Category: Barn Burning

African-American characters play critical roles in the work of William Faulkner. Not only do they often play irreplaceable roles in the narrative — as in the cases of Dilsey Gibson in The Sound and the Fury and Lucas Beauchamp in Intruder in the Dust — but how they are treated in the works also often serve as measures of both the moral compass and very identity of the white South. Not all of Faulkner’s fiction gives these characters names, however. While those nameless black characters typically have places in their story that move the plot along, it is the fact of their blackness that is most relevant. This does not necessarily mean that they are unimportant. Rather, Faulkner carefully and deliberately places these characters in his work to comment on blackness, whiteness, and the ambiguity between the two poles of the binary.

Speaking of those who dwell between blackness and whiteness, among the myriad of intertwining identities that manifest themselves in William Faulkner’s fiction, there is perhaps none as multivariate and complicated as that of the working-class white person. Obviously neither black, nor afforded the full privileges of whiteness that their wealthier counterparts enjoy, this group constitutes an interesting “middle ground” in Faulkner’s work. For these characters, their “blackness” can simultaneously function as a mark of shame and a badge of honor. Either way, it is essential to how they view themselves and how other characters view them.

Looking at a selection of Faulkner’s bibliography, this essay will examine characters in these two groups — unnamed “bona fide” African Americans and working-class Caucasians— and make the case that their very blackness is their most important characteristic. I have chosen to look at these groups of characters jointly because their exclusion from the erstwhile antebellum planter class makes them susceptible to much of the same treatment by the characters who do belong to that group.

Before I begin, it would be prudent to make clear what precisely I mean when I write “blackness.” Naturally, the term as used here does not refer to literal pigmentation of the skin, or even necessarily a specific cultural identity. My measure in this essay is based on that posited by John Duvall in his essay, “A Strange Nigger: Faulkner and the Minstrel Performance of Whiteness,” part of the collection Faulkner and Whiteness. As the title of his piece indicates, for Duvall whiteness and blackness are chiefly performative in much of Faulkner’s work. Characters can be “black” or “white” in the so-called literal sense, yes, but far more important to Faulkner in his criticism of his home region’s racial bigotry and dissension is how characters perform in the roles which society has reached a consensus “belong” to one race or the other. For African-American characters, this ought to be simple: Those who perform those traits which are throwbacks to the days of slavery, when blacks had to be deferential and subservient to whites at the risk of death or worse, embody blackness. Those who do not exhibit such traits are not “black.” This is easy to observe in the case of Lucas Beauchamp, the aging African-American farmer whose accusation of murder functions as the impetus of the plot of Intruder in the Dust. Since Beauchamp has no interest in performing or even playing into the social niceties which the white citizens of Yoknapatawpha expect him to adhere to as a Negro — like calling any white person he encounters “sir” or “ma’am” — there is a burning temptation among the rich and white people in the county to somehow make him “admit he’s a nigger” (Faulkner, Intruder 18). The narrator of Intruder seems to agree that Lucas’s noncompliance when it comes to performing blackness makes him “less” black; not once does the narrator even refer to him as black. They only ever refer to him using racially ambiguous language, such as remarking that his face “had no pigment at all” (Faulkner, Intruder 7). Contrast Beauchamp with the Deacon, the black man in Cambridge, Massachusetts who immediately switches to stereotypical, minstrel-style black dialect when he is summoned by Quentin, a member of the Mississippian Compson family featured in The Sound and the Fury. Because of his familiarity with white Southerners — he can supposedly “pick out a Southerner with one glance” — the Deacon knows very well the performance they expect him to put on for their comfort. In a matter of seconds after Quentin summons him, the Deacon goes from speaking language such as “See you again, fellows … glad to have chatted with you” to “Right dis way, young marster, hyer we is” (Sound, Faulkner 64-65). Deacon does not at all shy away from this performative blackness, and it is this which in fact draws Quentin to him. I therefore concur with Duvall’s position that blackness is performative in much of Faulkner’s work.

How, then, do poor Caucasian characters also perform this blackness, if they are among the ones who expect it of the African-American characters? Duvall argues that poor whites are the only group, besides those who “exhibit sexual or gender ambiguity,” not afforded full whiteness (Duvall 94). I would take this logic a step further and say that these poor Caucasians are therefore subject to taking on attributes of blackness. In postbellum society, they do so by functioning in economic roles that blacks had been forced into when slavery was the law of the land. To Duvall, such poor white characters “are in-between characters—Caucasians who instantiate blackness in ways that complicate the southern racial binarism. These presumptively white characters come to embody black culture, where ‘black’ is not exactly race any longer, but (because it is the South) it is not exactly not race either” (Duvall 93).

With this establish, let us begin the examination of these two classes of “black” characters — again, the nameless African Americans and the poor Caucasians. A good way to begin this analysis is by focusing on two characters in Faulkner’s short story, “Barn Burning.” (This is, indeed, one of the two works by Faulkner which Duvall devotes his analytic attention to in “Strange Nigger.”) The story takes place in an earlier period than much of Faulkner’s other work, some thirty-odd years after the American Civil War, and concerns an itinerant family of poor white farmers called the Snopeses. Patriarch Abner Snopes is a veteran of the Confederate States cavalry and a serial arsonist, who appears to set fire to the property of the owner of the land he and his family till whenever there is a disagreement between them. Abner Snopes and his family embody blackness in several ways. After a judge orders that the family leave the area because Abner had set fire to the barn of his landlord’s neighbor, they move to the property of one Major de Spain, on whose land Abner has already signed a contract to sharecrop. Abner considers his condition as a traveling sharecropper to be akin to slavery, and regards this with bitterness.

Before setting off to meet Major de Spain, Abner remarks, “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” (Faulkner, “Barn”). The way he describes this (notwithstanding the months-long qualifier) is a statement of blackness. Abner is complaining that he is in the position that he must perform as a black man, i.e. a slave who is “owned,” in order to make a living for himself and his family.

After failing to meet with Major de Spain in the house, and (possibly deliberately) tracking excrement on Mrs. de Spain’s rug, Abner steps out with his youngest son, Colonel Sartoris or “Sarty,” who narrates the story, and resentfully remarks on the house the de Spains live in. He says to Sarty, “Pretty and white, ain’t it?” referring to the house. “That’s sweat. Nigger sweat. Maybe it ain’t white enough yet to suit him. Maybe he wants to mix some white sweat with it” (Faulkner, “Barn”). As Duvall writes, “Abner’s reading of the white house (in which appropriated African American labor figuratively is what coats the de Spain house) correctly sees that his own and other white sharecroppers’ labor (sweat) is identical to exploited black labor” (Duvall 102-103). Thus Abner is again equating his own profession with the performance of blackness. The role of “slaves” that the Snopeses play is indeed the only real way with which can Abner distinguish his own family from the de Spains. Duvall astutely notes that, toward the end of the story, the wealthy de Spain is at several points referred to explicitly as “the white man,” while neither Sarty nor Abner are termed as such (Duvall 105).

