Fig Tree John: An Indian in Fact and Fiction. By Peter G.
Beidler. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1977. Bibliography. Illustrations,
Index. Notes. 152 pages. Hardcover $10.50. Paperback $4.95.
Reviewed by Priscilla Ann Russo. Lecturer in American Indian
Studies, San Diego State University.
Peter G. Beidler in his study, Fig Tree John: An Indian in
Fact and Fiction, utilizes historical, literary, and ethnological data to
analyze Edwin Corle's novel Fig Tree John. Corle's novel was originally
published in 1935. Beidler divides his study into two parts: "Fig Tree John in
Fact," and "Fig Tree John in Fiction." The first half is a biographical account
(drawn from interviews, newspapers, magazines, letters and Bureau of Indian
Affairs records) of Fig Tree John, a Cahuilla Indian of Southern California. The
second part is a literary analysis of the way Corle uses historical and
ethnological data to transform Fig Tree John, the factual Cahuilla, into the
fictional Apache of the novel. Beidler proposes to study the relationship
between a fictional and a factual Indian. He sees his work as helping to fill a
near void in critical studies of the Indian in American literature.
Beidler's study, however, is limited to one novel and one Indian.
He concludes that Corle placed "the requirements of good
fiction-convincing character, engrossing plot, emphatic theme-"(p. 100) before
accurate biography and ethnography. Beidler's biographical sketch of Fig Tree
John and the Apache ethnographic material that Corle used form the basis for
Beidler's comparisons between fact and fiction. For example, Beidler attempts
to analyze why Corle changed Fig Tree John from a "peaceful Cahuilla" into an
"aggressive Apache" (p. xviii). In the final analysis, Beidler defends Corle's
fictional transformation of Fig Tree John because it supports Corle's "theme
about the necessity for the American Indian to adopt the ways of the white man"
(p. xviii). But Beidler overstates his case when he adds that "it is unfair to
criticize Corle's novel" for its "outdated theme" or for its "biographical and
ethnographic inaccuracies" (p. 124).
Any critical analysis of Corle's novel must question the
theme of assimilation and the historical and ethnographic inaccuracies in the
novel. Beidler glosses over such matters. He reminds the reader that a
novelist's reality differs from that of a historian. But in accepting Corle's
reality, Beidler does not clearly place the novel in its own historical
perspective. Although he acknowledges that the validity of a pro-assimilation
theme would be questioned today, he does not adequately show how the novel
reflects various views of assimilation of the American Indian when Corle wrote
his novel in the 1930s.
Beidler argues that Corle wrote before John Collier became
Commissioner of Indian Affairs and influenced the federal government's shift
away from assimilation in the mid 1930s. Beidler's argument, however, is
weakened by an obvious comparison between Corle's Fig Tree John and
Oliver LaFarge's Pulitzer prize winning novel, Laughing Boy, which was
originally published in 1929. These two popular novels treat the assimilation
theme differently, primarily because LaFarge was more in touch with the Indian
world than Corle was. LaFarge actively participated in organizations dealing in
Indian affairs and later supported Collier's Indian policies. Both LaFarge and
Corle were non-Indian writers who attempted to capture the essence of Indians in
fiction. But Corle's penchant for assimilation did not reflect either the
dominant government policy or the Indian viewpoint of the 1930s.
Beidler argues from a literary point of view that Corle is
justified in giving "thematic integrity" more priority than "historical
accuracy" (p xxiv). In Beidler's literary evaluation, however, he underplays
Corle's novel as popular literature. Indeed, Beidler sees the tragic, fictional
Fig Tree John in the company of classic literary greats. To Beidler, Oedipus,
Macbeth, Ahab, and Fig Tree John play roles in Greek tragedies where pride
results in the fall of great men. Beidler failed to see that his literary
analysis would have been much stronger if he had placed Fig Tree John in the
realm of popular literature. Then perhaps Beidler would have seen Fig Tree John
standing beside LaFarge's Laughing Boy or with another Indian
who was known in Southern California, both in fact and fiction,
Willie Boy in Harry Lawton's Willie Boy. A Desert Manhunt. By comparing
Fig Tree John, Laughing Boy, and Willie Boy, one might even argue that
historical accuracies need not yield to thematic integrity.
A main contribution of Beidler's study may be to stimulate
more interdisciplinary studies of the Indian in fiction, which could lead to a
more critical analysis of the Indian in American literature. One might begin by
relating Fig Tree John to Rupert Costo, another Cahuilla Indian, who wrote in
The American Indian Reader: Literature (1973), "The story of my people is
the story of Indians all over this Nation" (p. 172). Beidler's study is only
part of this story. Much remains to be told.
