Speaking in terms of baggage involving Faulkner, I have one piece of baggage. This piece of baggage is unlike any other piece of baggage I own. This is a boring, dull, uninteresting piece of baggage. This piece of baggage contains lots of words, visited points of view, and an overall bland flavor. If this piece of baggage were to have a color, it would be gray, but not the super exciting gray, a more morose and saddening gray.  You can only carry this baggage for about an hour and a half, but you will eventually get sick of it and throw it on the ground, leaving another poor defenseless soul to be sucked up by its void of boredom. This piece of luggage is known as the book As I Lay Dying. I had no idea that a book talking about someone dying could actually drain one’s life force. I attempted to read this book during my sophomore year in high school. My literary palette was not as developed as it is now, but I will stand by my primary statement that this book was terribly boring. I could not handle the bland word choice, the constant switching of point of view, and the overall setting of the story. I could not get into the story no matter how hard I tried. There is a smaller piece of baggage to accompany the bland one; it is smaller, but a bit more dynamic, containing a lot more substance. I like to refer to that one as Barn Burning. 

Connections

Reading Benjy, I keep trying to make connections. I like the idea (for those of you who have taken Literary Theory) that we all bring our own interpretation to whatever we read, based on our own life, education, bias, baggage, etc. Frankly, I think anyone who thinks literature is read and created in a vacuum had been living under a rock. We tend to forget that books are art just like a painting is art, and all art is subjective, and the viewer's interpretation of it differs. Therefore, what we bring to the table can sometimes be just as important as the text itself. But that's my personal soapbox, and not the point.

I kept thinking, coming into this class, that I knew very little about Faulkner and his writing. I thought, well, that's going to be tough. Because I like to use my prior knowledge to help me better understand the new things I have been presented with. That's kind of the way I view education in general: you're being equipped with tools that will help you with the new, more difficult things you are presented with as your education progresses. And I think I was resisting Faulkner because I felt ill-equipped to face him. Modernism I get alright, but Faulkner is not Picasso, and he is definitely not Hemingway.

Oh, and when I opened Benjy's section and began reading, I thought maybe I had been right. Maybe I wasn't ready to deal with him; maybe I never would be. But, the more I read, the more I fell into a pattern of, not so much understanding, but connecting. It's almost as if you can't think about it too hard, because he's not thinking about it too hard. It's impressions and images and sensations and conversation, and the rigorous interpretation that you often approach "literature" with is out of place in his narration. And, finally, I think I've found a connection. The images and flashbacks and stream-of-consciousness remind me of Toni Morrison's Beloved. Something about the imagistic, impressionistic style clicked with me, and now, it's not entirely making sense, but I'm liking it a lot better now that I'm not so scared of it. I have connections after all!

After Starting...

I’m more of a romantic when it comes to art.  Anything that appeals to my emotions is considered art, in my narrow opinion. Books make me laugh and cry; they are art.  Particular paintings make me nostalgic; they are art. Some music does everything, tweaks and pulls everything; its art. Dramas are art.

I’m not a huge, overwhelmingly giddy fan over the literature created this past century in Modernism.  However, I can (and do) appreciate the movement which reflects new cultural shifts. I can appreciate Faulkner’s text as art; as consciously tangible.

When I started reading Benjy and Quentin’s sections, I felt more like I was part of an experimental quest in observation (if that makes sense).  The characters are the test subjects that are picked apart by the reader.  I know their intimate feelings, perceptions, and fears.  These characters are incredibly personal in what they share with me—or rather what they are forced to share.  

 I can’t decide whether or not I actually like the style. Again, I can appreciate what Faulkner is doing, but this style isn't a favorite.  

 So far, my favorite part of Faulkner's text has been the imagery. I loved the detail of the tiny bird watching Quentin early in his section as much as I loved Benjy's perception of the world/fire.

Young Lochinvar rode out of the west a little too soon, didn't he?

Worth reading, from Sir Walter Scott: http://www.bartleby.com/41/442.html

I'm from the south. You're funny, aren't you.

