A Shakespearean Western

I recently grabbed the 1959 Western novel Catch and Saddle, by L.P. Holmes off the public library shelf pretty much at random. I knew Holmes' name as a Western writer, but really had no idea about him otherwise. I'd never read any of his stuff and I didn't immediately recall reading anything about him either.

But, gee whiz, was I impressed. The plot of the novel hits a common Western trope--small rancher clashing with the big land baron. Clay Hanford buys a track of land in Fandango Basin from someone who had been driven out by big-time rancher King Morgan. Hanford, who legally owns that small patch of land now, is determined to make a go as a ranch owner himself, regardless of any opposition he encounters.

We've seen variations of this before. But Holmes contructs a strong story out of the cliches, moves the story along rapidly and--most importantly--succeeds in giving both major and minor characters three-dimensional personalities. 

He also throws sincere moral dilemmas at us. For instance, after the buildings on Clay's land are burned by Morgan's men, he decides to strike back at a ranch owned by one of Morgan's toadies. He burns the buildings there. But he doesn't feel right about it. He figures its an "eye for an eye" situation and that--outnumbered as he is--he has to fight this way. But it rubs him the wrong way. 

"I never did a think like this before," he said soberly. "And I'm not proud of it... But some things seem to be thrust upon a man; he uses the weapons at hand or he loses the fight."

That scene also gives us an example of just how effectively Holmes sketches out even minor characters. When Hanford and an ally arrive at the ranch they intend to burn, there is only one guy (Pikey Stent) there. They let him take his few personal belongings and leave before setting fire to the buildings. Here's what we soon learn about him:

Uncertainty still gripped Pikey. Up to a very few minutes ago his world had been fairly stable. To be sure, it was a slovenly, uninspiring, meagrely frugal one. Yet it was a world which Pikey thoroughly understood and was satisfied with. Now it had come apart right before his eyes. Pikey hadn't been half a mile from this spot in the past six months. He was like a bird finding the door of its cage suddenly opened, and was fearful over leaving. But leave he did, finally, as flame broke through the roof of the feed shed and began to tower. There was a trail leading east and south. Pikey Stent took it.

Even a minor, almost unnoticed character like Pikey is given a personality. To use a Star Trek metaphor, there are no Red Shirts here. Good guy, bad guy or somewhere inbetween--everyone matters.

What makes this novel seem just a little bit Shakespearean to me is how Holmes uses the story as a sort of morality play. (In itself, not unusual in many Westerns.) Various characters are faced with pretty much the same choice throughout the novel. Either cave in to King Morgan and become his toadie or stand up to him. Though another rancher in the area tries to remain neutral, in the end, everyone has to make a clear moral choice.

And King himself is an interesting villain. We see him at a point where he's now driven by an uninhibited lust for power, but it's made clear there was a time when he was more fair-minded. He's chosen to set moral standards aside and has reached a point where he might not even understand the concept of morality anymore. The tragedy inherit in this is the influence he is having on his three adult children, whose individual character arcs are keyed on whether they can break free of him or knuckle under themselves.

If we look at the novel as a morality play, one thing we see Holmes pulling off is how he gives his characters dialogue in which they essentially pontificate on the morality of their situation. But this never seems contrived or stilted. Though we probably get a few more off-the-cuff speeches than we would be likely to hear in real life, Holmes' dialogue flows naturally, neatly fitting into the story and helping to build upon the action rather than slowing it down. Here's an example, from when the man who had been King Morgan's foreman for years explains why he has quit:

"King, a man has only so many really good years of life--the years when he gives of his strength and will to climb the mountain, the years before he passes the crest and begins coasting down the other side. Those are the rich years, when a man builds either for himself, or for someone else.

"Well, I built for someone else. I built for you. I gave those good years to [your ranch]. I ran your ranch for you, King--and I made it a good ranch. I was faithful to your every interest. I watched your kids grow up, and having none of my own, knew a fondness for them. Even when you began the big change, from a stern, but just man, into a power crazy unjust one, I still stayed faithful, hoping you'd come back to your senses. Instead, you got worse..."

I don't know if Holmes was deliberately trying to emulate the soliloquies of Shakespeare's characters, but I was reminded of the Bard several times when reading this novel. I supposed it really just shows the universality of good storytelling. No matter what the setting or the genre, a well-written story can really dig itself into a reader and leave its mark.

Catch and Saddle appears to be out of print at the time of this writing, but there is a copy to read on the Internet Archives. You can find it HERE.