What do you think?
Rate this book
Buckskin Man Tales #2
Lord Grizzly
True-life adventurer Hugh Glass, a 19th century explorer of the Old West, was deserted by his party after being mauled by a bear. Manfred tells of the ten missing years in Glass's life, his superhuman struggle to survive, and his all-too-human quest for revenge.
352 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published March 1, 1954
47 people are currently reading
1017 people want to read
About the author
Frederick Manfred
76 books19 followersManfred's novels are very much connected to his native region. His stories involve the American Midlands, and the prairies of the West. He named the area where the borders of Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota, and Nebraska meet, "Siouxland."
(wikipedia)
(wikipedia)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 86 reviews
Read
December 27, 2015To begin with, the description of this book needs to be revised, by someone who has read the book.
Rereading Lord Grizzly after a lapse of thirty years, two things strike me. First, Manfred was a great narrative artist. He really takes us over the ground with Hugh Glass. Second, the language deployed and relationships depicted mark the work as a period piece. Lots of stuff that would not pass today.
It's a period piece in another way in that it depicts an epic, fiercely masculine American West.
In this and other tellings of the saga of Hugh Glass, it is easy to get distracted by the theme of retribution. This is not a novel of revenge, but one of redemption.
Rereading Lord Grizzly after a lapse of thirty years, two things strike me. First, Manfred was a great narrative artist. He really takes us over the ground with Hugh Glass. Second, the language deployed and relationships depicted mark the work as a period piece. Lots of stuff that would not pass today.
It's a period piece in another way in that it depicts an epic, fiercely masculine American West.
In this and other tellings of the saga of Hugh Glass, it is easy to get distracted by the theme of retribution. This is not a novel of revenge, but one of redemption.
February 14, 2015
This is a fantastic book! I would like to use the term epic but it was nearly the opposite type of tale. The hero of the novel is Hugh Glass, an early American mountain man who was hired as a scout by the Rocky Mountain Fur Company to explore the upper Missouri country. Glass was accompanied by several noted frontiersmen and the expedition became known as Ashley's Hundred. Glass was mauled by a grizzly bear and left for dead. He crawled a staggering distance in what became one of the first near mythic tales of the Great American Desert. The book focus on Glass's thoughts and fears and determination to survive. It becomes almost microscopic in showing the reader how Glass would roll to the next rock, push to the next copse of grass, drag a broken hip across a fallen tree. By telling the reader the details of each small challenge Manfred describes how terrifying, brutal and enormous the frontier appeared to the white explorers. The dialogue is stark and dated. The story line is not politically correct. I read this book years ago because it I was interested in the time period when the American government was allied with the Sioux against the Pawnee and the Arikara. I hope Hollywood does justice to this amazing tale.
April 5, 2025
This is one of two fictionalized versions of mountain man Hugh Glass' epic struggle for survival, the newer and more famous one being The Revenant. Thought I'd read this one first, since there was a long waiting list for Revenant at the library, but I almost gave up on it before I finished the first chapter. As noted in other reviews, dialogue is not Manfred's greatest strength, and his nonstop mountain man "dialect" can get extremely painful:
"Down, you wild rabbit you. You want a second part through your topknot?"
"Doggone my skin, this old hoss sure wishes the lads would show up."
"By the beard of bull barley, lad, ye're the ones as saw the kids and squaws and dogs hid."
"I feel mighty queersome. Is my topknot gone lad?"
"If it ain't Fitz and Jim, it's downside Dutton honey-fuggling the booshways."
Yeah, lots of talk of topknots, and good mountain-manny exclamations like "Whaugh!" and "Ho-ah!" and "Ae," and "Hep-ah;" and Indians who go "Howgh-owgh-owgh-owgh-h!" (not sure how that last "h" is pronounced). Plus, every Indian is described as being "penny-skinnned," or having an "old-penny face;" as "cherry-eyed," "chokecherry-eyed," or with "ripe-cherry eyes,""dark cherry eyes," "redblack cherry eyes..." — all within the first few pages. Nice descriptions the first time around, but after the fifth mention in so many paragraphs, it's like enough.
But then Manfred hits his stride, the real story kicks in, and the writing becomes at times almost MacMurtyesque:
"Hugh forgot himself, forget he had a game leg, forgot he'd ever loved, forgot he'd ever killed Rees or any other kind of red devil, forgot he'd ever been a buccaneer killing Spanish merchantmen, forgot he was the papa of two boys back in Lancaster, forgot he'd ever deserted the boys because of their rip of a mother, forgot all, forgot he was Hugh even, forgot both Old Hugh and Young Hugh, was lost in the glorious roaring chase, killing killing killing — all of it a glorious bloodletting and a complete forgetting."
