Woolly’s suicide took me completely by surprise. I never thought of him as depressed, but of course that’s often the case with people who commit suicide, no one around them sees the signs. I agree he seemed a lot like Forrest Gump.
I thought that Dutchess was sort of a tragic hero. I think he was basically a good guy with a totally warped sense of right and wrong. His upbringing did him no favors. He was certainly trouble to have around.
Almost forgot this discussion started on Aug. 1! I really liked the book, in spite of everything others have already mentioned. A large part of it is I love how Towles writes, plus the storyline grabbed me.
That said, there are definitely several “issues.” For me, one of the biggest is Billy. No 8 year old is that capable, wise, smart and/or well-spoken. He cracked the safe code in 6 tries??? Is Towles just totally out of touch with children that age, or was this an intentional part of the story? If so, to what end?
IMO Duchess is certainly “bad news,” but perhaps not as “evil” as Pastor John. He does bad things, but then turns around and does good things, like letting Townhouse settle the score with him and having Billy do a full accounting of the money he spent from the stash in the trunk of Emmett’s car. Speaking of Emmett – he “wimps out” too many times, just going with the flow.
The search for Professor Abernathe reminded me of “The Wizard of Oz” storyline. And one more thing that jumped out at me – the 2 women were Sarah and Sally. IMO it’s a bit of an odd name choice, since Sally is/has been a nickname for Sarah.
Can someone help explain Billy’s comment that Duchess couldn’t read when they were at the house, and Duchess having his meltdown.
Did I miss something, did you know Duchess couldn’t read ?
There was a sign in the room with the guns that said to remove the firing pins before storing them. If Duchess could read, he would have known this and therefore known the guns couldn’t fire. At least that’s my take. Since Duchess pointed the guns as if they could fire, Billy figured Duchess couldn’t read.
I wondered the same thing. Billy was some kind of changeling, not a real boy. Capable beyond belief – such as the scene when he leads the group from the Empire State Building back to the vagrants’ camp by the tracks. (“‘You take that next right,’ said Billy,” etc.) No problem at all navigating his way through the City of New York and beyond!
(Just as an aside question for all of you: Who are some of your favorite–realistic!–child characters in literature?)
And Billy had earlier clues as well:
-Who says I can’t read? demanded Duchess.
-You did, explained Billy. First you said that small print gave you a headache. Then you said that reading in cars made you queasy. Then you said that you were allergic to books. (p. 563)
Very true. It’s as if Duchess didn’t mean to be bad, but he didn’t know how to be good. He tended to grab onto a terrible idea and not let go. And he definitely couldn’t read the room. Like when Emmett comes to the summer home, finds Woolly dead upstairs and discovers Duchess hammering away at the safe, and Duchess says happily, “Emmett! Boy, am I glad to see you!”
Yeah, Pastor John was evil. I thought we saw the last of him when Ulysses threw him off the train. Was his reappearance really necessary to the story?
I’ve lurked since August 1. I haven’t added anything yet, mainly because I read the book in January.
Oops: I see @Mary13 just clarified the following for me.
I knew Duchess couldn’t read or swim. Hints were dropped in early. Billy read something to him early in the book, maybe more than once. I forget the exact excuses but something along the lines of something in his eye or read it to me while I do whatever. Duchess refused to swim back when the boys slipped out to see a movie (or something like that). Again Duchess had an excuse.
I like the book, but more than that I like how Towles writes. A Gentleman in Moscow and The Lincoln Highway: did the same author even write them? I mean that in a good way. Towles doesn’t repeat himself.
Re Duchess: I think of him as the catalytic character.
A catalyst character, also called the impact character, is a supporting character who in some way does something to annoy or urge the main character to take action and start the show. He is also the Jungian archetype called the Magician. Although Jung may see him as a visionary, this character is usually the shaker-upper of the status quo. A catalyst in a work of fiction can surely be an event or another force other than a character, but in this editorial, we shall concentrate on when the catalyst is a character.
The catalyst character can be likened to the spark that lights the fuse. It is, therefore, a very good idea to create him before plotting the story extensively. One thing to keep in mind is: the catalyst character’s action hints at the psychological foundations of the story. This is because the true natures of the various characters are glimpsed during the catalyst’s action. On the other hand, while the other characters may change by the end of the story, the character arc of the catalyst character usually stays flat.
To choose a catalyst character we need to keep in mind these facts:
The catalyst character connects to the other characters in some way. He may be a friend or a rival. He could also be a coach or a father figure. He could also turn out as an antagonist or the ally to the antagonist.
