among the earliest widespread criticisms of riley were opinions that his dialect writing did not actually represent the true dialect of central indiana. in 1970 peter revell wrote riley's dialect was more like the poor speech of a child rather than the dialect of his region. he made extensive comparisons to historical texts and riley's dialect usage. philip greasley wrote that while "some critics have dismissed him as sub-literary, insincere, and an artificial entertainer, his defenders reply that an author so popular with millions of people in different walks of life must contribute something of value, and that his faults, if any, can be ignored".