Word Choices - AP English Literature - Blog

Poor Byron Bunch

I really liked Light in August. The story was fantastic, the characters were complex and fascinating, and the writing was amazing. I did not, however, like the end. Byron Bunch, the sole heroic character of this story, is screwed over in the end by Lena. After all Byron did for Lena, he found her a place to stay, prepared the cabin for the arrival of the baby, got Hightower to come and safely deliver the baby, and then fights Lucas Burch (kind of for Lena's honor in a strange way), Lena dismisses him. What bothers me about the way Lena treats him is that she seems to refuse to either accept or reject him. At the end I was really hoping that Byron would be gone for good, that he would realize that Lena is unworthy of his kindness and set off on his own, but unfortunately Faulkner let me down. Byron did not deserve this ending.

Faulkner Screwed Us Over

After reading such a detailed and complex novel like "Light in August", I was extremely dissapointed in the ending.  Our final LIA quiz asked us if we thought that the last chapter of the book tied in with the rest of the story and whether it was a fitting end to the novel.  I was ticked off by the ending of the book because it almost seems as if Faulkner screwed us over.  When I talked to fellow classmates about what they thought of this question, they all seemed to think that the final chapter went well with the novel because it provided parallel structure to the first chapter.  Yes, it did provide parallel structure, and yes it did tie in with the book, and yes it does make us wonder about the outcomes of Lena, her baby, and Byron... but it just made me think, is that all you've got Faulkner?  After being enthralled and captivated in the novel and having to follow every turn of events with complete caution, I expected a huge and awesome ending.  The end was basically the same as the beginning, as we see Lena on the road again in search of her "baby daddy".  The only thing different in the end is that Lena is accompanied by a baby and a man, and a whole bunch of people are dead.  Basically, I now see "Light in August" as one big circle.  It might be fine for a less eloquent novel to be shaped like this, but one so complex and intricate as "Light in August" should really have a more suspense filled ending making the reader hungry for more.  

Light End August

the final chapter of Light In August provided a meaning to me that consisted of both an anticlimactic and fitting nature. It resolved with me in that it symbolized the fundamental differences between Lena and Joe Christmas, and to me made Lena into sort of a hero or ideal figure in the story. Joe is plagued by his conflicting identity in accordance to society and refuses to accept it, upset with his constant need to wander. Lena, on the other hand, freely accepts her destiny as determined by other people, symbolized by the narration of her actions through a stranger's retelling, and is content to keep moving, refusing to be pinned down by social desires and expectations. the ending makes all of the tension in the story seem ridiculous and unneccessary, giving the story an unexpected and quiet end.

The Mysterious Bobbie

For me, one of the most interesting characters in the book was Bobbie, the waitress and prostitute that Christmas has an affair with. She is constantly described as dark and small with big hands and a head that seems to always be facing downwards. I think Faulkner uses these descriptions over and over again to highlight the role that Bobbie plays for Joe.

Before meeting Bobbie, Joe has had very limited interaction with girls, especially girls around his age.  His contact with them had been through church and has given Joe a very innocent view of women highlighting the "Virgin" end of the "virgin/whore" binary. When Joe meets Bobbie, this image of women is challenged and eventually changed. Bobbie is the first woman Joe is involved with romantically and his experience with her marks Joe for the rest of the book. I think Bobbie is portrayed with an emphasis on black, darkness, smallness, and weakness to highlight the way Joe's view of women changed through knowing her. I think that even through her masculine name, Faulkner is trying to create a strong contrast with the way Joe thought of women before meeting Bobbie and then afterwards.

Happily ever after?

So even though we already finished Light in August. I have a few concerns with the ending. Do you think that ending was suitable for the book? Should Faulkner have put Byron and Lena together without a destination? Do you think if he wrote a sequel they' ll find Lucas?

The Circle of Lena

Lena has gone through interesting events in this book. However, in the beginning and the end of the novel she is travelling to an unknown destination. At the beginning she is walking down the street when Armstid decides to help her and give her a ride to Jefferson. When she arrives in Jefferson she continues on her adventure to find Lucas Burch or Joe Brown but rather runs into a fellow named Byron Bunch.

