“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.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We know nothing else about Gringolet – but we can be sure that he is confident, strong, steady, and loyal to his master.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n
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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
(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”)<\/p>\n\n\n\n