The Wild Animal’s Story: Nonhuman Protagonists in Twentieth-Century Canadian Literature through the Lens of Practical Zoocriticism
Yüklə 3,36 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
|
Consider Her Ways As Seton and Roberts did, Frederick Philip Grove uses his introduction to Consider Her Ways (1947) to influence the readers’ acceptance of his zoocentric narrative. The book was his last publication but he was able to revise the introduction before he died (Proietti 362). It is significant that he was able to do so as I argue that this is crucial to the possibility of reading the novel as an animal story. Moreover, it emphasizes the plausi bility of Grove’s speculative representation. The book has not attracted much serious critical attention, the current scholarship generally regards it as allegory, science fiction, or the “most outrageous work of the Canadian fantastic imagination” (Columbo 35). Despite the fact that Consider is a rare example of nonhuman first-person narration (or first-animal narration), it has not caught the attention of those in the field of literary animal studies either. Previously in this thesis, I have suggested that anthropocentric readings of Seton ’s and Roberts’ work that undermined engagement with the nonhuman animal, relied on a dismissal of the author’s stated aims in each preface. Likewise, interpretations of Consider that discount the introduction undermine the zoocentric, imaginative challenge set by the author. I contend that readings that undermine the nonhuman presence do not connect Consider to the wild animal story or to the Nature Fakers controversy. As demonstrated in my discussions of Return to the River (1941) and Last of the Curlews (1956), both of these texts were strongly influenced by the legacies of Seton and his supposed ‘nature faking.’ Hence, I offer a new reading of Allmark-Kent 197 Grove’s book by placing it within this wild animal story framework. As Robert J. Sawyer’s foreword states, Grove conceived of the idea for Consider in “1892 or 1893, wh en he was a schoolboy” (6). The fact that Grove was considering writing a narrative from the perspective of ants at the same time as the wild animal story was beginning to emerge seems a context that cannot be overlooked. Whether he read Roberts’ ant story, we cannot know. Likewise, we cannot be sure of the similarities between Consider and Grove’s original idea. Nonetheless, from the perspective of this framework, we can read Grove’s new form of speculative animal representation as perhaps a parod y of Seton’s work. He challenges the pseudo-scientific aspirations of the original wild animal story, along with the associated claims of ‘fact’ and ‘realism.’ These were, of course, the issues which drew considerable attention and ridicule during the Nature Fakers controversy. Rather than allow such accusations, Grove intentionally disrupts the ‘realism’ of his text. As such, any attempt to criticize his inaccuracy or anthropomorphism are already pre-empted. Yet by building his speculations upon a solid basis of fact, he maintains a playful scientific engagement. As with the other speculative texts in this chapter, Grove’s zoocentric imaginative challenge pushes the boundaries of what is known about the species he represents. As indicated by Hal Whitehead, the authors of speculative animal narratives validate their contribution by raising questions in ways that science alone cannot (371). Much of Grove’s parody and disruption of ‘realism’ relies on a layering of authorship. The author’s note and introduction declare that an ant is the author and that F.P.G. is merely the e ditor and translator. As such, the author’s note echoes and subverts the claims of ‘fact’ made in Seton’s and Roberts’ prefaces: Certain human myrmecologists to whom the present book was submitted in manuscript —the editor wishing to make sure of his facts , from the |