jason is right because I know why he does all these comparatively mean things and I sympathize with him.

I think its a good quality of the book. The personalities and the conflict are so real that we can easily take either side.

While I liked the book, and sided with Jason (at least he was doing something), Faulkner reminds me of Cormac McCarthy to an extent that it's about the writing style and the the prose rather than the plot itself.

Damian Duffy

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

While I liked the book, and sided with Jason (at least he was doing something), Faulkner reminds me of Cormac McCarthy to an extent that it's about the writing style and the the prose rather than the plot itself.

Could not agree more.

Ed D.

I think that generally a lot of contemporary "literary fiction" doesn't reward a close reading. I find much of it contrived, pretentious drivel, meant to awe readers and critics with meaningless density. I don't think Faulkner is one of those. I think he's the real deal in that his thought is precise, original and compelling. He may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I don't think he's a pretender.

Mardy Bum

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

While I liked the book, and sided with Jason (at least he was doing something), Faulkner reminds me of Cormac McCarthy to an extent that it's about the writing style and the the prose rather than the plot itself.

Faulkner is all about the writing style. He was a modernist American writer.

Adnerb666

I had to read quite a bit of Faulkner as part of my English degree and I found him to be quite difficult to get through. Again, Light in August was the prime culprit for me, I found it intolerable at times. I have since re-read it though and enjoyed it far more the second time round.

Faulkner writes well and has produced some good stories on a whole but his pacing is tedious at times. Worth reading but in the right mood, sometimes there is nothing more valuable than putting a book that you are just not getting into aside before you begin to hate it. There will come a time when you are the right frame of mind to read and enjoy it.