I picked up this book due to my keen interest in the South, of which Faulkner is renowned as a great writer.

The story he presents can only be characterized as bizarre. While being bizarre can have its merits, I encountered significant difficulties in understanding certain aspects of the writing.

There is an abundance of hinting and innuendo in the mysterious portions of the book, and these elements are not explicitly spelled out. I am aware that some individuals relish solving mysteries as they read, so perhaps it is my shortcoming for simply desiring a clear explanation while traversing this bizarro world.

One section followed one or two fellows (I could never be certain), as he or they trailed, stalked, and moved with a cow, as if on the verge of attempting to make love to it. This continued for fifty pages. I found it uninteresting and, as previously mentioned, bizarre.

However, the landscape was vividly described, evoking a strong desire in me to witness it firsthand. The behavior of the characters, aside from the cow fetish, was also engaging.

One exciting part involved a man who arrived in their small town with the intention of selling a group of horses that were so wild that nobody could catch them or bring them under control, even within a horse pen. It was both humorous and wild, and thus I derived enjoyment from that particular segment.

All in all, I struggle to think of a single person to whom I could recommend this book. I am certain that Faulkner is an outstanding wordsmith with the English language, and his form is regarded as an American classic, but I have reservations regarding its enjoyability.

A small town chronicle as diverse as its characters,

is a vivid portrayal of the envy, ambitions, rumors, and conflicts that unfold within a community.

I can appreciate the author's intention in depicting the implications of the phrase "small town, big hell."

However, the narration was like a roller coaster ride for me.

There were chapters that I thoroughly enjoyed, filled with excitement and intrigue,

while others left me feeling extremely bored and uninterested.

As someone who hails from a small town myself,

I was particularly drawn to the story of the buried treasure.

Although with some differences in details,

my family also has a similar tale.

My great-grandfather rented out a house, and the tenant discovered a hidden treasure.

Unfortunately, the tenant refused to share it with my great-grandfather,

which led to a conflict that has endured through generations between the involved families.

This personal connection added an extra layer of interest for me as I read the chronicle.

Overall, while the book had its highs and lows,

it offered a unique perspective on the dynamics of a small town community.

The germ of this novel can be traced back as far as 1927 to a short story entitled "Spotted Horses" which was incorporated into the novel in Book 4. In fact, a total of four Faulkner short stories made their way into the novel at different points. However, simply labelling The Hamlet as a collection of previously written short stories would be a misstep. It would not only overlook the uniformity of the novel but also deprive the reader of a chance to witness Faulkner's creative mind in action.

If one takes the time to compare the original short stories ("Spotted Horses", "Lizards in Jamshyd's Courtyard", "Fool About a Horse", and "The Hound") with their rewritten versions in the novel, one can only be in awe of Faulkner's ability to transform previous work into a new art form that has only a limited resemblance to the original. It is like the artistic genius that inspired Bach's Goldberg Variations.

Although Faulkner had introduced the character of Flem Snopes in a short story in the early 30s and included various members of the Snopes family in previous novels, it was in The Hamlet that he dedicated his full energies to the story of Flem's rise from a sharecropper cabin to a stately mansion. It also shows the slow but inevitable infiltration of other members of the Snopes family into Yoknapatawpha society. The book is divided into four episodes. In these, Faulkner, using both comedy and tragedy, delves deep into the human emotions, from passion to unyielding inhumanity, and creates some of his most memorable characters.

The Snopes family is collectively seen by the good citizens of Frenchman's Bend as insane, unsanitary, immoral, and unscrupulous. These are traits that the good citizens themselves possess to some degree. They view the Snopes family as a group of outsiders defiling the established order. But when Faulkner examines each member of the Snopes tribe individually, these stereotypes are softened, and that member is separated from the rest of the family. Each of the Snopes characters has admirable traits. Eck is seen as honest and hardworking. The idiot Ike, in a perverse way, is loyal and sympathetic. Even the murderer, Mink, has his noble qualities. Only Flem is completely lacking in good qualities. He is depicted as emotionless, rapacious, and isolated from his fellow man. Although he eventually achieves his goals, it is clear that Faulkner has little regard for such individuals.

But with Faulkner (at his best), how the story is told is just as important as the story itself. And in this work, he is at his best. Two episodes deserve special attention. The first is the obsession of the school teacher, Labove, for his thirteen-year-old pupil, Eula Varner. The second is the affair between the idiot, Ike, and the cow. Both episodes deal with obsession, but in the former, it is passion-driven obsession, while in the Ike episode, it is obsession born of idealized love. Faulkner's style in both episodes is近乎rhetorical perfection. Eula is described as "the supreme primal uterus" who "tranquilly abrogates the whole long sum of human thinking and suffering which is called knowledge, education, wisdom, at once supremely unchaste and inviolable." The description of Ike's love for the cow could potentially contain some of the best prose that Faulkner ever wrote. Using a style that is almost luminous, the author is able to turn a story of bestiality into a moving testament to human love, while Ike is made into a truly sympathetic character who confuses the concept of love and loses the distinction between a female animal and a human female.

