A View to a Death in the Morning: Hunting and Nature Through History

Rating:
Summary: "Killer ape"?
Review: Cartmill's "A View to a Death in the Morning" is a scholarly mix of anthropology, history, sociology, and biology -- all focused on the hydra-headed question of "Must man prey on and kill animals?" This is one of those subjects that each reader will address from his own biases and experiences, a fact acknowledged by the author when he tells us that "the motives of hunting are vague and visceral; nonhunters find them hard to understand." Clearly, this author's perspective puts him in the SPCA/PETA corner. As his thesis unfolds, this increasingly becomes the inescapable place to be when rationally critiquing the bloodlust that drives modern man to this activity ("sport" doesn't honestly apply, given the odds-on outcomes of the hunt.)

Hunters will hurl this title into the fire fairly quickly unless they have a capacity to maintain composure in the face of a reasoned, well-defended argument; likewise, those anti-hunters will find cogent proofs and a compendium of socio-cultural allusions, anecdotes, and references to bolster their perspective. From the Bible to Bambi, it's all here -- except for the curious omissions of the bison's decimation, Melville's philosophical focus in "Moby Dick," commentary on Faulkner's "The Bear," and Hemingway's fiction and nonfiction generally. In this last regard, Cartmill is cagily self-serving since he states that "hunters have trouble articulating and defending their motives."

Bottom line: Are we natural-born "killer apes" who've only recently become afflicted by the "Bambi Syndrome"?

Rating:
Summary: "Killer ape"?
Review: Cartmill's "A View to a Death in the Morning" is a scholarly mix of anthropology, history, sociology, and biology -- all focused on the hydra-headed question of "Must man prey on and kill animals?" This is one of those subjects that each reader will address from his own biases and experiences, a fact acknowledged by the author when he tells us that "the motives of hunting are vague and visceral; nonhunters find them hard to understand." Clearly, this author's perspective puts him in the SPCA/PETA corner. As his thesis unfolds, this increasingly becomes the inescapable place to be when rationally critiquing the bloodlust that drives modern man to this activity ("sport" doesn't honestly apply, given the odds-on outcomes of the hunt.)

Hunters will hurl this title into the fire fairly quickly unless they have a capacity to maintain composure in the face of a reasoned, well-defended argument; likewise, those anti-hunters will find cogent proofs and a compendium of socio-cultural allusions, anecdotes, and references to bolster their perspective. From the Bible to Bambi, it's all here -- except for the curious omissions of the bison's decimation, Melville's philosophical focus in "Moby Dick," commentary on Faulkner's "The Bear," and Hemingway's fiction and nonfiction generally. In this last regard, Cartmill is cagily self-serving since he states that "hunters have trouble articulating and defending their motives."

Bottom line: Are we natural-born "killer apes" who've only recently become afflicted by the "Bambi Syndrome"?

Rating:
Summary: Good history of the anti-hunting movement
Review: The book explores many of the questions of hunting and anti-hunting. It spends a surprising amount of time considering the question of whether human evolution was driven by hunting (perhaps because that has been one of the justifications for the continuation of hunting traditions), as well as a review of the emergence of anti-hunting themes and the animal rights movement. It makes an obvious error in the interpretation of Leupold's statement in the assignment of rights in the discussion of Leupold's land ethic. The point of the book is to develop arguments against many of the current justifications for hunting, and for the emergence of the notion of animal rights. It does not do a very good job of describing the current hunting ethic in the US, nor does it describe the rather complex gradiations in that population.

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant but Uneven
Review: The first several chapters of this book are an intellectual tour de force of absolutely wonderful writing about science, literature, and culture. For anyone interested in hunting, pro or con, this is a must-read. The last chapter, however, takes an amazingly demagogic and unreasoned turn. Cartmill reinscribes most of the same paradigms that he so brilliantly critiques in the chapters leading up to the final one. Seeing two poachers dressing a fawn by the side of a road, he treats them as representative examples of hunters; without so much as a nod at the distinction between poaching and hunting, he goes on to say that this incident is what motivates his personal anti-hunting sentiments. But most hunters would be similarly disgusted with the acts of the two men--there are law enforcement programs making it easy to turn in poachers and hunters themselves are the ones who usually do so. Also, Cartmill quotes a "Buck Peterson" book on deer hunting as though it were a serious discussion of hunting ethics, when it is in fact a joke book (one that most real hunters would, again, find in very bad taste). The pure emotion that drives both sides of this argument is apparently capable of blinding even a first-class intellect such as Cartmill's.

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant but Uneven
Review: The first several chapters of this book are an intellectual tour de force of absolutely wonderful writing about science, literature, and culture. For anyone interested in hunting, pro or con, this is a must-read. The last chapter, however, takes an amazingly demagogic and unreasoned turn. Cartmill reinscribes most of the same paradigms that he so brilliantly critiques in the chapters leading up to the final one. Seeing two poachers dressing a fawn by the side of a road, he treats them as representative examples of hunters; without so much as a nod at the distinction between poaching and hunting, he goes on to say that this incident is what motivates his personal anti-hunting sentiments. But most hunters would be similarly disgusted with the acts of the two men--there are law enforcement programs making it easy to turn in poachers and hunters themselves are the ones who usually do so. Also, Cartmill quotes a "Buck Peterson" book on deer hunting as though it were a serious discussion of hunting ethics, when it is in fact a joke book (one that most real hunters would, again, find in very bad taste). The pure emotion that drives both sides of this argument is apparently capable of blinding even a first-class intellect such as Cartmill's.

Rating:
Summary: A balanced and scholarly account
Review: While I agree with what the other reviewers have said, I want to add three points: 1) Carmtmill does not come across as heavy-handed or doctrinaire in his criticisms of hunting. Since the debate on this issue can be quite shrill, his measured tone is a relief. 2) His scholarship is of a very high quality. All of his claims are thoroughly documented. Since one of his chapters concerns the topic of my dissertation, I can say that he presents complicated matters clearly and without any distortions. 3) His writing style is simply excellent. I have seldom read a serious, academic book that had such an engaging style - I read it in one sitting! I would give this 4 1/2 stars if I could.