In a much-needed intervention in the scholarship on Métis leader Louis Riel, M. Max Hamon successfully brings Riel’s agency to the forefront in this work. Hamon argues that Riel participated in creating a new political environment that attempted to integrate Métis, First Nation, and Canadian (French and British) perspectives. Hamon positions Riel as a man “connected to, rather than disconnected from, the worlds that he encountered” (14), and he claims that Riel aimed to create understanding of Métis claims of nationhood and rights within the Canadian public, not as an enemy to the Canadian project.Hamon uses a decolonizing approach, choosing to end the book in 1875 rather than Riel’s death in 1885. This periodization allows the focus to remain on Riel’s agency and to emphasize areas of Riel’s life other than the Resistance of 1885. Also, Hamon moves beyond the published versions of Riel’s writings, and potential biases created through their editors, turning instead to the original archives to bring a fresh perspective to these items. Hamon argues that original archives produced new information on Riel’s family and aided in Hamon’s goal to “overturn earlier interpretations of Louis Riel” (16). Additionally, this focus on the archives allowed Hamon to use archival documents on Riel’s education, noting that focusing on these years allows the careful consideration of how Riel’s indigeneity was received.Hamon also approaches Riel through a chronological approach to four main foci: family, education, political culture, and networking. Hamon links Riel to a long tradition of Métis politics, beginning with his parents and showing that this was not dampened by his education in Montreal. Hamon positions Riel not in just Métis politics but also within the broader Canadian political sphere, examining his use of networking through letters. Hamon demonstrates the more comprehensive links that his networking created—not just in Métis politics but also in Canadian politics and the confederation process. These letters and networking connected Riel to his family, the Church (Bishop Taché and Bourget—the Bishop of Montreal), and the newspapers. Hamon establishes how, especially in his campaign for amnesty, Riel created communication lines between Montreal and Red River. Hamon also notes that this focus on Riel’s networks counters the metropole-periphery framework Riel is usually placed in and highlights “multiple meanings, projects, materials, and experiences that constitute the process of colonization” (222).Another point of interest is Hamon’s use of Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital regarding Riel. Hamon connects this capital to Riel’s relationships—both institutional and formal—essential to Riel’s success. Using Bourdieu’s theory, Hamon delineates how the exchanges between these relationships were a critical source of capital and power for Riel and how he used this in his search for amnesty. Riel first gained cultural capital during his time at the Collège de Montréal, where he connected with the Lower Canadian cultural elite.Hamon challenges the tragic narrative of previous biographies on Riel while bringing significant information to the broader knowledge regarding Red River’s political and cultural structures. For example, Hamon does an excellent job explaining the processes of the public and the private spheres in the period leading up to the formation of Manitoba and the role and influence of women within the public sphere. Hamon does an admirable job of demonstrating how the Métis and Riel complicate the categories of Indigenous and settler while also grounding Riel’s life in the concepts of wahkohtowin (kinship) and otipemisiwak (those who own themselves).