Critical Essay: The Way to Rainy Mountain

N. Scott Momaday’s work, The Way to Rainy Mountain, focuses on the Kiowa peoples’ journey to Rainy Mountain in Oklahoma. This particular piece of work deals mostly with the physical journey, but does so in a biocentric manner. The Kiowa people were deeply connected to nature, which is made overtly clear with each of the three points of view used in Momaday’s work. However, The Way to Rainy Mountain shows the intense relationship between the Kiowa people and animals. It is a beautiful example of how a group can extend democracy to nonhumans, which differs greatly from today’s society because of its consistent dominion over all of nature. Momaday’s work offers an ecocritical outlook which, when applied to our own society, creates a stark contrast in both understanding and treatment of nonhumans. 

The Way to Rainy Mountain is a piece of work written by N. Scott Momaday. The work’s central focus is the Kiowa’s journey. The work follows the Kiowa people from their beginnings in Montana to their ending near Rainy Mountain in Oklahoma. N. Scott Momaday’s book is told in the point of view of three different voices. First, there is an ancestral voice that focuses on the myths and folk lore of the Kiowa people. Second, there is a historical voice which is much more accurate and gives a much more detailed description of the Kiowas. Third, Momaday’s point of view is given, in which he uses the final portion of the text to write in a poetic manner to describe his own experience as a Kiowa. What is consistent within all three is Momaday’s discussion of nature frequently in his work The Way to Rainy Mountain.

According to Lynn White, Jr., in his Essay “The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis”, in order to ever be able to move forward it is necessary to understand the past. In fact, White specifically states, “As a beginning we should try to clarify our thinking by looking, in some historical depth at the presuppositions that underlie modern technology and science” (40). To White, it is more than obvious that mankind was the downfall of nature. Along with this, he recognizes that prior to the industrial revolution man had a cohabitational relationship with nature. He writes, “Formerly man had been part of nature; now he was the exploiter of nature” (White 42). 

Within the three different points of view in Momaday’s work, The Way to Rainy Mountain, both a historical and contemporary look at the Kiowa’s relationship with nature is elaborated on. Because the first point of view given within Momaday’s book is the ancestral and mythical voice, and the first account within it is something of a creation story. It is said that the Kiowa people came into the world, one by one, through a hollow log. According to this account, “They called themselves Kwuda, ‘coming out’” (Momaday 16). The second point of view, the historical record, does not say anything regarding the hollow log. However, it does give a historical count of the beginning of the Kiowas which can function as an alternative creation story that is without the mystical element found in the first point of view. The historical record discusses the tribe’s name, as well as where it derived from, while also making note of the Kiowa peoples’ appearance. These two accounts, that of the ancestral and the historical voice, bring about a clarification of why the Kiowas worship nature; that is where they came from. N. Scott Momaday’s work clearly supports White’s theory that man was once a member of the natural world, while now he is only an outsider who explores it. 

A clear and concise historical background is given in each section of the text, which helps both readers and Momaday to better understand the difference between the past and the present. That being said, Momaday’s point of view is given in a more contemporary manner. While it is clear that as a more contemporary Kiowa Momaday still has great respect for nature, the relationship is much different than that of the historical and ancestral voices. N. Scott Momaday is travelling to Rainy Mountain to discover more about his ancestors, although he is doing so because he can, not because he should. In fact, his point of view in the first section of the text is nothing more than a memory. He states, “[…] Now I see the earth as it really is; never again will I see things as I saw them yesterday or the day before” (Momaday 17).

Like Lynn White, Jr.’s theory, Cheryll Glotfelty also recognizes that in order to prevent further damage one must be able to understand the problems of the past. In her essay “Literary Studies in an Age of Environmental Crisis,” she states, “The answer lies in recognizing that current environmental problems are largely of our own making, […], a by product of culture” (Glotfelty 124). Glotfelty quotes Donald Worster as stating the following:

We are facing a global crisis today, not because of how ecosystems function but rather because of how our ethical systems function. Getting through the crisis requires understanding our impact on nature as precisely as possible, but even more, it requires understand those ethical systems and using that understanding to reform them. Historians, along with literary scholars, anthropologists, and philosophers, cannot do the reforming, of course, but they can help with the understanding (124).

