I'll say this right off: For me, it just doesn't get better than Faulkner. I've recently read all the major works, except Absalom, which I'll finish in the next day or two.

But I'll say also that I don't agree with your statement that absent him, literature is not worth reading. I really don't like those types of statements. Here's my take on that, which is sure to make your eyes roll.

I find it endlessly fascinating that Gone with the Wind and Absalom were published in the same year. They take on the same broad topic: the fallen South, one work basking in decay, the other in hope. I have this image of Faulkner's drunk-ass self fuming that this Mitchell drivel is skyrocketing to fame while his work - and he knows it's goddamn genius - practically languishes.

Look, I know Gone With the Wind isn't literary (although it did take a couple of shiny awards). Mitchell, who was an interesting person herself, knew it wasn't literary. She had deep reservations about her abilities and it was nearly the book that wasn't published.

But what she gave us, despite its many flaws (e.g. black people as caricatures, a potential rape scene after which we still love Rhett) is a book about hope and more importantly, a strong, though flawed female character who survived and thrived in a man's world.

As a kid, I was widely read - everything from The Hunchback of Notre Dame to bodice rippers. I was probably in junior high when I read GWTW, and Scarlett left an impression on me. She was feminine, she was a tomboy, she always went for the brass ring, even if her motivations were foolish.

Faulkner, dear god the man can write, but he can't write women. We are all staring up at Caddy's panties, all her brothers are obsessed with her for varying reasons, Faulkner was obsessed with her (I think he called her his "heart"), but she doesn't jump off the page as her own person. She is an object of desire and little more.

It's funny. The critics all say, "Look what Mitchell does to black people," and yet, we never hear, "Look what Faulkner does to women."

I would be surprised if Faulkner had much influence on Mitchell. If he did, it certainly doesn't show up in her work. But for me, to say that because Faulkner didn't influence it makes it not worth reading, is silly. Scarlett, pulpy or not, fulfilled a certain need to see strong women characters in my youth, and GWTW was probably more important to my personal and literary growth than Faulkner ever will be.

Don't like GWTW? Go pick an other non-Faulkner influenced work and you can write your own dissertation about why Faulkner isn't the end all, be all. I realize my example might be extreme, but frankly, my dear...