William Faulkner Date Read: 1/11/22
Originally Published: 1930
This novel right here is an example of why I'm doing this challenge. It makes no sense. It is confusingly written, and it seems pretty clear that he wrote it confusingly on purpose. But it is a classic, because someone says so.
What is a classic novel?!
I found this definition from arapahoelibraries.org:
A classic is a novel that represents a genre or a writing style, or it can be a novel that makes a contribution to literature. There are all kinds of classics, from horror classics to romance classics, from novels that sold millions of copies to a novel that changed how a genre was written.
That really doesn't tell you anything, does it? So why does this "novel" (using the term loosely, because much like Catch-22, this is a loose assortment of scenes and character sketches; or in two separate cases, a single sentence chapter) bear the title classic?
I really, truly believe that a lot of novels are called classics because the people who make such distinctions - literature professors, etc - don't understand the novel, and thus assume it must be deep, philosophical, meaningful, a commentary on our society or what-the-fuck-ever.
For this novel in particular, I would suggest it belongs on r/Im14andthisisdeep.
Okay. I think I'm done ranting.
This novel is (allegedly) an illustration of how a fucked up family implodes when the mother dies. And to be clear, the title is really inaccurate. Addie dies pretty near the beginning of the novel. Then the rest of it is her husband and her children trying to get her decaying corpse to her hometown to bury it.
Yeah, you read that right.
A lot of comment is made of the smell of the body and how Vardaman is trying to keep the buzzards and cats away from it. Oh, and don't forget, he (who seems to be roughly 10 years old) had drilled holes in the coffins so she'd be able to breathe and unknowingly drilled directly into her face.
And then the last page, the father brings a new "mom" for the kids to meet.
This was a disjointed novel with a hard to follow story. The writing style was different for each character and he did a great job of showing the personality of each one as they spoke. He also made their speech very realistic etc.
I guess my issue is that my personal idea of a "classic novel" is one with an engaging story that draws you in and shows you something of life. I feel like the story is the key point of a novel, not how fancily you wrote or how many tricks you did. In fact, a lot of that stuff is distracting and takes away from the story. Might be because I'm not a literature professor that I focus on the story and not all the window dressing.
Anyway. I said I'd stop ranting and then I did it again.
You might have guessed by now, but I did not like this novel very much. If it were written in a way that was easier to follow, it might have been more engaging. But again, the "look how clever I am" tricks obscured the substance.
Time to read: about 1 day
Rereadability: hardly got through it the first time
Classic: not by my standards. Too many frills, not enough novel.
Comments