Thursday, September 1, 2011

Saw It Coming... sort of

It seems I am in the minority when I say that I was skeptical of Farquhar's escape almost from the moment it began in the story. When he fell into the water, my first thought was, 'I bet he's dead, and this is what death feels like to him.' Then, as he continued to struggle and eventually succeeded to break free, I second guessed my intuition. As I read on, I continued to vacillate between whether or not I thought he was dead, with different passages convincing me of each outcome. The point where I knew for certain that Farquhar had died was the last paragraph on page 7, "His neck was in pain and lifting his hand to it found it horribly swollen . . . His eyes felt congested; he could no longer close them. His tongue was swollen with thirst . . ." I could not help but picture these gruesome symptoms of hanging and suffocation, and I was sure that this was their cause.

That said, I can easily understand how a reader could be deceived into thinking that Farquhar was indeed alive, until the final sentence of a story. I tend to search for unexpected twists in most short stories that I read, and am often disappointed by the lack thereof. This habit probably stems from my own partiality toward surprise endings in the stories that I write, and so I look for my own style in the works of other authors. Subconsciously I think, 'if I were writing this story, how would I end it?' In this case, Bierce's decision to announce the shocking death of Farquhar almost parallels what I had had in mind as I read the story.

But, as I mentioned before, I could not fully convince myself that Farquhar was dead throughout most of part III. I wanted Farquhar to escape just as much as I wanted the story to end in a twist, so as I read I tried to find evidence to support both outcomes. The desire to believe the story conflicted with the desire to be skeptical, and I am sure that Bierce was consciously manipulating both of those desires when he wrote An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge.

2 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with you on the fact that Bierce keeps the reader vacillating between hope and doubt. He set up a character that was easy to sympathize with- from his description as a gentleman with a “kindly expression” to the frequent mention of emotional ties with his family and the cunning way in which he was manipulated make the reader want to hold on to the hope that Farquhar will live on. However, they can also be perceived as the author’s set-up to play on a reader’s emotion for a decidedly tragic story.
    On the other hand, there are clues strewn across the plot that hold the readers from taking what is being narrated for granted. For example, his narrow escape closely resembles the short thought that was supposedly “flashed into” his mind right before he was fallen off the bridge and the details of his surroundings as perceived by him are too intricate. Farquhar also seems very passive at times, like the time when he is unaware of a conscious effort to free his hands or swim up to the surface. It seems as though the narrator is creating this idea of a Farquhar who escapes his death, when this isn’t actually the reality. Although, it is also possible that he is in a state of daze from being so close to death.
    So, it is hard to decide what the author is trying to do. However, I looked up Bierce on the Internet after the discussion on Thursday and I felt like if I’d known that he was actually a satirist, had earned the nickname “Bitter Bierce” and had written a book titled “The Devil’s Dictionary,” I might have had an easier time picking a side.

    ReplyDelete