Kazhes pierakstu burtnīca

This was the first book where Faulkner wrote about his favourite characters - Flem Snoups gets his first chance to shine in this book, but mainly it`s about one of the sons of the old colonel Sartoris that has returned from WW1 where his twin brother Johnny has died. The other one is a loony for sure who enjoys driving a car way too fast and who doesn`t care whether he lives or dies. Not an especially groundbreaking book, but at least easier to read than the one about the intruders in the dust. Still I won`t be rereading it I suppose.

Nepatika man šis Viljama Folknera romāns, un man pat negribas par to tagad gari rakstīt. Tā varoņi man nesimpatizēja, tā tēmas mani neuzrunāja un tas kopumā mani nekādi neieinteresēja, tas būtu viss, ko es vēlos pateikt. Te piedalās maniakāls noziedznieks vārdā Papajs (jā, gluži kā jūrnieks), kas ir impotents un tomēr spēj veikt izvarošanu (izmantojot kukurūzas vālīti), samaitāta bagāta meitene Templa, kas kļūst par Papaja upuri, viens labs nelegalā alkohola ražotājs vārdā Gudvins, viens labs jurists vārdā Horass, un vēl šādi tādi citi ļaudis. Ja man būtu noskaņojums, es tagad kaut ko par šo grāmatu uzrakstītu, bet man šāda noskaņojuma nav, un tālab es nerakstīšu. Atvainojos ka tā.

A whole lotta Faulkner indeed! Although Mr. W.F. hasn`t really stunned me with any of his works this is the fourth of his novels I`ve read. The action takes place in the most typical place which Faulkner has ever written about - the American South. The heroes are typical Faulkner`s material as well - John Sartoris is the main hero of the book (or was it Bayard Sartoris, I`m not really sure), and there is even a man named Snopes involved in the story. The novel consists of several episodes from the American Civil war. Those episodes are only loosely connected and a tight structure is surely not the the purpose of the book. There`s a young Sartoris kid and his black friend that took on adventures a bit similar to that of Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer - this whole thing is quite similar to the kids in "Intruders in the dust" which I also found to be a bit influenced by Mark Twain. Probably the main difference between Faulkner and Twain is the time when their books were written. Faulkner provided an updated for the 20th century requirements version of Mark Twain. Although this "update" provides several advantages in terms of literary qualities and depth it also has a few drawbacks. Whilest Mark Twain is easy to ready and understandable Faulkner is terribly complicated. I already fealt it in "Sartoris", but after having read "The Unvanquished" in the original and not in a Latvian translation I have to repeat my sentence once again - it`s hard to read Faulkner, and not always you`ll be rewarded for your devoted and hard work.

After having read "The Mansion" I found myself really interested in Faulkner`s work. But "Intruder in the dust" proved to be such a demanding read that I couldn`t convince myself in it being interesting. No, not that it wasn`t interesting, it was written in a style too complicated for me. And, if you want to know, I read it in my native Latvian language, not in English. The story is quite simple - a black man is blamed for shooting a white man in the back but it wasn`t him really. His only chance is that of two teenagers and an elderly woman digging the corpse from the grave and proving that it wasn`t killed by the black man`s gun. In terms of the story "Intruder" reminds me of some Mark Twain`s work (something quite like "Tom Sawyer" in style). But there`s a major difference between Twain and his follower, Faulkner. Faulkner writes in such a manner that his book doesn`t flow too simply, it`s much like some of Joyce`s or Prouste`s work - you get a very simple story done with so much reflections and in a crazy grammatical style that you can`t get the story as easy as you`d probably want to. It`s pretentious in style but it`s to twisted in the writing for me to enjoy such a book.

