The critics Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren have said that Bierce's story depends too much on a quirk of human psychology and is thus a mere "case study" that does not reveal anything important about human nature, as good fiction does. Do you agree? Why or why not?
I can see where Brooks and Warren are coming from with their criticism. Bierce's story does rely heavily on a twist ending that reveals a quirk of human psychology, namely the protagonist's desire to avoid his own fate despite his proclaimed bravery. This focus on a specific psychological quirk could be seen as limiting the story's ability to offer broader insights into human nature.
However, I believe that Bierce's story still has value as a piece of fiction. While it may not provide deep insights into human nature in the way that other works of literature do, it effectively highlights the complexities of human behavior and decision-making. The story's exploration of themes such as fate, cowardice, and mortality can still resonate with readers and provoke thought about our own motivations and actions.
In conclusion, while Bierce's story may not offer a comprehensive exploration of human nature, it still has merit as a piece of fiction that can lead readers to reflect on their own beliefs and behaviors. Ultimately, whether or not the story is considered a mere "case study" depends on individual interpretation and what one values in a work of literature.