Absalom, Absalom is my first novel by William Faulkner. It is also one of the most complex books I have read. However, knowing the author’s experimental style, I expected a complicated plot with a complex narrative structure. It was good that I was prepared. Otherwise, I probably wouldn’t have made it to the end.
This is one of Faulkner’s popular books, so, my average rating doesn’t match the popular mark. To appease disappointed Faulkner admirers, I’d say that my rating has nothing to do with his brilliance. He is a gifted writer, no doubt. My rating solely reflects my response to the novel.
Absalom, Absalom has a complex narrative structure. It tells the story of the rise and fall of a man named Thomas Sutpen through two different narrators. Then the narrative is repeated and analysed by one narrator and his friend. I have read stories of multiple narrators but this was the first time I came across a story partly told as an analysis of narratives. It was entirely new to me and took me a while to understand.
The story is told in flashbacks by two people who are differently connected to Thomas Sutpen. These two narratives are then retold and analysed by one of the narrators and his friend. Faulkner uses the narrators to demonstrate how unreliable narratives can be. One narrator is Sutpen’s sister-in-law (Rosa) who dislikes and despises him. Her anger and resentment at Sutpen are quite evident from her account of him, making the reader question its truth. The other narrator is the grandson of Sutpen’s only friend. This narrator (Quentin) is giving a secondhand account of a story told to him mostly by his father who in turn has heard it from his father. The accuracy of such an account is questionable, coming down two generations, not to mention the time that has elapsed. This experimental narrative structure as well as the experimental style of writing, switching narratives constantly without a pre-warning or paragraph breaks demonstrates Faulkner’s genius. But this very genius held me back from becoming engaged with the story.
I admire Faulkner for his bold and novelistic writing. Yet, I couldn’t get myself into his story. I didn’t like the biased narrative of Rosa, nor did I like the apparent neutral account of Quentin; and the analysis between Quentin and his friend, Shreve, was long-drawn and tiresome. None of the characters helped me either, for I couldn’t like any. The story is said to be an allegory of the Southern history of America. Had I been more informed about the history and the American Civil War, I may have seen the novel in a different light. As that wasn’t the case, there was nothing to anchor me to the story.
Deciding on an author by reading just one book is unjust. So, I’ll be looking for more of his work. But I’ll need to choose the next one carefully if I’m to have any future with Faulkner. Another similar experience would certainly put an end to my Faulkner journey.
Rating: 3/5
