Fool Me Once

When I read An Occurrence on Owl Creek Bridge, I never questioned that the events taking place might not actually be happening. But looking back on it, why wouldn’t I question it? Why would I think the rope miraculously breaking would be a plausible event to take place? But, in the world of fiction anything can happen, anything is possible, especially for the protagonist. The main character can make an extraordinary escape, or survive a fall from a hundred foot drop, or dodge every bullet the bad guy shoots no matter how close in range they are. They can do anything. I expect them to do the impossible. I expect that they will somehow have managed to cling onto a branch after falling off the side of a cliff. I expect that the bullet that hit them didn’t kill them—of course it only got lodged in the small book they happened to have in their front pocket. There was some false security I had in the protagonist that they at least wouldn’t die, even if other important characters around them did. But, Bierce manipulated that little universal truth that I clung to.

A few months ago I read the final book in a trilogy (I won’t name it… spoilers?) and it defied my expectations regarding how a series “should” end. The female protagonist—the main character—died. She was shot three times while saving the day. Despite my initial shock, I wasn’t heartbroken because in the back of my mind I thought: “she’s still alive, she’s injured and almost dead, but she’ll survive”. Because that’s what the main character does in the works of fiction… even if she’s been shot three times. No matter what happens to them somehow they survive. So I kept reading, waiting for the moment when she miraculously returned from the “dead”. She lay in a hospital bed and the male protagonist sat next to her obviously heartbroken. And I knew the moment was coming: he would take her hand, beg her to survive, and she would wake up. But she never did.

I was furious. I felt like the author had somehow betrayed me. It was some unwritten law, some unspoken truth that the protagonist—the hero, the main character—survives. That was the hope and the lie I clung to.

I suppose after reading the above-mentioned book I should have realized that my universal truth about protagonists was a lie, a little manipulation I was meant to find security in. But Bierce fooled me again. Reading An Occurrence on Owl Creek Bridge I never doubted that Farquhar’s noose had snapped, that he managed to free his hands from their ties despite being underwater, that every bullet shot at him missed, and that he walked all day through woods he didn’t know despite literally having been hanged earlier that day. I didn’t doubt it because it seemed possible for the protagonist.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Hopefully I’ll learn that I can’t always trust my expectations.

An Occurence In My Head

WOW. 

I learned a few (sad) things about myself as a reader while reading "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge." 

First of all, I realized that a lot of the little notes I squeeze into the margins in an attempt to fully absorb and analyze the text are usually really pointless details. I guess it's normal, but so much of the time I find myself coming to what I believe are really important, interesting conclusions and patterns, that end up being extremely irrelevant. Let me give you an example. I managed to describe on my paper how both the guards and spectators are described like stone, which I decided must mean they are without life and the ability (or desire) to change the present. I went on and on about stones but I did not notice huge hints about the outcome of the story. On page 4, the story reads, "as Peyton Farquhar fell straight downward through the bridge he lost consciousness and was as one already dead." I am somewhat horrified that I am capable of somehow looking over this part of the text where Bierce actually tells me the plot twist at the end that gets everybody so excited. I obviously need to start paying attention to where I am paying attention. Looking back, I think I am more inclined to assume I am wrong and am misunderstanding the author, than to believe the author may be trying to intentionally trick me. My conclusion? I'm a naive reader.

