C.S. Lewis once said, “You never know how
much you really believe anything until its truth or falsehood becomes a matter
of life and death to you.” In Ambrose Bierce’s An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, the reader is fooled into
believing that Peyton Farquhar has cheated death. (Hooray!)
Bierce portrays Farquhar as an
innocent, everyday man—like us, the readers—surrounded by unfeeling, almost
robotic soldiers. Had Bierce not included the second chapter, the reader would
not have known, or cared, who the man on the bridge was and why he was there. In
doing so, Bierce tactfully plants a kernel of irrational hope in the reader’s
mind. This kernel allows me, the reader, to readily believe that Farquhar has
indeed escaped from his noose and that he will find his way back to his family.
I am now Farquhar and I do not want to die, so I will believe in our salvation
(which proves that sentiment is truth’s enemy).
Upon a closer reading, Bierce drops (intentionally?)
hints that we are reading a lie. “As he rose to the surface, gasping for
breath, he saw that he had been a long time under water; he was perceptibly
farther downstream.” Farquhar almost drowned, his neck is bruised, his lungs
are shot, and we are supposed to believe that he remained underwater, with
bullets flying at him from all directions, for a long period of time? Yes, because
Bierce has made us yearn for a miracle.
Another indicator that Farquhar did not
escape is: “At last he found a road which led him in what he knew to be the
right direction. It was as wide and straight as a city street, yet it seemed
untraveled.” During the Civil War, there were very few roads that did not bear
the markings of horses or vast formations of soldiers. Perhaps this barren,
untraveled road is his route to the land of the dead.
An
Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge has an unreliable
narrator. Readers initially place their trust in their storyteller, we do not
realize we are being taken for fools. From now on, we should read books with a
wary eye and, instead, make the author work to gain our trust.
I think the main idea represented by your post could be interpreted as "don't trust the unreliable narrator". I liked how you plotted out specific points in which Bierce was manipulating the readers. An example would be Bierce giving the man on the bridge a name and a family, thus making him “human” while the soldiers appeared “robotic”. However, when you begin to read with a purpose, little anomalies pop up which make you question the validity of the narrator’s story. When you pointed out how Farquar found the "road which led him in...the right direction" and assessed the impracticality of the situation, I imagine it made you doubt it ever happened. Personally, I did not read this part carefully enough, so it seemed to make sense to me. However, through further analysis and reading your post, I would have definitely thought something strange was going on. I realized that I will need to start actually reading into the minuscule details, which may not seem important at the time, to find the truth within the author's writing. Authors have a step up. As you mentioned, the reader is easily manipulated. The author knows exactly what is going to happen in the end, and how he or she wants to reader to get there. Even though as readers, we sometimes feel defenseless, I believe we can beat the narrator. Such as you did with this story, the cautious reader can outsmart the devious narrator. I really enjoyed reading your post, Thanks Helena!
ReplyDeleteI really like the idea of your post that by manipulating our emotions Bierce is able to slip this lie past the reader. Even though Peyton is a slave owner, the description of his life create a connection with Farquhar that has the reader rooting for a successful escape. I hadn't considered the description (or lack thereof) of the soldiers on the bridge, but looking back at the disparity between their description and Peyton's makes it all the more clear how Bierce is guiding the audience to root for that miracle outcome. I also like the idea of the road the Peyton is on back to his house being considered as a route to "the land of the dead". The description of his escape route had this almost airy, ethereal feel to it that would definitely justify that type of comparison.
ReplyDelete