What do you think?
Rate this book
Daniel Boone
Awarded the John Newbery Medal 'for the most distinguished contribution to American literature for children' in 1940, James Daugherty has dipped his pen and his brush into our nation's most dynamic character whose life adventures are more exciting than the shadowy legend his name brings to mind. Daniel Boone was a farmer who couldn't stay put. Something was always pulling him westward into new and mysterious lands, and when this pull got so strong that he could no longer ignore it, and his wife and children could not persuade him to stay, he just went, with his toes pointing into the West and his eyes glued to the hills. The rugged sweep which has always distinguished Mr. Daugherty's illustrations and painting distinguishes his epic prose here as well, and makes for perfect portrayal of the vigorous character of Daniel Boone. It is interesting to recall that among the first book illustrations which Mr. Daugherty ever did were his interpretations of this same character for Stewart Edward White's "Daniel Boone".
94 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1939
8 people are currently reading
2480 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 150 reviews
August 29, 2014
This book was only 100 pages, but what a terrible 100 pages it was. I don't even want to talk about it.
March 30, 2008
A biography about a person like Daniel Boone could try to tell you what he did or to tell you who he was. In such a short space as this, those are really the author's only two options. An especially skilled writer might be able to give you a really strong sense of who the person is by way of telling everything he did, but James Daugherty was not that writer.
This thing reads like an unending list of exploits with almost no dialog and far, far too many names and places. Cornelia Meigs does the same thing with Invincible Louisa, seeming to find it necessary to let you know every name of historical significance the biography's subject encounters. For the typical young reader, most of these names will mean nothing. Why wouldn't the writer instead focus on a few important people, and spend time turning the subject into a person, and not just some dead guy kids have to do reports on?
Daniel Boone is a man who loved his family, the writer tells us, but very little in the book backs that up. This account of Boone's life could have been so much better if it had turned the folk hero into a human being, rather than merely to define the folk hero.
Don't read it. Seriously. Unless you're a completist who's trying to read all the Newbery winners or some kind of Daniel Boone fan, don't read this book.
This thing reads like an unending list of exploits with almost no dialog and far, far too many names and places. Cornelia Meigs does the same thing with Invincible Louisa, seeming to find it necessary to let you know every name of historical significance the biography's subject encounters. For the typical young reader, most of these names will mean nothing. Why wouldn't the writer instead focus on a few important people, and spend time turning the subject into a person, and not just some dead guy kids have to do reports on?
Daniel Boone is a man who loved his family, the writer tells us, but very little in the book backs that up. This account of Boone's life could have been so much better if it had turned the folk hero into a human being, rather than merely to define the folk hero.
Don't read it. Seriously. Unless you're a completist who's trying to read all the Newbery winners or some kind of Daniel Boone fan, don't read this book.
February 26, 2020
The nicest thing I can say about this book is that it was EXTREMELY difficult to get a hold of. The book is not in any of my local libraries, including the university libraries. It is not on any e-book formats and it is no longer in print. This is extremely rare for a Newbery Award winner, but if you read the book, you would understand the efforts made to take it out of circulation. It is racist, romanticizes manifest destiny, and is dull, dull, dull to read.
There are many who argue that we can't judge a book written in the 1930's by today's standards. In some ways, that is true. I understand that what is acceptable for children has changed over the years. I understand that our cultural sensitivity has developed (and hopefully will continue to develop). And, I understand that the acceptable language we use for different cultural groups has changed. For example, I understand that this book uses terminology such as "Indian" and "Negro" instead of "American Indian" or "African American."
What I most object to, is the dehumanization of a group of people. Especially when the author presents evidence to the contrary in his own book. Here is a passage I can't stop thinking about:
On page 39, Daugherty speaks of the American Indian chiefs. "Amid their burning villages and the awful butcheries and sickening betrayals of friends and foes, they met the personal tragedy of violent death with a serene indifference."
First of all, this is the only mention of the horrors the American Indians suffered, because the rest of the book glorifies it, using racist and cliched adjectives that I refuse to repeat. (If you really want to know the level of racist language Daugherty used, you can find it in plenty of other Goodreads reviews). But what really perplexes me, is the phrase "serene indifference." The passage is followed by a quote from a speech given by Red Jacket of the Seneca tribe. I'm going to quote the entire passage that Daugherty quotes and then you tell me if you think Red Jacket is "indifferent" to the treatment of his people.
"There was a time when our forefathers owned this great island. Their seas extended from the rising to the setting sun. the Great Spirit had made it for the use of the Indians. All this He had done for His children because He loved them.
"But an evil day came upon us. Your forefathers crossed the great water, and landed on this island. Their numbers were small. They found friends, not enemies. They told us they had fled from their country in fear of wicked men and had come here to enjoy their religion. They asked for a small seat. We took pity on them, granted their request, and they sat down among us. We gave them corn and meat. They gave us poison in return.
"The white people had now found our country. Tidings were carried back and more came among us yet we did not fear them. We took them to be friends. They called us brothers. We believed them, and gave them a large seat. At length their numbers had greatly increased. They wanted more land. They wanted our country. Our eyes were opened, and our minds became uneasy. Wars took place. Indians were hired to fight against Indians and many of our people were destroyed. They also brought strong liquor among us. It was strong and powerful and has slain thousands. You have now become a great people and we have scarcely a place left to spread our blankets. You have got our country, but are not satisfied. You want to force your religion on us.
