Morris 1

Hank Morris
Blomquist
Honors Literature 2B
28 March 2015
-The Rhetoric and Language of William Faulkners Banquet SpeechEver since the atomic bombs first dropped in 1945, humanitys view of the value of the
human life has changed, and even declined. In this age of anxiety of the early 20th century,
William Faulkner delivered his Banquet Speech in acceptance of the Nobel Prize in Literature.
In his speech, Faulkner utilizes his unique situation to appeal to the emotions of the readers in
hope to relieve their feelings on the desolate times they faced.
While now seen as one of the literary giants of America, Faulkner spent most of his
career shrouded in obscurity. Even in the time following World War II when he became a Nobel
laureate, he never found financial stability in writing. According to John Padgett in the
Mississippi Writers Page, Faulkners works were essentially out of print by 1944. He had little
to no success in America at the time, but Padgett claims that Europeans had an unusually high
opinion of Faulkner (Padgett). French novelist and philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre once said, For
the young people in France, Faulkner is a god (qtd. In Padgett). However, in April of 1946,
publisher Malcolm Cowley compiled The Portable Faulkner, collection of novels and stories
that rejuvenated Faulkners popularity. It was during this time that Faulkner received unanimous
approval from literary critics, and eventually the Nobel Prize committee. In 1949, the Swedish
Academy nominated Faulkner for the Nobel Prize for literature, and they awarded him the
following year (Padgett).

Morris 2
In December of 1950, Faulkner accepted the Nobel Prize in Literature in Stockholm,
Sweden. The topic of his speech: warn humankind against the outcome of a nuclear war. Padgett
claims, He delivered his acceptance speech to the academy in a voice so low and rapid that few
could make out what he was saying (Padgett). According to Mark LaVoie in William
Faulkners Speech Accepting the Nobel Prize in Literature: A Language for Ameliorating
Atomic Anxiety, his performance was considered poor, no doubt due to his previous weeklong
binge drinking session (LaVoie 200). LaVoie continues, The result was a quiet, rapid,
sometimes haltingly delivered oration, however publication of the speech elicited praise and
admiration (200). LaVoie asserts that most of the attention the speech is based on its aesthetics
and source material, rather than its symbolic attributes. Despite its poor initial performance, the
speech ended up being considered very effective. Critics now herald it as a speech to compare
other Nobel Prize acceptance speeches to, such as in Jon Meachams essay Obama, Faulkner,
and the Uses of Tragedy. Here, he compares Barack Obamas speech accepting the Nobel Prize
to Faulkners (Meacham) In her essay Faulkner the Humanist: How His Nobel Prize Acceptance
Speech Changed How We Interpret Barn Burning, Jessie Magee agues a similar point. She
claims that the symbolic attributes of Faulkners speech changed the meaning of his previous
works from a naturalist worldview to a humanist philosophy. She says, If the Nobel Foundation
had not chosen William Faulkner for the Nobel Prize, it is possible his work may have been
misinterpreted forever (Magee 11-12).
Faulkner makes use of the three classical appeals of ethos, logos, and pathos, in his
speech. However, he uses much more pathos than any other appeal. His use of ethos and logos
primarily rest at the beginning of his speech, mainly to establish his authority. The Transcript of
Faulkners speech reads, I feel that this award was not made to me as a man, but to my work

Morris 3
(Faulkner). Considering the prestige of the Nobel Prize, this ethos serves to affirm the authority
he has on his topic. He continues by describing the situation the world faced in the middle of the
20th century, saying, There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only the question:
When will I be blown up?(Faulkner). Anyone listening to his speech in 1950 understood that he
was generalizing about how the two world wars devalued the human life, and from there he
logically deduced that most people would have a sentiment about life much like the one he
stated.
After his introduction, Faulkner no longer uses ethos and logos and instead relies on
pathos. The previously mentioned statement There is only the question: When will I be blown
up? also serves as the minor instance of pathos (Faulkner). Here, he reminds the audience of the
terror and anxiety that the wars have caused. Mark LaVoie argues that Faulkners main uses of
pathos are to argue against the apathy the wars have caused and for humanity (LaVoie 212). The
first major utilization of pathos happens following his statement of ethos: a lifes work in the
agony and sweat of the human spirit (Faulkner). His word choice and sentence structure appeal
to human emotions, specifically what one would call the human experience. He idolizes the
aspects of agony and sweat, which would normally seem unappealing, but here he uses the
words in a romantic aspect that serves to contrast to the desolate wars and the apathy they caused
(Faulkner). In the third paragraph of speech, Faulkner uses pathos by appealing to the old
universal truths, which include love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and
sacrifice (Faulkner). Like in the introduction, Faulkner romanticizes the basic emotions to
appeal to the human spirit rather than the agonies of war.
Faulkners speech also makes use of various different stylistic elements, mainly situation
based rhetoric and literary allusions. He uses these devices to emphasize the concepts of spirit,

