SHANE! COME BACK! by Cheryl Pierson

Jack Schaefer’s book, Shane, has been classified in many sub-genres, but to me, it will always remain my favorite western romance.

Romance? Shane?

This story cannot have a truly happy-ever-after ending for all the principal characters, so it normally wouldn’t make it to my “Top Ten” list for that very reason. But the story itself is so compelling, so riveting, that there is no choice once you’ve read page one—you are going to finish it. And it’s not just a story about a very odd love triangle, but also about Shane discovering that he is worthy, and a good person, despite what he’s done in his past.

Shane is the perfect hero, or anti-hero;—a drifter, a loner, and no one knows why. He plans to keep it that way. If only his pesky conscience didn’t get in the way, he might have stopped briefly at the Starrett’s homestead, then moved on.

But from the beginning of the book, we know there is something different about Shane. The story is told through the eyes of Bob Starrett, the young son of Joe and Marion. Bob is about ten years old, and his account of the people and action that takes place are colored with the wonderment and naivete of a child who will be well on his way to becoming a young man before the story is over.

The book starts with tension, as Bob is watching the stranger, Shane, ride in. Shane comes to a fork in the road. One way leads down toward Luke Fletcher’s, the cattle baron who is trying to force the homesteaders out of the valley. The other branch of the fork leads toward the Starretts, the homesteaders who will ultimately force Fletcher’s hand. Shane chooses that path, toward the Starretts, and the die is cast.

He would have looked frail alongside father’s square, solid bulk. But even I could read the endurance in the lines of that dark figure and the quiet power in his effortless, unthinking adjustment to every movement of the tired horse.

He was clean-shaven and his face was lean and hard and burned from high forehead to firm, tapering chin. His eyes seemed hooded in the shadow of the hat’s brim. He came closer and I could see that this was because the brows were drawn into a frown of fixed and habitual alertness. Beneath them the eyes were endlessly searching from side to side and forward, checking off every item in view, missing nothing. As I noticed this, a sudden chill, and I could not have told why, struck through me there in the warm and open sun.

In a nutshell, Shane drifts into the Wyoming valley, and is befriended by the Starretts. Once there, he is quickly made aware of the brewing trouble between the homesteaders and the powerful local cattle baron, Luke Fletcher, who is set on running them all out of the valley. Shane is firmly committed to helping Joe Starrett and the homesteaders who want to stay. Fletcher’s men get into a fistfight with Shane and Joe in the general store, and Fletcher vows his men will kill the next time Joe or Shane come back into town.

Fletcher hires Stark Wilson, a well-known gunhawk, who kills one of the homesteaders that stands up to him. Joe Starrett feels it is his duty, since he convinced the others to stay, to go kill Fletcher and Wilson.

Shane knocks Joe out, knowing that, though Joe’s heart is in the right place, he’s no match for a hired gun like Wilson. There’s only one man who is—Shane himself, and that’s going to set him back on the path he’s so desperately trying to escape.

Shane rides into town and Bob follows him, witnessing the entire battle. Shane faces Wilson down first, and then Fletcher. Shane turns to leave and Bob warns him of another man, who Shane also kills. But Shane doesn’t escape unscathed—Wilson has wounded him in the earlier gunplay.

Shane rides out of town, and though Bob wishes so much that Shane could stay, he understands why he can’t. No. Bob does not utter one of the most famous lines in cinema history—“Shane! Come back!” There’s good reason for this. In the book, Bob’s growth is shown because of what he learns from Shane. To call him back would negate that growth process.

He describes Shane throughout the book, and in many ways, with a child’s intuition, understands innately that Shane is a good man and will do the right thing, which is proven out time and again. So, he also realizes that there is no place for Shane there in the valley, now that the trouble has been handled.

Bob witnesses the conversation between his mother and Shane, as well, where so much is said—and not said. It’s one of the major turning points in the book, though Bob, in his telling of it, doesn’t realize it—but the reader is painfully aware of it. If Shane really is a good man, he will have no recourse but to leave.

This happens as the novel is drawing to a close, when Marian, Bob’s mother, asks Shane if he’s going after Wilson just for her. He has knocked her husband out to keep him from going after the gunman.

Shane hesitated for a long, long moment. “No, Marian.” His gaze seemed to widen and encompass us all, mother and the still figure of father huddled on a chair by the window and somehow the room and the house and the whole place. Then he was looking only at mother and she was all he could see.

“No, Marian. Could I separate you in my mind and afterwards be a man?”

Shane was Jack Schaefer’s debut novel, published in 1949. It was honored in 1985 by the Western Writers of America as the best Western novel ever written—beating out other works such as Owen Wister’s The Virginian, Zane Grey’s Riders of the Purple Sage, and Louis L’Amour’s Hondo.
In 1963, Schaefer wrote Monte Walsh, a book that chronicles the passing of the Old West and the lifestyle of the American cowboy.

Schaefer never deliberately wrote for young adults, but many of his works have become increasingly popular among younger readers. Universal themes such as the transformation and changes of growing up, the life lessons learned, and rites of passage from childhood to becoming a young adult in his writing have been responsible for the upswing in popularity with this age group.

Though I consider Shane a romance novel, it’s a very different and memorable love triangle because of the unshakable honor of the three characters. I love the subtlety that Schaefer is such a master of, and the way he has Bob describing the action, seeing everything, but with the eyes of a child. If you haven’t read Shane, I highly recommend it—at less than 200 pages, it’s a quick, easy read, and unforgettable.

A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that. (Shane to Marian)

A man is what he is, Bob, and there’s no breaking the mold. I’ve tried that and I’ve lost. But I reckon it was in the cards from the moment I saw a freckled kid on a rail up the road there and a real man behind him, the kind that could back him for the chance another kid never had. (Shane to Bob)


Thanks for stopping by today! What's your favorite western novel? I know, there are so many good ones out there it's hard to pick just one, isn't it? So...maybe the top five on your favorites list? Let's hear them!

THE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS--PART 3--SETTINGS by CHERYL PIERSON

Are you a reader who loves descriptions and details of settings? Glittering ballrooms, the bone-chilling cold of a winter in the Rockies…or maybe the oppressive, killing heat of the desert? What about something idyllic, like a river or creek babbling through the woods? A beautiful rose garden, or even the ugly side of description—such as barren prison walls, or a Civil War battlefield?

It depends on the story, doesn’t it, and again, how much importance those descriptions have on the impact of the action, and the outcome of the story.

Let’s use a ball as our example.

If you’ve never been to an 1800’s ball—and none of us have—we need to know at least the barest details.

Five basic things we need to know are:
What is a ball?
Why is the ball being given?
Who will be invited?
When will the ball be given?
Where will it be held?

That’s enough for some stories. But the main question is—how important is the ball to the plot?

This is where layering comes in—and this one scene, and the details it contains—can be vital to what comes next, or even many scenes later.
So many things can happen at a ball!

Guests can meet for the first time, uninvited guests can show up, clothing can have significance, music can bring back memories, the food can even be poisoned!

Or, the ball can just be a ball, like the old saying attributed to Sigmund Freud, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar…” –and if that’s the case, then tedious description and intricate detail is wasted because the ball is just a vehicle to get from one scene in the story to the next, and has no real underlying importance.

Describing the details of the clothing worn is sometimes distracting as it pulls us away from the action. We may be reading about a blue satin gown when we need to be concentrating on the man who lurks in the shadows. Too much description can bog down the reader and deaden the story rather than bring it to life.

Why? Because deep description of the things such as décor, clothing, and meals stop the action of the characters. The plot “takes a break” while our minds process all of the description of the scenery, the meals, the clothing. In this case, again, sometimes, “less is more” and we need to let the reader’s mind fill in much of that kind of detail.

Consider this: We know certain facts—a ball costs a lot of money to host. So we already understand that those who are invited are most likely people who move in the same upper crust social circles. Therefore, we know they, too, have money, so are appropriately dressed, arrive in style, and are schooled in proper societal customs. One excellent way to cut through the “red tape” of description (of things we already know) is to describe something that is out of place, or “not right” as this reminds us of what should be—and those details of descriptions we’re already aware of.

Perhaps an imposter at the ball commits a social faux pas without realizing it, alerting others to the fact she isn’t who she pretends to be. Maybe an unlikely hero comes to her aid quickly, offering an excuse, or correcting the mistake before others notice.

This scenario does several things for the story that simple description can’t achieve.

1. Points out the discrepancy in what should be and what is.
2. Allows our characters interaction, and possibly dialogue and observation, rather than the author filling the page with scenic description.
3. Allows the reader the opportunity to learn more about the characters and their personalities through this interaction, and can be a vehicle to reveal something of importance.
4. Can possibly further the action during such a scene rather than slowing it by miles of scenic description.

This is not to say that there isn’t a time and a place for detailed descriptions of settings! We can’t call ourselves authors and take the “easy” way out by saying, “It was a ball like any other” by way of description, unless—we put it in the right context.

How about this:
Jake looked around at the opulent ballroom –the surroundings were familiar in a tiresome, cloying way. Or…maybe was jaded. It was a ball like any other—except for one thing. Something that made him catch his breath and inwardly let go a streak of curses he’d love to shout to the skies. She was here. The woman he’d thought he’d never see again…

Well, anything can happen now, can’t it? Maybe she’s wearing an inappropriate shade of red amidst a sea of violet and blue. There are so many ways to make setting come alive without endless description that many readers become bored with and skim over.

If you read my last installment of this blog series about main characters, the examples I used from Shane (Jack Schaefer) and St. Agnes’ Stand (Tom Eidson) are also prime examples of description of setting as well as character.

But here’s another good one I really think is wonderful from Conagher, by Louis L’Amour. In this story, Evie from “back East” has come out west to marry a man with two children. Evie tries to make the best of things, but she lives in fear at first. The land is so different, After she’s been there a while, she finds there is a beauty in her surroundings she had to grow to love, in time.

As L’Amour describes the heroine's (Evie) dismal hopelessness at the land her husband (Jacob) has brought her to, we wonder how she will survive. Yet, Jacob has plans, sees the possibilities that Evie cannot, or will not see. The underlying message is, "The land is what we make of it."

