The fact that while these books were being written and published, the people they were about were being ethnically cleansed from New York—that is a very uncomfortable fact.
You've made me curious to read Mohicans at the least. Years ago I heard a prof say that Cooper created the central theme of many westerns (a genre I read and write in), the frontiersman who no longer has a place in the post-frontier world. That's the theme of Shane and The Searchers (both novels before they were films) among many others. Thanks!
I agree with your prof! These books are Westerns. Especially THE PRAIRIE, the third novel of his. It has all the tropes of the western: the settlers, the prairie, the covered wagons.
I came on here to comment on Washington Irving! Glad I'm not the only one. Admittedly I'm biased: I'm from Irvington, AKA Sleepy Hollow, where he lived. But he really does strike even adult me as good--surprisingly ironic and subtle; clearly writing for a European as well as American audience.
My favorite high school English teacher always maintained that American literature began with Benjamin Franklin and Washington Irving. Irvington sounds like a cool place to come from, part of my protectiveness/territoriality about Twain is that I'm also from Missouri and have fond memories of going up the river to his hometown Hannibal on a childhood trip with my Dad.
Irving is a master stylist. Glad to see others going to bat for him.
American literature began with the oral tradition, IMO. Perhaps the best evidence for that (or rebuttal to your teacher) is Irving's postscript to "Rip Van Winkle," where Diedrich Knickerbocker acknowledges his indigenous sources.
"In old times, say the Indian traditions, there was a kind of Manitou or Spirit, who kept about the wildest recesses of the Catskill mountains, and took a mischievous pleasure in wreaking all kind of evils and vexations upon the red men. Sometimes he would assume the form of a bear, a panther, or a deer, lead the bewildered hunter a weary chase through tangled forests and among ragged rocks, and then spring off with a loud ho! ho! leaving him aghast on the brink of a beetling precipice or raging torrent.
The favorite abode of this Manitou is still shown. It is a rock or cliff on the loneliest port of the mountains, and, from the flowering vines which clamber about it, and the wild flowers which abound in its neighborhood, is known by the name of the Garden Rock. Near the foot of it is a small lake, the haunt of the solitary bittern, with water-snakes basking in the sun on the leaves of the pond-lilies which lie on the surface. This place was held in great awe by the Indians, insomuch that the boldest hunter would not pursue his game within its precincts. Once upon a time, however, a hunter who had lost his way penetrated to the Garden Rock, where he beheld a number of gourds placed in the crotches of trees. One of these he seized and made off with it, but in the hurry of his retreat he let it fall among the rocks, when a great stream gushed forth, which washed him away and swept him down precipices, where he was dished to pieces, and the stream made its way to the Hudson, and continues to flow to the present day, being the identical stream known by the name of the Kaaterskill."
It actually was cool, though I didn’t always appreciate it at the time. The geography hasn’t changed that much and his house is still there. Just as you say, growing up in the landscape gives you a sentimental connection to the work.
He's a ironist, essayist, and short story writer rather than a novelist and his pieces aren't all even. But he's got an intriguing voice. His main volumes are The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon and Tales of a Traveller; The Sketch Book made him famous and was better regarded, but I probably prefer Tales of a Traveller.
Agree with this completely, but would add that imho A History of New York is maybe the best thing he ever did (make sure you read the first version, he watered it down a little every time it was reprinted...) Sort of like if Laurence Sterne wrote a satirical history. Also, the Legend of Sleepy Hollow is well worth anyone's time. Quite a lot going on there, actually.
“Cooper refuses to traffic in convenient myths that the Indians were either noble savages or were uncivilized Goshoots” — this observation made me think of Graeber & Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything, especially the early chapter on Kondiaronk/Indigenous intellectuals. Might be an interesting corollary read!
The part of Dawn of Everything you’re referring to on indigenous intellectuals is one of my favorites parts of the books, but even there they play fast and loose with the truth in order to reach some completely unsubstantiated conclusions (David Bell, a scholar of the Enlightnment, takes them to task for this).
I don’t mean to be combative—anytime I see someone recommend the Dawn of Everything I get excited that people are being drawn towards anthropology and the great questions Graeber and Wengrow ask about humanity.
But I do think anyone who’s read or is considering reading the book should know that they miss wildly quite often, and heavily massage their sources (with the occasional outright fabrication) in order to support their conclusions.
This isn’t me being offended by their anarchist or left-wing commitments—the real issue is how tightly they hold into the idea that variation in human society is primarily a matter of choice, and how far they go in order to make sure they reach that conclusion.
