Sanctuary: The Corrected Text

For some reason Amazon is including reviews for, I think, a Nora Roberts book under Faulkner's title, so to be clear I named my review for the novel I am actually reviewing.Faulkner described his writing this wanting to write a "potboiler" but I suspect he either had something else in mind or he, like some other artists I am familiar with, can't help but be creative. There's so much more here than just that.Temple Drake moves from a life of college and parties, under the protection of her father (a judge, whose existence she seems to think protects her even out of his presence) and four brothers, to slumming it with Gowan Stevens (he learned to drink like a gentleman in college) and found herself in another world where she didn't belong. Ruby, mostly referred to as 'the woman' because she willingly lost her identity for a man who seems to own her without loving her, sees this clearly right away. Temple finds herself in beyond over her head and isolated from the rest of the world, her old world, and even when she has chances to escape (just leaving, or later in a car stop) it's convincing why this doesn't happen. Ultimately, though, Temple is a survivor.Horace Benbow, from Flags in the Dust, figures prominently (which is what lead me to read Sanctuary after The Unvanquished and Flags) as does his sister (who we see more of the controlling negative side). Horace's interest in Temple is fueled by his concern for the similarity of Little Belle, who is also in college.In the end everyone gets what they have coming to them, which was a little more satisfying than some of Faulkner's other novels.In what tends to be typical Faulkner doesn't always make it clear who is who (it took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out the "Lee" and "Goodwin" were the same person) and things happen so suddenly that it takes a while to get it clear, but this has come to be part of the enjoyment of reading this author.On my journey in reading the (so-called non-major) novels I've missed I'm moving on to the sequel Requiem for a Nun.Solid novel, much underrated in my opinion.

Sanctuary, one of Faulkner’s early novels, focuses on the dark side of Southern society in post-Civil-War America. It is one of Faulkner’s more readable works. It’s a more straightforward crime mystery that is still based on the convoluted Yoknapatawpha County, Mississippi.Like many (most/all?) of Faulkner’s characters, they appear aimless and uprooted from life. While in college, the daughter of a judge is raped and is kidnapped to Memphis. She eventually becomes a sex slave in a brothel.Most of the story lacks a foundation as much as Faulkner’s characters do. Time, as always in Faulkner, plays a central role. Although time progresses in reality, time always seem as stuck as a dead watch to these characters. They lack a basic purpose and direction in life. They had a narrative which was centered around living an aristocratic life with slaves doing the manual work; now, they do not have a sense of self. Lacking a narrative that describes who they are, they also lack a central inspiration to seek something – anything – better.Of course, Faulkner is sophisticated and heady as always. He is less verbose than he is in many other works (think The Sound and the Fury and Absalom! Absalom! with their page-long sentences). Faulkner claimed to have written this novel purely for profit, but some question this. This book is incredibly action-packed. If anything, the plot advances too quickly rather than too slowly.Anyone looking for character development will be disappointed by this book. Its characters are run down. In the end, they are lynched, executed for crimes that they didn’t commit, disillusioned, and sexually tortured. They illustrate how precarious life can be – how even a judge’s daughter can end up a sex slave and unable to advocate for herself.

