Replies

I have several observations about Shane which I'll make later. Mainly I want to read your observations about this book.

I'll lead off with a brief observation. The one thing that got to me when reading this book is whether the character of Shane is entirely mythological or if there was anyone in real life like Shane. My thought is that there was in the character of Robert E. Lee. Like Shane, Lee was tortured by the violence he saw. Following the Civil War, Lee (unlike most other generals), NEVER wrote or talked about his military participation in that War. My guess is that, as Shane was a great gunfighter and Lee was a great general, Lee was ultimately repulsed by the violence. We can perhaps understand Shane's reluctance to engage in violent gunfighting again in much the same way that Lee would have reacted if he had been called to arms again. Also, although Shane was vague about his background, it was significant that he came originally from a Southern background and may even have been something of an aristocrat like Lee.

OK, maybe this Shane/Lee comparison is a stretch but for some reason the similarity in character struck me.

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

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!

I'm not in the mood to write a lengthy review of Shane, but I'll offer these notes:

The Town: I found it interesting that Bob/the author makes a point of mentioning that the town had a decently appointed general store and that the town pitched in to build a school. But no mention of a church. Or constablulary. Or City Hall!

Re: The sexual undercurrent between Shane and Marion: Marion was from New England and it's hinted that she had some refinement to her. Shane, on the other hand, was certainly a fashionable dude, given his first description in the opening pages. I think Marion recognized that he had some style and refinement about him, something no one in her adopted town even hinted at having. I think that is a subtle part of the obvious attraction she has for him. Maybe even part of the reason she goes to the effort of making the sort of bonnet he described other women wearing. I'm thinking she guessed that he would notice such things and really liked that about him.

I think the book is definitely about having and exhibiting good character and a willingness to make a stand based on moral considerations vs. monetary or social ones. I'm not so sure Shande represents a God/Jesus figure. I think that was the point of the scene between Marion and Joe at the end. After all of Shane's hard work, personal investment, and measured choices in defending Joe and the other farmers, Joe was ready and willing to up stakes and go. It was the first genuinely low act that Joe made in the entire book. Shane never let Joe down but Joe could contemplate letting Shane down. Marion wasn't going to have that.

I'm not so sure that Fletcher represented bad interests, I think Fletcher was a bad man who employed bad men when needed. Consider, Fletcher represents a way of life that brought prosperity to the plains: free-range cattle ranching. (In fact, I was reminded of the verse when first reading about Fletcher: "Give me land, lotsa land, with the starry skies above... Don't fence me in...") The smaller farmers that raised beef cattle simply found a better way to make a better product: tender beef. Neither way is (clearly) morally right or wrong, but one is economically more profitable than the other. (The other half of that equation is railroad building...)

Re: guns. Shane was spot on about guns. They're a tool. The character of the wielder will decide how they'll be used. That's one of the few lessons I actually figured out on my own as a young man.

Re: Shane's fight with Stark: I dont't think Shane was very far off his game, which is why I think he's was a bit taken aback by Bobby's remark about being able to take Stark if he'd been "in practice." I think Shane meant only to wound Stark, to give him a second chance. When Stark goes for his gun again, Shane finishes the job. If Shane had wanted to kill Stark, he easily could have the first time, even if he was slower, because he takes Fletcher down so neatly even while wounded. But Shane was slower than Stark, and I think that's the only way in which he was out of practice.

Re: Shane's fate: Shane left town on his own power and advise that he not be followed. Personally, the realist in me thinks he died of his belly wound, which (if have my facts right) are almost certainly fatal without expert medical attention. And given the year and available facilities, I think Shane's chances were very vanishly slim. (Don't you think you'd eventually hear about the stranger that recovered or sought treatment for a gut wound?) But... if anyone could make it out on sheer will, it would be Shane.

Re: Shane's long hair. I'm guessing there weren't many barber's aorund and they sometimes doubled as doctors back in those days. (Bloody bandages were the sign of the barber. That's how the barber's pole was born. What? Never mind...)

Shane as Bobby Lee? I think...Shane would have inspired and galvanized the farmers to defend themselves for that comparison to fit better. Shane took care of his own business and willingly worked for Joe. He handled the sort of trouble that was out of the farmer's league or willingness to handle.

Re: Clint Eastwood movies: High Plains Drifter was my first thought. Pale Rider is a close fit, too. Hmmm! Longer than I thought it would be! That's it for now...