Technicalities

"For the most part, animals have been used in storytelling to give instruction to humans about how to live (e.g., Aesop's fables)"... I do not wish to center my post about arguing with this opinion, but I feel that I must state my view of this to keep true to my opinions.

Although I agree- partially- with this statement, I wouldn't say that most stories use animals such as the fables do, instead I would say that most stories that are commonly known amongst peoples would fall under similar themes as the fables. That is to say that there is a lot of literature out there about animals that are truthfully represented in their own right, but these stories may not be as mainstream.

Something that I try to consider when reading literature that relates humans and animals directly is that not only is the animal given human qualities, but the human is also given animal qualities. Now this can be a good or bad thing. If the human has done something wrong and is thus compared to an animal, the animal will almost definitely be looked at in a negative light. However, one person may view a trait as negative in one situation, but given another situation that same "negative" trait may be what saves or helps you. What I am trying to get at is that even though the animals are often compared or noted because of something they did wrong, if the same characters would put in a completely different scene, we could gain a much more positive view of the animal. Everyone both human and animal has faults and successes, so instead of trying to blame children's books and tales for degrading the animals, we should instead find ways to use animals in storytelling as positive role models rather than as what you don't want to be or do.

I also feel the need to point out that the question states "But could there be other uses of animals that go beyond their instrumental value for humans?" Even when trying to brainstorm how we can more positively and/or accurately portray animals, we think of their use. Maybe the problem isn't that we aren't showing uses of them that are good for both human and animal, maybe the problem is that we are asking how they can be useful to use rather than why they are admirable and worthy in their own right. As humans we are selfish, there is no surprise in that, but why do we get to define what is worthy. Why does something have to have direct benefit to us to deserve safety, care, shelter, respect? I believe that it is because we are afraid. We are afraid of what we can't control, so if we can't find a way to control it or break it down, we find a way to lower its worth.

Getting back to literature... In all honesty, I believe that if we want to truly represent the animal, we need to do just that. Represent the animal- not its worth to us, or its perceived intelligence- just the animal- simply and justly. If we want to represent a pet, by all means include humans because the human family is important in the life of a pet. However, if you want to talk about a wild animal, what role do humans play. The only true roles that I see between wild animals and humans are hunting/poaching, destruction of habitats, and maybe the occasional instance of one saving the other. In Timbuktu, Auster does a great job of keeping the dog mostly true, but it is still largely about his encounters and relationships with humans. I respect that it shows all types of people which makes it more realistic, as well as implying that stereotypes are not always correct and every human and animal is different.

Personally, I enjoy reading about fictional animal related stories that are very unrealistic. There is nothing wrong with such literature as long as the audience understands that it is not a true representation.