The Wild Animal’s Story: Nonhuman Protagonists in Twentieth-Century Canadian Literature through the Lens of Practical Zoocriticism
Download 3.36 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
Allmark-KentC
|
Hunted
(1901) to “the preservation of our wild creatures” (3), and I have already mentioned Roberts’ hope that Haunters of the Silences (1907) might contribute “something of value” to the “question of animal psychology” (vi). Thus, using the practical zoocriticism framework outlined in Chapter One, I will now re- contextualize the wild animal story in relation to each of the three key factors, loosely collected under the terms ‘literature,’ ‘advocacy,’ and ‘science.’ For the sake of coherence, and despite my interest in their complex interactions, I will handle each in a separate section of this chapter. Although rather cumbersome, I use the specific title ‘realistic’ wild animal story intentionally to help reinforce the parameters of a poorly-defined genre. On the whole, there is little consensus about how to classify these texts. Should it be restricted to Seton ’s and Roberts’ stories, or is it a whole genre? Should it include the other authors targeted in the Nature Fakers controversy? If so, is it still a Canadian form of writing? Even the critics that I have discussed here do not consistently designate Seton ’s and Roberts’ work as ‘wild animal stories.’ Allmark-Kent 71 For instance, Dean and Gold’s treatment of Roberts’ writing in isolation leads to its identification as simply “animal stories” (Gold 22). Likewise, Scholtmeijer does not acknowledge the genre; instead she describes North American “[s]tories about animals in the wild” (94), which allows her to broaden the classification considerably. Alternatively, Atwood opts for the specific title, as I have done and yet she uses it to encompass a long list of authors —including Graeme Gi bson, whose ‘failure of knowing the animal’ narrative, Communion, I discussed in the previous chapter. Unsurprisingly, Atwood sees the wild animal story as “[t]he Canadian genre” (73), and yet she is one of the few to do so. Most critics acknowledge Seton ’s and Roberts’ shared nationality, but discuss the genre and its environment as American. Dunlap and Lutts, for instance, consider a range of cultural contexts and attitudes to nature, yet they only refer to America, effectively subsuming Canada’s culture and history into that of the United States. However, Dunlap concludes by recognizing a mid-twentieth- century rival of the genre and listing only Canadian authors. Lutts tends to lump all targets of the Nature Fakers controversy together. Moreover, despite his use of the tit le ‘realistic’ wild animal story, like Atwood, Lutts extends its future iterations to include an array of American, Canadian, and English nature writers. While these observations might seem pedantic, the issue here is not accuracy for its own sake. For a misunderstood genre with a poor reputation, the development of a concrete definition is vital if we are to understand how and why it was a unique innovation worthy of recognition. Therefore, it is just as necessary to recognise the lack of common ground between Seton ’s writing and Gibson’s writing, as it is to understand the differences between the authors involved in the Nature Fakers controversy. Jack London’s narratives are reassuringly anthropocentric , for instance, because his ‘wild’ animal Allmark-Kent 72 protagonists are never truly autonomous. There is always a moment in which the animal protects, reveres, or avenges a human life, thereby reaffirming their value to us. Lutts identifies the genre’s pioneering resistance to this type of utilitarian attitude as one of its defining characteristics: “wild animal stories presented a new view of wildlife —they revealed nature as experienced by animals who lived for their own ends. The animal’s worth was not measured by how they satisfied or thwarted human expectations” (Wild Animal Story ix). Although idealised through narratives of animal-human companionship, London still tended to validate his ‘wild’ protagonists through their ability to satisfy our anthropocentric fantasies. On the other hand, the stories of William Long might seem to resemble those of Seton and Roberts, they were written from a very different perspective. Although Burroughs described Long as Seton’s “awkward imitator” (printed in Lutts, Wild Animal Story 129), his stories were not written to engage with science, but to resist it. His clear opposition to the scientific view of nature can be seen in his response to Burroughs: The study of Nature is a vastly different thing from the study of Science [...] Above and beyond the world of facts and law, with which alone Science concerns itself, is an immense and almost unknown world of suggestions and freedom and inspiration [...] In a word, the difference between Nature and Science is the difference between a man who loves animals, and so understands them, and the man who studies Zooology; it is the difference between the woman who cherishes her old-fashioned flower garden and the professor who lectures on Botany. (Printed in Lutts, The Nature Fakers 60) Despite his extremely narrow view of science, there are merits to Lon g’s thinking and his stories. He writes eloquently regarding the reductive, objectifying use of ‘instinct’ to undermine animal intelligence, and of the ways in which animal psychology is unable to account for individual differences. Nonetheless, as I will demonstrate, his ‘anti-science’ attitude is at odds with the scientific core of wild animal story. As such, it seems as