Sanctuary by William Faulkner - Book Summary, Analysis, Review 

Just when I thought I was over hearing about Sanctuary, BOOM!! CodeX Cantina comes out with a discussion I must watch! 👍🏼😁

Oh! I didn't know you have it!! I just finished reading it 😍 edit: ok .. my two cents 🤗: - The only other Faulkner's I've read so far are Absalom, Absalom, and the short story Barn Burning (at school which introduced me to Faulkner) so I'm not really sure why you're not as enthusiastic about this one as some of the others. Obviously, it IS more straightforward and simpler than Absalom. Never the less, I loved it! I love the detailed and disturbing portrayal of this darker side of human nature, extreme behavior and how like you said and as is quoted: evil corrupts, and the portrayal of the mob mentality, and how "grey" morality is presented from the "good" Christian folk who wouldn't hesitate to through a woman and baby out in the street for a perceived wrong, to the actual "righteous" burning alive of a man! I also loved the guess work I had to do and how I was always kept on my toes. I loved what you called world building too; bringing in Snopes was a nice touch, I was introduced to the Snopeses in Barn Burning and was so delighted with him here I went online to see whose descendent he was exactly lol There's something so Stephen King about the macabre-ness, darkness, and connectedness of it all (don't come for me please for the comparison lol, I'm a die hard King fan 😂and I'll bet he was influenced by Faulkner!), I mean if Yoknapatwapha is the place Faulkner's Southern ghosts haunt (I read or heard that somewhere), then Derry is equally King's haunting ground! - Temple made two choices actually, both of which were disastrous. The first was choosing to get off the train and get into Stevens car at the beginning of the story, where it seemed like an innocent enough, girls-just-wana-have-fun, light hearted choice. Nothing so lighthearted about the consequences though, nor those of her last choice (can't wait to see how she lives with that on her conscience in Requiem for a Nun 🤨). It really makes you stop and think about choice making and predestination. Are we really as in control as we like to think we are? - Popeye doesn't strike me as having a bit of good in him! On the contrary he seems like a classic psychopath serial killer. First of all he lacks empathy, and in the backstory he kills little animals as a child! That's one of the MacDonalds triad for psychotic behavior .. another is setting fires!!! an act performed not by Popeye but by his grandma! lol I was so surprised that this was not an intentional twist on Faulkner's part (or was it?!), as the MacDonald triad didn't come out till the 1960!! - One more thing I was SO impressed with .. is that Naturalistic vein in the story where nature lies so tranquil and serene, oblivious to the plight of man! This was so vivid in the scene where Popeye and Temple are in the car right after they left the old bootlegger place, and Temple is sitting there traumatized screaming inside her head "I'm still bleeding". Meanwhile as they rip through the countryside, the radiance of May is described with its fat globs of whipped cream clouds and the lavender spring with it's different kinds of trees and bushes and foliage, and the peaceful tranquility of it as if "Sunday were a quality of atmosphere, of light and shade .." That part was so beautifully described, the contrast between the inside and outside of the car so great; it made me breathless, I wanted to reach out, open the car door and exit the vehicle, leaving Popeye and Temple to their tragedy and stay there in that filed soaking up the morning sun and listening to the whispers of the dogwood in the breeze. Ok I'm done 🤗

Fantastic discussion. Thank you. (I might actually disagree about reading a summary beforehand--at least if you want to be prepared for some of the content. I still have a couple of chapters to go because I keep needing to take breaks just to steel myself...)

Flags in the Dust greatly enhances this book. Having read it before Sanctuary, I can’t imagine having skipped it. Sanctuary gives you very little context for the Sartoris and Benbow families, so having that background and backstory was nice. You also get to see characters like Miss Jenny and how she becomes even more sarcastic and eccentric over the years.

Really excellent discussion on Faulkner’s Sanctuary. You all clearly have an deep understanding of Faulkner’s work, writing style,and themes not to mention his life and timeline. I really wish I hadn’t started here with Faulkner and do plan on trying him again next year. Thanks for the thoughtful commentary!

Great discussion. I agree that at points Faulkner was Faulkner and even if writing a potboiler, he does raise issues and themes - even if not as well as in his other books. Liked your analysis of justice denied and vigilante justice.

So much good stuff here. Impotence, Justice, evil, class, greed, etc. Great job as always. Like how you presented Temple’s lack of choice/ fate . There is some more of that with Temple in _Requiem For A Nun_. I don’t recommend that book, but you guys got so much out of Sanctuary you might find it very interesting.

