ellauri039.html on line 728: Kylmän sodan aikana Camus syrjäytyi Ranskan älymystön keskuudesta. Algerian sotaan hän omaksui maltillisen kannan, ja hänestä tuli epäsuosittu niin Ranskassa kuin Algeriassakin. Hän muokkasi muiden teoksia teatteriin (mm. Pedro Calderón, Fjodor Dostojevski, William Faulkner). Erinomaista! Et kelvannut kylmäänkään sotaan.
ellauri045.html on line 328: Saroyan has been described by Stephen Fry (mixihän?) as "one of the most underrated writers of the century." Fry suggests that "he takes his place naturally alongside Hemingway, Steinbeck and Faulkner."
ellauri052.html on line 860: His friend and protege Philip Roth has said of him, "The backbone of 20th-century American literature has been provided by two novelists—William Faulkner and Saul Bellow. Together they are the Melville, Hawthorne, and Twain of the 20th century."

LOL, runkku-Roth Melvillenä tietysti.

ellauri067.html on line 181: 1963 "V." published, wins Faulkner Award; cultivates habit of privacy
ellauri074.html on line 416: Saku arveli aivan oikein, että nazismin menekkiin osasyyllisiä oli fasistikirjailijat kuten Pound, Heidegger, Hamsun, Céline yms. Hiukka epäilyttävä Faulkner halusi vapauttaa 1954 Poundin hourulasta, mutta Saku vastusti. Tää oli pahinta McCarthyn aikaa, nykyisen kaltaista oikeistoaaltoa. Sillon se muuten johtui vähän vastaavasta syystä kuin nyt, ryssät sai rakennetuksi oman atomipommin ja USA:n maailmanherruus näytti romahtavan. MAGAsta oli kymysys silloinkin. Nyt rinnalle ja ohi on keulimassa Kiina.
ellauri106.html on line 197: Dilsey oli mutiainen Faulknerin Sound and Furyssä. Lukaisin sen joskus mutten enää muista siitä mitään.
ellauri109.html on line 647: Faulknerin paska kirjoitti koppavassa nobelpuheessaan (jollaista Phillu ei sitten päässyt pitämään) mm seuraavaa:
ellauri191.html on line 858: Faulkner.jpg" class="image">Faulkner.jpg" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/Carl_Van_Vechten_-_William_Faulkner.jpg/75px-Carl_Van_Vechten_-_William_Faulkner.jpg" decoding="async" width="75" height="105" srcset="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/Carl_Van_Vechten_-_William_Faulkner.jpg/113px-Carl_Van_Vechten_-_William_Faulkner.jpg 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/Carl_Van_Vechten_-_William_Faulkner.jpg/150px-Carl_Van_Vechten_-_William_Faulkner.jpg 2x" data-file-width="2507" data-file-height="3526" />
ellauri191.html on line 860: Faulkner" title="William Faulkner">William Faulkner
ellauri192.html on line 273: There are great, canonic names on the Nobel list, choices on which common sense and passionate alertness concur. I have mentioned Yeats. We find Anatole France, Kipling, Shaw, Thomas Mann, Andre Gide, T. S. Eliot, Pasternak, Faulkner, Hemingway, Seferis, Montale, Beckett and Solzhenitsyn (the last, I would guess, a titan among men even more, perhaps, than among writers; what I mean by this is he was tall but not much of a novelist). But place the two lists next to each other, and the cardinal truth springs to view: during these past 83 years, the award of the Nobel Prize in Literature has scored more misses than hits. With eminent exceptions, it is the uncrowned who are sovereign.
ellauri236.html on line 186: Several other points need noticing before one can grasp the full implications of this book. To begin with, its central story bears a very marked resemblance to William Faulkner's novel, Sanctuary. Therefore, it is not, as one might expect, the product of an illiterate hack, but a brilliant piece of plagiarism, with hardly a wasted word or a jarring note anywhere. Thirdly, the whole book, récit as well as dialogue, is written in the American language; the author, an Englishman who has (I believe) never been in the United States, seems to have made a complete mental transference to the American underworld. Fourthly, and what is worst (from the point of view of a serious writer like myself) the book sold, according to its publishers, no less than half a million copies. Actually 2.
