Talk:The Last of the Mohicans

Terminology

I like the way how the artist expresses his feelings for the cover illustration for the last of the mohicans but this also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.248.211.158 (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC) There is considerable confusion about Mohican vs. Mohegan terminology, as can be seen on the Mohican page, but there's no reason to bring it onto this page, too. The book cals them Mohicans - switching to older/newer/perhaps more authentic terminology halfway through the article just confuses the reader. - DavidWBrooks 03:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi.

Yes, there has been confusion between the terms in less scholarly work. But, I think it would be better to not perpetuate the confusion. We now have a much better knowledge of some of the different indigenous groups, so we dont need to conflate these two anymore. I think that since "Mohican" has been used to refer to 2 different peoples, we should use the names "Mohegan" & "Mahican" for their respective groups as these terms have not been used with quite as much confusion.

Yes, switching terms is confusing. I was just blindly changing what links to Mohican. I have added a little parenthetical note.

(am i convincing you a little?) Peace. - ishwar (SPEAK) 04:12, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

Yes, that seems fine to me. - DavidWBrooks 11:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Inaccurate title?

I removed the statement that the title is inaccurate; the Mohicans were moved from their lands, Christianized, their language is extinct, and they're not even called Mahicans anymore (they're Stockbridge Indians to everyone but anthropologists). Generally speaking, the loss of homeland, religion, language, and name is sufficient to define the end of a cultural group. Chingachgook and Uncas were the last true Mahicans remaining in their native land with their langauge and their religion; after Uncas died, Chingachgook was the last. Kafziel 16:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the title comes from a quote in the book where Tamenund says "I have lived to see the last warrior of the wise race of the Mohicans". Yes, Tamenund knows that many Mohicans are still living. BradMajors 20:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Stub?

I don't think I would categorize this as a stub. It's been around for years, it's had plenty of editors work on it, and it's a pretty good length. Maybe not featured article quality, but not a stub, either.

Still, to be fair, I just changed the stub type from "Western" (which it certainly is not) to "Historical fiction", which (though somewhat vague) fits much better. I'm only going to leave it on for a short time, though; if anyone feels this fits the description of a stub, please explain why. Kafziel 13:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You're correct: Not a stub. - DavidWBrooks 14:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Blood brothers

Is it true that Bumppo and Chingachgook are blood brothers? If so, it should be mentioned in the article Blood brother. --Abe Lincoln 17:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone else been noticing that titles of pages in wiki are becoming hyperlinks??? Ive noticed a few today...when you refresh the page, they go away! WHAT THE **** User:theprivateer83 22 July 2006 19:50

Confusingly worded sentence

This sentence doesn't seem to read well to me, and I suspect it could be broken into two sentences to improve the readability (if I understand its meaning correctly).

"Purportedly, this was supposed to be a novel of the American Indians, and not a tale of romantic relationships that Cooper had found dissatisfactory and prompted him to begin his writing career."

Does it mean that he found contemporary books about romantic relationships and authored by others dissatisfactory? Would it read better if it was re-written and split into two sentences? "Purportedly, this was supposed to be a novel of the American Indians. He was dissatisfied with contemporary tales of romantic relationships, and this spurred him to begin his writing career." 71.112.11.120 19:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

1992 Michael Mann film

The main character of the 1992 film does indeed have the name Hawkeye. I'm deleting the sentence that says his name was changed "to avoid confusion with the M*A*S*H character".

"I think this movie relies too much on the 1992 film. Several sentences start with the line, "In the film version..." There are several film versions, and what happens in the 1992 film should be kept to that film's page!"

I agree. And speaking of the Mann film:

Nevertheless, the stunning vistas in Mann's film, as well as the large number of extras and dramatic visual effects make his movie exceptionally memorable.

...I took the liberty of deleting this entirely, finding it both immaterial and non-NPOV. But if anyone reverts it, then the hell with it.Vonbontee (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 08:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Narrative flaws?

What does that mean. If it means innacuracies, let's just say so in simple language. Sethie (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Alice and Duncan Heyward fall in love

While Alice and Duncan fall in love in the book, I think in the 1992 movie Duncan falls in love with Cora. BradMajors (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Awful sentence

I just found the following sentence in the article: "A number of films have been based on the book, which is long - and movies need to be short. Hence, numerous cuts, compressions, and inevitable distortions appear in the film versions..." I disagree entirely with the sentiment, but somewhat understand what the writer is trying to say. I will replace it with the following: "A number of films have been based on the lengthy book, with numerous cuts, compressions, and distortions occurring in the story. The adaptations include..."

It's probably not worded so well, but I think it's better than what was there before. Some of my favorite movies are very very long. 74.182.8.21 (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Novel vs. Film

Those who edit this article need to be mindful of the film's inaccuracies in reference to the novel and not ascribe events from the film necessarily to the novel. For instance, the article states that Uncas raced after Magua to save Alice, whom he loved. In fact, he raced after Magua to save Cora, but never showed her any overt affection. I will be correcting such errors as I identify them. Yock (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this also. I don't remember Cora dying in the book... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Everestgirl (talk • contribs) 15:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

she did die I read the book twice. yea she was stabbed by Magua's associate

173.51.68.51 (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

uncas not LOTM

uncas wasn't the last of the mohicans. his father was. uncas died. 173.51.68.51 (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Who's messing up the text?

Just a visitor, but it seems someone has intentionally garbled the text. Is there a plan to fix (and protect) the entry in the future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.35.84 (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Spike in traffic to the page

Can anyone explain the Spike in traffic to this page in the last couple days? Sadads (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

They showed the film on UK Channel 5. That's what brought me here to look up the article (and decide to hopefully improve it) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, didn't know that could cause such a dramatic spike, glad it brought you to this article, 16:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll hopefully complete another section tonight (last night was late nite shopping night) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of info about the 'real' Uncas

An IP just removed the info in the lede about the 'real' Uncas. I have reverted as no edit summary was used, but it may not be your usual vandalism, as IP was quite careful about picking the bits to delete. IP could perhaps use an edit summary or explain here what they are doing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Adopted son of Chingachgook"/Cora's heritage

The list of characters in the article states that Bumppo is the "adopted son of Chingachgook." That is the presentation in the 1992 movie. However, I do not believe there is anything to support that in the novel. In fact, Hawkeye and Chingachgook seem to be contemporaries in the book, and Uncas is younger than both. Bumppo is constantly instructing the younger Uncas, in the style of a father or uncle. Also, Cora obviously has some African ancestry in the book, but the book says it is "remote" and therefore the "quadroon" assertion in the article is probably not true to Cooper's text. Hartfelt (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That's been added back in, as I'm sure I took it out once before. Nathaniel and Chingachgook are much closer together in age in the book. Quadroon, however, I think comes out of the book. The entire text is online, easy to check.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Plot Paragraph

Someone removed the plot section and tried to distill it into a single badly written paragraph. I have restored the edit and attempted to make the summary more concise. Perhaps someone with more skill than I can find a way to make it more of a "summary."

critical reception

The critical reception is not representative at all, instead it focuses on a few well known negative criticisms (in particular Mark Twain). While these do belong in the article there are in no way representative for the overall reception and moreover any modern (often more positive) reception is missing completely.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)