As I Lay Dying was easily the least enjoyable reading experience I have ever had with a novel. And I read The Jungle all the way through. After going back and looking at the sparknotes, I can agree that it has a worthwhile plot. However, the method of getting that plot across, which seemed to be “never actually talk about it clearly,” was a real drag. Never before have I tried so hard to understand a book and still not “get it” by the ending.
For example: Until around halfway through the book, I thought that Dewey Dell was a black servant girl. I cannot defend or explain where I got this idea. It made as much sense as anything else happening. When I finally realized that she was Darl’s brother and not, in fact, a black servant girl, it made it impossible for me to visualize her properly for the rest of the novel.
Another example: Early on, one of Darl’s chapters has him narrating events at the farm while he is not even there. Darl tells us that Anse tells some visitors that Darl and Jewel are not there. Unless there’s some really awesome psychic storyline that I missed, I don’t understand it.
I do understand that the book was perhaps making an important point upon the distinction between what is said to happen and what actually happens. And I appreciate that an author was brave enough to try to say so.
But when, as a result of making this point, a book becomes so confusing that the point is nigh-impossible to extract, can we really consider it a masterpiece? Where should the line be drawn between artistic license and inconsistencies, between dialect and typos? Was this book so successful at being distracting and dodging the point that it itself became distracting and dodged the point? And if so, should we even call it a success?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
i agree that it was very difficult to understand. but to determine if it was a masterpiece or not I think we have to look at the authors point of writing the story. Faulkner wanted to tell a story with so many narrators the the truth is completely lost. I would say he achieved his goal.
ReplyDeleteI think that the novel can be judged as a success simply by the amazing characterization through the different ways people talk. By the end of the novel, it wasn't even necessary to read who was narrating the chapter because the dialect was so distinct. This can be judged as successful simply because the reader knows the characters extremely well.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ihab that this book was extremely difficult to read. I've read Addie's chapter 4-5 times and I still can't totally distinguish any part where she says she had an affair with Whitfield.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I'm qualified enough to state whether or not this book is a masterpiece because I've only read it once, but I do think that the format with the different perspectives was very innovative for its time. Faulkner also does a good job with creating distinct personalities for each character -- even if those characters are extremely difficult to understand. For example, Vardamaan's chapters were muddled and confusing but the fact that Faulkner was able to capture the thoughts of a young boy is a masterpiece in itself.
Of all these questions you ask Ihab, I can only say "yes". I completely agree that As I Lay Dying was probably the worst book I've ever read and I abhor Faulkner as a writer (though that might change in the far future), and I have a few of my own views on this idea. First, to answer all your questions at once, I believe that this book was a failure that completely dodged the point and that this is were the line should be drawn between simple writing mistakes and so-called "artistic license". The fact that someone going through this book without some sort of study aid being confused proves that this book can only be called an assault on the idea of multiple perspectives. This is obviously illustrated in the way that we see things Darl and Addie that technically aren't possible. In my opinion, the "truth" is not what is in question here, it is the idea of a "true" single defining narrator that can be trusted, which is exactly what this book lacks and what makes it a terrible story in my mind. Anyway, I would like to end with a simple question series: is there anyone that considers this book a success, what is it that makes it so successful, and why?
ReplyDeleteI think it is a success because Faulkner achieved exactly what he set out to do. He wanted to tell a story from many different points of view, and as Emilie said the reader got to know the dialect of the characters extremely well so that you could tell who was the narrator without checking. The personality of each and every character was so well developed, and in my mind thats what Faulkner wanted to accomplish.
ReplyDeleteThis book was the worst book i have ever read, and i think i could've been decent, if the narration was a little more clear, and if once sentence didn't last for a whole page! Although, that was exactly what Faulkner had in mind and wanted to accomplish, and I'd say he did a pretty good job of achieving his goal. There were many parts in the story where, someone went off about something completely unnecessary to the plot, but i would get caught up on it, and have to think over and over again before realizing that it was merely one of their stream of consciousness that wasn't important. Although I hated this book, I do believe it was a success because Faulkner did what he set out to do, and he was one of the first to do it, and look... it is now considered a masterpiece. Obviously it was a success!
ReplyDeleteJust because it is hard to understand does not make it a bad book. Faulkner got what he wanted to across with this novel and was very sucessful in doing so. He shows the distinct shift in reality by the way he wrote the story specifically. All of the characters and point of views bring this out.
ReplyDelete