His features were good—a straight nose, firm mouth, broad forehead, from which his long, dark hair was combed straight back, falling behind his ears to the collar of his well-fitting frock coat. He wore a mustache and pointed beard, but no whiskers; his eyes were large and dark gray, and had a kindly expression which one would hardly have expected in one whose neck was in the hemp. Evidently this was no vulgar assassin. The liberal military code makes provisions for hanging many kinds of persons, and gentlemen are not excluded.
This is how Ambrose Bierce characterizes Peyton Farquhar, the Protagonist of his most well-known and celebrated short story, An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge. Here the reader is given various information about what kind of man is about to be hanged: he is handsome and has a kind air about him, he appears to be rather affluent, considering his “well-fitting frock coat,” and he is no “vulgar assassin.” Quite contrary, the sarcastic last sentence even hints that he is a gentleman. Among other things, this characterization is what lets Stuart C. Woodruff come to the conclusion that “it is the tragic waste of such a man which engages our sympathies.” According to Woodruff, the assessment of Farquhar as a hero, deserving of the reader’s sympathy, is vital to how and why the story works. Because its main character seems admirable, Woodruff calls Owl Creek Bridge a “seemingly real tale of daring escape. Moreover, it is the kind of tale we would like to believe because Farquhar himself is such an attractive figure: brave, sensitive, highly intelligent.” Woodruff goes on calling him “the typical Bierce hero” and in the end draws a familiar conclusion: Farquhar is Bierce and Bierce is Farquhar. According to Woodruff, Bierce, like the protagonist, longed “for the release of his energies, the larger life of a soldier, the opportunity for distinction.” He became, like Farquhar, “a civilian who was at heart a soldier.” This interpretation of Owl Creek is a common one, but nevertheless absolutely and completely wrong. Woodruff is mistaken when he assumes proximity between the story’s author and main character. This misinterpretation can first and foremost be proven by Bierce’s biography. For instance, Peyton Farquhar is a slave owner, as we learn in the story, but Bierce himself opposed slavery. Already at the age of fifteen he worked as a printer’s devil at the abolitionist paper The Northern Indianan.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction – A gentleman with kind eyes
2.1. The things Peyton Farquhar did (or intended to do…)
2.2 The man Peyton Farquhar was (or pretended to be…)
2.3. Peyton Farquhar’s world view (and the one of Ambrose Bierce…)
3. Conclusion – Neither a gentleman, nor a hoax
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This academic paper aims to deconstruct the common misconception that Peyton Farquhar, the protagonist of Ambrose Bierce’s "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge," is a heroic figure. By analyzing Farquhar's actions, his self-deceptions, and the narrative structure of the story, the study demonstrates that the character is instead a flawed individual and an antihero, while simultaneously exploring how Bierce uses the reader's own psychological tendencies against them to convey deeper lessons about reality and reason.
- The critical re-evaluation of Peyton Farquhar as an antihero rather than a romanticized protagonist.
- An analysis of the contrast between Farquhar's self-perception and his actual character traits.
- The examination of Bierce’s narrative techniques and the intentional use of a "hoax" ending.
- A discussion on the importance of logic and reason as central themes in Bierce's work.
- The distinction between the author’s real-life military experience and the protagonist’s amateurish hubris.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1. The things Peyton Farquhar did (or intended to do…)
In order to judge the main character of An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge in a fair manner, it is worthwhile considering in detail what he presumably is being hanged for, as the reader cannot know for sure. Farquhar’s enterprise obviously failed, but what he planned to do is stated quite specifically in his conversation with the disguised Union soldier. First of all, he intended to burn the bridge to cut off the Yankee supply line, but what is more—and easily overlooked or not even realized at all, as Bierce uses a euphemism here—he almost certainly had in mind to assassinate the sentinel. After Farquhar is informed by the Federal scout about how many Union soldiers are positioned on his side of the river and told that there is only a single man at this end of the bridge, he asks, smiling: "Suppose a man—a civilian and student of hanging—should elude the picket post and perhaps get the better of the sentinel … what could he accomplish?" (38) Clearly, to “get the better of the sentinel” implies that Farquhar wants to kill the man, if given the possibility. It is important to keep in mind here that he is a civilian, which means that he is not going to encounter the soldier in combat in a fair or honorable way, but treacherously, being dressed as a civilian and taking action as a soldier. Therefore, Bierce tells the reader, even if the protagonist is tricked, this does not mean that he is treated unfairly, since he under no circumstances acted like an upright and honest man is supposed to.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction – A gentleman with kind eyes: This chapter introduces the protagonist and challenges the common critical view that Farquhar is a sympathetic hero, establishing the paper's intent to reveal his darker character traits.
2.1. The things Peyton Farquhar did (or intended to do…): This section examines the specific acts and intentions of Farquhar, arguing that his plans to sabotage and assassinate reveal his treacherous nature rather than honorable military conduct.
2.2 The man Peyton Farquhar was (or pretended to be…): This chapter analyzes Farquhar's self-deception and cowardice, highlighting the discrepancy between his self-image as a noble soldier and his actual behavior as an opportunist.
2.3. Peyton Farquhar’s world view (and the one of Ambrose Bierce…): This part contrasts Farquhar’s irrationality with Bierce’s emphasis on reason, exploring the deeper allegorical meaning behind the story's setting and narrative structure.
3. Conclusion – Neither a gentleman, nor a hoax: The final chapter synthesizes the findings to confirm that the story is a well-crafted piece of literature that uses the protagonist's fall to expose the reader's own tendency toward irrationality and misjudgment.
Keywords
Ambrose Bierce, An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, Peyton Farquhar, Antihero, Civil War literature, literary analysis, self-deception, narrative structure, protagonist, cowardice, realism, reason, hoax, interpretation, character study.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this paper?
The paper focuses on deconstructing the misinterpretation of Peyton Farquhar as a heroic figure, arguing instead that he is a self-deluded antihero.
What are the primary themes explored?
The primary themes include the nature of heroism, the role of self-deception, the distinction between civilian and soldier, and the importance of reason in interpreting reality.
What is the main research objective?
The objective is to prove that Ambrose Bierce intentionally created a protagonist whose flaws serve to challenge the reader's perceptions and moral judgment.
Which methodology does the author use?
The author uses a close textual analysis of the short story, comparing the internal narrative with historical context and existing literary criticism.
What does the main body address?
The main body investigates Farquhar's specific actions, his psychological state, and how these elements contrast with the author's own life and values as a Civil War veteran.
Which keywords best characterize the work?
Key terms include antihero, self-deception, narrative structure, logic, and literary critique.
How does the author interpret Farquhar's desire to burn the bridge?
The author interprets this act as a cowardly, treacherous attempt by a civilian to engage in violence outside of honorable combat, rather than a heroic act of war.
Why does the paper argue that the reader is "tricked" by the story?
The paper argues that the reader tricks themselves by prioritizing emotional desire for a "happy ending" over logical observation of the narrative facts provided by Bierce.
- Quote paper
- John Schulze (Author), 2004, The lessons to be learned from Peyton Farquhar - "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" and its (anti)hero, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/33909
