![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Overall, for one of the most impressive and important novels of the twentieth century, this page is woefully lacking in fact and overfilled with speculative commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.221.188.166 ( talk) 17:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
"Mementoish" is a newly coined adjective after the recent movie. It sounds amateurish. Any ideas for a substitute? Pentimento-like or collage-like? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Chasbo2 (
talk •
contribs)
19:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I have changed the summary to reflect Henry's MUCH more fraught motivations for favouring the match between Charles and Judith. As the novel makes quite explicit (or at least, as explicit as this novel EVER is), his (romantic? intense?) feelings are not (just?) for Judith, but extend to Charles as well - their marriage thus "solves" the classic homoerotic triangle by allowing himself to at once marry charles to his opposite-gender familial stand-in, and through the proxy of charles, satisfy his potential psychosexual fascination for his sister. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.67.217 ( talk) 06:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The plot summary has many subtle but important errors. On a cursory reading,
Before I engage in a massive editing of this article, I thought it best to get feedback about the various issues, perhaps even from the original author, if the author is willing:
In actuality, I believe this entire article needs a total rewrite, mainly to break away from the structure and format of Spark Notes. What says ye?
--
Caleb
22:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
IANAL, but I'm hard-pressed to call the plot summary a paraphrase of Spark Notes, so I'd say that the copyright status of the article is dubious at worst. I would delete the reference to Curtis Johnston. I studied this novel in a college class last semester, and the professor did not even suggest that Faulkner had imitated anyone.
P.S: The Johnston bit was added by a
vandal.
P.P.S: It looks like Johnston himself is a fabrication of this vandal and his
sock puppet. --
Smack (
talk)
06:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I had previously put into the "Analysis" section a brief discussion of Quentin's role as the novel's protagonist, and how it invited the parallels between the Sutpens' story here and the Compsons' in The Sound and the Fury. Somebody took it out, though, and put Quentin's appearance in S&F as Trivia, which is absurd. The fact that Quentin is a major character in both books is anything but trivial! So I've put my previous edit back into the "Analysis" section and removed the bit in the "Trivia" section. Msclguru 20:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Absalom87.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Is "Wash" an excerpt, prequel, sequel or companion piece to this novel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.177.55 ( talk) 01:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Previous short story. But should be regarded as companion piece, but it is not necessary for the enjoyment of the novel at all. Faulkner retells his stories many times, ex. Centaur in Brass, Barn Burning. Exactly like different history books would retell anecdotes differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 ( talk) 19:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
It's hard to know where to begin inasmuch as the entire article is unsourced - written perhaps in a time before time when Wikipedia had no policies (?) but at any rate I'm unclear on how it can be categorized as magical realism or as the text says credited with "magical realism elements". Most of the google hits derive from this article and the few that do not seem to be the musings of their author rather than anything authoritative. The genre did not exist or at least had not been named in Faulker's time, so it makes about as much sense as calling Saint Augustine a postmodernist even if he did employ some literary devices that would later be part of that movement. The matter-of-fact portrayal of supernatural elements as background scenery to illustrate, mirror, or play off the internal mental landscape of the characters is an ancient thing, common in Greek theater for example, and only gains its poignancy as magical realism when put in a modern context where the magical is seen as unrealistic. Any thoughts? Is AA really MR? Wikidemon ( talk) 10:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The number of words for the longest sentence in this book doesn't match with the article Longest English sentence -- 70.246.146.139 ( talk) 00:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the first paragraph, the entire Plot Summary section summarizes the "story within the story" of Absalom, Absalom.
This seems problematic, because it presumes that the various narrators are telling the truth. Yet to assume this is to choose a point of view that a good Wikipedia article should not take.
Moreover, I think it should be noted that the first edition of this book did not have the chronology at the end. Faulkner's editor asked him to add this, and he did in a later edition (the second, IIRC). Some literary scholars have argued that adding the chronology significantly changes the nature of the book, as it reifies the story-within-the-story.
Thus there are three common literary interpretations:
It seems that NPOV requires the Plot Summary section to be neutral with respect to this dispute! That will require a major rewrite. — Lawrence King ( talk) 03:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Absalom, Absalom!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The plot summary as of Apr 2018 has been lifted in full from Scribd. Should this be removed in full Shalor (Wiki Ed)? Aschuet1 ( talk) 17:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Why is this book labeled as one based on the Bible? While the title is a Biblical reference, the story itself as nothing to do with the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:69C1:2A00:40B0:77C1:DA3:353D ( talk) 23:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Overall, for one of the most impressive and important novels of the twentieth century, this page is woefully lacking in fact and overfilled with speculative commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.221.188.166 ( talk) 17:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
"Mementoish" is a newly coined adjective after the recent movie. It sounds amateurish. Any ideas for a substitute? Pentimento-like or collage-like? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Chasbo2 (
talk •
contribs)
19:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I have changed the summary to reflect Henry's MUCH more fraught motivations for favouring the match between Charles and Judith. As the novel makes quite explicit (or at least, as explicit as this novel EVER is), his (romantic? intense?) feelings are not (just?) for Judith, but extend to Charles as well - their marriage thus "solves" the classic homoerotic triangle by allowing himself to at once marry charles to his opposite-gender familial stand-in, and through the proxy of charles, satisfy his potential psychosexual fascination for his sister. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.67.217 ( talk) 06:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The plot summary has many subtle but important errors. On a cursory reading,
Before I engage in a massive editing of this article, I thought it best to get feedback about the various issues, perhaps even from the original author, if the author is willing:
In actuality, I believe this entire article needs a total rewrite, mainly to break away from the structure and format of Spark Notes. What says ye?
--
Caleb
22:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
IANAL, but I'm hard-pressed to call the plot summary a paraphrase of Spark Notes, so I'd say that the copyright status of the article is dubious at worst. I would delete the reference to Curtis Johnston. I studied this novel in a college class last semester, and the professor did not even suggest that Faulkner had imitated anyone.
P.S: The Johnston bit was added by a
vandal.
P.P.S: It looks like Johnston himself is a fabrication of this vandal and his
sock puppet. --
Smack (
talk)
06:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I had previously put into the "Analysis" section a brief discussion of Quentin's role as the novel's protagonist, and how it invited the parallels between the Sutpens' story here and the Compsons' in The Sound and the Fury. Somebody took it out, though, and put Quentin's appearance in S&F as Trivia, which is absurd. The fact that Quentin is a major character in both books is anything but trivial! So I've put my previous edit back into the "Analysis" section and removed the bit in the "Trivia" section. Msclguru 20:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Absalom87.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Is "Wash" an excerpt, prequel, sequel or companion piece to this novel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.177.55 ( talk) 01:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Previous short story. But should be regarded as companion piece, but it is not necessary for the enjoyment of the novel at all. Faulkner retells his stories many times, ex. Centaur in Brass, Barn Burning. Exactly like different history books would retell anecdotes differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 ( talk) 19:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
It's hard to know where to begin inasmuch as the entire article is unsourced - written perhaps in a time before time when Wikipedia had no policies (?) but at any rate I'm unclear on how it can be categorized as magical realism or as the text says credited with "magical realism elements". Most of the google hits derive from this article and the few that do not seem to be the musings of their author rather than anything authoritative. The genre did not exist or at least had not been named in Faulker's time, so it makes about as much sense as calling Saint Augustine a postmodernist even if he did employ some literary devices that would later be part of that movement. The matter-of-fact portrayal of supernatural elements as background scenery to illustrate, mirror, or play off the internal mental landscape of the characters is an ancient thing, common in Greek theater for example, and only gains its poignancy as magical realism when put in a modern context where the magical is seen as unrealistic. Any thoughts? Is AA really MR? Wikidemon ( talk) 10:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The number of words for the longest sentence in this book doesn't match with the article Longest English sentence -- 70.246.146.139 ( talk) 00:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the first paragraph, the entire Plot Summary section summarizes the "story within the story" of Absalom, Absalom.
This seems problematic, because it presumes that the various narrators are telling the truth. Yet to assume this is to choose a point of view that a good Wikipedia article should not take.
Moreover, I think it should be noted that the first edition of this book did not have the chronology at the end. Faulkner's editor asked him to add this, and he did in a later edition (the second, IIRC). Some literary scholars have argued that adding the chronology significantly changes the nature of the book, as it reifies the story-within-the-story.
Thus there are three common literary interpretations:
It seems that NPOV requires the Plot Summary section to be neutral with respect to this dispute! That will require a major rewrite. — Lawrence King ( talk) 03:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Absalom, Absalom!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The plot summary as of Apr 2018 has been lifted in full from Scribd. Should this be removed in full Shalor (Wiki Ed)? Aschuet1 ( talk) 17:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Why is this book labeled as one based on the Bible? While the title is a Biblical reference, the story itself as nothing to do with the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:69C1:2A00:40B0:77C1:DA3:353D ( talk) 23:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)