Talk:William Faulkner/Archive 1

Source of "Influence: Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche"

Id like to know the source of this, thanks a lot!

Here you are: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=d8gzqsr_1cnwsg3cn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.181.66 (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Could use some further copyediting and proofreading ...

I was just stopping by for some research. ... For an article about a great author, this article is a mess writing- and proofreading-wise. I'd fix it further but haven't the time. Please help, American editors and proofers (I say that so we don't get British copyediting style mixed in on an article re: an American author). Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"The Marble Faun"

I'm not particuraly skilled at wiking - but the page that "The Marble Faun" linked to was Hawthrone's - so I made it not linked to anything...

Isn't it true that he won the Nobel Prize for literature prior to winning the Pulitzer Prize? And that "some" historians view this as a function of racism in America (due to his subject matter)? Maybe not? But maybe it's relevant?128.36.66.155 00:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Luke

Critics/criticism?

Does anyone know about prominent critics/criticism of Faulkner? I know Nabokov disliked him and thought him a bad writer.

This should be followed up. I'm a fan of both. But Nabokov was a happy Russian aristocrat and a well-educated man. Faulkner was an insecure Southerner and a binge drinker. Nabokov's only reaction to Southern Gothic would be to poke fun at it. He would deem Faulkner's prose a self-parody, and would dismiss many of his themes and plots as mawkish Christianity stripped of optimism.132.181.160.42 (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that some vandalism has been added to the short stories bibliography. "Fuck You, San Diego" and "..Party In My Pants" are quotes from the movie "The Anchorman." Definetly not legit.

I must be reading a different author, for in either of the two books I read, As I Lay Dying and The Sound and the Fury, neither of his prose comes across as long or serpentine. Mandel 12:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Really? Are you reading it in the original English? ;) In The Sound and the Fury, almost all of Quentin's chapter is written in very long sentences without breaks, sometimes spanning multiple pages and with parenthetical divergences galore. (Don't get me wrong--I love Faulkner!) Phil Bordelon 14:52, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Maybe I have been mixing As I Lay Dying up with The Sound and the Fury, where the sentences are extremely short. But even going back to The Sound and the Fury, those sentences are long not because the sentence structure are long (as in Proust or in Henry James), but because they simply lack periods and punctuation - a mark of stream-of-consciousness, not of any sentence construction. "Long and serpentine" gives the impression that he writes very wordy, very convoluted prose - which isn't true. That hardly suggest his general style is long and serpentine.

But anyway, if Faulkner has a penchant for long sentences, the wording still ought to be rephrased. "Experimental" could come in, "serpentine" should not. Mandel 15:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

For an example of Faulkner's serpentine prose, check out Absalom, Absalom. The writing style is wordy and convoluted, and very different from the two novels mentioned above. It's like it's a different author (with respect to the sentence structure, at any rate).--Mycenae 18:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"Sometimes challenging or even difficult?"

Do we really need "criticism" of his writing in the intro? 128.54.229.104 19:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In his work Absalom, Absalom! the prose can definitely be characterized as "serpentine". Some sentences span a page and a half, not because of stream of consciousness, but rather tacked-on revisions/clarifactions of initial descriptors. I don't think that knowledge of any two works is enough to offer criticism on an author of more than 50 short and long publications.

The Wild Palm

The novel I read was named "The Wild Palm". The link to this novel is named: "If I Forget Thee Jerusalem (The Wild Palms/Old Man)". The original name on this page was also named "If I Forget Thee Jerusalem (The Wild Palms/Old Man)" but someone changed it to "The Wild Palm". I have linked the older page with this link, but I am seriously confused as to what name is the real name of the novel?

From what I understand, Faulkner's intended title for the novel was indeed "If I Forget Thee, Jerusalem". However, the original printing was released, against Faulkner's will, as "The Wild Palms". For those who havn't read it, the book consists of two interwoven tales, continually swapping chapters from one ("The Wild Palms") to the other ("The Old Man"). For a period, the publishers attempted to revert the title to match Faulkner's own preferences and it was released as "If I Forget Thee, Jerusalem". To avoid the confusion, recent reproductions of the novel have been going under the title "If I Forget Thee, Jerusalem (The Wild Palms/The Old Man)", or some similar form.

--sidd 11:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

A Rose for Emily

The long synopsis on A Rose for Emily would probably work better as its own article, thus cutting down on the clutter on the Faulkner page. If nobody objects, I will move it. Otherwise we could wind up with synopses of every story that he wrote, which will detract from the article.