One instance of performative blackness in the story that I think Duvall overlooks can be observed in a brief moment between when Abner compares his condition to that of slaves and makes the remark about black sweat. As Sarty and Abner approach the main house on the de Spain land, the narrator notes how beholding the house is a new experience entirely for the boy. The reader is told that Sarty saw the house for the first time and at that instant he forgot his father and the terror and despair both, and even when he remembered his father again (who had not stopped) the terror and despair did not return. Because, for all the twelve movings, they had sojourned until now in a poor country, a land of small farms and fields and houses, and he had never seen a house like this before. Hit’s big as a courthouse he thought quietly, with a surge of peace and joy whose reason he could not have thought into words (Faulkner, “Barn”).

While Faulkner was certainly not an author known to shy away from daedal descriptions of setting, and likely wants to impress upon the reader the sheer opulence of the de Spains, upon reading this passage I did wonder if there were another function. I think this section can be read with an explicit slavery parallel in mind: Abner and Sarty are as slaves reporting to the “big house,” where the master and mistress would have dwelt. The property’s small house where they are to live in while in the de Spains’ employ is, then, comparable to the slave quarters on an Old Southern plantation. The two poor Caucasian characters are then doing precisely what slaves would have done in the past: entering the threshold of their master in order to discern precisely what he would have them do. They are thus fulfilling the capacity of a black characters to the de Spains’ “whiteness.”

Granted, Abner’s behavior on entering the household is not at all what one would expect out of most enslaved African Americans in the antebellum era. (That the African-American population has exceeded forty million is a testament to the fact that most of them were aware of the potentially fatal consequences of forcing their way into the “big house” and ruin the “mistress’s” possessions.) But he is indeed punished for the misdeed as a slave would have been, albeit in a much less corporal manner.

In any event, the only black character in the story (unless one wants to consider Abner, who in Duvall’s reading literally dons blackface before his arsons in an attempt to divert suspicion from himself) is the “Negro” a servant whom Sarty and Abner encounter when they first come up to the big house. Like most of Faulkner’s characters known only by their racial designation, the Negro performs the precise role which his society would expect of him. The Negro is essentially a latter-day enslaved person. He exhibits no interests outside of fulfilling the wishes of his master and mistress, and speaks in typical African American vernacular. When Abner tries to enter, the Negro says tersely, “Wipe yo foots, white man, fo you come in here. Major ain’t home nohow” (Faulkner, “Barn”). Interestingly, Abner takes the time to call the man a “nigger” before forcing his way into the home. Why do both men choose to voice the other’s racial designation — “white man” and “nigger?” Perhaps they themselves recognize the similar, if not identical, realm they occupy in the South’s racial hierarchy, but are trying to convince themselves that it is their outward appearance which ultimately matters more. But, in Faulkner’s fiction, this is usually not the case.

Another instance of poor Caucasians performing blackness can be found in Faulkner’s 1930 novel, As I Lay Dying. This book is the story of the Bundrens, a destitute rural family similar to the Snopeses, and their journey to honor their dead mother’s final wish to be buried in her hometown of Jefferson. The novel is told from various characters’ points of view, most of them belonging to the Bundren family. While there are no black characters that I can recall of in the novel and far fewer references to the history and legacy of slavery than in “Barn Burner,” there are nevertheless ways the Bundrens perform blackness a la Abner Snopes.

First, I propose that Anse Bundren, the curmudgeonly head of the family, forces the others into performing blackness essentially by treating them as slave laborers. Anse Bundren may, unconsciously, be attempting to perform the role of a “full” (wealthy) white man, a position he has never and will never be afforded the opportunity to occupy. He is painted as a lazy, selfish figure who would much rather have others do his bidding — at no charge to himself, much like a latter-day slaveholder. As rationale, he offers the flaccid excuse that if he sweats too much he will die because of an illness he briefly contracted when he was twenty-two, which his own family does not even fall for (Faulkner, Dying 11). The first mention of Anse comes in the third section of the novel, narrated by his son Darl. The scene places Anse on the porch, idly taking in chewing tobacco as he observes his son Jewel construct a coffin for Anse’s wife, Addie (Faulkner, Dying 8). To me, this immediately calls to mind the image of a languid antebellum planter watching his chattel do his work for him, which I think is compounded by the fact that Anse is sitting with his much wealthier neighbor, Vernon Tull. Perhaps Anse feels as if his own status, his own wealth, is elevated by the mere association with Tull.

Anse views his children as commodities, and despite his own reluctance to work, desires to keep close tabs on how and for whom they work. For example, he disapproves of his son Cash’s ability to make his own wages through the use of carpentry. The first section he narrates opens with a diatribe against the new road that has been built where they live; it is evident that Anse is no proponent of what we would term “progress.” Besides thinking that God never meant for man to travel by road such as the one near the Bundren residence, Anse thinks it “aint right” for allowing Cash to learn a trade: “Making me pay for Cash having to get them carpenter notions when if it hadn’t been for no road come there, he wouldn’t a got them; falling off of churches and lifting no hand in six months and me and Addie slaving and a-slaving, when there’s plenty of sawing on this place he could do if he’s got to saw” (Faulkner, Dying 22). Clearly, Anse believes that Cash’s skill would be better put to use around the house, notwithstanding that Cash can make money that he could choose to go to that same household if he worked jobs for someone else. Cash’s rather auspicious name lends credence to this idea of Anse as a type of slaveholder. In the antebellum period, slaves were purchased with cash, and Anse would much rather have the labor produced by his Cash benefit no one but himself.

The Bundren children do not leave their father’s household and forge lives for themselves, though, as with Cash’s case, they are demonstrated to have both the desire and the means to do so. Though not necessarily related to performance per se, it is also worth noting that Vardaman, the youngest Bundren, briefly remarks that his brothers resemble slaves. (Three out of the four uses of the word “nigger” are found in this short section late in the novel.) Vardaman notices that Jewel’s “back was red,” and tells him, ‘“Your back looks like a nigger’s, Jewel” (Faulkner, Dying 129). While Vardaman could be referring to Jewel’s back simply appearing darker, it makes just as much sense to conclude that he means his brother’s back resembles that of an enslaved person whose hide has been scarred by a slave owner’s whip. And of course, Anse, as the head of the family, is the closest any of the Bundrens have to a slave owner. In any case, I think the reading of Anse as a kind of slaveholder is sound, and only further demonstrates that “blackness” can be less of an immutable racial characteristic and more of a state one can achieve through performance in Faulkner’s work.

