Caper, you don't sound arrogent, but you do sound rather sanctimonious. And to suggest out of hand that if I don't conform to your viewpoint that I am immature suggests quite a bit more about your maturity than my own.
If I need to point out to you that the characters are archtypes, then we need not continue this chat. Likewise, I do not need you to point out to me that real life blood & bone humans are rarely as honorable or noble (or as evil or wretched or any other of a million attributes) as they are portrayed in a movie or book. The whole point of the novel was these larger than life embodiments as seen through the eyes of a ten year old boy. Read the book if you haven't; it is wonderful. Shane and Joe talk both to Bob and Marion about setting good examples, being honorable, and the nature of being a man.
As to Joe's heroism being misplaced, I think that is a sadly cynical viewpoint. Joe was doing exactly as a man should do, in the grand philosophical sense. It is the whole thrust of the story, on one level: the clash between opposing ideals. The old vs. the new. The farmers and settlers vs. the cowboys and ranchers. Fences vs. the Open Range. Joe's pragmatism vs. his sense of duty. And yes, for Marion, the classic tall dark stranger (as Shane is portrayed in the novel) vs. the plain-talking honest upright Working Man.
I do not see Joe being willing to face what he sees as a man's responsibility to be naive. Or if it is, it is in not fully accepting that most other men would not hold themselves to the standard of manhood that he does, and perhaps once all men did. (Remember, in the barfight, his rage was not in that Shane was attacked, but that the odds weren't fair.) But even if Joe knew full well that these were cowardly men, he had a responsibility to his son to behave in a brave manly honorable fashion. It was more important, he believed, to be that honorable man and die for it than it was to 'live to tell the tale'. That he knew Shane was there to continue on after him was a comfort to him. This was not a man throwing his life away and casting his family into the arms of a repentant gunslinger. This was a man willing to to what he believed was Right with a capital R, and dying in the wake of it was a price he was willing to pay. Whether this is wise or acceptable is not for you to say; it is his moral compass to follow and not yours.
As for Shane stepping in, I do not at all see it as his "understanding" that Joe's "heroism was misplaced", as you put it. Shane knew that these were dishonest evil men who would win at any cost, and he knew he was more able to face them than Joe. He also felt that Joe was more deserving of life than he was. Try to imagine how Shane longed, not to take Joe's place and raise Joe's family, but to have made the choices Joe made and live an honest life like Joe had. It was this desire that led him to Marion, not just simple wanting to nail the frontier chick. He was honoring Joe's heroism, and ready to face the ugly side of a killing to keep his friend (and his hero) alive. Yes, hero. It will help to look at Joe as Shane's hero as much as Shane was Bob's.
It will also help perhaps to view the story as a classic morality play for a new nation. Try not to put your own disparaging view of humanity onto archtypes of the New World. No, in real life you might not want to put your family into the hands of an Arkansas gambler and gunfighter who you met some few weeks before. But try to remember that this is a story, and the moral of the story is that the choices we make follow us forever, that men do what is right because they are men, that good triumphs over evil, and that nobility and sacrifice exist, even on the borders of a new nation.
Is that naive, caper? Sure. Is it silly and treacle? Indeed. And as a man and a father, I embrace it. This story is more powerful to me now than it was when I read it the first time some twenty five years ago. It is sad that your scripture quoting and sermon-esque tones have not led you to accept a morality play such as this, as familiar with them as I would assume you'd be. Your need to cast the characters in a negative light is rather unfortunate. Have a little faith in your fantasy heroes.
And remember, it's just a fairy tale.
I bet Wilma is a swell girl.
reply
share
CaperGuy
17 years ago
Corsi, you have done a fine job of capturing the nuances of this story line and I don't disagree with much of your synopsis. I think our disagreement is mainly esoteric. Perhaps I internalized Joe's predicament more than most readers or viewers and perhaps I take myself too seriously at times; I'll grant you that. Every man has his faults and maybe that's one of mine. However, I am not sanctimonious nor do I wish to be. I merely quoted a bit of scripture to make a point but not to preach. If I can quote Shakespeare without being called haughty or Jefferson without being called a polemic, I should be able to quote scripture without fear of being called sanctimonious.
