Faulkner Does It

[Jack of Hearts]

"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. So this award is only mine in trust. It will not be difficult to find a dedication for the money part of it commensurate with the purpose and significance of its origin. 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 where I am standing.

Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only one question: When will I be blown up? 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, worth the agony and the sweat. He must learn them again. He must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid: and, teaching himself that, forget it forever, leaving no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart, the universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed--love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice. Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, and victories without hope and worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands.

Until he learns these things, he will write as though he stood among and watched the end of man. I decline to accept the end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal because he will endure: that when the last ding-dong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking. I refuse to accept this. I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet's, the writer's, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past. The poet's voice need not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail."




- William Faulkner's Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech




It may be the best guidance this reader has ever received about writing. Analyze as you will.



J

[Jassy Melson]

I think Faulkner's speech is the best that's ever been delivered at the Nobel ceremonies.It's surprising but Faulkner is still underrated by some. They don't value him enough.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm a huge Faulkner fan and it's a good speech, but I hate "writing has to be about/done this way" statements. They're always absurd. I mean, "the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself"? What does that even mean? It is so ambigous. And then he goes on to say, ". . . only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat." Absurd.

[Jack of Hearts]

I mean, "the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself"? What does that even mean?

Internal struggle, e.g. the rectification of one's personal values with one's desires, the opposition of one's courage against one's fears, etc.


And then he goes on to say, ". . . only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat." Absurd.

The whole speech is framed in the subjectivism you're revelling in- it's ironic that you and Faulkner shpuld agree in that manner and yet still be at odds.

As for dictating what art is or should be, fair point. Personally everyone owns their own.




J

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Internal struggle, e.g. the rectification of one's personal values with one's desires, the opposition of one's courage against one's fears, etc.

Okay, so he's saying "internal conflict" in a very fancy way. So, if this is the case, he is saying writers (as of 1949), or, more particularly, young writers, don't know how to write about internal conflict. I'd love to see evidence of this, because it sounds like an old man making an "in my day" speech.




The whole speechbis framed in the subjectivism you're revelling in- it's ironic that you and Faulkner shpuld agree in that manner and yet still be at odds with this speech.


Something that seems quite apropos for a topic on Faulkner, no? :lol:

[Jack of Hearts]

Okay, so he's saying "internal conflict" in a very fancy way. So, if this is the case, he is saying writers (as of 1949), or, more particularly, young writers, don't know how to write about internal conflict. I'd love to see evidence of this, because it sounds like an old man making an "in my day" speech.

It seems he was more commenting that in the war wearied world of his day, the emphasis was shifted from introspection to a state of fear and that changed the way people think and live, least of all the way they write. And it wasn't much later Eisenhower gave his farewell address and mentioned the military industrial complex.

In Faulkner's speech this is the climate of the world he lived in, where concern for one's physical safety manifested itself into a state of fear within the human psyche; that fear and everything it cultivates is the antithesis of looking inward and examenjng one's constituent parts (which, presumably, would be to face fear altogether).

As this reader sees many similiarities with this in the world today, this speech to him rings just as true as 1950 or even fulfilled prophecy (metaphorically speaking).




J

[L.M. The Third]

No one should ever be allowed to write a novel without having a framed copy of the speech on their desk. That's what I think. :D But it's true that it's essentially ambiguous.
(On a side note, I was slightly disappointed in listening to an audio clip of Faulkner giving the speech. I give it with more passion.)

[Buh4Bee]

You know this is timeless, since it is still applicable sixty years later.

[L.M. The Third]

So how do you think Faulkner used these principles in his own novels? I've only read TSATF so far, and on the surface it's a book about decay, degeneration, and the "end" of a family, but I kept reading it to find how he would "lift the heart" through such a story. Yes, in the end I found he vindicated the "verities and truths of the heart" through his tale "signifying nothing". But I'd like to hear any more thoughts on this novel or others, and how Faulkner himself worked the philosophies of his speech into his writing.

And what other authors' works might he have thought met this standard of literature?

[Jack of Hearts]

So how do you think Faulkner used these principles in his own novels? I've only read TSATF so far, and on the surface it's a book about decay, degeneration, and the "end" of a family, but I kept reading it to find how he would "lift the heart" through such a story. Yes, in the end I found he vindicated the "verities and truths of the heart" through his tale "signifying nothing". But I'd like to hear any more thoughts on this novel or others, and how Faulkner himself worked the philosophies of his speech into his writing.

The Sound and the Fury is to literature what The Critique of Pure Reason is to philosophy. There are various instances in the novel where the human heart is in conflict with itself, such as the prodigal son claiming incest in an attempt to preserve familial honor.

