In one sense, criticism of ‘‘Barn Burning’’ has displayed a remarkable unanimity, for this story throws into sharp relief a young boy's existential choice involving the two notions of ‘‘blood relation’’ and "morality." Whatever conclusion individual critics draw about the tale, their arguments necessarily center on the meaning of that choice. In preparing to read the story and again in considering it afterwards, readers must ask themselves a key question: If family ties constitute a moral obligation on the individual, is there any higher morality which might require the individual to act against a family member? This is the question that ten-year-old Sarty confronts—and answers.
Early reactions to Faulkner's modernistic work in general reflected the uneasiness that modernism itself inspired in the older generation of traditional critics. As late as 1941, Warren Beck could write that Faulkner had been ‘‘severely criticized for his style’’ but was nevertheless a ‘‘versatile stylist.’’ Even so, Beck judged that Faulkner ‘‘remained guilty of carelessness, especially in sentence construction’’ and had ‘‘persisted in mannerisms.’’ Beck commented on a ‘‘profuseness of language ... elaborate lyrical descriptions [and] persistent lyrical embroidery.’’ The whole aim in Faulkner's writing, Beck wrote, was "perspective." Around the same time, Alfred Kazin referred negatively to Faulkner's ‘‘mountainous rhetoric’’ and his ‘‘discursive fog.’’ In 1954, reviewing The Hamlet, in which ''Barn Burning'' appears, Peter Lisca noted ‘‘the complex symbolism and character evaluation’’ inherent in Faulkner's style. But Lisca assumes the validity of Faulkner's style and does not express the reservations still present in Beck's assessment of a decade or so earlier.
Percy H. Boynton, writing at the same time as Beck, directed his attention not to style but to content, and called attention to The Hamlet as an instance of...
(The entire section is 835 words.)