Yet I would be remiss if I were to go without mentioning the way that characters who do not exist in either of the groups I have examined here perform blackness. Cambridge Yankees, for instance, consider Quentin Compson to be performing blackness when they simply hear him speak with his natural accent (Faulkner, Sound 79). And there are certainly more nameless black characters and many more working-class Caucasian characters whose functioning blackness could benefit from closer scrutiny among readers and scholars of Faulkner.

Ultimately, what does the notion that race is ultimately a matter of performance mean for Faulkner’s fiction? It is, of course, not a question which scholars can definitively answer. Although I am an adherent to the belief that authorial intent matters much less than an individual reader’s interpretation, I hold that, quite simply, Faulkner more than likely wrote this into his work to demonstrate the folly in believing that a person’s race is the quintessential element of how they see themselves and how other see them. Perhaps he meant to demonstrate that all the bluster and blatherskite his predecessors and contemporaries spouted about “natural” differences between the races was farcical, that it really was but sound and fury that signified nothing. Faulkner may have been much more “progressive” than some scholars afford him credit for.

Works Cited

1. Duvall, John N. “‘A Strange Nigger’: Faulkner and the Minstrel Performance of Whiteness.” Faulkner and Whiteness, edited by Jay Watson, University Press of Mississippi, 2011, pp. 92–106.
2. Faulkner, William. As I Lay Dying. Edited by Michael Edward Gorra, W.W. Norton & Company, 2010.
3. Faulkner, William. “Barn Burning.” http://faculty.weber.edu/jyoung/english%206710/barn%20burning.pdf
4. Faulkner, William. Intruder in the Dust. Vintage Books, 2011.
5. Faulkner, William. The Sound and the Fury. Edited by Michael Edward Gorra, W.W. Norton & Company, 2014.
6. Matthews, John T. “Dialect and Modernism in The Sound and the Fury.” The Sound and the
7. Fury, edited by Michael Gorra. by William Faulkner, 3rd ed., W.W. Norton & Company, 2014, pp. 483–493. Norton Critical Editions.

William Faulkner’s short story “Barn Burning” is set in a rural southern town during the late 1800s. This story is about an abusive pyromaniac of a father, Abner, who is constantly seeking “justice” for the unfair hand he was dealt, and his family. The main character, Sarty, is the youngest child and is constantly looking to find some shred of decency and redemption within his father. While at first glance this story seems tragic, humor can be found all throughout. If “Barn Burning” is read without the preconceived notion that it is a tragedy and if the smaller details of the story are exaggerated, humor can indeed be found within Faulkner’s short story.

The Humor of William Faulkner’s “Barn Burning”,” he states, “A discussion of Faulkner and humor in “Barn Burning” will acknowledge that humor stoops to low levels and crudity,” (5). I agree that the humor contained in “Barn Burning” is, in fact, unrefined and not the usual type of humor seen in classic literature, but that does not diminish its existence. Throughout his story, Faulkner draws attention to Abner’s limp that he got from being shot in the leg twice during the Civil War. While laughing at a disability seems cruel, it appears that Faulkner’s intention was for the reader to find humor in it as he made Abner perform certain acts rather dramatically. For example, when Abner and his family go to Major de Spain’s house looking for work, he sends a rather excessive but efficacious middle finger to the upper class when he takes his crippled leg and dramatically smears actual feces on de Spain’s prized rug.

Faulkner’s use of stereotypes also shows a discreet use of humor throughout his story. After the carpet incident Faulkner plays on the husband-wife cliche of ‘if the wife is not happy, no one is happy.’ Major de Spain says that the fine he places on Abner “won’t keep Mrs. de Spain quiet but maybe it will teach [Abner] to wipe [his] feet off before [he] enter her house again,” by saying this, Faulkner not only implies that de Spain’s life will now be a living hell because of Abner’s action and Mrs. de Spain’s upsetness, but that Major de Spain is controlled by his wife because he refers to it as her house. During the time period that “Barn Burning” is based, the house was no doubt Major de Spain’s, not his wife’s, but by referring to it as her house, he makes it clear that she is in charge. This is a humorous play on the stereotypes often brought up with the thought of marriage. Another stereotype Faulkner plays in to is the role of women. When describing Abner’s daughters, he makes them seem even less important and inadequate by making them not only ugly but lazy and bad at the housework they’re supposed to excel at as women. Faulkner refers to the girls as bovine and lazy. Women are stereotypically supposed to be good at the housework that the daughters are bad at and be beautiful and dainty enough to attract male attention; this was especially important during the time period as women were married off and provided for by their husbands. By making the girls the opposite of all that is feminine, Faulkner makes them laughable in this story.

Faulkner’s piece is filled with irony that is intended to make it humorous. Abner is supposed to seem like a tough veteran who is getting revenge against the evil upper class when in reality he is just an angry white man who is mad that he does not have the riches and comfort he thinks he deserves. Abner’s injured leg comes from a war injury, which makes it sound noble at first, but it is revealed that this red badge of courage really came from being shot while attempting to steal horses. This sheds a new understanding on his job as a “horsetrader,” in reality Abner is just a thief. It is also ironic that Abner fought in the Civil War for the Confederate side and is then forced to do similar work to the black men that he classifies as so far below him. While his racist viewpoint is sad it does bring some sort of humor to his anger as he is mad because he thinks he deserves better purely because he is white.

The conversations in “Barn Burning” can also be found amusing if read with the correct tone. When Abner is being put on trial for the destruction done to the rug, Sarty interjects that he did not burn it (referring to a barn, not the rug as he does not quite understand what is happening) but before he can finish his thought and accidentally expose his father, Abner tries to send him back to the wagon. The Justice follows Sarty’s interjection by asking “Do I understand this rug was burned too?” to which Abner replies “Does anybody here claim it was?” if this is read in a sarcastic tone rather than a harsh tone, it is hard not to see the humor in the interaction between the confused Justice, the addled Sarty who is trying to defend his father, even if it is for the wrong instance, and Abner who is just trying to save his own skin. Another interaction that can be seen as comical is when Abner is planning on burning de Spain’s barn. Sarty asks his father “Ain’t you going to send even a [black person],” followed by saying that at least he did that last time, as though sending a warning makes his father’s actions somewhat more acceptable. While this interaction is quite appalling because of the tragic act that is about to take place, it can be amusing to see Sarty struggling to find even some shred of redemption in his terrible father. These interactions are horrid at first as Abner is an abusive and not nice man, but if read with the right tone, it is very much possible to see the humor in them.

