William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 1

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech

Terner Gott
John Carroll University

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 2

Introduction
On December 10, 1950, in Stockholm Sweden, William Faulkner gave an
acceptance speech after winning the Nobel Prize for literature. The speech came at a
transitional time in Faulkners life but the message was one of the most clear and
inspirational works he ever created. Most of Faulkners work before the speech was not
considered inspirational and it was uncharacteristic of him to provide a focus for looking
towards a brighter future. Instead, readers concluded that he was often confusing and
dark. The speech that he delivered in Stockholm that day was completely opposite of his
early work. Many people that followed his work noticed a definite shift in his overall tone
in writing and in his everyday life around the time of his speech. The more positive trend
was not consistent for Faulkner and was attributed to the inspirational message presented
in his address. The literature review provides evidence and insight into the shift of
Faulkners work. Around the time of the speech, a noticeable shift happened that
rendered his previous work no longer fit for the discussion of his cause or available to
interpret as a source of insight towards his more recent attitude. Instead, they should be
interpreted in motion, considering the timing and societal relevance. To introduce the
shift Faulkner opens with,
I feel that this award was not made to me as a man, but to my work - a
life's work in the agony and sweat of the human spirit, not for glory and
least of all for profit, but to create out of the materials of the human spirit
something which did not exist before
(Faulkner, 1950).

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 3

Faulkner explores the uniqueness of individuals and their ability to add new
conversation and originality by explaining his personal effort. Each person
possesses the innate ability to add rhetoric through personal experience and the
development of their own human spirit. In this way, Faulkner sets the tone of his
speech by emphasizing that in learning to focus on the individual spirit, all writers
have the ability to create something that does not already exist. The agony and
sweat should come from the writers human spirit for the readers human spirit.
All people have the power of interpretation and the ability to utilize their own
rhetoric to explore facets of literature that did not previously exist and therefore
benefit both writer and reader.
The acceptance speech was given in a time of nuclear fear. Faulkner discusses
how the fear shapes the way writers engage in their trade. This fear, as a result, clutters
the minds of mankind, stifling the creative processes that allow one to write from within
the human spirit. He believed that all writers needed to go back and re-learn the concepts
that he discusses in hope that they can one day create works of literature that have a real
role in making a difference in the lives of their readers. Once they have lived up to the
standard that he discusses, he thinks it is their duty to help fellow members of society in
coping with the rough reality in which they live today. At the end, he inspires hope by
saying that he does not foresee the end of man in the near future. Finally, he does not
believe that they will just survive, he believes that they will eventually thrive.
The critical question that needs to be answered places the writers, the issues and
mankind in perspective. How can writers relearn rhetoric based on the work of another
person? Although difficult at first, Faulkner believed a change would cause an increase

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 4

in significance and would eventually expand to distract mankind from the fear in the
problem. Death is the largest issue in history. Do the writers of the time have enough
influence to be able to help their fellow man in coping with this issue? On the other hand,
is death too large of an issue to be dealt with in this way? The answer to this question will
be unpacked through the paper in many lenses but it will keep one thing in mind: hope is
the strongest emotional influence throughout the entirety of mankind. Many awful
situations throughout history have been overcome with hope. If writers can learn how to
inspire hope with their works, than there is a chance that they can answer Faulkners call
to excellence in truly significant works of literature.
Literature Review
Faulkner called authors to relearn writing to incorporate the significance of the
timing and events that shaped the publics attitude. He asks them to use the tools of
rhetoric to help mankind distract themselves from nuclear war and other contemporary
hardships. The purpose of the speech was to provide hope for mankind and
encouragement for writers. However, few criticisms have analyzed the effectiveness of
the speech and the plausibility of the call to action. The majority of the literature written
on Faulkners acceptance speech has dealt with his word choice and some of his personal
shifts. Scholars have expended a good deal of energy in tracking down and discussing
the origins of the short Nobel address (Rife, 1983). The critic makes references to
where the speech comes from and discusses Faulkners originality. However, the speechs
origin is not necessarily relevant to the message he presents. This speech is a call to
action and it is more important for the literary criticisms to consider the effectiveness of
this calling. Little work has been done to find an answer for the purpose of his speech and

