Barn Burning: A Review

William Faulkner’s ”Barn Burning” is an endearing tale about self-discovery and acceptance.

‘Barn Burning’ by William Faulkner is a twisted story of a man, Abner, who finds some perverse sense of joy in setting afire someone else’s barn. “Barn Burning” is set roughly 30 years after the Civil War, the story revolves on two members of the Snopes family: Abner Snopes, a poor sharecropper who takes out his frustrations against the post-Civil War aristocracy by burning barns, and his ten-year-old son, Colonel Sartoris Snopes “Sarty”.

Faulkner also depicts the alienation and loneliness felt by Sarty in ”Barn Burning” as he finds himself on the verge of moral awareness. His father’s crime cuts him off from the larger social world of which he is growing conscious. This sense of alienation however takes more prominence with regards to Sarty’s relation with his father, who should be the moral model and means of entry of the child into the larger world. Because of his father’s criminal recklessness Sarty in the end finds himself the bigger choice of either alienating himself from his family or sticking to them.

In “Barn Burning, the story”s conflict arose when Sarty faced by the need to expose truth must choose between family and morality. The story’s primary theme also revolves around the relationship between father and son. This relationship is put to test as Sarty is faced with an important decision to choose between defending his father and defending the truth.

In “Barn Burning”, one finds an important symbolism through fire. In a way, the fire represents the father’s anger and, his lack of respect for other people’s property. As can be gleaned from the fact that the story begins and ends with the burning down of a barn.

At first, Sarty believed his father. He was prepared to defend his father at the first trial. But deep inside him he hopes that the fires will end, thinking, “Maybe he’s done satisfied now,”. Unfortunately, towards the end of the story, Sarty finds out that this was not to be so. Abner begins to set ablaze his next barn. This time his father breaks his own moral code by not sending anyone to warn. Sarty pleads, “Ain’t you even going to send a [slave]?” “At least you sent a [slave] before!” Sarty knows then what to do.

Unlike in his former barn-burning episodes when his father would warn the people before setting it ablaze, Abner does not intend to do this in his last barn burning episode. This explicit violation gives Sarty the impetus to break away from the ties that bind him to his own family- from the “the old blood which he had not been permitted to choose for himself”. A very courageous act indeed considering he is only ten years old.

He does not only intend to extinguish the fire that his father starts but more so he extinguishes the family connection. His act of warning the de Spain despite knowing fully well that he will incur his father’s ire sends off the message loud and clear that he is not going to be an accessory to his father’s crime.

Fortunately, unlike his elders, Sarty is not corrupted enough to let go of his morality. The “pull of blood” is not strong enough reason to corrupt Sarty’s principles. He decided to take matters in hand to make him into what he seems destined to become. He stood by his principles and breaks free from his family’s influence as epitomized by Sarty’s breaking loose from the strong grasp of his mother’s hand in the story. Just as Sarty is able to let go of his mother, he too is able to let go of his ties as he strive to pursuit nobler and bigger goals.

‘Barn Burning’ ends with Sarty turning his back and fleeing his family. At the conclusion of the story we find that “he was a little stiff, but walking would cure that too as it would the cold, and soon there would be the sun. He went on down the hill, toward the dark woods within which the liquid silver voices of the birds, called unceasing-the rapid and urgent beating of the urgent and inquiring heart of the late spring night. He did not look back.” It is the most telling line in the story which proves that Sarty chooses not to look back to his family’s painful past and move on without them.

Shakespeare’s Hamlet and the Theme “Guilt”

Shakespeare’s Hamlet is one play that never fails to elicit various responses from readers. This is so because Hamlet, the play, is a bunch of contradictions. And because the main characters are as human as we are, prone to excesses and wrongdoing, it was easy to relate to them. In the end though, their misdeeds proved to be their undoing.

Hamlet is also close to our hearts because it speaks of some truths which are applicable even to this day. Hamlet’s “to be or not to be, that is the question” is probably the most used quoted line in the play. It sums up man’s innate desire for self-transcendence.

