Sorry for the two month wait, life got in the way and I just couldn't stuff a novel this large in when I had a cross-country funeral to attend. But we're back and we're rolling out with last month's selection: Lonesome Dove. And it was a beast to get through, certainly not just for its size. The novel just kept getting harder and harder to read with the sheer hopelessness you feel for the characters and their struggle through the old American West. There were honestly a good number of times I had to put it down for a few days to go collect myself and get back to it. I don't regret reading the story, but I don't think I will again. There's just a lot of hardship to take in from pretty much every character, and the end just never gets better for them. But before I divulge all the thoughts I have on the novel, lets get a few discussion questions in to get going. Literary Criticism: 1). Though Lonesome Dove is widely considered the great American Western, I found it to be highly naturalistic, bordering on literary or historical fiction. The story spends a good portion of its time on the environment and its harshness, not to mention that basically anything can go wrong will. What are your thoughts on the genre? Was this a bit more than something slotted as a Western? Compare and contrast the genres. 2). One of more tragic aspects of the novel is the misery surrounding the character's relationships. Nobody seems to accept anybody who's searching for their approval or hand. Lorena won't accept anyone except Gus, but only when he won't accept her. Call won't accept that Newt is his son, at least outwardly. And so on. The trend is clear and painful as chances pass for some character's and attention reverses. Nobody seems to really end up well off, and there are no marriages, though a lot of talk of marriage. What do you think McMurty was doing this for? What were his messages through this overall? Why would he intentionally leave the reader hopeless for so many chapters regarding his characters? Craft Discussion: 1). The setting was an overall huge device throughout the novel. What are some ways you noticed McMurty using it to advance his overall messages and themes? I found that the environments often mirrored the tension or feeling of the group overall, to the point where it seemed almost obligatory, especially with rain. Anywhere in particular you noticed elements in setting use such as this? 2). McMurty's ending reaches a pretty good stopping point at Gus's final words, then decides to detour all the way back to bury him in Guadalupe. It even reaches another solid ending at Clara's ranch, but makes the whole trip back to Lonesome Dove. Was this a good decision or did it make the novel drag? What do you think made McMurty continue Call's journey so much longer for? Does Call make for a character the reader can rightly tolerate alone after having the group and especially Gus to latch onto for so long? 3). The July Johnson plot diversion was...an extra helping of unfortunate circumstances to a book chalk full of them, at least in my eyes. Other then bringing some side-stories to fruition, most notably the Jake Spoon situation, what do you think was the purpose of the hapless July Johnson and his band along chase for his wife and Jake Spoon? Was this at all necessary and did it really bring some element forward in the story that wasn't already present? Did it break up the main tale nicely for you, or was it an irritating side quest of more unhappy endings? 4). Most of the characters were quite distinct and fit the bill of their roles in the time period quite well. Everyone was uniquely their own person. Was there a few particular characters that you were able to associate well with, or did you have some problems with other ones that just sat wrong for the wrong reasons? With the setting, these characters drive the story. Did they keep it moving for you? Again, I apologize for the missing month. I hope some of you are still willing to participate after this and in this discussion. The book was long, but I found it well worth it. I can't wait to hear what others think and bring more of my own conclusions to the table. Feel free to ask or talk about any other points as well. I'm just scratching the surface here!
