Welcome back to The Real World According To Sam!
Early into the pandemic last year, I went to the library to get a stack of books to read during quarantine. I had recently moved into an area where coyotes were more present and thought I would try to find a book to read up on the species a bit more. I know a fair bit of information about them from living in the Chihuahuan desert ecosystem for so long, but I wanted to know more. So I picked up this book:
Coyote: Seeking the Hunter in Our Midst
Author: Catherine Reid
Genre: Non-Fiction
Year: 2004
Synopsis
One of the most dramatic wildlife stories of our times -- the ever-increasing presence of a wholly new species, literally part wolf, in every suburb, city, and backyard east of the Mississippi.
Catherine Reid left her hometown in western Massachusetts in the 1970s, when people were just beginning to talk about a new creature sliding from the southwest into New England via Ontario, a canid bigger than a coyote, not quite large enough to be a wolf. Back home after decades away and settling into an old farmhouse with her female partner, Reid writers, "A mixture of fear and fascination compel me to take up the hunt. I want to see a coyote, I want to know its story, I want to unravel the way it intersects my own." Her search for this outlaw species leads her to rich and remarkably controversial fieldwork; to a session with a coyote litter in captivity; and, eventually, to spine-tingling sightings in the wild.
Reid alerts us to the extraordinary story of evolution in action unfolding under our very noses, the story of an animal that is a "mix of wolf and coyote, old and new, necessary and fierce and wily." As Reid's beautifully grounded writing shows, the eastern coyote in its hundred-year mitigation from the western plains to New England has picked up wolf DNA and a little-understood combination of coyote and wolf behaviors. The eastern coyote typically weighs considerably more than its western cousin, many well over fifty pounds. The size of the eastern coyote and its ability to take such prey as deer, as well as domestic dogs and cats, have left some ecologists to wonder whether we'll call this animal living among us "coyote" or "wolf" in another twenty years.
Coyote rekindles our age-old fascination with coyote as trickster, coyote (as Mark Twain put it) as "living, breathing allegory of Want." And it suggests, through a wealth of astonishing evidence, that we will all need to forge a brand-new relationship to this large, until recently unknown, and uncannily intelligent hunter in our midst.
Review
Oh boy,...where do I even start with this book?
I picked it up because I wanted to learn more about coyotes. From the synopsis, you would think this would be a very informative text on the species. You would think this would be a rather scientific work to a certain extent. It mentions "fieldwork" and "sightings in the wild" in the synopsis. Looking at the author's bio, it reads, "naturalist, teacher, editor, and poet." So while she isn't a scientist, she IS a teacher and naturalist, so maybe she is very passionate about nature and she should be effective at presenting information. Would anyone fault me for making those assumptions? Granted, to call yourself a naturalist from a certain perspective, you don't need any particular degree. There is a field of study called naturalism, that does fall under biology and which is a serious science. However, there is also room for the amateur naturalist who just appreciates nature. I honestly think that calling herself a naturalist without elaborating on that, and clarifying her experience/education, was Reid's first mistake.
Reid is a community college "teacher." She doesn't call herself a professor and she doesn't list any degrees that she holds in a science field. She actually predominantly teaches literature and creative writing. She specialized in environmental writing and nonfiction, according to her Amazon bio. She has two other books, neither of which are fully scientific works. They generally appear to be personal appreciation of nature. That is perfectly fine, but the synopsis of this book presents it as a very different type of book.
That's the first reason I wasn't too fond of it. I came in looking for well-organized information about coyotes. While there IS information about coyotes provided, I have numerous issues with how it is presented. This should really be labeled as a twisted nature appreciation memoir than anything else. Reid is far from a responsible "naturalist."
Let's first talk about the writing before I get into some of my more detailed gripes. This is creative non-fiction with a definite lack of focus. That's my first big problem. The first chapter opens with an expression of desire to see coyotes, moves into talking about the social/personal difficulties with going back home, mentions more personal/family and house information, and then ends with brief mention of a historical date involving coyotes/wolves before shoving in more personal info. I would normally just call this an introduction to the narrator/author, to try to connect the reader to who is writing and providing them with information--narrator exposition, if you will. Eventually we are actually given information about coyotes, but it is always framed within personal anecdotes, many of which have nothing to do with coyotes. I honestly didn't need to know all these things about the author. I didn't come here asking for her life story. I came here to learn about coyotes. By the time the book provides any worthwhile information about the species, I'm already bogged down with all the other non-essential details, or it was begun in a way that felt very unfocused and undisciplined.
