In a long, colorful life, Daniel P. Mannix worked as a sword swallower, a fire eater, a photographer, a filmmaker, a stage magician, a breeder, a collector of exotic animals for zoos, and occasionally (and more disreputably) as a writer. His nonfiction books and articles covered an equally astonishing range of subjects: gladiators, magicians, torture, hunting, travel, the Atlantic slave trade, the early Oz films (he was an avid fan and early member of the International Wizard of Oz club), occultist Aleister Crowley, and the United States Navy.
And he wrote what may be the so far hands down most depressing book of this reread yet—a list which, let me remind you, has so far included such cheery subjects as puppet torture, probable pedophilia, the inevitability of death, puppy killing, rape, and child abandonment. What I’m saying is, The Fox and the Hound had competition, deep competition, and it still won.
Initially, The Fox and the Hound starts out on what seems to be a perfectly cheery note, inside the mind of Copper the hound. This also means inside a world comprised mostly of scents. Copper does not see very well with his eyes, instead navigating the world through his nose, which proves useful when his Master takes him and the other dogs out on a hunt for a bear.
This is the first indication that things in this book might not go all that well. It’s difficult to know who to feel more sympathy for here, the bear or the dogs. It also might be difficult, if you’re me, not to cheer on the bear just a little bit when it correctly finds the real threat—the Master—and sinks his teeth into the Master’s shoulder. A freaked out Copper—it’s a bear—doesn’t attack, but his dog rival, Chief, does, saving the life of the Master like THANKS CHIEF YOU DIDN’T HAVE TO (we’ve had plenty of signs already that the Master is not one of humanity’s bright spots, even leaving aside the bear hunt). This does make Chief the favorite dog. For a bit. Deeply depressing Copper.
The next chapter takes us inside the mind of Tod, a fox rescued by humans as a pup—and before you feel too sympathetic about those humans, this is right after all of his littermates were killed, but moving on. The humans keep Tod as a pet for a few months, which teaches him a bit about them, but soon enough, instincts take over, and he heads back into the wild.
Eventually, he finds himself hunted by Copper, the Master and the Master’s other hounds, including Chief. Tod is clever enough to trick Chief into jumping onto train tracks and getting killed by the train. The Master and Copper then spend the rest of the book trying to kill Tod—the Master, out of vengeance and apparently a general dislike for foxes and some severe personality issues, Copper out of pure love for his human.
In between tense descriptions of fox hunting and things really not going well, Mannix takes time to explore Tod’s world in depth—his own hunting practices, socialization with other foxes, food he particularly likes, the fun he has springing traps set for him and others, how he finds new dens and adjusts to the changes in seasons.
This also includes a fairly graphic description of Tod’s encounter with a vixen, an encounter that includes a fight with two other male foxes and evidence that adult foxes are not very good at providing proper sex education to little male foxes and that instinct is not always a reliable guide with sex, well, fox sex at least, but that does end with this happy thought:
They were well mated; the older, more experienced vixen to the powerful, enthusiastic young male in the full glory of his youthful prowess.
Also, on a fun note, the vixen chooses Tod, not the other way around, and she’s the one to kill her rival vixen.
This encounter naturally results in little fox puppies, who are adorable and cute right up until one of them goes after a domestic chicken, attracting the attention of the dog on that farm. The two adult foxes attack the dog, which in turn leads to the farmer calling the Master and Copper for help. Copper manages to find the fox den; the Master and the farmer kill all of the little fox puppies with methane like I TOLD YOU THIS WAS THE MOST DEPRESSING BOOK YET.
That is, until the fox meets another vixen, and has another litter of puppies, and the Master and Copper find these puppies too, and, well –
AND THAT’S NOT EVEN THE MOST DEPRESSING PART OF THE BOOK.
Seriously. ADORABLE PUPPY DEATHS—twice!—are not the saddest, most depressing part of this book.