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 5

the questions that correspond. He calls authors and entertainers to uplift the spirit of the
common man in hopes of driving his thoughts away from death. Furthermore, there is
definite evidence that shows how Faulkners work shifted around the time of the speech
and this shift acts as a guideline for others to follow in his footsteps.
The literature created in regards to Faulkners has developed the meaning and it
has explored the language. The time period was plagued with fear and questions of death.
This was during the time when people thought nuclear war was going to happen between
the United States and the Soviet Union. Although nuclear war was in the forefront of
concern, the real fear plaguing society was the thought of death. There was an overcast in
the minds of the public that fostered thoughts of death. Faulkner called for a break
through this overcast to allow a shift in focus towards positivity and hope. People were
constantly reminded of death and constant fear ensued. As a result, Faulkner recognized
the anxiety and, through his address, offered a language to help cope with the anxieties of
the atomic age (LaVoie, 2014). LaVoie talks about Faulkners choice to deal with this
issue and the overall message of the speech. He explains Faulkners solution as a new
language, a new way of writing to fix problems rather than discuss them over and over.
The message is very clear, people needed inspiration and distraction and this is
understood upon hearing the speech once. Instead of focusing on this message, other
works of criticism dealt with the origin of some of the language in the speech. Some of
the literature has dealt with the comparisons to A.E. Houseman, whose influence
Faulkner himself acknowledged as early as 1925 (Meriweather, 1971). The work that
has been focused around the speech has dealt with its language and its meaning. It talks
about passages that may have been influenced by outside sources and it talks about the

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 6

most influential parts of the speech. The goal of the movement was to inspire hope and
provide an escape from reality. The most important would be, a single sentence that
arguably would become the most-cited quotation from any Nobel speech: "I believe that
man will not merely endure: He will prevail (Gray, 2001). Regardless of the direction
that mankind is going, he inspires hope. Faulkner works to instill many messages into the
mind of the audience with little excess in his language used. Faulkners short statement
that man will not only make it out alive but will emerge victorious, is a very uplifting
statement. Man has prevailed before and will do it again. This phrase has become one of
the most well known statements in the history of Nobel Prize acceptance speeches.
It is well known that Faulkners early literature did not inspire hope. However, his
writing has often allowed the reader to escape from reality. Although many of his works
seem to stress decay and degeneration, his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize in 1950
revealed his optimism and faith in mankind (William Faulkner 1897-1962, 2001, p.
29). There are many problems in following Faulkner in this cause based on his early
works. He was not known to inspire hope and a lot of his reading was largely confusing.
It is hard, Because of the life denying implications of Faulkners writing, to rely upon
his statements in order to question claims about his unconscious projections may beg for
trouble (Rogers, 1989). However I do not see this problem as entirely negative. In his
speech, Faulkner talks about the processes that got him to where he is today. He advises
that these processes teach the qualities that allow the writing and action that can
accomplish his task. There has been some research done on the progression of his work.
The later texts of his career are what should be focused on in his movement, not in
isolation or in competition with what came before, but in productive interaction with

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 7

them, in motion (Kreiswirth, 1989). Faulkner identifies what the problem is and he
wants writers to move their work in his direction. The idea of the movement is to acquire
the tools to write in a way to benefit mankind. Also, the speech represents Faulkners
views and his work as separate ideas. An authors work does not always represent his
actual thoughts. They are different worlds and should not be cluttered together.
After and around the time of his Nobel Prize for Literature acceptance speech,
there was a definite shift in his work. The notoriously reclusive Faulkner embarked on a
startlingly public period of political activity during this period, lecturing about race
relations and civil rights (Watkins-Fulton 2011). Faulkner began to do the things that he
called for in his speech. He began to shift his efforts in a way that was uplifting instead of
dark. In his speech he talks about how it should be a goal for writers to reach his standard
and to do it for the right purposes. He thinks that he can make a difference in the world
with the position he has gained through the processes of his work. Faulkner argues that
writers need to go back and learn things in a similar fashion to his own. He discusses the
idea that future writers may someday stand in his position. Someday, it will be another
writers responsibility to give an inspiring speech much like his own. Faulkner brought
his Self taught and highly sophisticated aesthetic to bear upon a seething turmoil of racial
and moral complexity (Ford, 1989). This article shows some of the tendencies of the
three books he wrote closer to the speech because they proved different previous work.
Once he had achieved his credibility and his notoriety, he began to focus his efforts in
mankind more and more often. However, he argues that this does not have to be the only
goal for writers, simply an added supplement to their responsibility for the influence a
work can have on society. In fact, the goal is to learn the things needed to write in a way

