Captain's Dinner: A Shipwreck, An Act of Cannibalism, and a Murder Trial That Changed Legal History

by Adam Cohen

Four men in a lifeboat. Two weeks without food. One impossible choice that would reshape the boundaries between survival and murder.

On May 19, 1884, the yacht Mignonette set sail from England on what should have been an uneventful voyage. When their vessel sank in the Atlantic, Captain Thomas Dudley and his crew found themselves adrift in a tiny lifeboat. As days turned to weeks, they faced an unthinkable starve to death or resort to cannibalism.

Their decision to sacrifice the youngest – 17-year-old cabin boy Richard Parker – ignited a firestorm of controversy upon their rescue. Instead of being hailed as heroes and survivors, Dudley and his crew found themselves at the center of a landmark murder trial that would transform law and ethics forever.

In Captain's Dinner, acclaimed legal historian and New York Times bestselling author Adam Cohen masterfully reconstructs both the harrowing weeks at sea and the sensational trial that followed. Through this Victorian tragedy, Cohen reveals an enduring conflict between humanity's most primal instincts and its highest moral principles, forcing readers to ask how far would they go to stay alive?

Perfect for readers of David Grann’s The Wager and Nathaniel Philbrick's In the Heart of the Sea, this haunting true story has become the classic real-life illustration of one of philosophy's greatest moral dilemmas, captivating audiences from ethics classrooms to Hollywood and inspiring countless explorations in film, television, and popular culture of humanity's most challenging When does survival justify murder?

Genres: Nonfiction, History, True Crime, Crime, Audiobook, Biography, Historical

384 pages, Hardcover

First published November 18, 2025

Reviews

[Brendan (History Nerds United) · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's always the books in the middle which are the hardest to review. Captain's Dinner (ew, and you'll know why in a second) by Adam Cohen is one of those books where I have very little to complain about, but I also think could probably have been much shorter. The setup is certainly intriguing, so let's talk about it.

It's 1884 and a rich guy bought a yacht he wants sailed from England to Australia. Four men take the gig and set sail. There are many issues including the fact that yachts at this time are not suited to long voyages across oceans. The boat sinks, and while all four make it into the lifeboat, they are set adrift with no water, very little food, and no hope unless a ship finds them. The cabin boy ends up murdered and eaten. The survivors are found days later and saved. I'm not spoiling anything. All of this information is in the description/summary.

The bulk of the book is about HOW the cabin boy ended up food. The perpetrators never tried to hide what happened. However, they didn't expect to get charged with murder which is precisely what happened. Cohen's narrative hinges on the fact that this entire scenario challenged many people and how they apply their own sense of morality.

Here is where my issues with the book come into play. The entire narrative portion of the book is only slightly longer than 200 pages. There is a fair bit of repetition of certain things which means it probably could have come in quite shorter. This is probably too long for an essay, but feels too short for a book. However, I have zero problem with anything in it (with the exception of the aforementioned repetition, which is not egregious). The story flows. Cohen proposes interesting thought experiments.

In summary, if you like stories which have a good bit of history with philosophy applied (and law), then I think this might be a must read. If you are looking for a sea adventure like The Wager or In the Heart of the Sea (two of the best ever), then you may be a bit let down with how little of the narrative is about the survival story. To each their own! I liked it.

(This book was provided as an advance reader copy by NetGalley and Authors Equity.)

[Dona's Books · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pre-Read Notes:

It's a crime that changed forever how we think about murder and cannibalism in survival situations. Also, being at sea is one of my favorite settings for horror. This book may be nonfiction but it's still also horror! And very well researched so far!

-----

what a wild story omg!

"[...I]n the face of this categorical opposition from his able seaman and his first mate’s less defined objection, Dudley reluctantly backed down. “So let it be,” he replied, “but it is hard for four to die, when perhaps one might save the rest.”" p55

"If the men in the Mignonette lifeboat survived, they would be notorious as cannibals for eating Parker’s flesh, but it would be the killing of Parker, rather than the eating of him, that would be the far weightier transgression— and the one that would have the most fateful consequences for them." p69

Final Review

(thoughts & recs) I have complicated feelings after reading this. It's brilliant in form, a potent blend of horror elements and well-researched and -organized nonfiction. It's also fascinating legal history -- a single case of cannibalism at sea helped forever change the way the law thinks about cannibalism in survival situations.

