This blog is set up to help you to clarify your interpretations of two important American authors' ideas about the duty of the writer or poet. William Faulkner and John Steinbeck both received the Nobel Prize for Literature for their work, Faulkner in 1950 and Steinbeck in 1962.
Please read Faulkner's speech and enter a blog comment on what he seems to think writers should try to do through their work. Be sure to cite phrases from the speech that led you to reach this conclusion. You may want to comment more than once after reading your classmates' responses.
The speech follows:
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 here 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 the 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 old 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, of 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 relearns 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 simply because he will endure: 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, 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.
Once you have commented on Faulkner's speech, read Steinbeck's and comment on it.
I thank the Swedish Academy for finding my work worthy of this highest honor.
In my heart there may be doubt that I deserve the Nobel award over other men of letters whom I hold in respect and reverence - but there is no question of my pleasure and pride in having it for myself.
It is customary for the recipient of this award to offer personal or scholarly comment on the nature and the direction of literature. At this particular time, however, I think it would be well to consider the high duties and the responsibilities of the makers of literature.
Such is the prestige of the Nobel award and of this place where I stand that I am impelled, not to squeak like a grateful and apologetic mouse, but to roar like a lion out of pride in my profession and in the great and good men who have practiced it through the ages.
Literature was not promulgated by a pale and emasculated critical priesthood singing their litanies in empty churches - nor is it a game for the cloistered elect, the tinhorn mendicants of low calorie despair.
Literature is as old as speech. It grew out of human need for it, and it has not changed except to become more needed.
The skalds, the bards, the writers are not separate and exclusive. From the beginning, their functions, their duties, their responsibilities have been decreed by our species.
Humanity has been passing through a gray and desolate time of confusion. My great predecessor, William Faulkner, speaking here, referred to it as a tragedy of universal fear so long sustained that there were no longer problems of the spirit, so that only the human heart in conflict with itself seemed worth writing about.
Faulkner, more than most men, was aware of human strength as well as of human weakness. He knew that the understanding and the resolution of fear are a large part of the writer's reason for being.
This is not new. The ancient commission of the writer has not changed. He is charged with exposing our many grievous faults and failures, with dredging up to the light our dark and dangerous dreams for the purpose of improvement.
Furthermore, the writer is delegated to declare and to celebrate man's proven capacity for greatness of heart and spirit - for gallantry in defeat - for courage, compassion and love. In the endless war against weakness and despair, these are the bright rally-flags of hope and of emulation.
I hold that a writer who does not passionately believe in the perfectibility of man, has no dedication nor any membership in literature.
The present universal fear has been the result of a forward surge in our knowledge and manipulation of certain dangerous factors in the physical world.
It is true that other phases of understanding have not yet caught up with this great step, but there is no reason to presume that they cannot or will not draw abreast. Indeed it is a part of the writer's responsibility to make sure that they do.
With humanity's long proud history of standing firm against natural enemies, sometimes in the face of almost certain defeat and extinction, we would be cowardly and stupid to leave the field on the eve of our greatest potential victory.
Understandably, I have been reading the life of Alfred Nobel - a solitary man, the books say, a thoughtful man. He perfected the release of explosive forces, capable of creative good or of destructive evil, but lacking choice, ungoverned by conscience or judgment.
Nobel saw some of the cruel and bloody misuses of his inventions. He may even have foreseen the end result of his probing - access to ultimate violence - to final destruction. Some say that he became cynical, but I do not believe this. I think he strove to invent a control, a safety valve. I think he found it finally only in the human mind and the human spirit. To me, his thinking is clearly indicated in the categories of these awards.
They are offered for increased and continuing knowledge of man and of his world - for understanding and communication, which are the functions of literature. And they are offered for demonstrations of the capacity for peace - the culmination of all the others.
Less than fifty years after his death, the door of nature was unlocked and we were offered the dreadful burden of choice.
We have usurped many of the powers we once ascribed to God.
Fearful and unprepared, we have assumed lordship over the life or death of the whole world - of all living things.
The danger and the glory and the choice rest finally in man. The test of his perfectibility is at hand.
Having taken Godlike power, we must seek in ourselves for the responsibility and the wisdom we once prayed some deity might have.
Man himself has become our greatest hazard and our only hope.
So that today, St. John the apostle may well be paraphrased: In the end is the Word, and the Word is Man - and the Word is with Men.
97 comments:
One idea that I think is important in Faulkner's speech is that writers must write about "the old verities and truths of the heart, the old universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed - love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice." This sounds like he means that even in stories about terrible suffering, writers should show their readers examples of what is best in us. It doesn't mean that there can't be examples of what is worst in us, but that there have to be some characters who reamin honorable and compassionate even in difficult circumstances.
---Alex Bogdan--- 1st Comment!
I had to read Faulkner's speech twice through, and even now I still don't completely understand it. But an important thing I noted while reading it was how he puts an emphasis on writing through the heart and not the body. He talks about how writers had "forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself", and that truly noteable writing comes from this origin. He spoke of how during this time (which I persume was during the initial stages of the Cold War), writers had forgotten the struggles of the heart and pondered questions like "When will I be blown up?" rather than the emotional questions that he claimed made good writing. Overall, I found his speech to be a rather deep analysis of where true writing comes from and why it is as praiseworthy as it is.
I had to read Steinback's speech three times through, and I still find myself unclear in some areas. However one thing that is clear to me is that he maintained some of the same beliefs of Faulkner and made them known during his speech. He relayed that "Faulkner, more than most men, was aware of human strength as well as of human weakness." and elaborated on his own beliefs on this subject. Steinback believed that good writers must have a "capacity for greatness of heart and spirit - for gallantry in defeat - for courage, compassion and love." and so displayed his beliefs in the heart as an origin for great literature. He also told of how literature was not something that was created, but something that is as old as man itself. "Literature is as old as speech" and he told how literature has not changed, but the need for it has only increased with each passing year. All in all I found Steinback's speech to be equal in notability to Faulkner's, and while it portrayed some of the same thoughts as Faulkner's, it also showed Steinback's own thoughts and beliefs in the realm of literature.
---sorry it's so long---
For Faulkner's speech, a main idea that I got out of it was that he felt the writer has "...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." By saying this, he was trying to convey to his audience that a duty of a writer is to help humans get through rough patches in life.
I agree with Faulkner's idea of the duty of the writer. We live in dangerous times, where many people have been desensitized by the power of the media and unrestricted information. We are bombarded with undigestible loads of information and opinions every day, and many people are overwhelmed. So instead of functioning independently, they think and feel what others are thinking and feeling.
This is where the writer comes in. It is the duty of the writer to first understand what is true in life, then to confer that to the world so that others might understand as well. A writer first must be an enlightened person. As Faulkner said, "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 old 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." After he has discovered himself and others, the writer must have courage to undertake the tremendous task of telling the world. He must share so that those who are lost may have some beacon, some rope bringing them back to reality. The truths he publishes must uplift and inspire the souls of people, not necessarily with happy flowers and sugar-plums, but with pride in the strength of mankind, past and present. The writing should inspire men to take a long look at life, understand it and then attack it with renewed vigor.
In regards to Steinbeck, I agree with only some of his ideas. It is proper for the writer to expose flaws for the readers examination and correction, but Steinbeck seems to think very highly of himself and men. He says that, "I hold that a writer who does not passionately believe in the perfectibility of man, has no dedication nor any membership in literature." Men are not, and never will be perfect. The way in which Steinbeck discredits equally qualified and more humble poets is detestable to me. He seems to acknowledge God, but also seems to think we have surpassed him in greatness. He thinks that men hold the ultimate power in the world now, but he will be proven, in time, to be very wrong.
I feel that faulkner is trying to point out to the people from whom he received this award that it is not really him who deserves this but the human race. Like he says he feels " that this award was not made to me as a man, but to... the agony and sweat of the human spirit, not for glory...but to...the materials of the human..." He is saying this award is only given to him for being able to express the the qualities of humans and their lives. It is really all people who deserve the award for living through it and he is just given the duty of being a story teller.
Steinbeck's speech does continue many of the ideas that Faulkner had.One thing, however, that Steinbeck talked about was the future. He expanded on the idea that people nowdays have taken "...many of the powers we once ascribed to God." He explains how it is the writers duty to preach how to use this power with responsibilty and not use it carelesly. As he says "The danger and the glory and choice rest finally in man."
After reading Faulkner's speech I think that it was obvious that it was written during the Cold War without reading the date. It shows the fear that occupies the entire world. "Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear...There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only the question: When will I be blown up?" Because of the physical fears present man cannot solve its spiritual problems. The writer needs to learn about the deeper parts of the soul, love rather than lust. They must continue to write because even in the darkest of times he must know that "man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal...because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance." And the writer tells about the victory of man over fear
When Steinbeck first addresses the nobel prize, he makes the point that he is not the master of the art of poetry, but meerely the servent of mankind through it. He says that "Literature is as old as speech. It grew out of human need for it, and it has not changed except to become more needed." And he also states that while many poets exist, they are to weak in their convictions and must be mental lions to help mankind.However, only some men carry this characteristic and they need to stand out in this society.
Well, looking at the words of Mr. Faulkner,I'd have to say that he believes the task of a writer is to remind mankind of their greatnesses; to see beyond the destruction that the worst parts of man bring about to each other, and recall the device that seperates us from every other being on earth- the soul. "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 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." The duty of a writer is to remind those who think that the voice of man is puny of tales where man's redeeming qualities are brought forth, tales that prove man can vanquish any obstacle. Good writing is when a man in time of despair can pick up the story, and find that despite the lack of virtue at the moment, there was virtue in another time, and as long as man prevails, virtue will come again. This, I believe, is what Faulkner thinks should be accomplished in writing for it to be great.
As I read Faulkner's speech I found a few points that he made to be quite interesting. First of all I agree with David Terry's idea that a writer is supposed to be enlightened. I also agree with Tin man because he brought up the main point I was going to respond about. He mentioned that the duty of a writer is to remind mankind of what they have accomplished, not what they have failed to acheive. A writer has to be able to almost go back to the beginning and rethink what is right and wrong and to be able to see the good in mankind's achievements through the cloud of negativity that surrounds a writer's world in dark times, they must be enlightened as David Terry pointed out. It seemed to me that the purpose of a writer is to be a sort of morale booster or a light in dark times I found Faulkner's confidence in human nature fastenating when he says "I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail", It shows how highly he thinks of the human race and our ability to endure hardships. Faulkner's message to me,overall, was that it is the duty of a writer to use his or her works to bring out the best in men, to be a light in dark times, and to be a source of optimism and compassion to the people who need it most.
