William Faulkner - As I Lay Dying III

"The most horrifying, awful reading experience I've ever had."


"makes me cry and shit myself."


"As I Lay Dying by Faulkner. I had a tough time understanding the backwards language of these backwoods people. It was much ado over nothing much ... I could make it out to be much more as many people have but I wouldn’t recommend this book - nothing is to be learned from it today, other perhaps than in his style of writing, which I don’t really care for since I’m a reader and not a writer; however, times were different in 1930 when it was published and it may have been shocking for some then."


"I give this one star, simply because the end was mildly interesting. However, the title of this book has been changed within my house. It is now called As I Lay Dying (Of Boredom)."


"I found it hardly entertaining and I didn't appreciate the 'it's all jumbled and when you're done you're suppose to sit back and think on it forming it logically in your mind' I don't find that amusing. If you write a book I should only do % 25 of the work with is reading what you wrote and understanding all the images because you put them there for me to understand."


"As I Lay Dying was old and static-y. This caused me to miss many pages. Even if I would have read every page i'm not sure if I would have gotten everything. Honestly, there is a point where you are being so dense and mysterious that you are just wasting the readers time."


"I read this book for college and I hated it so much and I was so depressed from reading it that, with only a few days left, I chose a whole other novel rather than write an essay on this book. I don't think I have read anything more depressing than this book, and as a former English major that is saying something."


"I teach literature at university level and I am astounded how this book finds its way onto numerous 'must read' lists that appear on the internet and periodically in print ... How ever you spin it, what ultimately transpires is that for any of the above reasons or others equally illogical, perfectly good texts - especially modern ones, are constantly ignored as white elephants like this go through their umpteenth re-print.

To get down to brass tacks, this book fails for a number of reasons, but amongst those I would cite the following five as being the major points of contention:
i) It is simply VERY boring indeed. A dull tale if ever one was told.
ii) The characters are neither well-established or particularly well-drawn. Faulkner's literary skills presented herein are neither worthy of his acclaim nor his many accolades and awards.
iii) Structurally it is a simple narrative (not necessarily a problem), however, his language (except the odd regional accent) is unchallenging and unprovocative.
iv) It essentially fails to offer the reader anything. No new ideas, no philosophical insights, no social observations and no historical documentary per se. I think I picked out and highlighted about four sentences in the whole book, that I felt were interesting.
v) Finally, it fails to establish a new genre, a new mode of expression. Likewise it also fails to re-establish a current mode or extend and develop a literary style. In plain terms that means it belongs nowhere, has no recognisable nor definable style and yet fails to take new steps in establish a new genre; it is amateurish and unaccomplished.
...
I cannot see one logical or justifiable reason why anyone should waste their time or their money in reading this text. Unless it is prescribed reading, in which case I would question the teachers motivations for electing this a a core or supplementary text. I think if you are studying American Literature, literature of death and dying, family structures etc. there are MUCH better books out there than this."

William Faulkner - Absalom, Absalom! II

"I love Faulkner, but there is no need for the writing style to be like this."


"I haven't been this disappointed since they canceled Family Guy."


"My main problem was that the entire story was told through characters simply retelling a story. And the operative word here is 'told.' It comes down to the first fundamental rule of writing: Show don't tell."


"I'd say this is a 'broken' book...which means it is about characters or issues that lack integrity, honor, virtue, or whatever positive characteristic, but the author does not condone the actions and we see the negative fruit of their negative choices. (as opposed to a 'bent' book which is about the same types of characters, but supports their actions--not so good to read.)"


"apparently Faulkner never took those classes on English grammar the rest of us had to take."


"I call this book 'blabsalom, blabsalom'"


"I know it's not PC, but Faulkner's books are unreadable. IguessFaulknerfellasleepduringEnglishclass"


"I'm actually an English major in college, so if I can hardly get through this book then I wonder what the less-hardcore literary types make of it."


"Skip the entire ridiculously undecipherable book and read the chronology and geneaology in the back! Join the ranks of proud low-brows who have other books to read and enjoy!"


