Analysis of : AN OCCURRENCE AT OWL CREEK BRIDGE

ANALYSIS

AN OCCURRENCE AT OWL CREEK BRIDGE

Ambrose Bierce

Ambrose Bierce was an American writer (journalist, satirist, short story writer) who lived from 1842-1914 (or thereabouts, since he disappeared in Mexico somewhere around 1914).  His two best known works are "The Devil's Dictionary" (a dictionary of epic, satirical proportions) and the short story "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge."  However, his works (available at Project Gutenberg) encompass many genres and themes and are entirely worth reading for analysis and pleasure.  In many ways, Ambrose Bierce is what you would get if you crossed Stephen King with Mark Twain.  There is humorous and sometimes biting satire, as well as the sort of terror that makes a story memorable for years and years.  "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" is of the latter variety.

The story takes place during the Civil War in the United States.  (The reader should note that Bierce, like Hemingway, was not just a keen observer of war, but also a participant.  Bierce fought for the Union Army during the war).  Peyton Farquhar, a Southern gentleman who was not a rebel soldier but nonetheless a slave owner and rebel sympathizer, is standing on Owl Creek Bridge, about to be hanged.  A brief flashback enlightens the reader as to why.  Farquhar, having been visited by a Union soldier in disguise, was lured into trying to sabotage the bridge.  After the flashback, the hanging commences.  As Farquhar begins to fall, the sensation of his death is described.  Then the rope breaks and Farquhar is freed.  He manages to free his hands, remove the noose from his neck, and swim for freedom.  The Union soldiers on the bridge fire at him, but he escapes.  He then wanders through the forest, eventually ending back at his home.  But just as he is about to embrace his wife who has come out to joyfully greet him, Farquhar is snapped back to reality.  He dangles from the bridge in his noose, dead.

There are a multitude of elements to this short story (about 6 pages in length) that make it stand out so much as Bierce's most exemplary piece of serious fiction.  First, and foremost, is the human element.  In this story, Bierce makes Farquhar human and sympathetic to the reader.  He is not described in any terms that make his death seem justified or fair.  He is only 35, good looking, has a "kindly expression," and is married with children.  For whatever reason, Farquhar could not be a soldier, but his convictions are such that he stands behind them and helps in whatever way he can.  In short, Peyton Farquhar is a principled, decent man (even if his principles are wrong).

Peyton's humanity is in direct contrast to the lack of humanity of those about to hang him.  All the Union (referred to as "Federal" in the story) soldiers around him are without character or personality.  They fill the role of shadowy executioners, without conscience or compassion.  They do their duty silently, efficiently.  Bierce even describes two of them as so still and expressionless that they "might have been statues."  Not only is there nothing human about these men, there seems to be nothing human about what they are doing.

This leads to the second element that makes the story striking, which is the duality of emotion.  The reader understands that the Union army is "in the right" as they fight the Civil War, yet Bierce asks the reader to examine how far "right" can go before it becomes "wrong."  The reader wants to sympathize with Farquhar not because Farquhar did anything right or noble, but because Farquhar is the only "human" in the story.  The reader "knows" Farquhar.  The reader feels pity and sympathy for Farquhar.  The reader feels pity and sympathy for Farquhar's wife who will never see her husband again, and his children who will never have their father.  Yet the reader knows that the "statues" are the ones in the right.  Farquhar is a slave owner.  He has tried to sabotage the bridge and prevent the Union army from victory and freeing the slaves.  He is wrong.  But when the reader looks through Farquhar's eyes, is put in touch with Farquhar's emotions, the heartstrings are tugged.  Maybe, just this once, the bad guy can escape, the reader thinks.  Maybe the bad guy isn't quite so bad.

And then the unimaginable happens.  Through some sort of benevolent twist of fate, Farquhar is given the chance to escape.  The reader sees everything with him, feels everything with him.  The bullets that narrowly miss him.  The cannon that misses him.  The sense of desperate struggle as Farquhar pulls himself from the river and begins the voyage home.  This slave owner and rebel abettor has captured the reader's sentiments.  The sympathy that Bierce built up for Farquhar in describing his humanity has spilled over and the reader is taken along for the ride.

Farquhar has been given a reprieve.  Yes, the reader says in agreement with fate, let's go home.

And then, just at the moment of triumphant joy, the reader and Farquhar are snapped back to cruel reality.  There will be no miraculous escape.  There is no second chance for evildoers.  And it is this element of, for lack of a better word, horror that makes the story so captivating.  Bierce has captured the reader through humanity, and now forces the reader to see that humanity in its most horrific form.  Horrific not just because of the cruelty and callousness of death, but horrific because of the glimpse of self this humanity has given the reader.  While the reader sympathizes with Farquhar, the reader feels he or she is on the side of the Union army.  If so, does that then make the reader part of the executioner's party?  Does the reader become one of the statues on the bridge, a mute observer to this ceremony of death?  Does the reader cross the boundary from "right" to "wrong"?  Just like his satirical works, Bierce forces the reader to look just below the surface and question exactly what thoughts and feelings are present and why.  If the reader feels bad, why?  What moral reason is there for that?  But if the reader feels good, why is that?  What moral reason exists for that as well?

If a person easily feels uncomfortable confronting human elements turned against him or herself, Bierce is definitely a writer to avoid.  In very much the same way that Stephen King's early works twisted reality just enough to make the terrifying plausible, so do many of the works of Ambrose Bierce.  "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" is just such a story.  Are right and wrong variables or absolutes?  Can humans be both right and wrong?  What makes "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" so chilling is that when the reader is done with it, "Yes" is the only possible answer to both questions.