-Tom Abare-
Steinbeck's speech had many similarities to Faulkner's and left no question that Steinbeck greatly admired Faulkner and his ideas many of which were eminent in his own speech. Steinbeck prolamation of his pride in writers was interesting to me when he says "I am impelled, not to squeak like like...an apologetic mouse but to roar like a lion out of pride in my profession and in the great men who have practiced it. Perhaps the belief that is most similar between Faulkner and Steinbeck is their belief in the writer's purpose. They both believe that a writer is supposed to understand fear and how to turn people against their fears, or as Steinbeck put it, "The understanding and the resolution of fear are a large part of a writer's reason for being." One belief of Steinbeck that interested me was the other side of his belief of the writer's purpose. He said that a writer "...is charged with exposing our many grievous faults and failures...for the purpose of improvement." This was interesting to me because it says that a writer should point out our faults in order for us to improve off of them when Faulkner claimed that a writer should steer away from human negativity and focus on the positives that they have accomplished. This left me wondering as to whether this statement contradicted Faulkner's. The final similarity between Faulkner and Steinbeck's beliefs that I noticed was their belief in the human ability to prevail. Steinbeck claimed that "...we have assumed lordship over the life and death of the whole world-of all living things." and that "We have usurped many of the powers we once ascribed to God." These two statements cleary show Steinbeck's pride and confidence in mankind and her ability to prevail. He even points out that we have done things that we once thought only our God could do. I found Steinbeck's speech fastenatingly similar to Faulkner's and it was interesting to see the similarities between these two writers' beliefs over the course of roughly a decade.
Along with Alex, I didn't fully understand Faulkner's speech, but I think that when Faulkner was speaking of relearning how to truly write, he mentioned that, "the basest of all things is to be afraid." Faulkner also thinks that the duty of an author is to portray, "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, of victories without hope and, worst of all, without pity or compassion." I agree with this in that I think that in order ot be an importnat author, one must write about examples that readers can relate to, whether it be our best assets of love and accomplishments, or of our flaws of greed and envy. If an author does not fufill these duties, one will only have "his griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands."
After reading Steinbeck's speech, I think that they were very similar. In my opinion, they were similiar because they both had the same view on the author's duties. I do not agree, however, with Steinbeck's views. He thinks too highly of men. He think they have surpassed God, and will one day be all-knowing and the most powerful, because he thinks that, "a writer who does not passionately believe in the perfectibility of man," does not deserve to be involved in literature.
The Writer's Duty from Faulkner's point of view was kind of complicated to me. One thing I did focus on was the idea that writers should write specifically from the heart, and not from what they hear people around them say. He says that people are too caught up in fear of the future that they are forgetting about what's inside. "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." Faulkner says that without writing from what he truly believes in, the writer's work is not complete. He compares it to... "He writes not of love but of lust... of victories without hope and, worst of all, without pity or compassion." A Writer's Duty is to write based on what you truly believe in, or your work is not complete.
Steinbeck's speech to me was a little more straight forward. In my opinion, he had the same ideas as Faulkner. He thinks it's the writer's responsibility to capture humans' "capacity for greatness of heart and spirit - for gallantry in defeat - for courage, compassion and love." He also thinks that men need to believe that they can be perfect to have any contributions to literature, which is something I disagree with. To sum it all up, Steinbeck's idea of the Writer's duty is to fulfill the need of literature that humans posess. "It [literature]grew out of human need for it, and it has not changed except to become more needed."
According to Faulkner, the duty of a writer is basically to give man hope. He says that writers tend to only think (and write) about what is wrong with the world, and "When will I be blown up?" It is this negative thinking that makes for bad writing and instead he believes that it is the writers duty to forget things like fear and write about the good in the world. I agree with this, especially the part where he says "The poet's voice need not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props... to help him endure and prevail." A writer needs to write based on the core positive emotions; "love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice."
Devon
I agree with those who said that Steinbeck holds man in far too high regard. He believes in the "perfectibility of man," whereas I personally believe that nobody is perfect; you can always improve yourself.
However, his speech makes some very good points about the duty of a writer. He believes that that duty is "to declare and to celebrate man's proven capacity for greatness of heart and spirit - for gallantry in defeat - for courage, compassion and love." He is saying that a writer ought to emphasize the good wualities of humans. Also, and I believe most importantly, he believes that it is a writers duty to examine, and thus help to eliminate, human imperfections. I strongly agree with this.
Devon
I definitely had to read Faulkner's speech a couple of times. I definitely agree with Faulkner’s idea of the writer’s duty, which he makes very clear in this speech. First off Faulkner tells people 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…” He is explaining to people that the award is not his own because he has only been writing about the true trials of the human soul. Faulkner also tries to tell people that “the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing, because only that is worth writing about” Faulkner is living in an age in which people are only wondering “When will I be blown up?” He is emphasizing that people should not write from what they see, but from the heart and soul, as well as from the pain and suffering they have felt. Basically what Faulkner is trying to say is that it is the writer’s job to stay true to the heart, no matter if it is in pain or happiness. They must write of truth and not of lies, and through the truth they must help men get through the best and worst of times.
I agree with Adam in that Faulkner means that the writer should write from the deep parts of the soul. I think that a ket part of this speech is that, "...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." By that, Faulkner means that many writers have become alienated and desensitized from the things in life that most effect you as a person, not the superficial. He's getting at that a writer has to speak from the heart and draw on their most emotional (whether it be good or bad) experiences to really speak to an audience. Through that, the human race will,"...endure and prevail."
Steinbeck shares many of the same ideas as Faulkner did. Steinbeck believes that “The ancient commission of the writer has not changed. He is charged with exposing our many grievous faults and failures, with dredging up to the light our dark and dangerous dreams for the purpose of improvement.” Steinbeck definitely believed that it is the writer’s duty to get people through the good and the bad just like Faulkner. Like Adam said Steinbeck believes that writer’s are servants to mankind. “Literature is as old as speech. It grew out of human need for it, and it has not changed except to become more needed.” I agree with all of these ideas, but Steinbeck brings up some ideas that I really disagree with. He thinks very highly of mankind and what they have accomplished. “Having taken Godlike power, we must seek in ourselves for the responsibility and the wisdom we once prayed some deity might have.” This statement makes me question Steinbeck’s beliefs because he is know bringing something that is such a high power in people’s faith and telling people that we have surpassed his capabilities, which I disagree with. He also stated that he doesn’t think we should give credit to any writer to anyone who doesn’t believe that men are perfect. Like Devon I believe that we all have weaknesses and can always improve. So I believe in Steinbeck’s ideas about the need for literature, however I do not believe in his ideas about mankind’s capabilities.
I, like many of the others that posted a comment before me, think that Steinbeck's speech was much more straightforward than Faulkner's. I believe that Steinbeck agreed with Faulkner's idea of the writer's duty, but also expanded on it in his speech. In addition to just drawing on what makes us human (deep emotions and relating to the soul, not superficial things) when writing, Steinbeck says that writers are, "...delegated to declare and to celebrate man's proven capacity for greatness of heart and spirit - for gallantry in defeat - for courage, compassion and love. In the endless war against weakness and despair, these are the bright rally-flags of hope and of emulation." This builds on Faulkner's idea of the human race prevailing, not just enduring, by showing how powerful a writer can be by connecting to an audience on a deeper level.
Steinbeck does take the idea further than Faulkner's original idea (which Steinbeck is obviously building on) by believing in the "perfectibility of man" so faithfully. I think that part of the way that a writer can connect to an audience is through emotional struggles and victories and growth or maturity, and, all of which can only be achieved through human imperfection.
I also agree with Kerrie (who I guess got her Steinbeck comment in right before mine, so now our two pairs of comments are all meshed together) in that Steinbeck took it too far in that he brought ideas of faith and an unrealistic expectation and view of mankind.
Along with a couple other people, I had to read through Faulkner's speech a couple of times and it is still confusing. But I think that he is trying to say that a writer should write from the heart. Throughout his speech he mentions writing from the heart numerous times, for example he says, "...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 that is worth writing about…” I also think that he is trying to tell people to write about positive things in their lives and not just the negatives because he says, “He writes 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.”
~Kayla
Steinbeck's speech was much more straight forward than Faulkner's speech. I would have to agree with everyone when they say that he agrees a lot with Faulkner because he uses Faulkner a couple times in his speech and does say he agrees with him. Also I agree with David because Steinbeck says "A writer who does not passionately believe in the perfectibility of man, has no dedication nor any membership in literature", well, no one is perfect, and people can always be improved. But if you went on Steinbeck's interpretation of literature, there would be no literature.
Along with my other classmates, I am still confused by this speech; however, I do understand some parts. "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 old universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed - love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice." I agree with Faulkner and David Terry that one duty of a writer is to be an enlightened thinker. He must be able first understand the hardships of the world. However, he then must be able to portray these problems to the world in a way that people can understand. Also I believe another main point in Faulkner's speech is to point out that the duty of a writer is to write from a deep place within your heart where you must show the world the positive point of view. "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." People are afraid enough of the future. They already know the fear and anguish in their lives and therefore do not need to read about it. What people should read about is the positive characteristics of life that will boost their spirits. That is the duty of a writer, to write from the good place in their heart.
~Briana Proctor~
I don't agreee with alot of Steinbeck's ideas. He says "...the writer is delegated to declare and to celebrate man's proven capacity for greatness of heart and spirit - for gallantry in defeat - for courage, compassion and love. In the endless war against weakness and despair, these are the bright rally-flags of hope and of emulation." This is a more understandable version of what William Faulkner was talking about. When he is talking about the endless war, the writers are our soldiers. Their duty is to write about the good aspects of the world to give the human race hope. He says that a writers duty is to help enlighten the world. I agree with this. He also says, "I hold that a writer who does not passionately believe in the perfectibility of man, has no dedication nor any membership in literature." Although the human race has many great attributes, I do not agree that if a writer does not believe that man is a perfect creature then they are not worthy of writing for him. Steinbeck also says, "They are offered for increased and continuing knowledge of man and of his world - for understanding and communication, which are the functions of literature. And they are offered for demonstrations of the capacity for peace - the culmination of all the others. Less than fifty years after his death, the door of nature was unlocked and we were offered the dreadful burden of choice. We have usurped many of the powers we once ascribed to God.Fearful and unprepared, we have assumed lordship over the life or death of the whole world - of all living things." I do not agree with this statement. Although man has made some great inventions and some great leaps forward, we certainly have not surpassed the greatness of God. However, his statement does leave God up for interpretation. I agree that the duty of a writer is to enlighten thier reader and write about the good in the world, but I don't agree that is a writer does not agree that man is perfect, then they are not worthy of writing.
