Larry McMurtry ranks Texas cities: Houston, Austin, Ft Worth, & Dallas (San Antonio: club, centers)

[R1070]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

And that's absolutely non-existent in Dallas, right? C'mon, now. We could sit here and back and forth about in which city that motif is the most prevalent, but it can't really be proven.

From my perspective, Houston sits at too many regional and cultural crossroads to be truly Texan. Hell, the REAL cowboys of this city eat crawfish and listen to zydeco. That's not Texan lol.

Justme and R1070, I know you two aren't natives, so I'm wondering, just how familiar are y'all with Texas outside of the big cities?

I guess I was basing some of that from this forum. Houston posters are always saying it's better down there because they have the biggest or tallest of something in the state and the oil industry is based out of Houston. Dallas obviously looks more typical Texas than Houston, but is not on the same level as San Antonio and Fort Worth when it comes to what outsiders view of being typical Texas.

[Nairobi]

Originally Posted by R1070

I guess I was basing some of that from this forum. Houston posters are always saying it's better down there because they have the biggest or tallest of something in the state and the oil industry is based out of Houston. Dallas obviously looks more typical Texas than Houston, but is not on the same level as San Antonio and Fort Worth when it comes to what outsiders view of being typical Texas.

So you base your opinion off of the postings of a select few posters...most of whom aren't even native Houstonians?

I never suggested Dallas was the most Texan, but I feel it is more so than Houston.

[R1070]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

So you base your opinion off of the postings of a select few posters...most of whom aren't even native Houstonians?

I never suggested Dallas was the most Texan, but I feel it is more so than Houston.

Well of course. Everyone knows the information here is all fact. And I do think Dallas is more Texan than Houston. That's one thing I love about Dallas. It has that wide open frontier feel about it.

[lonestar2007]

Originally Posted by TX75007

The Pulitzer is a sham and has been for some time. And yes, BBM was the ruin to Larry's reputation. I laughed my way through Lonesome Dove so I could keep myself awake. Larry is a good story teller, but that does not make him a good author. If you take the time to read through the diaries of the period he writes about, some of which I have in my possession, they tell a different picture.

And if you grew up in and worked in and are related to the remnants of that culture, you would see a different picture. I have and still can roundup and push 5000 head by myself on horseback or foot. I've dogged tens of thousands of calves. I've killed many, many things. I have seen men die over silly accidents. Lonesome Dove is to literature what dude ranching is to real ranching.

I know people are fond of Lonesome Dove, but it has some serious flaws both as a retelling as as a serious work of art. It is not art by any stretch of the imagination.

As for BBM. I have worked with cowboys who were gay and I have relatives who grew up in that culture and are gay - and they HIDE IT - for the exact reasons I stated. Larry has not, and neither has Annie Proulx. Like I said, he is a schtick writer. And she is a New England Blue Blood. They desecrated something they did not respect and they trivialized some very tough decisions that others have abided by. BBM is not art, its a trick pony to make some New York intellectuals happy.

Cormac is on another level above Larry for many reasons. He and Elmer Kelton pretty much own their genres.

Larry is a good story teller, but that does not make him a good author. ???? Regarding a fictional novel, I don't even get this statement. Afterall, fictional is . . .well, ah, well, duh, fiction! LOL The top priority to a good fictional novel is good story telling!

I know people are fond of Lonesome Dove, but it has some serious flaws both as a retelling as as a serious work of art. It is not art by any stretch of the imagination. I take it you have a certain definination of art and the art world is bound by your determination on the subject. BTW, what is your definination of 'art'? With all the art forms out there, how is it you decide a certain novel is not and I quote " not art by any stretch of the imagination." I sense some unfounded arrogance seeping in here.

But actually, what really caught my attntion in yur post is this remark "I have and still can roundup and push 5000 head by myself on horseback or foot." Really? I mean seriously, really? Ok, am I the only one reading this who gets a visual on it? 5,000 head and you are talking cattle, right? OK, well, hmmm, well, lets visualize 5,000 head of cattle, shall we? Now let's visualize one lone person on horseback or on foot rounding these animals up, ok? Now assuming the number of animals there are, we're talking a large area of land involved, right? OK, Now let's all remember it's 5,000 head, a large expanse of land and one person rounding them up.