I recommend this to readers who enjoy obscur history, history of horror, and stories of being at sea.

My Favorite Things:

✔️ "Like seawater, urine has high salt levels that can exacerbate dehydration. It also contains waste products and toxins. Urine drinking can also take a psychological toll. As one handbook on emergency medicine warns, drinking urine “will destroy a person’s will to survive and hasten their death.”" p48 I read a lot of nonfiction like this, about dark topics that are still part of everyday human life. Like being at sea. I truly think the most horrible thing that can happen to a person is to be stranded at sea. And this is why -- so thirsty and so many posisons at hand that look like water.

✔️ "[N]ights held the greatest terror. Dudley recalled how the men dreaded “the sky coming dark.” Drifting on the black ocean, they had no way of knowing whether a storm, shark, or other peril loomed. “Our nights were the worst time,” Stephens recalled . “They seemed never to end; we dreaded them very much.”" p50 Just when I think there couldn't possibly be any way to make these men's plight any worse, and then the author remind me of the seemingly simple darkness.

✔️ This book is about being stranded at sea but it includes short histories on so many fascinating and unexpected subjects-- like the drawing of lots. And the custom of the sea.

✔️ "The taboo against eating human flesh and blood is not a product of a particular culture or religious tradition or historical era. It seems to stem from more primitive feelings . Cannibalism evokes not just shame and guilt but a more visceral, even primordial, reaction: disgust." The sociological aspects of this book are interesting and help emphasize how extreme it is to give in to cannibalism, no matter what the situation. p62

Content Notes: sharks, shipwreck, being at sea, being lost, being stranded, starvation and malnutrition, extreme thirst, drinking seawater, murder, blood, cannibalism, violence against animals, animal death, sinking

Thank you to Adam Cohen, Author's Equity, and NetGalley for an accessible digital arc of CAPTAIN'S DINNER. All views are mine.

[Liviu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting book about a real case of shipwreck where the captain and one of the mates decided that they needed to sacrifice one of the four in the boat to eat him for a chance of survival and of course, the youngest and least important was chosen against the objections of the second mate who refused to countenance a murder. Utilitarianism vs human rights on trial and the author points out the lessons for today and tomorrow. Very gripping end to end and quite thought provoking.

[Star Gater · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thank you Authors Equity for allowing me to read and review Captain's Dinner, A Shipwreck, An Act of Cannibalism, and a Murder Trial That Changed Legal History by Adam Cohen on NetGalley.

Published: 11/18/25

Stars: 3.5

Thorough. This is a nonfiction book and reads as such or textbook-like. I anticipated and expected a story based on how I saw the cover.

The cannibal act is repeated over and over. Now and at the completion of the book I think it could have been handled differently.

I appreciate the facts, prior situations, similar situations and points of views the author carefully gave. They did make me stop and think.

I would recommend this to a student (lots of options for papers) or an eclectic reader. I found this to be a quick read for a mature reader.

#NetGalleyNovember

[Shannon · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was really interested in the first part of this book and I thought more of it would be spent on the water considering the cover. But the time on the boat was actually very short and then it was all about the trial and general legality of what happened on the boat and the book really slowed down. It's certainly interesting from a philosophical position but reading about the minutiae of the trial (like the backgrounds of the judge and attorneys etc) really didn't keep me engaged. I felt a bit hoodwinked at times. I'd really prefer it if the cover of this book were a courtroom instead of a boat on choppy seas.

I received this book through NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

[Ruby · Rating 3 out of 5]

what? me sir?

[Dawn Michelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was one of the craziest books I have read in a very long time. It was also one of the best I have read, but it IS also one of the hardest to review.

If you love history, especially sea-faring history, and you enjoyed "In the Heart of the Sea" [similar circumstances occur at the end of each of these voyages], then this one should easily be a "must read" for you. Filled with some very thought-provoking actions [what would YOU do? Be honest now...], and one of the craziest drawn out stories [with a very unexpected ending], this one will keep you enthralled from beginning to end.

**A NOTE: The narrator for this book is George Newbern, who is one of my absolute favorites and I must add to this review just how amazing he is in the narration of this book. He truly makes the story come alive [both for the good AND the bad IYKYK], and I highly recommend listening to this audiobook. I am so grateful my library had this one!!

