An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge by Ambrose Bierce
The greater half of this story was a complete and utter lie, no matter how you look at it. Even if it’s “just a story”, the author lied about the plot throughout the main action of the story.
I think that Ambrose Bierce wrote a story that had a lie within a lie. He wanted the reader to think something was true, part of the story, that, even within the realm of the story, was false; this makes it an attempted deception (attempted, because he chickened out and told the truth at the end). It wasn’t even a proper or justifiable lie, the author was just making up parts that had no truth to them in any context. It’s reminded me of that one really annoying person (everybody knows someone like this) who makes up the most random lies about themselves so that people will believe they’re cool, even though they really have dreadful personalities. Essentially, the author wanted you to think this guy had a really cool and daring escape, even though the poor bastard ended up dying a quick and probably painless death (we wouldn’t know, the author spent more time spinning tales within tales than he did describing the actual death).
Even though I understand that, yes, this is just a story so it’s all a lie, I really think that it’s ridiculous to tell a story and then say “just kidding, I was shitting you, this is what really happened”.
I don't think Bierce misled us to make us think his escape was cool; instead, I think he lied about his survival to give more meaning to Peyton's life. If his story would have ended with Peyton just flat-out dying in the end, the reader would have been left with a feeling of want and sadness. First of all, how could a so-called "patriot" just die like that without any commotion or importance? Secondly, after briefly knowing the guy, the reader feels something for him and is basically disappointed that the author decided to kill him at the end.
ReplyDeleteThis comment wasn't meant to disagree with this post, it was just to simply give another view of the author's intention.
I understand what you feel about the story, as after I read it I, too, felt that there wasn't a point to the giant description. But that is what makes the truth in this story so hard to obtain. With all the detailing, it is easy for someone to believe that it could possibly happen. After all, a normal story wouldnt put that much effort into something that wasnt true. But by ending as it did, Bierce is making the readers question their initial instict of believing what is laid before them. Who knows, Bierce lied about the escape, so he could have lied about the entire story. For all we know, Farquhar could have lived a peacful life at home, dying of natural causes of old age.
ReplyDelete