Whos read Clan of the Cave Bear by Jean M. Auel [Archive]

Arguendo

11-25-2006, 08:41 AM

I've read the entire series, probably because I have masochistic tendencies.

The only redeeming quality of Auel's books is the herb usage, which is quite interesting.

In later books, it appears that Ayla invents pretty much everything that may or may not have been invented in that era, including taming wolves and horses for domestic use. Yeah, right. The books are hardly credible as it is, but the inventions are way over the top.

It's "feminism" is some sort of awful quasi-feminism along the lines of "women can be strong too, so there". And don't get me started on the horrifying housewife porn featured in every book but the first - I suspect it's not present in the first because Auel couldn't bring herself to make Ayla enjoy having sex with a filthy Neanderthal bloke. A nice, pretty Cro-Magnon guy hung like a zebra, on the other hand... Augh.

Why on Earth have I read all of these books?! I refuse to believe my masochistic streak is that gigantic. :brickwall

Sorry for coming down so hard on a book you liked, but it's one of the more cringeworthy things I've ever read. If you want proper feminist lit or historically more correct lit, I'll be happy to recommend some.

dramasnot6

11-26-2006, 01:16 AM

I read it several years ago, and I hated it. The racist attitude toward the Neandertahls was disgusting. It also showed extreme ignorance of anthropology. I have been told that she corrected her bigotted attitude in later books, but I wouldn't read anything by her unless I were paid to.

but it was fiction, i didnt think she meant it that way. she even targeted the cromagnons, saying they raped people and such. there was one line in the book like "men from both groups were not to be trusted". the two different attitudes were just used for contrast i think.

I've read the entire series, probably because I have masochistic tendencies.

The only redeeming quality of Auel's books is the herb usage, which is quite interesting.

In later books, it appears that Ayla invents pretty much everything that may or may not have been invented in that era, including taming wolves and horses for domestic use. Yeah, right. The books are hardly credible as it is, but the inventions are way over the top.

It's "feminism" is some sort of awful quasi-feminism along the lines of "women can be strong too, so there". And don't get me started on the horrifying housewife porn featured in every book but the first - I suspect it's not present in the first because Auel couldn't bring herself to make Ayla enjoy having sex with a filthy Neanderthal bloke. A nice, pretty Cro-Magnon guy hung like a zebra, on the other hand... Augh.

Why on Earth have I read all of these books?! I refuse to believe my masochistic streak is that gigantic. :brickwall

Sorry for coming down so hard on a book you liked, but it's one of the more cringeworthy things I've ever read. If you want proper feminist lit or historically more correct lit, I'll be happy to recommend some.

wow...didnt get good replies at all...well i was also impressed by her knowledge of herbs. a friend of my moms is a herbologist and says a lot of it was true, she really did some research. but thanks for warning me about the other books....im definetly not going near the sequel now. i thought some of the characters were very well constructed, i appreciated that most. Like the relationship between Iza, Creb and Ayla i found to be very sweet. well, all of us are a bit of literary masochists sometimes...what really matters is not if u read junk but as long as you KNOW its junk. and im always open to book reccomodations! itd be much appreciated if u gave me some,thanks!

PeterL

11-26-2006, 07:41 AM

but it was fiction, i didnt think she meant it that way. she even targeted the cromagnons, saying they raped people and such. there was one line in the book like "men from both groups were not to be trusted". the two different attitudes were just used for contrast i think.

You may think that she didn't mean it that way, but I think that she depicted Neanderthals as less than human. I also think that her idea of the level of cluture during the general period was less than accurate. I realize that the book is fiction, but I expect that an author describes a setting pretty accurately, and the cultural level is part of the setting.

dramasnot6

11-27-2006, 02:52 AM

yes, but as, like you agreed, it is fiction an author can mold any aspect of the setting any way he or she likes. it is never mentioned in the book or , as far as i know, by the author that this was based on any truth. in fact, i think the story may merely be an analogy for the culture shift weve experienced recently in how women are treated. of course, her portrayel of this is a bit extreme, but by being extreme is more effective in her message. Ayla possibly symbolizes the modern day feminist surving against the odds and oppresion of men, men of any culture too. not so much a cultural thing really as it is a human tendency of men to establish dominance. but an interesting point there Peter. lover your avatar by the way

PeterL

11-27-2006, 08:04 AM

dramasnot6

11-27-2006, 08:26 AM

Decent historical and pre-historical fiction is written as closely as possible to the known facts about the setting and events; consider "Rabble in Arms" as one example.

