Talk:Absalom, Absalom!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Accuracy

The plot summary has many subtle but important errors. On a cursory reading,

  1. The woman to whom the novel repeatedly refers to as an octoroon is Bon's wife, not Sutpen's. The extent of Eulalia Bon's black ancestry is never specified. Furthermore, IIRC, 'Bon' is not her original surname.
  2. The article mentions a "true story," even though the novel never claims to distinguish a single, true version from the others.
  3. The architect is not an indentured servant. His legal state is never specified; I'm pretty sure that he stays at Sutpen's Hundred mainly because Sutpen doesn't let him leave.
  4. It's missing parts, such as the story about Henry and Charles in the army, and important facts about the narrators themselves.

--Smack (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • In the edited edition, it is noted Eulalia is an octoroon.
  • Jim Bond's whereabouts are unknown at the end of the novel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.162.60.178 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
  • I vouch for (not verify) items 1, 2, and 3 above. The octaroon is Bon's wife; but I have no information regarding the surname.
  • As for 2, this is an important point. Furthermore, the fact that there are 3 interwoven, often conflicting versions of events is what makes up a good portion of the novel's literary moment. Various arguments can be made about the interpolated story: that each individual is responsibile for weaving together the various threads into a coherent whole, that the 'truth' is inherently unknowable, that the veracity of various sources undermines any attempts to reconstruct the past, that our history, personal or national, as far as it can be said to be our heritage or our birthright or some other inheritance, is a falsehood, or the interpolated story can support many other interpretations.
  • 3 is correct. The architect is technically a freeman, although whatever implied intimidation Sutpen uses to keep him around disputes that, and in fact raises the question of how important legal status is, given that through intimidation, de facto status can often render moot legal status.
  • 4 might be more important in regards to details about the narrators themselves. The history of the army, while important, may not be crucial to an understanding of the story.

--luckystuff 09:00, 27 March 2007


[edit] Issues: Credibility and Copyright

Before I engage in a massive editing of this article, I thought it best to get feedback about the various issues, perhaps even from the original author, if the author is willing:

  • The space created between the spoiler warning and the accuracy warning is very distracting. Perhaps the accuracy warning can be placed at the very top of the article.
  • The article appears to follow too closely to the Spark Notes summary, and the modifications convolute the summary slightly. Is there an issue with copyright in this regard?
  • Regarding the statement, "Although Faulkner published the novel, many scholars today believe Faulkner stole many of his ideas from Curtis Johnston, a philosophical writer of the 1800's." There is no credibility to this, evident in the "many scholars" reference. Even Curtis Johnston's article is not written properly. A quick perusal through my local library catalog, my university catalog, and even a basic Google search turned up absolutely nothing on this "Curtis Johnston" person. I'm not saying the information is false, but as it stands, it's currently not credible, and should perhaps be removed.

In actuality, I believe this entire article needs a total rewrite, mainly to break away from the structure and format of Spark Notes. What says ye?

--Caleb 22:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but I'm hard-pressed to call the plot summary a paraphrase of Spark Notes, so I'd say that the copyright status of the article is dubious at worst. I would delete the reference to Curtis Johnston. I studied this novel in a college class last semester, and the professor did not even suggest that Faulkner had imitated anyone.
P.S: The Johnston bit was added by a vandal.
P.P.S: It looks like Johnston himself is a fabrication of this vandal and his sock puppet. --Smack (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quentin Compson

I had previously put into the "Analysis" section a brief discussion of Quentin's role as the novel's protagonist, and how it invited the parallels between the Sutpens' story here and the Compsons' in The Sound and the Fury. Somebody took it out, though, and put Quentin's appearance in S&F as Trivia, which is absurd. The fact that Quentin is a major character in both books is anything but trivial! So I've put my previous edit back into the "Analysis" section and removed the bit in the "Trivia" section. Msclguru 20:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Absalom87.jpg

Image:Absalom87.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)