The+Narrative+Style

Slightly more organized than Woolf's novel, Faulkner's //As I Lay Dying// gave me a breath of fresh air every few pages with a new chapter, and also, a new narrator and language technique. Each character's voice clearly came through. Somehow it is smooth. His novel is not structured as Woolf's was. The change in narrator simulated the chapter break, whereas in Woolf's, it seemed that chapter breaks came just often enough so that the reader would be able to arrange thoughts and to catch sanity before it ran off. I, personally enjoy Darl's chapters the best so far because they are clear, coherent, and extremely detailed. Did anyone notice this? Darl seems like he is narrating to someone, trying to make them understand the situation. Others, however, were not so clear: Dewey Dell says, "He could do so much for me if he just would...He is a big tub of guts and I am a little tub of guts and if there is not any room for anything else important in a big tub of guts, how can it be room in a little tub of guts." (58) Did I miss something? In this aspect of ambiguity I see similarity with Woolf's novel. How is leaving things (such as the identity of "he" or what Dewey Dell wants done) out serving the reader in the case of this novel? Other comments about this new style?

And just one more question: is Darl serving as a 3rd person narrator? Because there were a few incidences where he was narrating scenes that he wasn't in. Darl narrates: "Pa stands beside the bed. From behind his leg Vardaman peers...pa says, 'him and Darl went to make one more load. They thought there was time. That you would wait for them..." (47) How does Darl know that is what he said? Why would Faulkner make a 3rd person narrator out of all the 1st? If true, why Darl? 1202405419

KLe: "Darl seems like he is narrating to someone, trying to make them understand the situation."

This is a very useful observation in light of what is to come ... as is your other question about how Darl seems able to report on events at which he is not present. 1202499450

The style of this novel is interesting and entertaining. It reminds me very much of Spoon River Anthology (soph. year), because they both use different perspectives to show who exactly someone is, for example. Take Jewel, for example. Cora thinks that he does not care about his mother, when in fact he is quite distressed by her dying. I also like how the writing style shifts from character to character to define who they are. For example, Cash's chapter is a numerated list, showing his strong work ethic and his realism. Anse' chapters are slow and somewhat cumbersome, just like him.

Faulkner is doing what Woolf failed to do, in my eyes. He is shifting, like she did, but uses consistent plot development, unlike Woolf. He does not digress all over the place. It's organized shifting, for lack of a better term.1202507433

edited today in reply to below post.

Isn't it Vardaman who goes after Peabody's horses? 1202511805

I like this form of writing a novel because it is and interesting hybrid between the classic novel narration and Woolf's style of confusion. I was able to understand what was going on in this novel as long as I paid close attention to what each character said in his or her section. I like how each character gives us a little more insight about what is happening. I think that this is Woolf's style perfected because her goal was to write a novel from the point of view of many characters rather than just following one main character. Faulkner took this idea to a new level by giving each character a clear cut section with the title as the "narrator's" name. I think that this is a great method because it is easier to understand than Woolf's was but it also keeps the reader on his feet.1202687725

I also find Faulkner's style as "a breath of fresh air" (KLe). It is just so interesting, unlike anything I have read before; I see the style as something I have always wanted to read. I mean, when reading novels doesn't one often wonder what the //characters// are thinking? It is somewhat natural to want to sink into the mind of the very people about which the novelist is writing. Thus, I see Faulkner's style as useful and appropriate: it satisfies the reader by providing various points of view, something that, ironically, one cannot attain in real life. On the other hand, Brother Tom brought up an interesting point today -- does this style actually hinder the reader's overall perspective because it only provides countless biased points of view? I understand what he is saying. . . but at the same time, a writer would do this regardless of whatever style he or she chose. We, as readers, simply cannot be allowed to grasp everything about a book, its plot, its characters from the start (or at all, for that matter) if the book is any good. Faulkner's style makes one think.1202866360

Further relating to this narrative style, I was wondering why characters often [especially toward the end of the novel] break off mid-sentence, even at the end of a short chapter?? An example of this is on page 165: Cash: "It wasn't on balance. I told them that if they wanted it to tote and ride on balance, they would have to" And there is no ellipse, no period My only guess is that this pertains to the stream-of-consciousness effect. Faulkner is quite fond of putting the reader right there, in each character's mindset, often with good description. And I suppose that good description does not always have to mean easy understanding; Faulkner gives us everyone's perspective and provides clues so that we can piece it all together and make sense. I suppose Cash just stops thinking there, or he breaks off in thought; maybe he just repeats himself, while only what he says then is important.1203552174

The more I read of this book, the more I like the narrative style. It is really helpful to see the perspective of many characters, not to mention it helps reading go by faster because of the changing styles. It reallly helps clarity when we hear from more than one character about the same event. Because the chapters are written as the narrator is thinking, I have had a bit of trouble with pronoun-antecedent confusion. There are sometimes when I'll be in the middle of a chapter and someone will keep mentioning he did this and he did that and I'll have to slow down and back track to be sure of who they are talking about. Is anyone else having that problem? The good thing about that, however, is that we often do see scenes twice or three times, so I can normally pick up on what happens after those reads. However, there have been a couple of times when narrators' descriptions do not match, or simply contradict each other. One example is on page 25. Cora describes Darl: "He just stood and looked at his dying mother, his heart too full for words." In the next chapter, Dewey Dell describes the same event, but this time, Darl says, "She is going to die." i know that in this situation, this difference can be attributed to the "connection" between Dewey Dell and Darl, but what do we do when two accounts of the same event conflict? 1203636852

