So here’s an article published in The Horn Book with a…somewhat surprising take on children’s book writers and readers. The author, Jennifer Armstrong, says, in part:
So what I am suggesting is that if you love children’s literature, you cannot kill animals just because they taste good on a bun. There’s more than a bit of hypocrisy involved in urging children to empathize with pandas and polar bears and bunnies and ducks in books and at a distance and then feeding them hamburgers and sliced deli meats.
I think she is missing the important fact that children’s books are fantasies. Spiders don’t really spell words in webs. I think most kids know this. Fairytales and children’s stories are often meant to teach morality; Ms. Armstrong is right about that. But no one actually believes that velveteen rabbits have feelings or that little engines have will power and determination. We all know that elephants with big ears can’t fly. Children’s stories are fictive dreams, fantasies, that tell us how to love one another. They tell us how to treat other children, not how to treat animals.
I’m a Christian and the Bible commands that we take good care of our animals. Proverbs 12:10 says, “Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.” We are to love and care for our animals. We are to be concerned for all animals, because they are created by God. Ms. Armstrong is not wrong to be upset about the conditions in our farms–from fish to fowl, many farmers are introducing harmful chemicals into our food supply and many animals spend their lives in miserable conditions. This is a real concern. I don’t think Armstrong has made a strong case, though.
I find the article fascinating, because this author has a grasp, I think, on the good that children’s books can do. And the harm. Children’s book, regardless of how many authors deny putting value lessons into their books, do shape children’s morality.
But when Armstrong asks:
How does a child’s developing moral/ethical self resolve the jarring disconnect between the animal books she is given to read in the library and the animal meat she is given for lunch in the cafeteria? What is she to make of the trusted adult who holds in one hand a living baby chick to caress with tender care and a chicken nugget in the other hand to eat with special sauce?
I think the answer is that she realizes that animals killed for food are no different from animals killing for food. Many animals eat meat. Lions take down the poor, little, weak gazelles. It is the way of the world. And just because we are smarter than lions doesn’t mean we should be smart enough to not eat meat. Protein from meat is beneficial to us. Organ meat is rich in nutrients. We should treat our animals well and kill them humanely, but animals don’t really have all the same feelings that humans have. Animals don’t feel love the same way humans do. Some animals take care of their young for a while. Others kill and eat their young.
Writers who “people” their stories with animals are using a literary device called personification. But animals in the real world are not cuddly, wonderful, loving creatures. You can’t really trust a killer whale, as the folks at Sea Word can tell you. Why? Because animals don’t love and don’t reason the way the children’s books pretend they do. You may believe you are the bears’ brother, but the bears will eat you all the same. I lived in Alaska for years and it never ceased to amaze me when tourists would get eaten by bears they were trying to take pictures of. Real bears are not like Yogi. Why is there confusion over this issue?
You Might Also Like
tags: anthropomorphic writing, Children' Books, jennifer armstrong, personification, the horn book, vegetarianism
Why indeed?
I just saw a PBS special (part of it—the killing finally did me in.
) about warthogs. When the mothers give birth, they no longer let their yearlings back into the burrows where they’ve been living their entire short lives.
Abandoned. Which also means, unprotected. And sure enough, one of those fell victim to a leopard on the hunt.
Quite the contrast to what we expect from human parents. Even a cursory look at animals in nature reinforces your point.
Becky
.-= Rebecca LuElla Miller´s last blog ..CSFF Blog Tour – By Darkness Hid, Day 1 =-.
I think kids also learn about our hypocrisy from an early age, eg we tell them not to lie, then they witness us lying. It is one aspect of growing up. The fact is, their growing ethical selves do resolve many many disconnects, and then they decide to become vegetarian or calathumpian or whatever.
.-= Book Chook´s last blog ..The Book Chook Cook Book =-.
calathumpian? I learned a new word today. thanks, book chook. What an absolutely cool word! I love it.
.-= sally apokedak´s last blog ..Porky Pig and Bacon Strips =-.
Sally, do you really think I don’t know that children’s stories are fantasies? I’ve been writing children’s books for over twenty year; I think I have a grasp on the difference between fantasy and reality. You are welcome to find any of my award-winning novels, picture books or nonfiction books, or read my many essays in professional journals and judge for yourself if I understand what children’s literature is. My essay is meant to provoke some deep thinking among my colleagues about the ambivalence evident in our various “uses” of animals. Of course carnivores eat and kill other animals. That’s their nature. But it is also human nature to use that very thing which sets us apart from other animals — our reasoning and our ability to make value judgments — to consider the deeper implications and consequences of our choices. At no point in my essay do I say or even imply that animals have feelings the way humans do. To find fault with my essay on those grounds is misleading — a straw man argument. You also misstate the case when you imply that children’s literature teaches us only how to treat other people: in fact, much of children’s literature explicitly teaches us how to treat the environment, other creatures, etc. And when you say that you think I “realize that animals killed for food are no different from animals killing for food,” you are quite wrong. There is a significant difference, and I suspect you know it, or you wouldn’t be trying to rationalize by talking about treating food animals humanely. This is like trying to rationalize slavery on the grounds of good food and medical care.
