Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
99
wo
William Faulkner was one of the Western novelists enjoying comparatively wide critical acclaim in late-twentieth-century Romania. The reprinting
of translations of and criticism on Faulkner's books after 1989, his inclusion
in academic curricula, and the impressive number of translations from his
work all indicate that Faulkner's distinctive place was not affected by an earlier superimposition of ideological perspectives. What is so surprising, however, is the paradox that, although recent editions are accompanied by new
prefaces or introductory essays, the overwhelming mass of criticism published
after 1989 remains slightly modified old material, rather than new interpretations. There are of course exceptions to this rule: Mircea Mihie's Cartea
e^ecurilor (Book of Failures) and Didi-lonel Cenu$er's Faulkner's Larger Mean
ings for example. As well as providing an indication of the status and range of
Faulkner studies in Romania, this reflects directly on the different critical and
theoretical trends, phases, and methods at work in Romanian literary scholarship. From this evidence 1 extract two theses regarding Romanian criticism.
My first allegation concerns the paradigmatic evolution of the past four
decades, from a thawing of ideological control (in the 1970s), through a decade of economic and sociocultural crises (in the 1980s), to the problematic
demise of communism. I propose that not only is contemporary criticism
heir to many of the methodological principles set out by pre-1989 critics, but
that it is also heir, albeit with some ambivalence, to a certain forma mentis
which selectively obliterates aspects of the cultural scene, such as the distinction between communism and Marxism. In Faulkner criticism, this becomes
apparent especially in the reprinted critical editions of the 1990s, from which
references to Faulkner's political allegiance and to his social critique, as well
as derogatory allusions to capitalism, have been carefully expurgated rather
than reconsidered with the investigative tools of neo-Marxism or New Historicism.
My second proposition concerns pre-1989 literary criticism, in which,
despite state control and internalized censorship, the dominant move was
away from the monolithic discourse of Stalinist ideology towards a thorough
synchronization with kindred Western developments. Thus, it is German
Hermeneutics, French Formalism(s), and American New Criticism rather
than their Russian homologues that have had the strongest impact on Romanian textual analysis. Moreover, in the 1980s, shortly after its legitimation in
Western cultures, postmodernism entered the Romanian scene of literary debate and, due to local socioeconomic and cultural circumstances, acquired a
range of meanings and taxonomies unprecedented in the West (see Crneci).
In this context, a careful, open-minded, and holistic reading of Romanian
literary criticism in relation to kindred Western studies would prove informative. A comparison of Sorin Alexandrescu's 1969 Faulkner monograph with
Myra lehlen's 1976 discussion of class and character, for instance, would be
particularly fruitful, both in methodological terms and in terms of their findings on the psychological complications arising from ideological and social
situatedness in Faulkner's Yoknapatawpha. Similarly, in the field of textual
Fall 2008 01
102 Ana-Karina Schneider William Faulhier and the Romanian "Critism of Survival"
ers and of certain aspects of their work becomes more evident. This perhaps explains why Faulkner was not as popular in Romania as his contemporaries, Steinbeck and Hemingway for instance. Steinbeck's interest in
the plight of the dispossessed and in social injustice, like his affiliation to
left-wing politics, made him particularly amenable to ideologically saturated criticism in our country. Moreover, his simple, straightforward, occasionally allegoric or parabolic narrative, and his concern with simple,
uneducated laborers appealed to the proletarian readership throughout
the world. At the opposite pole, Hemingway proposed a brutal male ethos
of endurance, nonconformism and individualism, and an epos of sheer
physical force and adventure. While he offered no explicit social commentary other than the impossibility of adapting to imperialist capitalism, the
insidious appeal of his work might have been constituted by the promise
of escapism. Faulkner, with his obscure and convoluted experimental style
and ambiguous politics, has always been much more difficult to digest
by lay readers; he has also been more difficult to be made digestible by
critics. Concurrently, his obliquity and ambiguities invite and accommodate a wider range of interpretations, just as they also preserve him fresh
for every new consumption, even when Steinbeck and Hemingway have
faded from view. In the late 1960s this protean quality made it possible for
translators and critics to introduce the Southern novelist to the Romanian
reading public in a variety of guises: as the linguistic experimentalist, the
eccentric aesthete, the cryptosocialist, the liberal humanist as moralist,
and the mythopoeic pseudohistorian.- All these guises were both faithful
to what they disguised and ideologically acceptable, achieving a compromise that allowed for the promotion of the aesthetic consequence and universally valid ethos of Faulkner's work while obscuring his objectionable
connection to Western capitalism.
