In “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge”, Ambrose Bierce takes the reader on what is supposed to be a wild adventure, only to reveal that the hope and escape from death only takes place in the dying man's mind. I found the concept of the story to be brilliant. A man who is about to be hanged jumps into the river below him and escapes drowning, gun fire, and cannon balls, only to die just as he reaches his all-too-good-to-be-true home.
As I have said, I believe that the bare bones of the story are exceedingly interesting, however, I was aware that I was being taken for the proverbial ride the entire time. I never once believed that Farquhar--the man to be hanged--had actually escaped asphyxiation because the prose of the story was so detached. Bierce's story telling makes Farquhar as much of an idle spectator as the reader. His adrenaline should be rushing as he defies death and struggles for his life and family, but things are not as they should be. He is very apparently on the outside looking in, which is true, but not a believable mind state for someone in his situation. I would have believed Farquar was diving to avoid bullets if the language had been more urgent and less like that of a bystander.
Bierce attempts to throw readers off his trail of diseat by including a very unrealistic hallucination Farquhar has of returning to his happy home and seeing is lovely wife. After all, who is going to suspect a delusion with in a delusion. One is expected to think, “Well, he's dreaming now, that must be the catch.” This tactic falls flat. Not only did it not persuade me that Farquhar' escape was real, it felt tacked into the story without any forethought.
“Owl Creek” is an interesting read, but it isn't a convincing story because Bierce's writing style does not create a believable atmosphere for the events we are told are taking place.
I disagree
ReplyDeleteI am sorry to say that, although you do make some valid points in your argument, I completely disagree with what you are arguing.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the point of Bierce's over analytical, intense attention to detail is a way of drawing the reader into the story, not to make them feel less connected with it. Also, it is the job of an author to create situations that stretch the imagination and force the reader to look outside the box. Thus, it does not seem odd to me that Bierce submerged his reader into Farquhar's incredible escape only to reveal it as an illusion in the end.
I think you make a good point, but I also must disagree, but on slightly different grounds. Sometimes in intense situations, like a car crash, the person involved feels like they are on the outside of events, like they are only watching what is taking place and not participating. In the car crashes I have been involved in that's what it felt like to me, so I can understand why Bierce might choose to write in such a detached manner.
ReplyDeleteI can also see how it might be disenchanting. So I suppose that puts me on the fence.
I also disagree, but I will admit that your points make sense. However, it seems to me that if I were in a situation where I was fighting for my life, I wouldn't be focused on my emotions, but more on getting the heck away from those people trying to kill me. Instead of letting Farquhar's emotions get the best of him, I think Bierce was trying to showcase Farquhar's focus on surviving; this may be the reason for the detached writing style.
ReplyDelete