Modernism as an Art

Taking Fiction Workshop last semester we reviewed a variety of different points of view from which a narrative can be written. This "stream of consciousness" as the distance from which a point of view can be stated introduced by Modernism is something we did not review. I can appreciate the artistic motivation during this Modernism period to record all thoughts, actions and occurrences as one complete entity, however, confusing it may be. I am intrigued that everything experienced in a twenty four hour period can be expressed through literature exactly how it occurs and is experienced. I can understand how such an enterprise would fill an entire book with only the contents of one day because the human mind covers so much both consciously and unconsciously. I feel that because of this the interior monologues contribute so much more to characterization than anything else in the stimuli of the novel's drama or outside forces to the character. As for the poetic movements of Modernism I am unsure of what I think. After the analysis of Gertrude Stein's "Tender Buttons" by Mr. Andrews I understood to a greater extent what Stein wished to convey, though I am still confused as to how she achieved that and the order of words. It really was like a word painting and set in such a style that it was rhetorical for the reader in the sense of interpretation. The arts movement of Faulkner’s time with the painterly visual works definitely contribute to the artistic literature as a whole movement of Modernism. I appreciated the Portrait of a German Officer that Mr. Andrews showed on his slideshow. It was an ingenious type of art especially for people of that time period suspected to be homosexual. The painting although an allusion to the painter’s love was anonymous and could not induce any verdict as to his orientation. 

So I finished Benjy's section a few days ago and after feeling so awesome because by the end I was actually getting the hang of how Faulkner wrote his story I'm scared to start on Quinten's section because it's a whole new thing that I have to figure out. Can I just not and say I did Mr. Andrews? I'm only kidding.

Besides enjoying the fact that I could understand Benjy's section I also really enjoyed it. It was interesting to step inside the mind (or what Faulkner believed to be the mind) of a mentally handicapped person. I was getting so into it that through Banjy's eyes even I was mesmerized by the fire and the smell of trees. I only have a few questions (hopefully I don't sound like an idiot for asking them): One, what is Benjy's deal with fire and the smell of trees when he sees Caddy or the repetition of how Jason always has his hands in his pockets? Are these maybe traits that connects to the person he relates them too? I know these might be answered later on in the book but I wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything. Two, did I understand correctly that the family changed Benjy's name from Maury? If so why would they do it? It seemed at one point that they just gave him to their servants and basically treated him like a pet or something. The mother always complains whenever Benjy makes a lot of noise and her solution was just to send him outside which is what one would say about an annoying puppy or something. I don't know these were just my thoughts, they might be completely wrong.

Hopefully soon I will gain enough courage to start reading Quinten's section. If anyone has answers to my questions please let me know :)

So far

So far in my reading of The Sound and the Fury, I have grasped that Faulkner is switching from different time periods through Benjy's point of view. I like this point of view because Benjy sees everything as it is. He doesn't really distort the truth because he's an innocent character. I also can see through Benjy's point of view you see his love for Caddy.  As I keep reading you can see all the flaws within the family. The mother is a hypochondriac, the father is an alcoholic, Caddy is a rebellious girl who is very passionate and she really does treat Benjy with care, Quentin seems like a brat from what I've read and obsessed with Caddy, and Jason is cruel, petty, and tells on everyone.  Throughout the reading it was confusing to know when Benjy was talking about Quentin, or Caddy's daughter Miss Quentin. Just in this first part of the novel you can really see how dysfunctional this family really is.  We get glimpses of the future through Benjy's view i.e. Caddy's wedding.  Faulkner uses stream of consciousness throughout Benjy's section and although it was very confusing, it kept me wanting more. At some points I felt sorry for how Benjy was treated, his mother acts as if he's an imposition can't bear the stress that her children give her.  Faulkner's fascinating use of writing is so captivating that I found it hard for me not to be interested in this sad, depressing tale of the Compson family.

Thus far...

Thus far in my readings from The Sound and the Fury by Faulkner, I have come to the following conclusions. Faulkner combines lots of crazy with spurts of true brilliance. Each of his characters fit a commonly dysfunctional family. You start with parents that are out there. In The Sound and the Fury you have an alcoholic father and a mother who can’t seem to find her way out of bed. Then, there is Benjy.  Benjy is obviously somewhat mentally handicapped, but has times, where it seems his mind functions fine. It almost seems as if he was handicapped and unable to speak intelligibly, but could still understand things that were happening around him. Next, comes the section about Quentin, here is where it got confusing for me. Quentin is referred to many times as a she, but is definitely a male.  I asked Dr. McLamore about the sex of Quentin. He said there are two characters named Quentin, this has cleared up some mysteries for me. There also is a part where it is hard to separate the character of Caddy from Quentin. Though from Quentin’s point of view, he would never want them separated from each other. Quentin is interesting to me. He still has some morals, as he gives a poor man on a mule a coin and gives a little beggar girl food at the almost ruin of himself. Though from the glimpse the reader has inside his mind, Quentin is a suicide waiting to happen. Then you have Jason, who seems like the good son, but is really the tin man without a heart. At the heart of the story, there is Caddy, the sister, who everyone calls a slut. Yes, Faulkner definitely has a great way of painting an incredible picture in the reader’s mind. This poor family is probably found more often in society than we realize.
Esther