Faulkner eventually expanded the story of the Snopes into a trilogy, with The Town and The Mansion being published in the late 1950s. However, these other novels were only an unremarkable conclusion to what he began with The Hamlet, which is arguably the last great book that he wrote.

For all its attempts to clarify the economic and social structures that led to the decline of the South, this book is at its best in its portrayal and critique of romance. The section introducing Eula Varner as an object of desire is one of the most captivating before the opening passages of Lolita. Her entire appearance suggested some symbology from the old Dionysic times - honey in sunlight and bursting grapes, the writhing bleeding of the crushed fecundated vine beneath the hard rapacious trampling goat-hoof. Passages like this make one feel ashamed of the shallowness of one's own emotions, vocabulary, and existence. And that intensity lasts for almost 20 pages.

If that gets you excited, the book then escalates the language and shifts to another star-crossed couple, Ike, an idiot ward of Flem, and a neighbor's wandering cow. Here's Ike trying to soothe the spooked cow: "trying to tell her how this violent violation of her maiden's delicacy is no shame, since such is the very iron imperishable warp of the fabric of love." The book is worth reading for these two sections alone. Much of the rest of the book drags. It is filled with stories that Faulkner finds humorous and are set to the laugh track of Ratliff, who is constantly telling the reader what they should find humorous. It is about as effective as Jim smirking into the camera throughout the 3rd season of The Office to let the audience know what a delightful practical joke he has just played.

In all, this is a worthwhile read, but it falls in the middle of an incredible period of Faulkner's career. Even when reading it, one comes across large passages that remind one of how disappointed one can be in him.

Faulkner assembled much of THE HAMLET from short stories, with themes such as courtship, lust, love, and obsession, or where the average person succumbs to greed or foolishness and is victimized in business.

Take the subject of love. In THE HAMLET, Faulkner examines obsessive and unrequited love through his characters Labove (an achiever obsessed with untouchable beauty) and Ike Snopes (a retarded man in love with a cow); ambivalent love through the experiences of Mink Snopes (a vicious murderer) and Jack Houston (a guilty widower); and loveless marriage through the lives of Eula Varner and Mrs. Armstid, who are at the top and bottom of the social hierarchy. Each of these characters is unique and fully realized. Yet each suffers from cruel variations of a single force.

Not to be a pedant, but Robert Penn Warren described THE HAMLET as: "...a sequence of contrasting or paralleling stories" where Faulkner's "...movement was not linear but spiral, passing over the same point again and again, but at different altitudes." This is exactly right.

Language is an incredibly fascinating and complex subject. It serves as the foundation for communication, allowing us to convey our thoughts, emotions, and ideas. Spoken narratives, in particular, add another layer of depth and richness to language. They have the power to engage, entertain, and educate us.

Listening to a well-told story can transport us to different worlds, make us empathize with characters, and inspire us in various ways. The way a narrator uses language, including their choice of words, tone, and pacing, can greatly impact the effectiveness of the narrative. A skilled storyteller can create a vivid and immersive experience for the listener.

Moreover, spoken narratives can also reflect the culture and values of a particular community or society. They can传承 traditions, share historical events, and传递 moral lessons. In this way, language and spoken narratives play an important role in shaping our identities and understanding of the world around us.

Overall, the study of language and spoken narratives is truly captivating. It offers us a glimpse into the human mind and the power of communication. Whether we are listening to a bedtime story, a podcast, or a public speech, we are constantly being influenced by the words and narratives that surround us.

A truly magnificent book! I relished every single word.

However, I can understand why some readers didn't have a liking for it.

I made a comment elsewhere that it was a mystery to me why Faulkner almost abandoned his early experimental high modernist style. But after finishing this book, I can firmly state that this is utter nonsense.

There are parts of this novel that could have been directly taken from 'Absalom! Absalom!'. All the Faulknerian linguistic mannerisms are present. If possible, there is an even greater proliferation than ever before.

However, the aspect that distinguishes this novel from 'A!A!' is the apparent absence of a tight narrative focus. The entire 'A!A!' narrows its path inexorably towards the murder of Charles Bon. The "why?" of the event haunts every page.

This text doesn't have a similar event as its narrative core. All it has is Flem Snopes. For some, that is sufficient.

