Faulkner's+Nobel+Prize

In 1949 William Faulkner was elected to receive a Nobel Prize “for his powerful and artistically unique contribution to the modern American novel” (“The Nobel Prize in Literature 1949”). His novels leading up to this were about testing human endurance, and his Nobel Prize speech was about finding light in times of darkness. But the story of this award was a complex one from start to finish; and though his acceptance speech was ephemeral it was eternal and very relevant to himself as an author. First some background on Faulkner’s year-long wait on his Nobel Prize. William Faulkner was actually supposed to receive his Nobel Prize in 1949, but all of his competitors for the award did not meet the standards for the prize. According to the Nobel Committee for Literature all the other entrants for the prize did not qualify to Alfred Nobel’s standards left in his will, therefore Faulkner did not receive his award until 1950 (“The Nobel Prize in Literature 1949”). Because of these problems within the Nobel Prize committee, they could not reach a consensus about who should receive the prize in that particular year. The committee eventually decided the prize would be awarded to Faulkner, but there was not enough time to put him in for the Nobel Prize for that particular year, but they would reserve the award so he could receive it in 1950 (Blotner). So there were two Nobel Prize winners in 1950, one for Faulkner from the year before, and one for Bertrand Russell, “in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought” (“The Nobel Prize in Literature 1950”). Although the Nobel Prize should be a great accomplishment for anyone receiving it, it wasn’t for Faulkner; he loathed all the recognition from it. When he was nominated for the award he was getting a lot of media attention. There was an article by //The Eagle// talking about how he is a better man than he is a writer and how he was the pride of Oxford. This was not what Faulkner wanted to come out of him winning this award. The //New York Times// would discuss how thousands upon thousands of copies of his novels would be sold after this nomination. Faulkner was very apathetic about the award, the money, the physical award, and the fame. The only thing he was happy about was that the award was for his novels and not for himself as a man (Blotner). He actually used this fact as an introduction to the speech itself, “I feel that this award was not made to me as a man, but to my work” (Faulkner). Before he wrote his heartfelt Nobel Prize speech, he wrote a rough draft. This draft was a bit angrier than the final draft. But this draft was very necessary; I think it allowed him to get out some of his rage out before he said what he actually wanted to say. Faulkner wrote in an original draft of his acceptance speech, “I don’t feel any different from what I did before this award. I am no wiser; I don’t think I know any more about the world or man’s place in it or his destiny---if any. But I do believe in his immortality. I do believe he will not just survive; he will prevail” ( //Nobel Prize Typescript//). The reason this never made it to the final version of this speech could be due to several factors. The first reason could revolve around the controversy that Faulkner didn’t even want to go to the ceremony in the first place. He was complaining about the ceremony and when asked why his response was, “I won’t be able to come to receive the prize myself. It’s too far away. I am a farmer down here and I can’t get away” (Hickman). This was obviously to get around his distaste for the award itself. It was actually the U.S. State Department, the Swedish Ambassador to the United States, and his family, who basically forced him to go (“William Faulkner”). It could have also been fear of the reactions of these individuals that he did not belittle the award in such a way. It could have also been disrespectful to other Nobel Prize winners to say that you shouldn’t strive for excellence just to survive you should to leave a legacy of excellence. But in this speech he decided to put his pride aside for the fact that the world was in crisis. He was not going to sound as bitter as he was about the award. The irony of his distaste for the award was found earlier in June 2013 when William Faulkner’s belongings were held up for auction. One of the only items that went unsold was his Nobel Prize. Could it have been price, or could it have been Faulkner’s true fans understanding what that award meant to him? What was sold was the actual copy of the speech itself, and the original typescript (“William Faulkner's Nobel Prize Goes Unsold at Auction”). No one in that Nobel Prize audience could have expected what William Faulkner would say as he approached the stage to accept his award. They couldn’t have expected it, and nor could they hear it. Faulkner was just a touch too far from his microphone, and his southern accent just a touch too thick (Blotner). It would not be until the following day, when a text version of the speech was released that the Nobel Prize audience would realize it was one of the most memorable speeches of their lives. Joseph Blotner, a friend of Faulkner’s would report, “The impact of the hurried words was tremendous. Later one scholar would say that each year at Nobel time it would be recalled as the best speech ever given at a Nobel dinner. It was a stirring statement” (“Sotheby’s: Faulkner William”).There were no dedications in this speech and certainly no heartfelt thank you to God. This speech is a vehicle for his messages about the world he lived in. Although his speech was no more than two minutes and thirty seconds long, he packed so much profound imagery into it. His speech addressed very historical problems of the time, addressed his personal ideas and concerns about past, present, and future authors, and this speech also reflected on his own ideas he wrote in his novels. The irony about this speech is that it was all about prevailing when we encounter a problem, but most of Faulkner’s novels are “a chronicle of failure, anguish, and despair” as Blotner says (Blotner).

