Oedipus the King VS. "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" by Ambrose Bierce is a 19th Century mystery story

        The strong blends of reality and fiction create a grand story. In Part Three, the narrative takes over from the end of Part One. Bierce uses hints to explain the extreme conditions of Farquhar’s situation. Bierce warns the reader with comments such as, “it seemed to him…” (Bierce) that Farquhar is no longer reliable. The narrative voice becomes Latinate. The shift in voice creates a seg-way from fantasy back to reality. Part 3 suggests a somewhat after death experience: “saw above him a gleaming light…sense of suffocation…poignant agonies seemed to shoot his neck” (Bierce). Farquhar returns to reality. Bierce’s description of Farquhar’s extreme agonies creates confusion for the reader. The end of the story, again, alludes to an escape. “Ah, how beautiful she is! He springs forward with extended arms” (Bierce). Bierce abruptly stops his complex illusions, at this point, to illustrate the falsity of the escape. “Peyton Farquhar was dead; his body with a broken neck, swung gently from side to side beneath the timbers of the Owl Creek bridge” (Bierce). Cathy Davidson states, “Death is a cessation of the impression through the senses, and the pulling of the strings which move the appetites…” (Davidson 146).

         To what extent is Oedipus responsible for his own fate? In looking at the play Oedipus the King, I found several possibilities surrounding his fate. Firstly, one of the assumptions that can be drawn is that perhaps as destiny controls all fates, then Oedipus’ character was created long before he was conceived. On the other hand, we could also say that perhaps Oedipus’ horrific fate came about because of his character. The third possibility is that everything is inevitable - therefore no one ever has had any say in their own fate, let alone Oedipus. The first explanation to this question is the idea that destiny makes character. As destiny, supposedly in the Greek mindset, maps out all events before they occur, we can today assume with this logic that perhaps the components that “built” Oedipus’ character were caused by fate. We know today that character is determined by biological factors and experience. These biological factors would have been determined by how well he was fed, how well he developed, his genes etc. The experience would have also been determined by the pre-destined master plan of fate. Thus, it is possible to argue that Oedipus, as components of his character and mind, was entirely shaped by fate. Therefore, he cannot be held responsible for what he has done, as he has no control over his actions. However, the grounds that these arguments are based on are essentially unreliable. In my opinion, fate does not exist. Yet, as this is a personal choice similar to religious belief in the sense that there can be no definitive argument for or against, we cannot rationally conclude decisively either way. Yet if would be interesting to note that as this play is constructed along the lines of Aristotle’s theory of tragedy. The way in which the play is constructed would try to convey the sentiment that fate was the overriding factor and thus, it could be a valid basis for the argument just outlined. Nevertheless, if we were to look at the play and interpret it according to our own value judgments system, then we could just as easily reject this principle. It all depends on how we would like to approach the play. In addition, as there is no definitive or a positive way of doing this way, it can be said to be neither “right” nor “wrong”. The second explanation is the idea that it could be a mixture of both destiny and character. However, this seems a little inconsistent. How can anyone’s character have any consequence if destiny is at work? During Oedipus, we see many examples of how this can be resolved. When Oedipus (unbeknown to him) meets his father on the road, he could have decided to walk away and not react. However, he decided to react aggressively, and thus kills his father. However, theoretically, if his character had been different, fate could have returned later and tested him in different ways, perhaps then engaging his good-natured side. When Oedipus meets the sphinx, he could have turned away; instead, his character dictates that he should be bold and face her. Thus, he becomes King, and sets him on his path to incest. However, if he had acted differently, surely fate being fate, it would have found another way to trap him. In this logic, the crucial difference is that fate requires him to play a part to execute the plan. Perhaps of all the possible choices, this is the one favored most by Aristotle. It conforms completely to his way of looking at things. This solution is the idea that we are all controlled by fate. Everything is controlled by fate. In Oedipus, if we were to accept this way of looking at things, we would conclude that the entire Athenians were one giant chess game. It is as if everything was kick started millions of years ago, with each action already planned out. Then as the gods saw the world developing around them, they decided to punish and reward those who they favored. Conforming to the tragic human situation, a decent character falls through an error of action that has its origins in his character. This is merely Aristotle’s theory of tragedy, which is what the play was based on. On lines 20-1 the priest even tells Oedipus that the city is caught in a tide of death from which there is no escaping, which lets us know that this was definitely the view at the time. Essentially, we are dealing with an artificial plot. These series of events do not conform to real world values, only to the main beliefs of Aristotle. Thus, when we look at this plot, the mechanics of it cannot be dealt with in a normal way. This is theatre. It has been crafted to look as though the fall is due to some error of action, strongly entwined with fate. It gives the impression that Oedipus could not have stopped the actual horrific incest with his mother and the murder of his father from occurring. For Sophocles, it seems almost certain that, it was all down to fate.

Today’s society it is not likely that many people would believe this unreservedly as people would in the time of Sophocles’ Oedipus seems unfortunate, a victim of superstition as much as anything else. Sophocles wrote an excellent tragedy, although Oedipus does not die, he still lives with the guilt that he killed his father, married his own mother, and reproduced children with his mother. I believe Oedipus was a great tragic hero because he saved the towns life even though he ruined his own. His fate was tested through out the play and he chooses to deny it. Bierce has a unique style to pull the reader into the story. To name a few techniques, his complex illusions keep the audience in suspense, his detailed descriptions allow the reader to picture all aspects of the story and the dividing of the story into three separate parts help them to stay focused. In “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge”, Farquhar’s fantasy overtakes his reality leaving him with only one option on returning to reality death. Numerous critics argue the relevancy of the plot of “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge”. The fantasy and reality connection between Farquhar’s imagination and the hanging make the story. Bierce creates suspense and confusion through mind deception. Time manipulation, the fantasy realm, and the overlapping of dreams and reality equally deceive the reader and the protagonist. Yet to those of who accept fate, perhaps this could be the explanation. It is a completely personal decision, based on an individual interpretation. King Oedipus and Farquhar make their own decisions in their own way and lives with the consequences those brought.  There is no one correct answer for interpretation in the 21st Century, in depends completely on individuals perception of the actuality of fate.

Work Cited

1. Bierce, Ambrose . Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1985. Eserver.org. Date Unknown. Iowa State University. 15 May 2005.  <http://eserver.org:16080/fiction/occurrence-at-owl-creek.html>
2. Charters, Ann, and Charters, Samuel, eds. Literature and Its Writers: A Compact Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, and Drama. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2003.
3. Davidson, Cathy N.  Critical Essays on Ambrose Bierce. Boston Mass: G.K. Hall, 1982.
4.  Powers, James G. “Freud and Farquhar: An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge.” Studies in Short Fiction 19.3 (1982): Unknown number of paragraphs. 15 May. 2005  <>