Niether Wolf Nor Dog

[kosowith]

I have received a request from an publishing agent asking for anyone who has read the book Neither Wolf Nor Dog to offer pre-publishing comments for the sequel.  They would prefer American Indians (Not related to Dan, Wenona or Grover as they feel this would be seen as self promotion or a conflict of interest) who have positive comments, as this will be used to assist funding, and possibly later on the end flap.  They have two elders from Pine Ridge and one from Sisseton who have already recommended the book, so they would appreciate anyone from any other Indian community if at all possible. Dan’s family would really like to see this book published as a honor to Dan. 

[educatedindian]

I haven't read it, but it sounds like a book we could easily put under NAFPS Recommends.

------------------
 From Booklist
Readers looking for another red-man-departs-wise-words-to-white-man-to-lessen-white- man's-guilt will be disappointed by the tone and content of this work. Realists wanting a truthful, fiery, and, ultimately, cleansing dialogue between Indian and white will definitely want it. Nerburn reluctantly agrees to a meeting with Dan, a Lakota elder who asks him to construct a book from a motley collection of notes, diatribes, and political and social commentaries written over seven decades and kept in an old shoe box. Void of the hypocrisy rampant in many books that have whites adopting the ways of "the great spirit," Nerburn exposes the real truth, which whites are unwilling to face: that in "the hunger to own a piece of the earth, we had destroyed the dreams and families of an entire race." Joined by a dog named Fatback, Dan gives Nerburn the ride of his life as they cross the vast Midwest in Dan's Buick. Along the way, Dan alternates between rage and melancholy, and Nerburn between shame and confusion. Nerburn unintentionally touches nerve after nerve and elicits an almost unbearable flood of anguish and despair. The truth revealed in this book will be difficult for most whites to face, but it is painfully necessary if healing is ever to begin. Kevin Roddy --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

[Zhaanpaxe]

I know that I am coming to this extremely late, but I hope that you will bear with me:

Is this book series and/or it's author problematic? I've heard news of the movie that is being produced of this, so I looked up some reviews after being reminded of it's title tonight. What I found here on the Amazon listing seems to be the author, or at least someone identifying themselves that way, posting rebuttals to most of the critical reviews. What bugs me is that he seems to have a problem with people not liking or understanding his work, but he doesn't seem to post anything to people that give positive reviews. That makes it appear that he is targeting negative reviews in a form of self-elevation.

Here's a sample review with comments (I've formatted it slightly for readability after pasting it here.):


23 of 32 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Out wannabe-ing the wannabes

By Herbert V. Leighton on December 31, 2011

On its surface, this book appears to be a non-fiction book by a writer who is meticulous about factual details. It turns out that nothing could be farther from the truth. It presents itself in the style of an anthropologist or an historian, but it contains a strong mixture of fiction.

This book was selected this year to be the "Common Book" at Winona State University in 2006-2007, where many English classes all read the book, and then the author came and spoke about it. On Tuesday, March 20, 2007, at 1 p.m., Nerburn spoke to a group at WSU about the book. In that talk, he admitted that the basic plot of the book was fiction. When challenged about the fact that the book passes itself off as non-fiction, he said, "What is truth? Is a Van Gogh painting true? This book is true in that way." He said that the book was largely stitched together from the "out-takes" from his project on the Red Lake Reservation, plus conversations and observations on Lakota reservations.

There are several problems with the fact that Nerburn presents the text with all the trappings of a social science observation, while much of the book is fiction. First, he admits that the words he places in the mouths of his characters come largely from the Anishinabe (Ojibway, Chippewa) people, but he puts them in the mouths of Lakota characters. I am told that this is a major faux pas: the two groups have widely divergent group perspectives.

Second, throughout the text, he carefully sprinkles references to turning on and off his tape recorder. The (fictional) characters emphasize the need for him to get their words and the context of their words correct. The (fictional) characters denigrate white wannabes, who embrace native culture for the wrong reasons: because they have rejected mainstream Western values. The (fictional) characters claim that they are usually cautious about the possibility that whites are going to exploit the native experience for their own purposes, but these same (fictional) characters acknowledge that he is different, more genuine. While Nerburn claims that many of the words in the book are indeed from the mouths of people who are ethnically American Indian, the plot and the context of those words are fictionalized. But the emotional peak of the book is the almost religious epiphany where the author gains forgiveness for the sins of the whites. And that epiphany apparently is fiction. So his constant references to authenticity can be seen as an attempt by the author to hide his own exploitation of the native experience.

The writer doth protest too much, methinks.

April 2012: I have read over the statement that the author has posted on his website about what he means by the truth of the book. I interpret his explanation to mean that the book is true in a metaphorical sense, even if not all details are factually true. To me, that means that the book is a parable. But the text presents itself as factually true in the details. Image if, in the gospels, Jesus was telling a story about the good samaritan, and he explained how he had to keep turning the tape recorder off. And the samaritan insisted he get the story exactly right. I would have a hard time with that, too.


    Showing 4 of 4 comments

martha Stephens 1 year ago

Nerburn is a fake. I felt that as soon as I read a few lines on his website. The pity of it is that readers fall for so much fakery of this kind. Look at all the five-star, taken-in reviews. His book is true but not true, he says. Come on. He presents his actions and those of his characters as having happened, and they didn't happen. End of story. It makes a tremendous difference whether we read a story as fact or fancy. He's out to sell books and make money, period.


William Hoy 2 years ago

I too was present for Nerburn's admission to the fictive nature of this book. His later comment found here, I find, is disingenuous. The book was presented as non-fiction. It's selection by WSU done for this reason, its use in the classroom was dependent upon its non-fiction status. It was a wonderful read. I enjoyed it, but I understand Leighton's review. Nerburn's defense rings hollow, as did James Frey's. The work was presented and marketed as non-fiction, as an account of real people. If anyone is guilty of faulty and distortive perspectives it is Kent Nerburn and his publisher, not Mr. Leighton.


SteveNY 3 years ago

this review is well written and clear; however the reviewer focuses entirely on what he sees as problems and falseness in the book.

He misses entirely the beauty, enjoyment or thought provoking content that the book also offers.

Perhaps his review would be more appropriate for a scientific peer review.

Forest or trees? The review is focused on cracks he perceives in certain trees, and appears to entirely miss the forest. The forest itself is beautiful; the forest offers us quietude and reflection, even with imperfections on the path.

 
Dr. K 3 years ago

This exceedingly intelligent reviewer, sadly, misunderstands or "misremembers" what was both said and intended in the speech given five years ago. Why he would choose to cite it at this date is another question altogether. But he raises questions that deserve consideration, though he addresses them from what I would consider a faulty and distortive perspective that will lead the reader to faulty and distorted conclusions. For those interested in the issue of "fact" and "fiction" in this book and its sequel, The Wolf at Twilight, I would encourage you to visit my website at kentnerburn.com and click on the blog for April 22nd, 2010. I believe you will find it helpful in understanding the inaccuracies and misperceptions in this post by Mr. Leighton.

All my best,

Kent Nerburn


Also, could anyone that has read the book give their opinion, especially in view of what this forum exists to expose?