As I mentioned before Faulkner really couldn’t care less about the monetary value of the award, he seemed to treat $30,000 like it was $30 even saying “I haven’t earned it and I don’t feel like it’s mine” (Blotner). In the beginning of this speech he addresses that his money from this award will not be difficult to spend. Faulkner allocated his Nobel Prize money partly “to establish a fund to support and encourage new fiction writers” what would later be known as the PEN/Faulkner Award for Fiction. This program was established by Mary Lee Settle who was very inspired by Faulkner’s dedication to helping young authors (“About”). The PEN/Faulkner Award for Fiction gives a $15,000 prize to whoever writes, what a panel of judges finds to be, the best fiction book of that particular year (“Award for Fiction”). These lucky authors are not the only ones to be lucky enough to receive Faulkner’s generosity. Along with them he also donated a share of his prize money to an Oxford bank. He did this to give scholarships to African American students at Rust College in Holly Springs, Mississippi who were education majors. These actions were met with both praise and hostility and also threats (“Biography: William Faulkner”). After all, at the time he was pushing the envelope of racial norms. The fact that Faulkner was so generous was startling because he really could have used any and all money that he could get. His book sales had decreased during World War II and some of his books almost went out of print. Faulkner decided on doing some screenwriting at the time just to make ends meet. It wouldn’t be until 1946 when the Viking Press published //The Portable Faulkner// by Malcolm Cowley that Faulkner would start to get his reputation back (“William Faulkner-Biography”). This was a necessity for his career at the time and Faulkner was eternally grateful to Cowley for the revival of his career (“Short Story Collections: __The Portable Faulkner__”). Without this who knows what future Faulkner would have had, if any at all, and if he did still receive this award how generous would he have been? Later on in his acceptance speech Faulkner had asked “When will I be blown up?” If the audience was not paying attention before, they were now. And now that he has their attention, he can say what he needed them to hear about his stance on what was happening to the world at that time. Nuclear warfare has now been universally accepted as a potential end to mankind and a definite force to be reckoned with. It was the end of World War II but now the Cold War fears were the world’s next concern. In consequence of the world’s acceptance of a nuclear attack came a worldwide fear, a fear Faulkner was not prepared to ignore when given the opportunity. Faulkner’s stance on war and its outcomes came from something very personal to him. Faulkner himself was denied being a soldier in World War I twice, and thus came the inspiration to continue to study and write about the war in this and later novels (“William Faulkner-Biography”). The concept of a soldier in any war embodies the human spirit. In Faulkner’s experience he wanted to be involved with the war. He wanted to help his fellow man in the effort to put an end to the war. Joining the army is the ultimate way to test the human spirit; you are putting your life on the line, and willing to die for your comrades and your country. Selflessness is a large part of self-actualization and embodies the human soul. Although the aftereffects of war can be difficult, it is the human soul that will keep us going. He was given the opportunity in his novels and his opportunity in this speech. Faulkner called these concerns about the Cold War “a general and universal physical fear,” (Faulkner). But in these tough times he did not want the world to put on their blinders to the chaos. He alluded to the fact that as authors these “problems of the human heart in conflict with itself” (Faulkner) can make for incredible writing. So instead of writing to escape this reality, he wanted to put you in it so we may reflect on it as human beings. So as the world was in a panic Faulkner remained optimistic in this speech. He held that “I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail” (Faulkner). We will not just live and turn a blind eye to this pandemonium but we will move forward and it will all seem like a nightmare soon enough Faulkner said that even if we are faced with a massive tragedy that could be caused by the communists, and when the world would be silenced, “there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking” (Faulkner). Faulkner said the world would raise its “puny voice” when confronted with uncertainty and this voice will be bigger than the fear caused by the Cold War. He also called the ending of the Cold War the “the last red dying evening”, red of course being a metaphor for communists and communism as a whole. Faulkner after the award actually put what he said about the Cold War in perspective to Joseph Blotner, he said that we can’t always avoid a holocaust, but we can certainly survive one (Blotner). Faulkner held that these types of fears leave authors, including himself, with the responsibility to teach the world about human endurance. Writers must take it upon themselves to dive into the human soul. Writing without showing the trials human emotion is “not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, of victories without hope and, worst of all, without pity or compassion” says Faulkner. Faulkner