In the end of the novel Lena is again on the road and travelling to an unknown destination. She is getting a ride with the owner of the furniture store. She is again leaving without a man because she  does not want to have Byron involved in her situation and decides that it isn't fair Byron to be apart of her controversial situation. When talking to Hightower, she realizes that Byron is a good man and that she is putting him in a unfair area because she knows he loves her but the baby is putting a big burden on the two because it is not Byron's child.

We has that discussion in class on whether the ending of the novell was fitting to the book. I found it to be a circle of Lena because she started off on the road travelling to an unknown destination and she is finishing the novel with the same scenario. What do you think of this? What will Byron do? Will Lena leave again without a man?

Lena, Lena and more Lena.

In the beginning of the novel, the reader comes into the story seing Lena, a young girl in search of her man, travelling barefoot and alone. Personally, I thought she looked kinda desperate. Faulkner created the typical young girl in love—vulnerable and starry-eyed—that was willing to do anything for her man, no matter what. Even though her little love story doesn’t turn out how she intended, she ended up back on the road, with someone who actually cared for her, and with a little passenger tagging along. In the final chapter, we come across Lena about two or three weeks after the birth of her baby. Yes, she’s with Byron, but is she really happy? I feel bad for her. She has a man for protection, but does she have any substance? Unfortunately, her life is in major lack of stablity, hence the constant traveling without a set agenda. At some parts, I think Faulkner is creating an image of a free-spirit—young, beautiful, and naïve—but then again, her naïve personality can be taken as ignorance, thus making her look bad. When the furniture man recalls his admiration for the young lady, it’s weird to me. Just like Byron, he’s got that ‘woah, is she really with him? ‘ thing going on. What is it about this girl that  seems to drive men wild? Even though she may come off rather simple, I think Faulkner created her to display the complexity of a woman. Not only does she have the youth and the vigor for life that seems so intriguing, but she’s got an air about her that just makes her a mystery. Perhaps the furniture man was so fascinated by the fact that she was so non-chalant but not carefree. Although Lena has a child now, she’s completely not happy, and for Faulkner, I think that’s saying alot. Yes, she’s a woman, but she’s not really paying tribute to the basic social constructs of women anymore. In the beginning, she seemed to be the desperate girl in love, uncomfortable with herself without Lucas, but now, I feel like even though she hasn’t gained much, she’s grown up, she’s evolved. At first, I thought the last chapter was just the cycle being repeated, but now, I’m pretty sure it’s a continuation of the journey that she’s yet to complete. 

 

It's All About Perspective

Having finished Light in August, I feel that one major element of Faulkner's writing that struck me throughout the course of the novel was how easily he transitions between countless points of view for telling the story through. While this did confuse me at times, I thought that overall it was a style of writing I had never seen so excessively used before yet was still really intriguing. In doing this, I think Faulkner effectively makes a statement as to how much perception, point of view, and personal bias and opinions play a major role in how things play out in daily life. He forces the reader to see the same situations through several points of view, which then leads the reader to consider what is actually true and what is fabricated or exaggerated by the views of others, especially society.

Personally, I thought that was a very interesting and effective tool for Faulkner to use in writing this particular story.

The Grimm Fate of Joe.

Grimm, showing up at the very end of the book, really baffled my sense of storytelling. I mean, the man shows up and then kills Joe, the survivor of unbelievable things such as identity crisises, crazy father figures, and his own twisted hate for himself, after about 10 pages? That's insanity. Faulkner shook me up with chapter 19, taking everything I knew and believed would happen and threw it away. I really didn't understand how such a... dull character could get away with killing a complex one like Joe. A white supremacist, military molded, blindly obedient, and not-so-intelligent character. 
In fact, I think Faulkner might have dropped the ball with this climax. I mean, I know he was trying to keep it interesting, but couldn't something or someone else kill off Joe? This man shows up, a complete foil to everything around him, and just ruthlessly slaughters him! I don't know if I'm just venting or not. I guess the anger finally got to me...
What do you think? Do you think this was the best way to have Mr. Christmas die? Or, do you believe that it could've been done better?  

Satisfied?

Earlier this week, we discussed whether we thought the end of Light In August was fitting. Despite what I heard from others, I thought that the ending was appropriate in many aspects. The final chapter continued ideas from other parts of the book and left room for interpretation.

