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 further into Faulkner’s career that I go, the more interesting his perspective becomes. Given that I’ve only read two of his books prior to this column, my presumption was that he was a period piece writer. I looked at his work and saw an early 20th century author commenting on the years passed, specifically The Reconstruction of the American South. The way he explored social classes and race relations was fascinating, creating this rich tapestry of this country’s mythology. Given that he even had his own fictional Yoknapatawpha County, I had plenty to believe that this was going to be the work of a time and place, never branching into literature that could be read as contemporary.
For what it’s worth, “The Tall Men” also qualifies as a story written about the World War II era. Even then, digging into “Two Soldiers” presents the first glimpse into his views on the bigger war. It could be that this is the story of a nine-year-old unnamed boy from The Grier Family losing his brother to the military after listening to the Pearl Harbor bombing on the radio. Something feels more immediate like Faulkner is trying to chase down something before it disappears from his grasp. While there is a good chance that Pete comes back, there’s no certainty that he will or that he won’t have experienced shell shock. The latter is a theme that the book doesn’t even explore, but it could be because more than WWII, “Two Soldiers” reflects a child learning about the bigger world around them, breaking their naivety as horror sinks in.
Much like “The Tall Men,” this is a story driven almost exclusively by emotion. While there is subtext, it’s being propelled by uncertainty. As I read it, I was certain that Boy Grier would not be reunited with Pete and this grand journey was going to end anticlimactically. Still, Faulkner finds a way to hide details that create an understanding of what America was like in 1941 following that news. There was a need to recruit, recruit, recruit for Uncle Sam. Even if Pete’s overall reason for going isn’t entirely explained, the simple decision makes sense from a patriotic standpoint. America had just come under fire and was in need of protection. As much as it pained his family, he needed to do his duty.
Like the best of Faulkner, his writing encapsulates the voice of his characters with such authenticity that it elevates the emotional stakes. Boy Grier introduces readers to the world with a scene that has all of the hallmarks of Midwest Americana. Without throwing out unnecessary words, he introduces the idea of listening to the radio: a source of entertainment and comfort, but also a chance to explore worlds far beyond their hometown. Abruptly, the escapism is broken when news of Pearl Harbor comes in. Slowly, the pull between The Grier Brothers becomes apparent. Because Boy Grier is only nine, he has limited exposure to the outside world. He isn’t intellectually or emotionally complex. He’s just thinking of the war as the moment he’d lose his brother.
This isn’t just some strange superstition. The other person in “The Two Soldiers” title is somebody that has already made an appearance in “Collected Stories.” Their father is Res Grier, best known for “Shingles for the Lord.” Where his story played as a broad comedy, his time in “Two Soldiers” is much more tragic, finding his time as a soldier ending in death. With that absence, it makes sense that Mrs. Grier is trying to hold Pete back, but it’s no use. He’s a grown 19-year-old man. She even packs him a farewell gift, hoping that things work out for the best.
What value does focusing on Boy Grier do for a story like this? Had the events played out the same way with any other perspective, there wouldn’t be much of a draw. While it would still create a portrait of WWII that is unique to Faulkner, the draw would be completely gone. On some level, Pete is helpless, stuck in a system that needs his body for protection. He has no way of getting out of it without facing circumstances similar to “The Tall Men.” There is something predestined about it that only adds to the tragedy. If he’s lucky, he’ll survive. Even then, his own form of innocence will have been lost even if he escapes without a mental condition or injury.
However, Boy Grier feels more important to focus on because he has almost no jurisdiction over anything in his life. He has to walk 30 miles just to reach the military office where his brother might be. He is undermined at every turn and, because of his age, he couldn’t sign up if he wanted to. He is just some kid in search of his brother. It can be argued that he’s a stand-in for how America felt in the wake of Pearl Harbor, where there was a rude awakening, where everyone became paranoid of what the outside world could possess. Just by having Boy Grier leave Frenchman’s Bend, there opens the fear of a world more powerful and strange than anything he’s known. We don’t get much of Pete’s perspective once he leaves home, but it’s clear that he’s succumbed to his fate. On the drive home, Boy Grier begins to accept his.
To view how Faulkner saw America during the 1940s has been interesting. Everyone knows of these big signifiers that shaped history. While he uses them to create a backdrop for his narrative, it’s almost nonexistent otherwise. This is an exploration of a family that doesn’t have a lot going for them and is about to lose their oldest male figure in the household. What is Mrs. Grier going to do without him? While time has passed since “Shingles For the Lord,” they were not that well off to begin with. There’s a chance that they could be economically worse off or that Boy Grier becomes a victim of child labor. It’s unclear, but all of these questions exist in the margin of the text, realizing that stability goes beyond familial bonds. So much is about to be uprooted and again, the subtext of knowing The Grier Family lineage makes certain things more despairing.
For me personally, “Two Soldiers” isn’t a story that I liked at first glance. Much like those who first read the story in Saturday Evening Post in 1942, there was something that seemed to be going for direct emotion, playing into the despair of brothers separated by war. It felt predictable and anticlimactic in how Boy Grier goes on this journey only to end up back home. Doing research, it became something more provocative. It helps to have a knowledge of Faulkner’s greater works, but for those who have a basic understanding of WWII, the story still has an efficiency. It introduces us to characters that are colorful in their brevity, reflecting a different kind of metaphorical family. As Americans, this was the right thing to do. Serving your country is something that’s pushed as the ultimate good, even if that leaves home life (i.e. the country itself) in shambles. I still greatly prefer stories like “A Bear Hunt” that do something more playful with narrative, but “Two Soldiers” shows a side of Faulkner that I’m excited to see. I like seeing what he can do with a story that feels so entrenched in the present.
With that said, many have argued that this story’s one downside is that it discusses a moment already gone. Even within the year between when it is set and when it’s published, so much had happened in the war that changed certain contexts. Even then, the morality and overall embrace of the common man is what made the story land with readers.
Also, there’s an interesting read that suggests that this is a story of a man looking back on his childhood. Certain dialogue is written in past tense and suggests that this is reflecting on a moment. Is it days or decades ago? If it’s the latter, one has to wonder what the greater commentary is and if that means Pete died in the war. If this is actually the final moment that The Grier Family was whole, it does paint a bleaker picture. Even if there’s ambiguity, the pain of not knowing is just as strong.
While there hasn’t been a lot of media yet inspired by Faulkner’s “Collected Stories,” this will mark the second time that a short film has been adapted. Following “Barn Burning,” there was Two Soldiers (2003). The short won Best Short (Live Action) at the Oscars and features a cast that includes Ron Perlman as Colonel McKellog. The director, Aaron Schneider, would later make features including Get Low (2009) and Greyhound (2020). Overall Two Soldiers has a great reputation and remains one of the better Faulkner adaptations of the 21st century so far.
While Faulkner seems interested in exploring the past, I think there’s something just as thrilling about when he decides to look at the moment and try to make sense of it. He has a way of taking a moment that seems mundane on the surface and filling it with emotion and thought that elevates the story. It may not be my favorite of his, but it helps to create a complicated understanding of how America was changed by Pearl Harbor, where everything moved quickly and uncertainty loomed over every decision. The choice to focus on a family, especially a nine-year-old, allowed for something more instinctual to shine through. In a lot of ways, it’s a nice companion piece to “The Tall Men” for how it paints the camaraderie of a country in turmoil. There is no convenient answer, and for once it’s actually a useful and powerful way to end this story.
Coming Up Next: “Shall Not Perish"
Comments
Post a Comment