While Faulkner’s “Barn Burning” is no doubt a tragic story filled with horrifying events and interactions, it is completely possible to find the humor within this tragedy. I completely agree with Kirchdorfer’s findings of humor in this short story. It is completely dependent on the mindset the reader uses when interpreting this story. If it is only looked at as a sad story, the humor will be most definitely be overlooked, but if the reader were to disregard their preconceived ideas and look at certain interactions and actions in a light-hearted way, humor can be found within the conversations and events of Faulkner’s short story.

Abstract

Barn burning is an interesting story of a vengeful man Sartoris’ father was a daring man in his life. He went to a war without motive. His vengefulness caused a lot of bitterness, he burnt Harris’ barn after the hog conflict. The judge banished him. He takes his family to a new land. He gets employed as a gardener. A conflict emerges after the bosses ‘carpet is improperly cleaned. He decides to revenge on his boss.

He plans to carry out his typical atrocity (Faulkner,19). Unfortunately he dies in the process. Sartori had been very close to his father. Actually most of the times he accompanied him to appear in the court room to answer conflict charges. Sartoris has been a silent character in most sections of the story.

Sartoris in Heaven

Many years have passed the war has come to an end Sartoris father died long time ago. Both her sisters are married. He is walking on a neatly patched divine carpet (Faulkner,23). It reminds him of a carpet that led to the death of his own father. He sees his father stressed up. He sympathises with the old man. His father had tried all he could to provide for his family. Despite all the challenges their family was going through. He never gave up. Sartoris admires his father’s determination. He wonders what his father had been thinking about. We see Sartoris in the minds of his father…, all these children’ we can’t live in a wagon all our lives. The hog is a wild animal I could not have controlled it its entire lifespan.

Everything has an end. Sartori compares the afterlife with the life on earth. Heaven is full of joy without suffering. It is not possible to frown in heaven. He wonders why he does not feel bitterness whenever he remembers Mr. Harris (Faulkner,40). He wonders how life can disappoint his family this much. If life in limbo is this good, then what’s the point in being born on earth if one is destined to live in heaven?

Heaven is the only good thing that has ever happened in his life. He wonders how his father and sisters would look like in the heavenly grace. He remembers how he spent most of his youth working alongside his father for the rich farmers. He remembers the day his father told them that they were to relocate to a different place. Snopes was always resentful. His approach to life is that of using force. He examines his genuine heart and wonders why life could be that unfair. His two sons and two daughters were doing well health wise, his wife was supporting too. He is happy to have had a family that is closely knit.

He reminds his younger son the importance of family loyalty. Sartoris wonders why his father was bitter with the rich landowners. He gets a revelation about Snopes’ treatment on earth. He was charged in a barn. It is ironical that Abner Snopes is denied reputable justice precedence. Sartoris is happy that he has found joy in heaven. He only misses the moments he shared with his father. He had taught him on how to stand up for their family.

A disturbing thought engulfs his free mind. He asks himself questions. Was he really the cause of his father’s death? What would have happened if he had not alerted the landowner? Was his action justified? He saved the landowner’s barn at the expense of his father’s life. However his conscience is clean. How would he be feeling if he had consistently told lies to save his father? According to his mind, in as much as he loved his father, burning other people’s barn was not a solution to resolving conflict. Being poor dos not warrant a person to be hateful to those who are rich. Burning a barn is a sign of irresponsibility. A barn is a source of livelihood.

Works Cited

1. Faulkner. Barn Burning. Berkshire: Perfection Learning, 1979.

Good literature is hard to come by but Tim Gillespie’s article “Why Literature Matters” gives a great insight as to what “good literature” should be. The three short stories that I have read all demonstrate traits of “good literature”. The three short stories that will be discussed are “Barn Burning” by William Faulkner, “Cathedral” by Raymond Carver, and lastly “Revelation” by Flannery O’Connor. Although each of these short stories have different messages and meaning they all exemplify in some aspect what Tim Gillespie says “good literature” is.

One of the main aspects of “good literature” according to Tim Gillespie is, “to explore human experiences in all its dimensions and possibilities” (Gillespie 20). Now “Barn Burning” explores the struggles of family, laws, and courage. Another aspect of “good literature” according to Tim Gillespie is that “literature portrays lives that have complicated problems and tough choices, and invites us to engage with them, to imagine living out life’s vexing dilemmas along with the characters we meet” (Gillespie 18). “Cathedral” explores this different aspect of “good literature”, the story makes the reader think about how people would react in that same situation and how different the actions in the story can differ from your own. Tim Gillespie’s article also says that we use literature to “try out other lives and connect with other humans through the exercise of imagination and empathy” (Gillespie 21). “Revelation” explores this aspect through racism and religion which was a major point throughout this short story.

“Barn Burning” is the more complicated short story out of the three short stories that have been read so far. As said before “Barn Burning” is a story of the struggles of dealing with family, the law, as well as self-courage. In the article “Why Literature Matters” human experiences are very important through literature as they are a way for people to live through the stories or learn from them. Put yourself in the situation that the character is in and use your imagination to see how certain decisions can possibly affect the situation for the good or the bad. Throughout “Barn Burning” Sartoris is conflicted with the weight of his family responsibilities and does not believe the life he is currently living with his family to be a peaceful one. However, he does see the possibility of a peaceful life when they visit de Spain’s house.

In “Cathedral” Robert is a blind man who has come to visit his good friend but Roberts friends’ husband is not too excited about Robert visiting. The short story is being narrated by the husband who sees Robert a purely a blind man and nothing more than that. The story does a great job at putting into the perspective of the person across from them and see how they would react in certain situations. Would think the same things as the narrator did about Robert or would you have been more considerate and less despiteful of a man you barely knew? In the story the narrator says he has never met a blind man, but was it because he was blind that he had a dislike for him or was it the fact that this blind man was such a close friend to your wife and he did not like that. These are the kinds of questions this short story does such a good job doing making you really think and use your head. The story is not black and white, but you can see how as the story continues the narrator starts to understand Robert and his blindness. At the very end of the story when Robert and the narrator attempt to draw a cathedral to explain what a cathedral looks like to Robert, the two characters begin to understand each other. “My eyes were closed. I was in my house. I knew that. But I didn’t feel like I was inside anything. “It’s really something,” I said” (Carver 113). In this moment the narrator was put in Roberts shoes and he started to see things as Robert did. You can see the growth in the narrator even though the story was very short. “Cathedral” is the perfect example of what “good literature” looks like, the story made you put yourself in the narrator’s shoes and even Roberts. The use of your imagination also has major influence on how you navigated the story, did you image Robert to be a big man who was bald or was he a short man with a clean shave beard and nice hair?

