Toisen osan kirous iskee.

Seventeen years passed before the sequel to "The Hamlet" was published by Faulkner. This is interestingly seen in the fact that at the beginning there is a recap of the events of the previous book. But in general, Faulkner had a bit of difficulty in capturing the charm of the first part. It's not that this was in any way especially bad, but perhaps a bit tired.

At the heart of the town's story is Flem Snopes. After getting hold of the Frenchman's Bend village, he moves his family to Jefferson town the next, where he then tries to acquire more wealth through various schemes. The story is told mostly from the perspective outside the Snopes family. The narrators are quite amusingly the local lawyer, at the beginning still an unborn child, and the almost all-knowing sewing machine salesman from the previous part. In the central part, there is also the mayor, Major de Spain (already known from "The Bear!"), who has a well-known relationship with Flem's wife.

In the book, there are quite funny stories and in a way, the plot patterns often have a certain lightness. But at least this family honor - the virtuous wife pattern was a bit tiresome. I would have preferred to read about Flem making money from various plots. This was also a bit less of a fireworks display in terms of prose than Faulkner usually is, which of course meant that this was more straightforward (except for the very complex plot pattern).

Well, let's hope that if this was the trick of Judgment, then the final part of the trilogy is "The Last Ride".

It seems that I am in the minority in this regard. However, I found this one to be much less enjoyable than the first Snopes. In fact, it is to such an extent that I believe it is my least favorite work by Faulkner. There is simply too little that occurs within the story, and it is overly straightforward. There is a lack of the complexity and depth that I have come to expect from Faulkner's writing. The plot seems to unfold in a rather linear fashion, without the twists and turns that would have made it more engaging. I was left feeling somewhat disappointed, as I had anticipated more from this particular work.

This is the second installment of Faulkner's Snopes Trilogy.

Just like The Hamlet, the first volume, this one is equally excellent.

I would argue that The Town is even more readable, so perhaps I'd give it an extra half a star.

In this second volume, the humanity of Faulkner's characters truly starts to shine through.

Characters like Flem Snopes and Eula Varner Snopes begin to take on a more vivid and tangible form, as if they are coming to life with flesh and blood.

It's as if these two, along with characters like lawyer Gavin Stevens, become more accessible and relatable to the reader.

Now, I'm eagerly looking forward to delving into The Mansion and seeing how the story continues to unfold.

Faulkner's ability to create complex and engaging characters is truly remarkable, and I can't wait to see what he has in store for us in the final volume of the trilogy.

4.5 stars. It has been precisely one decade since I managed to bring myself to read The Town, the second novel in Faulkner's Snopes Trilogy. I was completely flummoxed when I read the first novel, The Hamlet. In fact, "flummoxed" doesn't quite capture it. That book left a lasting scar on me. (The infamous story of Ike and his cow, the schoolmaster's assault on Eula, Flem Snopes' outrageous con-artistry, and so on.) The trilogy has sat on my bookshelf for a decade, haunting me (and perhaps taunting me?) as I've moved across the country twice. The other day, when I realized it had been ten years to the month since I read The Hamlet, I thought it was finally time to open the trilogy and delve into that second Snopes novel. I'm happy to report that The Town is far less creepy than The Hamlet, it moves at a brisker pace, and still retains a significant portion of that Southern Gothic oddness.

I've heard The Hamlet described as the ultimate Faulkner novel, but I think The Town might deserve that title. It surely connects to more of Faulkner's other works than any other single piece of fiction. There are retellings of events from The Unvanquished, Sartoris/Flags in the Dust, "Barn Burning", Knight's Gambit, Go Down, Moses, and The Hamlet (of course), not to mention passing references to characters who appear throughout Faulkner's entire Yoknapatawpha oeuvre. (And just try saying "Yoknapatawpha oeuvre" three times in a row!) As such, it's probably best to seek out this novel after reading just about everything else written by Faulkner. I can't imagine how overwhelming The Town would be for someone just starting to read his fiction, with all the tangents about random characters from other works who aren't central to the novel. ("Who the hell is Bayard?", "Why the hell are multiple characters named Colonel Sartoris?" and so on.)

It was a pleasure to reacquaint myself with Gavin Stevens, my favorite Yoknapatawpha character, and I found myself falling right back into that amazing Faulknerian universe of Jefferson, MS. Faulkner picks up right where The Hamlet left off, even giving us a few brief pages recapping the final chapters of the previous book - something his readers most definitely would have needed, since The Town was published about seventeen years after The Hamlet. (So perhaps waiting a decade between novels put me in the right frame of mind for reading this one.) There is a great deal of sarcastic and dark humor in this novel, but thankfully not the type of slapstick silliness that would permeate his final novel, The Reivers. I found myself laughing out loud more often while reading The Town than any other Faulkner work, but never to the point of feeling that the laughs were cheap or corny. Faulkner seemed to take pleasure in shining a light on the darkest corners of rural corruption and hypocrisy, and I thoroughly enjoyed going along for the ride.

