Montana
By Roger Stitson
Published 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beyond "what the historical documents might say".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 52year-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?
) Late in the novel, Gail Hayden changes her attitude. She no longer wants her husband to continue the course of
action that earlier she encouraged him to follow. What causes her to change?
One of the main themes of this novel is recognizing the difference between family loyalty and justice. Another
theme that's not so emphasized, but definitely present, is the treatment of whites towards native americans, and
another theme is abusing power. In my opinion, this act is an amalgamation of these three themes. When Gail alters
her opinion on her husband's course of action, to arrest his brother Frank, she was exercising her personal belief that
family loyalty is more important than justice. There could be some historical motivation for this. Because the year is
1948, sentiments of inequality amongst Native Americans and Whites were much more stronger than they are now.
This could be one reason why Dr. Frank molested his female, Native American patients. Gail, on the other hand, does
have a friendship with her Sioux servant, Marie. However, she still is Native American, and there possibly is some sort
of racism instilled in her deep down. On top of Gail's slight racism, she knows that her family has more power than
Marie. While she wants Frank to stop his horrible actions, she does not want to tarnish the family name, and she
wants the family to maintain their power while silently implementing a solution. In other words, power and racism are
two reasons that Gail believes in family loyalty over justice.
2) A great deal of attention is paid to locating Bentrock (a fictional community) on the map. Why? What role does the
setting play in the novel?
A setting plays a rather important role in a novel, and this role is usually taken for granted. The setting of this novel
takes place in a small, rural town in Montana in the summer of 1948. Historically, the war has ended, and Frank
returned home as a war hero. In this year, the status of war hero was very much appreciated, and probably even
more so in such a rural area like the fictitious Bentrock. Also, since the town is small and the Hayden family controlled
the law and the medicine, this implies that the small population knew that the people in this family were the only
people to go to for such matters. In bigger towns, such wouldn't be the case. Logically, the people in the town would
try hard to remain in a good rapport with the Hayden family. Lastly, this book is about a struggle experienced
especially by David. The town of Bentrock is described as "hard country - the land is dry and sparse and the wind
never stops blowing. The heat and thunderstorms in summer can be brutal, and the winters are legendary for the
fierceness of their blizzards and the depths to which tempeartures drop." This description, by David, almost makes
Bentrock sound symbolic of struggle. Therefore, it's convenient that Watson created this symbolic town to parrallel the
experiences shared and the emotions felt by the main characters.
3) Whose story is this? Wesley's? David's? Why?
This story is more David's story than Wesley's, and there is plenty of textual evidence to support this. The obivious
notable evidence is that David is the narrator. In this book, he's telling his side of the story complete with what he
saw, heard, and personally felt. Therefore, descriptions of what others felt are only gathered from how he thought
they felt, and situations that could have been vital to the novel may not have been recorded depending on whether or
not David experienced these situations as well. This brings me to another point of textual evidence supporting the fact
that this is indeed David's story. If it were Wesley's story, then the obvious climax of the book would be what the
readers were expecting to read: the confrontation between Wesley and Frank. However, this never was described in
detail in this story because David never experienced it. This brings me to another point of textual evidence. This novel
is definitely a coming of age story told throught the eyes of a 12 year old boy. This age is definitely an age of
confusion, the development of personality, the desire to try to find yourself, the want for attention, a rollercoaster of
emotions, etc... A notable point where David's feelings are expressed very vividly and candidly is when he talks about
waiting. He says, "Young people are supposed to be the impatient ones, but in most circumstances they can outwait
their elders. The young are more practiced: time passes slower for them and they are constantly filling their hours,
days, months, and years with waiting - for birthdays, for Christmas, for Father to return, for summer to arrive, for
graduation, for the rain to stop, for the minister to stop talking, for girls to stop saying, 'Not now, not yet: wait.' No,
when it comes to patience, even the enforced variety, the young are the real masters." In essence, the emptiness and
the brevity of the novel create a sensation of waiting. It makes the reader wait for something to come to make the
book complete, but that something never comes. The sensation is like that experienced by a young person who is
about to enter adulthood. With something so personal as this, there is no doubt that this story is David's.