Fundamentally, Faulkner's reception in Romania has been conditioned and informed by the regional-universal duality. Faulkner's work is
crucially grounded in his native South, and an understanding of this ontological relationship has proved highly instructive in a.ssessing his literary
achievement. At the same time, the Southern writer's main characterological and situational prototypes are essentially illustrative of the human
condition everywhere in time and space. Much Romanian criticism before
1989, written in circumstances of severe censorship and thorough Stalinist
indoctrination, pivoted around the writer's regional identity, emphasizing
his preoccupation with the life of the lower classes in the agrarian South
and the social injustice and mobility typical of a community in the process
of redefming itself. These aspects of the Southerner's oeuvre resonated
with the major social and economic changes that our country was under^For more on Faulkner as the linguistic experimentalist, see Lupan and Munteanu. For Faulkner as the
eccentric aesthete, see Balota, Lupan, and Tacu. Tor Faulkner as the cryptosocialist. see Alexandrescu, Lupan,
and Cartianu. For Faulkner as the liberal humanist as moralist, see Balota. For Faulkner a.s the mythopoeic
pseudohistorian, see Alexandrescu, Flftmnd, and Prvu.
going at the time, as well as with the dominant doctrine of the communist
party in power. They also shed light on the dialectics of ideology and aesthetics, authority and responsibility. After 1989, on the other hand, what
had hitherto appeared to be Faulkner's obsession with the disposses.sed
and the downcast has becorne of secondary interest, while criticism has
been overwhelmingly stylistic. Faulkner's very portrait, both as a man and
as an artist, ha.s changed in proportion to the dramatic de-emphasizing of
his political commitments.^
Furthermore, in fairness to truth it must be recalled that there were
critics in communist Rotnania who started from the assumption of the
primacy of aesthetic value but enhanced the writer's political stand in order to recuperate and promote plain good literature. When all culture and
criticism had to be Marxist-Stalinist in order to be published, critics often
intentionally underscored the treatment of social and economic relations
in Western literature at the expense of other aspects and considerations.
Many of Faulkner's works would have been censored if they had not been
offered as potentially revolutionary critiques of capitalism. Although
such criticism ran the risk of imposing a restrictive interpretive grid on
Faulkner's work, the critics' convictions and intentions were generous and
comprehensive. While their political agenda was ostensibly Marxist of the
Stalinist persuasion, they embraced values that were reminiscent of liberal
humanism and informed by current Western formalist and structuralist
readings of literature. What enabled such ambivalence was the belief that
while literary studies can add decisively to the understanding of history,
left-wing politics can liberate criticism from traditional standards of canonicity and convention. The exegetes of communist Romania deployed
this ambivalence cogently, to the great advantage of literature, acquiring a
hard-won autonomy from state ideology that did not obtain in any other
scholarly discipline. Their present reluctance to confront socioeconomic
themes with the tools of Marxism or historicism is still a residue ofthat
autonomy.
The legitimacy of ideological readings of Faulkner's work within the
Western critical establishment thus became an object of contention for
the Romanian critical readership. Its reverberations echo through three
Faulkner monographs by Sorin Alexandrescu, Mircea Mihie, and Didilonel Cenuer; a book on the literature of the American South by Virgil
Stanciu; and a number of prefaces, afterwords, reviews, essays, and articles
dealing with specific novels by Faulkner. The late 1960s and early 1970s
witnessed a surge of translations and reviews in the wake of Faulkner's
death, thanks to the many translators and reviewers available but also,
crucially, to the current ideological thaw and the comtnunist snobbishness
which itnpelled thetn to foster world cultutal values with little regard for
the country of provenance, nominally under the aegis of populist dogma.
