>But you haven't given us any _passages_ from Faulkner (or from the
>machine translation). You have given us little snippets. They prove
>nothing except that you've never thought much about what prose is.
>
>I'm not a "lover" of Faulkner. And I think it ridiculous to call works
>of art "personal communications," but I have a good deal of experience
>with a number of different prose styles, and none of them can
>conceivably be judged, or even discussed, with such snippets as you
>offer.
How refreshing it is to agree enthusiastically with Carrol! As I remember Faulkner, it's the flow that really gets you going - a deluge of prose that does flirt with the ridiculous, but which is mostly an exhilarating rush of language, more like poetry than narrative. Picking out phrases here and there is stupid and proves nothing.
Doug