Here are some notes on Montana that I have made they are not complete but will help give some insight into the novel.
Montana Notes
Story is told retrospectively gives an opportunity to reflect on the action as a whole and put it into some sort of context.
This is based a couple of years after the second world war, a time of great change and rebuilding for America and maybe a change of view and world consciousness.
The narrator sums up the main action on the first page, the section written in italics, sets the scene for us to explore what all these events mean and how they tie together.
Chapter one at the beginning sets the scene we get introduced to the town of Bentrock, and to the harshness of the Montana landscape. It appears to be a very unforgiving country, as the narrator mentions on page 15 ‘But all of northeastern Montana is hard country – the land is dry and sparse and the wind never stops blowing.’ We also are introduced to the idea of the Indian Reservation which is set on land described as ‘the rockiest, sandiest, least arable parcel of land in the region’
Instantly we get an idea of the position of the two cultures and that the Indians are seen as inferior and pushed out into the country. We also get the idea that the harshness of the land reflects the people, that the two are connected as such.
The narrator slowly introduces us to his family members, and the first introduced is his father, the first we hear from him is about his disability and the fact that he was not able to fight in the war. We learn that his father is the local Sherriff.
Whilst the narrator expects this to be an exciting job, this does not happen and this could be ironic in the fact that later the action that he so desperately yearns for ends up focussing on his family.
In the first couple of pages we feel that the narrator feels some disappointment in his fathers job because he doesn’t fit the archetypal picture of a sherriff, as he says ‘As long as my father was going to be a sherriff, a position with so much potential for excitement, danger and bravery, why couldn’t some of that promise be fulfilled?’
This is also reflected in the fact the his father doesn’t carry a gun, plus the narrator describes his fathers gun as ‘a small .32 automatic, Italian-made and no bigger than your palm’ pg17
The narrator describes his father as self effacing, on page 19 he talks about the fact that his father never wore his badge, the narrator thought this was because his father didn’t want to laud it over the rest of the community showing off the fact that he was the sherriff, the narrator later realises that there was another reason for this and this was because the badge was too heavy and would have easily damaged the shirt.
We also get an introduction to the narrator’s mother, in the fact that his father does not suit his mother’s ideal image. The mother’s expectation is that he would be an attorney, which he was trained to do.
We learn about the mother that ‘he would be happier if he practiced law and if we did not live in Montana’pg19. She believe that the father has been trapped into this life purely and simply because his father was the previous sheriff and was expected to carry on the family role. The mother want him to break away from this.
We learn in the next pages that his grandfather was sheriff for many terms, and would swap with Len the deputy Sheriff to get past the three term limit.
The grandfather is described as power hungry ‘ he wanted, he needed, power. He was a dominating man who drew sustenance and strength from controlling others. To him, being the law’s agent probably seemed part of a natural progression- first you master the land and its beasts, then you regulate the behaviour of men and women.)’
The suggestion is that when the grandfather retires he is able to retain some of his power and control by installing his son as the new Sheriff. We also learn that the family name is Hayden.
We get to see the clash between what the grandfather’s expectations are of his son and the family name, and also that the mother wants the father to be his own man.
The narrator also mentions that there was another reason for his mother wanting to leave Montana ‘and that reason had to do with me. My mother feared for my soul, a phrase that sounds to me now comically overblown, yet I remember that those were precisely the words she used.’
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Synopsis of Montana 1948
Here is a brief synopsis of Montana 1948, it will give you a good insight into the overall story, as well as the themes and characters.
Montana
By Roger StitsonPublished in Education Age 18th July 2001
Of race and men
Montana 1948 tackles family, race and memory.
