Faulkner and Stolen Valor

My favorite canonical author, William Faulkner, had a phony war story to tell.

While he was alive, biographers would say that Faulkner, born in 1897, left the US for Canada in 1916 because he was put off by Wilson's neutrality policy and wanted to get into the Great War. He trained in Canada to become a pilot in the RAF and spent some time flying in France before the war ended.

That was what would now be known as "stolen valor." It begins with his misdescription of when he left the US and why. The precipitating cause wasn't eagerness to fight, it was romantic heartbreak. His family (and the family of his sweetheart, Estelle Oldham, prevented the two young'uns from marrying in 1918. Broken hearted, and aware of course that there was a war on, Faulkner tried to enlist. He was rejected by the US Army because he was too short. He entered Canada then, hearing that the height requirement there was one he met. He was never anywhere near the fighting. He did enlist in the RAF and receive some training in Canada but he was still doing so when the war ended.

Then he return to the US, with training-caused injuries that gave credibility to stories he would tell about his time in France. Over time he backdated his enlistment to 1916 simply to allow for a timeline that would make those stories plausible.

Can we derive some valuable lesson or morale from this story? Only, I guess, that story tellers gotta tell.

One bright note: he did eventually marry Estelle, in the late 1920s.

Comments

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

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog