Freeper Reading Club Discussion: Shane

Self | August 12, 2002 | PJ-Comix

[sinclair]

You beat me to it. I had the same idea and planned to do so today. Way to go. Who knows maybe we will get lucky. ;^)

[PJ-Comix]

I'm also going to try to contact a bunch of the Merry Pranksters (and maybe Kesey's wife) to post to the thread. Hey, this could end up being more than just a book discussion. It could be a..a..BE-IN!

[PJ-Comix]

I just got the following e-mail back from the publisher in reply to my request for Tom Wolfe's participation on the book thread:

I will forward your request to Mr. Wolfe. However, I can tell you that he does not usually participate in events of this kind.

Thank you.

I'm still not taking no for an answer especially since there is a good chance we might get several of the Merry Pranksters in on the discussion thread. BTW, how many registered Freepers are there? I need some stats to give to the publisher so they will know the FR isn't just some small website.

[PJ-Comix]

Ping!

[sinclair]

I believe I read somewhere on this forum that there were several thousand registered FReepers. Don't quote me yet. I will direct this question to Jim Robinson also and see if we can get an answer.

Hey, Mr. Robinson, can you tell us approximately how many Freepers exixt?

[PJ-Comix]

Thanx for putting in the request. I just want that number at my fingertips in case the publishers want to know. I do know the number is very large so that would be an even greater reason for Tom Wolfe to join the discussion. After all, it's not like he is showing up at some book store where there are only a hundred folks on hand to listen to him.

[Jim Robinson]

Approx 80,000 registered. But it's hard to say how many of those registrants are still with us. Deduct from the 80,000 the thousands of people who registered and made only one or two posts, the people who registered and made no posts, the people who registered and have not activated their accounts, the accounts that were duplicates, or thar have been banned, and the people who have come and gone for whatever reason. We receive posts from approx 2,500 people per day (http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/weekday-report). We receive approx one and a half million hits per day from over 60,000 unique visitors. During big news cycles those numbers all go up considerably.

[parsifal]

Maybe. But I got to thinking today about the end of the book. How did Marian keep Joe "down on the farm." She took him over to a "pole" that Shane had planted. She told Joe to try to wiggle the pole, but he couldn't. In other words, Joe could not uproot Shanes' very rigid pole planted in the fertile soil.

Strangely, this made Joe feel better. Now if you wuz a psychologist and somebody came to you and told this was a dream that they had been having, what would you say? parsy the diagnostic.

[parsifal]

I did, but then Shane and Joe fought at the same time in the bar fight. I almost could see Shane as a "Parsifal"figure who came to heal a wounded land, except that the symbols are all wrong. The farm was fertile and blossoming when Shane first got there.

That puts us back to the physical love scenarios. parsy the wannabee literary critic.

[parsifal]

"Way too many questions as to why things happened the way they did and not enough depth to suit me. "

Yeah. See, you noticed it, too. We ain't been told the full story about Shane-Joe-Marian-Bobby. parsy.

[parsifal]

OK, then you explain the synbolism of Shane's "black" [dark] gun and holster. Writers do these kind of things for a reason. Like Hemingway's, "The Sun Also Rises" is kinda, well, not true if you know what I mean. But he picked the title for a reason.

And John Steinway and the Grapes of Wrath. The suckling scene at the end was a symbol.parsy.

[BADROTOFINGER]

I have been preparing for a move and forgot all about the book. But, I just bought it today and have 4 days off to read it. I also have a note from my Mom if that isnt a good enough excuse...:-)...JFK

[foolscap]

I agree with you. I felt Jow Starret was the hero of the book. After I finished reading what occured to me was how sad it is that I have not met any men like him in my own generation. My grandfather and father where much like Joe but the male baby boomers I have encountered do not share that deep sense of honor,duty and the willingness to back up their words with their actions. I'm sure they exist somewhere but not that I have seen them.

