I'm with Truffleberry. I can't subscribe at all to the notion that Muldrow forged any sort of truly human relationship with the old man in the shack. The old man provided some food, shelter, and was a gateway to building a relationship with those falcons, which is what Muldrow really wanted.

Overpowering sense of entitlement!

Hmmm, really good points, Wide Ranger. I had forgotten about Muldrow's attitude towards the tribe's guilt, as well. I had thought, at the time, that his protectiveness of the bears was of a piece with his choosing not to kill those two Japanese kids back at the spider hole; notably, he has a soft spot for kids, and…

I've neither read the book, nor seen the movie, so my knowledge of it comes from it's mention on websites and in cinema books. I do know that James Dickey took a small part in the movie, so I can only assume that he was fine with whatever changes the script may have made from his work.

"Second book in a row that involves a Lynx and crossing over."

I agree with Swibble: Some of Muldrow's ruminations on camoflauging himself in the snow, the red wall in his father's cabin, and how the joy of taking off his snowshoes is eclipsed only by the superior joy of putting them back on…they get repeated a bit too often for my taste.

While it seems very spartan (in every sense of the word), Muldrow does have an ethical system, albeit one completely unmoored from the demands of human civilization. I like the points you raise about it, WR, and am glad you brought up the moment when he spares those two children, something that really surprised me…

Dude! I was SO thinking of Hatchet while reading this book! Get out of my head!

Stylistically speaking, this book is about as far away from Vonnegut as you can get. Is it even possible to compare them?

Yep, you and I are talking about the same project.

For those who want to keep reading…
A quick Google search turned up the (alleged) script written by the Coen Brothers, dated to August of 1998. You can simply google it as I did, or copy this URL:

God, I *really* should have phrased that "gang-rape" question better…

Aren't prudes the intended audience for horror?

"Fun all around'
Ellen, your review definitely parallels my own feelings about the novel. I've felt a tad guilty about approaching this book with a lowered critical guard, asking only to be entertained and my interest held. Despite the many aspects of this book that have come in for criticism, including from myself, I…

Fenny's sister definitely qualifies as a loose end, as does Harold, the self-pitying anthropology professor whom Stella is banging for half the novel, only to disappear abruptly when Lewis' body is discovered.

It's almost as if Peter Barnes has to redeem himself and the family name for his mother's promiscuity. Christina, who has the gall to be unhappy in her marriage and enjoying an extramarital affair, is soundly, horrifically slain. In fact, the only reason she's killed is because she's visiting her lover's home.

King usually has a knack for giving his characters some much-needed earthiness. He can invest his adolescent characters with teenage angst and profanity, or at the very least provide some blue-collar grit and quirky conversational tics for his adults.

@Mr. Apollo:

@Stacy & Swibble:

Maybe Straub felt it incumbent upon himself to include a protagonist who was wholly innocent. You could make the argument that Ricky's involvement in the Eva Galli incident makes him morally culpable; the same could be true for Don's cavalier treatment of women before meeting Alma. Peter is an innocent.