My thoughts about...something:

My thoughts about...something:

   I really liked the idea that, even though the first section is deeply embedded in the mind of a mentally-handicapped person, it could possibly be the most honest, reputable part of the story.
   Most stories that are narrated by one character give a lot of room for foreshadowing and suspense but do not provide unbiased, objective view on the conflicts and dilemmas that arise.  And yet, Benjy's tragedy, as the characters in the book call it, is the reader's blessing because even though it is hard to follow and the transitions are fuzzy and intangible, it will be the closest we get to seeing the true feelings of a lot of the characters, like Dilsey, T.P., Caddy, etc.
   Everyone speaks around Benjy like he could never comprehend or retain what they are saying thus he could never speak it aloud later and create trouble for them, and maybe he can't, but the point is that we, the readers, get the meanings and indications of conversations that normally would have been whispered behind closed doors, but are instead said with complete candidness in front of Benjy, our narrator.

   And I pretty much just wrote about this because I really liked learning about Modernists exploration of the subconscious mind and writing subjectively vs objectively. Plus, I like the honesty people have around Benjy, and the transparency of his chaotic thoughts.

Benjy Compson

So probably unlike most students in this class, I have only just begun reading "The Sound and the Fury." A couple things that have really stood out to me in basically the first ten pages of the novel is that although Benjy would be considered M.R. (mentally retarded), he seems to have a deeper purpose for the novel (and this is just an assumption). Benjy is totally dependent upon Caddy, yet has this premonition about bad things that happen. To me, Benjy is foreshadowing in the representation of a character. Usually we see foreshadowing through the story line, and how the author uses diction. Faulkner uses Benjy's ability to hint at future events in the novel.

            While the Benjy section has been a difficult read, it has also been eye-opening with how easy it is to picture the things Benjy sees, hears, feels, thinks, and smells. The descriptive use of stream of consciousness makes the book visualy enough for the reader to picture exactly what is going on. Though Benjy’s thought process is not entirely coherent, or in a timeline-like fashion, his memories are very specific, but described in the manner in which a young child would describe similar situations. The stream of consciousness definitely shows Benjy’s view of the world he lives in and how it is very different from how a normal person perceives the world, or how a person with ADD, or OCD (though not diagnosed as diseases in Faulkner’s time) might see the world.

Spheres to Circles

I just finished reading the “Benjy” section of The Sound and the Fury. It was probably the most confusing thing I have ever read, and yet, I could not bring myself to put it down. Something about the style of that first passage is absolutely mesmerizing and it took me a while to pin down what exactly that something is. At first I thought my fascination was akin to the human fascination with watching a car crash or inspecting a flesh wound, a sort of morbid desire to see some sort of catastrophic abnormality. After further contemplation, however, I decided that I was really captivated because despite its disjointed, fractured nature, it was one of the most incredibly involved pieces of literature I’ve come across. The stream of consciousness brings you so deeply into the novel that you can smell, hear, feel, taste and see everything that the narrator experiences. Obviously the style was an attempt to express how Benjy, a mental toddler, experiences the world because it so radically differs from the way that we experience life. The style itself is groundbreaking for writing but what is truly amazing is how he blurred the line between two art forms.

As a theatre major, I was surprised to see that in addition to writing novels and short stories Faulkner also wrote screenplays. It’s relatively rare to find someone who is able to write both a novel and a play, and to do them both well. Some fantastic writers are incapable of writing plays because it is an entirely different sphere of literature. Plays are another world because unlike a typical piece of prose, a play is not complete until it is on stage. A play must be heard, seen, felt and thoroughly experienced by an audience, something a book could never achieve. Faulkner somehow blurred the lines between novel and play. He took things that really should have been expressed visually, and audibly and put them into words on a page. Everything that occurred in the Benjy section makes much more sense if it is visualized as a blur of images in a movie “memory montage” as opposed to a chronological story in a book. The true genius of this section is in his transformation of art, he changed the reading experience because like great painters of the past, Faulkner took a three dimensional object and put it into a two dimensional form.