The Wild Animal’s Story: Nonhuman Protagonists in Twentieth-Century Canadian Literature through the Lens of Practical Zoocriticism

Practical Zoocriticism and the Wild Animal Story
Practical zoocriticism studies the intersection between: literary 
representations of nonhuman animals; the theoretical and practical work of 

---

Allmark-Kent 24 
animal advocacy (animal ethics, welfare, and conservation); and the scientific 
study of animal minds. It recognizes that all three factors
—literature, advocacy, 
and science
—are in constant flux, as are their relationships with each other. 
The practical zoocriticism model acknowledges, as best as possible, that these 
relationships are often complex, obtuse, and not necessarily favoured by all of 
their practitioners. For instance, an author may represent animals in literature 
without developing a scientific understanding of animal minds. An animal 
cognition researcher may have no interest in animal ethics. And a welfare 
campaigner may see no value in literary representations of animals. Even within 
animal advocacy, the relationships between differing approaches can be 
fraught; wildlife conservation and animal ethics are often at odds. These 
diverging attitudes can be quite common, but the work of practical zoocriticism 
is to pursue the instances in which all three factors are in alignment and explore 
the practical possibilities of their interaction. It is my belief that the wild animal 
stories of Seton and Roberts constitute just such an alignment of literature, 
science, and advocacy. 
In the preface to his first collection of realistic wild animal stories,
 Kindred 
of the Wild
(1902), Roberts writes that, whether avowedly or not, “it is with the 
psychology of animal life that the representative animal stories of to-day [sic] 
are first of all concerned” (16). Seton’s own first collection, 
Wild Animals I Have 
Known
, was published four years earlier, but it is in Roberts’ preface that we 
find the first attempt to define their new genre. Aware that they were attempting 
a literary innovation, both authors often wrote such self-conscious prefaces to 
their collections. However, Roberts proposed aims and characteristics for the 
genre, whereas Seton merely discussed his own work. As I will demonstrate in 
my third chapter, based on my observations, I contend that Seton was the 

---

Allmark-Kent 25 
original innovator, but it was Roberts who influenced the final shape of the wild 
animal story. The men worked separately (though they had some contact) and I 
believe that it was their different backgrounds that contributed to the implicit 
establishment of these two discrete roles. Seton lacked formal education, and 
worked variously as a wildlife artist, naturalist, and hunter (collecting bounties 
on the heads of predators), before becoming a writer; Roberts was educated at 
the University of New Brunswick, taught English and French literature, and 
edited literary journals. Roberts emphasized the wild animal story’s relationship 
with scientific research, whilst Seton made passionate pleas on behalf of 
animals. Indeed, he concludes the final story of 
Wild Animals I Have Known
with one such declaration: “Have the wild things no moral or legal rights? What 
right has man to inflict such long and fearful agony on a fellow-creature, simply 
because that creature does not speak his language” (357). Although Seton and 
Roberts expressed their priorities differently, the work of both men contained 
the same commitment to producing imaginative speculations regarding the life 
and psychology of individual animals in order to promote the improved 
treatment of animals generally. 
I argue that the prefaces Seton and Roberts wrote for each collection of 
stories provide invaluable insights into this misunderstood and poorly-defined 
genre. Where many critics choose not to do so, I take their words seriously and 
approach the wild animal story on those terms. In his article “From Within Fur 
and Feathers” (2000), John Sandlos observes that Seton and Roberts “attempt 
[…] to create animal characters that are at least partly accurate and real is 
precisely the creative objective that is so often overlooked” (76). Moreover, he 
adds that, “this is the