I think the sexual revolution gave permission for men and women to behave like cads in the belief that somehow overcoming sexual repression was the road to happiness. It made it ok to cheat on spouses or use the opposite sex in an explotive manner. I find many men who can't understand why their wives won't obey. I can't speak for all women but I know for me I would never be able to obey a man I do not respect. An honorable man I think is what many women are looking for. I would be so nice to live again in a time where one was expected to do their duty and not whine about it. God I'm sick to tears of whining by men and women who think they are making the supreme sacrific for just showing up and doing life in a resposible manner.

Shane's wish for Bob was that he "grow strong and straight". It 's too bad that we produced a generation of men and women that would not understand the first thing about that idea. They no doubt would have to run to their values neutral therapist who would give them all the justifications they needed to continue to live their dishonrable self-indulgent lifestyles.All this psychological and hand holding has produced nothing except dependent self centered children pretending to be adults. I wish to God there where more Joe Starrett's in the world. If there where we might find we had stable families again,women who could repect the men in their lives and obey them and children who felt safe with loving reponsible parents.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

Years ago I saw the movie but had not read the book until now. The book is full of symbolism and human nature.

Shane was a dangerous and mysterious man. He was described as dark, his clothing and his hat, his hair, his horse and his darker than dark gun. I didn't get the impression he was running from his past, but rather, looking for a future.
And that he was quite uncertain as to what that would be, but that he would know it when he found it. His wariness and scrutiny of his surroundings suggested expectatons of attack, even though he signaled his unwillingness to fight by not openly wearing a gun.

All throughout the story Shane is encased in aloofness. Not belonging to the place or being one of the people, but rather, lending himself to the cause that has been described to him by Joe.

He has admiration for Joe and his seemingly insurmountable efforts to succeed in farming and he has time to spare in helping this family. Human nature would be that Shane was envious of Joe and his family and spread, but not jealouse, and wished he could have something akin to it in his life.

The tree stump was an inmovable object, a barrier and in the way. Joe whittled at it as he had the time to spare, but Shane's help soon turned into a contest of wills, each man assessing the other's character. Miriam would have had to be impressed with both men and wanting to participate, the apple pie became her obstacle to overcome and the medium for her to prove her mettle.

The boy was understandably and appropriately impressed with this stranger's quiet strength and mysterious demeanor.The quiet words spoken to the boy carrying a weight and gravity by thier very softness. Making what he said truth.

The sexual ambiance felt was to be expected, Shane being the loner he was and the verile nature of the man being evident. Joe being secure in his constant loving relationship with his wife, and having taken the measure of the man Shane, trusted him and Miriam without a doubt. But he knew that if he should die Shane would stay and take his place. A little flirting is good for the soul and it was deceptively subtle.

I got the impression Shane's riding out and meanderings over the farm were soul searchings about would he stay and fight this fight or ride on? If it turned out that Joe was killed was he ready to take over Joe's place? Was he willing to engage in another gunfight he obviously had engaged in before in his life and did not want in the present. If he was killed did he mind? His decision is obvious.

His gentleness with Bob suggested to me that he had had a family and possibly a son as part of his past before whatever happened, happened to him.

In every story of right vs wrong there has to be a villan.
Hence,the powerfull cattleman and his boys. Chris is the crossover, who knows right from wrong, but feels shame for chosing wrong, and makes an attempt to make up for it.

The fight scenes were well written with just the right amount of self assuredness and carefulness on Shane's part.
His self confidence led him to believe he would win but he
knew he might not. Joe was actually the hero here, overridden by Shane because of Joe's obligations. The gun fight almost played down, but necessary for the overpowering of wrong. The rallying of the weak around the strong as is always the case when a leader is identified was also to be expected.

THe answers left when Shane rides out of town as dangerous and mysterious as he was on entering the story were not meant to be answered, but left to the reader's imagination.
Was Shane a bad man trying for redemption, or a man pushed into actions that haunted him driving him to look for a
future free from killing that he would recognize when he
met it?