My thoughts, before going to read anybody else's: This was a really really good book, I loved it. Despite the fact there were several things that aren't usually my favorites. The writing style was very head-hopping. But I caught on pretty quick that was the style, so I rolled with it for the book. And the book was pretty 'tell-y' too, but again there was just so much going on the straightforward writing style worked in its favor. It started slow-ish, giving a good picture of life for our main cast while at the same time allowing for the disturbances that Jake Spoon showing up like that had. Until those disturbances boiled over into setting off the plot. The main plot was fairly basic in my opinion, but executed very well. It was also interesting to see the weavings of the B-plot of July's pursuit and the C-plot of Elmira's search weaving in with the main story of the cattle drive. They were distant enough to not feel coincidental when they connected but related enough to not make me wonder why we have to spend time with these people. And the characters! Some of them didn't get fleshed out all that much, especially on the drive, but the ones that did felt like fully fleshed out beings. I hated Dish Boggett, he was so pathetic!! Just constantly yearning for a woman who really didn't care two licks about him. Lorena was resilient and determined, Jake was just so... aimless. Newt was a precious boy who I enjoyed seeing grow up and Call was emotionally constipated. And Gus. Gus was probably my favorite, and I got spoiled for his death when I was googling to see if they'd made a movie or something off it and I was dreading it through most the book. It was a big meaty book, but I can see why people call it one of the best Westerns out there. It's not so much in the concept itself, but the execution. More thoughts after actually reading the initial post: 1. Genre. I honestly don't think a whole lot about genres, especially the division between 'literary' 'historical' and 'Western' since I normally don't read much in them. I have read Westerns before and while Lonesome Dove does feel different than most the others I've read... I'd probably still describe it as a Western because either of the others would feel misleading. I don't think most people would get the difference between 'it's historical fiction set in the American Wild West' and 'Western'. 2. What you call 'misery' is interesting to me EF because I read it differently. It read to me more like there was just a complete lack of focus on the characters emotions. Not that they weren't there, but it was very plot-focused and how people felt just... wasn't important. It was different, but I actually liked it. It felt very real because everyone was busy with their own things and stuck in their own heads. They're busy driving cattle (or hunting outlaws), who's got time to talk about feelings? I'm really not sure what McMurtry's intention was, but that's what I got out of the story. Craft discussion 1. I did not notice McMurtry using the environment to further themes and the like lol. I don't pick up on that kind of stuff in books really. The environment was an obstacle for the characters to overcome with how I read it. 2. I did like how we followed Call all the way back to Lonesome Dove at the end. We got to see that driving cattle like that didn't make Call happy. We got to see how he's coping, or not, after Gus's death. I do really like Call as a character, and I did like the ending we got. Because the whole book has been wrapped up in the ugly details of living, and dying, and a messy ending like we got suited the book. 3. Hm, purpose to the July Johnson side-plot. I didn't mind it so I didn't question why it was there. It did give a feel of the greater world out there, I think. Broke up the focus from just on the drive to pull back and give more of a feel of what life is like for these other people. With July hunting Jake, for a while there it was more directly involved with our A-plot, and by the time the Jake subplot was over I was invested enough in July to want to know where he ended up. 4. I already talked about loving Gus but Lorena!! She was tough, but less in a sense of nothing bothering her and more in the sense that she was resilient. The storm freaked her out, but once it was over she perked right back up. Jake hits her and she doesn't really care. She's still not going to San Antonio. And then all that with Blue Duck happens, and she's not okay after that, but she gets better. The characters in general were what kept me going through the book. Like I said I hated Dish, even more than Jake, but not in a way that made me want to put the book down.
Well, this is an interesting book, for sure. One I've actually read three times (in addition to seeing the excellent TV series.) Once, a long time ago, and twice recently for the book discussion here. I think, because I'm so interested in the history of the Old West, that I'm more attracted to 'real' stories about the Old West than I am in the Old West getting used as a mythological setting ...which I feel McMurtry's western stories do. However, he takes that mythology a lot further than most Western genre authors. I agree with EF that this is a borderline literary work—hence the Pulizer Prize—much more so than the usual stock Western, written by the likes of Elmore Leonard or Zane Grey, etc. The setting, the Old West, always seems a difficult place in Lonesome Dove—which it was in reality, in so many ways. Lonesome Dove takes place in the middle of the Wild West era, after the Civil War, after the initial wildness of exploration had worn off, but before the total settlement of the West, before statehood reached all parts of it. It was the era where towns sprang up, civilisation was making itself felt, but there were still lots of wild places and the remnants of feral people still seeking their own kind of independence. So it was an interesting choice of time and place. Especially as some of the older characters had experienced the wilder, less organised frontier, and maybe fit less easily into the newer era. I was impressed by McMurtry's ability to introduce and maintain a huge cast of characters so well. He knew enough to start slow. At no point was I ever confused, or feeling as if he'd dumped too many names on me for me to remember. He started with Gus and the pigs! And then gradually began adding in characters who lived with Gus, and near him, etc. Just when I was beginning to feel McMurtry was lingering a LITTLE too long setting up the characters and relationships inside the little band—Gus and Call, Call and Newt, Gus and Lorena, Dish and Lorena, Pea Eye (one of my favourite secondary characters) and Call, etc—near the end of Chapter 5, in rolls Deets, with their old comrade-in-arms, Jake Spoon. Jake certainly puts a spanner in the works, and gets the plot off and running. And Deets brings a very interesting dimension to the story as well. He's almost the moral opposite of Jake, isn't he? Sorry, I've got to go do something else just now, but I'll be back....
