56 pages • 1-hour read
Joan DidionA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Content Warning: This section includes discussion of racism.
Didion lists some of the major landowners in the American West, who accumulated sometimes millions of acres. Henry Miller, one of the largest landowners, did this by buying land from veterans and manipulating the state’s land reclamation legislation. These landowners didn’t see themselves as farmers, and Didion quotes several studies on California agriculture to explain the capitalistic attitude of these men. However, there is still a pervasive attitude in California that this early period was one of traditional agrarianism. Didion quotes Jane Hollister Wheelwright’s 1988 memoir reflecting on the sale of her grandfather William Welles Hollister’s ranch—the namesake for the city of Hollister. Jane lovingly describes the wide tracts of land that were her playground growing up, and the threatening but welcoming wilderness.
The memoir, Didion notes, shies away from the material details of the ranch’s corporate operation, including the dispute over the ranch’s division and sale. Didion recalls how her father went to university with one of Jane’s siblings, who couldn’t finish the program during the Depression because the family refused to sell any land. Though Jane contends that no one can really own the land, Didion lists all the major corporate entities that do own land and dictate how it is used.
Didion traces her family’s other connections to the Hollister family from the South Pacific Railway’s early presidents to her father, herself, and her brother living in the same Berkeley student housing as the Hollisters. Despite these connections, Didion sees an extreme division among California’s citizens, particularly between urban and rural and among coastal and interior communities. For example, Sacramento in Northern California, isolated by the mountains, produced a more Bohemian-style culture that preferred things that were historic. Here, to be Californian was to be unaffected by the larger changes in the country.
The landscape also influences this idealized Californian self-perception. The Yosemite Valley in particular inspired poetic and artistic exaltation, and other unique features drew out both a heroic enthusiasm and nihilistic sense of smallness. Didion acknowledges that she, too, when thinking about what being Californian means, first thinks about the land. She references two men, naturalist John Muir and poet Robinson Jeffers, and their extreme visions of California as a place, at its most pure, unaffected by man’s exploits. Both men, as well as Josiah Royce, lauded the permanence of California’s landscape in comparison to civilization’s fleeting structures.
Didion once travelled to the southern states to get a better understanding of California, since so many settlers came from this area. She found the major difference was that Californians believed humans could have no impact on the land.
Didion briefly recounts painter Thomas Kinkade’s rise to being one of California’s most popular and profitable artists. Kinkade painted quaint, fairytale-like scenes of cottages in landscapes, and he became famous for his use of light, known as the “Kinkade glow.” Didion compares this glow to the kind of misty illumination found in Albert Bierstadt’s grand paintings of the California landscape. Kinkade too was moved by the divine grandeur of California’s mountains, and he painted Yosemite National Park after visiting with his family.
Didion argues that Kinkade and Bierstadt’s paintings are more alike than they first appear, as they both sentimentalize and revise California into a place without moral ambiguity. For example, Bierstadt’s Donner Lake from the Summit is a triumphant depiction of a landscape completely devoid of the suffering it caused. Didion contrasts this inspirational, bloodless painting with a quotation from Virginia Reed, a member of the Donner-Reed party, who wrote about how grateful she was to not be one of the people who ate human flesh to survive.
Didion moves to an analysis of Californian and American identity in Jack London’s 1913 novel The Valley of the Moon, which follows a young orphan, Saxon Brown, who befriends another orphan, Billy Roberts, in Oakland. Both Saxon and Billy see themselves as descendants of “true” Americans. In a passage Didion quotes, Billy and Saxon discuss their parents’ crossings to the West. Billy explains that his father was taken by Indigenous Americans as a child and then rescued and adopted by a miner. He finished the crossing with the miner’s party.
The pair bond over their mothers making the crossing as infants, and they are elated to be from such “old American stock” (78). They later express grievances about immigrants who seem to be crowding out “real” Americans. Didion explains that this disdain for “foreigners” was extreme in the early days of California, and according to scholars like Carey McWilliams, xenophobia was the white settlers’ method of solidifying their communities. Didion lists several of the laws from the period that applied only to “foreigners.”
Later in the novel, Saxon and Billy seek out government land which they understand as their due and repayment for the suffering their parents endured on their crossings. When they finally receive land in Sonoma County, their vision of the place is tinged with the Kinkade glow. Didion quotes a passage of the characters’ first sight of the seemingly magical land and the mysterious but benevolent old couple who welcome them. Much like in London’s own life, Saxon and Billy determine to make the land flourish through scientific agriculture. However, despite his experiments and grand vision of leaving behind a better land than he found, London’s farming efforts were a failure, and he died in 1916.