Altogether, these were highly favorable circumstances; Faulkner's fame
^St-e Cenuer, Fnulkncr's Larger Meanings 94-96.
would never again reach similar peaks, although it resurged in tbe 1990s,
when the sharp shift in national and cultural politics in our country called
for a reinterpretation of tbe major literature of the West.^
Consequently, in the early 1970s, Radu Lupan could write, by way of a
foreword to his translation of Light in August, a chronicle of his trip to tbe
heart of capitalism, and Virgil Stanciu could submit bis translation of "Golden
Land" from Nortb Carolina wbere be was temporarily conducting researcb.^
In the context of this doctrinal thaw, to the extent to which it was ideologically
oriented, criticism was largely consonant witb the Western literary studies of
the late 1970s, and the approach to Faulkner's politics was at times shaped
by what the Russians, in a concessive mood, might have called the reactionary socialism of French formalism and structuralism. Virgil Stanciu's Orientri
in literatura was obviously tbe result of deep immersion in Anglo American
practical criticism, as both its lack of political involvement and its style and
language reveal; Ana Cartianu was conversant with Italian treatises on tbe Renaissance and tbe Baroque, to wbich she alludes in ber discussion of Faulkner's
grotesque; Sorin Alexandrescu was familiar witb Englisb, French, and Italian
Faulkner criticism. Such cosmopolitanism, however, is the exception rather
than the rule; the strongest overall influence remains, no doubt, that of tbe
Russian communist, post-Trotsky scale of literary values, reinforced by state
policy.
The most complex analysis in Romanian of Faulkner's literary output is,
in many ways, Alexandrescu's early monograph, William Fatdkner. Like Myra
lehlen in America seven years later, Alexandrescu sets out to devise a critical
method that combines current structuralist textual analysis witb Marxist insights into tbe world of Faulkner's prose. Keenly aware of tbe sheer bulk of
Faulkner criticism already in circulation, both American and European (espeA brief synopsis of the evolution of Faulkner criticism in the West, however, will reveal thai Romanians have always been slighdy out of step. John Bassett. for instance, shows that .serious appraisals of
Faulkner, as of the other modernists, began in Ihe kite 1940s and reached a climax in the lyOs; between
1959 and 1969, only forty books and eighty doctoral ihescs were written on the Southerner's work ( WiWiam
Fnulkner 39). This revival, largely owed to his receiving the Nobel Prize in 1950 and then to hi.s death in
1962, was followed by a lull in the early 1970s, the natural course of any writer's fame before it is put into
proper perspective and can settle in its definitive place in the history of world literature (42. .^8). A quarter of
a century later, Donald Karliganer had the bibliographical data and hindsight necewary to establish that the
most signilicant Faulkner studies were conducted and publi.shed in the late 1970s and the 1980s ("Faulkner
Criticism" 83). By then, the New Critical contributions of the 1950s and 1960s appeared to have at best a
"custodial" value, in their attempt to fix the literary object into an aestheticized icon (82). Conversely, more
recent assessments still shape contemporary Faulkner crilicism and reinscribe his canonic position by recontextualizing and allernalely .subsuming the liierary tcxl under a number of comprehensive social and political "issues" (95). Such approaches have the advantage not only of rediscovering the freshness and relevance
of the Faulknerian text with every new reading, but al.so of redefining relevance itself.
"^Ironically, in one oihis lectures al the University of Virginia, Faulkner presents one of his many tlieories
ahoul combating communism. If he could have his way, he says, rather than having the State Department send
Americans abroad, he would bring communists to America to live diere for a year. H is thesis is that they would
always want to come back and forsake their communist country and its ideologies (Faulkner, "Session Nineteen" 154). The other method of combating communism is by opposing it with what he calls "individualism," a
more than usual Utopian notion constituted mainly offinancialindependence and refusal to accept any kind ol'
social benefits fi-om the state (Faulkner, "Session Thirteen" 102). Trade unions are the only compromise with
communal organization that he accepts, and only on the grounds tht "t nukes things easier" (H)2).
daily French and Italian), which he details in his prologue, the Romanian exegete expresses his intention of shedding all knowledge of previous opinions in
favor oan "innocent" reading in order to discern the novelist's design (23).^
This is in fact Alexandrescu's ostensible aim: to approach Faulkner's oeuvre as
a whole, with the most recent tools of structuralism, in an attempt to capture
its essence (23). Although he admits that there cannot be final interpretations
of literary works that are as protean and alive as Faulkner's, in approaching the
work from a variety of angles he intends to come close to a definitive sum of the
"predictable problems raised by the Faulknerian creation" (24). His method
aims to he synthetic rather than analytic, unlike much of the criticism that went
before him (25). While obviously familiar with structuralism, Alexandrescu
also insists that his monograph will be derivative of no man's theory or school,
but will remain "within the limits of a moderate 'structuralism*... and therefore constantly subordinated to an aesthetic analysis of the literary work" (26).
Yet Alexandrescu feels called upon to emphasize that Faulkner felt quite
strongly about issues such as racial and social injustice, in keeping with his general center-left, essentially liberal and democratic (but then again, ostensibly
so was communism) political orientation. Faulkner's position vis--vis interracial relations, though presented as essentially consonant with the "separate
hut equal" policy, is regarded as more than benign, Alexandrescu seeming to
approve of the novelist's moderate pronouncements, unaware of any potential offense to the black minority. Overall, the exegete suggests in his second
chapter, the Southerner was openly critical of the sell-out of democratic values
represented by the bourgeois democracy of a reactionary age and "recognised
the seduction exercised by the socialist systemthe only one that has a solid
ideology and economic doctrineon underdeveloped countries, 'disoriented'
by the contradictions [especially racial] that characterise American society"
(59-60).
In spite of its author's obvious appropriation of the rhetoric and concerns
of the political dominant, William Faulknerhi\s clear merits that have to do with
its aligning of Romanian criticism with current trends and standards, pulling it
out of the mire of populist impressionism. As Alexandrescu points out, this is
Ihc first structuralist monograph ever in Romanian, and it demonstrates thorough knowledge of Faulkner criticism to 1969 and contemporaneous trends in
monographic studies, even though it carefully avoids any mention of cultural
theoreticians and anthropologists (28). At the same time, in predicting that
criticism will in the future tend to be more and more specialized and restrictive
in thrust, the book evinces the author's apprehension that structuralism itself
might be coming to an end without having attained its purpose of discovering
the structuring of thought behind the creative process (21-22). Nonetheless,
Alexandrescu lucidly repudiates the goal of attempting to give the ultimate interpretation of Faulkner: his ambition is rather to write a corollary of critical
knowledge in the field to date. The last part of his book in particular seems to
be comparable in quality and approach to much contemporary criticism in
unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own.
106 Ana-Karim Schneider William Faulkner and the Romanian "Criticism of Survival"
America: Nortbrop Frye's Anatomy of Criticism, Tzvetan Todorov's The Fantastic, Ibab Hassan's Radical InnocencCy and Wayne C. Bootb's Rhetoric of
Fiction come to mind. Tbe measure of Alexandrescu's achievement is given
not only by tbe fact tbat the monograph was translated into French in 1974,
but especially by the impact it had on later Faulkner studies: directly or indirectly, Alexandrescu is cited, emulated, or challenged by a number of later
reviewers and critics.
Tbe year 1972the seventy-fifth anniversary of Faulkner's birth and the
tenth of his deathrepresents a critical peak: in this year alone, one of his
greatest novels. As J Lay Dying, as well as a shorter text, "Golden Land," were
translated into Romanian, while another translator was already at work on
Light in August and planning a pilgrimage to Oxford, Mississippi, for early
1973. The translation of As I Lay Dying, alongside that of The Souttd and
the Fury published the previous year by tbe poet Mircea Ivnescu, was attended by an array of reviews and followed by more general critical articles
on Faulkner's place in world literature. By tben, the largest part of Faulkner's
literary output was known to Romanian readers. Between 1964, when Intruder in the Dust marked the beginning of Eugen Barbu and Andrei Ion
Deleanu's translation series (accompanied by a preface by Radu Lupan), and
1974, wben Mircea Ivnescu published bis Romanian rendering o Absalom,
Absalom! no fewer than seven other novels, Faulkner's best, were translated.**
Furthermore, Sorin Alexandrescu's influential 1969 monograph sanctioned
Faulkner's inclusion in university curricula. The rest of the 1970s and the
1980s were relatively quiet, awaiting the 1990s to complete the picture with
the welcome addition of further translations botb of novels and volumes of
short stories and a resurgence of critical interest in the Southern novelist's
achievement.