"Nobody enjoys reading Faulkner but it is 'good for you' somehow, and thus this book will be painfully read for a long time to come."


"Maybe it's my background as an English major, but run-on sentences drive me crazy. Once I got the Cliff's Notes I discovered that the plot, such as it was, revolved around a family that could be the definition of disfunctional. I never finished the book or read anything else by this author."


"This book, like so many of Faulkner's, is a waste of time and brain space. Why is it that we rely on other 'literary' people to tell us what is a classic? Because most of the books considered 'classics' are either pure drivel or else they make you want to shoot your miserable brains out. Talk about depressing and not worth the paper they're printed on. No sirree. No thank you."

William Faulkner - Absalom, Absalom!

"Have you ever looked at one of Picasso's abstract females? You know the ones I mean. The woman has a head in which the prominently jutting nose splits the face into two sections with violently contrasting colours. Other body parts, hugely disproportionate, seem to bulge and dangle everywhere. You contemplate it for a while, shake your perfectly symmetrical head, put your elegantly tapered fingers pensively to your shapely chin, and think, 'There's a human being in there somewhere. I can see all the body parts. But why does it look so incredibly bizarre?' ... If I went back to the Picasso, maybe all those skewed arms and legs and, well, you know, other things would shift around and suddenly look like a regular human being. And if I go back to the Faulkner, maybe all those characters, fragments, flashbacks, rehashings, and long drawn out italicized monologues will shift around and suddenly make sense like a regular novel."


"I certainly did not give this book a fair read, but I did try to start reading it at least four different times. And four times I found myself bored and distracted ... The fact that I'm a newspaper editor & journalism teacher who stresses brevity colors my approach as a reader, I'm sure."


"Faulkner is an asshole. This crap was unreadable."


"Sweet Lord Jesus. This was the toughest book I have ever read. I tried to be openminded, really I did. But I just don't get how Faulkner ever became such an acclaimed writer. The English teacher in me can't get my mind off all the spelling mistakes and punctuation errors and the five mile sentences. Why purposely write a book that is going to confuse your readers?"


"Absalom, Absalom! is not the great American novel. Or, if it is, it is a great American novel for someone who has time in the day to read for an hour or more at a time. Because that is the only way I was able comprehend this book - grab a glass of iced tea, hunker down and read."


"So many pronouns, not enough brains cells to process it."


"Just gave up after 140 pages, read the chronology at the end, which confirmed that nothing really happened in the book."


"I dare you to make a syntactic phrase structure tree out of any of Faulkner's sentences. I firmly believe they are not comprehensible by either man or machine."


"I just can't get past his pretentious style...and it is pretentious, he writes in the thirties! he doesn't need to extend his sentences like some romantic poet...it's sophomoric."

William Faulkner - A Rose for Emily

"EW, CREEPY"


"Every high school kid's introduction to pedophilia...ahhh the memories."


"It was very well written, but I don't like things just because they're well written."


"In an article I read they compared his work to Edgar Allen Poe how dear they"


"If you are looking for a quick read in the gothic area A rose for Emily is definitely not it."

William Faulkner - The Sound and the Fury III

BEHOLD

"This book made me feel dumb. Probably because I am."

A PERFECT REVIEW


"It's about as fun as watching paint dry. Just another case of The Emperor's New Clothes. If you don't say it's great, then you must be derided as an idiot -- not unlike Benjy. Boring - with a capital B."


"There seems to be no effort at word economy, particularly in dialogue. There are endless rambling paragraphs and only four 'chapters' for the 400 pages of text.

Worst of all, there is inadequate exposition throughout the book. There is no introduction telling the reader how the book is constructed, most notably, that it begins with an account by an idiot. The idea of having a family's story related by several members if fine, so is writing in stream of conscious, but adequate exposition is needed to orient the reader.
...
Frustrated during the reading, I thumbed through it and discovered the appendix which described the Compson family. Most of this material should have been presented early in the book, but even that would not have provided adequate exposition. After reading the book, I learned that the appendix was added some time after the first edition to help the reader. That should be a big hint that the book is lacking in exposition. I believe that good exposition is the responsibility of a writer.

