Scan barcode
A review by wathohuc
Honey in the Horn by H.L. Davis
3.0
From my perspective, this is just a mediocre book. Not bad, not great. I probably wouldn't have chosen this book for a Pulitzer, but I guess I can sort of see why it was chosen. In a sense, there is nothing more quintessentially "American" in the United States of America sense of the term than a western story. And this is exactly what the book is: a western. Cowboys, Indians, hunting, cattle, hangings, outlawry, frontier justice, etc. The fact that it takes place in the Northwest, in Oregon, makes it a tad more interesting to me because of my understanding of Westerns as stereotypically understood had more to do with the central plains and southwestern regions of the US. So this book was a needed tonic for me in terms of dispelling some elements of Western mythology from my imagination. And I guess the Pulitzer committee can't always just pick the non-westerns over the westerns, can they?
The story itself was nothing to speak of. It just basically followed the roaming travels of a rather loner young cowboy and his dealings and path-crossings with other similar characters of the time and region. To the extent that there was a kind of mystery about certain shootings and the resultant misappropriation of justice, I had that figured out about halfway through the book, though the actual revelation itself doesn't take place until the last 5 pages of the book, as part of a very uncharacteristic spasm of philosophical commentary about the ruggedness and meaningfulness of the roaming and semi-communal lifestyles and peoples of the region.
There were occasional moments of cleverness and atmosphere in the writing, but for the most part it was typical western fare. The book also lacked, in my opinion, any real character development. The only other Pultizer winning western novel I've yet read was McMurtry's "Lonesome Dove" and that was an infinitely better book in terms of rich character development. With "Honey in the Horn," even after 500+ pages, I still don't feel like I really know the characters at all, though I get the feeling that I am supposed to know them better. But it's just not there. I mean, really, I challenge anyone who has read the book to tell me what they really and truly know about Clay and Luz. What shaped their thinking and orientation? What formed their spirit? How did their work and shooting skills develop? What other events in their early lives shaped who they are? We really know nothing about them. And the same is true really for every other character in the novel.
Finally, the mass-market paperback edition I read was rife with horrific editorial mistakes and oversights. More misspellings than I can count, a number of times text lines were repeated, etc. It was a sloppily edited book; and the sloppiness of the editing can't help but transfer to a perception of a kind of sloppiness in the story itself.
I'm glad I read it as a matter of discipline and to see what kinds of Western literature appealed to the readers of the day as award-worthy literature; but, unless you REALLY like westerns, and/or have a personal fascination with a fictionalized history of frontier and settler life in Oregon and the Northwest in the late 19th/early 20th century, I'd not really recommend it.
The story itself was nothing to speak of. It just basically followed the roaming travels of a rather loner young cowboy and his dealings and path-crossings with other similar characters of the time and region. To the extent that there was a kind of mystery about certain shootings and the resultant misappropriation of justice, I had that figured out about halfway through the book, though the actual revelation itself doesn't take place until the last 5 pages of the book, as part of a very uncharacteristic spasm of philosophical commentary about the ruggedness and meaningfulness of the roaming and semi-communal lifestyles and peoples of the region.
There were occasional moments of cleverness and atmosphere in the writing, but for the most part it was typical western fare. The book also lacked, in my opinion, any real character development. The only other Pultizer winning western novel I've yet read was McMurtry's "Lonesome Dove" and that was an infinitely better book in terms of rich character development. With "Honey in the Horn," even after 500+ pages, I still don't feel like I really know the characters at all, though I get the feeling that I am supposed to know them better. But it's just not there. I mean, really, I challenge anyone who has read the book to tell me what they really and truly know about Clay and Luz. What shaped their thinking and orientation? What formed their spirit? How did their work and shooting skills develop? What other events in their early lives shaped who they are? We really know nothing about them. And the same is true really for every other character in the novel.
Finally, the mass-market paperback edition I read was rife with horrific editorial mistakes and oversights. More misspellings than I can count, a number of times text lines were repeated, etc. It was a sloppily edited book; and the sloppiness of the editing can't help but transfer to a perception of a kind of sloppiness in the story itself.
I'm glad I read it as a matter of discipline and to see what kinds of Western literature appealed to the readers of the day as award-worthy literature; but, unless you REALLY like westerns, and/or have a personal fascination with a fictionalized history of frontier and settler life in Oregon and the Northwest in the late 19th/early 20th century, I'd not really recommend it.