Em 1931, William Faulkner escreveu The sound and the fury, um clássico da literatura norte-americana. O excerto abaixo é parte da introdução, escrita por Richard Hughes, à edição do romance publicada pela Penguin Books, em 1971.
There is a story told of a celebrated Russian dancer, who was asked by someone what she meant by a certain dance. She answered with some exasperation, “If I could say it in so many words, do you think I should take the very great trouble of dancing it?”
It is an important story, because it is the valid explanation of obscurity in art. A method involving apparent obscurity is surely justified when it is the clearest, the simplest method of saying in full what the writer has to say.
This is the case of The Sound and the Fury. I shall not attempt to give it a summary or an explanation of it: for if I could say in three pages what takes Mr. Faulkner three hundred there would obviously be no need for the book. All I propose to do is to offer a few introductory comments to encourage the reader.
a) Segundo Hughes, em que circunstâncias a suposta obscuridade de uma obra de arte se justifica?
b) Que razão apresenta Hughes para não resumir nem explicar The Sound and The Fury?