knew that authors are put in a unique position to teach others about humanity. Stories without lessons, stories without endurance, and stories without a connection with others are useless. When void of these issues writing as a whole is “not of the heart but of the glands” (Faulkner) meaning that any story barren of these ideals, is not and cannot be written by the heart but from a gland. When we think about the heart we think of sympathy, empathy, love, compassion, and feeling. Glands themselves just control temporary emotions if any at all, just basic life processes. I don’t know how purposeful this comparison was, but from a biological standpoint it was very interesting and humorous. Speaking of humorous, before this he mentions, “Grief’s grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars” (Faulkner). This this phrasing brings together the universe and human beings. These “scars” are left on us as readers after reading about the human struggle. Scars are permanent, scars are physical, and scars are mental. The human spirit is permanent, can be strengthened by something physical, and the human spirit is mental. We have our own scars and our own spirit. When Faulkner used the anthropomorphic “universal bones” it was an attempt to connect the universe to ourselves as human beings. The universe is as human as we are structurally. The human spirit can be structurally similar to bones as well, held together by some evolutionary miracle just as the universe. Besides these more political messages he also discusses “The poet’s, the writers’ duty is to write about these things” (Faulkner) both in these troubling times and in general. These “things” are very much about humanistic values, discussing the “human spirit” not so much in practice, but rather about the human soul (Schwartz). This humanistic perspective holds that humans are, for the most part, inherently good and strong and that we are all seeking personal fulfillment. What our souls do for us is so broad, but it mainly teaches us to be brave and to endure. Faulkner’s novel //Absalom! Absalom!// discusses some of the themes in Faulkner’s speech and put them into play. //Absalom! Absalom!// taught us about moving beyond our fears no matter what lies beyond, conflict within the human heart, and how it is pointless to live in the past and to be concerned about your future. Faulkner teaches us this through the characters: Thomas Sutpen, Clytemnestra, Judith, and Rosa. In //Absalom! Absalom!// We are met with a group of three women who show courage in times of war and poverty. The two daughters of Thomas Sutpen, Clytemnestra and Judith were living on Sutpen’s Hundred, probably living fairly easy lives. With their father and slaves very hands on in the upkeep of the land, they probably were only responsible for some household chores. So when Sutpen was called off to war, along with the slaves, that is a very hard responsibility to take on. Especially when Judith’s soon-to-be husband Charles Bon was murdered and she is now in a depressive, catatonic, state she is expected to just move on with her life. The sister’s “aunt” Rosa came to stay when she found out about the murder, and she herself was suffering from the trauma of her father killing himself and being homeless. Those two women had their cross to bear while Clytemnestra was the rock. But the three lived together, sleeping in one room, gardening, making their own clothes, just surviving until Sutpen came home. In Faulkner’s speech he says, “the basest of all things is to be afraid”. I believe part of the women’s perseverance came from fear. Fear that Sutpen may not come back; fear that they may starve and be paupers, and that the house wouldn’t be there forever. That could be why they never spoke of Bon or Sutpen. They all shared that bond, they were relying on these people, and they were all probably thinking very similarly. Sutpen was their livelihood and Bon was a very important figure in their lives and if they discussed either of them it would bring fear and distress. In these difficult times when you have this limited bravery you need to save your strength and not waste it on discussing fear. As evolutionary psychologists will tell you, its fear that has kept us alive and well for a long time. These ladies were not the only ones who endured, there was also Sutpen, a man who came home from war and instantly reverted back to his old status quo. That is something to be respected, no post-traumatic stress for him, just back to work. Even though Sutpen has done some terrible things, in terms of endurance, this man for me wins the prize. He embodies so many points Faulkner made in his speech, while the women represent “ human heart in conflict with itself”. One of the last points in his speech was this, “courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past.” Sutpen, though compassionless, embodies this. Courage, honor, hope, and pride as a man in the face of Civil War, and sacrifice to the glory of Sutpen’s Hundred. Sutpen’s Hundred before war ripped it apart and he was murdered in cold blood. William Faulkner’s Nobel Prize goes far beyond the smiles and dedications. It was so relevant in so many facets of his life and the lives of those who were touched by his speech. Although Faulkner was very bitter about this award and even though it clouded his judgment, in the end his did right. With his use structure, syntax, diction, and imagery he took a dire situation and made it hopeful, just as he does in his writing.