Thank you to NetGalley, Adam Cohen, and Author's Equity for providing this ARC in exchange for an honest review.

[lily ⟡₊⋆ · Rating 4 out of 5]

rest in peace richard parker

[Stacy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I picked this up because I'd found The Wager: A Tale of Shipwreck, Mutiny and Murder to be really interesting. I was expecting something similar, and this makes sense to market toward that audience, but it depends on which aspect of that tale caught your primary interest. For me, it was the seafaring part and the aftermath of the shipwreck. The trial portion was practically an afterthought. In this case, the ratio is reversed--the shipwreck and its sensational result felt like merely a setup for the extensive coverage of the legal case. Apparently, that trial established important precedents and is a famous case taught to legal students everywhere. I won't say that I found the trial completely uninteresting, but it did get rather repetitive after a while, and it definitely got mired down in legalities that just are not up my alley. So if you're looking for adventure on the high seas, this isn't really that, but if you're interested in legal cases, then this should be right in your wheelhouse.

I received this ARC from NetGalley.

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

A sailing adventure, cannibalism and the trial of the century. What more could you ask for? Well, the writing was repetitious and could benefit from more editing, but the compelling story saves it.

A small yacht is wrecked while trying to sail from England to Australia in 1884. Four men ages 17 to 40 were delivering the boat for an Australian businessman who purchased it in England. It wrecked in the south Atlantic, more than a thousand miles from land in any direction, and they were stranded in a flimsy 13-foot lifeboat with no water at all.

As told on the cover and the first pages, the captain decides after 20 days of starvation and drinking their own urine that the 17 year old will be killed to save the others - at least for a few more days. By that point the teenager is delirious and lethargic, lying on the floor of the boat, so there’s no resistance, although he is still talking. They’re picked up by a passing ship 4 days later.

That’s the first 20% of the book. The other 80% discusses the arrest and trial of the survivors after they return to England. This is a world-famous legal case still taught in law schools today and a precedent still cited in arguments 140 years later because it’s a clean real-life example of utilitarianism versus moralism, ie greatest good for the greatest number versus inalienable human rights. Murder is ok if it saves others versus murder is always wrong no matter what.

The upshot is that it was decided murder is murder, regardless of circumstances, except for self defense. This was a new idea at the time. For centuries before, the captain’s word was law at sea. It was also tradition to draw lots and sacrifice the loser in cases of starvation. Curiously, though, it was usually the foreigner or weakest or most annoying that lost the drawing. The victorian reformers recognized the system was rigged and that the weakest and lowest of society are protected by making law less subject to interpretation and more absolute.

That’s the problem with utilitarianism. There will always be a tension between what’s best for society and individual human rights. But who decides what’s best for society? Or decides what individual sacrifice is worth it? By which individuals? How is it decided? Every dictator justifies their actions by utilitarianism. Lenin, Mao and others justified their mass murders as a sacrifice necessary to provide a greater good for society at large.

But if the captain’s primary concern was really saving the most people, he could have sacrificed himself to save the others. Doesn’t the captain go down with his ship? He could at least make it more fair by drawing lots (but we know who’d lose). Utilitarianism also assumes we can predict the future. But the captain couldn’t know for certain they wouldn’t be rescued even the very next hour, or that cannibalizing the boy would definitely save the rest of them.

Nonetheless, utilitarianism still tries to sneak back into society when we ration healthcare, argue for just wars, ignore due process and so on. Personally, I’m thankful to the lawyers that work every day to protect our individual rights. As a side note, the new TV series Pluribus explores this question of whether sacrificing individuality and individual rights is a worthwhile exchange for a more efficient and safer society. Check it out.

[Brenda · Rating 4 out of 5]

May 1884 - 4 British sailors, stranded for two weeks on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean, starving. Three were men, including the captain and one was a boy - the cabin boy. Discussions of drawing straws, but nothing was done but hope each day for a rescue, suffering from extreme hunger and thirst with the darkest of nights being long and fearful of every bump and splash.

Cannibalism sounds like something horrific you hear about from ancient cultures, but what if extreme starvation was making you think about doing something horrible?

There was trial that really left me thinking and the Afterword was excellent. I was so compelled reading & listening to this book. The narration was very well done and pairing it with the book made the story come alive in my mind. Still thinking about it....

My thanks to Net Galley and Author's Equity for an advanced copy of this e-book.

[coty ☆ · Rating 4 out of 5]

"People have always liked stories about people eating other people."

Adam Cohen very much calls me out with that line alone. I've been interested in stories of cannibalism, but nonfiction and fiction alike, since reading ALIVE as a teenager. The recent surge in cannibalistic fiction has been interesting to see but it's nonfiction narratives like this that continue to be the most engaging for me. CAPTAIN'S DINNER tells a story that I actually didn't know, and Cohen delves into it very effectively. Weaving in the history of cannibalism and highlighting certain aspects of the culture and society at the time, Cohen unfurls the story of the Mignonette and its sailors expertly, never shying away from the bloody details or softening the violence that occurred.

The book is, at its core, about the legal proceedings, and how groundbreaking it was to prosecute sailors for committing cannibalism, though really it doesn't ever feel like it was their cannibalism that they were condemned for. It very much focuses on the murder of it all, centering Parker as a victim chosen for his age and illness, and this is what struck me the most about the book: Cohen's compassion for the 'underdog'. It surprised me when the narrative actually explored Europe's history of cannibalism, acknowledging that historically we tend to think of it as something done by 'primitives' instead; Cohen directly challenges the racist notion that places like Africa needed to be colonized and "civilized" due to their "cannibalism" while highlighting the British hypocrisy with mummy shops and the indifferent attitude towards the 'custom of the sea'. Citing examples of shipwrecks prior to the Mignonette, Cohen recognizes an uncomfortable pattern: how often the one 'destined' to be sacrificed is the helpless child, the only slave present on the boat, the foreigner, the outsider. In this way, what happened aboard the Mignonette was true to 'the custom of the sea'.

And in this way, this book is about so much more than just the trial, which admittedly doesn't take up as much space in the narrative as I thought it would. Cohen's exploration of this act of cannibalism seems mostly focused on the moral and philosophical aspect, and in some ways, this doesn't leave room for much of a neutral presentation of the subject, which I do think is best in books like this, but I simultaneously appreciate Cohen's perspective; especially with how he relates what happened to Richard Parker to what happens even today to the disabled and the sick. The afterword explores instances where the ruling of this case was used in modern times in very interesting ways. But the entire narrative is really soaked in compassion and abhorrence at the mistreatment of those deemed lesser by society due to health or skin color or wealth. And that's a very important takeaway to have from the story as a whole.

Though some passages of the book end up feeling repetitive, I really enjoyed this perspective of this story; Cohen is clearly an author with a lot of passion and presented the legal proceedings in a way that even I, someone who isn't great with that type of jargon, found easy to follow.

Thank you to NetGalley and Authors Equity for the ARC in exchange for an honest review.

[Juan Ramon Gonzalez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Entertaining, informative and illuminating! I loved reading about this incident and the legal case that shaped how we view and treat necessity in dire circumstances. I loved how easy the author made the book to read and how the writing kept me on my toes to see how the judgement of the crewman would play out; despite knowing about it via a google search. The author made me care about every single person that was part of the incident and, though I have my own opinions, really made me question what I would do if I was in the same situation as the crewman. This is a must read for anyone that loves history but also for anyone who loves to be informed of precedents and how they still shape us today.

[Judy Masters · Rating 3 out of 5]

As much as I love a shipwreck story The Captain's dinner was not as much a ship wreck as it was legal story.
"The On May 19, 1884, the yacht Mignonette set sail from England on what should have been an uneventful voyage. When their vessel sank in the Atlantic, Captain Thomas Dudley and his crew found themselves adrift in a tiny lifeboat. As days turned to weeks, they faced an unthinkable choice: starve to death or resort to cannibalism."
But the story is more about the trial for cannibalism which was not crime at sea.
The story is little dry, I wanted a good ship wreck.

[Ivor Armistead · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating and thought provoking account of a sacrificial murder in a lifeboat in 1884 that resulted in a judicial opinion that marks a triumph of individual rights over utilitarianism with continuing relevance. “Captain’s Dinner” isn’t just a book that lawyers can love. It’s a book all thinking and caring people should read and ponder.

[Catherine · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Captain's Dinner " doesn't focus on the survival story of the Mignonette crew, but rather the changing customs and laws that were occurring at the time of the shipwreck. A harrowing read, but one that I was glad to take.

