1,99 €
Niedrigster Preis in 30 Tagen: 1,99 €
Niedrigster Preis in 30 Tagen: 1,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Booksell-Verlag
- Kategorie: Abenteuer, Thriller, Horror
- Sprache: Englisch
"A Straight Deal; Or, The Ancient Grudge" by Owen Wister is a compelling narrative that intricately explores themes of justice, revenge, and the complexities of human relationships against the backdrop of the American West. Wister employs a vivid and accessible prose style that captures the rugged individualism and moral ambiguities of his characters, immersing readers in a world shaped by both personal vendettas and broader societal issues. The novel reflects the author's fascination with the frontier mentality and delves into the tensions between tradition and progress, making it a significant commentary on the historical context of early 20th-century America. Owen Wister, often hailed as the father of Western literature, was deeply influenced by his experiences in the West, which he experienced during his summer trips to Wyoming. His firsthand observations of frontier life, along with his literary pursuits, informed his work and allowed him to craft stories that resonate with authenticity and depth. Wister's background in literature, notably his friendships with prominent figures such as Theodore Roosevelt, also provided him with a unique perspective on the American identity and the conflicts inherent in it. This book is highly recommended for readers interested in early Western literature, as it offers a profound exploration of moral dilemmas and social commentary. Wister's nuanced characters and their struggles promise to engage those who appreciate narratives that are both entertaining and thought-provoking, making it a timeless read for anyone curious about the intersections of personal and cultural conflicts. In this enriched edition, we have carefully created added value for your reading experience: - A succinct Introduction situates the work's timeless appeal and themes. - The Synopsis outlines the central plot, highlighting key developments without spoiling critical twists. - A detailed Historical Context immerses you in the era's events and influences that shaped the writing. - A thorough Analysis dissects symbols, motifs, and character arcs to unearth underlying meanings. - Reflection questions prompt you to engage personally with the work's messages, connecting them to modern life. - Hand‐picked Memorable Quotes shine a spotlight on moments of literary brilliance. - Interactive footnotes clarify unusual references, historical allusions, and archaic phrases for an effortless, more informed read.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2019
Ähnliche
A Straight Deal; Or, The Ancient Grudge
Table of Contents
Introduction
Confronting the persistent residue of mistrust between the United States and Britain, A Straight Deal; Or, The Ancient Grudge presents Owen Wister’s sustained argument that a nation should test inherited resentments against evidence, wartime experience, and civic responsibility, weighing cultural kinship and political interest with candor so that the stories a people tell about old conflicts do not distort present judgment, impede cooperation, or excuse complacency, but instead become a disciplined reckoning with history that can support fair dealing among allies and rivals alike in a world newly unsettled by war, propaganda, and the pressures of modern public opinion.
This work is nonfiction, a polemical and reflective book published in 1920, written in the immediate aftermath of the First World War by American author Owen Wister. Best known for The Virginian (1902), Wister here addresses transatlantic relations rather than frontier myth. The setting is not a single locale but the public sphere of the Anglophone world, where newspapers, speeches, and memories shape national feeling. The book speaks to debates then current in the United States about neutrality, intervention, and the legacy of the Revolution, offering readers a contemporary vantage on how recent war and older history intertwined in the postwar moment.
The premise is direct: Wister examines the “ancient grudge” some Americans hold against Britain and argues for a clearer, more proportionate appraisal of the past and of recent events. Readers should expect a sustained essay rather than a narrative, combining historical references, personal observation, and public argument. The voice is confident, urbane, and insistent, pressing its case through comparisons and examples drawn from widely known episodes. The mood alternates between admonitory and conciliatory, aiming to persuade rather than to entertain. It offers the experience of a public intellectual trying to reshape opinion at a turning point in international affairs.
Central themes include historical memory and how it hardens into national prejudice; the ethics of allegiance in war and peace; the responsibilities of democratic citizens when judging foreign nations; and the tension between isolationist caution and cooperative engagement. Wister probes the uses and abuses of history in forming policy, asking what fairness looks like when weighing debts, injuries, and benefits across generations. He also considers the role of information—how rumor, propaganda, and selective recollection can cloud judgment. Beneath these arguments lies a broader meditation on kinship, language, and institutions shared across the Atlantic, and whether similarity entails obligation.