"The fort was a perfumery of various hide smells, beaver and elk and deer and buffalo and bear; and a color fair of buckskin browns and yellows and warpaint greens and vermilions and soldier blues and silvers and flannel reds and jean blues and boot browns; and a soundfest of men bragging and swearing and mules braying and hinnying and horses blowing and stamping and dogs barking and roaring."
As can be seen above and on nearly every page of the book, such writing results in a lot of what I assume are either really well-researched old-timey vocabulary or pure Manfred creations. Nouns like slape, whangs, plew, puckerstopple, peedoodle, and the above-mentioned honey-fuggled booshways; verbs like vulsing, snawed, volving, punged, swimmered, ganting, stined. These generally work, and pull you deeper into Glass' world much more than the stilted dialogue ever does. As to his descriptive phrases, some work better than others: for every rosebrown sunset or roostercomb flames, there's a circumambient dark or ensanguined shore.
So overall? An interesting telling of an unbelievable human story, with occasional flashes of true genius. Still, it ultimately remains very much a product of its times, although it is considerably more accurate — and holds up infinitely better — than its TV contemporaries like Gunsmoke, Cheyenne, Davey Crockett, Broken Arrow, Wagon Train, Rawhide and the like.
And now that that's done, The Revenant has finally arrived at the library — so plan to read that next for comparison's sake. Whaugh!
UPDATE: And did go ahead and read The Revenant — and despite its flaws, Lord Grizzly is by FAR the better of the two tellings.
"Down, you wild rabbit you. You want a second part through your topknot?"
"Doggone my skin, this old hoss sure wishes the lads would show up."
"By the beard of bull barley, lad, ye're the ones as saw the kids and squaws and dogs hid."
"I feel mighty queersome. Is my topknot gone lad?"
"If it ain't Fitz and Jim, it's downside Dutton honey-fuggling the booshways."
Yeah, lots of talk of topknots, and good mountain-manny exclamations like "Whaugh!" and "Ho-ah!" and "Ae," and "Hep-ah;" and Indians who go "Howgh-owgh-owgh-owgh-h!" (not sure how that last "h" is pronounced). Plus, every Indian is described as being "penny-skinnned," or having an "old-penny face;" as "cherry-eyed," "chokecherry-eyed," or with "ripe-cherry eyes,""dark cherry eyes," "redblack cherry eyes..." — all within the first few pages. Nice descriptions the first time around, but after the fifth mention in so many paragraphs, it's like enough.
But then Manfred hits his stride, the real story kicks in, and the writing becomes at times almost MacMurtyesque:
"Hugh forgot himself, forget he had a game leg, forgot he'd ever loved, forgot he'd ever killed Rees or any other kind of red devil, forgot he'd ever been a buccaneer killing Spanish merchantmen, forgot he was the papa of two boys back in Lancaster, forgot he'd ever deserted the boys because of their rip of a mother, forgot all, forgot he was Hugh even, forgot both Old Hugh and Young Hugh, was lost in the glorious roaring chase, killing killing killing — all of it a glorious bloodletting and a complete forgetting."
"The fort was a perfumery of various hide smells, beaver and elk and deer and buffalo and bear; and a color fair of buckskin browns and yellows and warpaint greens and vermilions and soldier blues and silvers and flannel reds and jean blues and boot browns; and a soundfest of men bragging and swearing and mules braying and hinnying and horses blowing and stamping and dogs barking and roaring."
As can be seen above and on nearly every page of the book, such writing results in a lot of what I assume are either really well-researched old-timey vocabulary or pure Manfred creations. Nouns like slape, whangs, plew, puckerstopple, peedoodle, and the above-mentioned honey-fuggled booshways; verbs like vulsing, snawed, volving, punged, swimmered, ganting, stined. These generally work, and pull you deeper into Glass' world much more than the stilted dialogue ever does. As to his descriptive phrases, some work better than others: for every rosebrown sunset or roostercomb flames, there's a circumambient dark or ensanguined shore.
So overall? An interesting telling of an unbelievable human story, with occasional flashes of true genius. Still, it ultimately remains very much a product of its times, although it is considerably more accurate — and holds up infinitely better — than its TV contemporaries like Gunsmoke, Cheyenne, Davey Crockett, Broken Arrow, Wagon Train, Rawhide and the like.
And now that that's done, The Revenant has finally arrived at the library — so plan to read that next for comparison's sake. Whaugh!
UPDATE: And did go ahead and read The Revenant — and despite its flaws, Lord Grizzly is by FAR the better of the two tellings.