[Carrie Foster · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first half of this book was incredibly interesting however once the men got back from sea it was the most long-winded story. Felt like he needed to hit a word count or something. Just completely lost me and was no longer compelling.

[Rebekah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Probably the first nonfiction in a while to hold my attention

[Greg Kerr · Rating 5 out of 5]

Worth the Read

I read a pre-released version from NetGalley and was asked to provide comments. The book read well though certain situations of English law or trail presidencies seemed to be repeated multiple times as if the reader may have forgotten the salient point being made (e.g., special verdict).

Since there were no supplies in the inadequate life boat, I'm surprised that no preventative regulatory changes were made to require an adequate number of sea worthy vessels available for both crew and passengers and to ensure they are appropriately supplied?

I thought the "Afterwards" was a bit tedious and could have been condensed, though I'm not one to spend an inordinate amount of time in academic, philosophical debate. Just my opinion.

Below are some editing concerns. BTW, the Kindle version I downloaded did not have page numbers.

In Chapter 6 there is an inconsistency in the formatting of literary titles. Examples - italicized titles of writings by Brantlinger, Dickins and Kingsley; quotes used for writings by Kipling and Stead's and no formatting for Mearns’s non-fiction report.

In Chapter 7 the author wrote. "Brook’s refusal also undermined the defense’s argument that it was better for one person to die so four could live" should say "... so three could live".

In Chapter 9 a sentence reads "When the time came for the jury’s response, the foreman said that it was their view that the men the men “would have died if they had not had this body to have fed on" with a double "the men".

[Chip Fallaw · Rating 3 out of 5]

A book about a shipwreck – sign.me.up! However, this story doesn’t end with shipwreck. In fact, that’s shockingly the most explainable and normal part of this story. With attention to detail and a keen sense of narration, Adam Cohen describes the ensuing survival of three of the four men. Unfortunately for the fourth man, he succumbed to death and then was consumed in one of societies’ most taboo acts: cannibalism.
Cohen’s story spans from start to finish – The hiring of crew members to the legal precedent established by the action of those three ailing crewmembers, adrift and hopeless. While quite gross, the story itself may prompt the reader to consider their actions should they face similar situations. How does their moral compass align when faced with near-certain death.
Overall, Cohen’s writing flows eloquently, supported by a topic he has researched thoroughly. I remained engrossed thorough the story and enjoyed learning more about topic. To that end, I rate this book solidly at 3.75 stars, rounded down to 3 stars. It didn’t change my life, but it’s certainly well-above your average read. For fans of shipwreck, survival stories, or strange taboo acts, I encourage you to pick up this book!
Thanks to NetGalley, Adam Cohen, and the publisher in exchange for an honest review of this book.

[Janine · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’d like to thank NetGalley and the publishers of this book for allowing me to read this most interesting book about a legal precedent (is taking of a life at sea acceptable and then eating the victim in order to survive?) and historical case in Britain in the late Victorian Era that created a new precedent. The author does a first rate job in detailing what changed from past acceptance of events of cannibalism at sea to setting in motion a review of this long precedence. Most importantly the case came at a time was Britain was enacting reforms especially those that affected the vulnerable in their population. You have to read the book to find out what the decision was and this affected not only Britain but other countries as well.

[Jonathon D · Rating 3 out of 5]

Let me start by saying that Cohen is a terrific writer. He describes the facts in a crisp, journalistic style, and then adds enough atmosphere to make it read like a murder mystery. While I was reading this, I didn't know how this turned out (and I won't give anything away), and I was on the edge of my seat. I quickly devoured the book, it was so good.

That is, right until the end. I had an advance uncorrected proof. He spends 240 pages discussing the events, and it's great. Mesmerizing. Enthralling. Then in the last 15 pages, he discusses the impact of the events, and their application to modern society. And boy, does Cohen get it wrong. COMPLETELY WRONG.

I am not giving anything away, but Cohen's conclusion is that there are no circumstances where it is acceptable to sacrifice one innocent individual for the life of others. And that's just flat-out factually incorrect. Modern medicine does it ALL THE TIME. Cohen gives the example of Covid, where people were being removed from respirators, or refused treatment involving respirators, based on their health condition, stating that it was unethical to do so. Ethical, unethical, or otherwise, this is PRECISELY WHAT THEY DID IN FACT DO. People were removed from respirators or refused attachment to one so that other, healthier individuals might live.

