Reality Rules vs. Artistic Freedom

Although I am eager to discuss the implications of animal representations in literature, I am concerned that the discussion will cross reasonable limitations. I think it needs to be stated that fiction is fictional, and that in the art of fiction, an author should have freedom to manipulate the world as we know it for the sake of his/her art. We would not have Animal Farm, or even The Lion King if it weren't for this capacity we, as humans, have to use animals as metaphors for ourselves. Regardless of whether these representations are accurate or not, anthropocentric or not, absolutely great pieces of literature have come from this exact writing method.

It should also be noted that animals are not the only ones misrepresented in the telling of stories. In fiction, there are writers of realism, who portray things as they are, but this is just one type of story-telling, and it need not be the norm. Our heroes come from writers who can think bigger, and more creatively, again, not just for animals, but humans as well. A hobbit didn't actually journey to Mordor on foot to save Middle Earth, but there is truth in the idea that a small person can make a large difference. My point is, every work of fiction has a grain of truth in it, and I don't think this aspect of writing will ever be distinguished, nor should it.

Paul Auster has provided us with a different means of portraying an animal in his novel, Timbuktu. He writes from the perspective of a dog, and in doing so, he is able to construct a story that readers can relate to and learn from. This opens the door for animal activism, if it reaches the right audience. I applaud this effect, but I repeat that I do not feel it is the only way of representing an animal in fiction.

I will use the example of Chekhov's "Misery." In this short story, a man is searching for companionship -- he has lost his son, and, more than anything, he just needs to talk to someone about it, needs to say it out loud and have someone understand. But no one will listen. By the end, he tells the story to his horse, who listens quietly and stays by his side. This story is incredibly sad and emotional, and not at all about the animal. But it shows a positive relationship between humans and animals -- one which suggests that, perhaps, the animal is more compassionate and patient and stable in this life. It never needs to go into the perspective of the horse to get this message across, though it does sacrifice a real understanding of the horse's experience of the world.

My question is -- at what distance must we write about the animal? Is it helpful to write from the animal's perspective, or to use it as a metaphor? Is realistic always right? Even Auster employs the use of the fantastic to tell his story about Mr. Bones. In the end, I think Auster's novel gives a lot of useful information and brings up abstract thoughts about the loyalty of dogs, the naming of animals, and the concept of the afterlife for our pets. But I do not think that this style of writing should become the rule as a result.

-Shannon P. Kelly