Tear in His Eye

Congratulations to Michael Wilmington for his able defense of the Western (“Cowboys and Indians With a Conscience,” Dec. 16). In the ‘40s and ‘50s, Westerns were moral tales, practically allegories of our role in World War II (the peace-loving hero, essentially a rescuer, is goaded to action against evil forces). Being about beginnings (establishing civilization, building new lives) gave Westerns vigor.

But starting in the late ‘60s, concurrently with Vietnam, Westerns aged into either amoral blood baths (the Italian imports) or sad-eyed elegies to a past era (“The Wild Bunch,” “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” many others). They came to be about the end of something. Followed literally, “Dances With Wolves” fits this elegiac pattern, yet the overall feel of the work is vigorous rather than mournful.

Though Wilmington’s essay is primarily aimed at critics, the unanswered question is: Does the modern Western have an audience? “Dances With Wolves” and the TV miniseries “Lonesome Dove” prove the answer is yes, provided the work is good. Quality transcends genre. Younger viewers, not subjected to the overload of TV Westerns of past decades, may not have much shared knowledge of Westerns, but neither do they have the prejudices. Currently, there is enough of the form on TV (“The Young Riders,” “The Guns of Paradise,” “Bordertown”) to generate substantial new interest. Two or three well-made Westerns a year will indeed find an audience.

BRUCE H. THORSTAD

Fountain Valley