What do you think?
Rate this book
Vicious: Wolves and Men in America
A provocative history of wolves in America and of the humans who first destroyed them and now offer them protection
Over a continent and three centuries, American livestock owners destroyed wolves to protect the beasts that supplied
Over a continent and three centuries, American livestock owners destroyed wolves to protect the beasts that supplied
270 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
12 people are currently reading
153 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
December 26, 2012
If you have a pre-existing interest in the history of wolves or apex predators, then this is a fabulous tome recounting anecdotes of wolf-human interactions in North America. The title plays on the idea that wolves are vicious animals, but on page 228 of the text Coleman finally states that it is people who are vicious. It took him a few hundred pages to explain this sentiment, but after reading all the ways people killed and mangled wolves across the continent, the reader is firmly grounded in his perspective. He wrote: “Some of their motives were comprehensible. But once they caught their animal foes, why did they beat, bait, torture and humiliate them? What explains the pleasure so many found in wolf abuse? One answer: human nature. They may smile, hug, rescue kittens, write thank you notes, and attend support groups, but people are vicious at the core."
August 29, 2020
Coleman's account of the great American wolf war is clearly written as a script for a documentary film. But behind the easy-to-digest presentation lies a mass of research on the cultures of wolves and of particular human communities. Coleman gives as much attention to the meanings of wolf behavior as he does to the of meanings Puritan, Narragansett, or Mormon settler behavior. Behind the events of history, he exposes a series of fundamental failures in communication. Most basically, he shows how wolf howls are signals for other wolves, but the settlers generally assumed that the howls were signals for attack on humans. The contrasts between European and Native, or between rural and urban responses to these creatures reveal a range of possibilities for war or co-existence. The story traces 400 years in the evolution of folklore, and illustrates the degree to which folklore shapes our relations with all the creatures around us.
March 5, 2025
3.5 stars
October 2, 2008
A wonderful book that takes up and fills in on Lopez's Of Wolves and Men. Everything you wanted to know about wolves and humans coexistance and past with thoughtful discussions of the future.
December 30, 2011
An engaging writer. I thought the evidence was often thin, but it was certainly a thought-provoking book and another excellent discussion generator.
March 11, 2012
One of the best books I've come across on wolves and their history and natural history.
July 1, 2012
A nice history of wolves and men in the United States. It just goes to show how closely related we are to wolves. Nevertheless, I found it quite boring most of the time.
October 13, 2023
My one wish before I picked up this book was that I knew there would be continuous and graphic depictions not just of animal death, but animal torture. I've been a wolf-kid since I was little, so it was a little jarring at the beginning.
I also felt it was a little too thesaurus heavy - it's ok to say "bear" in multiple sentences, it won't take away from the academic work.
I also felt it was a little too thesaurus heavy - it's ok to say "bear" in multiple sentences, it won't take away from the academic work.
August 5, 2020
One of the worst books I have read. Struggled to get through it but thought at some point it would improve. The language the author uses is glib and off-putting. And it is terribly redundant.
March 1, 2025
Fascinating and informative, but incredibly repetitive, needlessly lengthy, and disorganized.
February 12, 2015
Really more like a 2.5 but feeling generous.
Although the history of wolves and people on the American continent, well at least the parts the author covers, was interesting with some good insight into beginnings of legends and myths and such.... it was too choppy and a bit random at times. Sometimes I found myself bored and struggling through some pages, other times it was fast. One beef, a bias I guess, is that he got most things of the LDS Church wrong: It's official name, most of its history as well as wrong 'titles' for wrong people of the church.. with some speculation with nothing to back it up.
I learned more about wolf biology, sexual reproduction and hunting/trapping methods than I felt was needed in this book. Interesting to some I am sure, but not me.
Oft times I could never quite gather what he was trying to argue. He does make some good and intriguing points, but there is a lot of speculation, I am not sure as of now if I agree with what he was trying to prove.
An interesting read I am sure, just not quite my thing nor would I have picked this up independently to read; given that it was a required read for my History 600 Methodology Grad course.
Although the history of wolves and people on the American continent, well at least the parts the author covers, was interesting with some good insight into beginnings of legends and myths and such.... it was too choppy and a bit random at times. Sometimes I found myself bored and struggling through some pages, other times it was fast. One beef, a bias I guess, is that he got most things of the LDS Church wrong: It's official name, most of its history as well as wrong 'titles' for wrong people of the church.. with some speculation with nothing to back it up.
I learned more about wolf biology, sexual reproduction and hunting/trapping methods than I felt was needed in this book. Interesting to some I am sure, but not me.
Oft times I could never quite gather what he was trying to argue. He does make some good and intriguing points, but there is a lot of speculation, I am not sure as of now if I agree with what he was trying to prove.
An interesting read I am sure, just not quite my thing nor would I have picked this up independently to read; given that it was a required read for my History 600 Methodology Grad course.
February 8, 2013
Ugh. This book was torturous. It was unnecessarily long and very repetitive. The author's main point is that Wolves and Men had this conflicting relationship of misunderstanding. Colonists felt that in their need to conquer the North American landscape, wolves had to go. Wolves have no understanding of property, contrary to popular belief. So when wolves eat European's livestock, humans go crazy for their blood. They think that wolves actually understand human culture and thus react in response. Now add 9 more chapters. Subtract one, because it actually talks about why humans have this fear of wolves (Thank you Folklore!) The others go into random rants about Mormons, Federal governments and other abstract concepts.
I would not recommend this book. I felt like the bulk of his argument could have been made in a nice concise essay, not a book.
I would not recommend this book. I felt like the bulk of his argument could have been made in a nice concise essay, not a book.
May 18, 2012
This is the first time I've been dishonest about reading a book, but I'm really slogging through this. It's not a particularly compelling read, too dry, but I do have a deep desire to understand the human-wolf connection (at least from this perspective). So, I will finish it at some point. But the title keeps popping up on my profile page, mocking my inability to complete it so in a fit of madness I'm marking it "read." Yes, I have only myself to answer to. Oh, the shame.
February 24, 2012
An interesting, extremely dry book. The facts, stories, and pictures were interesting and intriguing. However, the book could have flowed a little better to make it a little less of a regurgitation of facts.
Overall, it was a good read, but I definitely wouldn't recommend it if you don't have any interest in both wolves and early American history.
Overall, it was a good read, but I definitely wouldn't recommend it if you don't have any interest in both wolves and early American history.
May 31, 2012
A warmed-over PhD Dissertation that is choppy and repetitive. Ultimately, I do not buy Coleman's thesis. Still, he makes an interesting argument if you can slog through the prose.
December 30, 2011
Starting out from the interesting historical perspective wolves.
April 21, 2017
okay read, kind of repetitive and sometimes goes off on vaguely related tangents
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.