Faulkner’s choice of having the history of Thomas Sutpen
related through several biased and unreliable narrators is interesting if one
considers Sutpen’s behavior an allegory for the South’s actions during the Civil
War. I believe Faulkner is purposefully
attempting to illustrate that history has two equally important parts: one side
being empirical truth and the side the emotional responses of those who lived through
the period to give meaning to the truth.
I also believe Faulkner is showing that the emotional side of history is
more important to understand than the empirical side.
Faulkner
is demonstrating that generations born after the conflict could have difficulty
understanding how the lack of morality in the South with regards to slavery
affected their forefathers’ emotions and reactions on a personal level during
that period. One could easily follow a
timeline of what had occurred during the Civil War, but Faulkner’s work is
illustrating that the emotional side of history is more important and can paint
a better picture of the nature of the past.
Quentin, two generations removed from the events of Thomas Sutpen’s
life, is attempting to gain an understanding of the man and his effects on
those around him through narrators which freely express their personal bias
towards the man. While Quentin could
simply ask questions to guide the subject of his interviews away from personal
bias and towards what just the hard facts, he instead chooses to listen to
their entire stories to fully understand Sutpen. In the same way, I believe Faulkner is saying
to understand the South and to understand a war sparked by morality, one must
research and know the emotions of the people of the period.
I find it very interesting how the characters are almost fatalistic about the South and speak as though the South was destined for destruction. It seems as though the Sutpen family is a metaphor for the South. Compson is never harshly critical about the Sutpen family and even goes on to allude that fate (“ the illogical machinations of a fatality which had chosen that family in preference to any other in the country…”, 81) determined the family’s destruction, which mirrors the fact that he never explicitly criticizes or blames the South, just describes its downfall in a matter-of-fact way where blame is never actually cast and the downfall is described almost as an act of fate. Perhaps in doing this, Faulkner is pointing out that the South is too proud and never fully acknowledged the wrongs of slavery. Instead, the South simply moved on from the Civil War as unapologetically as possible.
ReplyDelete