There have been many fantastic reviews of the book by specialists which expose these faults. Some of the best I’ve read are:
- Early Cities in The Dawn of Everything: Shoddy Scholarship in Support of Pedestrian Conclusions by Michael E. Smith
- Wrong About (Almost) Everything’ – a review of ‘The Dawn of Everything’ by David Graeber & David Wengrow
- All things being equal by Nancy Lindisfarne and Jonathan Neale
- Gender egalitarianism made us human: patriarchy was too little, too late by Camilla Power
- Hunter-gatherers: Perspectives from the starting point by Polly Wiessner
- Resetting History’s Dial? A Critique of David Graeber and David Wengrow, The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity by Walter Scheidel
I’d also highly recommend the YouTube/podcast series critiquing the book by the channel What is Politics, and there have been a few great lectures put out by the Radical Anthropology Group that focus on how the book gets human origins and egalitarianism so wrong (they’re a group of anthropologists who primarily study hunter-gatherers and human origins, and they have a fascinating lecture series available to the public). The best lectures by the Radical Anthropology Group on the subject to start with are probably:
- Camilla Power: Did gender egalitarianism make us human?
- Egalitarianism made us human: why Graeber and Wengrow get it wrong, by Camilla Power
- Is male dominance natural? by Chris Knight
- Women's resistance sparked the human revolution by Chris Knight with Camilla Power
As a place to find answers, The Dawn of Everything may miss the mark, but it’s done a great job in getting these conversations started.
Anyway, I do feel a bit strange having written so much in the comments section of a post I really enjoyed but am just now acknowledging when that’s what brought me here in the first place. Thank you Naomi for providing me with another opportunity to get lost in your writing. It is always time well spent.
Okay but now I feel like maybe I shouldn't read _The Dawn Of Everything_ if everything in it is wrong. This is a great comment though. It's a book I've definitely wanted to read, but I've certainly had concerns about the potential for inaccuracy.
From what I've seen, the critics of the book are more agenda-driven than the authors.
"As a place to find answers, The Dawn of Everything may miss the mark, but it’s done a great job in getting these conversations started." But that's the whole point! Unlike this commenter, the authors aren't assured that they know what the answers are - they're just convinced that the traditional interpretations are incomplete and/or wrongheaded.
Love these pieces about old classics that have gone in or out of fashion. My own great discovery was ROBINSON CRUSOE by Daniel Dafoe, wich I loved and found fascinating in the same way you are enjoying these books.
Robinson Crusoe! I should re-read that. I remember feeling a little underwhelmed. The Defoe I really loved was JOURNAL OF THE PLAGUE YEAR. But I generally find that anything that underwhelmed me ten years ago will thoroughly whelm me if I re-read it today
Naomi, very good essay. I've not read any Cooper since I was a boy (I read a lot). I've spent a lot of time in Western New York and Appalachia, and now spend a fair amount in Indian Country in the West, and the questions Cooper raises and you discuss -- pondering. As i said, this is a really good essay, one of the best of yours I've read. Thanks.
I read The Deerslayer in high school and remember enjoying it but not much else. But I also read Uncle Tom's Cabin and I feel that book is truly maligned—people just take it for granted that it was bad. There are definitely aspects of it that are stickily sentimental and I don't think I'd fight for it to go in the Very Highest Tier Of Literature for that reason. But the B tier, yes.
Uncle Tom's Cabin is good! Definitely belongs in the b tier (along with, say, The Great Gatsby). I think the real reason we don't read it is that now you've got all these enslaved person narratives (largely published after UTC was) and they often contain many of the same tropes and situations as UTC, but they're also actually by Black people, so you...know.
..just feels better to teach and read something like Twelve Years a Slave or Life of Harriet Jacobs.
I mean that makes sense teaching-wise to me—but I think if you're going to use it as an example in your work of a "significant but bad novel" (or w/e) you should probably go read it yourself.
Just to let you know, I read Last of the Mohicans, inspired by your post, and loved it! Thanks for opening up the "slightly-taboo-out-of-date" classics.
I have a gorgeous edition of The Last of the Mohicans that has never been read. I think I need to put it on my 2025 TBR. I'm new here, so I don't know if you've covered James or not. I have not read Huckelberry Finn, but I have decided to read James first and then Huckelberry Finn.
Glad to see others sticking up for Irving. His prose is fantastic. And he was a huge influence on Hawthorne. Does he make some misogynistic jokes about Dame Van Winkle? Assuredly. But Rip is no hero either.
