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: