ENGLISH: This book by a Nobel Prize, well-known vegetarian, defender of the rights of animals, is very well written and tries to keep an impartial tone where the main character, Elizabeth Costello, defends her position in public, is answered by those who do not share her ideas, and sometimes even cannot answer.

ESPAÑOL: Este libro de un Premio Nobel, conocido vegetariano, defensor de los derechos de los animales, está muy bien escrito y trata de mantener un tono imparcial. El personaje principal, Elizabeth Costello, defiende su postura en público, le responden quienes no comparten sus ideas, y algunas veces no encuentra respuesta.

"I was about to say that!" but in book form
Animal rights, metafiction, commentary from Peter Singer and a Jane-Goodall figure. Awesome book.

As someone who has grown up around animal activism, I find this book fascinating from its exploration of the different ways that activism operates in society; how it is exerted, how it is received, how it is pushed back against, and how it changes people’s ways of thinking.

I find it interesting that Elizabeth Costello, the animal activist and lecturer in this story, is not the best public speaker, nor are her arguments the most succinct or hard-hitting. She often does not have adequate answers to others’ inquiries, and her own speeches are incredibly convoluted and full of unnecessary philosophizing.

In this way, it’s real. It shows the real emotions that activists have, and their inability to articulate exactly what they believe and feel, even when it is so near to their hearts. Anyone who has done activism, particularly for a movement that is less accepted or normalized, such as animal rights, will have been Costello before to some degree.

I don’t think this is the best book about animal rights, by any means. Costello’s overly wordy arguments see to that. But I don’t think it’s necessarily trying to be. And I do think it’s pretty well-written, and interesting to read for someone who is vegan and has experience with animal activism.

Coetzee, how could you? Really, a holocaust metaphor? Eating meat is not the same at that. Ugh

This thought-provoking philosophical novella, originally delivered as a lecture by Coetzee at Princeton University in 1997-1998, takes the form of a fictional lecture delivered by fictional writer Elizabeth Costello at a fictional university. Costello argues in favor of animal rights and against the killing and eating of animals, sometimes resorting to prickly analogies in the process. Her lecture and subsequent roundtable conversation and philosophical debate are filtered through the point of view of her son, John Bernard, who reflects critically on her ideas. John's reflections are in turn supplemented by the occasional scathing commentary of his wife, an angry philosopher named Norma. The Lives of Animals is not really a story, but it's not really a treatise, either, given that its metafictional components give Coetzee a built-in mechanism by which to distance himself from Costello's positions, which may or may not be his own. It raises a series of difficult questions, but it doesn't offer a clear, authoritative answer to any of them. Even Elizabeth Costello, as passionate as she is, is often uncertain about her ideas-- "I don't know what I think," she tells her audience at one point-- and their ramifications: "I don't know what I want to do. I just don't want to sit silent."

Costello also argues with members of her audience about reason, philosophy, analogy, and poetry. To what extent can we use them to arrive at meaningful insights on animals' lives and their value? What are their respective strengths and limitations? Costello praises "poetry that does not try to find an idea in the animal, that is not about the animal, but is instead the record of an engagement with him," arguing that such poetry can offer readers the experience of "embody[ing] animals," but many of her listeners are critical of this idea. I wouldn't say that I arrived at any definitive conclusions of my own through reading this book, but it did offer me the pleasure of feeling like I was present in a seminar, listening in on a fascinating and heated conversation among brilliant thinkers.

If I really wanted my review to capture this book's spirit, I'd write it in the form of a fictional discussion of it between myself-- or my fictionalized alter ego-- and someone else, but I'm not quite determined enough to take that on.

This edition contains companion essays by scholars across disciplines (literary criticism, philosophy, primatology, and religious studies) written in response to Coetzee's-- er, Costello's-- lecture.

Avoid at all costs

A philosophical exploration of why we should not eat animals.

Honestly, I was hoping for a more impassioned argument from Coetzee, or I should say Elizabeth Costello, for the rights of animals. Killing is pain, why isn’t the goal of humanity, the most “enlightened” and “intelligent” species, to reduce the net pain experienced in the world? Why are we harming these being-full beings?

Instead, Costello continues to fall into the black hole of religious reasoning, which rings hollow to me. Her character, supposedly deeply empathetic to animals, would argue for their being-ness, not about who was made in gods image.