Chapter 21 brought back ideas from other scenes in the story. For example, Faulkner brings back the relationship between Byron and Lena. A few chapters before, Lena talks with Hightower about keeping a distance from Byron. Byron obviously is attracted to Lena throughout the book, and Lena always pushes him away. The last chapter repeats this pattern. When Lena is sleeping, Byron tries to get beside her, and Lena tells him to leave.

A theme is also brought back in chapter 21. There is a constant theme of the road and travel in Light in August. By the time we reach the end of the book, Lena is on the road, traveling to some unknown destination. This creates somewhat of a circle ending. Lena starts out the book on the road, and she ends the book on the road.

The final chapter leaves room for readers to use their imagination. We are able to discuss what we think Lena will do next. Will she build a closer relationship with Byron? Will she continue to search for Lucas? I wonder what choices she will make as she continues to travel.

 

Without Reason

I think one of the most powerful (and graphic) scenes in the novel is when Grimm murders Joe Christmas.  We talked a little bit today in class about hoe no act of violence occurs in a novel without reason.  I think that Faulkner had more than one purpose for adding this climactic scene into the book.  But one of the more peripheral issues that is involved with this scene is the issue of religion as a blinding and driving force in society.  I don't mean the power of a specific religion in the novel, but just religion as a concept, or religion as a way of turning a blind eye to reason in favor of bigotry and prejudice.  After Grimm discarded Hightower during his pursuit of Joe, Faulkner described his voice as a "young voice clear and outraged like that of a young priest."(pg. 464)  First off I think Faulkner is alluding to a younger Hightower when he was in his early years as a minister in Jefferson.  His staunch faith and beliefs are what blinded him to the spiritual need and aggression of the townspeople towards him.  Much like the younger Hightower, Grimm is a man who is driven by his racist hatred of blacks, and his almost religious belief in the inferiority of blacks to whites is what blinded him to the actual savagery of his actions.  I think that overall, Faulkner seems to paint any kind of ideology that is not based on reason as a way of blinding people to the reality of their actions.

The Gray Area

When a character is alienated from society, they are unable to cope with nonconformity and end up dying.  In both The Stranger and Light in August, both of the main characters die primarily because of the way society portrayed them.  Meursault killed an innocent man and got the death sentence, and Christmas kills Ms. Burden.  So, with that being said, I think that this class is trying to convey the point that socially institutions are able to completely shape identity and the future.  For Meursault, he didn't have a future, and Joe just gave up.  Society led Meursault to realize to the extent of what his action meant.  And society twisted Joe's identity so far to the point where the conviction from Gavin Stevens is based entirely on internal "blood" or race.  And as for Meursault, his conviction was largely based on why he killed the man, and because he didn't have any motives, the conviction was thereby decided.  Do you readers see any other similarities?

The Appeal of Destruction..?

Last year, I was in a play called The Sparrow in the LT. The show included many themes, but one question we asked ourselves stuck with everyone: why are humans so drawn to destruction? We seem to be seduced by destruction-- almost entranced. Destruction and death are everywhere we turn. Destruction cannot be escaped and even though we try to avoid it, we are hypnotized by it. 

Light in August is not short on destructive content and destructive scenes. There are fires and murders and rapes and at every crime scene there is a gossiping mob accompanying it. People talk and whisper and stare, but their gaze cannot be broken. The people in the town, similar to humans in real life, are drawn to disaster and cannot look away. Even the most disturbing images do not faze them. Instead, the images draw them nearer and make them more intrigued. 

Why is this? Why is destruction so appealing? Perhaps disturbing events make life more interesting and give people something to talk about. Is this how boring our lives are that we need a plane crash or a rape or a fire to keep us interested? And maybe it is not a "bad" thing that this is the way people are. Perhaps, it is simply "human nature." But I would like to think there is another explanation to this other than human nature. Any thoughts?

Faulkner and Fate

While the plot of Light In August is filled with conflict and power struggle the end of the novel is both amibiguous and offers little progress in its characters. Joe Brown is once again fleeing his prior life, Lena continues on her seemingly hopeless search for Joe, Byron finds himself in a position of inferiority, and both Joe Christmas and Hightower are dead, doomed forever to be known as outsiders to society. Faulkner make it seem as though his characters have made almost no progress at all despite their traumatic experiences.

In this way it can be seen that Faullkner is commenting on the role of fate in society, and to what extent it determines ones life. Faulkner's characters paths are influenced by external forces, either some larger force or even society. Faulkner attributes the final demise of his characters not to their actions, but to something larger, out of their control.