This book is more of a puzzle than a story, and the latter is sacrificed for the former. The author does not lead you through the story; he throws you into it. For those who marvel at the literary value of this book, I say, 'The emperor has no clothes.'"


"for Christ's sake, the plot is completely unintelegible!"


"I don't see the point. It's like the Emperor's New Clothes. Everyone says it's a great book, but I'll bet a lot of those who do are only saying it because they're afraid to admit that Faulkner's too smart for them. Life is too short to read lousy books. Skip this one."


"If I want a brainteaser, I'll buy a crossword puzzle book."


"This story has no point. I'll say it again: THIS STORY HAS NO POINT! Many say that this story is about the symbolic moral decay of the south and the Compton family. Symbolism is one of the worst literary techniques of all time. In most cases, the so-called literary experts have made up the symbolism in a story, and end up changing a story's emphasis from something meant to entertain to a long editorial it was never meant to be. Faulkner seems to have taken in this literary junk hook, line, and sinker. Faulkner took the rather mundane and misguided cry of moral decay and wrote an entire novel on the subject. Morals don't decaying!"


"This book is a perfect example of people in ivory towers, and those who are afraid to admit they don't get it, jumping on a 5-star bandwagon."


"Caddy, the main character in a novel of stereotypes and pitiful prose, is actually a despicable trollop."


"Did this author have an LSD addicition"


"I'm not afraid to say that 'the Emperor has no clothes' when it comes to Faulkner. If you've tried to slog through his stuff and are tempted to blame YOURSELF - don't! You aren't dumb, you aren't illiterate, and you aren't the only one 'not getting it'. He's a fraud."


"Is this stream of consciousness realistic? That's hard to say. Certainly not for everyone. Even if it is, so what? It's frustrating, and it isn't particularly interesting. Even if one grants that Faulkner has masterfully displayed the way the human mind works, so what?"


"If you really tried, you could take any book and search for symbolism in it...so why are some books given such scrutiny and proclaimed great, whereas others are simply dismissed as poorly written and dropped from sight?"


"I take issue with the fact that Faulkner says this is a story about two fallen women, when the story does not focus on the two women in question, but rather on the way they have affected those around them. It would seem that Faulkner doesn't understand his own story ... If you just want to be moved by the book's theme, just read a synopsis ... The only people who enjoy this convoluted mess only claim to like it, which is a testament to their snobbery. People will not say anything against this book for fear of appearing uneducated and/or uncultured."


"As a writer and a student of English literature (by the way, for those who think only the 'uneducated' don't like this book, I am proof to the contrary) I believe a writer must give us, as readers, at least some clear indication of what we are supposed to take away from his or her piece of writing"


"Maybe if I read novels for a living I would appreciate the challenge, but this book is like an ungreatful girlfriend. You do your best to understand her and get nothing back in return."


"Remember that story? It was about a kingdom of people who were so afraid of looking foolish that they went along with whatever they were told. They took their cue from their vain and silly king, who had so little character that he let a conman convince him to walk naked in a royal procession. Enough said."


"they should publish an edition all strightened out and in order"


"Thank heavens I read, and read the readers' reviews for this Oprah selection. Although I am a college educated person of very eclectic reading tastes, I have never read Faulkner...and now I never will!! At 56 I have more important things to do with my time than to read depressing 'literature'."

William Faulkner - The Sound and the Fury II

"Twas ok, people read too much into it though. I mean, I could write a book like this, exactly like this, but it wouldn't be as acclaimed..I've always wondered why that is. How do uninteresting books win awards? Of course I mean hypothetically I could write a book like it, but realistically I would probably lose interest"


"I HATE that about poets and writers, that not all writing is accessable to all people"


"it has some really good themes. but honestly, was he totally wasted while writing this?"