~Briana Proctor~
Mr. Faulkner firmly believes that a writer’s duty is, first and foremost, to create something with human divinity, so to speak. He must create a work which furthers the human race beyond our concern for safety and integrity for the individual, to a point at which we are instead concerned with the internal affairs of our selves, and the race as a whole. In a comment well-suited to the Cold War, he says that, “There is only the question: When will I be blown up?” In this, he is pointing out that we are only concerned with our physical well-being. Writers need to, “[Leave] no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart... –love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice.” One needs to remind us that there is something that exists past the physical level: emotion, feeling, virtue. “He writes not of the heart but of the glands,” says he. If man wants to endure, than it is a writer’s duty to remind him what there is to endure for: “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.”
In his speech Faulkner says that it is the duty of a writer to “create out of the materials of the human spirit something which did not exist before.” He says that a writer must reach a person’s soul through their works. He believes that for a writer to produce something of value, it must touch the heart of readers, remind them that they are human; and of the inner struggles all humans face. He believes good writing needs to be “the pillars to help him endure and prevail.” In Faulkner’s mind a writer needs to help us endure this world by reminding us of our humanity and the depth of the human soul. In part of his speech he says that a writer cannot simply write about a victory, but must reach the compassion or pity around it. I agree with Faulkner’s idea of the writer’s duty. They are needed to remind us of the human soul; the hope, compassion, and pity that lies in all of us. This is so we will not only survive in this complicated world, but excel; believing in the lasting strength of the human spirit.
I do not agree with Steinbeck’s view that human perfectibility can be reached. But I do agree with his thoughts about the duty of a writer. He says that a writer must not only expose our “many grievous faults and failures” but also “ celebrate man's proven capacity for greatness of heart and spirit.” Steinbeck talked about the growing dangers in this world, like more dangerous weapons. I greatly agree with Steinbeck’s belief that literature came from the necessity for it. In this dangerous world he says “man himself has become our greatest hazard and our only hope.” A writer must understand this world and the power of the human spirit; its destructiveness and ability to make positive change.
Gabriella Guillette
What I understood to be the Writer's Duty in the words of Faulkner is to use ones heart. Faulkner begins with telling of the spiritual struggles being overlooked because of the physical stuggles. "Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself..." A writer needs to write of the raw feelings of their characters, to connect with the reader.
He later goes into the need of a balance of good with evil. "He must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid; and... leaving no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart,... love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice. " A writer needs to have some balance because in truth, their is a good and bad in everything, and a writer has the duty to show that.A writer's duty is to confront the reader with true emotions and ideas.
-Paige
As many others have already said, I will say once more say that Steinbeck was far more straight forward than Faulkner. Also, I believe though he has the same basis as Faulkner, he gives people too high of regard in saying, "I hold that a writer who does not passionately believe in the perfectibility of man, has no dedication nor any membership in literature." I firmly believe in everyones ability to constantly improve, but to reach 'perfectibility' is impossible; in believing this, does that hold someone from being a good writer?
I agree with Steinbeck that the duty of a writer is to help the reader improve their way of living. "He is charged with exposing our many grievous faults and failures, with dredging up to the light our dark and dangerous dreams for the purpose of improvement." Literature is needed to help people grow and enhance standards, and the writer's duty is to guide them their.
As I was reading Faulkner's speech, a few thoughts came to mind. But first off, I'd like to quote part of his speech about the writer's duty.
"It is his privilege to help man endure... 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... the pillars to help him... prevail."
I believe that Faulkner wants writers to hold on to the emotions that make us who we are, that make us human. He doesn't want mere records of events; he wants the feelings of the events themselves. When Faulkner mentioned how writers were worried about when they'll be blown up, I didn't understand it at first. After consideration, I realized that he was criticizing writers who had forgotten the true meaning of being a writer, which is to convey the nature of being human through written works.
After reading Steinbeck's speech, I couldn't help but notice the similarities between Faulkner's speech and Steinbeck's. Quite often, Steinbeck would refer to his predecessor of the Nobel prize. Speaking of the Nobel prize, Steinbeck says, "They are offered for increased and continuing knowledge of man and of his world - for understanding and communication, which are the functions of literature." Here, Steinbeck is stating his belief in what writers must do as writers. Steinbeck believes that Faulkner had a great understanding of human strength as well as human weakness. Steinbeck believes that a writer must be able to convey human aspirations as well as human failures.
Mr. Steinbeck seems to believe in Faulkner’s idea for a writer’s duty, but in a more radical light. He says that writers should not only remind people of what is good in them, but then take a step further and make that thing better. Metaphorically, Faulkner is the researcher who wants to help others with his ideas, and Steinbeck is the crazed pupil who doesn’t see why the ideas can’t be used for personal gain, as well. He wants to perfect the human race, not just keep it happy. A writer “…is charged with exposing our many grievous faults and failures, with dredging up to the light our dark and dangerous dreams for the purpose of improvement,” according to Steinbeck. In saying this, he explains that the truth must come out, no matter how the outcome, because it will help us to improve ourselves. The consequences are secondary, compared to his goal of perfection. He firmly believes that “…a writer who does not passionately believe in the perfectibility of man, has no dedication nor any membership in literature.” In other words, one must ,believe that man can be perfect, and in doing so, you will help make him perfect. He goes on to say that our assimilation of a great amount of knowledge, in a short period, has lead to our fear of all that we have learned; the massive influx is not met with equal understanding, and that therefore leads to a great confusion and fear. It is comparable to Adam and Eve gaining knowledge of good and evil from the apple: they did not fear things until they learned that those things existed. Bliss from ignorance, if you will. So, writers must also assist in closing that gap between knowledge and understanding: “It is true that other phases of understanding have not yet caught up with this great step, but there is no reason to presume that they cannot or will not draw abreast. Indeed it is a part of the writer's responsibility to make sure that they do.” Furthermore, now that we have harnessed powers and knowledge “…once ascribed to God,” we must learn how to use them wisely, or face our undoing. In his conclusion, Steinbeck quotes St. John: “In the end is the Word, and the Word is Man - and the Word is with Men.” What is he saying? That man is now in control of his destiny; we wanted to play God, so we need to take his responsibility, too.
--Sorry for the...extreme length--
Reading Steinbeck's speech, I noticed that he repeated Faulkner's idea that writers should express the good things about man, and added that our evils should be mentioned as well, in a way that those who read about them can correct them, until someday only the good remains. He suggests that with the technology we have discovered in the past decade, we have the ability to change the world, and it is up to the wisdom and experience that man can take from good literature to change things for the better. "Having taken Godlike power, we must seek in ourselves for the responsibility and the wisdom we once prayed some deity might have." Although comparing man to God might be a little much, he has a point on how much of nature we can now manipulate. America alone has enough nuclear missiles to destroy all life on earth multiple times over. It's simply up to man to decide when it's right to use such power so that it benefits mankind, if at all, and the morals from good literature should help those who have to make such desicions choose the right path. This is what Steinbeck sees as the writer's duty, although it seems rather harsh to suggest that those who don't believe in man eventually reaching perfection are not really writers. Even Faulkner never suggested that man was perfect, only that they can overcome any obstacle.
P.S. For those of you wondering, Tin Man is Tim.
After reading Steinbeck's speech, I think that he believes it is important that writers not write about suffering but about the human race's ability to overcome setbacks or defeats. He says,"...the writer is delegated to declare and to celebrate man's proven capacity for greatness of heart and spirit-for gallantry in defeat."I think he wants a writer to show their readers that there is still a chance for success.
After reading Faulkner's, one of the ideas that I though was important was that he believed that writers are no longer writing from their hearts. He says that,"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." He wants writers not to think about the physical things that are going on but the emotions of the people.
-Taylor Krowitz-
In Steinbeck's speech, I noticed many relations to Faulkner's perspective on what a writer's duty truly is. Not only that, but Mr. Steinbeck even acknowledged Faulkner in it, which shows he has the same ideas as him. "Literature is as old as speech. It grew out of human need for it, and it has not changed except to become more needed." To Steinbeck, a good novel will never become obsolete; no matter what's in style, people will always need literature to pick them up when they're down, or to simply find peace or a haven from everyday life- he feels it is his responsibility to do just that.
After reading through Faulkner's speech several times, I came to the conclusion that Faulkner believes the most meaningful writing is not always about human flaws. He believes that it is the writer's duty to portray the emotions and success of the human race in a positive manner as well. Within Faulkner's speech, he describes to his audience that, "...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..." Since this speech was given by Faulkner during the Cold War, it seems obvious that Faulkner believes that the writer should refrain from writing about problems and expand on our success. "He writes 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." Furthermore, I believe Faulkner's idea of the writer's duty is to write about ideas that will help man "endure and prevail" . After reading over many of my colleagues' responses to Faulkner's speech, I mostly agree with Tom Abare and tin man.
-Nick McAfee-
As I read over Steinback's speech of the writer's duty, I saw that Steinback's ideas were closely related to Faulkner's ideas. "Faulkner, more than most men, was aware of human strength as well as of human weakness. He knew that the understanding and the resolution of fear are a large part of the writer's reason for being." Although Steinback agrees with these ideas, he seems to elaborate on them as his speech progresses. Steinback expands these ideas by talking very highly of men. Within the speech, Steinback brings up the idea of the perfectibility of man. After reading over some of the other comments, I agree with David Terry in which he describes that men will never be perfect. Towards the end of his speech, Steinback also describes how men have or will accumulate some responsibilites or "Godlike powers". I mainly disagree with Steinback's ideas because of the great extent he portrayed humans as being. Some of these things described within the speech, I believe are incapable for man to acheive. Furthermore, I mainly agree with David Terry's and Kate Major's comments on Steinback's speech.
-Nick McAfee-
After reading Faulkner's speech, I understood that he believes that a writer should write from his heart, write from what he believes in and the truth. Otherwise, his writing is merely the basics rather then divulging into the deeper meaning. "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 old 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." I agree with David T. on the point that the writer needs to look within himself first, before he can share his opinions with the world and that is the duty of a writer.
