Reviews

The Lives of Animals by Amy Gutmann, J.M. Coetzee, Wendy Doniger, Barbara Smuts, Peter Singer, Marjorie Garber

commander_morgan's review

challenging reflective

3.5

Coetzee has some really wonderful insight and the metafiction of it all is really very interesting.  I admit I enjoyed the reflections more than I enjoyed the actual narrative, particularly Singer's and Smuts's - Barbara Smuts's account of her time living with baboons was fascinating and beautiful, as were her stories of her life with her dog, Safi. She does a magnificent job of illustrating that human-nonhuman friendships are not only theoretically possible, but actively rewarding and enriching in ways that human-human friendships cannot be. I also appreciate the discussions about the social implications of dietary restrictions, and I think both Norma and Elizabeth make interesting points. Some people may behave as though their particular diet gives them moral superiority, but that doesn't mean that (Western) society caters to people with special diets, nor does it mean that people with special diets have an elevated place in Western society. I find oftentimes even though I am not fully vegetarian, I am expected to justify why I choose to simply eat less meat. As though people I mention this to feel entitled to know my reasons, as though they think I am obligated to explain myself to them. It comes with questions, and assumptions. 

 Additionally, I think it would be a good rule for us all to follow to just stop comparing things to the Holocaust. Singer is much more gracious about this topic in his reflection than I am able to be. If you are about to compare something to the Holocaust, or to the experience of Jews in death camps, just stop. Comparison does not necessitate equation, but for fuck's sake, can everybody and their cousin stop appropriating Jewish suffering as a tool to push their own agendas? I no longer care if the agenda is one I personally agree with - I do agree with many of the points in this work, and in general with the cause of animal rights. But two creatures that suffer are not necessarily comparable or similar in any way other than the simple fact that they suffer. I understand that part of why this particular analogy was included was to make a point about the normalcy of the meat industry despite the horrors involved, and that, most likely, it was intended to shock. But that doesn't change my position. In the epilogue of the Handmaid's Tale, Margaret Atwood mentions that Gilead dumped a boatload of Jews in the ocean and let them drown. This is, to my recollection, the only times Jews are mentioned in the whole novel. What is any of this, but making theatre out of Jewish suffering? Commodifying 5,000 years of pain and death for a personal agenda.  

If you feel you cannot make your point without comparing it to the Holocaust, then maybe you need to think about your position more before you open your mouth.  

coronaurora's review against another edition

4.0

I have always admired Coetzee's talent in breaking walls between fiction and philosophy through tropes like diaries and lectures. He brings back the indefatigable Elizabeth Costello whose later outpourings and intellectual brawls atop a cruise I devoured with satisfaction.

Here she is seen delivering two lectures that see the discourse of vegetarianism refracted through cherry-picked arguments and projections from philosophers and poets. Alternating with her impassioned speeches is a minor but effective little drama with her son and daughter-in-law who she is staying with temporarily and who find themselves at loggerheads with her newfound activism.

I found the whole exercise inventive with the fictional scaffolding allowing some much needed air into an idea and argument-dense text. Costello's humane plea for a fully realised empathy with the non-humans really gains traction from all the contrarian intellectual and theological arguments that she is made to face out-of-her-sight by Coetzee in a stream of continuous private judgements by the son attending her lectures and directly as she fields questions from the floor by attending intellectuals and from her family.

From denouncing Reason to celebrating poetic invention in imagining the moving, "electric" being of animal, from the recency of animal rights to the anthropocentric bent of all animal experimentation for Intelligence, this erudite yet slim volume brings to table a fair amount of valid and persuasive questions that can test the moral and existential convictions of the staunchest of "thinking" non-vegetarians.

I rather enjoyed this little tease of a book that poked and exposed some of the holes in my own privately held beliefs. A nice little companion piece to Eating Animals by Safran Foer.

rousse97's review

adventurous challenging informative lighthearted reflective tense fast-paced

• Plot- or character-driven? Character
• Strong character development? No
• Loveable characters? No
• Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
• Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.5

arash's review

informative reflective fast-paced

• Plot- or character-driven? Plot
• Strong character development? No
• Loveable characters? No
• Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
• Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

4.0

dana7878's review against another edition

4.0

I don't know what to rate this book, because I read it for a class, and 100% Did Not Get It until the lecture. But damn, have I been thinking about it a lot since then.

Spoiler

Elisabeth deeply, genuinely feels that she's witnessing a massacre every day, and her colleagues respond to this desperate cry for recognition with detachment, skepticism, scorn, and pity. These were also, tellingly, my own reactions to Elisabeth when I initially read this book without context. It's so easy to poke holes in someone's argument, and I think many of us do it automatically when controversial opinions are presented in an academic format. But geez- those skeptic goggles can make us really mean. I often remember Costello's breakdown when I'm tempted to dismiss somebody's opinion because they're emotional in presenting it.

Kind of a meta way to make this point, but it stuck, so thank you Coetzee.

dreiac's review against another edition

3.0

Not what I expected. The main character comes across as weak and lost. Also, advocating for animal rights’ whilst wearing leather shoes? No.

Some good points were made though and the debate was mostly enjoyable.

tomstbr's review against another edition

4.0

A short, classically argued case for vegetarianism. Told as a story about a woman arguing for vegetarianism, it makes its points felt without labouring any point too much. But it's all about the last scene. Good stuff.

hoorayleigh's review against another edition

4.0

Note: Barbara Smuts's response piece brought my rating up at least one whole star.

missbookiverse's review against another edition

4.0

Reread: Finally bought a copy for my own collection and immediately reread it. Still fantastic, thought-provoking musings on the way we treat animals set within an interesting fictional frame. Wish my edition also had the additional essays my library copy had had though.
________________________

In diesem Buch spielt J.M. Coetzee gekonnt mit der Metaebene. Nicht nur, dass er The Lives of Animals ursprünglich als Vortrag an der Princeton University hielt und diesen als fiktive Geschichte gestaltete, in der eine berühmte Autorin zwei Vorträge an einer Universität hält, auch die besagte Autorin, Elizabeth Costello, tritt zwei Jahre später in einem nach ihr benannten Buch von Coetzee wieder auf.

Costellos Vorträge drehen sich rund um das Thema Tiere und mit welchen moralischen und philosophischen Begründungen Menschen diese behandeln und beherrschen. Dank des fiktiven Erzählrahmens bleiben diese Gedanken stets zugänglich und gut verständlich. Die Thematik selbst wird weit geöffnet und räumt Platz für Kritik und Diskussionen ein, z.B. in Form des fiktiven Publikums. Schlussendlich werden keine finalen Thesen vorgegeben und Lesende können stattdessen Lesende ihre eigenen Schlüsse ziehen.

Die fünf Essays am Ende des Buches runden alles perfekt ab, denn sie bieten Dank ihrer Vielfalt (Literaturwissenschaft, Philosophie etc.) und ihres Abwechslungsreichtums Platz für weitere Überlegungen. Am liebsten mochte ich Peter Singers Essay, der selbst ein fiktives Gespräch zwischen Vater und Tochter entwirft, und den von Barbara Smuts, die von dem unglaublich intimen Verhältnis zu ihrem Hund erzählt.

hannahvangorder's review

reflective sad fast-paced

• Plot- or character-driven? A mix
• Strong character development? It's complicated
• Loveable characters? No
• Diverse cast of characters? No
• Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.75