>I may be mistaken, but it does seem to me that Deerslayer is not a work of art in any sense; it does seem to me that it is destitute of every detail that goes to the making of a work of art; in truth, it seems to me that Deerslayer is just simply a literary delirium tremens.
>A work of art? It has no invention; it has no order, system, sequence, or result; it has no lifelikeness, no thrill, no stir, no seeming of reality; its characters are confusedly drawn, and by their acts and words they prove that they are not the sort of people the author claims that they are; its humor is pathetic; its pathos is funny; its conversations are—oh! indescribable; its love-scenes odious; its English a crime against the language.
>Counting these out, what is left is Art. I think we must all admit that.

Damn, Marky, so you really didn't like the book that much, huh?

>>24536134 (OP)
Fenimore Cooper was extremely popular in his day. Reading him now you do wonder why. Have tastes changed so much, or was there simply nothing else available?

The bit with the Indians jumping out of the trees and missing the very large, very slow-moving boat passing under them is all true, exactly as Twain describes it, and it’s just hilarious.

>>24536677
Sometimes I think Twain can be a little too much, but it was a funny, scathing review