Period critique '' Despite anonymous publication, authorship of
Seventy-Six was quickly attributed to Neal by many critics. The book enjoyed a generally favorable reception in the US and UK that fashioned Neal as Cooper's chief rival for recognition as America's leading novelist.
The Literary Gazette praised the "most vivid sketches" of battles and "full of faults, but still full of power".
The Monthly Review similarly felt "his battle pieces plunge us into the midst of them", with the story on the whole being "very far from trifling and ordinary".
The Literary Chronicle and Weekly Review considered the work something "which no lover of fiction should omit to read". Philadelphia journalist
Stephen Simpson called the book "a grand and magnificent monument of liberty and our country". Another Philadelphia reviewer called it "a lively and boldly sketched picture of the sufferings of our country during the struggle for Independence". Journalist
Joseph T. Buckingham compared it favorably to viewing
The Passage of the Delaware (1819) by painter
Thomas Sully. Near the end of his life, Neal believed
Seventy-Six to be his best novel, calling it "a spirited sketch of the Revolutionary war, full of incident, character, and truthfulness". Decades earlier, he admitted to the book's extravagancies, saying in
American Writers (1824–25) that it is "so outrageously overdone, that no-body can read it through." The novel's most severe review was published in
The Port Folio by
John Elihu Hall, whom Neal had attacked in another publication four years earlier. Focusing on the novel's sexual content, he asked: "What shall we say of the polluted mind which conceived this loathsome picture of depravity? How can the writer imagine that any decent person will allow a book to remain in his library which abounds, as these volumes do, in gross and needless violations of decorum?" A negative review in
The Monthly Magazine focused on the novel's depictions of violence, calling it "rude and boisterous; every chapter being covered with blood, or heaving with the throes of lacerated flesh." Of the profanities used in the novel: "In addition to the regularly-formed
oaths, which are very numerous, the name of God is invoked in every page: and in such a manner as to make it difficult to discover whether the author meant to pray or to swear."
The Magazine of Foreign Literature bemoaned: "If the author would only condescend to write intelligibly... he would yet... become eminent as a novelist", but allowed that "yet, with all this, there is so much talent, so much of surprisingly amusing madness, that we cannot blame it as we ought."
Modern views '' frontispiece Copies of
Seventy-Six had become rare as early as 1876 and the book was largely forgotten by the 20th and 21st centuries. The scholarship that exists largely praises the book's powerful and groundbreaking moments, but bemoans that those strengths are outweighed by the plot's incoherence and disjointedness. The preface by scholar Robert Bain to the novel's 1971 edition uplifts the story's groundbreaking elements, but blames its construction and overly sensational tangents for reducing its readability. This consensus view reflects an 1849 essay by Edgar Allan Poe, who felt that "the repeated failures of John Neal as regards the
construction" of his books puts readers "in no mood to give the author credit for the vivid sensations which have been aroused during the progress of perusal". Scholar Donald A. Ringe opined: "What Neal failed to realize was that a work of historical fiction had to do more than merely present a few realistic accounts of actual battles, that both the historical and the nonhistorical parts had to be integrated in such a way as to reveal the meaning and significance of the entire action." While accepting the validity of this consensus assessment, literature scholar Jeffrey Insko argued the book is nevertheless interesting "not
despite, but precisely
because of [its] incoherencies", which is "itself the meaning of [Neal's] fiction". Scholars Alexander Cowie, Benjamin Lease, Irving T. Richards, and Donald A. Sears claimed Neal's novel to be better than Cooper's rival novel
The Spy and other relevant
romances of its period, particularly in style, power, and verisimilitude. Sears, Cowie, and Richards held
Seventy-Six to be Neal's best novel for its more powerful moments that ought to appeal still to 20th-century readers. Unlike later scholars, Richards in 1933 ruled "the objectionable features are in this novel subordinate and almost insignificant." He described the plot as well-constructed and second only to characterization as the novel's best trait. He concluded, "
Seventy-Six is a novel that well deserves to be resuscitated, and that makes one a bit exasperated with the public perversity that throws such work by the wayside and cherishes for a name the early, relatively inferior
Spy of Cooper." ==References==