Faulkner: We've come a long way, baby.

"I decline to accept the end of man." - William Faulkner

"If you're afraid of rats, get the fuck out the kitchen." - Slug

How does a book about systematic breakdown and failure uplift the spirit? On the surface, Sanctuary evokes the exact opposite of uplifting: a dystopian world unable to break from its harmful, regressive traditions. Justice and good are thwarted by the unstoppable forces of evil, eroded by the ever-rising tide of apathy and fear. The internal conflicts of Horace, Goodwin, or Ruby make them totally ineffectual while men like Popeye or Clarence Snopes, devoid of compassion and humanity, are very capable of affecting change and manipulating others. However, it is not necessarily the outcome of the story that Faulkner finds important--many of his novels just end with no real resolution--but rather the experience his novels project on his readers and how those experiences challenge the comfortable ruts we often find ourselves retracing.

By confronting his audience with some of the most disastrous outcomes imaginable, such as Temple's Stockholm Syndrome, Goodwin's wrongful execution, or Horace's spiritual loss, Faulkner challenges the  stereotypes of women, justice, and purpose. But to what end? I believe it is to show what has been rather than what will be. By analyzing and understanding why Horace and Goodwin failed, how Ruby and Temple sunk to the subordinate, or what enabled Popeye and Snopes to succeed, readers gain a sense of progress--a sense that what was will never be again because we cannot allow it. Faulkner's stories force people to view their lives through a progressive lens; compelling them to address the hypocrisy and inherent damage of aggrandizing a past that never existed.

By refusing to pervert the past and rejecting revisionist history, Faulkner uplifts the spirit. A frank look at the past--one willing to admit the stark, moral shortcomings of bygone eras--show us how far we have come, and how far we still have to go.  His dystopian outlook of the past gives a blueprint (albeit an ambiguous one that requires multiple re-readings) for a better future; those that heed his message will see that man's progress is not towards his own demise, but rather towards culture willing to sacrifice the false trappings of heritage for a legacy of love, compassion, and indomitable spirit. 

Sanctuary and Speech

The dictionary definition of the word endure is “to carry on through, despite hardships, or to bear with tolerance”.  I first saw the word endure when I was eight years old in a video game, using “endure” allowed the player to survive the next turn, regardless of the onslaught that he or she would receive. When asked to describe the Compson family, Dilsey said that “they endured”. I do not think that Faulkner made that choice to use that word not only at the end of one of his most famous novels and in his speech as mere coincidence. Faulkner said in his speech that he believes man will not endure, rather he will prevail, yet most of his stories do not contain a Deux Ex Machina or any type of prevailing force. Especially looking at just Sanctuary, Benbow fails the trial and does not prevail; Temple survives her hell through Popeye and the brother, but instead of allowing justice to take place, she lies and disrupts the entire process. Justice could not prevail in this story, but do we count Temple getting away as a type of prevailing? I suppose that would depend on whether or not you can call Temple a hero in this story. The first two characters that we meet are Benbow and Popeye, and Popeye is the clear villain, but can we be so quick to place Temple in that “damsel in distress” trope? She goes through a lot of changes throughout the story, but does she became better for it? I would argue that she becomes a foil to Benbow, making justice unable to prevail.

So with all of these characters unable to be completely pure, why does Faulkner believe that man will prevail? Out of all of the stories that we have read from him, who is to say that any of them contain a prevailing force? I think that Faulkner’s stories, while not Happy-Go-Lucky in the least, can provide an opposing thought to the life he wants us to live; by showing us tales of enduring, he hopes that we will always prevail.

Speech

Novels tend to have the happy endings of evil being triumphed because readers like to read a story in which evil does not prevail.  Readers like stories of human beings rising up together and defeating evil--or at least pushing it down for one more day.
I think that is what Faulkner was getting at with his speech, and not just about readers but about us. There is this collective desire of real goodness, however little we may act towards it at times. 
However, evil does exist in the world, and we have this almost unspoken duty to bring it to light. And that's what Faulkner does with Sanctuary.  His choice in omitting purely good deeds is interesting, and I think Ashleigh provides a neat idea with the caricature explanation.