Despite this focus on foxes and the deaths of their little fox puppies, and the terrible things that happen to foxes, hounds, and (to a lesser degree) chickens, bears, minks, and songbirds, however, this is really more a book about humans than about animals. The animals, after all, are responding to the humans, and readers are responding to the things the animals notice, but cannot understand: the scent of alcohol around the Master and the resulting displays of fury; the symptoms of rabies; the arrival of the suburbs.
That arrival sets up the major twist of the book: for all that The Fox and the Hound is clearly an anti-hunting novel, arguing that hunting is not just bad for foxes and bears, but also for dogs and humans, the suburbs, not hunting, end up being the real threat to foxes, dogs and humans. Mannix even argues that the foxes—accidentally—actually can help with some farms and agriculture, by removing pests from fruit trees and keeping the rodent population down, when, that is, the foxes aren’t eating chickens. And the foxes mostly thrive when the land is devoted to hunting and farming: this—accidentally—creates great habitat for them, and the land and the forest thickets shelter several healthy, well fed foxes with thick, luxurious pelts who can hunt more than they and their pups can eat.
Once the suburbs arrive, however, all this changes. Readers might not mourn the disappearance of the old world, with its bear hunts and farms and dog killing trains, but the text does. Most of the dogs owned by the Master disappear; the foxes grow mangy and cowardly and skinny and, thanks to garbage cans, lose their ability to hunt (though I’d think the resulting fights with raccoons would keep the foxes in shape, but this isn’t a book about raccoons). Scents from cars and paved roads confuse and terrify the animals. Rabies breaks out through the animal population, worsening human interaction. The final chapters become almost nostalgic for the hunting days, and more of a fierce polemic against the rapid expansion of the suburbs in the 1960s.
It’s an excellent book to give anyone interested in a detailed narrative of the life of a fox, or to how foxes adjust to incoming suburban developments, or in the many many ways foxes can die. I also recommend it to anyone thinking about destroying a wilderness area in order to build bland, cookie cutter houses or strip malls.
But it’s not, to put it mildly, the sort of book you would imagine Disney, or any Hollywood studio, really, choosing to make a children’s movie of. Then again, Disney had previously managed to make popular films out of Pinocchio and Bambi, and had created films that often seemed to resemble the source material in name only with Sleeping Beauty and The Jungle Book. How bad, really, could things get?
Mari Ness lives in central Florida.
I was wondering what you reaction would be to this one. I have never read the book, but I looked up a summary once to see what Disney was drawing from. If I recall, the only thing Disney seemed to take from it was a fox and a hound…
I have never read the book.
I now never will. How horrifying.
Yet the movie was on endless repeat for my oldest nieces, now 21. I’m betting they have never read the book either.
WOW.
Yeah I rewatched the movie a few years ago and was made miserable by it… your review is telling me quite clearly I must avoid at all costs.
I am wondering if this and Watership Down and other animal books were part of some strange 20th century animal grimdark trend.
My favorite Disney movie ever. I remember going to the movie with my grandma. I know it’s not in the book, but the line “We’ll always be friends forever” still echoes in my head down to this day….knowing that they wouldn’t as soon as that line was said. I’m still interested in reading the book. I think I might be a glutton for punishment…
Nope! Nope, nope nope nope nope nope.
For the record: I don’t remember how the movie ends. I am not encouraged.
Lisamarie – The book totally caught me off guard, largely because I went into this Read-Watch expecting that the most depressing/hardest rereads in it would be Oliver Twist or Hunchback of Notre Dame, or possibly Bambi, and wow, was I wrong. Hunchback is a romantic comedy, comparatively speaking.
It’s also one of the most puzzling choices Disney ever made – Pocahontas and Hunchback, also odd choices, were at least intended as prestige films, and both Pinocchio and Bambi were originally bestsellers. This – I really am not sure what Disney was thinking.
Braid Tug, Jen, Noblehunter – The film is not that much like the book.
Scott – I won’t try to stop you, but the book is really not much like the film.
Dang, a Disney story based on something that made Watership Down look cheerful?
I’m going to have to track this down.