In “Revelation” by Flannery O’Connor the short story has many aspects of what “good literature” should be, like putting yourself in the characters shoes or the story discussing religion in a way that could be questionable. “Revelation” is a story about society class and religion, it discusses the aspects of the society classes like middle and lower class. In the story the main character, Ruby Turpin, thinks she is what an idle woman is and that anything below her is white trash. Putting yourself in this story can bring up questions about how you would handle situations like the girl in the waiting room at the doctor’s office. You can put yourself in the situation without putting yourself in harm’s way, pressure of what others might think of what you decide or judgment from people. This all comes back to imagination and what kind of human experiences you have had or could have. “What if Jesus had said, “All right, you can be white-trash or a nigger or ugly”!” (O’Connor 416). This quote is one of those quotes that really makes you think because it is quite a question to have a straight answer to or even the kind of question just to avoid and not answer. It does make you think but it also makes you puts perspective on what society used to be. “Go back to hell where you came from, you old wart hog” (O’Connor 422). The quote is a prime example of how religion can affect those who believe wholeheartedly that they are righteous and moral above everyone else. This one sentence from Mary Grace makes Mrs. Turpin question herself more than she ever did before, she was a confident woman before the incident with Mary Grace but not anymore. How would you handle the situation, have you ever been put in a situation where your race or religion was used against you? Does this change the way you would handle things? From the comfort of your own mind you can play out how this affect you or maybe it can change the way you see people that you perceive are a class below you.

“Good literature” is hard to find but Tim Gillespie’s article “Why Literature Matters” is a great help to sort out the good ones. Although there are a few different ways to classify how the three short stories show “good literature” the one major aspect they all have in common is that you can participate, use imagination and human experience. Human experience is how people relate to other people experiences or how people compare one’s experience to another. Imagination is how people can learn about themselves but also how people can put themselves into the story they are reading. And participation in literature is always a good thing, if the story can get the reader to start to questions things or want to have conversations about why the character would do this or how do you think this would play out if said character did this instead. “Good literature” is when “its capacity to stimulate the imagination, to offer different perspectives and wider worlds that the young reader can wander at leisure and experience in safety, without pressure or judgement” (Gillespie 17). All three of these short stories, “Barn Burning”, “Cathedral”, and “Revelation” exemplify “good literature” in more ways than one.

Zender, Karl F. “Character and Symbol in ‘Barn Burning.’” College Literature, vol. 16, no. 1, 1989, pp. 48–59. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25111801.

Karl Zender explains there is an obvious realism in Faulkner’s story but the modernist twist throughout is the symbolism of the irony which causes the reader to depart from realism to some deeper meaning. Thus, leaving the reader to decide what deeper meaning to connect the characters to the plot itself. This is true. The story is full of realism with symbolism that leads me to believe that there is a deeper meaning. Zender breaks down literature to a psychological and social function and that the Barn Burning by William Faulkner embodies that. The value of the story within the theme are ever-present and show the means of loyalty and maturation within the character named Sarty. Namely, Zender portrays Faulkner’s climax, of Sarty, essentially killing his father, as a setting of Sarty’s maturity knowing that he must move on.

Zender points to the engagement of three question that sends Sarty to progress throughout the story. First, why does Ab take Sarty to the de Spain house the first time, Second, Why does he take Sarty the second time, and third, why does he refuse to tie Sarty to the bed as his other son suggests, before leaving to burn Spain’s barn? But overall, Zender compares these questions to the loyalty Sarty feels and the pull of values that contradict each other with the defense of his father burning barns. Zender shows this feeling when explaining that Sarty feels freedom when he sees the large De Spain home. The blood ties that Sarty is taught are more important than anything else create conflict for him and his father.. Zender explains that merely seeing these questions and conflicts as merely developmental cut down the stories significance. Also, commonly we see the character but not beyond his predicament. The story is not meant for us, as readers, to limit ourselves to these things like the predicament and the development of the character, but also the values and meaning for today’s world from a classical text.

Zender explains that the event of taking his son to the large De Spain house was meant to derail his son’s thoughts of disloyalty by showing that even the purest of things can be contaminated. Ab, with the swift of his foot, tracks feces on the rug which symbolizes this point. It is a crucial point in the understanding of Ab and Sarty’s relationship. It is a relationship that is still mending after Sarty’s misstep in the beginning of the story with the Justice of the Court. It is a relationship in which Ab takes control of as the family rested before arriving at the De Spain house. Ab struck his son and instructed him on loyalty as is implied was taught to his son before. Zender points out that Faulkner often has a parental-to-child relationship within his stories. The relationships are often personal and complicated. The fact that Ab had multiple instances of symbolism within the actions of his son is evident and Zender explains that as crucial to the storyline and the theme. In following Zender’s advice, looking at this story as the development of Sarty and his maturity but looking farther at the outlining symbolism and meaning brought a better understanding to the message and theme being portrayed by Faulkner.

Zender shows that the psychological fracture of instruction from a teacher-student method as is magnified by Faulkner with Ab and Sarty is a crucial part to the story and shows truth to Zender’s analysis that the Burning Barn is a story of Psychological function. Although I agree with the assessment that the relationship plays a large role throughout, I don’t find it true that his father took him as a mentor would take a student. Zender does a great job though, throughout of breaking down the bigger picture and often incorporated examples from other texts in proving his point of emphasis. There was plenty of textual evidence to come to the same conclusion as Zender through his analysis.

Introduction

In this paper I emphasised on analyzing relationships of Parents and children in short stories Barn Burning by William Faulkner and Great Falls by Richard Ford. For the analysis of short story, I will discuss how childhood incidents can build the foundation of adulthood by analysing short story Death by Landscape by Margaret Atwood.

I am going to use formalist approach for analysis of the literature. In the formal approach the literature is looked from the structure point of view. It does not include grammar, it does include syntax, rhetorical figures, rhythm, style, point of view, theme and plot of the story or poem. These elements give literature a unique meaning which can be followed by readers and can be related to the normal humans. For instance, rhythm can give a poem a language which can persuade the audiences. On the other hand, rhetorical figures can be helpful in relating the poetic language normal objects in human lives.

Parent child relationships

“Great Falls’ and ‘Barn Burning’ are two short stories that revolve around the relationships within a family. While ‘Great Falls ‘by Richard Ford that speaks about the confines within a family, ‘Barn Burning’ by William Faulkner shows how a child chooses integrity over blood. In both stories, one can study and compares the parent-child relationships and how a growing child looks beyond his parents and becomes more independent.

