Peyton Farquhar in An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge

Ambrose Bierce's An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge is a short story that draws almost unanimous praise for its concept, entertainment value and execution. It exists as a fresh take on the "it was all a dream" storyline, flawlessly interweaving the real and surreal to form a thrilling and unpredictable tale. The nature of Owl Creek not only invites critical analysis, it encourages and maybe even requires it. Several re-readings are needed to fully grasp the intricate web woven by Bierce, and he leaves plenty up to interpretation which makes the story an ideal target for critics to offer opinion.

The amount of critics that weigh in on Owl Creek is not particularly overwhelming; however, the wide range of striking contradictions between each critic's interpretation is astounding. Each reader seems to perceive the story in a completely different light than the last, making for a colorful debate which spans countless topics.

However, the most glaring hole left by existing critical interpretation is a simple lack of closure. No review thus far has managed to pull together all the elements employed by Bierce in Owl Creek and present a clear summary or hypothesis of the story's true intention.

Peter Stoicheff offers an interesting, and perhaps the most unique, take on the "escape" sequence which makes up the bulk of the story in "Something Uncanny: The Dream Structure in Ambrose Bierce's 'An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge.'" Citing several well-known psychologists, most notably Sigmund Freud, Stoicheff approaches the story as something of an exercise in dream exploration. While his analysis of the story as a literary work seems hopelessly lacking, he brings an important element to the table by fleshing out the parallels between Farquhar's imagined escape and the reality of his hanging. In this way he suggests a re-read in which it is possible to identify several events of the imagined escape that allude to parts of the hanging.

Stoicheff's critique exposes the painstaking attention Bierce paid to detail in Owl Creek; an important observation because it later becomes central to understanding his ultimate intention in writing the story.

In "Anatomy of a Classic," Daniel E. Samide presents the argument that seems to most closely resemble a tidy summary of Owl Creek. He approaches Bierce's story through a classical literary lens, focusing on the linguistic elements that drive the story and, in his opinion, set it apart from other stories as a true classic. He discusses the use of a limited third-person vantage point, in which the reader's perception is expertly skewed in order to foster confusion. The readers are not permitted unabated access to Peyton Farquhar's thoughts or perceptions, nor are they provided with the advantage of a truly omniscient third-person narrator.

To expand on Samide's point, the reader's vision is further skewed by the fact that they are kept wholly unaware of the viewpoint's shortcomings until the end of the story. Prior to the twist ending, there exists no hard evidence that the narrator does not disclose every detail of Farquhar's journey; in fact, it is chronicled in such painstaking detail that it suggests the opposite quality.

Similarly, Samide points to the realistic properties of the story as a key factor in Bierce's attempt to fool the reader. He believes the large amount of detail and vivid descriptions lend themselves to a sense of reality, luring readers onto what they believe to be a predictable path. In this way, Bierce prevents them from even searching for deviations. It far easier, and seemingly more practical, to follow the path readily laid out in Owl Creek.

In their review of Owl Creek, George and Judy Cheatem provide a viewpoint that is at first glance in direct contradiction to Samide's. Pointing to what they perceive as an almost comical overload of detail, these critics contend that the vivid, overly glorified descriptions provided by Bierce are a dead giveaway of the "escape" sequence's surreal nature. They are keen in qualifying Peyton Farquhar as a character who glorifies his perception of war, and they argue that this reflects upon his imagined escape.

George and Judy Cheatem throw a cog into the debate which is a vital qualification of Samide's point. While they ultimately contradict his thesis that Bierce intended to fool the reader at every turn, there is an important middle ground in which the opposing viewpoints meet. They converge upon Peyton Farquhar as playing a vital role in the development of the story; not just as the central character, but as a vehicle for Bierce's purposes, employed to confound the reader and give Bierce total control over the logical path taken to a conclusion. Through the use of Farquhar, he is able to determine when, or if, a new piece of the puzzle is dispersed to the reader.

Peyton Farquhar is a character who symbolically perpetuates the contradictions which serve as the primary theme of An Occurrence At Owl Creek. Contradiction, in fact, seems to be the very essence of Bierce's story. It is weaved into the plot, the characters, and most importantly, it exists as a subtle finger pointed squarely into the face of the reader.

Throughout the course of the story, the reader remains wholly unsure of how to 'take' Farquhar's character. In the beginning, he is both physically and idealistically located in the Civil War-era south, a slave owner and Confederate sympathizer. This goes beyond a simple decision regarding where to set the story; with this characterization Bierce effectively ensures that the reader's first impression of Farquhar will possess a negative connotation. That impression, however, will soften as the story unfolds and the character is more fully fleshed-out.

Aside from the unfortunate events that befall him, Farquhar appears to be a sad case in which he is unable to attain the lifestyle he truly desires. Although he appears to have done well for himself, he truly fancies himself as an adventurous spirit, one which is quelled by his confinement to the plantation he owns. He desires the life of a solider, albeit a glorified one. Instead, however, he is resigned to be of whatever service he can to Confederate soldiers who pass through.

