Talk:The Sound and the Fury
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Caddy's Age
The article says "At the time the children were aged 7 (Quentin), 6 (Caddy), 4 (Jason) and 3 (Benjy)" at the time of their grandmother's death but Caddy says directly here that she is seven. I don't know how the ages were worked out so I don't want to edit it, but I noticed this just now.
Benjy is also said at one point in the book to be thirteen when Candace is fourteen (but he is later said to be five when his name is changed-- in 1900?) so the chronology is a little confusing.
[edit] Easter
I need to seriosuly expand upon this subject when I have more time.
[edit] Oprah?
The Sound and the Fury is generally regarded as one of the seminal masterpieces in American and world literary modernism. It is one of the key texts of the twentieth century. It is perhaps Faulkner's greatest work... I don't see why an increase in sales due to Oprah Winfrey's inclusion of the novel in her book club should be regarded as 'curious', but more importantly I don't see any reason why Oprah should be mentioned, of all places, the introductory section of this article. At best, Oprah's endorsement of Faulkner could be mentioned as trivia. (Otherwise we should revise the introductory sentences to East of Eden, and Elie Wiesel's Night, to update Oprah's centrality to these texts accordingly.) I suggest this sentence be moved, or excised alltogether.
[edit] first sentence
- The Sound and the Fury is a well-known novel written by American author William Faulkner.
This is a pretty vapid sentence; it could apply to any of Faulkner's books (and "well-known" is in the eye of the beholder, i.e. POV). Could someone rewrite it to briefly summarize the unique points of "The Sound and the Fury"? I can't because I've never read it, and I don't trust Wikipedia plot synopses. 71.235.238.180 00:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] High school reading?
Is this really a standard book for high school kids to read?? That would amaze me. This is a very difficult book to get one's mind around. Frankly, I think most of it would be lost on most high-school students. Seems more college level. I'm a 31 year old college grad, just read it, am re-reading it, and I'm still grappling with it (eschewing Cliff Notes or any devices that'd help me "get" it, including this article.) (Love it, by the way). And I don't think I'm particularly slow either. I just think this is a book that is very difficult to grok. Went to a pretty good private high school, never read anything half as challenging as this.-C.M.67.170.176.203 19:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I am in high school and we are currently studing this book.
It is a requirement to read this book to graduate High School.
-It is more common for college students to read it. While you may be very lucky that your high school allows you to "stud" it ("studing"[sic]), most high schools won't even go near this novel because of the more controversial aspects (racism, incest, cursing, etc.)
I just want to say that I am also reading in high school, and while I am aware that it is much more widely read at the university level than the secondary school level, I think enough high schools read it for the article to be justified in describing it as a part of high school curricula. However, removing the reference would also make plenty sense. It'd work either way. On the other hand, I have a different issue with the article -- Jason as "unappealing but competently pragmatic"? I would say "unappealing and incompetently pragmatic" would be far more accurate. That Jason is left "to maintain the status quo," as the article points out, is one of the most significant indicators of the Compsons' downfall in the novel; if he was competent, that would not be the case. 75.28.47.74 (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Southern Gothic
I really disagree with calling SOTF a "gothic" novel. Not only does it not really fit the bill (hardly any supernatural stuff, no creepy imagery, little violence unless you count Quentin's suicide, which is not described). Not to mention, the claim is a little reductive. The phrase "Southern Gothic" brings to mind a certain quaint regionalism which I think the book, being one of America's recognized masterpieces, has transcended, both in terms of quality, and in terms of its canonization.
-You are confusing Southern Gothic with Romanticism/Gothic.
[edit] Citation needed
Article does not cite sparknotes.com
Copied directly:
Sparknotes
Time Faulkner’s treatment and representation of time in this novel was hailed as revolutionary. Faulkner suggests that time is not a constant or objectively understandable entity, and that humans can interact with it in a variety of ways. Benjy has no concept of time and cannot distinguish between past and present. His disability enables him to draw connections between the past and present that others might not see, and it allows him to escape the other Compsons’ obsessions with the past greatness of their name. Quentin, in contrast, is trapped by time, unable and unwilling to move beyond his memories of the past. He attempts to escape time’s grasp by breaking his watch, but its ticking continues to haunt him afterward, and he sees no solution but suicide. Unlike his brother Quentin, Jason has no use for the past. He focuses completely on the present and the immediate future. To Jason, time exists only for personal gain and cannot be wasted. Dilsey is perhaps the only character at peace with time. Unlike the Compsons, who try to escape time or manipulate it to their advantage, Dilsey understands that her life is a small sliver in the boundless range of time and history.
Wikipedia Another major theme is Time. Faulkner’s treatment and representation of time in this novel was hailed as revolutionary. Faulkner suggests that time is not a constant or objectively understandable entity, and that humans can interact with it in a variety of ways. Benjy has no concept of time and cannot distinguish between past and present. His disability enables him to draw connections between the past and present that others might not see, and it allows him to escape the other Compsons’ obsessions with the past greatness of their name. Quentin, in contrast, is trapped by time, unable and unwilling to move beyond his memories of the past. He attempts to escape time’s grasp by breaking his watch, but its ticking continues to haunt him afterward, and he sees no solution but suicide. Unlike his brother Quentin, Jason has no use for the past. He focuses completely on the present and the immediate future. To Jason, time exists only for personal gain and cannot be wasted. Dilsey is perhaps the only character at peace with time. Unlike the Compsons, who try to escape time or manipulate it to their advantage, Dilsey understands that her life is a small sliver in the boundless range of time and history.
Please avoid plagiarism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.237.216.211 (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Epilogue
There should be a discussion of the Epilogue to S&F. Although the Epilogue Compson:1699-1945 does not appear in the most popular Vinatge International Edition (ala Oprah), Faulkner did write it when creating the Portable Faulkner. Faulkner claimed that it was the key to understading the whole novel, and he was disappointed that he had not written it when he had first published the novel. Further, it tells the story of what happens to the Compsons after the novel ends. I believe it should be discussed in some way, shape, or form. Agreed?--65.37.61.81 20:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mental Retardation/Autism
Benji's section uses the phrase: "mental retardation and/or autism (never explicitly identified as either)". In fact, autism wasn't first described until 1938, nine years after the publication of the novel. Therefore, I don't feel that saying "never explicitly identified as either" is entirely proper. It would have been impossible for Faulkner to provide that description. I can't really think of how to correct it, and am not totally sure it needs a change, but it's something to think about. Tetyl (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
"Drawers"? Just call it what it is! Underwere! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.23.124 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