Šo Folknera romānu biju paņēmis līdzi mūsu ceļojumā uz Kornvolu. Iespējams, tas nebija pats labākais lēmums, jo Folkners nav no tiem rakstniekiem, kuru darbi viegli lasās lidmašīnās vai B&Bos pēc nogurdinošas dienas. Vispār jāatzīst, ka Folknera darbiem kā tādiem nav raksturīgs lasīties sevišķi viegli, un šis noteikti nav izņēmums. Kā jau tas autoram ir raksturīgs, šajā grāmatā ir diezgan daudz māksliniecisku eksperimentu - cik daudz gan man ir gadijies lasīt romānus, kuru lielākā dala ir realizēta lugas formā? Proti, grāmata sastāv no trim nodaļām, katrai no kurām ir gara liriski apceroša ievaddaļa normālā prozas tekstā, un tad pēkšņi sākas daļa, kas tiek atainota kā luga, ar visiem skatuves iekārtojuma aprakstiem un visu lugai raksturīgo formulējumu. Sižets šeit ir aptuveni sekojošs: kāda tumšādaina aukle ir nogalinājusi savā pārraudzībā esošo zīdaini, un tagad viņa gaida, kad viņai tiks izpildīts nāvessods. Tikām viņas advokāts, kas vienlaikus ir nogalinātā bērna mātes onkulis, ved pie vietējā gubernatora savu meitu, lai tā viņam izstāstītu patiesību par to, kālab noziegums noticis. Domas, ka vajadzētu glābt notiesātās sievietes dzīvību, viņam patiesibā nav, bet viņš grib, lai tiktu atklāta patiesība. Un patiesibba izrādās tāda, ka šī jaunā sieviete - Temple Drake (iepriekš sastapta citā Folknera romānā "Sanctuary") - bija gribējusi pamest savu vīru ar noziedzīgu mīļāko, taču viņas melnā kalpone šo mēģinājusi atrunāt, konfrontējusi šo par to, ka viņai ir nospļauties uz saviem bērniem un to atstāšanu, bet tā kā Templa nav likusies ne zinis, pēcāk Nensija (tā sauc kalponi) zīdaini nogalinājusi. Jā, ja kas Nensija ir arī bijusi prostitūta un tagadēja narkomāne. Tikām Templa nav īsti riktīga, jo viņu jau pirms daudziem gadiem (romānā "Sanctuary") nolaupīja vīrs vārdā Popeye un nodeva priekamājā (no kurienes viņai pat prātā nenāca aizbēgt).

William F. was one of the most acclaimed novelists of the previous century yet until this time I hadn`t read a single one of his works. I`m not so sure how it happened this way but it`s a solid fact that I never really had time for Faulkner. Maybe because I thought he was one of those boring WW1 writers (not that I had anything against WW1 writers). But the Mansion doesn`t have too much to do with either WW1 or WW2. Yes, both of those wars happen in the period the heroes of this book live, yet they aren`t mentioned too often (heck, they are nearly not mentioned at all). The books starts off as a story about Mink Snoups, a young and not too bright farmer that gets angry with his rich neighbour mainly because of his own weird perception of the world. It ends for him quite badly after he kills the rich neibhbour Mink is sentenced for life at the Parchman farm (a prison where you work in the field). Later on we switch more to other Snoups`es as people connected with them. Mainly due to the adopten daughter of Flem Snoups - Mink`s cousin who has achieved much in his life and who doesn`t want Mink ever to come out of Parchmen`s place. The novel has lots of different leading characters, forming something like a weird flow of different story lines, that somehow get perfectly connected in the end. At some scenes the whole thing may seem overlong, yet Faulkner knows exactly what he`s doing and what each character is for in his world. Not than most of them have a purpose or something, it only means that nothing is out of place.

Divdesmitā gadsimta klasiķa Viljama Folknera daiļrade man nav gluži sveša - pirms vairākiem gadiem izlasīju čupiņu viņa grāmatu, no kurām manī sajūsmu gan izraisīja tikai viens no relatīvi mazāk zināmajiem darbiem - "The Mansion", kamēr viņa oficiāli spožākie darbi pa daļai pārāk komplicētās rakstības manieres, pa daļai - man ne gluži aktuālās tematikas dēļ mani atstāja aukstu un neuzrunātu. Taču tagad, kad ķēros pie "Knight's Gambit", par to nemaz īsti neiedomājos.