Well, I just finished The Sound and the Fury, previously I had read As I Lay Dying. William Faulkner won the Nobel Prize in 1949, Ernest Hemingway in 1954. I have read just about everything that Hemingway wrote that is in print.
There is no comparison between these two authors, Faulkner is infinitely better. Faulkner is every bit as successful with his experiment in writing, the "stream of consciousness" style, in which he was influenced by Joyce, as Hemingway is with his experiment, the pared-down style. Faulkner's is much more complex though, more difficult to write. It is work to write as Hemingway did--"No."--, it is, you spend a lot of time paring down to get to that "No.", in removing adjectives and adverbs and make that "No." work but Good God, there are Hemingway contests to see who can write the most Hemingwayesque prose. A lot of people do pretty damn good imitations of Papa. If there are Faulkner imitators who are as spot-on as some of Hemingway's, well, I'd like to read those sumbitches. I can imagine making a lame attempt at Hemingway imitation. I would have a panic attack and run and hide and curl up in the fetal position if I were ever tasked with trying to imitate Faulkner's stream of consciousness style.
Faulkner is difficult man, his work is hard on the reader. The flashbacks, the voice of a mute, mildly retarded man, the mental decompensation of even normal characters, it's hard reading. To write that way? I'd be beat. I couldn't do it, I have thought of attempting it but I'm too intimidated. I never had to work so hard to follow an author's writing as in Faulkner's stream of consciousness, but I did! I think I got 75% maybe 90% of Faulkner. I got 90%-100% of Hemingway. Hemingway was not as hard. You have to work hard as a reader of Faulkner, you can't take a lap. I underlined, dog-eared and re-read and if I missed something, it was the way the two Faulkner novels ended. I was taken by surprise by the endings in As I Lay Dying and The Sound and the Fury and what I didn't get came in those endings but with considerable effort the stream of consciousness works, it is subtle and complex and natural, and it WORKS.
What is said of the composer Antonio Vivaldi, that he did not compose 400 sonatas, he composed one sonata 400 times, could be said of Ernest Hemingway's writing. It is impossible to say that about William Faulkner's work.
Hands down, Faulkner is clearly superior to Hemingway in his prose and experimentation. William Faulkner's writing is the apotheosis of American literature.
There is no comparison between these two authors, Faulkner is infinitely better. Faulkner is every bit as successful with his experiment in writing, the "stream of consciousness" style, in which he was influenced by Joyce, as Hemingway is with his experiment, the pared-down style. Faulkner's is much more complex though, more difficult to write. It is work to write as Hemingway did--"No."--, it is, you spend a lot of time paring down to get to that "No.", in removing adjectives and adverbs and make that "No." work but Good God, there are Hemingway contests to see who can write the most Hemingwayesque prose. A lot of people do pretty damn good imitations of Papa. If there are Faulkner imitators who are as spot-on as some of Hemingway's, well, I'd like to read those sumbitches. I can imagine making a lame attempt at Hemingway imitation. I would have a panic attack and run and hide and curl up in the fetal position if I were ever tasked with trying to imitate Faulkner's stream of consciousness style.
Faulkner is difficult man, his work is hard on the reader. The flashbacks, the voice of a mute, mildly retarded man, the mental decompensation of even normal characters, it's hard reading. To write that way? I'd be beat. I couldn't do it, I have thought of attempting it but I'm too intimidated. I never had to work so hard to follow an author's writing as in Faulkner's stream of consciousness, but I did! I think I got 75% maybe 90% of Faulkner. I got 90%-100% of Hemingway. Hemingway was not as hard. You have to work hard as a reader of Faulkner, you can't take a lap. I underlined, dog-eared and re-read and if I missed something, it was the way the two Faulkner novels ended. I was taken by surprise by the endings in As I Lay Dying and The Sound and the Fury and what I didn't get came in those endings but with considerable effort the stream of consciousness works, it is subtle and complex and natural, and it WORKS.
What is said of the composer Antonio Vivaldi, that he did not compose 400 sonatas, he composed one sonata 400 times, could be said of Ernest Hemingway's writing. It is impossible to say that about William Faulkner's work.
Hands down, Faulkner is clearly superior to Hemingway in his prose and experimentation. William Faulkner's writing is the apotheosis of American literature.