'Forty years ago . . . A story that is now only mine to tell." These words, late into the prologue of Larry Watson's Montana 1948 , indicate immediately the nature of this novel: the first-person, eye-witness narration powered by memory in which the private recording of relationships and the deeds of characters within a small community divulges, explores and "augments" the facts far beyond "what the historical documents might say".However, there is always a danger in reading a first-hand account. Is it reliable, not merely in terms of the events, but in terms of viewpoint, opinion and expression? In the case of Montana 1948, is there any divergence, in these respects, between the attitudes of David Hayden the 52-year-old narrator, and those of David Hayden the 12-year-old eye-witness?For example, what are we to make of David's portrait of his father, Wesley, the sheriff of Bentrock? Is the sheriff a weak, bullied, unheroic and morally crippled man (a state to complement his physical ailment, brought about by an accident years earlier) or is he an everyman crippled by terrible circumstances not of his own making, and searching for the right solutions?Young David would prefer that his father were someone other than himself. In this respect, there is an ironic similarity to the preferences of David's mother, Gail, who wishes her husband would be truly himself, his own man, practising as a lawyer for which he's been trained, and living elsewhere, away from the negative aura of his father. The essential difference, though, between David and his mother is that whereas David is contrasting an impossibly romanticised view of what constitutes a sheriff - a gun-toting cowboy in a Stetson hat - to the staid if more realistic image his father presents, Gail is able to see into the truth of Wesley's position and standing in Bentrock.Nowhere can this be more obvious and devastating than in the "flashback" sequence describing the homecoming of David's Uncle Frank (Wesley's brother, a doctor, a decorated war hero) after World War II, where one brother is publicly paraded by Grandfather Hayden, the other brother ignored. David observes his father at the back of the crowd, "picking up scraps of paper", and carrying them "a piece at a time, to the fire-blackened incinerator barrel".The complex imagery here, which the younger David is unable to recognise, is of his father's suppressed pain, frustration, resignation and an unspoken acceptance of his lot. It is ironic, then, that while Wesley's physical state and demeanor hide an internal fortitude of not complaining or making a scene, behind Frank's wit, charm and "smiling ease with his life and everything in it", there lurks moral corruption. Frank's easy acceptance, in this sequence of the novel, of being called up to be his father's son, with no acknowledgement at all to his own brother, indicates the man he really is.This is not to suggest that the sheriff of Bentrock is beyond criticism. We are told that, years earlier, Wesley gave up his "fledgling law practice and took the badge my grandfather offered. It would never have occurred to my father to refuse". Is this a sign of weakness, of being easily led, of lacking independence? Julian, David's grandfather, is a bull of a man no one has ever stood up to; his will has never been questioned or contradicted by anyone; his home, the family ranch, is an architectural expression and extension of this, a monstrosity of the plains rather than "the little house on the prairie". Beyond Wesley merely jumping to his father's tune, though, is the element of familial responsibility, "the weight of the family name" that Wesley must obey, or at least choose.We are also informed by David that the sheriff, his father, is a racist: "He believed Indians, with only a few exceptions, were ignorant, lazy, superstitious and irresponsible". Initially, these easy assumptions cloud his judgement of Marie Little Soldier's refusal to be medically examined by Frank when she falls ill. Young David's innocuous comment to Marie - "It's just my uncle Frank. He's OK" - is likely to pass us by at first reading. It is only later that we realise not only how wrong he is, but sense the deeper horror implicit in those words, the same horror Marie must feel as she lies trapped on her sick bed in the house of the doctor's brother.For herein lies the secret history of a community, the history of long-standing, silent abuse. "You know Frank's always been partial to red meat," David's grandfather crudely says later in the novel, accepting the plight of these Indian girls as though it were an element of the natural order. "Knowing when to look and when to look away" is Grandfather Hayden's advice about the role of a law enforcement officer in Montana. But when Marie's whispered truth emerges, the voice of conscience juxtaposed against these two expressions is that of David's mother (who, married into the dynastic clan, is not herself Montana-bred): "Sins - crimes - are not supposed to go unpunished."When it seems there is a possibility Frank may escape justice, David says, "But we're the ones getting the shitty end of the stick", and it's at this point we are aware that he is growing up. In other circumstances his mother would have reprimanded him for foul language, but here she lets it go, for David has seen the true nature of the situation his father is in.Probably the most surprising aspect of David's narration follows Frank's off-stage suicide in David's parents' cellar, an environment to complement his own moral darkness: " ... I felt something for my uncle in death ... It was gratitude, yes, but it was something more. It was very close to love". Why love? Maybe it is not only his and the family's reputation that Frank has saved; he has also faced up to what he has done, and acted upon it with no thought of being saved by denials, legal trickery or Julian's interference."Don't blame Montana!" Wesley shouts at the end of the novel, years later, when David's wife suggests that these events were a product of the "Wild West" , thus returning us full circle to David's boyhood fantasies about life in Montana . The question we may ask is, who or what, then, is to blame?Photo: Romantic perceptions: Classic Wild West images bear little relation to reality.
