William Faulkner talks about Thomas Wolfe at the University of Virginia. Help Support The Narrative Art. Products and transcripts available at www.thenarrati...
In the 1951 issue of Western Review, there is an article about Faulkner's visit to the creative writing class at Ole' Miss which took place 3 to 4 years previous. The article has been cited numerous times. Even once verbally at a Library of Congress lecture. In the article, Faulkner was asked to rank his contemporaries. He ranked Thomas Wolfe first. Saying that: "he wrote as if he didn't have long to live." Faulkner ranked himself second, then Dos Passos and Hemingway, criticizing Hemingway for his simple choice of narrative language (which lead to an ongoing fued between himself and Hemingway, who detested him). So for him now to say that his comment about Wolfe and his standing was "idle" seems circumspect. He knew Wolfe was brilliant. And let's not forget, Faulkner is a man who lied about becoming an RAF lieutenant, when he had never achieved the rank. I'm not saying that he isn't a good writer. But this video clearly catches him in a lie.
Faulkner's second thoughts on Wolfe were, by some means, more accurate than his first thoughts. Wolfe had talent and energy. Faulkner had genius, if only for a dozen years.
This is all so messy. The rich irony is that -- as Harold Bloom pointed out in his own criticism of Wolfe -- Faulkner wasn't any good at evaluating talent, so in which case is Faulkner incorrect? Here (deriding Wolfe) or before (praising him)?
Obviously, Faulkner never bothered with Angel, or he would have been secretly slighted, and his towering ego would have staggered at the level of Wolfe's genius. I think he must have read enough to back away, wisely, as an aging prize fighter recognizes and backs away from a young and superior boxer.
How much Faulkner have you read? Are you seriously trying to say Wolfe was better? I need to hear your argument for that. Otherwise I am inclined to laugh hysterically.
@@nicholasmaxwell9899 Faulkner's work is more esteemed than enjoyed. As anyone who has ever tried to slog through Absolem Absolem can attest. At least Wolfe was consistent. His reach exceeded his grasp, but not by much, and by turns his fiction, in my opinion, was far more satisfying. Faulkner's casual dismissal of Wolfe, in that affected drawl of his, is naive. When he states that he has only read excerpts of Wolfe's work, as though it's not good enough to finish, he was being insulting. I'm not sure if he realized it in his lifetime, but ironically it's HIS work people are more apt to put down part way through without finishing. His work is just not enjoyable.
@@charlessomerset9754 Well I completely disagree. Faulkner is so highly esteemed BECAUSE he is enjoyed by many many people, far more people than Wolfe. His writing isn't for everyone, but just because it is difficult doesn't mean it's not enjoyed. I am more than half way through Absalom Absalom right now and I am seriously enjoying it more than maybe anything I have ever read. It's challenging, but incredibly enjoyable to me and many others I presume. Also absolutely enjoyed the hell out of both As I Lay Dying and The Sound and the Fury. So maybe YOU don't enjoy reading Faulkner, but a lot of people like myself ENJOY being challenged and don't consider it a "slog."
@@nicholasmaxwell9899 by esteemed I meant historically, mainly because of the Nobel. People respect that, as do I. But I've never used it as a yardstick for good story telling. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer a good and solid linear narrative, not stream of consciousness or metaphysical ramblings, or experimentation for experimentation sake. But of course, criticizing literature is the task of using the subjective to establish an objective measure of quality. I just prefer Wolfe. His treatment of the human heart in conflict seems more genuine and sincere and pulled from his life truths. And his use of language is far more lyrical and beautiful than Faulkner would ever hope to dare. Of course there are those, and will always be those who adore novels like Finnegan's Wake, Ulysses, or Absolem Absolem. I am just not one of them. Faulkner makes the list of most loathed authors on Goodreads quite a bit. Just check out some of those reviews if you're curious. But ultimately, I wrote my original comment because Faulkner slighted Wolfe, and I found that to be both rude and negligent on his part. I'm sure I'll try reading Faulkner again, like I do every ten years or so. And who knows, maybe I'll love him then. But I'm already 55, and there's not a lot that life has left to teach me, and I'm not expecting any cosmic utterances to leap from Faulkner's page to help with the process.
@@charlessomerset9754 I think your comments about Faulkner are a lot more dismissive than his about Wolfe. Finnegan's Wake? Nothing Faulkner wrote is remotely like that, and everything he wrote had great meaning. I admit I have never read Wolfe, and I will check out his work, but I have to say I highly doubt he even came close to being as talented as Faulkner. I think Faulkner is hands down the best American writer ever. I think you need to give Absalom Absalom another shot. His prose in that novel are simply otherworldly. It's his STYLE you have a problem with, because his talent is beyond undeniable. You have to be extremely patient with his writing and read it until you understand it. That might be frustrating to people but the compensation you get for that extra effort is worth it, as the payoff is MASSIVE. Hemingway also said nobody had more talent than Faulkner. Harold Bloom said he was the best American writer of the 20th century, and that his name should only be compared with the other American greats from the previous century, Hawthorne, Melville, and Henry James. I understand you like Wolfe better, but you cannot act like he simply WAS better. I have never even heard of anyone suggesting that Wolfe is in the same league as Faulkner.
