Faulkner Essay, Research Paper

A Critical Approach To “Barn Burning” (by William Faulkner)

“Barn Burning” is a sad story because it very clearly shows the

classical struggle between the privileged and the underprivileged

classes. Time after time emotions of despair surface from both the

protagonist and the antagonist involved in the story.

This story outlines two distinct protagonists and two distinct

antagonists. The first two are Colonel Sartoris Snopes ( Sarty ) and his

father Abner Snopes ( Ab ). Sarty is the protagonist surrounded by his

father antagonism whereas Ab is the protagonist antagonized by the social

structure and the struggle that is imposed on him and his family.

The economic status of the main characters is poor, without hope of

improving their condition, and at the mercy of a quasi-feudal system in

North America during the late 1800’s. Being a sharecropper, Ab and his

family had to share half or two-thirds of the harvest with the landowner

and out of their share pay for the necessities of life. As a result of

this status, Ab and his family know from the start what the future will

hold — hard work for their landlord and mere survival for them.

No hope for advancement prevails throughout the story. Sarty, his

brother and the twin sisters have no access to education, as they must

spend their time working in the fields or at home performing familial

duties. Nutrition is lacking He could smell the coffee from the room

where they would presently eat the cold food remaining from the mid-

afternoon meal (PARA. 55). As a consequence, poor health combined with

inadequate opportunity results in low morale. A morale which the writer is

identifying with the middle class of his times that same quality which in

later years would cause his descendants to over-run the engine before

putting a motor car into motion (PARA. 20)

The Snope family manages to survive and find work. However, the

work offers little other than a chance for survival I reckon I’ll have a

word with the man that aims to begin tomorrow owning me body and soul for

the next eight months (PARA 40). Like nomads they were forced to move

constantly. Due to seasons and crop rotation, in order to secure work they

had to reserve land with different landowners.

Ab’s emotional instability is a predominant factor contributing to

his erratic behavior throughout the story. The family has moved a dozen

times from farm to farm, and at times forced to forfeit their agreement

with the landlord due to Ab’s unacceptable behavior. A behavior which

throughout the story is transformed into a rebellion, by Ab smearing the

landowner’s carpet with horse manure and then suing him for charging him

too much for the damage. These acts symbolize frustration with the system

and a radical approach to rebel against it. Knowing that punishment could

not be avoided when committing such acts, Ab’s actions take on a more

dramatic meaning as if he is trying to convey a message. He is aware of

the economic injustice and he must respond even at the risk of him and his

family being prosecuted or ostracized.

Ab’s constant rebellion is displayed by a rough, sour character and

exemplified when he burns his landlord’s barn down. He feels despair and

loss, and inflicts damage to whomever he happens to be working for.

Although the story centers on the feelings and thoughts of Ab’s

youngest son Sarty, the economic implications of his entire family play a

vital role in justifying (not condoning) his father’s behavior, which is

the pivotal reason for Sarty’s controversial feelings on which the whole

story is based.

Sarty’s main dilemma is his loyalty to his family which collides

with his disappointment and suppressed dislike of his own father. He tends

to hide his feelings by denying the facts, our Enemy he though in that

despair; ourn! mine and hisn both! He’s my Father! (PARA. 1) and The boy

said nothing. Enemy! Enemy! he thought; for a moment he could not even see,

could not see that the Justice’s face was kindly. (PARA. 10).

The story’s emotional turns are clearly defined by Sarty’s thoughts

and Ab’s actions. Sarty’s dilemma and Ab’s frustrations continually grab

the reader, serving up a series of emotionally laden dilemmas: Given the

circumstances of the story, is Ab’s barn burning justified? Should Sarty

tell the landlord that Ab was responsible for burning down the barn? Is

the outdated sociological Blaming the Victim theory valid? Is the lose-

win arrangement between sharecropper and landowner a morally acceptable

one?

Burning a barn or any act of economic despair in the form of

vandalism is definitely not condoned. However the strange thing is the all

of these questions need not to be asked, if economic injustice was not

prevalent