The story, at first glance, revolves around the theme of vengeance and tyranny. But upon closer inspection you will know that guilt is as much present in the story as the two. The guilt theme of Hamlet may require the reader to read between the lines. To look beyond the obvious. It takes a discerning eye to know that there is more to the characters than what they purport to be. In Hamlet, beauty is “not” skin-deep. Each of the main characters in the story gets acquainted with the feeling of guilt to some extent.

Hamlet is the lead character of the play which is named after him. One article printed in eNotes (2000) said that “the character of Hamlet dominates Shakespeare’s tragedy of the same name, yet Hamlet at the start of the play is not a commanding figure.” This may not sound like a befitting description to the lead character of the play but we do find Hamlet a confused person at the start. Even when his father’s ghost manifested to reveal how Claudius poisoned him, Hamlet chose to act passively about the whole thing. Gradesaver (1999) agreed to this when it wrote “Hamlet becomes obsessed with proving his uncle’s guilt before trying to act.” His most tangible step taken was to pretend to be a madman. We can see a cautious young man who is reluctant to get into trouble.

But as the story unfolds, we get a glimpse of another side of Hamlet’s character. He can be an impulsive, irrational man too. And this is obvious when he struck someone behind the curtain without even taking the time to know who the person is. It turns out to be Polonius, the father of his intended, Ophelia. Due to his impulsiveness, Hamlet killed an innocent man. He may act like a madman but Hamlet is not mad enough to understand the full impact of his actions. He takes someone else’s life. And for that, it is safe to assume that Hamlet feels guilt for his misdeed.

Claudius is perhaps the most guilt-laden person in the story of Hamlet. He poisoned his own brother so he can wrestle the throne. To seal his victory, he married his brother’s wife Gertrude to win the throne from young Hamlet (SparkNotes, 2005). His actions speak of treason in every way. And it would take a stone not to feel guilty at the misdeeds. His guilt feelings were particularly apparent during Act Two Scene Three of the play where Hamlet instructed the actors to dramatize the death of his father through poison. Claudius exploded in rage upon seeing the play. So much so that he confesses his crime in prayer while alone in his chamber. This confirmed Hamlet’s suspicion and the Ghost’s claim that Claudius was behind Old Hamlet’s death.

Gertrude is another major character of the play. She is Hamlet’s mother and wife of King Hamlet. When King Hamlet died, she married Claudius barely two months after which earned her the ire of her only son. So much so that young Hamlet said in jest, “Frailty, thy name is woman!” (I.ii.146). Gertrude’s guilt stems from the fact that she knows she married too soon. And because of that, she made Hamlet mad at her. Later on, Hamlet tells her that it is Claudius who has killed King Hamlet. This makes Gertrude feel overwhelmed with grief.

Ophelia is one unfortunate gentle soul. She is the type to obey figures of authority to the point of sacrificing her own inner desires. Ophelia was told by his father and brother to refrain from seeing Hamlet after they learned that Hamlet was romantically pursuing her. Ever obedient, she did as she was told.

Ophelia must have been devastated upon learning that Hamlet turned mad. She could have nurtured some inner guilt on the plight of the young man after she rebuffed his display of affection to her. This and the death of her father make her insane in the latter part of the story which leads to her death.

Guilt must have haunted Polonius when he forbade Ophelia to see Hamlet again and he thinks that is the reason Hamlet turns mad. Polonius’ guilt is apparent when he becomes upset when he hears Ophelia say that Hamlet is not in his usual self. Polonius concludes that her refusal to see Hamlet anymore has driven the young prince mad (Gradesaver, 1999).

Laertes is Ophelia’s brother and Polonius’ son. He went back to Denmark upon knowing of his father’s death. He wanted to avenge his father and summoned Hamlet to a duel. With the aid of Claudius, he devised a plan to make Hamlet’s death a certainty by adding poison at the tip of the rapier (Gradesaver, 1999). To some extent, a learned man like Laertes would have found this deed a source of guilt. But whatever guilt he is feeling could have been drowned by his thirst for revenge.