Your idea about Ayla symbolizing modern owmen doesn't make much sense to me.

Really? Aylas symblism for arising feminism was my initial reading. Funny how people can get such different interpretations from one text. Well my main argument for that is: She is rebelling against the "old ways" of the clan, and making new titles and oppurtunities for women. Remember that she learned to hunt and became the first Woman Who Hunts?

Also, much of the social ways of the people back then is unknown. Not much is known in most areas anyway, and what is known is mainly physiological. A lot of the behaviours for historical fiction of that period would have to be left to the authors imagination. And she wasnt completely biased to harrasing neanderthals. The book contained many touching scenes of grief and care of different families for eachother.

PeterL

11-27-2006, 08:59 AM

Really? Aylas symblism for arising feminism was my initial reading. Funny how people can get such different interpretations from one text.

All liteature is subject to interpretationn.

Well my main argument for that is: She is rebelling against the "old ways" of the clan, and making new titles and oppurtunities for women. Remember that she learned to hunt and became the first Woman Who Hunts?

Was she rebelling against the "old ways", or was she uncomfortable with herself?

Also, much of the social ways of the people back then is unknown. Not much is known in most areas anyway, and what is known is mainly physiological. A lot of the behaviours for historical fiction of that period would have to be left to the authors imagination. And she wasnt completely biased to harrasing neanderthals. The book contained many touching scenes of grief and care of different families for each other.

We know what technology they had, and we know how that technology would be used to supply human needs. We don't know the social structure, nor do we know what intellectual framework they used. But the social structure probably was similar to what has been in use in more recent times. The total human population was quite small, and it would be reasonable to suggest that that affected the way that people acted toward others.

dramasnot6

11-27-2006, 09:07 AM

PeterL

11-27-2006, 01:27 PM

oh, but it did affect that! the clans were quite small and it was a "close" community. her lack of comfort with herself was partly a result from the alien way the clan treated her. she therefore rebbelled against them since she was not wholly accepted, just as many women were not(and some still not) accepted by society due to their unique interests and ambitions.

Everything is a matter of perspective. When I get the time machine running,, I'll go back and see how things were. The small human population made all communities "close", but it appears that communities weren't "closed".

dramasnot6

11-28-2006, 01:34 AM

Haha, good idea PeterL. Tell me how the time machine goes. Nice "debating" with you:D :lol:

PeterL

11-28-2006, 08:08 AM

Haha, good idea PeterL. Tell me how the time machine goes. Nice "debating" with you:D :lol:

It isn't running right now. Maybe in a few weeks.

Whifflingpin

11-28-2006, 08:20 AM

Will it be running a few weeks ago?

PeterL

11-28-2006, 01:10 PM

Will it be running a few weeks ago?

Of course it will, but that will be later.

Arguendo

11-28-2006, 05:34 PM

a friend of my moms is a herbologist and says a lot of it was true, she really did some research.
I know a bit about herbs myself, and I genuinely enjoyed Auel's usage descriptions. I also enjoyed, but didn't quite believe, some of the very sophisticated cooking she describes. Intricate cooking is a sign of a society with resources and time to spare, and I doubt the Neanderthals had much of that.

Enough to bury an old, crippled man (and evidently enough to take care of him while he was alive) with flowers, though. The Shanidar burials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanidar) are what she based Creb on.

but thanks for warning me about the other books....im definetly not going near the sequel now.
I still don't get why I kept reading after the first sequel. I even read the last book so far, which was published years after the previous one. Eek.

what really matters is not if u read junk but as long as you KNOW its junk. and im always open to book reccomodations! itd be much appreciated if u gave me some,thanks!
Exactly. Except that some junk hurts.

I've been frantically digging around for another early humans-novel I have, which is really good, and I can't find it nor remember the title or the author. This is ridiculous... Will get back to you on that one, it's far more realistic and very enjoyable.

Jolly McJollyso

11-30-2006, 05:55 PM

You may think that she didn't mean it that way, but I think that she depicted Neanderthals as less than human. I also think that her idea of the level of cluture during the general period was less than accurate. I realize that the book is fiction, but I expect that an author describes a setting pretty accurately, and the cultural level is part of the setting.
Technically, Neanderthal's were another species, not another race, so I'm not sure at all why you'd call it "racist."

plus, it was very feminist which is always fine in my book :D
I didn't see much feminist theory in there at all... Gaze didn't really strike me as that important...