The book matters today because it illuminates perennial questions: how should a society revisit founding-era grievances, how can it resist distortions without amnesia, and what does it owe to partners who share core political traditions? Readers will recognize analogies to current debates about alliances, disinformation, and the politics of resentment. Wister’s insistence on testing emotion against evidence feels timely, as does his concern for the civic consequences of adversarial mythmaking. The work invites readers to consider how collective narratives are formed, who benefits from them, and how they can be revised without erasing the complexity that makes them meaningful.
Stylistically, the book exemplifies early twentieth-century American polemic: brisk, rhetorically pointed, and steeped in historical allusion. Wister writes with a lawyerly cadence—posing questions, rebutting common claims, and building cumulative emphasis. The tone combines cosmopolitan assurance with a moral plea for proportion. Some references assume familiarity with Anglo-American history, but the argument’s scaffolding remains clear even when particulars recede. Readers encounter both the momentum of an editorial and the patience of an essayist who wants to explain, not merely provoke. The result is a persuasive, closely argued work whose energy comes from the urgency of its postwar moment.
Approached with curiosity, A Straight Deal; Or, The Ancient Grudge offers an invitation to reconsider how nations remember, forgive, and cooperate without forgetting. Wister’s subject is not triumph or apology but calibration: how to balance pride, injury, gratitude, and prudence in a democracy’s foreign outlook. For contemporary readers, the book provides a lens on the mechanics of opinion-making and the moral stakes of public history. It models a way of asking uncomfortable questions in good faith, seeking clarity rather than advantage. As such, it remains a thoughtful companion for anyone interested in the responsibilities of memory in civic life.
Synopsis
A Straight Deal; Or, The Ancient Grudge, published in 1920, is Owen Wister’s non-fiction examination of Anglo-American relations. Written in the aftermath of the First World War, the book seeks to account for persistent American hostility toward England and to reframe it through a review of history, public opinion, and shared institutions. Wister presents his purpose as giving England a “straight deal,” meaning a fair hearing rather than advocacy. He uses episodes from colonial times to the Great War, along with quotations, anecdotes, and contemporary commentary, to explore how misunderstandings formed, how they endured, and how they might be replaced by more accurate judgments.
The narrative begins with the colonial period, tracing the origins of American suspicion of Britain to disputes over taxation, representation, and imperial policy. Wister argues that the “ancient grudge” is not solely the product of historical events but of how those events were taught and remembered. He highlights the influence of schoolbooks, oratory, and national celebrations in shaping a one-sided memory. Distinguishing between the British government of the day and the British people, he notes that opinion in Britain was divided, and that parliamentary debates showed sympathy for colonial grievances even as policy hardened, planting seeds of later misinterpretation.
Turning to the American Revolution, the book reviews the sequence from legislation like the Stamp Act to open conflict. Wister emphasizes that British politics were complex, with figures such as Burke and Chatham criticizing coercive measures and urging conciliation. He maintains that the American narrative often compressed these nuances, presenting a monolithic adversary. By reintroducing the variety of views within Britain and the colonies, he suggests that the break was driven by a convergence of misunderstandings, pressures, and miscalculations rather than simple enmity. This reconsideration aims to narrow the gap between inherited grievance and the historical record.
The account proceeds through the early national period and the War of 1812, identifying maritime disputes, impressment, and trade restrictions as flashpoints. Wister notes that the conflict’s memory hardened American distrust and furnished new episodes for political rhetoric. Subsequent disagreements over boundaries and commerce, though often resolved peacefully, kept distrust alive. He stresses that both nations sometimes chose prideful postures over accommodation, even as new mechanisms for arbitration emerged. By showing this oscillation between friction and settlement, the book explains how the grudge persisted despite moments of rapprochement, ensuring that later controversies would be viewed through a prepared lens.
Wister devotes considerable attention to the American Civil War, a period he sees as central to mutual misreading. He recounts the Trent Affair, tensions over British neutrality, and the Alabama claims, which convinced many Americans that Britain favored the Confederacy. He balances this with evidence of strong British antislavery sentiment and policy constraints faced by London. The narrative highlights public opinion’s volatility, press influence, and the eventual Geneva arbitration of the Alabama claims in 1872, which provided a lawful remedy. This section argues that, while suspicions were understandable, the historical record shows a more divided and constrained British stance than common memory allowed.