If I would have read this book in the drafting stage, I would have asked the author first and foremost: What are you trying to convey? What is your main point? This book fails to actually find a focal point. I guess the goal is to see a coyote, but the progression of information presented does not logically or smoothly portray that point. Now, you might say, "who are you to say anything about the form? She teaches writing, so isn't she more qualified than you?" Well, I studied creative writing myself and sat through many a workshop with my own work and that of others where we were asked these very same questions. It is a foundational part of creative writing. Knowing what your main point is, in any type of writing.
In a fictional story of any length, it would be what is your book about? How does your character grow? What is your main conflict? There is always a main conflict. In non-fiction, the questions to ask are, what is my main point? What am I trying to tell people? What information do I need to do that? Is my information accurate? Why is this important? In academic writing, what is your thesis? What is your point? Are all of your supporting sections effectively supporting your thesis?
I also studied literature, in which we critically evaluated texts and how they were structured. I've spent a good deal of time doing exactly what I'm doing here, in a classroom setting. The only difference is that I'm doing this for fun...and presently, for no money. Right now, with this blog, I'm getting nothing apart from writing practice and the personal satisfaction that comes with talking about books. I can say with 100% certainty that this book needed serious tightening and a stricter focus.
The chapters in this book are very weakly structured. Some present information from the beginning, then divert into personal information. Others throw in personal information, then sprinkle in a wall of serious information about coyotes, before going right back into personal business. This would be okay, if the personal parts were relevant, or if the transitions from section to section were smooth and well-crafted. The way it is done here is not an effective way to present information to a reader if your whole point is partially to educate them and get them to care about an animal. I've read several zoological texts before; many of them were written by actual scientists and researchers. I've also read casual memoirs involving animals, which were very well structured with what they were trying to do. This book does not belong with either of those books, because those books were all actually focused and worthwhile.
So what are my other gripes?
Reid claims to be a naturalist. She doesn't set this up to begin with in her narrative. The first chapter talks all about her family and how they have kids and what her property is like. She doesn't mention loving nature, just that she wants to see a coyote. She doesn't talk about how she became fascinated or that she has any kind of experience with nature of any kind. She talks about being generally enthralled by a concept regarding coyotes, wolves, and dogs that was published when she graduated high school, but that's about it apart from the fixation with coyotes. The first mention of her profession is in chapter three, where she mentions a remedial reading class and how the students can't grasp figurative language. In the same chapter, I came across this: "In the days since, the skull has shifted from side to side in the road, in a different place each time I pick up mail from the box or drive past on my way to town. Cars skim it, the dogs toss it; so far no one has been moved to bury it" (p. 25). This is in reference to how she had seen a buck (male deer) a bit before and then saw a severed deer head in the road. Immediately after this, she finds a pile of coyote scat and becomes excited. After finding it, "With a jackknife, I push chunks apart, finding mostly hair and black cherry seeds. I slice deeper and find embedded clumps of fur, and a sight that ratchets up the tension between me and the world of the wild -- four cat claws, nacreous as pearls" (p. 26). You're telling me that you come across a severed head and say no one can move it, but you can see a pile of poop and immediately start picking it apart? So you also aren't "moved" enough to "bury" it?
If this was the only instance of paradoxical action or random, unexplained "naturalist" practices, I wouldn't have much to complain about. This also isn't the only instance where defecation is included. There are at least fourteen different anecdotes/sentences that involve urine or feces of human, feline, canine, or other varieties. Fourteen. The problem is that this isn't even addressed in a professional or informative way. It is thrown in and left alone as casually as someone saying "I bought milk from the grocery store."
Before I go any farther, I want to say a few things for those who don't really know me personally. You may be wondering how I can have so many opinions on nature when I'm just reviewing books casually on the internet, with degrees in literature and library science, not in physical science. It turns out, I'm not a novice when it comes to appreciating and learning about nature. When I was younger I wanted to be a zoo keeper, a marine biologist, a zoologist, and all kinds of different animal/nature involved positions. I was often out in nature and I've gone to many museums, national parks, state parks, and nature centers. I love being out exploring. I'm very aware of the ecosystem I live in, as well as those I've visited. I participated in Junior Ranger programs at national parks/national historic sites and I volunteered with a local wildlife coalition many years ago. At museums, I try to read every bit of text, from the beginning of the first exhibit, to the last exhibit I visit. I've been to the zoo so many times and pay so much attention to the zoos I've been to, that I could tell you not just fun facts about the different species, but also the names of some of the animals housed in them. I've been to zoos in different areas of the country. I've been to natural areas of differing ecosystems in the U.S. I also garden and have been to botanical gardens.
