Three hour essay
Short Essay on Chickamauga
Ambrose Bierce's short story Chickamauga is a work of realist fiction that presents the reader with several important themes or ideas. The theme that will be discussed in this essay is: The author's extensive attempt to destroy sentimentalism. Every sentence in the text is fierce in this regard. The first portion of the text is an outlash effort to create a kind of a straw man for sentimentalism, and the second is a detailed destruction of that man.
First we will take a look at the first few paragraphs of the story from which we may observe Bierce's intention of portraying (perhaps with exaggeration) sentiments of idealism. The story begins on a sunny afternoon. Things are already positive, ideal. Bierce introduces us to a child who has strayed from his home. His father is a poor farmer, who served in the military. Immediately, Bierce describes the boy's sentiment as a white European with heritage. "It was happy in a new sense of freedom from control, happy in the opportunity of exploration and adventure; for this child's spirit, in bodies of it's ancestors, had for thousands of years been trained to memorable feats of discovery and conquest - victories in battles where critical moments were centuries, whose victors' camps were cities of hewn stone. From the cradle of its race it had conquered its way through two continents and passing a great sea had penetrated a third, there to be born to war and dominion as a heritage." It's important to remember that Bierce is describing these characteristics of the boy so that later he may refute the notion that they are good. According to the author, the boys race associates him with a vast heritage of conquest and war, exploration and discovery, freedom and adventure. It is true that white European ancestry embodied a heritage described aptly in the text here. It is true that the main premises of the heritage from the white European race permeated the mind of this young child, i.e., conquest and war, exploration and discovery, freedom and adventure. Bierce is not incorrect is stating these things in fact, that European culture contained these characteristics or that the child inherited them. But we will see that his primary purpose in purporting these facts is to later attempt to reveal their deceptive evil and foolishness.
We move on to the brief description of his father, which follows the same strain of insincere cultural praise present in the first paragraph. We are told he served in the military and fought against naked savages. The mention or race did not escape the first paragraph and it won't escape the second either. It appears that Bierce is helping us to believe, correctly or incorrectly so, that the cultural buoyancy of the white European race requires the assumption that other races are savages. The boys father, now a peaceful planter, still retains the warrior spirit. Idealistically we are told that once this spirit is kindled, it is never extinguished. The father loves military books and pictures and it is implied that the son had "understood enough" to make himself a wooden sword. Once again race is mentioned when Bierce chides "This weapon he now bore bravely, as became the son of a heroic race. . ." In reality, it seems that Bierce is trying to portray all the idealism of white, western, European culture and sentiment into this young boy and his thoughts and actions on this (perhaps final) day of his life.
For example the sword. The sword clearly represents the assumed military might of European heritage culture. He wields it as he travels away from his home and into the surrounding forest. This is a micro-image of centuries of conquest and exploration performed by his ancestors distant and remote. Bierce describes the boy's exaggerated postures of aggression that he learned from the "engraver's art." This further symbolizes the equally exaggerated sentiment of military readiness typical of our understanding of the culture of his ancestors. The boy defeats an imaginary foe and, upon presuming that prudence requires him to withdraw to his base of operations, he undertakes to be mightier than prudence and therefore "he could not curb the lust for war."
The first instance of refutation against the sentimentalism we have thus far looked at occurs in the cute experience described in the second paragraph. "Advancing from the bank of the creek he suddenly found himself confronted with a new and more formidable enemy: in the path that he was following, sat, bolt upright, with ears erect and paws suspected before it, a rabbit!" The refutation may only by a stretch be justly called that. Bierce is making fun of the boy. Is it possible that Bierce, by poking fun at the boy in this instance, is thereby poking fun at the whole canon of the accomplishments of the boy's ancestors? The boy cries and flees the danger of the rabbit. He runs through the forest in a direction unknown to himself. He apparently loses any path as he may have been on before as we are told he wanders with erring feet through the tangled undergrowth. Finally he falls into submission and fatigue, and his stick, once a weapon, becomes his only companion, with whom he cries himself to sleep.
