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
|
Anecdotes and Evidence As I have discussed, Roberts sketches a history of animal representation in his preface to Kindred but also gives an account of both the growing popular and the scientific interest in animal minds. Echoing the observations made by Romanes in his preface to Intelligence, Roberts acknowledges the early curiosity of amateurs and pet- owners who “were observing, with the wonder and interest of discoverers, the astonishing fashion in which the mere instincts of these so-called irrational creatures were able to simulate the operations of reason” (22). Like Romanes, he emphasizes the relationship between these observations and the establishment of anecdotal evidence for animal intelligence: The results of this observation were written down, till ‘anecdotes of animals’ came to form a not inconsiderable body of literature. The drift of all these data was overwhelmingly toward one conclusion. The mental processes of the animals observed were seen to be far more complex than the observers had supposed. (22) Allmark-Kent 125 The narrative Roberts constructs is so similar to the early history of comparative psychology that the on ly omission seems to be Romanes’ name. He continues this account by explaining that, although some observations were dismissed as instinct or coincidence, there still remained a “great unaccounted-for body of facts,” and thus men were forced at last to accept the proposition that, within their varying limitations, animals can and do reason. As far, at least, as the mental intelligence is concerned, the gulf dividing the lowest of the human species from the highest of the animals has in these later days been reduced to a very narrow psychological fissure. (23) The language and ideas Roberts uses indicate, quite plainly, that the basis for his understanding of animal psychology lies in the work of Darwin and Roma nes; there is no hint of Morgan’s canon here, for instance. He also adds the qualification, “in these latter days,” demonstrating that it is indeed the post- Darwinian, late nineteenth-century emergence of interest in animal minds to which he is referring. Indeed, he describes this change at length: “We have suddenly attained a new and clearer vision. We have come face to face with personality, where we were blindly wont to predicate mere instinct and automatism” (24). Crucially, however, he constructs the author as a valid contributor to this otherwise scientific endeavour: Our chief writers of animal stories at the present day may be regarded as explorers of this unknown world, absorbed in charting its topography. They work, indeed, upon a substantial foundation of known facts. They are minutely scrupulous as to their natural history, and assiduous contributors to that science. But above all they are diligent in their search for the motive beneath the action. (24) As he ide ntifies “the psychology of animal life” as the primary concern of the genre, he creates the potential for a writer of wild animal stories to become an active, legitimate participant (24). By emphasizing that we have so far “grope[d] our way” toward “the real psychology of animals” by “deduction and induction combined” (24-5), he also Allmark-Kent 126 identifies a space of the ‘unknown’ in which the writer may speculate and imagine what we cannot know. Citing Seton’s story “Krag, the Kootenay Ram” as an example of such work, he asserts: “The field of animal psychology so admirably open is an inexhaustible world of wonder. Sympathetic exploration may advance its boundaries to a degree of which we hardly dare dream” (28). It is necessary to recognize here that Roberts is positioning the wild animal story in a facilitating role —opening both the animal mind and the field of animal psychology for the reader —and not as a replacement for scientific investigation. Sympathetic exploration can imagine the lives of animals in a way that natural history or animal psychology alone cannot. Yet, it cannot authenticate possible knowledge in the same way as either discipline. It is clear that Roberts envisages reciprocal communication between the wild animal story and animal psychology, yet (as discussed in another chapter) the distance between science and literature at the beginning of the twentieth century could not facilitate such a relationship. Although Romanes d ied in 1894, prior to the genre’s peak popularity and long before the Nature Fakers controversy, we might infer that he would not have encouraged such contributions from popular writers. Surely this was just the unscientific approach to animal psychology that he was resisting with his work? Nonetheless, Roberts’ wish for the genre was not an unfounded one. I suggest that ‘anecdotes of animals,’ to use Roberts’ phrase (22), form a bridge between comparative psychology and the wild animal story —a shared foundation upon which both are built. In fact, as even his choice of words is indicative , anecdotes are both “data” and “literature” (22), midway between science and stories. Seton ’s and Roberts’ approaches to ‘evidence’ in their stories reflect their differing relationships with wild animals. Having spent more time studying and Allmark-Kent 127 observing animals in their own environments, Seton uses a combination of his own experiences, the anecdotes of people he encounters (often giving details like names, dates, and the circumstances of their meeting), and various forms of material or archive evidence (physical objects, newspaper articles, and so on). Significantly, Seton tends to emphasize the gathering of this evidence by placing himself into the narrative. As a result, humans tend to feature more prominently than usual in such stories. On the other hand, although Roberts encountered plenty of animals in the woods of New Brunswick, he was not a naturalist. Some stories draw on “a foundation of