February 11, 2016
I actually enjoyed this book, as much of a slog as it sometimes was and as gruesome a topic as it covered. Descriptions of the mauling that Hugh Glass underwent, his wounds, and what he had to do to find food and keep himself alive were very graphic. I had seen the movie, The Revenant starring Leonardo DiCaprio before reading Lord Grizzly, and although the story line differed to some extent, the movie provided a clear visual of events as I was reading (even though the actual events took place on the rolling hills of NW South Dakota, not in what was clearly a mountain setting depicted in the movie). I also read the foreward to Lord Grizzly and found that author Manfred Szameit had done literally years of research about Hugh Glass and his 200 mile crawl to save himself. He even went so far as to bind up one leg so he couldn't use, and crawled around on just his hands and one leg and ate many of the insects mentioned in the book, so he could accurately describe what Glass might have physically experienced.
August 5, 2010
This is a book I've been meaning to read for decades. My niece reminded me about it recently, when she was raving about it. It was handed about and admired in my family, and it's a fictionalized account of a bit of South Dakota history. And Manfred came and spoke in a literature class I took in college, so I feel sort of connected to him.
He's a great storyteller. His writing is very vivid, at times too much so. The time he is writing about includes a lot of fairly disgusting things -- early 19th century, frontier hygiene; festering wounds; eating of freshly killed and uncooked animals; maggots and lice; bloody battles in which men are scalped; buckskin clothing crusted with sweat, old food, blood, etc. I like that the author doesn't pretty it up for us, but it makes for an uncomfortable read, sometimes.
The main character, Hugh Glass, is presented as an experienced and careful mountain man with extraordinary resourcefulness. But he's not emotionally complicated. I liked the way Manfred wrote him as a whole person, with regrets and strong affections and blind spots and rage. But he didn't make him into a deep thinker, by any means. The author hints at some of the larger issues at work in the story, like the white trappers viewing the Indians as amoral for doing the same things that the white men were doing. Interestingly, we also see Glass railing internally against the settled East where he came from, which he thinks of as ruled by harpy-like women who force men into nice clothing and stifling jobs. But Manfred doesn't dig too deeply into these issues, so his story feels authentic. We're left to ponder the right and wrong of the characters' actions ourselves, which is just fine.
He's a great storyteller. His writing is very vivid, at times too much so. The time he is writing about includes a lot of fairly disgusting things -- early 19th century, frontier hygiene; festering wounds; eating of freshly killed and uncooked animals; maggots and lice; bloody battles in which men are scalped; buckskin clothing crusted with sweat, old food, blood, etc. I like that the author doesn't pretty it up for us, but it makes for an uncomfortable read, sometimes.
The main character, Hugh Glass, is presented as an experienced and careful mountain man with extraordinary resourcefulness. But he's not emotionally complicated. I liked the way Manfred wrote him as a whole person, with regrets and strong affections and blind spots and rage. But he didn't make him into a deep thinker, by any means. The author hints at some of the larger issues at work in the story, like the white trappers viewing the Indians as amoral for doing the same things that the white men were doing. Interestingly, we also see Glass railing internally against the settled East where he came from, which he thinks of as ruled by harpy-like women who force men into nice clothing and stifling jobs. But Manfred doesn't dig too deeply into these issues, so his story feels authentic. We're left to ponder the right and wrong of the characters' actions ourselves, which is just fine.
April 28, 2024
Waugh! Ae. Ho-ah. Tarnation! Hurray lads! I finished this wank of a book.
There’s three pieces to this book, and two of them are mostly garbage.
The first and third can mostly be summarized by this sentence: “Body Heat and fires stirred up odors of other times too— the scent of lovemaking with musky Ree [a tribe of native Americans] maidens, fired gunpowder, Kentucky whisky.”
Just pure dumb dude stuff. The whites, of course, are coated with chivalry, the natives are mostly depicted as savages, except of course, the women that have voluntarily (????) joined the mountain men, and later, a light skinned tribe that has adopted some form of Christianity. One of these women, who chose Hugh (dubbed “white grizzly”), our venerable protagonist, over her Native husband, nurses him back to health after repeated scrapes defending his noble troop from the savage natives. Just weird, two-dimensional racist drivel and there’s not much interesting here.
The middle piece is a good survivalist tale — a man, attacked by grizzly, survives only out of pure luck and lust for revenge, needs to crawl across foreign terrain on hands and knees, doing and eating whatever he can to survive, including setting his own broken leg in a makeshift splint. I would not have written the story the way Manfred did, but it’s at least well thought out and captivating.
Except the arteries. The endlessly wiggling arteries on the sides of his nose. We could have done without that.
There’s three pieces to this book, and two of them are mostly garbage.
