William Faulkner's novels have long been a serious reading gap for me, one I intended to fill as I worked my way through Time Magazine's list of the greatest 100 English-language novels published since 1923. Faulkner is represented twice on that list (The Sound and the Fury and Light in August), but of course, Faulkner comes with a reputation of being "difficult" and "intimidating." I figured it might be constructive if I just started at the beginning, with Faulkner's first novel, and work my way through his ouevre that way, so I might be better equipped to handle his meatier books.
This raises a strategic question, however: When reading and reflecting on Soldiers' Pay, am I supposed to take into consideration Faulkner's future work, which I haven't read, or do I take this novel on its own terms? Going through a lot of the 1- and 2-star reviews here, it seems most people are indeed holding this book up against his later novels (and inevitably falling short), but since I cannot do that, I can only judge this one as if it were Faulkner's only work, possibly revisiting it later as I move through his catalog. And I have to say, I enjoyed it quite a bit, even with its flaws.
(First, I should say how heartening it is that even someone widely considered to be America's greatest novelist stumbled out of the gate trying to find a unique voice and narrative style. It should give the rest of us poor schmucks hope.)
Let's just say that Faulkner's Nobel prize was not awarded to him because of Soldiers' Pay, which feels like a patchwork of ideas and genres sewn together. There's a bit of Southern gothic, a pulpy love story, often tangential war commentary, and a whole lot of religious imagery all put in the blender. You can see Faulkner try stuff out in real time, seeing what works, abandoning what doesn't. A couple times he stops the narrative to go around the world he's created and see what each character is thinking, as if in stage direction. Most successfully, he also throws in parenthetical asides to tell us what a character is really thinking as he's speaking. And there's a healthy dosage of humor sprinkled in, something else I'm not sure Faulkner is known for, so that was a pleasant surprise.
I guess my biggest gripe is that the central story (who will marry Donald Mahon, the dying soldier the entire narrative hinges upon) isn't always that compelling, and there are a couple characters whose presence is never fully explained (none more so than Januarius Jones).
But it works. Yes, this book feels overwritten, and there's a good chance it would have been entirely lost to time if William Faulkner's name wasn't on it. But if you want to get a taste of Faulkner without having to put in the heavy work that his future novels demand, Soldiers' Pay may be worth your time.
On to Mosquitoes!