Harman 1 Authorial Final Intentions and the Textual History of The Sound and the Fury Faulkners The

Sound and the Fury has a rather controversial textual history. Faulkner made a number of changes and additions to the original text it later in his life, including adding a very controversial Appendix to the novel that many critics argue should not be included in future editions. Additionally, Faulkner remarked multiple times that he desired to color code Benjys section of the book in order to differentiate between the different timelines. At the time the novel was published, though, colored printing was not advanced enough and was still far too expensive to make that an option for The Sound and the Fury. Faulkner said that such a version of the text would simply have to wait until publishing advanced enough for it to be possible (The Folio Society n. pag.). Obviously, today it is possible to print these timelines in color, and The Folio Society has recently created such an edition with the help of two well-known scholars of Faulkner, Noel Polk and Stephen M. Ross. The question becomes, though, whether or not this edition truly is representative of Faulkners final intentions, and in what context such an edition should be considered authoritative. There is also the matter of the novel as it was originally published, the addition of the Appendix, Faulkners own commentary on the novel, and his subsequent short stories about the characters of the novel, all of which affect the way the novel is read. Ultimately, the originally published version, the version with the Appendix, and the version with colored ink are all different occasions for studying the story and are simply different texts in and of themselves. Each presents a different means of studying the social and historical context of the story (and even for studying modernism in literature), as well as publishing at the time. However, in the case of the creation of a critical edition (which is what this paper will examine) of The Sound and the Fury that as closely follows Faulkners authorial intent as possible for scholarly study, an approach to the text following that of Bowers, Tanselle

Harman 2 and other such scholars makes far more sense, and, given so, the originally published version of the text without the Appendix and without the colored ink should be considered authoritative in that context and occasion. Looking first at the originally published version of the text by Jonathan Cape and Harrison Smith with regards to editing, Faulkner made very few significant changes from his original finished manuscript to the typescript. The changes in his drafts show only surface editing: fixing errors and tidying up sentences (Meriwether n. pag.). Neither is there any evidence that outside editors influenced the published version to any great degree. Faulkner, himself, made the revisions and corrections and created his own typescript. The text was not corrupted by anyone else or by any significant outside influence. Indeed, as professor and Faulkner scholar John Padgett writes: Before Faulkner wrote The Sound and the Fury, he had written a book which he thought was to be the book [Flags in the Dust] that would make his name as a writer. The discouragement of having Flags turned down, and then severely cut by his friend Ben Wasson into what would be published as Sartoris, apparently led Faulkner to begin writing a book entirely for himself, and publishers be damned. That book . . . was The Sound and the Fury. (Padgett n. pag.) One can see that in addition to doing most of his own editing, Faulkner clearly also simply wrote the text without outside influence. He was not even attempting to conform to publishing houses expectations and norms. The novel simply stemmed from his creative genius, not from some attempt to write a piece that would impress publishing houses, or from the influence of anyone elses ideas. Operating from a definition of authorial final intentions, and from a view of the primacy of final intentions as upheld by textual scholars such as Fredson

Harman 3 Bowers and G. Thomas Tanselle, one sees that this is, perhaps, a more crucial argument for the authority of the originally published edition than the editing. Bowers claims that in determining what is to be the copy-text of a work with multiple editions, and in creating a new edition, one must produce a text which, more accurately than any other method, comes as close as possible to the authors original and revised intentions (Bowers 20). Given this, that the originally published text of The Sound and the Fury is wholly both Faulkners own conceptualization of the text, in that no outside source influenced or determined his idea of the text and what it should be, and his own realization of the text, in that he wrote and edited it without significant outside influence corrupting his conceptualization, largely prevents any argument as to whether or not the original edition was true to Faulkners own wishes and views of the text. The originally published text clearly conforms to Faulkners own intentions; no other persons intentions were imposed upon the text at any point in either writing or editing the text prior to its original publication. Thus, the originally published text conforms to Bowers reasoning, and should be considered authoritative. Having then established the credibility and authority of the original text as Faulkners own intentions, the question becomes whether or not some, or all, of the subsequent editions of The Sound and the Fury published during Faulkners lifetime should be considered a continuation or evolution of Faulkners intentions for the text, and whether or not the most recent edition published during his lifetime should consequently represent the text closest to Faulkners intentions. The last edition of the text published during an authors lifetime is generally considered the most authoritative texts, yet this view proves problematic in the case of The Sound and the Fury. Indeed, Bowers writes, The uncritical use of the last edition within an authors lifetime is now, or should be, thoroughly discredited, although it is still occasionally

Harman 4 found (Bowers 12). The use of the later editions of The Sound and the Fury published during Faulkners lifetime has actually been quite common, as those editions were circulated far more widely than the first. However, due to errors introduced into the text, none of these editions should be considered authoritative. Looking first at the second version of The Sound and the Fury, an English edition published by Chatto and Windus in 1931, there are a number of differences in the text. Noted Faulkner scholar James Meriwether determined that the London publishing house censored the novel by omitting 325 words, and he additionally notes that there are a number of print errors, and changes in the linguistic style of the text, such as altered spelling (Meriwether n. pag.). That the novel was censored in such a manner corrupts the purpose and intent of the novel; Faulkner desired to depict the decline of the Compson family, and much of that decline is rooted in American Southern culture and tradition. To censor the text is to lose the vividness with which Faulkner portrays this, and to work against Faulkners own purpose in writing the novel. Additionally, that the purposeful changes made to the text were not Faulkners own, and that errors were introduced into the text, means that this text does not represent Faulkners final intentions, and cannot be used as a copy-text. The Modern Library edition, which was the third version of the text, published in America in 1946, has similar problems, and introduces a number of errors into the text as well (Meriwether). The text of the Modern Library edition then became the basis for almost all subsequent editions. The text was reprinted in the Vintage paperback edition in 1961, and again later published in a Random House edition in 1954, and a New American Library Signet edition in 1959 (Cohen 187). Thus, the errors in the Modern Library edition were continued on, and corrupt all of these editions. Again, that Faulkner did not make the changes to the text and that

Harman 5 the errors were introduced makes these editions less representative of Faulkners final intentions than the originally published version. Clearly, none of these editions can then be used as the copy-text, and should not be used in a critical edition of The Sound and the Fury. Once again, this establishes the originally published version of the text as the most authoritative and most representative of Faulkners final intentions. The original version the most accurate to Faulkners typescript, Faulkner edited it himself, and errors had not been introduced into it. Unlike the subsequent editions the original edition was not corrupted by outside influence. Thus, clearly, any critical edition of The Sound and the Fury should use the originally published text in order to stay as true to Faulkners vision of the text as possible, and for the practical reason of simply avoiding reproducing the errors that subsequent editions introduced into the text. There is one publication of part of the text that became problematic, though, and that is the Viking anthology Portable Faulkner. Malcolm Cowley approached Faulkner about including part of The Sound and the Fury in the anthology, and Faulkner wrote the now infamous Appendix for the anthology, which was published in 1946. This Appendix and its merit become highly problematic given the number of discrepancies between the Appendix and the novel, discrepancies that Faulkner continually wrote off, even though Cowley actually approached Faulkner about them (Meriwether n. pag.). The Appendix was then later republished in other editions of The Sound and the Fury. Clearly, the primary question becomes whether or not this Appendix should be considered part of the actual text as merely a revision or addition to it, whether or not it is an extension of Faulkners final intentions regarding The Sound and the Fury, and, thus, whether it should be republished with the text. The Appendix becomes, first, obviously problematic with regards to Faulkners final intentions for The Sound and the Fury in that it was not published with the original text. The

