Abner Snopes In William Faulkner's Barn Burning
William Faulkner’s “Barn Burning” allows readers to get a glimpse of what two court cases were like for a man named Abner Snopes with the result of the first court course leading him to be exiled and ultimately working for new landowner. As time passes, Abner finds himself in another court case after damaging his new landowner’s valuable rug after putting tracks on it and damaging it once more while attempting to clean it. The landowner, Major de Spain, fines Abner with a hundred dollar replacement fee for the rug along with charging twenty additional bushels of corn. The judge ends up reducing the fine to ten bushels of corn. Because the judge uses rationality for decreasing the punishment based upon how the damages to the rug were made, and
…show more content…
Snopes explains himself by saying he “washed the tracks out and took the rug back to…[de Spain]” after being asked to (Faulkner 191). The judge’s logical assessment of Snopes’ explanation allows him to counteract with “but you didn’t carry the rug back to him in the same condition it was in before you made the tracks on it”. At that point, the judge knows Snopes is guilty from his lack of response and finds him “liable” for the damages. While doing so, he ends up lessening the original punishment handed to Snopes by de Spain. This illustrates that the judge is reasonable because he is aware of Snopes limited economic resources and the kind of financial burden a harsher penalty would put him under. The judge expresses his reasoning of decreasing the punishment by saying “But twenty bushels of corn seems a little high for a man in your circumstances to have to pay” (191). The judge’s words symbolize that he is using logic for the punishment he hands Snopes, while de Spain’s intended punishment was out of anger and he did not take into consideration of what the effect would be like on Snopes. The judge states the fact that “October corn will be worth about fifty cents” to calculate the losses of both parties which helps him use facts of reasons to express “that if Major de Spain can stand a ninety-five dollar loss” because de Spain “claims the rug cost a hundred
Snopes explains himself by saying he “washed the tracks out and took the rug back to…[de Spain]” after being asked to (Faulkner 191). The judge’s logical assessment of Snopes’ explanation allows him to counteract with “but you didn’t carry the rug back to him in the same condition it was in before you made the tracks on it”. At that point, the judge knows Snopes is guilty from his lack of response and finds him “liable” for the damages. While doing so, he ends up lessening the original punishment handed to Snopes by de Spain. This illustrates that the judge is reasonable because he is aware of Snopes limited economic resources and the kind of financial burden a harsher penalty would put him under. The judge expresses his reasoning of decreasing the punishment by saying “But twenty bushels of corn seems a little high for a man in your circumstances to have to pay” (191). The judge’s words symbolize that he is using logic for the punishment he hands Snopes, while de Spain’s intended punishment was out of anger and he did not take into consideration of what the effect would be like on Snopes. The judge states the fact that “October corn will be worth about fifty cents” to calculate the losses of both parties which helps him use facts of reasons to express “that if Major de Spain can stand a ninety-five dollar loss” because de Spain “claims the rug cost a hundred