In the 1951 issue of Western Review, there is an article about Faulkner's visit to the creative writing class at Ole' Miss which took place 3 to 4 years previous. The article has been cited numerous times. Even once verbally at a Library of Congress lecture. In the article, Faulkner was asked to rank his contemporaries. He ranked Thomas Wolfe first. Saying that: "he wrote as if he didn't have long to live." Faulkner ranked himself second, then Dos Passos and Hemingway, criticizing Hemingway for his simple choice of narrative language (which lead to an ongoing fued between himself and Hemingway, who detested him). So for him now to say that his comment about Wolfe and his standing was "idle" seems circumspect. He knew Wolfe was brilliant. And let's not forget, Faulkner is a man who lied about becoming an RAF lieutenant, when he had never achieved the rank. I'm not saying that he isn't a good writer. But this video clearly catches him in a lie.
Faulkner may not have beena great man. But he, like Wolfe, was genius.
@@AkakyAkakievich I don't disagree.
Faulkner's second thoughts on Wolfe were, by some means, more accurate than his first thoughts. Wolfe had talent and energy. Faulkner had genius, if only for a dozen years.
This is all so messy. The rich irony is that -- as Harold Bloom pointed out in his own criticism of Wolfe -- Faulkner wasn't any good at evaluating talent, so in which case is Faulkner incorrect? Here (deriding Wolfe) or before (praising him)?
Obviously, Faulkner never bothered with Angel, or he would have been secretly slighted, and his towering ego would have staggered at the level of Wolfe's genius. I think he must have read enough to back away, wisely, as an aging prize fighter recognizes and backs away from a young and superior boxer.
How much Faulkner have you read? Are you seriously trying to say Wolfe was better? I need to hear your argument for that. Otherwise I am inclined to laugh hysterically.
@@nicholasmaxwell9899 Faulkner's work is more esteemed than enjoyed. As anyone who has ever tried to slog through Absolem Absolem can attest. At least Wolfe was consistent. His reach exceeded his grasp, but not by much, and by turns his fiction, in my opinion, was far more satisfying. Faulkner's casual dismissal of Wolfe, in that affected drawl of his, is naive. When he states that he has only read excerpts of Wolfe's work, as though it's not good enough to finish, he was being insulting. I'm not sure if he realized it in his lifetime, but ironically it's HIS work people are more apt to put down part way through without finishing. His work is just not enjoyable.
@@charlessomerset9754 Well I completely disagree. Faulkner is so highly esteemed BECAUSE he is enjoyed by many many people, far more people than Wolfe. His writing isn't for everyone, but just because it is difficult doesn't mean it's not enjoyed. I am more than half way through Absalom Absalom right now and I am seriously enjoying it more than maybe anything I have ever read. It's challenging, but incredibly enjoyable to me and many others I presume. Also absolutely enjoyed the hell out of both As I Lay Dying and The Sound and the Fury. So maybe YOU don't enjoy reading Faulkner, but a lot of people like myself ENJOY being challenged and don't consider it a "slog."
@@nicholasmaxwell9899 by esteemed I meant historically, mainly because of the Nobel. People respect that, as do I. But I've never used it as a yardstick for good story telling. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer a good and solid linear narrative, not stream of consciousness or metaphysical ramblings, or experimentation for experimentation sake. But of course, criticizing literature is the task of using the subjective to establish an objective measure of quality. I just prefer Wolfe. His treatment of the human heart in conflict seems more genuine and sincere and pulled from his life truths. And his use of language is far more lyrical and beautiful than Faulkner would ever hope to dare. Of course there are those, and will always be those who adore novels like Finnegan's Wake, Ulysses, or Absolem Absolem. I am just not one of them. Faulkner makes the list of most loathed authors on Goodreads quite a bit. Just check out some of those reviews if you're curious. But ultimately, I wrote my original comment because Faulkner slighted Wolfe, and I found that to be both rude and negligent on his part. I'm sure I'll try reading Faulkner again, like I do every ten years or so. And who knows, maybe I'll love him then. But I'm already 55, and there's not a lot that life has left to teach me, and I'm not expecting any cosmic utterances to leap from Faulkner's page to help with the process.
@@charlessomerset9754 I think your comments about Faulkner are a lot more dismissive than his about Wolfe. Finnegan's Wake? Nothing Faulkner wrote is remotely like that, and everything he wrote had great meaning. I admit I have never read Wolfe, and I will check out his work, but I have to say I highly doubt he even came close to being as talented as Faulkner. I think Faulkner is hands down the best American writer ever. I think you need to give Absalom Absalom another shot. His prose in that novel are simply otherworldly. It's his STYLE you have a problem with, because his talent is beyond undeniable. You have to be extremely patient with his writing and read it until you understand it. That might be frustrating to people but the compensation you get for that extra effort is worth it, as the payoff is MASSIVE. Hemingway also said nobody had more talent than Faulkner. Harold Bloom said he was the best American writer of the 20th century, and that his name should only be compared with the other American greats from the previous century, Hawthorne, Melville, and Henry James. I understand you like Wolfe better, but you cannot act like he simply WAS better. I have never even heard of anyone suggesting that Wolfe is in the same league as Faulkner.
Faulkner was amazing but represented the establishment… Wolfe was a literary beatnik. One can understand the inability to understand.