Skip to main content

The Sound and the Fury

William Faulkner

The opening words of Faulkner's masterpiece, THE SOUND AND THE FURY, are as follows:

"Through the fence, beneath the curling flower space, I could see them hitting. They were coming toward me where the flat was and I went along the fence....They took the flag out and they were hitting. Then they put the flag back and they went to the table, and he hit and the other hit. Then they went on, and I went along the fence."

Most adults 'get' this in its straightforward meaning after a couple of reads. To be clear, though, we are asked to identify with an "I" who is watching  two men play golf. A bit of a golf course (including the putting green for one hole and the tees [the "table"] for the start of another) is on the other side of the fence.

The description of this action is literal to a fault. One oddity may strike you -- the observer of the golfers doesn't mention the golf balls that the golfers "were hitting" No explicitness about WHAT they were hitting. They took a flag out and hit and put a flag back in. No mention between those two facts that a ball has entered a hole and been retrieved.

Another point you might be curious about on first reading: what is the space on the non-golf side of the fence. Where are we? Golf courses don't have to be separated from all their neighbors by fences.

Anyway: this was published more than 90 years ago now, so I don't think I'm spoiling anything when I tell you this. We are at home with the Compson family. We are in the 1920s and the Compsons of Yoknapatawpha County, Mississippi have fallen on hard times. Years before this (in 1910) they sent their intellectually inclined son, Quentin, off to Harvard. The only way they could afford that was by selling a pasture to a company that turned it into a golf course.

Quentin's idiot brother, Benjy, stayed home. And that is the same Benjy, our "I," who is watching golf in the opening passage.

For more: read the book.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak