Customer Reviews

Flags in the Dust

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

While excessively verbose (though one its outstanding features) 'Flags in the Dust' is a requisite early read for the serious Faulkner reader. If you must, read 'Sartoris' which is 'Flags in the Dust' with 80 or so pages edited out. If you just want a taste of Faulkner and aren't too serious, go for some of the more well-known works. If you want to understand Faulkner, you must familiarize yourself with him through such works as 'Flags in the Dust', 'Sanctuary', and 'Unvanquished'. If you jump right to 'The Mansion', or 'The Sound and the Fury' or 'Absalom, Absalom!' you will miss much.

I read this book in three sittings. The novel thrills as well as exasperates, especially as it starts to wind down at the end. Plot threads are not all neatly tied up at the end and the repetition of several character names -- Bayard in particular -- delineating three generations of male descendants with the same first name can be confusing and obscure, but the central story of Young Bayard Sartoris, recklessly pursuing the fulfillment of a death wish out of guilt for the death of his brother in World War One, is undeniably powerful. The plot concerning Narcissa's mysterious anonymous love letters is also intriguing particularly in light of the fact that Faulkner picks up this plot thread in a short story called "There was a Queen". Horace Benbow and his relationship with Belle, a married and "fallen" woman, also makes for delicious, though highly literal, reading.

I was reminded in some respects of Dickens.

This book, the first of Faulkner's series of novels set in the fictional county of Yoknawpatawa Mississippi, is a terrific stepping stone from which to plunge into his later works.

It isn't perfect, but -- like Young Bayard's crazy, suicidal jaunts in his "modern" automobile --it is a terrific and thrilling ride.

Before I read this book, I kept hearing what a horrible novel it was. However, it isn't horrible; it's just not nearly as fantastic as some of his other works. It's still definitely worth the read, though.

If you can make it through sentences that seem to never end and some repitition, you will find a great story of love, guilt, and Southern life. This book opens with the Sartoris family, and several young men (Bayard Sartoris and others) returning home from World War I, and the impressions war left upon them. Thrown in with a little bit of incest, love notes, and a daredevil, this book provides a good combination of mushiness (sp?), humor, and sorrow.

However, while some have said not to read this book as your first Faulkner, I disagree. And here's why: reading this book after you have read some of his other works really makes you look at this book in a more negative way, since his other works have been so great. Just remember, if this is your first Faulkner read, many of his other works are MUCH BETTER, so if you read this first and don't like it, there are MUCH BETTER ones out there. As far as reading goes, it's a pretty easy read (although you might have to keep track of all the Johns and Bayards), at least in comparison to some of his other books. Also, if you plan on reading other Faulkner books, this one is a MUST, since it introduces you to the Benbrows, Snopes, and the Sartorises-all characters that are found in some of his other novels.

If you want to start reading Faulkner, begin with this book. This is his first compelling novel, and, while not a masterpiece like The Sound and The Fury or Absalom, Absalom, it is more accessible and beautifully renders the aristocratic glamour and reckless violence of the Sartoris men. Equally arresting is the characterization of Horace Benbow.

Though not as complex and difficult as some of his more famous works, Flags in the Dust provides some outstanding writing. It may benefit some to read The Unvanquished prior to this book as it gives some background on the Sartoris family, the main focus of Flags. Many of Faulkner's descriptions in this book are uncanny. I would have only given this book four stars, but his two-page description of the mule was alone worth one more star.

