That first chapter . . . I found it very confusing - I couldn't keep the names straight, as to who was who and most of the time had no idea of what they were talking about.

Is this just me?

Wow, how did you get to section four so fast?

No, your are not alone with the confusion of the names. There are two Quentins, there are two Jasons, and there are two Maurys. The trick is to determine the time period to understand which is which.

The first section is narrated by Benjy. This first section introduces the main characters. A good tip to understanding the time line is to observe who is with Benjy. For instance, Versh, Dilsey’s son is with Benjy as a child. T.P., also Dilsey’s son is with him during adolescence and Luster, Dilsesy’s grandson is with Benjy as an adult. The events from the first section do become clearer in subsequent sections. But it is a puzzle. Do you like puzzles?

I am struck by the difference in writing moving from the 1st person to the 3rd person. The first three chapters seem more limited because they are told from each individual perspective, I think. Taking a step back in the 4th chapter has a completely different feel. There are dynamics that are not noticeable in the first three chapters that come to light in the 4th chapter. One knows from the 3rd chapter that Jason seems to be irritated with Dilsey. I feel like I get from the 4th chapter that Dilsey does not really like Jason either, that the tension is coming from both sides. The last chapter also seems more orderly. The first 3 chapters are somewhat disorderly, I think, because that is how people actually think. Since the last chapter is supposed to be more objective it seems clearer. I am actually really excited now to go back after I have finished this chapter and read from the beginning.

Have you guys noticed that this book begins and ends with violence? Benji starts by telling us that someone is hitting something. At the end of course, Jason is hitting the horse and Luster. It is interesting.

I also noticed that the book begins and ends with both the concepts of life/death. The book starts on Good Friday (death), but Benji keeps flashing back to a time close to Christmas (birth/life). At the end, the characters are in a graveyard (death) on Easter day (rebirth/life). It is kind of cool. I think you could probably spend your entire life studying this book.

Did you pick up on why Luster and Benjy were going to the graveyard? I missed that. You"re right, the fourth section brings order in a couple of ways. First, just by the return of the authorial narration that eliminates the unreliability of the personal narratives of the first three sections. And second, by the presence of Dilsey, whose role is explicity to keep some order amid the chaos of the last days of the Compson dynasty. She even realizes, after listening to the preacher, that she has seen the Compson family complete, both the beginning and the end. There is irony in the book's structure, in that it begins and ends with the most marginalized characters in the story--the mentally retarded Benjy and the black servant Dilsey. They are the moral reflectors in the novel, more powerful than the characters who possess the remains of the Compsons' social status. Dilsey is of course the only intact human being in the novel, the only one whose personality has not been brutalized by family or society--even though she is only a generation or two removed from slavery and still has few rights.

Good point, Dwill. I knew there was a character that died in the book and I think I assumed they were going to visit the grave or something. But I am not completely sure, either.



Great insight! I had not thought of that. Such a fascinating book.

Did you guys know there is a movie of "The Sound and the Fury"? I just finished watching it, on the computer! There are 12 or so parts to it. I've seen some bad film adaptations of books, but this film wins the stinky prize!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFL7F1KT0AE

I'll bet. I think it would be next to impossible to make a movie of this book.

It's really too bad I don't have ability to watch video! But I had seen a mention of this movie, starring Yul Brynner and Joanne Woodward, and all I could think of was some insane parody of The King and I. But, I see that a new version is set to be released in 2010, now under way in Sweden. I couldn't get any other info about it, other than it exists.

I suppose the average movie director would go right away for the Jason/Quentiin plot element. That could make a pretty good movie I suppose if well done--but it wouldn't be The Sound and the Fury by Faulkner if that was the exclusive focus.

I'm curious, Suzanne. What were a few lowlights of this movie?

DWILL, that's exactly what they did! The entire movie was about the young female Quentin and Jason Jr.! Jason, Yule Brynner, is a character you actually grow to like, he saves Quentin from making the same mistakes as Caddy. The male Quentin is mentioned once. Caddy is an old, drunken slut, and Benjy never says a word. The dynamics of the family are missing, so Caddy is not portrayed in the right light. Dilsey was comic relief.

I was expecting so much more!

Of course! I should have known that Yul wouldn't be allowed to be Faulkner's Jason. But did he have to be made into a hero? Poor Faulkner. He would have been alive when this super stinker came out. I bet it drove him to drink.

This kind of mangling and perversion of a book ought to be illegal!

This isn't really about Section 4, but some readers have wondered why Faulkner didn't give Caddy her own voice in a separate section. He surely must have had to consider doing that. Why didn't he?

Great question! Caddy is the catalyst for most of the events that take place. Maybe Caddy is an appropriate name for her. As a catalyst, she creates the reactions, she changes the dynamics, the formula of the family so to speak. And, as a catalyst, she does not change much, the family around her does. Her behavior is important to the story, we as readers can imagine why she acts as she does. Loving, attentive parents are so vital to a child. But I don't think she is that important as a character on her own. Caddy's behavior is the character of Caddy. She does speak, but not through words.

I think that is a great answer. Seen in that light, I'm glad Faulkner didn't give Caddy her own platform. It would have been quite a risk or even a letdown, maybe. What if Caddy couldn't be made interesting in herself? What if she seemed too close to Quentin's habit of thought provide the contrast between the sections that Faulkner was looking for? You're right, since she is already the catalyst (the cadalyst!), then giving her a voice might have seemed like monopolization of the novel. I saw a mention of a comment Faulkner made that he wanted Caddy to be illusive, that he thought she was more beautiful that way. No doubt he had his reasons, and they probably were good ones.