PeterL

11-30-2006, 07:36 PM

Technically, Neanderthal's were another species, not another race, so I'm not sure at all why you'd call it "racist."

There are some people who think that, but the information that is available indicates very strongly that they were humans who interbred with the so-called modern variety. There are many experts in the field who believe that Neanderthals were simply humans who were adapted for colder and generally harder conditions. So I am sure of why I referred to Auel as a racist.

Jolly McJollyso

11-30-2006, 07:37 PM

There are some people who think that, but the information that is available indicates very strongly that they were humans who interbred with the so-called modern variety. There are many experts in the field who believe that Neanderthals were simply humans who were adapted for colder and generally harder conditions. So I am sure of why I referred to Auel as a racist.
Because you assume Auel agees with those experts rather than those on the other side of the debate?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, personally I didn't much like the book either.

dramasnot6

11-30-2006, 07:38 PM

Jolly McJollyso

11-30-2006, 07:42 PM

why didnt you like it?
Just not my style, really. I'm into the early British Modernists and the late Victorians.

I didn't DISlike this book, but it wasn't exactly literary viagra, either.

PeterL

11-30-2006, 09:04 PM

Because you assume Auel agees with those experts rather than those on the other side of the debate?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, personally I didn't much like the book either.

Auel's view appeared to be the old one of Neanderthals being barely more than apes. If her opinion was otherwise, then she hid it very carefully.

kathycf

12-01-2006, 01:17 AM

Arguendo

12-01-2006, 07:19 AM

What didn't she invent? :rolleyes:
Sex. Jondalar taught her that. :rolleyes:

Oh, and bleaching leather.

I remember far, far, far too much of these books...

dramasnot6

12-01-2006, 07:27 AM

I read this book many years ago as a young teen. I thought the character of Iza (the Clan's medicine woman) was presented as a very humane and caring person. She took in Ayla as a little orphan and taught her knowledge of herbs and about taking care of others. That was the interesting part to me as well as to some other folks who posted here. I started to read one of the sequels and did not find it particularly compelling and actually a bit silly in parts. The depictions of sexual intimacy were just waaay too explicit and seemed stilted, as if Auel's editor told her she better spice the book up with some sex. Also, Ayla began to seem less like a person coming to terms with herself, but more as a prehistoric female version of Ben Franklin or something. What didn't she invent? :rolleyes:

Aww thanks for the support Kathy! i was starting to get worried i was the only one who enjoyed the book and was completely ignorant to this prejudice everyone keeps interpreting it to so obviously contain. But i completely agree with your argument and am glad someone can put it in such a concise, intellegent way(see my above posts...gah!:( ) Your posts always make me smile anyway:D

Jolly McJollyso

12-01-2006, 11:56 AM

Auel's view appeared to be the old one of Neanderthals being barely more than apes. If her opinion was otherwise, then she hid it very carefully.
Well if she subscribed to that school of thought, then categorizing the Neanderthals as inferior was not racist. Its bias is towards species.

PeterL

12-01-2006, 12:23 PM

Well if she subscribed to that school of thought, then categorizing the Neanderthals as inferior was not racist. Its bias is towards species.

It isn't!! That is analogous calling Europeans sub-human. If she really believed that, it would make her stance even less reasonable.

kathycf

12-01-2006, 01:04 PM

Aww thanks for the support Kathy! i was starting to get worried i was the only one who enjoyed the book and was completely ignorant to this prejudice everyone keeps interpreting it to so obviously contain. But i completely agree with your argument and am glad someone can put it in such a concise, intellegent way(see my above posts...gah!:( ) Your posts always make me smile anyway:D

I did enjoy the first book, but to be honest I did read it many years ago (age 14) and don't even own a copy now. I don't remember the book as being rascist as such, but I would really have to re-read the book to see for myself. Also, you shouldn't worry about if other people here liked it or not...I think it is up to you to decide what qualities you appreciate in a book. It wasn't the best book I have ever read, but it was not the worst by a long shot. But yeah, if you decide to read the sequels, be sure to take them with a grain of salt...a very large grain. :p

Sex. Jondalar taught her that. :rolleyes:
Oh, and bleaching leather
Heh, she was a mother by the time she met him, but one could say he taught her the "Joy of Sex". :lol: (sheesh, my sister and I had some laughs about the really stilted and very steamy "love" scenes in the sequel...I think she read more of the series than I. The first sequel was enough for me.)