The good that he left was the knowledge that he had enriched their lives by being there and what he had left behind was as sturdy as the fence post anchored firmly in the earth.

It is a book about hard work, success, strength of character,faith, love and committment and the unexpected answers to need when it arises.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

Sorry I missed this thread yesterday, I couldn't find it. Thanks for the ping today.

I actually had to write this twice as banner ads popped up and in deleting them I deleted the first one I wrote. Infuriating!

I enjoyed the book, it is a light read, but with all the right messages and is really not a western novel at all. It is a book about human nature and the goodness of life.
Good begats good. Hopefully!

[SamAdams76]

I think Parsifal was on the right track with Mrs. Starrett and Shane too except he derailed along the way. After re-reading several passages, it is clear that there is some sexual attraction between those two. But it was never consummated because as you say, they had too much character (and loyalty to Joe) to act upon it.

Joe sensed this as well and surprisingly did not seem to feel jealous over it. Ceding his place at the head of the table to Shane is significant. If a visitor came to stay with you, would you do the same? I'm not talking about somebody coming over for dinner but somebody who comes for an extended visit. Towards the end of the book, Joe seems to realize that his wife's affections might be shifting towards Shane and is thus more easily willing to risk his life in the final confrontation with Fletcher and Wilson, knowing that his family will be in "better hands than his own" should he fall.

Then you have Shane, after deciding to take on Fletcher and Wilson himself (after punching out Joe), has his final exchange with Mrs. Starrett in which she asks "Are you doing this just for me?"

"No, Marian." Shane responds, "Could I separate you in my mind and still be a man?"

Pretty heavy stuff.

My feeling is that Shane had for himself a similar woman to Marian Starrett earlier in his life and lost her for whatever reason. Marian seems to have provoked bittersweet feelings of what might have been and what may yet be. But despite the sexual attraction rising between them, Shane would never think of taking her from such a fine man as Joe Starrett and besides, perhaps realized that she was better off with Joe in the first place.

I think there is a great moral message here.

[parsifal]

"My feeling is that Shane had for himself a similar woman to Marian Starrett earlier in his life and lost her for whatever reason."

Being that Shane was a rambling Arkansas man, I think that is a safe bet. I wonder if Clinton ever read Shane? parsy, the ramblin' Arkansas freeper.

[another cricket]

Just few last rambling thoughts

I see Shane as a professional warrior. Which is quite different then your regular run of the mill Joe who will fight to defend what is his. The professional is just a little to good at it and that makes those around him uneasy. They want him on their side when there is trouble but as soon as the trouble is over he is either politely or not so politely asked to move on.

He has come to expect this and I think is at a fork in his life as he comes to the fork in the road. Should he ride on up to the Fletcher ranch or not? If people are going to reject you anyway why shouldn’t you grab for the money and power? Why waste your talent on the ungrateful whom will only throw you away when they are through with you?

Shane makes a choice or maybe he just decides to scout the land a little before deciding. And there is Joe, Marian and Bob.

“Help your self to the water.” That is expected. Refusing someone a drink just wasn’t done.

“Will you join us for supper?” Now this was not so expected, nor was the invitation to stay the night. Joe had to know what Shane was even if Bob didn’t see it. So why?

The next day when Joe defends Shane to Jake is another shock. Shane is being valued for being a decent honest person, period. Not for his fighting skills but for something else entirely.

Shane stays on out of curiosity at first maybe. Probably wondering when Joe is going to ask him to pay up in the form of using his fighting skills for the farmers. But instead of being an outcast to be tolerated for his usefulness he is treated as a valued friend of the family. Joe trusts Shane with his farm, his home, his son and his wife.

