“Max Brand” was one of the pen names used by Frederick Faust (1892-1944). Mr Faust wrote “westerns” under the name “Max Brand” – somewhere in the neighborhood of 220 “pulp westerns.” Mr Faust also wrote under 21 other pseudonyms, in another dozen genres.
Mr Faust was described as a “classical poet” – but since there wasn’t any money to be made writing “classical poetry” – he wrote fast action “pulp” stories
Random thought: Mr Faust died as a war correspondent during WWII. Now, I don’t think anyone would every confuse Frederick Faust with Ernest Hemingway — BUT Mr Hemingway was in his mid-50s when he wrote “The Old Man and the Sea”, if Frederick Faust had survived who knows what he might have written — e.g. F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote a lot of “pulp junk” – but is remembered as a “great writer” because of “The Great Gatsby.”
Mr Faust had no delusions about the quality of his “westerns” — he knew he was writing “what the public wanted” not “creating art” — but his “western heroes” tended to resemble “knights on horseback.”
e.g. the “Max Brand” formula involves “bad guys doing bad stuff” usually a “young woman in distress” and then the “hero on horseback.” To the point that he was “writing for an audience” – and that “audience” was probably MOSTLY “young men” – the hero having a “good horse” was more important than the “heroine”/love interest.
Note that this does NOT make his “westerns” anti-anything – he was just writing in a genre for an audience.
e.g. Louis L’amour took his “stories of the west” more seriously than Max Brand – but you see the same patterns (Mr. L’amour wrote and sold a LOT of books – most of them “stories of the west” and is another subject).
the noble steed
Note that this does NOT make his “westerns” anti-anything – he was just writing in a genre for an audience.
e.g. Louis L’amour took his “stories of the west” more seriously than Max Brand – but you see the same patterns (Mr. L’amour wrote and sold a LOT of books – most of them “stories of the west” and is another subject).
the noble steed
The story of human history and the domestication of the horse go hand in hand. The functional horse used on the farm to plow land or pull a cart deserves acknowledgement – the farmer certainly appreciates “Mollie” and “Clover” – but they are “tools” more than “companions.”
The “mythic romantic hero” needs his “noble steed” — just not necessarily as “transportation.” If you are in the business of telling “daring deeds of Heroes” (notice that is “Hero” with a capital “H” – as in big, brawny, and bold – “legendary”) – the Hero needs a noble steed.
e.g. Sir Gawain had “Gringolet” (“Le Grin golet”) – we never find out WHAT Gringolet’s story is, but by giving the horse a name we are assured that there MUST be a “story” of how Sir Gawain and Gringolet became a team.
We know nothing else about Gringolet – but we can be sure that he is confident, strong, steady, and loyal to his master.
To have a name is to be given a “personality.” If an “anonymous thing” has been given a “name” it is no longer “anonymous.” Excalibur was more than “just a sword” – Mjollnir certainly wasn’t “just a hammer” – and “Trigger” wasn’t “just a horse”
Reciprocity
The psych 101 thought is to point out the “rule of reciprocity” – e.g. when something is “useful”/”pleasant”/”nice” to us we (humanity in general) tend to feel positively towards that “something.”
Some researchers at “big university” did a study on “human – machine” interactions with a “robotic trashcan.” I think the “robot” would come to people when they “called” it – and then they could throw away their trash. People that interacted with the “robot trashcan” reported positive feelings toward the device.
My guess is that the ‘researchers’ where trying to make some point about humans and machines — but all they did was rediscover “reciprocity.” e.g. the robot was responsive and useful – so the natural human response was to “like” the robot.
From that “psych 101” point of view the hero’s horse IS “just a horse” — BUT we learn something about ANYONE by how they treat those “under their power.”
e.g. Are the “nice” to superiors but “abusive” to anyone else” well, that can’t be our “hero” — (I distinctly remember the first “Hopalong Cassidy” B-western I saw – a character knocked down a small boy and kicked the boy’s dog – “that must be the BAD guy” was my first thought).
Often given “Interview advice” is that “they” are paying attention to how you treat everyone – so being a jerk to the receptionist isn’t going to help your chances of getting the job.
(btw: I try to be “nice” to everyone as a rule – the whole “do unto others” thing ALWAYS applies – I catch myself “thanking” my digital assistant for being useful, AND the devs have programmed in the “polite response” – AND I feel kindly toward my inanimate objects, but I still recognize them as “inanimate objects”)
The remuda
“Remuda” entered the English language in the late 19th century – it traces back to the Spanish “remudar – to exchange” which traces back to the Latin “mutare – change”
That ‘working cowboy’ back in the day would probably get his horse from the remuda. The character/quality of the craftsman/worker can be seen by how they treat their “tools” – the cliche is that “the tools do the job” so take care of them and they will take care of you.
BUT our “romantic hero” loses something when they trade in the “remuda” for the “car pool.”
There are a LOT more “fictional horses” with names than there are “fictional cars” with names – Batman has the “Batmobile” but it doesn’t have a distinct personality – I saw a VW bug that was painted like “Herbie the Love Bug” the other day, but I don’t remember WHY “Herbie” was sentient
Maybe the fact that our “devices” become an extension of “us” explains why “cars” were so popular in the last half of the 20th century (beyond just being “transportation”) AND why some folks have anxiety attacks when they can’t find their smart phone.
If I was a character in a novel the fact that I DON’T carry my phone with me ALL the time would be important – but that is another subject …