Faulkner has a remarkable way of incisively capturing the horrifying combination of crushing poverty and infinite ignorance. Flem Snopes is the catalyst that brings out these unfortunate characteristics in the townspeople of Frenchmen's Bend.

I can't count the number of times I exclaimed "what a f-ing DUMBASS!". Faulkner isn't given nearly enough credit for being as humorous as he is.

Now I have to patiently wait until Amazon delivers the next book. Only 6 more days to go.

This is the first installment in Faulkner's Snopes Trilogy. When I picked it up to read, it had been nearly 10 years since I last delved into any of Faulkner's works. As it turns out, this book is an excellent choice to reacquaint oneself with the rhythm and style of Faulkner. It's not his most experimental piece. The narrative is presented from multiple points of view, somewhat similar to The Sound and the Fury. However, each character is visited only once, and always in the third person, without the use of stream of consciousness.

The story itself contains several humorous moments that seem to multiply as the novel progresses. Most significantly, it lays the foundation for the life of Flem Snopes and his ever-expanding clan. They start by infiltrating Frenchmen's Bend and, by the second book, have moved into Jefferson proper. The most crucial function of this book, though, is indeed the establishment of the setting and backstory. This makes the next book in the trilogy, The Town, which I read a few weeks later, a much more satisfying read.

It also gently eased me back into Faulkner's beautiful and elaborate rhetoric and into the fictional world of Yoknapatawpha County. This place welcomes your return just like the small town of your birth would, even if you were actually born in a city. I'm certain that I will return to the well of Faulkner's works more often in the future, and perhaps even disrupt my business writing for weeks at a time.

**"The Hamlet" by William Faulkner: A Multifaceted Exploration**

"The Hamlet" is the first of William Faulkner's three novels dedicated to the Snopes family. It chronicles their arrival in the small village of Frenchman's Bend, built on the ruins of an old plantation. The story is really about the rise of Flem Snopes from the lowest rung of society. He is a mysterious man with ambiguous origins who gradually comes to dominate and control everything around him through hidden cunning and unclear methods.

The novel is narrated by V.K. Ratcliff, a traveling sewing machine salesman who serves as a witness to all the events. He gathers news and stories as he travels through the county and is, in a way, the link between all the characters. From the very beginning, Ratcliff senses Flem's motives, and throughout the novel, there is a silent confrontation between the two and their respective (a)moral codes.

Faulkner divides the novel into four distinct parts in terms of style, tone, and intentions. The first part, "Flem Snopes," is pure Southern Gothic, showing how the Snopes' arrival challenges the local oligarch, Will Varner. The second part, "Eula," has a somewhat sarcastic and ironic style,描绘 the passions awakened by the local beauty, Eula Warner. The third part, "The Long Summer," combines stories of other Snopes and Flem's influence is felt even though he is not often seen. The fourth part, "The Peasants," has a Western-like atmosphere with two related stories that end up unmasking Flem Snopes.

These four sections are interconnected by Flem Snopes and Ratcliff. Flem is mostly off-stage but present through Ratcliff's reflections and conversations, highlighting his growing influence. Faulkner is a brilliant narrator of the human condition, showing how human passions, vices, and needs conflict with what society demands. "The Hamlet" functions as a collection of stories, some satirical, some poetic, that have fascinated me. Reading Faulkner and getting to know his characters has been one of the joys I discovered this year.

"His eyes, still open to the lost sun, were suddenly covered with a glassy moisture that had something strange about it, as if they were real tears, and that descended to his cheeks, already empty of memories, drying immediately."
https://kansasbooks.blogspot.com/2021...

I truly believe that there is no finer writer I have come across than Faulkner. Each time I return to his works, he appears to remind me of the standard and inspire me to attempt writing. It is extremely difficult within this limited space to attempt to summarize what makes him so outstanding, but I did have one thought. It's a bit hazy and I'm not certain if it will hold up, but I'm going to delve into it and see if it sticks.

When I was pondering a word to describe Faulkner's works, the word "alive" kept recurring to me, as if the world he creates feels so vividly "alive". I think this is a somewhat clichéd description of great writing, yet the cliché reveals something. What is the opposite of alive? Alive as opposed to dull, lifeless, bland, and blurry. Alive is delineation, life broken down into its components. If pure chaos is a mass of blurry blob, great writing disassembles the blob to expose the striations of experience within. Specificity of character, action, and description. Consider how he introduces one character:

"a man who was not thin so much as actually gaunt, with straight black hair coarse as a horse's tail and high Indian cheekbones and quiet pale hard eyes and the long nose of thought but with the slightly curved nostrils of pride and the thin lips of secret and ruthless ambition. It was a forensic face, the face of invincible conviction in the power of words as a principle worth dying for if necessary. A thousand years ago it would have been a monk's, a militant fanatic who would have turned his uncompromising back upon the world with actual joy and gone to a desert and passed the rest of his days and nights calmly and without an instant's self-doubt battling, not to save humanity about which he would have cared nothing, for whose sufferings he would have had nothing but contempt, but with his own fierce and unappeasable natural appetites."