The next part of the story is significant and begins the primary attack on the boys idealistic nature. The boy sees what he first believes to be an animal. Then recognizes the creature as a wounded man. Then he realizes a great number of injured men struggling, dying. "They were men. They crept upon their hands and knees. They used their hands only, dragging their legs. They used their knees only, their arms hanging idle at their sides. They strove to rise to their feet, but fell prone in the attempt. They did nothing naturally, and nothing alike, save only to advance foot by foot in the same direction.... Occasionally one who had paused did not again go on, but lay motionless. He was dead. Some, pausing, made strange gestures with their heads, erected their arms and lowered them again, clasped their heads; spread their palms upward, as men are something seen to do in public prayer." It is most interesting how Bierce has made such a violently dramatic transition from that innocene which he is portraying early in the story, to the shocking reality that is presented to refute that idealism. We discussed earlier the sentimental purity and romanticism which drenched the first page or two of the story. Now we are presented with the bloody image of soldiers from war trying to flee, trying to live. This depiction of pain and suffering is, according to the story, a more or less direct result of the idealistic naivete exemplified and exampled in the boy of the story.
But much more significantly, the depiction of pain and suffering in this part of the story is implied as being a more or less direct result of the idealistic naivete not of a young boy in the wilderness, wielding a stick, but of the whole canon of white, western, European heritage. While there is no room to doubt that European traditions of conquest in past centuries has resulted in the shedding of much blood, this alone is not Bierce's contention. Bierce sets out to produce the most shocking images possible and to attribute them to the cultural sin exemplified "innocently" in the boy who witnesses them first hand. The story goes on to depict the increasingly shocking naivete of the boy as he interacts with the half-dead soldiers, climaxing in a hilarious event that capsulizes the the irony Bierce may have intended to portray: "He moved among them freely, going from one to another and peering into their faces with childish curiosity... But on and ever on they crept, these maimed and bleeding men, as heedless as he of the dramatic contrast between his laughter and their own ghastly gravity. To him it was a merry spectacle. He had seen his father's Negroes creep on their hands and knees for his amusement - had ridden them so... He now approached one of these crawling figures from behind and with an agile movement mounted it astride." The boy is flung from the man. What is the great hilarious irony in this spectacle? It is that the boy who is exemplifying a childish form of military zeal is met with the experience of beholding one of the worst and most brutal results of that military zeal which, unchecked, apparently does inevitably produce such miserable scenes. It is not until he is thrown from the injured man like a rider from an undomesticated colt that he "[takes] a more serious view of the situation." The irony continues as the author describes a man who's face has been so mangled that he looks like a great bird of prey "crimsoned in the throat and breast by the blood of its quarry."
Grand ironic symbolism is achieved when the boy literally "leads" the dying, crawling men. The boy sees a glowing, which is fire, and moves towards it. "He placed himself in the lead, his wooden sword still in hand, and solemnly directed the march, conforming his pace to theirs and occasionally turning as if to see that his forces did not straggle. Surely such a leader never before had such a following." Their irony contained in these statements really drive home the point that Bierce is trying to get out: The idealism of Euro-western tradition unknowingly produces that which is despicable and horrid, death and destruction. As to what other significant conclusions one may draw from this outrageous and beautiful depiction of irony, I know not. The story continues and the boy encounters the objects of a camp, including blanket, heavy knapsack, and a broken rifle. The boy sees fire and runs to it, likely out of the pyromaniac interest in flames found in most healthy boys. On his way he sees men who have no heads. His disbelief is stated: "The stronger had already drawn themselves to the brink and plunged their faces into the flood. Three or four lay without motion appeared to have no heads. At this the child's eyes expanded with wonder; even his hospitable understanding could not accept a phenomenon implying such vitality as that." This is a reiteration of the theme contained throughout the work, that the boy's innocent zeal, a sentiment contributory in the world to death, was unable to even comprehend the severity of its alleged consequences.