Irving teaches well alongside the Hudson River School painters. Scenes from "Rip Van Winkle" and "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" map nicely onto "The Oxbow" and other works.
His fictitious historian, Diedrich Knickerbocker, is pure gold. There's a lot to love in "The Sketch Book."
As for Cooper, I think there are some fair questions about whether he hews too closely to the Noble Savage trope. But Benjamin Franklin does, too. Whether generosity alone excuses it is another question. I think there is a case to be made that the Romantic Other is a head fake that distracts us from colonial violence.
Not all the savages in Cooper are noble. There's plenty of ignoble ones too. And Chingachgook also acts quite frequently in ways that Bumppo doesn't agree with, as when he endangers his life in THE PATHFINDER to take a scalp. I think Cooper interrogates the noble savage trope much more than he's given credit for.
Really enjoyed this post. Just put a hold on the audiobook of Mohicans at my library. I have read Irving's "Sleepy Hollow" many times. I think with your background in sci-fi, you'll like it. It's weird and inventive and just a lot of wtf creeps in all the best ways. And it anticipates other things/writers, so to me it has a kind of a fascinating over-layer to it as well.
I read THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS at the age of 12 or so and I thought it was great. But I never read anything else by Cooper. Perhaps I should try again! (Though I did think some of those dialogue sections a bit clunky -- not the "elegant" ones, the ones trying to represent the frontiersman's voice.)
I don't think Natty Bumppo is meant to be the typical frontiersman. The other frontier characters in his other books, especially Ishmael in THE PRAIRIE and Hurry Harry in THE DEERSLAYER, are much more rough-hewn and realistic. Natty Bumppo is an attempt to imagine what a noble frontiersman might look like.
"I've been enjoying them so much that I'm starting to wonder if they might actually be good."
That's Brilliant!!
You've made me curious to read Mohicans at the least. Years ago I heard a prof say that Cooper created the central theme of many westerns (a genre I read and write in), the frontiersman who no longer has a place in the post-frontier world. That's the theme of Shane and The Searchers (both novels before they were films) among many others. Thanks!
I agree with your prof! These books are Westerns. Especially THE PRAIRIE, the third novel of his. It has all the tropes of the western: the settlers, the prairie, the covered wagons.
I just read "My Emily Dickinson" where Susan Howe talks a lot about James Fenimore Cooper. I'll have to check him out.
Thanks for giving Cooper a boost. I'll definitely be giving him a look.
Cooper in any way better than Twain, the GOAT Missourian? Them's fightin' words!
Do give Washington Irving a read -- fashionable or not, he's not a stuffed period piece like Longfellow and Stowe.
I came on here to comment on Washington Irving! Glad I'm not the only one. Admittedly I'm biased: I'm from Irvington, AKA Sleepy Hollow, where he lived. But he really does strike even adult me as good--surprisingly ironic and subtle; clearly writing for a European as well as American audience.
My favorite high school English teacher always maintained that American literature began with Benjamin Franklin and Washington Irving. Irvington sounds like a cool place to come from, part of my protectiveness/territoriality about Twain is that I'm also from Missouri and have fond memories of going up the river to his hometown Hannibal on a childhood trip with my Dad.
Irving is a master stylist. Glad to see others going to bat for him.
American literature began with the oral tradition, IMO. Perhaps the best evidence for that (or rebuttal to your teacher) is Irving's postscript to "Rip Van Winkle," where Diedrich Knickerbocker acknowledges his indigenous sources.
"In old times, say the Indian traditions, there was a kind of Manitou or Spirit, who kept about the wildest recesses of the Catskill mountains, and took a mischievous pleasure in wreaking all kind of evils and vexations upon the red men. Sometimes he would assume the form of a bear, a panther, or a deer, lead the bewildered hunter a weary chase through tangled forests and among ragged rocks, and then spring off with a loud ho! ho! leaving him aghast on the brink of a beetling precipice or raging torrent.
The favorite abode of this Manitou is still shown. It is a rock or cliff on the loneliest port of the mountains, and, from the flowering vines which clamber about it, and the wild flowers which abound in its neighborhood, is known by the name of the Garden Rock. Near the foot of it is a small lake, the haunt of the solitary bittern, with water-snakes basking in the sun on the leaves of the pond-lilies which lie on the surface. This place was held in great awe by the Indians, insomuch that the boldest hunter would not pursue his game within its precincts. Once upon a time, however, a hunter who had lost his way penetrated to the Garden Rock, where he beheld a number of gourds placed in the crotches of trees. One of these he seized and made off with it, but in the hurry of his retreat he let it fall among the rocks, when a great stream gushed forth, which washed him away and swept him down precipices, where he was dished to pieces, and the stream made its way to the Hudson, and continues to flow to the present day, being the identical stream known by the name of the Kaaterskill."