Whether or not you think this is successful, you can almost sense Faulkner's language straining against the blurry mass, pulling this character out of the chaos into specificity. It is insufficient to describe him as 'intense', 'severe', or 'monklike' and leave it at that. Faulkner must repeatedly pound with additional (but no less blunt or pithy) descriptions. This character must have a "forensic face", he must be viewed through the perspective of what he would have been a thousand years ago if that aids us in seeing him clearly.

Attentiveness to the specifics of life thus seems essential for great writing. A great writer should be able to answer the following questions with supreme specificity: How does resentment accumulate on the face over time? What is that intense thin man's personality precisely like? What is that work relationship you find humorous exactly like? In particular, in any given situation, the great writer can answer: what has changed from one moment to the next? Of course, it is exhausting to pay such attention all the time, and so I suppose the writer requires an off switch (or, as the history of writers indicates, a strong drink at the end of the day).

Anyway, my rambling is over. In my mind, Faulkner is an outstanding, outstanding writer. Of course, this was supposed to be a review of The Hamlet: I adored Flem Snopes and Ratliff and the teacher described above (I've forgotten his name) and the entire male population's infatuation with Eula and so on. It's all a moot point about the characters we love. Mostly, I just cannot praise Faulkner highly enough. Additionally, it's just such a captivating story. It makes me eager to read the next one.

A masterpiece. It is truly a work of art that leaves a lasting impression. I wish I could say the same for the succeeding volumes of The Snopes Trilogy.

However, as I delved deeper into the subsequent installments, I found myself somewhat disappointed. The initial brilliance and charm that had drawn me in seemed to wane.

The storylines became convoluted and less engaging, lacking the clarity and simplicity that had made the first volume so captivating. The characters, too, lost some of their vividness and complexity.

Despite these shortcomings, there were still moments of brilliance that shone through. The author's skill in creating a rich and detailed world was still evident, and there were flashes of the same incisive social commentary that had made the first volume so memorable.

Overall, while The Snopes Trilogy may not have lived up to the lofty expectations set by its first volume, it is still a work that is worth reading for those interested in the author's unique vision and storytelling style.

The last three books I have read are by Faulkner. Although I probably shouldn't, I compare them to "As I Lay Dying" because I really liked that book. It's hard for me to believe that the same author wrote these other works, which are so obsessed with fire and family conflicts (not that I'm one to judge) and have a mania for jumbling up times and places. They are very well-written, yes, but the endings are extremely boring, and that is unforgivable for me.

"He was not fleeing his past, but rather trying to save himself from the future. It took him 12 years to learn that he couldn't flee from either of the two."

Finally, after a long break, I managed to get through this book. Faulkner's writing is always challenging, but his stories truly shed light on a part of Americana that is so unfamiliar to me.

I would likely be more inclined to read his more famous works, but I'm glad I put in the effort with this one.

Despite the difficulties, it was a rewarding experience to explore this particular piece of literature.

It made me appreciate the depth and complexity of Faulkner's writing, and it also gave me a better understanding of the American culture and history that he portrays.

Overall, I'm glad I didn't give up on this book and that I was able to persevere and discover its hidden gems.

"Town" by Faulkner is very similar to "The Sound and the Fury". Someone joked about John Irving that in each of his books there will definitely be a trained bear, no matter what. It turns out that Faulkner also has his own tricks. There will definitely be at least one stunted brother, one complex-ridden brother, one broken and overly attractive sister, one family conflict, one impoverished family, and one wealthy one.

Sometimes I even thought that I was rereading "The Sound and the Fury", just with different names. Of course, here is the trademark Faulknerian style that I love so much, the humor, the amazing paragraphs, but. I don't like repetitions! Not at all. The characters are similar, the plot is similar, and this book only with great difficulty helped me get out of the period of "not reading".

The main character, Flem Snopes, is of course a colorful personality and somewhat reminds me of Frank Cowperwood from Dreiser's "Trilogy of Desire". The most interesting thing in the novel "Town" for me personally was the description of the deals, who bought what for what, how they sold it, and, indeed, Flem's ingenious tricks.

Most likely, I will read the continuation, but I am not currently trembling with wild enthusiasm as I was after "The Sound and the Fury", because for some reason I expected from Faulkner again a very original text, and did not expect that it would be all approximately the same, but with a slightly different sauce. However, reading Faulkner is in any case a pleasure.