This past December, I went to Barnes & Noble and bought a handful of books. Among them was a William Faulkner anthology called “Collected Stories.” I have personally been a fan of the author since I read “As I Lay Dying” in my early 20s and found the potential for literature cracking open. Given the girth of the volume, I knew it would be intimidating to just read the 42 short stories front to back, so instead I’ve decided to take my time. In doing so, I plan to cover one a week until completed. I will be using this space to share my opinions of each piece as well as any stray observations I may have picked up from the greater world of Faulkner mania.
The early selections from “Collected Stories” have been a real mixed bag. Whereas “Barn Burning” starts off strongly, none of the stories since have been as impressive. In fact, “The Tall Men” was considered to be one of his lesser works, finding him more baldly tackling themes of the working class. Even then, there’s been something curious to seeing how diverse his writing style has been, mixing dark tragedy with comedy that at times showed his strengths with punchlines. For all of its flaws, “Shingles for the Lord” ends with a memorable exchange that perfectly mirrors “Barn Burning” if it was done in a different tone. There have been stories of family and enough visual subtext to be worthy of deconstruction, but as pieces of entertainment… none of them have matched the opener’s overall charm.
That is at least until “A Bear Hunt,” which is one of my favorites so far. What I have enjoyed about Faulkner was how he molded fiction to tell stories in his voice. “As I Lay Dying” is a revelation for how it mixes dozens of characters with their own unique voices telling a shared story. I’ve been longing for these stories to break free of something more conventional and have fun with tone. In one of his shorter stories, the author has found a way to craft something that captures every facet of what makes him talented. On the one hand, it’s outright funny while centered on a prank that solves the problem in a perfectly anticlimactic way. To go deeper is to find that, like the previous three, the story has a lot more on its mind that captures social and racial disconnects that impact The American South in the 1930s.
The story follows Ratliff as he goes on a journey near the Tallahatchie River one November. In one of his best opening lines, Faulkner gets right to the point (“Ratliff is telling this.”) and immediately throws the reader into a story of trying to overcome the hiccups. Through the tradition of oral southern storytelling, Ratliff and an anonymous narrator split duties discussing the story in ways that leave the audience in a constant mystery. How are they going to get rid of this seemingly innocent problem? What is the remedy for something that has crippled the characters?
Despite its title, there isn’t actually “A Bear Hunt” to be seen. It’s not the focus of the story. The story finds a group of white characters heading through Mississippi to find a hill. There a Native American tribe of Chickasaws that will capture him and scare the problem out of him. It’s very much a boogeyman set-up made more winking by the fact that these men learned about where this place was from a Black man who lived nearby. Like the bear, these characters are a bit mythic in the fact that they’re not actually in the story (and if they are, they're actually quite helpful). They may inform what the white characters do, but this is a journey that sets out to demystify the idea that the people the white men fear most are those who look different while having more problems in their own community.
After all, it is a fight between two white men that solves the problem. The prank reflects dishonesty between them, relying on trenchant fears that are literally nonexistent. There is nobody coming to tie them up and scare out the hiccups. This is a moment where the tension reflects something underwhelming. It’s a story of racial bias and how difficult it is for white men to coexist peacefully with others, even if they may overall come across as the more rational group in this scenario.
It goes back to the narration as well. Ratliff is the central narrator for most of the story. He has a regional dialect, speaking in ways that make the story flow with a casualness that is infectious. He is more innocent, just observing the older characters and trying to make sense of the world. After all, they are born of educated men so therefore they should know better. As evident by how things play out, that may not be entirely true.
The other narrator falls on the more conventional side of things, presenting a more polished exterior version of the story. The contrast reflects an interesting perspective with the story. Intellectual writing exists alongside less educated vernacular. There is a push between the two for focus of who is telling this story, and it makes sense why. There is the grander myth of America that is being questioned, that solving problems by scapegoating onto perceived outsiders is the way to go. And yet, Ratliff’s big revelation at the end is that he’s happy to have been pranked as well as he has. It’s a joke that seems obvious on paper, but given how it also makes fools of people’s racism very subtly, it has that rich profundity that Faulkner did so masterfully.