As the story continues, she begins to appreciate the beauty of the prairie, while acknowledging the solitary loneliness of her existence. She plants a garden, nurturing the plants, and gradually she sees the farm being shaped into a good home from the ramshackle place she'd first laid eyes on.

The land is beautiful, but unforgiving. Her husband is killed in a freak accident, and for months she doesn't know what has happened to him. She faces the responsibility of raising his two children from a previous marriage alone.

In her loneliness, she begins to write notes describing her feelings and ties them to tumbleweeds. The wind scatters the notes and tumbleweeds across the prairie. Conagher, a loner, begins to wonder who could be writing them, and slowly comes to believe that whomever it is, these notes are meant for him.

At one point, visitors come from back East. One of them says to Evie something to the effect of "I don't know how you can stand it here."
This is Evie's response to her:

"I love it here," she said suddenly. "I think there is something here, something more than all you see and feel…it's in the wind.

"Oh, it is very hard!" she went on. "I miss women to talk to, I miss the things we had back East–the band concerts, the dances. The only time when we see anyone is like now, when the stage comes. But you do not know what music is until you have heard the wind in the cedars, or the far-off wind in the pines. Someday I am going to get on a horse and ride out there"–she pointed toward the wide grass before them–"until I can see the other side…if there is another side."

The land, at first her nemesis, has become not only a friend, but a soulmate. L’Amour gives us this description through Evie’s eyes and feelings, not in writing about it from his perspective as the author.

Think of your own writing projects, and books you've read. What importance do you give setting in description, plot, even characterization? Within 40 pages of 'Conagher', we understand that the land, with all its wild beauty and dangers has become enmeshed in Evie's character. She can't leave it, and it will never leave her.

Endless, detailed description can’t do what L’Amour does through Evie’s eyes in a very few sentences. Do you have a favorite description of a setting you've read about or written about?

THE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS--MAIN CHARACTERS by CHERYL PIERSON

Are you the kind of reader who likes to have a detailed description of the hero or heroine in romance books? What about other secondary characters? And do you feel the same way about characters in books of genres other than western historical romance, or romance in general?

To me, there is a big difference in how much character description is needed in romance novels versus other genres, and here’s why.

When we read romance, we put ourselves in the story, empathizing with both the heroine and the hero. Of course, we need enough description to let us be familiar with them both, but this might be a case of “less” being “more.”

In our personal lives, we have preferences in how our romantic “leading men” look, speak, behave, and so on. If our preferences are toward the tall, dark, and handsome hero, it will be hard for us to be vested in a story with a hero who’s short, fair, and ugly. Or one who has habits we personally don’t find attractive.

I knew a woman who didn’t like blond heroes. If he had blond hair on the cover, she’d color it brown or black with a marker. In the book, if “blond” was mentioned, she’d mark through it and write whatever color of hair she’d decided he needed. I asked her about the heroines. “They’re all me,” she answered. “I don’t pay attention to their descriptions.”

It made me wonder how many others felt this way.

Stephen King had mentioned at one time in his book ON WRITING that “description begins in the writer’s imagination, but should finish in the reader’s.”

https://amzn.to/2EdXjVy

And in genres other than romance, character description is different and maybe more important, because the reader doesn’t have any preconceived expectations of the story, such as romance readers do.

When I taught creative writing classes, this description was one I used to illustrate how so much could be packed in to a short amount of words without being an info dump.

https://amzn.to/2T4bXZU
This is the beginning of St. Agnes’ Stand, by Thomas Eidson, who also wrote The Missing. Take a look:

He was hurt and riding cautiously. Thoughts not quite grasped made him uneasy, and he listened for an errant sound in the hot wind. His eyes were narrowed—searching for a broken leaf, a freshly turned rock, anything from which he could make some sense of his vague uneasiness. Nothing. The desert seemed right, but wasn’t somehow. He turned in the saddle and looked behind him. A tumbleweed was bouncing in front of the wild assaults from the wind. But the trail was empty. He turned back and sat, listening.

Over six feet and carrying two hundred pounds, Nat Swanson didn’t disturb easy, but this morning he was edgy. His hat brim was pulled low, casting his face in shadow. The intense heat and the wind were playing with the air, making it warp and shimmer over the land. He forced himself to peer through it, knowing he wouldn’t get a second chance if he missed a sheen off sweating skin or the straight line of a gun barrel among branches.

And then this, a couple of paragraphs down:

He had been running for a week, and he was light on sleep and heavy on dust and too ready for trouble. He’d killed a man in a West Texas town he’d forgotten the name of—over a woman whose name he’d never known. He hadn’t wanted the woman or the killing. Nor had he wanted the hole in his thigh. What he did want was to get to California, and that’s where he was headed. Buttoned in his shirt pocket was a deed for a Santa Barbara ranch. Perhaps a younger man would have run longer and harder before turning to fight and maybe die; but Nat Swanson was thirty-five years that summer, old for the trail, and he had run as far as he was going to run.