personal, intimate, sympathetic observation” (Haunters v), but the majority are constructed through research and anecdotes collected from a range of sources. As a consequence, the human presence in his stories remains minimal, and he restricts any discussion about the sources of his evidence to the preface of each book. However, whilst Seton's stories may overemphasize the human presence, he does at least expose the presence of the subjective human interpreter. Roberts’ stories, on the other hand, can give the illusion of an objective, omniscient observer. He does write each preface self-consciously, however, being careful to disclose the construction of his narratives. In the preface to Watchers, Roberts states: “The stories of which this volume is made up are avowedly fiction. They are, at the same time true, in that the material of which they are moulded consists of facts, —facts as precise as painstaking observation and anxious regard for truth can make them” (vii). He differentiates between the stories of a “single incident” within “the scope of a sing le observation” that “are true literally,” and the biographies following a protagonist “through wide intervals of time and space” that are built from “observation necessarily detached and scattered” (vii-viii). Of the latter, he adds Allmark-Kent 128 that “it is obvious that the truth of that story must be of a different kind,” although the careful writer of the wild animal story “may hope to make his most elaborate piece of animal biography no less true to nature than his transcript of an i solated fact” (vii-viii). Hence we can see that the stories of a “single incident” or “isolated fact” are most closely associated with anecdotes of observation; Roberts even refers to it as a “transcript” of the observation. Although the biographies are still constructed from the ‘evidence’ of multiple observations, there is no way to identify the anecdote from the invention —this is where Seton’s pseudo-autobiographical method is useful. Roberts considers these issues again in the preface to Haunters , where he concedes that it is “not easy for any observer to be intimate” with animals that live underwater (v). He explains: “when I write of the kindreds of the deep, I am relying on the collated results of the observations of others. I have spared no pains to make these stories accord […] with the latest scientific information” (v). Thus, he makes the subtle distinction that, although he is presenting observations and anecdotal evidence woven into scientifically-informed stories, he is not producing science. Here again, we can perceive that he is not attempting to usurp the role of the comparative psychologist, but instead acting as a facilitator and popularizer. If we turn to Seton’s work, however, this line between presenting and producing ‘science’ is much less clear. The first words of Wild Animals I Have Known —”These stories are true”—have become rather infamous, but rarely are the subsequent sentences quoted as well: These stories are true. Although I have left the strict line of historical truth in many places, the animals in this book were all real characters. They lived the lives I have depicted, and showed the stamp of heroism and personality more strongly by far than it has been in the power of my pen to tell. (9) Allmark-Kent 129 Although he claims to be reproducing the “Personal Histories” (1) of real animals, as Roberts does, he concedes that they are not necessarily true in their entirety. He specifies that he had “pieced together some of the characters” when the “fragmentary nature of the records” made it necessary (10). Unlike Roberts, however, Seton provides the vital details. For instance, Lobo lived in the Currumpaw region from 1889 to 1894, “as the ranchmen knew too well,” and “died precisely as related, on January 31, 1894” (10). Along with these dates and locations, Seton also includes details of other human observers: Bingo was my dog from 1882 to 1888, in spite of interruptions, caused by lengthy visits to New York, as my Manitoban friends will remember. And my own friend, the owner of Tan, will learn from these pages how his dog really died. The Mustang lived not far from Lobo in the early nineties. The story is given strictly as it occurred, excepting that there is a dispute as to the manner of his death. According to some testimony he broke his neck in the corral that he was first taken to. Old Turkeytrack is where he cannot be consulted to settle it. […] Redruff really lived in the Don Valley north of Toronto, and many of my companions will remember him. He was killed in 1889, between Sugar Loaf and Castle Frank. (10-11) He explains that Wully is a compound of two dogs: “The first part of Wully is given as it happened […] The details of the second part belong really to another” (11). Likewise, he adds: “Silverspot, Raggylug, and Vixen are founded on real characters. Though I have ascribed to them the adventures of more than one of their kind, every incident in their biographies is from life” (12). By highlighting these inventions or amalgamations, Seton enables readers to identify the fiction, thus bolste ring the credibility of the ‘facts.’ Moreover, the ‘proof’ that these animals were real strengthens Seton’s authority as an accurate observer and interpreter of animal life. In other words, he has the ability to know animals. Likewise, it identifies Seton as a reliable collector of anecdotal evidence. One problem, however, is that this blend of anecdote and Allmark-Kent 130 autobiography favours animals with which humans can have sustained contact, usually captive or semi- domesticated animals. Roberts’ use of single incidents or multiple but separate anecdotes maintains the wild animal's autonomy and its distance from humanity. As an example, in Animal Heroes, Seton is able to provide material Download 3.36 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
|