I explored Faulkner's trilogy, and what I remember from these books is the name Snopes.

Faulkner's works are known for their complex characters and deep exploration of human nature. The Snopes family is a prominent and rather controversial one in his fictional world.

In the trilogy, we see the Snopes family members' various actions and behaviors that often challenge the moral and social norms of the society depicted. Their storylines are intertwined with those of other characters, creating a rich and multi-layered narrative.

Through the exploration of the Snopes family, Faulkner delves into themes such as greed, ambition, and the corrupting influence of power. The name Snopes thus becomes a symbol that represents a certain aspect of human nature and the social dynamics within the fictional town or region. It leaves a lasting impression on the reader and adds to the overall depth and significance of Faulkner's trilogy.

This is a significantly more intricate story compared to what we encounter in its prequel, The Hamlet.

Told through three first-person points of view (POVs), it provides a comprehensive portrayal of the perspectives on the gradual deterioration of the small Southern town.

The child narrator, Charles Mallison, is an absolute delight. The humor in this story is not as unrestrained as in The Hamlet, but its subtlety and its natural development from the characters only serve to enhance the narrative.

We get to see the town through different eyes, each adding a layer of depth and complexity to the overall picture. The slow degeneration of the town is presented in a nuanced way, allowing the reader to truly understand the various forces at play.

The characters are well-developed and their voices are distinct, making it easy for the reader to engage with the story on multiple levels. Overall, this is a rich and engaging story that builds on the foundation laid by its prequel and offers a unique and thought-provoking exploration of a small Southern town in decline.

I didn't quite enjoy this as much as "The Hamlet", but it still had some good scenes.

For instance, the porno shop, the funeral, and the power plant at the beginning were quite interesting. The book not only provides a summary of the plot of "The Hamlet" but also mentions "Flags in the Dust", although the characters from "Flags" don't really have much screen time here. Creeper Byron is only mentioned in passing.

A significant part of this story revolves around Gavin Smith's obsession with Linda Snopes. Hebephilia seems to be a common theme throughout the trilogy. However, the last chapter ends on a bit of a downer note. In Faulkner novels, dogs don't really have a good mortality rate.

In 2023, I did a re-read with Joe Barrett's narration. This time around, it felt even more of a step down from "The Hamlet". There was too much text that was either recapping "The Hamlet" and plotlines from other Faulkner novels or retreading the same themes. The narrator did a good job, and overall I did enjoy it, but it felt very uneven. I just wanted to get through it and move on to "The Mansion".

More like 3.5 stars. Can a Faulkner novel really be a 3? This is a question that might come to mind when considering "The Town". As Faulkner novels go, it's not among his best. Given his artistry, that doesn't mean it's a bad novel. It's just that in terms of emotional angst, richness, and power, it doesn't come close to masterpieces like "Absalom, Absalom!", "Go Down, Moses", and "The Sound and the Fury" (and a few others). Most people believe Faulkner's artistry declined after World War II, and I concur. You can see this in this late novel.

It's not easy to precisely identify the reasons for "The Town's" flatness. Most of Faulkner's standard narrative techniques are at play, such as multiple narrators, striking language, and strange and wonderful (and not-so-wonderful) characters who disrupt the everyday life of Yoknapatawpha. A couple of things stand out. First, one of the narrators, Gavin Stevens, seems overly long-winded, overly romantic (obsessed not just with Eula Snopes and her daughter Linda, but more generally with "Woman"), and ineffectual, rarely achieving what he sets out to do. He's like a sad-eyed Quixote, and after a while, he becomes a bit tiresome (though he's more interesting in some of Faulkner's other works). Second, much of Faulkner's focus here is on attacking the bourgeois standards and hypocrisy of the town, using a good deal of social satire. There's nothing wrong with that, except that the satire here lacks the power and scope of his earlier work. The earlier work is less concerned with social hypocrisy (though it's certainly there) and more with the roiling complexities that shape everyday existence, particularly the crushing pressures of history and responsibility to self, ideals, and community. In other words, the earlier work is more tragic than satiric. Satire can be great, but not in Faulkner's hands (at least, not here).

Of particular note in the novel is Flem Snopes and his rise to power and prominence. For all the scorn heaped on Flem by the townsfolk (and by many readers), he's actually not that different from everyone else in the town. Almost everyone in Faulkner's world is out to get ahead, one way or another, even if they don't admit it to themselves or to others. So, rather than being the outsider destroying the town, as he is often characterized, Flem is more the outsider revealing the town's true nature. He's not likable, but he's certainly fascinating - and revelatory.

Sometimes I can be like Ratliff. I have all the information. I have visited (without selling a single sewing machine) the houses of the county with the reading of each chapter. But I have difficulty discerning, interpreting, and distilling all the layers that this novel has. The Snopes marriage dominates Jefferson and the novel, and they do so with very few appearances. Their antagonists are the narrators, Gavin (a cardboard knight-errant of Mississippi), his nephew Chick, and Ratliff (who drags his interest in Snopeslogy from "The Hamlet").

I feel that the novel goes further. I was disgusted by the game of names and the confusions of kinship (Gavin, Groover, the father of the father of the nephew) that Faulkner brings in the first chapters. But once overcome, it is all literary enjoyment.

The complex web of relationships and the mysterious nature of the Snopes family make this novel a captivating read. Despite the initial difficulties in untangling the names and connections, the story unfolds in a way that keeps the reader engaged. The different narrators add depth and perspective, allowing us to see the events from multiple angles. As I continue to read, I look forward to uncovering more of the secrets and layers hidden within the pages of this remarkable novel.

This novel evokes conflicting feelings in me.

On the one hand, I admire the author's handling of the technique. Just like the style of narrating the stories through the perspective of 3 characters. However, on the other hand, it turns out that the "stories" that all the characters go through are "commonplace" or rather, silly, typical of the conservative societies of the 19th century. They don't offer anything transcendent to the reader. Not to mention that at least 1/3 of the text is redundant or superfluous. If you remove that excess from the novel, the author would no longer be Faulkner, but Steinbeck. With the big difference that the latter always leaves controversial topics for the reader to analyze. Because the theme of this city is the life and work of the Snopes family. Told by the Stevens family. That is, a single point of view. Why didn't the author allow any of the Snopes to tell "their truth" about their family or the Stevens? Because that is typical of small towns. Everything is known about the most powerful family, and the rest have such miserable and insignificant lives that for any historian, they are insignificant.

Faulkner was an incredibly prolific writer, penning numerous novels and countless short stories. Almost all of his works have received widespread acclaim. Up until recently, I had only read one of his novels, which was "The Reivers." However, my wife managed to persuade me to give "The Snopes Family Trilogy" a try. This trilogy consists of three novels: "The Hamlet," "The Town," and "The Mansion."

So far, I have only had the opportunity to read the first two installments. This morning, I finally finished "The Town," and I am still in a state of shock. The novel features three distinct narrators: young Charles ("Chick") Mallison, his uncle Gavin ("Lawyer") Stevens, and the unforgettable V. K. Ratliff. Each character adds their own perspective and enriches the others' accounts of the events that unfold.

The story is a captivating blend of wonder, mystery, and outrage. It has its moments of hilarity, mystery, suspense, and even infuriation. But what truly stands out is the stunning poignancy that runs throughout the novel. I find it hard to believe that Faulkner could have written any lines more powerful, more poignant, or simply more beautiful than those found in "The Town."

This novel is truly a heartbreaker. It's not because the characters are doomed or forsaken, but rather because it is beyond my comprehension that William Faulkner could have produced something as brilliant as this. I completely fell in love with this novel and would highly recommend it to anyone looking for a truly remarkable read.

The second volume in this captivating trilogy employs several distinct characters to unfold the ongoing saga of the Snopes family.

Particularly, it focuses on Flem as he gradually acquires more power and control within Jefferson.

Interestingly, at times, this narrative approach leads to the repetition of certain stories, yet each time from a fresh and different perspective.

This not only enriches the overall understanding of the events but also provides a more comprehensive and multi-faceted view of the Snopes family's complex dynamics.

Readers are drawn into the web of relationships and power struggles, eager to discover how Flem's actions will impact the family and the town of Jefferson as a whole.

The use of multiple characters allows for a deeper exploration of their individual motives, desires, and flaws, making the story all the more engaging and thought-provoking.

The first book in the trilogy is included in Bloom's Western Canon, but not this one and the third in the series. I believe Mr. Bloom has mentioned that there were books omitted and perhaps some that he might not have included had he taken more time to deliberate. I'm speculating that he might have simply included this trilogy and still had just the one entry.