Montana
By Roger StitsonPublished in Education Age 18th July 2001
Of race and men
Montana 1948 tackles family, race and memory.
'Forty years ago . . . A story that is now only mine to tell." These words, late into the prologue of Larry Watson's Montana 1948 , indicate immediately the nature of this novel: the first-person, eye-witness narration powered by memory in which the private recording of relationships and the deeds of characters within a small community divulges, explores and "augments" the facts far beyond "what the historical documents might say".However, there is always a danger in reading a first-hand account. Is it reliable, not merely in terms of the events, but in terms of viewpoint, opinion and expression? In the case of Montana 1948, is there any divergence, in these respects, between the attitudes of David Hayden the 52-year-old narrator, and those of David Hayden the 12-year-old eye-witness?For example, what are we to make of David's portrait of his father, Wesley, the sheriff of Bentrock? Is the sheriff a weak, bullied, unheroic and morally crippled man (a state to complement his physical ailment, brought about by an accident years earlier) or is he an everyman crippled by terrible circumstances not of his own making, and searching for the right solutions?Young David would prefer that his father were someone other than himself. In this respect, there is an ironic similarity to the preferences of David's mother, Gail, who wishes her husband would be truly himself, his own man, practising as a lawyer for which he's been trained, and living elsewhere, away from the negative aura of his father. The essential difference, though, between David and his mother is that whereas David is contrasting an impossibly romanticised view of what constitutes a sheriff - a gun-toting cowboy in a Stetson hat - to the staid if more realistic image his father presents, Gail is able to see into the truth of Wesley's position and standing in Bentrock.Nowhere can this be more obvious and devastating than in the "flashback" sequence describing the homecoming of David's Uncle Frank (Wesley's brother, a doctor, a decorated war hero) after World War II, where one brother is publicly paraded by Grandfather Hayden, the other brother ignored. David observes his father at the back of the crowd, "picking up scraps of paper", and carrying them "a piece at a time, to the fire-blackened incinerator barrel".The complex imagery here, which the younger David is unable to recognise, is of his father's suppressed pain, frustration, resignation and an unspoken acceptance of his lot. It is ironic, then, that while Wesley's physical state and demeanor hide an internal fortitude of not complaining or making a scene, behind Frank's wit, charm and "smiling ease with his life and everything in it", there lurks moral corruption. Frank's easy acceptance, in this sequence of the novel, of being called up to be his father's son, with no acknowledgement at all to his own brother, indicates the man he really is.This is not to suggest that the sheriff of Bentrock is beyond criticism. We are told that, years earlier, Wesley gave up his "fledgling law practice and took the badge my grandfather offered. It would never have occurred to my father to refuse". Is this a sign of weakness, of being easily led, of lacking independence? Julian, David's grandfather, is a bull of a man no one has ever stood up to; his will has never been questioned or contradicted by anyone; his home, the family ranch, is an architectural expression and extension of this, a monstrosity of the plains rather than "the little house on the prairie". Beyond Wesley merely jumping to his father's tune, though, is the element of familial responsibility, "the weight of the family name" that Wesley must obey, or at least choose.We are also informed by David that the sheriff, his father, is a racist: "He believed Indians, with only a few exceptions, were ignorant, lazy, superstitious and irresponsible". Initially, these easy assumptions cloud his judgement of Marie Little Soldier's refusal to be medically examined by Frank when she falls ill. Young David's innocuous comment to Marie - "It's just my uncle Frank. He's OK" - is likely to pass us by at first reading. It is only later that we realise not only how wrong he is, but sense the deeper horror implicit in those words, the same horror Marie must feel as she lies trapped on her sick bed in the house of the doctor's brother.For herein lies the secret history of a community, the history of long-standing, silent abuse. "You know Frank's always been partial to red meat," David's grandfather crudely says later in the novel, accepting the plight of these Indian girls as though it were an element of the natural order. "Knowing when to look and when to look away" is Grandfather Hayden's advice about the role of a law enforcement officer in Montana. But when Marie's whispered truth emerges, the voice of conscience juxtaposed against these two expressions is that of David's mother (who, married into the dynastic clan, is not herself Montana-bred): "Sins - crimes - are not supposed to go unpunished."When it seems there is a possibility