A Compassionate Influence

While many stories "use" animals to portray humans or some sort of concept, I think that in many cases the "use" of animals in storytelling can be beneficial or influential for animals themselves and our relations with them.  Timbuktu is a prime example of the impact that deeply portraying the life and mind of an animal can bring to light.  Auster depicts Mr. Bones as more than a companion pet or object; rather, he shows him as an insightful, thoughtful, compassionate, deeply sentimental and perceptive being, all of which allow for the readers to easily connect with him on a deeper level.  I believe that this form of representation totally promotes enhanced relationships with animals and also enhanced treatment and understanding.  Even though certain attributes of Mr. Bones' character are not exactly realistic at times (as far as we know), the amplified persona of his character enables human readers to more vividly connect with him than they (arguably) normally would. If people more vividly understood what it feels like to be surrendered to a shelter or to be raised for slaughter, would they continue to do so? Perhaps literature can play a vital role in getting people to make emotional and personal connections with non-human animals, since storytelling, reading, composing and such are all prominent aspects of our society.

Sometime ago at ACCT (the Animal Care and Control Team of Philadelphia) I heard someone say "it's just a dog" in regards to his friend's worry about the dog's future (who they were surrendering for a behavior issue).  Perhaps if they had known what it felt like, why he or she was behaving the way he/she was, etc., they wouldn't have made the decision to surrender as they did.  Non-human animals, like humans, have their own wishes, desires, interests and needs, and I truly believe that literature may be one (of the many) ways to get people to think about animals in another, more equal and righteous light, as Timbuktu does. 

Learning from Animals

Throughout history, animals have served as moral compasses in literature. From folk tales to fables, animal characters in stories provide a backdrop for everyday human life. They teach lesson on good versus evil and right versus wrong. In many of these stories, the main animal characters are completely anthropomorphized. They have human characteristics that make it easy for human readers to connect and associate with the animals actions and the lesson that they teach. However, instead of using these stories as a value to us humans, we should use them to better understand the nature of animals and the moral implications behind their treatment. In Paul Auster's novel Timbuktu, Mr. Bones' actions and the insight provided into the mind of the dog can be instrumental in enlightening people about how human-animal relations are much more than just observation. The way that Mr. Bones is given human qualities helps the reader connect with the dog and learn that dogs may have more capabilities than previously thought. Instead of learning how we can better improve ourselves from the lessons that animals teach in these kinds of stories, it would be more important to think about how we can better improve our relationships with animals, making animal welfare a more positive reality.

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

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.

Literature introduced me to Animals

Novels like Timbuktu use human imagination to put ourselves in the shoes of the animals. It is only by inducing sympathy for these animals through things such as anthropomorphism that they can advocate a position and usually its for animal welfare. These novels are instrumental in creating change and its books like 'Black Beauty' and 'Call of the Wild' that have really changed the way that we perceive the animals that are part of our civil fabric. Rarely do people really consider what its like to live in a world where you have no control, are at the mercy of 'owners' and can do nothing but attempt to adapt to every situation that you are thrown into. Even though these novels are fictional it still demands the attention and consideration of what could possibly be true. Personally as a kid I would only read books that were centered around animals. I read the 'Thoroughbred' series, 'Misty of Chincoteague',  'Hank the Cowdog' and others. I think it may be one of the main reasons for why I'm so obsessed with animals and so sensitive towards their needs - especially because growing up we didn't have animals. My parents are Korean and pet owning was not very big when they were kids. We had fish sometimes but they never lasted long and we had a small Sheltie but he ran away because our Grandpa tied him to the front porch and would never let him inside and we didn't have a fenced backyard. Eventually when I got older my parents allowed me to have a dog which I was able to train and take care of, but it's obvious that my love for animals originates from literature. 

And even though writing that gives animals human attributes is seen as wrong because its a misguided representation of who they are, it seems necessary when your audience is human. How else are we to understand them? Even if it is selling them short, I believe it gets the point across that they have needs just like we do, and that its better to suppose that they have capacities just like us and maybe more, than to suppose that they don't at all. Lets give them the benefit of the doubt. 

From Dominique Norris

I was quite interested in the presentation on dog behavior and body language by Nicole Larocco. I found myself making comparisons to what I had seen in the shelter and in my own family pets through the entire presentation. It also made me realize how critical and hypocritical I sometimes am when dealing with human-animal relations. I have noticed that I am often critical (in my thoughts- never verbally) of the people coming to look to adopt an animal. They often seem judgemental or ignorant of the animals by way of comments or faces that they make. They are often immediately disgusted by the dogs that are barking a lot and/or that don't look like the perfect and pristine dogs you may find at a pet shop. I have also been annoyed by their lack of understanding of animal behavior. Sometimes people will try to pet or pat dogs or just stare at them. Soon after reflecting on these thoughts that I've had, I've realized that they may not be reading the signs correctly or at all, but I have also done the same thing. The point that I sort of got at in this reflection is that you can't expect people to understand something that they have never been taught. Therefore, I try to be more patient with people who may not have had the opportunities that I have had to learn about animals and their body language.