"You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agreed, as you can all read the book?
"We do not understand these things."
The chapter ends there, with no commentary from Daugherty. He read that quote in AMERICAN MEMORY, edited by Henry Beston. He read those words of Red Jacket and then wrote an entire book of ninety-five pages of text and illustration justifying the killing of these people and the taking of their lands. For children. And I don't understand how he could say that the chiefs looked upon this with "serene indifference." And it's not okay. It's not okay by 2020 standards and it's not okay by 1939 standards. Because it's not okay.
So, I'm super glad that this book was hard to find. I had to buy it used and even used editions of this book are hard to come by and often expensive. So, I'd like to make an offer. If you're still reading this review and you want to read this book because you, like me, are on some weird quest to read all the Newbery Award winners, no matter how awful the award winner is, then private message me and I'll send you this book. First come, first serve.
There are many who argue that we can't judge a book written in the 1930's by today's standards. In some ways, that is true. I understand that what is acceptable for children has changed over the years. I understand that our cultural sensitivity has developed (and hopefully will continue to develop). And, I understand that the acceptable language we use for different cultural groups has changed. For example, I understand that this book uses terminology such as "Indian" and "Negro" instead of "American Indian" or "African American."
What I most object to, is the dehumanization of a group of people. Especially when the author presents evidence to the contrary in his own book. Here is a passage I can't stop thinking about:
On page 39, Daugherty speaks of the American Indian chiefs. "Amid their burning villages and the awful butcheries and sickening betrayals of friends and foes, they met the personal tragedy of violent death with a serene indifference."
First of all, this is the only mention of the horrors the American Indians suffered, because the rest of the book glorifies it, using racist and cliched adjectives that I refuse to repeat. (If you really want to know the level of racist language Daugherty used, you can find it in plenty of other Goodreads reviews). But what really perplexes me, is the phrase "serene indifference." The passage is followed by a quote from a speech given by Red Jacket of the Seneca tribe. I'm going to quote the entire passage that Daugherty quotes and then you tell me if you think Red Jacket is "indifferent" to the treatment of his people.
"There was a time when our forefathers owned this great island. Their seas extended from the rising to the setting sun. the Great Spirit had made it for the use of the Indians. All this He had done for His children because He loved them.
"But an evil day came upon us. Your forefathers crossed the great water, and landed on this island. Their numbers were small. They found friends, not enemies. They told us they had fled from their country in fear of wicked men and had come here to enjoy their religion. They asked for a small seat. We took pity on them, granted their request, and they sat down among us. We gave them corn and meat. They gave us poison in return.
"The white people had now found our country. Tidings were carried back and more came among us yet we did not fear them. We took them to be friends. They called us brothers. We believed them, and gave them a large seat. At length their numbers had greatly increased. They wanted more land. They wanted our country. Our eyes were opened, and our minds became uneasy. Wars took place. Indians were hired to fight against Indians and many of our people were destroyed. They also brought strong liquor among us. It was strong and powerful and has slain thousands. You have now become a great people and we have scarcely a place left to spread our blankets. You have got our country, but are not satisfied. You want to force your religion on us.
"You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agreed, as you can all read the book?
"We do not understand these things."
The chapter ends there, with no commentary from Daugherty. He read that quote in AMERICAN MEMORY, edited by Henry Beston. He read those words of Red Jacket and then wrote an entire book of ninety-five pages of text and illustration justifying the killing of these people and the taking of their lands. For children. And I don't understand how he could say that the chiefs looked upon this with "serene indifference." And it's not okay. It's not okay by 2020 standards and it's not okay by 1939 standards. Because it's not okay.
So, I'm super glad that this book was hard to find. I had to buy it used and even used editions of this book are hard to come by and often expensive. So, I'd like to make an offer. If you're still reading this review and you want to read this book because you, like me, are on some weird quest to read all the Newbery Award winners, no matter how awful the award winner is, then private message me and I'll send you this book. First come, first serve.
August 23, 2015
The reviews of the this book are actually better than the book, not that the book is poorly written. Just written and illustrated at a different time. Polital Correctness has jaded peoples views of how the United States came to be. It wasn't all peaches and cream, your ancestors had to do what they could to make a life for them and their families.
Read
January 15, 2016This is the kind of book that America just doesn't make anymore. It is a big, brawling, unapologetic, overblown paean to Manifest Destiny. Daugherty approaches his subject with lusty, overwrought prose that shows no fear of syntax or awkwardly chosen metaphors. The man is literally unable to craft a page of text without throwing some awful boner of poor word choice or sentence composition. I'm still laughing over the description of cradles overflowing with babies or nut trees showering young lovers with their meaty bounty.
I forced myself to give this anti-masterpiece less than five stars because of the prevalent racism. The notorious passage about shooting a Shawnee boy outside his burning house is truly stomach-churning, but after that the racism descends into the inanely quaint folly of yesteryear. ("Red varmints!") Of course, if you don't see how racism could ever be inanely quaint, then it will probably ruin the whole book for you.
I would recommend this book to Ed Wood fans and anyone who enjoys epic failure. I would never, ever, use it in a classroom uncensored. Even after censoring, its only possible use is as an example of gorgeously terrible writing.