In Ana Cartianu's 1973 volume of essays on English and American literature, the American section comprises only tbe two pieces on Faulkner and a
few references in tbe last chapter to the idea of system in literature according
to the New Critics. The author discusses Faulkner's gothic and baroque writing as inspired by the late- and post-Elizabethan theater and draws a learned
parallel between tbe historical circumstances of the two. She emphasizes the
shared imagery of violence and tbe general vacuum of moral values arising
from the similar social and economic realities of two worlds on the brink of
transition from the feudal to tbe capitalist order. The violence and amorality
are a function of tbe artist's implied critique of both the past and the current changes undergone by their respective societies. As Gartianu thinks ot
"The Astra Library catalog lists the following translations between 1964 and 1974: Nechemat hi (rin
M/ieDHjrJ, trans. Eugen Barbu and Andrei Ion Deleanu (196-1); Ursiil. Niivele {Go Down, Moses)^
tr^ns. Radu Lupan (1966); Cturiul (The Hatnlcl). trans. Kugen Barbu ami Andrei Ion Deleanu (1967);
Oroful IThe Town), trans. Fgen Barbu and Andrei Ion Deleanu (1967); Casa ai colonne (The Mansion),
trans. Eugen Barbu and Andrei Ion Dcieanu (1968); Zgomotul ^i furia (The Sound and the Fury), trans.
Mircea Ivnescu {\97\); Pepatulde moarre (As I iMy Dying), trans. Horia-FloHan Popcscu and Paul Goma
(1972); Lumina de august (Light in August), trans. Radu Lupan (1973); Absalom, Absalom! trans. Mircea
Ivnescu (1974).
novelist was not an objective "chronicler of the South" and that the book itself
is rather "the novel... of an attitude" (30,34). Sartoris serves as a case study of
Faulkner's modernism, whose individualizing features are instantiated by bis
choice of universally valid myth over particularizing history, and diegesis over
didacticism.
This more recent critical text, urbane and sophisticated, makes frequent
references to current theoretical and critical pronouncements. Its purport is,
if anything, even more disengaged from contemporary ideologies and critical
theories and closer to the principles of liberal humanist literary history, tinged
with the New Critical exclusive reverence for the text as aesthetic object ("La
portile Yoknapatawphei" 37). A similar stance is more explicitly evinced by
the essay on Malcolm Cowley, "The Chronicler of a Generation," written in
1980 and included in the same 2004 volume. In commenting on Cowley's latest book. And I Worked at the Writer's Trade, Stanciu approves of the critic's
objection to the excesses and simplifications that resulted from ill-advised
Freudian-cum-structuralist attempts to explain tbe nature of Faulkner's epic
imagination. The Romanian exegete agrees with Cowley that John T. Irwin, in
Doubling and Incest/Repetition and Revenge: A Speculative Reading of Faulkner,
illustrates the way in which psychoanalysis taken to an extreme proves reductive and deprives the literary work of much of its public, historical, moral, and
intellectual interest (45-46).
Although the twenty-seven years between Virg Stanciu's two books did
not leave tremendous marks on his approach to literature in terms of ideological commitment, in Romanian criticism at large they were a time of ominous
silence, followed by a revisiting of older critical instruments and preconceptions. Roughly between 1974 and 1989, Faulkner's stubborn formal experimentalism must have appeared too obscure and reactionary to secure bis position as a populist novelist and thus make him ideologically acceptable. T'he
post-1989 years meant a return to the literary text per se> to literary history,
and to humanism as the only valid doctrine.
