The cook is the boat’s resident optimist while the captain is the resident tragic figure, so the two characters act as foils for one another. The cook frequently gives voice to the hopes of all the men: that they will be saved, that there is someone in the house of refuge, and that there is a high chance of survival. He thinks happy thoughts, about his favorite food and the possibility of survival. When other members of the crew push back against his optimistic predictions, he changes the specifics of the prediction rather than adjusting his optimism.
At the beginning of the story, the cook suggests there’s a nearby house of refuge inhabited by a crew that will save them. When the correspondent points out that houses of refuge don’t have crews, the cook first insists that they do, before pivoting to say that the place he was thinking of must have been a life-saving station. This demonstrates his general optimistic conviction, his view that someone must save the men, rather than an optimism based on careful reasoning.
The captain, in the wake of his ship being wrecked, has a more pessimistic view of their circumstances, frequently reminding the cook of the reality of their situation. The captain is the first to point out that the house of refuge/life-saving station they come to looks abandoned and the one to suggest that the men exchange their family’s addresses in case one of them does not make it.
The internal logic of the story often sides with the captain, for Crane, in a typical American Naturalist vein, presents a somewhat pessimistic view of nature. There ends up being no one at the house of refuge and one of them does end up dying, thereby proving the captain right.
Although the men are eventually saved, they first have to take a risky chance at swimming to the shore. The life-saving man only assists them when they are in shallow waters, and he is only there by chance. Their rescue is an ordeal of pure chance rather than a sign of the universe being either positively or negatively disposed toward them.
Through the captain and the cook, "The Open Boat" suggests that even though pessimism may be a more practical orientation to the world than naive optimism, neither reliably predicts how the world works because fate is, at its core, uncertain.
The oiler and the correspondent can be read as foils. The oiler is strong and selfless. He does not ever give up, especially not at the end, when all the men are swimming toward the shore. While all the men swim for their lives, he is far ahead in the race for survival, until the very end. He is least likely to die, yet he does.
The correspondent, although also selfless in the sense he is willing to relieve others of their rowing shifts, is much more passive and susceptible to resignation. Toward the end of the story, the correspondent is hit by a wave and it leads him to think:
[…] that when one gets properly wearied drowning must really be a comfortable arrangement—a cessation of hostilities accompanied by a large degree of relief; and he was glad of it, for the main thing in his mind for some moments had been horror of the temporary agony. He did not wish to be hurt.
This quotation shows a strong dread of pain and a willingness to let go if things appear too difficult. Where the oiler seems to thrive off struggle, the correspondent does not want to struggle after already struggling for so long; he is just trying to avoid pain and perhaps survive.
The contrast between the two characters and their two endings emphasizes the randomness of death. One is active and strong, the other more passive and pain-avoidant, and the latter survives despite reader expectations. The contrast suggests that the randomness of nature triumphs over the will of man.