Steinbeck spoke about the duty of a writer much similar to Faulkner. Steinbeck also held the human race on a pedestal of perfectibility. He believed for the creation of good literature one must also believe in this perfectibility. I disagree with this view, much so as Devon P. had, there is always room to improve. Steinbeck made important points on the duty of a writer with, "Furthermore, the writer is delegated to declare and to celebrate man's proven capacity for greatness of heart and spirit - for gallantry in defeat - for courage, compassion and love. In the endless war against weakness and despair, these are the bright rally-flags of hope and of emulation." The writer is needed to talk about these, a writer is needed in the world to educate and communicate with the people about the "increasing knowledge". I very much agree with most of Steinbecks speech and the necessity of writers and the duties which lie heavily upon them.
While reading Faulkner's words, I noticed an overall theme for his speech. Throughout the whole speech he is trying to tell the human race to notice and write about all of the "ups" and less of the "downs". Faulkner is trying to tell us to live our lives based on the good in the world and try to ignore the bad. he recognizes that bad things are still going to happen and tell us to persevere through the harsh times. "He writes 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." This quote really brings out Faulkner's view of how people focus too much on the bad and too little on the good. He is trying to tell us to start writing about the better things in life, to better the soul.
After reading both of the Nobel winners' speeches, I noticed a huge similarity in the views of Steinback and Faulkner. Steinback as well notes that a writer must notice humans flaws and write about them for others to learn. He also writes about how humans should accept the belief that one day they may be perfect. He puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that the humans soul has lasted for so long due to literature preserving it. "He is charged with exposing our many grievous faults and failures, with dredging up to the light our dark and dangerous dreams for the purpose of improvement." He sees a bright future for the human race as we have writing to keep improving the souls of mankind. In Steinback's mind with writing, there is no end to man kind.
After reading through Faulkner’s speech a few times I have come to a general consensus of what message he is trying to convey. Although there are areas I still do not understand I do agree with some of what Faulkner is describing as the writer’s duty. I agree with the statement “He must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid; and by teaching himself that, forget it forever, leaving no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart…” I agree that for a writer to write they must reach their audience and to do so must find a way to connect with them. I have to agree with Paige on this one that the way to do that is to write about raw feelings of characters. This is something that will not only interest the audience but will bridge the gap between those in the book and those reading it. It is the writer’s duty to connect with and uplift the spirits of his fellow man. As well as agreeing to what Faulkner describes as the writer’s duty I also agree with what he believes happens when one doesn’t re-teach himself all the “old verities and truths” and write from said teachings. “Until he relearns these things, he will write as though he stood among and watched the end of man.” This seems to me to be very truthful. Unless a writer can truly connect with the “old verities and truths” he will instead of sounding like he has been there sound like a bystander of what he is describing.
oh I apologize not only did i not sign my name but I forgot to leave a note of explanation. My name is Adelle Trainor and I know I might not be on your class list but i was only granted entrance into your class on June 19th. If you wish me to I can email you in the reason. So, my sincerest apologies once again.
Adelle Trainor
When writing his speech, Faulkner seemed to be trying to convey that it was a writer’s duty to do two things: write from his or her heart and to also write about his or her soul. He seems to feel that until a writer writes from his or her heart, releasing all the feelings inside of it, the writer’s writing will never be as good as he or she wants it to be. “He writes not of the heart but of the glands.” I believe Faulkner feels a writer should write from his soul because of what is inside. “…he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance”. He feels that if a writer can learn to do these things, his or her writing will be unmatched.
-Devin C.
Like Faulkner, Steinbeck believed that a writer must have an understanding of the human strengths and weaknesses. He felt that “…the understanding and the resolution of fear are a large part of the writer’s reason for being.” Steinbeck felt that it was a writer’s duty to expose grievous faults and the “dangerous dreams” of mankind in hopes that we may one day improve upon them. Furthermore, he felt that it was a writer’s duty to celebrate man’s heart and spirit for their“…gallantry in defeat – for courage, compassion and love.” He felt that a writer who does not “…passionately believe in the perfectibility of man” is not really a writer at all.
-Devin C.
After reading Steinbeck's speech I do agree with many others that it is similar to Faulkner’s. He too believes in the concept of the writer’s duty or certain responsibilities that a writer must keep to if they wish their writing to be true and successful. He agrees with Faulkner on the importance of this but also brings up interesting points of his own. He goes into a questionable area of humans being immortal and surpassing god. This is where I like many before me have to disagree with the Nobel prize winner. I believe he thinks too highly of mankind and his expectations are a bit too extreme. His saying that unless a writer writes about how perfect man is than he has no place in literature? “ I hold that a writer who does not passionately believe in the perfectibility of man, has no dedication nor any membership in literature.” I do have to consider this crazy. If a writer is writing with the heart and basic emotions like Faulkner describes than why in the world must he believe at all that man is perfect? What happened to human means it is okay to make mistakes everyone does? I am personally a very strong believer in that saying and know it holds true for many. So I do believe when Steinbeck describes the writer’s duty he is accurate and informative but when it comes to his idea of man’s perfectibility he is very mistaken. “Furthermore, the writer is delegated to declare and to celebrate man’s proven capacity for greatness of heart and spirit – for gallantry in defeat – for courage, compassion, and love. In the endless war against weakness and despair, these are the bright rally-flags of hope and of emulation.” in closing I just wanted to comment on this quote from Steinbeck’s speech. I do agree very much with this idea. That the writer must convey all of these emotions from their heart and only then can their writing be true and complete.
Adelle Trainor
When I read Faulkner's speech here is what I understand:
First Faulkner states that a writer should write with his/her soul to create something special, not for the profit or glory gained from doing so. "...not for glory and least for all the profit, but to create out of the materials of the human spirit something which did not exist before" (Paragraph 1 Line 2)
The second point he makes is that writers have not reached their true potential if they cannot write with emotions that will touch the reader directly. "the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problem of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because that is what is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat" (Paragraph 2 Line 3)
I agree with Faulkner, great literature comes from deep within the writer's heart, so that the reader can not only understand these strong emotions, but also feel them just by reading these words.
~Marilou Trudel
I’ve read Steinbeck's speech and I see that he takes a different approach to the topic of being a writer's duty.
He seems to take great pride in his own work, maybe even a little too much, saying that only some can achieve as much as he did. "...to roar like a lion out of pride in my profession..." (paragraph 17 line 2)
Also instead of saying that literature must be from the heart, Steinbeck states that it must reflect the greatness of man’s heart and emotions. "...the writer is delegated to declare and celebrate man's capacity for greatness of heart and spirit..."
Steinbeck refers to man as the center of the world and in control of life on the earth. He also repeats many of Faulkner's points which is evidence that he admired him. I do not agree with his ending statement, “I hold that a writer who does not passionately believe in the perfectibility of man, has no dedication nor any membership in literature” (Paragraph 25) I think that humans are not perfect, we all make mistakes everyday, and if writers all thought that humanity is perfection, their writing would lose emotion.
With some background knowledge and familiarity with Faulkner’s writing, one can see that, with his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, Faulkner wanted to clarify that his own work is not pessimistic (as it is sometimes thought to be). In fact, Faulkner’s major focus is hope. Faulkner says that the writer must not write only about physical fears but instead must portray “the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself” – that is, problems of the spirit: the ability of mankind to overcome its flaws, to prevail even in defeat, to face the evil that exists within itself in order to find the good. As he says in his speech, “It is his [the writer’s] 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.” It is the duty of the writer to give people hope by showing them the best qualities in men, the virtue, even in difficulty or defeat. Understanding that “the basest of all things is to be afraid,” the writer must erase fear from his writing in order to erase fear from the reader, “leaving no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart, the old universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed - love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice.” Through their work, writers should not just tell the story of man. They should remind man of his most noble qualities so that he may continue to triumph in the future as he has in “the glory of his past.”
-Stephen (Flaherty)
I feel compelled to defend Mr. Steinbeck. Some people think that his speech shows too much pride in himself. On the contrary, Steinbeck doubted that he deserved the Nobel Prize: “In my heart there may be doubt that I deserve the Nobel award over other men of letters whom I hold in respect and reverence - but there is no question of my pleasure and pride in having it for myself.” Steinbeck is naturally honored to receive such a prestigious award, but I don’t think he speaks with arrogance when he says, “Such is the prestige of the Nobel award and of this place where I stand that I am impelled, not to squeak like a grateful and apologetic mouse, but to roar like a lion out of pride in my profession and in the great and good men who have practiced it through the ages.” He uses his speech to show his gratitude that he has received the award, but also, as he states, to speak with strength and pride – pride in his duty as a writer and in the writers who came before him. Steinbeck makes a point not only to thank the Swedish Academy (without speaking meekly and apologetically) but also to convey an important message, as is customary for a Nobel Prize recipient. Steinbeck uses the opportunity to discuss “the high duties and responsibilities of the makers of literature.”
Steinbeck agrees with William Faulkner that “the understanding and the resolution of fear are a large part of the writer’s reason for being.” He, too, believes that writers should give hope to readers through their work by showing those most noble qualities of the human race, “man’s proven capacity for greatness of heart and spirit - for gallantry in defeat - for courage, compassion and love.” Steinbeck describes these qualities as “the bright rally-flags of hope and of emulation” in “the endless war against weakness and despair.” In other words, a writer must portray the best in men in order for readers to emulate such characteristics and to keep hope in difficult times. By doing so, people can try to improve themselves.
Steinbeck’s theme of writing to improve is also evident when he says, “He [the writer] is charged with exposing our many grievous faults and failures, with dredging up to the light our dark and dangerous dreams for the purpose of improvement.” While the writer should show the virtues of men for readers to emulate, he should show the faults of men for readers to improve upon.
-Stephen (Flaherty)
I think some people are misinterpreting Steinbeck’s comments about “the perfectibility of man.” He declares, “I hold that a writer who does not passionately believe in the perfectibility of man, has no dedication nor any membership in literature.” According to Merriam-Webster, perfectibility is defined as, “capable of improvement or perfection (as in moral state).” In this case, Steinbeck is not necessarily saying that mankind will one day be perfect. He means that the writer’s purpose should always be the moral improvement of mankind, and that writers must instill in readers the belief that mankind should never stop striving for perfection. Though no man or woman is or ever will be perfect, we are all capable of improving ourselves.
Later in his speech, Steinbeck says, “We have usurped many of the powers we once ascribed to God” and, “we have assumed lordship over the life or death of the whole world - of all living things.” I don’t think Steinbeck means that men have surpassed or will surpass God in greatness, but he wants to warn listeners that (please excuse the cliché) with great power comes great responsibility. It was once thought that only God could have the power to destroy the earth. Who could have conceived that man could one day hold the fate of the world in his hands? But with newfound knowledge and modern technology, men can now “destroy all life on earth multiple times over” (Tim) with nuclear weapons. We can manipulate nature in ways never imagined before. It is for this reason that Steinbeck compares the power of men to the power of God, warning, “Having taken Godlike power, we must seek in ourselves for the responsibility and the wisdom we once prayed some deity might have.” An important theme in some of Steinbeck’s work is that there is a continuous internal struggle of good versus evil in every person. Steinbeck believes it is the duty of the writer to help the “good” in men prevail and, perhaps, to help men find within themselves the aforementioned responsibility and wisdom.
