I'm glad that Louis Warren's new biography of Buffalo Bill Cody, "Buffalo Bill's America," has landed so prominently in this week's New York Times Book Review. From Warren's other work I believe he is a worthy scholar, and I had not previously found Cody's definitive biography. (In writing about some of Cody's contemporaries, in a now-completed but yet-to-be-published book, I desperately wanted one.) For NYTBR to recognize that such a book has been written, and that it is important to nation as a whole, is a credit to the continuing role of the West in our literary culture.
On the other hand, it also makes me wonder a bit. Why should our finest scholars and finest book reviews be so overly concerned with reinterpreting the life of a cowboy-circus celebrity? Why is it so important to us that Warren "separates biographical truth from fiction whenever he can"?
The obvious answer to that question is that Cody created an image of cowboys and the West that many people now believe to be false -- even dangerously false. If today's statesmen try to act like Buffalo Bill–style cowboys in the belief that this behavior won the West, then yes perhaps somebody should point out that it didn't.
That's a great job for journalism: telling truth to power. But as any tour of political blogs will show you, myth-busting has its limits. In general, it is only fun within your cadre. Democrats love to poke holes in Bush; Republicans do the same for Teddy Kennedy. Such behavior bolsters the base but often fails to change the culture as a whole.
That's where literature comes in. If we now believe that Buffalo Bill's image of the cowboy -- well-accepted as it was in its day -- is not correct. . . then we have to do more than say, "Lookit all this stuff that's wrong." We have to provide images and stories of Western experiences that match the narrative and allegorical power of Cody's, but are also true.
I mean "true" in the sense of not-false. Fiction can be true in its representation of society. I find the work of Guy Vanderhaeghe and Mark Spragg to be true in this sense -- but NYTBR has not given them the same sort of praise or prominence. Of course there are also plenty of true stories that are also factually accurate; indeed (I'll admit my self-interest here) that's what I've tried to write myself. I may not succeed very well, but I continue to hold out the hope that if and when somebody does, the culture at large will take notice.
I'm always interested in feedback, via info at johnclaytonbooks.dotcom
On the other hand, it also makes me wonder a bit. Why should our finest scholars and finest book reviews be so overly concerned with reinterpreting the life of a cowboy-circus celebrity? Why is it so important to us that Warren "separates biographical truth from fiction whenever he can"?
The obvious answer to that question is that Cody created an image of cowboys and the West that many people now believe to be false -- even dangerously false. If today's statesmen try to act like Buffalo Bill–style cowboys in the belief that this behavior won the West, then yes perhaps somebody should point out that it didn't.
That's a great job for journalism: telling truth to power. But as any tour of political blogs will show you, myth-busting has its limits. In general, it is only fun within your cadre. Democrats love to poke holes in Bush; Republicans do the same for Teddy Kennedy. Such behavior bolsters the base but often fails to change the culture as a whole.
That's where literature comes in. If we now believe that Buffalo Bill's image of the cowboy -- well-accepted as it was in its day -- is not correct. . . then we have to do more than say, "Lookit all this stuff that's wrong." We have to provide images and stories of Western experiences that match the narrative and allegorical power of Cody's, but are also true.
I mean "true" in the sense of not-false. Fiction can be true in its representation of society. I find the work of Guy Vanderhaeghe and Mark Spragg to be true in this sense -- but NYTBR has not given them the same sort of praise or prominence. Of course there are also plenty of true stories that are also factually accurate; indeed (I'll admit my self-interest here) that's what I've tried to write myself. I may not succeed very well, but I continue to hold out the hope that if and when somebody does, the culture at large will take notice.
I'm always interested in feedback, via info at johnclaytonbooks.dotcom