Works Cited “About.” //PEN/Faulkner Foundation//. PEN/Faulkner Foundation, 2011. Web. 17 Nov 2013.

“Award for Fiction.” //PEN/Faulkner Foundation//. PEN/Faulkner Foundation, 2011. Web. 17 Nov 2013.

Blotner, Joseph. Faulkner: A Biography. Mississippi: Univ. Press of Mississippi, 2005. Print.

Faulker, William. //Nobel Prize Typescript//. Oxford: 1950. Print.

Faulkner, William. "Speech Accepting the Nobel Prize in Literature". American Rhetoric. Stockholm Sweden. 10 December, 1950. Web. 17 November, 2013.

Hickman, Lisa. //William Faulkner and Joan Williams: The Romance of Two Writers//. McFarland, Print.

Matterson, Stephen. //Essential Glossary: American Literature//. Illustrated. Cleveland: Horizon Books, 2003. Print. “Nuclear Age Timeline: The 1950's.” //www.radiochemistry.org//. N.p., 2003. Web. 17 Nov 2013.

Padgett, John. “Soldiers’ Pay: Commentary.” William Faulkner on the Web. //www.mcsr.olemiss.edu//. 17 Nov. 2013.

Padgett, John B. “Short Story Collections: __The Portable Faulkner__.” William Faulkner on the Web. 17 August 2006. 02 December 2013.

Padgett, John. “William Faulkner.” //The Mississippi Writers Page//. N.p., 30 Jul. 2007. Web. 2 Dec 2013.

“Biography: William Faulkner.” //Pearson Literature//. Pearson Education, 2010. Web. 17 Nov 2013.

Schwartz, Lawrence. //Creating Faulkner's Reputation: The Politics of Modern Literary Criticism//. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1988. Print.

"Sotheby’s: Faulkner William." //Sotheby’s Auctions//. N.p., 11 Jun 2013. Web. 4 Dec 2013.

“The Nobel Prize in Literature 1949”. Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB 2013. Web. 17 Nov 2013.

“The Nobel Prize in Literature 1950”. Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB 2013. Web. 17 Nov 2013.

“William Faulkner-Biography.” //The European Graduate School Library//. N.p.. Web. 17 Nov 2013. www.egs.edu /library.

“William Faulkner's Nobel Prize Goes Unsold at Auction.” //Circa News//. Circa 1605, Inc., 12 Jun. 2013. Web. 2 Dec 2013.