The horror of Snopesism is not that it exists, but that the town of Jefferson (always "we," as Chick informs the reader) allows it to exist, not just by people looking the other way, but actually (or "actively," as V.K. says) fostering its growth in an attempt to hide its existence. The type of violence and corruption inherent in Snopesism is self-defeating, but only if not supported by the assistance of the townsfolk, who are interfering for their own personal gain. (Is there really much difference between what Flem Snopes does and what the town allows him to get away with? One could argue that other families in the town, as represented by Gavin Stevens, are the end result of families like Snopes in their quest to become "respectable" and settled.) Perhaps the town is so intrigued by Flem because they are seeing their own faults and secrets magnified - the birth of a new form whose mold has existed for ages, and from which their families were once cast in the recent past.

I definitely won't wait another decade to read the concluding novel of the trilogy, The Mansion.

I wonder who WF was laughing at in this supposedly comic novel.

It feels as if there's an in-joke that I'm completely missing. Are the Snopes carpetbaggers? Were families like this really endemic in the South? I truly need a clue here.

This seems like a patchwork of subplots, and we never get to spend time in Eula's point of view, yet she appears to be the most interesting character in this story.

Even when read as the middle of a long novel, this is quite weak as a standalone story. Who exactly is our protagonist? Whose story is this supposed to be? And what is their goal?

The strangest part was the final chapter. For some inexplicable reason, a trainload of mixed-race Snopes arrive unannounced and have nothing to do with the preceding book.

These children are depicted as ruthless, wild, conniving savages. It's possibly the most racist bit of writing I've ever seen from Faulkner. He seemed okay with Blacks, but it looks like "Indians" were the Other for him.

It's a seriously WTF way to end the book.

Isn't Faulkner considered as a misogynist? Asked a friend once. Ever since, I put that question in mind whenever I read Faulkner, including The Town.

Yes, Faulkner has a handful of stereotypical female characters in almost all of his writings. There are unwed mothers, unfaithful wives, wild rebellious women, as well as those who are independent, intelligent and nonchalant about the patriarchal society they live in. Their existence is mostly based on the male's point of view or male gaze. The patriarchal society where they lived in is always trying to frame and mold them based on their social and traditional context.

And yes, Faulkner's female characters remain central, yet speechless but that doesn't mean they are passive. While men in Faulkner's novels tell, the women show with their action.

Just like any other novels of Faulkner, The Town is narrated by three males who represent different levels of society. Gavin Stevens, a lawyer representing the well-educated and the guardian of social norms. V.K Ratliff, an itinerant mercenary representing the public in general. And Charles (Chick) Mallison, Jr, a 10 - 12 years old boy representing the innocent and perhaps the objective or subjective POV of the novel. Chick is also present in several of Faulkner's novels.

As expected from Faulkner's story, the 3 male narrators tell us about specific events in The Town, comparing their observations and juxtaposing their POV with multilevel inconsistency. This makes us aware that we shouldn't take their version for granted. By their narrative, we know more or less the relationships between old families, the complicated relationships between individuals, how the town and everything in it was created and built through the politics of uncanny networks and successive domino effect by the traditional patriarchal community.

We know the challenge encountered by women who live in it, especially Eula Varner Snopes. In The Hamlet, she was a teenage girl who explored her sexuality without hesitation, defied the patriarchal norm and was often depicted as a "bitch". In The Town, she is a fully grown up woman, a wife and a mother who remains apathetic to the masculine hierarchy that surrounds her.

While it's true that Eula doesn't have chapters of her own, we know from the 3 narrators' worshipful descriptions that she obviously holds central interest and invincible power over the town folks, both men and women. Eula becomes a symbol of an unattainable goddess that makes other men despise her husband and jealous of her lover, and women jealous of her ability to be indifferent.

Ratliff, one of the narrators, considered Eula's marriage to Flem as a waste. But based on The Hamlet, Eula knows Flem's nature. She enters the institution fully aware and not against her will. And she is as free and independent as an unwed woman even after becoming Mrs. She is also sure that she is independent financially.

Eula is another fascinating female character like Caddy in The Sound and The Fury. Just like Caddy, Eula creates her own version of freedom through her actions and decisions that make the men, even the most intellectual one like Gavin Stevens, afraid and admire her. Faulkner emphasizes the misogyny of The Town to criticize it through the men who create the misogynistic environment. Their judgment against Eula turns back on them. I am no expert on Faulkner but from what I've read so far, he is neither misogynist nor misandrist. He is a master of observing female - male complex relations in the complex structure of society and a master storyteller. Or maybe I am biased.

The Town is the second installment in the “Snopes trilogy.” It commences precisely where The Hamlet concludes, chronicling the ascent of Flem Snopes within Jefferson. This novel is not nearly as grotesque as its predecessor, The Hamlet. There could be several reasons for this. Maybe it is because the setting has shifted from the Frenchman’s Bend hamlet to the town itself. Or perhaps it is due to the fact that it is narrated mainly by Chick Mallison and Gavin Stevens. It could also be simply that Faulkner has mellowed over the 26 years that elapsed between the publication of these two books.