I completely agree with you K. This book really is a breath of fresh air from the extremely formulaic "she stoops to conquer" and the extremely fluid "jacob's room." This book flows. you can sit down and before you know it you have read 50 pages because you are simply being told a story. The use of all first person was very appealing to me. Not only was it interesting to piece everything together, but once you heard one thing from one character, you were dying to see how all the other characters saw the same event. It made me keep turning pages because I was so well entertained. This was a book, like "the invisible man," that I could appreciate as a genius work of literature ASWELL as enjoy it. And as for Darl's narrative characteristics, that is something that really made me start to get interested in this book. I didn't even realize it when I first read it but then it clicked. "wait, Darl isn't there right now, how could he be narrating." I was interested to see what was going on there. I think the author did this to indicate that this family is not just your average down home, country hick family. There is something more going on here. It kept me interested.1203700351

I agree that this novel had a relieving effect when I realized that the chapters were not super long. I was quite surprised at times when I discovered how easy it was to keep track of what was happening compared to other novels such as Invisible Man or Jacob's Room. Although that was an added bonus, I had a little bit of difficulty remembering which character was speaking toward the beginning of the book, but as it progressed it became easier because of their constant thought topics. I also was confused whenever a new character came in, such as Peabody, Samson, Moseley, or Armstid. Their thoughts were new and unfamiliar compared to the way the other characters spoke or described other events. But overall, I really thought that the book was easier to read, which kept me interested longer. 1203895776

The length of the chapters was awesome. Even the longest chapter, which was probably Addie's, wasn't too bad at all. Although this book was confusing at times because of its unique style and Southern context, I thought the book was an enjoyable read because it was such a page turner. I wish more books could be so rich in meaning like this, but also such a page turner so you feel like the story is steadily progressing. Different chapters repeated aspects of the same incidents from different points of view, but I didn't feel like it was repeative. I felt like every time there was a new narrator that I learned something new. I also was confused sometimes when a random person narrated a chapter, but after I finished reading this stranger's chapter I realized how their puzzle piece fit into the larger picture conveyed by the main characters. 1203989820

Faulkner's writing style was definitely a welcome change from the last two books, especially Jacob's Room. He does write in a stream-of-consciousness style that made Woolf so infuriating to read; however, it is not as overt as in her novels, and, because it is mixed with more traditional story-telling and novel characteristics, it is much more enjoyable and refreshing. I also loved the shifting viewpoints in the novel: it allows each of the individual narrators to be more real and less objective. The problem in traditional novels written in the first person is that the main character whose narrating must either leave out key details of the plot or show bias, or else he or she will appear to be an unrealistic character. By constantly switching his narrations, Faulkner bypassed this problem by both giving us the biases and also providing all the details of the plot that we need to accurately put the story together. Faulkner's narrating style definitely was the comfortable middle-ground between the conventional novel and the ultra-modernist style of Virginia Woolf, and I have to say that if the modernist writers goal was to eventual work his or her way into the mainstream readership, Faulkner definitely accomplished this with the narration he used in this book. 1203992649

I love Faulkner's narrative style in this novel. It's really interesting to see events from so many different peoples perspectives, and he is able to go all the way from stream of consciousness writing to normal everyday conversation. I think we can learn a lot about characters by the way that they tell stories. One thing that I thought was interesting was that it seemed like it was almost easier to see the faults in characters during their own narration than when other people are talking about them. Traits that characters reveal about themselves when they narrated were a more reliable source than when other people talked about them, and gave a great deal of insight into the characters.1204000449

SFa brought up a point that I too noticed: that at times characters would break off what they were saying or thinking mid-sentence (or at least not where the sentence seems it is supposed to end... it is cut short). I first noticed this on p. 96 [Cash's chapter]: //It won't balance. If they want it to tote and ride on a balance, they will have//. It ended there, but why? Maybe Cash was clearly about to go on a tangent about the coffin, so by ending the sentence there, we had a sense of what his thoughts were to follow.

Then on p. 148: //No, I said, I'd get just as wet that way as is//. Again, another cut off. It is peculiar, however, because by Faulkner cutting short these thoughts, he does not seem (at least to me) to disrupt the flow of the text. It is as though, although text is missing, we as readers know hwo to fill in the blanks.

I found on the ABOUT THE AUTHOR at the very end of the novel: "In combining the use of symbolism with a stream-of-consciounesness technique, [Faulkner] created a new approach to the writing of fiction." This validates Sharon's point about stream-of-consciousness. Any other ideas? 1204086905

I do think the stream of consciousness idea is the most logical, but for some reason Faulkner's stream of consciousness is way easier to understand than Woolf's. I really enjoyed reading //As I Lay Dying.// I think the way that he set up the story and the narration made it entertaining and easier to understand. I felt almost as if I was reading a diary or a journal or something, but it was the the writing was taken directly from the character's mind. The random cut offs weren't confusing, yes...but, I think this was largely because of the narrative style. we got to know each character, because it was almost like we got to know everyone's thoughts, and by getting to know them so well, the cut offs didnt seem so random because we could fill them in 1204258858