The Lives of Animals

John Bernard picks up his novelist mother, Elizabeth Costello, from the airport. Elizabeth has been invited to speak at Appleton College in Waltham, where John works as an assistant professor of astronomy and physics. John is shocked at his mother’s aged appearance, noting her white hair and “flabby” skin. They drive to John’s home and are greeted by his wife, Norma, and their children. Norma and Elizabeth do not get along, and neither Norma nor John are looking forward to Elizabeth’s three-day visit. At dinner, Elizabeth questions why only three places have been set, and while Norma tries to avoid answering, John steps in and explains that the children are eating in the playroom because they are having chicken and Elizabeth does not like to see meat served for dinner. They do not want to adapt the children’s diet for her brief stay, so removing them from Elizabeth’s view is deemed best.

John and Elizabeth do not share a last name, so when she was invited to speak at Appleton College no one knew they were related, which is how John preferred it. He claims he does not feel ashamed of his mother and does not want to be impacted by her fame. Elizabeth has written several popular novels and has a newsletter based out of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Instead of speaking about her writing, Elizabeth has elected to speak about animal rights. The lectures upset John because he does not want to listen to Norma’s complaints. Norma and John married while in graduate school at Johns Hopkins, and Norma, who holds a Ph.D. in philosophy, has not secured a career in teaching, which has resulted in marital conflicts. John believes his mother would dislike any woman he chose to marry, and Norma often complains about Elizabeth to him. Norma is currently writing about an experiment on teaching language to primates, and John worries that Elizabeth will criticize it. He does not value animals; his only contact with animals was with pet hamsters for a short time as a child. His son wants a puppy, but he and Norma do not want the trouble of having an adult dog. He feels that his mother’s work is propaganda but knows she is entitled to do as she pleases.

Elizabeth’s first lecture is held in the afternoon and is introduced by Elaine Marx, who works in the English Department and has studied and written about Elizabeth. John thinks Elizabeth looks tired and wishes her strength as she begins her lecture. She begins by citing Franz Kafka’s “Report to an Academy”—a short story about Red Peter, an ape shot by hunters, taken into captivity, and trained to emulate humans. Elizabeth compares herself to Red Peter and explains that the ape performing for humans is an allegory for Kafka, who was a Jewish man, performing for “Gentiles,” or non-Jewish people. John thinks his mother “lacks animation,” and reflects on her poor performances telling bedtime stories. He assumes that the audience will not want to listen to Elizabeth talk about death. Elizabeth announces she will skip over the gruesome details of modern-day animal cruelty then compares such animal cruelty to the Holocaust.

Elizabeth argues that people living near concentration camps were ignorant yet guilty of inhumanity. She highlights the dehumanizing language used to describe the people in concentration camps. She discusses the concept of social pollution, which defines what is “dirty” and useless in a culture by what is found on the margins and considered “matter out of place” by the status quo. The concept of pollution comes from cultural anthropology and is explored in the classic Purity and Danger. Elizabeth argues that by treating the individuals in the camps as beasts, the Nazis became beastlike. Elizabeth compares her audience and the general public to those who were ignorant of what happened in concentration camps. She argues that they are surrounded by cruelty and killing that surpasses what the Third Reich was capable of. Elizabeth apologizes for taking a “cheap point” and says she will use calm and philosophical language moving forward and cites the thoughts of prominent philosophers.

Saint Thomas, Plato, and Descartes all supported the idea that “God is a God of reason” (22), but Elizabeth argues that reason is not the being of God nor the universe. She argues that reason is part of the spectrum of human thought. While she scorns reason, Elizabeth feels her audience will only listen to her if she uses reason. By referring to a self-taught mathematician named Ramanujan, Elizabeth suggests that one’s reasoning abilities does not impact one’s divinity. Reason is rigorously studied and is not an implicit skill. Since Western cultures value reason-based thinking, they use it as their basis for judging others: “Of course reason will validate reason as the first principle of the universe—what else should it to? Dethrone itself?” (25). Animals cannot communicate on human terms, but great apes come close, and some argue they should receive “humanoid rights.” Elizabeth suggests Red Peter might have been inspired by the work of Wolfgang Köhler, a psychologist at the Prussian Academy of Sciences who studied chimpanzees. She cites the similarities between Köhler’s The Mentality of Apes (1917) and Kafka’s “A Report to an Academy.” Sultan, one of Köhler’s apes, had his food placed out of reach and was given tools to reach the food. He was starved into thinking how humans wanted him to think, but what he was truly pondering was how to escape—“Where is home, and how do I get there?” (30). She turns to discussing Red Peter’s female companion and how Red Peter should not have procreated. Norma whispers to John that Elizabeth is rambling.

Elizabeth discusses an essay by Thomas Nagel, “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?,” in which Nagel concludes humans can only imagine what it is like to behave as a bat and cannot relate to a bat’s lived experience of life. Elizabeth has imagined herself as a corpse, and she feels that if people are capable of imagining death, they can imagine what it is like to be a bat. Bats have as much “being” as humans. She defines being as body-soul living. Thus, animals have souls. Elizabeth criticizes Descartes for comparing animals to machines and for his famous line “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes’s line suggests that animals which do not share the same cognitive faculties as humans are lesser. Elizabeth posits that confinement is the most effective way to harm a creature. Returning to concentration camps, she declares that lack of sympathy is the true form of the Nazis’ and the bystanders’ inhumanity. Some people can assume someone else’s perspective, while some others—"psychopaths”—do not have the capability or refuse to use it. If people can imagine the perspectives of fictional characters, they can imagine the being of animals. Elizabeth concludes her lecture with a direct comparison of slaughterhouses to concentration camps. She reminds the audience that, while people like to imagine that those who participated in or ignored concentration camps felt guilt or experienced hardships as a result, most experienced no form of punishment.

After her lecture, Elizabeth takes questions. Norma raises her hand, but John pleads for her to stay quiet. Another attendee is called on, and he asks Elizabeth to clarify the purpose of her lecture. She answers that she aims to examine the reasons for prescriptions rather than assigning prescriptions.

That evening, they attend a dinner party for Elizabeth’s visit. John and Norma, who were not initially invited, are the “lowliest” guests. John judges that the menu will prove a source of contention and believes that the guests will be dissatisfied without meat-based meals. He dreads the idea that his mother will explain why she is vegetarian and that he will have to repair the damage. He wishes Elizabeth had not come and resents the “price he is paying” for her visit (38).

One guest, Abraham Stern, is missing from the dinner. Elizabeth and Ruth Orkin, a psychology professor, discuss an experiment in which a chimp sorted pictures of chimpanzees and humans, and the chimp put her picture into the human pile. They agree they cannot know why the chimp sorted herself into the human pile.

The menu consists of tomato soup for the first course and a choice between fish or fettuccini for the main course. Most guests order fettuccini. The president of the college, Garrard, examines the connection between religion and dietary restrictions. Wunderlich, a professor from England, says dietary restrictions are due to the concepts of “clean” and “unclean.” John joins the conversation, saying animals are seen as unclean because they have no shame. Garrard’s wife, Olivia, interjects that animals are separate from humans because they do not mix with them, but Norma disagrees saying humans mix with animals by eating them. Wunderlich suggests that ancient Greek people ritualized killing to make it clean, and Elizabeth counters that gods were created so humans could blame gods for giving them permission to “play with unclean things” (41). Norma argues that people eat what they are taught and argues that vegetarianism is just an elite dietary ban. Elizabeth counters citing Gandhi, who maintained his vegetarian diet while in England despite the difficulty of finding food. Thomas O’Hearne thinks that Gandhi’s vegetarianism was not authentic because it was a result of a promise made to his mother.

Garrard asks Elizabeth about her choice to maintain a vegetarian diet, and she says it is to save her soul; however, she wears leather. Dean Arendt notes vegetarianism is strange because the animals are unaware of the impact. Elizabeth questions why the lack of awareness matters, and Wunderlich supports her saying that human infants do not have awareness, yet they are treated with compassion. Elizabeth suggests humans do not understand the universe better than animals. Norma tries to respond to Elizabeth but John stops her by standing up to leave.