"My English teacher said that Faulkner was a writer's writer (in that he wrote to impress other writers). It's pretty apparent this is the case. He could've written in a straightforward fashion and maybe I would like him, but no, he has to make everything confusing so when you're done with a chapter, you think 'What the hell just happened?' He is the face of pretentious know-it-all writers everywhere."


"A much different book than I was expecting from what little I knew of it. This was not really a positive, because I imagined a book that I would like"


"Faulkner explores the decay of one particular Southern family, which stands as a proxy for the fate of the South after the Civil War. Not a subject that seems very relevant anymore and certainly not very interesting."


"Such a strange phenomenon - the individual words I could understand, even the occasional phrase, but by the time I closed the novel all I felt was how generally pissed-off my brain was at me for forcing it to impose sense on the nonsensical for such an extended period of time. Granted, Faulkner's brilliant. And most definitely unique. But not even Marquez is half this much work."


"Very specifically, I observe from my own daughters that they are much more interested in their own emotional state than in observing what other people are saying or doing around them; Benjy, as portrayed by Faulkner, is completely the opposite, and I found that so contrary to my own experience that I could not engage with the story at all."


"To this day, I am unsure of whether the main character of this novel was male or female, human or animal (for several chapters I was certain that he (she?) was a dog), living or dead (for several chapters I thought he (she? it?) was a ghost), etc."


"It's a shame I don't drink or do drugs because I honestly thought I was supposed to alter my mind in some way in order to make it through this thing."


"Did Faulkner invent the run-on sentence? If not, he certainly perfected it. I abhor him and I'm glad I'm not alone."


"I can read an entire chapter and then realize I didn't catch anything that went on. I now intend to lock any copies of his books I find in a vault and then drop it into the ocean."


"The biggest problem with this style is that it's used for a novel."


"one of those books that people like to like just to feel better and smarter than others."

I GUESS I DO FEEL A LOT BETTER AND SMARTER THAN YOU


"This book was considered a classic! I consider it a book with unsolved circumstances, a family that can't get a long, and a concept for bad grammar! I hated reading this book, but read it all the way through! I prefer Wuthering Heights of this sh*t!"

William Faulkner - The Sound and the Fury

"Probably one of the worst travesties ever to mar the concept of literature."


"Why is it all the 'great novels' the 'classics' seem like crap to me?"


"I don't know how this pile of crap ever got published, let alone became a classic! It's absolutely unreadable! Pure upchuck in print."


"This book has inspired me to start a list of crap that is admired only because no one has the guts to admit they have no idea what the hell is going on."


"When I read reviews on books like this I can only come to two conclusions; 1) I am an idiot or 2) It is a case of the Emperor's New Clothes."


"Damnit, i'm not stupid. I graduated with honors, i went to a prestigious college on a merit scholarship, I majored in English, and I have read many books that others consider a 'difficult read.' I am not some schmuck who only reads supermarket paperbacks. And if a book is so d*mned inaccessible as this one, that a college graduate, writer and dedicated reader can't get it without three readings -- then to hell with it. For me, the book is a failure and a bastardization of what a book is truly supposed to be."


"I, the reader, was treated to run on sentences, random thoughts unrelated to the events at hand, inventive punctuation, and little back-story to help stake this jumble down."


"seemed incomprehensible and I thought it was printing mistakes but is apparently written through the eyes of a retarded man."


"there was no regard for correct grammar"


"It’s needlessly abstract. To jump around spatially and temporally with little rhyme or reason forces the reader to pay attention not to the narrative they are reading in a linear fashion, but to the meta-narrative—what exists when you step back, when you examine and play around with all of the pieces. That’s truly the only way to come to understand the precise events of the novel and the actions of the characters. How does that make an enjoyable story for a reader? A novel should never be a jigsaw puzzle."


"If I have to be all 'literary' to appreciate and understand this book, then I don't want to be literary ... Perhaps I'm missing something great here. Or perhaps there are too many 'good' books out there to waste my time on this 'literary' one."