In the late nineteenth century, the book surveys recurring sources of friction: Irish politics and diaspora activism in the United States, sensational journalism, and social stereotypes on both sides. Wister treats travel accounts, drawing-room impressions, and casual slights as minor but cumulative contributors to the grudge. He also notes episodes of cooperation, including arbitration and diplomatic accommodations, that received less public attention than quarrels. By juxtaposing caricature with evidence of converging legal and political traditions, he portrays a relationship in which cultural kinship was repeatedly obscured by grievances, rhetoric, and domestic politics that rewarded the reinforcement of national myths.
With the approach of the First World War, Wister examines neutrality debates, controversies over blockade and sea law, and the impact of propaganda. He describes how incidents at sea and disputes about supplies complicated relations even as strategic interests converged. The narrative then follows America’s entry into the war, emphasizing operational cooperation and the practical acknowledgment of common aims. Drawing on wartime observation and contemporary sources, Wister contends that shared sacrifices and coordination revealed continuities of language, law, and political ideals that had long existed. These developments, he argues, offered an opportunity to reassess older grievances in light of recent partnership.
From this historical survey, the book advances proposals for a fairer mutual understanding. Wister calls for clearer teaching of British and American history, careful separation of people from policy, and scrutiny of rumors and inherited judgments. He urges journalism and public speech to avoid exaggeration and to consult documents and responsible testimony. The book highlights common law, representative government, and a shared literature and language as bases for comity without demanding uniformity. By emphasizing impartial standards—arbitration, evidence, and proportion—it seeks to replace suspicion with a disciplined habit of judgment that gives both countries equitable consideration.
The concluding chapters reiterate the central purpose: to retire the “ancient grudge” by testing it against facts and by acknowledging the complexity of both nations’ histories. The book’s message is that stable relations rest on fairness rather than sentiment, and that cooperation between the English-speaking peoples serves broader peace and order. Without dismissing differences or past conflicts, Wister proposes that they be understood in context and weighed alongside episodes of sympathy and alliance. The final appeal is practical and civic: educate memory, correct distortions, and let present policy be guided by accurate knowledge rather than inherited animosity.
Historical Context
A Straight Deal; Or, The Ancient Grudge is anchored in the immediate post–World War I transatlantic moment, with its arguments shaped by the United States of 1919–1920 and by Britain’s wartime experience. Written as the Paris Peace Conference concluded (1919) and as the U.S. Senate fought over the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations (votes in November 1919 and March 1920), the book addresses public memory and national sentiment rather than a single geographic setting. Its “place” is the Anglo-American sphere—American newspapers, lecture halls, and schoolrooms in which British motives were debated, and British political life under H. H. Asququith and David Lloyd George, still bearing the costs of war and empire.
The American Revolution (1775–1783) supplies the earliest strata of the “ancient grudge.” Catalyzed by imperial taxation and control—the Stamp Act (1765), Townshend Acts (1767), and Coercive Acts (1774)—the conflict moved from Lexington and Concord (April 1775) through Saratoga (1777), which brought the Franco-American alliance (1778), to Yorktown (1781) and the Treaty of Paris (1783). Institutional questions of representation, sovereignty, and commerce defined the break. Wister revisits these facts to argue that eighteenth-century British policy should not be used to judge twentieth-century Britain, urging readers to distinguish George III’s ministry and Lord North’s errors from a later, reformed constitutional state and modern Anglo-American common interests.
The War of 1812 (1812–1815) refreshed suspicion of Britain through impressment, the Royal Navy’s enforcement of the Orders in Council (1807), and maritime seizures amid Britain’s struggle against Napoleonic France. The Chesapeake–Leopard affair (1807), the burning of Washington (August 1814), the defense of Baltimore and Fort McHenry (September 1814), the Treaty of Ghent (December 24, 1814), and the Battle of New Orleans (January 8, 1815) became durable American memories. Wister contends that these grievances were historically contingent—products of existential European war—and that later Anglo-American arbitration and cooperation show a different British posture, one that Americans in 1919–1920 should assess without inherited rancor.
