Romantic, radical, and ridiculous: Faulkner's hero as an oxymoron - author William Faulkner

Style, Spring, 1995 by Smadar Shiffman

The core of Emily's character, like that of the other protagonists mentioned above, is an oxymoron. The very rigidity that enables her to live, despite the suffocating familial environment, is the quality that ultimately stifles her. Or if we will, her most admired and respected attribute is simultaneously her most ridiculous and abhorrent peculiarity.

THE ROMANTIC-IRONIC OPTION[8]

Despite the broad applicability mentioned above, unqualified fanaticism cannot fully account for all of Faulkner's protagonists, especially those best described as romantics in the conventional use of the term. These include Harry Wilbourne in The Wild Palms, Quentin Compson in The Sound and the Fur)' and Absalom, Absalom!, Gavin Stevens in The Town, The Mansion, and Knight's Gambit, or his precursor, Horace Benbow in Sanctuary and Sartoris. Unlike the straightforward fanatics, their romantic counterparts always appear to bring disaster on themselves rather than on others. These protagonists, quite unlike the strong and willful Sutpen and Christmas, seem rather frail, indecisive, and prone to be led by others. Examples that spring to mind in this context include Harry Wilbourne being led by Charlotte Rittenmeyer and Quentin Compson, who faints when forced to confront his sister's lover, Dalton Ames.

Not unexpectedly, however, these protagonists comprise a conceptual oxymoron, which is just as effective as that underlying Faulkner's fanatic protagonists. A concern with conventionally conceived romantic notions in the twentieth century is, as mentioned earlier, oxymoronic in itself; hence, the choice of the romantic option is inherently oxymoronic. As Harry Wilbourne comes to realize, having sacrificed and exploited his flesh in the service of an eternal and transcendental love, the only possible bearer of this transcendence in this world is his very flesh itself: "So it is the old meat after all, no matter how old. Because if memory exists outside the flesh it won't be memory because it won't know what it remembers..." (228).

Faulkner's romantic heroes stick to their guns with the same tenacity as their fanatic counterparts. Harry, Quentin,-and in his own way Gavin, too, willingly sacrifice their lives for a romantic dream or ideal. Not unlike the fanatics, they too command respect and admiration for their single-mindedness and self-sacrifice. However, unlike the former, their behavior evokes irony rather than hostility.

The most straightforward romantic of them all, Harry Wilbourne, will provide an apt point of departure. Harry's choice of Charlotte is in itself extremely romantic, for she has unrealistic, romantic ideas of love as a permanent honeymoon, and respectability (or is it simply stability?) as a major threat to love. Harry himself adheres to romantic, even mythic preconceptions, abandoning his well-ordered and meticulously planned life immediately upon being summoned by Love. Faulkner even appears to make things smoother for him by letting him come across a purse filled with money when all hopes of consummating his transcendent and predestined love seem lost. The remainder of the story, however, is a far cry from a naive legendary tale. Charlotte and Harry's attempts to perpetuate the initial stage of falling in love finally end in an extremely realistic, sordid disaster.