Maybe Joe had some idea of using Shane in the beginning but in the end he doesn’t even ask Shane to fight for him only to look out for his family. Actually he doesn’t even ask. He just assumes that Shane will do the right thing. Joe, by his actions, gave Shane the chance that he never had as a kid.

a.cricket

[parsifal]

Youse guys try this essay. I thought it was great:

Shane Re-Envisioned
James C. Work



In 1946, Argosy magazine published "Rider From Nowhere," a three-part serial based upon Wyoming's Johnson County War in the 1880s. Jack Schaefer, the author, was editor of a small Virginia newspaper.

In 1949, Houghton Mifflin published "Rider From Nowhere" as a book titled Shane. Jack Schaefer had quit journalism and was struggling on "short rations" to become a full-time fiction writer.

In 1953, Paramount Pictures filmed Shane with a screenplay version by A. B. Guthrie, Jr. The film became a classic in the Western canon, and Jack Schaefer was an established writer. By 1979, the seventy editions of Shane included thirty foreign translations.

What is behind Shane's steady popularity? Marc Simmons wrote that "the novel addressed an entire generation" of post-war Americans struggling to comprehend a suddenly ambiguous world; Schaefer preserved virtues that "were increasingly being dismissed as outdated or unattainable." Gerald Haslam credits Schaefer's style, which he calls "direct, detailed, and sensitive" in depicting the "paladin figure called Shane."

In 1979, my own article, "Settlement Waves and Coordinate Forces in Shane," made the argument that the novel dramatizes Turner's thesis; the fictional conflict of primitive forces and the forces of civilization produces a new American breed which is an amalgam of both. However, this does not explain Shane's popularity since only a very small percentage of its readers have read Turner.

Some years after I finished the Shane critical edition, John Milton asked me to write about Oakley Hall's novel, Warlock. That was the beginning of my interest in parallels between Western American literature and classic mythology. And not "mythology" in the general sense, saying, for instance, that Shane is a paladin figure; I refer to demonstrable parallels between canonical works in Western literature and Anglo-Saxon predecessors. In Shane we are looking at a story with archetypal overtones which give it much in common with a story straight out of the dim mists of oral bardic tradition, put into writing sometime after the fourth century and sometime prior to the tenth century.

I refer to the story of Owain, one of several Arthurian "riders from nowhere."

In an exchange of letters during our work on Shane: The Critical Edition, Jack Schaefer wrote that he did not think in mythological terms while writing his fiction. His reviewers, however, did. In The American West from Fiction into Film, Jim Hitt writes: "What made Schaefer's novel so effective and original were the mythical qualities he gave the story. The novel is almost an allegory . . . in a world where no one else can win, Shane can." (213)

Bob Baker's article, "Shane Through Five Decades," expands on the allegorical/mythic interpretation:


Even in 1953, Shane seemed a slightly unreal, mythical figure--the Joey perception. More precisely, he can be seen as expressing, again and most centrally, two opposite/complementary ideas. . . . First, Shane as the embodiment of all the social qualities of the traditional Western hero. But it is the anti-social aspect--his "moving on" ethos, his solitariness--which the film most hauntingly evokes. (p. 220)

Nearer to my own premise, Rita Parks in The Western Hero in Film and Television postulated that

"the portrayal of the gunfighter . . . gives evidence of two strong characteristics: first, he is a dramatic means of splitting the persona of the hero into Jekyll-Hyde dimensions . . . ; second, he is perhaps the most allegorical and directly mythological figure of the Western hero types." (p. 51) Parks also calls Stark Wilson "one of the classic characterizations of the evil persona, the malevolent gunman," and goes on to say that ". . . the pared-down, directly mythological version of the savior-figure was Alan Ladd in Shane."
Parks downplays the importance of historical authenticity, "for he is no longer a particular Western man, but rather the Man of the West--the result of myth being applied to history." (p 56) A dominant characteristic of this mythical Man of the West is that he is torn between the interests of peace and the necessities of violent physical behavior. Think of the Virginian, forced to choose between a gunfight and a wedding. "[The Western hero] is almost always a man with one foot in the wilderness and the other in civilization," Parks observes, "moving through life belonging to neither world."