In ‘Great Falls,’ the son Jackie is Caught within the events that play out between the mother and father. Jackie’s father teaches him how to hunt, asks him about girls, and even offers him a sip of whiskey. By doing so, he is teaching Jackie how to be a man. He asked him questions like” Do you worry about girls? Do you worry about your future sex life?” (Ford 539). However, the plot is not just about a father-son bonding but also about the lonely existence of his mother behind in the home. His father reminds him about what his mother once said, “nobody dies of a broken heart” (Ford 538). Comprehension begins to settle on Jackie when he sees a change in the relationship between his parents and his own relationship with them. He knows he is losing his mother not just because of her physical absence, but because she was not the same person, she thought she was. Even though he is with his father in a physical sense, he feels that his father is no longer the same person. Thus, for him, he has lost both his father and mother metaphorically. The current state of the situation makes him feel lonely. His mother’s words” Your life is your own business, Jackie” (Ford 546), leave him in deep thoughts. He wonders if he is old enough to think about his life and take charge of it. After his parents’ divorce, life takes a great fall for Jackie and how he finds himself suddenly in the world of adults and enters adulthood. He suddenly feels all grown up and mature like an adult as he reassures his father that things will ‘be all right’ (Ford 544). Jack is left alone in his own world to seek the answers to his questions. He must find his own explanation of the events that took place and changed his relationship with his parents forever.

The short story ‘Barn Burning’ focuses on the relationship between father and son. Instead of a warm, supportive, and caring father-son relationship, there is no respect or admiration here as seen in the story “Great falls” Abner, a migrant tenant farmer as a father figure, is just the opposite of what is expected from a normal father. He wants his son Sartoris to lie for him as he doesn’t want him to get caught for burning barns. The young boy finds it difficult to choose if it is right to lie to protect his father, or he should tell the truth. “He aims for me to lie, he thought with that frantic grief and despair.” (Faulkner 508). Faulkner draws attention to how the thickness of blood relations get tested under the yards of morality. Even though the boy doesn’t agree with his father, he still supports his decisions as for his father. ‘You are going to be a man. You got to learn. You got to stick to your own blood” (Faulkner 510). The young boy defended his father even though he knew his father was wrong. However, toward the end, of the story, he is willing to go against his father for justice and his conscience. His loyalty towards his father undergoes transition, and gradually he realizes that blood need not be always thicker.

In terms of parent-child relationship in both the stories, the young child is forced to revaluate the position of his parents in his life and questions the notion of parental authority. Finally, the child is left on his own to deal with morals, identity, and humanity and comes to terms with truths in his life. In both the stories, the young child is forced to leave the protected world of childhood and are forced to think like an adult. In both the stories, the growing young child gains a better understanding of authority and identity and interpret them on their own.

The short story, “Barn Burning” by William Faulkner is full of literary devices. The story is about a family who moves from farm to farm to get by in life and the father burns down barns, hence the name “Barn Burning”. This leads the little boy in this short story to decide if he wants to stick with his family or if he wants to break away from his family and do the right thing. Most readers will have to reread this story to pick up most of the symbolism. Throughout the story, Faulkner uses symbolism to show how the theme can be understood and found by the reader.

Faulkner uses a lot of symbolism in this story, but not all of it can represent the theme or the choice Sarty (the little boy) will have to make. An example symbolism representing the theme could be, “he could see the ranked shelves close-packed with the solid, squat, dynamic shapes of tin cans labels whose labels read, not from the lettering which meant nothing to his mind but from the scarlet devils and the silver curve of fish” (Faulkner 1). Faulkner uses this sentence to show how the boy is hungry and he can not read, which tells the reader some backstory about the boy. More importantly this sentence shows the reader that the descriptions of these cans represents how the boy can choose how he wants to live his life by which can he can pick. If Sarty decides to pick the can that has a devil on it, then he will stay with his family and keep supporting his father when he burns down barns. On the contrary, if Sarty picks the can that has a silverfish (which represents Christianity) he will leave his family and not be associated with the illegal acts which his father does.

Faulkner tells his readers a lot of information that is not easily understood or perceived at first glance. Sarty is forced to be his father’s alibi and help him commit the illegal actions at some point. This adds more pressure on the boy because he knows that his father is doing something wrong and he is forced to be a part of it or to help get his father out of trouble. In the beginning of the story Abner (the father) and his family are in a store and the father is being accused. Faulkner writes, “Get that boy up here” (Faulkner 2). This represents how the boy is always going to have to get his father out of whatever kind of trouble he is in. Later in this scene the justice asks what Sartys’ name is and Sarty responds “Colonel Sartoris Snopes” (Faulkner 2). Abner named his son after a colonel who served in the civil war, who you would think would be honest but Sarty covers up for his dad.

Sarty goes through a lot in this story, but most things he faces can be connected to his choice that he makes by the end of the story. “The only space mentioned is the dark woods toward which he walks at the end of the story” (Zender 4). The point of Faulkner telling us that Sarty is walking through the dark woods is really symbolic of his life changing as stated, “The space, unlocatable on any map, is the dark terrain of the self through which Sarty must journey if he is to become a mature adult” (Zender 4) This just emphasizes how hard this choice will be for Sarty. If he does leave then he will be leaving his blood behind and will not be guaranteed anything in the future, but if he stays then he will continuously be following his father’s footsteps and be associated with all the actions that his dad does.

The final scene of the book gives us an example of symbolism as stated, “The closing image of the constellations may symbolize Sarty’s past and future wanderings” (Billingslea 1). This is after Sarty runs from his family and he is just walking as far as he can. Faulkner says, “The slow constellations wheeled on” (Faulkner 14). Sarty is experiencing a lot of things in this scene but he kind of just slowly moves on and takes things as they come. This is also represented by Faulkner writing, “It would be dawn and then sun-up after a while and he would be hungry. But that would be tomorrow and now he was cold” (Faulkner 14). This shows how Sarty is taking his new life one step at a time and only worrying about what is currently a problem. He knows he will be hungry, but his main priority is trying to get warmed up. This becomes relatable to the reader because once someone makes a decision, one will not know how to do everything.

Abner is a man who does not express how he feels but he does make sure to let those around him know when he is mad or feeling upset. According to Charles Mitchell, “Abners wounded foot is used symbolically to suggest his ruthless but wounded will” (Mitchell 1). This shows how Abner is very persistent and will do whatever it takes to get done what he wants done. Mitchell also says, “Satan is linked with fire and sought to destroy God’s garden, so Abner burns barns” (Mitchell 1). There are many things to say about Abner and one of the most common things he is associated with is the Devil or Satan. One of the ways that Abner is linked to the devil is he loves to burn stuff, specifically barns.