Now I’m kind of tempted to read it. I’m a sucker for books from realistic (or unrealistic) animal perspectives. :-P
For every mention of the Master, I’m thinking of Doctor Who: would the Master be nicer if he/she had a dog? Funny, considering that Missy just told Clara that she was the puppy in their group, and next episode being “The Witch’s Familiar”, probably referring to Missy and Clara.
I’ve sometimes wondered if Disney bought the rights to this novel because their original plan was to go up against The Plague Dogs* (released 1982) for most distressing animated animal movie of all time. Both books feature dogs and foxes being treated pretty shabbily by human beings in general, so I’d like to think my theory isn’t too far-fetched.
*By the same author & studio as Watership Down, its better-known and slightly less grimdark predecessor, Dogs has the distinction of being one of the few animated movies that’s grimdarker than its source novel. Also, Brad Bird worked on it. Those two facts are unrelated, probably.
This is a Daniel Mannix that I never read- I enjoyed his book about the sideshow, and his autobiographical work about hunting with animals- the man owned a cheetah!- but I’m glad I didn’t get to this one. I prefer Jim Kjelgaard’s dog stories.
I read and liked this as a kid, but it wasn’t one of my favorites. I was way into fictionalized animal biographies at the time, especially the ones from the animals’ point of view (although I also enjoyed things like Lad, a Dog and Marguerite Henry’s horse stories). For calibration, I must have read Bambi at least half a dozen times. A better one about a fox was Jim Kjelgaard’s Haunt Fox.
I can’t remember any book I read as a kid being too depressing. Kids lap up tragedy (or at least I did). It’s the adults who can’t handle it, I say! (Speaking as an adult who can’t handle it now.) I missed this one, but I but I would have enjoyed it. Too late now, though.
You left out the most depressing part – the Master goes to an old folks’ home, but dogs aren’t allowed, so HE SHOOTS COPPER! How depressing can one book get?
Where can I get a copy of the book? I have seen copies of it on ebay but they are a lot of money.
This is a pansy reality! I come from a reality where DISNEY in fact gave you a death ending! I hated the movie ‘Fox and the Hound’. Anyone who remembers the ending with deaths will tell you that they never watched the movie twice.
Reading your review and these comments is far more depressing than the book. Mannix wrote a stunningly beautiful account of the symbiotic relationship between a fox and a hound and the main hunts that link their entirely different lives together. The novel is an absolutely magical look at the world through two completely unique perspectives.
Thanks for the review! I watched the movie again for the first time in 30 years, then learned a little about the intriguing author. Sounds like an interesting yet realist and grim yet sensuous read. That was interesting about society evolving from rural to suburbs. I wondered if there were subtle racial relations subtext in the animated fox and hound movie by disney, a sort of To Kill a Mockingbird but with animals. Interestingly white flight from the cities and the GI Bill precipitiated suburb deveolpment, and one of his books was on the slave trade, and he lived much of his life in Philadelphia. But beyond that my hypothesis seems not to be holding up. Thanks again for your review. I found it very helpful.
Disney has a habit of taking stories based fictional experiences, and turning them in to feel good narratives.
The Fox & the Hound is one such example. In the movie, Todd the Fox, and Copper the Hound find themselves in the woods and become fast friends. But the book’s reality is far different. They are rivals. Copper the Hunter; Todd the Hunted- both living in an instinctual world full or promise, loyalty, adventure, instinct, and death. For those raised in the rural areas, animals were tools, not friends, and death and disease an all to common reality. It is a well told story of changing times, times that at the end turn against the pair and leave a bleak future not fit for fox, hound or man.
You simply cannot approach the original novel through the lens of the Disney film. The novel was not written nor ever intended as a children’s book. Disney took an adult novel and watered it down into a children’s movie that has this in common with the book: the title, the two main characters, and that’s about it.
You do the author a great disservice by judging his work by the aesthetics of a Disney film. They have almost zero relation. If you can separate the two when you pick up the book and read the book as a member of its intended target audience (an adult, not a kid), you will enjoy it as an informative, entertaining, creative and gritty masterpiece.