I absolutely love this. Can you feel that you’re right there with Nat Swanson as he’s riding? There are no wasted words, and this is just such an eloquent, masterful description of not only Nat, but the situation and the physical place he’s in as well as the dilemma he’s faced with.

Another excellent way of describing a character and setting the scene at the same time is from another character’s POV. This passage is from Jack Schaefer’s iconic classic, Shane—from the eyes of Bobby Starrett—when Shane first rides into his life.

https://amzn.to/2BWlIin

This is just the very beginning of the book—there is more physical description of Shane a few paragraphs later, but I chose this passage because it lets us know what’s going on in a few short sentences—and that is real talent.

He rode into our valley in the summer of ’89. I was a kid then, barely topping the backboard of father’s old chuck-wagon. I was on the upper rail of our small corral, soaking in the late afternoon sun, when I saw him far down the road where it swung into the valley from the open plain beyond.

In that clear Wyoming air I could see him plainly, though he was still several miles away. There seemed nothing remarkable about him, just another stray horseman riding up the road toward the cluster of frame buildings that was our town. Then I saw a pair of cowhands, loping past him, stop and stare after him with a curious intentness.

He came steadily on, straight through the town without slackening pace, until he reached the fork a half-mile below our place. One branch turned left across the river ford and on to Luke Fletcher’s big spread. The other bore ahead along the right bank where we homesteaders had pegged our claims in a row up the valley. He hesitated briefly, studying the choice, and moved again steadily on our side.

This is tough, because we’re seeing it through two “lenses”—Bobby is nine years old, and this is what he sees, but it’s filtered by the adult Bobby who’s now telling the story of what happened all those years ago.

In writing the story this way, the reader gets the full impact of experiencing the fears, the situation brings, the joy of having Shane there, and the anguish of his leaving all through the eyes of a nine-year-old boy, with the adult overview that lets us know that Shane was not a hero—but he was to Bobby and those small time settlers who needed one so desperately. Yet, leaving was the only thing he could have done and kept Bobby’s view of him untarnished and intact.

Because we don’t know how the story will end, and we don’t know what to expect, we are learning about Shane’s character right along with Bobby so we are actively looking for details and descriptors the author might give us along the way—it will affect our opinion of Shane and let us know if Bobby is a reliable narrator, and it affects the outcome of the story.

I bring this up because in romance, seldom does the description have such a direct effect on the story itself, unless our main characters have scars, afflictions, or disabilities that might have some direct bearing on the story and its outcome.
So what do you think? Do you like a lot of description and detail about the WHR heroes you read about, or would you rather “fill in the blanks” for yourself?

As far as heroines go, most people I’ve talked to are not as concerned wither physical description (maybe because each person sees herself in the heroine?) but are more concerned with her personality traits—is she likable? Is she determined?

If she is not a fierce match for the hero, the story line is doomed.

And what about our hero? Though he can get away with more “questionable” traits, he has to be endowed with almost superhuman strength to overcome everything that’s thrown his way, and that is description that must be thoroughly detailed—not left to the reader’s interpretation.
(I apologize for the Amazon links being all over the place--I could not get them to "stick" under the book covers.)

IN DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL WESTERN FICTION by CHARLIE STEEL

This article was first posted in WWA Roundup Magazine April 2009. I am not sure if it later appeared on Western Fictioneers Blog or not. In speaking with Cheryl Pierson, she suggested I post it again. (I recall spending a great deal of time writing this article; hope you enjoy it).
Charlie Steel

There are many articles in magazines, on blogs, and on the World Wide Web that criticize traditional
Westerns and their authors. This is unfair. Certainly John Steinbeck would not be categorized very
well in any specific genre. That great writer also happened to pen some unforgettable Western
stories.

His writing is filed mainly in libraries and bookstores as Fiction. Readers and writers don't really think of him in
any specific genre, other than to judge his work as it stands.

A good well-written story is exactly that---a good well-written story. It stands alone separate from any labeling.
That holds true for Westerns as well. It is unfortunate that we cannot categorize all contemporary, historical, and
traditional Westerns as simply Fiction.

First, it is wrong for anyone, especially writers, historians, professors, and bloggers to publicly make suppositions
that the Western is in an unhealthy state. Its health is fine and will remain fine; it just no longer dominates the
media like it once did.

Most disturbing are statements declaring traditional Westerns as passé. It is repeatedly emphasized that writers
and readers should concentrate on contemporary and historically accurate Westerns written by living authors.
Some discussions seem to declare embarrassment of traditional forms and state they are tiresome, cliché, and
should no longer be promoted. Specifically, some writers today lament the fact that Zane Grey, Max Brand, and
Louis L'Amour seem to continue to dominate bookshelves, book sales, and Western author name recognition.

It is difficult to comprehend why current writers complain about the continued success of these three famous
Western authors. Envy is not an appropriate response to their vast achievements. Wishful thinking is not going
to rescind their continued fame or past triumphs. Negative pronouncements are embarrassing and conceited.
They show contempt and a vast lack of respect for the success of these three writers and their inestimable
contributions to the status of the Western. There is a reason why these three writers continue to dominate sales
and it has to do with their historical timing, talent, and marketing skills, and very little to do with luck. New authors
may someday reach their stature but will never replace them. Such iconic acclaim comes only from an equal
status in sales and public recognition. And, for most living writers, that will be a long time coming.