I was also intrigued by training a dog through positive reinforcement. Of course, I have tried to be as positive as possible, but I have found it quite hard to cheerfully call a dog's name to try to get their attention instead of yelling at them or pulling their leash when they continue to ignore you. It is especially difficult at the PSPCA to get the dog's attention sometimes because the dogs are constantly encountering different volunteers all with slightly different approaches and tactics, so I imagine that it can be quite hard for them to get a solid understanding of what means what. I have noticed this same problem with my cousin's son. He floats between his mom, grandma, aunt, and grandpa. Each person has a different set of rules and consequences so he gets easily confused with what he is actually allowed to do.

This same problem can also be seen in Timbuktu. When Mr.Bones' master dies, he wanders around and comes upon a group of boys. He has no basis on which to judge how the boys will act and so he is taken by surprise when the boys treat him drastically differently than his master did. Just as all humans are different, so are dogs. Every human has different needs, and so does each individual dog.

The Heart of Communities

           After hearing Claire Tillman and Terri Martin’s presentation on animal welfare and humane education in the community, I began to think about how vital communities are and also how seemingly neglected they have become. Humans, like many other species, are co-dependent or community-oriented animals. However, after spending time at the PSPCA and other animal rescues and after spending almost a semester studying human-animal community, I have begun to wonder if perhaps our societies do not fully support the natural spirit of communities. To me, communities are places of support and coexistence with other humans, species and the environment; where people work together, help one another, etc.  But it seems as though this important aspect of life, of giving, caring and helping is not common way.  For example, during Terri Martin’s presentation, it became clear that a major struggle for her is getting other people to care and help one another and other animals.  It seems to me that many people are trapped in their own umwelt, if you will, and have difficulty embracing and acknowledging the needs and welfare of other animals and people that they share the planet with.  I have also seen this at the PSPCA and with the other animal rescues I work with: so many people (not all) come to adopt an animal for their own self-interests and not necessarily for the animal’s well-being. I cannot count how many times I have had someone contact me with a list of specifications about the kind of cat or dog they want, but I can only remember less than a handful of times that people have contacted me with a genuine interest to help the stray or feral cats or lost dogs that they see on the streets or in the backyards.  

            At the same time, I’ve also encountered many people who come to PSPCA wanting to a rescue an animal and give him or her a loving, nurturing home, but I often wonder whether or not they try and help the homeless animals that are living on the streets or if they ignore them like so many do. I even remember a person asking me about adopting a cat and saying something along the lines of, “there are a bunch of stray cats in my backyard that are friendly and they made me realize that I want to get my own cat.” I cannot help but ponder over the need and want to help animals and people within one’s own community, and how our city, our earth would be if we all cared a little bit more about everyone and everything else.

            The humane education program that Claire Tillman enacted for k-8 children is an amazing example of the significance of working within communities. The fact that Claire’s program not only helped children to learn how to treat animals in their homes and communities and how to care for them but also influenced them to treat one another kindly truly demonstrates how powerful working with one another and caring can really be. It made me think that if everyone was more knowledgeable of the other animals that exist within our communities and knew how to care for them, perhaps there would not be as much suffering. Perhaps if all adopters at the PSPCA were required to partake in the volunteer cat and dog handling classes there wouldn’t be as many returns or dumps, or have licenses for owning pets like Bernard and Michael Rollin suggest in their article on “Dogmaticisms and Catechisms: Ethics and Companion Animals.”  What if everyone worked together to help one another and other animals?

It’s a known fact that biodiversity is vital to life, but I think working with one another and helping and caring for all aspects of our communities is just as imperative. 

Temple Cats and Shelter Dogs

Nicole Lacrocco’s visit was very interesting for me in terms of the way that dogs behave when they are in a shelter situation. My previous work has always been with animals that come from loving homes and are trained with positive reinforcement since they were puppies. It is definitely important to consider that a dogs’ behavior may be different when it is in a forced situation, such as a shelter. I think the idea of umwelt really pertains to the life of a shelter dog. Nicole gave the example of dogs that weren’t used to human contact and the fact that the way we perceive a walk and attention, is not how this dog may perceive it.