-Stephen (Flaherty)
("For all I know, Sexy Snowboarder could be Stephen." -Ms. Cheesman)
Great comments, folks. My short summary? Faulkner says that in an age facing possible nuclear annihilation, human beings must not be ruled by fear. Writers have an obligation to remind humanity of what matters...compassion, pity, dignity. Writers can help to inspire readers to remember and act upon what is truly important.
Steinbeck echoes Faulkner's ideas, and although most of you said that he was more straightforward than Faulkner, some of you seemed not to get his main points. He says that writers must bring out the best in humanity by reminding readers about our potential for kindness, compassion---well, you know. But then he talks about nuclear annihiliation and mentions God. This reference seemed to confuse some of you, but not sexysnowboarder123! Steinbeck is referring to the fact that before 1945, only God had the power to destroy our entire world. With the advent of nuclear weapons, man can now do that. No disrespect to God, just an awareness of the scary power of technology and the responsibility that comes with that power.
And Steinbeck's reference to man's perfectability? He's just saying that writers should be optimists. If they don't think that we as a species can be better, they shouldn't bother to write.
Does this help at all? Perhaps the absence of historical context for the speeches made interpretations more challenging than they would otherwise have been.
Anyway, enjoy the summer and feel free to email if you have any questions. mjcheesman@msn.com or mcheesman@lunenburgonline.com.
Remember, your papers must be emailed as attachments. Do NOT paste them into the body of the email. A terrible pox will befall you.
Enjoy Grapes of Wrath. I mean it. This book is really worth reading and I look forward to discussing it with you!
Ms. C
Faulkner's speech, in my opinion, was all about how re-teaching humans the important things in life was the main duty of the writer. He said how, without the important things such as love, honor, pity, pride, compassion, and sacrifice, the writer's work would be quite empty. It would speak of the things, but not truly feel them.
"He writes 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."
Also, Faulkner made the point that writers should encourage people to ask the important questions that make good writing. During the time, people were constantly in fear and ended up focusing on questions such as how they'd die, rather then the questions of the heart; the questions that gave writing such passion that the readers would feel inclined to ask the questions themselves.
-Anna
Steinbeck's speech was a bit more difficult for me and I had to re-read it a few times. In the end, I came to a few conclusions about his opinions on the duty of a writer.
Although the writer should expose the failures and fears of humanity, they should do so for the purpose of saying there is room for improvement. Also, the writer's duty was to provide hope to the readers.
"Furthermore, the writer is delegated to declare and to celebrate man's proven capacity for greatness of heart and spirit - for gallantry in defeat - for courage, compassion and love. In the endless war against weakness and despair, these are the bright rally-flags of hope and of emulation.
After saying this, Steinbeck went on to say that a writer who doesn't speak of progress in humanity has no business writing at all.
(No offense to Steinbeck, but in my opinion, what's writing without our favourite cynical writers? It annoys me a bit that Steinbeck believes that the only good writing is writing that speaks of hope. Without a negative point of view, the positive point of view doesn't mean as much. But that's just my opinion.)
Steinbeck also brought up that humans have been given a power before only known to God: Complete destruction. He said that part of the duty of the writer was to teach responsibility and provide wisdom to people so that this new, Godlike power could be controlled.
After reading both speeches, I believe that the two writers had very similar views and Steinbeck just happened to add a few extra opinions to his speech than Faulkner did.
-Anna
Faulkner's speech brings up many intriguing outlooks. First, he mentions that a writer's goal should be "to create out of human spirit something that did not exist before". I agree with this statement in the sense that a writer, as an artist, should always attempt to bring something new to the table. Faulkner later stresses how this new insight must be one of optimism and value. He mentions this with the belief that literature must aid man to "endure and prevail". In a world that naturally reveals an overwhelming amount of chaos and confusion, I agree with Faulkner that modern writers must take on the duty of inspiring man with stories of "love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice."
One metaphor that i found brilliant in Steinbeck's speech was the one that said "In the endless war against weakness and despair, these are the bright rally-flags of hope and of emulation." I thought it was great how he brought out that in the world's eternal hardships, literature could be used as a tool to motivate us.
As far as Steinbeck's thoughts on the power of man go, I am not in full agreement with him. He claimed that "We have usurped many of the powers we once ascribed to God." I do not think that man has, or ever will, surpass the amount of power that God holds. To say that we hold God-like powers was an overstatement in Steinbeck's day.
The most confusing belief of Steinbeck's was the one that stated "a writer who does not passionately believe in the perfectibility of man, has no dedication nor any membership in literature". I vould not agree nor disagree with this statement. I agreed with it that a writer must have a profound passion for mankind and its prosperity. However, I was in disagreement with it in the sense that every man has flaws; leaving no man perfect.
Overall I fealt Steinbeck's speech heald more passion than Faulkner's and expressed many more beliefs.
-Mike Cronin
Faulkner is trying to convey that a writer's duty is to remind man of it's strength and emotion, and that these traits keep us immortal. This is supported when Faulkner states, "It is his (a writer's) 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". Another thing that Faulkner could be trying to convey is his definition of "immortality", which seems to be referring to humankind's legacy, and that it is the writer's duty to record such events.
Steinbeck's definition of the duty of a writer is similar to Faulkner's, however slightly different. As opposed to helping man move forward and create a legacy, Steinbeck defines it as celebrate man's emotions and triumphs to keep the spirits high. Steinbeck explains this himself when he states, "the writer is delegated to declare and to celebrate man's proven capacity for greatness of heart and spirit - for gallantry in defeat - for courage, compassion and love".
I feel that both definitions hold a lot of truth to them, however I agree more with Faulkner's definition of the writer's duty. In literature, the writer attempts to capture the culture and environment of the world they live in. For example, a book written in the 2000s that is centred in medieval times will likely have (at least mostly) more modern dialogue as opposed to something more Shakespearean and ancient.
According to Faulkner, a writer’s duty is to write in order to lift a man’s heart in order for humans to not only “endure” through life but to “prevail.” He also writes that the writer’s voice should not just be the record of man but that it is one of the pillars to help him prevail. However, according to Steinbeck, a writer’s duty is “declare and celebrate man’s proven capacity for greatness of heart and spirit” and that a writer who doesn’t “passionately believe in the perfectibility of man, has no dedication nor any membership in literature.” I feel inclined to believe in Faulkner’s speech more than Steinbeck's solely because he believes that writing should be more than just a record of human existence, since humans live with a soul and spirit inside them to be conveyed through writing, and through writing it lives on.
-Chloe Raenden :)
Faulkner's idea of a writer's duty is to not let writings be controlled by the constant fear humans have and to instead allow more uplifting, inspiring writing. Faulkner states writers must learn to forget their fears, and they must "help man endure by lifting his heart". He wants writers to inspire their audience and write pieces that will help the common person "endure" through the toils and fears of life by motivating them, or "lifting his heart". In contrast, Steinbeck did not wish for the writer to disregard the everyday fears people have, but to embrace all the emotions humans can have. Steinbeck states how writers must "believe in the perfectibility of man" to have any part in the creation of literature, he believes that writers must accept people and all their emotions as perfect the way they are. He further supports this point when he states, "the writer is delegated to declare and to celebrate man's proven capacity for greatness of heart and spirit - for gallantry in defeat - for courage, compassion and love", this line builds on the idea that humans have an extraordinary spectrum of emotions and feelings, and all should be celebrated as perfect.
Overall, I feel that both speeches are very persuasive and well worded, though Steinbeck's is more confusing, as the finishing message that people possess powers equivalent to that of god is very confusing to me. I agree with Faulkner and his message that writers should uplift the reader, as I feel that writing is often an amazing outlet for inspiration.
Faulkner said that the writer's duty is to write about man not onlt enduring life, but to thrive in life. He says that their duty is to encourage people to thrive, and that the poet's voice can be one of the "pillars to help him endure and prevail."
Steinbeck said that the writer's duty is to expose our many awful faults and failures in their writing. They also must passionately believe in the "perfectibility of man", and it is also their responsiblity to make sure others come to believe it as well.
I found that Steinbeck was more thorough and gave a deeper understanding as to what he thought the writer's duty was. I liked this more because I could understand it more.
~NY
Faulkner thinks that the writer’s duty should be writing topics that are worth writing about. In order to do so, he thinks a writer must be able to resolve the self-contradicted questions in human’s heart. He says “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”. He thinks that a writer’s duty is to use the knowledge that he knows and influence readers with the old verities and the truth of heart. Using a writer’s knowledge to help readers to endure and prevail. By doing these, the writer’s work will leave a record in this world and influence the readers now and the readers in the future.
For Steinbeck, he also thinks that a writer’s duty is to be able to understand and resolved self-contradicted questions in human’s heart, which is fear.
In Faulkner’s perspective, he thinks that be focusing on the human positivity. However, in Steinbeck’s perspective, he thinks that a writer should be able to point out the flaws in the readers and society in order for them to improve. Both Faulkner and Steinbeck believed in human’s ability to endure and prevail. In Steinbeck’s point of view, he thinks that human’s ability have the power to surpass God’s. “We have usurped many of the powers we once ascribed to God.” Steinbeck believed in the perfectibility of human and thinks that a writer’s duty is to help readers to reach the perfection in mankind.
I think I agree to Faulkner’s perspective more. I think Steinbeck’s point of view id a little too extreme as he believes that human should be prefect and a writer’s duty is to help and reach the perfection of humanity. I agree to Faulkner more because I think the better to approach the readers and help them to endure and prevail is through compassion and encouraging. It is not wrong for Steinbeck’s point of pointing out the flaws of the readers, but I think there is a better way of approach that would not be as harsh.
Faulkner believes that the duty of the writer is to write of the problems concerning the human heart, as it is the only thing to write about. In addition, he states that the writer has a duty to write about the immortality of man, to remind him of the courage, honor, hope, pride, compassion, pity, and sacrifice that man has experienced in the past. The writers voice should also be one of the props that help man to endure and prevail. This message is clear in the last line of his speech,"The poets voice 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."