The first and third can mostly be summarized by this sentence: “Body Heat and fires stirred up odors of other times too— the scent of lovemaking with musky Ree [a tribe of native Americans] maidens, fired gunpowder, Kentucky whisky.”
Just pure dumb dude stuff. The whites, of course, are coated with chivalry, the natives are mostly depicted as savages, except of course, the women that have voluntarily (????) joined the mountain men, and later, a light skinned tribe that has adopted some form of Christianity. One of these women, who chose Hugh (dubbed “white grizzly”), our venerable protagonist, over her Native husband, nurses him back to health after repeated scrapes defending his noble troop from the savage natives. Just weird, two-dimensional racist drivel and there’s not much interesting here.
The middle piece is a good survivalist tale — a man, attacked by grizzly, survives only out of pure luck and lust for revenge, needs to crawl across foreign terrain on hands and knees, doing and eating whatever he can to survive, including setting his own broken leg in a makeshift splint. I would not have written the story the way Manfred did, but it’s at least well thought out and captivating.
Except the arteries. The endlessly wiggling arteries on the sides of his nose. We could have done without that.
December 29, 2015
From the very first page, I was overwhelmed by the "trapper talk" dialect that Fredrick Manfred tirelessly attempts to embed in nearly every line of the piece. Each word of unnecessary, unfamiliar, and unnatural slang used in the book caused me to enjoy the story and the characters less and less. Instead of actually making them sound like trappers and/or old timey "mountain men", each line spoken by Hugh Glass and his company sounds forced and "store bought", rather than natural and "a family recipe." Another analogy could be a generation X (or worse-a baby boomer) trying unsuccessfully to use modern slang, as in "Man, Richard, this bean dip is lit af!" Manfred's attempt at trapper slang only served to irritate readers.
To further irritate, Manfred spent too long telling readers about Hugh's crawl. My guess is that he wanted to feel the time, to feel how long Hugh was crawling. That's why it needs to be read in multiple sits. Manfred took this too far. Ever heard of "overkill", Fredrick? Manfred uses a generous third of the book discussing Glass's crawl through the desolate wilderness of pre-statehood South Dakota. Given how repetitive and relatively uneventful Hugh's crawl was, author Fredrick Manfred did not need to spend as long as he did describing it, unless he wanted to lose readers' attention.
During the section about the crawl, the passages also get very repetitive, to the point where I thought I was re-reading parts. Turns out, those excerpts were simply too similar to sections earlier in the chapter, or even EARLIER ON THAT SAME PAGE. This repetition frustrated me to the extent that I almost didn't finish the book. I finished it in the end because I was required to do so for class. A book should never feel like a chore to read. Authors should never sound like a broken record.
As excited as I was to be out of the boring, broken record crawl, the time I had taken to read it was indeed wasted time. The ending was incredibly anti-climatic. I don't want to spoil any particulars, but Hugh's final decision felt like a rushed end to the story. I felt cheated out of the energy and time I spent reading this book, since the ending was not worth it.
To lighten the blow of this review, I will praise Manfred on his inclusion of a map. Even I had trouble visualizing the path Hugh took, and I have been living in South Dakota 91% of my life. I could figure out the general route he took and could almost draw a map myself (he used physical landmarks, so the names and descriptions are still relevant today) but sometimes I had to stop and think. For people who may be almost completely unfamiliar with the region, a map must have been mighty useful. I know the state like the back of my hand by this point, and even I had to flip back to the map several times, proving how essential it would be for non-South Dakotans. The only downfall of the map was that it was placed awkwardly in the middle of the book (even in the middle of a sentence!) between two seemingly random pages, rather than in the front cover of the book.
To further irritate, Manfred spent too long telling readers about Hugh's crawl. My guess is that he wanted to feel the time, to feel how long Hugh was crawling. That's why it needs to be read in multiple sits. Manfred took this too far. Ever heard of "overkill", Fredrick? Manfred uses a generous third of the book discussing Glass's crawl through the desolate wilderness of pre-statehood South Dakota. Given how repetitive and relatively uneventful Hugh's crawl was, author Fredrick Manfred did not need to spend as long as he did describing it, unless he wanted to lose readers' attention.
During the section about the crawl, the passages also get very repetitive, to the point where I thought I was re-reading parts. Turns out, those excerpts were simply too similar to sections earlier in the chapter, or even EARLIER ON THAT SAME PAGE. This repetition frustrated me to the extent that I almost didn't finish the book. I finished it in the end because I was required to do so for class. A book should never feel like a chore to read. Authors should never sound like a broken record.
As excited as I was to be out of the boring, broken record crawl, the time I had taken to read it was indeed wasted time. The ending was incredibly anti-climatic. I don't want to spoil any particulars, but Hugh's final decision felt like a rushed end to the story. I felt cheated out of the energy and time I spent reading this book, since the ending was not worth it.
