If a work like this had been made by anyone other than Faulkner nobody would have wanted to publish it and people would assume it had been written by a middle schooler.
And indeed, the disjointed, clumsy approach taken here appears to be experimentation for experimentation's sake more than an attempt to write a coherent work; alliteration and stream of consciousness is great, but Faulkner took the idea and attempted to apply it in such a way that re-reading pages is frequent, if only to decipher the (usually boring) plot, which disappears over and over as the story jumps from scene to scene in a seemingly random order.
And it has become the bane of those forced to read it because "it's a classic." Sadly it has none of the entertaining quality shared by a work like Slaughterhouse-Five or The Hobbit, also classics and actually readable.
>slaughterhouse five
Points for trying but you shouldve picked a less obvious troll book
>>9138330
>SV or The Hobbit
4/10 I replied
Folio publishes it in 14 colors, the way Faulkner envisioned it to help brainlets like you. Now fuck off back to /r/books.
>>9138330
Faulkner was little more than a nobody when this was published.
>>9138347
Kinda ruins the book. If Faulkner wanted to make it easy to keep track of who's speaking, he would've done so.
>>9139026
But he did do that.
It's not a hard book.