13 Audrey Smoak – WANTED: A Safe Space for Animals in Literature
Audrey Smoak was born and raised in Charleston, SC. After completing her associate degree, she left her hometown at 18 to pursue a career in the music industry where she enriched herself in art, management, and marketing. Towards the end of 2022, she found herself wanting more and decided to go back to university. When deciding upon a major she often asked herself, what brings purpose to you and everlasting value to society? Sustainability and business. One month later she was accepted into Indiana University and was looking forward to her first semester. While currently a senior, Audrey is dedicated to driving positive environmental and social impact and she looks forward to learning more about the deep relationship between society and our planet, specifically human impact on biodiversity. In addition, she looks forward to the ventures that lie ahead of her as she dives deeper in the topics of sustainability and business. This work was prepared for Alisa Clapp-Itnyre’s English L301. Professor Alisa notes, “This paper was EXCELLENT–*25* pages of amazing, real-to-life animal-studies commentary + additional literary works + an excellent Works Cited of extremely useful sources you found for the paper. VERY good job, Audrey!”
WANTED: A Safe Space for Animals in Literature
In the last two centuries alone, 1 million species became under threat of extinction due to humans and biodiversity. Peter Singer said it best, “Personal purity isn’t really the issue. Not supporting animal abuse – and persuading others not to support it – is” (Peter Singer Quotes). Animals are hurt in the following ways: (1) Killing, (2) Cruelty, (3) Co-opting and Commercializing Animals for Human Gain, (4) Capture and Condescension, and (5) Caring and Compassion need to be considered (Clapp-Itnyre, “Introduction to Animal Studies”, Canvas Page). Robert Watson, the panel chair of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services stated, “The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economics, livelihoods, food and security, health and quality of life worldwide” (Chow 1). Killing off specifies, whether for sport, profile or money – all have very dangerous consequences. In 1635, the first animal cruelty legislation was passed, which banned sheep’s wool from being ripped off while alive. It was then extended towards preventing cruelty on cattle in 1824 due to Martin’s Law by Richard Martin, one of the founding members of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals – the first animal welfare charity in the world (Orzechowski 6). Martin’s Law wasn’t the only contributor towards creating a safe space for animals – Peter Singer’s “Animal Liberation” “first published in 1975 was a philosophical bombshell. It forever changed the conversation about our treatment of animals” (PETA 1).
As animal activism advanced throughout history, PETA – People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals – was established in 1980 (Clapp-Itnyre). Several other nonprofits have popped up in the last few decades, such as The Humane League. While nonprofits work hard to push new policies, we continue to stare at the ugly reality of captivity. Depriving a wild animal of a real home for human profit continues to be a vacuous and profiting industry. It’s important to treat all animals with compassion. There’s a lot of work to be done and a lot more information to share to conclude my theme of abuse. All animals deserve a safe space. A safe space is both mental and physical, free from abuse whether its derived from human cruelty, verbal attacks, or climate change. It is clear that there is a correlation between treatment and abuse of animals and humans alike. History is full of examples of abuse of animals and the direct correlation of how humans treat each other. The slave trade is a prime example. The questions could go on and on but when and where is the line drawn? “We think of lions and wolves as savage because they kill; but they must kill, or starve. Humans kill other animals for sport, to satisfy their curiosity, to beautify their bodies, and to please their palates” (Peter Singer quotes). Who is the monster in real life versus the ones we made up in our heads? Until we put a stop to the abuse, I don’t think there will ever be a safe space for animals. Our literature reflects history as well. Animal abuse and anthropomorphism have been embraced by various notable authors and poets in several pieces of literature over the last few centuries. I will explore the various forms of assigned abuse through the Anglo-Saxon cultures and early eras in “Battle of Brunanburh”, and other anglo-saxon poems. I’ll discuss the unethical treatment of animals in whats considered sport and an “enjoyable time” of the 17th and 18th century in Gulliver’s Travels, “The Rape of the Lock”, and “The Hunting of the Hare”. In addition, I’ll detail Darwin’s contributions towards the perspective that animals are our gatekeepers in “On the Origin of Species”; and analyze the overall treatment of animals and ethical progress throughout the 19th century in our final piece of literature, Black Beauty. As we have learned from past literature, we live in a world that does not prioritize stopping animal cruelty and until it becomes an imperative, human-animal hierarchy will flood our literature and history.