Faulkner's Reasoning For Starting And Ending The Novel With A Traveling Lena

The book begins and ends with Lena traveling in search of Joe Brown. In many ways, the start and finish of Light In August are very similar.

I think that Joe Christmas is the main character of the novel. It seems up for debate -- every character has a purpose and a complex past that is revealed to the reader.

Before we began the book, I asked my sister what it was about, and she responded, "It's about a man who is part black, but he looks white." Clearly her casual summary did not capture the essence of the novel as a whole, but I think Christmas's struggle is central to the book.

So first and foremost, do you think that Joe Christmas is, in fact, the main character? And why do you think that Faulkner sandwiched Christmas with Lena Bread?

Stereotypes Shmereotypes

Throughout the novel Light in August, Faulkner evinces many stereotypes, which he usually ends up criticizing one way or another. For example, the stereotype between white and black is shown through the portrayal of whites as dominant and pure individuals who can do no wrong, while blacks are savage and barbaric that are a danger to all of society. Another example includes the stereotype between men and women. Faulkner demonstrates the dominant male figure as strong and controlling, on the other hand, the females appear inferior and acquiescent. 

However, Faulkner establishes contradictions to these stereotypes by giving examples that do no follow the expected values. For instance, the relationship between Joanna and Joe illustrate switched gender roles, so he shows how women can control relationships. In addition, in Joe's trip into Freedman town, blacks are portrayed as normal human beings when Joe runs into a few blacks.

Faulkner uses his writing to reflect that stereotypes should not be taken into consideration. What about society today? Does society carry out these stereotypes to this day, or are we in the process of moving on from these stereotypes? 

New Characters

I found it interesting that Faulkner decided to introduce new characters throughout his novel, Light in August, and proceed to write them out of his story. These cameos, performed by such characters as Grimm or the blonde behind the couter at the restaurant Christmas frequented, provided important insight into the thoughts of the people in town.

Grimm was introduced solely for the purpose of hunting down Christmas. Although Grimm held the same prejudices as the townspeople, he acted on his attitudes to an extreme that the citizens would never mimic. Grimm was introduced into Light in August in order to act out the private thoughts of the townspeople. Although the townspeople would never act on their prejudices in the extreme way that Grimm did, their prejudices were so passionate that they believed Grimm's actions to be necessary. Grimm acted in such a vicious way towards Christmas because the townspeople wished it to be done.

Gavin, who?

Faulkner's decision to add Gavin Stevens into Light in August leaves me a bit confused. When I was reading chapter 19 and came to the first introduction of Gavin Stevens, I thought it was odd that Faulkner chose to introduce a character so late into the story. The first statement we learn about Gavin Stevens is that he had a "different theory" as to why Christmas had fled to Hightower's house before he died (444). Faulkner then goes into a paragraph long description of Stevens and his deep family roots in Jefferson. The reader is then introduced to a college professor, a schoolmate of Stevens' at Harvard, who sees Stevens send the Hines's off on the train. Sending off Mr. and Mrs. Hines on the train is one of the only concrete actions the reader experiences when reading about Gavin Stevens.

What kept me wondering, was what is the significance of Gavin Stevens's character? The beginning of chapter 19 is told from Stevens's point of view and it is through this point of view that the concept of Joe Christmas's "black blood" and "white blood" is introduced. I found this passage to be persuasive and eye-opening, but was it necessary for Faulkner to tell this through Gavin Stevens instead of a character already in the novel? Maybe so, since Faulkner might be trying to get a new perspective on Joe Christmas's death. It leaves me wondering what Gavin Stevens's significance is to the novel is as a whole and why Faulkner chose to introduce him so late into the story.

Small Characters Say A Lot

Faulkner develops characters over hundreds of pages, devoting whole chapters to background information for a single character.   Examples of this style include Christmas, Lena, Byron, and Hightower.  But Faulkner also uses characters in a very different way.  Both Gavin Stevens and Percy Grimm only appear for part of a chapter.  Faulkner seems to use these characters not to show character development, but more as tools: tools of societal pressures.  This is true especially for Grimm, who's blind and raging racism, although possibly exaggerated, still represents the sentiments of many at the time and in the area.  What other characters could possibly fit into this category?