This type of disparity between realistic and idealized perceptions of one's lifestyle is a safe bet to strike a chord with most readers. Part of human nature is to desire something more than what is currently attainable, and Bierce appeals to that aspect of humanity in order to garner sympathy for Farquhar, which ultimately exposes a contradiction within the reader. It becomes trying, and disturbingly hard, to decide how to feel about the character.

On one hand, he is a Confederate slave owner, and one who purportedly rarely has to lift a finger. These connotations, within the forum of American society, are almost exclusively negative. As such, the readers would like to qualify themselves as above Peyton Farquhar. However, a glaring contradiction comes to the forefront when the reader can't help but sympathize with a character they have no business associating themselves with.

Similarly, Farquhar possesses an identifiably human quality in the sense that he desperately and constantly desires that which he does not have. The beginning of the story finds the character extremely restless in his current capacity; a well-to-do, married plantation owner who desires the glory and adventure he stigmatically attaches to the life of a Civil War-era soldier. By the story's end, however, he has undergone a sharp transformation. Having experienced the uglier side of war, he becomes a character who wants nothing more than to be at home with his wife. Formerly described in sparse detail, Farquhar now makes remarks about how beautiful she is.

While it is easy to fault Farquhar for a shallow sense of his own desires, the fact is that the feelings he experiences should not be foreign to any readers. It is human nature to glorify the unknown, and readers will find it hard not to sympathize with Farquhar's unfortunate chain of events. In fact, he should even represent something of a hero to most readers, as he did initially possess the courage to chase after the somewhat dangerous dream when given the chance. This is a step further than many are willing to go, and for that reason readers are inclined to sympathize.

By the time we reach the infamous "escape" section of the story, there has been almost a complete reversal of our feelings regarding Farquhar. In a turn of events that not many readers could have expected, most find themselves rooting for Farquhar, a Confederate, to escape the grasps of the Union army. The readers feel for him trapped in a noose in a way that is directly parallel to how they sympathize with his being trapped in a lifestyle that fails to bring happiness.

Ultimately, it is unavoidable that the reader will fault Peyton Farquhar for his utter ignorance. Blinded by his constant glorification of that which is not real, he alone is responsible for his own jarring death. If not for his judgment-clouding perception of war, he may have been able to spot the visiting "Confederate" soldiers for what he was; a Union spy bent on luring the man into a trap. In his final moments, even, he foregos the opportunity to talk or innovate his way out of the noose. He is entirely consumed by his imagination, in which he concocts a highly glorified and gratuitous dream sequence that illustrates a valiant escape. Farquhar, then, would rather die imagining himself as a cunning or daring than try and fail to exhibit those qualities.

The initial observations about Owl Creek's central character are not, however, the end of the story. Once again, there is a necessity for self-reflection in order to truly grasp Bierce's intention. One must ponder the fact that knowing even what we do about Farquhar's shortcomings, we would still much rather see him escape. So much so, in fact, that we are able to successfully ignore any clues Bierce may have dropped as to the outcome of the story.

Readers are invariably shocked by the ending of Owl Creek, but it is not because of a lack of evidence; a simple re-reading of the story will find the clues sticking out like sore thumbs. In Peyton Farquhar, Bierce has created such an effective diversion that readers quickly lose their wits and are simply along for the ride.

A valid counterpoint is that Bierce created Farquhar not to expose an inner contradiction in the reader, but instead to spark debate about the polarizing character. This in turn shines a conversational light on the undertones of the story; still-relevant issues such as war, class, and the ongoing struggle to attain the American dream. At the time of its writing in 1890, the American Civil War was still fresh in the memory of the older generation.

In an era where media coverage of war was nowhere near as exhaustive as today's brand, there was plenty to be said about unhealthy glorification of war. It would not be a stretch to claim that Amrose Bierce's primary intention for Owl Creek was as a wake-up call for Americans to consider the sobering reality and consequence of war.

There is undoubtedly a negative connotation attached to war within the confines of the story, and the story's shocking outcome is a testament to the sad reality of an often glorified topic. In present times, Bierce's message is even more striking given the increasingly violent nature of entertainment; war is even more excessively glorified, and the message appears relevant now more than ever.

Why is it, however, that even though we can say with no lack of certainty Farquhar brought about his own death and yet wish for a different outcome? Why do we identify the most elementary aspects of the character as undesirable, even evil, and yet find ourselves sympathizing with him? The contradictions contained within the story are in this way only the beginning; Bierce challenges the reader to stretch interpretation to something beyond the words on the pages, and take into account the lens through which they are being read.

It is entirely possible that Bierce intended Owl Creek as a story that offered a sharp juxtaposition of the perceived and the real in terms of war. However, this is not an exclusionary argument in terms of the broader, deeper meanings being argued. Just as Owl Creek is a story that exists in two seperate mediums, Bierce's intentions may have been two-fold.

Sources:

Stoicheff, Peter. "Something Uncanny: The Dream Structure in Ambrose Bierce's 'An Occurrence at Owl Creek.'" Studies in Short Fiction 30.3 (Summer 1993) 349-358.

Samide, Daniel E. "Anatomy of a Classic." Writer May 2005 42-44.

Cheatem, George and Judy. Bierce's 'An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge'. Explicator Fall 84 p 45.

Serdock, Kristyna. An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge. The Celebrity Cafe.