Post-Revolutionary criticism of Faulkner opens with a new monograph
entitled Cartea e^ecurilor {The Book of Failures) by novelist Mircea Mibiec, a
no
Romanian criticism, Cenuer demonstrates tbat Faulkner was far from upholding convictions belonging to the communist doctrine; indeed, his answers
to questions about politics are decidedlywhen not downright shrillyopposed to communism (94-96).
Perhaps tbe most consistent Romanian attempt to engage critically with
Western Faulkner studies so far has been tetan Stoenescu's afterword to
the 1997 edition of Mircea Ivnescu's translation of Vie Sound and the Fury.
Stoenescu's compendium of Western (mostly American) criticism, past and
present, includes a comprehensive list of monographs, essays, and articles, and
in a footnote he lists what be regards as their most seminal Romanian counterparts." The commentator seems to have chosen for himself the unenviable
task of offering an alternative to the misconceptions and misrepresentations
tbat bad invaded criticism, both local and Western. Stoenescu is bighly critical of the exces.ses of ideological readings, especially of the poststructuralist
type, and his indictment of their conclusions is similar to Andr Bleikasten's
(whom be confesses to appreciate [268]) in "Faulkner and tbe New Ideologies," altbougb perhaps less rigorous and consistent. The Romanian critic's
targets are Cultural Materialism, neo-Marxism, New Historicism, feminism.
Reader Response theory, postcolonial studies, and often poststructuralism
indiscriminately, all of which are supposed to bave shed any interest in universal buman values and to bave unfairly superseded and dismissed earlier,
more universalizing readings. Their interpretive strategies deprive literature
of much of its relevance by foregrounding ruptures, inconsistencies, seif-exposure, and unravelling in order to demonstrate that literature does nothing but serve tbe hegemonic status quo of race, class, and sexual relations.
Stoenescu admits that in Western countries, and in the United States in particular, some of these readings (especially the postcolonial, but also some of
tbe more sophisticated Marxist approaches) are justified by internal imperatives such as debunking tbe Eurocentric canon and opening literary studies
up to multicultural ideas (269). Yet even here, Stoenescu makes a proviso: tbe
Western Hterary and exegetical tradition cannot be discarded. In Romania,
in contrast, the multicultural motivation does not obtain; moreover, given
our historical background, Marxist readings, especially of the Leninist-Idanovist persuasion, would prove, according to Stoenescu, not only irrelevant,
but unnecessarily masocbistic (267). The key principle in adopting critical
approaches, tbe commentator suggests, is always meeting tbe needs of tbe
receiving culture (270).
Wbile be rejects recent critical recontextuah'zatons of Faulkner's work,
Stoenescu does not dismiss more traditional concepts of social background; on
tbe contrary, be empbasizes the contribution of bistorical studies, but assumes
a vision of history that is essentialist and factual (271). Stoenescu proposes:
"Tbe mission of tbe novelist wbo creates recognizable alternative worlds is to
depict the non-fictional reality in its complex and complicated determinations
without allowing it to be infiltrated by political ideologies that always have re"7he most notable absence from the \aitcr list is Mihic.
ductive tendencies, even when they are fuelled by justiciary impulses" (273).''
