Opening

I'm thinking about what I can do with this, and I'm liking the idea of spending some time typing out - and thinking about - my research on Faulkner. I'm writing a dissertation on Faulkner, and I'm working on an angle that I hope has not been exhausted yet. Alas, so many have been exhausted!

I'd like to talk about how Faulkner's work relates to issues of regionalism - especially through its use of form. I completed a preliminary examination for doctoral candidacy that focused on issues of regionalism in American literature. I was really smitten with the work of Judith Fetterley and Marjorie Pryse. I'm not sure that it's fashionable anymore, though I admit that I've been known to be a slave to critical fashion at more than one point in my academic career. But my interest is genuine, and I really think that there are quite a few poignant questions about the so-called "ideology of form" that lack adequate answers.

Let me state a few core beliefs to help myself clarify my thinking:

1. I don't like the way that Faulkner, as an author, has not really been allowed to die. Too many critics are still obsessed with determining his intentions. I don't think that's really possible with any author, let alone this enigmatic trickster. But a number of incidents in his publishing career lend themselves to a constant revival. In other words, Faulkner may be dead, but we can't seem to chase away his ghost. Another big problem that has kept us from sticking a fork in the bastard is the way that other people - editors, scholars, publishing folks - have tinkered with his work. An important example is the "corrected text" project undertaken by Noel Polk. We no longer have access to several of the novels in their original published form. In some cases, as in the case of Sartoris, the novel is no longer published because it no longer represents, apparently, the "will of the author." Instead, we have "Flags in the Dust," the unedited version of the novel that was submitted to Faulkner's publishers, and subsequently hacked into the novel Sartoris. Why is this important? This is the novel that launches Yoknapatawpha, that weaves Faulkner's family history into the fabric of the fictional "postage-stamp."

2. The second is related to the first. Faulkner has been used and re-used for political purposes. As Lawrence Schwartz points out at great length, Faulkner criticism has never been isolated from cultural and historical context, and has never been completely objective and innocent. Faulkner's rise to prominence in the Post-WWII era had a great deal to do with the international need for American cultural products that could be said to convey American values and culture. When several critics began to address the "ideologies" - a dangerous word - of Faulkner's texts, a kind of soft dichotomy began. There were critics who continued to address his "language," and critics who tried to address the import of his work. As Wellek and Warren might put it, "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" criticism became sharply divided in the vast body of Faulkner scholarship. This echoes the "culture wars" that were fought in the academy in the Reagan Era, but it isn't so clear that these wars are over yet in the world of Faulkner scholarship.

3. Despite these difficulties, or rather, because they are inescapable and must be dealt with, I like to show appropriate respect for the work of my predecessors. Despite the serious flaws in the politics of the New Critics, several stalwart New Critics such as Cleanth Brooks have made important contributions to Faulkner scholarship. There are few critics who have written as extensively or as incisively about Faulkner as he has. Moreover, I don't wish to turn my attention toward studying the critics alone. While the history and development of American literary scholarship is a fascinating subjecting, I'm not willing or able to discourse intelligently about so vast a subject.

For now, let me break off the discussion at this point. I would like to close by saying that Faulkner scholarship is fascinating because of the cultural importance of the writer. The above difficulties are exactly the reason that Faulkner is himself such an interesting case. I would not want to eliminate the political freight of my predecessors' work. Nor am I silly enough to think that it would be possible to do so.