Short stories?

I just discovered this website through a friend of mine and I've found the lengthy descriptions and interpretations of many of my favorite movies and comic books to be really fascinating. Because it has info on such things as The Maxx, I was kind of expecting it to have a complete list of Faulkner works as well as more then just a description of the basic plot. I am referring specifically to The Bear, Old Man, and Spotted Horses. Is there a specific reason they were left out? Or are they on here somewhere and I have just missed them?

When you say "this website," are you talking about Wikipedia, or some other website? If you're talking about Wikipedia, then the answer to your question is probably that Wikipedia is written and edited by the general public -- which means that the reason why someone has written about The Maxx but not about "The Bear" is because it occurred to someone to sit down one day and start writing a story about The Maxx, but no one has yet been inspired enough to sit down and start writing about "the Bear." There are numerous possible reasons for this: Maybe there just isn't enough non-copyrighted information about "The Bear," or no one can think of anything to say, or maybe it's just because Wikipedia has a popular-culture bias (or maybe not ... but it's an accusation that's been made a lot). If you think this is unfair, there's something you can do about it: You (yes, YOU, the person reading this paragraph) can sit down and write an article about "The Bear." You can see Wikipedia:Contributing_FAQ for more information to get you started. pmooney78 (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Faulkner's use of italics

While reading the sound and the fury I didnt understand how Faulkner used italics differently. The first place I looked was this article but it has no info on his use of italics. I searched the web and found out that Faulkner uses italics to show time shifts. Could this be included in the article somehow?

Broadly speaking, it is usually as a means of providing some sort of clevage between on form of narrative and another. The specific use differs from case to case (though usually, he sticks to one purpose for each novel). In The Sound And The Fury for example, it implies a shift in time. However, in The Wild Palms and As I Lay Dying, italics are used to represent interior monologue.--sidd 11:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Be careful in The Sound and the Fury as 1) Flash backs and time shifts still occur without the use of the italics 2) Periods of different time in each section do not necessarily stay in italics for the entire flashback 3) Regardless of the use of italics, the time shifts can often be jarring and confusing, calling for particularly close reading.

Hemingway Rivalry

I am interested in seeing more of the details on this rivalry in the article, or a seperate article about the rivalry, since it was mentioned quite a lot in my literature class. I do not personally know enough on the subject to write anything, currently. Sirkha 00:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Faulkner publicly named Hemingway as one of the top 5 American authors currently working and adapted his "To Have and Hove Not" for screen. But in a private conversation Faulkner commented on how Hemingway never went out on a limb, never took a risk, something to make a reader "travel to the dictionary". Hemingway was insulted and publicly replied "Poor Bill... He thinks he can just put a big word on love and that explains it all..." Faulkner was very embarrassed and apologised profusely to Hemingway. These are inexact facts. For more information go to Noel Polk's chronologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

All I can...

I have tried to seperate the text into seperate headings to make things a little clear. But I am not sure that I can classify texts further into the heading "Alcoholism." Plus more details wouldn't hurt either. Merishi 08:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Requiem for a Nun

I came across this while checking the Faulkner page on the Italian wikipedia. It said that 'Requiem' was a novel and that French writer Albert Camus made it into a play. Now I checked Camus' complete works in the 'Pléiade' 1962 edition, and they reprint an introduction he wrote to Faulkner's works, (page 1866 ff.) where he seems to imply that while 'Requiem' contains parts written in drama form, it is rather a hybrid construction, and he still calls it a 'roman' (novel in French'), tha he has adapted to the scene . It's worth noting that Joyce's Ulysses, contains part which are written as a play too, so it was a device which could have come to mind at the time. I wonder if 'Requiem' is really Faulkner's 'only play', or isn't rather another experiment with form, undertaken after he had had experience with Hollywood scrrenplays (that would make him someone who wrote novels and movie scripts, but not theater, which is maybe interesting from an historical point of view)?--Cleversnail 12:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Not true. Faulkner wrote both the play and the novel, it was both, the play was something his lover wrote, and he wrote the novel formed and helped her with the play. --Robert Waalk (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Novel" and "play" are both rather arbitrary constructions that have only become solidified by custom. The form of 'Requiem' is unusual, so it tends to spark debate about whether it's "really" a novel or "really" a play. Faulkner was interested in playing with form and operating outside of normal conventions, so I doubt the question would have interested him much. Different people assign it to different categories based on what they think the "real" characteristics of a novel (or a play) are. It was a creative experimental work that played with form. It doesn't fit neatly into either category, so people try to pigeonhole it as one or another. pmooney78 (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Influences