I also have the theory that since Faulkner wrote Sanctuary twenty years before he gave his speech, and that he was younger (obviously) while writing Sanctuary than when giving his speech, that he was simply more cynical during his younger years, as we all tend to be, than when he was older and presumably wiser in his experiences with humanity.


Water cooler breakdown: However crappy things are and however many crappy people there are, there will still be good people doing good things. Because that's who we are.

The Beauty of Caricatures

Sanctuary is dark; it’s a really ugly story of some really ugly people with some really ugly flaws, people with grotesquely masks, like some twisted version of Commedia stock characters. of The book seems highly pessimistic, Faulkner exposes the rotten underbelly of human existence and in this context it is difficult to imagine that Faulkner as a poet is trying to “help man endure by lifting his heart”. However, sometimes to make art really pop, to really bring out the highlights we have to add a shadow.

There is not a single character in Sanctuary that is entirely pure, nobody is completely sympathetic because they are all flawed and in a sense, evil. It’s difficult to hate Popeye entirely because of the explanation of his background, it is difficult to sympathize with Temple because of her lies in the courtroom. The hypocrisy of mankind is continually brought to our attention and it leaves the reader with a lingering feeling of disgust, a sort of repulsion with people but, at the end of the novel we sit back and think “People really aren’t that bad. There really is good in people, Faulkner just leaves out all of the good things in life. Silly Faulkner, looking at nothing but evil, you didn’t see all of the beauty in the world”. That is exactly what he was going for. “The poet’s voice need not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail.” Faulkner wasn’t trying to create a perfectly realistic depiction of the world, it is not a “record of man”, it is all caricature of mankind that emphasizes the ugly so that we see the beautiful things in life for ourselves. 

Faulkner's Nobel speech and views

In Faulkner’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech, he allows us to believe there is hope and that man will endure all the evil and troubles in their life. In his writing I don’t see this though. In each novel, there are such depressing circumstances and usually the novel doesn’t end with a very hopeful feeling.  Darl ends up in a nut house, Caddie isn’t reunited with her daughter, Goodwin isn’t freed, Quinten kills himself, Addie enjoyed punishing her students—the list goes on.  Nothing good seems to come from his novels, yet from his speech, maybe Faulkner wanted us to see the evils in humanity.  Even though there are such down right rotten people out there, not all of man is doomed and we will endure throughout time.

Faulkner's View

Faulkner definitely lived in a different time than us. The world was a lot scarier in Faulkner's time. Though I did read in a column recently that safety in the world is only an illusion. I don't think that his writings inspire hope. I think he is an excellent writer, but I received no visions of hope in his works. I think his early writings do reflect the reader watching the end of mankind. Not hope of a future.

On the other hand, I think people are drawn to gruesome, grotesque, suspenseful stories. If you only write about flowers and butterflies, it can tend to be a bit dull and boring. But if you write as Faulkner did in Sanctuary and most of his other works about the fall and faults of mankind, it tends to make you suspicious of other's actions and thoughts. It makes you wonder about people's motives, thoughts, and moral compasses.

I was brought up with the motif, "let no evil thing come before your eyes". This would explain why we didn't have a television and I was only allowed to read select books. I think the world is filled with evil, but I also think we shouldn't constantly dwell on that. Write about something bad that may happen, but give us hope. Don't leave Temple a ruined female with no chance of having a good family of her own. Don't kill Quinten, leave Caddie a slut, shut out her daughter Quinten, and leave us with psychopath Jason. Don't leave us with the thought that poor Dewey Dell's baby is going to have a very discouraging, poor future with a grandmother who is going to work herself to death for lazy Anse. Come on, Faulkner. Lift my heart and give me something to be proud of and something more to hope for in the future.