"A painful and objectionable experience. This book is written in such an offensively obtuse manner that it was probably an instant classic among the pretentious."


"I love classics and was attracted just by the power of the title, but I couldn't follow the story at all when it jumped between 4 different time periods without any indication to the reader."


"Why anyone would choose to voluntarily read this book is completely beyond me. Just because someone says this is a work of literature, does not make it worth the pages it was printed on. As an English major, I have read a lot of 'literature' books that I would not pick up if I had the choice ... Do yourself a favor and skip this book."


"Obviously he was drunk when he wrote this book."


"Faulkner tries too hard to be 'deep'"


"This is the literary world's equivalent of a blank white canvas hanging in an art museum with a pompous five paragraph description of the artist's 'inspiration' next to it."


"This made me roll my eyes and sigh and scream in frustration."


"It's so old that the price of the novel was only $1.95."


"Ugh. Are you kidding me?! Too complicated. I had to exert too much effort to understand the style."


"Too many folks confuse challenging with good. Hey Faulkner, if you're going to write in that ridiculous stream of consciousness style, at least have the balls to do so for the entire novel. It's like he just got tired halfway through the book and decided to change the style up. Sorry guys, the emperor truly has no clothes on this one."


"Absolutely, positively the WORST book that exists on the planet. I call it The Sound of My Fury. Ahhhhhhhhh.... Truly awful. Whoever called this a 'classic' must be illiterate. :)"


"A Great American Classic? Not in my opinion."


"Faulkner has a lot of 'issues...'"


"I wanted to read this because he deals with the Blacks and comes from a famous author. Wayne understood what I meant when I said I couldn't handle the author's lurky-jerky style. There were so many conversations that went like this, 'What a nice morning.', Tom said. 'Yes, it is.', Bob added. 'What are you going to do?' Tom asked. 'Not sure.' Bob replied."


"Wow, this book sucked. Stream of consciousness of a retarded man?"


"My mother is a fish"


"Denoting nothing."


"it's hard 2 read ><"


"Yeah... Boring. Sorry Willy."


"I read this at a time when I was reading tons of books...and this book cured me. I don't think I read one single book after reading The Sound and the Fury."


"If you like Hemingway, as I do, there is really no chance you can also like Faulkner."


"This book was a piece of shit. Faulkner was obsessed with his penis and was a total pervert. Either that or he really hated Southerners ... Oh, and one more thing. Faulkner, if you can read this from wherever you are, stream of consciousness is a bullshit way out of writing a coherent story. Asshole."


"I'm sorry, if I could go back in time and drown Faulkner before he ever had the opportunity to write something that a teacher would one day force me to read, I would. I absolutely would. That probably makes me a bad person."

William Faulkner - Go Down, Moses

"With true grit and determination, I struggled through a solid 75% of these related short stories (one or two not short enough). Like the old south that it describes - with its bayous, river bottoms, plantations, and swamps - this book is slow going, languid, irritating, and filled with things you don't want to see. Finally, I could not bear to go any further and abandoned my effort - which is something I do not often do with a book"


"I couldn't stand it anymore...after like three weeks of this book and less than 100 pages left, I just couldn't force myself ot finish this book, which absolutely KILLS ME! Cuz I always finish everything I read, no matter how much I may not like it!"


"It got to where I was reading the words in the book, but I just couldn't put together what the hell the book was actually about! So frustrating! UGH!"


"'Go Down, Moses'???...rather go back to the pit from whence you came."


"Not to mince words, but I can't stand Faulkner. I think he's so highly regarded because academics equate 'hard to read' with 'good'."

William Faulkner - As I Lay Dying II

"I don't like this book. I am not going to provide a lengthy explanation, because all of you who rated this 5 stars will just condemn me as a moron, and all of you who don't like this book will only agree with what I have to say.

I agreed with most of the one and two star ratings (beyond the argument that it was 'confusing'), and did not feel obligated to write a review other than to hopefully lower the overall rating of this novel."