Harman 6 Appendix was not necessarily governed by the same historical and cultural conventions as The Sound and the Fury, and would, by its simple removal in time from the original text, have a different impact on readers. Added to that, Faulkner created it with outside factors influencing him, including pressure from publishing houses as ones sees with Cowley, and even the knowledge of the original texts reception. Faulkner, himself, was different as a writer, and would necessarily have approached the Appendix differently than the original text. All of these issues taken together, it can be argued that the occasion for the writing of the Appendix was simply too removed from that of the original text, making it, in fact, a completely different text of its own. It has been argued, though, that the Appendix is merely a revision or addition to the original text of The Sound and the Fury, but this view is immediately called into question given the radically different writing style and approach used in it as compared to the original text. As professor Stacy Burton writes, The Appendix places the characters of The Sound and the Fury in a larger historical framework from an omniscient position strikingly at odds with the novel's distinctly limited narrative points of view (Burton 606). As mentioned, there are also a number of discrepancies between the Appendix and the original text of The Sound and the Fury, discrepancies that Faulkner never fixed and even justified (Meriwether n. pag.). The Appendix, despite its relationship to The Sound and the Fury, is simply a far different text. Given this, approaching the Appendix from the view of preserving Faulkners final intentions for both it and The Sound and the Fury, the two should be considered a separate works. As G. Thomas Tanselle writes, [there are] situations in which the author's revisions reflect motives which make it impossible for an editor to accept the later version of a work as truly representing the author's

Harman 7 intention, even though, in temporal terms, this version is final (Tanselle 192). The Appendix is, indeed, one such situation. This view is supported by Faulkners own commentary on the Appendix. He wrote to Cowley about it, saying, I think it is really pretty good to stand as it is, as a piece without implications (Meriwether 282). This seems to imply that Faulkner thought of it as a wholly separate work, rather than as an addition to The Sound and the Fury. It could easily be inferred that he merely intended it as a critical commentary in some manner, simply to be included in the one instance of publication in Cowleys anthology. The governing conventions of anthology support this; usually they do contain critical commentary, other works by the author, and even notes by the author. Faulkner was certainly aware of this, and may have designed the Appendix for precisely that purpose, and for only that occasion of publishing. That he later prevented Random House from publishing the Appendix in an edition of The Sound and the Fury also seems to support this (Meriwether n. pag.). Given this, it seems best for editors to approach the Appendix as a separate work, as it seems Faulkner desired for it. Faulkner wrote many separate stories that revolved around the Compson, including Absalom, Absalom! and The Evening Sun (Burton 605). Faulkner likely intended that the Appendix, while dealing directly with the world of The Sound and the Fury, stand alone, as with these other works. The Appendix was, therefore, Faulkners final intentions, but from a different time and with regards to a completely different text. Consequently, it should not be included in a critical edition the aim of which is to as closely as possible represent Faulkners final intentions for The Sound and the Fury, though, the Appendix does present another interesting, separate occasion in its own right for examining The Sound and the Fury.

Harman 8 That the Appendix should not be published in a critical edition in this particular occasion is not to discredit the value and merit of the Appendix; it simply does not fit this particular occasion. Lastly, there is the issue of Faulkners desire to color-code the timelines in Benjys section of the novel, which he could not accomplish at the time to due the limits of printing technology. Based on this expressed wish of Faulkners, The Folio Society recently published such an edition, but whether or not this is representative of Faulkners final intentions is debatable. The Folio Society admits, We can never know if this is exactly what Faulkner would have envisaged were he to have created the colour scheme himself (The Folio Society n. pag.). Clearly, then, the problem with attempting to create Faulkners envisioned color-coding lies, first, in that it can never be known whether the scholars who created this edition identified the timelines as Faulkner would have. Faulkner only specified eight timelines that we know of, whereas as the scholars who put together this edition identified fourteen (The Folio Society n. pag.). Nor is it known whether Faulkner had a specific color code or pattern in mind. Again, this was left to the scholars to construct themselves. All of this then essentially comes to the heart of the matter surrounding final authorial intentions, and whether or not a critical edition of The Sound and the Fury conforming to Faulkners intentions should be color-coded. Tanselle writes, A scholarly editor sets as his goal the reconstruction of the text intended by the author (Tanselle 182). To construct the color-coded text is to essentially disregard the original text, and is to impose an editors own view of the text and construction of it onto the original, deviating from what Faulkner may very well have intended, and potentially corrupting the text. That other scholars evaluated the timelines and coded them makes that section of the text a separate construction of it than Faulkners; it is to create a whole new text that simply never existed. The Folio Societys edition is merely an attempt at an envisioned, conceptual ideal

