William Faulkner is an undisputed fact of our literature; Andrew Lytle is a neglected, little-understood figure, who is in some danger of suffering a total eclipse. (p. 35)

[Lytle] must be seen in the context of an important and recognizable literary tradition, while Faulkner is by contrast an isolated figure, working independently and without much knowledge of or interest in the endeavors of his contemporaries, who were paradoxically creating a context and an audience for his singular achievements. Those achievements make Faulkner a major though isolated writer; Lytle's work is that of a minor figure in a major tradition….

[In] terms of literary significance, of quality and value, Lytle stands up surprisingly well against the Goliath of Southern fiction. His position is not exactly that of a David, but just as David was able to accomplish a great deal with a few well-chosen stones, so Lytle has managed with...