Birth from A Dead Man

I wanted Peyton to live. Considering how the narrator left plenty of hints along the way that there was no happy ending for our slave owner and secessionist Farquahar, it was irrational, childish, and wishful thinking. Twice the narrator would tell us how the execution would proceed, with the soldiers stepping aside from the plank so that Peyton could fall through and die from a broken neck. He explicitly stated that Peyton “was as one already dead”, well before going on in great detail describing what could have happened had Peyton managed to escape. And, compared to the length at which the narrator went through to fabricate these miraculous things Peyton “pulled off”, the confirmation of Peyton’s actual death seems at the very least marginal insignificant and, for my part, definitely easily overlooked. This was possible in the story because of section II, in which the narrator went back in time and gave the readers a glimpse into Peyton’s history as well as what has led to his demise. Section II’s importance subsumes the theme of our course well, or at least what we have discussed so far from class. It’s critical in constructing a believable sympathetic protagonist that the readers can and will root for. Not going in-depth in arguing whether his devotion for the Southern course was reprehensible or praiseworthy, still I think it’s safe to assume that by creating the character of the Federal scout, who immediately breaks our trust as well as Peyton, the story elevates Peyton to a relatively higher moral ground to which the readers look up. It’s important to recognize that Peyton has done nothing so far to gain our trust other than letting his gullibility get the best of him. Self-depreciation can go a long way. 

But was Peyton an actual protagonist? Our subconscious may demand us to resonate with the struggle Peyton was going through against an external force, whatever that may be, because we in our lives face our own struggles as well. So in our lives, we tend to envision ourselves as our own protagonists (this is entirely up to debate). Consequently as story-telling creatures we find such reflections in characters of our own creation. Within such framework, no matter how much evidence of the contrary is to be thrown in our face, we would more likely than not to marginalize the death of our hero, especially a death with no rhyme or reason, the kind that stops the hero from actualizing his cause and belief, and anticipate his return, until we know his return isn’t possible. This “warring” perception of the human condition to me is the main propellant for what I think as classic storytelling, where the ‘protagonist’ we were assigned to follow wins the day, and the main reason why the ending of the story, if not inevitable, is welcomingly cathartic. It was with the death of Peyton that withered away the long overdue unquestioned conditioning of the way we read and write and react and respond and position ourselves and our senses of world. If that’s a little far-stretched for those who have been well acquainted with the gore and violence of, say, Game of Thrones and its many posers, perhaps we can find mutual agreement in an alternative reading of the function of the ending, that of reinforcing the notion of deliberate break-away of modern storytelling from its classic predecessors. This then would partially explain my using of the word “childish” in the beginning of the post. More on that some other day, but understand that I do not side with the belief in a hierarchy in modes of storytelling.

The shock of “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge”

After reading “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge”, I was absolutely shocked at how the author had ended the story. The way the narrator had readers thinking that Peyton Farquhar is quite similar to a recent American Dad episode that I had watched. The narrator makes readers believe that Mr. Farquhar is going to survive, by flashing into an imaginary world (probably Mr. Farquhar’s) where the best-case scenario happens. Mr. Farquhar ends up surviving the fall into the water and also manages to dodge all the bullets that are shot at him. He eventually gets washed up to a creek where he escapes and is able to reach his family, where both Mr. Farquhar and readers are shocked to find that it was all a dream.

The author uses some sort of technique in order to capture the attention and expectation of readers. He starts by introducing the scene in which Mr. Farquhar finds himself about to be killed. The author then flashes back in time to a night or so before Mr. Farquhar’s death and gives some details on Mr. Farquhar including the fact that he was from the south. The author includes another southerner in the flashback that warns Mr. Farquhar “The Yanks are repairing the railroads and are getting ready for another advance”. The same man also warns him “any civilian caught interfering with the railroad, … will be summarily hanged”. This clears up the reason as to why Mr. Farquhar finds himself about to be killed. The narrative then returns to Mr. Farquhar jumping into the river and ends up surviving the fall and also dodging all the bullets shot at him. The author goes on for an elaborate escape in which Mr. Farquhar reaches his family for the happily ever after readers hope for. However, the author ends up shocking readers at the end by proclaiming him dead with a broken neck swinging below the Oak Creek Bridge. Since he was swinging dead, readers can only assume that the escape was all an elaborated imagination that Mr. Farquhar had moments before his death.

