Sartoris Snopes In William Faulkner's Barn Burning

1044 Words3 Pages

In “Barn Burning” by William Faulkner, Sartoris Snopes is faced with the issue of doing what he thinks is right for society, or allowing his father to continue doing what he knows is wrong. Most people are infused with a sense of familial moral obligation, and with characterization, the effects of sharecropping, and symbolism, Faulkner shows how the right choice is not always the easy choice when it comes to choosing between your family and society. Faulkner’s use of indirect characterization shows how the characters feel through their thoughts and actions. Abner is a violent and influential figure that dislikes upper class society. Although he cannot fully develop an intelligent thought about it, he knows he is part of an unfair sharecropping …show more content…

He knows he cannot get out of it, and it frustrates him. Because of his frustration with the upper class, he crosses boundaries and takes his anger out on everyone around him. His violent tendencies give him control over his family. He hits Sarty because he almost told about the barn, and, in a tone “still without heat or anger” (482), explains that family is the only thing that will stick with you. Faulkner writes, “[d]on’t you know all they wanted was a chance to get at me because they knew I had them beat?” (482). He thinks he is beating the people that “own [him] body and soul” (483) by damaging their property. This immature and vengeful mindset causes Sarty to struggle with an internal conflict of choosing his family or doing what is right for society. He associates violence with adulthood, because he, like Ab, is uneducated and cannot explain his feelings and reactions. He does have a sense of moral …show more content…

Ab’s anger comes from a frustration with the upper class and their unfair sharecropping system, leaving his family subject to his emotions. According to literary critic Irving Howe: “[a]fter its defeat in the Civil War, the South could not participate fully and freely in the ‘normal’ development of American society—that is, industrialism and large-scale capitalism arrived there later’ (566). Because of this setback, poor families in the South engaged in tenant farming, and were under the control of wealthy families. Ab is not fully aware that he is a victim of “economic oppression” (DeMott 2), although he has somewhat of an understanding about the relationship between money, labor, and the upper class. He knows he is stuck in a corrupted system. Literary critic Benjamin DeMott writes, “[w]e know that his hatred of the planters with whom he enters into sharecropping agreements repeatedly issues in acts of wanton destruction” (1). He is somewhat aware that the upper class is wealthy from other people’s labor, even though he is unable to form a fully developed thought about it: “[he has] an undeveloped mind—aware of the weight of an immense unfairness… and yet unable to move forward from either awareness to anything approaching rational protest” (2). While he is aware of the social injustice, he makes no attempt at changing it or acting rationally about it; instead, he is vengeful.

Open Document