More precisely, modern medicine analyzes the relative positions of people against each other - innocent people all! - in terms of transplants, kidney or otherwise. Not healthy? Down to the bottom of the list you go. Not contributing to society in a way that's meaningful as far as modern medicine is concerned? Down to the bottom of the list you go.

Medicine makes decisions like this ALL THE TIME. And there is an established framework for doing so, that has been discussed, analyzed, questioned, revised, and finally set in place to deny care to one innocent individual - and thereby sentencing them to death - and give it to someone else who is deemed to be a more deserving individual.

Ultimately, it is the terrible last 15 pages of the book that ruin the preceding excellent 240 pages for me. His conclusions are simply wrong.

It's not that I agree or disagree with Cohen's final conclusion; it's just that he didn't spend enough time exploring it, debating it, showing both sides. And unlike many discourses in the present political arena, there truly are two sides to this question. Cohen simply ignored the other side. If his analysis in the last 15 pages had been more up to snuff, if it had been more in-depth than just 15 measly pages, I would have given this 5 stars. But it was so incredibly weak and shallow that it ruined my enjoyment of the rest of the book.

Coincidentally, I have his book on FDR's first 100 days, Nothing to Fear, sitting unread on my shelf. Because there are no moral judgments or conclusions to be drawn from FDR's actions, I am sure that this book - which is next on my list, - will be excellent, and I can't wait to dive into it.

Mr. Cohen: Stick to reporting the facts. Your analysis of their impact is sorely lacking.

[Alicia · Rating 5 out of 5]

I picked up this book on a whim after seeing the title because I love true-crime and survival against the odds documentaries—the promise of throwing in some legal history was just the icing on the cake. Although one person’s “icing on the cake” might be another’s sticking point—so know your interests. Only the first couple of chapters deal with the wreck itself and the desperate measures taken by the three men who survive by sacrificing the fourth. The rest of the book explores the aftermath and attempts to frame the whole event in its historical, religious, philosophical, legal, and traditional context.

I’d heard of this story before—perhaps most famously, it was one of the inspirations for Yann Martel’s Life of Pi—I say “one of” because the Richard Parkers of the world apparently have the unfortunate luck of consistently cropping up in cannibalism-at-sea incidents. So I was looking forward to getting into the nitty-gritty details of this case with a book promising a look at all of the courtroom drama.

Without giving too much away, the three survivors of the Mignonette yacht return to England with tales of their survival and quickly find themselves (unexpectedly) under intense scrutiny on whether or not they were guilty of murder or if they had had the right, because of a long tradition at sea and the dire circumstances, to sacrifice one for the survival of the others. The case goes on to become a world-wide story, sparking immense media coverage as it makes its way up through the Victorian court system, and becomes an opportunity for English jurists to decide how this case will set a precedent for future, similar cases.

Personally I love legal history because of what it reveals about a society’s beliefs and values. How someone presents their case (or the case on behalf of their clients in this case) and the norms they appeal to or arguments they reject reveals a lot about contemporary understanding of power dynamics, gender, class, tradition, and so much more and Captain’s Dinner is a great example of what we can glean about 19th century British norms in the sailing world and how this case set a precedence in an ever-expanding and ever more closely connected world. Should the law pursue utilitarianism in which the outcome should benefit the greatest number of people? Do we pursue Darwinism and the survival of the fittest? Should we seek to protect the most vulnerable? Be more like Jesus? (That last one does come up, I did not just sneak it in here).

That said, those expecting a grimy tale about survival and cannibalism might be slightly disappointed to find that a legal history book manages to discuss mainly history and legality (and a whole lot of moral philosophy as a result). However, those interested in the nuts and bolts of this case will find themselves both entertained and enriched—either in historical knowledge or with some philosophical food for thought.