In 1872, a group of the working press and free-spirited artists founded the San Francisco Bohemian Club. Members met regularly in town and at their out-of-town retreat, the Bohemian Grove. Though it was against their edict, the Bohemian Club eventually invited the wealthy men of Californian society to join, and by 1970 a large majority of club members came from the largest corporations in America. The club became a gathering for America’s elite, with high-ranking government officials like Dwight Eisenhower, Henry Kissinger, and both George Bushes visiting the annual retreat. At these retreats, members held informal talks, sang old university songs, and enacted traditional tableaux.
Didion views the transformation of the Bohemian Club into a gathering of state and corporate powers as a case study of California’s larger political and economic changes. Henry George, one of the club’s founding members, once described Californians as a people uniquely self-reliant and optimistic about their ability to enrich themselves. Didion quotes George’s essay “What the Railroad Will Bring Us,” in which he warns his readers that the railroads—and with it, new swaths of people, growing industry, and rapid urbanization—will not encourage greater independence but rather will stratify the classes further. George was one of the few people asking questions about the impacts of the railroad’s corporate monopoly.
The essay, Didion proposes, came too late in a process already well underway of the state selling off its land to outside entities for quick enrichment. Josiah Royce noted that Californians’ major flaw was a “general sense of social irresponsibility” (89) when there was money to be made, and Didion suggests that this feeling of speculative individualism persists.
These chapters elaborate on The Romanticization of History and the Land, focusing here on how misty visions of California’s landscape factor into one’s identity. To illustrate how nostalgia can obscure reality, Didion includes discussions of two women who inherited large parcels of ranch land in the postwar era from families who bought the land in the pioneer days. In the women’s discussion of the places where they grew up, Didion exposes a tendency to gloss over the commercial operations on this land in favor of depictions of wild, untouched landscapes.
For example, Jane Hollister describes the ranch she grew up on as “square miles of impassable terrain, wild cattle threatening on the trail, single coyotes caterwauling like a pack, pumas screaming, storms felling giant oaks, washouts that marooned us for days, wildfires that lasted weeks and scorched whole mountain ranges” (56). From such a wild description, Didion argues, a reader would never guess that the ranch supported one of the largest cattle operations in the state. Joan Irvine similarly collects paintings that depict this pre-industrial time because it reminds her of the scenes of her childhood.
Both women express sadness that these landscapes of their adolescence no longer exist due to the demands of commercialism and industry, though they do not identify their own families’ roles in this change. Didion argues that the romanticization of the land leads the women to see themselves as descendants of a simple agrarian lifestyle that never really existed; their ancestors were enterprising businessmen who saw the land as a means to make a profit. These discussions foreshadow Didion’s later hypothesis that Californians will always be uncritically nostalgic for the land as it was in their childhood.
Didion expands on The Contradictions of Californian Identity, centering here on the confused understandings of social responsibility. Didion’s childhood lessons from her grandfather exemplify the stories Californians are told about their duties to their community. Her grandfather taught her that killing rattlesnakes was the “code of the West” (96), as by killing the dangerous animal now, she was protecting future people from danger. Despite these altruistic principles, Didion argues that Californians are extremely isolated from one another, which leads them to look at their neighbors with flippancy and even disdain.
Money is also a major complicating factor in California’s social duties. Didion alludes to Henry George’s “What the Railroad Will Bring Us” to explain the Californian penchant for uncritical opportunism and personal enrichment. George was one of the few people asking questions about what handing over the state’s land to a railroad would mean for the citizens of California. George concludes, “The truth is, that the completion of the railroad and the consequent great increase of business and population, will not be a benefit to all of us, but only to a portion” (88). Even though there were dangers of labor exploitation and social system stress, the state and citizens enthusiastically welcomed the railroad because it promised to make them rich.
Didion uses the San Franscico Bohemian Club as an allegory for this willingness to sell out to the highest bidder for quick wealth. What started out as a group for radical artists pushing back against the norm turned into a meeting and consolidation of corporate and governmental powers, all because the early members needed a quick influx of money to support their activities. The promise of wealth was a core tenet of California that prompted pioneers to make their treacherous journeys west, and Didion here illustrates that such beliefs persisted long into the 20th century.



Unlock all 56 pages of this Study Guide
Get in-depth, chapter-by-chapter summaries and analysis from our literary experts.