Arguendo

12-01-2006, 05:45 PM

Heh, she was a mother by the time she met him, but one could say he taught her the "Joy of Sex". :lol: (sheesh, my sister and I had some laughs about the really stilted and very steamy "love" scenes in the sequel...I think she read more of the series than I. The first sequel was enough for me.)
She was a mother, yes, but obeying when given the signal doesn't count, does it? :p

I still think the first book has some good qualities (albeit very very very few).

But: I've been thinking a bit now about possible racist qualities, and I think Auel is doing the kind and understanding towards a lesser race error. She really tried to depict Neanderthals as normal, decent human beings, with emotions and kindness and social structures and whatnot, but it ends up being a little pat-on-the-flat-head-esque, a little dismissive of their potential "human" qualities. It reminds me of some old adventure books I've read where white jungle explorers laugh "with" and not at their "wooly-headed" sidekicks' antics...

kathycf

12-01-2006, 06:35 PM

I still think the first book has some good qualities (albeit very very very few).

But: I've been thinking a bit now about possible racist qualities, and I think Auel is doing the kind and understanding towards a lesser race error. She really tried to depict Neanderthals as normal, decent human beings, with emotions and kindness and social structures and whatnot, but it ends up being a little pat-on-the-flat-head-esque, a little dismissive of their potential "human" qualities. It reminds me of some old adventure books I've read where white jungle explorers laugh "with" and not at their "wooly-headed" sidekicks' antics...
You know, I think you are on to something here. As I mentioned before, I don't remember Auel being particularly racist, but again it has been a long time since I read the book. Perhaps the "racism" perceived is more along the idea of this kindly yet patronizing attitude.

She was a mother, yes, but obeying when given the signal doesn't count, does it? :p :lol: Too funny!

PeterL

12-01-2006, 07:22 PM

But: I've been thinking a bit now about possible racist qualities, and I think Auel is doing the kind and understanding towards a lesser race error. She really tried to depict Neanderthals as normal, decent human beings, with emotions and kindness and social structures and whatnot, but it ends up being a little pat-on-the-flat-head-esque, a little dismissive of their potential "human" qualities. It reminds me of some old adventure books I've read where white jungle explorers laugh "with" and not at their "wooly-headed" sidekicks' antics...

That's about the nicest thing that anyone could say about her attitude. I agree that her attitude was much like the 19th century toward our backward brothers in the bush that some European explorers, etc. had. The 19th century about the Neanderthatls, after their remains were found was that they were gorillas. I remember seeing one drawing of one with a full coat of fur, a face like a gorilla, and the fellow was eating what looked like a human arm. It is entirely possible that Neanderthals ate long pig, and it is probable that "modern" humans did the same 20,000 years ago, but Neanderthals looked like humans. If you saw one in a crowd, you wouldn't think anything of it, assuming that he or she was dresssed in an ordinary way. The amount of difference from a Neanderthal skull to a modern skull is much less that the difference among present day human skulls.

Arguendo

12-02-2006, 04:49 PM

You know, I think you are on to something here. As I mentioned before, I don't remember Auel being particularly racist, but again it has been a long time since I read the book. Perhaps the "racism" perceived is more along the idea of this kindly yet patronizing attitude.
Sheesh, I was looking for the word patronising for a small eternity when writing that post. Go English as a foreign language.

:lol: Too funny!
*bows*

A friend of mine read the first sequel and then called me, furiously demanding to know why we don't have First Rites in our culture. Tee hee.

I remember seeing one drawing of one with a full coat of fur, a face like a gorilla, and the fellow was eating what looked like a human arm. It is entirely possible that Neanderthals ate long pig, and it is probable that "modern" humans did the same 20,000 years ago, but Neanderthals looked like humans. If you saw one in a crowd, you wouldn't think anything of it, assuming that he or she was dresssed in an ordinary way. The amount of difference from a Neanderthal skull to a modern skull is much less that the difference among present day human skulls.
Yes! I remember that kind of thing too, from my dad's 60's popular science books! In particular, I recall a lengthy article on Shanidar, expressing huge surprise that Neanderthals had managed to take care of a cripple, seeing as that's not something ANIMALS are wont to do. The article writer seemed to be impressed with the fact that Neanderthals, while an offshoot on the human development and not a direct ancestor (or so they thought back then), actually could behave in a manner we think of as "human". La dee da.