The First World War (1914–1918) and America’s path from neutrality to belligerency form the book’s central historical frame. Britain entered the war on August 4, 1914, after Germany violated Belgian neutrality; H. H. Asquith led until David Lloyd George became prime minister in December 1916. The Royal Navy’s blockade sought to constrict German supplies, while the Western Front consumed British forces at the Somme (1916) and Passchendaele (1917), with military dead ultimately approaching 887,000. The United States proclaimed neutrality in 1914, but maritime conflict strained it: the sinking of the RMS Lusitania (May 7, 1915) killed 128 Americans; Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan resigned days later over President Woodrow Wilson’s firm note to Berlin. Germany’s Sussex Pledge (1916) briefly eased tensions, but unrestricted submarine warfare resumed in February 1917. The Zimmermann Telegram (intercepted in January and publicized March 1, 1917), proposing a German–Mexican alliance, helped shift opinion. Congress declared war on April 6, 1917; General John J. Pershing’s American Expeditionary Forces arrived in France, fighting at Cantigny (May 1918), Belleau Wood (June 1918), the Second Marne (July 1918), and the Meuse–Argonne (September–November 1918) before the armistice of November 11, 1918. On the American home front, German covert operations—including the Black Tom explosion in Jersey City (July 30, 1916) and exposure of agent networks tied to Franz von Papen and Heinrich Albert—demonstrated active interference, while propaganda emphasized British “arrogance” and Irish grievances. Wister interprets this matrix to argue that Germany exploited a preexisting anti-British narrative in the United States, inflaming the “ancient grudge” to weaken Anglo-American solidarity. He urges a “straight deal” for Britain: recognition of British sacrifices, of naval protection of sea lanes, and of the alignment of liberal institutions that, in his view, justified closer political sympathy and cooperation after 1918.
Civil War–era Anglo-American friction and its resolution by law also loom large. The Trent Affair (November 8, 1861), when USS San Jacinto seized Confederate envoys James Mason and John Slidell from RMS Trent, risked war until Washington released them. British shipyards built commerce raiders for the Confederacy—the CSS Alabama launched at Birkenhead (1862) sank Union shipping until sunk by USS Kearsarge off Cherbourg (June 19, 1864). The Treaty of Washington (1871) created arbitration at Geneva (1872), awarding the United States $15.5 million and articulating “due diligence” rules. Wister cites this as evidence that Anglo-American disputes can be settled honorably and that Britain accepted responsibility under international norms.
The 1919–1920 struggle over the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations shaped the book’s polemical urgency. President Woodrow Wilson championed the League’s Covenant, especially Article X’s collective security pledge; Senator Henry Cabot Lodge led reservationists, while irreconcilables like William E. Borah opposed the pact outright. Senate rejections on November 19, 1919, and March 19, 1920, kept the United States out. Wister writes amid this controversy to argue that anti-British myths, wartime propaganda legacies, and ethnic politics distorted debate about cooperation with Britain and other democracies. Without endorsing specific articles, he frames Anglo-American understanding as a prerequisite for any stable postwar order.
The Irish question, both in Britain and the American diaspora, is a key social force in the book’s argument. Home Rule bills (1886, 1893, 1912–1914) failed or stalled; the Easter Rising (April 24–29, 1916) and executions hardened attitudes; the First Dáil convened in January 1919; the Irish War of Independence (1919–1921) led to the Anglo-Irish Treaty (December 1921). In the United States, organizations such as the Friends of Irish Freedom supported Éamon de Valera’s 1919–1920 bond drive and lobbied at Paris. Wister criticizes how Irish-American activism amplified anti-British narratives in schools and politics, arguing that it skewed American judgment of British policy and wartime conduct.
As social and political critique, the book exposes the durability of inherited prejudices in American civic life and how they shape foreign policy. It argues that school curricula, ethnic lobbying, and sensational journalism entrenched a binary morality play about Britain, obscuring constitutional reform, lawful arbitration, and wartime alliance. Wister indicts isolationism, “hyphenated” partisanship, and opportunistic demagoguery for impeding a fact-based assessment of interests in 1919–1920. By revisiting the Revolution, 1812, the Alabama Claims, and the Great War, he critiques selective memory, calls for historical reciprocity, and urges an Anglo-American comity that resists propaganda, protects liberal institutions, and mitigates class and national antagonisms in the postwar world.
