One of the first things I noticed about Cormac McCarthy's writing style was a propensity to double up on words and phrases that emphasized the meaning. For example, something like "the sun was hot, was hot, and was hot," which isn't from anything McCarthy, just a quickie as an example. Another writer (why can't I recall?) did this as well. It sets the fact in the reader's mind exactly how hot the sun felt.
But with Faulkner, I'm seeing a duplication of meaning using a different word that is set to emphasize perhaps, but to my editing mind, comes off like an editing change of which word is better, choose one, drop the other.
While reaching and approaching are not exactly alike in meaning, one being successful where the other is nearly so, their use here would seem to make the difference negligible. Whereas the two words may even be in conflict with each other, one could say that it would be a clarifying term, had approaching come before reaching. This would indicate a moment's movement that could make the difference.
Movement again is the subject of the next pair of verbs–and Faulkner does this most often with verbs–and while lurched and canted indicate two different motions, I can't help but think that either one singley used would have sufficed.
What is the mood behind Faulkner's choice of diction? Could it be that we have an old man telling a tale and this speech pattern becomes more intimate with its voice of reality? For me, however, always and ever in editing mode, I see it as a returned-from-workshopping eagerness to change the words of the writer.
The Lost Children: A Charity Anthology
I think we give our heroes too much credit and Mr. Faulkner was just lazy there. IMHO
It’s very possible; this is the last novel written by Faulkner, and the words may have been meant to be considered for further editing since from what I understand, Faulkner was meticulous in his efforts of diction.