Quentin is a dumb faggot

[Anonymous No.16656028]

> Parents sell retard brother's pasture to send me to Harvard
> Want to fuck my sister
>Sister fucks other dudes
> Guess I'm gonna kill myself :DD

Quentin is a dumb faggot who wants to fuck his sister, and fuck everyone who thinks he's cool and not Jason.

[Anonymous No.16656594]

>>16656028
>Wasting time on Faulkner
Read McCarthy, the better writer.

[Anonymous No.16657481]

>>16656028
Why would he do this??

[Anonymous No.16657575]

>>16656594
This, Faulkner's entire ouevre is a psyop to denigrate the South in the eyes of the literary community and paint them as a mixture of inbreds, retards, slut-whores, whore-sons, autistics and schizophrenics, and of course, "evil racists." Read McCarthy, who's trying instead to make art.

[Anonymous No.16657640]

>>16656594
Nice bait. They're completely different

[Anonymous No.16657657]

>>16657640
No, they aren't. McCarthy's Appalachian novels were constantly compared to Faulkner's all though their publishing. It was only once he moved and started writing Westerns that the comparisons from critics began to stop, and they never completely did.

[Anonymous No.16657677]

>>16657575
But Faulkner is actually correct about the south
t. Have lived in the panhandle of Florida for 20 yrs.

[Anonymous No.16657710]

>>16657657
The comparison is certainly overstated. Faulknerian gets thrown around by critics far too liberally
t. loves both authors

[Anonymous No.16657718]

>>16656594
>wasting time on McCarthy
Read Flannery O'Connor, the pleb filter.

[Anonymous No.16657719]

>>16657575
>I dont hate it he thought, panting in the cold air, the iron New England dark; I dont. I dont! I dont hate it! I dont hate it!

[Anonymous No.16657735]

>>16657718
Once again, also great, but completely different

[Anonymous No.16657953]

>>16656028
Jason is a fucking bitch. It's all he is. Felt so good when he discovered Quentin had let the air out of his tires. Jason is all impotent rage, the original incel.

great book btw, re-reading the first part now, for obvious reasons.

[Anonymous No.16658040]

>>16656028
>getting filtered by the Quentin section, one of the most beautiful things in the English language
I hate this board so much

[Anonymous No.16658822]

>>16658040
>guys check it out I can understand a literal retard
meds

[Anonymous No.16658839]

>>16656028
He was insane because of his obsession with Caddy and notions of Southern honor.

[Anonymous No.16658845]

>>16656028
This book isn't any good.

[Anonymous No.16658877]

>>16656028
You seriously boiled down Quentin's turmoil to "want to fuck my sister"? What a shit take.

>>16657575
If your assertion were true, why has reading Faulkner made me love and respect the south, a place about which I had basically no opinion before?

>>16658845
If you've read The Sound and the Fury fewer than two times, you must leave this thread.

[Anonymous No.16658904]

>>16658822
Benji is the literal retard. You obviously haven't even read the book

[Anonymous No.16658913]

>>16656028
I will say Jason is actually the most sympathetic character in the whole novel.

[Anonymous No.16658952]

>>16658877
>If you've read The Sound and the Fury fewer than two times, you must leave this thread.

Why would I read a shitty book twice? It's pretty facile to defend a dubious work by merely insisting that it must be read X number of times before it may be comprehended. If a book needs to be re-read before it's coherent, perhaps that says more about the author than it does about the reader.

[Anonymous No.16658994]

>>16658877
Why not? We did it with Salinger and it was the third most important theme.

[Anonymous No.16659011]

>>16656028
>>16656594
>>16657718
Is it bad that I love McCarthy but don't really get Faulkner? Blood Meridian and All the Pretty Horses were like nothing I had ever read before, so I started looking for more writers like McCarthy (stylistically). Of course, Faulkner came up a ton, so I started out reading his short stories and I loved those. When I tried to move onto Faulkner's novels though, he just wasn't doing it for me. I can definitely see where the influences came from, though. A lot of times McCarthy is borderline uncomprehensible (as in, the number of times you need to re-read a passage is signifigantly high), but Faulkner goes full-on autismo regularly.

