The time period in which "Barn Burning" is set allows for the moral and ethical conflicts to unfold. It takes place in the late 1800's to the early 1900's in the rural American South. This was a time in our history during which Blacks were grossly oppressed, and where whites dominated the legal and social circles. Inequity between the races was especially notable in the American South as this was the ebb of post- Civil war America. In "Barn Burning", Faulkner uses the Snopes family, a poor Black family living in the South and the deSpains, a rich whit

e family, to illustrate the inequality that existed in contemporary society.

Abner Snopes did burn the barn down, and made his son lie to the law about it to protect himself. Yet Faulkner allows Abner to be the victim. As stated by Mary Ellen Byrne in "Barn Burning: a story of the 30's": In "...Abner Snopes, Faulkner captures the conflict and split within the Snopeses' value system... Although the father (Abner Snopes) is a destructive individual, abusive and violent within the family, slothful at work, a man to be feared, still he embodies many of the qualities Faulkner celebrates" (Byrne 3). Abner is a deplorable human being with no redeeming qualities, yet his actions are rationalized, and at the end, is pitied as a victim of the social class structure. As Byrne states, Faulkner uses Abner, this malignant individual, to illustrate the depth of social inequality. Although Abner is a wretched individual, he is not as wicked as the society he lives in.

The moral issue is this: can one rationalize Abner's actions (barn burning, stealing horses, etc.) by his state in society? He is a victim of class, of inequality, of discrimination, of injustice. Should he be held accountable? In the 1949 Nobel Prize ceremony, the president of Swedish Academy, Gustaf Hellstrom, commended William Faulkner:

Here one can see why "Barn Burning" is a social commentary of the times. The moral conflict in "Barn Burning" is between Abner and the landowners. And although he was legally at fault, Faulkner redresses the perspective of morality by allowing Abner to be the victim, again allowing Abner to reflect the evils of social inequity.

Mordecai Marcus states in the article "Melville's 'Bartleby' as a psychological double" that when the narrator accepts Bartleby as a part of his natural world, the narrator's professional friends, who Marcus views as the "normal" social world, encourage him to get rid of Bartleby. Marcus goes on to say that the Narrator declares, after he rids himself of Bartleby, "Strange to say- I tore myself from him whom I had so longed to be rid of" (Marcus 1). The one person who did sympathize with Bartleby, is finally influenced by society. This personal reflection of Melville's feeling toward the world is personified in the character of Bartleby. Bartleby attempts to be a nonconformist and fails. Bartleby, like Abner Snopes, attempts to correct the social ills affecting them but to no avail. It is interesting to note, however, that both William Faulkner and Herman Melville are considered a great part of American literary history. That is to say, although society nev

Some common words found in the essay are:
Abner Snopes, Barn Burning, Davidson Melville, American South, Herman Melville, Burning Abner, Faulkner Abner, Burning Sarty, Faulkner Snopes, Abner Sarty, barn burning, abner snopes, bartleby scrivener, william faulkner, character bartleby, american south, snopes family, abner victim, moral ethical, herman melville, stated frank davidson, william faulkner herman, post- civil war, rich white family, faulkner herman melville,
Approximate Word count = 1757
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)