Another stricture governs the archetype. As in Shane, as in The Virginian, or even in the English example, Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde, protagonist has the attribute of being able to move between two opposing worlds. The one is usually savage and violent and dominated by passion, while the other is cultured and civilized and dominated by reason. Sometimes, one world is that of the mortals and the other is that of the immortals. The protagonist, he with the ability to move from one to the other, must keep them separate. If he attempts to live in both at the same time, or if he attempts to bring a member of one world into the other, he is cursed.

In the ancient story of Achelous, the river god could change form. He could appear as a human figure with the head of a bull, change into a monstrous snake, or change again into the form of an entire bull. Achelous fell in love with a mortal, and tried to bring her to the immortal realm. Jealous and wrathful at the transgression, Heracles seized Achelous and after a fierce combat humiliated the god by breaking off one of his horns. Like Sir Gawain, Achelous was left with a disfigurement as an outward sign of his attempt to "cross over" between worlds.

Like Gawain, Shane is tempted by the world in which Marian Starrett dwells. As long as he remains a solitary, roving gunman he is invincible: but Shane allows himself paternal feelings toward the boy, Bob, and lets himself communicate on an emotional level with Marian. Shortly afterward, in the gun battle, Shane is wounded.

Sir Gawain faces two trials in his quest. First, he is tested to see if sensual self-indulgence will overcome chastity and chivalry, from whence he draws his strength. Second, he faces the terror of death at the hands of the Green Knight.

Owain the Adventurer is one of King Arthur's three principal Knights of Battle, the others being Cadur the Earl of Cornwall and Launcelot du Lac. The two tests of Gawain are merely the beginning of Owain's odd adventure. Like Gawain, Owain is tempted by pleasures of the flesh. Also like Gawain, he must face a death-dealing adversary--not the Green Knight but a seemingly invincible warrior clad all in black armor, the Guardian of the Fountain and of the Lady of the Fountain.

Another knight of King Arthur's court, Kynon, tells of a strange joust he had with a knight who wore black and protected a magic fountain. The Guardian knight easily defeated Kynon and then humiliated him by taking away Kynon's horse but not his arms and armor. (Shane, you remember, is drawn into the gunfight when he hears how Stark Wilson had humiliated and murdered Ernie Wright in a unequal fast draw confrontation.)

Intrigued and angered at hearing about the uneven battle forced upon Kynon, Owain sets out to try his own skill against the Guardian of the Fountain. Like Kynon, he discovers the Castle of Abundance where he is pampered by a group of temptingly beautiful women. There is a parallel when Shane happens into the Starrett farm where Marian offers biscuits and pie and emotional comfort.

Paralleling the way Shane is told that Stark Wilson is waiting for him in town, Owain is told where to find the Lord of the Wood, a one-eyed giant in black, who in turn tells him to go to a certain fountain and throw water upon a stone.

When Owain does this, another black knight appears. The Guardian of the Fountain. After fierce and lengthy battle, Owain wounds the Guardian, who flees to his castle and there dies.

In the course of time, Owain takes his place; he agrees to marry the Lady of the Fountain and become her defender of the source of the water. Three years pass: Owain goes to visit Arthur's court and forgets to return--after three more years have passed, a damsel one day rides into the hall and accuses Owain of infidelity to the Lady of the Fountain.

Ashamed, Owain flees into the wilderness and becomes a wild man/beast, wandering aimlessly in rags and living like an animal. Eventually, another lady discovers him sleeping and restores him to his former dignity. Back in the full strength of his chivalry again, one day while riding he comes upon a lion being harassed by a serpent. Owain slays the serpent, and the lion becomes his loyal companion, bringing him meat and fighting by his side in many combats.

Owain is reconciled with the Lady of the Fountain after vanquishing her enemies, with the help of the lion, and returns with her to Arthur's court where they live out their lives. This lion is a symbol of Owain's ability to tap the animal ferocity within himself and become the remorseless killer.