"I actually felt like dying while reading this book."


"I didn't much care for any of the characters since they all seemed to have their 'vices'. Would this have every happened in real life?"


"I cannot recommend this book. History and time often creates legends out of the mere ordinary. This book and all of Faulkners works are horrible and would not find a publisher if written in 2008. There is not an editor alive that would read past the first chapter of As I lay dying. It is a dud. There is no reason to read it. None. The story is not interesting. Faulkners 'stream of consciousness' writing style is not interesting. Nothing about this book is worthwhile, except to say that you've read Faulkner. I can say that rereading this book again I did actually feel pain. I felt like crying, it was horrible. But like all the idiots here leaving 5 star reviews I couldn't put it down because then I wouldn't be able to say I have read Faulkner. A book shouldn't be painful and you should want to read it. Faulkner sucks and I have a problem with anyone that recommends him. I've heard that Limburger cheese is delish, but how do you get rid of that smell while you are eating it? And why would you? I'll tell you why. Just so you can say you've ate Limburger cheese. That is the only reason. Why read Faulkner? Just so you can say you have read Faulkner."


"while reading it i felt like i was dying"


"I wish someone would've let Faulkner know that before he stumbled home toasted one night and barfed up this novel. Whoops! Did I say novel? I didn't mean to imply that it was new or fresh in any way. Reading this book-esque object just reminded me of reading Mark Twain. The only subtext was 'Being stupid and poor is artistic now. Ha ha ha.'"


"Should be called 'As I Die Reading'!"


"I picked this book up because the title caught my eye. I mean 'As I Lay Dying'?! That's pretty cool! I figured it had to be cyberpunk with a philip k. dick title like that. Or a book about zombies. Boy was I wrong! I guess I should have read the back of the book first.
Turns out it's a book about these people who are trying to take the stinking corpse of thier dead mom across the american south, which still sounds like a pretty good plot even if thier are no zombies. Actually these people are about as smart as zombies.
Even though some pretty funny stuff happens to these people, like when one guy breaks his arm and the family pours concrete on it, on the whole this Faulkner guy could learn a thing or two from Stephen King. Keep trying buddy!"


"More like 'As I Lay SNORING.'"


"One detail in particular that had me doubting the book to begin with was the fact that each story was told by a different narrator. Fine and dandy, if I had realized this while I was reading the book :) In some chapters it was obvious and others not so much. Even though the narrator's name (I'm assuming this is correct) was the title of each chapter. Apparently, I was too dense to discover this on my own."


"Another thing I disliked about Faulkner’s novel was the slow start. I understand the title is AS I lay Dying, but is it too much to ask to keep things interesting while she is dying."

IN LATER REVISIONS FAULKNER CONSIDERED PLACING ADDIE'S COFFIN NOT IN RURAL MISSISSIPPI BUT ON THE SET OF BALANCHINE'S NEW YORK PRODUCTION OF THE FIREBIRD


"Should be retitled, 'As I Lay Dying of Boredom'."


"I don't get it. It's probably a great new method of storytelling, shifting character to character, that's really smart and tough to do, but why not read The Rules of Attraction instead?"


"Or, 'As I Die Reading.'"


"Good 'lord' I could not get through this book, I did give it a good 4 months of forcing myself to read it every night and I slept well those in months...hehe"


"yet another painful memory of junior year of high school... we used to call it 'As I Lay Dying Reading this Book'"


"maybe faulkner is giving his readers too much credit."

William Faulkner - As I Lay Dying

"There is a chapter in this book that consists entirely of the following line: 'My mother is a fish.' I've been telling myself since high school that I need to give this one another try, but then I remember that chapter. I don't plan on reading it again any time soon."


"I know you're 'supposed to' love this book because it's Faulker, but I HATED IT! I know you're 'cool' and 'intelligent' if you read Faulkner, but I can't stand him. Sorry, I don't know what he's talking about (and at the risk of sounding immodest, I am bright). I DON'T think it's cool and 'hip' to write in a confusing manner, and I don't try to impress others by liking ambiguity. I had my fill in college with snobs who pretended to like this stuff. Sorry I sound harsh here (I'm really a nice person), but YUK!"