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2048/2048-h/2048-h.htm#link2H_4_0008
It actually was cool, though I didn’t always appreciate it at the time. The geography hasn’t changed that much and his house is still there. Just as you say, growing up in the landscape gives you a sentimental connection to the work.
PS Really enjoyed the piece as well!
OMG this is Peak Substack!!!! I _knew_ someone would recommend that I read Washington Irving. Okay, which book of his should I read? Any recs?
He's a ironist, essayist, and short story writer rather than a novelist and his pieces aren't all even. But he's got an intriguing voice. His main volumes are The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon and Tales of a Traveller; The Sketch Book made him famous and was better regarded, but I probably prefer Tales of a Traveller.
Agree with this completely, but would add that imho A History of New York is maybe the best thing he ever did (make sure you read the first version, he watered it down a little every time it was reprinted...) Sort of like if Laurence Sterne wrote a satirical history. Also, the Legend of Sleepy Hollow is well worth anyone's time. Quite a lot going on there, actually.
Great post!! Wow.
“Cooper refuses to traffic in convenient myths that the Indians were either noble savages or were uncivilized Goshoots” — this observation made me think of Graeber & Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything, especially the early chapter on Kondiaronk/Indigenous intellectuals. Might be an interesting corollary read!
The part of Dawn of Everything you’re referring to on indigenous intellectuals is one of my favorites parts of the books, but even there they play fast and loose with the truth in order to reach some completely unsubstantiated conclusions (David Bell, a scholar of the Enlightnment, takes them to task for this).
I don’t mean to be combative—anytime I see someone recommend the Dawn of Everything I get excited that people are being drawn towards anthropology and the great questions Graeber and Wengrow ask about humanity.
But I do think anyone who’s read or is considering reading the book should know that they miss wildly quite often, and heavily massage their sources (with the occasional outright fabrication) in order to support their conclusions.
This isn’t me being offended by their anarchist or left-wing commitments—the real issue is how tightly they hold into the idea that variation in human society is primarily a matter of choice, and how far they go in order to make sure they reach that conclusion.
There have been many fantastic reviews of the book by specialists which expose these faults. Some of the best I’ve read are:
- Early Cities in The Dawn of Everything: Shoddy Scholarship in Support of Pedestrian Conclusions by Michael E. Smith
- Wrong About (Almost) Everything’ – a review of ‘The Dawn of Everything’ by David Graeber & David Wengrow
- All things being equal by Nancy Lindisfarne and Jonathan Neale
- Gender egalitarianism made us human: patriarchy was too little, too late by Camilla Power
- Hunter-gatherers: Perspectives from the starting point by Polly Wiessner
- Resetting History’s Dial? A Critique of David Graeber and David Wengrow, The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity by Walter Scheidel
I’d also highly recommend the YouTube/podcast series critiquing the book by the channel What is Politics, and there have been a few great lectures put out by the Radical Anthropology Group that focus on how the book gets human origins and egalitarianism so wrong (they’re a group of anthropologists who primarily study hunter-gatherers and human origins, and they have a fascinating lecture series available to the public). The best lectures by the Radical Anthropology Group on the subject to start with are probably:
- Camilla Power: Did gender egalitarianism make us human?
- Egalitarianism made us human: why Graeber and Wengrow get it wrong, by Camilla Power
- Is male dominance natural? by Chris Knight
- Women's resistance sparked the human revolution by Chris Knight with Camilla Power
As a place to find answers, The Dawn of Everything may miss the mark, but it’s done a great job in getting these conversations started.
Anyway, I do feel a bit strange having written so much in the comments section of a post I really enjoyed but am just now acknowledging when that’s what brought me here in the first place. Thank you Naomi for providing me with another opportunity to get lost in your writing. It is always time well spent.
Okay but now I feel like maybe I shouldn't read _The Dawn Of Everything_ if everything in it is wrong. This is a great comment though. It's a book I've definitely wanted to read, but I've certainly had concerns about the potential for inaccuracy.
From what I've seen, the critics of the book are more agenda-driven than the authors.
"As a place to find answers, The Dawn of Everything may miss the mark, but it’s done a great job in getting these conversations started." But that's the whole point! Unlike this commenter, the authors aren't assured that they know what the answers are - they're just convinced that the traditional interpretations are incomplete and/or wrongheaded.
thank you for taking the time to write all of this out — will look into these recommendations. I’m under-read in anthropology & excited to learn more!