I forced myself to give this anti-masterpiece less than five stars because of the prevalent racism. The notorious passage about shooting a Shawnee boy outside his burning house is truly stomach-churning, but after that the racism descends into the inanely quaint folly of yesteryear. ("Red varmints!") Of course, if you don't see how racism could ever be inanely quaint, then it will probably ruin the whole book for you.
I would recommend this book to Ed Wood fans and anyone who enjoys epic failure. I would never, ever, use it in a classroom uncensored. Even after censoring, its only possible use is as an example of gorgeously terrible writing.
August 2, 2020
This is the hardest Newbery medal winner to acquire. It's been out of print for years, and with good reason. The writing is at times overwrought, half the time you don't know when in time you are with his kids going from little to married in a matter of pages. Daniel Boone comes off like an idiot who can't be bothered to sign a piece of paper so he's not homeless toward the end. It's whitewashed, racist and stuffed with manifest destiny. The drawings of Indians were often disturbing as well, really trying to show them to be evil. Definitely can't recommend it to anyone not trying to check it off the Newbery list.
September 1, 2016
Ugh, just when I thought the Newberys were getting better, this happened. This book is a mess. It goes without saying that the story of Daniel Boone is going to be filled with all kinds of problematic notions of Manifest Destiny, racism, and disgustingly unquestioning patriotism, but this was even worse than I imagined. The author neatly sums up the entire story at one point with this awful sentence: "The spirits of the forest were beaten and the white gods prevailed."
But on top of the hideous, violent content of this book, the writing is just terrible. I mean, nearly every noun and verb is modified by one to three adjectives or adverbs, and the syntax is so muddled that I had difficulty at times deciding whether there were any subjects at all in some of the sentences. The story itself wanders all over the place, dropping characters in and out with hardly any explanation, leaving huge gaps in time and space, and interrupting itself periodically with outbursts of ecstatic patriotism that have nothing whatsoever to do with the plot. Boone as a character is so completely underdeveloped in this BIOGRAPHY that I have no idea what he was really like outside of his love for shooting human and non-human animals.
There is no point mincing words with this one--this book is utter rubbish.
But on top of the hideous, violent content of this book, the writing is just terrible. I mean, nearly every noun and verb is modified by one to three adjectives or adverbs, and the syntax is so muddled that I had difficulty at times deciding whether there were any subjects at all in some of the sentences. The story itself wanders all over the place, dropping characters in and out with hardly any explanation, leaving huge gaps in time and space, and interrupting itself periodically with outbursts of ecstatic patriotism that have nothing whatsoever to do with the plot. Boone as a character is so completely underdeveloped in this BIOGRAPHY that I have no idea what he was really like outside of his love for shooting human and non-human animals.
There is no point mincing words with this one--this book is utter rubbish.
Read
December 10, 2010This book was just "meh". I didn't hate it -- possibly because it really didn't draw that much passion from me. Actually, the thing I felt strongest about was the illustrations. Really not a fan.
I did get a little excited when "the little cavalcade of refugees wound its way sadly north to Culpeper, Virginia." That town is about < -- > this big, and it's where my mother-in-law is from. I've even been there once! So that part was interesting. Who'd have thought it a big enough place to merit a mention in the Daniel Boone story?
Mostly though, this book was just a sort of recitation of activities in a surprisingly matter-of-fact voice. Thus, when talking about "savages" scalping people or the "red man" conducting raids on the fort, it's surprisingly dry and uninteresting. I suppose that for children, it's less bloody and gruesome, but I'm not sure this was better. In fact, now that I think of it, Caddie Woodlawn was better done than this. Sad.
The part I liked best was when the settlers elected a representative for the Virginia Assembly: He listened patiently to [his wife], which was unusual, when she told him to remember his manners and not to eat with his knife. He kissed his tall daughters good-by, mounted his handsome Kentucky mare, and rode down to Richmond feeling more embarrassed and uncomfortable than if he had been captured by Indians.
Of course, immediately after reading "not to eat with his knife", I asked myself, "he has daughters?", which just goes to show how poorly this book covers him. I never saw a complete list of all of his offspring (dead or alive), and that in particular bothered me.
So there you have it: I didn't like the illustrations, the author managed to make the settling of Kentucky mundane, and the best part was Daniel's wife telling him not to eat with a knife.
I did get a little excited when "the little cavalcade of refugees wound its way sadly north to Culpeper, Virginia." That town is about < -- > this big, and it's where my mother-in-law is from. I've even been there once! So that part was interesting. Who'd have thought it a big enough place to merit a mention in the Daniel Boone story?
Mostly though, this book was just a sort of recitation of activities in a surprisingly matter-of-fact voice. Thus, when talking about "savages" scalping people or the "red man" conducting raids on the fort, it's surprisingly dry and uninteresting. I suppose that for children, it's less bloody and gruesome, but I'm not sure this was better. In fact, now that I think of it, Caddie Woodlawn was better done than this. Sad.
The part I liked best was when the settlers elected a representative for the Virginia Assembly: He listened patiently to [his wife], which was unusual, when she told him to remember his manners and not to eat with his knife. He kissed his tall daughters good-by, mounted his handsome Kentucky mare, and rode down to Richmond feeling more embarrassed and uncomfortable than if he had been captured by Indians.