As I pen this review, I am still a bit conflicted about how to judge the merit of Mr. Faulkner’s fifth novel, Sanctuary. On one hand, Faulkner’s writing style is, as usual, brilliantly displayed in this work, with prose so dense, illustrative and sophisticated that sentences and paragraphs are worthy of rereads. On the other hand, I do to agree with Faulkner’s initial reaction to this work as a “cheap idea” in that the sensationalist aspects of the plot seem to overshadow or override the work as a whole, and dampen the reading experience a tad. I’m divided, and so, I give this three stars.I do realize, though, that the “shock” element to Faulkner is hardly a rarity. He employs some shock in many of his novels and works. Somehow here, though, it is not as effective.In a larger context, the characters and plot for Sanctuary seem to be a vehicle for the exploration of evil and corruption. Corruption comes in various forms, and seems to overwhelm in this novel. Many of the characters fall into its clutches, or seem to be heading towards an inevitable and irrefutable path towards a dark fate. You can assure that, if there is a light at the end of the tunnel, it will probably be an oncoming train. At the center of its workings is the character of Popeye.Two of the key characters who fail to escape its clutches are Temple Drake and Horace Benbow. Temple Drake’s ultimate fate is the center piece of everything that is the crux of the book’s central conflict. Horace Benbow, a lawyer who is involved in a key courtroom scene and seems to be the symbol of possible moral hope in Sanctuary, is not spared either.Sanctuary has a bit of the grotesque. In some manners, it reminded me a bit of a Flanner O’Connor work in the level of grotesque characters and situations (for example, the baby kept in the box). That being said, Sanctuary does not have the same level of dark humor as we could expect to find in O’Connor (although it does have a few).I have been reflecting on the title for a bit. Characters seemingly try to find their own sense of sanctuary or refuge in this book, but with minimal success.In the end, I don’t think Sanctuary can be ranked as high as such works as Light in August or As I Lay Dying, which I think are superior to this one.Still, it’s Faulkner, and I will probably pick up Requiem for a Nun to continue on.

Sanctuary was written by William Faulkner in 1931, purely for money, according to Faulkner himself. It came in the wake of the commercial failure of The Sound and the Fury and As I Lay Dying, and was markedly more popular, though much criticised for violence and immorality.Sanctuary, unlike its predecessors, has a linear narrative which is easy to follow, for the most part. The plot is set in motion when rich kids Gowan Stevens and Temple Drake crash their car and seek help in a bootlegger's house, where they are given accomodation for the night.This house is inhabited not only by the bootlegger Goodwin and his wife but also by various acquaintances of his including the shadowy and threatening Popeye. The scenario at this point is somewhat reminiscent of Texas Chainsaw Massacre or other such movies. There is an atmosphere of simmering violence but the actual violence is never openly described.Following the commission of a crime at the bootlegger's house, the focus widens to include local lawyer Horace Benbow, a mild and decent everyman who becomes involved in the case because he believes that the wrong man has been arrested( and the reader knows that he is correct in this) and possibly also because he has feelings for the defendant's wife. The action later moves to a brothel(the "sanctuary" of the title?) where members of the Snopes family, recurring characters in Faulkner, appear, and serve primarily as comic relief.Overall this is a somewhat lurid and sensationalist tale, by 1930's standards, at least. The violence is not accompanied by any moral judgement by the author. As with most of Faulkner's books, he gives no clue as to where his sympathies lie; this is one of his great strengths, imo. This is a very readable book, suspenseful, sometimes funny, set in a dark, cruel and unsentimental world( most similar to Light in August). Though no masterpiece, this book is sure to appeal to all devotees of Faulkner and his particular worldview, and is also an accessible starting-point for those unfamiliar with this great writer.