In short, I'm not a couch potato that sits around that has never seen nature or been out in it. I've taken walks out in the desert and along walking trails. I have lived within view of one of the largest urban parks lying entirely within city limits in the United States, which also happens to be a state park (Franklin Mountains State Park). I petitioned for protection of Castner Range, back when I was in middle school. I watch nature documentaries for fun and have done so since I was in elementary school. I'm not a scientist, nor will I pretend to be, but I am definitely a nature enthusiast with experiences and knowledge to back up my enthusiasm.
This book mentions tracking animals. The author is not an experienced tracker and neither am I. I haven't done it actively, but I know scientists do it rather often. I've seen displays and diagrams of different types of scat to help identify animals. I can recognize footprints of different species. I also recognize a few of the different calls of some birds in my area, so I don't have to see them to know what they are, even if I AM sitting inside. Is scat important to scientists for study? Yes, they collect samples in the field all the time. But casual hobbyists? They don't pick through scat most times. I've never, ever had a park ranger or scientist tell me to pick apart scat I come across. Why? Cause usually they say to be careful around it due to bacteria that can cause serious illness if you aren't careful and don't know what you're doing.
I am aware that some biologists or nature organizations employ the aid of citizen scientists to collect scat. If you're involved in this kind of project or are proud of being part of an organization, you would mention it if you're talking about something relevant to it. Especially if you share a lot of personal information regarding your family or people you've met that have very little to do with coyotes. Reid never mentions an organization or what she does with this scat. Later in the book she mentions that she doesn't mess with one pile of scat due to potential bacteria, so "this time I bring none of the evidence home" (p. 111). She does not clarify what she usually takes home,...because as I mentioned, her writing is very unfocused. Does she take home scat? Does she take home bones she finds in the scat? Why does she do this? We don't know. We never find out, and it honestly confuses me. If it is an important practice, why mention scat so much, but never elaborate on what you're doing?
Additionally, I question Reid's actual respect of nature and her education on nature at the time some of the mentioned incidents occurred. I understand this book was written early in the 2000s, so it has been awhile. However, some things I just can't excuse. In one instance, Reid wants to get rid of a rodent problem she has in her house. After trapping a mouse that ends up passing, she throws the body of it over the fence, hoping that coyotes will get it and help keep rodents at bay. She doesn't put a note that this is a very bad thing to do in this part of the book. In case you don't know why this concerns me, let me explain real quick.
Many animals end up developing problems with humans, because humans become a feeding source when they start interacting more. So if humans have houses in areas with lots of wildlife, but don't cover their trash, or if trash pick up is not frequent enough, you can get "pest problems." You can get raccoons, rats, or even bears in some areas.
Anyone who goes camping should know that you always secure your food as best as possible to avoid wildlife interaction. In national parks where bears are common, sometimes food has to be stored far enough away from the campsite where you sleep, in a separate building or structure. Bears have been known to go after food that is in a vehicle, even if the vehicle is locked. Bears have amazing senses of smell. Many animals do and will not hesitate to try to get to these food sources.
Similarly, if you feed wild animals, purposely, you will routinely get the same animals, and potentially others, coming to your house, regularly. Feed stray cats and you'll keep getting them. Feed birds and they'll come around for a long while. Feed birds and sometimes you'll start to also get squirrels. You want to get rid of them? It might take a while. Why? They've associated you and your space with food. It becomes a dietary stop, similar to how an animal would go to the same watering hole once they know they can get water there pretty regularly. If it seems safe and there is a guaranteed food source, they'll come and keep coming. They'll lose a general fear of humans and venture further into human areas. This can cause infestations, developments of illness, and disruptions to human and wildlife activity.
Additionally, if you don't give animals the foods they need, they can suffer dietarily and become sick and/or nutritionally deficient and develop health issues. This is why there are always signs and warnings to not feed wildlife at zoos or wildlife preserves. Rule #2 of interacting with nature is not to feed animals (Rule #1 is to respect animals by giving them enough space and keeping your distance). It is dangerous for everyone involved. Yet Reid, as an educated adult who teaches at a community college and loves nature, does exactly this and doesn't mention it is bad when first presenting it. She eventually mentions that this is bad to do,...almost when the book is over in a casual, flippant tone. This is good and fine, but when you present it as a thing to do, leave it be and do other absurd things for a naturalist, and then briefly mention that it isn't what to do, almost as an afterthought,...you aren't educating people effectively.