Of course, immediately after reading "not to eat with his knife", I asked myself, "he has daughters?", which just goes to show how poorly this book covers him. I never saw a complete list of all of his offspring (dead or alive), and that in particular bothered me.
So there you have it: I didn't like the illustrations, the author managed to make the settling of Kentucky mundane, and the best part was Daniel's wife telling him not to eat with a knife.
May 12, 2017
Blatant racism and violence make this book completely unsuitable for the modern classroom.
Daniel Boone was an interesting character in US history and I would like to see a more balanced modern novel featuring his life. Of course, it wouldn't read like this one which paints him as a hero. James Daugherty sounds like he worshipped at the altar of Daniel Boone. It's pretty distracting really.
This book is really just for those who are out to complete the Newbery book list. Perhaps also for those interesting in studying Native American portrayals in historical fiction or something along those lines.
I did enjoy the style in which the book was written in some small portions, unfortunately, there is just so much racism in the book that it is overall unpleasant to read.
Daniel Boone was an interesting character in US history and I would like to see a more balanced modern novel featuring his life. Of course, it wouldn't read like this one which paints him as a hero. James Daugherty sounds like he worshipped at the altar of Daniel Boone. It's pretty distracting really.
This book is really just for those who are out to complete the Newbery book list. Perhaps also for those interesting in studying Native American portrayals in historical fiction or something along those lines.
I did enjoy the style in which the book was written in some small portions, unfortunately, there is just so much racism in the book that it is overall unpleasant to read.
May 12, 2012
Newbery Winner 1940
Seriously awful as a biography since it paints him as such a folk hero and not an actual person. Maybe okay as a tall tale if not for the horrific depictions of the native Americans. It set my teeth on edge. Bad enough when referencing them as red savages and similar comments, but these types of comments were just ridiculous, they "met personal tragedy of violent death with serene indifference." Really? Is that what it was?
Seriously awful as a biography since it paints him as such a folk hero and not an actual person. Maybe okay as a tall tale if not for the horrific depictions of the native Americans. It set my teeth on edge. Bad enough when referencing them as red savages and similar comments, but these types of comments were just ridiculous, they "met personal tragedy of violent death with serene indifference." Really? Is that what it was?
May 30, 2016
Nope. Nope. Nope.
Would give less than one star, if possible.
Would give less than one star, if possible.
March 12, 2016
And, at last, I dared to read Daniel Boone. It’s a story full of wicked Indians and good-guy white settlers, full of killing and attacking. You can almost see Daniel’s halo and the devil horns of the Indians as you read the story. It is told in the vernacular of Daugherty’s time and it is undoubtedly an interesting and exciting story. Must we pull it from our shelves simply because it is chockfull of opinions and prejudices? Can it not be read as a story without vilifying either the Indians or the white people of the book? What about reading it as a legend, a folk tale, which, of course, it is?
May 29, 2016
Newbery Medal Winner--1940
I love me some frontier stories, but this wasn't as exciting as I was hoping. I mean...it's Daniel Boone! Frontier hero! Instead we just get one vague story after another of Indian massacres and hunting trips. There were a couple interesting tidbits that I learned--like that they tried to court martial Boone and that he was friends with Abraham Lincoln--but overall a not super interesting.
I love me some frontier stories, but this wasn't as exciting as I was hoping. I mean...it's Daniel Boone! Frontier hero! Instead we just get one vague story after another of Indian massacres and hunting trips. There were a couple interesting tidbits that I learned--like that they tried to court martial Boone and that he was friends with Abraham Lincoln--but overall a not super interesting.
February 5, 2025
An interesting read about the life and legacy of Daniel Boone—from his humble beginnings in Kentucky to his conflicts with the English and Native Americans, as well as his surprising friendship in later years with John Audubon. While the biography was engaging, Boone’s repeated movement into Native territory, only to be met with resistance, was disheartening. Naturally, they fought to protect their land—anyone would!
*also a Newbery Winner book!
*also a Newbery Winner book!
June 6, 2013
DISINHERITED SON OF KENTUCKY
This 1940 Newbery Medal winner proves a mixed bag of historical anecdotes masquerading as serious biography by an armchair biographer who also happens to be a talented artist. The oversized format makes it awkward for adults to consider reading on their own as a serious piece of historical writing, though the starkly bold, linear drawings which illustrate the book will hold the interest of rough-and-tumble boys all right. It seems that Daugherty could not decide upon his actual target audience: kids 9-15 or adults.
In a patchwork quilt style he combines direct narrative, lengthy quotes, translated speeches and authenticated facts with what he considers scholarly conjecture. He seems intent to make his work as much of a yarn as his tall-tale inspiration. The highlights of the remarkable career of this canny Kentuckian--who carved trails through primeval forest and mountains, creating the Wilderness Road into vast unexplored territory for the colonists and early Americans—are set forth with tabloid pride. Many men—both white and Native Americans as well as Europeans--were privileged to come into contact with the man who conquered the wilderness with rifle, ax, plow and Bible. Candid and frank he gave his soul for thankless Kentucky and was twice robbed by bureaucracy of his well-deserved land holdings. Was he himself aware of his brushes with men of future destiny? You will have to read this book to learn how the fearless hunter and tracker ultimately kept his final “rendez-vous with destiny.” Fairly interesting reading--especially when referencing known figures of American history--but hardly scholarly.