Authors of traditional fiction have the right to be recognized without ridicule, and to write in any form they choose,
so long as it is tasteful and a good story. The negative statements about writers of traditional fiction will forever
be out there in cyberspace and print, continuing to do damage. This creates an unhealthy separatist
atmosphere and is wrong for modern writers or groups to advocate one form of Western writing over another. It
should be recognized that traditional Westerns represent the very foundation of the Western.

The nearly exclusive interest in Westerns continues from the early 1900s until the 1960s. A shift in the focus on
traditional Westerns is not limited to books. When the movies and television were in their infancy, the primary
event in American history that entertainment portrayed was the conquering of the lands beyond the Mississippi.
The writer who can be attributed to that focus is Zane Grey, the man who primarily made the Western popular.
The concentration on the Western theme, first in the movies and then on television, slowly changed. Publishing
houses also followed this trend. This turn of events is a fact, nothing calculated.

This may seem like a quandary or contradiction, but it is not. Less exposure does not mean people throughout
the world are not reading or viewing Westerns---or that they ever stopped reading or viewing them. This just
means Westerns are not the predominate entertainment they once were. This is far from alarming. With the
massive growth in population, and proper marketing, there will be millions of new readers who will turn to
Westerns.

Money seems to be part of this argument. The one thing that all Western writers, contemporary, historical, and
traditional, realize with great lamentation is that the days of the $5000 short story sale to magazines, or large
book advances from publishing houses, are over. Across the spectrum of the publishing industry, the majority of
writers whose work is accepted must submit a marketing plan and outline of how they, the authors, are going to
promote their books once published. Only a very few writers are going to make a large amount of money in book
sales and residuals. Everyone else has to work for those sales.

Consolidation and harsh procedures of large publishing houses can also create obstacles. Writers are turning to
small publishers and to self promotion. Some handle book sales very well; others don't. This is a reality of the
publishing world. In this respect, Zane Grey, Max Brand, and Louis L'Amour had an easier time in gaining income
from their literary efforts. The end of that old publishing era is something to regret. On the other hand, writers
who partner or work with creative presses, buy back or publish and market their own books, can earn up to 70%
return on the sale of each book. A phenomenal salary potential has arrived in this computer age. This is
something that all Western authors should consider taking advantage of instead of lamenting the past.
Publishing and marketing are presently more fluid. Authors may have a book with a publishing house and
another they are marketing on their own. In either case, once greater renown of a title is achieved, a writer or
small publisher may or may not allow contracts with bigger publishing houses, (or larger book distributors) and
their work may end up on bookshelves beside the great icons. But, for most authors, this may not be where they
would receive the most reward for their efforts. Creative marketing with author owned books, and direct book
sales at special presentations, for many authors seem to have far greater income potential.

Grey, Brand, and L'Amour certainly established a deep seated connection with their readers by writing stories
that captured the reader's heart. In the first half of the twentieth century their stories dominated the printed
market. Their stories sold around the world and many were turned into film. They remained famous and their
work still sells because their stories contain themes and ideals that continue to appeal to readers. Rather than
turn their backs on these authors, contemporary writers desiring to reach their readers need to study and
emulate what these famous writers have done.

Jon Tuska writes in a forward to Tales of the Golden West: Book Seven (Five Star, 2006):
The greatest lesson the pioneers learned from the Indians is with us still: that it is each man's and each woman's
inalienable right to find his own path in life, to follow his own vision, to achieve his own destiny---even should one
fail in the process. There is no principle so singularly revolutionary as this one in human intellectual history
before the American frontier experience, and it grew from the very soil of this land and the peoples who came to
live on it. It is this principle that has always been the very cornerstone of the Western story.

Tuska maintains this is the reason Grey, Brand, and L'Amour continue to be successful because their writing
contains all of these elements. These writers made vast contributions not only to the Western but to all fiction.
Everyone can learn from their prose and descriptive writing.

The reason all three authors remain in print is because they wrote exciting uplifting stories that will never die. It is
the financial force of the readers that directs the publishers to continue to print books written by the three noted
authors. The writers may have passed away, but their literature has not; they breathed life into their Western
stories that continue to sweep the world over.

Unlike Hollywood scenarios, success for most of us will not come overnight. For some, it may come after death.
For the rest of us, we will have to be content with a series of books or stories in print and be gratified that we are
published authors. We write our stories as well as we can and look for a place among our peers. Not
unexpectedly, some do better than others. One of the most acclaimed living Western authors, Elmer Kelton, has
documented that it took a lifetime to earn recognition.

It is recommended that Western writers persevere, be supportive to ALL styles of tasteful writing, and make a
positive contribution in whatever form. We should be more conciliatory to all Western authors: contemporary,
historical, or traditional. Let posterity and our readership determine what happens to our work.