You saw the story as being told from the boy's viewpoint while I saw it as being told mainly from Joe's viewpoint. As I mentioned before, the plot is a fine and enduring one and I enjoyed it immensely. One of the signs of a fine plot is that there can be many interpretations. Yes, I have read the book and I think as in most cases, the book is better than the movie.
With due respect to your diatribe, my cynicism as alleged by you, and the glory of the archetypical frontiersman, I still think that (1) Joe made a conscious decision to put his pride ahead of his family and (2) Shane is basically an honorable man but also an opportunist whose better nature prevailed in the final analysis. Both of these situations are plausible in the context of American frontier life but less so today in my judgment. People must adapt to the situation at hand.
Rest assured that no offense is taken and none is offered; wherefore I leave you the final word.
Respectfully,
CaperGuy
As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. - Proverbs 23:7
reply
share
corsi71inc
17 years ago
Caper, my impression of the story being told from the son's perspective comes from my having read the book before having seen the movie. I must admit that I am much more familiar with the written work. There were a few things about the movie that I felt didn't serve the story or do the source material justice.
I find it interseting that you observed that Joe put his pride before his family. In my opinion, he put his pride before his life, and that in doing so was putting his family first. He was setting the proper example. I think it was Joe being pragmatic, in that he knew that he had the 'swinging room' to live up to such a high ideal because he had someone like Shane to see his family through once he was dead. And that is exactly what he treated himself as: a dead man. I could quote chapter & verse from the Hagakure on being as though one were already dead before a battle, but I digress. I think Joe was thankful that Shane offered him the chance to do the honorable noble thing without the pragmatic fear of abandoning his family. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?{M16:26} Forgive me for my seeming hypocracy, and for what I feel fairly certain is a quote taken out of context. What would it have proffitted Joe if he kept his mortal life but lost his honor? He couldn't face the loss of honor and was saved from losing either that or his life only by Shane's forcing his hand to stand down. Really, the more I think on it, Shane is a Bushido epic. Perhaps it deserves the "Seven Samurai to Magnificent Seven" treatment in reverse. Hmmm....
As for Shane being opportunistic, I just don't see it that way. He was far too noble. Letting go with both hands to what he saw as the only possible road to redemption for the sake of a friend is a soul-shattering affirmation. Both men saw the other as both his equal and his better. I am still in awe of the act, fictional though it may be, and its implications.
As for our exchange, no offense was ever suggested or detected. I enjoy a challenging debate, and I appreciate the respect that came with it. I am glad you feel it was returned, as I never meant otherwise. Did not Thomas Jefferson opine that "Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."?
As for the final word, it is farewell. The rest... is silence.
(Sorry, I couldn't help myself!)
I bet Wilma is a swell girl.
reply
share
chained_to_the_wind
16 years ago
one thing that strikes me about this little bit of discourse are what seems in my interpretation to be 2 perspectives on Joes pride. It seems theres a modernist context eg "take a pride in your work", where in this context Joe seems best to uphold whats supposedly brave and admirable etc and go fight these guys.
Personally I'm more with capers view which is perhaps unfashionably traditional (pride is a sin sort of context) but truly less individualist. Look at Joe if he had no pride - perhaps he would say ok chaps, lets ride in together and uphold our rights. Instead he seems to think his own reputation is whats most important, not the welfare of his family and neighbours.
perhaps joe would "gain the world and lose his soul" more so if he had ridden out to fight those guys - in the worlds eyes he would be a "hero" (of a martyred kind). But as far as family devotion and neighbourly pragmatic interests his soul would have abandoned.
As for Shane he is then true hero in this perspective - as I believe was intended in this 1950's (more traditional era) classic. The real underlying difference to me is a pride difference.
reply
share