The next part of the story is interesting, when the boy, upon reaching the wreckage of fire destruction, observes "Desolation everywhere!" and proceeds to "run about, collecting fuel, but every object that he found was too heavy for him to cast in from the distance to which the heat limited his approach." The next statement is significant and difficult to interpret in regards to it's higher meaning: "In despair he flung in his sword - a surrender to the superior forces of nature. His military career was at an end." What does this mean? Does this event represent the defeat of European man, his literal surrender to the evils of his own doing? Or does this even represent a more "optimistic" outlook, that white man, because of the observable consequences of his tradition of exploration and therefore conquest, has awoken to the realization of his deeds and his premises, and having done so has voluntarily taken his figurative sword and cast it into the fire? "His military career was at an end." This statement seems to imply that his life is not over, but that his career in the affairs of war are over, and that he has progressed as a more civilized race.
The next event in the story is the utmost climax in it. "Shifting his position, his eyes fell upon some outbuildings which had an oddly familiar appearance, as if he had dreamed of them. He stood considering them with wonder, when suddenly the entire plantation, with it enclosing forest, seemed to turn as if upon a pivot. His little world swung half around; the points of the compass were reversed. He recognized the blazing building as his own home!" The boy is stupefied and the description of what he thereafter observes is as follows: "There, conspicuous in the light of the conflagration, lay the dead body of a woman - the white face turned upward, the hands thrown out and clutched full of grass, the clothing deranged, the long dark hair in tangles and full of clotted blood. The greater part of the forehead was torn away, and from the jagged hole in the brain protruded, overflowing the temple, a frothy mass of gray, crowned with clusters of crimson bubbles - the work of a shell." The description is intentionally shocking and truly as violent as possible. Bierce's use of the word "white" in the description is curious and makes one guess as to how much relevance race Bierce wants in his story.
The child laments in anguish for minutes, crying aloud obscene unintelligence, likened in Bierces words to "something between the chattering of an ape and the gobbling of a turkey," and then more precisely "a startling, soulless, unholy sound, the language of a devil." One cannot help but question the intentions of Ambrose Bierce describing the boy indirectly as unholy, soulless, and a devil. If the thesis of this essay actually holds true, than the statement just quoted is the a philosophical climax in this reading. Is white, European man that which so many members of other races believe it to be? According to the fundamentalist Muslims, we are the devil, especially those of us in American, being termed "white devil."
To support the idea that Bierce is intentionally trying to tear down the pride and joy we have in the traditions of our European ancestors, I draw briefly from two surrounding works in literature in an attempt to prove how the efforts I accuse Bierce of making are not just his own, but are part of a general trend in American literature. In Editha, we are taught by Howells that nationalism is an evil resulting in the death of innocent men and the shame in all those who knew them. In Under the Lion's Paw, we are taught by Garland that capitalism is evil, and that social network policy based on principles not unlike those that infer to socialism or communism is preferable on American soil that was bought with blood for the right to private property. It is clear what Bierce is trying to destroy. It much less clear as to what Bierce is advocating instead. Perhaps a wider look at his other works would lend us help in answering this question, but that would extend beyond the intended scope of this essay. One may guess that an author, if he rejects western military idealism, would qualify as a pacifist. But in the story there is more that Bierce pokes holes in than just military zeal. He hints at race throughout the story, and one would not be able to use the story to refute the claim that Bierce is a racist against his own, although such a claim would be at least jumping to conclusions. Still, the sentiment is there.
What seems evident in this story, and which resounds in class discussions generated by reading this story and others like unto it, is self-criticism. It is apparently very popular in academia to criticize one's country, race, and traditions. A snippet example is Michael Moore's book entitled Stupid White Men. Michael Moore is, of course, a Caucasian male. What is it about our society today that enables men and women of European descent in America to be so comfortable dismissing their heritage and not only tolerating but praising indiscriminately the heritage of races and cultures other than their own? This is a question that perhaps should be struggled with more often. Hopefully, the answer is like unto the answer as to why educated people can very comfortably call themselves stupid, or strong people very comfortably call themselves weak. Why? Because it obvious to themselves and others that their criticism isn't going to hurt nearly as much as it would if indeed they actually were stupid, or weak. But perhaps that is a topic for another essay.
Ambrose Bierce's Chickamauga is an excellent specimen of realist literature that raises many important questions from its unquestionably powerful themes. It is the contention of this essay that Ambrose Bierce's Chickamauga embodies a sentiment that is inferior to literature with pro-western themes, that rejoice in the accomplishments of our ancestors and seeks to perpetuate the good found in our rich heritage.
