Conversations with the High Priest of Coosa

Rating:
Summary: You'd really expect more from someone like Hudson
Review: "Conversations with the High Priest of Coosa" is neither good fiction nor good ethnography. Charles Hudson's Coosa worldview is inexplicably almost totally Cherokee in outlook. Hudson says he relied on Cherokee folklore because it was more internally consistent than Muskogean folklore, and that Cherokee had some stories that Muskogean folklore didn't that he thought exemplified the Coosan worldview. Hudson seems to ignore the fact that the Cherokees were different from the Muskogeans for a reason- they were Iroquoian. The Cherokees were not moundbuilders, so why would you rely on the stories of a people that were not moundbuilders to explain the worldview of a moundbuilding people?
Also, why would you totally make up stories? Hudson does just this, and some of the stories he makes up makes you wonder why he did so. For instance, why did he make up the Coosans celebrating a ceremony with dancers dressed up in a dragon costume, when there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THE COOSANS OR ANY OTHER MOUNDBUILDING PEOPLE EVER DID ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE THAT! Hudson's explanation for doing this are equally as mystifying- he says he was influenced in part by CHINESE CELEBRATIONS FEATURING DANCERS DRESSED LIKE DRAGONS. Does Hudson now believe that the Mississippians were influenced by the Chinese??
Even looking at this book purely as fiction doesn't improve it any. The characters are totally one dimensional, there is no real plot, the narrative reads like a children's book of mostly Cherokee legends, and what little plot there is is boring.
If you're an anthropologist or folklorist, this book will make you tear out your hair with its inaccuracies and badly rationalized extrapolations. Historians and archaeologists should equally avoid this book. This book is bad as either a fictionalized ethnography, fiction, or ethnography.

Rating:
Summary: You'd really expect more from someone like Hudson
Review: "Conversations with the High Priest of Coosa" is neither good fiction nor good ethnography. Charles Hudson's Coosa worldview is inexplicably almost totally Cherokee in outlook. Hudson says he relied on Cherokee folklore because it was more internally consistent than Muskogean folklore, and that Cherokee had some stories that Muskogean folklore didn't that he thought exemplified the Coosan worldview. Hudson seems to ignore the fact that the Cherokees were different from the Muskogeans for a reason- they were Iroquoian. The Cherokees were not moundbuilders, so why would you rely on the stories of a people that were not moundbuilders to explain the worldview of a moundbuilding people?
Also, why would you totally make up stories? Hudson does just this, and some of the stories he makes up makes you wonder why he did so. For instance, why did he make up the Coosans celebrating a ceremony with dancers dressed up in a dragon costume, when there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THE COOSANS OR ANY OTHER MOUNDBUILDING PEOPLE EVER DID ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE THAT! Hudson's explanation for doing this are equally as mystifying- he says he was influenced in part by CHINESE CELEBRATIONS FEATURING DANCERS DRESSED LIKE DRAGONS. Does Hudson now believe that the Mississippians were influenced by the Chinese??
Even looking at this book purely as fiction doesn't improve it any. The characters are totally one dimensional, there is no real plot, the narrative reads like a children's book of mostly Cherokee legends, and what little plot there is is boring.
If you're an anthropologist or folklorist, this book will make you tear out your hair with its inaccuracies and badly rationalized extrapolations. Historians and archaeologists should equally avoid this book. This book is bad as either a fictionalized ethnography, fiction, or ethnography.

Rating:
Summary: disappointing
Review: Ditto what Michael Polich said. More Cherokee than Creek/Muskogee - so why not use a Cherokee town name and say it is Cherokee? Or use John Swanton's Creek Religion and Medicine or Bill Grantham's Creation myths and legends if it is Muskogee? Or just make up a place and say unknown SE American Indian tribe/group/town?
I was just plain old disappointed with this effort by Dr. Hudson. He has done better (Southeastern Indians). This isn't much of a literary effort or "historical fiction."

Rating:
Summary: disappointing
Review: Ditto what Michael Polich said. More Cherokee than Creek/Muskogee - so why not use a Cherokee town name and say it is Cherokee? Or use John Swanton's Creek Religion and Medicine or Bill Grantham's Creation myths and legends if it is Muskogee? Or just make up a place and say unknown SE American Indian tribe/group/town?
I was just plain old disappointed with this effort by Dr. Hudson. He has done better (Southeastern Indians). This isn't much of a literary effort or "historical fiction."