On the Southern Literary Trail discussion

The moderator's choice for May is Requiem for a Nun by William Faulkner. Moderated by Lawyer, our resident expert in all things Faulkner, this should be a great opportunity to get to know one of his lesser known works.

Sue and I read this as a buddy read in April. If you read "Sanctuary" this is a must read. It fleshed out what happened with Temple and some of the reasons for her actions. It explains a lot, almost as though Faulkner himself was unhappy with Sanctuary and needed to fix it.

Also, each of the three sections is preceded by a history of Yoknatapawpha County and it's environs, origins and people. It's worth reading for that alone.

So, I'm confused. I went to check this out at the library and the entire book was written in dialogue. Is this a play? Or maybe another edition or something?

I'll try to get to this one, although can't say I'm in love with the characters from Sanctuary. I do appreciate Faulkner more and more, though, I will say that.

The story action is written as a play. The history parts heading each act is straight prose. I wasn't excited about it either, as I dislike reading plays, but the stage directions were so clear and scenes so detailed that it felt like I was watching it. I did not like Sanctuary either, or the characters, but Requiem is a much better book.

Diane wrote: "The story action is written as a play. The history parts heading each act is straight prose. I wasn't excited about it either, as I dislike reading plays, but the stage directions were so clear and..."

I like plays, but it just threw me for a loop when I picked it up.
Well, I'll definitely give it a go and read it later this month.

I finished this novel a few days ago, and I found it as interesting and moving as Faulkner's other novels. I also changed my reading of Temple: while I forgave her in "Sanctuary" for her awful behavior due to the physical violence she endured, I now take back that forgiveness. She is simply a rotten individual who believes that the relieving of guilt and the road to redemption is easy. These transformations can not be easily fixed with money and status.

My review is here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Very nice review, Joey. I agree with you, my opinion of Temple plummeted in this book. A horrible human being, her finally telling the truth to help Nancy was a day late and a dollar short. Not a good mother, wife, daughter, or person, she was a catalyst for trouble where ever she appeared. It was a nice introduction for Gavin Stevens however. I've been thinking about that title too, and haven't come to any conclusions yet.

Wow. I see Temple very differently. She was forever debased by what happened to her in Sanctuary. She is not an evil, but a damaged person, and the damage is primarily to her soul. I don't think she sees relieving the guilt as easy or even thinks she is worthy of redemption. She blames herself for being unnatural and unfeeling, and she pays a very high price for trying to escape. I think she understands that going off with Red's brother will be a punishment, but what she has now is a full-time feeling of guilt and begging for a forgiveness that she can never have (because she cannot forgive herself.

I think Gowan marries her to assuage his own guilt in what happened to her, but she sees being married to Gowan as a punishment for her "crime" of reaching out to Red for something more than being a prisoner. In this time, even a rape victim was considered compromised and somehow guilty for having allowed it to happen. I think she viewed herself as pristine and above others, and then this occurrence made her feel the opposite, unworthy. She must the "grateful" to Gowan for the rest of her life for just allowing her to be there. His accusation that Bucky is not his is a statement of how he truly regards her.

I love the character of Gavin Stevens. He is a man who sees beyond the surface of people and he is what a lawyer should be, but seldom is, a crusader for truth. He wants justice for Nancy, but I think he wants justice for Temple as well, and knowing that cannot happen, he concentrates on those who might still be saved--the only life that has not already been irreparably damaged, Bucky.

I am still pondering the title. I understand the requiem reference, but why a nun?

I like Gavin Stevens a lot. This was his first appearance in Faulkner, I believe, but he appears in the Snopes Trilogy as well as other later books. He's a great character.

Thank you Joey and Diane. I just read Joey's review and your comments, Diane, and I think you have explained the "nun" inclusion.

I have to mention just how wonderful Faulkner's historic descriptions are at the beginning of each act. I will go back and reread those many times, never mind the play which is good as it stands but can't hold a candle to the juicy funny amazing histories Faulkner provides.

I'm very glad to hear that Gavin Stevens is a character in the Snopes Trilogy... I have that trilogy sitting on a stack on the floor right next to me. Now I will move it closer to the top.

Janice, he's also an important character in "Intruder in the Dust", which is also a fine mystery novel.

Diane wrote: "Janice, he's also an important character in "Intruder in the Dust", which is also a fine mystery novel."

And I've just downloaded the ebook - thanks for the recommendation!

After reading all of these comments, I'm going to have to adjust my reading priorities. I've read a great deal of Faulkner, been to Rowan Oak several times. I can't believe I did not know this book is in some ways a continuation of Sanctuary. Just when you think you know everything there is to know, you find out how little you know. Is there a deadline on having this read, or is this an ongoing read/discussion? Thanks,

Idabel wrote: "Is there a deadline on having this read, or is this an ongoing read/discussion? "

The official group discussion for this book takes place this month but there is no reason you can't read it or post comments on it after the month is over.

