An Examination of the Author's Point of View in An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge

Being my second time reading this macabre tale, I had not expected it to have the same effect as it did when I was a high-school junior. However, as I knew how the events played out, I was able to note several things I missed on my first read-through. Ambrose Bierce is quite an illustrative and descriptive writer, almost tiringly so; however, I had not considered that by intentionally neglecting a second dialogue, he was weaving another side to the story.

Throughout this piece, we seem to be cheering for this renegade without any idea as to why; it is not until part two that we even learn our protagonist’s name and why he has a hemp rope tied about his neck. I feel as if Ambrose intentionally kept the Union soldiers silent as a means of hiding the truth about Farquhar; he was a terrorist in their eyes. If we felt no sympathy for this gentleman, then Bierce’s M.

Night Shyamalan ending would have not been nearly as dramatic for the reader.

Had Bierce given the Union soldiers a voice, this story would have played out the same; but the empathy felt by the reader would have been diminished. By leaving the soldiers silent, save for their gun and cannon fire, Bierce cleaves away their humanity; the reader does not know why the protagonist is being executed, all he is aware of is what is going on inside the mind of the condemned soul. Another reason might be that by having more than one voice present in the story, the time dilation which Bierce so carefully constructs could be compromised.

Get quality help now

Marrie pro writer

Verified

Proficient in: An Occurrence At Owl Creek Bridge

5 (204)

“ She followed all my directions. It was really easy to contact her and respond very fast as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Considering that Bierce was a Union soldier, I would have expected this piece to have a more forgiving attitude towards the soldiers carrying out the hanging. However, Bierce seems to have the ability to see the worst of humanity with no regard of his personal moral compass. During Part II, one feels as though Bierce is commiserating with Farquhar’s scenario; he talks of his wife and child and the desire to protect his home, a universal conviction for most soldiers. I think by giving the point of view to Farquhar was meant to bridge a gap, Bierce wanted to drive home the point that under certain conditions, any man is capable of any act; simply put, we are only human.