V.K. Ratliff remains a narrator in this, along with two new characters: young Charles Mallison, whose initial entries remind us that he wasn't born yet when the events occurred, and Gavin Stevens, the twin brother of Charles Mallison's mother and thus "Uncle Gavin", who is also the city attorney and is called "Lawyer" by Ratliff. We do gain some understanding of the characters of these three, but Flem Snopes is truly the central figure; what he does and why. This continues the excellent character study begun in The Hamlet, and which I anticipate will carry on in The Mansion.

Once again, Faulkner's prose in this is not strictly stream of consciousness, but often there is more than one thought in any sentence and many of the sentences develop into small scenes.

Because we had all seen Mrs. Snopes by now, in the few times we did see her which was usually behind the counter in the restaurant, wearing another greasy apron, frying hamburgers, eggs, ham, and the tough pieces of steak on the grease-encrusted kerosene griddle, or maybe once a week on the Square, always alone; not, as far as we knew, going anywhere: just moving, walking in that aura of decorum, modesty, and solitariness that was ten times more immodest and a hundred times more disturbing than one of the bathing suits young women would start to wear around 1920 or so, as if in the second just before you looked, her garments had managed in one last frantic, disorderly scurry to overtake and cover her. Though only for a moment because in the next one, if only you followed long enough, they would wilt and fail from that mere plain and simple striding which would shred them away like the wheel of a constellation through a wisp and cling of trivial scud.

If the reader has not read The Hamlet, one can only wonder why such a woman would be the wife of the detestable Flem Snopes. This thought is essential to The Town because the small town of Jefferson, Yoknapatawpha County, Mississippi (I can neither spell nor pronounce the name of this county) is really no place for a woman who can walk in such a manner and feel completely at ease doing so.

I'm looking forward to reading the third and final installment. In fact, with this, I may have decided to become a Faulkner completionist. A full, hearty, five stars here.

My first encounter with Faulkner was truly eye-opening.

I was amazed by his robust, intense, poetic, and yet precise language. It was like a whirlwind that carried me away into the depths of human nature.

What struck me the most was how he could reflect the human soul with such depth and humor.

Themes such as family, honor, courage in the face of war, and work are explored in his stories, always leaving me pondering about the moral choices of the characters.

"Barn Burning," "A Roof for the Old Man and His Wife," and "Two Soldiers" were among the best works I've read this year.

Faulkner's writing style is unique and captivating, making me eager to explore more of his works in the future.

His ability to create complex and relatable characters, and to weave intricate plots, is truly remarkable.

I can't wait to see what other literary treasures he has in store for me.

“Anybody that needs to fool fools is already one.”

Just a splendid novel! With only one Faulky novel left to read, it's a tough call to see which I'd call the “best”, and likely I will never be able to answer that to my satisfaction. However, this one will surely be up there. The second part of the “Snopes” trilogy, “Town” is not that crappy Ben Affleck movie at all. Instead, it is the continuance of the story of Flem Snopes, a back-country ass-hat who has become a “respectable” citizen of Jefferson and his efforts to maintain that respectability while quietly destroying everyone around him.

Grey knight lawyer Gavin Stevens is on hand as the narrator, along with his nephew Chick and salesman VK Ratliff. They chronicle the undulating fates of the Snopeses, focusing on Eula, the goddess-wife of Flem, and their daughter Linda. It's really about them, interspersed with laugh-out-loud episodes that will make you wish you'd grown up in Jefferson (which is Faulkner's trajectory towards his most-fun novel, “The Reivers”), and downright tragic events (similar to the stuff in “Fable”).

Crucially wonderful!

In my opinion, even a mediocre Faulkner still rates from great to excellent. His works have always held a special place in the literary world.

I have high hopes for "The Mansion". I'm hoping that it will be able to meet the standards set by "The Hamlet" and bring the series to a strong conclusion.

Faulkner's writing is known for its complexity and depth, and I believe that "The Mansion" has the potential to continue this tradition.

Whether it will live up to my expectations remains to be seen, but I'm eager to find out.

I'm confident that Faulkner's talent will shine through once again in this final installment of the series.

As I wait for the release of "The Mansion", I can't help but reflect on the impact that Faulkner's works have had on me and on the literary landscape as a whole.

His stories have taught me about the human condition, about love, loss, and redemption.

I'm excited to see what new insights and emotions "The Mansion" will bring.

No matter what, I know that it will be a reading experience that I won't soon forget.