Sarty on the other hand is the complete opposite of his father. Mitchell says, Sarty links his will with his heart or emotions; he tries to achieve freedom within moral limits. Which is very prevalent throughout the story. Everything Sarty does is nothing close to what his dad does or what he thinks. In the beginning of the story when the justice calls Sarty up to speak for his dad, Sartys thinks, “He aims for me to lie and I will have to do hit” (Faulkner 2). Faulkner depicts Sarty as one who is a rule follower and wants to make everybody or as many people happy as possible. Faulkner also writes, “Enemy! Enemy! he thought; for a moment he could not even see” (Faulkner 2). One of the ways he makes his father happy is by covering up his tracks and actions. Sarty later realizes that no matter what he does for his dad, Abner will never be grateful or thank his son for having his back. An example where the reader can find this is where Faulkner says, “You were fixing to tell them. You would have told them” (Faulkner 4). The readers know that Sarty was going to tell the justice anything but the truth, but his father thinks that Sarty would tell and snitch on him. Probably the most “aggressive” thing Sarty does is, “I don’t want to have to hit you” (Faulkner 13). Sarty is trying to go warn the owner of the farm (Mr. De Spain) that his dad is going to burn his barn, but his mom grabs a hold of him and refuses to let go. This can be seen as Sarty starting to break his shell and is leaning towards leaving his family and doing the right thing.

In the final paragraph, Sarty is on his own and is experiencing life by himself. Faulkner says, “It would be dawn and then sun up” (Faulkner 14). This symbolizes Sarty’s old life coming to an end and his new life is just beginning and the journey he is about to endure once the sun rises. Faulkner also writes, “He did not look back” (Faulkner 14). This can be taken as a literal statement and a figurative statement. Sarty finally realizes that he has made the right decision and does not regret his decision at all. This also means that he is going to keep in walking and distance himself from his family.

“Barn Burning” is a very complicated short story that has a tremendous about of depth and hidden meanings. Sarty starts off as a boy who is very shut in and thinks about everything else but himself. After every action his father does and after all the defending of his father Sarty must do, makes him slowly realize who his dads truly is. Throughout the story Sarty begins to “evolve” and starts to change. It does not happen all at once; one thing normally changes at a time. He first figures out that his dad does not really care what he does, as long as Sarty does not snitch on him. Next, he figures out that he is done with his family and putting up with the illegal activities that his dad does. At the end of the story, Sarty is almost a different person. He puts himself first and stops worrying about what his dad will say or do and can finally do what he wants to do and be the man he wants to be.

The title “Barn Burning” lets me know that the story will revolve itself around the fact that a particular barn is essentially burned and who or what might have done it. The beginning of the story’s tone is one that is very mundane as a son is set to testify against his father of crimes he is accused of. 10-year-old Colonel Sartoris Snopes is the main character within the story and has a dilemma he has to face that may jeopardize, not only himself but his family’s future as well. My understanding of what the author seems clear is that Faulkner wants the audience to feel pity and sympathy for a small boy fulfilling such an uncomfortable and unreasonable task.

Through the duration of the story, it takes place during the time when slavery was still very prominent, so that means ultimately it was a struggle for black men and women at this period of time. So overlooking the beginning of the story the main character Father is being accused and it seems like the trial is not fair or unjust. ( Lines 1 and 10).

“That evening a nigger came with the dollar and got the hog. He was a strange nigger”.

Simply from the language being used in that small excerpt, it’s concluded that the story must be fictionally put in the mid-1890s. It’s fair to say that Sarty and his family are an African-American family due to the unmistakable use of the word nigger in the passage. With the language and the tone of how the white men were speaking to Sarty and his father is very evident that it was not a good time for a black family at that time.

Speaking of the black family going through hard times; the story includes a free African-American family; A father, mother, two sisters, and two sons. However, the story’s point of view is told through the mind of the youngest son named Sarty. The author focuses more on Sarty and what he is going through as a kid whose father dictates everything he must do. I believe Sarty secretly wants to not have his father rule his life and that’s noted when both the father and son set their eyes on the De Spain home (Lines 40-45). “They are safe from him.”…but that’s all; the spell of this peace and dignity rendering even the barns and stables and cribs which belong to it impervious to the punny flames he might contrive…”. The fact that Sarty feels this way towards his father hints that he does not want a part in what his father ultimately wants. He’d rather enjoy his time living with “peace” knowing his father can not do anything to render him from that. Safety is faced with this uncomfortable situation and now has to deal with how to go about living his life as a kid with an overbearing father.

The dynamic of the story is the dilemma of the son going against the father, even if that means he will not be “sticking by blood”. Sarty would do anything for his father, but it’s very clear that his father’s actions aren’t morally aligned with what Sarty has in mind of what’s right (Lines 25-30). “…You got to learn to stick to your own blood…” With that in the son’s thought process, the author wants the audience to believe Sarty must have undying support and respect for his father or else he has no one else to go to. If that’s not overbearing that I don’t know what that is.

Things ultimately come to an end with the father yet again lighting a barn on fire. Something that Sarty knew all too well, was astonished and scaring, contemplated whether or not he should turn his back on his father for what he was doing, or help him burn the De Spain barn (Lines 85-90).. I could run on and on and never look back, never need to see his face again.” The tone of the story went from mundane to relief as Sarty finally decides for himself and hurdles to his freedom. Not only from Major de Spain but the one he despised even more which was his father.

It’s scary to know that a 10-year-old child or any child at all was going through such a trying time with their only father. My interpretation of the story was led by how uncomfortable Sarty was to abandon everything he called family and find his own peace. And in finding his peace he had to do the only thing he could think of when getting away from his problems; which was to run away from them and never look back.

The story led with Sarty scared to disobey his father’s wishes. With no strong intentions of doing so, Sarty begins to slowly battle within He faces trouble with his overbearing father who has no real good motives Sarty can truly understand. When the father then burns yet another barn Sarty realizes what he must ultimately do. He runs and runs and never looks back.

Humanism and Modernism are two completely different stances that American writers have used within their writings. Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance that affirms that all human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. This ultimately means that humanism embodies that fact of building a more human society through a set of ethics based on human values in a spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. Humanism does not accept supernatural views of reality. Modernism is a complete rejection of history and conservative values. It leans toward innovation and experimentation with form with a tendency to abstraction, and places emphasis on materials, techniques and processes. Within the era of Modernism thinkers and artists rebelled against every conceivable doctrine that was widely accepted by the Establishment. The artists purposely distanced themselves away from anything held sacred by Western Civilization. The texts that will be discussed below are The Mending Wall by Robert Frost, The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost, Babylon Revisited by Scott Fitzgerald, Barn Burning by William Faulkner, and Mowing by Robert Frost. Within the next few paragraphs five different texts will be discussed that will show how the traditional Humanist view of life is no longer valued in favor of a Modernist perception. The characters within these stories will show how the modernist values such as loss of control, isolation, fragmentation, rebellion, and how life with no value overtakes the humanist values that characters such as these hold on to or represent.