OK, let's say in whatever world it is you are doing this in, you manage to round up these 5,000 head. Now you are going to push (or drive) them somewhere, right? I'm sorry, I really can't get a visual on this. You might push 5,000 head by your lonesome, but it will be down a fenced alley way and that's the only feasible way it will happen in real life.

But hey, this is what I would say could be the start of a purely fictionl novel. :

[Trafalgar Law]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

I'd hardly say that Atlanta is behind. It can hold its own against the other three.

On what basis is it as cosmopolitan as Washington, Houston, Miami, and Dallas. Two of those (Washington and Houston) can probably best even Chicago and the other two are powerful, Dallas for it's variety and Miami for it's top heavy but powerful Euro and Latino demographics.

[lonestar2007]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

...because you and that other poster know every single cowboy in America and know every aspect of their personal lives?

As far as what you feel their punishment should be, I hope you feel the same way about those who engage in heterosexual extramarital relationships; otherwise, that might just make you a bigot.

Oh please, spare us. Everyone in the world has certain strong feelings or opinions about certain things and for others to immediately jump in with the accusation of bigot or racist anytime those opinions are expressed is pathetic. Simply because you want to appear to be so politically correct does not give you the right to throw out terms such as bigot when it suits you. Hell, everyone in the world is a bigot or racist to some extent (I'm talking different degrees here, to be sure) and to protest this in what I know is coming in loud and living colors is IMO nothing more than a hypocritical, posturing pretense on your part and everyone knows it, regardless if they admit it or not. LOL Gots to be politically correct, ya know!

So old hat.

[Nairobi]

Originally Posted by valentro

On what basis is it as cosmopolitan as Washington, Houston, Miami, and Dallas. Two of those (Washington and Houston) can probably best even Chicago and the other two are powerful, Dallas for it's variety and Miami for it's top heavy but powerful Euro and Latino demographics.

Atlanta is a worthy competitor, for Dallas especially. I'm not the stats guy, so don't hold me to this, but I believe that it now has the largest African population in the South. It also has an impressive European population. I never said it was equal to the others; just that it's probably not as far behind as you previously suggested.

[Metro Matt]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

So you base your opinion off of the postings of a select few posters...most of whom aren't even native Houstonians?

I never suggested Dallas was the most Texan, but I feel it is more so than Houston.

Dallas' topography is more stereotypical "Texan"....wide open, black land prairie for as far as the eye can see with sparse and/or shorter tree canopies, especially when away from natural water sources such as creek beds, rivers, & lakes. Its very obvious from the air. Most people automatically think desert or prairie when they think of Texas & Dallas falls in the later category.

Houston does't look anything how outsiders envision Texas to appear. Its very lush/green year round & is semi-tropical. The northern half of the metro area with I-10 as the dividing line is densely forested with 80' tall pine trees mixed in with palm trees (Northern Florida) while the other half south of I-10 is coastal plains, bayous, & wetlands. It gets even more tropical looking the closer towards the coast you get. The palms start appearing by the thousands...you'd almost swear you were in central or southern Florida by the time you get south of 610 & Beltway 8.

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

Atlanta is a worthy competitor, for Dallas especially. I'm not the stats guy, so don't hold me to this, but I believe that it now has the largest African population in the South. It also has an impressive European population. I never said it was equal to the others; just that it's probably not as far behind as you previously suggested.

Atlanta does have the largest African population in the South. Dallas has the second largest and Houston has the third largest.

I didnt realize that was the basis for importance?

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

Originally Posted by Metro Matt

Cowboy hats are far & away outnumbered by burka's in Houston & its immediate suburbs unless you're referring to rural areas like New Caney, Crosby, Cleveland, Dayton, Liberty, Tomball, Hempstead, & Sealy...than yes, I can agree with you.

Ok, but you can say the same thing about Dallas. The Muslim population in Dallas and Houston are almost exactly the same size. Burkas will definitely outnumber Cowboy hats in Dallas as well as the populated areas of Collin and Denton Counties. Tarrant county is a different story.