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 …

…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 Is the outdated sociological "Blaming the Victim" theory valid?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