Acceso usuarios
Susanne Leikam
This article explores T.C. Boyle's thirteenth novel “When the Killing's Done” (2011) in regard to its representation of ecological crisis and the ensuing environmental activism. In particular, it argues that the distinctly urban background and way of life of the two main protagonists, National Park Service staff member Alma Boyd Takesue and radical eco-hipster Dave LaJoy, foster environmental imaginations of the California Channel Islands that underestimate the centuries-long agricultural uses of the islands and romanticize the islands' ecosystems as pristine "wilderness". While this perception in the tradition of the "American cult of wilderness" prompts Alma and the National Park Service to reestablish a historical state of the islands' ecosystems through the calculated extermination of invasive species, eco-activist Dave fiercely fights for the right of every non-human animal to live. Ultimately, the novel deconstructs both these endeavors to biodiversity and animal rights as highly flawed and environmentally as well as ethically inconsistent.
This article explores T.C. Boyle's thirteenth novel “When the Killing's Done” (2011) in regard to its representation of ecological crisis and the ensuing environmental activism. In particular, it argues that the distinctly urban background and way of life of the two main protagonists, National Park Service staff member Alma Boyd Takesue and radical eco-hipster Dave LaJoy, foster environmental imaginations of the California Channel Islands that underestimate the centuries-long agricultural uses of the islands and romanticize the islands' ecosystems as pristine "wilderness". While this perception in the tradition of the "American cult of wilderness" prompts Alma and the National Park Service to reestablish a historical state of the islands' ecosystems through the calculated extermination of invasive species, eco-activist Dave fiercely fights for the right of every non-human animal to live. Ultimately, the novel deconstructs both these endeavors to biodiversity and animal rights as highly flawed and environmentally as well as ethically inconsistent.
