Allmark-Kent 79
Man’s kinship with the wild creatures was usually expressed with rod and
gun. Yet some settlers laid these and the axe aside for their quills (383).
Whilst
this view of the settler “surrounded by a hostile natural world” is
true in
some cases
, Mary Lu MacDonald’s analysis of nineteenth-century Canadian
nature writing indicates that the majority
were “content with their life in the
Canadas” (48, 62). She states: “As far as the literature written and read by our
ancestors is concerned, the fact is that before 1850, with few exceptions, all the
evidence points to an essentially positive literary view of the Canadian
landscape” (48). However, she notes that aesthetic appreciation of the
landscape was
to be found more often
“in poetry than in prose” (49). Instead it
is in prose that we tend to
find appreciation of Canada’s animals—although it
seems that many settlers conveyed this sentiment by writing with their quill in
one hand and their gun in the other.
Popular perceptions of Canada’s ‘wilderness’ and ‘superabundance’
tipped the exploitation/protection dynamic (discussed in another chapter) firmly
in the favour of humanity. For instance, Mary Lu MacDonald describes the levity
with which
W. B. Wells depicts the deaths of animals in “A Bear Hunt” and
“Deer Stalking on the Branch” for
Barker’s Magazine
in 1846 and 1847
respectively (51-2).
She notes that the “ironic humour” in both works
“contributes to the impression of a man in control of his environment” (51).
Likewise in his own study of nineteenth-century Canadian nature writing,
Christoph Irmsher comments that most of these authors “regarded Canada as a
kind of gigantic self-serve store where they could hunt, shoot, and fish to their
heart’s content” (151). Although many were ostensibly producing ‘nature
writing,’ and all tended to have at least “some basic understanding of natural
history” (151), any scientific aspirations in their work seem to have been
minimal.
The “natural history” of John Keast Lord was “done with an axe, not
Allmark-Kent 80
the dissecting knife” (152), while that of William Ross King seems to have been
conducted on his plate: “Many remarks are about the tasty flesh of animals he
has caught […] And thus he merrily eats his way through the Canadian fauna”
(153).
In reality, these books were
less ‘natural history’ and more “intended as
bedside reading for the folks back home who were
toying with the idea of
roughing it out, fishing rod and breechloader in hand, in the wilds of a new
country” (Irmscher 151). Yet, even in those books with a less violent and
exploitative approach to nature, we still tend to find little engagement with
animals as individuals. I suggest that
Irmscher’s characterisation of Traill and
Gosse’s work as the literary “stocktaking of Canadian nature” (145) can be
understood at a deeper level. He proposes
that this “patient” work, beginning
with the early explorers and taken to new heights by Victorian writers, sought to
answer the question:
“What is here?” (145). However, if we take Irmscher’s
thinking further, we can see that these writers are indeed ‘taking stock’ of
Canada’s natural
wealth of plants and animals, and perhaps attempting to
answer the follow-up question: What is ours?
W
ith the emergence of both the children’s animal story and animal
biography in 1850, we find that engagement with the animal as an
Dostları ilə paylaş: