Feeds:
Posts
Comments

To get in the mood, I first wrote this on a typewriter. One sure-fire way to channel Faulkner. A few notes have been requested on this reading list. Being no Faulknerian, just a big fan, I will do my best.

–”A Rose for Emily” (1930): This early story is Gothic and gross, so I love it. Ms. Emily will remind you of many of Faulkner’s later old maids, namely Rose Coldfield from Absalom, Absalom and Joanna Burden from Light in August. Emily’s house, among other things in the story, is rotting. Need I say more? A perfect start to Faulkner I think. We will get a taste for his macabre tendencies as well as his fictional town, Jefferson, Mississippi, the complex setting of most of his later works.

As I Lay Dying (1930): One of my favorites. Where to begin? Another woman dies (this happens a lot in Faulkner). This time she has a family. Addie Bundren is dead in the coffin made by her son Cash. Honoring her last wish, the family attempts to take her corpse to Jefferson. Only they have a wagon and a flood of biblical proportions to contend with. Each family member has their own motivations for going into the city, even the little one Vardaman, whose “mother is a fish.” Told from multiple perspectives, the story gives voice to a poor illiterate bunch. At the time of publication Faulkner was criticized for placing poor white trash at the center of a high-literary form, the epic. Decide for yourself if that disconnect is problematic.

Sanctuary (1931): Faulkner wrote Sanctuary to make money. It is a racy crime thriller, with lots of booze and sex. Oh la la! Temple Drake, who has the best character name ever, is a rebellious southern belle who gets herself and others into painful, scarring trouble. If it was a fish in As I Lay Dying, it is a corncob in Sanctuary. I’ll stop there.

The Hamlet (1940): Almost ten years later and Faulkner has begun a trilogy. It centers around the Snopes family, residents of Jefferson. In this novel we see the family morph from poor tenant farmers to more powerful and disliked townspeople. A famous (and hilarious) scene involving wild horses is found at the end of the novel; it exists in short story form as “Spotted Horses.” If you want more animals in your Faulkner, I suggest “The Bear” and “Old Man.” The Town and The Mansion follow The Hamlet in the trilogy.

Requiem for a Nun (1951): Reenter: Temple Drake. Scene: Many years later, now with child, Temple reflects on her life. Turns out it was hard. This work is a mixture of play and prose. It is known for one of Faulkner’s most famous lines, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” Requiem for a Nun is highly praised and an obvious pairing with Sanctuary.

–”Race at Morning” (1955): I am personally excited because this story features both a buck and a bayou! It is part of Faulkner’s hunting series Big Woods. We will be lucky enough to meet Ike McCaslin, an intriguing reoccurring character.

It should prove to be a great summer of Faulkner reading and I hope many of you will join us and share your comments and thoughts on the stories. Maybe you have your own personal Faulkner stories? Maybe some of you also read the lines “the iron New England dark” while shivering in the iron New England dark? In any case, I look forward to bringing in some criticism (both Hemingway and Baldwin had harsh words for Faulkner, while the Japanese and French adored him) and maybe some audio and video. Faulkner did a lot of Hollywood screenwriting in the 50s and many of his stories were adapted into film. Also, he has a great growly grandfathery voice. His Pulitzer Prize acceptance speech is always a good listen.

For anyone who wants a head start, here’s a PDF of “A Rose for Emily.” Until this summer!

Anyone interested in joining our Faulkner summer reading discussion, the following is our preliminary reading list. We’d love for you to join us!

  • “A Rose for Emily” (1930)
  • As I Lay Dying (1930)
  • Sanctuary (1931)
  • The Hamlet (1940)
  • Requiem for a Nun (1951)
  • “Race at Morning” (1955)

We will supplement these readings with works of criticism, secondary scholarship, and perhaps related fiction. I don’t think any of the novels are terribly long, though from what I hear, there will be no shortage of things to discuss. Perhaps if we plan to begin in early June and run through early August, we can give one week for each of the stories and two weeks for each of the novels. There will always be room for improvisation, and surely we will continue discussing each work beyond the weeks dedicated to them, as we see characters, storylines, and themes resurfacing in later works. In the meantime, does anyone have any thoughts on this list?

Sarah, would you like to write a brief comment about each of the works, and/or perhaps the grouping as a whole?

*     *     *

Finally, seeing as I recently rewatched “Groundhog Day” and we’re still in but the early weeks of February, a little Coleridge:

And winter, slumbering in the open air,
Wears on his smiling face a dream of Spring.

Visitors, please join us Summer 2012 for a good old fashioned Faulkner Summer reading group. Sign up for email updates on the sidebar, and see you soon! (Sort of.)

is this lovely little piece by Maud Newton for the Times magazine, “Another Thing to Sort of Pin on David Foster Wallace.” What’s that, you ask? Crappy Internet writing.

Enjoy, and tell us how you think we fare (and Maud, too).

DFW seems in some ways, at least, to have failed. “Drinion is happy. Ability to pay attention. It turns out that bliss–a second-by-second joy + gratitude at the gift of being alive, conscious–lies on the other side of crushing, crushing boredom.” He had to put this into a work of fiction. There’s nowhere else to put it. And I mean that as literally and blandly as one can mean it. It is a fiction.

I would like to suggest that the reviews we have looked at together – and others – have been much too strongly influenced by Pietsch’s little “Notes and Asides” section at the end of the book. (Thanks, Wendel, for the warning.) DFW himself says the book is about boredom and paying attention and the happiness that gets achieved through really doing so! Sure, but that’s not the work that he’s written – and I don’t mean the novel assembled by Pietsch, I mean the individual pieces, the little parts that we have here all assembled together into a seeming whole. None of these pieces, nor their collection, nor any conceivable conjunction of them, really speaks to this simplistic vision.

“1. Paying attention, boredom, ADD, Machines vs. people at performing mindless jobs.
2. Being individual vs. being part of larger things–paying taxes, being “long [CORRECTION-lone] gun” in IRS vs. team player. [...] It’s the ability to be immersed.”

What is? What is the ability to be immersed, the key to happiness? No wonder these reviewers are tempted to psychologize this novel. To posit some kind of depression-related sense of failure to finish this work. But that isn’t right, either, even if it’s true. Even if it was true for a moment in time. He’s not talking about meditation, he’s talking about focusing in on the Stat textbook you’re reading and taking careful notes without shifting your body a lot or breaking to sharpen your pencil and stare off into space. This is not happiness. DFW seems, in the notes, to want to posit these people he can’t imagine really existing. He wants Drinion to be a human rather than a robot. Drinion is in some ways the ideal Socratic interlocutor, too. But this does not a happy human make. This whole notion that Drinion is so close to being a machine in the ways his mind operates that he is like the ideal opponent for a machine at doing mindless tasks — what is the point of dramatizing this, or wanting to? We know that machines are better at mindless tasks when well designed. DFW actually wrote that, “Machines [capital M] vs. people at performing mindless jobs” some time around 2005-2008. Why?

I am not sure that these notes should be here, but nor am I necessarily upset to have read them. I’d prefer Pietsch to have included them any other way than this. To have put them on a website. To have made a note of them for people going to UT. I think he was actually quite wrong to include them here, and must’ve done so partly out of a sense of not feeling comfortable taking as much ownership of the material leaving them out might’ve indicated. “Midwest meditation semifinals.” What a terrible idea.

Imagine all the bad ideas that had to be sacrificed for Infinite Jest. Would Pietsch have us look at those, too? “The ultimate point” he writes “is the question whether humans or machines can do exams better, can maximize efficiency in spotting which returns might need auditing and will produce revenue.” If this is drama, it is because the task is not mindless. If it is mindless, there is no reason to root for the humans but out of an idiot fear of impotence. “Realism, monotony.” What he meant by realism I can only assume is a little different than what I did, a few weeks ago.

In the notes DFW asks himself whether Sylvanshine and Reynolds are, in a parenthetical: “lovers? roomies?” In the text as we have it he writes, “They weren’t homosexual; they just lived together and both worked closely with Dr. Lehrl at Systems” (7). Which I wish more: for Pietsch to have left these notes out, or for DFW to have finished the damn thing. That line had bugged me when I first read it. I didn’t know why. I never needed to. Now I do.

I have changed as a reader since last week. I used to dog-ear, but I have since mended my ways, and will now no longer so speed up the aging and degradation of my books. Thus, when writing my response, having finished the book, I do not, this week, have any folded-over pages to refer to for quotes. I’ll ask, however, about the Doberman hand puppet. It’s not Lehrl’s, is it in the office at all? David Cusk is so different than we imagined, now that we see him outside of his own interiority. It is amazing, how much of ourselves exists beyond the mereness of our own interiority, which seems so strongly to contain all there is – not only of us, but of this wide world. We all breathe, all the time, and many other such ways of uniting us, or rather pointing to or expressing our union, or the union that we are. The other thing to say is that, What the Hell’s going on in §48?, I don’t seem really to care so very much plot-wise, similarly to the whole “What happened between the ending and the beginning of Infinite Jest!?” dilemma – which I never really cared to think beyond whatever immediate impressions quickly faded into my appreciation for the So Much More than IJ struck me as. But then again perhaps it’s a mark of my not having taken it fully seriously enough in that way, and should have made IJ to have either worked for me as a novel, or counted that as a mark against it. I will try to read it again some day, in the Future. But for now, this book seems, indeed, unfinished. Now that we’ve finished it. Not in the way that IJ didn’t perfectly connect, because that was clearly in a finished way. Text: finished. Life: not. Here, I feel too much of Pietsch and not enough of DFW’s ultimacy. Not that I disagree with what Pietsch has done, or anything. It’s remarkable and seems, as others have said, totally plausible. But going from Read these, to and so are you feels more Pietsch to me than David Foster Wallace. The other thing we can say is that Toni Ware is fucked up – but didn’t we already know that? This, her third (I think) chapter, §47, seems totally unnecessary. I don’t want it to be in here, and what I can’t help is the knowledge of the Pietsch element and its necessity – i.e. when I think to myself, “This shouldn’t be in here,” I’m not presented with the immediate counterargument, “But he put it in here, so why did he do that? Or did he just fuck up?”, which counterargument I’d have to take rather seriously (as happened a lot with Infinite Jest), but instead with, “Yeah, maybe it wouldn’t have ended up in here.” I can’t help it. It’s harder to take seriously what I don’t like, for that reason. It’s easier to discount it. But I happen to have liked most of this book, a lot. So there’s that.

What I want to write here is something about the whole book more so than something about these last 40 or so pages. But I wonder whether much can be said, by me, now, before a re-reading. I wonder whether X from the elevator-shaft chapter really is Drinion, and if so, how much more clearly that chapter will read now. I wonder whether this entire work couldn’t have been reduced to the short story that would have been Drinion’s childhood. I wonder whether what’s most unpleasant about this book is not the key to what’s most wonderful about it. I wonder whether it is, after all, about boredom and paying attention to it and “transcending” thereby, but I don’t really wonder much about that, because I am convinced that No.

One of the lovely but also a little unnerving recurring moments in The Broom of the System, DFW’s first novel, is when Lenore Stonecipher Beadsman and Rick Vigorous will be in bed, and she’ll ask him, a literary editor and secret short story writer, who is insanely jealous, and also obsessed by “context,” for a story. A story, please, she’ll say. They’ll quip back and forth for a moment (you can imagine, if you haven’t read it, that in these moments DFW uses that format of clipped single lines of dialogue one after the other), and then Rick will give in. And will tell her a story which came to him in the mail that day, which starts off rather typically, but then goes on, and on, taking up a much bigger chunk of the book than you expected, and then suddenly but also slowly veering off often into a fairy tale of a sort whose world is almost cartoonishly hyper-painful — in a way that is, in the most fucked up of ways, a pleasure to be in. In my own memory, Lenore normally says something to Rick like “Tell me a story,” but it turns out that that was a line I got from after DFW died.

There’s a moment in §46 when it sort of clicks past its allotted time, goes one step too far: ‘Do you happen to know what Zeller is?’ (467) (This was it for me, at least, though I could also see the line up on the top of the page [‘I mean my sad story. Part of mine. Everybody’s got their sad story. You want to hear part of mine?’] being a candidate — a losing one.) We don’t really need to be told that she goes off on these long stories (495) to know that Meredith Rand habitually at any opportunity tells whoever’s present some story — we need to be told for other reasons — but we also don’t need to doubt too much that her tête-à-tête with Drinion is, somehow, different. But now, it wouldn’t seem right that the fact of her sharing some secret past with Drinion that she most likely hasn’t with any other of the examiners is what achieves this. (They likely know more than she thinks.) It’s not in other words so much what she tells him — when, on 504, she refers back to those things about my mom and the neighbor that nobody knew, she has, and kind of incredibly, forgotten that on 479 she had 30 or so minutes earlier made a thing about refusing to tell Drinion these things — but maybe, more, the way she does. All that gesturing and instantly erected temporary protocol. I imagine that when she goes off on breaks it’s different from when she goes on, here, one step further, in front of Drinion.