“The Battle of Brunanburh ” is a historical, panegyric poem that emphasizes the trials of sacrifice, war, loyalty, lineage, and morality. The history of the battIe itself was monumental in England’s preservation. Reflecting on the society in 937, I found it interesting how similar some manners still translate today – specifically the old outlook on masculinity. The way men are described in this poem remind me of the same stereotypical weight assigned to a lot of men today – strong, unforgiving, and hyper focused – very run of the mill in terms of looking at men from a spectrum. After all, 937 was a time where women were given away for marriage and didn’t have many options. When you take a closer look at the history of this battle, Constantine of Scotland strategically married his daughter to the King of Dublin, Anlaf (noted viking). This bridged the gap between the Irish and Norseman, a power move by Constantine to strike against King Athelstan. As the poem details the battle from start to finish, it’s important to acknowledge the significance regarding the beasts of battle. The animals feast on the flesh of the bodies left behind in battle, as mentioned in the text. The correlation between the beasts of battle and the men of battle are uncanny. “The corpse-sharers, shadowy-coated, they left behind them…”, can be translated as the fleeing men’s souls tied to the damage done on the battlefield, as well as the actual animals. The Anglo Saxon period held a high focus on animal loyalty. The wolf and birds are described as savages, taking what is left from the field. It’s applied that Constantine fleeing is an act of selfishness similar to the feast, leaving his allies behind without honor or after thought; but as its an act of selfishness, he fled to survive. Instinct plays an important role here, as men fled in joy and in sadness, the animals consumed the field to graze – another act of survival. This imagery emphasizes my earlier acknowledgement of masculinity. Constantine specifically sacrificed a lot of his men, his daughter’s freedom and his own pride through defeat – reminding me a lot of the wolf. The way the King of Scotland and the wolf are described through the color grey can be perceived as distant and negative. King Athelstan was praised for securing the homeland, reminding me a lot of the eagle. The eagle is known to be big and strong and that’s exactly how Athelstan is portrayed as he takes victory at Brunanburh. This poem specifically portrays the brutality of men, and how animals feed on that behavior without actually acknowledging them as living beings needing to survive.
Animals have been prominent figures in British Literature and culture for centuries – dating all the way back to the Anglo-Saxon and Elizabethan eras. Through the poems of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” by William Shakespeare, “The Phoenix and the Turtle” by William Shakespeare, and the old-english poem “Battle of Brunanburh” – we take a closer look at the animal references from a historical and cultural perspective. In the old-english poem “Battle of Brunanburh”, animals are used as scavengers of the battle ground, post action. They are described to graze upon the bodies left at Brunanburh while England takes its victory. There is a common theme of masculinity and speciesism in this poem. While the wolf, eagle and other animals were described as beasts, they reminded me a lot of the notable men in the poem – like Constantine resembling the wolf. The poet wrote about the animals’ instinct in this piece – it is not unnatural for such animals to hunt and feed. However, the comparison of war in regards to animal influence emphasized the abusive characteristics assigned to the animals in this piece of literature. During the Anglo-Saxon period, ravens, eagles and falcons nested in the hills which were also home to wolves, and wildcats. Most means of nutrition were found through fishing or farming, as hunting was an expense that required a lot of manpower and wasn’t accessible for most communities (Williamson). Given the historical context of this time period, the author did an exceptional job meshing the poem’s setting to where the primary animals lived but went out of their way to attach monstrous qualities to them.
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight was a marvelous read full of temptation, morality, and honesty. On a quest, Sir Gawain sets out from his home at Camelot to unmask the green knight where he finds shelter at a castle overseen by its Lord. On his first day at the castle, there was a deer hunt. Hunting was a common sport during the medieval era and it was known that the most prized animals were to be hunted, similar to the deer and following boar hunt in part 3. Animals were seen as a tool to hunt and provide entertainment for the humans. “Deer and boar are invested with specific significance, the latter often a monstrous, even satanic, adversary whose conquest shows the hunter’s tremendous courage, stamina, skill, and holiness” (Bain 130). The hunts presented in part 3 are symbolic to the characters in this book. The deer represents Gawain in his gentle and vulnerable attributes, while the boar represents the Lord in his strong and fierce presence. The fox in the third hunt represented the green knight’s wife, the lady of the castle in her mission to seduce and test Gawain’s loyalty and honesty. The animals in this literature are given human characteristics in terms of betrayal, loyalty, and love as they are used as symbols in Christian teaching. “The boar leapt upon the knight so that beast and man were one atop of the other in the water; but the boar had the worst of it, for the man had marked, even as he sprang, and set the point of his brand to the beast’s chest, and drove it up to the hilt, so that the heart was split in twain, and the boar fell snarling, and was swept down by the water to where a hundred hounds seized on him, and the men drew him to shore for the dogs to slay” (31). The message of this particular passage from Sir Gaiwan and the Green Knight is represented through the excessive physical violence of animal cruelty. The lord’s behavior in killing the boar exceeded any sport or hunt. The boar in this scene was heavily abused by the intense slashing of the lord’s sword and angry bites from the dogs. There is a clear line between hunting for food and sport, and killing for entertainment – and this piece of literature crossed that line.
