William Faulkner

...now browsing by tag

 
 

Blackguards

Thursday, August 19th, 2010

Another riff from Faulkner’s University of Virginia lectures, this one on the Snopes family, the disappearing blackguard, and the curse of respectability.

Joseph Blotner: One thing that we sometimes seem to see with acquisitive people like the Snopeses is that after they have made the gains which they want very much to make, respectability seems to set in and start to work on them, too. Do you see any signs of that happening in that clan?

William Faulkner: No, only that the rapacious people, if they’re not careful, they are seduced away and decide that what they’ve got to have is respectability which destroys one, almost anybody. That is, nobody seems to be brave enough anymore to be a—an out-and-out blackguard or rascal, that sooner or later he’s got to be respectable, [audience laughter] and that finishes it.

Unidentified participant: Why aren’t there blackguards [then]?

William Faulkner: They ain’t brave and strong and tough like they used to be. [audience laughter]

Unidentified participant: [And] why not?

William Faulkner: It’s the—the curse of the times, maybe. It may be there’s a three or four color printing of advertisements have—have been too seductive, or a picture of a fine big car in two colors with a handsome young woman by it, so that you almost think the woman comes with the new car [audience laughter] when you make the starter payments. Money is—there’s so much pressure to conform, to—to be respectable.

Unidentified participant: More than in the Victorian?

William Faulkner: I think so, yes. In the Victorian, they tried to—to force you to be respectable to save your soul. Now, they compel you to be respectable to be rich.

Unidentified participant: Were these people blackguards to save their souls? I’m not quite sure I understand the connection.

William Faulkner: Well, I think that possibly the old Adam in man suggests to him to be a blackguard if he can get away with it, and when there’s a great deal of pressure to be respectable, if there is—is a great enough reward for the respectability, he will choose that in preference to the pleasure of being a scoundrel and a blackguard, that people don’t have enough verve and zest anymore, which is not the fault of man so much as the fault of the times that we live in to where he—there’s too much pressure against being an individualist, and—and a—a good first-rate scoundrel is an individualist. He don’t really belong to a gang. Once he’s got to join a gang, he becomes a second-rate scoundrel, but a first-rate scoundrel is like a first-rate artist. He’s an individualist, and the pressure’s all against being an individualist. You’ve got to belong to a group. It don’t matter much what group, but you’ve got to belong to it, or there’s no place for you in the—the culture or the economy. Maybe to belong to a gang you might escape the Atom bomb.

Unidentified participant: Are you saying that he has to be a—a scoundrel to be an individualist?

William Faulkner: No, sir. I say a scoundrel, to be a good one, must be an individualist. That only an individualist can be a first-rate scoundrel. Only an individualist can be a first-rate artist. He can’t belong to a group or a school and be a first-rate writer.

Frederick Gwynn: You could have some grudging admiration for Flem Snopes who pretty well sticks to his character.

William Faulkner: Well, until he was bitten by the bug to be respectable. Then he let me down. [audience laughter] I had an admiration for him until then.

A better tool

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

A question posed to Faulkner during one of his University of Virginia lectures:

Unidentified participant: Why do you use violence so often in your novels in trying to depict this truth? [The truth being, according to Faulkner, "that man will prevail, will endure because he is capable of compassion and honor and pride and endurance."]

William Faulkner: Well, that’s the—the carpenter that—that thinks that the ax is a better tool to use than a hammer. He could be wrong, but he’s using what seemed to him the best tool to [properly] build what he wants to build.

The Metaphysics of Indian Hating

Thursday, November 19th, 2009

I’ve been thinking lately about Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian. I criticized Harold Bloom a while back for underplaying the anticolonial bent of the book, and also commented on the misguided focus on the Bible and William Faulkner as primary influences on the novel. That’s not to say that the Bible and Faulkner aren’t influences, but there’s a huge hole in the discourse, in that almost no one bothers to mention American writing about American Indians, except to laud McCarthy’s accumulation of documented historical detail.

A few years back I had the opportunity to teach an American Indian studies class about representations of Indians in American literature, focusing on the cultural work the texts performed and the historical context in which they were produced. Everything in that class ended up pointing to Blood Meridian, and I quickly realized that it was my capstone text, in that most of the themes we were addressing were also being commented on–intentionally or no–in McCarthy’s novel. It was a blast, and I ended up with a ton of notes. I don’t have much interest in a career in academia, and burning a couple of years of my life to produce an academic text puts me in a mind to start crying. So I was thinking I’d just start cleaning said notes up a little and posting them here.

