The Ox-Bow Incident by Walter Van Tilburg Clark

The Ox-Bow Incident

Walter Van Tilburg Clark

American Western Fiction

Published 1940

Classics Challenge: Used Book Find

⭐⭐⭐⭐

This story could have been set anywhere and in any era; however, The Ox-Bow Incident took place in a small frontier town of Nevada, 1885. The town had been plagued by a series of cattle rustlings. 

The book's narrator, Art, and his partner, Gil, had just crossed over from the East into town and were mindful of their manners around the other cowboys, hopeful to be accepted by their community. Incidentally, everyone seemed to be on edge, and Art, the observant one, sensed that something was not right. Rumor had it that one of the more recent rustlings involved the murder of a well-liked member of the town's society, though many hardly knew the man personally. 

Given that the sheriff was out of the area at the moment, the men were compelled to search out the "rustlers/murderers;" themselves. For them, pursuing the insurgents proved their own might, their  intolerance of lawlessness, their sense of justice, and their proof to exist in the bigger surrounding world. Therefore, twenty-eight members, including Art and Gil, formed a posse and searched the harrowing night for the criminals. 

Eventually, they made up their minds that they had found the culprits and held a makeshift court as judge, jury, and executioner. After a democratic vote was made by the mob, the convicted were lynched and the self-righteous returned to town. 

The revelation directly following the lynching was shocking. Hence, the real trial of society's sense of right and wrong and man's conscience within himself began. The Ox-Bow Incident reveals the story about man's cowardice of physical ostracization from the group over committing a real injustice by lynching innocent men. This is man's weakness. Nobody liked killing, but it was far better than being opposite of or outside the mob. To oppose the mob would be to expose one's perceived weakness; standing morally alone for truth's sake is a very dangerous place to be. 

I had everything, justice, pity, even the backing - and I knew it - and I let those three men hang because I was afraid. The lowest kind of virtue, the quality dogs have when they need it, the only thing Tetley had, guts, plain guts, and I didn't have it. 

All a great, cowardly lie, all pose; empty, gutless pretense. All the time the truth was I didn't take a gun because I didn't want it to come to a showdown. The weakness that was in me all the time set up my sniveling little defense. Didn't even expect to save those men. The most I hoped was that something would do it for me.  

This is also a story about man's desire for more power -- how he can be so blinded to truth because he is only bent on being right according to his own desired justice. Then it becomes personal, and he needs a scapegoat to feed his will. 

You don't care for justice...you don't even care whether you've got the right men or not. You want your way, that's all. You've lost something and somebody's got to be punished; that's all you know. 

The Ox-Bow Incident is on the same social plane as To Kill a Mockingbird, Lord of the Flies, or even The Great Gatsby because these stories teach a timeless ethical lesson. The lesson is not a gentle one, but it is urgent and essential to our humanity. It is timeless because man is born with a weak constitution regardless of his birthdate. It is typical of his raw nature to follow the mob and save his own hide. 

SHOULD YOU READ THE OX-BOW INCIDENT?

While reading, I had forgotten that this was considered a western. If westerns are not your genre, fear not. This is a powerful journey into your own conscience. We've all been here. How difficult it is to stand alone, to stand against the crowd, the mob, our own friends or family, even. We don't want to be perceived as wrong. And you know what the mob is capable of: absolute violence unto death, just to make their point. 

But reading this story reiterates how much more honorable it is to stand on principle, even if it is just to bide time to get to the facts before a final decision must be made. (See "Twelve Angry Men," the 1957 version). We all are called to do this at some point in our lives. 

To answer the question - Should you read this? Anyone should and can read this. It is just over 200 pages and, while the progression is slow with a lot of dialogue, the buildup caused me to want to hurry up and find out. It was every kind of emotion you can experience. The premise calls on the reader to rise to the occasion next time. And there will be a next time. 

I probably would not reread this, but only because it had that difficult part in it where you don't want to look, but you have to quickly, in case you miss anything. It reminded me of how I felt when about In Cold Blood. The point is that the premise was well taken. The lesson was well ingested. I got it. However, I will watch the film, starring Henry Fonda. 

One last final note: while I was reading The Ox-Bow, I thought about the short documentary by JBS on forms of governments. There was a section on the difference between a democracy and a republic set in the Old West. Under a democracy, when a posse captured a gunman and the majority voted to hang him, he hung (or hanged). But under a republic, when the posse captured the same gunman and the majority voted to hang him, the sheriff stepped in and said they couldn't hang him. Instead, he took the gunman to court where a jury of his peers must UNANIMOUSLY vote guilty or not. That is the law. 

Agamemnon by Aeschylus

Agamemnon 

Aeschylus

Greek Tragedy

c. 458 B. C. 

