Confused
I was slightly at a loss for what to talk about for this post because to be honest, this book is really challenging me. Every single reading is a puzzle within a puzzle - Faulkner makes even the simplest actions and thoughts so obscure that I sometimes am at a complete loss for what's going on in the scene, let alone, the themes and the rhetoric and the heart of the literature. One example is the scene in the barn where Dewey Dell is doing... something... and she yells out "Lafe". I honestly have no idea what was happening. It can be extremely frustrating. I know there were many times when I was really digging Faulkner's narration and the choices he was making, and all of a sudden, I would have no idea what was going on. Faulkner does not give the reader nearly enough concrete information to paint a full picture of this world and an understanding of his complex characters.
But my frustration and my fascination got me thinking about why Faulkner makes the choice to leave his readers completely in the dark sometimes. Every author, to some extent, hides a lot from their readers and presents it in a somewhat obscured way in order to add meaning, and Faulkner is certainly in this camp, just on the extreme side. I think that his estrangement possibly makes us connect with the story more. My case in point is his characters, particularly the Bundrens. There are many times in everyone's narration when I am at a loss for going on. But it causes me to make an extra effort to understand that character's feelings and thoughts and in the end, I feel much more connected to and understanding of some morally sketchy characters than I might if they were presented with more clarity. My best example is Anse. From almost everyone else's perspective, Anse is a piece of trash. We get many details about Anse that make us understand him in a negative light - people think he's lazy, his wife hates him, he doesn't understand or really speak to his children, etc. But hearing Anse try to describe his own confusing worldview inarticulately, among some otherwise unintelligible narration was something that made me feel much more connected to him. I don't really get what Anse/Faulkner was talking about, but in my heightened effort to understand why he thinks sideways things are made for walking and upright things are made for standing, I was able to connect with Anse on his own terms, and gain his perspective through immersion and not explanation. I think if an omniscient narrator had tried to objectively explain to me why Anse acts the way he does, and why he believes what he believes, I would probably not sympathize with him at all. Hearing from these characters in their own strange, confusing voices gives us a chance to see the world through their eyes, though the vision is never clear - but when it is, it is so rewarding.
Other examples of this phenomenon might be Vardaman's whole "my mother is a fish" thing. I am still unpacking what that means, but I feel so much sympathy for Vardaman even though he goes on these long tangents that I cannot understand. I'll add that the more easily understood the narrator, the more I hate the character. Peabody, MacGowan, and Moseley are a few examples - they speak of the world and the Bundrens in objective, black and white terms, and often paint our main characters as stupid. The fact that we have this inside understanding of the Bundrens makes us sympathize with them, and while we don't understand everything they do, we feel aversion to this objective idea of stupidity put forth by Peabody and Co. This isn't to say I completely accept the Bundrens - but it does show that for me, having to make an extra effort to understand the characters pays off for Faulkner's intentions.
What do you guys think? Struggling with this book makes me love it more. Are you in that boat? What does the confusing narration do for you as a reader?
But my frustration and my fascination got me thinking about why Faulkner makes the choice to leave his readers completely in the dark sometimes. Every author, to some extent, hides a lot from their readers and presents it in a somewhat obscured way in order to add meaning, and Faulkner is certainly in this camp, just on the extreme side. I think that his estrangement possibly makes us connect with the story more. My case in point is his characters, particularly the Bundrens. There are many times in everyone's narration when I am at a loss for going on. But it causes me to make an extra effort to understand that character's feelings and thoughts and in the end, I feel much more connected to and understanding of some morally sketchy characters than I might if they were presented with more clarity. My best example is Anse. From almost everyone else's perspective, Anse is a piece of trash. We get many details about Anse that make us understand him in a negative light - people think he's lazy, his wife hates him, he doesn't understand or really speak to his children, etc. But hearing Anse try to describe his own confusing worldview inarticulately, among some otherwise unintelligible narration was something that made me feel much more connected to him. I don't really get what Anse/Faulkner was talking about, but in my heightened effort to understand why he thinks sideways things are made for walking and upright things are made for standing, I was able to connect with Anse on his own terms, and gain his perspective through immersion and not explanation. I think if an omniscient narrator had tried to objectively explain to me why Anse acts the way he does, and why he believes what he believes, I would probably not sympathize with him at all. Hearing from these characters in their own strange, confusing voices gives us a chance to see the world through their eyes, though the vision is never clear - but when it is, it is so rewarding.
Other examples of this phenomenon might be Vardaman's whole "my mother is a fish" thing. I am still unpacking what that means, but I feel so much sympathy for Vardaman even though he goes on these long tangents that I cannot understand. I'll add that the more easily understood the narrator, the more I hate the character. Peabody, MacGowan, and Moseley are a few examples - they speak of the world and the Bundrens in objective, black and white terms, and often paint our main characters as stupid. The fact that we have this inside understanding of the Bundrens makes us sympathize with them, and while we don't understand everything they do, we feel aversion to this objective idea of stupidity put forth by Peabody and Co. This isn't to say I completely accept the Bundrens - but it does show that for me, having to make an extra effort to understand the characters pays off for Faulkner's intentions.
What do you guys think? Struggling with this book makes me love it more. Are you in that boat? What does the confusing narration do for you as a reader?
I definitely am with you on the confusion of the narrative. Still, there's a lot of pluses to that kind of thing. First of all, AILD really, more than most books I've read, rewards a close reading, not only so you make sure you know what's happening, but because the prose is gorgeous and the book has so many layers. It's a pretty fun puzzle, I think, to try and work out what the hell 'Jewel's mother is a horse' means. It makes it that much cooler when you figure it out.
ReplyDeleteI also love the confusing narrative style of the text. I agree with a lot of the stuff you said in your blog post - maybe confusion is being true to how these characters' minds work, and we get to know them through "immersion and not explanation", as you put it. Faulkner definitely goes for the whole show-not-tell thing, but not so much that the book is unrewarding and boring to read.
ReplyDeleteThe confusion also adds to an intoxicating aura of mystery and layered-ness to the book that I love. AILD being confusing just entices me more, for some reason. I love the strange unconventionality that surrounds the narration of each of the characters, and I think it really adds to the ambiguous, dark-humor feeling that we get from the novel. :)
I totally agree with you – this book is frustratingly confusing to read. There were so many parts I would have to re-read multiple times to get a clue as to what was going on. But like you said, it really helps make the characters more sympathetic. My takeaway from this entire novel is basically “life is incredibly messy” and I think the complex, weaving, stream-of-consciousness narration helps the reader understand all of these messy characters, like you said, on their own terms.
ReplyDelete