Four legs good, two legs bad.

Lynne Patrick

No, I’m not about to go off on a post-Orwellian political riff. And nor do I have any particular beef with creatures who have more legs than I do. I’m not keen on creepy-crawly-bitey things, but as long as they keep a safe distance from me, I can share the world with them.

The world, but not my house. If I’m honest I have to say that though sharing the planet with creatures of any species is absolutely fine by me, I’d really prefer not to share my living space with any species other than human. I don’t object to animals, I’d never knowingly hurt one, but I’d rather they kept their distance. I realize that this makes me unsympathetic, unnatural and a thoroughly all-round Bad Person in the eyes of a significant portion of the race I belong to, and this post is probably going to generate a multitude of protesting, and possibly abusive, comments. But that’s how I am, that’s how it is, and I have no trouble facing myself in the mirror as a result.

Now we’ve got that out of the way, here’s a question I’ve often pondered. Why is it less acceptable in fiction to harm an animal than to harm a child? Is it also less acceptable in real life? Animal charities do seem to fare rather better than human ones.

When I used to frequent crime fiction festivals and conventions (can’t justify the expense these days, alas) a lot of anecdotes used to go around, about manuscripts sent back for amendment because the authors had dared to include a dog or cat which incurred damage at the hands of a villain. ‘You can’t kill the cat!’ outraged editors would proclaim. ‘The book will never sell.’

My favourite was Val McDermid’s story about the dog one of her baddest bad guys used to test drive (I was going to say as a guinea pig, but it seems inappropriate in this context) his horrendous instrument of torture. Apparently her editor deemed it unacceptable unless the dog was tranquillized first, so that it didn’t feel the pain. It was fine for the same horrendous etc etc to be used to dismember and cause untold agony to conscious human beings, but readers, claimed the editor, wouldn’t stand for the poor old dog being put through agony.

I don’t think there was a child involved in this case, but murder mysteries with maltreated child victims are far from uncommon. I find them hard to read, so they’re not my first choice, but if the key qualities I look for are firmly in place, I’ve been known to persevere. Heck, I once even got involved in writing one, during a brief association with another writer who suggested a collaborative effort. We got to 20,000 words, then it kind of ran out of steam. I still wonder if it was partly because I couldn’t handle a psychopathic serial killer who abducted little girls, even though my own little girl had grown and flown by then.

But that’s not really the point I’m making. Or question I’m asking.

Let’s weigh it up. Animals are sometimes germ-ridden, sometimes noisy, sometimes vicious, sometimes have a talent for seeking out and creating dirt and mess. They’re also sometimes affectionate and protective, and in need of protection themselves. Children are... Hm. Sometimes germ-ridden, sometimes noisy, sometimes vicious, sometimes have a talent for seeking out and creating dirt and mess. They’re also sometimes affectionate, and usually in need of protection.

Pretty evenly balanced, wouldn’t you say?

It’s no secret that I’d rather keep company with children than with animals. That given the proverbial burning building and one opportunity to save an occupant, I’d grab the child without a second thought and leave the dog to find its own way out, even if the child wasn’t mine? I’d probably even grab an adult first. And that if I have to read about a psychopath inflicting pain, I’d rather he inflicted it on a defenceless animal than a defenceless child.

Am I really being unnatural and unsympathetic?

Let the hate mail begin.

Comments

[Melissa A]

I'm not sure why that is... but it's true for me. I will put down a book, walk out of a movie, or turn off a TV show never to return if a dog is killed. Kids? Eh.

Maybe it has to do with degree of helplessness. Dogs are 100% dependent on their human owners. They're not allowed to eat or even PEE without permission. They can be given away, turned out, or even killed at their owner's whim. The vast majority of dogs in the world (and yes, even a fair percentage in the US) live hard, uncertain lives of neglect or abuse.

Children have more champions. They also have thumbs and the ability to speak. The percentage of abuse and neglect is lower. Yes, there's a LOT of poverty, but poverty isn't equivalent to unloved, neglected, or abused.

Or maybe it just comes down to personal preferences. I don't have or want children. Ever. They annoy me. But animals are my heart and soul. I never ever get lonely, because I'm never without animals of some kind.

[ABE]

It depends on the purpose an author has for hurting a child OR animal, and on how well the author achieves her goals when doing so.

I was going to write, 'it depends on the execution' of that intent (silly Freudian mind), but it does: everyone with a heart loved Old Yeller - the purpose there was 1) to protect the dog from further pain, and 2) to protect the humans - after all, the dog had already sacrificed itself for them. It had no other possible outcome.

There's a SF story I love, 'The Cold Equations,' where one person has to space herself so that a colony might be saved. Again, the options are few - and all of them have a negative outcome.

Fiction helps humans learn about such choices vicariously. If it does that well, it has achieved one of its purposes.

But humans are not a homogeneous bunch, so 'achieved its purpose' is subjective.

Some people like cozy mysteries - but they want a dead body in it somewhere.

I agree with you, though, that the critters we share our outside world with are happier outside (food, potential mates) than living in my basement. Sometimes I can get them out - other times, well...

Alicia