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 8

that helps the common man and to aspire to improve his own position upon seeing the
success of others.
The question that needs to be answered does not have to deal with the origin of
Faulkners language, or his troubled life in the time of the speech. He creates a scenario
in which mankind can deal with the harsh reality. It is always hard to divert attention
away from something as large as death. "Perhaps a nation in the grip of fear will always
choose military power (Powers, 1984). Some would say the only way to deal with this is
to feel safe. However, there is always an uncertainty in things like this. Faulkner does not
want outside factors to affect the writers because they must write from the heart,
overcoming fear in order to cope. It can definitely help to divert attention away from such
a large occurrence and to shape reality. Faulkner obviously experienced a shift and tried
to do so himself. There is always one thing that can overcome death. Hope drives people
further than imaginable and without it, people would have ceased to exist a long time
ago. The critical question comes from the idea that William Faulkner is leading this
movement that he has created. Was his call to action and rhetoric effective enough to
divert the current characteristics of authors? If he was effective, do the authors have the
ability to let mankind escape from reality in such a harsh time?
Method - Dramatism
In the examination of William Faulkners Nobel Prize for Literature speech, a
Dramatist lens will be used to evaluate his effectiveness. This will be the most effective
in examining this work because it deals with his calling as a task. There are certain
components of the plan that he wants to accomplish. There are players and settings.

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 9

Along with this are many other aspects that deal with the language and symbols that are
used in the purpose of persuasion towards accomplishing his task. Faulkner speaks of the
situation that everyone is in, based on the things that are going on around them. He
explains how circumstance shapes writers and the people. He wants the writers to relearn
the things that they know about writing because previous methods were not able to help
the people find the strength to cope with the time period. It is most effective because his
reasoning comes from a real situation that he feels he can correct. Faulkner would like the
writers to act as the agent to mediate the harsh times. The motivation in his speech is to
advise future writers to become like him. He wants to be able to use dramatism to control
the situation and not have the situation control the dramatism. He wants writers to shape
reality through the drama they create and hopefully this will help the people cope. There
is a lot of use of drama and all of the elements of Burkes pentad are evident.
Components: Motive
The very first element of dramatism is the motive. We all understand motive in a
similar way. Motive is defined as the reason people do the things that they do. When it
comes to speaking there are motives in the language and in the message. Faulkner has a
call to action in his speech. The motive of the speech is to persuade the audience to do
what he thinks is best. Kenneth Burke defines, pure persuasion as the saying of
something not for an extra verbal advantage to be got by the saying, but because of a
satisfaction intrinsic to the saying (Butler, 2012). This should be interpreted as the
person says what they believe they should say. What inside they feel is the right thing to
say to persuade. That is the motive that will be used in examining Faulkners speech.
There is always a motive behind a rhetorical act. The motive is not always clear, but for

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 10

some sort of persuasion, there needs to be a motive for the speaker. This will be the part
that will judge the effectiveness of the speech. The motivation of the speaker needs to be
identified and the evaluation of the speech is based on what was accomplished through
that motivation. There have been various of interpretations of dramatism since Kenneth
Burke claimed many of the aspects in the method. A look into motive is Burkes
interpretation; The language of motives, motives in language and language as a motive
(Overington, 1977). The speaker has to understand the language of motives and the
motives that are in other peoples language in order to use language as a motive in an
effective way. There have been interpretations of this but it should cover all aspects of the
method. It is not a very hard concept to understand. The speaker has a motive and they try
to enact it. Motives fail and they succeed. Regardless of where they end up, there is
always a motivation in persuading someone.
Components: Pentad
There are now five elements to dramatism according to Burke. They are the
scene, the act, the agent, the agency and the purpose. The first element of the pentad to
be examined is the scene. Burke describes the scene as The Background of the act, the
situation in which it occurred (Hamlin, 1973). The scene is more or less just the situation
that has occurred, or is occurring that makes the act relevant. All rhetorical acts have a
scene. There is always relevant information that should be understood before examining
the act. This is important when you get into re-creating the historical event in examining
the rhetoric.
The next part of the pentad is the act. In dramatism the act, explores what
happened or what took place (Dickinson, 2009). This is what is occurring that caused a