Temple Cats has also been a very rewarding experience for me since my roommates and I decided to get involved last semester. Since then, we have fostered 12 cats, with many overnighters as well. All of them have had different personalities and needs, and may were obviously pets that had been abandoned. I think that Claire Tillman and Terri Martin worked well together as speakers. Education is a huge factor in the way in which animals are treated. If people knew about responsible pet owning from an earlier age, there may be less abandoned and neglected animals.

Nicole's presentation with Ollie definitely struck a chord with me, and it is something I have been thinking about during my readings of Timbuktu. First, she explained the body language of dogs to us -- something we also learned in our training with PSPCA. Before this course, I never knew to look to the mouth of a dog to tell me about their emotional state. However, as both Nicole and the trainer at the PSPCA mentioned, a dog who licks or yawns in unusual circumstances is a stressed one. She also described the positioning of the tail -- something Timbuktu utilizes a bit as well. Mr. Bones describes orphaned dogs as always walking about with their tail between their legs. This is probably because they are stressed, anxious, or cautious. In the same way, Nicole explained how dogs experience the fight-or-flight response; how, if backed into a corner, their only reaction may be to fight. Mr. Bones also displays this response, running away from situations that do not work in his favor, such as with Henry Chow and his father. Lastly, it seemed that Nicole and Ollie had a real companionship. It seemed as though the enjoyed each other's company, and that she respected her pet as is, with a certain level of respect. Mr. Bones encounters many humans with varying levels of respect and appreciation for him -- some love him and care for him, and treat him as an equal, while others (the mean kids; the man with the shotgun; the pilot) treat him as an inferior, without compassion or connection. It reminds me that the dogs at the PSPCA come from such varying backgrounds. That not all of them have been treated well or with kindness, and that this has made them wary of the world, and rightfully so. It reminds me to consider them as is, to try and understand them in a more holistic way, based on their background and where they come from. And it reminds me that when I cannot be there, their lives continue on.

-Shannon P. Kelly

Personal Connections Made in the Classroom

Our class was very fortunate to have had guest speakers who offer such amazing insight of experiences in the world of non-human animals. Nicole Larocc of Philly Unleashed took time to come speak with us accompanied by her unbelievably bright Australian Shepard mix Uli. Not only did she talk to us about obedience training with dogs and the most effective and ineffective ways to go about it; she gave us a full demonstration. Just as the essay by Uexküll explains the concept of the Umwelt, Nicole enlightened us on her profession of learning and understanding how dogs perceive things very differently than humans. Her companion Uli was an amazing example and put the measly tricks I have taught my dog back home to shame. It was truly inspiring to see the ways in which she fully understands how to communicate and in a way, manipulate the mind of a dog. She taught us how dogs comprehend and communicate back to humans and that humans could do the same if they take the time to learn the dog and listen to them. 
       In the same week we got to meet Terri Martin who is the head of Temple Cats and Claire Tillman who has an extensive past with animal efforts. Terri Martin has continuously devoted much of her time and money to help save and protect the abundance of stray cats around campus. She personally inspired me to reach out in my own neighborhood off campus in which the streets were the home of a pregnant stray that I had been feeding and become accustomed to. Terri helped me immediately with providing info, a carrier, and some food in order for me to help her in her goal to prevent unwanted strays in North Philadelphia. Unfortunately the cat was father along than I thought and delivered four kittens late last week. Not all is lost though thanks to Terri. Her and I are going to get the kittens checked out by a vet and once they are healthy and ready to leave mom, into a good home. In addition we have found a home for the mom and we will get her spayed. Talk about having friends in high places, and its all thanks to her for coming into speak with us that I made this great connection.
       Claire Tillman now serves as a community outreach educator aiming to educate kids in inner cities the truth about animal ethics and their role in helping the cause. She told us about all of her amazing work with less privileged kids as well as her experiences with them. She talked a bit about Pit bulls and the disposition they have been given as a "breed" that cannot be trusted. Her talk related to me on a very personal level as well as I have a close friend who recently adopted a Pit bull mix from the SPCA. Her name is Lady and she is very stocky with jaws as wide as her body. I'll admit she is intimidating from afar however when close all she wants to do is bask in your love. I was walking her up and down my street over the weekend and there were neighborhood kids messing around on a stoop. As we neared them the majority of the kids squealed and ran into the house; I was shocked. Claire had told us that stereo-typically these dogs are feared as they are only known to be aggressive. These kids were a perfect example of what she told us.
       I reassured them that the only thing Lady could do to them was lick their face off. One 'brave' child came off the stoop and greeted her to show them I knew what I was talking about. As we said goodbye and continued walking, I noticed they were all following us and wanted to pet her. If I had not known about this dog's reputation among city kids, I wouldn't have had this chance to make a difference in their opinion of this misunderstood, amazingly friendly animal.

Lady and I <3