[Roland · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most thought provoking books I’ve read this year. Deeply human.
New trolley problem or The Mignette Affair
You are one of four men on a life raft fourteen days after a shipwreck. The only potable water that has been had is from unreliable rain, your own urine and the blood of a captured sea turtle. The most inexperienced man’s thirst drove him to sneak sea water and now lays closest to death, barely responsive. The others are not too far behind, their legs bloated. If the sick man dies his blood will congeal within minutes and cease to be usable. Your offer of drawing of lots has been rejected: one refuses to kill, one refuses the odds and the last is in no shape to consent. You have pushed the decision off for three days and are only three days more dehydrated as reward. Do you kill the sick man and consume him? Do you do nothing and watch as four men’s kidneys fail until death?
The Judges in the case (some were Lords; others were Barons) said the only moral thing to do here is emulate Jesus and sacrifice yourself. It is an untenable solution, devoid of the realities of man. The author advocates that you should do nothing. Any action would be an act of moral depravity, classist and racist (he sites other drawing of lots that are rigged against the most marginalized in the group but this does not seem to be the case here as the boys proximity to death and the congealing of his blood are what drives his killing not his station as cabin boy).
Both argue that a man does not have the right to kill. There is no moral authority in their decision to take another’s life. Only the state contains that authority. They argue the individual does not have the ability to choose the greatest good for the most people. Once again only the state does. One could argue that the state in a democracy is democratically elected thus serves as avatars of the population, however the reality is that we are ruled by aristocrats whose knowledge consists of rational intuition rather than empirical knowledge. The state in this case was aristocrats trying to progress from a genocidal, exploitative barbarian state into a more benevolent nanny state.
The author argues that human rights are paramount and can’t be calculated away. We as individuals hold no authority, moral or otherwise, to sentence a man to death only to save other men. His most egregious argument is that it is better to do nothing so that you are not morally culpable.
Or as Micheal Scott says, "Don't ever, for any reason, do anything, to anyone, for any reason, ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who, or who you are with, or where you are going, or where you've been, ever, for any reason whatsoever."
This is egregious in its cowardice and ignorance. It is a decision not to act.

[Karen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book that will have you thinking. As the subtitle very accurately says, this tells the history behind a group of shipwrecked sailors that, after being in a lifeboat for 20+ days, decided that one of their group of four had to die in order to keep the others alive. Cohen does a good job of giving the history of Cannibalism at sea which, up to the point of these events, was a kind of an understood "necessity" when in peril at sea. It was never thought criminal in the past and was, at times, celebrated as an act of bravery for survivors. However, as with many unspoken "understandings" there are also unspoken "rules." One of which was that it was seen as "proper" to draw straws and let fate/God decide who should be sacrificed. In the story Cohen describes here, lots were not drawn. It was simply decided that the sickly, young cabin boy would be the one to go. This was one of many factors that changed the perception and ultimate criminalization of this case. Cohen also did a good job of settling this case in its place in time/history. He discusses how Victorian sensibilities and the emergence of utilitarian thought impacted both public and legal responses to the events.

The thing that I found my mind most occupied by while reading at least the second half of this book was the idea of the necessity defense the surviving sailors attempted to use which basically says that, if things are desperate enough, a crime committed in the efforts to survive is kind of excusable. For me, I just found it so interesting that a bunch of rich, land-owning white dudes who are the only folks involved in legal decisions of the time were fascinated by and often made excuses for this extreme act that, ultimately, ended the life of an innocent 17 year old boy. However, they were fascinated and intrigued by this story of misadventure and survival at sea that seems like, and is, such an extreme and unrealistic set of circumstances. I just found myself thinking about all of the very everyday circumstances that poor or sick or disenfranchised folks find themselves in all the time where people are put in situations where the commission of a crime would help them survive but those are the very folks the justice system often focuses on punishing. I don't have time to write more a review than that or give it more thought at the moment but I was glad to spend time with these facts and have my brain be challenged. I would certainly read more from Cohen.

[Beth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thank you to NetGalley and Author’s Equity as well as the author for this ARC in exchange for my honest opinion.
#NetGalley #AuthorsEquity #AdamCohen #CaptainsDinner #Nonfiction #BookReview #Reading #TrueCrime

Title: Captain’s Dinner
Author: Adam Cohen
Format: eBook
Publisher: Authors Equity
Publication Date: November 18, 2025
Themes: True Crime, morally grey, humans as monsters
Trigger Warnings: Cannibalism, starvation,

In spring of 1884, a yacht called Mignonette set sail from England. What should have been a routine sail turned tragic when the boat sank, four survivors found themselves in a lifeboat awaiting rescue. As they slowly starved, they made a decision that changed legal history.