Faulkner's Sandwich Thoughts

For the whole time we've been reading LIA, we have been interpreting motifs, deciphering Faulkner's messages about life in America, expanding our "nascentforming" (as Faulkner would describe it) vocabulary, and making our own discoveries about various aspects of the story. Yet, the most interesting part of the book for me, in regards to Faulkner's syntax, was the use of italics.

In order to explain the italics, I thought of each character's subconscious as warped in layers, like a sandwich. But it's a squiggly line, because the thoughts are connected in a stream of consciousness. The words in italics are thoughts that the character experiences, but are quick, and almost immediately subconscious thought-reactions to what's going on. The thoughts in quotations, then, are thoughts that the character consciously, deliberately thinks, and are more of internal discourse or literal contemplation. If anyone has ever seen a Hillshire Farms turkey sandwich, the italics are the turkey (placed in nice, loopy layers between the two pieces of bread). Then, the bread is the character's conscious thoughts. In order to understand this, refer to Figure 1:

   Figure 1

I'll provide an example. This is the scene in which Bobbie tells Joe she is menstruating:

Perhaps he did not need to understand. Perhaps he already expected some fateful mischance, thinking 'It was too good to be true, anyway'; thinking too fast for even thought: In a moment she will vanish. She will not be. And then I will be back home, in bed, not having left at all.

In this passage, Joe's conscious reaction to what Bobbie says is a tone of disappointment; however, subconsciously, his reaction is incredulous, showing traces of offense and embarrassment-- he seems to wish that he could escape the situation ("and then I will be back home...not having left at all"). The thoughts in italics, as Faulkner notes, are immediate, "too fast for even thought," and they are layered below the bread-- the initial conscious, deliberate thought sequence in quotations.

This is my simplistic explanation for the italics. If anyone else has any thoughts, they can respond too.

The War Within Christmas

My group worked with the theme black and white for our unessay and found that Faulkner constantly contrasts the theme through race and symbols. There are many binaries in Light in August, and the people of Jefferson like to classify society by them. However, when Christmas seems to fit to both sides of a binary (black and white) he becomes an outcast. Therefore, my group drew the conclusion that society expects people to fall under only one social construction.

Faulkner stresses Christmas's difficulty identifying with one race in many circumstances. When Christmas travels into Freedman Town, he finds himself torn between two roads. "He could see the street down which he had come, and the other street, the one which had almost betrayed him.." (116). Christmas standing in between the black and white towns shows that he is unable to choose one to relate to. Christmas is also always wearing a white shirt and black trousers. In the scene of Christmas's death, Faulkner describes the inner conflict between black and white that Christmas felt and describes them as finally at peace.

The Grey Area

In our discussions in class for the last week, the one passage that has greatly intrigued me is the one in which Joe Christmas comes to a decision about his identity.  It is only two paragraphs long but it is full of meaningful and important lines that reveal a great deal about Christmas.  Before Christmas was accused of killing Mrs. Burden and was forced to go on the run, he lived in a certain middle ground between white and black, begin of mixed race.  Neither group seemed to want to accept him and he himself did not seem to know which race he truly wanted to belong to.  It was something with which he always struggled.  

In the first part of the passage the turmoil around his identity is evident from the "white men" hunting him and forcing him into the "black abyss" (331).  The repetition of the color black and the description of him being drawn down into the "black abyss" show that the whites have made their decision that he is black, is guilty of the crime, and therefore can never be accepted.  Whether willing or not now Christmas is being forced into the "black abyss" by the whites.    

In the second paragraph Faulker uses words like "neutral" and "greyness" contrary to the use of "black" in the one before.  The general feeling of the passage is also much more relaxed compared to the one before.  What I feel this means is that Joe is finally in a place where he can accept himself.  In other words, the whites have made their decision about him that he is black.  Now Christmas does not have to worry about proving anything to others because society has already defined him as either black or white, black in this case.  Now he is free to define himself, for himself alone, as he likes.  The words "neutral" and "grey" both point out the idea that he has choses to define himself in this middle area, neither black nor white, but identifying with both.  He can do so now because he has nothing to prove to society.  In being given a definition by society he is set free by being able to define himself how he wants to, without worrying about proving something to those around him.  In trying to constrain him, society freed him.  