I figured Duchess as a picaresque hero:
… a picaresque hero is in no way a virtuous person. He often emerges as a low character who resides in an infamous social structure. No hamartia is there to mold his fate. Wits are the ultimate tool that forces him to design his destiny. He is the architect of his future, and it is up to him to decide whether he should fit for a job or whether he should hold on to a job.
The most significant contrast between a tragic and a picaresque hero is that the latter never enjoys any improvement in his character. It means a rogue always remains a rogue. Even if he is put in a better social environment, he can’t afford any changes in his rogue characters. The primary thing is a tragic protagonist always tries to maintain a positive development in his thoughts. But a change of heart is a rare or almost impossible trait for a picaresque hero.
Moreover, because of the wit, a picaro often never reaches the point of criminality, although his character obtains immoral, dishonest behavior. And, most surprisingly this characteristic helps him to emerge as the sympathetic outsider. Unlike a tragic hero, he is more realistic with no exaggeration in his character. That means he lives in a society that never opens up any scope for imaginative or false rules.
https://makewordslouder.com/define-a-contrast-between-a-tragic-and-a-picaresque-hero
And off the Duchess topic for a moment: @Mary13 hit the nail on the head with her thoughts on why Sally appeared in the story at all. She bothered me till Mary wondered if Towles needed a female presence no matter how ill-fitted into the tale.
Billy already figured out Duchess couldn’t swim. (let’s ignore the perspicacity for now)
So he’s already tuned into the idea that Duchess fakes competence
And as a reader, Billy would have clearly stopped to read the sign
So, allowing for the improbable Billy…
My (pen)ultimate take … it’s a flawed book but I’m glad I read it. I felt anxious for the characters at various points, which for me is a sign of engagement.
I think the Dungeons & Dragons model may work here. Characters can be good - neutral - evil, and on the other axis they may be chaotic- neutral - lawful.
Billy: lawful - good
Emmett: lawful - neutral
Wooley: neutral - good
Duchess: lawfull - chaotic
Pastor John: evil - chaotic
@ignatius, those literary descriptions for the Duchess category were right on the nose. I never even heard of a catalyst character. So apt.
@stradmom, Congrats, I think that’s the first time the D & D model has been used in one of our discussions. Works quite well!
Could also add Ulysses: lawfulish/good
@stradmom, also, in addition to the D and D comparison, might be the first time “ perspicacity” has been used too. I had to look it up 
I quite like the sound of that word.
@ignatius 
kudos for those character development concepts
! Both fit Duchess exactly, and as a serious author, Stanford grad school for literature after attending Yale, it’s as if Towles, followed those elements exactly! EXACTLY.
@ignatius in an interview Towles said he modeled Sally after his beloved mid western grandmother( maybe named sally ) She was a positive force, someone he greatly admired, and yes, she put up preserves, and canned fruits. Hearty, down to earth strong willed stock he explained.
@ignatius, from your excellent link and info about the “catylast” character
“ We need to choose the catalyst character carefully and avoid forcing just any character into this role he is not meant to have.
The catalyst character’s possible traits may be:
having different or higher standards than the other characters ———duchess’s mission to correct the errors of the past, both his and others ( I was so relieved he never found his father it frightened me)
having negative feelings toward the protagonist or some other aspect in the story
duchess thought Billy was chump and at Empire State Building had bad intentions
consciousness-raiser
duchess more experienced in world wanted to enlighten others - circus with Emmett, warned Sarah about medicine
mysterious, mystical, or idealistic in a good or evil way
Duchess’s intention to right the wrongs of the past,to bring Justice, balance the ledger, seemed idealistic and definitely in a good ( treats for kids)and in most evil way too ( violence )
![Bullet|15x15]
(https://images2.writing.com/imgs/writing.com/writers/e21/bullet.png “Bullet”) Imaginative, clear, charismatic or antagonistic
![Bullet|15x15]
In interview Towles described Duchess as charismatic, someone he had to live wiht for years, while writing
(https://images2.writing.com/imgs/writing.com/writers/e21/bullet.png “Bullet”) does rarely change himself as the result of his change-making
Blinded by his greed, his psychotic break at the house, especially in the boat, his greed, cost him dearly
@Mary13 agree with Billy was an unbelievable character, but in interview KQED, Towles is asked about that. He answers by saying he had young children, and he found them to be open to world, fresh eyes, accepting, wise even, and can teach us things about the world. He said that is how he saw the relationship with brothers, billy could teach the jaded, Emmett about the world.