(June 6, 2013. I welcome dialooe with teachers.)
This 1940 Newbery Medal winner proves a mixed bag of historical anecdotes masquerading as serious biography by an armchair biographer who also happens to be a talented artist. The oversized format makes it awkward for adults to consider reading on their own as a serious piece of historical writing, though the starkly bold, linear drawings which illustrate the book will hold the interest of rough-and-tumble boys all right. It seems that Daugherty could not decide upon his actual target audience: kids 9-15 or adults.
In a patchwork quilt style he combines direct narrative, lengthy quotes, translated speeches and authenticated facts with what he considers scholarly conjecture. He seems intent to make his work as much of a yarn as his tall-tale inspiration. The highlights of the remarkable career of this canny Kentuckian--who carved trails through primeval forest and mountains, creating the Wilderness Road into vast unexplored territory for the colonists and early Americans—are set forth with tabloid pride. Many men—both white and Native Americans as well as Europeans--were privileged to come into contact with the man who conquered the wilderness with rifle, ax, plow and Bible. Candid and frank he gave his soul for thankless Kentucky and was twice robbed by bureaucracy of his well-deserved land holdings. Was he himself aware of his brushes with men of future destiny? You will have to read this book to learn how the fearless hunter and tracker ultimately kept his final “rendez-vous with destiny.” Fairly interesting reading--especially when referencing known figures of American history--but hardly scholarly.
(June 6, 2013. I welcome dialooe with teachers.)
August 5, 2016
I suspect this was chosen for the Newbery because of the "vigor" with which it was written, compared to most children's autobiographies, but I'll take the standard any day. (I read them by the dozen when I was a kid--mostly older ones, like this.)
Notable for the fascinatingly bizarre illustrations, but otherwise, this racist and sort of ridiculous book should probably continue to live in relative obscurity.
Daniel Boone doesn't come off too well, but my favorite part is when the author gets in a dig at his first biographer, who made the story elegant and dull (but the undereducated Daniel Boone loved having such a nice book about himself, apparently).
Notable for the fascinatingly bizarre illustrations, but otherwise, this racist and sort of ridiculous book should probably continue to live in relative obscurity.
Daniel Boone doesn't come off too well, but my favorite part is when the author gets in a dig at his first biographer, who made the story elegant and dull (but the undereducated Daniel Boone loved having such a nice book about himself, apparently).
March 2, 2010
The boys chose this one because it "looked more exciting." We'll see how it goes.
Update - I decided to ditch this book. After seeing the poor reviews I skimmed through it. I felt the writing was all over the place and knew my kids wouldn't understand or like it.
Update - I decided to ditch this book. After seeing the poor reviews I skimmed through it. I felt the writing was all over the place and knew my kids wouldn't understand or like it.
February 7, 2014
This one hasn't aged well, in my opinion. It was a dull retelling of a life full of adventure, and there was almost no contextualization of the conflicts between the Native Americans and the white settlers. Understandable, given the publication date, but not great for today's readers.
Read
August 9, 2015This was a relatively short version of the life of Daniel Boone. It was actually a series of incidents, with long periods of time unaccounted for. Easy reading and well done.
Pictures were lithographs done expressively.
1940 Newbery winner
Pictures were lithographs done expressively.
1940 Newbery winner
April 18, 2015
A childhood favorite with its uncritical view of westward expansion and the settlers.
September 2, 2022
1940 Newbery Winner
Terribly racist towards native Americans, as most pioneer stories are.
Also super long winded and no kid I know would sit through this even if it was good.
I also up until this point confused Daniel Boone and Davey Crockett
Terribly racist towards native Americans, as most pioneer stories are.
Also super long winded and no kid I know would sit through this even if it was good.
I also up until this point confused Daniel Boone and Davey Crockett
April 13, 2021
Hooooooo boy.
I don't know how well it comes across, but I've tried to be fair to these early Newbery winners. While not glossing over their flaws, I've tried to show how each one fits into the emerging story of American children's literature, note the things that each one does well, and place the books in the context of their time.
My friends, all of that fails me when I come to Daniel Boone, James Daugherty's 1940 winner. It's a self-satisfied hymn to racism and Manifest Destiny, accompanied by hideously ugly (and somehow even more racist) artwork by the author. The pacing is terrible, and the prose confuses overuse of adjectives for inspiring writing. It doesn't even work very well as a biography -- it doesn't have a timeline, assumes far too much background knowledge on the part of its readers, and sometimes fails to even refer to its many poorly described characters by their full names.
No libraries in my consortium own Daniel Boone; I had to use the statewide interlibrary loan system to even find a copy to read. It's completely out of print, a distinction that might make it unique in the Newbery canon. Even the most deeply problematic Newbery winners stay in print -- Shen of the Sea, Hitty: Her First Hundred Years, The Matchlock Gun, all are still easily available, straight from the presses. But if, for whatever reason, you want a copy of Daniel Boone, you're going to have to find it on the secondhand market, at prices that are often north of $100.