It's hard to say how either of his major works (As I Lay Dying) uplift the human heart in terms of content- they could hardly be said to be optimistic and there is a recurring theme of the more despicable characters persisting while the noble ones fall. In a very subjective and roundabout way they uplift the human spirit in their beauty. These are tremendous literary feats and feature beautiful prose that at parts is not subservient to grammar, syntax or form; pure artistic ether, if you will.

It's hard to approach that. Joyce does in his finer moments (Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man and Dubliners). Nabokov is often cited as being the most prominent prose stylist in... well, ever. One might consider Joseph Conrad to be similiar in quality. The common denominator between these noted authors seems to be a superior sense of composition (prose stylistics) and deep, nuanced content that is strictly concerned with humanity itself (those old 'verities of the heart' or the human heart in conflict with itself in other words).




J

[Jassy Melson]

These are questions that would be good for a number of extended essays, but I think in a forum such as this, one can only scratch the surface of Faulkner

[L.M. The Third]

Thank you for your thoughts, Jack. I'm going to have to look at The Critique of Pure Reason.

Here are a few of my thoughts from reading The Sound and the Fury. They may be pure rubbish, but I'll venture.

Firstly, the fact that the book displays cruelty and degeneration does not necessarily mean it can not have uplifting principles and purpose. Unless, perhaps, we are teaching very young children, it is dishonest to display good as always (apparently) triumphing, or otherwise to display life with a rosy hue. There is tremendous selfishness and pain in this world, and one can not make an argument for the immortality of good while ignoring this. One must somehow show that virtue will triumph, even when apparently trodden down.
Perhaps, too, in learning to “grieve on universal bones” the first step towards being uplifted is taken. We have to know what these universals truths and verities are, and we have to deeply grieve for them, and in so doing deny stoicism or nihilism about their loss. Once we have grieved for them, then they can become dear to us and we can seek their triumph. An apparent defeat is often the rebirth of a cause.

In TSATF, Dilsey, although she never receives her due respect from the Compsons, is the one who “endured”, probably because she is one of the most unselfish characters. Maybe I'm wanting it to be so, but the final chapter feels like a vindication of religion and mercy. Perhaps it's a plea for decency of the heart, not merely outward pride, in our relations with each other and with ourselves. I've also read that Benjy's wild cries, in the final chapter, when the wrong way is taken could be significant to the theme...

[Jack of Hearts]

These are questions that would be good for a number of extended essays, but I think in a forum such as this, one can only scratch the surface of Faulkner

Yet discussion persists, perhaps in the vain hopes that it serves as the genesis for greater words or deeds; children poking at a dead and hoofed beast. It's absurd to both you and this reader, and for the latter it always has been.


Unless, perhaps, we are teaching very young children, it is dishonest to display good as always (apparently) triumphing, or otherwise to display life with a rosy hue. There is tremendous selfishness and pain in this world, and one can not make an argument for the immortality of good while ignoring this.

A fine thought. Quite dense in content though and had the reader any desire to debate philosophy he would look here first (not to say your thinking is unsound or poorly done, which is not the case. This sticks out only for the reason that this readers perspective is a bit skewed by comparison and finds itself in opposition).


Perhaps, too, in learning to “grieve on universal bones” the first step towards being uplifted is taken. We have to know what these universals truths and verities are, and we have to deeply grieve for them, and in so doing deny stoicism or nihilism about their loss. Once we have grieved for them, then they can become dear to us and we can seek their triumph. An apparent defeat is often the rebirth of a cause.

It seems you are saying that the value of the 'verities of the human heart' is to be felt in their overwhelming absence (the implied abscence from the quote above as well as the direct mentioning in Faulkner's speech). It seems you have a pessimistic view with a trend toward finding 'the silver lining.'


Perhaps it's a plea for decency of the heart, not merely outward pride, in our relations with each other and with ourselves.

It's been two years since this reader has visited the conclusion of The Sound and the Fury (though the middle chapter he revisits at intervals). In forgetting the actual events, he seems to remember finding it rather unhopeful, much as in As I Lay Dying. The reader attributes any such plea as something perhaps carried with you while you were reading it- not to say this is bad form. Literature and philosophy are intermingled like that, and it takes two to tango... whether Faulkner is giving the readers his or you're giving him yours.

The only conclusion worth reading out of this response to you (one which you undoubtedly already knew) is the following: the way a person interprets literature is revealing of the values and perspectives that person holds. Our understanding is a reflection of ourselves and (normative statement warning) infinitely valuable to reflect upon.

Perhaps one of the greater elements of Faulkner's work is it feeds no morality in any objective effort. It's up to a reader to fill that gap, and (blatant personal 'tell' warning) could there be anything more reflective of life itself?




J

[Virgil]

I think Faulkner's speech is the best that's ever been delivered at the Nobel ceremonies.It's surprising but Faulkner is still underrated by some. They don't value him enough.

Under rated by who? He's generally considered the greatest American novelist. How much more of an accolade can you get?

By the way, he deserves the accolade.