To lighten the blow of this review, I will praise Manfred on his inclusion of a map. Even I had trouble visualizing the path Hugh took, and I have been living in South Dakota 91% of my life. I could figure out the general route he took and could almost draw a map myself (he used physical landmarks, so the names and descriptions are still relevant today) but sometimes I had to stop and think. For people who may be almost completely unfamiliar with the region, a map must have been mighty useful. I know the state like the back of my hand by this point, and even I had to flip back to the map several times, proving how essential it would be for non-South Dakotans. The only downfall of the map was that it was placed awkwardly in the middle of the book (even in the middle of a sentence!) between two seemingly random pages, rather than in the front cover of the book.
May 13, 2012
When I was a kid, my parents used to drop me off at Blue Mounds State Park in Luverne, Minnesota, near the confluence of that state, South Dakota, and Iowa. Not only were the park’s pink, quartzite cliffs spectacular, but in the distance I could see buffalo grazing, and nearby was the futuristic-looking (this was the 1960s) home of a real curiosity: a man who wrote books for a living, name of Frederick Manfred.
So it was with a mix of nostalgia and intrigue that I recently picked up Manfred’s "Lord Grizzly," a National Book Award finalist in 1955 and the story of Hugh Glass, a real-life mountain man who survived a bear attack and subsequent abandonment in 1820s South Dakota –- not far from my Blue Mounds stomping ground.
"Lord Grizzly" invokes that long-ago land of Indians, grizzlies, mountain lions and buzzards, but Manfred recreates it to a fault. The book reminded me of Charles Frazier’s "Cold Mountain" with its endless depictions of wilderness flora and fauna –- nirvana for naturalists and American West fans, I’m sure –- but not my cup of tea. Old Hugh’s cumbersome crawl across the Midwestern Plains had nothing on my tedious trek through 100 pages of riverbeds, sunsets, and prairie-dog villages.
The plot is about Glass’s quest for revenge on the men who left him for dead, but the theme is man’s struggle between his desire for freedom and the bonds of society. Manfred seemed to prefer the former; for me, those daylong prowls in his Blue Mounds backyard were wilderness enough.
So it was with a mix of nostalgia and intrigue that I recently picked up Manfred’s "Lord Grizzly," a National Book Award finalist in 1955 and the story of Hugh Glass, a real-life mountain man who survived a bear attack and subsequent abandonment in 1820s South Dakota –- not far from my Blue Mounds stomping ground.
"Lord Grizzly" invokes that long-ago land of Indians, grizzlies, mountain lions and buzzards, but Manfred recreates it to a fault. The book reminded me of Charles Frazier’s "Cold Mountain" with its endless depictions of wilderness flora and fauna –- nirvana for naturalists and American West fans, I’m sure –- but not my cup of tea. Old Hugh’s cumbersome crawl across the Midwestern Plains had nothing on my tedious trek through 100 pages of riverbeds, sunsets, and prairie-dog villages.
The plot is about Glass’s quest for revenge on the men who left him for dead, but the theme is man’s struggle between his desire for freedom and the bonds of society. Manfred seemed to prefer the former; for me, those daylong prowls in his Blue Mounds backyard were wilderness enough.
December 4, 2019
Lord Grizzly by Frederick Manfred is a book about a Mountain man getting left by his Companeros up in the grasslands with Indian tribes and unexplored territory. Overall I really liked the book. The setting of Lord Grizzly is awesome. It's a lot of survival and about overcoming problems. Man Vs Nature, Man Vs Self, Man Vs Man, are all recurring themes in this book. It was also very relatable to real life which I also enjoyed. I would read this book again and read any sequels. I would recommend this book to anyone looking for a survival book and a cliffhanger type of book.
I didn't like how boring this book was at times. It was almost always too descriptive on the scenery. Manfred would choose to write two pages on what it was like for Hugh (the main character) to be outside. It got very boring and at times annoying. And the dialect was cool but at times annoying as well. The characters talked very weirdly. But you may also see this mountain man dialect kinda cool if that's something you enjoy. The dialect made it difficult for me to read at times.
I learned from Lord Grizzly that there is such a thing as too much description. I also learned that you can make a great book out of nothing. I also learned to see between the lines of writing and see problems that maybe the author was going through themselves or that you can relate to on purpose of putting it in the book.
I didn't like how boring this book was at times. It was almost always too descriptive on the scenery. Manfred would choose to write two pages on what it was like for Hugh (the main character) to be outside. It got very boring and at times annoying. And the dialect was cool but at times annoying as well. The characters talked very weirdly. But you may also see this mountain man dialect kinda cool if that's something you enjoy. The dialect made it difficult for me to read at times.