The Mending Wall by Robert Frost is a poem that illustrates no matter what the speaker and his neighbor do to try be civilized by having a fence between their properties nature keeps tearing the fence down. This deals with the modernist views of fragmentation, isolation, and loss of control. The poem deals with the fact that the speaker and his neighbor must rebuild the rock fence separating their properties every spring. “Something there is that doesn’t love a wall, That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it, And spills the upper boulders in the sun, And makes gaps even two can pass abreast” (Frost). This sentence illustrates that the neighbors continue to fix the wall every spring even though they know that forces of nature will continue to tear apart their efforts. This is starting to show that they have no control over nature. The neighbor seems to think that he can control the natural world and keep it in order. He does this by stating, “Good fences make good neighbors” (Frost). No matter how many times they rebuild the wall the neighbor seems to think that the wall being rebuilt asserts control over the forces of nature. Nature within this poem is shown as breaking down what people build up. Nature is ultimately mocking the neighbors’ attempts at “civilization.”

The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost is a poem that describes how we as humans have no control on our journey through life. This rejects the humanist value that we as humans control which direction our lives go based upon what decisions or actions we take. The speaker starts off the poem by stating that he has come upon “two roads diverged in a yellow wood” (Frost). This is illustrating that the speaker has come upon a fork in the road in his life, but that he is only able to take one path at a time. The speaker is then forced to decide. “And be one traveler, long I stood” (Frost) is illustrating that the speaker must take a while to decide on what road he needs to take while also wondering why the he is only allowed to only take one path and not both. While trying to make this decision, the speaker tries to look ahead down the paths of life in front of him, but could not see anything by stating, “And looked down one as far as I could” (Frost) “Then took the other the other, just as fair” (Frost) refers to the fact that both paths looked equally the same, and it made no difference which path the speaker takes. After the speaker takes the road it is stated, “Oh, I kept the first for another day! Yet knowing how way leads on to way, I doubted if I should ever come back” (Frost). This shows that once a decision is made there is no way to go back to change the course that your life has taken. This shows the Modernist approach that we ultimately have no control over our lives at all.

Babylon Revisited by Scott Fitzgerald is a story that is filled with modernism. Charlie is trying to get his daughter back after a rough patch in his life, but in the end the modernist view of life having no value is illustrated when Charlie is ultimately left with nothing but the delusion that he has been living in. “I spoiled this city for myself. I didn’t realize it, but the days come along one after another, and then two years were gone, and everything was gone, and I was gone” (Fitzgerald) refers to the fact that Charlie is remembering his past within the city. He remembers being a severe alcoholic, and he tried to use alcohol to cope with the fact of losing his wife, child, and ultimately all his money. Currently, he refuses to accept the past as a reality, and looks at it form the perspective of a delusion. “We were a sort of royalty, almost infallible, with a sort of magic around us” (Fitzgerald) refers to the fact that Charlie felt in the days when he was rich and powerful that he was untouchable, and that he was in a class or world above all others. “I take one drive every afternoon, and no more” (Fitzgerald) is Charlie stating that he believes he is gaining control over his life by only take one drink and not allowing himself to go into a drunken state once again. Charlie is trying to put value back into his life by controlling his drinking, so he can get his daughter back from Lincoln and Marion. It looks as if Charlie is going to accomplish his goal of getting his daughter back, but in the end the past and reality always comes knocking on life’s door. Duncan and Lorraine figured out Lincoln’s address and her last comment of “All right, we’ll go. But I remember once when you hammered on my door at four A.M. I was enough of a good sport to give you a drink” (Fitzgerald) sealed Charlie’s pursuit of a life with value. Charlie was denied his daughter, and in the end “went directly to the Ritz bar” (Fitzgerald), and to the delusion that he had been living in all along.

Barn Burning by William Faulkner is a tale of how the complete and clear thoughts of humanism is replaced by chaotic streams of consciousness of modernism. As Sarty’s father feels that he is being looked down and dehumanized it leads to a breakdown of society and of social values. In retribution Sarty’s father begins to burn down barns because of the devalue of human life that he is facing. Faulkner experiments with the concept of time within this story. Faulkner’s narrator within the story occasionally leaps backward or forward to provide a temporal perspective, noting the father’s activities during the war; the family clock frozen at 2:14 of some “dead and forgotten day and time” (Faulkner). The concept of time is also represented in the way that some of the sentences are structured within the story. “But he could hear, and during those subsequent long seconds while there was absolutely no sound in the crowded room save that of quiet and intent breathing it was as if he had swung outward at the endo of a grapevine, over a ravine, and at the top of the swing had been caught in a prolonged instant of mesmerized gravity, weightless in time” (Faulkner). Within this sentence it is showing Sarty’s perspective of how it seems to him time has stopped as if he is waiting of his father’s sentence for barn burning in the General Store. The fact that it is stating that Sarty felt like the swing had been caught over a ravine shows that his perspective of the situation was that it had reached the point of no return. Sarty knew no matter the sentencing that things would never be the same again.

The modernist view of space is also stated within this story. From Sarty’s point of view, the father is repeatedly described as a “flat” (Faulkner) shape, “without…depth” (Faulkner) as if cut from tin. This abstraction in this story conveys the father’s actual appearance at night, but it also represents his crude, unrelenting power. This also highlights Sarty’s sense of his father’s ultimate weakness in contrast to “the serene columned backdrop” (Faulkner) of the de Spain mansion, with its associations of peace, joy, and dignity. In the end Sarty’s father tends to show no respect to the elevated class of society because of how he feels his life is being valued. This causes Sarty’s father to rebel against his unfair treatment by disrespecting authority and even burning barns.

Mowing by Robert Frost is a poem that illustrates how the humanist view of getting paid for the work that you do is replaced by the modernist view of enjoying the labor of one’s work instead of looking forward to the benefits that it could bring. “It was no dream of the gift of idle hours, Or easy gold at the hand of fay or elf: Anything more than the truth would have seemed to weak To the earnest love that laid the swale in rows” (Frost) illustrates that the labor is done in love because it is something the speaker loves doing instead of the thought of making “easy gold” (Frost) from his labor. “The fact is the sweetest dream that labor knows. My long scythe whispered and left the hay to make” (Frost) also refers to the fact that the only thing the narrator has learned is how to enjoy the labor he is doing rather than the compensation he would get from the labor. The modernist view of isolation is also referenced in the poem stating, “There was never a sound beside the wood but one, And that was my long scythe whispering to the ground” (Frost). This isolation and solitude give the person time to enjoy what they are doing while enjoying the peace of working alone.

Most people around the world look at their lives through a humanist perspective. People tend to see the value of their life and feel that they have control of every aspect of where their life is going. Some people even believe in a spiritual force such as God that is leading them down the paths of their lives. Modernism is a viewpoint that throws those ideas and perspectives away. In the end, according to modernism, there is no value in human life and ultimately no one is in control of anything in their lives. Within the above texts it has been illustrated how different characters illustrated how modernist values overtook the very values of life that humanism considers important. It shows the characters’ rebellion against humanistic values in their attempt to live their lives.