though the arguments Allmark-Kent 73 of Gold, MacDonald, and Fiamengo might be more suited to Long’s animal stories than those of Seton or Roberts. Perhaps due to his hostility towards animal psychology, however, Long’s stories are considerably more anthropomorphic and romanticized, often tending towards the didactic, moralizing style of the children’s animal story (which I will discuss in the “Literature” section of this chapter). Furthermore, I have a suspicion that there is some confusion regarding Seton, Roberts and Long, and as a result their stories and reputations have often been merged together. Both Long and his work have been almost entirely forgotten, and today (rather ironically) he is known only to those who study the Nature Fakers controversy. Since Seton and Roberts had avoided getting too involved in the debate, Long’s outspoken defence of his own work eventually shifted the focus of the controversy onto himself, and away from the others. In fact, Burroughs identified Long as the real target of the article that started the debate: “It is Mr. Long’s book, more than any of the others, that justifies the phrase ‘Sham Natural History’” (129). As I will discuss later in the chapter, Burroughs is undoubtedl y derisive of Seton’s work, and he reprimands Roberts (albeit briefly), but he does not mention Jack London at all. Thanks to his solid position in the American canon, and only tentative association with the wild animal story, few people today are aware of London’s involvement in the controversy. Thus, with the Americans effectively either pardoned or forgotten, it is to the two Canadians that the stigma of ‘Nature Faker’ has been attached ever since. We can begin to see the error in disregarding the wild animal story as an ‘embarrassment’ to Canadian literature. As argued in the previous chapter, the wild animal story can be understood as a Canadian genre —just a very minor one. In 1965 Lucas Allmark-Kent 74 observed that wild animal stories “have not been especially numerous,” and indeed that Seton and Roberts had “made the history of the wild animal story almost entirely the history of their work in it” (398). Today, little has changed. Rather than a widespread national literary tradition, as Atwood would have it, the wild animal story is the work of a few authors —individuals who either wrote animal stories consistently over a lifetime of interest in natural history and conservation, or else poets and writers of fiction who experimented with the genre and the creative task of imagining a nonhuman perspective. As I will demonstrate in subsequent chapters, this means that the genre may appear to resurface at random throughout the twentieth century, but its embers have always been kept alive by the overlapping careers of these few writers. The fact that they are Canadian owes somethin g to the nation’s complex relationship with animals, but also to the cultural legacies of Seton, Roberts, and the Nature Fakers controversy. As a Canadian genre, it was a Canadian embarrassment; yet before and after the controversy, it was also an immensely popular form of writing that shaped the childhoods of many. Whether loved or hated, it is in response to the wild animal story that a certain proportion of twentieth-century Canadian literature has been written. Based on my own observations, I have developed a definition of the wild animal story that recognizes its distinctiveness as a unique innovation, whilst also allowing room for those few writers who have kept the form alive. The wild animal story is a scientifically-informed, zoocentric narrative; a sustained attempt to imagine the life, experiences, and unique perspective of one or more nonhuman protagonists, living independently and autonomously from humans. These individuals experience the world through networks of meaningful nonhuman interaction, exchange, and companionship —revealing an Allmark-Kent 75 animal existence that is valued for its own sake and on its own terms, not for how useful it is to humans. Whilst the occasional human character may be used as an observer (essentially a conduit for the human reader) these animal protagonists tend to encounter humans only through moments of struggle or violence, allowing the author to provide a defamiliarizing, nonhuman account of our exploitative practices. Moreover, through dramatic irony, these narratives resist the objectification and erasure that is necessary for an anthropocentric disregard for animal life. An animal killed in a human-centred narrative is not given a second thought; in the wild animal story, the reader has the prior knowledge of this unique individual's history, personality, and relationships. In other words, the animal death always has meaning. As such, the authors of these narratives all seek some form of practical engagement: whether raising awareness of ecological and conservation issues; encouraging empathy and moral concern for animal exploitation; facilitating the imaginative exploration of nonhuman perspectives; or speculating on the upper limits of animal cognitive, social, linguistic, emotional, or cultural complexity. Based on my own surveys, I have developed a set of wild animal story characteristics, through which I will analyse the later twentieth-century texts in the following chapters of this thesis: Animal characters represented as animals, as individuals, and as living autonomously from humans Animals characters shown to possess a biography and unique life history Animals characters are seen existing in meaningful networks of Download 3.36 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
|