Faulkner to Camus: An Existentialist in Disguise

Faulkner has a hint of existentialism in him. After reading "Light in August," I could not help but connect characters such as Joe Christmas, Joanna Burden, Lena, with Albert Camus' Meursault. Faulkner's characters portray the same ideas of absurdity and the same notions of guilt and solitude as Camus' do. 

I investigated Faulkner's history as an existentialist. He doesn't have one. Faulkner does not appear on any list of existentialist thinkers and writers (at least any that Google recognizes as worth-clicking-on). I was bamboozled by Faulkner's absence, so I dug up some simple characteristics of existentialism and found an interesting list. 

I also discovered that existentialism emerged in the late nineteenth century and the radical school of thought was blowing minds at full force during the early decades of the twentieth century. (Faulkner was born in 1897 and published his first work in 1919.) Existentialism must have affected Faulkner, and I think its affect seeps into "Light in August." Sure, Faulkner does not lay out every existentialist principle, but he tinkers with social systems and constructs, flirts with solitude and individuality, keys in on the tragic aspects of life, and attacks society's perception of religion, ethics, and race head-on. 

My mind connected Faulkner to Camus before I finished page 507. Maybe Faulkner should not be considered a die-hard existentialist, but I believe the time period in which he lived and the surrounding philosophy in which he wrote rubbed off on "Light in August."

What is the Meaning of Luck?

    When Lena leaves her home in Mississippi, she has no idea where she is going.  Lucas Burch/Joe Brown could be anywhere in the world and see just sets out with blind faith that she will find him.  She bases her traveling completely on word of mouth, following guesses by complete strangers to where Burch might be.  She doesn't have her own transportation, and has to rely on the fact that every ride she picks up will somehow get her closer to Burch.  And finally when she gets to a random town with a man named Bunch, she happens to find Burch who had already changed his name.  It was complete luck.  The coincidence of finding the person you are looking for also happened to Mrs. Hines.  Mrs. Hines also finds her grandson, Joe Christmas by complete luck.  After more than thirty years of him being taking away from her he just somehow pops up in the town she and Doc Hines were living in at that moment.  Again, It was all luck.  Both this events seem to be so unrealistic.  Faulkner uses many of the events in his book to comment on American society, but these unrealistic chances of luck don't really happen in society.  Did Faulkner purposely have the Hines and Lena find the men they were looking for to show that the characters' lives were all entangled? Did all of these characters have something in common that it was fate that they would all meet? Or did Faulkner just take the easy way out by having Lena find Burch and the Hines find Joe in a completely unrealistic lucky way? 

The Imperfections of Christian Figures

I don't think that Faulkner likes religion.  Well, more like the people of Christianity.  At least, it seems that way after reading Light in August.  Most, if not all, of the "Christian" figures in the novel seem to be serving their own agendas.  Half the time, they seem to be using Christianity to push their own racist ideals across.  I think the only person who does not really use his Christianity as a form of pushing his own ideals across is Hightower.  But with Hightower, it seems like he used Christianity as a tool.  He used it to get to the place where his grandfather died.  For him, Jefferson was special, and that was all he really cared about.  I don't think he was ever truly religious, especially at the end when he says that he has gotten out of the habit of praying (I don't remember what page it's on). 

Then there are the people like Mr. Hines.  He seems to believe that God has ordained that white people are above all other races.  He even says that black people bear God's black curse (again, I don't remember the page).  He uses his Christianity as a way of making his racism okay.  For him, religion justifies his racism.

Anyways, I think that the religious figures are portrayed as sort of corrupt for a reason.  It shows the imperfection of the church at the time.  At least, it shows the misuse of Christianity.  What do you think?

Bloody Breakdown

As we are delivering our "unessays" tomorrow, I thought it might be a good idea to open any discussion on our group's topic: blood. When I initially read for the motif of "blood," I found a multitude of instances that connected on a very basic level. As I thought more and more about Faulkner's deliberate use of "blood" or "bloody" when another word could have sufficed, I recognized some deeper complexities in his argument. Even after working with my group on this motif, I have yet to fully understand its implications.

After reviewing a handful of encounters, I noticed Faulkner's argument that blood revealed true character. Blood, in essence, could not hide behind skin color and masquerades of society. In spilling or exposing blood, one could bypass all the outside cover and see the raw character of an individual. Although this argument proved valid, I thought that Faulkner was attempting to convey something more within his novel. In 500+ pages of literature, the occasional appearances of blood address some other elements.