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 11

rhetorical act. This coincides with the scene. They tend to cause one another. The
situation is what controls drives this pentad. The act is normally the basis for why. It calls
the situation and why there should be something said to improve a situation. This
involves the causes and the effects.
The third part of the pentad is the agent. This is the who. They are the people who
are involved in this process. The people who have been effected by this act and hopefully
those who are involved in the agency. There is a clear distinction between those who
experience and express an informational need and those who act to satisfy this need
(Hoppe, 2013). This does not always refer to everyone in the audience. This is relevant in
my analysis. The agent is not the entire audience, it is everybody who has been called to
engage in the agency.
In dramatism the agency is the person or thing that will act in the desired cause.
There is something that is happening and there is somebody that is expected to do
something about it. This is the how. Burke insists on endowing communicators with
some agency to shape reality (Fox, 2002). Along with the agency being the how, there is
the language that will create the agency and the language that the agency will use. This
deals with language that will go towards the purpose. This especially is very relevant to
the analysis that I will be conducting and the goal of the author.
The last part of the pentad is the purpose. This is the rhyme and the reason. There
is no need in making a rhetorical act in response to a situation if there is no purpose.
Rhetoric without a purpose is like a car without a driver. Burke says, There must be an
agent. Similarly, there must be a scene in which the agent acts. To act in a scene, the
agent must employ some means, or agency. And there cannot be an act, in the full sense

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 12

of the term, unless there is a purpose" (Anderson, 2010). This is also an excellent tool in
evaluating the effectiveness of a speech. If the purpose was met, than it has a good
chance of being an effective speech. That being said, analysis is always needed. There
have been great speeches that were unsuccessful and horrible speeches that were
successful.
Ratio
The next part that goes along with Burkes pentad is the idea of ratios. He has the
five elements and he says that in every situation, there are certain amounts of each one.
Some bigger than other in there relevance to the situation or topic. The ratio is the
understanding of how the elements work together. Reading with this ratio inclines us to
decide whether ambiguities are in motion (historically necessary yet essentially
accidental) or strategic action (Kraemer 2009). There are many different ratios that seek
to understand what is going on with the rhetorical act. Identifying this in my work will be
a big part in the direction of my paper because it helps with understanding.
Symbols
Burkes understanding of symbols involves two different distinctions.
Communication with symbols occurs, In the human arena in which symbols create and
construct socially understood and shared knowledge, and, in the nonsymbolic arena in
which symbols must be thoughtfully selected which respond appropriately to the
circumstances (Chesebro, 1988). This means that symbols are accepted by people or
understood by people at a large level so that this communicative process can begin.
Without the common understanding of symbols, communication cannot occur. Symbols
can vary from pictures to words. The point is that they represent something. Also, the

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 13

idea of these symbols is the selection of an appropriate response to a situation. The
symbol may not be universally known but it can be understood. A symbol is a valuable
tool in being able to persuade an audience.
Analysis
The method and the literature review have helped shape the critical question that
others have failed to address. Faulkners speech is a call to action. He wants to persuade
the audience towards his movement. How did he seek to persuade writers so that they
would accept the challenge of helping their fellow man? Once they have attempted to do
so, will their work be able to help mankind endure and prevail? The Nobel Prize
acceptance speech by Faulkner will be examined through a number of lenses. It will
address his calling as a writer to the young men and women that will come after him. The
analysis will address his calling as a task in the way that it has many parts in
accomplishing his desired outcome. It will look at how he inspires hope and the other
ideas that he wishes to instill in the listeners mind. In the end, it will seek to understand
how effective Faulkner was in delivering his message and the plausibility of his calling.
The first thing that needs to be addressed is Faulkners attitude towards the topic
and peoples interpretation of that. It has been made clear by critics and in the literature
review that Faulkner has not always inspired hope. Much of his work has been dark and
would not support his claims that he makes in his acceptance speech. However, at the
beginning he says, This award was not made to me as a man, but to my work
(Faulkner, 1950). There is a difference between what an author writes about and what he
believes. His work was the reason that he received the award. He even discussed the idea
that the award was given to his work and that he would like to take the opportunity to