Part of the problem is that the racism (mostly directed at Native Americans, but with jabs at African Americans as well) so thoroughly permeates the book that it would be impossible to produce an edited version, as was done for The Voyages of Doctor Doolittle and Rabbit Hill, and have more than a pamphlet left. I'm reminded of Roger Ebert, who, when speaking about software designed to remove offensive passages from DVDs, opined, "Theoretically there could be a version of Fight Club suitable for grade-schoolers, although it would be very short."
Daniel Boone himself is a complicated historical figure, and certainly one about whom a fascinating biography could be written. It's hard to get a sense of the man from Daniel Boone, however -- his personality is flattened into a caricature of a frontiersman. I don't feel like I know him much better after finishing the book than I did before I began.
James Daugherty was well-regarded in his day, both as an author and as an illustrator -- he picked up two Caldecott Honors as well, for Andy and the Lion (1939) and Gillespie and the Guards (1957). I haven't read either of those, though I do note that Andy and the Lion at least is still in print. I can say that, at this remove, Daugherty is not a major figure in the history of children's literature. If Daniel Boone is representative of his work, it's easy for me to understand why.
The only remaining question I have is this: is Daniel Boone the worst Newbery winner ever? I think it depends on what criteria you want to use. The other real contender, in my personal view, is Smoky, the Cowhorse. Smoky is probably three times the length of Daniel Boone, and might be the single least interesting book I've ever read; from a purely technical perspective, I'd argue that it's worse than Daniel Boone. But if there's a more nauseatingly racist book among the Newberys, I certainly can't tell you what it might be; I'm unable to come up with a good ethical defense of Daniel Boone, and from that perspective, it might represent the actual bottom of the Newbery barrel.
(This review also appeared at abouttomock.blogspot.com)
I don't know how well it comes across, but I've tried to be fair to these early Newbery winners. While not glossing over their flaws, I've tried to show how each one fits into the emerging story of American children's literature, note the things that each one does well, and place the books in the context of their time.
My friends, all of that fails me when I come to Daniel Boone, James Daugherty's 1940 winner. It's a self-satisfied hymn to racism and Manifest Destiny, accompanied by hideously ugly (and somehow even more racist) artwork by the author. The pacing is terrible, and the prose confuses overuse of adjectives for inspiring writing. It doesn't even work very well as a biography -- it doesn't have a timeline, assumes far too much background knowledge on the part of its readers, and sometimes fails to even refer to its many poorly described characters by their full names.
No libraries in my consortium own Daniel Boone; I had to use the statewide interlibrary loan system to even find a copy to read. It's completely out of print, a distinction that might make it unique in the Newbery canon. Even the most deeply problematic Newbery winners stay in print -- Shen of the Sea, Hitty: Her First Hundred Years, The Matchlock Gun, all are still easily available, straight from the presses. But if, for whatever reason, you want a copy of Daniel Boone, you're going to have to find it on the secondhand market, at prices that are often north of $100.
Part of the problem is that the racism (mostly directed at Native Americans, but with jabs at African Americans as well) so thoroughly permeates the book that it would be impossible to produce an edited version, as was done for The Voyages of Doctor Doolittle and Rabbit Hill, and have more than a pamphlet left. I'm reminded of Roger Ebert, who, when speaking about software designed to remove offensive passages from DVDs, opined, "Theoretically there could be a version of Fight Club suitable for grade-schoolers, although it would be very short."
Daniel Boone himself is a complicated historical figure, and certainly one about whom a fascinating biography could be written. It's hard to get a sense of the man from Daniel Boone, however -- his personality is flattened into a caricature of a frontiersman. I don't feel like I know him much better after finishing the book than I did before I began.
James Daugherty was well-regarded in his day, both as an author and as an illustrator -- he picked up two Caldecott Honors as well, for Andy and the Lion (1939) and Gillespie and the Guards (1957). I haven't read either of those, though I do note that Andy and the Lion at least is still in print. I can say that, at this remove, Daugherty is not a major figure in the history of children's literature. If Daniel Boone is representative of his work, it's easy for me to understand why.
The only remaining question I have is this: is Daniel Boone the worst Newbery winner ever? I think it depends on what criteria you want to use. The other real contender, in my personal view, is Smoky, the Cowhorse. Smoky is probably three times the length of Daniel Boone, and might be the single least interesting book I've ever read; from a purely technical perspective, I'd argue that it's worse than Daniel Boone. But if there's a more nauseatingly racist book among the Newberys, I certainly can't tell you what it might be; I'm unable to come up with a good ethical defense of Daniel Boone, and from that perspective, it might represent the actual bottom of the Newbery barrel.
(This review also appeared at abouttomock.blogspot.com)
August 16, 2011
I can see why some people have said this is the worst Newbery winner, but I would argue there are way too many contenders for that distinction. I had to work to find a copy of it--it is the only Newbery medal winner out of print. If it's good enough to win the medal, shouldn't it stand the test of time and be good enough to remain in print? Also, it is apparent from the ego stroking wording in his opening letter to Colonel Boone that the author has somewhat of a man-crush on him. That's fine, just a little embarrassing for him to spill his guts in a love letter to someone who can't even read it is all. Anyway, enough trying to be funny. In his defense, the illustrations he did for the book are wonderful. I'm always impressed by authors who go the extra mile and include illustrations. On to the real meat and potatoes: quotations that were meaningful to me.