Ambrose Bierce's short story Chickamauga is a work of realist fiction that presents the reader with several important themes or ideas. The theme that will be discussed in this essay is: The author's extensive attempt to destroy sentimentalism. Every sentence in the text is fierce in this regard. The first portion of the text is an outlash effort to create a kind of a straw man for sentimentalism, and the second is a detailed destruction of that man.
First we will take a look at the first few paragraphs of the story from which we may observe Bierce's intention of portraying (perhaps with exaggeration) sentiments of idealism. The story begins on a sunny afternoon. Things are already positive, ideal. Bierce introduces us to a child who has strayed from his home. His father is a poor farmer, who served in the military. Immediately, Bierce describes the boy's sentiment as a white European with heritage. "It was happy in a new sense of freedom from control, happy in the opportunity of exploration and adventure; for this child's spirit, in bodies of it's ancestors, had for thousands of years been trained to memorable feats of discovery and conquest - victories in battles where critical moments were centuries, whose victors' camps were cities of hewn stone. From the cradle of its race it had conquered its way through two continents and passing a great sea had penetrated a third, there to be born to war and dominion as a heritage." It's important to remember that Bierce is describing these characteristics of the boy so that later he may refute the notion that they are good. According to the author, the boys race associates him with a vast heritage of conquest and war, exploration and discovery, freedom and adventure. It is true that white European ancestry embodied a heritage described aptly in the text here. It is true that the main premises of the heritage from the white European race permeated the mind of this young child, i.e., conquest and war, exploration and discovery, freedom and adventure. Bierce is not incorrect is stating these things in fact, that European culture contained these characteristics or that the child inherited them. But we will see that his primary purpose in purporting these facts is to later attempt to reveal their deceptive evil and foolishness.
We move on to the brief description of his father, which follows the same strain of insincere cultural praise present in the first paragraph. We are told he served in the military and fought against naked savages. The mention or race did not escape the first paragraph and it won't escape the second either. It appears that Bierce is helping us to believe, correctly or incorrectly so, that the cultural buoyancy of the white European race requires the assumption that other races are savages. The boys father, now a peaceful planter, still retains the warrior spirit. Idealistically we are told that once this spirit is kindled, it is never extinguished. The father loves military books and pictures and it is implied that the son had "understood enough" to make himself a wooden sword. Once again race is mentioned when Bierce chides "This weapon he now bore bravely, as became the son of a heroic race. . ." In reality, it seems that Bierce is trying to portray all the idealism of white, western, European culture and sentiment into this young boy and his thoughts and actions on this (perhaps final) day of his life.
For example the sword. The sword clearly represents the assumed military might of European heritage culture. He wields it as he travels away from his home and into the surrounding forest. This is a micro-image of centuries of conquest and exploration performed by his ancestors distant and remote. Bierce describes the boy's exaggerated postures of aggression that he learned from the "engraver's art." This further symbolizes the equally exaggerated sentiment of military readiness typical of our understanding of the culture of his ancestors. The boy defeats an imaginary foe and, upon presuming that prudence requires him to withdraw to his base of operations, he undertakes to be mightier than prudence and therefore "he could not curb the lust for war."
The first instance of refutation against the sentimentalism we have thus far looked at occurs in the cute experience described in the second paragraph. "Advancing from the bank of the creek he suddenly found himself confronted with a new and more formidable enemy: in the path that he was following, sat, bolt upright, with ears erect and paws suspected before it, a rabbit!" The refutation may only by a stretch be justly called that. Bierce is making fun of the boy. Is it possible that Bierce, by poking fun at the boy in this instance, is thereby poking fun at the whole canon of the accomplishments of the boy's ancestors? The boy cries and flees the danger of the rabbit. He runs through the forest in a direction unknown to himself. He apparently loses any path as he may have been on before as we are told he wanders with erring feet through the tangled undergrowth. Finally he falls into submission and fatigue, and his stick, once a weapon, becomes his only companion, with whom he cries himself to sleep.
