William Faulkner
Yeah, he is pretty good.
I just finished his Wild Palms, which was originally titled If I Forget thee, O Jerusalem (Methinks this one is from Psalm, but correct me if I am wrong, OK?). Editors have been continuously plaguing and blighting the purity of creativity, or so it seems. Anywho, it was about finding "Jerusalem", I guess.
Well, majestic. I like that word, and I like the sense it bears: the majesty of a certain phenomenon is the weight of it, the significance and impact and ineffaceable impression, and the inevitable inundation of sense and adulation in oneself that follows one¡¯s full perception of its occurrence.
I was filled with a strange but fresh perception after completing reading If I Forget Thee. Oh, right. If you haven't read it, read it. Now that's out of the way, let's avoid talking about details lest I make unintentional revelations of the progressions of either story (dang I already told you that there are two parallel plotlines), but focus on the purposes of Faulkner's narratives as perceived by me, of which I have only recently be able to come to a somewhat definitive conclusion.
It has been three months since I finished the book. It warns of one thing: respectability. In his masterful setting of a back-drop, a fair idea of respectability can be drawn: DO NO WRONG. It does not mean that everything a respectable man does has to work out perfectly and make everyone happy, but he must do it in a "respectable" manner, which, in actuality, is equivalent to "agreeable". Heroic acts were seen, mercy and grace shown, hardships endured; but while these noble deeds were carried out, in one man's case, for the realization of his ideals, they were for the maintenance of his image and stature in the other's. The latter is propelled to perform those deeds disregarding his will, since they are the actions that will be agreed and praised by many. Ultimately, the question becomes: when one is given the facility to make a choice, what is it that influences the man to choose one way or the other? Is it the pursuit of his ideals and dreams? Or is it the need of acceptance and praise from others? Which one is "righter"? And pragmatically speaking, if the choice would be the same either way, is there no telling them apart?
To become respectable one stops noticing the unanswered questions I listed above, and focus on the satisfaction of the consequences of his actions. One is rewarded handsomely for being "respectable", i. e. both economic and social needs of a man can be satisfied. His life then becomes satisfaction-centered; he revolves around becoming more satisfied day by day. Eventually he loses his insistences and lives his life entirely for his satisfaction's sake that he can even looks upon himself respectfully and extract pleasure from seeing his respectable image. But the other man who holds his ideals will not be deterred by the judgments of others. It is not compensation of satisfaction that he seeks; he is purpose-oriented. He lives his life for an integral idea that he has taken as the reason of his existence, and for that idea he is willing to invest all of his possessions, but will not trade that idea for a life of satisfaction and pleasure. It is that strife (be it empty or not) that sets aside a doomed person from a person with a possibly-doomed purpose. "Let him be, let him live."
I just finished his Wild Palms, which was originally titled If I Forget thee, O Jerusalem (Methinks this one is from Psalm, but correct me if I am wrong, OK?). Editors have been continuously plaguing and blighting the purity of creativity, or so it seems. Anywho, it was about finding "Jerusalem", I guess.
Well, majestic. I like that word, and I like the sense it bears: the majesty of a certain phenomenon is the weight of it, the significance and impact and ineffaceable impression, and the inevitable inundation of sense and adulation in oneself that follows one¡¯s full perception of its occurrence.
I was filled with a strange but fresh perception after completing reading If I Forget Thee. Oh, right. If you haven't read it, read it. Now that's out of the way, let's avoid talking about details lest I make unintentional revelations of the progressions of either story (dang I already told you that there are two parallel plotlines), but focus on the purposes of Faulkner's narratives as perceived by me, of which I have only recently be able to come to a somewhat definitive conclusion.
It has been three months since I finished the book. It warns of one thing: respectability. In his masterful setting of a back-drop, a fair idea of respectability can be drawn: DO NO WRONG. It does not mean that everything a respectable man does has to work out perfectly and make everyone happy, but he must do it in a "respectable" manner, which, in actuality, is equivalent to "agreeable". Heroic acts were seen, mercy and grace shown, hardships endured; but while these noble deeds were carried out, in one man's case, for the realization of his ideals, they were for the maintenance of his image and stature in the other's. The latter is propelled to perform those deeds disregarding his will, since they are the actions that will be agreed and praised by many. Ultimately, the question becomes: when one is given the facility to make a choice, what is it that influences the man to choose one way or the other? Is it the pursuit of his ideals and dreams? Or is it the need of acceptance and praise from others? Which one is "righter"? And pragmatically speaking, if the choice would be the same either way, is there no telling them apart?
To become respectable one stops noticing the unanswered questions I listed above, and focus on the satisfaction of the consequences of his actions. One is rewarded handsomely for being "respectable", i. e. both economic and social needs of a man can be satisfied. His life then becomes satisfaction-centered; he revolves around becoming more satisfied day by day. Eventually he loses his insistences and lives his life entirely for his satisfaction's sake that he can even looks upon himself respectfully and extract pleasure from seeing his respectable image. But the other man who holds his ideals will not be deterred by the judgments of others. It is not compensation of satisfaction that he seeks; he is purpose-oriented. He lives his life for an integral idea that he has taken as the reason of his existence, and for that idea he is willing to invest all of his possessions, but will not trade that idea for a life of satisfaction and pleasure. It is that strife (be it empty or not) that sets aside a doomed person from a person with a possibly-doomed purpose. "Let him be, let him live."
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home