Once our group conferred, we arrived at the conclusion that Faulkner critiques society's perception and reasoning to some extent. Ultimately, Faulkner attacks the basis on "biological differences" that society uses to categorize individuals. This concept of honest character in one's blood is Faulkner's form of "truth," the only valid basis to identify individuals.

So, I ask the question, do you believe that Faulkner intended blood to represent some greater categorization of character? Have you ever noticed another piece of literature propose blood as truthfulness or true character? Do you think that there is a better basis for an individual's character? Personally, after finishing the novel, I definitely appreciate Faulkner's incorporation of blood as a contrast to societal claims based on "biological" premises.

Why Does Byron Stay With Lena?

Okay, in general, I really liked this book. I really enjoyed Chapter 19 in particular, because even though Byron gets a serious beating at the hands of Lucas Burch, he still triumphs at some level. Byron taking a stand against Burch symbolizes, in my mind, all timid, kind men out there taking a stand against the bad men of the world. Chapter 19 had my hopes up, I was imagining Byron Bunch returning to Jefferson, marrying Lena, and regardless of whether or not they stayed in Jefferson, Byron would be claiming a victory for the underdogs of the world. Instead, Byron ends up being maliciously tortured by Lena as he follows her around. I get this sense of malice from page 501, when the furniture salesman notices that while Lena and Byron are discussing something (probably the prospect of Byron marrying her), Lena was "smiling a little she was" (Faulkner 501). She treats him with neither rudeness or kindness, just a sort of ambivalence, which prevents him from getting closure. When Byron runs off, I was honestly hoping he would be gone for good. Lena doesn't deserve him. What do you all think?

The Death of Hightower

Was it just me, or did Hightower die at the end of Chapter 20?

"Then it seems to him that some ultimate damned flood within him breaks and rushes away. He seems to watch it, feeling himself losing contact with earth, lighter and lighter, empty, floating. 'I am dying,' he thinks. 'I should pray'." (492).

"...with his last left of honor and pride and life." (the same page).

Certainly sounds like Hightower is dying to me. But if so, why? Before this dying feeling comes over Hightower, he experiences this bizarre halo of faces, whose faces are clear and recognizable except for Christmas, whose face is apparently mixed with Grimm's face. Both Grimm and Christmas struggle to be themselves and each other, but not for themselves.

Why is it that Hightower, the ex-priest who trys to bail Christmas by lying in God's name, dies so soon after Christmas, the criminal he tried to bail out? And why does Christmas decide not to pray before death? Faulkner obviously wants us to notice that - "It should pray. I should try to pray.' But he does not. He does not try."

If anyone has circle/wheel as their motif, this passage would be great to look over.

Clairvoyance of race. What does that even matter?!

After finishing "Light in August" I have come to conclude that Faulkner creates a sense of clairvoyance in regards to predetermined destinies. Characters are capable of determining right and wrong as well as specific impending actions of other characters. For instance on page 6, a common theme is represented. One person is accused accurately of an action: "He accused the right man (young bachelors, or sawdust Casanovas anyway, were even fewer in number than families)." Faulkner repeatedly allows for predictions of a character's destiny (made by others) to come true. The basis of these determinations are commonly related to race.

While the judgemnent made by the people in the the novel is accurate and always predicts one's future actions, I do not believe this is the case at ALL in real life.

Why would Faulkner feel this to be an important aspect of his novel?

Jumping people like a chess piece

As Percy Grimm moves in on Joe Christmas, Faulkner makes an interesting comparison. "Blind obedience to whatever Player moved him on the Board." Not only does this explain some other events where people were able to track and move in on Christmas (Mr. Hines and Mr. McEachern both had odd abilities to find Christmas's whereabouts), but it provides an interesting take on the fate vs. free will debate. 

Faulkner compares life to a game of chess: the paths we travel in life all lead to a predetermined destination, no matter how we move. Fate, or the Player in Faulkner's chess game, is like an overarching force that can determine which path we take. Joe Christmas spent much of his life running, trying to escape his fate. He finally got caught, and that resulted in his death. This speaks to the sort of inescapability that life gives us. 

Are there other instances where Faulkner talks about Fate and Free will even implicitly? Do you see Faulkner's chess metaphor the same way I do, if not how else do you see it?