They’re gonna be rough, they’re gonna be scattered, they’ll trail off to nowhere, but hopefully there will be some value in them. To be honest, I’ve got a long-term project in mind that it’d help for me to start thinking about this stuff again. I’ll tag everything in this vein The Metaphysics of Indian Hating for easy tracking, and try to post something new every week or two.

I’ll start with this quote from Richard Slotkin’s Regeneration Through Violence, which, along with Slotkin’s other two books in his frontier trilogy, The Fatal Environment and Gunfighter Nation, were, in large part, my guides during the class.

In American mythogenesis the founding fathers were not those eighteenth-century gentlemen who composed a nation at Philadelphia. Rather, they were those who (to paraphrase Faulkner’s Absalom, Absalom!) tore violently a nation from the implacable and opulent wilderness — the rogues, adventurers, and land-boomers; the Indian fighters, traders, missionaries, explorers, and hunters who killed and were killed until they had mastered the wilderness; the settlers who came after, suffering hardship and Indian warfare for the sake of a sacred mission or a simple desire for land; and the Indians themselves, both as they were and as they appeared to the settlers, for whom they were the special demonic personification of the American wilderness. Their concerns, their hopes, their terrors, their violence, and their justifications of themselves, as expressed in literature, are the foundation stones of the mythology that informs our history.

To understand Blood Meridian you have to be willing to read against the writing about Indians that has been passed down as historical, anthropological, and mythological truth since the country’s inception. That’s one of the things the judge tells us over and over again: that all knowledge about Indians is and has been a confidence game. Next I’ll post some notes on one of our foundational confidence men, John Smith, that’ll hopefully shed a little light on what I mean.

Update: The savvier among you won’t be surprised that I’m a little obsessed with Blood Meridian.

Harold Bloom on Cormac McCarthy

Wednesday, June 17th, 2009

One of the smartest comments ever made about Cormac McCarthy, by Harold Bloom in a discussion about Blood Meridian (via Maud Newton): “He tends to carry his influences on the surface, quite honestly.”

That’s about the long and the short of it, whether McCarthy’s pulling lines straight from William Faulkner, Kris Kristofferson, and Waylon Jennings, or exploding the tropes of nineteenth-century scientific imperialism, his books are great pastiche amalgamations of their sources.

Of course, then Bloom goes on to say one of the dumber things he’s ever said in his career: “I don’t think McCarthy was interested, at least at that point in his career, in moral judgments, any more than Melville was involved in moral judgments.”

Melville wasn’t interested in moral judgments? Has Bloom ever read Typee? Omoo? Certainly not White Jacket, which was instrumental in changing the navy’s policy on flogging. That’s a profoundly stupid thing to say, and it negates the majority of those influences to which Blood Meridian owes itself: the literature and propaganda of the declaredly imperial US western expansion. The reason this is never brought up vis-à-vis Blood Meridian isn’t because it isn’t there, or, as Bloom meaninglessly opines, “Blood Meridian is too grand for that” — whatever the hell that means — it’s because there are very few literary scholars who know much about the subject. Unlike McCarthy.

This isn’t to reduce Blood Meridian to some kind of anti-imperialist tsk-tsking, but McCarthy does wear his sources on his sleeve,and there’s no way of disentangling those sources from a commentary on imperialism. An example? Here’s a big one: Regeneration Through Violence, the first volume of literary historian Richard Slotkin’s frontier history trilogy. It was published in 1973, and unless Cormac McCarthy is directly channeling Slotkin’s worldview through some metaphysical means, he read it. Hell, the title’s even evoked by Michael Herr in the blurb that’s graced the front cover of the Vintage International Edition for as long as I’ve been aware of the book: “A classic American novel of regeneration through violence.”

I’ll post more on this later. If you’re seriously bored in the meantime, I have a review of The Road over at The Modern Word which touches on some of the pastiche stuff. I’ll also have an essay about Blood Meridian in this book about art and genocide sometime in the fall.

Update: A big RIGHT THE FUCK ON to the Onion for their discussion of Cormac McCarthy, by the way. Best news on the planet, and some of the best books coverage, too.

Update II: For more on this, start here.