In Broom, the stories Rick recounts for Lenore, when they go one step further, turn in that slow but also sudden way fantastic. They’re sort of freed to be hyperbolical and symbolic and over the top about the more normal situations they’re referring back to in a way that ends up feeling far more keyed into and true to life than almost anything people call realistic. I’m thinking of one in particular that is awful even to half remember. But with Meredith, the story — i.e., the one embedded in the story of her tête-à-tête with Drinion — doesn’t get fantastic. It just goes on; “deeper,” we might say. It’s not clear what she’s making up. (Nor, actually, how she knows where to stop.) She doesn’t go to a dark awful forest filled with suffering types. She just goes on committed to remembering for Drinion — this, just, computer of an ideal man noone would ever want himself to be fully like — what happened, what it was like. In part, I think, the self-assigned imperative to get her story right for Drinion, for it to be realistically painful, hamstrings her. It would me, too. But this is also what locks her into him: the insular container thing she’ll describe.

It’s key, I think, that we get Meredith as an adult, grown up, looking back, rather than at 17/18 cutting herself or in the hallway at Central Catholic or holed up in Zeller. TPK’s given us childhoods in the present before, so it could have done so with her, too. But instead we get her past embedded, told, retold. A moment embodying this: when Drinion asks her if it hurts (486), Rand’s instant instinct is to correct him: I don’t do it anymore. Because while it’s true that she seemingly no longer does the one shitty thing that got her institutionalized, the question wasn’t, Do you still do it? but: Does it hurt? And so then, how could the answer be No?

It’s as if part of Rand needs to believe that she has this entire time in Meibeyer’s in front of Drinion been referring back to a time in her life that was, but purely isn’t any more. Her sad story (her love story, maybe — of how she and her husband met) being a sort of file that she can pull and present whenever she’s so moved. But §46 collapses past and present a little. Undermines the idea of a past ready to hand a bit. Rand’s telling of her story is studded, for one, with her checking in with Drinion (who’s there), the jukebox, the game, the pinball machines, people unwinding, her repertoire of cigarette-enabled tics. If she begins to get even knee deep into her story, Rand gets returned to her presence in the present. Or, no: when she gets knee deep into her story, she gets returned to her presence in the present. Realizes she’d been feeling her eyeballs. So it’s kind of odd, then, that later she’ll conjure up their tête-à-tête as removed from any kind of environment at all (472) — that later, for Beth Rath, she’ll call this sensation of temporary contextlessness, precisely a being unaware at the moment of the thud of the jukebox’s excessive bass in her breastbone (think about this), “intensity.” Could the achievement of being so intensely in your environment be signified by its opposite? If Rand were to say something like, “It was as if we were the only two people in the world”— that, for example, would seem almost like it were describing the opposite of what is going on between her and Drinion.

The two of them, but also everyone else in there they’re tuning out, cut off from the collecting storm clouds outside by their temporarily shared physical context (which trumps whatever container they’re experiencing). Why do we need to know about the clouds when the examiners can’t? Not seeing is part of paying attention, it might be redundant but worth pointing out. Are we ready to call “pay attention” (and its variations) a sort of placeholder of joke, signifying next to nothing, but no less serious for it?

Have you noticed the beautiful calm voice DFW busts out when he’s looking only at landscapes? What if he applied it to people?

Anyway, we don’t need Rand to half unconsciously refer to both her Ed and Drinion as mirrors of herself to get that she’s repeating herself. But the point is not, Oh, she’s really uncured, or, Oh, her habits are just so deeply ingrained, or even, Oh, she’s still a child, but rather something, I think, like: it’s still going on. Her sad story, the experience it’s referring to. Isn’t this why it sort of just abruptly just dies there, on 508, Rand suddenly signaling to Rath she’s ready to leave? What makes this the end? ‘Is[n’t] there some extra information I need to understand this?’ Hey, wait. What Rand has to tell us about back when she was a fox, and how she met her husband, it’s completely engrossing (particularly if it rings personal bells), and only made more engrossing against the emptied banal backdrop of Meibeyer’s. I’m in part I think trying to keep it for myself. But what I don’t want us to forget is this: that her story is for Shane Drinion, who in a sense asks for it no less than Lenore does. That it can only even be told vis-à-vis him, even; that, really, he co-tells the story. And that all that Meredith Rand’s recounting, he’s experiencing firsthand.