The knowledge that Laertes left his father and sister to pursue his studies in France and allow them to fend for themselves could have made him feel guilty that he was not there to look after them and prevent his father’s death. His advice to Ophelia to stay away from Hamlet which could have contributed to Ophelia’s insanity and later on caused his beloved sister’s death could have aroused some guilt feelings in him too. It was his grief compounded by guilt of leaving his family that made him leaped into Ophelia’s coffin once it has been put in the grave.

Horatio is Hamlet’s closest friend. According to eNotes (2000), he is “a former fellow-student at Wittenberg. Horatio has come to Elsinore from Wittenberg for the funeral of old King Hamlet. He is described by Marcellus as a “scholar” (I.i.42).

Horatio earned Hamlet’s trust. He was constantly by his friend’s side even in his death. The guilt of seeing Hamlet holding on to dear life and there was nothing he could do to save him could have prompted Horatio to attempt to commit suicide. But the dying Hamlet prevented him to do so. Instead, requested Horatio to write down what has transpired and let the rest of the country know the truth.

The strength of Hamlet is in its ability to portray dark and deep human feelings. Guilt is not exactly its central theme but is a by-product of the main characters’ actions. And the feelings of guilt lend human emotions to the character and stripped some degrees of cruelty in them.

Fathers and Sons by Brian Friel: A Review

Brian Friel’s play “Fathers and Sons” is an adaptation of the popular Russian classic 1962 novel penned by Ivan Turgenev of the same title.

It is the first modern novel in Russian literature. The theme of duality in the story would later find its voice in the works of greatest Russian writers Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.

Father and Sons is considered to be Turgenev’s best work. It was written in 1862. The title in Russian translates to “Fathers and Children” but is called Father and Sons for linguistic purposes.

The fathers and sons of the novel symbolize the generation gap that occurred among Russians. This story is in response to the cultural divide between liberals in the 1830s and 1840s and the nihilist movement of around the same time.

Nihilism is the view that Being or the past and present human existence does not have meaning, direction, purpose, truth or value. Nihilists believe that there is no proof of the existence of Higher Being. It espoused the view that true morality and ethics are not possible. The overriding emotion of nihilism is one of despair because of the belief of the pointlessness of human existence.

The nihilists or the “sons” in the novel and the liberals wanted to introduce social change to Russian based on Western ideologies. These two contradicting school of thought is contrasted by the conservative Slavophiles who promotes change through inculcating traditional spirituality.

Father and Sons is set in Russia at the time of the Crimean War in the 1859. Arkady Kirsanov, a recent young graduate from the University of Petersburg, returns home to his father’s country estate situated in the outskirts of Russia together with his friend Yevgeny Bazarov, a young revolutionary. Arkady’s father, Nikolai, welcomes the two young men heartily to his home called Marino.

Much to the dismay of Pavel, Nikolai’s brother and Arkady’s uncle, the two young men advocated for a new, radical and strange philosophy called “nihilism”. Being nihilist, they quickly questioned the beliefs of Arkady’s Uncle Pavel who believes in the aristocratic traditions of old.

Bazarov’s encounter with Pavel Kirsanov is considered a symbol of the struggle between the fathers or those who promoted the liberal way of thinking in the 1840s and their nihilist “sons”.

In his arguments against liberalism, Bazarov pointed out “Aristocratism, liberalism, progress, principles …. just think, how many foreign…and useless words”. Bazarov assures Pavel that he will give up nihilism if Pavel can prove to him that “a single institution of contemporary life, either in the family or in the social sphere, that doesn’t deserve absolute and merciless rejection.” Despite his great dislike for traditional Russia, Bazarov still believes in the value of pure science.

Nikolai felt strange welcoming Arkady to his home because he was not comfortable with these strange philosophies of nihilism the young man preached which contrasted his traditional liberal views. Also, he had a servant named Fenichka who lived with him and he had a son by her.

The two men stayed at Marino for a few days only. They then proceeded to visit Arkady’s relative in another province. While there, the young men met Madame Anna Odintsova. She invited them to stay at her estate Nikolskoe.