Auel put a lot of emphasis on Ayla's struggle to get the Neanderthals recognised as human beings, I think. I'll grant her that, but her way of going about it makes me a tad uncomfortable.

PeterL

12-02-2006, 06:48 PM

Yes! I remember that kind of thing too, from my dad's 60's popular science books! In particular, I recall a lengthy article on Shanidar, expressing huge surprise that Neanderthals had managed to take care of a cripple, seeing as that's not something ANIMALS are wont to do. The article writer seemed to be impressed with the fact that Neanderthals, while an offshoot on the human development and not a direct ancestor (or so they thought back then), actually could behave in a manner we think of as "human". La dee da.

Yes, animals aren't likely to take care of the sick and aged, unlkess they are human animals. There is a lot of disagreement as to when humans started being humans, but the first traces of Broca's region, the language center in the brain appears in skulls around a million years old. I would contend that language is the most definite defining characteristic of humans. Elephants also try to care for the injured kin, but they aren't very good at it, because they can't coordinate using complex linguistic signs.

Auel put a lot of emphasis on Ayla's struggle to get the Neanderthals recognised as human beings, I think. I'll grant her that, but her way of going about it makes me a tad uncomfortable.

I think that her fundamental opinion in the matter is that Neanderthals were a considerably lesser breed. She may have tried to slide around that, but she didn't manage to make her Neanderthals seem human. She should have realized that they were fundamentally more intelligent and creative than the "moderns"; they invented the flint technology that evolved into the more recent flint work. H. Erectus was also around until less than 50,000 years ago. It's a good thing that Auel didn't think to include them.

kathycf

12-03-2006, 02:51 PM

...the earliest Neanderthals had lived in Europe about 200,000 years ago. But then, about 30,000 years ago, they disappeared... just at the time when the first modern humans appear in Europe. The story has it that our ancestors, modern humans, spread out of Africa about 100,000 years ago with better brains and more sophisticated tools. As they spread into Neanderthal territory, they simply out-competed their primitive cousins.

But was Neanderthal really the brutish ape-man of legend, or an effective rival to our own species?
Full text of this article can be found here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/neanderthal_prog_summary.shtml#top) and it has interesting ideas regarding Neaderthal intelligence, adaptation to weather, use of speech and a theory regarding their eventual extinction.

It isn't far-fetched to assume that both groups would have interacted with each other and maybe even competed over some of the same food resources. If one looks at modern humans in the present day and sees the prejudices and discrimination towards people that look "different" and that these attitudes that are well known to most of us to exist...well, then is it so beyond the pale that our less sophisticated cousins would have similiar attitudes towards the Neanderthals? For the sake of argument, can we call this a fear of "the other"?

True, Neanderthals were not terribly different in appearence from our ancestors, but neither are the differences in appearences between modern peoples. There are many Americans (as an American, I cannot speak to particular prejudices that exist in other countries....) who are prejudiced towards Mexicans. In the minds of these people, perhaps there exists a perceived competition with "the other" for food resources (jobs), so they form a prejudice towards Mexicans which expresses itself as contempt for appearence and speech accent. To me, the differences are so minor as to be mere trivia, but I am not so naive as to suppose my opinion is the same as many others. Just to be clear, I am NOT defending this type of prejudicial thinking, merely describing it...I am not a racist, but I have heard many of my fellow countrymen speak in the manner I describe. Yes, anecdotal evidence, but still... Is it within the realm of possibility that describing prejudice that may have existed thousands of years ago may not be the same as espousing it?

Again, I have to point out that I have not read Clan of the Cave Bear for a number of years but I thought I would still offer some ideas regarding Auel's supposed prejudice. I am not arguing that she wasn't , but neither am I arguing that she was..but simply putting forth the idea that an author can describe attitudes without necessarily possesing said attitudes.

A friend of mine read the first sequel and then called me, furiously demanding to know why we don't have First Rites in our culture. Tee hee.
I know! Why not?! ;) :D

PeterL

12-03-2006, 04:04 PM

It isn't far-fetched to assume that both groups would have interacted with each other and maybe even competed over some of the same food resources. If one looks at modern humans in the present day and sees the prejudices and discrimination towards people that look "different" and that these attitudes that are well known to most of us to exist...well, then is it so beyond the pale that our less sophisticated cousins would have similiar attitudes towards the Neanderthals? For the sake of argument, can we call this a fear of "the other"?