This was a return visit for me, and as always, Mr. Faulkner never fails to disappoint. His masterful storytelling and vivid characterizations draw the reader in and keep them engaged from start to finish.

The Town offers a fascinating exploration of the Snopes family and their impact on the town of Jefferson. It delves into themes of ambition, greed, and the corrupting influence of power. Through the eyes of Chick Mallison and Gavin Stevens, we witness Flem Snopes’ rise to prominence and the consequences that follow.

Overall, The Town is a remarkable work of literature that showcases Faulkner’s genius as a writer. It is a must-read for fans of his work and anyone interested in exploring the complex human psyche and the dynamics of small-town life.

Flem Snopes, the central character, further enlarges the territory he obtained in The Hamlet. For him, money and even a beautiful wife seem to be effortlessly acquired. However, respectability is something that demands his efforts. In many aspects, the novel revolves around respectability, and it turns out to be a rather deadly thing. People engage in fights over it. Those lacking respectability are driven out of town. Someone might even take their own life to uphold respectability…. perhaps. As is frequently the case in Faulkner's works, one can't truly be certain about the motivations as everything is filtered through diverse points of view. Faulkner excels at constructing highly textured worlds.

One aspect that I appreciated is the recurrence of certain motifs from The Hamlet in The Town. In both, there are scandals related to peep shows and humorous episodes involving horses or mules running wild.

One thing that confounds me is how Ratliff and Gavin Stevens seem to believe in the existence of some essence of Snopesism. I'm not entirely sure what it is. There are both good and bad Snopes. One might be inclined to believe that the Snopes have a disregard for respectability and for others, except in a very superficial manner. But, then again, a number of non-Snopes also display little concern for others.

I'm eagerly anticipating the third book of the trilogy.

The second installment of the Snopes trilogy is truly remarkable, standing leagues ahead of The Hamlet.

In the initial few chapters, the recap serves as a useful reminder of the significant events that took place in the first book. It not only refreshes the reader's memory but also incorporates some new details, which help to piece together the overall narrative more comprehensively.

Faulkner's humor shines through in the witty comebacks and absurd arguments between the characters. This adds a touch of lightness and entertainment to the story.

His unique style of narrating the tale from the perspectives of different characters is highly effective in propelling the plot forward at a brisk pace. Faulkner has a knack for dropping hints or stories seemingly out of the blue, which remain unanswered until the reader hears the subsequent part from another character.

As the story progresses, the various pieces start to converge more clearly towards the end, as the major plot points unfold. This sets the stage beautifully for the final book in this trilogy, leaving the reader eagerly anticipating what lies ahead.

Probably 3.5, really. I like it, just not a love.

This statement implies a certain level of appreciation, yet it stops short of full-blown love. It could be referring to a variety of things, perhaps a book, a movie, a place, or even a person. When we say we like something, it means we have a positive attitude towards it, but there may not be that intense emotional connection that comes with love.

Maybe the thing in question has some appealing qualities, but it doesn't quite touch our hearts in the same way that something we truly love would. It could be that it lacks that certain je ne sais quoi, that special charm or essence that makes us fall head over heels.

Nonetheless, liking something is still a significant feeling. It can bring us joy, entertainment, or a sense of satisfaction. It might even lead to a deeper exploration or a continued interest in that particular thing. While it may not be love, it can still have value and meaning in our lives.

In conclusion, the statement "Probably 3.5, really. I like it, just not a love" captures the nuanced difference between liking and loving. It reminds us that not everything has to be a grand passion to be enjoyable and worthwhile. Sometimes, a simple like is enough to add a touch of goodness to our days.

I know, this is Faulkner, so I should be in awe.

However, instead, I just found this rather exhausting.

The idea presented in his work is interesting. It features different voices and points of view, which enriches the narrative.

The story, on the other hand, is rather slow going. It unfolds at a leisurely pace, perhaps deliberately so to capture the essence of human ideas, emotions, and motivations with great realism.

Still, the slowness can be a bit of a challenge for the reader.

It requires patience and a willingness to immerse oneself fully in the text.

Despite the exhaustion I felt at times, I have to admit that Faulkner's writing is masterful in its ability to explore the depths of the human psyche.

His works are not for the faint of heart, but for those who are willing to put in the effort, they can be a rewarding and enlightening experience.

Maybe with more time and a deeper understanding, I will come to appreciate Faulkner's genius even more.

For now, I will continue to grapple with his complex and often challenging works, knowing that there is always more to discover.

Älkää unohtako William Faulkneria osa 2/3. The city is an important aspect in Faulkner's works. It serves as a backdrop for many of his stories, filled with complex characters and their intertwined lives. http://keltainenkirjasto.blogspot.fi/... In this city, we can witness the struggles, the hopes, and the dreams of the people. Faulkner's vivid descriptions bring the city to life, making it almost a character in itself. We can see the bustling streets, the old buildings with their rich history, and the diverse range of people going about their daily lives. The city is a microcosm of society, with all its flaws and beauties. Through Faulkner's eyes, we gain a deeper understanding of the human condition and the impact of the urban environment on people's lives.