Steinbeck's opinion is that the writer's duty is to expose mankind's 'faults and failures' in order to ultimately improve them. This can be seen throughout the following quote,"the writer is delegated to declare and to celebrate man's proven capacity for greatness of heart and spirit - for gallantry in defeat - for courage, compassion and love." In addition the writer must also declare and celebrate man's positive features such as compassion and love. He also believes that a writer must passionately believe in the perfectibility of man.
I can see truth in both of the men's speeches, though I'm not sure about the high standard they hold for mankind. For example Steinbeck clearly believes in the 'Perfectibility of Man' which I don't agree with. I prefer Faulkner's depiction of mankind being immortal by the cause of his inexhaustible voice. I believe on a whole, both men wish for writers to instill and invoke good worldwide and I support this duty.
In my opinion, Faulkner's speech was much shorter but happened to be much more inspirational and successful. Faulkner gets his point across that the duty of a writer is not only to continue on with life but to thrive in his lifetime. He makes it clear that the writer should forget the belief of failure. Until this fear is pushed aside, the author "labours under a curse." Rather than be being afraid, the writer should write about inspirational thoughts and stories. Writing this is the whole purpose to inspire the rest of the readers. Faulkner believes that a key is the writer's privilege to "help man endure by lifting his heart." Alongside Faulkner's speech is a highly respected but not as triumphant speech by Steinbeck. Steinbeck's speech is almost the opposite of Faulkner's speech. Instead of embracing the compassionate and admirable qualities in an author's writing, he believes that the author should embrace everything. As Steinbeck said, "who does not passionately believe in the perfectibility of man, has no dedication nor any membership in literature." He basically believes that there is no faults because every quality of man should be accepted as perfect. Furthermore he expands on that if an author does not believe in this then he has no right to be apart of literature. While both speeches are astonishing and prosperous, I still conclude with the statement that Faulkner's idea of lifting up compassion and inspiration is the victorious speech.
Both speeches were very well done and both had very important themes and messages. Faulkner's speech talked about how the writer is not writing from the body and not the heart. He is now writing about things that do not have very much importance in the grand scheme of things. He also says that it was not always this way and that the writer must relearn the virtues of the heart. He also stated very modestly that writing is not an easy craft, and that the works that he has produced go far beyond himself. He talks about how the writer should not be working for glory or fame or money but rather to contribute the whole that is humanity. He uses his power of speech to encourage young men and women to pursue their writing dreams. His speech is very optimistic in contrast to Steinbeck's, talking about how many will not only survive, but prevail. As I’m sure many of you have noticed Faulkner's speech is a lot easier to read than Steinbeck's, he not only conveys the information in a way that is more tangible but also gives off a sense of community and hope. As you will see, this is vastly different than Steinbeck's speech.
The first thing that I noticed about Steinbeck's speech was the formality, everything was compartmentalized into separate sections. I found that this took away from the power of the speech, as it came across as artificial, not a being of writing but rather the deconstructed product of a machine. He does, however, make a number of good points. One point being that writer should not squeak like mouses but rather roar like lions, this is the very essence of writing. Making oneself known is essential for any work to be recognized and praised, and as such, writes must roar like lions and verbally fight to get their message across.
The prevailing theme in this speech is doubt and fear. In this, he paraphrases his predecessor, Faulkner, in saying that the very base of the writer is fear. He talks about how man has become God, and with that not only comes the power but also the requirement of responsibility, and this scares him. As he puts it “He[man] is our greatest hazard and our only hope”. As such we, as writes must encourage and reinforce the proper use of this power that has been granted to us, as to ensure that no shortcomings arise because the consequences of these seemingly small shortcomings are larger than any one man could have ever predicted.
Faulker's Speech = Faulkner's speech portrays much about how the best writing is seen after a writer has learned about 'agony' and experienced 'conflict within one's own heart'. As well, he emphasizes the fact that the writers duty is to write about how men does not have a limit, we don't just 'get by'. Rather, he thinks that humans surpass that and actually 'prevail'. Furthermore, Faulker specifies that the award is not to recognize the man himself but rather a 'life's work in the agony and sweat of the human spirit'. He refers to the human spirit as an abstract object that 'did not exist before'.
Steinback's Speech = Steinback displays the idea that the recipient of the Nobel Peace prize is acknowledged for their personal accomplishments rather than the writing itself. Steinback states that the duty of the writer is to 'declare and to celebrate man's proven capacity for greatness of heart and spirit'. He believes that we should 'brag' more and celebrate the greatness of men.
I agree with Faulkner's more, even though his speech is much more confusing to understand at first. I agree with Faulkner because I do think that the best writing, the deepest writing is from conflict. From deeper thinking and hard work like he says.
Both speeches I believe reflect what Faulkner and Steinback's feel. Within Faulkner speech he explains that within life we should not endure life as much as we should be prevailing. He explains that people are capable of prevailing throughout life because they are not just normal. But that we as people have a spirit capable of compassion, sacrifice and endurance. Where as Steinback's speech is really focussing more on the importance as a writer, to be able to expose the flaws and identify the failures he has had as a writer. For the purpose of improvement.
In my opinion I feel they are both important because in life or as a writer specifically it is important to not just endure through life but prevail but yet identify your flaws and failures. To improve as a writer or in life.
-MD
Faulkner states that the writer'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. Faulkner says that the duty of the writer is not only to record what is happening, but to also remind them of the goodness of humanity and to uplift them. Personally, I disagree because I think that the duty depends on the writer and what they are writing.
Steinbeck expresses something similar to Faulkner in arguing that writers should record history whilst motivating readers and reminding them of everything that is good. I disagree with his statement in which he states that “a writer who does not passionately believe in the perfectibility of man, has no dedication nor any membership in literature.” I think it is too much of a generalization as he is essentially saying that if you don’t truly believe that humankind is/can be perfect, you shouldn’t be a writer. In my opinion, this is unfair to exclaim since different writers play different roles, each having unique duties.
In his speech, Faulkner makes it clear he believes that a writer’s duty is to remind and help people to “prevail” in life. He says that writing should "not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail.” Faulkner also says that events are not the only thing worth writing about, but instead human emotions and ideas are also “worth the agony and sweat”.
Steinbeck’s speech claims that a writer has to be optimistic. Steinbeck says "a writer who does not passionately believe in the perfectibility of man” is not dedicated to literature. He believes that writing should be optimistic and demonstrate the good in mankind. I agree more with Faulkner’s believes the written word is powerful and I agree with his points to an extent. However, I do not think that every single piece of writing or literature has to be meaningful.
Faulkner believes the duty of the writer is to keep society elevated beyond their base thought. He wants the writers of the future to write about the "truths of the heart," and to go beyond the fear that is so ease to dwell on. He believes that mankind will forge on in times of trouble and beyond and this will be achieved through the power of the dutiful writer. Steinbeck Believes the writers duty is to believe in "the perfectibility of man," and strive for it. He states that they are to do this through writing about our darker tendencies so that we may learn how to better ourselves through their work. He makes mention of Faulkner's speech in his and informs his audience that e shares the opinion that man is drawn to a basic state of fear. A fear that is enhanced by the turbulence of the time they made their comments. Where the two differ is their beliefs on how an author is to take mankind away from their fear. Faulkner believes people should write about how man should be and Steinbeck believes they should write about how they are and use that to convince the reader that they should change.
Faulkner and Steinbeck both have similar viewpoints on how literature should be made. They both see their craft as the only solution to the worlds problems at the time of their speech's and they place far to many limitations on what authors can and can't do. The entire time I was reviewing their speeches I kept thinking about the show Seinfeld. The writers of the series have described it as a show about nothing at yet it does so much in a single episode to reveal they way people behave. Not to show that they should change like Steinbeck wants but to act as an observer. Writers can write interesting stories without the expressed goal to change the world.
The duty of the writer according to Faulkner is to lift man up and tell of how man not will not only exist, and survive, but thrive in the world. To remind the reader of the traits that make man human are the traits that will make humans immortal in a sense. Simply the duty of the writer is to preserve the legacy of humans.
Steinbeck acknowledges Faulkner’s ideas, build off of them. According to Steinbeck is that they writers are not to just simply to tell of the legacy of man but celebrate it. Commemorate the greatness of all that man is capable of doing, to fight, with literacy as the weapon, the constant battle against sorrow and feebleness in the world, to think optimistically about the potential of man’s perfection, as man is the only hope in the world.
I agree more with Steinbeck. Although I understand how Faulkner, in his time, due to events happening then, wanted to preserve what he could of the humanity he knew and the legacy of mankind, and quite possibly his own, I believe this should not just be preserved, but honored and celebrated. I to believe in the perfection of mankind that Steinbeck speaks of. Not particularly the every human will be perfect, but that it is a possible potential.
-Gemma Varty
Both Faulkner and Steinbeck have very grand and ambitious opinions about the duty of the writer and what they must strive to do. Faulkner believes that the writer must capture the prevailing of the human condition- he believes that writers should try to uplift the reader from suffering and fear to remind them of the more triumphant sides of mankind. Steinbeck elaborated on Faulkner’s comments, but also believed that the writer should celebrate human perfection.
Both ideas were very grandiose and heavy, and understandably so because of the troubling times that they lived in. However, I disagree with both Faulkner and Steinbeck, and find their statements to be quite problematic because both are too formulaic and restrictive. At one point, Steinbeck went on to say that a writer that does not passionately believe in his ideals should have no place in literature. There is more than one way to explore human experience and communication, and there is no right or wrong way to do so. There can be equal, if not more, impact in writing styles such as lightness, absurdity, and multitudes of others that Faulkner and Steinbeck failed to regard. Both Faulkner and Steinbeck’s ideals leave no room for experimentation and radical progression in literature.
Faulkner, in his ideas on the duty of a writer, holds a distinct contempt for the writing of superficial problems that play to the every day fears and toils of humans and believes that the writer should strive to tackle the "problems of the spirit" and "problems of the human heart" that are truly meaningful. He believes that writers these days focus too much on the "ephemeral" worries of the day that deal with mortality and short lived notions while they should be trying to tap into the immortal concepts that will endure and help mankind prevail. The writer must write of the "heart" and not of the "glands".
Steinbeck's ideas on the duty of the writer do not directly oppose those of Faulkner but are rather just a different viewpoint. Steinbeck believes that the duty of the writer is "exposing our many grievous faults and failures" but then to use that to strive for "improvement" and the "perfectibility of man". These comments really do have great meaning within the context of the Cold War that was going on at the time as mankind has "assumed lordship over the live and death of the whole world" and writers have the duty to assist in the improvement of our wisdom and innovation for the future.