Right ...back again, briefly. (Got a busy day ahead.) Part Two introduces the July Johnson segment of the story. I think McMurtry does, occasionally, stray into creating somewhat cartoon-y characters—with only one or two simplistic traits (mostly shortsightedness or stupidity or obsessive focus) that seem to define them—and this segment is rife of these kinds of characters. Roscoe, Peach, and to some extent July himself do stand out as needing a good shake, don't they? Joe seems real enough, as does Elmira (at least at first.) But at first it's really hard to see the others as anything more than one-dimensional figures of fun. I'm sure we can all think of actual cartoon characters who resemble Roscoe and Peach. I'm not sure if this is an asset to the story or not. I think I would have been happier if these characters—especially Roscoe and July—had been more realistic and well-rounded. BUT ...once we've recovered from being uprooted from the Gus story segment, this one gets going as well. Of course eventually they are going to intersect, and we know it quite soon, because of the Jake Spoon connection. The second time I read the book, a thematic angle occurred to me. I believe the over-riding theme to this story is this : What do you do with your life? Each of the characters in Lonesome Dove takes a decision fairly early in their lives ...most of them before the actual story starts. They decide what kind of trajectory their life will take. And they all take decisions that follow that trajectory, all the way to the end, don't they? Several of the trajectories involve chasing after somebody who doesn't want to know. Other trajectories seem to involve the opposite ...deliberately running away from things that might have produced a better kind of life. A few of the trajectories DO produce the kind of life the individuals actually wanted for themselves (Gus and Clara come to mind immediately—and maybe Newt as well—and Pea Eye, and Deets—and even Blue Duck) but most of the others follow a trajectory that doesn't produce much but frustration for them. And some decisions and trajectories produce disaster. Again, I've got to leave the discussion ...but I'll be back.
I had bought ‚Lonesome Dove‘ a couple of weeks before our vote. I had seen it on a Waterstone’s site where authors recommended their favourite books (it was a recommendation by Nick Hornby by the way). I had no idea when – or if – I would read it. Then our vote came, and though I didn’t even vote this time (for no particular reason) I was lucky: ‘Lonesome Dove’ won. So, first, thank you for that. After the vote I asked my sister if she’d like to read along (I always retell here the books we are reading, anyway), but I got a ‘Thank you,but no thank you’. She had read the summary on Wikipedia and didn’t like all the terrible things that happened and the gloomy ending. Unimpressed (I hadn’t read the summary) I started by myself. So, what to say? I liked it very much except for the last part and the ending, but first things first. Literary Criticism: 1. On my copy of the book is a quote of the ‘USA Today’: If you read only one Western novel in your life, read this one.’ Well, this was my first Western novel and maybe will be my last, so I can’t really make a comparison. Let’s just say, if every Western novel would be like this, I’ve definitely missed an interesting genre until now. 2. I didn’t really sense it as misery at first but as conflicts. Up to a point all those unfinished businesses were the motor of the plot, keeping me at suspense. For a while it worked pretty well and gave the characters more depth. What didn’t work so well for me was the ending. I’ll come back to that later. Craft Discussion 2. Well, apparently not very much later (see above). The ending. Gus died at the end of chapter 96, so from this moment on we are mostly left with Call, with a short interruption by the failed proposal of July to Clara. I liked Call very much, but it’s true that Gus left a huge gap. This would have been the point to solve at least a few of the existing conflicts and to make your peace with the sad and terrible things that happened before. The action slows down. The trek finally arrives at their destination and Call is bound to his promise to get Gus back to Texas. While reading, it didn’t feel like dragging on, because I still had hope that things would finally get better. But McMurtry didn’t do so. Call, who wanted to go to Montana so badly seems to have lost all his enthusiasm, even the house is only built out of necessity (because winter is coming). The scene between Call and Newt, shortly before Call leaves for Texas is heart-breaking, because you feel the need of both to finally come to acceptance, but there is no closure because Call simply can’t do it. July proposes to Clara, but it seems it is his destiny to have no luck when it comes to women. Even the execution of Blue Duck is no real closure. It’s almost as if McMurtry took every expectation of the reader and turned it down. In short, it didn’t stop me from reading on, but it left me a bit sad and disappointed. 