Period critique ''
Logan received generally favorable criticism in both the US and UK, though British reviews were more often mixed in praising it as the work of a genius while criticizing it as erratic. Philadelphia journalist
Stephen Simpson issued ecstatic praise: "In all the productions of the human understanding, that we have ever heard of... we remember nothing, we
know of nothing, we can
conceive of nothing
equal to this romance." Comparing to Neal's chief rival,
James Fenimore Cooper, Simpson expresses "astonishment that the
still life of
the Pioneers, should be read and applauded in the
same age that produced
Logan!" A British journalist in
The Literary Gazette made a similar comparison to Cooper, noting that
Logan and Neal's subsequent novels
Seventy-Six and
Brother Jonathan are "three of about as extraordinary works as ever appeared—full of faults, but still full of power; if we except these, there is no rival near Mr. Cooper's throne." The British
Literary Chronicle and Weekly Review praised Neal's lifelike depiction of Indigenous dialogue and claimed that
Logan "possesses considerable interest, and the work will be no discredit to the shelves of a modern circulating library". The British
Magazine of Foreign Literature claimed that the novel failed because of its rejection of established British literary conventions: It would be difficult, indeed, to guess what end he purposed to accomplish by his singular work. It could not be to amuse his readers, because it is intelligible; if he wished to frighten them he has failed of his end, for he only makes them laugh... We laugh not with him, but at him. His style is the most singular that can be imagined—it is like the raving of a
bedlamite. There are words in it, but no sense... We have taken some pains to inquire who the author may be, but without success;—it is, perhaps, as well that we are in ignorance of his name; the knowledge must be painful, as we have no doubt that the poor gentleman is at this time suffering the wholesome restraint of a straw cell and a
strait waistcoat. If he is not, there is no justice in America. Neal's self-criticism acknowledges the novel's fatal excesses. The preface to
Seventy-Six (1823) bemoans
Logans "rambling incoherency, passion, and extravagance" and expresses Neal's hope (writing anonymously) that he showed improvement with that novel. His next (also anonymously-published) novel after that,
Randolph (1823), includes this criticism of
Logan from the protagonist: "Nobody can read it through, deliberately, as novels are to be read. You are fagged and fretted to death, long and long before you foresee the termination." Two years after that, he wrote under an English pen name in
American Writers: "
Logan is full of power–eloquence–poetry–instinct... Yet so crowded—so incoherent—... so outrageously overdone, that no-body can read it through. Parts are without parallel for passionate beauty;—power of language: deep tenderness, poetry—yet every page... is rank with corruption—the terrible corruption of genius." Writing under his own name in his autobiography almost a half century later, he called
Logan "a wild, passionate, extravagant affair with some... of the most eloquent and fervid writing I was ever guilty of, either in prose or poetry".
Modern views The majority of modern scholars agree that
Logan is too incoherent to enjoy. Cowie found the novel confusing for all of Neal's attempts at exuding high energy and emotion. Biographer Irving T. Richards felt similarly about the novel's excessive Gothic features and added that he considered the characters unrealistic: "They are swept by emotional waves over which they have no control and for which they are not accountable." Scholar Fritz Fleischmann feels the novel is "oversized and excessive" and full of "lacerating thoughts [that] pass by the reader, often without much rhyme or reason." Biographer Benjamin Lease dubs it "an incoherent failure" of "high pitched absurdity" with "scarcely a plot". Authors of the
Literary History of the United States claimed Neal must have been too busy with his law studies and other simultaneous literary pursuits to be original: "He snatched high-minded villains from
Godwin and low-minded heroes from Byron, then sent them roaring and murdering through the hackneyed routines of cheap melodramas". Literary historian
Fred Lewis Pattee, who collected a series of Neal's literary criticism for publication in 1937, remarked on Neal's rapidity in drafting novels like
Logan: "Two-volume novels thrown off in a month! Hard to believe—until one reads the novels." Scholars Edward Carlson and David J. Carlson nevertheless claim
Logan to be one of Neal's four best novels. Richards felt that its plot structure showed a clear improvement over Neal's first novel,
Keep Cool, with better use of characters, tone, structure, and suspense. Cowie felt that there was particular strength in the novel's
psychological horror that foreshadowed later works by Poe.
Arthur Hobson Quinn felt similarly, pointing to the fact that the publishers were challenged to prove that the novel was not a copy of the celebrated William Godwin, because Godwin's novel
The Pirate was published just months prior. Goddu went further to say that those Gothic elements surpassed anything by either Poe or Brown. Also comparing to Neal's peers, scholar
Philip F. Gura called the novel "remarkable" for documenting the historic reality of interracial relationships that contemporaries like Cooper avoided. Fleischmann praised
Logans
verisimilitude: "Spurning the adornments of past literary styles, it succeeds by spontaneity..., by recreating the tumble of emotions present in real life." ==References==