I learned from Lord Grizzly that there is such a thing as too much description. I also learned that you can make a great book out of nothing. I also learned to see between the lines of writing and see problems that maybe the author was going through themselves or that you can relate to on purpose of putting it in the book.
November 12, 2015
Giant caveat: this is full of racial slurs and stereotypes and the only way to read and review this is with a critical engagement with the way Native Americans and people of color are portrayed in books and popular culture. I would pair this book with maybe Joy Harjo or Flight by Sherman Alexie, the same way people pair Little House on the Prairie with Birchbark House.
THAT SAID, this is quite a ride. A mountain man fights a grizzly bear in hand-to-hand combat, then after he's abandoned by his companions and left to die alone, he CRAWLS hundreds of miles through harsh terrain while gravely wounded, because VENGEANCE.
My first encounter with this book was years ago when someone booktalked it in a library school class. It was a riveting booktalk that involved the presenter beating the ground with a stick to establish dramatic tension. The book has been in the back of my mind since then - best Western I've read since True Grit.
THAT SAID, this is quite a ride. A mountain man fights a grizzly bear in hand-to-hand combat, then after he's abandoned by his companions and left to die alone, he CRAWLS hundreds of miles through harsh terrain while gravely wounded, because VENGEANCE.
My first encounter with this book was years ago when someone booktalked it in a library school class. It was a riveting booktalk that involved the presenter beating the ground with a stick to establish dramatic tension. The book has been in the back of my mind since then - best Western I've read since True Grit.
December 5, 2007
Wow. As an armchair historian of the American West/Frontier period, of course I'd heard of the long crawl of Hugh Glass, and come across it in a number of western anthology books (the slightly higher brow crowd, less prone to Louis L'Amour reprints)... but I'd never fallen in love with anything more than the concept, the idea of the legend.
Then I read Manfred's Lord Grizzly, which is an exercise in colloquialism, storytelling, and voice. It's terse Americana, and made me want to go back to the Rocky Mountains (even though old Hugh was more of a plainsman).
Good stuff, thrilling action and fascinating character study.
Then I read Manfred's Lord Grizzly, which is an exercise in colloquialism, storytelling, and voice. It's terse Americana, and made me want to go back to the Rocky Mountains (even though old Hugh was more of a plainsman).
Good stuff, thrilling action and fascinating character study.
August 14, 2015
This is a brilliant novel with a new edition with U of Nebraska Press. "Grizzly" was runner-up for the National Book Award in 1954 (?) and lost to "Tales of the South Pacific."
I've wondered about any similarities with "The Revenent," which is based on the same story of Hugh Glass, mountain man.
I've wondered about any similarities with "The Revenent," which is based on the same story of Hugh Glass, mountain man.
December 9, 2011
I read this book in high school. They had many copies of it in the book room, but it was deemed too violent for us to read. I tracked it down again and reread it. Survival and moral quandaries... I enjoyed this thoroughly.
April 27, 2008
Hand to hand combat with a grizzly bear. Enough said.
January 22, 2010
Holy crap i have forgotten about this book! It's a true account of a mountain mans revenge against the men left him for dead. I'm gonna have to read this again....
August 16, 2011
Incredible. True story of a man left for dead after being mauled by a grizzly bear. He crawled for over 200 miles to track down the men that left him.
October 5, 2015
If the Revenant is half as good as this version of the Hugh Glass story, it is a great book.
October 22, 2015
Fantastic true life story of probably the toughest man to ever live. Incredible adventure. Very recommended
December 5, 2019
Lord Grizzly is certainly in an interesting book. When you think of the greatest novels of all time, I’m sure Lord Grizzly is not something that pops up into your mind. However, it is a masterpiece like none other that really needs to be appreciated more than it currently is. The way that this book is written by Frederick Manfred is in a way that not many other books are written in. I did not necessarily enjoy reading this book, but I do respect it. This book is in some ways an enemy that is very talented or skilled. There is nothing that I want to do more then defeat it (read the entire thing to say I did and get through it with some enjoyment) and though I don’t like them/it. I do respect it. If you are looking for a total page turner that will keep you on the edge of your seat the entire time, Lord Grizzly is not the book you are looking for. Nonetheless, this book will change the way you view literature and how it is written. This book is written very meticulously, and everything has some meaning to it and importance in the story. I didn't really like much about this book other than the major fight scenes and of course his major run in with the she-grizzly, but this book did teach me a lot.