3. We meet July Johnson at the beginning of part two, shortly after the trek has set off. At first, I was a bit impatient, because I really wanted to know how the journey would develop. But soon I was charmed by these new characters. I loved the scene when Roscoe meets Louisa. And July… well, he has a special innocence, always trying to do the right thing and not understanding why he is failing so often. And July fits in nicely when he finally reaches Clara’s farm, falling in love with Clara instead of Lorena, which would be much more obvious. But while reading I noticed a tendency of McMurtry to introduce characters only to write them out again shortly after. The more extreme examples are Mr Sedgewick who July and Joe meet shortly after they set off, and Aus Frank, an old acquaintance of Gus who is now piling up buffalo bones. And we never learn the whole story of Janey, the girl Roscoe meets while looking for July. 4. If anything, I had my problems with Clara. I liked her surprisingly well when she was introduced. But the way she acts after Gus’ death didn’t feel right, especially her harsh words to Call when he leaves. But that might not be a problem of the character ‘Clara’ but a problem of me, the reader, who liked Call very much and (at this point) waited desperately for at least one positive thing to happen. Miscellaneous I guess one of the reasons I enjoyed the book so much is that I simply loved the characters. Gus and Call were terrific. The combination introvert, brooding and noble + extrovert kind and light-hearted always works well for me. And I liked the way McMurtry was able to ad a little bit extra characterization with only small sentences (p. 17: He (Call) wasn’t a big man – in fact, was barely middle-sized – but when you walked up and looked him in the eye it didn’t seem that way. P. 41: Lorena had never particularly looked at life as it was something funny, but Gus did. P.64 He (Jake) had curly black hair, but Newt saw to his surprise that there was a sizable bald spot on the top of his head.). And while there are many horrible things happening, there is equally often a fine sense of humour. McMurtry has a certain (and in my opinion very effective) way to play with the POV. The fact, that he tells a lot of the sad and terrible events (Sean’s death by the snakes in the river, Jake’s death) through Newt, a teenager who is on his first trek, was brilliant, and made it often even more sad and harder to bear. The scene when Blue Duck murders Roscoe, Janey and Joe becomes even more horrible because the reader experiences it through Roscoe. Roscoe is sleepy and almost at peace, it’s more like a strange dream, when in fact Blue Duck kills them in a cruel and terrible way. There were two points where I had to take a break. The first one was after Jake’s death. McMurtry cushions it with a conversation between Newt and Deets and with the fact that in the end it is Jake who gives his horse the spurs. The second one was after Gus was wounded and decides against another amputation. At this point I was already worried for both (Gus and Call) but I figured it would be Call, because of the wolf he sees twice (p. 691, p.704). But (and I know I’ve said that before) I’m still a bit disappointed by the ending. I’m fully aware that there can’t be always a happy ending for everyone, but to leave literally everyone in his or her misery – even the pigs (Gus’ pigs who made it all the way from Texas to Montana) were eaten at Christmas – seems unfair. But I also know McMurtry wrote two prequels and one sequel afterwards and they are already on my kindle.
I really enjoyed reading your analysis, @love to read . You invoked a lot of my own feelings about the book when I read it the first time. I found myself looking at it and the characters a bit differently when I re-read it (twice.) McMurtry is such an accomplished storyteller. It's likely the reader will get totally caught up in the characters the first time through, want the best for them, and feel disappointed and sad when the characters don't get what they appear to want from life. The interesting thing, for me, when it comes to the Western as a genre, is how bleak these fictional stories often are—especially the more modern ones. (With the exception of those written by Elmer Kelton, which, to my mind, are some of the best in the genre.) Bleak Westerns are often considered 'realistic.' However, if you read the many accounts written by people who actually lived that period (with the exception of Native American memoirs, which really ARE bleak, and rightly so), what comes through strongly is 1) they did survive and in many cases thrived, and 2) they found enjoyment in good times, kept going no matter what, and later on, looked back on their life with nostalgia and overall satisfaction. In the case of Teddy (Blue) Abbott, who wrote the fantastic memoir We Pointed Them North, the gruelling hardships of the Old West actually made him strong and gave him a grounding for the rest of his life. Interestingly, Teddy Blue's real-life trajectory paralleled the Lonesome Dove characters. He started out on a small, ailing ranch in Texas, then trailed all the way up to Montana, where he eventually settled, to live out the rest of his long life. (Over 50 years in Fergus County, Montana.) He left home as a teenager with few prospects, to become a full-time cowboy. Because of good luck in some instances and a great deal of perseverance and resilience (and a lot of humor), and, above all, a determination to do a 'good job' at cowboying, he ended his life married to the big rancher's daughter, with lovely children of his own, and a great deal of comfort and acclaim. Then there is the classic No Time On My Hands, written by Grace Snyder. The opening paragraph of her book: Other autobiographies are also lively, well-written and well worth reading. In fact, I own