The suggestion that Farquhar’s
story was not “real” blew my mind, and sent me thinking what it meant to be
“real” in fiction, which, by definition, is not true. What is the definition of “real”? We know
fiction is false, yet we allow ourselves to be absorbed into the world the
author creates, believing it all happened in this “unreal” place. If we can buy into it then and consider it
real, why can’t we buy into Bierce’s world of Farquhar? Is it one step too far from reality? One level too deep into what is “unreal”?
By making Farquhar’s story seem
impossible, Bierce hints that the reader is not supposed to believe him “real”
in this fiction. For example, the
unlikelihood that all of those bullets and cannons continued to miss him, as
well as the pure improbable fact that he is still alive are two examples of
Bierce giving the reader reason for suspicion.
Also, after Farquhar supposedly falls from the bridge, his senses become
“preternaturally keen and alert.” He
starts to see microscopic details like the multicolored dew on the blades of
grass, and he starts to hear the inaudible like the beating of dragonfly wings.
The idea of “preternatural” senses makes him seem more like a spirit or
superhero, someone beyond human life (beyond as in already dead? Unknown.).
However, even with all of this
said, it is obvious Bierce goes through great effort to make his readers get
swept up in the penultimate moments of this doomed man’s life. Why hint that it is not real, yet make the hints so difficult to find? Maybe he is questioning
what is real as opposed to what is true.
It never happened so it isn’t true, but now told, is it “real”?
I really enjoyed reading your post for a couple reasons. 1) It was thoroughly interesting! :) 2) You helped clarify some ideas that had been thrown out in class and left me completely mind boggled. By showing a clear difference between 'real' and 'true', you enabled me to comprehend that the story is only 'real' because it has been written down. Similarly, you clearly mentioned that this is all based on what we 'buy' into which I had never considered. I agree with you when you say that we sometimes get lost in the story and I think that those are Bierce's intentions so that we forget what is 'real' and what is 'true'. I also really liked that you explained the 'hints'. The unlikely events didn't even strike me when I read the story the first time, but now that I have read your post, I completely understand the ''suspicion' that Bierce was trying to create in us. 3) You brought up another question. When you suggest "Maybe he is questioning what is real as opposed to what is true." I wonder whether this means that Bierce, too, is trying to distinguish between the two? That confused me a little.
ReplyDeleteFInally, the concept of things only being 'real' because they are written down is one that I never thought of, but I now understand it. Does this mean that everything he is written down is 'real'?
Thanks for a great post!