Faulkner is an under rated writer - not anymore.

Faulkner has been a fairly under read writer. The appeal of his novels to academics never trasncended as much to popular appeal as his accolades might suggest. Oprah has changed his legacy forever by including this three book set in her Book Club selection. I would venture to say she can get more attention pointed toward a book than the New York Times Bestseller list aspires to influence readers. Few know Faulkner won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1949. He also won a National Book Award, a Gold Medal from the American Academy of Arts and Letters and France's Legion of Honor.

He wrote many novels and my favorites are still these three in this "As I Lay Dying/The Sound and the Fury/Light in August" trio and "The Hamlet," "A Fable" and "The Mansion."

An insult to Faulkner

Why oh why did she have to come out with her own box set with her name on it....some of the best pieces of literature sold in a "box set" to get even more promotion for herself. Doesn't anyone else see that she is putting her name on one of the best authors of all time? doesn't this bother anyone else? this woman who's show is so fake and stupid. Faulkner is turning in his grave. I love Faulkner, he is a genius, and i'm sorry but i dont think that this is right.

On Faulkner

William Faulkner is a horrible writer. I know. I'm very well read in Stephen King and John Grisham and other books that require little to no involvement from the reader. If a book is written in any form other than direct disclosure it must, by definition, be bad because it is too hard for me to understand. Plus there is grauitous use of the "N" word here. Everyone should just save themselves some time because writers like Faulkner just are not worth it. What makes a book good is that lazy people like myself are able to pound it out in about a week and take absolutely nothing out of it, and probably don't remember it ever again.

Ok, I hope most of you have by now realized my sarcasm. Unfortunately, this very argument (granted, in different words) seems to be the gist of most reviews denouncing this author. I suppose my resonse to that would sound something like, "Of course it is up to you what to read and what not to read, but when you start to label Faulkner as being a bad writer or, especially, as being a worse writer than the hacks that write the books that contain no substance, we have a problem." First of all, ask anyone who has any kind of formal experience about Faulkner and you will get two responses: 1. the person loves Faulkner; or 2. the person hates Faulkner, but respects what he has accomplished in his formidable literary career. What you will never, ever, ever, ever hear is that Faulkner is a worse writer than King or Grisham, or most anyone else, including many authors who have actual writing talent, for that matter. So what if the works are difficult to get through? If people hadn't become accustomed to the laziness so prevalent in our society, especially as it relates to literature, the novels really aren't as difficult as you might think. For those of you who have read the three novels here, try reading Absalom, Absalom!, which is every bit as good as these three, and perhaps even better, albeit more difficult. But please, whether you like Faulkner (as I do) or not, don't fall into the trap of thinking that just because something is difficult or time consuming, it is bad. And if you still don't like him (and not all do or will), that's fine. But at least give it a serious effort and don't use difficulty as a reason for the novel being bad. If it's too hard, that's your fault, not Faulkner's.