I'm pretty sure that Camus and Sarte did not influence Faulkner. I would add Sherwood Anderson as an influence. Does anybody know if Faulkner read Thomas Hardy? I have always felt that there is a kinship between the two. User:badtpist

I think the whole "Influences" section is pure speculation; not encyclopedic at all. Had he said explicitly that he was influenced by Eliot or Swinburne or Nietzsche? Cite it! --Slothrop87 (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Faulkner explicitly said the works that most influenced him were in The Old Testament. Check Noel Polk's chronologies of Faulkner's life for verification. Also what Hardy and Faulkner both have in common is the repeated usage of a fictionalised version of their home counties. This would later influence Gabo, as he cited in interviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Faulkner was a comtemporary of Sartre and Camus and except for the heavy-handed "Requiem...", there seems to be no similarites between the two Europeans and Faulkner. Though Sartre did have an interesting piece on Faulkner's use of time in Sound & Fury though, in his and de Beauvoir's journal "Modern Times". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobel Prize anectdote

The story of Faulkner's nephew and the unnamed relative trying to deceive Faulkner into staying sober does not make much sense. I read it a few times, and I still cannot grasp how exactly the relative was trying to deceive Faulkner. Is there a citation for this?

Unsourced rumors removed from article

The text of the Nobel Prize speech is also available on the website of the Nobel Foundation [1], together with a partial audio recording. It is not specified whether this recording is live or if it was made later in a studio, but reverberation, echo, and ambient noises, along with hesitations and mispronunciations, plus minor differences of style from the published text, seem to indicate it is indeed live.

According to rumor, Faulkner's alcoholism was particularly severe after a major accomplishment, when he would go on prolonged binges. Normally, during his drinking bouts he would stay in bed and have various family members bring him his drinks and keep him company. An interesting anecdote describes Faulkner after his winning of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1949, when he drank heavily in anticipation of his departure for Stockholm. His nephew brought him a drink and began to talk about his triumphs in a recent football game, which had taken place on the same day Faulkner had been told he had to sail for the prize ceremony. Despite his inebriation, Faulkner put two and two together and realized that a family member had intentionally lied to him about the true date of his Nobel Prize reception in order to ensure his sobriety at the event; he then resumed drinking steadily until the actual date. It is said that his speech was not noted for its greatness until the next day, when it appeared in writing, because Mr. Faulkner had stood too far from the microphone, had mumbled, and had spoken with his usual deep Southern drawl, making it almost impossible for those in attendance to hear or understand him. Recordings of the Nobel Prize speech—which appear on "Faulkner Reads" with sections from As I Lay Dying, The Old Man, and A Fable—were recorded in a studio after the actual event. In it he remarked, "I decline to accept the end of man [...] Man will not only endure, but prevail...." Both events were fully in character. An unverified story has it that before Faulkner's death in 1962, the author John Steinbeck called him to ask for advice regarding his own Nobel Prize acceptance speech. The two great American authors were not known to be great mutual admirers, but Faulkner is said to have told Steinbeck that he had no advice to offer as he was too drunk to remember it.

Fraternity

Please add that he was a member of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity at the University of Mississippi.

No —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"marked"

In "Mississippi marked his sense of humor", the word "marked" is ambiguous. It could mean either "noticed" or "influenced".D021317c 07:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Another puzzling sentence

I don't understand the following sentence:

Interestingly enough, only two of what would be considered as Faulkner's "minor" novels were those to receive the Pulitzer Prize.

("Enough" is unnecessary -- but not confusing.) "Only two" suggests that there ought to be more than two, but why? "Would be considered" leaves me wondering who would consider. But it's "only two...were those to receive" that's the confusing bit. I guess what the contributor meant was that Faulkner's only works to win the Pulitzer were two novels which somebody (or everybody) considers minor.D021317c 08:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Author navigation box

Faulkner desperately needs a full author navigation box! Once done, there's no need for the massive bibliography section (Wikipedia is not a list or whatever)... By the way, I'm impressed by the number of articles that exist on his writings! Midnightdreary 03:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Air Force