In an essay, "Duel in the Sun," Robin Wood writes that


"the point to be made about the wilderness/civilization antinomy, and its close relative and derivative, wandering/settling, is that both sides of the opposition are simultaneously valued and deplored."
Owain is certainly an example: it seems admirable that he would leave his chief to go in search of adventure, then it seems wrong of him to leave his mistress to return to his chief. It seems understandable that his guilt drives him to live like a beast, while at the same time it is deplorable that he succumbs to it.

Likewise, Shane is seen as a free, independent, unchained spirit whose mysterious appearance is considered a godsend, a paladin come to aid the settler; but we are never allowed to forget that he will and must go wandering again, riding away from any consequences of his acts.

Shane is a law unto himself, a cold-blooded shootist; he is also civilized, discussing the latest fashions in haberdashery with Marian.

Shane's symbol, like Owain's "lion", is his Colt revolver, "the man and the tool, doing what had to be done." Shane is a lion-man: "He was the symbol of all the dim, formless imaginings of danger and terror in the untested realm of human potentialities. . . . " (p. 249) Shane is unbeatable because he can tap into that potentiality of primitive, lawless, instinctive reaction. Which he uses, in this instance, in defense of civilized values.

Owain becomes the knight with the lion, unleashing a power that knows no check of law or restraint. In the legend of Heracles and the lion, Heracles overcomes the lion, killing it with his bare hands. Afterward, Heracles dons the lion skin. It clearly symbolizes the primitive, primal, "lion" half of his being. Think of Richard the Lion-Hearted, slaughtering thousands in the cause of Christ and Christian law. Think of Vishnu, becoming Narashima--he of the human body with the head and claws of a lion--to vanquish with pure physical force the demon who was out to destroy the order of the world.

Fundamentally, the archetype teaches that the quest for peace can necessitate reversion to primitive violence. Animal instinct, paradoxically, is sometimes the only tool we have for perfecting civilized behavior. It is a necessary momentary surrender to the instincts of instant non-rational reaction.

As a society moves toward self-individuation, myths spring up in which the people recount such confrontations it has had with its former animal-like nature. Or Hyde-like nature.

And if a society perceives that there is a difference, even a dichotomy between humans and animals, value systems begin to evolve which will either account for the difference or will dictate the correct human behavior toward the animal world.

For instance, certain cultures have developed philosophies which anthropomorphize animals, making them co-equal with humans and according them the selfsame respect. Other cultures have seen the relationship as husbandry, believing in their own superiority while acknowledging a responsibility for "lower" animals. Still other societies, in Greek-like idealism, saw no bond at all between human and animal: the destiny of humans is to perfect humanity, while the destiny of animals is to become food, clothing, and labor. In this philosophy, the greatest terror is the thought of being transformed--as in Circe and the swine--INTO an animal, or to face in battle a half-man/half creature entity. Thus, thanks to Hellenic philosophy, we return again to the Lion/Man archetype.

In a book titled The King and the Corpse, Dr. Heinrich Zimmer writes, "under the dual influence of the Christian faith and the chivalric ideal," medieval thought turned to another synthesis--"not of killing the animal soul inside [ourselves] and setting ourselves apart from it, but of converting the beast to the human cause--winning it over, so that it should serve as a helpmate." (p. 128)

Not to be confused with physical domination of animals, this acceptance of the violent inner nature of man as his "helpmate" would become essential to Crusaders and conquistadors alike, spreading peace and Christianity with the sword.

"If the animal within is killed by an overresolute morality," Zimmer writes, "or even only chilled into hibernation by a perfect social routine, the conscious personality will never be vivified by the hidden forces that underlie and sustain it." This applies perfectly to Shane, whose "animal within" is lulled by the "perfect social routine" of the Starrett household. No wonder he leaves after gunfight that re-awakens that "vivifying hidden force" in himself. To stay would be to risk losing that which sustains him.

