Re: Thoreau on the Moose, Paul Theroux

["C. L. Rawlins" <rawlins@carbonpower.net>]

dear all,


I must apologise for the fierceness of my response, and hope that it 
doesn't block further discussion on the thread. Lynch is often a 
provocateur, posting items that startle me out of the willows, roaring 
like a startled griz. But having done so, I'll rest on my haunches and 
be a companionable sort of beast.


Since this is for the most part a haunt of literary scholars, I suppose 
I owe you a brief textual analysis.


Thoreau invoked. This pricks my wariness like hearing a politician quote 
scripture. "gentle creatures" Hardly an accurate characterisation of 
moose, except in a picture-book sense.


Why is Thoreau's acknowledgement (in 1853) of the Indians' dependence on 
moose for meat and hides grudging? Why should he begrudge them their 
traditional livelihood? Theroux's rant on what Thoreau might have 
objected to is entirely self serving: I the writer am a righteous 
person, therefore Thoreau (or Jesus or the Buddha) would agree with all 
my present political views. After which he lumps politicians, injustice, 
and hunters. He then exemplifies hunters with a list of politicians who 
killed animals for trophies or amusement or cheap thrills, with Sarah 
Palin appended.
> "I have no strong views on hunting, only the usual disgust when I see a
> creature senselessly slaughtered at no risk to the hunter." 

"Senselessly slaughtered" seems like a strong view, especially when the 
writer offers no specific example— perhaps he has none to offer, other 
than Thoreau's. But this leads to the conclusion that all hunting is 
senseless slaughter. Sounds a bit like the 19th-century rationale that 
the wild bloodthirsty Indians would be better off when the buffalo were 
all dead, and they were confined to reservations and forced (gently) to 
grow crops. Or, if they objected, sensibly slaughtered in the best 
Christian manner.


And how should the risk to the hunter be judged? There's a vein of 
stupid self-righteousness here that offends me in more ways than one.


The part of Thoreau's account that strikes me is that the moose was 
evidently nursing young. An observant and patient hunter spares an 
animal with young, since to kill one means the death of the offspring 
(moose often bear twins). Thus, killing one moose leads to the death of 
two or three— if one depends on moose for food, this is a grave error, 
and sad to boot. A hunter might take the life of a single moose, while 
caring about the preservation of moose in the broadest sense. Does 
pulling and eating a carrot mean one would wish all carrots dead?


Thoreau can be stirring and also quite foolish, in one breath. But I 
think Theroux has used him cheaply. If we are at this moment in the same 
political camp, our tents are rather far apart. Thank heaven for that.


Chip