I was ok with Animal Farm, but...

[intertribal]

Yann Martel:  I needed to find two animals that might represent the Jews. So trading on positive stereotypes, donkeys are held to be stubborn, they’ve endured, in a sense. Jews are historically have been stubborn in a sense, they’ve held onto their culture, to their religion, despite centuries of discrimination. At the same time, we hold monkeys to be clever, to be nimble. Well, historically, Jews have proven themselves to be exceptionally nimble and clever, they’ve adapted to all different kinds of circumstances, all kinds of different countries, cultures, and also historically, they’ve contributed enormously, disproportionately to the arts and sciences.  So trading on those positive stereotypes, I chose, well, here, how can I represent Jews? Well, here, I’ll represent them as this combination, these two animals, monkeys and donkeys. It could also be that the donkey is sort of a representation of the body and monkey the representation of the mind of Jews.

David Sexton:  What is one to say? Perhaps, to be kind, that Martel, not Jewish himself incidentally, is just not very bright.

Yann Martel:  If he says that of me, I wonder what he feels about Art Spiegelman in Maus. In Maus the Jews are characterised as mice. But were the Jews mouse-like in the Warsaw ghetto uprising? I wonder how he feels about that characterisation.

Hey hey hey hey,or: we could not use different animal species to symbolize different groups of people, especially when you're using stereotypical animal traits to match up with stereotypical human group traits.  We could not reduce huge groups of God's creatures to one or two sweeping adjectives.

Just a thought!

Comments

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Aside from all of that, there's a huge difference between me having a kneejerk reaction to something and me congratulating myself on my moral superiority on some issue. At least I think there is. The kneejerk thing I will cop to - I originally was going to title this post something about literary pet peeves, because that's basically what it is (well, with more emotion than is maybe normal).

But I really don't want to come across as being all holier-than-thou and judgmental and all of this stuff that you frequently read me as being. I mean, if there's something in my wording of the post that implies that - and maybe what I see as just being critical of a device comes across as self-congratulation, in which case, I need to work on that - could you let me know, so I know not to do it in the future? I feel like you very often get this vibe from me and self-righteousness is really not a big part of how I react to things. I'm way more likely to get emotional and angry than to be all "I am up here, and you are down here."

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I, uh, don't think most people think that cats are evil, and I really don't get your issue there. But it's a pretty natural choice if you're looking for something that exterminates mice. I don't think it's going on anything but that.

No, I think that people should go on something that challenges their current worldview rather than affirming it.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

haha

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Maybe Sophie Scholl is a good tabby.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Hm, interesting. I'll definitely think about it (which is probably more productive than me being put off or just ignoring it anyway). My first guess is that it has something to do with sarcasm and/or ridicule. Ridicule usually condemns--and puts out of the sphere of argument--a point far better than arguing against it and therefore respecting and taking it seriously as an argument. Maybe sometimes ridicule is warranted, but I think one should be careful. And it's the not even taking it seriously as an argument part that seems, I guess, "I am up here, and you are down here." That's my initial impression about why I respond that way, at least.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I'm also not the first to make that (or a similar) point about ridicule, fwiw. I know Nietzsche and DFW have, and who knows who else.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I suppose you could choose owls instead. They kill a lot of mice. But I don't really think that's any better, except that it's a little less what owls get stereotyped as in Western cultures, I guess.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I'm really just not concerned about animal stereotypes, except insofar as "cute and fuzzy" animals get treated better (or sometimes bought and then dumped later on when people can't take care of them in greater numbers) than others, which is stupid.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Also, at least with Martel's interviews, you're actually reacting to what Martel himself has said about (even better) why he chose to represent Jews as he did. It's probably a safe bet that you're not going to get that much more out of...whatever he created. If you were just going on the representation as monkeys or donkeys, that would be different. I, for one, would be like "What the fuck? Monkeys?"

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Okay, prepare for a lot of emotional irrationality here. Just to warn you.

I want to point out that a lot of things eat mice. Even wolves eat mice. I am pretty positive that dogs eat mice. But yeah, I'm sure he is just starting with hey, they called Jews vermin, so I'll follow that and make cats Nazis. But I feel like given the way people read Nazis (as the ultimate evil incarnate blah blah... something I don't agree with, but something I know people think), making an entire species of animal represent something that weighty... bothers me. I think if he did, you know, the whole thing with various types of birds or lizards or something I wouldn't have this reaction, because nobody thinks, "oh yeah, goddamn sparrows, I fucking hate those bastards, they probably ARE Nazis." But I guess I feel that there are people that would think that about cats. I'm not sure if there is any animal that is as easily coded as evil in Western culture as a cat. Maybe like... a hyena? Yeah, maybe a hyena/jackal type thing. But that's not exactly common. I guess people see snakes as evil too, for Biblical reasons, although it is rare for a snake to come up in pop culture. Unless it's Britney Spears dancing with one.

I mean, they say it semi-jokingly, but I have heard a lot of people say "cats are evil," and there are so many movies where cats are treated like shit that can get chainsawed in half (whereas when a dog dies, it's typically a noble death a la I Am Legend, or something that is meant to really elicit emotion because the Dog Was Such a Good Guy). So that's why I think it's taking a shortcut to "good" and "evil," and why I think it's lazy. Partly because I really do feel that's how cats are coded in Western culture, and hell, if you want to challenge stereotypes, make your Nazis penguins. Nobody thinks penguins are evil. And once again, I do get that he's coming from the starting point of the Jews = vermin thing. But I fear that the end result is yet another example of cats being evil bastards that should be drowned.