True, Neanderthals were not terribly different in appearence from our ancestors, but neither are the differences in appearences between modern peoples. There are many Americans (as an American, I cannot speak to particular prejudices that exist in other countries....) who are prejudiced towards Mexicans. In the minds of these people, perhaps there exists a perceived competition with "the other" for food resources (jobs), so they form a prejudice towards Mexicans which expresses itself as contempt for appearence and speech accent. To me, the differences are so minor as to be mere trivia, but I am not so naive as to suppose my opinion is the same as many others. Just to be clear, I am NOT defending this type of prejudicial thinking, merely describing it...I am not a racist, but I have heard many of my fellow countrymen speak in the manner I describe. Yes, anecdotal evidence, but still... Is it within the realm of possibility that describing prejudice that may have existed thousands of years ago may not be the same as espousing it?

The nature of Neanderthals interests me, and I have read extensively about them. While their larger brains are largely a matter of greater body mass, they were fundamentally more inventive than most later people; they had to make the basic inventions. It is very interesting that skeletal remains have been found that show a mixture of Neanderthal and Modern features, which strongly suggests that there was intermarriage. My opinion, which is shared by some anthropologists is that the Modern types did not replace Neanderthals and other early models, but they mixed with them. The idea of Modern types replacing the earlier humans is a very big problem with the East Asians, because the present day people are much like the skeletal remains that are 500,000 years old.

It is also possible that prejudice existed, but it wasn't enough to keep them from completely mixing. It is my opinion that the population was so small that another human who wasn't someone you saw every day was a pleasure to people more than 10,000 years ago. If a group was passing through, they would have been a welcome change.

kathycf

12-03-2006, 05:08 PM

It is also possible that prejudice existed, but it wasn't enough to keep them from completely mixing. It is my opinion that the population was so small that another human who wasn't someone you saw every day was a pleasure to people more than 10,000 years ago. If a group was passing through, they would have been a welcome change.
Yes, perhaps. Of course it is hard to know for sure since time travel hasn't been perfected. (unless you finished work on your machine? :)) At any rate that is an interesting idea of how Neanderthals came to disappear. Although we are moving a bit off-topic you may find the following articles good reading.

Advances in DNA analysis in the last few years allows scientists to learn more about Neanderthal genetics.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501042_pf.html

Interbreeding between early "Modern" humans and Neaderthal
Pro:
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/061030_neanderthal_hybrid.html

and Con:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15732243/

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h56/kathycf/humanfamilytree.gif

PeterL

12-03-2006, 10:40 PM

Yes, perhaps. Of course it is hard to know for sure since time travel hasn't been perfected. (unless you finished work on your machine? :)) At any rate that is an interesting idea of how Neanderthals came to disappear. Although we are moving a bit off-topic you may find the following articles good reading.

Advances in DNA analysis in the last few years allows scientists to learn more about Neanderthal genetics.

Mine's finished, but it broke down, and I haven't had a chance to get it fixed, but I will. I saw a piece about the attempt to reassemble Neanderthal DNA in the Economist a few weeks ago. It's a big job, and it sounds like no one knows whether it will succeed. The MSNBC article is interesting and wrong in one item: "We see no evidence of mixing 30,000 to 40,000 years ago in Europe,"". As I wrote earlier, there are skeletal remains with features of both.

If "The results from the new studies confirm the Neanderthal's humanity, and show that their genomes and ours are more than 99.5 percent identical, differing by only about 3 million bases" is correct, then the difference between modern humans and Neanderthals is about the same as there is among different populations of present day humans. The way that sentence is constructed is a little strange, because 2 million bases different would translate to about 99.8% the same, and that's in the range of any two humans on Earth today. I'm a bit dubious of anything from MSNBC, and especially so in this case, because the study of Neanderthal DNA is in too early a stage for them to say that some percent is the same as anything else.

BTW, that chart is only one of many. There are charts that show every possible permutation, and there are other names that are sometimes tossed in. I could show you a chart that show Erectus evolving with and living alongside Neandertahl, which evelvoed into and lived alongside Moderns, but those charts don't mean anything. Then there are the hard core splitters who define another fifteen varieties.

Nightshade

12-04-2006, 06:11 AM

I read it, I think I read 3 or maybe even 4 of the series I dont really rember it was more than 2 years ago. I did enjoy the first one, didnt think it was racsist if anything I thought it showed how racisim can happen ( ie they are not as good as us because they are differant). I dont really rember any of the other books except I kept jumping pages because of sex scenes.