4) Who is the moral center of the story? Why?
I feel that it is difficult to make an argument for any character in this story being the moral center. David is an
innocent, and not mentally developed enough to even be considered for the role. Gail retracks her original support for
her husband. Arguments can be made for Marie, being another innocent who keeps quiet in an attempt to not ruin the
Hayden name because she is friends with the family. But keeping quiet could also be a selfish thing - she may have
kept quiet about the alleged rapes for fear of losing her job. In this case, she's turning her back on the female, Native
American population of Bentrock, and this completely rules her out. Grandpa tries to release Frank, who has obviously
committed the crimes. This rules him out. The only character up for standing is Wesley. He definitely makes the right
decision by arresting his brother, who has commited a legal and a moral crime. Also, he doesn't let family get in the
way of morals, unlike his wife. But two things keep the argument for Wesley open: Firstly, Wesley didn't publicly
arrest Frank, whereas he would have publicly arrested someone who wasn't his brother. This may not be immoral if he
is doing this out of convenience or relevance, but it would be questionably immoral if he did this to limit the damage
done to his family name. Secondly, the reader does not know what happened when Wesley confronted Frank. This
means that the reader can not be completely sure if Wesley is completely moral. That is why this question is definitely
difficult to answer.
5) How does prejudice play into the story?
There are two ways that prejudice works in this story. One is negative prejudice. Racist prejudging occurs amongst
the whites towards the Native Americans, particularly amongst Frank, and arguably amongst Gail, as previously
discussed. There also is denial prejudice, which occurs when one does not want to believe something for prejudged
reasons. When Wesley first heard of the rape allegations toward his brother, he made a prejudgment that Frank could
not have done it only because Frank was his brother. He was in denial that his flesh and blood could do such a horrible
thing. It was only through investigation that he believed Frank did commit those crimes.
6) Was there any justice for the crimes committed by Uncle Frank?
In this special case, it's hard to tell what kind of justice is needed for compromise. Personally, I believe in "an eye
for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" when the criminal deserves it. Therefore, I believe that Frank should have gotten raped
himself, but that's not the way justice is carried out in America. Jail is typical, but the fact that Frank was arrested by
family really does strengthen the argument that justice was in fact served. To be Frank knowing that my own brother
has a low enough opinion of me as to arrest me would be devastating. Devastating enough to commit suicide, which is
exactly what happened. However, because he committed suicide, it seems like Frank's sentence was not fully served
in order for justice to completely settle in.
7) Most of the novel's action takes place in 1948. Why did the author choose that year? Could the events occur today?
As I stated before, this year is shortly after World War II. However, it's worthy to note that this year is also some
time before the civil rights movement. Truman is president, re-elected over Thomas Dewey, and 2 more presidents
served before Johnson came and passed the Civil Rights Bill. Because of this, 1948 was a time where civil rights
amongst minorities were ignored, and this was true with many Native Americans. In 1948, a lawyer really wouldn't
defend a Native American in court, and if that happened, litigation would be extremely expensive. In Montana during
this time, I highly doubt that a court would even accept a case involving a Native American, let alone a Native
American Woman. The events outlined in this book could happen today, but it wouldn't be as pure as the events in the
book. Today, lawyers would be involved, along with money, politics, harsher sentences, and I highly doubt that the
criminal's brother would do the arresting. More tight policy would be involved. So, the events couldn't happen exactly
as they did in the book, however there can exist a modern version of this story.
8) In what ways is the novel about privilege and the abuse of power?
One, there is a term in history that is sort of relevant to this situation, "White skin privilege". While meaning that
the poorest whites are better off because they are white, the term itself - outside of its true meaning - can be used to
explain why Frank's actions toward Native American History were unreported until Marie spoke up about it. Frank was
white, and had a higher status, especially as doctor, than Native Americans. Two, this privilege, along with his job and
his prestige as war hero, gave him power. He knew that people looked up to him, and didn't expect him to err in any
way. The image of him in many people's mind was that of a near perfect man, and Frank knew this. That's why he felt
he could get away with the acts. This is how he abused his power