Three-and-a-half-stars. "Flags in the Dust" is the first of Faulkner's Yoknapatawpha novels; it is a must-read for all potential Faulkner fans. It's not his best, by any means--the storyline is at times skittish (perhaps owing to the fact that "Flags" is the uncut, unedited version of what was originally published under the title "Sartoris"), and the characterizations are neither as deep nor as unique as those found in his later works. But "Flags" has charm and importance nonetheless. First, it is a crash course in the Sartoris family, whose many "John"s and "Bayard"s (not to menion the indomitable Granny Millard and Aunt Jenny) comprise a hefty chunk of Faulkner's later novels and short stories. Second, it is absolutely *amazing* (and I can't underscore that enough) to see Faulkner's great novels just beginning to poke through the surface of Jefferson, MS soil: the Snopes family, V.K. Ratliff (here named V.K. Suratt), the McCaslins, the Compsons (I think reference is made even to Thomas Sutpen) all make appearances in the novel. Therefore, I recommend reading "Flags" *after* you've read most of the other Yoknapatawpha novels--the breadth and depth of Faulkner's vision (anticipating or laying the foundation for novels he would write 20 or 30 years later) is truly remarkable, and is half the joy of reading it. (But whenever you read "Flags," at least make sure you've read "The Unvanquished" first--the characters will make far more sense if you do.) As for the story itself: it's convoluted and not always engrossing--though the angst of young Bayard (silently mourning the wartime death of his brother John) is portrayed achingly well, and Aunt Jenny remains one of Faulkner's most powerful leading ladies.

Flags in the Dust is a very interesting and engrossing read, and not very difficult like one of Faulkner's stream-of-consciousness novels. It is set in 1920 or perhaps 1925, with World War I being a recent memory to the characters. It is the first Faulkner novel I read; that was probably a mistake. The first book in the chronology of Faulkner's Sartoris family is The Unvanquished, which is set during and shortly after the Civil War; you might want to read that first (although if you don't, Flags in the Dust won't be incomprehensible). The "Old Bayard" depicted in Flags in the Dust" is shown as a teenager in The Unvanquished.

I read it unusually fast for such a famously verbose book; it's that engrossing.

After being delighted by Soldier's Pay, Faulkner's first novel, and thoroughly entertained by Mosquitoes, his second, I moved on to Flags in the Dust with high hopes. Like the other books, it has hypnotizing, lush descriptions of the Deep South and obliquely rendered, fascinating characters. Much of it rings true and makes you really feel as if you are there is this bygone era. But I had problems being very interested in young Bayard, the handsome, hell-raising, irresponsible, moody, manly, drunken, self-destructive main character. The book seems to romanticize and glorify Bayard at the same time it is minutely describing his selfish, hurtful behavior. While Faulkner seems to partly explain Bayard's defects as a result of trauma over his brother John's death during WW1, it seems to me that Bayard would have been much the same regardless. As such, I didn't find him a very interesting character -- he reminded me of scores of other very similarly portrayed handsome, hellbent, brooding, self-absorbed young "heroes" in movies and books. So I took my consolation and pleasure from the much more interesting-to-me supporting characters such as Aunt Jenny and old Bayard and black Simon and young Bayard's wife Narcissa and old doctor Loosh Peabody.

Flags in the Dust is the first act of that epic saga known as Yoknatawpha county. Each scene is fully envisioned. Every character matters and is fully portrayed. You sense that he has much more to tell about each person, each place, each animal. Every detail of description seems tied to a myriad of other details, equally important. What's on the page is just what he's been able to capture for now; but he'll be back, again and again, to focus on a different character, a different generation, a different piece of a very large interconnected tale. And the unity which seems to pervade his work from Flags on comes not from meticulously planned structure, but from talking about the same set of folks and events, over and over again, not worrying about inconsistencies from one book to the next -- just trying to put the essence of it all down on paper. It's as if he could begin his life's work anywhere -- telling about any person, any event, any animal, any desktop at any time. It's all there waiting to be revealed. In his telling, he is moving a flashlight from here to there across time and space, revealing now this, now that -- but regardless of how much is shown at any one time, we sense the pieces are all integrally tied together, and that they in turn are tied to the far larger and more intricately complex story of mankind and nature. Yoknapatawpha is no "microcosm". We don't see the world portrayed here in miniature. Rather the world is all one huge, fascinating fabric of story, and this is a piece of it.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and express my feelings about Flags in the Dust using simple English. I took a course on Faulkner, and this was the novel I absolutely loved reading. I was frustratingly mystified by Sound and the Fury(particularly by all the accolades it has received), disgusted and disturbed by The Light in August, and had at least some admiration for Absalom, Absalom. Several reviewers describe this as "young" Faulkner or "developing" Faulkner - well, for me, this is Faulkner before the copious self-conscious devices - and seems far more genuine than his other novels. There it is - now I can only await the flood of "non-helpful" votes. It was worth it though.