Matt, don't take what I'm about to type personally, ok? Its just a criticism.
Big Matt said:
I think that he's the combination of "every gun owner in the country" sort of character. Meaning that each person who reads the book can identify with at least one to two aspects, traits, etc of Bowman (perhaps more). He's not supposed to simply be a single, perfect literary character with wonderfully emotive descriptions. Being the personification of the entire gun culture as a whole, to me, lends a bit of light on the issue of his being too good to exist in real life. In this way the reader provides the missing emotion such as shame, disgust, fear, what-have-you that Henry Bowman of the book is missing.
So I'm supposed to round out the character by inserting myself into his shoes? That's really not how good characters are developed, nor something any decent author strives for.
Identifying with a character and
connecting with him is a whole that different that saying, "Hey, you know, he sounds a little like me . . . except for these glaring blank spots . . . so I'll just insert my life experiences into the story and make him complete."
So I'm supposed to provide Bowman with a moral compass, some healthy relationships, and a whole bunch of sanity borrowed from my life experiences?
That character so far removed that me that there's no way I could even begin to connect with him. I don't think I'd even want to try. Nor do I begin to understand how Bowman represents a combination of the "everyday gun owner". He is about as much like me as my US Senator.
Bowman was independently wealthy. He did not fail at anything he ever tried to do; in fact his skill exceeded beyond any of his peers. He could get any girl he wanted. He hangs out with strippers, and manages to become friends with only the "really smart and stable one." Yeah.
Every guy I knew that
actually hooked up with a stripper thought "his girl" was just there dancing her way for money to complete her MBA, too. Six months and a wrecked life later . . . .
Bowman was among the top 2% of shooters in the country (but if you asked him he'd probably wink and say it's more like the top .005%), and he shot tens of thousands of rounds a season. He owned countless class 3 firearms, and multiple extremely rare, extremely expensive, unique guns. He went on African safaris, and amazingly killed several buffalo to protect himself and a guide who were caught in the middle of a stampede - once again he comes through with narry a scratch. He had no family of his own. He had no friends that I could tell outside of other equally hardcore gun owners.
Looking past all these things, I'm supposed to believe Bowman is representative of me because he was a gun enthusiast?
I'm not sure he represents much of the gun culture at all. But Bowman
is a personification of Ross - and really a kinda creepy one at that.
Richard Kuklinski is of Irish (and Polish) decent. He grew up with an abusive, alcoholic father. He was raised Catholic, but gave up on religion at a young age. He was also very much a gun enthusiast, so knowledgable he could have answered a lot of technical questions here on this board.
But he also happened to be a sociopathic killer. Although his first killing contains elements of self-defense, he goes on to kill between 150 - 200 more. And as he viewed it . . . "the rest were free."
Am I supposed to identify with him, and look past some truly deep character flaws because we share some traits in common? Hell, using this logic why don't we "gunnies" glorify Timothy McVeigh?
Bowman represents me about as much as Charles Whitman or McVeigh did. And in case there's any doubt, that's not at all.