⭐⭐⭐

The Well-Educated Mind Plays

My first play for The Well-Educated Mind Reading Challenge was Agamemnon by Aeschylus. This was my first experience with this play, and I knew nothing about the plot ahead of reading. 

The setting was Argos, Greece, Atreus' palace, where a watchman waits for news from Troy, to see if Agamemnon, king of Argos, will return. It has been ten long years that he has been away, and he is eager to see the king. 

The Chorus, made up of twelve elders, recited the narrative of how Agamemnon had been pressured to choose between victory or shame by sacrificing his own daughter, Iphigenia, to appease Zeus and earn his favor. 

Agamemnon "...rather than retreat, endured to offer up his daughter's life to help a war fought for a faithless wife and pay the ransom for a storm-bound fleet."

Soon, news arrived that Argos had captured Troy and the king was on his way home. His wife, Clytemnestra, prepared for his arrival, to welcome him home. When the king arrived, he had with him the young Trojan princess, Cassandra, who was also a prophetess. 

While alone, she began a conversation with the god Apollo. (Obviously, very troubled she was, and I don't blame her because...) She saw the ghosts of "children butchered...by their own kindred..." who carr[ied] in their hands "their own flesh....food their father ate!" 

She also revealed that Agamemnon was cursed! There was going to be a murder..."Female shall murder male..." Agamemnon was going to "lie dead."

Near the end of the play, Aegisthus, Agamemnon's cousin and now lover to Clytemnestra, told the horrid story of how Atreus, Agamemnon's father, sought revenge on his brother Thyestes for committing adultery with Atreus' wife. He then roasted his brother's children and served them to Thyestes during a feast. When Thyestes realized what Atreus had done, he cursed his whole household, which fell upon Agamemnon. 

Aegisthus claimed to have plotted the whole "evil deed" from afar, but it was Clytemnestra who stabbed both the king and Cassandra. For Clytemnestra, it was revenge for the murder of her daughter Iphigenia.

However, it was Zeus who punished Agamemnon (for his father's wicked deed against his brother) by forcing the horrible choice to either disobey the gods and go home to Argos in shame or sacrifice his daughter and earn victory in Troy.

The play Agamemnon is about revenge and man's idea of justice. (Which is more like injustice.) Much like reality, when one seeks revenge to settle what he thinks is injustice against himself, he only perpetuates more injustice. As for the Greek gods, they were the last ones to know anything about justice. They thrived on bloodthirsty revenge. 

John Collier, Clytemnestra, 1882,

* * *

The next play for TWEM is King Oedipus by Sophocles. 

 

The Pearl by John Steinbeck

The Pearl

John Steinbeck

Published 1947

⭐⭐⭐⭐

The Pearl is a broken story: a struggle between good and evil, and evil wins. It is a short story, though it moves briskly, while providing a variety of difficult themes to sift through. This was my third reading. 

Following are spoilers:

Kino, his wife Juana, and their baby Coyotito lived in a brush hut in a poor village on the beach in Mexico.  Life was simple, and the music of the family in Kino's head sounded like peace and contentedness. All was well until baby Coyotito was stung by a scorpion. His shoulder began to swell where the poison was injected.

The desperate young parents humbly took Coyotito to the rich European doctor in town, but he refused to treat poor natives who could not pay for treatment; hence, they returned to their village, possibly accepting the fate of what the poison would do or hopeful that they may find a way to pay.

Kino supported his family with use of his canoe. After they returned to the beach, Kino and Juana went out on the canoe, and Kino dove for a few oysters.

Kino found the pearl of the world. 

When the baby was stung, Juana, with motherly instinct, had sucked out much of the poison and applied a poultice to the infected area. By the time Kino had found the life-changing pearl, the swelling on Coyotito's shoulder had already subsided. 

Word spread rapidly about the pearl, even into town, and immediately the doctor visited the family. Confident of their ignorance, he made the baby sicker by administering a medicine, claiming the baby's illness would relapse from the scorpion poison. 

But the doctor's true intent was to cause the young parents to feel beholden to him as the only means to save Coyotito; and the doctor expected they would pay him for saving their baby. When the doctor returned to "save" Coyotito, he pretended he had not heard about the pearl. Kino promised to pay him once he sold the pearl to the dealers. 

That evening, someone entered their hut and tried to steal the pearl. Kino wrestled with him, and may have cut him with his knife; but the individual escaped. 

The next morning, the pearl dealers in town treated Kino no better than the doctor had. They pretended not to be interested in the pearl and would only be able to give him a very small amount. Kino knew he was being taken advantage, and he returned to his village, determined to go to the city where he was confident he could sell his pearl to a more fair and honest dealer. 

The pearl meant a life change for Kino and his family. He envisioned his son learning to read and going to school; he promised Juana they would have a real wedding in the church; and he planned to buy fine clothes for his family. He intended the best life for the future.

