Faulkner: question concerning Sanctuary and Requiem for a Nun

i recently discovered that Requiem for a Nun is a sequel to Sanctuary so i was wondering how necessary (or beneficial) it is that i read Sanctuary first...i plan on, before i die anyway, both (as with everything William Faulkner wrote) but i currently have the sequel and not the uh, first installment...i know most of his work is related on the same thread of narrative (or at least the same cluster of multiple, overlapping narratives) on some level...i just wanted to make sure i wouldn't lose something in reading Requiem for a Nun first (or when i eventually read Sanctuary later) so for anyone who's read both, what would you recommend?

as it happens i'm currently reading The Snopes Trilogy and those three novels wouldn't work as well read out of order, so...i probably know my own answer, but i thought i'd see what others had to say...

I just found this group--can't believe I didn't know about it before. In any case, if you're still looking for advice on the subject, I would say you should definitely read Sanctuary first. The thing with Faulkner is, you find yourself needing to read in circles, because so many things are interwoven, as you say. Quite likely if you read Sanctuary, and then read Requiem for a Nun, you'll find you want to go back to the novel and read it again. That's one of the reasons I love him so.
How are you doing with the trilogy?

finished the trilogy a while back...not long after posting that i went ahead and bought Sanctuary so when i get around to it i plan on reading it first...even as i wrote that post i thought i'd known the answer anway, so thanks for the input!