Text 3 · Kari Herbert · travel memoir, 2004
The Explorer’s Daughter
An evening narwhal hunt in Inglefield Fjord, watched from the shore by a writer who grew up among the hunters. Her heart leaps for the whale and for the man trying to kill it, and the writing refuses to resolve that contradiction cheaply.
The text at a glance
From a lookout above the fjord, Herbert watches pods of narwhal move through the glittering evening water while hunters wait among them in kayaks, utterly still. Then the register changes: the narwhal, she explains, is not a trophy but a lifeline, its blubber ‘rich in necessary minerals and vitamins’ in a place where no fruit or vegetables grow, its meat food for families and dog teams. She watches the hunters’ wives follow their husbands through binoculars, every catch vital to diet and income; then a single hunter raises his harpoon, and her sympathies split cleanly in two. The final paragraph argues openly: the Inughuit kill without cruelty or sport, use every part of the animal and cannot rely on imports, so ‘Hunting is still an absolute necessity in Thule.’
Methods that matter
Voice: insider and outsider in the same sentence
Herbert lived among the Inughuit as a small child, and that double perspective is the engine of the text. She gasps at the spectacle like a visitor, then answers like a resident: watching a kayaker paddle among whales that could drown him is ‘a foolhardy exercise and one that could only inspire respect’, judgement and admiration holding hands in a single clause. At the climax the divided loyalty is stated outright, ‘my heart leapt for both hunter and narwhal’, a sentence weighted so evenly that the reader cannot pick a side either. And she knows her audience: by quoting the objection she is always asked, ‘How can you possibly eat seal?’, she gives the sceptical reader a voice in the text, and then answers it.
Structure: enchantment first, evidence second
The extract opens in the middle of things, whale sighted, community mobilised, and spends its first energy on wonder. Only once the reader has felt the enchantment do the facts arrive that justify ending it: the vitamins, the meat, the absence of any alternative. The viewpoint then widens to the watching wives, turning spectacle into household survival, and narrows again to one raised harpoon, the moment where her loyalties collide. The final paragraph drops description for argument and closes on a short, unqualified sentence: ‘Hunting is still an absolute necessity in Thule.’ The reader is walked along Herbert’s own route, from enchantment through conflict to judgement, and arrives, as she does, unable to condemn.
Language: light that deceives, a list that pleads
The fjord is a ‘glittering kingdom’, the evening light ‘butter-gold’, a homely richness that quietly ties the beauty of the scene to nourishment, which is what the hunt is for. The whales surface in ‘a spectral play of colour’, ghost and spectrum in one word, so the narwhal seem half-supernatural and the cost of killing one rises. Even distance cannot be trusted: the ‘mischievous tricks of the shifting light’ personify an Arctic that deceives its watchers. At the harpoon moment her silent plea runs in a rising tricolon, she ‘urged the narwhal to dive, to leave, to survive’, the rhythm climbing to the word that matters most. And when sentiment threatens to win, an aphorism cuts it dead: ‘one cannot afford to be sentimental in the Arctic’, the impersonal ‘one’ lending it the weight of natural law, aimed at comfortable outsiders, her younger self included.
Key quotations
| Quotation | Method | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| ‘a spectral play of colour’ | Ethereal visual imagery | The word ‘spectral’ is ghost and spectrum at once: the narwhal seem otherworldly, which raises the emotional cost of the hunt. |
| ‘glittering kingdom’ | Metaphor | The fjord becomes a realm of treasure and royalty, and her gasp at the sight models the awe she wants the reader to feel. |
| ‘mischievous tricks of the shifting light’ | Personification | Arctic distance is deceptive; the whales become elusive, half-magical presences that may not be there at all. |
| ‘rich in necessary minerals and vitamins’ | Shift to factual register | The scientific tone is the argument: the narwhal is not a trophy but a nutritional lifeline in a land without crops. |
| ‘my heart leapt for both hunter and narwhal’ | Balanced clause at the climax | Her dilemma performed in grammar: the sentence weighs both lives equally and invites the reader to share the split. |
| ‘urged the narwhal to dive, to leave, to survive’ | Tricolon of infinitives | The rhythm rises to ‘survive’: a silent plea for the whale even as she wills the hunter on. |
| ‘one cannot afford to be sentimental in the Arctic’ | Aphoristic declarative | The impersonal ‘one’ makes it a law of nature, and a rebuke to comfortable outsiders. |
| ‘Hunting is still an absolute necessity in Thule.’ | Emphatic final sentence | After the evidence, no qualifiers: ‘absolute’ closes the argument with nowhere left to stand against it. |
Compare it with…
Explorers or boys messing about?: both texts weigh the point of risking your life in freezing water; here the risk feeds a settlement, there it lands the taxpayer with a rescue bill. H is for Hawk: both writers watch a wild creature with expert knowledge and unruly feeling, and both must decide what humans may take from the wild.
Think it through
- Does the lyrical opening strengthen her defence of the hunt, or hand ammunition to its opponents?
- When the harpoon is raised, whose side are you on, and which sentences put you there?
- Is ‘one cannot afford to be sentimental in the Arctic’ an observation, an excuse, or a rebuke to the reader?
Towards the exam
Practice question: How does the writer use language and structure to convey her conflicting feelings about the hunt? (12 marks, about 25 minutes.) Three paragraphs led by ideas (wonder, conflict, necessity), each anchored in short embedded quotations. Then take it to the marking desk.