The meaning of what a "classic" is has changed a lot in recent years, particularly when you consider the extremely narrow criteria formerly used. Faulkner may be "classic" in the old sense but audiences and critics have expanded in many ways.

Could you explain it better? As far as I understand it, it's not really an answer to my question

I took a class over Faulkner and we read A Rose for Emily, Absalom, Absalom, The Sound and the Fury, and As I Lay Dying. Honestly, I hated reading all of his works, but I loved having someone guide me through the themes and to help analyze his works. I can definitely see why people would hold them up in high esteem even though I would never say they are "fun" or even easy to read. I'd recommend looking up different analyses of his works that might help you have a better appreciation of them. But even if you don't appreciate or like them, oh well, everyone had different tastes.

I don't disagree that there are important themes, but he wasn't a good writer. Following the logic that a piece of media is good because an analysis of its motives says it's good, we should appreciate all the modern movies/tv series/comics/books which are dreadful to watch but check all the boxes when it comes to themes. And yet we don't do that.

Yeah I think that's fair. I think that for something to be considered good, it not only has to have important themes or concepts, but the creator has to he able to convey it in a way that's understood. Maybe my reading level is just lower than most people, but I thought his works were just an obtuse slog.

As I Lay Dying is def a fun read. Dark comedy for sure.

Perhaps at root it can be said that Faulkner is a significant writer in the US tradition of Modernist literature, the movement which from the late 19th century thru the 1940s considered ways to reflect things like the splintering of consensus in western societies, the effect of mechanisation and mass media, the discovery of the subconscious and the infinite variety of our internal mental lives by experimenting with new ways of story telling. Multiple points of view, non-linear narratives, unreliable narration, experiments with form and language, with grammar, punctuation, type etc etc were used by poets and novelists in various ways. Faulkner has received a lot of (valid) criticism recently for some of his views and his novels might seem dated, but at the last they are still part of the Modernist project and given a place among 'classics' for that reason. Doesn’t mean anyone has to actually like them of course (or even read them) but, if only for reasons of literary history, they are important.

My Opinion: It’s awful and it shouldn’t be.

Faulkner played with language in innovative ways that had previously never been explored. He left the stodgy, flowery writing style that preceded the modernist era for something utterly unique, even in modernist circles. For one, he has a single, grammatically correct sentence of 1288 words. That sentence has a rhythm to the prose that feels like running a long distance, footfalls of pace and sound. He also used colloquial language to great effect, and as far as The Sound and The Fury, his use of multi-voiced narration, and alternate perspectives was considered groundbreaking (he initially wanted to use color-coded to pages to differentiate the narrative voices.).

It’s been a while since I read it, but I think there’s a couple of reasons it stayed popular (that other commenters have already mentioned). It’s a huge novel when it comes to the Modernist canon. Multiple narrative perspectives that draw heavily on the stream of consciousness technique (the first narrator/perspective of that story was, in my opinion, a wild choice that only pays off later in the novel when you “fill in the blanks”). The “fall of the south” is huge in Faulkner’s novels and is interesting to study in the context of the post-reconstruction. I’m assuming that the popularity was fueled by controversy as well since Faulkner takes on themes like race, incest, SA, and gender roles in his novels.

That said, I loved the Sound and the Fury and As I Lay Dying, but found his other novels to be less enjoyable, at least with respect to the innovative style of the aforementioned novels.

I would be curious to see what answer you would get from r/askliterarystudies.

I have personally avoided Faulkner and Pynchon and James Joyce, but that doesn't make them bad writers per se. What they are trying to do with language is more like what Picasso or Dali or even Warhol tried to do with paint. They are highly skilled, I just don't like their choices.

I hated this book. A def dnf.

I can't think of a book that's now considered as a classic to be not a slog. All of them were written in a different style from what we are used with today's writing style. Style, prose, language changed over time. Not sure if literature followed people's tastes or vice versa.

I wholeheartedly disagree with you. In my opinion, he may not be everyone (or even most people)’s cup of tea but he is irrefutably a “good writer” by virtue of creating such an intricate and complete piece of writing as TSATF. The book was written to be read 1.5 times and is in many ways a puzzle.

But if by good writer you mean “enjoyable and easy to read” then I guess you’re right. But I find most Faulkner fans find their enjoyment in the analysis and many easter eggs as opposed to the raw narrative.

Love this comparison. I agree that he is highly skilled but is not most people’s cup of tea.

+1 I love this.

I think the hard part of many books considered classics, especially those that "broke the mold," is we aren't experiencing them when they first come out. It's hard to appreciate how unique a book is when we have probably read several books that have used parts of his techniques and that it seems normal to us, not special.

This is why I enjoy annotations so much!

You read Absalom twice?

He also has a chapter that is only five words

> My mother is a fish.