A Fable has aroused many unfavorable comments and only three searching attempts at an interpretation. None of the commentators saw a totally unified structure and consequently the meaning of the book has not been clarified by them. The title and the decorative symbol of the Cross have led most critics to stray into paths which Faulkner really did not enter. The novel is not a fable in the technical sense of that narrative form; rather it is a story, probably meant by the author to be as meaningful as any of Aesop’s writings, but equally probably not to be as simple in outline or depth. One of the chronological frames through which the story progresses is indeed Holy week, but only in a limited degree does the sequence of events relate to the final events in the earthly life of Jesus [21].

A sounder critic, Ursula Brumm, noted that A Fable was constructed around slightly different antitheses. The division between the meek of the earth and the rapacious but creative ones “who participate in the works of civilization” forms the essential conflict in the novel. Miss Brumm cites the long apostrophe to rapacity by the Quartermaster [8] as the focal point of A Fable and maintains that this passage, which is a parody of Paul’s message on “charity” in Corinthians 13:8, may be seen as the final indictment of civilization and all its works.

Faulkner, by equating Christianity with Civilization, has written a novel that is absolute heresy in Christian terms. The Corporal is the son of God or the founder of Christianity, but Christ the archetype of man suffering, and of those who expiate the guilt of civilization by renunciation of the power and the privilege.

Another thoughtful early criticism is Philip Blair Rice's review. Rice offers provocative and penetrating insights into the novel which unfortunately lead to the usual cul de sac rather than to a unified vision, because he seeks that vision using the wrong index to meaning. Rice, seeing A Fable as the most monumental task Faulkner had yet assumed, responded to it in like manner. It demands he states “a comparison with such awesomely mentionable names as Melville, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and Mann”. A Fable does not live up to expectations for Rice, and fails to even render its explicit message, which to him is that message contained in the Nobel Prize acceptance speech. Rice believes, as do most of the critics cited above, that Faulkner's failure is essentially an intellectual failure. He has failed to offer a coherent theology which to Rice is the implicit message of A Fable. Rice’s real problem with A Fable is the apparent ambiguity of the “theological” elements. This basic ambiguity is what engenders his criticism of the novel, and he directs his criticism toward theological rather than artistic considerations. For Rice, Faulkner’s religious commitment is vague, not orthodox, most likely “a non super naturalistic rendering of the Christian symbolism” which offers “no theodicy and no other-worldly beatitude”. What shocks Rice is that the words of the Nobel Prize acceptance speech “Man will prevail” are uttered by the Marshall instead of the Corporal. To Rice this assignment is a “breathtaking reversal”, since the Marshall must be a figure of evil (Caesar or Satan) according to the reading Rice imposes on the novel. He notes also that the Corporal’s entombment in the monument of the Unknown Soldier, although a sort of victory, is too heavily ironic to constitute a real victory for primitive Christianity, since the monument also glorifies nationalism. These and other inconsistencies lead Rice to the conclusion that three thematic resolutions of the implicit message of A Fable lie open to the reader [40].