Customer Reviews

Anatomy of a Beast: Obsession and Myth on the Trail of Bigfoot

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

If you're interested in a skeptical tome on the subject of Bigfoot, you'd do a lot better with either Daegling's "Bigfoot Exposed" (horrible title...very good book) or Buh's "Bigfoot - the Life and Times of a Legend (good title...good book). McLeod is correct in pointing out a lot of weak pieces of evidence. But to leap from that to making absolute statements such as "But the Bigfoot phenomenon has never been about the truth. It's about storytelling" or (pertaining to the Patterson film) "Afterall, someone was in the suit, and Patterson's clock was ticking" has him coming off as presumptive and arrogant as someone boldly claiming there IS strong evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. One has to wonder if McLeod were around in Africa in the years prior to the discovery of the mountain gorilla, with him hearing anecdotal stories of man-like beings, would he have scoffed at such stories as wishful thinking rubbish? Apparently, he's one of these guys who mistakenly thinks that science is solely involved with defending what has already been verified and pooh-poohing that which hasn't, even though, in the case of the Sasquatch phenomenon, you have literally thousands of people who have claimed to see one. Personally, I believe there IS tons of b.s. and misinterpretation involved in the phenomenon, but to categorically rule out any plausible notion that such beings could exist comes off as someone who needs to review the principles of the scientific method and question his own apparently all-compassing cynical views of human beings ability to relay what they've experienced accurately.
Granted, in this day and age of computer-generated imagery, only a body or a part of one will suffice for verification. But to claim that any further searching is a pure waste of time seems to ignore the fact that prior to proving that both the mountain gorilla and orangutan existed, for hundreds of years, anecdotal tales abounded about their existence. Perhaps this too is the case with Bigfoot.

I didn't buy this book but rather was given it as a gift. I have no particular interest in the subject matter and certainly held no prior views on the authenticity of Bigfoot. I read it in front of the 127 other books I currently have purchased but failed to read because it was given to me by a friend. The onus of friendships.

Much to my surprise, I very much enjoyed the book and found it difficult to put down. When I did put it down, it was often to go to the Internet and check out some aspect of the subject matter.

This book is not so much about Big Foot as such, arguably because there may not be any subject matter as a point of fact, but rather is about the actual search for the underlying truth in the stories of Big Foot. It is also about the possible perversion of that search for the truth and why it might have happened. The story about the hunt for Bigfoot actually makes very good reading. Beyond that, however, the author presents a wonderful portrait of the rationales and desires that drove the major participants to act as they did; insights that apply to many situations that may not be so dissimilar to this one.

At the end of the day this is a well written book that can take the reader beyond the specific subject matter at hand into an interesting look at what drives people in situations such as this. Situations where we want to believe, have to believe or simply need others to believe, even all three. While the book clearly discounts the existence of Bigfoot, it certainly had me wanting to believe, not just in the legend but in the people who pursued that legend. At the end of the day, it wasn't so much that I believed in the creature but rather that I believed in the spirit of the legend and thoroughly enjoyed getting to know those who would pursue that legend. I left satisfied but hungry and find myself checking on Bigfoot far more than I would otherwise have done, even if the author had proven its existence beyond a shadow of a doubt; and who would want to do that to such a wonderful legend?

McCleod's book isn't bad... I give it two stars just for the entertainment factor, and for the fact that he actually talked to a lot of people.

I consider myself a skeptic who is OPEN to the possibility of an undiscovered species of ape in North America.

McCleod has so thoroughly made up his mind that the sasquatch CANNOT and DOES NOT exist, that it taints the whole book with a sheen of smug self-satisfaction... the author is surely smarter than these ridiculous bigfooters... how could they even entertain such an absurd idea?

And in all of his smugness, he glosses over many important things... the most important (in my opinion) being the fact that NO ONE HAS EVER SUCCESSFULLY DEBUNKED THE PATTERSON-GIMLIN FOOTAGE. McCleod goes along with the Bob H. in the suit idea, even though it is fraught with problems... he says "after all, SOMEONE had to be in the suit.." and leaves it at that.

Really? The PGF is a strange piece of footage... and I'm not a 100% believer that it shows a real animal... but watch it several times, over and over again, and you will see just how amazing it really is. If it is a hoax, it is absolutely ingenious.

McCleod dismisses it based on the testimony of guy who said he was working near Bluff Creek in October 1967, and HE never saw them there... CASE CLOSED! Patterson wasn't even there!