Emotional Literature

   "He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance."
   I would argue that this is the idea behind Sanctuary, if not most of Faulkner's stories. It's always said to know what it is to be happy, one must feel pain. Faulkner's characters usually go through an exaggerated amount of pain, such as Temple; it's neverending torment. But that's what it is to have a soul. The difference between man and animal is that humans feel these heart-wrenching, horrible acts of evil deep within. Reading Sanctuary, you're stomach lurches with disgust of Popeye and then maybe with a smidge of compassion when you read the last chapter. Reading Sanctuary, you're mind is stuck between sympathy and disappointment when it comes to Horace Benbow. Reading Sanctuary gives the reader an array of emotions that is hard to sift through, but the idea is that Faulkner elicits true emotions of mankind. 
   Though Sanctuary doesn't really lift your heart, the very idea that it elicited something within you is remarkable. And it's not only remarkable in an emotional way, because the idea of literature staving off any sort of universal lobotomy would be similar to the metaphor Faulkner uses that a poet's voice is a 'pillar' for man. Faulkner's stories create emotions, which are what seperate man from animals, thus helping him endure the lifetime of the universe. Literature is not purely letters and words to leave behind, but in hopes that the emotions and true humanity, in the sense of humans being eternally flawed, would also live on.

Faulkner's Acceptance

Faulkner’s acceptance speech was the first of his words that really spoke to me since the semester began. I read somewhere that Faulkner used to go to gas stations or street corners and ask people for definitions of words and synonyms. I posted this finding on my Facebook earlier in the semester and believing I was insulting Faulkner I got allot of opposition on that post especially from family members strangely enough. My cousin in California even posted that very Banquet Speech and I read through it for the first time. Rereading it now in relation to Temple and Popeye I see allot of Faulkner’s same feelings or expressions in the writing of their reflections on what occurred during Sanctuary. I feel some days as though I am watching the end of the world when I hear what people say about the same-sex marriage I’m fighting for and what other events they relate it to like the Boston Marathon Bombings. I began a novel in Fiction Workshop that I have been writing since last semester and I came to a point where I wrote a suicide narrative for my main character. She did not die, but she was in the same way as Temple reflecting on the possibility of escaping this world and its evils. I was pouring my own reflections into my writing through that character and I believe that is what Faulkner was perhaps doing in Sanctuary with Temple and because these words were ones he would rewrite in many other works it made its way into his acceptance speech. This version is more positive and depicts the conclusion that Faulkner came to himself about what he would do to fight this inevitable end of humanity. I believe humanity dies every day but only in an individual case and here Faulkner refuses to let his humanity die. I finally found a reason to at least respect Faulkner through this speech because those are things that I strongly believe in as well. As a teenager who has experienced every form of homophobia through being harassed, discriminated against and blackmailed all for the sake of my sexuality I saw fit at some point in both my high school and college journeys to end my life. I am very fortunate to have found a reason to live in my fight for the rights of every other LGBTQ student that can gain acceptance from my sacrifices here at McMurry. I relate the concluding words of Faulkner’s speech to the future; “It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past. The poet's voice need not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail.” I am a writer, a poet and I will not let my voice be extinguished. Faulkner and I share that same view and I am happy to have finally found something noteworthy in this author.

Blog this week

Wrestle with the last paragraph of Faulkner's Nobel acceptance speech, especially in the context of the texts we've been reading. You know, Sanctuary.

Men are awesome

Check out these happy two from Eliot:
1. Sweeney among the nightingales
And of course
2. The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock

Helen

Check out "Helen," by H.D. and think about Temple.

A Faulkner Novel

In defining a Faulkner novel, or the stereotypes that surround a Faulkner novel, one inevitably describes what life was like in his time period. Everything was chaotic after the world war just as his writing and characterization seems to be at times. He also seems to focus on the negative or sorrowful themes in his novels which is probably what everyone was doing; grieving for the loss of a generation to war. Women were in an uneasy social status after the war just as they are uneasily characterized by Faulkner. Faulkner wrote what he knew; which was the world that he returned to. People can say that his novels are strange and not easy to relate to, but I think the novels are the closest that our society can come to in knowing what people of his time felt and suffered through.