He goes on to reiterate the perception of Faulkner as the "chronicler of the
American South at the time of its dusk and dissolution," assuming that the
chronicler can remain untouched by politics and that such an impartial rendering of reality remains compatible with the realism for which Faulkner is
revered (273). Whether or not one agrees with Stoenescu's premises, his text
makes for a complex urbane, often original and insightful, always stimulating reading, singular in comprehensiveness and metacritical penetration. It
strikes one as an appropriate summary of Romanian and Western criticism
of Faulkner, especially as it was written to celebrate the novelist's hundredth
anniversary. No subsequent critical inquiry interrogates the timeliness and
appropriateness of theoretically engaged Faulkner studies in Romania, and
among his predecessors, Sorin Alexandrescu stands out as the only Faulkner
scholar intent on devising a rigorous methodology.'-^
For all its comprehensiveness, Stocnescu's excursus does not resolve the
fundamental quandaries of contemporary literary studies: what is the extent
to which criticism is and can be allowed to be influenced by its proponent's
social, cultural, or ideological persuasions and background without becoming an unprofessional statement of personal preference? Is total disengagement
from politics ever possible, or indeed, even recommendable? At the high tide
of communism total disengagement was simply not a good idea; after the end
of the communist era it seems unavoidable. Both before and after, the nuances and degrees of ideological contamination have often been so subtle as
to render honest devotion and open resistance almost indistinguishable from
each other. Moreover, they have very complex counterparts in Western literary
criticism, in spite of the sharply distinct political environment. For instance,
the only noteworthy difference between early American-Marxist readers
(Granville Hicks, Maxwell Geismar) and Romanian communist propaganda
would appear to be that the former were detractors of Faulkner's work on the
grounds of its lack of involvement with the most ardent social-racial issues of
his time and place. The Romanians, in contrast, sought to demonstrate that
Faulkner was deeply committed, perhaps even more so than he wished to show
publicly. According to them, this was actually part of his realism in addition
to the merit of being a great humanist. To illustrate, according to Alexandru
Ivasiuc, a well-known communist novelist, Faulkner's universal significance
resides in the lucid way in which he deals with social injustice, but also in his
constant tendency to give both sides of the story, to create binaries and polarities, and to render tension (2). What with such ambiguous assessments of social
involvement, and what with translators Lupan and Stanciu seeking information
and inspiration in the US in the early 1970s and Alexandrescu later repudiating
his early ideological monograph, one suspects that many critics were not more
'-"Misiunea romancicrului creator dc lumi alternative recognostibilc e.ste de a surjirindc realitatea
ncfictional in complexele 5 complicatele ei delerminri fr a permite infiltrad din ideologiile politice ce
au intoldeauna tcndinje reduclivc, chiar dacS sint alimntate de impulsuri ju.stitiare" (273).
"I dwell on ihe ethics of ideological approaches elsewhere, without, however, insisting on ils local
compatibility. See Schneider.
114 A na-Karina Schnder William Faulkner and the Romanian "Oitism of Survival"
that post-war Romanian criticism, too, is "a world of survivors," in which opposing forces have shaped a complex panorama of critical discourses. On tbe
one hand, there were the ideological state apparatuses tbat engulfed tbinking
by using methods far less subtle and diffused than those described by Althusser; on tbe otber, there was resistance. On tbe one hand, there was conformity
to acceptable fashions; on tbe otber, tbere were ironic distance and disillusionment. Or perhaps these were all on tbe same sidesurvival strategies.
Post-Revolution Romanian culture, too, is tbe site of multivalent resilience: literature survived the communist persecution fairly intact, and so did
criticism and tbeory. To paraphrase Manolescu once more, ours is a tradition
of survivors, wbose exemplars are perhaps neither better nor worse than the
wretched creatures on Noah's Ark, but equally foundational. But wbat bave
also survived are traces, traditions, psychological and bebavioral patterns,
traumas from the past, and spectres tbat demand vindication. Tbere is a paradox at tbe beart of this condition: wbile a valuable heritage has been salvaged,
tbe most powerful impetus is centrifugal, moving away from tbe cultural circumstances tbat created it. With one hand we rescue a set of ingrained assumptions about the definition, autonomy, and worth of tbe aesthetic, while
with the other we reject restrictive identifications of culture with high culture.
We both foster and repudiate the work of the past: we reprint it, but only
after thorough pruning. We continue to translate and adopt tbe literature of
the Westthougb not its critical tbeorybut do not manage to popularize
our own abroad. In Faulkner studies this hesitanc\' blocks not only a fruitful
interrogation of the Southern novelist's relevance to the Romanian audience,
but also precludes any interrogation of tbe legitimacy of alternately superimposing unwarranted ideologized or deideologized interpretive grids on texts
wbose relevance and value might ultimately be revealed to lie elsewhere than
in their alleged social "message."