This is a harrowing, nonfiction read. A very interesting account of three men who decided to murder one of the four survivors so that they could survive on his flesh and blood. They expect to be welcomed home as heroes but, instead, they’re immediately put on trial for murder. The case that follows is detailed here in these pages. It’s a very interesting book, although I don’t feel right saying that I enjoyed it. RIP Richard Parker. I liked that this book reported facts and wasn’t focused on the author’s opinion, but of what happened. This allowed me to form my own opinion, which honestly, I still haven’t entirely done as I can see both sides.

This book was good but repetitive. It could have been much shorter without various retellings. We know what happened. We don’t need to hear it again and again. Also I would have liked to hear less about the trial and more about the voyage.

All in all, this is a great book for horror lovers and history buffs alike.

[Devon Gilbreath · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is definitely a niche subject that is not for everyone, but I personally love learning about misfortunate sea voyages, especially when cannibalism is involved. I have wondered if that makes me weird, but even Cohen pointed out in this book that people are both repelled and drawn to cannibalism, as observed by Sigmund Freud. As Cohen so eloquently stated, “People have always liked stories about people eating other people.” LOL.

If this book sounds even remotely interesting to you, you should absolutely check it out. It is incredibly well done, even if you are not typically a nonfiction reader. Cohen gets straight to the heart of what happened, provides all the gruesome details, and explores how this event changed legal history.

There is no mutiny and no deserted islands. Captain’s Dinner tells the story of a four man crew tasked with sailing an old yacht from England to Australia. Disaster strikes, and one member of the crew, the ship boy, is murdered and eaten by the other three. When the surviving men make it back to England, they openly share the story of what happened, including the cannibalism, assuming they would go home afterward since previous similar situations had no consequences. Their defense was that it was necessary to kill one man in order to save the other three from starvation and dehydration.

Thought provoking and fascinating. Huge thanks to NetGalley and Authors Equity for an arc of Captain’s Dinner: A Shipwreck, An Act of Cannibalism, and a Murder Trial That Changed Legal History.

[Brandon Shultz · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a first-year law student, Dudley & Stephens is one of the hallmark criminal law cases you hear about. At that point, you are just worried about getting the title and the rule written down and memorized for the final essays. But Captain's Dinner shows that the story of the case is more than just a rule. Instead, as with most legal cases, when you learn about the people behind the case and the events of the case, you see that there is so much more behind the legal decision. The decision of two men gave reformers in England a chance to take a small step to reform their legal system, which continues to impact cases to the current day. This is a fascinating read for anyone interested in legal history, true crime, or history. It's also a great reminder of how a small event in the short term can have a large impact in the long term. Although Queen v. Dudley and Stephens is not, and should not be, remembered as being as consequential as Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education, or Miranda v. Arizona to American jurisprudence, it should be remembered more than as a note in a first-year criminal law class.

[Vii · Rating 4 out of 5]

Four men try to sail a yacht to Australia and end up on a small lifeboat for weeks with no food or water. One of them, the one in power, is much more insistent on murder and cannibalism being the only solution.

The book briefly mentions similar cases and offers a look at society back then so that we can better understand the importance the verdict had in human rights and how it continues to have relevance today. It also has descriptions of drinking animal and human blood and cannibalism.

It was interesting to see how the four people in this situation reacted in very different ways and how society viewed them. And also, how while something might make sense and seem fair in theory, like 'the custom of the sea', it isn't in practice. The marginalized will often be deemed more expendable and sacrificed for the greater good.

Thank you to NetGalley and Authors Equity for the eARC of this book. These are my honest thoughts.

[Megan · Rating 4 out of 5]

ARC Review — Captain's Dinner by Adam Cohen

Captain's Dinner follows four sailors tasked with delivering a yacht to Australia, only to face unexpected peril at sea. Stranded in a small lifeboat without food or water for days, the captain makes a chilling decision: the only way to survive is by murdering and eating one of their own.

The story was absolutely fascinating. The sailors’ journey is gripping, tense, and thrilling, keeping me hooked from start to finish. I also appreciated the secondary storyline, which explores the historical trial, cannibalism, and legal proceedings of the time. Learning about the real-life documentation and the context behind these events was just as captivating as the main narrative.

A dark, intense read that combines survival suspense with historical intrigue.

Thank you to the publisher and Adam Cohen for the ARC in exchange for my honest review.

#ARCReview #Goodreads #CaptainsDinner #AdamCohen #SurvivalThriller #HistoricalNonFiction #BookReview