If this is your idea of well-researched journalism, you too will be able to dismiss the Patterson-Gimlin film, perhaps THE BEST evidence that there is, or was, something remarkable in the woods of the Pacific Northwest.

Obviously, McCleod is smarter than the many scientists and professional animators/creature designers who have been stumped and perplexed by the PGF... even today, over forty years later, NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO REPRODUCE a similar piece of footage to prove that it was a hoax.

Just remember: some guy who was working in the woods back then never saw Patterson or Gimlin.... so it must be fake. You have to take that random guy's word for it.

I was raised in Bigfoot territory and whether or not there is a Bigfoot matters little to me except in one area. For many years I have had an interesting, reoccurring dream. In this dream I was returning from an outing in the woods. I pulled off into a weighmaster's station to find a "bush." I went over the berm, when suddenly, from the bush of choice, a gigantic figure reared up over me, roared and attacked. I reacted by drawing and firing a Ruger Blackhawk .44 Magnum from a quick draw holster I was wearing. I bagged a Bigfoot.

The main thrust of the dream is always how to handle the body. Can I be charged with killing a humanoid, an endangered species or whatever. How do I transport and preserved an obviously valuable scientific find and not lose it to government.

Anatomy of a Beast adds a number of interesting aspects to the story, but my dream remain intact to be dreamt another night.

At the outset, a warning: if you are a true believer in Bigfoot, you will not enjoy this book (see the first two Amazon reviews below for a flavor). McLeod starts from the proposition that Sasquatch, Yeti and Bigfoot are "things that go bump in the mind" and then proceeds to tell the story of how the legends began and grew. "Anatomy of a Beast" is engagingly written, and the book does a good job of briskly surveying the tales of Bigfoot and its cousins, describing the colorful explorers and adventurers who spread the story throughout the world's mass culture.

If you are a skeptic, or a student of folklore and legends, or someone who is willing to test their beliefs against the views of an articulate skeptic, you will likely enjoy McLeod's work. If you believe Bigfoot is absolutely real and resent any criticism of those who think likewise, there are many books that you will enjoy much more than this one.

For the record, I am a skeptic who would love to see someone prove that Bigfoot or Yeti or whatever actually exists. That would be truly exciting, and I would be the first to happily say "oops, looks like I was wrong." For the moment, though, I'm going to stick with McLeod. I'll be convinced when someone brings in a live one or a skeleton or two for DNA analysis. Until then, plaster casts, hair samples, a few minutes of hotly debated film and eyewitness sitings aren't going to do the trick.

For books with a similar bent, see Joshua Blu Buhs, Bigfoot: The Life and Times of a Legend (Hardcover) (2009), a more thorough and scholarly review of the ground that McLeod surveys, and David Daegling's, Bigfoot Exposed: An Anthropologist Examines America's Enduring Legend(2005) which is the best skeptical book about Bigfoot and other hairy hominids.

Why do I say "brown" journalism? Because Michael McLeod's book is sullied by terrorist-style shots that he takes at anyone famous who has put his reputation on the line and gone public with a sasquatch sighting. It makes yellow journalism pale by comparison. I was shocked at the character assassination that goes on beneath the misleadingly peaceful cover. Any writer for the National Enquirer could learn a thing or two from this guy.

Many readers might not realize such animosity is brewing until they are well into the book because it is admittedly well written. But the modus operandi is clear: disprove the existence of forest giants at all costs. I read the book ahead of time, and then attended a talk by the author at a bookstore in Portland, OR.

McLeod started out his reading by poking fun at people who took exception to his hardline approach. Anyone who questioned the premise of his book was characterized as being "insane." The uppermost quote on the back cover is misleading: there is nothing sympathetic about his viewpoint. He reminded me of a 19th century missionary trying to put the fear of God into people, many of whom adhered to a different belief system than his own. His bully pulpit got old after a while, and so did his book.

McLeod fielded a few questions at the close of his reading. One man in the audience asked if McLeod had ever gone camping in areas reputed to have sasquatch activity. McLeod brushed the suggestion off, saying that this would be pointless because sasquatch ISN'T REAL. Another audience member complimented McLeod on his writing style and then mentioned that he had heard tree knocking and sasquatch calls in some "hot spots" out in the woods of Oregon. This guy seemed very much in earnest. He even went so far as to admit that he had researched how to camp ahead of time by reading books on the subject and surfing online, learning how to sleep during the day, and stay alert at night in order to hear possible activity. McLeod sneered, and said he'd heard strange sounds in his own house at night from his cats and dogs.