Had that same thought and agreed!
Love these pieces about old classics that have gone in or out of fashion. My own great discovery was ROBINSON CRUSOE by Daniel Dafoe, wich I loved and found fascinating in the same way you are enjoying these books.
Robinson Crusoe! I should re-read that. I remember feeling a little underwhelmed. The Defoe I really loved was JOURNAL OF THE PLAGUE YEAR. But I generally find that anything that underwhelmed me ten years ago will thoroughly whelm me if I re-read it today
Naomi, very good essay. I've not read any Cooper since I was a boy (I read a lot). I've spent a lot of time in Western New York and Appalachia, and now spend a fair amount in Indian Country in the West, and the questions Cooper raises and you discuss -- pondering. As i said, this is a really good essay, one of the best of yours I've read. Thanks.
Thank you, David. I really appreciate that. It means a lot.
I read The Deerslayer in high school and remember enjoying it but not much else. But I also read Uncle Tom's Cabin and I feel that book is truly maligned—people just take it for granted that it was bad. There are definitely aspects of it that are stickily sentimental and I don't think I'd fight for it to go in the Very Highest Tier Of Literature for that reason. But the B tier, yes.
Uncle Tom's Cabin is good! Definitely belongs in the b tier (along with, say, The Great Gatsby). I think the real reason we don't read it is that now you've got all these enslaved person narratives (largely published after UTC was) and they often contain many of the same tropes and situations as UTC, but they're also actually by Black people, so you...know.
..just feels better to teach and read something like Twelve Years a Slave or Life of Harriet Jacobs.
Great Gatsby is B tier? Am fascinated by your tier list!
I mean, you know...it's not Proust or the Iliad =] But it's still a really good book
I mean that makes sense teaching-wise to me—but I think if you're going to use it as an example in your work of a "significant but bad novel" (or w/e) you should probably go read it yourself.
Agreed! The problem is I can't think of any significant novels that I have read that I can confidently state are bad.
Just to let you know, I read Last of the Mohicans, inspired by your post, and loved it! Thanks for opening up the "slightly-taboo-out-of-date" classics.
I have a gorgeous edition of The Last of the Mohicans that has never been read. I think I need to put it on my 2025 TBR. I'm new here, so I don't know if you've covered James or not. I have not read Huckelberry Finn, but I have decided to read James first and then Huckelberry Finn.
Thanks for this! I really enjoy reading Cooper; his descriptions are like watching a movie in my head.
Glad to see others sticking up for Irving. His prose is fantastic. And he was a huge influence on Hawthorne. Does he make some misogynistic jokes about Dame Van Winkle? Assuredly. But Rip is no hero either.
Irving teaches well alongside the Hudson River School painters. Scenes from "Rip Van Winkle" and "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" map nicely onto "The Oxbow" and other works.
His fictitious historian, Diedrich Knickerbocker, is pure gold. There's a lot to love in "The Sketch Book."
As for Cooper, I think there are some fair questions about whether he hews too closely to the Noble Savage trope. But Benjamin Franklin does, too. Whether generosity alone excuses it is another question. I think there is a case to be made that the Romantic Other is a head fake that distracts us from colonial violence.
Not all the savages in Cooper are noble. There's plenty of ignoble ones too. And Chingachgook also acts quite frequently in ways that Bumppo doesn't agree with, as when he endangers his life in THE PATHFINDER to take a scalp. I think Cooper interrogates the noble savage trope much more than he's given credit for.
Really enjoyed this post. Just put a hold on the audiobook of Mohicans at my library. I have read Irving's "Sleepy Hollow" many times. I think with your background in sci-fi, you'll like it. It's weird and inventive and just a lot of wtf creeps in all the best ways. And it anticipates other things/writers, so to me it has a kind of a fascinating over-layer to it as well.
Oh man, so many people are speaking up for Washington Irving! Wow! I really gotta be reading this guy too!
I read THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS at the age of 12 or so and I thought it was great. But I never read anything else by Cooper. Perhaps I should try again! (Though I did think some of those dialogue sections a bit clunky -- not the "elegant" ones, the ones trying to represent the frontiersman's voice.)
I don't think Natty Bumppo is meant to be the typical frontiersman. The other frontier characters in his other books, especially Ishmael in THE PRAIRIE and Hurry Harry in THE DEERSLAYER, are much more rough-hewn and realistic. Natty Bumppo is an attempt to imagine what a noble frontiersman might look like.