Juana was already sensitive to the dangers and uselessness of even trying to escape the life they lived presently. But Kino was set to take his family to the city to sell the pearl early in the morning. Then once again, he was attacked in his home by another stranger seeking to find the pearl. Juana dressed his wounds and they tried to rest for the night.

But Juana rose early before Kino, stealthily retrieved the pearl from its hiding place, and headed to the beach to return it to the sea. Kino woke and pursued her. In a rage, he hit and kicked her and snatched the pearl from her grasp. On his return to the hut, he was attacked by several men, one of whom he killed in self defense. In the attack, he lost hold of the pearl, and that was all he cared about. 

Juana sadly recovered the pearl; Kino told her to go get the baby: they would leave by way of his canoe. She submitted, but on her way back, Juana saw the hut on fire. She rescued Coyotito in time. Meanwhile, Kino found his canoe destroyed. Though the waking villagers believed the family had perished in the fire, Kino and his family found cover in the nearby home of Kino's brother. Now they must escape for good; their lives were in danger, and Kino had killed a man.

By the time Kino and Juana made it to the mountains, they realized they were trapped. They were being pursued by trappers. Kino believed the only way to escape was to kill the men; but when Coyotito cried out, one the trappers fired at what he thought was a wild animal. Kino snuck up on the trappers and killed them; but it did not matter anymore. Coyotito was already dead. 

The next morning, Kino and Juana dejectedly returned to the village, where the music of the family once played joyfully in their heads. The villagers stared silently as they walked down to the beach, and Kino took the pearl and threw it back into the water. 

Some themes:

Steinbeck likes to employ heavy themes in his stories and magnify them or exasperate them in order to make his point. He paints extremely ugly people in wickedly arrogant and unjust positions, especially religious people, or innocent and naively simpleminded poor people in highly vulnerable situations. Everyone in The Pearl is very black or white. He (or she) is either a wealthy, greedy elitist or a poor and ignorant native. 

Naturally, the economic classes are set against each other. The wealthy live in town decorated with colorful stone buildings, while the poor live on the beach in brush huts. They live hand to mouth. The conniving elites are liars and thieves and mistreat the poor like unimportant, useless animals. Steinbeck uses many situations to show the animalistic treatment of the natives. In addition, the desire for something better changes Kino, and he becomes more animal like. 

Wanting to improve one's lot in life, in this story anyway, is portrayed as impossible. Poor Kino imagined a better life after he found the greatest pearl. He rightfully earned the opportunity to sell it for a high price. But the severe greed of the trickster pearl dealers and the greed of the cruel doctor created barriers, preventing Kino from escaping his lot or caused a dangerous scenario for him and his family.

There is no justice in Steinbeck's stories; maybe that is how he saw the world. Everything that happened to Kino and Juana was outrageously unjust. It was right for them to desire to have a stone house or clothes, or for their son to attend school. They should not have had to run for their lives to achieve it. 

However, the poor in this story were also happy or content - when not given a chance for something else. Yet, the rich were miserable, such as the doctor who would rather return to Paris. Was Steinbeck trying to tell us something about the lifestyle of the upperclass? Possibly. But probably he was magnifying inequality.

There are many more ideas and themes to pursue in this novella, like the sacredness of family, relationships between men and women, and more. It is a tragedy, obviously, but of Steinbeck's works, it is one that I find worthwhile as an important piece of literature. 

Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens

Oliver Twist 

Charles Dickens

Published 

English Novel

The Well-Educated Mind Novels

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

First level of inquiry:

What is the book’s most important event?  When does the character change?

The most important event is the botched robbery, when Oliver is shot, left behind, and finds himself in the care of Mrs. Maylie and Rose.  Only after that happens they are able to help him find the truth about his identity so that the mystery is solved, and everything Oliver ever wanted, to love and be loved, may come to fruition.

Does he really ever change internally because of this event?  Dickens tells the reader that Oliver’s father, Mr. Leeford, was “confident that Oliver would share [his mother’s] gentle heart, and noble nature.”  From the very introduction of Oliver, he is tenderhearted, forgiving, and innocent or naïve of the dark side of life.  

For example, he is concerned about his friend Dick, and after he learns of his own small fortune, he immediately wants to use it to save his friend, that is until he learns that he has died; he is sympathetic toward Nancy, even though she was the reason he was separated from Mr. Brownlow; and finally, he is merciful toward Fagin – even praying that God would save his soul!   I believe Oliver remains the same throughout the story, and it is only his physical position in the world that changes.

  

Second level of inquiry:

What is the author trying to convince you of?  What evidence does he give you for believing this argument?  

If Dickens is attempting to make the case that London in the 1800s was a cesspool for the poor, he makes a good one; but if he is presenting a solution to this problem, I am not sure what that is.  