Exactly what did Faulkner join before joining the RAF, and when did he join it? On the AIRCOM page, it says: "AIRCOM is the descendant of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), which was Canada's air force from its foundation in 1924 until February 1, 1968. Prior to 1924, the Royal Air Force provided air defence for Canada." This article (the Faulkner article) says, "After being snubbed by the United States Army because of his height, Faulkner first joined the Canadian and then the Royal Air Force, yet still did not see any of the World War I wartime action." If he joined the Canadian air force before joining the RAF, it's not surprising that he saw no WWI action since the war was over before the Canadian air force came into being. Something seems a little off... Komdori 00:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There's also been a lot of discussion among people who knew him and biographers/critics in genral whether or not he ever joined anything...Faulkner claimed he did, but he also claimed to have shot down a number of German planes and told a lot of people that he was British. Not to mention the fact that many who knew him considered him to be something of a pathological liar...206.192.68.116Snyrt

Two Falkner Writers

The paragraph about Faulkner and his great-grandfather is confusing; how much of the discussion of literary works therein is about the older and how much the younger? I think the paragraph splits and talks about Faulkner-with-a-u about 1/2 way; should this be 2 paragraphs, then?206.192.68.116Snyrt

Really THAT Monumental???

Yoknapatawpha was his very own "postage stamp" and it is considered to be one of the most monumental fictional creations in the history of literature.

Is it just me, or does this particular statment just seem fanboy-esque and over-the-top? I'm taking it out for now, as it seems superfluous to that part of the page, and begs the question of "considered by whom?" -- provide a comprehensive set of texts or collaborations that make this claim of greatness for Yoknapatawpha, otherwise it's just biased.

Well...I'm not the guy that put that in there, but are you a Literature major? Any would tell you that Faulkner's large, combined Yoknapatawpha writings, as a whole, constitute one of the greatest achievements in writing, a vivid and complex history and look at a fictional county that covers more than 16 novels and numerous short stories many of whom are considered masterpieces of English writing and for which the Author won a Nobel Prize, and a Pulitzer. At least 3 of these novels and two of these short stories would be on any list of the 100 greatest Novels and Short Stories of the English language. It's not fanboyish, and it is just you. The Yoknapatawpha writings are considered Faulkner's main mark, his legacy, none of his non-Yoknapatawpha writings with perhaps the exception of "A Fable", hold lasting importance at all, and Faulkner is widely viewed among critics as the greatest ever American author and one of the greatest ever authors, period, especially consider the sheer number of quality works that he produced. That would make it a pretty monumental acheivement. It doesn't need text and critical essays, the sheer complexity, popularity, and critical regard of his large collection of Yoknapatawpha writings speak for themselves here. I'm reinstating with some minor changes. --Robert Waalk (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And, I added two books as sources just to placate you. I think the titles alone show the importance of Yoknapatawpha, that these were only two out of many books of critcism devoted to a fictional place is only more testiment to the monumental status it deserves. What other fiction creation can boast that, what other fictional creation has such a body of brilliant work attached to it heart and soul. It's is truly monumental, a triumph of art and a magnificent success. --Robert Waalk (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Could we be any more cliche?!

"Much has been made of the fact that Faulkner had a serious drinking problem throughout his life. He was not alone in this area; a list of contemporaneous American writers who struggled with alcohol would stretch to several pages."

Is Wikipedia supposed to be an encyclopedia or a puritanical newsletter of simplistic remedialism? Many writers drink; many writers drink more than is "socially expectable." So what! Society can't write like them! Try to use more exposition rather than being judgmental!--Carlon 22:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To Carlon: Being an alcoholic has nothing to do with being a writer, good or bad....the two are not linked. "So what"(to use your words) if some writers ALSO happen to be alcoholics. Some doctors, lawyers, businessmen, tradesmen, nurses, janitors, teachers, publishers, typists, waiters, waitresses, plumbers, carpenters, loggers, etc. etc. etc. are also alcoholics, do not write and are judged accordingly. William Faulkner was a rummy. That he could also write, was lucky for him b/c it gave "respectibility" to his addiction. If he hadn't made it as a "great writer", he'd be just another wino...and you never would've heard of him. Stick that in your glass and drink it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.213.178 (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

These 13

his first short story collection, These 13 (1932), includes many of his most acclaimed (and most frequently anthologized) stories, including "A Rose for Emily", "Barn Burning", "Red Leaves", "That Evening Sun", and "Dry September".