I like your idea of impotence as a metaphor. I'm still not clear about the title; all I can come up with is something ironic--i.e., that there is no sanctuary in this tale. It's my least favorite Faulkner novel, but I'm still glad I read it. As you say, Faulkner is still Faulkner, so there's something of value even in this minor work of his.

Great videos guys! Can't believe I haven't found you till now. Thanks for this 🙏

The chapter with the two barber college snopes cousins happening upon Miss Reba's 'hotel' was a good laugh.

Absolutely can confirm this isn't the best Faulkner to start with (at least I hope >_>). The combination of the mostly straightforward bleakness with the lack of context around everything didn't do it for me - some of that's lack of familiarity with his style I'm sure. But I appreciated the discussion a lot, definitely helps contextualize/explain a bit.

I'd argue w Krypto and others ("Hi, Shelly!") saying "graphic violence," when the violence is off-stage (e.g., who knows on 1st read about the corn cob while it happens?) and told/explained--not shown--later. I think my joy is in rereading Faulkner; like Una said with _not_ using secondary sources, right off the bat, the discovery, the puzzle solving is great. Una privately under-sold your discussion, to me 😂😆😂 This is my favorite #FaulknrrInAugust2021 video, this season🤓📚🤠 I'm glad we've checked it off the list, mates. So, we're in fer mo' Snopes, ay? 🤘

Star Wars: we see the white, the grey and the black too (in Luke). Although this isn’t the typical Faulkner, this is still a bit of a puzzle. I still liked it. And, now that I think of it, justice ends up served after all: both criminals were punished. And even Temple, with her perjury, ends up a sad person.

Not going to lie, when if comes to Faulkner, I do look up a chapter summary nearly every time I finish a chapter (or section). I will try not to with this one haha. However, I did just watch the spoiler part of this 😂

This talk was definitely better than the book. I personally thought the characters were really flat compared to other works I've read by Faulkner, which is the main reason it fails in my opinion.

❤️

This was fantastic! I’m so excited for next summer. My ranking of Faulkner novels is: Absalom, Absalom! The Reivers Sound and the Fury Light in August A Fable As I Lay Dying Intruders in the Dust Sanctuary Requiem for a Nun I haven’t finished The Hamlet or Pylon. Been on a break from him because *school* but I want to get moving again! Great work

I am very glad he added the chapter explaining Popeye. The entire novel he’s such an enigma other than what’s blatantly obvious. I feel like if it wasn’t added It wouldnt give a resolution to one of the main characters. Like in no country for no men tho Anton is enigmatic aswell it itleast shows what happens to the character in the end. Just my opinion

"...I thought that maybe I would be all right if I just had a hill to lie on for a while - it was that country. Flat & rich & foul, so that the very winds seem to engender money out of it. Five thousand square miles, [Read. More.] without any hill save the bumps of dirt the Indians made to stand on when the River overflowed. ...I just wanted a hill to lie on, you see. Then I would be all right." [-Wm. Faulkner ("Sanctuary")]

Great analysis . It makes me think that Faulkner wanted to contrast the three women in terms of their choice ...Temple is like a child , Ruby is adult but has limited choices as a poor woman subject to abuse and motherhood and Reba has more autonomy but only by existing outside the norms of the society . And do you think Faulkner wanted to write about racism but felt commercially he had to cast a group of white characters ? That lynching scene .....??

This is definitely a bottom tier Faulkner novel, but it's still highly enjoyable for me. It's the closest we're going to get to a screenplay by Faulkner. The film adaptation isn't that bad either for an early 1930s film. I'm not sure if this was written before or during his time as a Hollywood writer, but it definitely feels inspired by film noir pictures of the late 20s- early 30s.

I think Popeye was born evil just like he was born diseased. The disease is a bodily, congenital evil, tangible unlike his spiritual evil. And maybe his inherent evil originated by a single act like how the disease was brought on by sex. The first sin of the parents. I also always sense the work of fate in Faulkner's novels. In fact there's a dialogue in Sanctuary where one of the characters states that people are "born to be X", that one man can't be a lawyer or a soldier since his destiny is to be, say, a plumber, and a plumber is all he is situated to be good at doing in life.

In my view, Popeye is the most trapped character, crippled in every way. His chain smoking is a symbol of doomed existence. There is nothing nourishing in his life.