At Nikolskoe, they met Katya, the younger pretty sister of Madame Odintsova. Arkady was attracted to Madame Odintsova but soon found himself enamored by Katya’s charms. They stayed at the estate for a short time.

When the two men meet Madame Odintsov, a young widow and her younger sister Katya, their nihilistic views are put to the test. The object of Bazarov’s affection Anna Odintsova is a beautiful young widow. She inherited country estate when her husband died. She was contented with her freedom but found herself getting more and more attracted to the radical Bazarov. She lured the womanizer to her lair until he fell madly in love with her. She told Bazarov that she is “unhappy” and that she does not want to “go on” and wants “strong atttachment” that is “all or nothing. A life for a life. You take mine, you give up yours, without regrets, without turning back”.

Bazarov fell in love with Madame Odintsova. When Bazarov confesses his love for her, Odintsova turns him down brutally. She felt tortured after regretting her decision to turn down Bazarov and fearing the she threw away her only chance of one, true love. She finally made up her mind by saying “No. God knows where it might have led; one mustn’t fool around with this kind of thing.”

Bazarov’s nihilistic tendencies was put to test when he fell in love with Madame Anna Odintsova, a widow. His views on nihilism did not prepare him for the pain caused by unrequired love. He was not able to cope up with the pain.

After he got rejected by Odintsova, Bazarov went back to his parent’s home. He complained to Arkady, “…they, that is, my parents, are occupied, and don’t worry in the least about their own insignificance; they don’t give a damn about it… While I…I feel only boredom and anger.”

Bazarov was brokenhearted and felt bothered by the rejection. He was difficult to get along with. He and Arkady almost exchanged blows. His nihilistic views are inadequate to account for his feelings. He became frustrated, bored and discontented.

They stayed only for a few days and headed back to Marino in order to see Madame Odintsova who did not welcome them to her home. They left and headed to Arkady’s home.

Arkady went back to see Katya. Bazarov stayed at Marino to conduct scientific studies. He and Pavel could not get along well. Bazarov loves chatting with Fenichka. Bazarov gave her a kiss which was witnessed by Pavel.

Pavel felt he needed to defend his brother Nikolai’s honor so he challenged Brazarov to a duel. Bazarov and Pavel’s contrasting views became very pronounced when Bazarov wounds Pavel in the duel. He was forced to leave Marino after this. Bazarov passed by Madame Odintsova’s house before continuing to his parent’s home.

Arkady, on the other hand, was falling in love with Katya. They were engaged. The traditional notions of marriage and estate management Arkady experienced was in sharp contrast to Bazarov’s despair and Anna’s loveless, empty life.

Bazarov returned to his parents’ home. While there, Bazarov could not concentrate on his work due to his heartache. He failed to take necessary precautions as he performed an autopsy. He got sick with typhus in the process.

On his deathbed he sent for Madame Odintsova. She arrived in the nick of time and Bazarov told her how beautiful she is.  Bazarov died.

Arkady marries Katya and manages his father’s estate. Nikolai, his father, married Fenichka. Pavel left the country and lived as a “noble” in Dresden, Germany.

At the end of the story, we find Bazarov’s parents visiting his grave. “They walk with a heavy step, supporting each other; when they approach the railing, they fall on their knees and remain there for a long time, weeping bitterly, gazing attentively at the headstone under which their son lies buried: they exchange a few words, brush the dust off the stone, move a branch of the pine tree, and pray once again; they can’t forsake this place where they seem to feel closer to their son, to their memories of him… Can it really be that their prayers and tears are futile? Can it really be that love, sacred, devoted love is not all powerful? Oh, no!”

The parents love made Bazarov immortal. Bazarov, in a way, overcome death because of the love of his parents.

Edgar Allan Poe’s Tales

Review on Edgar Allan Poe’s famous works.

“The Murders in the Rue Morgue”, ”The Mystery of Marie Roget”, ”The Purloined Letter”, ”`Thou Art the Man`”, ”A Tale of the Ragged Mountains” all points out to the fact that “truth is not what it appears to be.”