This is a pretty crazy reaction on my part, I know. But I once wrote a story dedicated to the cats that were burned with the witches in Salem (and as I recall I wanted the Church to like... apologize for killing cats?). So... yeah.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Dude, most people love cats. They're all cute and fuzzy and shit. Now, snakes--there is an animal that gets a lot of shit. And eats mice, for that matter. Probably better to make the Nazis cats than mice, though, b/c at least cats have the possibility of being good. Snakes are just like, pure evil.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

oops, I meant "cats than snakes," haha.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

And if you don't think cats have the possibility of being good, I'm pretty sure I can come up with a bunch of examples of positive portrayals of cats, but I really don't want to do something that pointless, so please don't make me.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

So in this case, "the argument" being the use of animals to symbolize ethnic groups? And that's what I don't seem to be taking seriously? I mean, just to be clear on what exactly I seem to be condemning and not respecting.

I feel like I write more in anger than ridicule, is the thing. Anger on the behalf of animals (and I kind of wonder about how sane that is), but anger just the same. And that's probably why it comes across that I'm not even going to allow for the possibility that it could be done ok. I think that I should probably be careful about using sweeping generalizations and hyperbole - I guess I'm used to reading that, and assuming that everyone writes that way on the internet. And I think it's also a problem of very short posts. In any case, I will work on that.

TBH I still don't see it as ridicule because it feels more like "this angers me so much I can't even talk about it," not... "ha ha you are so stupid and I will laugh at you." But maybe that's just how I read it, and in any case, it still means I'm not taking it seriously as a... literary device. I don't know, I really am not a fan of ridicule and I'd rather be an irrational angry person than someone who ridicules.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Man, I really really disagree with you on the "most people love cats" thing, but maybe it's just the people that hate them that really make their opinions known, and the silent majority doesn't think they're evil.

Yeah, you're probably right - better cats than snakes. I still say better, like, eagles than cats. Because everybody loves eagles and they eat mice. I think.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Hm...not only that, but like, Maus's legitimacy as a work of art, insofar as it's related to your point. Like the whole work gets dismissed b/c you see it as doing this one thing with animals. Because we should never do this with animals, so we should never create things like Maus, regardless of what he has to say or what his motivations were for choosing the representations or anything.

What's giving me the impression of ridicule: "Hey hey hey hey,or: we could" and "Just a thought!" The sort of sarcastic, 'Hey let me make this obvious point that you are too stupid to realize because you just stereotype animals and ethnic groups.'

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

LOL, that's okay. I know that there are positive portrayals (like the Aristocats!), but I still think it's overall a more negative portrayal than a positive one - especially within the Tom and Jerry motif. You get cats on their own (like in "Cats") and there's a better chance of a positive portrayal. But as soon as other animals enter the picture, the chance that the cat winds up as the antagonist skyrockets.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

People devote whole stores to how much they love cats. With cats in them. People make movies like The Aristocats and The Lion King. People post thousands of pictures of cute kittens. People make lolcats. There are cat posters, cat figurines, cat supplies and luxuries, cat hotels for chrissake (and if that isn't exorbitant ridiculousness, I don't know what is). I don't really know much about Cats, but I don't think they were all villains there. There are crazy cat ladies. I'm pretty sure there are as many cat supporters as dog supporters, they just have like this bitter feud that I don't get. I like cats and dogs. I'm more used to cats than dogs, but I recognize that it's not really based on anything but that.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Oh god. Who cares?

(btw, I hate Tom & Jerry, but it's nothing to do with cats. It's just that it makes me uncomfortable, like most American comedies.)

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

I don't personally see it as dismissing the entire work as much as criticizing this thing that the work does. I don't know, I'm very used to criticizing bits and pieces of things without making that a dismissal of the entire thing. There's things I dislike in work that I like and I'd be ok with pointing that out. But I take your point.

Hm, okay. It is definitely sarcastic, and I see how it reads that way. I think some of my natural voice just comes out that way, even when it's kind of a hysterical anger/disbelief that I'm actually feeling.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Also, while I'm sure there are a hundred reasons why this is an invalid statistic (I can think of a few), fwiw: "bad OR evil cats" gets 30,500,000 google results, and "good cats" gets 70,000,000. I think half of them are lolcats either way. :P

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Hey, I warned you that it's emotional irrationality. I don't even know why I care so much at this point, but I always have.

The reason I hated Tom & Jerry was the cat thing, although it really wouldn't work with any animal combination. See the rest of Looney Toons (is that how you spell it?).

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

I think that would be better. I mean, owls are usually read as wise.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Yes, the wise Nazis. That would be lol (people's reactions would, at least). Cats are usually supposed to be smart too. Haha.

I am beyond the point of taking this seriously, sorry, as I don't care about animal representations except insofar as they lead to problems in how we treat animals, which, currently, has more to do with people being like "Awww a cute kitten" and then letting it destroy the ecosystem or have tons of babies they can't take care of or abandoning it.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't have any proof that animal stereotypes cause people to kill animals. Like I said, not harmful or evil necessarily, just something that makes the eight-year-old girl inside me cry.