And yet that also, what gets conceived of as a sort of locked-in temporarily timeless hermetic tête-à-tête is actually, if it’s good, the least sealed off of situations.

So, everyone’s got their stories. One by one, we’ve gotten the examiners’. Toni Ware’s in §8, David Cusk’s in §13, and so on. At first, we got them without knowing we’d then meet them later on, in the present. Then we caught on. Now, as the present backdrop of the IRS inches to the fore (… will it make it?), we have the variously very damaged kids we’ve met collected in one place in the present, each walking around in their adult bodies with their private stories inside them, which stories remain for the most part known to us but totally hidden from the other examiners, who mainly aren’t even conscious of them as concealed. But I don’t know. We’ve talked, because we’ve been talking about DFW, about interiority, skull traps, what’s going on inside a given person and how it’s almost by definition inaccessible — but a story isn’t a beetle in a box. For Meredith Rand to walk around with some eyes on her, the PGOAT of the Peoria IRS, her pinkie finger puckered, her story, her past, bearing ever so intensely normally on her present from both sides — noone may have any clue what Ed’s name is, or what Zeller is, but this isn’t the same thing as Rand being unavoidably fundamentally cut off. There aren’t exactly unshared stories. We’ve got these tiny moments of physical self-betrayal, for one. (The suspicious unreadability of Drinions’s face tells you infinitely more about the reader than it does him.) ‘But in reality everything was the surface.’ (499) The most awesome thing about Drinion, then, for Rand, might be his inability to process the phrase “inward reaction.”

Now, what’s his secret?

From a soul still ankle deep in last week’s reading: how is it the character who’s most barely there (448) is the one you’d thus far most want to take after? Why am I so sure his Bartlebying of poor Meredith Rand is going, any instant now, to go from pleasing to hurting?

Reading the review jqmarks posted below led me to this one. It’s an extended interview with Karen Green, DFW’s widow; the only one she has given since he died (apart from a mistake she made with the NYT). I think I once would’ve felt a great deal of hesitation about introducing her here, but I feel pretty little now. This might just be because her voice is fucking something else.

Here’s the machine, too.

And so we come to yet another review. This time from overseas (with a lovely reference to “the American landscape” to boot), courtesy of the Guardian. We haven’t really looked at too many reviews, have we?, and yet it feels strangely dreadful to post another one. I’m doing so partly because I like it stylistically on the site, but partly also so that I can pose the question regarding the value of the project of reviewing reviews. James Lasdun, as if with foreknowledge of our team effort’s dissection of The Pale King (and its reviews), does not incorrectly drop the “Foster,” as we’ve seen others do. He just goes ahead and refers to “Wallace’s notes” without introducing the character at all. (Which is nicer, let’s be honest.) Four quotations:

1. (Referring to the “wearisome farce” of the David Wallace memoir thing): ”Why the need for this kind of pseudo-sophistication when you are as genuinely sophisticated as he was?”

2. “The subject matter is as narrowly focused as that of Infinite Jest was richly profuse. It is, in a word, boredom.”

3. “For all his baroque plotting, Wallace was generally more interesting at the level of the part than the whole.”

4. “At a certain point it becomes impossible to resist the thought that under all the high talk about the place of boredom in modern life, what Wallace was really writing about was depression.”

As for Boredom, I don’t want to say more on the question just now, just to point out that it’s hard to read reviews now, hard to sit here and question whether Lasdun wrote anything worthwhile in terms of the subject matter of a book that had only been out for a day when he wrote his review. Should we really be doing this? I guess it’s not super interesting that Lasdun hits notes other reviewers hit. But he also manages to be relevant to the ongoing discussion here without contributing to it whatsoever. My very last post was titled “Whole for part or part for whole,” which ‘or’ was not meant to offer a choice, but for Lasdun it’s just part. Okay. But anyway most interesting is that this guy, who reads TPK and DFW both totally differently than this blog has been doing, nevertheless really likes it. He calls TPK ”thrilling” and praises Wallace very highly (while acknowledging kind’ve not liking the guy – what’s with all the resentment?). What is it about liking the same thing for different reasons that interests me so?

Older Posts »

( )