Within the peaceful waters that was home to such a whale, came the bustle of a major ship stirring the water and wreaking havoc in the poem “The Whale”. Animal cruelty is prominent in this piece of literature as the whale is sought to be the beast of the sea. The cruelty is indirect, given the men on board the ship in this poem ignore the disruptions disturbing the whale. “This mighty monster of the sea, When hungry, gapes enormously, And from his throat his breath is hurled, The sweetest smell in all the world” (The Whale 7-10). The whale is disrupted by the ship stirring the water referencing the effects of human impacts and the ship’s emissions on the ocean. Given the whale had feelings about this disruption, the great chain of being can be applied here. The great chain of being references animals to have senses like the whale’s ability to feel the ship, and links beings on a hierarchy in the following order: God, angels, humans, animals, plants, and minerals (Wikipedia Contributors, Great Chain of Being). Kyveli Lignou-Tsamantani details the animal cruelty on whales of the 19th century in “Scrimshaw: A Non-Human Atrocity Image of the 19th century?” – “Whales possessed huge commercial value due to their blubber being used for lighting and lubrication and to the spermaceti wax from their heads, from which candles, cosmetics and ointments were made, causing whale populations to decline (Lignou-Tsamantani 2). It is safe to say history has not been kind to whales nor have they been given the courtesy to live in a safe space. It is the physical and mental abuse derived from humans inflicted on these living sea beings that is so prominent in “The Whale”.
William Shakespeare’s play “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” tackles masculinity and feminism from a sexist and animal based perspective. Lysander specifically is confronted by Helena about his love for Hermia when Lysander gives the women animal characteristics. He went on to compare the two to his idea of what a raven and dove meant. “Who will not change a raven for a dove?” (Shakespeare II.ii. 7-12). Lysander is making the assumption that ravens are nasty, and unworthy animals whereas doves are more favorable and worthy. This creates a hierarchy within the animal kingdom that certain animals are more important over others and feeds a unique pattern of unethical treatment towards different species. “Of course, seeing people as animals does not necessitate starving or mistreating those people” (Bach 142). Its important to understand that animal cruelty isn’t always physical, and assigning monstrous characteristics to a person, or animal is considered cruelty and Shaespeare is known for his literary anthropomorphic style (Bach 123). Act II, Scene I portrays animal cruelty as Helena is begging for Demetrius’s love, “I am your spaniel; and, Demetrius, / The more you beat me, I will fawn on you: / Use me but as your spaniel, spurn me, strike me, / Neglect me, lose me, only give me leave, / Unworthy as I am, to follow you. / What worser place can I beg in your love, / And yet a place of high respect with me, / Than to be used as you use your dog?” (Shakespeare 2.1. 21-28). Helena, unstable and desperate for Demetrius to love her back, stoops to assume dogs are after thoughts that can be ignored, mistreated, and even hit. Helena describes Demetrius to have abusive characteristics given her concept of pretending to be his spaniel is equal to picking up a doll off of a dusty shelf and playing with it once in a blue moon. Helena herself, and Demetrius fail to recognize that dogs are living beings that are capable of feelings, just like humans.
If you look back at history, you’ll notice the long standing use of animal based metaphors – in society and literature. Furthermore, you’ll see the pattern of animal references linked to physical and mental abuse, poor judgment, and human gain. The last few centuries have become more progressive in terms of animal equality, domestic practices (ethical treatment of animals as pets), organic farming, agriculture practices, and replacing animal skin and fur for vegan options – but it wasn’t always like this. Animals in the 17th and 18th century were misunderstood and taken for granted. Animal cruelty in the 17th and 18th century took place during the Enlightenment. This was a time where animal cruelty surfaced far enough to grab society’s attention. Controversial opinions were at play, especially the opinion of Rene Descartes, who argued animals were incapable of thinking (Crate Free USA, History of Animal Exploitation). Animal references are popularly used in literature today and became a critical theme in our history. Many authors and poets assigned aggressive traits to humans that would hint at the behavior of an animal, while others took a lighter approach to animal references in literature. The lighter references are more warm, and show an appreciation for animals rather than assuming them as burdens. As I dial back the clock to explore such references, you must think about the time period. Was it the lack of respect towards women and the rough old-fashioned upbringing that encouraged writers to compare humans to animals in such a gruesome way?