With this, Worster, and Glotfelty are making it known that in the past nature was not treated as harshly as it has been in the modern world. Worster notes that the ecological crisis has occurred due to a change in ethics. N. Scott Momaday’s work highlights the love that the Kiowa people showed to nature. Historically speaking, Native Americans treated the natural world with love and kindness; they even worshiped it. This is prevalent in The Way to Rainy Mountain, where it is made clear in all three points of view that the Kiowa people had adoration to the earth they lived on; they even worshiped the sun. This adoration and relationship to the natural world, as previously mentioned, comes from the Kiowa’s belief that they came from nature (i.e., the hollow log). Because they came from nature, they knew that nature could take them away; therefore, they had profound respect of the world around them. The way the Kiowa tribe treated nature, and nonhumans, was with respect and dignity; nothing like the way the present world does. 

The second section of Momaday’s work discusses the act of hunting. When mentioning the killing of game for food, the historical record clearly states, “By necessity were the Kiowas reminded of their ancient ways” (Momaday 19). This clarifies that the Kiowas did not wish to harm animals and only did so in order to survive, showing that their understanding of nature not only extended past themselves but onto non-human animals. Glotfelty notes that the present day is much more anthropocentric than it ever has been before. She argues for a more “earth centered approach” to give back to nature, which is exactly what Kiowa people had (122). The present day is contrasted obviously by Momaday, who makes it clear in his work that the Kiowa people have an extremely biocentric view of the world. 

The historical Kiowa tribe would likely be more concerned with deep ecology than their present-day descendants. According to Arne Naess, author of the essay “The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects,” there are eight ways to look at deep ecology. In these eight different definitions, Naess describes deep ecology as the ecocritical view of utilitarianism, which allows autonomy and intrinsic value to both humans and nonhuman animals; not only are nonhuman animals inherently granted rights to their own spaces because of their intrinsic value, but the consistent human interference into the world of nonhumans is looked at as a breach of God-given rights. It is critical that policy change to reflect this worth, which would involve an even deeper ideological change in individuals that would give way to a more appreciated quality of life over a higher standard of living for humans only. If one is aware of this criticism, they are required to become more involved and to help implement the necessary changes required for this understanding (49-50). 

The Kiowa people are very representative of this, specifically when it comes to animals (i.e. with their resources). Again, the Kiowa people only killed animals when necessary to their survival. If it were not for hunger, they would not have harmed any nonhuman animals (Momaday 19). In fact, they had so much respect for animals that they named their bravest warriors after them. According to the historical record in the third section of the text, “The principal warrior society of the Kiowas was the Ka-itsenko, ‘Real Dogs,’ and it was made up of then men only, the ten most brave” (Momaday 21). The Kiowas looked to animals as having high honor, which is evident as they were willing to name warriors after them. Not only that, but dogs also meant something to Momaday himself. On the subject of dogs, the third section reads, “They belonged there in a sense that the word ‘ownership’ does not include” (Momaday 21). Man did not own nonhumans. In this case, man did not have dominion, which differs greatly from the society we live in today.

Writers like Burno Latour explicitly state that in order to come out of this ecological crisis, one of the main necessities is giving back democracy to nonhumans. In his piece “What is to be Done? Political Ecology!,” he discusses in this theory that just because something is more difficult does not mean that it will not be worth the work. He writes:

Here, too, I am asking for just a tiny concession: that the question of democracy be extended to nonhumans. But is this not at bottom what the scientists have always most passionately wanted to defend: to have absolute assurance that facts are not constructed by mere human passions? They believed too quickly that they had reached this goal by the short-cut of matters of fact kept from the outset apart from all public discussion. Can one not obtain – more painfully, more laboriously, to be sure – a quite superior guarantee if humans are no longer alone in elaborating their Republic, their common thing? (Latour 233).

What Latour is asking, that democracy be given back to nonhumans, is precisely what the Kiowa people achieved. While it was not always the easiest to achieve it was always seen as the correct thing to do. Unlike the Kiowas, more contemporary humans are unaware of the consequences of their own actions, ultimately causing the destruction of nature (Latour 235). This is something that never would have taken place within the tribe of the Kiowa people, because their understanding of nature as divine is no longer seen today. Latour writes that “nature is no longer there to unite us without lifting a finger,” an idea that could not have ever been imagined in the time of the Kiowas.