I thought that a lot of this book did not really go anywhere. Ya sure, a lot of this book connected to different parts of the book, but nothing intertwined in the overall story to make something insane. I thought that a lot of the book wasn’t maybe “unnecessary”, but it could have been told in a different way to make the story a little more exciting. This book’s dialogue was often hard to understand the “mountain man” way of talking that all of Hugh’s troupe use throughout the novel. I also do not think that this book would be as popular today as it was back then, but that is how thousands of novels are. I did not really look forward to reading this book, which is I think a very important aspect of a novel. The reader should actually WANT to sit down and read 2-3 chapters back to back, which brings me to another point. The way that the book was written in sections was confusing. Often times writers split novels into different parts so that they help the reader understand the timeline, however, I thought that it actually hurt this book in several ways. This book was not very entertaining throughout, but I understand the way it was written.
I learned from this book that it is okay to not totally enjoy a book, as long you do two things. RESPECT it and UNDERSTAND it. There are hundreds of books that are historically great not because of their entertainment value, but because they helped people understand something. This book is an example of a book that tried to be both and unfortunately, did not turn out to be as good as it could. That is okay though, I still enjoyed the knowledge I gained from reading this book and although it lacked the entertainment value, I am still glad I read it.
I thought that a lot of this book did not really go anywhere. Ya sure, a lot of this book connected to different parts of the book, but nothing intertwined in the overall story to make something insane. I thought that a lot of the book wasn’t maybe “unnecessary”, but it could have been told in a different way to make the story a little more exciting. This book’s dialogue was often hard to understand the “mountain man” way of talking that all of Hugh’s troupe use throughout the novel. I also do not think that this book would be as popular today as it was back then, but that is how thousands of novels are. I did not really look forward to reading this book, which is I think a very important aspect of a novel. The reader should actually WANT to sit down and read 2-3 chapters back to back, which brings me to another point. The way that the book was written in sections was confusing. Often times writers split novels into different parts so that they help the reader understand the timeline, however, I thought that it actually hurt this book in several ways. This book was not very entertaining throughout, but I understand the way it was written.
I learned from this book that it is okay to not totally enjoy a book, as long you do two things. RESPECT it and UNDERSTAND it. There are hundreds of books that are historically great not because of their entertainment value, but because they helped people understand something. This book is an example of a book that tried to be both and unfortunately, did not turn out to be as good as it could. That is okay though, I still enjoyed the knowledge I gained from reading this book and although it lacked the entertainment value, I am still glad I read it.
December 4, 2019
The book Lord Grizzly by Frederick Manfred was a very interesting book with many aspects that made it into a classic. One of the biggest positives of Manfred’s novel was the story. I really enjoyed the story as a whole. It made me think and kept me entertained throughout the entire book. The character development was also done very well; the main character, Hugh Glass develops into an almost entirely different person by the end of the book. The book was written from Glass’s point of view, which allows the reader to see his thoughts. Some of the most interesting parts of the book were seeing Glass’s thought and how they changed as the book went on. Many good things came out of the novel Lord Grizzly.
In my opinion, the negatives outweigh the positives. The pace was too slow at many different parts of the book. For example, when had to crawl for a few hundred miles while injured, the book went into too much detail. The whole crawling section was about a quarter of the whole book. It dragged on for way to long and I lost interest about halfway into the part. There were also many parts of the book that felt almost completely unnecessary. There would be pages of just Glass talking to himself with little to no importance. In my opinion the book could be half the length and maintain the same effect on the reader.
Even though I wasn’t thoroughly entertained I learned a lot. The book was based off of a real person who was alive in the 1800s. Manfred wrote this book to be historically accurate, as well. I learned a lot about what it was like in the early 1800s. The book mainly focused on Hugh, but I did get a glimpse into what everyday life was like for most people. I learned about the hardships people had to face and what they did to overcome their challenges. Manfred also did a great job at showing the relationship between the Native Americans and the settlers. Overall, I would give this book a ⅖ stars. I felt as if the book could have been condensed into half the pages.
In my opinion, the negatives outweigh the positives. The pace was too slow at many different parts of the book. For example, when had to crawl for a few hundred miles while injured, the book went into too much detail. The whole crawling section was about a quarter of the whole book. It dragged on for way to long and I lost interest about halfway into the part. There were also many parts of the book that felt almost completely unnecessary. There would be pages of just Glass talking to himself with little to no importance. In my opinion the book could be half the length and maintain the same effect on the reader.
Even though I wasn’t thoroughly entertained I learned a lot. The book was based off of a real person who was alive in the 1800s. Manfred wrote this book to be historically accurate, as well. I learned a lot about what it was like in the early 1800s. The book mainly focused on Hugh, but I did get a glimpse into what everyday life was like for most people. I learned about the hardships people had to face and what they did to overcome their challenges. Manfred also did a great job at showing the relationship between the Native Americans and the settlers. Overall, I would give this book a ⅖ stars. I felt as if the book could have been condensed into half the pages.
