short story analysis: One of the Missing, Ambroise Bierce

« short story analysis: One of the Missing, Ambroise Bierce "The real war is not on the battlefield.

The real war is in the minds of the soldiers." - Marine Corps General Charles Krulak of the 20th century This short story entitled One of the Missing was published in The San Francisco Examiner on March 11, 1888 and reprinted in Tales of Soldiers and Civilians (1891).

It was written by Ambrose Bierce who himself was a soldier and experienced the war.

Jerome Searing is a competent soldier who carries out a mission.

He lingers on a place where a building falls on him; a long description about the fear of death and his slow fall in panic ensues: he dies. It deals not only with the survival instinct on the real/concrete battlefield, but also the deep fears in us. How does this short story denounce dehumanization of war? How does this short story, through the denouncement of deshumanisation of war, reveal a broader human experience during times of conflict? Firstly, the real/concrete war on the battlefield/then, the evolution of a competent soldier to a terrified man/lastly: a private war specification the real war = the one on the battlefield: - specification = from a singular story to one much broader/specification of the character and the place - instinct of survival/things that everyone can relate to = scared of death, etc… = animal fear - destiny/irony of war/stronger entity/search of glory = which is also dehumanizing = how one situation can be about the capriciousness of war in general specification narrative style: third person omniscient point of view but one mention of ‘’we’’ = ‘’it is surprising how young we all were in those days’’ between hyphens = suddenly the narrator includes himself in the story and shares feelings of that time, indicating he was at a war, maybe this one = does he talk about someone he knew? does he invent? = suddenly the narrator is no longer completely omniscient, he delivers something that he also lived = a sort of indirect testimony = we can attach ourselves to one character and follow him, we can focus our emotion and our fear on a character which is easier than for a big event His name is said on the first line = he is recognized as who he is, he is not dehumanized on the contrary specification = "private soldier of General Sherman's army" = we know his job and for who he works specificity of places = not huge places, only two: the forest where he must do his mission + where he is trapped = two places we can easily understand + his moves in the space are well described so that we can follow them, we are not lost in many places detailed description of the pit = to ground us in the place "Kenesaw Mountain" = but at the same time everyone can relate because the character stays blurry = we don't know how he talks, we don't know much about his life we also learn that he has a wife and is a man like another "the children" = sense of familiarity = from a life to history = p.175/176 = he puts Searing in history = specificity lead to general ideas about the war because the main character thinks about it, which enables the author to make digressions about that "That would probably not affect the duration and result of the war, but it is the business of a soldier to kill.

It is also his pleasure if he is a good soldier." = the author doesn't give a clear critic of bloodlust men or the war = he simply shows events without qualifying the thoughts of Searing as barbaric, etc… = why? = he shows the horrors of war and we have to feel ourselves these horrors and to realize them at the same time as the character + the character is not aware that his thoughts are awful like the soldiers at that time enthusiastic soldier = the soldier can embody something larger which is the fact that a lot of soldiers were happy and encouraged to do the war and didn't know about the traumas that occur = it can show an experience of war not by knowing it but by discovering it = at first there is no mention of traumas = very cold as if it didn't exist = broader concepts of glory, destiny, etc… instinct of survival/the animal side of the war - deep instincts: different types of instincts: composed, wanting to kill, survival, scared of death = different types of instincts = instinct of self-preservation two dehumanizing aspects of the war: - the fact Searing doesn't care for human life, has no feelings of empathy = shows that the war makes people cold - the fact Searing becomes mad = has no cold blood, etc… = the war in itself Survival and Resourcefulness The protagonist, Jerome Searing, finds himself trapped behind enemy lines and must rely on his resourcefulness and ingenuity to survive.

The story explores the human instinct for adaptability in extreme situations = at the end he hasn’t any reflects left, everything (se retourne contre lui) examples : Page 2 : ‘’taking advantage of every accident’’/‘’to give himself better cover’’ description of the mission: ‘’not tedious’’/‘’the danger made it exciting’’ ‘’Smiled at his own method’’ = professional, doesn’t show any negative emotions = he is not stressed, not afraid = a melorative portrait of the war his craft is shown page 2: "His eyes penetrated everything" = sense of view + "his ears took note of every sound" = all his senses are at their maximum + "everything"/"every" reinforces the impression that he is in control, he knows what is happening "His pulse (...) regular"/"his nerves (...) steady" = he controls himself and his body not only him but his brother too his brother has the same talents as him = he is strong to collect informations simply by his senses = instincts underlines that his brother could have been lieutenant if he wanted to the bloodlust of Searing ‘’was not without a certain kind of ambition’’ = wants to kill as many people as he can ‘’the best hope of making a widow or an orphan or a childless mother — perhaps all three’’ = no humanity in the war, the war is taken like a score, a thing to be proud of, a score to beat "a certain kind" = vague and can mean several things = to kill people? analysis: “a forest formidable with possibilities of battle” = shows the bloodlust and the war as a lucrative business where we can win things = not taken seriously, meliorative vocabulary ‘’In war, there are no unwounded soldier’’, José Narosky = dehumanization from the start with two differents deshumanisation = the bloodlust is also a dehumanization because animal = deep instincts of survival, animal aspect of the man = hypothesis = maybe he is bloodlust because it is a depiction of war = people are reduced to their inhuman aspect, including the barbaric aspect, the want to kill = soldiers can also be awful people because of the horrors they saw the fact that he is bloodlust: - Moral Ambiguity: The story raises questions about the moral choices made by individuals in times of war.

Searing's actions and decisions, as well as those of the Confederate soldiers, highlight the moral ambiguity that often arises in the midst of armed conflict. afraid of death self-preservation The author implies through the suffering of Jerome Searing that waiting for death is greater torture than death itself.

Instead of continuing to remove the debris that traps him, Searing decides to intentionally cause the rifle to shoot him in the temple.

He cannot stand the build-up to his death and decides to expedite the process by suicide. ‘’he was a brave man’’ = discrepancy between who he thinks he is and who he becomes in front of the fear of dying ‘’prophecy and menace of the bullet’’ = shadow on him ‘’black aperture of the rifle’’/’’to threaten’’ ‘’He was not insane – he was terrified’’/’’dreadfully frightened’’ closeness to death = how a person experiments the scare of death destiny/irony/stronger entity Irony and Fate: The story is marked by irony, as Searing's desperate attempt to escape captivity and return to his own lines results in an unexpected and tragic twist of fate.

This theme underscores the unpredictability of life during wartime. "One of the Missing" shows influence of Maupassant's war story "Two Friends".

Jerome finds himself in the position of a Confederate soldier that he thought to kill seconds before the explosion, just like the two fishers in Maupassant's story suddenly find themselves as helpless and doomed as the fish they caught: "seized by chance and subject to the bidding of a more powerful entity".

Both stories spotlight the capriciousness and absurdity of war. His competence and expertise are emphasized, yet.... »