William Cuthbert Faulker was a writer who lived in the first half of the 20th century. He wrote many different types of things in his life, from short stories, to novels, to poems, and screenplays. However he is most famous for his novels and stories that take place in a fictional county based on the one he grew up in. Faulkner won the 1949 Nobel Peace Prize for literature for some of his writings. The reason is the one cited by the commission that awarded the prize. “…his powerful and artistically unique contribution to the modern American novel.” (Nobel Prize). When he received the award at the banquet, he gave an acceptance speech like anyone else would. Faulker's speech is considered by most citizens. In this work there is still no attraction for anyone except the audience. He simply comments on the fact that he does not see this award as a reward for himself, but as a price for his writing. It's a humbling appeal to the audience and one that could lend a lot of credibility to what he says next. A humble man is much easier to understand and listen to than a godly man who sees himself higher than anyone else. A man with that mark feels more like a know it all someone who speaks with sincerity in his voice. That being said, a person might also see it as a logical point, as he wouldn't have gotten this award if he hadn't worked so hard on his writing to get it. The second paragraph of William Faulker's speech requires context to evaluate the magnitude of his words and truly determine what he was trying to convey to the audience during the presentation of the departments. Faulker received the award just as the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in their Cold War arms race. Each nation was amassing its own reserves of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles ready to wipe each other off the map with a single attack. With this in mind the population began to think, "I think that's a nice conclusion to his speech as a whole." Faulker's speech was actually very moving and I enjoyed listening to the recording of him speaking during his speech. It was a very well crafted work and a commentary on the era in which it was live. I don't completely agree with all of his points, but he crafted his argument well and distributed his three forms of persuasion well throughout the work and I'm very happy to have read