Today, nature is considered to be peaceful and good for the soul. However, according to William Cronan, this is only because humans have created this image of nature. In his essay “The Trouble with Wilderness; Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature,” Cronon explicitly states that nature was not always considered to peaceful and enjoyable. He writes, “To be a wilderness then was to be ‘deserted,’ ‘savage,’ ‘desolate,’ ‘barren’ – in short, a ‘waste’ […] Its connotations were anything but positive” (Cronan 103). Unlike in the time of the Kiowa people, nature was formerly viewed as something to be afraid of. The idea that wilderness is somewhere to go in an attempt to escape everyday life is what Cronan considers a “cultural invention” (103). It is only viewed this way in contemporary culture because humans have created a dichotomy between what they deem to be their world and the one they escape to, due to the hustle and bustle of everyday life. 

In contrast, the Kiowa people worshipped nature as God gave it to them; without modification. No matter the fear or hesitation, the Kiowas knew to look at nature with a biocentric view; they looked to nature for safety, rather than with fear. One of the historical points of view in Momaday’s text, The Way to Rainy Mountain, states “At times the plains are bright and calm and quiet; at times they are black with the sudden violence of weather. Always there are winds” (49). This suggests that they looked to the winds for reassurance. The wind provided safety. This statement makes it seem as though without wind there would be trouble. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. Cronan states, “[…] Wilderness came to […] represent a highly attractive natural alternative to the ugly artificiality of modern civilization” (109). Because of the way that modern man has taken dominion over the Earth, not many people hold the same respect that people like those of the Kiowa tribe did. Today, according to Cronan, we have “constructed” wilderness (109). Rather than loving the nature that was given to us, present day humans feel the need to take from nature without reciprocation; something the Kiowas would have never dreamed of. 

One of last days of the Kiowas was in 1861, when Gaapiatan, and old man involved in the Sun Dance, sacrificed his spotted horse to Tai-me. According to the historical point of view, the horse that was sacrificed was “one of his best horses, a fine black-eared animal” (Momaday 71). This horse was clearly an honor for Gaapiatan to own. The third point of view, that of Momaday, elaborates as follows:

I like to think of old man Gaapiatan and his horse. I think I know how much he loved that animal; I think I know what was going on in his mind: If you will give me my life and the lives of my family, I will give you the life of this black-eared horse. (Momaday 71)

In order to save himself and his family, Gaapiatan sacrificed his most prized horse. In this case, he gave back to nature in order to save himself. He gave what he loved to save what he loved more. Horses, like most animals, were something that the Kiowas did not think lightly of.

While there are many points to be made concerning ecocriticism in N. Scott Momaday’s The Way to Rainy Mountain, the more prevalent focus is on giving democracy to nonhumans; something that differs greatly in today’s society. The Kiowa people, as narrated in Momaday’s work, had a powerful relationship with nature; more specifically, animals. Each of the three different points of view in The Way to Rainy Mountain, the ancestral, the historical, and Momaday’s, make this clear in the text. It is obvious that through an ecocritical lenses that one of strongest qualities of the Kiowa people, throughout their journey to Rainy Mountain, in Oklahoma was their biocentric view of nature. The Kiowa people worshiped the wilderness that surrounded them; something that more people in today’s society should focus on. N. Scott Momaday ends The Way to Rainy Mountain with a poem titled “Rainy Mountain Cemetery,” which serves as a representation of the difference in nature from past to present; “The mountain burns and shines […]” (89).

Works Cited

Cronan, William. “The Touble with Wilderness; Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature.” Ecocriticism: The Essential Reader, edited by Ken Hiltner, Routledge, 2015, 102-117.

Glotfelty, Cheryll. “Literary Studies in an Age of Environmental Crisis.” Ecocriticism: The Essential Reader, edited by Ken Hiltner, Routledge, 2015, 120-130.

Latour, Bruno. “What is to be Done? Political Ecology!” Ecocriticism: The Essential Reader, edited by Ken Hiltner, Routledge, 2015, 232-236.

Momaday, N., Scott. The Way to Rainy Mountain. University of New Mexico Press. 1969.

Naess, Arne. “The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects.” Ecocriticism: The Essential Reader, edited by Ken Hiltner, Routledge, 2015, 47-61.

White, Lynn, Jr. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis.” Ecocriticism: The Essential Reader, edited by Ken Hiltner, Routledge, 2015, 39-46.