I found it very interesting to read how someone can be caught between family blood and doing what is right ethically. The boy in the story, Colonel Sartoris Snopes, was always taught from a young age by his father that family blood is most important that everyone else is the enemy. This includes judges and anyone in authority.
The boys’ father seems like a very abusive person. He would abuse his animals and I am sure that he would abuse his son if he ever did anything that he did not like. He always told his son that if he ever went against his family blood that no matter what Sartoris would have no one to go to if he needed help. “You got to learn to stick to your own blood or you ain’t going to have any blood to stick to you.” This caused the biggest problem for his life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I have to say that i had a hard time reading this story and reading "An Odor of Verbena." I can see that their were elements of family loyalties in this story and I have to say that this guy, the father, was something. I got the impression from "Barn Burning" that the father was hard on his animals and his family.
It is interesting to me that you mention that Sarty’s father had taught him that family ties are the most important value because I initially had not thought of his father as having instilled any positive morals into his children because he is such a terrible role model. Not only is he obviously a barn burner, but the father is a schemer and, as you mention, abusive. Besides whipping the mule, he is rough towards his wife and children. He does hit Sartoris, and I think the only reason he tries to teach Sartoris to respect family ties is to protect himself. The father needs Sarty to be on his side or else there will be dire consequences, as evident by the father being shot at the end of the story when Sartoris reports his father’s behavior.
The father also imparts many negative values through example. He is disrespectful to the landlord and, when returning the rug in a noisy and irreverent manner, does not even try to flee the scene as Sarty would have. The father is not ashamed of his rudeness. The father also is aggressive towards the mother, which Sarty imitates. He is frequently terse with her and says at the end of the story, “‘I don’t want to have to hit you!’ (174)” to his mother, which implies that he would if he felt it was justified.
I also found it intresting that there was this pressure to stick to family. It is one of those southern stereotypes that family is the most important thing and i think that the father was manipulating this idea to his advantage and using it to get his son to back him up. I think he needed his family to believe his was doing the right thing and he would go to all end to reach this goal, even if violence would work he tried it. violence was a major theme in this story, i find that a lot of Faukner involves violence and i wonder why this is. maybe because that is just human nature, as simple as that.
I thought it was great that the boy was able to make the right decision ethically and choose that he should be taking action against his father. I think that his father actually caused the problem not because of his burning the buildings, but instead because his seemingly went against his son by trying to have him tied up. This showed the son that their talks about “blood” were not necessarily as sincere as his father tried to make them seem. If the father had more respect for his son he would have thought about what his son was saying, instead of restraining him in order to commit his crime.
Post a Comment