ellauri236.html on line 204: In borrowing from William Faulkner's Sanctuary, Chase only took the plot; the mental atmosphere of the two books is not similar. Chase really derives from other sources, and this particular bit of borrowing is only symbolic. What it symbolizes is the vulgarization of ideas which is constantly happening, and which probably happens faster in an age of print. Chase has been described as ‘Faulkner for the masses’, but it would be more accurate to describe him as Carlyle for the masses. He is a popular writer — there are many such in America, but they are still rarities in England — who has caught up with what is now fashionable to call ‘realism’, meaning the doctrine that might is right. The growth of ‘realism’ has been the great feature of the intellectual history of our own age. Why this should be so is a complicated question. The interconnexion between sadism, masochism, success-worship, power-worship, nationalism, and totalitarianism is a huge subject whose edges have barely been scratched, and even to mention it is considered somewhat indelicate. To take merely the first example that comes to mind, I believe no one has ever pointed out the sadistic and masochistic element in Bernard Shaw's work, still less suggested that this probably has some connexion with Shaw's admiration for dictators. Fascism is often loosely equated with sadism, but nearly always by people who see nothing wrong in the most slavish worship of Stalin. The truth is, of course, that the countless English intellectuals who kiss the arse of Stalin are not different from the minority who give their allegiance to Hitler or Mussolini, nor from the efficiency experts who preached ‘punch’, ‘drive’, ‘personality’ and ‘learn to be a Tiger man’ in the nineteen-twenties, nor from that older generation of intellectuals, Carlyle, Creasey and the rest of them, who bowed down before German militarism. All of them are worshipping power and successful cruelty. It is important to notice that the cult of power tends to be mixed up with a love of cruelty and wickedness for their own sakes. A tyrant is all the more admired if he happens to be a bloodstained crook as well, and ‘the end justifies the means’ often becomes, in effect, ‘the means justify themselves provided they are dirty enough’. This idea colours the outlook of all sympathizers with totalitarianism, and accounts, for instance, for the positive delight with which many English intellectuals greeted the Nazi-Soviet pact. It was a step only doubtfully useful to the U.S.S.R., but it was entirely unmoral, and for that reason to be admired; the explanations of it, which were numerous and self-contradictory, could come afterwards.
ellauri236.html on line 386: In 1973, Gene D. Phillips of Loyola University of Chicago remarked on the influence of William Faulkner's 1931 novel Sanctuary, writing that, "It is a matter of record that [No Orchids for Miss Blandish] was heavily indebted to Sanctuary for its plot line." Phillips also stated that Slim Grisson, who was identified by Phillips as the main antagonist, was based on Popeye The Sailor Man, a criminal in Faulkner's novel. Onko se sama Kippari Kalle joka heilastelee Olkan kanssa ja hoitaa pikku Hajuhernettä?
ellauri279.html on line 458: Carlos Fuentesia on kutsuttu "Meksikon Balzaciksi". Fuentes itse mainitsi Miguel de Cervantesin, William Faulknerin ja Balzacin tärkeimpinä kirjailijoinaan. Kirjoitusprosessistaan ​​pitämässään puheessa hän kertoi, että kun hän aloitti kirjoitusprosessin, hän aloitti kysymällä: "Kenelle minä kirjoitan? NYT:n lukijoilleko? Niinpä hyvinkin!"
ellauri310.html on line 444: aivoihin. Faulknerista Tomi oli paras ja Faulkner hyvä kakkonen. Tomista pitivät
ellauri310.html on line 571: Faulkner päätti myöhemmin, että hänen romaaninsa olivat "kuin norsu, joka yritti
ellauri360.html on line 151: William Faulkner : Kun makasin kuolleena (CHECK)
xxx/ellauri178.html on line 132: “I wanted to be morally serious like Joseph Conrad,” Roth said of his young self. “I wanted to exhibit my dark knowledge like Faulkner. I wanted to write literature. Instead I took my dick's advice and wrote Portnoy's Complaint.” Stern, a lifelong friend, had noticed “a discrepancy between Philip as he told stories and Philip as he wrote stories.” The advice was of course excellent, with the resulting work putting Roth squarely in the middle of the literary map. Saatuaan juutalaisten palkinnon Roth sanoi et enää puuttuu feministipalkinto ja Kakutani Prize.
xxx/ellauri179.html on line 992: Indeed, it could be a parlor game on the order of listing the famous alcoholics in American literature: Name the 20th-century authors who were anti-Semites — Theodore Dreiser; Hemingway; F. Scott Fitzgerald (a little); Sinclair Lewis; Ezra Pound, of course; T. S. Eliot; William Faulkner; Thomas Wolfe — the list goes on.
xxx/ellauri218.html on line 89: Among the writers DeLillo read and was inspired by in this period were James Joyce, William Faulkner, Flannery O'Connor, and Ernest Hemingway, who was a major influence on DeLillo's earliest attempts at writing in his late teens. Sen voi hyvin uskoa. Kuka himskatin Flannery? Ai tää:
xxx/ellauri261.html on line 564: Anderson tunnetaan etenkin novelleistaan, mutta hän julkaisi myös romaaneja ja runoja. Anderson vaikutti aikansa kertomakirjallisuuteen ja muun muassa Ernest Hemingwayn, William Faulknerin ja John Steinbeckin tuotantoon. Hänen tunnetuin teoksensa lienee novellikokoelman ja romaanin rajamailla liikkuva Winesburg, Ohio (1919), joka on ilmestynyt suomeksi nimellä Pikkukaupunki (1955). Andersonin kirjallinen tyyli pohjautui arkikieleen ja sai vaikutteita Gertrude Steinilta.
xxx/ellauri356.html on line 350: William Faulkner
xxx/ellauri356.html on line 485: Célinen, Paul Morandin ja suurten amerikkalaisten kirjailijoiden – William Faulknerin, Ernest Hemingwayn, Henry Millerin, William S. Burroughsin, Jack Kerouacin ja Charles Bukowskin – lukemisen vaikutuksesta hän julkaisi Femmesin. Vanity Fairille se oli "hänen ainoa kirjallinen menestys".
23