While walking past a bookstore in downtown Bloomington, the
name Jonathan Safran Foer appeared in my peripheral and I stopped to take a
look. The name was printed in large letters on the cover of a book called Eating Animals. I wondered what this
novel could be about, being intriguing because I have so thoroughly enjoyed Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.
However, upon looking into it, this book is actually non-fiction. It is a book
aimed at shedding light into the food we eat each day, somewhat akin to the
work of Micheal Pollan, even though he apparently criticizes Pollan’s views in
the novel. This book is, of course, not the topic of my posting. But, with this
newly acquired knowledge and from what I have seen in the book we are currently
reading, Foer has a very strong interest in animals. To me, Thomas Schell
senior may be the most intriguing character and one question I can’t get past
is, “Why the constant comparisons to and associations with animals?”
One of the very few things that Oskar knows about his
grandfather is his affinity for animals. His grandfather alludes to this
animality, proclaiming that “only someone who’d never been an animal would put
up a sign saying not to feed them” (28). His apartment, “like a zoo,” is filled
with dogs, cats, birds, fish, snakes, lizards, and insects (82). The chapter
entitled “The Only Animal” relays the information that humans are the only
animals that can cry, and I find it interesting that, upon the discovery that
his wife has been keeping the secret of her blindness from him, a tragic moment
in the novel, Thomas admits, “I wanted to cry, but I didn’t cry. I probably
should have cried, I should have drowned us there in the room” (124). Like an
animal however, he cannot do it. Having “fail[ed]” his wife, due to a past act
of self-protection, he cannot bring himself to shed tears. There is also the
intriguing scene in which Thomas kills a multitude of animals in the zoo, which
I have to admit I’m not completely certain of regarding its significance. I
think that perhaps, since even he at one point questions whether or not it was
necessary, this is the point where he becomes animal-like? Also interesting,
especially noting the incredible similarities between Oskar and his grandfather
in the ways they choose to cope, is Oskar’s off putting noise. Oskar “let out a
noise like an animal” as his father’s empty coffin was dropped into the earth
(232). His grandmother says he was a
“wounded animal,” that she had “never heard anything like it” (232). She claims
to have “spent forty years looking for” that noise” as it represented “what
[she] wanted [her] life and life story to be” (232). Compared to Oskar, “All of
[her] sound” remained “locked inside” her, and “Everyone was silent” (233). Tears
at a funeral are expected and appropriate, however, this animal noise seems to
deliver the true feelings of anguish Oskar has much more clearly than any
amount of tears can. Shortly after the burial scene, readers are brought along
as Oskar has his first encounter with his grandfather, who, when asked “Are you
a human being” flips to a page in his book that reads “I’m sorry”. It seems
that sadness, when not accompanied by tears, as this is a common convention of
human communication, is equated with being animal-like. Similarly, wondering if
a baby can get sad, or “could have thoughts,” Oskar wonders if “he was more
like a nonhuman animal” (287). Here we see a reversal of Thomas, the baby cries
and it may not necessarily correspond to sadness, causing Oskar to question his
humanity. It is worth noting, however, that Thomas does cry, although he
attempts to hide his face, Oskar’s grandmother forces him to let her see him
cry. The only thing that I can really gather from this is that sometimes, when
humans either cannot put into words their true feelings or tears do not seem to
communicate enough (Oskar) or if they cannot speak or even bring themselves to
cry (Thomas), they revert to animalistic behavior, either not expressing this
feeling outwardly at all (Thomas) or letting out an animalistic expression of
feeling (Oskar).
a fascinating paper topic, if you decide to explore it further. I wonder if you can extend some of these claims to consider the portrait of humanity that Foer presents in this novel. You seem to be interested in how the "animal"-like display of emotions is an outlet for what humans try to hide/repress- perhaps there is something about our particular cultural moment that prevents expression of emotions/feelings?
ReplyDelete