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 14

speak to the men and women that would be where he was one day. The time period was
very fearful and dark. Those who have read his work would say that it reflected a
pessimistic mindset. The award was given to him based on his work by people that were
under the same circumstances that he writes about. One could even claim that some of his
work embodied what people found interesting at the time. The award was given to the
mans work, not to the man himself based on what he believed. Furthermore, there was an
identifiable shift in his actions and writing around the time of the speech. His work
should be understood in motion. The distinction that there is a difference between the
man and his work is what allows him to make these claims.
It would be easy to provide a basis for this talk by addressing the Pentad that was
created by Kenneth Burke. This is used in Dramatism and has five clear components in a
rhetorical act. This is relevant because Faulkner has a clear goal and certain components
that are a part of accomplishing that goal. The five components are the scene, the act, the
agent, the agency and the purpose. The speech is easy to understand when one
understands the scene. This is the situation that makes the act relevant. In other words, it
is what is going on as a background or a setting. This speech was given in 1950 during a
time of nuclear fear and just fear in general. Faulkner talks about the tragedy of the times
and the fear that has joined it. He says that people are plagued with the question, When
will I be blown up? (Faulkner, 1950). The scene is just at the beginning of the Cold War
when there was a large fear about death and people expected that it could happen any day.
Understanding the history is a large part in understanding the rhetorical act. The setting is
placed out of order in the way it happens in the speech but it is essential to understand
this before analyzing the rhetorical act.

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 15

In the beginning of his speech, Faulkner clearly states how he will benefit and
use the benefits of receiving this award. It is immediately shifted to the use of his
credibility to help mankind. He talks about the money that he will receive and that it will
not be a difficult task in using it for good. He then addresses his desired audience with,
But I would like to do the same with the acclaim too, by using this
moment as a pinnacle from which I might be listened to by the young men
and women already dedicated to the same anguish and travail, among
whom is already that one who will some day stand here where I am
standing (Faulkner, 1950).
Faulkner gets right to the point in addressing the people that he wishes to reach
during this address. He brings them all together when he says that they are
dedicated to the same anguish and travail as himself. Out of all of these
people, he points to the future person that will be standing in the same spot as he
is while giving this acceptance speech. In Kenneth Burkes pentad, this would be
referred to as the agent. They are the people that Faulkner is addressing and they
are part of the group that has been affected by what he discusses. Also, he
addresses another group that is part of the agent. The next part of this component
is mankind. He tells each writer that; It is his privilege to help man endure by
lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope (Faulkner,
1950). This gets a little into the act but it is important in understanding the groups
that Faulkner says are affected. These two key parts make up the agent. Burke
classifies these people as having been affected by the scene and the times that

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 16

they are facing. These are at very separate parts of the speech but it addresses both
parties that are affected by the scene.
The next key piece in understanding Faulkners calling is the act. This part
addresses what has taken place because of the scene. Directly after Faulkners question of
being blown up he offers a result of this. He says, Because of this, the young man or
woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself
which alone can make good writing, because only that is worth writing about (Faulkner,
1950). Obviously another part of this section would include the fear of the people. The
fear can be extended throughout. The scene causes the issue that he addresses. The issues
that occurred in the time had a great affect on two key groups. These key groups are
addressed in the agent.
The fourth step in identifying Faulkners use of the pentad is the agency. The
minds of the writers that are influenced by Faulkner and the works that they produce are
considered as the agency. This is evident because of the previous paragraphs, however, he
calls them to do many things. He talks about how the time has influenced the way in
which people write. It has caused them to forget, or not even learn some of the things that
are essential in Faulkners idea of good writing. He must teach himself that the basest of
all things is to be afraid; and, teaching himself that, forget it forever (Faulkner, 1950).
This idea of fear is something that is hard to escape. It was something that plagued
society during that time. In Faulkners calling, he wants the writers to inspire hope as
addressed in earlier paragraphs. In doing this, they must forget all forms of fear. If the
peoples hope is to come from them, they must write of hope. If they are to help mankind
cope with fear, then there is no place for it in their mind. The writers must get rid of fear.