Surely, justice comes to those who are lawless, while those who are cruel in their power, eventually lose their positions.  Yes, the Poor Laws were unfair, the treatment of the poor was unfair, people only looking out for themselves is unfair; just the idea of being poor seems unfair.  

But if it were not for the well off in this case, Mr. Brownlow and Mrs. Maylie, Oliver would probably still be on the streets.  And thank God they were honorable, righteous, compassionate, and justice-loving people.  

I especially love how they are bold in confronting injustice and risk their lives to find the truth without even involving the law. These people genuinely care about little Oliver, and they were doing everything possible to protect him and keep him safe and well.  There is something very honorable about their actions.

What does the central character want?  What is standing in his or her way?  What strategy does he pursue in order to overcome this block? 

Oliver wants to be loved and to share his own love with others, but what he cannot control is preventing him from this.  There is a sense that he, being a child, is like a rag doll being pulled apart by savage dogs.  

He had the misfortune of being born an orphan, only to be abused and despised by every character in his path: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Bumble, the man in the white waistcoat, Noah Claypole and Charlotte, Fagin, Bates and Dodger, until he crosses Mr. Brownlow’s path.  

When we think he has finally been saved from this vicious cycle of blame, lies, and mistrust, he is dragged into the pit again.  Then he suffers more at the hands of Sikes and his associates, until the botched robbery.  

It is only until he is left behind that he returns to the home of Mrs. Maylie, and Rose, who is compassionate because he is a child and cannot believe he is capable of being a criminal.  Again, the reader, being relieved that he is in good hands, learns that a new evil, his half-brother, Monks, is lurking, and Oliver is vulnerable.  

But goodness and righteousness prevail, and Oliver is protected and rescued by the wisdom of Brownlow, who has returned to London, the wit of his associate, Mr. Grimwig, and the love and support of Mrs. Maylie and Rose.  They literally become his new family.

Images and metaphors?   

Dickens contrasted ideas: goodness v. evil or vice, light (sun) v. darkness, privileged social classes v. poverty, life v. death, love v. lack of love, justice v. injustice, law v. crime, sleep v.  wakefulness, kindness v. cruelty, Satan v. heaven, youth v. old age, men v. women. There are probably more, and I would have given examples if I took better notes.  I just know that he used these so frequently to juxtapose ideas.

Is it resolution (no further event can take place), or is it logical exhaustion (infinite repetition)?  Do you agree? 

There seems to be resolution for Oliver, especially given that a good man, Mr. Brownlow, adopts him.  Furthermore, they live in a community with Rose, Harry, Mrs. Maylie, and all of their associates who love Oliver.  He is safe from the dark world he was exposed to not so long ago.  All of the people who abused Oliver are either in prison, dead, or not in positions of power.

Third Level of Inquiry:

Is there an argument in this book?  What is the idea?  Do you agree?  Is the book true?

One of Dickens’ arguments is that death is not prejudice.  When Rose is very ill, and Oliver considers how “the grave is for cold and cheerless winter: not for sunlight and fragrance…shrouds were for the old and shrunken; and that they never wrapped the young and graceful form within their ghastly folds.”  And in the next paragraph, the church bells toll for a funeral service, and there among the mourners is a weeping mother. 

Another argument is that vice does not discriminate.  When Mrs. Maylie and Rose meet Oliver for the first time after the botched robbery, Rose cannot believe he followed through with this crime on his own; but the surgeon remarks, “Vice takes up her abode in many temples; and who can say that a fair outside shall not enshrine her?  Crime, like death, is not confined to the old and withered alone.  The youngest and fairest are too often its chosen victims.”  (There’s that reference to death again.)  While Oliver may not have succumbed to vice, many young people do.  

When Rose recovered from her illness, Dickens described how Oliver thought that the “dew seemed to sparkle more brightly on the green leaves; the air to rustle among them with a sweeter music; and the sky itself to look more blue and bright.”  The author adds, “Men who look on nature, and their fellowmen, and cry that all is dark and gloomy, are in the right; but the somber colors are reflections from their own jaundiced eyes and hearts.  The real hues are delicate, and need a clearer vision.” 

This is the case that life and its surroundings are what you make it; the world is dark and gloomy because your heart is dark and gloomy; maybe you need a heart transplant in order to see people and the world differently.  Maybe you need a chance to be loved and shown mercy and to love back and a chance to show mercy to others.  That sounds cheesy, but it’s true. 

For a while, Oliver doubted himself, and was confused that maybe he was born to be a thief; but something always called him away from that life.  He even prayed that God would never allow him to be used for that purpose.  He needed the opportunity to see the world clearer from a safe and healthy and good place, and then he would have a fair chance to witness goodness and mercy in people and in the world.  Everyone deserves that.