Lisa Tatonetti, The Queerness of Native American Literature. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2014. 304 pages. ISBN 978-0-81669279-8. $25.00 USD paperback.At times, while reading The Queerness of Native American Literature, I found myself wondering for whom this book was written. I tried imagine audience as I negotiated my own position in reading this book. The challenges of intersectionality and multiplicity, one imagines, are that we are always occupying several, but never all, spaces. Thus, 1 read this book as a literary scholar working in queer theory, but not as a scholar working deeply and meaningfully (at least not as much as I would hope) on Native American Studies. So this book was as much an education as it was a reminder of kinds of questions queer theory and literary studies need be asking.Literary studies has had a troubled relationship with canon, Western canon, and even just mere idea of a canon, and The Queerness of Native American Literature is certainly no exception, even as it seeks affirm canon's value. Early on, Lisa Tatonetti explains that project seeks expand and to provide ways of seeing (ix). Expanding archive often seems like a strange analogy, for archive is a kind of limitless possibility that has been deployed in hopes of expanding canon, but importantly, Tatonetti encourages her reader think about ways of of ways of reading these texts that have, for too long, remained uncovered in archive. In thinking about new ways of seeing, I've read this book as a timely and important intervention in literary studies and queer studies, both of which need take account of queer and Native intellectual traditions.In many ways, what I so much in The Queerness of Native American Literature is its treatment of canonical questions. For instance, in second chapter, devoted Maurice Kenny, we are asked: What might be learned from erotic parodies of Wordsworth, A. E. Houseman, and Byron? (29) Indeed, such a question requires that readers recognize source of parody. The author, at no point, imagines moving so far beyond canon that canon serves no purpose; instead, we are reminded, time and again, that of canon may well be in ways it can be subverted.A second, and perhaps more important, value that I appreciate in this work is its insistence upon close reading. In same chapter, we read: Or what's be made of a reverie on a in a homophobic slur? (29) Queer theory, in space of literary studies, is, my mind, at its finest when it is reading closely, dealing with finer details of its texts, and exploring what a misplaced apostrophe might mean for a given text (and Tatonetti will do just that in this chapter!).In this chapter, we also find an important critique of work of late Jose Munoz. Tatonetti notes that Munoz stops short of recognizing importance of Indigenous voices his project of queer recovery (39). While certainly true, one wonders what happens then Indigeneity of feeling brown, Munoz's project, or what happens Indigenous bodies in Latino contexts. While critique is welcomed, it is also a condition of writing: we can never write about everything. Tatonetti, thus, take[s] up invitation here by arguing that if we are really 'desire differently,' as Munoz suggests, we must listen for reverberations of queer indigeneity (39). Queer theory would do well engage, listen to, and learn from this project of listening for those very reverberations.In third chapter, project of expanding canon moves in another direction, thus, we continue the process of recovery, recognition, and reconnection by turning work of one of most renowned authors in American Indian literature, Louise Edrich, and author argues that queerness was always already at heart of Indigenous literature. …