Scheherazade

01-09-2007, 12:16 AM

I have just finished reading the book (literally, half an hour ago) and all I can say is 'blah'. Have to admit that my knowledge of origin of humans and the author is very limited to reply to some of the posts above but I was puzzled by the way the Clan people and Ayla were depicted from the beginning (her blonde hair, blue eyes, height and 'superior physique'... :rolleyes:)

And her capacity to figure things out and invent things... I have to admit that I was a little surprised and disappointed that she did not invent the wheel and printing while she was at it.

B-Mental

01-09-2007, 12:27 AM

lol scher, that comes in the next book.

Scheherazade

01-09-2007, 12:31 AM

lol scher, that comes in the next book.Gee, you are just saying that to keep me reading the rest of the series, arencha?

B-Mental

01-09-2007, 12:34 AM

Gee, you are just saying that to keep me reading the rest of the series, arencha?

No really. The third book deals with her inventing a rocket (sorry but the pun was intended), and eventually the internet (she still hasn't discovered electricty though).

Scheherazade

01-09-2007, 12:48 AM

Were those before or after she discovered uranium?

B-Mental

01-09-2007, 12:52 AM

I don't remember her being an astronomer.

Tenacious

02-13-2007, 06:27 AM

I read most of them at around ages 14-16, they're good but very sexualy explicit, which was pretty funny to read at that age, who needs sex ed when we have clan of the cave bear and its additions.

dramasnot6

02-13-2007, 06:58 AM

I only read the first, and therefore can only speak on behalf of the first in the series, but I didnt find it sexually explicit. They went into very little detail, and even then it didnt occur much at all. I have found Brave New World and Handmaid's Tale to be worse even, although those are both excellent books.

kathycf

02-13-2007, 01:05 PM

You two are both correct.

The first novel, Clan of the Cave Bear was not very explicit sexually, while later books in the series most certainly were. I have read only the second after "Clan" and found myself skipping over incongruously descriptive passages of lovemaking. The best book in this series is the first novel. (IMO) My sister has the whole series and I confirmed with her my impressions of the "sexy parts". I stated before that I think Auel threw those parts into the mix sheerly to add so called "spiciness" to the later books. It just seemed so stilted to me.

After all the debating back and forth earlier in this thread I borrowed "Clan" from my sister to re-read it. People have to remember that this book was published in 1980, thus Auel would have had to complete her research in the late 1970's. Scientific knowledge of the Neanderthal (while not complete today) is far more advanced than it was almost 30 years ago.

I have just finished reading the book (literally, half an hour ago) and all I can say is 'blah'. Have to admit that my knowledge of origin of humans and author is very limited to reply to some of the posts above but I was puzzled by the way that the Clan people and Ayla were depicted from the beginning (her blonde hair, blue eyes, height and 'superior physique'... :rolleyes:)

And her capacity to figure things out and invent things... I have to admit that I was a little surprised and disappointed that she did not invent the wheel and printing while she was at it.
Well, true. I think there was a little bias here portraying Ayla as this tall blonde "goddess". I think authors sometimes do that to make their heroines more "appealing" to the masses. Auel certainly isn't alone in doing that.

I am about 5 foot 2 with decidely NON blonde hair. I guess I resemble Iza more than Ayla! :lol:

This is not a horrible book at all, to me. There were things I found fault with to be sure, but it certainly isn't trash.

BibliophileTRJ

03-02-2007, 12:00 PM

People have to remember that this book was published in 1980, thus Auel would have had to complete her research in the late 1970's. Scientific knowledge of the Neanderthal (while not complete today) is far more advanced than it was almost 30 years ago.

This is an excellent point.

Another thing to bear in mind is that NOBODY ever claimed that this series of books was great literature....... just an amusing fiction fantasy.

I look at it this way..... Jean Auel's Earth Children series is to literature as a Big Mac & fries are to fine cuisine. Not recommended as a steady diet; but an occasional indulgence won't kill you.

That being said; I quite enjoyed the series and occasionaly look into when the next (and theoreticaly final) installment is to be released. However, the first book is by far and away the best and I DID skip over the gratuitous sex scenes in the later books.

