This story has the potential to be truly fascinating, and the writing style is indeed quite lovely.

However, it's entirely possible that I'm simply too dim-witted for this particular book. The reason being that I really struggled to understand why certain events occurred within the plot. For instance, there was a certain shooting incident that left me completely baffled.

Moreover, the characters themselves were extremely confusing. I found myself constantly trying to make sense of their actions and motives. In the end, I had to resort to looking up the plot online to see if perhaps I had missed something crucial.

But as it turns out, it seems that I didn't overlook anything. Certain aspects of the story are just completely out of the blue and remain unexplained, which is rather frustrating.

Overall, while the book has its merits in terms of writing, the lack of clarity in the plot and character development makes it a bit of a challenge for me to fully appreciate.

My American Literature professor at Columbia informed us that this served as the ideal starting point for delving into the novels of William Faulkner.

The language employed is lucid and effortless to peruse, and the larger-than-life characters are straightforward to comprehend and empathize with.

Personally, during my tenure at Columbia, I felt estranged and unwanted, much like Flem Snopes. Perhaps this is the reason why I have always perceived the tone of this novel as somewhat overly glib and self-satisfied.

William Faulkner is a staunch advocate of the myth of southern gentility, namely that the Antebellum South was a refined and courteous place until the "white trash" infiltrated and despoiled it following Reconstruction. Consequently, he generalizes and demonizes poor whites, with a particular focus on the Snopes clan, in a manner similar to how a New England horror writer like H.P. Lovecraft demonizes Italian and Portuguese immigrants in a story such as "Shadow Over Innsmouth."

The disparity lies in the fact that H.P. Lovecraft is a lowly "horror" writer catering to the masses, while Faulkner crafts "literary" fiction for the elite. Personally, I yearn for an entire race of subhuman sea-creatures to emerge from the Hudson River, ally with the white trash Snopes clan, and devour the Columbia campus!

The Hamlet is an engaging book within Faulkner's body of work.

It comes as no shock to learn that this novel was essentially composed of various bits and short stories that Faulkner either couldn't figure out how to use or didn't want to discard.

It appears that a significant portion of his work during this time, such as The Unvanquished and Go Down, Moses, adheres to this pattern of interrelated stories or拼凑 narratives.

Nevertheless, The Hamlet remains an outstanding piece of literature, boasting some truly remarkable writing from Faulkner. The Ike Snopes chapter, for instance, is among his greatest achievements.

However, it doesn't possess the same significance as a work like Light in August or As I Lay Dying.

Given a modicum of knowledge about his biography, it almost seems as if he was diverted by his other pursuits during that period.

From The Unvanquished onwards, Faulkner seems more preoccupied with fleshing out the lore of Yoknapatawpha County rather than grappling with profound ideas.

While a case could be made that this work has as much depth as any of his other novels, I personally found it somewhat inconsistent.

409 pages of absolute rubbish. It is an atrocious book, perhaps the very worst that I have ever had the misfortune to read. The content is so dull and uninteresting that it feels like a never-ending slog through a swamp of mediocrity. The writing style is amateurish at best, with poor grammar and a lack of any real creativity or imagination. There is no plot to speak of, just a jumble of random events and characters that seem to have no purpose or connection. I can't believe that this book was ever published. It is a waste of paper and a waste of my time. I would not recommend this book to anyone, not even my worst enemy.

Suele pasarme con Faulkner: al principio me cuesta meterme en sus historias.

His prose is slow and vast like the southern landscape he describes. It's easy to get lost, but it's so full of life that it's worth making that initial effort.

In this novel, Faulkner jumps from one character to another, but spends enough time on each one to get to know them deeply. And with each one, as if they were stars of a constellation, he is building the picture of a village and the history of that village.

Preceded by an aura of threat, Flem Snopes arrives at Frenchman's Bend and, like a weed that is not uprooted in time, his family begins to spread and take possession of everything that once belonged to the Varners: from the store and the blacksmith shop, to Eula, the youngest daughter of Will Varner. And the only one who seems willing to do something about it is Ratliff, a traveling salesman familiar with the place and its inhabitants, who tries to advise them and push them into action.

The book advances by intertwining stories (three of which I had already read in the previous versions included in Relatos), of which my favorites are that of Labove, the schoolteacher who goes crazy with desire for his student Eula Varner; that of Ike Snopes, the village idiot, and his journey to rescue a cow; that of Mink Snopes, who has to deal with the unexpected consequences of killing a man, and that of the unknown Texan and the auction of wild horses. Underneath all these stories, uniting them, beats the tension of a silent struggle between Flem Snopes and Ratliff to prove which of the two is the cleverest.

Beginning a trilogy of books that delves deep into the murky and often overlooked aspects of rural Southern life following the Civil War, Faulkner masterfully chronicles the intricate and devious machinations of the Snopes family. Their actions and schemes are as cunning and brilliant as those of Shakespeare's Richard III.

While the last section of this particular book might be considered by some as the weakest, there are still an abundance of truly startling moments that have the power to etch themselves firmly into the reader's mind. Reading Faulkner's work is an experience akin to being carried along by a powerful river. You might not always fully comprehend the numerous twists and turns it takes, but you are irresistibly compelled to see where it ultimately leads you.

There are more than a few moments that are astonishing in their "Game of Thrones" - like intensity and capacity to surprise. Faulkner, at the time of writing this book, was clearly operating at the zenith of his literary powers, and he was well aware of it. Beneath the seemingly charming veneer of Southern grace, charm, and hospitality lies the raw and brutal core of human nature. Faulkner provides us with a profound and revealing glimpse into the various depravities that we, as human beings, are all susceptible to. It is truly awesome stuff that leaves a lasting impact on the reader.

