"Barn Burning" by William Faulkner was difficult to understand the first time I read it. I thought I understood, then all of a sudden it would take a turn and I would be lost again.
I think the question is, should Sarty be loyal to his family and tell them the truth about his father burning down the barn or should he not say anything and keep it to himself. I think he wants to tell his family that his father did burn down the barn, and be loyal to his family, but he is afraid of the consequences that might occur if he does tell he knows about the barn.
I think the father burns down barns becuase he wants to be independent and support his family on his own. Right now, he is sharecropping, so he has to rely on wealthy families, to support his family and himself. He is basically a slave because he is sharecropping. He does not like to be treated in this manor, so i think he burns down the barns to get "even".
Faulkner describes Sarty in an interesting way. In one way he is loyal and respectful but in another way hes ignorant and disrespectful. He is described as hungry, poor and non educated. On page 161 Faulkner states "...Whose labels his stomach read, not from the lettering which meant nothing to his mind...", which means Sarty can not read the labels because he does not know how to read but he can determine the food by the specific smell and the design on the can. It also shows us he is poor and very hungry. He is respectful because he wants be to loyal to his family and friends and he wants peace and to forget the old events, like his father burning down the barn and killing people. His father on the other hand, does not think about peace and loyalty. He has been killing and burning barns for so long, i think its his nature, so it would be hard for him to stop this immature act. Sarty is disrespectful because when he stepped in the manure he deliberately dragged his feet across he floor and he knew he was getting the manure all over the floors and he did not care. So you can see what kind of character Sarty is.
Race plays a major role in this Faulkner story, just like in all other Faulkner stories we read so far. It's ironic because its not the typical race issue we are normal to, its not about an African American family but a low class white family. I think Faulkner is trying to show not just African Americans are depicted but white people are as well. He gives the audience a different perspective on race.
The father was shot at the end, which was not given to us, we as readers have to figure that out, just like the last Faulkner story, "An Odor of Verbena". I dont like how Faulkner makes us figure out what happens at the end, instead of just coming out and telling us, he was shot.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I completely agree with your points in this piece. I as well wrote about it in my blog for the week. The only part I was confused about was when you said Sarty was disrespectful by putting his foot in the pile of manure and dragging it throughout the house because I thought it was Abner who did that. On page 166 about the 12th line down it states, "...saw the stiff foot come squarely down...which his father could have avoided by a simple change of stride." I don't think Sarty was a disrespectful child, he was just following along his father. I also agree with you about the endings. I've noticed that in a lot of the readings we've done, that the author leaves the ending up to your imagination.
I agree with you about the part of your blog where you stated that you did not like Faulkner's style of writing. He does not give a clear ending that tells the reader exactly what happens, and I felt like the story was not complete without a clear ending. As well, Faulkner's style of writing is hard to comprehend at times, which did not give me a sense of accomplishment after getting through the reading.
Nicole,
I feel that although you are right that Faulkner showed us the internal conflict in which Sarty had in order to decide whether or not to tell on his father, I feel that he made the right choice for his own well-being. It was his way of breaking free of the old southern tradition, and possibly sharecropping in the future as well. I feel that Abner did not burn down barns because he wanted to be independent and to support his family, for he was already trying to support them through sharecropping. I feel that he just had so much hatred towards his way of life and those that sort of ruled over his family that he used barn burning as a way to express himself and get out his frustrations. Just like when some people get angry or frustrated and they go to the gym or out for a walk, this was his method. Although it was wrong and much more destructive an extreme than working out, it had just become automatic and habit to him and therefore he could not stop it. Only his son was able to put an end to it.
Post a Comment