many autobiographies written by people who grew up during the period covered by Lonesome Dove. Such as The Life and Adventures of Nat Love, by Nat Love. A Lady's Experiences in the Wild West in 1883, by Rose Pender. Storm and Stampede on the Chisholm, by Hubert E Collins, No Life For A Lady, by Agnes Morley Cleaveland, Trails of Yesterday, by John Bratt and many many others. These real stories give me a perspective on fiction about the Old (Wild) West, and colour my view of the fictional stories. All of the character types that McMurtry writes about did exist in the Old West. But what he's left out are the vast majority of real people who made a success of their ventures, and were able to happily make the transition between the unregulated 'wild' west to the settled and law-abiding west that these places soon became. The entire trail-driving era, upon which so much of American mythology is based, only lasted just over 20 years. The one character to emerge from Lonesome Dove whom I feel is the most realistic is Newt. You just get the feeling that, despite a fairly rocky upbringing, he has inherited (and learned) the skills he'll need to make a success of his ranch in Montana. He'll recover from his childhood obsession with getting Captain Call's approval and make his own way, and do it without becoming cynical and withdrawn. He's the open-hearted sort who draws people to him and doesn't disappoint them. Newt is the promise that Lonesome Dove offers. Newt's story is, in many ways, the happy ending. He has gained his stature and gained respect by being himself, not by riding somebody else's coat-tails—which he might have done if he'd been Call's acknowledged son. As a child he had a lot of sympathy from those who guessed (or knew) his paternity, but he never took advantage of people's warm feelings towards him. By the end of the story, he already has the respect and loyalty of the ranch hands who work for him. Of course he'll find a good woman, get married, have children whom he'll love to bits, and make a legacy to pass on to them. And he'll make his peace with the parts of his past he couldn't control. You just know it. Newt is the one who will end up dictating a nostalgic autobiography at the age of 80. Clara also made a go of things. She decided early on that what she wanted was a settled life, and she got it. Yes, she had to give up some of her dreams and the great, wild love of her life to do so, but that's what lots of us have to do if we want to grow up and get on. Gus also got the life he wanted. He decided early on that he wanted to be free, to make his own decisions, to laugh, love, work, play and be the best he could be, without getting tied down and restricted by anybody else. Gus did not want to be tied down, while Clara wanted a settled life. Neither could give the other what they wanted, so they sensibly parted company as lovers and moved on. Each of them could have spent their life being miserable and trying to convert the other, hoping for a change—but they didn't. So, while their endings weren't happy-go-lucky, they did at least live full lives. They themselves chose how that would happen, and took the good with the bad. They did not allow others to choose for them. Any regrets they had were fleeting ones, and you get the sense that if they had it to do over, they'd do the same thing again. I do wonder about Captain Call. Will he ever look back on his life with the same kind of satisfaction about the roads not taken? I doubt it. He will always be plagued by a feeling that he could have done better. I can't see him ever relaxing, or saying, 'Enough. I've done enough. I've lived a good life. I'm happy.' Being too hard on yourself and refusing to ever forgive yourself doesn't bring happiness, does it? Ditto Lorena. I think she'll always be wanting something she doesn't have. She has the 'divine discontent' built into her, I reckon. No man will ever be quite what she wants, and yet she doesn't want life without a man. She doesn't actually know what she wants; her desire to go to California is without any real motivation, other than it's a destination. If she ever gets there, with that mindset, she'll still be wanting something different, and may well take up with yet another man who promises her something big and doesn't deliver. Has she actually learned much during the course of the story—about standing on her own two feet and creating her own happiness, without depending on others to bring it to her? I'm not convinced she has. And Dish, who persists in making himself miserable because the woman he wants doesn't want him—will he ever give up and move on? There is a hint he might—maybe even marry one of Clara's daughters—but who knows. And July. A very good man, who simply doesn't believe in himself at all. Will that ever change? It won't unless he has a major epiphany. Maybe his child will bring that transformation, as I think Clara hopes it will. These three characters all spent their lives chasing after somebody who didn't want them, or after some kind of future they could have had, if only.... In a way, Lonesome Dove ends too soon. Not too soon as a novel, but too soon as a story for each of these people. You do get the feeling that the physical hardships are over for all the surviving characters. But what will they make of the easier life they now have ahead? Who knows? I think McMurtry strikes exactly the right note. There MIGHT be happy endings ahead. We just aren't going to see them.
