Could Faulkner Write
I don't like to travel without an interesting compelling time-filling book, and I'm driving up to PA tomorrow in what is still called a car because that is what the people over at Hertz call it - a bright cool air-conditioned chamber with the windows all closed because as a man I realize that hot air prevents coolness from spreading and the open window will let more heat than cool in - so I was glancing over my office qua study bookcase covered with anthologies of great books and poems and individual novels from which life-changing insights broke in random gusts, breaking the backs of cultures on the rack of history and I made the mistake of picking up Faulkner's Absalom, Absalom. I read the first page and a half and thought, "This demands a response."
So, even though I have no time for it, and even though I can't possibly say anything intelligent, I am going to take a few moments and respond to this page and a half.
My first thought, by the time it formed itself into a proposition, sounded something like this: "How does such a book find a publisher?"
It's not that it doesn't deserve to be published, it's just that it breaks every rule in the publishers library of rule books. How did the first editor get past the second page? This book, were it handed in to a college professor, would have almost certainly been dismissed as ridiculous.
But the error would have been the professor's, I guess, because its now among the great books in the American canon.
My trouble, and the trouble is mine and it is a vice, is that when I pick up a book to read on my own, I want to know it will be worth my time. I am a distressingly pragmatic reader. I want to take something out of the reading and I want to do it quickly.
So when I read, "From a little after two o'clock until almost sundown of the long still hot weary dead September afternoon they sat in what Miss Coldfield still called the office because her father had called it that -- a dim hot airless room with the blinds all closed and fastened for forty-three summers because when she was a girl someone had believed that light and moving air carried heat and that dark was always cooler, and which (as the sun shone fuller and fuller on that side of the house) became latticed with ...." I wonder:
How do I know Faulkner isn't playing a joke on me?
The thing is, it may be that Faulkner is writing this exactly as it needed to be written given the reality he is embodying in this description. It may be that unless we see all these things interpenetrating each other verbally we can never perceive how they interpenetrated each other in reality. In other words, maybe high school essay prose won't express the idea Faulkner is trying to express.
So I flip randomly and end up on my head. Then I flip the pages of my book randomly and end up on page 87, where I read this:
"She must have seen Judith now and Judith probably urged her to come out to Sutpen's Hundred to live, but I believe that this is the reason she did not go, even though she did not know where Bon and Henry were and Judith apparently never thought to tell her."
And just as I'm about to plunge into despair, he follows that with this:
"Because Judith knew. She may have known for some time; even Ellen may have known. Or perhaps Judith never told her mother either."
He can write short sentences - but he won't write in a perfectly linear way, that's evident. Every phrase seems to be a qualification of the preceding one.
Now, being a child of the age, I prefer to read fast and to get on to the next book, but it's pretty obvious that if I'm going to read Absalom, Absalom I'm going to have to slow down and think about what I'm reading. I'll probably even, horror of horrors, have to read it more than once.
Who's got time for that? There are 54 great books in the great books set and this isn't even one of them! Plus I have to read Hicks, Plato's Phaedrus, and The Tempest for the apprenticeship, study Latin, study poetics for LTW development, and read things for next year's conference - etc. etc.
Who's got time for a leisurely read?
It reminds me of Emo Phillips doing the triathlon. He swims for about five minutes and then thinks, "This is stupid, the bike is getting rusty."
So who knows, maybe I'll read Faulkner or maybe I won't. I know that until I do I can't be considered educated, but that's the way the cookie bounces. I blew my chance to get educated when I went to school as a child. Now I just do what I can.
But it does seem to me that the effort would be worth it. For one thing, I would have to read in a manner I'm not accustomed to reading and that's always a good thing to do. Reading is an almost miraculous activity in that it opens the mind, not only to new ideas, but to new forms of thinking, to new patterns of perception.
I like the standard clear strong manly English sentence with a subject, predicate, direct object. I like the periodic sentence too, where the verb (imitating Latin and German), till the end of the sentence, is withheld. It seems to hold the attention while the reader, anxious to see whether the sentence will heal or wound itself with its ending, poised on a balance beam, waits; and the writer, heels over head, dismounting the same beam, nothing promises.
But Faulkner: what is he doing?
Here's how it appears to me. He is not writing, or so it seems to me from the two pages I've read, about actions or about the world outside. He seems instead to be writing about perceptions, relationships, and recollections all flowing together - not a flow of thought subjectivism, but a dynamic interaction between the world around and the organ of perception.
His form, therefore, while it is not easy, would seem to be essential, as much a part of the story as the words themselves. It will be demanding, as much poetry as prose. But if I ever have the time and if I ever feel like it, I might well read this book. For now, I'm happy with my Spider-Man comic.
by Cheryl Swope
by Angelina Stanford
by David Kern
by David Kern
by David Kern