"'My mother is a fish.' w.t.f."


"I prefer to call this book 'As I Lay Dying...of Boredom, Reading This Book'. That's what it is: boring.

The plot, such as it is, is simple. There's a family that lives in the Deep South of Mississippi or somewhere like that in a ridiculously-hard-to-pronounce county. The mother dies, and the family decides to take the body to a far-off city, where she has requested to be buried. So the book is basically them trying to get the mother's body to this cemetery in Jefferson, an interminable journey filled with approximately 20 different yet identical-souding narrators who are not interesting in any way whatsoever. Actually, there is ONE narrator you can identify without needing the chapter titles, and that is Cora, the Christian lady. She's easy to tell from the others because she mentions God once every two sentences.

This book is probably the worst book I have ever read, and I have read MANY books. I just could not care about these people, because they all sounded alike and did ridiculous things, such as:

- calling their mother a fish
- talking in short, simple sentences with basic words, then suddenly launching into poetic and polysyllabic rapture upon seeing the sunset
- setting their son's broken leg with CEMENT (I kid you not)
- NARRATING FROM THE GRAVE (I'm looking at YOU, Addie Bundren)

This book is the reason I refuse to read anything by William Faulkner. Perhaps his other work is better. I don't know and I don't care to find out."


"The only remotely happy occurrence in the book was that Dewey Dell was expecting."


"I can see why people like this book, as it the action is simple, and yet the symbolism is rather complex. To be honest, I did not enjoy this book. The prose is far too self indulgently arty and yet completely devoid of any epiphany inducing insights into human nature. All in all, I find this book to have a sickeningly pessimistic view of human nature as a whole. If there is anything that can be taken away from this book, it is that human beings are scum. I personally do not share this belief. The writing style is purposely ambiguous and leads the reader to discover symbolism that is contradicted later on in the story, which in turn is contradicted again. I find that aside from Cash, these characters are so unbearably unstable and utterly diverse in their ramblings that it is difficult to remember exactly who is monologuing. I find it disturbing also that I seem to be the only one I know who actually understood it. They either scoff at it and say that it's too repetitive and fail to realize the symbolism, or absolutely love it because they interpreted it in such a way that it could be mistaken as a great work. I considered each interpretation and decided that a book with this much meaning and yet in the grand scheme of literature says nothing is a waste of words. I believe this book to emphasize, nay, personify the disgusting drivel that American Literature has become. I shall not be reading Falkner again and shall return to Skaldic and Norse literature very soon. GOOD DAY"


"What can I say 'My mother is a fish'"


"By the time i reached the last quarter of the book, Faulkner was at least writing language that made sense. Most of the time, it was either ridiculously simple, in a 'country-boy' hillbilly way, or just distastefully packed full of words that the average person would rarely use, and often more than likely couldn't even define. It seems that Faulkner likes to hear himself talk, throwing in as many three and four syllable words as he can fit into a sentence."


"Dewey Dell is a slut. An irresponsible slut."


"Faulkner writes in jargon he understands with little to no respect for the reader and I can't forgive him for it. If you don't believe me then write something. Write a short story. Write 3, or 4, or 5 pages. Flesh out the characters and their histories and their conflicts. Got it? Okay, now when you are writing a scene with multiple people use only the pronoun he. You will know who you are talking about - do we? Is that good writing? No, it isn't."


"I don't care if Faulkner is a classic. I HATE this book. I think it's chapter 13 that is simply 'my mother is a fish'."


"I liked this book okay until towards the end. Then I thought to myself, "I don't like this book." Jewel has a potty mouth."


"My mother is a fish?"


"My mother is a fish?!?"


"Oh and I almost forgot 'My Mother is a Fish.' WTF?"













"quite possibly the worst book I've ever read. Only redeeming quality? 'my mother is a fish' and there you go."