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 17

Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust He writes
not of the heart but of the glands (Faulkner, 1950). Faulkner suggests that if they do not
do so, they are not writing what is true to man. They are writing about what is on the
surface. Their writing reflects the bad things that occur every day. They need to stay true
to the qualities that have helped mankind endure great feats over history. It is also true
that through the writers minds will come the future works. They are considered the
agency because they directly influence the mind of the readers. Helping the readers cope
is the call to action. The works are what directly influences them.
The last part of the pentad is the purpose. This part of the act has to do with why
someone should be answering the call. This speech cannot be an effective speech without
a purpose. The purpose is a very simple concept when it comes to Faulkners calling. It is
to inspire hope. In addressing mankinds ability to prevail Faulkner says, He has a soul,
a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poets, the writers, duty
is to write about these things (Faulkner, 1950). The purpose of Faulkners task is to
inspire hope in the common man so that they can endure the issues and prevail in the end.
There is a definite motive in Faulkners speech. Without a motive, an act of
persuasion is just a shot in the dark. The motive of the speech lies in all of the elements of
the pentad but it would be ineffective in discussing the motive before we understand what
is going on. Faulkner wants to address the writers that may follow in his footsteps and tell
them why they should be doing so. He believes that there is a problem with some of the
writers of the time. He thinks that the issues surrounding society are causing them to not
learn what is needed in writing the way in which they should. He believes that a lot of
writing is done as a report or as history. Writers have the ability to help man endure the

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 18

issues because men seek books to escape reality. There have been many occasions in
history when something seemed different than it actually occurred because of reports.
The language is what guides the publics thinking. A lot of them do not know exactly
what is going on because their mind is invaded with the idea of death. Writers have the
ability to shape the minds of the people because people often believe what they hear. If it
is hope that they inspire, then they will have been successful. The poets voice need not
merely be the record of man, it can be one of props, the pillars to help him endure and
prevail (Faulkner, 1950). Faulkner uses the symbol of a pillar to emphasize the writers
duty to hold up the morale of mankind. The pillars that Faulkner described were,
courage and honor and hop and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice (Faulkner,
1950). He wants to inspire a means for hope through the pillars, so that man can endure
and prevail in the end.

Answer
The speech given by Faulkner raised a few questions. They questioned what he
has done to contribute to this cause. Also they questioned the capability of a writer to
help man endure the fear that had been created by the issues of the time. It has been made
clear what he thinks about the issue.
Many of the people who have taken a look at Faulkners career have noticed a
shift in his work around the time of the acceptance speech. This shift came started when
his work was not uplifting to the human spirit. It was sometimes hard to understand. As
stated earlier a lot of his work seemed to stress decay and degeneration. This creates
some problems in following him along this cause. Much of his work did not exemplify

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 19

the picture that he wanted to portray in his speech. However, the speech did show his
hope for mankind. Some of his work after the speech definitely seemed to follow his
calling that was addressed in the speech.
The largest part of the questions raised needed to deal with the plausibility of all
of this. Faulkner has a common goal and he seeks to get to it in a unique way. When a
person seeks to read a book it is often because they are trying to escape reality or they
were not present when the historic moment took place so they are reading an account of
it. This simple fact allows Faulkners plan to be possible. The majority of the public
didnt know the entire truth of the times. Depending on what they were told and some
external factors they often believed what they heard.
If the writers of the time cannot get rid of fear in their own mind it will be evident
when they write. This could be detrimental to the readers. The qualities that Faulkner
says they should learn do go along with the plan and would work. The writers do have the
ability to take control of the readers mind. They can use this for good or bad.
The trouble with this analysis is the difficulty in establishing the degree in which
this speech affected writers. We can notice Faulkners shift but it is difficult to notice a
shift in the work of others. This speech was to be taken on a meaningful level and he
offered a plan of action. The message was right and the plan possessed the power to
work. There has not been any real literature in regards to the effectiveness of the speech.
It is not known if authors attempted to implement Faulkners advice into their work. All
that is known is the speech was effective in its meaning. It did have purpose and it did
have plausibility. One of, if not, the scariest thing in this life is death. The fear
surrounding society created these thoughts. In the end, hope has always been able to

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 20

overcome this fear. It, along with the other pillars that Faulkner discussed, allows
mankind to push on.