February 10, 2020
Very interesting book -- I had no idea why the attack happened at the beginning of the movie or after reading a different account of the story -- but this book tells all. It is recommended by the South Dakota travel site. It was published in 1954. Now I have an entirely different opinion of the movie and Hugh Glass.
The author, Frederick Manfred, spent 10 years researching the story and even crawling areas with his leg tied up with sticks and vines. He went to South Dakota to gather gravel, plants, and other natural things along the path Hugh Glass traveled. He crawled through his yard in Bloomington, MN, as well, as his family watched. He ate ants and grubs.
Really interesting account and I feel like I understood little of the real story before reading this book.
The author, Frederick Manfred, spent 10 years researching the story and even crawling areas with his leg tied up with sticks and vines. He went to South Dakota to gather gravel, plants, and other natural things along the path Hugh Glass traveled. He crawled through his yard in Bloomington, MN, as well, as his family watched. He ate ants and grubs.
Really interesting account and I feel like I understood little of the real story before reading this book.
September 24, 2021
If you have seen the movie The Revenant this is the book it is based on. Frederick Manfred does a great job of getting into the mind of Hugh Glass, a mountain man who lived rough, and survived an attack by a grizzly bear. Based on a true story we get to see the kind of life these mountain men lived out in the wilds before civilization tamed the vast spaces. The author's descriptions of the land and the people who inhabit it really puts the reader into the action without sugar coating anything. Hugh Glass apparently led a somewhat checkered life even before becoming a trapper but he had a gritty constitution and the straightforward thinking to help him survive in the harsh environment and against some tricky situations.
May 30, 2021
2.5 stars. For what it is, this book isn’t bad. The writing style is unique and interesting, and perfect for this type of book. If I were judging based solely on the writing it would easily be 4-5 stars. However, the content of the book was not my favorite. There were parts of it that I could have done without, although some might argue those parts made the book feel more real or reflect the life of the frontiersman and mountain-men more accurately. Regardless, there were enough moments and scenes I didn’t enjoy for me to give this 2.5 stars. The ending was one of the parts of the book I can truly claim to have enjoyed, besides the writing.
February 14, 2021
This is about as riveting an adventure story as you'll ever read. It is a fictionalized account of an actual happening. The story is of a mountain man named Hugh Glass who was horrifically mauled by a grizzly bear and left to die by his companions. In spite of being near death and left with no weapons he was able to recover enough to attempt to save himself and began a two hundred mile crawl on two elbows and one knee back to a fort. It's an incredible story full of numerous near death experiences that was well written and full of mountain man slang.
March 2, 2023
One of Frederick Manfred's "The Buckskin Man's Tales", this story, fiction, however based on a true story, real person, Hugh Glass, a Mountain man. The story provides extensive understanding and vision of the era of Mountain Men, their character, adaptation to the American West and Wilderness, their love thereof, and living a lifestyle off the land, supporting the military and opening territory stolen from the Indian's making it available for the "White European" settlers moving West. Truly an engrossing story and "history".
July 17, 2025
Phenomenally written book. I really enjoy books where they are seamless and pull you in with imagery and thoughts of the character. I went in believing this book would be really similar to the more the revenant. However, there were aspects of it that were right on and others where the two split in two directions. It’s kind of similar to No Country for Old Men in that sense. The addition to the “worldly” vengeance was a pretty need addition as well. Especially as the protagonist works his way for the “Lord’s vengeance”, or what he believes it is.
December 31, 2018
Lord Grizzly was a book I monumentally enjoyed. I am a fan of the Old West, and if you're a fan like me, then you will probably love this book too. Hugh Glass is a great main character, with his years of experience and knowledge, and how he shows young mountain men the ropes. After felling upon a huge grizzly, the events that follow are greatly depicted by Frederick Manfred.
July 29, 2020
About as close as I will ever get to living in the real old West. Hugh's encounters with cowpokes, Indians, bears, ants and rattlers is so realistic and informative that you feel like you are living his ordeal. Amazing book and an unusual glimpse of reality.
March 14, 2021
this book kicks so much ass it isnt even funny. beyond doubt, this is the best fictional story of hugh glass. it makes the revenant seem like candyland. it puts john colter to shame. only georges drouillard can say he had it worse than old hugh did. i cannot recommend this book enough.
July 10, 2017
Historical fiction of early US development in the west, one of my favorites!! Having grown up with Louis L'amour and other writers of that time, the great US West never fails to catch my imagination!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 86 reviews