/lit/ - Literature

Just started reading this book. Any tips on how to proceed, what to pay attention to or keep in mind? I have to say that the first part is somewhat challenging and problematic to read for me.

>>20344618
Read this, it'll tell you what you need to know.

The Quentin section
I think his mother was pretty neurotic in the Dilsey section as well but she’s not in it for that long

I don't get it

no shame edition

>>19961088

what the fuck is even going on

>"Holy fuck, what is the dialogue," Anon said.

I am Quentin Compson...

Did Oprah's audience actually read this? I'm reading it now and it's hard as hell.

I just finished this. Thought it was absolutely amazing.
From Benjy's chapter, which gives flickers of the characters contrasting with the final two chapters' straightforward reveal of the dynamic between family. Quentin's chapter was stunning. This book was so great bros.
Which Faulkner should I read next?

>>18965685
I think about this a cover a lot

was it autism?

I just finished the Quentin section of The Sound and the Fury on my second reading. I tried to pay closer attention to the writing this time around but there are a few passages from the end of Quentin's section that I still don't understand.

>seeing on the rushing darkness only his own face no broken feather unless two of them but not two like that going to Boston the same night then my face his face for an instant across the crashing when out of darkness two lighted windows in rigid fleeing Being crash gone his face and mine just I see saw did I see not goodbye the marquee empty of eating the road empty in darkness in silence the bridge arching into silence darkness sleep the water peaceful and swift not goodbye

The only sense I can make from this passage is that this is a memory from when he was in the car earlier that evening, sitting across from a woman with a broken feather in her hat. Quentin saw the reflection of himself and the woman in the window while he was looking out of it, hence the two broken feathers.

The other two are things that his father said to him in the conversation he remembers right before his suicide.

>and now this other you are not lying now either but you are still blind to what is in yourself to that part of general truth the sequence of natural events and their causes which shadows every mans brow even benjys you are not thinking of finitude you are contemplating an apotheosis in which a temporary state of mind will become symmetrical above the flesh and aware both of itself and of the flesh it will not quite discard you will not even be dead

>you wont do it under these conditions it will be a gamble and the strange thing is that man who is conceived by accident and whose every breath is a fresh cast with dice already loaded against him will not face that final main which he knows before hand he has assuredly to face without essaying expedients ranging all the way from violence to petty chicanery that would not deceive a child until someday in very disgust he risks everything on a single blind turn of a card no man ever does that under the first fury of despair or remorse or bereavement he does it only when he has realised that even the despair or remorse or bereavement is not particularly important to the dark diceman

I don't get it. Not saying his writing is bad, he's obviously talented. But does anything ever happen? I tried to read Sound the Fury and felt like I was having an acid flashback or something in the first 30 pages. Abaslom is better but still kinda meh, I would rather read something like East of Eden or Suttree. Then I tried to read As I Lay Dying and it was boring as fuck. Cormac has took his style and actually made it good. Prove me wrong.

I am currently working on a story written in 1st person. The main character/narrator is meant to come across as unknowingly stupid and the tone of the novel is humorous. Basically an out of touch moron who doesn't realize he's out of touch and stupid. Any tips on writing a narrator who's stupid? I can't really use "big fancy words" since the narrator wouldn't talk that way.

I'm reading this book, and I'm not sure how much of it is simply going above my head. I'm trying to go through while making the least amount of stops possible, so as to replicate the stream of consciousness; and while I feel I get the general idea and the point he tried to convey, I'm just not sure I'm somehow doing this right.

Am I overthinking this? I'm currently halfway through the June Second 1910 section. Should I just finish the whole thing before making a judgement? Or is there anything I should keep in mind?

I thought Quentin was a tranny on my first read of TSatF since Benjy's chapter used both male and female pronouns to refer to her. I thought Faulkner was being so progressive for his time lol

by pic related. I gave up. The first 30 or so pages are like an acid flashback or something. What do I do?

>>18487512
The fuck are you talking about?

>Drunk and abussive father
>Bitch mother
>Literally retard brother
>Liberal and suicide brother
>Slut daughter

This was a fine book to read, I could not put it down and had to finish in one night. Read a few more of his works since then and Faulkner stays as one of my favorite authors. Going in blind made it all the more memorable. Starting with Benjy's part and I immediately found myself invested in the flashbacks and dreamlike existence only to see how much of a burden and frustration his existence really was. I still cannot figure whether he was enveloped in ignorant bliss or he used those memories of Caddy as an escape for how shit life had gotten since then for the family.
Finding out Quentin killed himself at the end of his section was a great shock as well

>>18338019
dammit

im furious at this book. the benjy section was magical and the quentin section was good too but with some things i dont know what faulkner was thinking.

the main problem is the ugly flowery descriptions and metaphors that show up most prominently in the forth one but theyre there in the quentin section and just a little bit on the benjy section too in the form of unneccesary adjectives. the fourth section completely deflates the subtlety and the weight of the rest of the book with that flowery shit.

another problem comes with the ambiguity. its what makes the book good but it also means he has to interject exposition and its not always very natural. sometimes it feels very in your face. especially when things are repeated three or more times. the appendix that spells things out i found to be godawful. i dont know why its there at all.

and lastly the prose of the jason section was fine but jason as a character is so cartoonishly bad that hes not interesting anymore.

im sorry if these are common complaints about the book. are his other books like the last section? also how similar is the quentin section to joyce's stream of consciousness?