I just finished reading The Sound and the Fury today. After finishing it, it is easy to see why it has been declared one of the greatest novels of the 20th century. It was the sort of book that immediately after you finish it, you have to sit back and reflect on what you've just read. Despite Faulkner's belief that the book was his "most splendid failure", I think it is most brilliantly written.  That makes me wonder if any writers are ever satisfied with what they write. I know that I am by no means a writer, but the things I do write, for school and such, I am never satisfied with. I know that when you read about authors, so many of them seem disappointed with the outcome of their work.

While this was not the first book I've ever read using the stream-of-consciousness technique, it was the most unique in that it used the perspective of four different narrators to tell the story. It's amazing how each section was written in such a different manner, but was still able to fit together perfectly in order to tell the same story of the demoralization and downfall of a once prestigious family living in Mississippi during the 1920s. Not only did learning about the history of the Compson family through the eyes of three different characters give the reader a more accurate and detailed character sketch of each one, but it also allowed the reader to take a closer look at how certain events throughout the course of time affected both each member of the family and the family as a whole, and how they contributed to the deterioration  of the old moral codes of the South.

The use of time in each of the sections was also a major contributer to the understanding of the story. The way each character views time, living in the past, present, or a mixture of the two, helps to explain why certain events occurred and why each character reacts the way they do. After learning of the family's tragic past and conflicted and immoral present, the story ends with a small bit of hope for the future, found in the most unlikely of places - in the steadfast heart of family's faithful (but often overlooked and shunned) cook Dilsey.

Although Faulkner never believed using stream-of-consciousness as a narration technique did justice to what he wished to convey in his novel, I have to say that it was still absolutely brilliant. I stand in complete awe and admiration of anyone who can take what seems to be a mangled mass of words that normally wouldn't fit together and turn them into a thought-provoking work of art.  That is something I feel I could never do.

I also read The Best American Short Stories 2003. I sort of bought the book on a whim back in December, mostly just to get an example of what is considered to be the "best" in the genre of short stories at this present time. Before now, the only collection of short stories I had ever read were written by Kafka, and anyone who has ever read Kafka knows that to expect anything from him that is completely understandable and decipherable would be utter madness.

While several of the people that reviewed the book on Amazon were displeased, I can't say I was disappointed. I wasn't crazy about all of the stories, but I certainly wouldn't call them badly written. However, many of them did have similar themes, namely people of different ethnic groups trying to fit into modern American society. That didn't really bother me any, considering I had a whole class about that last semester. Anyway, I really enjoyed reading most of these stories. They were short (obviously) and easy to read. A welcome break from the longer novels I've been reading. Now I'm sad because I don't have any more books of short stories to read. Haha, I guess I'll have to go out and buy something!

I think that what I learned most from that book was concerning the difference between novels and short stories. I had never considered short stories as their own separate genre before, I suppose I always thought that they were like miniature novels; same basic structure, only shorter. I like how the editor, Walter Mosley, describes them in his introduction. He says, "A novel is like a mountain - superior, vast, and immense. Its apex is in the clouds and it appears to us as a higher being - a divinity. Mountains loom and challenge; they contain myriad life forms and cannot be seen by anyone attempting the climb. Mountains can be understood only by years of negotiating their trails and sheer faces. They contain a wide variety of atmospheres and are complex and immortal. ... But if I will say that if novels are mountains, then stories are far-flung islands that one comes upon in the limitless horizon of the sea. Not big islands like Hawaii, but small craggy atolls inhabited by eclectic and nomadic life forms that found their way there in spite of tremendous odds. One of these small islets can be fully explored in a few hours."

So like I said, I hadn't really spent too much time reading short stories, so I was surprised to find not a short, condensed novel, but more like a small segment taken from someone's life. It was like reading in detail about one certain event or one aspect of a character's life. Most of them didn't have conclusions that really left the reader with a sense of closure. It was more like either an open ending so that the reader would never really know how the story ended, or the end of a memory recalled by the character. All in all, I would say that the stories were simply written, but powerful enough to convey some sort of message to the reader. The themes were quite obvious, but that's part of what made it a fun, easy read. Now I really need to find some more short stories. Not that anyone other than me would find any of that very interesting anyway.

*Sigh* I wish I could write.

I know that probably wasn't the best book review ever, but it's very late. I don't know why I stay up so late. It's incredibly stupid, but I continually do it anyway. I suppose it's the one stupid, crazy thing I do, and if it's the stupidest and craziest thing I ever do, then I think I'll be in pretty good shape.

Now my parents want to leave for the beach in about an hour and I haven't even slept yet. Oh well, I'll sleep in the car, it's a very long drive.

I know this will probably make me sound boring, but I don't really like beaches. Not the crowded kind where there are tons of people laying out in the sun and all that stuff. That's why I'm excited about where we're going. It's not a beach in the sense most people would think of when they hear the word "beach". It's an island that is a state park out on the southern part of the outer banks. From what we've read, it's not very crowded at all, and it's not the type of beach where you go swimming and lay out and stuff. It's more like a wildlife place. They're supposed to have lots of animals, plants, and marshes around the island. Evidently it was also an important place during the Civil War. There was a fort there at some point, but it's long gone now. Anyway, I am looking forward to seeing the ocean (because I love the ocean even though I hate crowded beaches), walking around looking at the atmosphere, and collecting seashells (which are supposed to be very numerous).

Sometimes I worry that people will think I'm a boring person if I tell them I don't like going to the beach in the traditional sense. I'm perfectly happy being in a small, empty part of the ocean just walking around collecting seashells and such than I would be at some huge beach. Sometimes I'm afraid that other people would think I am boring because I don't like things like beaches, huge parties, and I don't know, just general things like that that most people seem to enjoy. I would much rather spend some time with a small group of friends renting a movie, going to dinner, or just hanging out at someone's house for awhile than running around with all kinds of people going crazy and all that jazz. I don't think I'm a boring person. I have lots of fun, and I'm pretty sure my friends don't think I'm boring either. It's just everyone else that I wonder about. I don't get as excited about some of the same things other people do, and they act like I'm no fun because of that. Oh well, I suppose it doesn't matter what they think anyway!

I've just always had this thing where I've wanted to be popular and well-liked by everyone. I mean I've never been an outcast. Everyone has always talked to me and been very friendly, just not as much on a deeper friendship level. At my high school, I always  felt like I was on the outskirts of fitting in. I was either a little too studious, a little too quiet, or not quite crazy enough. Of course that doesn't count for my friends from middle school. I've never felt that way around them, I just kind of lost touch with them until last summer. Anyway, now that I'm in college, I have the opportunity to be that person I've always wanted to be. I could go out and be well-liked by tons of people if I so choose. The thing is that it would require me to change certain things about myself that I don't really want to change. I think I realized that I don't really need to change and I don't have to be that popular and well-liked. I'm just fine the way I am now, and if I don't change, it will probably be better for me in the long run anyway.  I know I did not come to that conclusion completely on my own accord; I was influenced a bit on the way.

Well I'm not entirely sure how I ended up switching topics so much, but oh well, I guess that's what happens when you just type out whatever is going through your head. In all honesty, I still need to pack (procrastination kicking in again), and I think my parents are going to wake up any time now to leave. Sorry this is such a long post and that I kept on rambling about myself so much.

And I still wish I could write. :/