As if that in of itself wasn't enough, the book gets much worse. At one point, Reid discusses a raccoon problem. She first thinks of doing catch and release, but this method has proven ineffective in the area. Other concerned members of the community suggest just shooting them when they're too close, because it is too big a problem to ignore and there is nowhere to put them. They also figure that shooting them means a quick death with less suffering. When the time comes to confront a raccoon, Reid mentions that she could trap the raccoon in a bag and carbon monoxide poison it rather quickly, using her car, but she decides against this. She dismisses this in favor of drowning. Not only does she choose drowning as the raccoon's fate; she does it in a monstrous way. She doesn't throw it into a lake, river, or ocean to let it potentially save itself and leave. She doesn't give it a quick death. She gets a barrel, fills it with water, and throws the raccoon into it. When it surfaces and fights for its life, she takes a stick....and FORCES IT DOWN with it. She personally drowns a raccoon in a way that could basically be labeled as torture. She refuses to buy guns and doesn't really consider herself to be the kind of person who could go hunting. She cringes at her brother's hunting stories. Yet she is perfectly okay with water torturing an innocent animal to death. Does it affect her? Yes. Did she ever do it again? No. However....
In the very next section, she is confused and saddened, because she presents a piece of literature to her class that evokes passionate response for animals and not people. In the work, a man is crushed to death by an elephant and the elephant is then shot by another man as a result. This is designed to bring up discussion about colonialism, but the students fixate on how awful it is for the elephant to have been killed. Only one expresses sadness about the man being crushed. This interaction leads to a passage in which Reid says that the students need to be aware that the world is not a place where they can gauge things by levels of pain, that the world is violent. She says they need to be aware that there are predators in the animal world. Do we really think that college students are unaware of the food chain? If so, that is incredibly tragic, because it means their base education is lacking.
Additionally, caring about suffering and animals is also not allowed if you have tattoos or piercings. When she reflects on the measure of pain that the students shouldn't go by, she basically tries to invalidate their ability to feel like this by stating that they have tattoos and piercings. This reflects on the fact that they can withstand pain to have gotten these things. So because they purposely choose to take on extra pain, they can't express themselves in a way that shows concern for others in pain. That makes perfect sense, right? No. It's an absurd notion and I can't believe someone in an academic setting would make that kind of ignorant correlation. In the literature, did a man die? Yes. Did the elephant inherently CHOOSE to kill the man? Probably not. Animals operate differently than humans. To my knowledge, they don't engage in premeditated murder. They don't think "is this against my moral code?" This section of the book is so absurd to me and I definitely would not want the author to ever be a teacher I have.
How can you say you are a naturalist who loves nature, and convince others to love nature and not vilify wildlife, when you don't allow others to express their own feelings and can't show basic respect for all of nature? How can you write this book and have it in a nature section of a library for nature lovers, when those exact people most likely won't be able to take you seriously? I certainly can't. I truly love nature and this is not a book I can recommend and I have no interest in seeing the other works this author has written. This book has so many misguided notions, a high disrespect of nature, and to top it all off, it is written very poorly.
Conclusion & Rating:
Now, I'm going to cut this short if you'd like to stop here and have had enough. This book is unfocused. The author is ineffective at presenting her point and at effectively educating her readers. There is too much personal info, and not enough substance regarding coyotes. This is a creative memoir that is more about herself and what she thinks, than about actual coyotes. She centers all her ideas around her idealized notions of coyotes and nature, while saying that others shouldn't idealize animals or nature. She expresses that she wants to have control of some natural aspects, while saying that nature cannot be controlled. She literally tortures an animal and vilifies some species of dogs (noted in my In-Depth Gripes below), while saying people shouldn't vilify coyotes. This is honestly the worst book I have read this year so far. The year has barely started and already I have a book that will probably make my top 5 worst reads of the year. Hitting a bad book so quickly came as a definite surprise. I give Coyote: Seeking the Hunter in Our Midst a Lone Star rating of ✯. If you love animals or nature, don't bother with this book. I could recommend so many others that are written and structured better. Pass this one up. If you ever see it, run away, fast. If you just want a creative non-fiction memoir to pick apart for how not to write, this is a great example of that. If you're stopping here, I hope to see you in the next review. If you'd like to keep reading my rant....then keep on reading, cause there I have plenty more to say.
IN DEPTH GRIPES:
Another reason I question her knowledge and love of nature? She is selective in what she loves. Rodents, raccoons, and deer are seen as pests, but coyotes are fascinating, fear-inducing creatures. She even discusses this point: "Had I more time, I could probably learn to distinguish between the different deer in the field,...But if I knew each one by sight, by affections would become more complicated, as would my ability to race at them, yelling" (p. 139). Okay, so what you're saying is that if you actually knew anything about deer, you would have to actually respect them and treat them like you treat coyotes? You'd have to actually care about them as a species in your ecosystem? Wow. What a revolutionary concept. The fact that she acknowledges her opinion would change and she would actually have to be a decent person, disgusts me. Furthermore, she had all this time to learn about coyotes recreationally, but can't take a few minutes to learn about deer?
