Does William Faulkner use alternate annunciations for "it" and "can" to portray that the father hit his kin? I found it strange that every time the overwhelming father acted out in violence, the son or narrator always mentions that it is not as bad as it seems. The smaller son gets the bulk of the abuse in the story and his hopes for it ending is always italicized. This kind of goes back to modernist writers experimenting with style or form. Personally William Faulkner utilized too many adjectives, that it had a negative effect for me to follow the story.
Was there a meaning to this story other than family abuse? Other than the Snopes, the other characters really did not have relevance except to show the father get into quagmires and revert to beating his son. The wiry boy liked to chop wood, was it a way to get anger out and maintain the gentle image of his father? At the end, the boy finally decides to run away. A lot of kids back then ran away from home to end abuse from their fathers, so the story seems a little more relevant to the 30's when it was written.
I think that the story was difficult to read due to all the adjectives and overall style of writing that I didn't really get anything out of it.
I don't think the ONLY meaning in the story was family abuse. I guess it was kind of a justice thing. Right and wrong, you know? The boy didn't really have a choice at the end. He HAD to run away because he told on his father.
ReplyDelete