Frank may escape justice, David says, "But we're the ones getting the shitty end of the stick", and it's at this point we are aware that he is growing up. In other circumstances his mother would have reprimanded him for foul language, but here she lets it go, for David has seen the true nature of the situation his father is in.Probably the most surprising aspect of David's narration follows Frank's off-stage suicide in David's parents' cellar, an environment to complement his own moral darkness: " ... I felt something for my uncle in death ... It was gratitude, yes, but it was something more. It was very close to love". Why love? Maybe it is not only his and the family's reputation that Frank has saved; he has also faced up to what he has done, and acted upon it with no thought of being saved by denials, legal trickery or Julian's interference."Don't blame Montana!" Wesley shouts at the end of the novel, years later, when David's wife suggests that these events were a product of the "Wild West" , thus returning us full circle to David's boyhood fantasies about life in Montana . The question we may ask is, who or what, then, is to blame?Photo: Romantic perceptions: Classic Wild West images bear little relation to reality.
Sample Essay Response
Here's a sample essay response for Montana 1948. It will be a good start when preparing for the exam.
Essay 4
To what degree are the main characters in ‘Montana 1948’ responsible for their own behaviour?
The main characters in Larry Watson’s Montana 1948 are truly able to control their own behaviour, but only to a certain extent. It could be argued the novel is not as simple as this. Within the text there are external factors contributing to the behaviour of the main characters that need to be explored.
Montana 1948 is narrated by the now adult David Hayden as he recounts the summer of 1948. Through David’s narration a reader is able to gain a sense of the depth of analysis included within the novel. The adolescent David leaves his childhood behind when he realises his Uncle Frank has abused his position of trust as a doctor. However at the same time David continually contrasts this knowledge with his emotional responses towards his uncle. Frank is his father’s brother, and in this role has represented an important source of family, strength, love and care throughout David’s childhood. Therefore a reader gains a deep sense of conflict within the narrative; a conflict between David’s maturing social awareness, and the secure memories and feelings left from his childhood. Watson presents the character David as one with conflicting thoughts and feelings, which compete and govern his actions throughout the novel.
Wes Hayden, David’s father and the ‘hero’ of the text, is a character who is described in the novel as one who does not like to feel the earth shifting beneath him. He, like his brother Frank, has a specific position of duty and trust to uphold in his community. As is shown constantly throughout the text this sense of duty is one he takes seriously. However Wes also has strong ties of loyalty to his own father, Julian, and brother. Frank’s actions place Wes in a complicated position that compromises both his role as the county sheriff and his roles as a brother and son. Therefore while Wes himself has complete autonomy over his actions, it is obvious that the decision over what course of action he should ultimately take has grave emotional consequences.
Wes’ wife Gail Hayden, a strong female character given the setting of the novel, is at first adamant that Frank be brought to justice for his actions. However this need for a greater social justice disappears when the workers from Julian’s farm arrive to collect Frank and Gail realises the full extent of the danger to her family. It could be argued that Gail succumbs to the pressure placed on her by her husband’s family, however it is also obvious that she too places great emphasis on loyalty to, and the protection of, her own family. In contrast to the actions taken by Julian, Gail’s actions and decisions are bound by a need to protect rather than to control.
It can be convincingly argued that Frank callously takes advantage of his position of trust as a doctor and as an influential, powerful white male when he sexually abuses his female Amerindian patients. However there are surrounding influences that, although never justifying or excusing Frank of his liability, determine the degree of control he has over his actions. Julian is the archetypal patriarchal figure, a man who likes to controls. He has always condoned Frank’s taste for ‘red meat’, going so far as to publicly comment that hopefully Frank’s marriage would see an end to his visits to the Indian reservation. Therefore we can see that Frank has been raised in an environment that has overlooked his flaws and ultimately allowed his behaviour. The childhood environments of Wes and Frank, although not detailed within the text, provide a telling contrast to the childhood environment of David. David learns the moral values of responsibility, maturity, protection and trust, whilst Julian provided an environment of greed, power, jealousy and deceit for his sons.