What Details To Focus On

          I, as I would assume any reader after finishing "An Occurence at Owl Creek Bridge," felt pretty dumb after reading the last sentence. I felt dumb because for one, I had begun reading the short story without much precaution, despite fully understanding the premise of the class and the continual use of deception in what we read. I learned that about myself- that I am an overly trusting reader.
         Right when I finished the short story, I retraced my notes to see if I was even subconsciously picking up on any clues. What I found was that although I was taking notes trying to piece something together, my notes never questioned the narrator's trustworthiness. I was more inclined to assume I had misunderstood something than assert that a detail in the narrative did not match up with other parts of the story. An example of this was in part 3 when it says, "As Peyton Farquhar fell straight downward through the bridge he lost consciousness and as as one already dead." Here, Bierce directly tells the reader that Farquhar lost consciousness and died. But for some reason, I chose to let that detail slide probably to what I considered creative, figurative license. He wasn't saying he was actually dead, no he must have been saying he was figuratively or cognitively dead in that frazzling moment.
          What I noticed that I did pay attention to more, were distracting, insignificant details, which I presume Bierce purposefully used to keep his readers busy while he secretly deceived them. I made a lot of notes alluding to clicking clocks and time, and his descriptions of stone-like people, observations which did not help me pick up on the trick of the story. Obviously, I need to pay attention to more than details and ask larger questions while reading.

Too Gullible

Even after I knew that this whole class was about lies and was specifically told not to trust the narrator, I was still shocked at the end of “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge”. Bierce leads you to believe that Farquhar has made an amazing escape and has finally made it home safe after his long journey. He gives you the happy ending you are hoping for, which makes it so much more disappointing when it turns out a majority of the story is a lie. This makes me think of the exercise we did in class. We found ourselves hoping that one of the stories was true. Even though the outcome doesn’t affect us, we still “root” for a certain thing to be true. In this case it seems like there is no way Farquhar could ever live through this, and when he escapes I felt myself immediately rooting for him because he was the underdog. That is what made it so believable. I wanted so badly for him to survive and for what the narrator was saying to be true, that it was easier to believe it.

            Another thing was discussed in class was being mad when it was revealed that you had been lied to. However, I didn’t feel that mad or betrayed at the end of this story. One reason for that could be the fact that it was a short story. So I didn’t have as much invested in the story and characters as I would have if it had been a novel. After reading this short story I will be more wary of the narrator and the truth when I’m doing future reading in this class.  

Believing in Enchantment

            In a graphic and inescapable death, it is unsettling and ambiguous if Peyton Farquhar actually died. Initially, Bierce indicates “as Peyton Farquhar fell straight downward through the bridge he lost consciousness and was as one already dead.” (Bierce, III) Given the circumstances of Farquhar's bound wrists, the noose around his neck, and the 20ft fall into the river (Bierce, I) logically we presume that, yes, as the railway boards were released, Farquhar’s neck snapped and he died; however, Bierce’s recount of events following Farquhar’s “death” gives us hope.  A naïve and optimistic reader is relieved when they are told that Farquhar is “awakened.” (Bierce, III) Awakened, is used to indicate that Farquhar was revived from death, not physically, but metaphorically. Thinking of awakened in a religious or spiritual context, it is possible to draw a parallel between Farquhar’s experience and the idea of heaven, or rather the pathway to heaven. Bierce’s diction is mysterious and a little theatrical to give the tone of what the pathway to heaven “presumably” resembles. Succeeding Farquhar’s death he, “ had power only to feel- and that was torment. He was encompassed by a luminous cloud, of which he was now fiery heat, with out material substance.” (Bierce, III) Yes, the language and imagery is poetic, but the “luminous cloud” suggests an enchanted experience. No one can attest to what the transition stage is like between death and heaven, or affirm that it actually exists. It may not be the truth, or it may be, but Bierce tactically manipulates the reader to believe in the idea of hope regardless of the validity in Farquhar’s after death experience. The elimination of hope, even when truth dose not exist, is unsatisfying to the reader. Bierce consciously exposes that optimistic nature in his sentence, “Death is a dignitary who when he comes announced is to be received with formal manifestations of respect, even by those most familiar with him.” (Bierce) Death in isolation is daunting, so the imagination of the unknown and our desire to believe in fantasy, gives us content that Peyton received honor and righteousness upon his vicious execution. 

