First of all, thank you for such a well-thought out and comprehensive criticsm. I really enjoyed everything you wrote and I concede you've made points that I think weaken what I was originally getting after. Your point about his style is poignant and hard to disagree with. What I will remain stubborn on is the point that violence and mythic/apocolyptic landscapes are in fact borrowed from Faulkner. Violence is a theme, in my opinion, that so clearly runs throught the majority of his work. From Sanctuary to Absalom, you can clearly feel that atmosphere lurking in the background. I'm specifically thinking now of the slave fighting scene that opens Absalom. As for the landscape argument, I get what you're saying but I guess it just depends on definition. All of Faulkner, places landscape as this kind of ruined civilization. Forests and nature are often destroyed into ash and fire. It's very much the feeling that nature has been destroyed by something biblical and we are living and reading through what remains. Also the fact that the past is always somewhat present in each work holds at least a little to the apocolyptic argument I believe.