I find the details that he uses to be so beautifully written. Whereas he tends to get lost setting up atmosphere and subtext, there is something satisfying about diving straight into the story with characters. By allowing the reader to observe the world he’s created, we’re allowed to build our own expectations of the story, even believing that this is going to be about some crazy trip where an animal dies. There’s a mystery built into every moment, so by the time the hiccups get resolved, it feels like an anticlimax. This was all that he wanted to resolve? What’s the big deal? Why is Ratliff laughing? So much is at play here that does nothing but leave some red on somebody’s face while also having some relief that the central problem is over.
Because hiccups aren’t fun. While most are likely to have mild cases, there is something unsettling about having a perpetual experience with them. According to Faulkner, this story is based on a real event that happened to him. He couldn’t eat or sleep because of this ailment and would do anything to solve the problem. While it’s unclear how much from there is true, it makes sense that he found another way to reflect the common man in a vulnerable position. Hiccups are technically an illness, but they’re manageable and can be fixed. Everyone wants to get rid of them as soon as possible, and he finds a brilliant way to comment on so much while doing it.
Other important details surrounding “A Bear Hunt” is that while this story was published in 1934, it often has been mistaken for one that he wrote a decade later called “The Bear” – which is entirely unrelated. There is also the fact that while he centers the story around the Chickasaw tribe, there is evidence to suggest that they had migrated to Oklahoma prior to the events in the story. At one point Faulkner was asked about his knowledge of them, he said “Mrs. Brown, I made them up.” While some would argue it’s unfair to inaccurately describe Native Americans’ history in Mississippi, it does feel like that’s another fun wrinkle in this story. Yes, they do exist and yes they had residency around the area. However, they were long gone by the time that “A Bear Hunt” started, providing a small hint for those in the know that things are about to get a little more suspicious.
The story also features Isaac McCaslin. The McCaslins as a family first was confirmed in the novel “Go Down, Moses” and remains one of the author’s largest bodies of relatives. Along with an appearance here, he also shows up in novels that include “The Hamlet” and the author’s final work “The Reivers.”
The story first was published in the Saturday Evening Post on February 10, 1934. While most of Faulkner’s stories remain largely faithful to their original printing, “A Bear Hunt” is one that has seen a variety of changes since its original publication. In fact, the version presented in “Collected Stories” isn’t the original nor was it the final one ever released. Some examples from the Saturday Evening Post edition include changing the names of Ratliff to Suratt and Old Man Ash to Old Man Bush. There were also various alterations to the story.
This was more evident in the compilation “Big Woods: The Hunting Stories” from 1955. Among them was more background on characters and giving an identity to the unnamed narrator. This would be General Compson’s grandson. What made this curious was that it resurrected Quentin Compson from suicide in “The Sound and the Fury.” It’s a technique that he would also use in “A Justice,” “Lion,” and “That Evening Sun.” He would also change Lucius Provine’s name to Lucius Hogganbeck which drew connections to another hunting story character named Boon Hogganbeck.
As one can guess, there’s never a dull moment when trying to comprehend the greater world of Yoknapatawpha County. With so many families coming and going depending on revisions, there’s always something to unpack. Even then, there’s something universal in his best work that makes his often scholarly approach to writing easy to digest. It isn’t just about noticing the ways that society feels disconnected from each other. It’s about finding the small ways that humanity feels disconnected from itself. A hiccup is a painful thing, and Faulkner’s choice to insert it into Luke Provine’s character is effectively used. It’s a novelty of an idea and one that has a brilliant payoff.
“A Bear Hunt” on its surface may not seem like a great story in that it doesn’t have a lot going on. However, it has all of the hallmarks for why I love him as a writer. There’s so much to unpack in everything from the characters to the way it’s written. The opening line sticks with you, allowing ambiguity of what’s to happen. Who is Ratliff and why is he telling this? Better yet… what is this? By the time the reader gets an answer, there’s been the perfect build-up to an a-ha moment that shows the power of hiding details in plain sight. It fights with expectations and gives a story that feels unique in his body of work. It’s why I think it’s one of his best so far.
Coming Up Next: "Two Soldiers
Comments
Post a Comment