After hearing McLeod in person, I have to wonder, Why is he trying so hard? Does he know something the rest of us don't? Who stands to gain the most from his efforts at working so hard and so ruthlessly to disprove the existence of sasquatch?

If he knows answers to such questions, he certainly did not put them in his book. There is nothing objective in there. It is a work of brown & yellow journalism through and through that makes David Daegling's book, "Bigfoot Exposed," seem gracious by comparison. And that's saying something.

What an outstanding book! I have always had a soft spot for Bigfoot, but never gave much thought to the personal stories of those who provided the photographic evidence. I commmend Mr. McLeod for his dedication and research so as to give us a glimpse into their complicated lives.

William Holmes (see earlier review) has it right. This book is for those with an open mind about the existence or non-existence of Bigfoot. I especially enjoyed the descriptions of the mountains and backcountry of the Pacific Northwest. Those who persued Bigfoot over the years, some for a lifetime, came across as interesting quirky characters. Mr. McLeod'S choice of vocabulary for descriptions varied from the down to earth "drat" to "erudite". It made for added interest.

Anyone interested in this book would do well to also listen to the UC interview podcast with Mr. McLeod for more background information on Mr. McLeod and how the book came about. http://www.ucpress.edu/podcast/

All in all this was a fun read.

Each year there are inevitably several books released on the subject of bigfoot. This year we start out with Buhs' Bigfoot: The Life and Times of a Legend and this book by McLeod. Both follow similar outlines, rehashing some old stories and then dismissing them because the individual authors deny the existence of such creatures. I really don't care whether they "believe" (I hate the use of that word in this regards) but I do care whether they present an interesting look into the legend, pro or con, and supply me with information that entertains me or causes me to think more. I personally accept the admittedly soft-evidence on the existance of the creatures but will gladly read an opposing viewpoint with an open mind. Both Buhs and McLeod present their takes and overall, I found both books intriguing whether I agreed or not.

McLeod's book is rather back and forth over the subject matter. He denies the existance but then writes an extremely provocative and entrancing descriptive which seemingly accepts them only to turn around and comment that it just isn't true. I grew tired of this in both books. I accept your dispute but don't have to be reminded constantly. Anyway, I actually truly enjoyed this book as McLeod has a powerful way with words, sometimes using overpriced words to seemingly show off his expanse of language. There is no real argument disproving the creatures other than the author just doesn't accept what has been presented, it's his opinion and I respect it. There are some apparent character attacks on the old time "investigators", specifically Roger Patterson and his film. However, his look into the past is much less warped than Greg Long's which is really just an all out attack on Patterson and the film. Again, no evidence is presented showing there was or was not 'a man in a monkey suit' other than the author simply stating it was fake.

Overall, a very easy going and descriptive look into the legends, stories, and history of bigfoot. My final statement: in my opinion, the author seemingly wants to 'believe' in bigfoot creatures as he has had an interest in the phenomenon for decades but the 'intellectual' side of him refuses to allow him accept the creatures. Either way, it's a great book for both sides of the fence and should be in your bigfoot literature collection.

This book, written by a PBS documentary maker, takes an interesting tack on the skeptical side of the Bigfoot phenomenon-McLeod goes into the writing with the premise that Bigfoot is all either a hoax or misidentification or misinterpretation, and that the Patterson/Gimlin Film was a hoax due to Patterson being supposedly so obsessed with Bigfoot that he wanted the story to continue by faking a film. McLeod also gives a bit too much credit to Ray Wallace and his obviously hoaxed tracks and seems to think hoaxing of tracks and sightings goes back many years, even before Wallace. McLeod includes many interviews he conducted with several figures in the Bigfoot world, including Rene Dahinden, Peter Byrne, John Green, Bob Gimlin, Larry Lund and even Ray Wallace himself. He also talks to several rangers and other non-Bigfoot-related figures who are kind of on the periphery in that they have had strange sightings reported to them. McLeod concludes the book with a trip into the Bluff Creek drainage with a fellow named Jay who was there on the road-construction crew that Wallace ran. One interesting note (which may or may not be BS on Jay's part)-Jay claims that he never saw anyone camped in the Bluff Creek area around the time before or after the P/G Film was shot; he says that no one was there in 1967 from March to Thanksgiving, when he says he was there. Again, it is an interesting tidbit, but that does not make it true. I would give this book a 3 1/2 stars out of 5. It's a good read, no question about it. I do recommend it, even with reservations.