Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Advice on My Book Please

I'm up to 20,000 words in my forthcoming deer hunting book and I have just begun the equipment descriptions and recommendations.

I have a question that I would like my readers' advice on.

My introduction ends, currently, as follows:


Some people criticize hunters for being bloodthirsty, or whatever.  I am not writing this book to explain why I hunt or the morals for doing so.  Thing are born, they live, and they die.  This happens regardless of whether or not we hunt.  If things did not die, then there would be no room for new things.  Killing a deer with a quick shot is much more humane that the many other ways that deer die.  Wolves may start to eat a deer before it is totally dead, and they’ll kill it by biting it.  I’d rather get shot than killed by wolves.  Some animals kill by biting their victim and then waiting until its wound becomes so infected that it dies.  Deer also get hit by cars, and some limp off or die a slow death by having all of their organs crushed.

Someone that criticizes hunting and eats meat is a hypocrite.  Someone who criticizes hunting and wears leather is a hypocrite.  Someone who criticizes hunting and uses bug spray or mouse traps is a hypocrite.  Someone who criticizes hunting and eats dead plants is a hypocrite.

I have no time for those who criticize hunting.  There is almost no other point in human history that they would have survived without hunting and killing or having someone else do their hunting and killing for them.

That’s enough of that.  On to how to shoot as many of the biggest bucks that you can.
I think that this subject needs to be mentioned, at least.  But it is a bit of a downer.  And I don't like the idea of containing sad, annoying, or otherwise unhappy crap in my book.

My question is: should I include the above passage in my introduction, or elsewhere, should I leave it out, or should I improve it or change it?

Any advice would be appreciated.

Let me know if you have any deer hunting related questions that you want to have for sure answered in my book.

Also check out my hunting blog Shoot Deer.

Happy hunting,

Tim

7 comments:

  1. If I were you, rather than touching only briefly on the ethics of hunting, I would simply state that the ethics of hunting are out-of-scope for your book, and then refer the reader to a few books that deal specifically with it. You shouldn't feel the need to discuss it unless you actually do wish to write at length about it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think I agree with Ryan, although it's a good statement. It's probably better to avoid the "political" aspects - that's a whole different book. If you do include any part of it, I would skip the reference to plants. I think the "ethical" objections to hunting revolve primarily around the fact that like us, animals breathe and they suffer pain - physically and mentally. We identify even with insects, more closely than we identify with plants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While I would agree with you about the plants part, some of the sort of people who oppose hunting have done things like give plants a bill of rights and I think that I have heard studies that say that plants can feel pain.

      http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/swiss-government-issues-bill-of-rights-for-plants.html

      Delete
    2. I wouldn't dignify such people's views with an acknowledgement, let alone a coherent response. Speaking Sanity to the insane is a waste of words.

      Delete
  3. I would suggest you direct readers to James Swan's excellent book In Defense of Hunting for an in depth and detailed discussion of the ethics of the hunt.

    ReplyDelete