Addendum:
Since the writing of this article, digital publishing has taken over the publishing industry making it
much easier for writers to publish their own work. Now a writer can choose between submitting to a
publisher or to self-publishing digitally and in print form. Amazon.com continues to dominate this field. Also note: Since the writing of this article, Elmer Kelton has unfortunately passed away.



Historical Perspective of the Influence Three Icons Had on Literature About the West:

ZANE GREY, starting with Betty Zane (as a self published novel) was slow to reach the reading public. But Grey wrote very well and readers responded to his later books about the West. He nearly single handedly---during his lifetime---developed the Western for mass audiences, provided stories and scripts for the very first movies, and briefly owned his own movie studio which eventually became Paramount. In his time, he was incredibly famous and he earned enormous amounts of money---the first American writer to be so well-known and so well paid. For many years in the early 1900s, he explored and researched the West on horseback. He was the first one who scouted and filmed Monument Valley, even if the credit goes to John Ford who happened to make better movies at that location.

MAX BRAND (Frederick Faust) was born to write. He was a genius. His Western stories gallop across the written page at a furious and powerfully entertaining pace. He wrote like a madman, millions of words, and is attributed to have written 500 plus books under 19 pseudonyms and in many themes (genres) other than the Western. A letter recently received from a publishing house that prints his work indicated that Max Brand Westerns are being discovered by young readers and it is they who are becoming the new book buyers for his thrilling work.

LOUIS L’AMOUR wrote some fantastic books. Look at Reilly’s Luck, one of his best. His short stories are wonderful and a few of them would stand up to any writer in the world. For the skeptic, read Trap of Gold. This author is revered by loyal fans who have passed his books down through at least three generations. His unique ability to make the reader feel uplifted after reading one of his stories, perhaps accounts for his continuing fame.


Addendum:
Wikipedia estimates that Louis L'Amour has sold over 330 million books. That would make him not only the best selling Western author of all time, but also among the twenty top selling authors, from any genre, in the history of mankind.


Charlie Steel is the author of Fight for Wet Springs, Desert Heat, Desert Cold and Other Tales of the West, as well as many short stories.

Text Copyright © 2010 by CONDOR PUBLISHING, INC

BEHIND THE SCENES by Tom Rizzo

I've always been a fan of behind-the-scenes at the movies . . . wondering what went on when the cameras didn't roll -- or did, for that matter. 

Movie trivia has always fascinated me. When family members or friends gather, references to movies are sure to come up whether contemporary films or the ones produced back when. 

It's always fun to be in a position of enlightening listeners with a little extra information they may not be aware occurred during the making of a particular film. For our purposes, it makes sense to focus on Westerns--a few of the most popular ones. Granted, many Western movie aficionados may already know about these factoids but, for those who don't, enjoy:

High Noon (1952)

At the time of filming, Gary Cooper, the lead, wasn't in the best of health. He was suffering from a bleeding ulcer, lower back problems, and a recurring hip problem. He was also dealing with issues caused by the breakup of his marriage and an affair turned sour. But it all worked in his favor.

The physical and emotional scars visible on his face gave Cooper the look of someone beyond his 51 years. Because of the deep and defining worry lines, Cooper needed little or no makeup during the filming.  

Cooper's professional reputation was on the decline after spending twenty-five years in show business. The Motion Picture Herald even dropped him from its list of top 10 Box Office Performers. 

But his performance in High Noon, as Sheriff Will Kane, made him the comeback kid and led to his second Academy Award for Best Actor. (He earned the first one for his role in Sergeant York). 

He wasn't producer Stanley Kramer's first choice for the lead. He first offered it to Gregory Peck as well as to Marlon Brando, Montgomery Clift, Kirk Douglas, and Charlton Heston. 

High Noon, considered a low budget black and white Western, was made for $750,000, and was nominated for seven Academy Awards, winning four of them: Best Actor in a Leading Role, Best Film Editing, Best Music, Original Song, Best Music, Scoring of a dramatic or Comedy Picture.

The film It's the first non-musical to have a theme song - "Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darlin'," marketed separately from the motion picture

One of the storefronts in the town of Hadleyville, where the story takes place, carries the name "Boyd's Hardware." Many believe the name referenced actor William Boyd, who played Hopalong Cassidy on television. 

Deputy Harvey Pell, played by Lloyd Bridges, originally was slated for Lee Van Cleef. Studio big shots, however, didn't like Cleef's facial appearance, especially his "hooked" nose which they thought made him look like one of the baddies. Cleef did make his film debut in High Noon, but as Jack Colby, one of the Miller gang, and without one word of dialogue. 

Shane (1953)

This movie was made before High Noon, but spent a number of months in editing. Producer George Stevens originally tapped Montgomery Clift for the role of Shane, and William Holden as Joe Starrett. Both actors, however, decided on other projects. At that point, Stevens was given a list of actors under contract to the studio and - within three minutes - selected Alan Ladd, Van Heflin, and Jean Arthur.

Since Alan Ladd stood only five-feet-six-inches, certain accommodations had to be made when he appeared with other actors. 

For example, in scenes with Van Heflin, he appears the same height, but Heflin was considerably taller. Sometimes, you can see Ladd walk up a ramp when he approaches the bar so he can appear the same height as the character standing next to him.

