Book Description off of Amazon:
“The Creature: Personal Experiences With Bigfoot has taken a place among the classics in Bigfoot literature. First published in 1975, the text has been critically reviewed and enthusiastically discussed ever since it was released. Whether or not one believes that Bigfoot creatures exist, the book will be enjoyed for its gripping story”.
I heard about this book in another book, “Enoch” by Autumn Williams. In it, Autumn states some intriguing things that piqued my interest beyond her conversations about it’s content (which were also curious):
(pg. 200) “[The Creature] was published under a pseudonym and the author’s identity has never been revealed” and (pg. 202) “I asked Tomikel [The Publisher] if he knew the author personally. He said he did. When I asked him what he thought about the book, his answer was candid. He told me that he found “Klement” to be a very credible man, and scientific-minded one, but said that he had mixed feelings about the book. When I asked why, Tomikel told me it wasn’t because of Klement’s credibility – he just didn’t know whether he personally believed in Bigfoot.
When asked if Klement had ever expressed an interest in anything else “strange” or written any other books on anything like this, he said, “No. He’d written three other books, all scientific, about forest ans swamp animals, the natural world…” He also explained to me, when I asked who owned the rights to the book, that his publishing company did. He had since it was published. He had paid Klement $300 when he handed over his story, mainly to cover the author’s expenses for travel and hiring a typist.
“So he wasn’t in it for the money?”
“No, Tomikel replied. “He never made a dime on it past that $300 I gave him.”
“And he certainly wasn’t in it for the fame…”
Tomikel laughed. “Anonymous’ fame? No.”
“Huh,” I said. I was finally finally finding more context for the book’s credibility.
“You know,” Tomikel continued, “when his cabin was torched, we went up there soon after.”
“So, he really did have a cabin?”
“Yeah,” he replied.
I thought this book was very interesting. In this account, the creature is portrayed very differently than in “Enoch.” In this book, he definitely comes off more like a primitive primate than another sapiens. Perhaps they are just different individuals (to the point of potentially being different “races,” or even as large as being another species… but I doubt that as I think these creatures are similar enough they could interbreed and produce fertile offspring… I could, very likely, be wrong though), perhaps it is the perspective of the human observing or their influences on the situation (“reflexativity” in sociological and anthropological terms), there may have also been genetic mutations or illness occurring in “The Creature”…? I don’t know. I do think it’s fascinating to compare both accounts and to keep them framed in the back of your mind.
I loved the details he gave in this book… his speed (200 miles in 24 hours), size (300-400 lbs and about 7 feet tall), etc.. I also thoroughly enjoyed his pops of humor. Kong (The name of the “the creature”) seems very solitary, where Enoch was depicted as a creature with a community or “clan” and a family with a mate and a daughter. Just fascinating! So different! I don’t want to give away anything more from either book, so I’ll shut up. ;o)
I think this an interesting account to be familiar with. Definitely worth the read, and it’s a quick one!