I was under the impression that Barn Burning wasn't published until 1939.--87.166.17.1 10:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem with dates

The dates listed at the bottom of the page for some of his books and short stories do not tally with the dates he actually lived. I assume these dates reflect some later publication of the works, but I don't see how this makes any sense. The relevant date should be the year he completed the work, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.217.23 (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You're damn write. These 13 didn't contain Barn Burning. It was originally intended to be a prologue to The Hamlet, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Could use some further copyediting and proofreading ...

I was just stopping by for some research. ... For an article about a great author, this article is a mess writing- and proofreading-wise. I'd fix it further but haven't the time. Please help, American editors and proofers (I say that so we don't get British copyediting style mixed in on an article re: an American author). Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with softlavender: The entry needs further editing and proofreading.

MacLennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This entry does not convey the power and glory of Faulkner's writings

I think that Faulkner is one of the 3 greatest American writers, along with Mark Twain and Henry James. He did not have much formal education. In particular, he certainly was not well trained in literature and avant-guard ideas. He did not travel much, and hailed from one of the most backward parts of the USA. Nevertheless, in a 15 year burst of creativity (1926-41), he earned a Nobel Prize and literary immortality, by writing some very challenging modernist fiction.

Reading The Sound and the Fury at 19 years of age was one of the scariest experiences of my life; the author understood so well the horror and depravity lurking under everyday life. No man understood the tragedy of the American South like Faulkner did. No other book makes me mutter like Conrad's Kurz "the horror, the horror." When non-Americans tell me that Americans are superficial and lack a sense of irony and tragedy, I ask them if they have read Faulkner. They invariably change the subject!132.181.160.42 (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Faulkner's America is dead so your above quip is redundant. And for one Faulkner created his own America. I'm sure nobody said American's are superficial in the 30's. Thanks for Bob Dylan and Lou Reed though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

As I Lay Dying disambig

A few months ago a very limited discussion was held by a few editors on an disambig redirect page. The result was a claimed "consensus" that the article As I Lay Dying should redirect to As I Lay Dying (disambiguation). The reasoning was that a band named after the novel was now more well known than the novel, meaning the main "As I Lay Dying" phrase shouldn't link only to the novel.

The problem is that as it clearly states here, disambig pages should only be created "If there are three or more topics associated with the same term" and if one of the topics isn't the primary topic. That is not the case here. Since the band is named for the book, the book is the primary topic. In addition, the band's album has part of its title taken from the band's name, meaning there aren't three true items on that disambig page. As a result, the proper course is to have a disambig link at the top of the novel article and allow "As I Lay Dying" to either be the main article or redirect to the main article.

If people want to change this guideline, that is fine. But to do that, we need to have a true consensus building discussion. Please go to this link [2] to voice your opinion on this issue.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Influences again

From reading The Viking Portable Faulkner, The Faulkner Cowley File & other critical works on Faulkner, I think T.S. Eliot and Conrad Aiken should be considered significant influences on his work.

Also, The Viking Portable Faulkner should probably also be listed in the article somewhere. It had a major influence on Faulkner's reputation. Faukner thought that Cowley had done a superb job in showing what his aim as a writer had been.

Mark

He and T.S. Elliot were writing at about the same time.

Can we please clearly state the inclusion criteria for the "influences" and "influenced" lists in the infobox? I see that a lot of writers have been added lately, many of whom may be of doubtful influence or notability. Shouldn't some sort of attribution be required before a name is added to these lists? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In California

Are we keeping the unreferenced "In California" section? If so, we need to find references for it and incorporate it and the "Personal life" section into the "Biography" section. I would also support naming the resulting merged section "Personal life" rather than "Biography", but either way on that. Mainly, we need to determine if the "In California" section is verifiable and worth keeping. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

James Hillman and Phil Stone

"In a Southern small town a man named Phil Stone, who had some literary education at Yale, took under his wing as coach and mentor, a short, wiry, heavily drinking, highly pretentious lad of the town. This young fellow wrote poems, pretended to be British, carried a walking stick and wore special clothes -- all in smalltown Mississippi during the First World War. Phil Stone listened to the boy, whom we might call today a 'typical puer' and perceived his uniqueness. The man went on to become the William Faulkner who was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 1949" -James Hillman "Egalitarian Typologies versus the Perception of the Unique" -- noosphere 20:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Dates of stories

There has to be something wrong with the dates in the article, since it says Faulkner died in 1962 and there are several stories dated after that time. If they were indeed published after his death, then they should either have a different section which makes this clear or have the date of writing of the story. The way it is now is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.93.52 (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)