Scan barcode
hoodster's review against another edition
4.0
More accurately my review would be 3.5 stars, but I rounded up for an Oregonian. The writing is truly wonderful but the plot does meander and relies on an abundance of coincidental meetings to quickly wrap up in the final quarter of the book. I really wish Davis had used real place names, as it would have brought his lively prose even more to life. Definitely worth reading, especially if you have any interest in the settling of the West.
lflintsoms's review against another edition
4.0
Subtle, funny, and completely evocative of the land of the Pacific Northwest before all the hippies and hipsters found it.
stenaros's review against another edition
Oh, how I want to be the type of reader who actually reads classic literature. This isn't even very old. My Grandmother was in her 20's when this won the Pulitzer Prize. It's set in frontier Oregon, the narrative is a strong one. I just couldn't force my lazy reading self to keep on keeping on. Alas. If you are made of sterner stuff than me, enjoy.
wathohuc's review
3.0
From my perspective, this is just a mediocre book. Not bad, not great. I probably wouldn't have chosen this book for a Pulitzer, but I guess I can sort of see why it was chosen. In a sense, there is nothing more quintessentially "American" in the United States of America sense of the term than a western story. And this is exactly what the book is: a western. Cowboys, Indians, hunting, cattle, hangings, outlawry, frontier justice, etc. The fact that it takes place in the Northwest, in Oregon, makes it a tad more interesting to me because of my understanding of Westerns as stereotypically understood had more to do with the central plains and southwestern regions of the US. So this book was a needed tonic for me in terms of dispelling some elements of Western mythology from my imagination. And I guess the Pulitzer committee can't always just pick the non-westerns over the westerns, can they?
The story itself was nothing to speak of. It just basically followed the roaming travels of a rather loner young cowboy and his dealings and path-crossings with other similar characters of the time and region. To the extent that there was a kind of mystery about certain shootings and the resultant misappropriation of justice, I had that figured out about halfway through the book, though the actual revelation itself doesn't take place until the last 5 pages of the book, as part of a very uncharacteristic spasm of philosophical commentary about the ruggedness and meaningfulness of the roaming and semi-communal lifestyles and peoples of the region.
There were occasional moments of cleverness and atmosphere in the writing, but for the most part it was typical western fare. The book also lacked, in my opinion, any real character development. The only other Pultizer winning western novel I've yet read was McMurtry's "Lonesome Dove" and that was an infinitely better book in terms of rich character development. With "Honey in the Horn," even after 500+ pages, I still don't feel like I really know the characters at all, though I get the feeling that I am supposed to know them better. But it's just not there. I mean, really, I challenge anyone who has read the book to tell me what they really and truly know about Clay and Luz. What shaped their thinking and orientation? What formed their spirit? How did their work and shooting skills develop? What other events in their early lives shaped who they are? We really know nothing about them. And the same is true really for every other character in the novel.
Finally, the mass-market paperback edition I read was rife with horrific editorial mistakes and oversights. More misspellings than I can count, a number of times text lines were repeated, etc. It was a sloppily edited book; and the sloppiness of the editing can't help but transfer to a perception of a kind of sloppiness in the story itself.
I'm glad I read it as a matter of discipline and to see what kinds of Western literature appealed to the readers of the day as award-worthy literature; but, unless you REALLY like westerns, and/or have a personal fascination with a fictionalized history of frontier and settler life in Oregon and the Northwest in the late 19th/early 20th century, I'd not really recommend it.
The story itself was nothing to speak of. It just basically followed the roaming travels of a rather loner young cowboy and his dealings and path-crossings with other similar characters of the time and region. To the extent that there was a kind of mystery about certain shootings and the resultant misappropriation of justice, I had that figured out about halfway through the book, though the actual revelation itself doesn't take place until the last 5 pages of the book, as part of a very uncharacteristic spasm of philosophical commentary about the ruggedness and meaningfulness of the roaming and semi-communal lifestyles and peoples of the region.
There were occasional moments of cleverness and atmosphere in the writing, but for the most part it was typical western fare. The book also lacked, in my opinion, any real character development. The only other Pultizer winning western novel I've yet read was McMurtry's "Lonesome Dove" and that was an infinitely better book in terms of rich character development. With "Honey in the Horn," even after 500+ pages, I still don't feel like I really know the characters at all, though I get the feeling that I am supposed to know them better. But it's just not there. I mean, really, I challenge anyone who has read the book to tell me what they really and truly know about Clay and Luz. What shaped their thinking and orientation? What formed their spirit? How did their work and shooting skills develop? What other events in their early lives shaped who they are? We really know nothing about them. And the same is true really for every other character in the novel.
Finally, the mass-market paperback edition I read was rife with horrific editorial mistakes and oversights. More misspellings than I can count, a number of times text lines were repeated, etc. It was a sloppily edited book; and the sloppiness of the editing can't help but transfer to a perception of a kind of sloppiness in the story itself.
