Out+of+Context

So in class we were discussing the possible reasons that Faulkner mentioned all of the things that he did in his acceptance speech. At one point he asks the question "When will I be blown up?" Succeeding that question in a later paragraph, Faulkner refers to fear as the basest of all human emotions--the lowest common denominator. Anusia had brought up a really good point that they were just ending World War II at that point and that A and H bombs were still huge threats all of the time. Faulkner was reprimanding people for writing about fears and issues that only really applied for the time period and for that certain area. He felt it invaded their writing and distracted from the real purpose of writing. He wanted "good" writers to write about concepts that would be immortal and constant--universal truths, like love and pride and honor.

Did anyone else find it difficult to make this connection? I didn't really see it until Anusia pointed it out. I think, in a way, that's exactly what Faulkner is talking about; had he written about the honor and integrity that good writing brings it would have been a little more widely and more easily understood. Instead it pertained to the amateur writers of the time period who let the current issues corrupt their works in a sense. Do you agree? Do you think that is what he meant, or am I misinterpreting this? user:kco-c

I'm a little bit confused as to what your question is, but I'll try and answer it anyways. Are you saying that the essay was more difficult to understand because Faulkner focused on the works that do what he says not to instead of focusing on the good writings? If that's your question, I would have to disagree. I enjoyed Faulkner's essay and I liked that he discussed the faults of modern essays (that is focusing too much on bomb fears). I think that if he had only focused on the "good writings" of his time, we wouldn't understand the flaws as well because we wouldn't be able to see them. I definitely agree with Faulkner that modern writers may focus too much on fears of only their time period. Though such writings may be considered good or even great in their era, I think the problem with these works come when their time has passed. For example, it might be difficult for someone of our era to connect to a book about the Cold War. On the other hand, works focusing on universal truths and concepts can transcend eras and thus, are more likely to be considered great works for longer periods of time or even be considered as classics.1204238963

If by "connection" you're talking about the connection to the atmosphere of fear of the times and the writers that exploited that fear, then I also had difficult finding it at first. It was only until we had to write that essay on the speech did I connect the two. I am glad that someone else has found this connection: I wrote my paper on it, and no one else seemed to have done the same, and I was worried that I might have been imagining things; however, now my fears are definitely abated. Faulkner was writing about how fear and other lesser human emotions were becoming the basis of writing during the period: he was basically criticizing the doomsday/annihilation stories that took place between the USA and USSR. Faulkner believed that stories should be based on the human truths, as he put them. These are the high human emotions, ones that make up our basic character like love, joy, depression, and other, less primal emotions. The stories based on the less complex fears were just that: less complex, and Faulkner wanted writing to return to the form it was in before the atmosphere of fear had taken hold during WWII. 1204241743

When I initially read the speech, I completely agreed with what Faulkner was saying about the problem with modern writers. However, I just thought about an example that makes me disagree with Kho's explaination: 1984. This novel was written at about the same time this speech was given (WWII), and it greatly pertained to the then-modern fear of communism that was spreading across the world. It is considered to be a "classic" piece of literature despite the fact that nobody fears communism any longer.

Actually, now that I think of it, I think that 1984 remains a popular read is because it does not contain the "old universal truths." Many, if not all of them that Faulkner lists (love, honor, pity, pride, compassion, and sacrifice) are void from the novel. So maybe in a twisted way this book still does support what Faulker was saying (sorry, I changed my mind halfway though the post); it shows them that if man was indeed without the universal truths, man could never prevail or endure. - [|�9�] lma-c 2 minutes ago

I agree with Faulkner that writers are focusing on the fears of their time. I think that it is hard for writers to relate to the past one hundred percent if they didn't live through the events that happened at a given time. Some writers do write about the past and their works turn into classics, like 1984 as lma pointed out, but then I think that the writing becomes harder for the reader to relate to if they didn't live in that time period. I think that it is interesting to read works about past times but it is always hard to totally relate to what the author is trying to get across sometimes. So I think that the statement of Faulkner is correct because by writing about their times the author is able to write about something that they personally experienced. 1205269558

Kho, you had a difficult time trying to answer kco's question, because you weren't sure what it was. I think kco wanted to know if anyone else had trouble making the connection between fear and WWII just ending. It's also hard for me to answer this question, because I made that connection almost right away when we were reading it aloud in class. And I don not think that bringing in topics that are out of context of a piece of literature is harmful at all, if anything, it's beneficial. Look at all the connections we make in our class discussions and the things that we think of and post on. We bring in other pieces of literature, movies (even Disney), song lyrics, everyday expressions, and our own personal experiences. I believe that out of context material can enrich understanding. Faulkner is very wise in his point that he makes about writers' duty to their readers to inspire them and lift thier hearts; he wants them to make the connection from his writing to their world situation, that's why he worte what he did. That's very becoming of him. He wants them to not live in fear, he wants them to enjoy life. I just got the sense from his speech that he was just a down to earth nice guy with a good pure heart. I really enjoyed the way he wrote his speech and I admire him for it. 1205418669