This isn't my favorite Faulkner novel, but it wasn't a bad novel either. In fact, I don't think Faulkner could write a bad novel, because his prose is truly wonderful. His strengths lie in his tone and characterization.

The tone of his novels refers to the pervading sense of bleakness they exude, even when something relatively benign is happening. There's always this veneer or perhaps shadow of desperation and destitution about the characters and setting, which is clearly due to the Antebellum period.

As for the characters, they are both completely exposed and yet curiously shy from the reader. No matter what character it is, even if they have first person or third person omniscience following them, and even if they tell all and show all, there's always something held back. There is consistently the looming idea that there is something about this person that you just aren't prepared for - something inside them is lying in wait to surprise you. It's like they can't be trusted.

"The Hamlet" has these two features, but I found my interest wasn't as constant with all the stories and perspectives as it was when I read "The Sound and The Fury" or "As I Lay Dying". I was enthralled with the sections regarding Ike and the cow, with Lebove, with the horses, and with the final chapter, but the tales that surrounded these sections weren't as compelling to me. I also didn't find that Flem was flushed out enough for my liking - what was his motivation? I know what it is, but why does he have that desire? What does he think in his mind? And Eula was written about as some kind of surreal, detached, almost goddess-like woman, but what does she think about the world and her place in it? Is she detached for a reason?

Despite these minor gripes, I still enjoyed the novel. I just found that it wasn't as solidly awesome as Faulkner's other works.

Here are some of my favorite quotes from the novel:

"He knew now that it was not on the school steps but in his mind that she had constantly been for two years now, that it had not been rage at all but terror, and that the vision of that gate which he had help up to himself as a goal was not a goal but just a point to reach, as the man fleeing a holocaust runs not for a prize but to escape destruction."

"It was a gray day, of the colour and texture of iron, one of those windless days of a plastic rigidity too dead to make or release snow even, in which even light did not alter but seemed to appear complete out of nothing at dawn and would expire into darkness without gradation."

"It was not a tragic face; it was just damned."

It is not possible for me to assign three and a half stars, which would be my rigorous quantitative evaluation.

Among all the works I have read by the author, this one impressed me the least, although it still has its merits. In fact, I was surprised that there was no reference to Faulkner's favorite drink: the toddy! I was expecting it to appear around the tenth page...

This work may have some shortcomings that prevent it from achieving a higher rating in my eyes. However, it is important to note that everyone's reading experience and evaluation criteria may vary.

Perhaps other readers may find different aspects of this work that they appreciate more. In any case, this evaluation is based on my personal perspective and understanding of the text.

Overall, while this work may not have been my favorite, it still has some value and can be enjoyed by those who are interested in the author's writing.

I am an extremely careful reader and a die-hard fan of Faulkner's "Absalom, Absalom!". In fact, I have read this masterpiece three times, delving deep into its complex and profound narrative.

However, when it comes to "The Hamlet", my experience was a bit different. I had to put it down after the 'Eula' chapter. The reason? Well, life is simply too short.

There are so many other wonderful books and experiences waiting for us in this world. While "The Hamlet" may have its own merits, at that particular moment, I felt that I needed to move on and explore other literary treasures.

Maybe one day, when I have more time and a different frame of mind, I will pick up "The Hamlet" again and continue my journey through Faulkner's fictional world. But for now, I am content with the knowledge and insights I have gained from reading "Absalom, Absalom!" and the countless other books that have touched my heart and expanded my mind.

Faulkner's writing is truly superb. It has a unique charm and elegance that draws the reader in and keeps them engaged from start to finish. I particularly appreciated the humour that was interwoven throughout this novel. It added a light-hearted touch to what could otherwise have been a rather沉重的 story.

The structure of the novel, on the other hand, was perhaps a little episodic. It jumped from one scene to another, sometimes quite abruptly, which could make it a bit difficult to follow at times. However, despite this minor flaw, the overall impact of the novel was still very powerful.

Overall, I would highly recommend this novel to anyone who enjoys great literature. Faulkner's writing is a masterclass in storytelling, and this novel is a testament to his talent and creativity.

This first installment of the Snopes trilogy has truly amazed me. The Snopes family, this strange bunch, suddenly appears in a remote town in Mississippi and gradually takes over.

Flem Snopes, the head of the family, continuously and forcefully seizes control of the town, and no one can stop him. Eula Varner, the daughter of the town's landowner, embodies the myth of Venus, the unattainable goddess, the queen bee around whom all the longing males tragically revolve. And Ratliff, a sewing machine salesman in four counties, who, due to his constant comings and goings, knows all the secrets of the people. These characters are among the best I remember.

In the middle of all this is the village where nothing ever happens, or where everything happens if one has one's eyes wide open to notice. And it's all presented with the unrivaled prose of the great Faulkner, full of strength, passion, tragedy, and much beauty. The dialogues and situations are filled with half-words, implications, and silences, which sometimes make it difficult to follow, always demanding all five senses in the reading. But at the same time, its force and hypnotic magnetism envelop and trap you, making you its captive for life. At least in my case.

What a trip!

I still have not decided whether I loved it or hated it. There was so much of the countryside! It really reminds me of all of those Romanian novels that I had to read during middle and high school. They were very "country" in nature.

Still, there was something about this trip that was truly fascinating. Maybe it was the way the scenery unfolded before my eyes, or the sounds and smells of the rural areas.

I think in the end, I loved the writing that could capture the essence of this "country" world, but at the same time, I hated the world that it describes. It seems so different from the modern and urban life that I am used to.

Overall, it was a complex and unforgettable experience that has left me with many thoughts and feelings.