The slick gun twirling seen in the film's showdown moment was performed by Rodd Redwing, who coached many other actors--including, Henry Fonda, Clayton Moore, Glenn Ford, and Ronald Reagan. 

In an earlier scene, when Shane is demonstrating his skill for Joey, it is actually Alan Ladd on camera. Ladd had been given a different, easier-to-maneuver revolver. Even with the lighter model, it took 119 takes before Stevens was satisfied.

Director Stevens was passionate about detail, especially in physical props including clothing and building structures. He even checked out the cattle, determined they looked too well-fed, and brought in a number of scrawny cows to take their place. 

A moment of levity occurred during the funeral scene. Stevens wanted the dog to look into the grave, but constantly looked away. When the director had the dog's trainer stretch out in the bottom of the grave, the strategy worked. At that point, the coffin - containing rocks - was lowered and the harmonica player began to play "Taps." 

The crew, apparently moved by the moment, began to shovel dirt into the grave before realizing the dog's trainer was still at the bottom. 

Brandon DeWIlde, who played Little Joey Starrett, died in an auto accident in 1972. Only 30, DeWilde was killed when rushing to the hospital in Denver to visit his wife who had undergone surgery. 

At the end of the film, Shane urges Joey to stay away from a life of guns and violence, and then he rides away. The end, if anything, is ambiguous, and the question always arises whether or not Shane survives the wounds he sustained in the gunfight. 

Unforgiven (1992)

The script had kicked around Hollywood for a couple of decades before Clint Eastwood decided to produce and direct it. During those years, Gene Hackman gave it a read and turned down the part of Will Munny. Ironically, Eastwood talked him into playing the role of Little Bill Daggett, and suggested he model the role after Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates.

In an interview a few years after the film, Eastwood revealed that Hackman at first balked at agreeing to participate because of his concern about how violence was going to be portrayed, noting the rise in gun violence across the country. 

Eastwood, however, a long time supporter of gun control himself, gave Hackman assurances the film wouldn't glorify gun violence.

One unknown tidbit, at least to me, was that Clint Eastwood is apparently allergic to horses.

Unforgiven was only the third Western to win Best Picture. The other two were Dances With Wolves and Cimarron. 

Although the scored was arranged by Lennie Niehaus, it was Eastwood who wrote the main theme.

Final screen credits read: "Dedicated to Sergio and Don" --references to Sergio Leone and Don Siegal, both mentors of Eastwood. 

When Eastwood phoned Richard Harris to offer him the part of English Bob, Harris happened to be watching High Plains Drifter, in which Eastwood starred.

Will Munny's children are named "Will" and "Penny," believed to be a subtle reference to the movie Will Penny, whose plot is similar to Unforgiven.

To assure authenticity on the set, Eastwood banned all modern vehicles.

Magnificent Seven (1960)

Lots of trivia and behind-the-scenes anecdotes are in circulation about this movie. Some of the more interesting ones revolve around the actors.

The film was so successful, Hollywood produced three sequels: Return of the Magnificent Seven (1966); Guns of the Magnificent Seven (1969); and The Magnificent Seven Ride! (1972). 

Steve McQueen, who at the time was starring in the TV show, Wanted: Dead or Alive, had a strict contract with Dick Powell's Four Star Productions which allowed no time off to participate in feature films. 

But McQueen, driving a rented Cadillac, got into an accident, and into a neck brace. Since he received considerable time to recover, he used it to take part in the original movie. 

Popular thinking was that McQueen staged the wreck purposely, figuring that his role in the movie would benefit him far more than his TV program.

Lead actor Yul Brynner wanted McQueen for the role of Vin Tanner, but he ultimately regretted the decision. The two didn't see eye-to-eye much. Brynner, in fact, believed McQueen was always trying to upstage him. 

The two stood about the same height: Brynner at 5-10, and McQueen at 5-9 1/2. Brynner tried to create mounds of dirt he could stand on to make himself appear taller. McQueen, however, always managed to casually kick the dirt away before Brynner could assume his position. 

Actor Eli Wallach also pointed to instances of McQueen shaking the shotgun shells to call attention to himself, and slipping his hat off to check the sun during the scene in which he and Brynner drove a hearse through town.  When the Seven cross into Mexico, McQueen would lean off his horse and dip his hat in the river. 

Wallach, who played Calvara in the film, wrote in his autobiography that McQueen often tried different ways to upstage Brynner, so much so that Brynner hired an assistant to keep detailed records of how often McQueen mimicked Brynner's onscreen gestures. 

Wallach, incidentally, admitted in a DVD Documentary about the film that he wasn't used to handling a gun and would always look down when he shoved it back into his holster. He said he didn't want to take a chance of missing the holster and looking foolish. 

Although the motion picture made scads of money and achieved a high level of popularity among filmgoers, it earned no acting nominations, but was singled out for Best Score. But the Oscar went to Ernest Gold for Exodus. 

# # # 

Western Romance Writer Madeline Baker

.1. What was your first Western novel or story and was it published?