Conclusion
The literature that had previously been done had never covered the real issue that
Faulkner addressed. They dealt with aspects that surrounded the language and some of
Faulkners Career. This was helpful in adding to the discussion but it wasnt as useful in
answering some of my questions. Faulkner had a clear purpose or motive in delivering
this speech. The motive behind his plan was why the pentad was helpful in examining the
text and why dramatism was ultimately used. The motive created a plan that could have
been effective based on the qualities and traits of the human species.
In addition to my work there could be an analysis of the publics fear during the
Cold War. This could be used in understanding the effectiveness of Faulkners Speech.
Also Faulkner was an influential writer in history. He was an icon and many people
looked up to him. Accounts of how he inspired people would be useful in examining his
work and his purpose. It was difficult measuring his success but there could be an
analysis done of the people that considered him as a mentor or influential before the shift.
Also on the other end, after the speech could be analyzed. Accounts of those who were
close to him that noticed this shift could be used as well.

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 21

References
Anderson, F. D., & Althouse, M. T. (2010). Five fingers or six? Pentad or hexad?. KB
Journal, 6(2), 1.
Bisio, T. A., & Crisan, P. (1984). Stress management and nuclear anxiety: A structured
group experience. Journal Of Counseling & Development, 63(2), 108.
Butler, J. (2012). Pure persuasion: Metarhetorical motives in Kenneth Burke's towards a
better life. University of Toronto Quarterly: A Canadian Journal of The
Humanities, 81(2), 246-264. doi:10.3138/UTQ.81.2.246
Carter, C. A. (1992). Logology and religion: Kenneth Burke on the metalinguistic
dimension of language. The Journal of Religion, (1). 1.
Chesebro, J. W. (1988). Epistemology and ontology as dialectical modes in the writings
of Kenneth Burke. Communication Quarterly, 36(3), 175-191.
Daniel G. Ford. The Southern Literary Journal. Vol. 21, No. 2 (Spring, 1989), pp. 118
129
Dickinson, E. A. (2009). The Montana meth project: Applying Burke's dramatistic pentad
to a persuasive anti-drug media campaign. Communication Teacher,

23(3), 126-

131. doi:10.1080/17404620902974824
Fox, C. (2002). Beyond the 'tyranny of the real': Revisiting Burke's pentad as research
method for professional communication. Technical Communication Quarterly,
11(4), 365.
Fulton, L. W. (2011). Biography of William Faulkner. Critical Insights: Absalom,
Absalom!, 26-32.

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 22

Gray, P. (n.d). Mister Faulkner goes to Stockholm (In a dramatic reversal of fortune,
William Faulkner is awarded the 1950 Nobel Prize in Literature). Smithsonian,
32(7), 56-60.
Hamlin, W. J., & Nichols, H. J. (1973). The interest value of rhetorical strategies derived
from Kenneth Burke's pentad. Western Speech, 37(2), 97-102.
Hoppe, M. (2013). The intelligence worker as a knowledge activist -- an alternative view
on intelligence by the use of Burke's pentad. Journal Of Intelligence Studies In
Business, 3(1), 59-68.
Kraemer, D. J. (2008). Identification and property: Burke's and Lincoln's ratio of act
and purpose. Advances In The History Of Rhetoric, 11/1235-57.
doi:10.1080/15362426.2009.10597379
Kreiswirth, M. (1989). Faulkner: After the Nobel Prize (Book). American Literature,
61(1), 125.
LaVoie, M. (2014). William Faulkner's speech accepting the Nobel Prize in Literature':
A language for ameliorating atomic anxiety. Rhetoric And Public Affairs, 17(2),
199-226.
Meriwether, J. B. (1971). A. E. Housman and Faulkner's Nobel Prize speech: A note.
Journal of American Studies, (2). 247.
Overington, M. A. (1977). Kenneth Burke and the method of dramatism. Theory &
Society, 4(1), 131.
Rife, D. (March 1983). For the record: Rex Stout and William Faulkners Nobel Prize
speech. Jstor.
Rogers, D. (1989). New essays on light in August/A Norton Critical Edition: The Sound

William Faulkner Nobel Prize for Literature Speech - 23

and the Fury/Faulkner: After the Nobel Prize. Journal Of American Studies,
23(3), 500-503.
W. Faulkner, (December, 1950). Nobel Prize for Literature acceptance speech. Nobel
Banquet. Stockholm, Sweden.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1949/faulkner
speech.html
William Faulkner... 1897-1962. (2001). Monkeyshines on America, 29.