Townie Spies

I thought of the first day of class while reading this short story, particularly when Professor Schwartz came into class and after a few minutes of presenting asked why we should believe she is who she says she was. As a student, I had never thought of this concept before. Why would some random woman pretend to be our professor? But because I have never even considered this idea, it was that much more powerful. Professor Schwartz explained how we have been conditioned to trust authority our whole lives and how we believe what we want to believe. I wanted to believe she was my teacher because that would be normal. If a stranger came into our classroom and pretended to be our professor, I would have a hard time trusting professors on the first day of each semester for the rest of my academic career. The emotional toll of not being able to trust what I am supposed to be learning from professionals would hinder my ability to grow as a student. Professor Schwartz provided this exercise, not to have us distrust professors, but to have us open our minds to different sides of the story. Maybe as we get older a new form of learning needs to substitute the conventional type of “whatever the professor says is what is absolutely right”. Perhaps an educative style in which professors display all of the information, both sides of an argument, and all angles of an experiment and let us determine which is “correct”.

Getting back to the story, why would Peyton believe that the man asking for water was a confederate soldier without any additional information? Peyton Farquhar craves joining the war. After “circumstances of an imperious nature” (Bierce, II) prevent him from joining his Southern brothers in battle, he becomes desperate to help in any way possible. Thus, when a disguised scout from the North comes and warns of an impending advance of the Yankees, Peyton decides to try to ward them off himself by damaging the railroads, which they would use to attack. Why should Peyton trust this man? For all he knows, the “confederate soldier” could have been a townie from Clinton, NY. Peyton believed this man because he wanted, more than anything, to help the South. Desire is a very powerful force, and in this case, it led to Peyton’s death.

Down the rabbit hole we go.....

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.

Jokes on Me!

An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge by Ambrose Bierce is quite unlike anything I have ever read. I'm not used to reading stories or novels where the author goes through with a large, complex lie (or set of lies) that ends in a "jokes on you!" kind of way. Although in the back of my mind I knew that manipulations and lies were going to play a role in the story, I still believed Bierce's lies up until the very last paragraph. This could be due to me being a super gullible person. Or it could be the trust that I've placed in authors of stories I have read thus far. Or maybe it's because I wanted Peyton Farquhar to successfully escape his execution and survive, so much so that I denied the possibility of any other option.

 

Whatever the reason, reading An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge has showed me that I need to view stories, and ultimately, life, through a more critical, skeptical lens. Otherwise, I am susceptible to manipulation and everything that comes with it. I feel as if this story is just the beginning of my learning to be a more critical thinker. Throughout the course, I hope I can begin to open up my mind to new possibilities and perspectives, and critically analyze information that I am presented with.

We Believe What We Want to Hear

Our destiny is not dependent upon our experiences, but rather, it is determined by our attitude and perception of those events that we endure. In An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, Peyton Farquhar is so convinced that he will not die that he fools himself, and us, into thinking that he is as alive as he ever has been. He thought to himself, amidst the chaos of this twisted death sentence, “To be hanged and drowned, that is not so bad; but I do not wish to be shot. No; I will not be shot; that is not fair” (Bierce). And with this, he is able to take himself on this heroic escape, making us believe that, with this skewed perception, he simply escapes death. By believing this extremely vivid and suspenseful lie, we assume that the extravagant details of his “escape”, like the sand looking like rubies, diamonds and emeralds, are true. We look past those details, ignoring anything that will prove them to seem ridiculous or false. We believe this because we want to believe it; we want to be fooled because we want Farquhar to flee the ominous and eerie setting that we are meant to hate. We get lost in his fantastically fictional perceptions as if we were escaping with him. Bierce wrote this for us to feel for Farquhar, and to believe these unrealistic events that continue to build up until, at last, it cannot be built up anymore.