Philosophy’s practical uselessness aside, it was interesting to see a more intellectual approach to a lifestyle born out of compassion in myself. I felt more relation to the ideas of the last Reflection essay attached to the lecture, by Barbara Smuts. She tells a beautiful story of seeing the soul and, for lack of a better word, humanity, of the baboons she works with over a period of years. And then of the same trusting, complicated bond she forms with her dog. She captured my personal thoughts better than Coetzee. Animals are just like humans. They have desires, hungers, pains, and goals. We don’t understand them, they don’t understand us. Just because we have power over animals does not mean it is just to use that power on beings that are just as deserving and wanting of life as us. If a group of humans has power over another, and does not understand them, historically there would be violence and subjugation. But we evolved past this mindset as a society. It’s time to expand the borders of that inclusivity.

Philosophical approach to understanding the animal rights debate, even though character is a self proclaimed “non-philosopher”.

Sure, there's a lot of cerebral stuff to talk about with this book. But, that doesn't make it a good read. My poor, poor Freshman Writing students...

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.

Le conferenze di Coetzee sotto forma di racconto alle Tanner Lectures presso la Princeton University:

"... si concentrano su una questione etica importante: il modo in cui gli esseri umani trattano gli animali."

Coetzee crea un romanzo con un suo personaggio, Elisabeth Costello scrittrice, invitata a tenere delle conferenze in una università.

La signora Costello é un'anziana donna, stanca e sfiduciata dell'umano essere e dei suoi comportamenti criminali.

E mentre l'aspettativa degli uditori é sentirla parlare di letteratura e di critica letteraria, lei:

"(...) si avvale della circostanza per parlare di quello che considera un crimine di proporzioni stupefacenti, un crimine perpetrato comunemente e senza batter ciglio dai suoi colleghi accademici e dagli esseri umani in genere: il maltrattamento degli animali."

Il discorso si dipana e prende inizio dagli antici greci, dove il sacrificio dell'animale era il "fare/rendere sacro" un atto, già allora percepito come qualcosa di estremamente grave e importante e innaturale, quale mangiarne la carne, alle religioni monoteiste con i loro tabù e leggi inerenti il suo consumo... all'Olocausto dove la semantica fa di questi accostamenti: gli uomini vi venivano macellati, sono andati a morire come animali al macello...

I campi di concentramento sono paragonati ai mattatoi, che nessuno di noi sa, né tantomeno vuole sapere dove si trovino, il loro trasposto rimanda alle deportazioni e, allora come oggi, nessuno vede, nessuno sa, nessuno vuol vedere, proprio come gli uomini e le donne che abitavano poco lontano dalle stazioni e dai lager.

E l'accostamento prosegue e va oltre, Coetzee/Costello ci dice che siamo capaci anche di fare peggio che sterminare milioni di uomini e animali: contrariamente ai lager dove milioni di uomini vi sono morti, agli animali che già vi passano la loro breve esistenza in condizioni terrificanti, per poi venir ammazzati e mangiati, noi li obblighiamo anche a riprodursi, con metodi ancora più aberranti, e poi torniamo a sterminarli, in una catena di sangue e di orrori che appare senza fine.

Per me, imprescindibile lettura, anche se é stato un pugno in faccia.

Consiglio anche di leggere in parallelo: Plutarco: "Del mangiar carne, Trattati degli animali".

Coetzee è uno scrittore premio Nobel dichiaratamente vegetariano e che si è esposto pubblicamente più volte sulla questione animale. Nella puntata ti parlo di due suoi romanzi usciti nel 1999 e che secondo me sono complementari: “La vita degli animali” e “Vergogna”.

“La vita degli animali” è l’opera di Coetzee più nota, discussa, celebrata, dal punto di vista della trattazione della questione animale, è considerato un po’ un pamphlet animalista, una manifesto. Ed è la prima opera in cui compare l'alter ego di Coetzee, Elizabeth Costello.

Si tratta di un meta-romanzo in cui la protagonista fa una critica molto netta alla filosofia rispetto alla trattazione della questione animale, in particolare ad alcune correnti filosofiche: quella razionalista, cartesiana, quella utilitaristica di Peter Singer (il filosofo di Liberazione Animale) e l'ecologismo.

Le intuizioni sulla necessità di empatia nei confronti degli animali che in “La vita degli animali” restano in qualche modo astratte, teoriche, hanno modo di concretizzarsi invece in “Vergogna”, un romanzo che ha per protagonista un uomo che compie un percorso dallo stato di disgrazia a uno stato di apertura, comprensione ed empatia, soprattutto grazie e attraverso l'incontro con gli animali.

Ascolta la puntata del mio podcast su "la Vita degli animali" e "Vergogna"

https://open.spotify.com/episode/6S3n...