William Faulkner’s Self-Doubts (and yours)

Have you ever doubted yourself as a writer?  Why am I doing this?  Am I good enough, or any good at all?  Is it worth my time and the blood-letting?  Have you tired of the “Oh, that’s nice,” response when someone asks what you do and you reveal that, “I’m a writer”?  William Faulkner has some wise and telling observations in the Editor’s Notes at the end of the Vintage Books edition (1987) of “Sanctuary.”  They deal with his early sense of himself as a writer and his off-beat perception of success.

I’ve just finished reading “Sanctuary” for the third time, but the first  in over twenty years.  I recalled having liked it a great deal but like it even more now.  (I suppose “Light in August” is my favorite, but choosing among his works is like a chocoholic choosing whether he or she prefers dark chocolate nuts or chews.  Here’s a better analogy:  If I were “stuck” on a desert island with “Light in August,” upon finishing it (again),  I’d swim to the next island for the promise of “As I Lay Dying.”

So, here is what William Faulkner has to say about himself as an early writer  (By the way, he didn’t want this revelation printed in later editions by Random House):

“This book (Sanctuary) was written three years ago.  To me it is a cheap idea, because it was deliberately conceived to make money.  I had been writing books for about five years, which got published and not bought.  But that was all right.  I was young then and hard-bellied.  I had never lived among nor known people who wrote novels and stories and I suppose I did not know that people got money for them.  I was not very much annoyed when publishers refused the mss. now and then.  Because I was hard-gutted then.  I could do a lot of things that could earn what little money I needed, than to my father’s unfailing kindness which supplied me with bread at need despite the outraged to his principles at having been of a bum progenitive.

“Then I began to get a little soft.  I could still paint houses and do carpenter work, but I got soft.  I began to be concerned when magazine editors turned down short stories, concerned enough to tell them that they would buy these stories later anyway, and hence why not now.  Meanwhile, with one novel completed and consistently refused for two years, I had just written my guts into “The Sound and The Fury” though I was not aware until the book was published that I had done so, because I had done it for pleasure.  I believed then that I would never be published again.  I had stopped thinking of myself in publishing terms.  [I wonder why he doesn’t include “Mosquitos” and “Soldier’s Pay”.]

“But when the third mss., “Sartoris,” was taken by a publisher and (he having refused “The Sound and The Fury”) it was taken by still another publisher, who warned me at the time that it would not sell, I began to think of myself again as a printed object.  I began to think of books in terms of possible money.  I decided I might just as well make some of it myself.  I took a little time out, and speculated what a person in Mississippi would  believe to be current trends, chose what I thought was the right answer and invented the most horrific tale I could imagine  and wrote it in about three weeks and sent it to Smith, who had done “The Sound and The Fury” and who wrote me immediately, ‘Good God, I can’t publish this.  We’d both be in jail.’  So I told Faulkner, “You’re damned.  You’ll have to work now and then for the rest of your life.’  That was in the summer of 1929.”

Fess up, Mitt…and others!

Should Mitt Romney reveal his taxes for at least 10 years?

Absolutely, they ALL— anyone running for public office—should reveal their financial situations and how they got there and certainly where they’re hiding how much.  We’re their gol-dang bosses — so the myth goes.

We should make them undergo the Milgram Test.  Strap them to a shock generator—a real one— and ask them questions about their finances, who they influence and who influences them and with what prizes and goodies or simple cash.  The first lie earns them a little shock.  For each subsequent lie, the juice is turned up another notch or three.  Video the whole process and show it on YouTube every night.  What an audience it would get!  The networks would be reduced to showing re-runs of Mr. Ed the Talking Horse, Sky King, Soupy Sales, etc.  Or maybe re-runs of America’s Got Talent.

Here’s something else that has scratched at my craw for many, many moons:   What’s with  this  ritual of referring to Senators, etc.  as “The Honorable…?”  Where lies the basis for this verbal genuflection?  Why do we have to think of those elected to national office so royally while they’re in office, if not forever more?   We know that 73.472% of our elected Congress-slugs are as honest as a 2.9-Penny Opera.  Who granted them this honorific of “The Honorable…?”  Likely some earlier self-serving, back-scratching, beady-eyed version of Congress.

Wow, that felt good!