Oftentimes we are misled to believe one thing when the real facts actually pertain to another. Truth in the real world could actually be stranger than fiction or those that are depicted in literature. A classic example of this would be Poe’s “The Mystery of Marie Roget”. The story is actually based on a real New York story crime mystery which remains unsolved to this day.

Poe used the method of ratiocination in his mystery tales. Detective fiction tells us that “truth is what remains after the impossible has been determined-no matter how improbable that truth may seem.” Poe best exemplified this premise in his mystery works. Often, there is more than one truth in the story. Sometimes, these truths are conflicting. As in the case of “Murders in Rue Morgue” which deserved special mention since it was the first tale where Poe made use of ratiocination. Here, we see apparent “impossibilities”, as seen by the police because of their preconceived biases, to be in actuality real “possibilities”.

Truths may not appear obvious. But as Poe pointed out in his finest mystery story “Purloined Letter”, “the case is so difficult to solve because it appears to be so simple.” This rule applies to most detective stories. Often the most complex mystery appears to be so because it occurs in the “most obvious place”. Truth, therefore, is not hard to find if we look for it with open eyes, with inner discernment instead of relying on physical senses alone.

The language of the stories could either help or conceal the truth depending on the reader. Given the facts, he could arrive at logical conclusions. Or, he could let his biases color his judgment thereby limiting his perception on the matter under investigation. In the Purloined Letter, for instance, detective Chevalier C. Auguste Dupin asked Monsieur G to search Minister D’s house thoroughly so he could find the letter that the latter used to blackmail the former. After a month of searching the entire house, Monsieur G gave up. It turned out that the letter was hidden in plain sight but cleverly disguised.

All of the aforementioned stories bore striking resemblance in the way Poe arrived at the solution. All stories used the principle of ratiocination – which is the application of clear logic to solve the mystery.

Poe gave hints to the solution as the story evolved. All the clues, as a matter of fact, are mentioned in the story. But in detective fiction, it is not enough to produce clues but also to arrange these clues in such a way that at the end of the story one arrived at an unexpected solution, which in hindsight would have shed light or give logic to the story in the first place. Despite the half-facts presented to the reader, it was easy to sense in the way Poe constructed the story that something was going on and deserved the reader’s attention. A number of the scenes and incidents in the stories mentioned above have dual meanings. One is obvious. The other and often the most important is hidden except for those with really discerning eyes and revealed at the end.

The Great Gatsby

The Decline of the American Dream in the 1920s

It may appear that The Great Gatsby is a romantic story of unrequited love but the central focus of the story is actually bigger in scope and does not indulge in romance. The story revolves in the summer of 1922 and set in Long Island, New York. The Great Gatsby presents an allegorical reflection on America in the 1920s where the Great America Dream was the fashion of the day. It does not uphold the era though. Instead, The Great Gatsby talks about the breakdown of the American dream in the period unparalleled prosperity and material excess.

Fitzgerald tackles the ubiquitous effect of material pursuit alone. During 1920s when new money or people acquiring wealth were on the rise, an apparent decline in social and moral values was noted. Cynicism, greed and pursuit of pleasure became the norm. Parties and wild jazz music as shown by Gatsby in the story contributed to the deterioration of the American Dream. The desire for money and bodily pleasures effectively quelled the primary aim behind American dream which was the quest for nobility. 

In the story, Gatsby thinks of Daisy as his idea of perfection although she neither deserves nor possesses this. Gatsby’s dream is destroyed because of the unworthiness of his love, a parallelism of the American dream in the 1920s ruined by the unworthiness of money and pleasure. When Gatsby’s dream collapses, he has no reason left to live which symbolizes the Americans’ futile search for the bygone era. 

Nick another character in the story reflects that just as Gatsby’s dream of Daisy was destroyed by money and dishonesty, the American dream of happiness and individualism has crumbled into an empty pursuit of wealth. Gatsby’s “greatness” is in his ability to make his dreams into reality but the era of dreaming, as epitomized by Gatsby’s dream and the American dream, is over.