If there is one name that’s held up alongside Nessmuk’s for woodcraft authors, it's Horace Kephart. So, for my last camping read in a while (even I get tired of them eventually) I decided to take a stab at his “main” book (he has just under a dozen by my count, though not all are in print, and some might be retitled) the creatively named Camping and Woodcraft.
Some differences:
It’s substantially longer (most versions of W&C come in just over 100 pages w/ front and back matter. The shortest edition I’ve found for C&W is around 300, with some later editions pushing past double that.)
I’d argue they’re serving different roles here. Nessmuk seemed to be writing a literal pocket manual, something you take with you out into the woods to consult as needed (besides looking at the packing list and such at home). Kephart is more of an encyclopedia. It sits on your desks or shelf at home and you check the (very well done) index to find a specific recipe, tip etc. Nessmuk is a pleasant afternoon read, Kephart has a couple dozen pages listing edible plants with brief descriptions, classifying trees umpteen ways, etc. Mostly good info, but info you’d reference as needed or maybe copy into a notebook, not read cover to cover. (He is repetitive in some places. How many times do I need to learn to remove the scent glands from animals that have them before cooking?)
This is possible, in part, because Nessmuk is writing almost entirely from personal experience. He quotes or references others occasionally, but it’s mostly his own story and tips. Kephart references (with passing citations most of the time) other works, including Nessmuk frequently.
The one mark I would put against Kephart is his writing style. Nessmuk has the “kind but slightly mischievous old timer” bit down pat. Kephart’s style is a lot rougher, less conversational, and occasionally pointlessly offensive. It’s my stated policy for this blog not to handwring about the fact that older writers are often sexist, racist, etc., but I’m not really sure why he needs an aside about beating women in a mashed potato recipe, among other things.
I talked a little about Nessmuk’s famously vague (and probably over specialized) knife description that bushcrafters have chased over the years. The “Kephart Pattern” is much simpler and more defined. Like Nessmuk, he decries the average camping/hunting knife as an overly murderous monstrosity.
“Its blade and handle are each 4 inches long, the blade being 1 inch wide, inch thick on the back, broad pointed, and continued through the handle as a hasp and riveted to it. It is tempered hard enough to cut green hardwood sticks, but soft enough so that when it strikes a knot or bone it will, if anything, turn rather than nick; then a whetstone soon puts it in order."
He goes into a bit more detail about the handle as well. More importantly, where Nessmuk only left a description and a woodcut, at least one genuine Kephart knife (as well as others made to his pattern during the time) still exist. Apparently they were made in Blair county, where part of my mom's family is from. Anyway, here’s some pics, courtesy of Knife Magazine (who won’t let me copy and paste, so take one mediocre screenshot).
I think Kephart’s got it about right. 4 inches is a good length. Big enough for just about anything, but not too much to be in the way. Softish and easy to sharpen. 1/8 inch is slicey enough for most work (I'd go a bit thinner for a dedicated food prep knife like Nessmuk) but also sturdy. I might take a smidge longer handle, but 4 will do.
No comments:
Post a Comment