Easy to miss the connection since they were written so far apart, Idabel. I am still checking the thread and would love to hear your thoughts.

I'd like to try and squeeze it in this month, but we'll see how that goes. Thanks for the info.

I discussed this book with Diane in April and completely forgot we were going to discuss it here. As I was reading through all of the thread here, I have had a thought about the reference to a nun in the title. Could this be the way that Temple sees herself now--cut off from the world, certainly cut off from her husband, unsure of her connections with anyone else in the world. I think there is self-loathing here. But she is not a likable person, so this nun does not have the aspect of blessing or some sort of holiness we might think of. Instead she embodies the aspect of being now cloistered off from the world. She has now spoken of what she has done. It is public. She can't go back. She will do some form of self-imposed penance forever.

The part of the history of the jail that fascinated me was the bit about the girl - useless and frail - who scratched her name and the date into the small kitchen window glass with her grandmother's diamond ring during the Civil War. The whole story surrounding this artifact ends right before the final scene, and it ends with a profound statement, followed immediately with Temple in the jail. I've wondered just what the connection might be between these two women, one from a century ago, one right here right now. Certainly both of them lived lives which had been controlled by men, but in which they cooperated.

Janice(JG) wrote: "I have to mention just how wonderful Faulkner's historic descriptions are at the beginning of each act. I will go back and reread those many times, never mind the play which is good as it stands bu..."

The introductory history sections before each act are the reason this book is so great. I think Faulkner wrote the book as an excuse to write more of his musings about Yoknapatawphaw County, retelling the South's cultural oddities over and over in different ways in order to achieve more clarity. The fact that he could write a "play" for his actor friends Ruth Ford and Zachary Scott was a plus. Such a mixture of forms is something he was trying to explore and achieving somewhat of a success. Still, "Requiem..." is much more effective because of the long essays which precede each act of the play.

As for the development of Temple's character, Sanctuary is a difficult novel to read because it is so much not what the other early Faulkner novels are. Because it delves into voyeuristic topics and is written in a more direct expository style, it comes off as more like pulp fiction than what we usually think of from Faulkner. But Temple's character still ends up as a complex one, albeit she starts out rather shallow. The events which have an impact on her turn her into something more complex than a simple flirt, and not an evil person. But her internal conflicts are certainly enough for further investigation in "Requiem...."

I just realized that I never checked in about this book (not that anyone was waiting with bated breath!), despite my reading it recently entirely because of this group.

For the sake of putting a period on my time spent with Temple Drake across two novels, here are my thoughts (for the most part copied from a comment I just made on a review elsewhere) on what I eventually considered to be an interesting but ultimately failed experiment:

the most enjoyable parts of Requiem - namely, his history of the (fictional) Yoknapatawpha County - are those parts that are the most Faulkner in style. The dense amount of detail conveyed in that dense Faulkner style was both a challenge and a pleasure to my brain.

The deadly fault at the heart of this book is that the overwrought yet still tedious tale of Temple Drake - those parts that are told in play format, so no Faulkner style on display - have no synergy with the faux-historical parts. So I clung to the latter because Temple's story irritated and even offended me (oh the condescension Faulkner displays to his female characters!) while his amazing history consistently reminded me of why he is a genius.

so overall I loved the non-essential parts of the book but did not particularly appreciate what Faulkner did with the character of Temple Drake. I thought she was complex, interesting, even understandable in Sanctuary. but I thought that she was transformed into a shell of a character in Requiem. I intensely disliked whatever point Faulkner was trying to make by eviscerating Temple and deifying Nancy - a woman who, when all is said and done, murdered a baby for the stupidest of reasons. I clung to those historical parts so that I could avoid being dismayed and offended by what Faulkner was doing in all of the play parts.

Excellent recap, Mark. I completely agree with you.

Good point about Temple vs. Nancy, Mark. I totally agree that the historical parts of this novel are the ones that resonate with the reader.

thanks Diane!

Sara, those parts are the reason why I am still going to hold on to this book rather than putting it on my work's donation shelf. I can easily picture myself going back to one of those historical parts whenever I need a fix of that wonderful Faulkner prose. He really did such a sterling job with those parts.

mark wrote: "thanks Diane!

Sara, those parts are the reason why I am still going to hold on to this book rather than putting it on my work's donation shelf. I can easily picture myself going back to one of tho..."

Exactly why I am also holding on to the book. And I also agree with you about Nancy, I didn't really like how she was venerated, tho' in the big big picture, I could see that Faulkner would have seen her role in this as her destiny, all karmic. I found Temple irritating in both books.

Temple frustrated and irritated me in Sanctuary, but I also felt I understood her and why she did the things she did. I eventually felt quite a lot of sympathy for her and how her horrific situation shaped her various reactions, indecisiveness, and eventual lies. She was real to me.

In Sanctuary, not so much. She felt like Faulkner's whipping post. I resented her and I also resented the way Faulkner treated her.