Both men have equally valid ideals on the duty of the writer and I do not see one that is more "right" than the other. However I would identify more myself with the ideas of Steinbeck while still appreciating the words of Faulkner. I feel this way because, although I do believe in the importance of profound ideas, I also enjoy the less profound day to day writing about funny things or world issues and believe that this can have just as much value as the more "immortal" ideas. I really love the words of Steinbeck because he speaks many truths about the importance of learning from our past and making sure that we do not repeat it in the future which is a very current and relevant concept.
In Faulkner's speech he starts by explaining how this award represents the hard work he has created "which did not exist before". He continues by saying he is targeting this speech at other young writers who are going through the hard work as he has. Faulkner explains that the "problems of the human heart in conflict with itself" is the only thing that is worth writing about. However, the speaker addresses that these have been forgotten by many but must be retaught. Finishing this speech, he states, according to him, the duty of the writer is to create new pieces of writing based off of the feelings and characteristics of the heart such as compassion and sacrifice and endurance.
Meanwhile, in Steinbeck's speech he starts it off by announcing that his speech with focus on looking at the "high duties and responsibilities" of writers. He references Faulkner in his speech about how he was able to recognize that fear plays a big part in the reason as to why a writer actually writes. Steinbeck states that in order to be a writer and the duty of the writer, essentially, the person must believe in the perfectibility of man.
Overall, their two opinions on what is a writers duty seem to intertwine with Faulkner's adding to Steinbecks however these takes are so different from the way we were percieving these duties.
In his speech, Faulkner emphasizes that the obligation of the writer is to remind the reader of all the feelings and ideas that make us whole humans, with a goal of thriving, rather than just purely existing. He explains that writers no longer write with feelings of substance, but rather rely on bland and lackluster experiences to fulfill superficial emotions. Faulkner states that the role of the author is one of a motivator, and the author should not just be a “record of the past”, but a communicator of all things to help humans succeed.
Although similar to Faulkner’s idea of the writer’s duty, Steinbeck proposes that a writer needs to be able to believe that man has potential to be perfect. He references Faulkner’s appreciation of fear as a base for important human qualities, and goes on to say that it is the responsibility of the writer to reveal “dark and dangerous ideas for the purpose of improvement”. Steinbeck believes that an author must capitalize on the flaws of man in order to help us grow.
Although I appreciate both speeches, I agree more with Steinbeck’s perspective. I do not think every piece of writing has to have a profound effect on mankind. Steinbeck’s optimism is what stood out to me the most when reading his speech, and his belief that one can improve upon imperfection is one I appreciate.
Faulkner uses his speech to focus on his point of view on the responsibility of a writer, which he believes is to help men not just endure, but prevail. Faulkner believes that the writer “writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value.” He wants to document what man has accomplished and how we did not just exist or survive, but we thrive and continue to perform beyond our expectations. Faulkner also proceeds to remind us of all the things that make us human, and states that humans should endure, rather than just merely exist, and that in a sense, humans are immortal, because man “alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance”.
On the other hand, Steinbeck believes more in the possible perfection of the human race. He believes that “man himself has become our greatest hazard and our only hope.” Steinbeck believes that there is indeed hope for the human race, so much to the point where we could essentially achieve perfection. He goes on to share his belief that “a writer who does not passionately believe in the perfectibility of man, has no dedication nor any membership in literature.”
Both perspectives are valid and respectable, and I agree with both points of view equally. I, too, like Faulkner, believe that the human race is capable of so much more than we have achieved, and that we should continue to thrive with the knowledge we have and continue to discover, rather than just merely exist. However, I also appreciate Steinbeck’s intense optimism, and also believe and have hope that one day, maybe, with the help and cooperation of everyone as a whole, mankind has the potential to achieve perfection in a sense.
Kenny Onyeka
According to Faulkner, the duty of the writer is to write “from the heart” and not “from the glands.” By this, he means that a writer must write about things he is passionate about, and not about superficial, meaningless topics that do not make a change in mankind. He also talks about how writing about “the truths of the heart” and putting one’s fears behind.
Steinbeck talks about the “perfectibility of man,” talking about how exposing mankind’s failures can help us strive for improvement.
Overall, both speeches are exceptionally well written and include valid points about a writer’s reponsibility. Neither is correct or incorrect; they both provide insight into what a writer might believe their and other writers’ duty is.
Faulkner's idea of the purpose of the writer is to "prevail" and "persevere". One does this by laying everything they can into their piece of writing. In order for this piece to have any sort of meaning it must be about something that they truly believe and feel passionate in as well. Steinbeck believes that the purpose of the writer is not to show perfectionist writing but to show the faults in someone and in their work. This "Perfectability" is essentially what someone does when they write.
I think that Steinbeck's idea of the purpose of the writer is something I agree with more. Although I appreciate what Faulkner says about how the human race is capable of much more I do not believe that every piece of writing needs to be an intense showcase of that persons capabilities, I just don't think that is entirely true or accurate to say that that philosophy is applied to every piece of writing.
David Pitcairn
Both of Faulker and Steinbeck have similar ideas as to what the duty of the writer is.
Steinbeck expresses his thoughts on what he thinks the duty of the writer is as he states that the writer, 'I hold that a writer who does not passionately believe in the perfectibility of man, has no dedication nor any membership in literature'. From this, it is clear that Steinbeck feels that the duty of the writer should be seek improvements of the man and that everyone has the potential to improve at some point in their life.
Faulkner depicts that the duty of the writer as he says, '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'. Falukner expresses how powerfull love and spirits emotion is and to not be altered by writing about these topics because of what other people think. By addressing these taboo topics (at the time) it can help people originate back to their humanity of their feekings.
by NATALIE L-
The duty of the writer was addressed by two famous authors, Steinbeck and Faulkner, however, their opinions slightly differ. While Steinbeck offers a highly optimistic view of the world, sometimes, like Faulker, we should acknowledge that perhaps the human race is capable of much more.
Merely existing can easily just plateau, and we will then sit back and wait for others' to take action, but the issue is, everyone is waiting. We have come quite far together, and it would be disappointing to misuse the knowledge we have gained thus far. With many brilliant minds, I agree with Faulkner that we should use this knowledge as a tool and exceed our expectations. Also, Falkner stresses that writers must express “from the heart” and not “from the glands. Therefore, the duty of the writer must be something real, that can help the human race connect with, rather than something that is superficial and cannot be used as a tool.
Steinbeck's view was much more optimistic, though their viewpoints do have many similarities. He believes that with cooperation and open-mindedness we can achieve much more. With "exposing our many grievous faults and failures", there can be improvements made, and soon strive to obtain something that is as close to perfect as we can get. With respect to the duty of the writer, Steinbeck believes it is the writer's job to assist in improving the future. The context of this speech is that it was written during a time of immense global fear. International tensions were extremely high as the Cold War locked Russia and the United States in worldwide strain. His optimism was nonetheless difficult to obtain in a time like this, but it needed to be heard.
Both Faulkner and Steinbeck, although each possessing differing opinions on the duty of the writer, believe that such an individual is stimulated and driven by emotions such as love, honour, hope, pity, pride, compassion and sacrifice. These emotions are fundamental to human understanding and to leading a purposeful life, which is why both writers strongly believe in the important role these feelings play in the lives of individuals. Our emotions essentially determine our state of mind, which either prompts us to achieve our goals or to remain in the depths of our internal darkness. In terms of humanity, positive emotions enable for greater advancement and both strongly believe that writing plays a crucial role in giving one a sense of purpose by lifting one's spirits.
Faulkner believes that male and female writers write in response to the various causes of fear in today's world, as opposed to writing from the heart and the primitive emotions of the human species. However more importantly, Faulkner believes that the writer's duty is to help man "endure and prevail" by "lifting his heart", which ultimately enables him to thrive in the world, through the strength and hope that writing engenders within him.
On the other hand, Steinbeck believes that in addition to "lifting his heart", the duty of the writer is to reveal or bring to light man's "grievous faults and failures". This is an extremely different viewpoint than that of Faulkner's due to the fact that Steinbeck believes that the purpose of writing is to also expose the flaws in human nature "for the purpose of improvement".
I believe that Steinbeck's statement with regard to the duty of the writer speaks more truthfully than Faulkner's, as in our day and age, in addition to revealing various perspectives through which man can see the world, enabling him to prosper, the writer also serves as a reminder of our greatest flaws in the hopes that knowing this can motivate us to self-scrutinize ourselves in order to grow as individuals. I ultimately believe that significant societal problems and world issues can be solved with hope and positivity, as well as the sense of purpose and desire for improvement that stems from the knowledge and understanding of human flaws.
The duty of the writer is quite controversial due to the broad spectrum the writers conform to. Though Faulkner and Steinbeck two of the greatest writers of all time state the duty of the writer in the most accurate sense possible. Both writers opinion of what a writer's responsibility is are very similar in certain ways though contrast in few details.
Both writers address the fact that as writers it is their duty to not be overcome with fear, but rather accept the fear and actually use the fear to move forward. Ther ideas differ in the sense that Faulkner believes that as a writer they must feel agony and use that agony in their work. Whereas Steinbeck believes it is a writer duty to feel great compassion and use that compassion throughout their work.
Furthermore, in my opinion, I agree with both writers in the sense that whatever a writer feels they should use that aspect throughout their work because it makes a greater writer.
JSHARM
Both Faulkner and Steinbeck provide a similar message in that the duty of the writer is to inspire and to uplift mankind by writing of the qualities of the human spirit, such as kindness, compassion, courage, sacrifice, and endurance. However, where Faulkner states that the writer must write only of these things in order to help mankind endure and improve, Steinbeck insinuates that the way to do this is by documenting humanity's shortcomings. In this way, the two men speak of two messages with the same purpose but a different means of achieving it.
Faulkner's speech takes place in the midst of worldwide chaos: World War Two has just ended, the Korean War is beginning and the Red Scare is taking place. He speaks of the "tragedy today" that is simply a "general and universal physical fear". Rather than deeper, more meaningful issues occupying the minds of the human population, the only question is of when death will occur. He mourns the disappearance of writing about the "problems of the human heart in conflict with itself" which is the only topic worth writing about in his eyes, before stating his true message: that writers must learn to write about "old universal truths" again. Faulkner seems to dislike the lack of weight to the writing of his time, in which there are defeats where "nobody loses anything of value " and victories are "without hope[...], pity and compassion". His speech is a call to action- a desperate plea- for writers to put meaning into their work. He believes that not doing so is insulting to the beauty of man- it would be as if the writer stood by and watched as the human race died out. We as writers have to believe that mankind is good, and can prevail! Overall, his message is that the duty of the writer is to not only to help mankind to endure, but to improve by reminding them of the "courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of the past". Writing is not a passive documentation, he seems to say. It is a power which must be used to bring out the best of us.
