I wavered between 3 and 4 stars for this one.

Absalom, Absalom! is a difficult work (for me) to begin with, and the critical essays examining it seem to take that difficulty to the next level. Even still, I gleaned quite a bit from reading them that I missed while reading the book itself. When I read AA! again, which I'm pretty confident I will (should I live so long), I should be able to see the nuances that I missed before.

There are only five extended essays here, along with an index of characters and a table organized to illustrate who knew what when. (One of the stylistic aspects of AA! is its fragmented narrative, and unreliable narrators.) The first essay, "Strange Gods" in Jefferson, Mississippi, by Richard Poirier, was probably the most illuminating to me, as far as getting a deeper understanding of the novel. It delved into the complex themes and characters in a way that made me see the novel from a new perspective.

John Paterson's contribution, Hardy, Faulkner, and the Prosaics of Tragedy seemed to expend a lot of energy in refuting the claim that AA! was "an authentic and fully developed tragedy." While it was interesting in its own right, it seemed a bit like one-half of a squabble over definitions. Michael Millgate, in his essay, examined textual differences between Faulkner's drafts of AA!, along with other published stories, in order to eke out possible intentions that may have been hidden otherwise. His analysis was meticulous and added another layer of depth to the understanding of the novel.

Melvin Backman concentrated much of his analysis on the role of Southern history in the novel. He showed how the past influenced the present and how the characters were shaped by their historical context. Finally, in The Extended Simile, James Guetti argued that Faulkner's mixture of paradox, metaphor and implications rising from the narration refute the existence of this novel as a novel at all. His argument was thought-provoking and challenged my own assumptions about what a novel should be.

To say that I followed all these arguments and agree or disagree with them would be untrue. This is dense criticism. Dealing with Faulkner, they may have felt they needed to be. Still, I feel there was enough here even for a blockhead like me.

This is the third in the series Twentieth Century Views/Interpretations that I've read, and it was by far the most difficult. Views on both William Blake and Jane Austen were informative, but not quite this complex. This is something I can see returning to again, when I return to the novel itself. It will no doubt provide me with new insights and a deeper appreciation of Faulkner's masterpiece.