A backwoodsman's account, taken from the autobiography of David Crockett:
"I recollect seeing a boy who was shot down near the house. His arm and thigh were broken, and he was so near the burning house that the grease was stewing out of him. In this situation he was still trying to crawl along; but not a murmur escaped him though he was only about twelve years old. So sullen is the Indian when his dander is up that he had sooner die than make a noise, or ask for quarters."
"Fragments of Indian speeches were written down by white men who listened at the council fires. They have the pathos and solemn grandeur of the last testament of a doomed race."
"You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agreed, as you can all read the book?"
"Just as New England was starting on her own to make an independent nation of contrivers and inventors, of munition-makers and sermon-preachers, so over the mountains to the West another America was making its own kind of democracy, making war with rifle and ax and plow, wiping out the Indians and buffalo, destroying the great forests, and raising up green armies of tall corn in the valley bottoms. One was to be a nation of money-counters and machines, the other a barefooted rail-splitting, haranguing, horse-racing democracy of lean mule-drivers and land-poor, camp-meeting corn-huskers. One stood on the shoulders of black slavery, the other on wage slavery. They were to stand against each other in war and in politics, land against dollars, the few against the many, and yet to be bound together by invisible hands of indestructible union."
A backwoodsman's account, taken from the autobiography of David Crockett:
"I recollect seeing a boy who was shot down near the house. His arm and thigh were broken, and he was so near the burning house that the grease was stewing out of him. In this situation he was still trying to crawl along; but not a murmur escaped him though he was only about twelve years old. So sullen is the Indian when his dander is up that he had sooner die than make a noise, or ask for quarters."
"Fragments of Indian speeches were written down by white men who listened at the council fires. They have the pathos and solemn grandeur of the last testament of a doomed race."
"You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agreed, as you can all read the book?"
"Just as New England was starting on her own to make an independent nation of contrivers and inventors, of munition-makers and sermon-preachers, so over the mountains to the West another America was making its own kind of democracy, making war with rifle and ax and plow, wiping out the Indians and buffalo, destroying the great forests, and raising up green armies of tall corn in the valley bottoms. One was to be a nation of money-counters and machines, the other a barefooted rail-splitting, haranguing, horse-racing democracy of lean mule-drivers and land-poor, camp-meeting corn-huskers. One stood on the shoulders of black slavery, the other on wage slavery. They were to stand against each other in war and in politics, land against dollars, the few against the many, and yet to be bound together by invisible hands of indestructible union."
June 27, 2012
Where do I even begin with this one? I'd been dreading reading this book, because it was an old biography, in the world of children's literature that is not a good thing. Another out-of-print Newbery winner and with good reason. It is racially charged, grumsomely graphic, and sappy. But above all those, I think that the reason this one's no longer in print is that it's boring as tar.
I know, perhaps I'm not fully enjoying the experience because I'm too old or too young; I'm too modern or I've seen my own wilderness; on and on and on...
Nope. This book is boring. There really isn't much else too say, I found everything in this book to be historically sound (race relations included) and even learned alot about Daniel Boone, the man did some fascinating stuff. But this book makes a trek into unknown widerness about as dry as uncooked oatmeal. I believe that if the book was more interesting it would still be published today; we all know that settlers didn't get along with Indians, it's okay to write that stuff into historical fiction (that'd be the historical part).
Perhaps the worst part was that I found myself not caring about what Daniel Boone was doing most of the time. I wanted very much to follow along and hear the stories of several of the side characters though: George Washington, Tom Lincoln, Lewis and Clark, his wife, his daughter, James Audubon, anyone really.
In the end this book was just as big a bust as I expected.
I know, perhaps I'm not fully enjoying the experience because I'm too old or too young; I'm too modern or I've seen my own wilderness; on and on and on...
Nope. This book is boring. There really isn't much else too say, I found everything in this book to be historically sound (race relations included) and even learned alot about Daniel Boone, the man did some fascinating stuff. But this book makes a trek into unknown widerness about as dry as uncooked oatmeal. I believe that if the book was more interesting it would still be published today; we all know that settlers didn't get along with Indians, it's okay to write that stuff into historical fiction (that'd be the historical part).
Perhaps the worst part was that I found myself not caring about what Daniel Boone was doing most of the time. I wanted very much to follow along and hear the stories of several of the side characters though: George Washington, Tom Lincoln, Lewis and Clark, his wife, his daughter, James Audubon, anyone really.
In the end this book was just as big a bust as I expected.
December 13, 2016
I understand that this book is a product of its time (originally published in 1939), so I'll give it a little leeway with that in mind—even if my copy is the tenth printing, from 1964, and is still unchanged. But the incredibly offensive stereotypical representations (both illustrations and textual descriptions) of Native Americans are painful for me as a modern reader, and there is nothing positive about this book that outweighs them. Sure it won a Newbery, but the competition must have been slim that year, because the text is nothing spectacular (not poor, minus the never-ending stereotypes, just unexceptional).