I feel like there's a fine line between 'artistic' and 'just plain gibberish.' For example, Joyce's Ulysses is borderline gibberish: just autistic enough to make it "unconventional" but it still has some semblance of a normal story. Something like Finnegan's Wake crosses that line and becomes fully gibberish to the point that you can't really regard is as a novel or judge it's merit as literature because nobody can fucking read and understand the damn thing. That's how I feel with Faulkner: while McCarthy inches right up to that line of uncomprehensible, he never crosses it; Faulkner crosses it regularly.

As for O'Conner, stylistically she isn't really similar to the two of them, but I read A Good Man is Hard To Find and while I was kinda underwhelmed I don't think I've read enough of her stuff to really have a solid opinion on her.

[Anonymous No.16659017]

>>16658952
>why would I read a shitty book twice?
because you only think it's shitty because you didn't grasp what it was saying. If you think that it's a legitimate criticism to say a literary novel that needs more than one reading to be fully understood and appreciated, you're a brainlet who's never going to make it. No offense.
>>16658994
soulless meme shit

[Anonymous No.16659040]

>>16659017
Filtered by elision. God, and child rape, lies in the gaps.

[Anonymous No.16659062]

>>16659017
>If you think that it's a legitimate criticism to say a literary novel that needs more than one reading to be fully understood and appreciated, you're a brainlet who's never going to make it.

You should learn to write coherent sentences in English before calling someone a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.16659123]

>>16659062
Let me rephrase:
If you think that it's a legitimate criticism to say a literary novel that needs more than one reading to be fully understood and appreciated MUST NOT BE GOOD, you're a brainlet who's never going to make it.

[Anonymous No.16659367]

>>16659123
What I was pointing out is that your argument—that a specific book must be read multiple times before being appreciated—can be used to defend literally any book regardless of its actual quality, not that a person's insight into a book wouldn't increase with additional readings. Your argument isn't that sound because you could simply keep insisting that someone must read a given book two, six, a dozen times before they can understand it. And you're making the presumption that liking a work necessarily follows from being able to understand it, which might not be the case. It's possible that a person may understand a work quite well but still think that it is unremarkable.

[Anonymous No.16659388]

>>16659367
>can be used to defend literally any book
Never said or asserted any such thing. I said THIS book takes more than one reading to truly appreciate.
OP made a gross oversimplification of Quentin's chapter and leapt from that oversimplification to degrade the book, which is why I suggested more than one reading is necessary. Because I can forgive someone who read it once coming to such an oversimplified "understanding" of the book. Even merely a second reading would have undone that interpretation of it.

[Anonymous No.16659392]

>>16657953
It pretty much demands to be reread

[Anonymous No.16659405]

>>16658913
No lol

[Anonymous No.16659412]

>>16657719
FUCK

[Anonymous No.16659413]

>>16656594
They’re both good, why do you dorks make it a one or the other debate?

Anyway, Sound and The Fury is a crazy book to have been published in 1929. Compare it to shit that’s touted as great writing today like Zadie Smith and it’s still miles ahead.

[Anonymous No.16659420]

>>16657657
That’s marketing and lazy journalism. There are similarities though, but there are with Melville too. I guess it’s because McCarthy is from Tennessee

[Anonymous No.16659425]

>>16659405
yes

[Anonymous No.16659428]

>>16659011
You are right, I’ve felt the same same way

[Anonymous No.16659433]

>>16659425
How exactly is he more sympathetic than Benjy or Delsy for instance

[Anonymous No.16659435]

>>16659420
Or it's because McCarthy himself has acknowledged the debt and he sent his first manuscript to Faulker's editor

[Anonymous No.16659440]

>>16659420
>That’s marketing and lazy journalism
No, it's because the writing is similar. Get over it.

[Anonymous No.16659458]

>>16659433
An argument could be made for Dilsey, but her life wouldn't have significantly changed from her upbringing to her present situation: a nanny-slave to a formerly wealthy family.

Benjy's experiences are more-or-less the same throughout his entire life. Don't know how you could argue he could be more pitiable than Jason, who's keenly aware of his family's decay and disgrace and is even burdened with defending the scraps in whatever ways he can think of. Benjy just gets to catch butterflies and watch the golfers.