Please provide the article that needs to be rewritten and expanded so that I can help you.

Part two of the Snopes trilogy is a captivating exploration of Flem Snopes' journey towards respectability and power.

Flem has ascended from the Hamlet, seizing control of a restaurant and subsequently the Bank. These acquisitions mark his steps on the path to power. However, respectability demands that he distance himself from other Snopes family members who might cause embarrassment.

True to his style, Faulkner writes on two levels simultaneously. Each chapter in this book is narrated by a single individual, a narrative device that not only engages the reader but also weaves the entire account together.

While some voices, like those of Chick and VK, are relatively straightforward and easy to follow, Gavin's verbose language can be quite dense, making it a challenging read at times.

Nevertheless, this work is quintessential Faulkner and holds great significance for fans of his literary canon. It offers a profound insight into the complex nature of ambition, respectability, and family dynamics.

Right. So, I’m going to just review both of these together, as I read them consecutively and my thoughts pertain to both.

Faulkner’s prose, in my opinion, is of the highest caliber. It’s like taking a plunge into cold water; initially painful, but then invigorating. The sentences flow compulsively downward, with deliberate omissions, clever obfuscations, and profane jokes. His plotting is ingeniously clever, a trait not often associated with ‘literary’ writers. In his big reveals, nested secrets, and sudden murders, there is a hint of the genre ghetto. This is no surprise considering he wrote the screenplay for Big Sleep, although he botched the ending.

Both of these qualities are evident in these two books, the second and third in the Snopes Trilogy, which details the life of Flem Snopes, an amoral backwoods savage with a talent for sharp trading and a desire for respectability. I devoured these books, laughed out loud in bars, and couldn’t stop raving about them to acquaintances.

And yet, when reading one of the great writers of the age, as I truly believe Faulkner to be, one is not merely asking ‘is this a good book’. Of course, it’s a good book. Even the works Faulkner produced just for money, like The Reivers, are really good. What one is really asking is, ‘is this one of the works that solidifies the author’s place in the canon’? And the answer for this trilogy, in my mind, is no, not quite. The main characters in the book – Lawyer Stevens, Eula, Linda, and of course Flem himself – never quite gel. Various smaller storylines about the rest of the Snopes clan and the pitiful folk they abuse are far stronger, but the motivations of the major characters ultimately feel either vague or unconvincing.

I suppose what I’m saying is that if you haven’t read Faulkner, you should, but perhaps don’t start here. And if you’ve already read Absalom, Absalom, etc., then you could do a lot worse than continue with the Snopes trilogy.

The original article seems a bit unclear. However, I will try to rewrite and expand it based on the given phrase "knocking off a star for the final chapter".

Once upon a time, there was a story that had been unfolding beautifully. Each chapter was like a precious gem, adding to the overall charm and mystery of the tale. But as the story reached its final chapter, something unexpected happened. There was a decision to "knock off a star". This could mean many things. Perhaps a major character who was once a shining light in the story was now going to face a downfall. Or maybe a crucial plot point that was supposed to be a highlight was being toned down or even removed. The anticipation for the final chapter had been building, but this new development added an element of uncertainty. Would the story still be as captivating without that one special element? Only time would tell as readers eagerly awaited the conclusion to see how this "knocking off a star" would impact the overall narrative.