While I think there can be some value for modern children to read historical books that represent an outdated, prejudiced viewpoint (think, LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE, where the fear of Indians is clearly the perspective of Laura Ingalls Wilder as a child, a reflection of her experience, not a Gospel truth), when they are clearly presented as what they are and in contrast to stories that show non-stereotyped representations of Native Americans, I really can't find any value in DANIEL BOONE. This is supposed to be a biography—not an opinion piece or a memoir—and yet it portrays Boone as a hero who can do no wrong and is seemingly persecuted by wicked, savage Native Americans at each turn. Sorry Newbery committee, but this one DOES NOT stand the test of time, and it's certainly not a shame that it is out of print.
While I think there can be some value for modern children to read historical books that represent an outdated, prejudiced viewpoint (think, LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE, where the fear of Indians is clearly the perspective of Laura Ingalls Wilder as a child, a reflection of her experience, not a Gospel truth), when they are clearly presented as what they are and in contrast to stories that show non-stereotyped representations of Native Americans, I really can't find any value in DANIEL BOONE. This is supposed to be a biography—not an opinion piece or a memoir—and yet it portrays Boone as a hero who can do no wrong and is seemingly persecuted by wicked, savage Native Americans at each turn. Sorry Newbery committee, but this one DOES NOT stand the test of time, and it's certainly not a shame that it is out of print.
October 13, 2014
My last Newbery medal winner to read and quite possibly, the worst of the lot. The writing in this book is clearly dated and I don't think I'd want my kid reading some of what is said in the book. Here's a brief passage:
We pursued them until we got near the house, when we saw a squaw sitting in the door, and she placed her feet against the bow she had in her hand, and then took an arrow, and raising her feet she drew with all her might and let fly at us and she killed a man, whose name I believe was Moore. He was a lieutenant and his death so enraged us all that she was fired on, and had at least twenty balls blown through her. This was the first man I ever saw killed with a bow and arrow. We now shot them like dogs; and then set the house on fire, and burned it up with the forty-six warriors in it. I recollect seeing a boy who was shot down near the house. His arm and thigh were broken, and he was so near the burning house that the grease was stewing out of him.
There is no doubt in my mind that this book wouldn't get published today (which might account for the fact that it is out of print). I suspect that the only people who read this book are people like me who are trying to complete reading all Newbery medal winners.
We pursued them until we got near the house, when we saw a squaw sitting in the door, and she placed her feet against the bow she had in her hand, and then took an arrow, and raising her feet she drew with all her might and let fly at us and she killed a man, whose name I believe was Moore. He was a lieutenant and his death so enraged us all that she was fired on, and had at least twenty balls blown through her. This was the first man I ever saw killed with a bow and arrow. We now shot them like dogs; and then set the house on fire, and burned it up with the forty-six warriors in it. I recollect seeing a boy who was shot down near the house. His arm and thigh were broken, and he was so near the burning house that the grease was stewing out of him.
There is no doubt in my mind that this book wouldn't get published today (which might account for the fact that it is out of print). I suspect that the only people who read this book are people like me who are trying to complete reading all Newbery medal winners.
May 5, 2016
“Daniel Boone” – written and illustrated by James Daugherty and published in 1939 by Viking Press. Once again I am happy to have experienced another great Newbery Medal winner (1940). This middle grade book is an eloquent account of the life of an American hero. “The quiet mild-mannered captain was famous all through the mountains for his cool courage and skill as an Indian fighter.” Daugherty tells a rousing story of dangerous excursions into the western frontier, the hewing of the Wilderness Road from Virginia to Kentucky, and gives a glimpse of what families went through as they heeded the siren call to the West. “The life of a pioneer family was a comic-tragic drama of struggle and violence.” Details of the ferocity of the fighting among the colonists, British, French and Indian forces are not skimped on and readers will get an excellent primer on events in the wilderness of the new country in the latter part of the 1700s. Daugherty’s style is both fervent and ornate, and he does justice to his subject. “The nineteenth century was a husky pioneer baby that had climbed out of its cradle and was wading across the Mississippi.”[I have to confess that when reading some of Boone’s dialogue I heard the voice of Fess Parker who memorialized him on the TV screen.]
February 27, 2017
Newbery winning biography of the famed Daniel Boone. This is not a version for the faint of heart. It captures not just the attitudes of the Native Americans of Boone's time, but also the attitudes of the reading public in the late 1930s. From this book it was hard to say what was real and true. Clearly Daniel Boone was not a smart businessman. And didn't have all that big of a problem with killing. But the book was readable if overly flowery and not especially insightful. The copy I have is an oversized hardback with heavy cream pages and over done pencilled illustrations in brown and green - kind of an amazing difference from the rest of the Newbery editions.
February 11, 2019
I have so many conflicting feelings about this book. I’m sure that it is well written and accurate, but it really make me hate Daniel Boone. As someone of Native descent reading about how he killed Indians without any remorse made my stomach clench and gave me a bad taste in my mouth. Daniel Boone has been immortalized in pop culture to the point his name is held reverently almost to the point of George Washington and now has me rethinking everything I have ever learned about the supposed Founding Fathers.
March 15, 2020
With history written like this, it is no wonder America has held on to the assurity of white supremacy for so long. It was not a little nauseating to see such a man, whose main accomplishments seemed to have been killing native people and losing the land he was handed, celebrated with such flowery prose. Perhaps the first time I wished for the ability to give negative stars.
17 Newberys to go, may none of the rest be this horrific.
17 Newberys to go, may none of the rest be this horrific.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 150 reviews