I'm glad I read it as a matter of discipline and to see what kinds of Western literature appealed to the readers of the day as award-worthy literature; but, unless you REALLY like westerns, and/or have a personal fascination with a fictionalized history of frontier and settler life in Oregon and the Northwest in the late 19th/early 20th century, I'd not really recommend it.
jeffs's review
3.0
A few funny lines and a portrait of homesteaders culture that I've never read about before.
angarena's review
4.0
I'll just quote the powells.com review:
...What was missing in Davis's 1936 Pulitzer Prize-winning novel Honey in the Horn was the romantic stereotyping and moralizing that could be found in much of the regional literature of the time. Instead, this is essentially a coming-of-age novel with complex, finely wrought, often humorous characters who are just trying to make a life — though the going isn't easy. Davis's rendering of the rugged Oregon landscape is simply gorgeous. Reminiscent of Stegner's Big Rock Candy Mountain, but with much more humor, Honey in the Horn is a great gift.....
And add that though it is a slow read (life was slower then) there are some real gems here. Note to EC - if you can't read the whole book, read pg 100-107 and tell me if it reminds you of anyone.
...What was missing in Davis's 1936 Pulitzer Prize-winning novel Honey in the Horn was the romantic stereotyping and moralizing that could be found in much of the regional literature of the time. Instead, this is essentially a coming-of-age novel with complex, finely wrought, often humorous characters who are just trying to make a life — though the going isn't easy. Davis's rendering of the rugged Oregon landscape is simply gorgeous. Reminiscent of Stegner's Big Rock Candy Mountain, but with much more humor, Honey in the Horn is a great gift.....
And add that though it is a slow read (life was slower then) there are some real gems here. Note to EC - if you can't read the whole book, read pg 100-107 and tell me if it reminds you of anyone.
dreesreads's review
3.0
This book won the Pulitzer just 4 years before Grapes of Wrath (1936/1940). Which is really kind of amazing, as these books have a lot in common—they look at migrations of people and what led them there. Obviously Grapes of Wrath looks at a much larger migration in a different time and place and a much worse human-induced climatic catastrophe. But though this book is dated (esp when discussing the various Indian tribes—though Davis does go into detail about who is who, there are not just "Indians"), Davis does have some opinions about speculators (from town site sellers to work crew leaders), gossipy families, unsatisfiable settlers, etc etc.
While the focus of this book is Clay Calvert, an orphan who grew up on a farm that took in a fair number of orphans, the story is really about Oregon. It is about a semi-settled country and those trying to get rich on what is left. You meet orphans, Indians of various tribes and upbringings, settlers of varying competencies, an outlaw, a horse trader, itinerant workers, land speculators, and settlers who cannot quite be happy so keep moving looking for something better. Of course, this takes place 1904-1906—the best land has been taken and used for decades, and what is left is borderline.
I can see why this won the Pultizer when it did. It is about the generation that saw Oregon go from frontier to settled and American, though not everyone was quite ready for that. He actively mocks many of the sorts of settlers you learn about in history classes—land speculators that want to sell lots and get out before the town never gets built; gossipy families who can't quite manage to be successful as quick as they want, so the keep moving and never achieve that success; workgang "bosses" preying on immigrants adnd the not-so-bright.
Definitely an interesting read, the second half is stronger than the first.
While the focus of this book is Clay Calvert, an orphan who grew up on a farm that took in a fair number of orphans, the story is really about Oregon. It is about a semi-settled country and those trying to get rich on what is left. You meet orphans, Indians of various tribes and upbringings, settlers of varying competencies, an outlaw, a horse trader, itinerant workers, land speculators, and settlers who cannot quite be happy so keep moving looking for something better. Of course, this takes place 1904-1906—the best land has been taken and used for decades, and what is left is borderline.
I can see why this won the Pultizer when it did. It is about the generation that saw Oregon go from frontier to settled and American, though not everyone was quite ready for that. He actively mocks many of the sorts of settlers you learn about in history classes—land speculators that want to sell lots and get out before the town never gets built; gossipy families who can't quite manage to be successful as quick as they want, so the keep moving and never achieve that success; workgang "bosses" preying on immigrants adnd the not-so-bright.
Definitely an interesting read, the second half is stronger than the first.
kathleenitpdx's review
3.0
The only Oregon novel to win a Pulitzer. First published in 1935. Set early in the 20th century.
Davis's descriptions are amazing. His story-telling is excellent. His characters are interesting and illuminating.
The narrator's attitude and portrayal of Native Americans is pretty negative but he is not particularly complimentary of the Euro-Americans either.
Davis's description of the environmental damage done by the agricultural practices of the time are prescient.
There is a fair amount of humor to help relieve the frustration of watching so many people make idiotic decisions.
When Davis described a trip across the coast range, I was a little mystified by the tree species he named until I realized that what I see now is third-growth, planted Douglas Fir not the complex native forest that preceded it.
Davis's descriptions are amazing. His story-telling is excellent. His characters are interesting and illuminating.
The narrator's attitude and portrayal of Native Americans is pretty negative but he is not particularly complimentary of the Euro-Americans either.
Davis's description of the environmental damage done by the agricultural practices of the time are prescient.
There is a fair amount of humor to help relieve the frustration of watching so many people make idiotic decisions.
When Davis described a trip across the coast range, I was a little mystified by the tree species he named until I realized that what I see now is third-growth, planted Douglas Fir not the complex native forest that preceded it.
More...