Between Man and Beast is written in absolutely captivating, engaging prose that make it very difficult to put down, and very easy to pick up. Is is split (not evenly) into three parts, and i read the final part in a single sitting (staying up altogether too late to do so), something i've not done for a book in years. The narrative is really about much more than the premise, for drawn into the narrative from numerous sources are historical descriptions of events, people, and places that never feel out of place or like an info dump, despite the fact that many actually are.
For while the writing of Monte Reel is wonderful in almost every respect, the organisation of the book leaves lots to be desired. Through the narrative is focused on one man, there are often fairly lengthy tangents about others who come to influence the life of the protagonist. For example, near the middle of the book there is a memorable chapter, 'three motives' that is introduces three people who all have a motive (hence the title) to want to discredit the main character's scientific findings. One at a time, the chapter introduces them, their life history, their work, and the origins of their motives - in far, far more detail than is really necessary. It is certainly well-written and, when reading the chapter, I didn't feel inclined to stop, but there are lots of long-winded tangents in this book.
That would not be a problem per-se, if it were not for the fact that the core of the book is fairly superficial. If you judge what the book should be about on it's subtitle, I would venture to say the majority of the book was tangent. For example, the first part of the book follows Paul's explorations of the jungles of equatorial Africa and his first sighting - and captures - of a gorilla. For me, this should be a major component of the book - almost a sub-narrative, but it was concisely swept into a small handful of (short) chapters. We learn about hundreds of birds that Paul shot, sent back to america for the ornithological society, and kept copious notes on in his journal. But what were the birds? Where did he find them? did he remark upon any as particularly beautiful or interesting? Did he remark upon any as particularly difficult to catch? did he make any behavioural observations? We don't know, because we are not told.
This is just one example. In the second part of the book, Paul has returned to Europe, and his observations have taken the 'Victorian world by storm.' He kept notes on almost every aspect of his trip - the geography of the places he visited, ethology of the animals he encountered, ethnography of the native tribes he worked with, notes on the weather patterns and flora. Paul, we are told, discovered so much and set ablaze a wildfire of debate and disagreement in the scientific world.
But a debate about what? The reader is left in the dark on the details of most of his discoveries and, as a consequence, on the details of the debates! We are told Paul gives a lecture and is heckled, but not what Paul nor the heckler said! As a result, I think something has to give in this book - it either needs to be twice the length, with more substance into Paul's actual discoveries - inclusions of the maps and drawings he kept (we are told) and expansion of the narrative substance on his explorations or, if the length is to maintained, many of the well-written but ultimately superfluous tangents needs to be pruned.
It is true that Paul himself wrote books describing his discoveries and adventures, but I think these primary sources would be better served as sources to quote liberally from in this modern historiography, rather than as they are - almost required pre-readings in order to get the most from the current book.
Nonetheless, I am giving this book four stars, because it was such an absolute pleasure to read, though it was in equal measure a disappointment, for the loss of what it could have been.