Animal and human suffering
What effect does describing animals suffering – rather than humans – have on your sense of the atrocities described? Do you think that the taxidermist can be sincere when he says ‘I would never harm an animal. They are my friends’?
Chippenham Library Readers Group said: August 26th 2010 at 17:19
We discussed this book at a special bookgroup convened from 2 other regular library book groups at Chippenham Library where I am the librarian. We found an enormous amount of material to discuss in this fable. The most interesting discussion concerned whether the representation of animals in the text was allegorical, or whether in fact we should consider the destruction of species as one of the points of the book. Are we responsible for many holocausts for animals? Vigorous debate follwed this thought, with no one conclusion from the group.
Tabitha said: September 26th 2010 at 12:36
A question that lingered with me after reading the book was whether or not the taxidermist was trying to express the beginnings of remorse through his efforts in writing the play. In the writings of St Augustine, we find the concept of misplaced love. Perhaps, the taxidermist had a profound love and appreciation for animals but could not find within himself the same for his fellow man. Moreover, maybe his creation of the play was an attempt to learn to see his atrocities in the light of something that moved his soul, the genocide of his friends-animals. Could he have been trying to purge himself of his sense of joy at hurting his fellow man by making equivalent his cruel actions towards other humans with mankind’s genocide of animals? In the last scenes when Henry is disgusted and resolves to no longer help the taxidermist with his play, perhaps the taxidermist gives up. He resigns himself to his nature and lack of love and empathy for mankind. In one final dramatic gesture, he allows himself to again enjoy the rush of hate and violence.