Take a photo of a barcode or cover
1 review for:
The Search for the Oryx (The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, No 2)
Dan Barry, Gray Morrow
2.0 AVERAGE
1 review for:
The Search for the Oryx (The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, No 2)
Dan Barry, Gray Morrow
2.0 AVERAGE
I read these as a kid and for the most part they hold up.
HOWEVER.
This particular title raised some questions for me concerning Indiana's worldview, and how it changed from childhood to adulthood.
This adventure begins with an elderly Indiana Jones going to lunch and interrupting a table's discussion on the ethics of wearing animal fur. He proceeds to recount his time spent as a boy spent in Africa, living alongside the camp of former president Teddy Roosevelt.
Teddy is in search of the fringe-eared oryx (hence the title!), largely believed to be extinct. Venturing out on his own, young Indiana befriends Meto: a child of the Maasai tribe. They learn each other's language enough to communicate and then go exploring together.
In time, Meto and his tribesman lead Indy to the hidden grazing lands of the fringe-eared oryx. Indy informs the former president, and Teddy and his men go forth to hunt, insisting that these creatures should be stuffed and mounted in a museum for all to study. Indy stops them before they shoot all the oryx.
We return to the present. Indy finishes his story, and the people he interrupted think he's delusional. End of comic.
It's a fun little adventure, but for me, it comes up short in its central message. Indy is able to interrupt the luncheon conversation because he remembers a time when shooting animals WAS considered conservation. And there's an interesting divide between young Indy's squeamishness at animals being hunted and Meto's fascination with the beauty of killing, whether it be man of beast or beast of beast.
But that's it, really. Indy stops Teddy and his party from shooting all the oryx, which seems to suggest that THAT type of conservation has its limits. And it does, but that particular message seems to lack conviction without an alternative solution in mind. Is it better to leave the oryx alone? Are zoos the answer instead of taxidermied animals in museums? And what about population control? In order to keep ecosystems in balance, it's sometimes necessary to control prey and predator numbers.
And what about Indy's conviction later in life that the artifacts he uncovers "belong in a museum"? Artifacts are not animals, granted, but there's something about this story that doesn't jive with the rest of Indy's alive, ESPECIALLY considering his wanton killing of animals in the movies. Snakes for sure, but at one point he sets a rat-infested catacomb on fire! Is there a value judgement on the life of certain animals over others? Is the sole concern that the oryx and other big game creatures in Africa were/are extinct or endangered? And what would young Indy's knowledge of that have been at the time?
The message is just a little muddied, that's all. It's framed as right and noble that Indy would stop someone--a former president, even--from unnecessarily killing an animal, but the story doesn't wrap up the rest of its concerns with conservation, such as Meto's conflicting POV on the nature of killing. And maybe it's fine that these issues are presented but not resolved, but it seems strange for a children's book/comic to intentionally court such ambiguity, at least when it comes to this topic.
Like I said, it's a fun, quick read. Just don't think about it too much.
HOWEVER.
This particular title raised some questions for me concerning Indiana's worldview, and how it changed from childhood to adulthood.
This adventure begins with an elderly Indiana Jones going to lunch and interrupting a table's discussion on the ethics of wearing animal fur. He proceeds to recount his time spent as a boy spent in Africa, living alongside the camp of former president Teddy Roosevelt.
Teddy is in search of the fringe-eared oryx (hence the title!), largely believed to be extinct. Venturing out on his own, young Indiana befriends Meto: a child of the Maasai tribe. They learn each other's language enough to communicate and then go exploring together.
In time, Meto and his tribesman lead Indy to the hidden grazing lands of the fringe-eared oryx. Indy informs the former president, and Teddy and his men go forth to hunt, insisting that these creatures should be stuffed and mounted in a museum for all to study. Indy stops them before they shoot all the oryx.
We return to the present. Indy finishes his story, and the people he interrupted think he's delusional. End of comic.
It's a fun little adventure, but for me, it comes up short in its central message. Indy is able to interrupt the luncheon conversation because he remembers a time when shooting animals WAS considered conservation. And there's an interesting divide between young Indy's squeamishness at animals being hunted and Meto's fascination with the beauty of killing, whether it be man of beast or beast of beast.
But that's it, really. Indy stops Teddy and his party from shooting all the oryx, which seems to suggest that THAT type of conservation has its limits. And it does, but that particular message seems to lack conviction without an alternative solution in mind. Is it better to leave the oryx alone? Are zoos the answer instead of taxidermied animals in museums? And what about population control? In order to keep ecosystems in balance, it's sometimes necessary to control prey and predator numbers.
And what about Indy's conviction later in life that the artifacts he uncovers "belong in a museum"? Artifacts are not animals, granted, but there's something about this story that doesn't jive with the rest of Indy's alive, ESPECIALLY considering his wanton killing of animals in the movies. Snakes for sure, but at one point he sets a rat-infested catacomb on fire! Is there a value judgement on the life of certain animals over others? Is the sole concern that the oryx and other big game creatures in Africa were/are extinct or endangered? And what would young Indy's knowledge of that have been at the time?
The message is just a little muddied, that's all. It's framed as right and noble that Indy would stop someone--a former president, even--from unnecessarily killing an animal, but the story doesn't wrap up the rest of its concerns with conservation, such as Meto's conflicting POV on the nature of killing. And maybe it's fine that these issues are presented but not resolved, but it seems strange for a children's book/comic to intentionally court such ambiguity, at least when it comes to this topic.
Like I said, it's a fun, quick read. Just don't think about it too much.