From La Times
From article
“Billy has other plans. He functions as the deus ex machina of the book; not only does he set events in motion, he also has an almost magical ability to pull just the right story out for the strangers he meets along the way — mainly from “Professor Abacus Abernathe’s Compendium of Heroes, Adventurers, and Other Intrepid Travelers” — a gift from the Morgen town librarian.
The book-within-the-novel is both a convenient source of nested tales and a thematic vector, indicating Towles’ commitment to wrestling with classic Americana — that braid of fact, fiction and derring-do so many of us recognize as a birthright, for better or worse. Billy’s own corn-fed idealism leavens the sometimes-bleak travails along our heroes’ journey.
The Lincoln Highway can take people east and west but not north and south, nor high nor deep. Journeying beyond that single axis requires the alchemy of Abernathe, the infusion of fiction, adventure, myth. In one of the best scenes in this lovely new novel, Billy meets a Black man named Ulysses whose World War II post-traumatic stress disorder has distanced him from both his family and himself. When Billy explains the origins of the name “Ulysses” to him, relying again on Professor Abernathe, the man is moved to tears. Stories can bring us back to ourselves, Towles seems to say, if only we are open to receiving their power.
But no story, no matter how powerful, can endow Towles’ Ulysses, a man of color in 1950s America, with the freedom that even the poorest white characters in “The Lincoln Highway” take for granted. Think of Colson Whitehead’s “[The Nickel Boys]”
I was relieved, too, but I was also surprised, from a structural standpoint. Duchess was getting closer and closer, but then the story went in a different direction. I was also relieved that he never used the Louisville Slugger. He finds it and waxes poetic about its ability to do violence:
In shape and principle, a Louisville Slugger couldn’t be that different from the clubs our ancestors used to subdue wildcats and wolves. And yet, somehow it seems as sleek and modern as a Maserati. The gentle tapering of the shaft that ensures a perfect distribution of weight…The lip at the base that catches the heel of the hand to maximize the strength of the swing without allowing the bat to slip from your grasp…Carved, sanded, and polished with the same devotion that’s brought to the crafting of violins and ships, a Louisville Slugger is simultaneously a thing of beauty and a thing of purpose (p. 368).
And that’s only part of it. He goes on to talk about the satisfying swing and crack of a bat and says, “You can forget your two-by-fours, your frying pans, and your whiskey bottles. When it comes to dispensing justice, all you need is a good old American baseball bat.”
So…under the principle of Chekhov’s gun, that bat should have reappeared in the story in a significant way, but it never does.
Chekhov’s gun is a dramatic principle that states that every element in a story must be necessary, and irrelevant elements should be removed. Elements should not appear to make “false promises” by never coming into play.
I think Towles ignores generally accepted dramatic principles quite a few times in The Lincoln Highway – which is why the book is fun to read, but also why it’s a little frustrating, and a little too long. Lots of tangents.
Maybe he developed Duchess character, with so much anger and violence, we were kept on edge of seats hoping, fearing that train wreck, meeting the father, never happened. As you said why it made it a page turner……….
I was surprised when Duchess was playing the piano! Talented.
I had a friend in college, a guy, as we walked through a small student lounge in a dorm, he asked me do you like pop or classical music. Well, it turned out he was a most talented pianist, at young age gave concert in large venue! I didn’t know at all! That scene brought back that incredible moment.
So interesting to think about Chekhov’s gun in the context of this book. It’s almost as though the book is a whole series of red herrings, starting with the title.
Right, since they never traveled the Lincoln Highway!
I enjoy literature and character analysis, but in this case, real life keeps interfering. We all came to this forum because we had college-age children. Who hasn’t spent countless hours worrying about our kids making a stupid mistake that would have lifelong consequences? With teens’ impulsivity, feelings of invincibility, peer pressure, and lack of prefrontal cortex development, there seems to be a ten-year danger zone we all have to cross.
Lincoln Highway takes place over a brief ten-day period, and in that ten days, two 18-year-olds end up dying. Before that, two of them were incarcerated because of impulsive acts. Duchess was so young; was he irredeemable, or could his character and morals improve with time? His view that relationships were accounts to be balanced wasn’t very sophisticated and led him to unacceptable violence, but it showed he’s not a sociopath. He does have consideration of others that isn’t just selfish.
Great discussion everyone! I love reading through all the comments and appreciating the book more than I originally thought I did!
I’m going to put Scout Finch from To Kill a Mockingbird on this list. Is her character realistic? I think so. She is another precocious child, but her impulsivity fits her age. The story is also told from her point of view, so we can allow for some embellishment. Scout jumped into my head because I just saw the play To Kill a Mockingbird. Excellent play. Go see it if you can. After seeing the play, I am now rereading the book.