[Virgil]

Thank you for your thoughts, Jack. I'm going to have to look at The Critique of Pure Reason.

Here are a few of my thoughts from reading The Sound and the Fury. They may be pure rubbish, but I'll venture.

Firstly, the fact that the book displays cruelty and degeneration does not necessarily mean it can not have uplifting principles and purpose. Unless, perhaps, we are teaching very young children, it is dishonest to display good as always (apparently) triumphing, or otherwise to display life with a rosy hue. There is tremendous selfishness and pain in this world, and one can not make an argument for the immortality of good while ignoring this. One must somehow show that virtue will triumph, even when apparently trodden down.
Perhaps, too, in learning to “grieve on universal bones” the first step towards being uplifted is taken. We have to know what these universals truths and verities are, and we have to deeply grieve for them, and in so doing deny stoicism or nihilism about their loss. Once we have grieved for them, then they can become dear to us and we can seek their triumph. An apparent defeat is often the rebirth of a cause.

In TSATF, Dilsey, although she never receives her due respect from the Compsons, is the one who “endured”, probably because she is one of the most unselfish characters. Maybe I'm wanting it to be so, but the final chapter feels like a vindication of religion and mercy. Perhaps it's a plea for decency of the heart, not merely outward pride, in our relations with each other and with ourselves. I've also read that Benjy's wild cries, in the final chapter, when the wrong way is taken could be significant to the theme...
The Sound and the Fury was discussed as a Lit Net Book club selection here:
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16592

Some very good comments were in there. I don't stop to Lit Net as much as I used to, but if you or anyone would like to discuss any of my comments I posted there, drop me a PM. Otherwise it's unlikely I'll see it in this thread.

[Jassy Melson]

Underrated by whom? you ask. Underrated by some I answered.
I am going to stop getting involved in any discussion on this site. There are people who are just waiting to leap on something you say for the hades of it. I'm sick and tired of it. This is my last word on any extended discussion.

[Virgil]

Underrated by whom? you ask. Underrated by some I answered.
I am going to stop getting involved in any discussion on this site. There are people who are just waiting to leap on something you say for the hades of it. I'm sick and tired of it. This is my last word on any extended discussion.

I'm sorry Jassy. I wasn't jumping on you personally. I was asking a question.

[L.M. The Third]

(Sorry that it's been forever and a day since I've had time to come on Litnet and reply here.)



It seems you are saying that the value of the 'verities of the human heart' is to be felt in their overwhelming absence (the implied abscence from the quote above as well as the direct mentioning in Faulkner's speech). It seems you have a pessimistic view with a trend toward finding 'the silver lining.'

Actually, the pessimism isn't inherent in me, but in my trying to reconcile a book that I found painful (but endlessly fascinating and artistic) with a personal belief that someday good must come of ill... far off, at last...



It's been two years since this reader has visited the conclusion of The Sound and the Fury (though the middle chapter he revisits at intervals). In forgetting the actual events, he seems to remember finding it rather unhopeful, much as in As I Lay Dying. The reader attributes any such plea as something perhaps carried with you while you were reading it- not to say this is bad form. Literature and philosophy are intermingled like that, and it takes two to tango... whether Faulkner is giving the readers his or you're giving him yours.

The only conclusion worth reading out of this response to you (one which you undoubtedly already knew) is the following: the way a person interprets literature is revealing of the values and perspectives that person holds. Our understanding is a reflection of ourselves and (normative statement warning) infinitely valuable to reflect upon.

Perhaps one of the greater elements of Faulkner's work is it feeds no morality in any objective effort. It's up to a reader to fill that gap, and (blatant personal 'tell' warning) could there be anything more reflective of life itself?




J

I think that you're probably largely right here. My problem in seeing the book as a mirror is that it renders it amoral. As a mirror to the thoughts and intents of the heart, it can be used by a wise person to probe themselves, which might lead to change, but the book is not inherently uplifting. It doesn't have any power, apart from a faithful account of humanity, which only a few will be wise enough to rightly understand and apply to themselves and which even fewer will be changed by. It's still amoral, and I don't know if that fits into Faulkner's description or not. Perhaps I too much underestimate the power of a mirror. And, perhaps too, I'm placing too much bearing upon the sentiments expressed in the speech and should simply take the novel for its glory of narrative and art.

Virgil, I read the thread you linked to and particularly appreciated some of your comments. Thanks.

[Jassy Melson]

I just have a comment to make about the form of Faulkner's TSatF. It was revolutionary for its time. It may be difficult for us to grasp the sensation that the novel caused when it was published in 1929. Nothing like it, in terms of form, had ever been seen before. In terms of form, it was a truly revolutionary novel,

[Jack of Hearts]

The original poster's intent was to curve this toward creating stories- so he thanks you all (especially L.M. III) and contentedly moves to start considering the human heart in conflict with itself for his own writing.




J