Gone With the Wind Fans discussion

I've been thinking a good bit about Margaret Mitchell and Faulkner, given Absalom, Absalom! and GWTW were published both in 1936. I found a couple of articles pertaining to this subject that are most interesting:

http://gwtwscrapbook.blogspot.com/201...

and...

http://www.newliteraryhistory.com/gon...

Out of curiosity, what do all of you think? To me, Faulkner was brilliant in his radical reimagining of the novel and what it could achieve stylistically, but his work seriously lacked pathos (with the exception of The Sound and the Fury). I have never read his work and felt moved, much less even involved in the story; with Mitchell, I feel the exact opposite. Even her letters are absorbing, expressing profound ideas in simple, yet deep, language. I think the first link, which has quotes from Absalom, Absalom! aligned with quotes from GWTW, illustrates their differences to a tee. And Mitchell's prose is far more focused and meaningful (at least to me).

So, whom do you prefer, Faulkner or Mitchell? Who was the better writer? Who was the more compelling?

I've read a good bit of Faulkner, including attempting Absalom, Absalom! about five (!) times and still not understanding what he was trying to say. The Sound and the Fury is a work of art, and As I Lay Dying and Light in August are both brilliant.

I think you're right about their differences. I've read her review of Soldiers' Pay, and I also have this GWTW trivia book with quotes from Faulkner, most of which are rather derogatory:

"I seem to be so out of touch with the Kotex Age here."

"No story takes a thousand pages to tell."

I know the article included the latter quote, but the first one, which is from 1936, sounds like sour grapes to me. I get that Absalom, Absalom! is much more innovative stylistically, but I did not enjoy it - at all.

One coincidence that interests me is that in 1985, both Lonesome Dove and Blood Meridian were published, and Lonesome Dove won the Pulitzer Prize. The miniseries of Lonesome Dove is one of the most popular ever made, and the novel has been viewed (mistakenly, in my opinion) as a romantic view of the West. Oddly, Larry McMurtry received many of the same criticisms as Mitchell and even defended his novel with almost the same words, claiming he thought he had written a crude novel about crude people in crude times (I found that in an article; I'll find the link momentarily. As for Mitchell, I read her stating more or less the same words in a letter, the source for which I'll also dig up soon.) McMurtry has also remarked that he grew up hearing his parents and grandparents tell stories about cowboys, the last cattle drives from Texas, and a lost way of life, which sounds like someone else we know. :) Additionally, McCarthy seems to attract the same kinds of critics as Faulkner, praised mostly for his "innovative" style and celebrated for writing over-the-top violence. He is even compared with Faulkner, and Blood Meridian is supposed to be his masterpiece, as with Faulkner and Absalom, Absalom!.

I have not read Blood Meridian, but am about to get it from the library; however, I have read other works by McCarthy and find him dry, pretentious, and completely lacking in any kind of pathos. He is also incapable of writing women characters; they always either die, are already dead by the beginning of the story, or are just completely absent from the entire novel. Faulkner is a much more compelling writer, in my opinion.

I have read Lonesome Dove and believe it is a masterpiece. In many ways, it reminded me of GWTW in terms of themes and attention to character development. It's long, but superb, and the style never gets in the way of the narrative, as Mitchell would have put it. I've been reading about it lately, and the similarities between Faulkner/Mitchell and McMurtry/McCarthy are fascinating.

Sorry for this ridiculous tangent!

I do agree both MM and Faulkner were each brilliant in their own rights and comparison is difficult if not impossible to impose on their works.