Ich habe mich sehr gefreut ein so günstiges Exemplar dieses Buches zu finden.Da ich es für meine Diplomarbeit brauche, war es mir natürlich auch wichtig, dass es flott da ist.Alles perfekt. Kam wie beschrieben innerhalb der nächsten Tage an (weiß die genauer Dauer nicht mehr, aber sehr flott).Natürlich erkennt man bei einem gebrauchten Produkt ein paar Gebrauchsspuren, aber ganz ehrlich, das ist nicht der Rede wert.War wirklich fast wie neu. Es wurde nichts markiert und die leicht vergilbten Seiten sind hervorragend lesbar.Kann man gar nichts daran aussetzen.Freu mich sehr über das Buch.Zum Inhalt des Buches:Herrje... Also wer Faulkner mag, der wird meine Rezension nicht schätzen.Ich finde den Stil einfach scheußlich. Ich werde mit dem Herrn einfach nicht warm.Permanent habe ich das Problem, dass ich nicht weiß, wer gerade spricht. Die vielen "he" and "she" sind mir oft einfach unklar.Ohne Frage ist "Sancuatry" ein Beispiel für das Gothic Novel. Massig werden Leute abgeschlachtet, eine Frau wird mit einem Maiskolben vergewaltigt, und die ganze Atmosphäre ist einfach unheimlich aufgeladen. Sein total hektischer Stil trägt natürlich zum Spannungsaufbau bei und lässt den Leser spüren, wie verzweifelt die arme Frau ist. Aber dennoch verstehe ich nicht, wieso man permanent alles wiederholen muss, was bereits gesagt wurde (und man sich trotzdem teilweise nicht auskennt) ist mir auch unverständlich.Ein kleiner Ausschnitt als Kostprobe:"Yes", she said, "all right. Don't you let him in here.""You mean fer me not to let none of them in hyer?""All right. I'll fix hit so cain't nbody git to you. I'll be right hyer.""All right. Shut the door. Don't let him in here.""All right." He shut the door. She leaned in it, looking towards the house. He pushed her back so he could close the door. "Hit ain't goin to hurt you none. Less says. All you got to do is lay down.""All right. I will. Don't you let him in here." p. 80Mein stilistischer Horro... aber hey, wer das mag. Ich musste nach der Lektüre eine Internet-Zusammenfassung konsultieren, um mir sicher zu sein, was ich da gelesen habe. Ich war z.B. der festen Meinung, dass Temple zur Prostitution gezwugen wurde. Da lag ich falsch.Also das Buch bekommt 5 Sterne, was der Autor da fabriziert hat für mich nur 1.

The Penguin Classic cover states, 'no perceptive reader..will mistake it for a lurid narrative of violence'. Well, this review is being written by a non-perceptive reader.A small gang of moonshiners live in the backwoods of Tennessee led by world weary Goodwin and his unnamed moll. A drunken young couple foolishly stray out of town to get more alcohol and despite warnings stay the night. For Temple, the teenage girl who is a wild-child way out of her depth, it becomes a nightmare culminating in rape and abduction by the emotionally disturbed gangster Popeye.Temple is transferred to a brothel in Memphis run by the outrageous Miss Reba while Popeye acts as pimp and indulges in some disturbing sexual deviance. Quite how this got past the censors in 1931 is baffling. Goodwin discovers that another one of his gang has been killed when Popeye left and having reported the crime is wrongly arrested.The core story then interlinks the search by small town lawyer Horace Benbow for Temple, as the only witness who can save Goodwin from the Chair, with Benbow's own covetous feelings for the gangster's wife. Benbow is central to the novel as he does what is 'right' in the face of prejudice but there are countless more convincing candidates for this role in American literature.Faulkner's style can sometimes be difficult and he has an obsession with the words 'whirling' and 'whirled'. There are a couple of amusing scenes both revolving around the brothel but this is a dark unremitting tale.This is not Nobel Prize-winning stuff. There is a 'rumour' that Faulkner deliberately courted publicity with this racy, violent pot-boiler for his later better-known works. Whether the 'rumour' is true or not, on this evidence I could well believe it.

Like many people i had "The Sound and the Fury" assigned in my freshman English literature survey course over 50 years ago. Again as with many other people, a major result of that course was a conviction that the works of William Faulkner were beyond me. I was then curious when going over the listings for TCM movies one night to see that the movie 'The Story of Temple Drake" was inspired by a Faulkner novel.I watched the movie and thoroughly enjoyed it. Out of curiosity, I researched it and discovered the novel on which it was based was 'Sanctuary" and that the movie was based on only part of it. I put the book in my Amazon shopping cart but was undecided about it given my freshman experience. I bought it almost by accident when I used Amazon to buy some novels for my wife. I was surprised to see "Sanctuary" in the order but decided to maintain the order out of curiosity.I am very glad that I maintained that order since I discovered a Faulkner that I did not know existed. I read "Sanctuary" and then in quick succession, I've read "As I Lay Dying", Light in August" and "Pylon". I now have an ambition of reading all of Faulkner's novels within a year and to end that year by attempting to read "The Sound and The Fury".

One of the most engrossing and atmospheric books I've ever read. His writing style is very slick, to put it grossly, but I can't find a better word for it.