Intruder in the Dust by William Faulkner

Second reading. Evidently first read a long time ago, because I didn't remember I had read it before until about 20 pages in.


Of the ten Faulkner novels I have read, this is my least favorite. The main reason: the subject matter does not seem to fit the language. When describing the Southern landscape or recounting Gothic-flavored events, Faulkner's lush stream of consciousness sentences enhance the narrative. However, when the basic plot is a somewhat simple crime story and when the convoluted sentences are primarily used to detail Faulkner's opinions about how to solve the problems of race relations in the post-Civil War South, the reader becomes tempted to skim over the lengthy digressions and to view them as needless indulgences on the author's part. He does not seem to be telling a story here so much as preaching a sermon about how government interference has hampered rather than helped in the South's healing.

The plot concerns the murder of a white man for which a black man is blamed. The pride of the black man prevents him from telling his side of the story to the authorities because he knows he will not be believed. Instead, he enlists the help of a teenaged white boy who owes him a debt of honor, who is assisted by his black friend and an elderly old-maid who happens to believe in the innocence of the accused.

For the first time in reading Faulkner, I became annoyed at his refusal to use standard punctuation, when it would have made the text so much easier to read. And really, parenthetical elements inside parenthetical elements in sentences extending over pages--was that really necessary?

As always, the best way to read Faulkner is aloud or at least aloud in your head, to catch the rhythm and the sense. One cannot skim read William Faulkner.