To throw in my own personal anecdote: I have done a bit of citizen science on a website called Zooniverse. Different researchers and groups put up their projects online and ask internet users, or "citizen scientists" for help in processing their data in some ways. One I spent a lot of time on was the Colorado Corridors Project, which was done with the aid of the Denver Zoo. Cameras were set up to take photos of wildlife that passed a certain area, to evaluate where animals passed to effectively build an overpass, to lessen casualties involving drivers. Volunteers looked at photos and were required to label which species of animal were in each. Each project provides guidelines, and this one had photos to help identify the animals. Within an hour, I was able to tell the different between mule deer and white-tailed deer, which also happen to be a popular species across America. These species are found in Texas and New Mexico. White-tailed deer, after a 10 second google search, are the kind of deer that live in Massachusetts, where the author is from.
Instead of learning who her wild neighbors are, she would rather keep chasing them away and viewing them as pests. She could spend her time finding a way to make her garden untouchable, like enclosing it or raising its height. She tried using coyote urine to keep them away, but it ends up diluted by her father's dogs and the deer come anyway. This is probably because she already has provided a reliable food source that provides little risk to the deer. The garden and ecosystem are probably also why she has a rodent problem. It doesn't take long to learn about animals, even just a little. As a teacher at a community college, as a writer, she should be able to do rapid research or be able to look out the window every now and again when they come by. Maybe snap a photo with a camera and over time, she would see who is coming to see her. If she loves nature, she should love the opportunity. I am convinced that she doesn't truly love nature. She loves the construct of nature in her mind and does enough actions to make her seem like a nature lover and naturalist. I honestly see her as a poser.
Reid tells us not to vilify coyotes, yet she vilifies German shepherds as an entire breed. Why? They are used as police dogs. She tells us that human perceptions have hurt the coyote and that humans shouldn't personify them. She mentions that society has created harmful caricatures of coyotes. However, a dog that has been assigned a task by HUMANS is automatically bad. This is such a double standard and I can't believe this idea exists in this book. There are plenty of families who have German shepherds as a beloved family member. There are plenty of well-behaved, loving dogs in this breed, who have nothing to do with the police. How can someone be so ignorant and judgmental of an entire species, because of human assigned tasks and human perceptions alone? Those dogs didn't choose to be officers, they were selected and trained. The same goes with any dog. Are hunting dogs bad because they assist with hunting tasks? No! Dogs don't choose their owners or "professions." From her perspective, all canines are basically just something to be feared, or to be sensationalized from a different angle that isn't the one presently used by society. She wants people to see coyotes the way she does, which isn't even from an actual point of respect. It is all sensationalism that revolves around herself. Her fascination and desire to be afraid of them, is bizarre and has nothing to do with respecting nature. It is morbid curiosity and nothing more.
Coyotes are not to be feared. Coyotes live in the area I live in. They walk within a mile of my house. I see them when I go for walks. If you leave them alone, they leave you alone. It's called co-existing with nature and respecting your wild neighbors. I don't fetishize them just because they are "other." I respect their boundaries. I love them for their natural beauty, for their part in the natural chain of the ecosystem, for being my wild neighbors. I co-exist with them peacefully, not thinking about what pest control they can do for me, not thinking about them attacking me, not feeding them and making them dependent on humans for food.
I don't want to make personal attacks on the author by any means. However, this is a work of non-fiction, where the narrator IS the author. The author's direct thoughts and life are embedded all through this book and I'm not able to divorce the subject matter from her identity, because it IS her identity being presented. I have nothing but respect for the fact that she was able to write a book and that she seems to genuinely have been interested in coyotes at some level. I do believe that she is very irresponsible when it comes to nature and that she doesn't realize her full impact on it. This is ironic because she spends a lot of time talking about how people don't respect nature or understand it. It is hypocritical, to say the least. To be so educated and fall so far from the mark to the point of blatant irresponsibility, is inexcusable.
I wish the author the best and hope she improves her practices when it comes to nature. I think she has room to grow as a person from this book. Furthermore, there has been significant passage of time since this book was published (well over a decade). I hope that, in that time, she has developed more independently and discovered that some of her approaches are very wrong. I also hope her writing has become more structured, focused, and is actually grounded. Contrary to the synopsis, this book itself is not "grounded writing." It is truly a mess.
As always, thanks for reading! Thanks especially for making it through my rant. I'll see you at the next review!
Comments
Post a Comment