Schaefer describes Shane putting all his strength into heaving an old stump from its hole, his eyes "aflame with a concentrated cold fire."

"It was all of him, the whole man, pulsing in the one incredible surge of power. You could fairly feel the fierce energy suddenly burning in him, pouring through him in the single coordinated drive." (p. 107)

Later, the boy sees Shane standing on the road in the dusk:


He was tall and terrible . . . looming gigantic in the mystic half-light . . . a stranger dark and forbidding, forging his lone way out of an unknown past in the utter loneliness of his own immovable and instinctive defiance. He was the symbol of all the dim, formless imaginings of danger and terror in the untested realm of human potentialities . . . ." (p. 240)
And finally, after the gunfight, after Shane has been wounded, "Out of the mysterious resources of his will the vitality came. It came creeping, a tide of strength that crept through him and fought and shook off the weakness. . . . It welled up in him, sending that familiar power surging through him again. . . ." (p. 260)

Doctor Zimmer's general analysis of mythology also addresses the question of whether the boy narrator, Bob, could have such mature, intellectual realizations. According to Zimmer, "every infant" is gifted with this way of seeing life as "harmoniously integrated," but loses it "with the development of its self-conscious individuality." (p 131)

More relevant, though, is how Shane corresponds to Doctor Zimmer's summary of the man/lion archetype:


He achieves a harmonious fusion of the conscious and the unconscious personalities, the former aware of the problems and controls of the visible phenomenal world, the latter intuitive of those deeper springs of being from which both the phenomenal world and its conscious witness perennially proceed. (p. 131)
Shane's conscious personality is aware of the problems confronting the settlers and the ranchers, aware that civilization and its controls must succeed in the end. His ability to fight and kill in the name of society comes from an intuitive, deeper source--the lion power within the human form. Momentarily distracted--and wounded as a result--the instinctive power still triumphs.

As I said at the start, I still believe that Shane acts out the encounter postulated in Turner's thesis, the interface of primitive and civilized worlds, producing a third, new world in synthesis. But I believe the popularity of Shane, film as well as fiction, is owing to its success as a retelling of the Lion/Man archetype, a story more ancient than the Arthurian tales, here retailored in Western clothing.

What is the ultimate value of the archetype? Perhaps it lies in the preservation of some ancient knowledge whose worth is itself unclear even while a sense that it has worth remains with us. In Doctor Zimmer's words,


As we read, some dim ancestral ego of which we are unaware may be nodding approvingly on hearing again its own old tale, rejoicing to recognize again what once was a part of its own old wisdom. (p. 97)

---

Bibliography
Baker, Bob. "Shane Through Five Decades," The Book of Westerns, edited by Ian Cameron and Douglas Pye.

New York: Continuum, 1996. Pages 214-220.
Haslam, Gerald. "Jack Schaefer." Shane: The Critical Edition. Edited by James Work. Lincoln: University of

Nebraska Press, 1984. Pages 16-56.
Hitt, Jim. The American West from Fiction (1823-1976) into Film (1090-1986). Jefferson, North Carolina:

McFarland & Company, 1990.
Parks, Rita. The Western Hero in Film and Television. Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Research Press, 1982.

Schaefer, Jack. Shane:The Critical Edition. Edited by James Work. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984.

Simmons, Marc. "Foreword." Shane: The Critical Edition. Edited by James Work. Lincoln: University of

Nebraska Press, 1984. Pages vii-xii.
Wood, Robin. "Duel in the Sun." The Book of Westerns. Edited by Ian Cameron and Douglas Pye. New York:

Continuum, 1996. Pages 189-195.
Zimmer, Heinrich. The King and the Corpse. Edited by Joseph Campbell. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton

University Press, 1956.

©CopyrightJames C. Work

[BradyLS]

THE MERRY FREEPERS WELCOME TOM WOLFE!