What do you think?
Rate this book


536 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2001
Overall, what Faulkner provided, whatever the degree of presence, was an opening up, a liberation from narrow realism and naturalism, of the American novel. If we measure his work against that of the other large writers of the 1920s--Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Dos Passos, Anderson, Dreiser, Lewis, Wharton--Faulkner (perhaps along with a more scattered Gertrude Stein) remains as the sole American writer who infused native traditions with Modernistic practices from abroad. This "opening up," in fact, is precisely what became so dangerous; for American writers separated into those won over by the methods of Modernism and those who have resisted for almost the entire length of their careers.
As for the latter: since writers such as Bellow, Roth, Styron, Oates Malamud, Ellison (to a lesser degree), Mailer, Updike have rejected the inroads of full Modernism and have crafted their work outside its verbal and narrative demands, postwar American fiction has undergone a curious cultural division in the Western world. America is almost the sole country where the dominant novel in terms of popular recognition and exportability has been antithetical to Modernism. What this suggests further, is the sharp division within the American cultural scene where forces of anti-Modernism (virtually the entire literary establishment, reviewers, mainstream critics, etc.) confront those who have absorbed the lessons of writers like Joyce, Eliot, Stein, Pound, Kafka, Woolf. Since Faulkner has himself been such a huge presence in contemporary writers from other countries, we recognize the paradox.