The next part of the story is significant and begins the primary attack on the boys idealistic nature. The boy sees what he first believes to be an animal. Then recognizes the creature as a wounded man. Then he realizes a great number of injured men struggling, dying. "They were men. They crept upon their hands and knees. They used their hands only, dragging their legs. They used their knees only, their arms hanging idle at their sides. They strove to rise to their feet, but fell prone in the attempt. They did nothing naturally, and nothing alike, save only to advance foot by foot in the same direction.... Occasionally one who had paused did not again go on, but lay motionless. He was dead. Some, pausing, made strange gestures with their heads, erected their arms and lowered them again, clasped their heads; spread their palms upward, as men are something seen to do in public prayer." It is most interesting how Bierce has made such a violently dramatic transition from that innocene which he is portraying early in the story, to the shocking reality that is presented to refute that idealism. We discussed earlier the sentimental purity and romanticism which drenched the first page or two of the story. Now we are presented with the bloody image of soldiers from war trying to flee, trying to live. This depiction of pain and suffering is, according to the story, a more or less direct result of the idealistic naivete exemplified and exampled in the boy of the story.
But much more significantly, the depiction of pain and suffering in this part of the story is implied as being a more or less direct result of the idealistic naivete not of a young boy in the wilderness, wielding a stick, but of the whole canon of white, western, European heritage. While there is no room to doubt that European traditions of conquest in past centuries has resulted in the shedding of much blood, this alone is not Bierce's contention. Bierce sets out to produce the most shocking images possible and to attribute them to the cultural sin exemplified "innocently" in the boy who witnesses them first hand. The story goes on to depict the increasingly shocking naivete of the boy as he interacts with the half-dead soldiers, climaxing in a hilarious event that capsulizes the the irony Bierce may have intended to portray: "He moved among them freely, going from one to another and peering into their faces with childish curiosity... But on and ever on they crept, these maimed and bleeding men, as heedless as he of the dramatic contrast between his laughter and their own ghastly gravity. To him it was a merry spectacle. He had seen his father's Negroes creep on their hands and knees for his amusement - had ridden them so... He now approached one of these crawling figures from behind and with an agile movement mounted it astride." The boy is flung from the man. What is the great hilarious irony in this spectacle? It is that the boy who is exemplifying a childish form of military zeal is met with the experience of beholding one of the worst and most brutal results of that military zeal which, unchecked, apparently does inevitably produce such miserable scenes. It is not until he is thrown from the injured man like a rider from an undomesticated colt that he "[takes] a more serious view of the situation." The irony continues as the author describes a man who's face has been so mangled that he looks like a great bird of prey "crimsoned in the throat and breast by the blood of its quarry."
Grand ironic symbolism is achieved when the boy literally "leads" the dying, crawling men. The boy sees a glowing, which is fire, and moves towards it. "He placed himself in the lead, his wooden sword still in hand, and solemnly directed the march, conforming his pace to theirs and occasionally turning as if to see that his forces did not straggle. Surely such a leader never before had such a following." Their irony contained in these statements really drive home the point that Bierce is trying to get out: The idealism of Euro-western tradition unknowingly produces that which is despicable and horrid, death and destruction. As to what other significant conclusions one may draw from this outrageous and beautiful depiction of irony, I know not. The story continues and the boy encounters the objects of a camp, including blanket, heavy knapsack, and a broken rifle. The boy sees fire and runs to it, likely out of the pyromaniac interest in flames found in most healthy boys. On his way he sees men who have no heads. His disbelief is stated: "The stronger had already drawn themselves to the brink and plunged their faces into the flood. Three or four lay without motion appeared to have no heads. At this the child's eyes expanded with wonder; even his hospitable understanding could not accept a phenomenon implying such vitality as that." This is a reiteration of the theme contained throughout the work, that the boy's innocent zeal, a sentiment contributory in the world to death, was unable to even comprehend the severity of its alleged consequences.