Therefore it would seem that while Montana 1948, tells the story of David Hayden’s transition to adolescence it also explores possible motivations and explanations behind an individual’s actions. Larry Watson has constructed his main characters so that although they have control over their actions, the factors surrounding their decisions are ultimately conflicting and difficult. 690 words
Essay 4
To what degree are the main characters in ‘Montana 1948’ responsible for their own behaviour?
The main characters in Larry Watson’s Montana 1948 are truly able to control their own behaviour, but only to a certain extent. It could be argued the novel is not as simple as this. Within the text there are external factors contributing to the behaviour of the main characters that need to be explored.
Montana 1948 is narrated by the now adult David Hayden as he recounts the summer of 1948. Through David’s narration a reader is able to gain a sense of the depth of analysis included within the novel. The adolescent David leaves his childhood behind when he realises his Uncle Frank has abused his position of trust as a doctor. However at the same time David continually contrasts this knowledge with his emotional responses towards his uncle. Frank is his father’s brother, and in this role has represented an important source of family, strength, love and care throughout David’s childhood. Therefore a reader gains a deep sense of conflict within the narrative; a conflict between David’s maturing social awareness, and the secure memories and feelings left from his childhood. Watson presents the character David as one with conflicting thoughts and feelings, which compete and govern his actions throughout the novel.
Wes Hayden, David’s father and the ‘hero’ of the text, is a character who is described in the novel as one who does not like to feel the earth shifting beneath him. He, like his brother Frank, has a specific position of duty and trust to uphold in his community. As is shown constantly throughout the text this sense of duty is one he takes seriously. However Wes also has strong ties of loyalty to his own father, Julian, and brother. Frank’s actions place Wes in a complicated position that compromises both his role as the county sheriff and his roles as a brother and son. Therefore while Wes himself has complete autonomy over his actions, it is obvious that the decision over what course of action he should ultimately take has grave emotional consequences.
Wes’ wife Gail Hayden, a strong female character given the setting of the novel, is at first adamant that Frank be brought to justice for his actions. However this need for a greater social justice disappears when the workers from Julian’s farm arrive to collect Frank and Gail realises the full extent of the danger to her family. It could be argued that Gail succumbs to the pressure placed on her by her husband’s family, however it is also obvious that she too places great emphasis on loyalty to, and the protection of, her own family. In contrast to the actions taken by Julian, Gail’s actions and decisions are bound by a need to protect rather than to control.
It can be convincingly argued that Frank callously takes advantage of his position of trust as a doctor and as an influential, powerful white male when he sexually abuses his female Amerindian patients. However there are surrounding influences that, although never justifying or excusing Frank of his liability, determine the degree of control he has over his actions. Julian is the archetypal patriarchal figure, a man who likes to controls. He has always condoned Frank’s taste for ‘red meat’, going so far as to publicly comment that hopefully Frank’s marriage would see an end to his visits to the Indian reservation. Therefore we can see that Frank has been raised in an environment that has overlooked his flaws and ultimately allowed his behaviour. The childhood environments of Wes and Frank, although not detailed within the text, provide a telling contrast to the childhood environment of David. David learns the moral values of responsibility, maturity, protection and trust, whilst Julian provided an environment of greed, power, jealousy and deceit for his sons.
Therefore it would seem that while Montana 1948, tells the story of David Hayden’s transition to adolescence it also explores possible motivations and explanations behind an individual’s actions. Larry Watson has constructed his main characters so that although they have control over their actions, the factors surrounding their decisions are ultimately conflicting and difficult. 690 words
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Welcome
Welcome to the Melton Secondary College Year 11 Blog. Here you will be able to find resources to help revise for SAC's and exams, as well as helpful study advice. If you happen to miss any lessons the notes will also be pasted here. You will also eventually be able to contribute to the writing of the blog, for now you will be able to add comments.
Cheers
Eddy Hill
Cheers
Eddy Hill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)