The first book I wrote was Comanche Flame. It was published after several rewrites. My first published book was Reckless Heart. I wrote 3 sequels (Reckless Love, Reckless Desire, Reckless Embrace). It won The Romantic Times Reviewer's Choice Award for Best Indian series.

2. What Western writer or writers of the past were the biggest influence on your work?

I read a lot of western fiction when I was growing up....I don't recall any one of them being more influential than the others.

3. Is there a particular scene from a Western novel that was so powerful when you read it that it stuck with you? Perhaps has become a scene you've tried to live up to/equal in your own writing?

  Being a woman and a romantic, I'd have to say the scene in Hondo when John Wayne takes Geraldine Page in his arms and kisses her.

4. What's the first Western you remember reading from cover to cover?

   Shane. I still have that old paperback book. I was so disappointed in the movie. Alan Ladd was the worst actor for the role. He was too short, too blond, and looked nothing like the dangerous man-in-black on the cover of the book. That's one movie I wish they'd remake! Although I'm not sure anyone could replace Jack Palance. 

5. Who is your favorite historical Western figure, and why?

   Crazy Horse. His story fascinates me.

6. How much historical research do you do, and how do you go about it?

     As much as needed. I used to go to the library. Then I started buying books. Now I do a lot of it online.

7. How important is setting? How important is it to get setting right? What's the best use of setting in a Western as far as you're concerned?

    I think it's very important. You can't really tell the story without the proper background and setting, whether you're writing western or vampires.

8. How do you choose where to begin your story? Do you use prologues?

    Hmm, good question. Usually the beginning just comes to me. The main one I remember is from a book titled Midnight Fire. The line, He was dying and he didn't care" came to me out of the blue. I wrote it down (because if you don't write them down immediately, you forget them!) and then sat down to find out why he was dying and why he didn't care. I use prologues from time to time, as needed.

9. Do you do all your research ahead of time, or as you go along?

  I do it as I go along. Of course, sometimes I get so lost in it that my writing suffers.

10. Which of your characters do you identify with the most, and why? Was there a role model for this particular character?

   I love all my heroes. The role model for most of them is Eddie Little Sky. Eddie used to dance at the Indian village in Disneyland many moons ago. As a young girl, I was intrigued by him.

11. Do you outline and plot your story or do you write as the inspiration or MUSE leads?

     I write it as it comes to me....

12. Are you a conservative in your writing and stick with traditional ideas for your characters and plots or do you like to go beyond the norm and toss in the unexpected and why?

     My books are more romance than western, but I guess basically traditional. Except for my time travel books, which are really fun to write, whether I'm sending a modern man or woman back to the 1800s, or bringing them into the future. Most of my heroes are Indian or half-Indian because of the impression Eddie Little Sky made on me.

13. Do you need quiet when you write, listen to music, or have the TV on and family around?

   Why my Muse is hot, I can write anywhere - at home, at the bowling alley, in a restaurant, in the car, on vacation.....

14. Have you experienced the "dreaded" writer's block and how did you deal with it?

      When the words don't come, I go do something else. I can't think of a bigger waste of time than staring at a blank computer screen.

15. Who is your favorite fictional character that you have created?

 You know that's like asking a mother to pick her favorite child, don't you?

 I guess it would have to be Shadow, from my Reckless series. I liked him so much, I wrote 3 other books because I couldn't bear to say good bye :)  A close second is the hero from The Angel and the Outlaw, which is a time travel book. J. T. Cutter is an outlaw, and I've always had a thing for bad boys.

 
16. Who is your favorite fictional character that someone else created?

Hondo from the movie of the same name.

17. Do you address "modern" issues in Westerns? Racism. Feminism. Downs Syndrome. Mental disabilities. Genetic disorders. Sociopathy. Immigrant questions. Brutality. Pedophilia. Any more?

   Except for the discrimination against Indians by whites in the old west, I tend to stay away from social issues.

18. Have you found that being able to self publish through Kindle and Nook, that you find yourself writing more of what you want rather than what the agent, editor, and publisher wants?

   Not more. But I have written a few short stories that have gone straight to Kindle.

19. Do you make a living writing? If not, what is your day job?

   Writing is my day job. And my afternoon job. And my night job  And the only one I want. The pay is fair, the hours are flexible, and I can write in my PJs.

20. What are you writing right now?

    Since I no longer have a publisher for new westerns, I'm writing vampires as Amanda Ashley. EC Blush is publishing many of my old out-of-print books. And Amazon will be publishing some others.

21. What do you plan to write in the future?

  Probably more vampires.....although I'm currently working on a western set in Deadwood.

22. What made you decide to write Western fiction?

  As far back as I can remember, I've loved cowboys, horses, and Indians. One night, when my husband was at work and my kids were asleep and I was bored, I started to write a book. I had no intention of even publishing it, or letting anyone else see it. I lived that book (Comanche Flame) day and night, and when I finished it I wrote another. And another.  It wasn't until a friend of mine read one of my manuscripts and persuaded me to look for a publisher. It took six years and 31 rejections, but I finally sold Reckless Heart. I've been writing, and loving it, ever since.

www.madelinebaker.net

www.amandaashley.net