From: reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher)
Subject: Re: A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT  (SPOILERS)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 18:14:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.040354.2258@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.222550.16196@cs.ucla.edu>, reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov11.200829.6097@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>> 
>> I know nothing of McLean's family other than what he wrote in "A River
>> Runs Through It", and some other supposedly true incidents that appeared
>> in the film version.  Therefore, I cannot comment on their real lives.
>
>I don't doubt that the book was beautifully written, but it was
>not fiction - not really.  There really was a Rev. McLean and
>a Paul and a Norman.  I mentioned Kenny Hardwick, and maybe he's
>not famous (or infamous) nationwide but he's about to go on trial
>for murdering his infant daughter.  If he did write a book about
>it and it was beautiful and he was a heroic figure - would you say
>that it was just fiction and we should idolize him and ignore
>the ugly reality?

I see no reason to idolize the Rev. McLean, but it's still a great book.
By the way, if the book is to be believed, the Rev. McLean almost never
struck his sons, and rarely displayed anger at them.  That may be a lie,
but that's the way the book has it.  It does make it clear that he
was a firm disciplinarian, but that was more in fashion in the early
20th century than it is now.  I suspect that the Rev. McLean was not
very different than the typical father of the day, in his views of
discipline.

>Okay 50% of children survived - but the other 50% didn't.  From
>what the article described it sounds to me that Norman McLean became
>what he was despite his father, while the other son was more influenced.
>What in the father - as described in the article - brought about the
>novelist and professor?

McLean gave the impression that he gained a love of literature and
learned everything he knew about writing from his father.  Also, the
influence fly fishing had on his life (which McLean claims was tremendous
and positive) he attributed to his father.  McLean also believed that
he gained the courage to stand up for what he believes in from his father.

Also, note that almost all of us probably know people who we would 
believe were fine parents who have children whose lives don't go well.
Either our beliefs in their parenting abilities are incorrect, or how
one raises one's children does not fully determine how their lives will
go.  I suspect there's a lot of truth in the latter, at least.

>> The story would not be the same if it wasn't set in Montana, around the
>> turn of the century, in a Scottish Presbyterian family whose male members
>> were obsessed with fly fishing.  In spite of that, it does have a great
>> deal to say to people who don't live anywhere near Montana, who live in
>> the modern era, in a variety of family types, whether or not they care about
>> fly fishing.  It's worth remembering that, in art, details are usually
>> not trivial, but that doesn't mean the art is completely about the details.
>
>I think you've just agreed with me about it's phony "universalism".

Not really.  Nothing is truly "universal", but it's a mistake to say
that either the film or the book is just about a bunch of fly fishing
hicks.  If you reexamine the second and third sentences of my quoted
paragraph above, you'll see that I believe that the book, especially,
is of great interest to many people who don't care about fly fishing
or life in Montana in the early 20th century.  It's also worth noting
that McLean himself didn't present his story as being greatly universal -
it's a story of what happened to him, with the suggestion that what happened
to him isn't that different from what happens to a lot of others.

>It may have a lot to say about families other than the McLeans, but I
>just think what it has to say is mostly bad.

I don't agree.  Maybe the real life McLean family was really terrible, but
the family depicted in the book and the film had many strongly positive 
characteristics.  If you choose to filter the art through the reality,
that's your choice, but one can easily divorce them.

-- 
		Peter Reiher
		reiher@wells.cs.ucla.edu

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies