This is the discussion forum for Owen Wister’s “The Virginian”.

Members of the Slaves of Golconda reading group are reading and posting on this novel, which is their current selection. However, all who have read the novel are welcome to air their opinions on it, Wister, The West, The East, the 1890s, Em’ly the hen, Pedro the pony, Shorty, Scipio, Trampas, Miss Molly Wood, manifest destiny, the American Western Novel, and Teddy Roosevelt. Or any combination thereof.

Can we talk about “noble savage” paternalism being applied to the “sons of the sagebrush”?

Sure, as long as we can also roll our eyes over the manner in which Molly realized her love for her manly cowboy

Poor Molly. I kept reading with the hope that sometime later on in the book I would think, “Oh, she’s not really that horrible. I feel a little ashamed that I have been wanting to slap her.” But that moment never came. I still want to slap her.

For any men who might be following this discussion, can you please explain what bothered you about the way she fell in love, and why you kept wanting to slap her? Thanks.

I didn’t want to slap her like Ella did but I didn’t like her character. What bothered me about the way in which she fell in love is the stereotypical female way in which it happened. Molly is not a stupid woman. We are given her as independent, almost a bluestocking type. She is not the traditional helpless female. This I liked about her; Mrs. Taylor’s traditionalist “home and family” ways grated. But Mrs. Taylor is the one we are supposed to like and sympathize with, Molly and he high falutin’ ways must be taken down and she must submit her will to the will of the Virginian’s.

There are few more stereotypical ways for a female character to fall in love than by having her nurse her prospective lover back to health. Her ego disappears and she becomes all service to the man. And while she nurses him back to health she realizes just how much she loves him. Molly has spirit to be sure, but she and the Virginian are never equals in the relationship.

From the beginning, I felt like the Virginian’s wooing of Molly was comparable to the gentling of a horse. The horse begins wild and independent and ends up bridled and saddled.

From the beginning, I felt like the Virginian?s wooing of Molly was comparable to the gentling of a horse. The horse begins wild and independent and ends up bridled and saddled.

This is precisely the formula of many contemporary romances. There are many good things about this novel; I just think it could have been better if it hadn’t been pieced together with some many disparate parts like a Frankenstein monster.

And considering the opening scene, perhaps the parallelism you identify was deliberate.

Did you know that Wister’s wife was also named Mary and called Molly?

You hit the nail on the head, Stefanie. The “women might make a show of independence but deep down really want to be mastered” thing drives me batty.

Often the things that bother us the most do so because they hit so close to home. 

I did not know that about Wister’s wife. So, was he writing what he knew--how he tamed his own wife--or was he writing a wishful fantasy?

Now, how do I get out of this without sounding like a clich?? 

Me, I just hated the Hamlet-ey thing Molly kept doing, where the Virginian would ride up and announce he was in love with her and ask her how she felt about that; and then the hand-wringing and self-doubt would begin. I mean, there’s THREE YEARS of this nonsense in the book. What logical person - male or female - would date someone for three years without forming some kind of opinion about their feelings for that person?

So I guess I mean “slap” in the sense of “Snap out of it!” rather than “You are stupid!”

Also, I felt Mr. Wister uses the ‘chilly New Englander’ cliche far too much. Okay, Molly has a cold hard heart and can’t commit; but, please, stop blaming her personality on Vermont.

In 1898, Wister married his second cousin once removed, Mary Channing (Molly) Wister, who, before dying of childbirth in 1913, gave him six children and was attentive to his happiness. Mary Channing Wister enabled years of productivity in her husband’s life; in 1902, his novel The Virginian--portions of which had been previously published in Harper’s--appeared in book form and became an instant bestseller.

This from Contemporary Authors. . .

One thing that I want to know is where did the Virginian who grew up on a poor farm and ranaway at the age of 14 learn his manners and gain such a high moral sense? I could understand it if there were others in the novel as morally upright as he is, but he’s got everyone beat. Are we to accept that it just came naturally, sort of diamond in the rough? Or that the Virginian’s morals and heightened sense of honor is representative of The West eventhough none of the other characters could match him?

My copy of the book has this note about the Virginian’s talk about narrow gauge and broad gauge people.

...The Virginian’s word choice is given further American flavor when he calls the young nihilist, Bazaroff, he of the broad-gauge views, a “come-outer,” alluding to the anarchist fringe of Abolitionism, which held views toward government similar to Thoreau’s. This railroad coupling of liberal politics and technological advances is typical of the Whig outlook in the mid-ninetenth-century America which in the care of the Republicans at the end of the century (as exponents of Big Business) tended to take on a quasi-fascistic outline with a militarist, strong-man profile…

I’m not sure what this means but the big business + militarism/strong-man formula sounds familiar.