|
I think your interpretation is correct (at least to some extent). I wasn't really suggesting that they meant to use the strong predilection sense of "love" (like "I love ice-cream"). Rather, I was suggesting that they were being lazy/loose in their writing to use "love" where they really mean something else.
A hunter eventually gains familiarity with the creatures hunted, and humans have a strong tendency to anthropomorphise which can lead them to think the apparent intimacy is reciprocated. The result is a misinterpretation of the creature's behaviour.
And then there is the thrill of the chase, and once the adrenalin kicks in a person's systems are - to some extent - taken over by more primitive instincts. This is one way that hunting accidents happen, and it is one way in which people manage not to think so much about the violence of the act.
Put together, the imagined intimacy of the relationship and the climactic highlights, I can see why some might find similarities to romantic love - or at least a "love affair", which can have less savoury connotations - but it comes across (to me) the same as a stalker claiming to love the object of their affection: rather creepy and distasteful.
But unlike with the stalker, I don't see this use of "love" by hunters as a moral escape - or not of the killing itself. In most cases the hunter will have already justified the killing (rightly or wrongly) before it gets to the stage of "love". Instead, I see the use of "love" being a way to try and excuse or explain the thrill/buzz/excitement that comes with the hunt. The spark of adrenalin is real, but no one is supposed to say that they enjoy killing, so they look around for a more acceptable description, and what could be more acceptable than love?
|