Yet my comparative analysis of Romanian critical theory and Faulkner
studies pre- and post-1989 shows that critical readings often reflect neither a
political commitment on the part of their autbors, nor a generalized doctrinal
determinism. Rather, they instantiate the impact of, or resistance to, a number of superimposed (often unexamined) ideological assumptions regarding
the nature and role of literature in the world, the function of criticism, tbe
definition of culture, the demands of national identity (vis--vis globalization), social responsibility, political coercion, freedom of expression, and
the autonomy of tbe aesthetic. The definition of ideology applicable here is
the Western rather tban the communist one. Why, tben, is pre-1989 criticism shunned? Paradoxically, rather than encourage reformulation and debate around cultural issues, the present suspicion of canonic validation has
stalemated critical discussion; it has also broadened the breach between criticism and theory. In this context, and in the case of Faulkner studies, criticism functions anachronistically, in vacuo, as it were, unable to creatively and
critically internalize ongoing developments. The victim of these obliterations
is Faulkner studies: imposing such limitations precludes tbe formation of a
/16
Ana-Karina Schneider
Alexandrescu, Sorin. WiUiam Faulkner. Bucureiti: Editura pentru Literatura Utiiversal, 1969.
Balota, Nicotae. Euphorion. 2nd ed. Bucureti; Cartea romneasc, 1999.
. "ncrederea in Faulkner." Romania libera 5.34 (1972); 13.
Bassett, John E. Vision and Revisions: Essays on Faulkner. West Cornwall: Locust Hill P, 1989.
-, ed. William Faulkner: The Critical Heritage. Boston: Routledge. 1975.
Bleikasten, Andr. "Faulkner and the New Ideologies." Kartiganer and Abadie 3-21.
Cmeci, Magda. Art of the 1980s in Eastern Europe. Piteti: Paralela 45, 1999.
Cartianu, Ana. "William Faulknersau 'Agona 5 sudoarea min|iiomenesti*" ["William Faulkner,
or 'The Agony and Sweat of the Human Mind'"|. Eseuri de literatura cnglezii americana.
Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dada, 1973. 133-47.
. "William Faulkner ci bamcul" ("William Faulkner and the Baroque"]. Eseuri de iteraturd
etglez ii americana. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Dacia, 1973. 148-58.
Carton, Evan, and Gerald Graff. "The Emergence of Academic Criticism." Poetry and Criticism.
1940-995. The Cambridge History of American Literature. 1996. Ed. Sacvan Bercovitch.
Vol. 8. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. 281-304.
Cenuer, Didi-Ionel. "Faulkner's 'Agony of Ink' in The Sound and the Fury." American, British
and Canadian Studies 5 (2004): 31-36.
. Faulkner's Larger Meanings: "The Greek Concepliort." Sibiu: Saeculum UP, 2005.
Corni-Pope, Marcel. The Unfinished Battles: Romanian Postmodernism Before and After 1989.
Iagi: Polirom, 1996.
Faulkner, William, "Session Nineteen." Faulkner in the University. 1959. Ed. Frederick L Gwynn
and loseph L. Blotner. Charlottesville: U of Virginia P. 1995. 153-70.
: "Session Thirteen." Faulkner in the University. 1959. Ed. Frederick L. Gwynn and loseph
L. Blotner. Charlottesville: U ofVirginia P, 1995. 100-05.
Flamand, Dinu. "William Faulkner: Pe patut de moarte" ("William Faulkner: As / Lay Dymg"\.
Contemporanul 38.1349 (1972): 2.
Ivnescu, Mircea, trans. Absalom, Absalom! 1974. By WiUiam Faulkner. Bucureti: Editura Univers. 1999.
, trans. Zgomotulfi Furia The Sound and the Fury], 1971. By William Faulkner. Bucureti:
Editura Univers, 1997.
Ivasiuc, Alexandru. "Semnificapa universal" ("The Universal Significance"]. Romania Literar
5.28 (1972): 2.
lehlen, Myra. Class and Character in Faulkner's South. New York: Columbia UP, 1976.
Kartiganer,DonaldM."FaulknerCriticism:APartialView."7?ieFflMtt:ner/owrmi/16.3 (2000/2001):
81-99.
Kartiganer, Donald M., and Ann I. Abadie, eds. Faulkner and Ideology: Faulkner and
Yohuipatawpha,