Puzzles in Reading O. Henry

I used to handle Michener real well. The Sound and the Fury defeated me as well. Maybe it was the names, maybe the sentences, and maybe because I was clueless about the sequence of the various scenes. I didn't put it aside. I rejected it.

I probably kept it for a couple of years, knowing it was an important book, or so I heard. I remember trying to read it more than once. Then, out. This is the good part about reading for pleasure/curiosity instead of for a class. On the other hand, on my own, I tend not to analyze a book as one might in a literature class: it's more of an "experience".

I've liked every book by Faulkner that i've ever read, and that includes The Sound and the Fury. I believe i've read them all, or damned near. The Sound and the Fury was a brilliant work, and i believe that it is correct that it was for that work above all others that he was awarded the Nobel Prize.

The book is difficult because he presents (or attempts to present) different views of the events from several points of view, in the fragmented manner in which people think and react to their environment. It was difficult to read, but in my opinion, well worth the effort.

Ordinarily I like that process - different takes on events from several points of view. I never got far enough to understand that was what was going on in The Sound and the Fury - which I surmise now is part of what the title was about, or was it?

I'll give a shot at that. The title is from a passage of old Bill Snakeshit, from Macbeth:

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

So, please note, it is a tale told by an idiot. The obviouis reference is to Benjy, who is, clinically speaking, an idiot--a man with the mind of a child. But Faulkner was more subtle than that, this also refers to the idiocy of other characters.

The Compson family is declining from its former wealth, influence and glory, so that the way to dusty death applies as well. Dust was a frequent metaphor of Faulkner's for the faded glory of old southern families, or of the South in general. His 1948 novel about race relations in the old South was entitled Intruder in the Dust. His first successful novel was Sartoris (it was, i believe, his third or fourth novel, but this was the one which gave him notoriety). The people who published it cut it down drastically. The full version of Faulkner's original manuscript was published in 1973 with his original title, Flags in the Dust. This also traced the decline of a once great Southern family. Dust as metaphor for the declining fortumes of southerners was a constant theme of his.

Finally, in accepting his Nobel Prize, Faulkner said that the things of the heart, the universal truths, are what matters, all else is irrelevant detail. He specifically put it that all else signifies nothing. So, yes the title is very interwoven--it is a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing.

Ok, ok, now I want to read the book, so thanks.
Embarrassing - I once memorized that Macbeth passage, and presumably understood it at the time.


One more comment, re the esl tag for the thread - I'm not convinced Maple is learning english as a second language, as George had thought.

I believe that Maple is doing translations, and said as much. I don't know who is resonsible for the tag. Maple's command of English is sufficient that i feel that she or he is better qualified to translate than others we've had here.

Oh, ok.

Wow. Maple is very good.

Thanks, George. I didn't mean to skulldug you.

Skulldug?
I love it!

New verb, skulldughere. Or noun, slulldugo.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Ok, I'm bad. We're just playing, Maple.

Knows how to keep the pump primed too, don't he?