Jennifer,
Thanks for stopping by.
In answer to your questions:
No, I don’t really think you don’t know that children’s books are fantasies. When I said I thought you’d forgotten, I was basically saying I thought you were all wet and your argument made little sense to me because children’s books are fantasies. I was not attacking your intelligence. I was merely saying I thought your argument was lacking and I was trying to say it in a somewhat comical, entertaining fashion.
That said, I do think that your essay blurred the lines between humans and animals. When I said that animals don’t have feelings like humans, I don’t believe I was attacking a straw man. I was looking at what you were saying “Because we identify with the small animals” (paragraph 2) and our moral development is shaped by stories about the “courage of the lion, the loyal service of the dog, the skill of the spider, the patience of the ox, the curiosity of the monkey, the fidelity of swans,” and I was saying the courage of the lion, the loyalty of the dog, the skill of the spider, and the fidelity of the swan are not coming from the place that courage, loyalty, skill, and fidelity come from in humans. Animals do not reason as humans do, they do not fear the same way we do, nor do they keep their vows the way we do. They don’t feel and love the way we do. And to suggest that children should identify with animals to the extent you suggest, is, in my opinion, wrongheaded.
In regards to your point about books teaching about how to care for the environment: I try to avoid preachy books, but I’ll give you that children’s books do teach us how to care for the environment and other creatures. Hoot, I’ve heard, was all about saving owls.
When I said “I think the answer is that she realizes that animals killed for food are no different from animals killing for food,” I was not speaking about you. I was answering the two questions I’d quoted above the answer I gave: “How does a child’s developing moral/ethical self resolve the jarring disconnect…” She remembers that many animals are carnivores, humans included. Sorry I wrote that poorly and that wasn’t clear.
But I’m a little surprised at you reaction to my blog post. Did you not think that your essay would offend meat-eaters? You accuse me of being a monster, Jennifer–no better than someone who burns cats for entertainment–and you are offended by my jabbing back at you?
And you imply I’m lower on the morality escalator than enlightened vegetarians. I’m closer to the slavers of old, perhaps. I do not agree with you that our moral escalator is moving upwards. I would suggest to you that the porn on the Internet, the sex slave trafficking that is rampant, the wars, the killings of 1.5 million unborn babies every year in the US alone, and the murders that happen daily in our cities (including the brutal rape and murder of little girls) are proof positive that we disregard human life as much as ever we did. We are not evolving. We are just as sinful and heinous as we’ve always been, and now we have greater technology and more powerful weapons which allows those same old sins to work more damage than has ever before been imagined.
I agree with you that many animals are treated horribly today. But the answer is to call for better treatment. Calling for a ban on meat-eating and implying that meat-eaters are moral midgets is not going to win you any converts, I don’t think. Jesus ate fish for sure and as far as I know he ate meat, too–he took part in the temple sacrifice, anyway–and I think his place on the moral escalator is as high as I need to climb.
Jennifer, regardless of our very different worldviews, I do appreciate your stopping by and your willingness to talk about these issues with me. I appreciate your willingness to write essays in The Horn Book. But I wish your essay didn’t have so much of am “us vs. them” feel to it. I think that we have to learn to live together and I see the country as being far too polarized. Whites and blacks, legal Americans and illegal immigrants, vegetarians and carnivores, Christians and Muslims, heterosexuals and homosexuals…we are all people and we should love one another. We should make room for one another. We should allow for divergent views. These are the most important lessons I think we need to learn from children’s books, not that we shouldn’t eat animals. And it’s important to me that you don’t paint me as a monster who is no different from a person who would burn a cat for entertainment. We don’t need more attacks by one group against another group. Have as much compassion on me when I eat bear meat as you have for the bears that eat people meat (and bones and clothes), please.
And, um…I guess I’m still making no sense on that one point about how the child resolves the jarring disconnect, because humans are not carnivores. Or not usually. I meant to say that humans eat meat as many animals do.
Good response, Sally.
And I think you used “carnivores” right the first time. Leastwise, the Oxford American says it is “an animal that feeds on flesh.”
Becky
.-= Rebecca LuElla Miller´s last blog ..Writer’s Block Equals Writer’s Fear =-.
Well, I think humans are really omnivores, and lions carnivores, and cows are herbivores.
I simply meant that humans ate meat, not that they ate meat exclusively.
.-= sally apokedak´s last blog ..Inciting Incidents =-.
well, I’m agree with Ms. Armstrong we shouldn’t eat animals just because of animals eat meat, animals can eat meat because they’re animal, but we’re not animal. I think this is enogh difference:) as PETA sadi, “animals are not ours to eat, are not ours to wear, and so on” I love animals and if you love something you won’t eat it. Children must question this..
müjde dural´s last [type] ..Blogum hakkında:
Thanks for stopping by, Mujde. And for giving me your opinion.