Harman 9 version of the text, which is problematic. One must ultimately remember that it was the original published text, without the color-code, that became popular, leading to its canonization. It was not a conceptual ideal that made it popular. Anything other than the text, itself, is, in fact, a nonexistent hypothetical text that can never truly exist, ideal or not. This ideal text that The Folio Society sought to produce is an entirely subjective, conceptual work, and, regardless of Faulkners wishes, any other attempt at color-coding the text will necessarily also be a slightly different construction of the text due to this subjectivity; Faulkner is not the one revising the text. One cannot, therefore, legitimately extend Faulkners final intentions to include The Folio Projects attempt at color-coding the timelines in Benjys section. Faulkners color-coding of the text simply does not exist, and the attempt to reproduce it is simply a separate construction of the text. Any attempt by a person other than the author to move a work towards this conceptual ideal is either merely the imposition of that persons interpretation of the text onto the text, or the creation of an entirely new constructed text by that person. It is simply his/her attempt to change and/or fix the work as he/she sees fit, and Tanselle writes, an editor's task is not to "improve" upon an author's decisions (Tanselle 169). Thus, while such a color-coded edition may be useful in some contexts, and is certainly legitimate in other occasions of publishing and studying The Sound and the Fury, such color-coding should not be included in critical edition intended to represent Faulkners final intentions. Ultimately, an editor can only work with the text that is already there. As Tanselle again writes, The only direct evidence one has for what was in the author's mind is not what he says was there but what one finds in his work (Tanselle 210). Thus, an editor seeking to create a critical edition of The Sound and the Fury that as closely as possible represents Faulkners final intentions for it, simply should not color-code the text, since it was not already present in the

Harman 10 text. Nor should he/she include the Appendix, since it represents an entirely different work that is valid in its own right, but simply not a part of The Sound and the Fury as Faulkner intended it. The editor ought to reproduce the text as it was originally published by Jonathan Cape and Harrison Smith in 1929, since this is the least corrupted text, and the text least influenced by outside factors. That is not to say that the other editions are not valuable in their own right, and should not be reproduced for other purposes and occasions. It is also not to contend that the methodology of Bowers and Tanselle works with all texts and instances. It is simply in this instance that their tradition provides a means for determining what Faulkner intended, and it is simply in the occasion and purpose of a critical edition of The Sound and the Fury as examined in this paper that the first edition is authoritative and should be considered the copy-text.

Works Cited

Harman 11 Bowers, Fredson. Current Theories Of Copy-Text, with an Illustration from Dryden. Modern Philology 48.1 (1950): 12-20. Web. 9 May 2013. Burton, Stacy. Rereading Faulkner: Authority, Criticism, And The Sound And The Fury. Modern Philology 98.4 (2001): 604. Web. 8 May 2013. Cohen, Philip. My Faulkner. Faulkner and Postmodernism. Eds. John N. Duvall and Ann J. Abadie. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2002. Web. 9 May 2013. Meriwether, James B. Notes On The Textual History Of The Sound And The Fury. Papers of The Bibliographical Society of America 56 (1962): 285-316. Web. 9 May 2013 Meriwether, James B. A Prefatory Note by Faulkner for the Compson Appendix. American Literature 43.2 (1971): 281. Web. 8 May 2013. Padgett, John B. The Sound and the Fury: Commentary. William Faulkner on the Web. 7 Jul. 2008. Web. 8 May 2013 <http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~egjbp/faulkner/n-sf.html>. Tanselle, G. Thomas. The Editorial Problem of Final Authorial Intention. Studies In Bibliography (1976): 167. Web. 8 May 2013. The Folio Society. A publishing landmark the first edition of Faulkners masterpiece to be printed as he intended. 2013. Web. 8 May 2013. <http://www.foliosociety.com/press/the-sound-and-the-fury-william-faulkner/>.