Steinbeck seems to follow this thought at the beginning of his acceptance, stating how literature is needed now more than ever. He references Faulkner's idea of the tragedy of universal fear causing there to be no more problems of the human spirit, so only the human heart in conflict with itself seemed worthy of writing about. Steinbeck agrees that the writer's purpose is to "celebrate man's proven capacity for greatness of heart and spirit", but introduces the idea that the writer must expose "our many grievous faults and failures[...] for the purpose of improvement". Writers must document the good of humanity, but they must expose the bad. They must believe in the "perfectibility of man"-they must believe that even in our darkest times, humans have the capacity to improve. As the world becomes more modernized and humanity takes on an almost god-like role, Steinbeck states that the writer's responsibility is to hold man accountable- for we are both our greatest hazard and our greatest hope.
I would agree with Steinbeck- it is the writer's job to simply write: not just of the good, as Faulkner states, but of the bad, and the in between. Otherwise, writing would not be a true reflection of the inconsistency and the multi-sided nature of the human spirit.
T. Jin
Although Faulkner and Steinbeck have two different opinions, these two opinions can be interpreted to become the same idea expressed from two opposing perspectives.
From Faulkner's perspective, he is a man living in the era of the cold war. Therefore, it can be imagined what kind of suffering he is going through on a daily basis. This suffering has reflected on his point of view, shifting his idea of the duty of the writer to become more violent. When Faulkner speaks after receiving his award, he indicates that "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". This means that the writer must not only recount the story but also must be a tool that can be used to help humans "endure and prevail". Furthermore, in Faulkner's speech, he implies that the writer must expose all of the faults of humans, especially the faults that have been hidden, in order to have an improvement for our entire race.
On the other hand, Steinbeck lives in a relatively peaceful time. Although there is the space race taking place, the space race did not threaten the safety of the average person. Consequently, Steinbeck's speech came from a relatively gentler point of view. Near the start of his speech, Steinbeck speaks about his ideas of literature, as "Literature is as old as speech. It grew out of human need for it, and it has not changed except to become more needed". Steinbeck continues and states that "I hold that a writer who does not passionately believe in the perfectibility of man, has no dedication nor any membership in literature".
These two opinions, although seemingly different, really reflect one message. That literature is essential to humans in order to improve ourselves. It can be seen that Faulkner supports this statement, as he declares that literature must be "the pillars to help him endure and prevail". Steinbeck also supports this statement, as his entire speech revolves around believing "in the perfectibility of man". Therefore, these two statements are one and the same, just through two differing perspectives.
David
I believe that Steinbeck implies that the duty of the writer should be seek improvements of the man and that everyone has the potential to improve at some point in their life. Steinbeck evokes this belief when he declares, "He is charged with exposing our many grievous faults and failures, with dredging up to the light our dark and dangerous dreams for the purpose of improvement". Steinbeck highlights his point of view as he is expected to [expose] "our many grievous faults and failures" but simultaneously implies prosperity and hope due to the uplifting to "light our dark... for the purpose of improvement".
In Faulkner's speech he describes his view on what a writer should be like, 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." What Faulkner says reminded me of what EB White wrote about what the writers duty was very similar to each other
Faulkner’s speech is mostly about how it is the duty of the writer to uplift and inspires in their writing. An example of how he does this is during his own speech when he explains how he refuses to believe that humans are mortal and that they will prevail forever, because of our ability to feel and our souls. He says the duty of the writer is to remind them about how far they’ve come. He says that writers and poets recording the history of mankind is essential for survival and for the future allowing mankind to “endure and prevail”.
Steinbeck (after addressing the crowd and his fellow nominees) introduces the history of literature. He explains how literature came to be out of a need for stories, saying how as time goes on it becomes more and more critical. He says that part of a writer's job is to believe in the “perfectibility” of man, and if not, is not a true writer.
The two speeches share a similar message but have different paths to achieving this message. Steinbeck offers a fairly positive view of the world, while Faulkner shares humanity's shortcomings instead. This could be because of the different times these writers lived in, and other influences in their lives that could have altered their perspective.
Frances H
Steinbeck and Faulkner share a similar, but not identical, opinion on the duty of the writer. Faulkner believes that the writer must examine the human condition, the positive and negative attributes unique to humans. Faulkner spoke of how fear inhibits a writer's ability to study human emotion and the importance of letting go of fear when writing. Faulkner believes that as long as man's suffering, joy, and human complexity continue to be examined by the writer then "the end of man" will never truly come to be, as men will live on in the words of a writer who has fulfilled his duty.
Steinbeck agrees with Faulkner in that a writer must examine the human condition to fulfill his duty. However, he goes further with this idea. Steinbeck speaks of the "perfectability of man," and believes that a writer's duty is to study human faults and limitations and improve upon them. He declares that this is the cure to the universal fear Faulkner speaks about. With "god-like" powers, human beings have a responsibility to use their immense influence wisely. That is the duty of a writer.
Faulkner's speech depicts the duty of the writer as writing about the "problems of the human heart in conflict with itself". To him, writing without "love and honour and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice" is a skeleton without blood and flesh. He encourages writers in his time to remind readers of "the courage and honour and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past" and uplift their spirits and give them hope so that they will not "endure", but also "prevail".
Steinbeck held a similar view with Faulkner, in which he recognizes that the writer should be depicting the strengths and weaknesses in humanity for encouraging the improvement of man. Furthermore, he declares that the writer should celebrate the "greatness of heart and spirit", which would ignite hope in an era of war and despair. On the other hand, Steinbeck also presented differing viewpoints from Faulkner in his speech. By mentioning the danger of humanity's power to manipulate the lives of all living beings, Steinbeck emphasized the importance of the perfectibility of humanity and the writer's duty to send that message through his writing.
I personally agree more with Steinbeck's perspective. Living in an era when humanity has control over so many things such as the lives of all living beings and other people's privacy, it is extremely important to have a set of correct morals and good spirits. So I resonated with Steinbeck's emphasis on how critical is the writer's duty to inform the readers of the strengths and weaknesses in humanity in order to inspire and encourage improvement to happen.
---Carly Lin
How do we reconcile our ever-changing world with our primal and permanent instincts; I believe that this is the question Steinbeck and Faulkner take fundamentally different approaches to when explaining the duty of the author. Faulkner believes that change simply distracts, that new fears that spring up in new generations distract from fundamental truths, truths that resonate with the very things that make us human. What makes humans distinct and immortal according to Faulkner is "a soul, a spirit capable of compassion, sacrifice, and endurance"; it follows then that to make writing immortal it must at its core be written as a reflection the fundamental and immortal aspects of the human race. Faulkner insists then that writing based upon fleeting fears and triumphs is the "our great tragedy", and that a writer should occupy themselves "the courage and honour and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past". Only then can "the poet's voice [...] be one of the props, the pillars to help him prevail". Steinbeck's perspective holds the opposite, that the writing itself is immortal because "literature is as old as speech. It grew out of human need for it, and has not changed except to become more needed". Rather than comment on the unchanging admirable principles of man, Steinbeck sees the writer as one charged with "exposing our many grievous faults and failures" in order to "[dredge] up to the light our dark and dangerous dreams with the purpose of improvement". He sees the merit of improvement and change to society and views the writer as one who should dare to comment on the novel issues and fears of the world he lives in. In this way, Steinbeck portrays the writer as one who remains enteral not by appealing to eternal truths, but by realizing that what is truly eternal is change.
I tend to agree more with Steinbeck in that the need for writing is fundamental, but the needs of writing are ever-changing. What I mean by that is though every society since the dawn of civilization has used communication, what it has been used for has varied greatly. To provide a relevant example, I offer the World Wars as incidents that occurred during the lives of both writers and are almost certainly the cause of the "universal physical fear" of which Faulker talks ad nauseam. A writer at this time might see the need to quell fear, to unite a divided world with the universal human experience. Consider now a writer living in the 13 American colonies during the late 18th century. His purpose may be distinctly different, to divide the nation and to cause violence with the ultimate goal of independence and freedom of his burgeoning nations. Both are valid reasons to write and both are written in the context of their time, and yet their purposes are entirely different and entirely needed. Faulkner fails to realize that the fundamental aspects of all people are not essential to impactful and important writing because not all impactful and important writing is intended for all people. Conversely, Steinbeck realizes the significance of writing to whenever it is written. He realizes that even our concept of the most fundamental of truths are themselves subject to eternal change. I believe Steinbeck's insight more effectively tackles how we resolve the eternal struggle between a changing world and the eternal truths of humanity; that the inevitability of change will not change, so we as humans should adapt, not forgoing our natural instincts but rather manifesting them differently to suit the needs of our time.
I think Faulkner's speech is inspirational, as the one key point I took from his speech is the importance of empathy to a writer. Even though the "basest of all things is to be afraid", a writer must overcome fear and dig deeper - until he sees the "truths of the heart", with compassion that overshadows fear. I admire his idea that man will never die, never "end" because "he has a soul". I think a significant part of the speech has more than its literal meaning, especially here. Faulkner is essentially saying that literature is a tool and a thread to share and pass on ideas among the world and between generations; these ideas shall be truest and most vulnerable parts in people's hearts. Faulkner states that it is not only a "duty" but a "privilege to help man endure". However, it cannot be done without empathy.
Steinback's speech also touches on the idea of the "tragedy of universal fear" and how it is a writer's duty not only to prevent spreading fear in his work but also to try and heal it. The use of antithesis at the end of his speech is especially effective: "man himself has become our greatest hazard and our only hope". With humankind so conflicted, it is the writer's duty to bring a sense of direction.
I completely agree with both speakers. Faulkner touches more on the principles. He suggests that a writer should not express only the positive, but neither should he be cynical. A writer's goal is to contemplate and reflect true human nature in his work. Steinback's speech conveys very similar ideas as Faulkner's and is perhaps more relevant to the world right now. We now live in an era when technology is advancing at such an unprecedented speed, that human truly possesses "Godlike power". It is also an era that has seen much turmoil in the world, and chaos in the media, therefore needing someone as a guide making Steinback's words never so pertinent. It is easy for a writer to taunt, criticize, complain, but it is not enough. The writer's duty is to guide mankind, but he cannot do so without empathizing, discovering not fear, but the beauty that is deep down.
--- LH
Post a Comment