Morris 4
emotion, and potential (LaVoie 211). According to David Rife in REX STOUT AND
WILLIAM FAULKNERS NOBEL PRIZE SPEECH, Faulkner admitted to unintentionally
stealing sources from his speech (Rife 151-152). Rifes paper addresses one specific incidence of
this. In Rex Stouts novel The League of Frightened Men, the character Wolfe says, I am
aware that this vote is not the last dingdong of doom (qtd. in Rife 151-152). Essentially the
same phrase appears in the penultimate paragraph of Faulkners speech: I decline to accept the
end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal simply because he will endure: that
when the last dingdong of doom has clanged and faded. There will still be one more sound:
that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking (Faulkner). Rife uses this example and
acknowledges many others to argue that the speech may have essentially been a farrago. Those
other examples include cues from Pan Michael, Joseph Conrads essay Henry James: an
Appreciation, Hawthornes Preface to The House of Seven Gables, Pylon Thomass poem
In My Craft or Sullen Art, an aphorism from Friedrich Hebbel, A.E. Housemans poem number
IX from his Last Poems and from Platos Phaedo (151). Another instance of Faulkners copying
of a major work appears immediately after the instance of dingdong of doom: That when the
last dingdong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the
last red and dying evening (Faulkner). David Cody, in his work Faulkner, Wells, and the End
of Man, argues that he takes this phrase from a scene in H.G. Wells The Time Machine: An
Invention (Cody 467). Interestingly enough, many of these works concern topics such as the end
of man, so it may be the case that Faulkner familiarized himself with these works in preparation
for delivering his address.
While the literary allusions in Faulkners speech provide an interesting background on
the origins of the address, however Mark LaVoie argues that the rhetorical strategies of Kairos,

Morris 5
decorum, and enactment are the most important functions Faulkner formulates to convince the
audience of his thesis (LaVoie 201). According to The Forest of Rhetoric from Brigham Young
University, Kairos is a the way a given context for communication both calls for and constrains
ones speech. In this way, Kairos is linked to considerations of the audience. LaVoie argues that
Faulkner utilized Kairos in that he could only have given the speech by winning the Nobel Prize,
and due to his receiving the prize in the immediate period following World War II, he had an
obligation to speak about atomic anxiety (LaVoie 207-208). Later, LaVoie gives examples of
decorum in the speech. He argues that decorum was closely tied to the pathos of the speech
(LaVoie 212). Paraphrasing from The Forest of Rhetoric, decorum is a situation when the subject
and words of a speech work very well together. LaVoie says, Faulkner chose literary devices,
structures, and allusions to past literary works as the most appropriate means of constructing his
speech Faulkner reminded his audience of the emotions that rightly govern ones life,
emotions that motivate and inspire people to action (LaVoie 211). In this way, Faulkner use
pathos in phrases like love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice, but the
reason the pathos effectively convinces the audience is the decorum of those passages (D). The
last technique LaVoie writes about is enactment. According to Karlyn Campbell and Kathleen
Hall in Form and Genre: Shaping Rhetorical Action, enactment is [a rhetorical form] in which
the speaker incarnates the argument is the proof of the truth of what is said (Campbell, Hall 9).
Essentially, the realization of enactment leads to a greater understanding of the text. Faulkner
said in his speech, I decline to accept the end of man and Humankind will rise from Hell with
the writer as his hero, helper, and scribe, and here he means that literature and a reliance on
basic emotions are what will save humanity (Faulkner). Lavoie argues that Faulkner enacted his
call to return to primacy to universal emotions, exemplified by the pastiche of world literature

Morris 6
which undergirded and formed the bulk of his message (LaVoie 215). This enactment not only
supports Faulkners argument, but it embodies it, and serves as the concrete proof of his
message.
Even over 50 years after he spoke of atomic anxiety, Faulkners words still hold true
today. The risk of a nuclear obliteration of the world has never been higher, and Faulkners
message of the value of literature not only serves as an opiate to the problem of apathy, but as a
cure. His appeals and language serve as concrete solutions to the problems the world faces after
experiencing atomic warfare. Since the threat of nuclear terror has only increased over time,
Faulkners famous address will only increase in relevance as his words keep on reminding the
world that mankind will prevail.

Morris 7
Works Cited
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs., and Kathleen Hall. Jamieson. Form and Genre: Shaping Rhetorical Action.
Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication Association, 1978. Print.
Cody, David C. "Faulkner, Wells, and the "End of Man"" Journal of Modern Literature 18.4 (1993):
465-74. Advanced Placement Source. Web. 16 Mar. 2015.
Faulkner, William. "Banquet Speech*." William Faulkner. Nobel Media AB, 2014. Web. 15 Mar. 2015.
Lavoie, Mark. "William Faulkner's Speech Accepting the Nobel Prize in Literature: A Language for
Ameliorating Atomic Anxiety." Rhetoric and Public Affairs 17.2 (2014): 199-226. JSTOR. Web.
28 Mar. 2015.
Magee, Jessie L. "Faulkner The Humanist: How His Nobel Prize Speech Changed How We Interpret
'Barn Burning'" Student Research Conference Select Presentations (2009): n. pag. WKU
TopSCHOLAR. Web. 25 Mar. 2015.
Meacham, Jon. "Obama, Faulkner, And The Uses Of Tragedy." Newsweek 154.25 (2009): 6. Middle
Search Plus. Web. 28 Mar. 2015.
Padgett, John B. "William Faulkner." MWP: (1897-1962). Mississippi Writer's Page, n.d. Web. 28 Mar.
2015.
Rhetoricae, Silvia. "The Forest of Rhetoric." Silva Rhetoricae:. Brigham Young University, n.d. Web.
28 Mar. 2015.
Rife, David. "REX STOUT AND WILLIAM FAULKNER'S NOBEL PRIZE SPEECH." Journal of
Modern Literature 10.1 (1983): 151-52. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 Mar. 2015.