The Sound and the Fury; the Confusion, and the Masterpiece

Martha Winburn England wrote an article entitled “Teaching The Sound and the Fury,” which discusses how a high-school or college teacher should tackle the convoluted sense of time in the Benjy section and the intertwining plot of each of the four sections. According to England, Faulker did not intend for it to be read “within such a rigid chronological framework, and it is a dangerous thing to violate an author’s evident intention.” She helped me to understand that is normal not to have a total grasp on Benjy’s thought process, which quite frankly was good to hear. England knows from personal experience; she says that she “set out in cold blood to ruin the Benjy section in the hope of making available the other three sections of the book.” Prior to reading the article, I was having a hard time putting my finger on the principal difference between the Benjy section and the Quentin section, but England elucidated this difference for me by saying that in the Quentin section, “abstract nouns occur in great numbers,” which “shows the contrasting omission of abstractions in the Benjy section…” Finally, England discusses a more universal theme that applies to The Sound and the Fury. She poses the rhetorical question, “How difficult can a work of art be and still be worth the trouble? Where for me lies the point of diminishing returns?” This was my favorite part of the article, for it reminded me of my experiences in music. I think it is common for any type of artist or anyone who witnesses art to wonder if it is worth trying to understand such an abstraction, yet Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury taught me (and many of England’s students) that it is often worth the struggle to comprehend Benjy’s section; the reward in the rest of the masterpiece makes it completely worthwhile.


Teaching the Sound and the Fury
Martha Winburn England
College English, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Jan., 1957), pp. 221-224
Published by: National Council of Teachers of English