MangoAmane

03-21-2009, 11:39 PM

Has anyone else read those books? They're really good. =)

Apocrypha75

03-22-2009, 04:03 AM

Hi MangoAmane,

I have read 'Clan' and indeed I loved it. But I read the sequel and thought it was poor in comparison so have not read any further in the series. I think the second (Valley of the Horses) suffers from overly explicit sex scenes and a lack of the 'clan' that made the first such a joy. I always recommend the original book to people as the story and characters are beautifully rendered. :)

PeterL

03-22-2009, 09:34 AM

I read Clan of the Cave Bear, and it was horrible. The writing was stilted, and the anthropology was bad.

MangoAmane

03-22-2009, 09:57 AM

Aww.. I'm reading Valley of the Horses now. I'm only 40 or so pages in though. But some of the books after that are pretty good. =) Like they go back to Jondalar's people. (Is that how you spell his name?)

Apocrypha75

03-28-2009, 08:12 AM

Woah! This post has inspired some debate and interesting comments.

I am a fan of the first book and don't recall the racism element at all. I just found it a great read. Okay it's not high art but I found the characters engaging and the story nicely paced. I hadn't read anything quite like it, and I haven't since.

It has been a long while since I read it (I don't have a copy right now) and I might be being a bit simple here, but how does this racism element manifest itself? I'd really like to understand this ; for better or worse. Sorry for being a touch dim!

PeterL

03-28-2009, 10:05 AM

It has been a long while since I read it (I don't have a copy right now) and I might be being a bit simple here, but how does this racism element manifest itself? I'd really like to understand this ; for better or worse. Sorry for being a touch dim!

The way that the Neanderthals were shown was racist and reflected ignorance about what is known about them as a part of the human race. If she had replaced the Neanderthals with East Asians, her books would be condemned as unacceptably racist.

"They extracted enough DNA from an analysis of 70 fossilised bones to build up a library of Neanderthal DNA covering 3.7 billion "base pairs" – the individual letters of the genetic code – and in the process discovered that the extinct humans were very closely related to modern people.

"The Neanderthals are so closely related to us that they fall into our [genetic] variation," Professor Paabo said yesterday. In other words, it would be difficult to distinguish Neanderthal DNA from the DNA of a modern European, Asian or African."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/science-unlocks-neanderthal-secrets-1608222.html

After all the debating back and forth earlier in this thread I borrowed "Clan" from my sister to re-read it. People have to remember that this book was published in 1980, thus Auel would have had to complete her research in the late 1970's. Scientific knowledge of the Neanderthal (while not complete today) is far more advanced than it was almost 30 years ago.

Well, true. I think there was a little bias here portraying Ayla as this tall blonde "goddess". I think authors sometimes do that to make their heroines more "appealing" to the masses. Auel certainly isn't alone in doing that.

The date of publication is not an excuse. It was widely known then that Neanderthals were just another group of people, but that was not the public perception.

It is odd that Auel mixed up the hair colors, along with a lot more. Blonde and red hair are Neanderthal traits.

Apocrypha75

04-10-2009, 04:32 AM

The way that the Neanderthals were shown was racist and reflected ignorance about what is known about them as a part of the human race. If she had replaced the Neanderthals with East Asians, her books would be condemned as unacceptably racist.

So it is more in the way Auel depicts the Neanderthals in her writing, than the actions of the characters themselves?

Due to the context of the novel and what occurs I'm not sure how the themes of Ignorance and Racism could have been avoided as Ayla is noticeably different from Iza or Creb and, although in this day and age physical/mental differences are no excuse for ostracising a person, I wouldn't of thought the idea of being P.C would be a concern for persons, in that time, trying to survive in their respective groups and hence I believe this to be a valid facet of their personalities.

Obviously we are discussing a work of fiction here and although I'm aware Auel performed 5 years of research for the book, I suspect artistic license took a precedent over any desires to create an Anthropological reference book. I certainly did not take it to be 100% accurate and would most definitely not try to educate someone about the subject based on my reading of this book. However, I do recommend it as good read.

"The Neanderthals are so closely related to us that they fall into our [genetic] variation," Professor Paabo said yesterday. In other words, it would be difficult to distinguish Neanderthal DNA from the DNA of a modern European, Asian or African."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/science-unlocks-neanderthal-secrets-1608222.html

Nice link. Although the DNA is very close, I assume that the physical differences would still be somewhat pronounced? Enough to generate the kind of racial prejudices that form the basis of the book?

Thank you Peter for taking the time to respond to my comment. I feel I would need to re-read this book, to fully appreciate your argument. I might just do that. :)