The next part of the story is interesting, when the boy, upon reaching the wreckage of fire destruction, observes "Desolation everywhere!" and proceeds to "run about, collecting fuel, but every object that he found was too heavy for him to cast in from the distance to which the heat limited his approach." The next statement is significant and difficult to interpret in regards to it's higher meaning: "In despair he flung in his sword - a surrender to the superior forces of nature. His military career was at an end." What does this mean? Does this event represent the defeat of European man, his literal surrender to the evils of his own doing? Or does this even represent a more "optimistic" outlook, that white man, because of the observable consequences of his tradition of exploration and therefore conquest, has awoken to the realization of his deeds and his premises, and having done so has voluntarily taken his figurative sword and cast it into the fire? "His military career was at an end." This statement seems to imply that his life is not over, but that his career in the affairs of war are over, and that he has progressed as a more civilized race.
The next event in the story is the utmost climax in it. "Shifting his position, his eyes fell upon some outbuildings which had an oddly familiar appearance, as if he had dreamed of them. He stood considering them with wonder, when suddenly the entire plantation, with it enclosing forest, seemed to turn as if upon a pivot. His little world swung half around; the points of the compass were reversed. He recognized the blazing building as his own home!" The boy is stupefied and the description of what he thereafter observes is as follows: "There, conspicuous in the light of the conflagration, lay the dead body of a woman - the white face turned upward, the hands thrown out and clutched full of grass, the clothing deranged, the long dark hair in tangles and full of clotted blood. The greater part of the forehead was torn away, and from the jagged hole in the brain protruded, overflowing the temple, a frothy mass of gray, crowned with clusters of crimson bubbles - the work of a shell." The description is intentionally shocking and truly as violent as possible. Bierce's use of the word "white" in the description is curious and makes one guess as to how much relevance race Bierce wants in his story.
The child laments in anguish for minutes, crying aloud obscene unintelligence, likened in Bierces words to "something between the chattering of an ape and the gobbling of a turkey," and then more precisely "a startling, soulless, unholy sound, the language of a devil." One cannot help but question the intentions of Ambrose Bierce describing the boy indirectly as unholy, soulless, and a devil. If the thesis of this essay actually holds true, than the statement just quoted is the a philosophical climax in this reading. Is white, European man that which so many members of other races believe it to be? According to the fundamentalist Muslims, we are the devil, especially those of us in American, being termed "white devil."
To support the idea that Bierce is intentionally trying to tear down the pride and joy we have in the traditions of our European ancestors, I draw briefly from two surrounding works in literature in an attempt to prove how the efforts I accuse Bierce of making are not just his own, but are part of a general trend in American literature. In Editha, we are taught by Howells that nationalism is an evil resulting in the death of innocent men and the shame in all those who knew them. In Under the Lion's Paw, we are taught by Garland that capitalism is evil, and that social network policy based on principles not unlike those that infer to socialism or communism is preferable on American soil that was bought with blood for the right to private property. It is clear what Bierce is trying to destroy. It much less clear as to what Bierce is advocating instead. Perhaps a wider look at his other works would lend us help in answering this question, but that would extend beyond the intended scope of this essay. One may guess that an author, if he rejects western military idealism, would qualify as a pacifist. But in the story there is more that Bierce pokes holes in than just military zeal. He hints at race throughout the story, and one would not be able to use the story to refute the claim that Bierce is a racist against his own, although such a claim would be at least jumping to conclusions. Still, the sentiment is there.
What seems evident in this story, and which resounds in class discussions generated by reading this story and others like unto it, is self-criticism. It is apparently very popular in academia to criticize one's country, race, and traditions. A snippet example is Michael Moore's book entitled Stupid White Men. Michael Moore is, of course, a Caucasian male. What is it about our society today that enables men and women of European descent in America to be so comfortable dismissing their heritage and not only tolerating but praising indiscriminately the heritage of races and cultures other than their own? This is a question that perhaps should be struggled with more often. Hopefully, the answer is like unto the answer as to why educated people can very comfortably call themselves stupid, or strong people very comfortably call themselves weak. Why? Because it obvious to themselves and others that their criticism isn't going to hurt nearly as much as it would if indeed they actually were stupid, or weak. But perhaps that is a topic for another essay.
Ambrose Bierce's Chickamauga is an excellent specimen of realist literature that raises many important questions from its unquestionably powerful themes. It is the contention of this essay that Ambrose Bierce's Chickamauga embodies a sentiment that is inferior to literature with pro-western themes, that rejoice in the accomplishments of our ancestors and seeks to perpetuate the good found in our rich heritage.