It took me a little while to figure out what it was about
Jean George’s “Frightful’s Mountain” that bugged me so much, but I think I
nailed it down to this: This book is a Wikipedia entry on peregrine falcons and
falcon migration extended into a novel, not necessarily a novel itself.
Oh, it’s a good read-and-learn, don’t get me wrong. It’s
much more entertaining than reading Wikipedia. But it’s a rather boring novel.
None of the characters, including Frightful herself, a young peregrine falcon
to whom we are introduced through the eyes of Sam Gribley in George’s “My Side
of the Mountain,” are all that interesting from a writer’s point of view. You
have many stock, cardboard characters: The stoic fish and game warden, the
bird-stealing bandits, the construction workers going na-na-na when they’re
told about their environmental evils, the construction workers who sympathize
with the bland city kids hoping to effect change and the bird herself, doing
what birds do in, well, Wikipedia articles.
George does this, and painfully so – particularly during the
migration sequence. The science is clear, but the feeling, well, George
basically throws up her hands as if to say, “I don’t know what’s going on
inside the bird’s head, so I’m not really going to try to explain it to you.”
That’s great scientific writing, but poor technique when it comes to
novelizing.
Maybe it’s George’s intent to avoid anthropomorphism, which
I understand and applaud. But in doing so, George goes too far in the opposite
direction, robbing this bird of only the barest personality traits which anyone
who has long association with animals know are present in animals in spades,
whether we regard such traits as anthropomorphic or not. It is interesting to
note that at least one Amazon review of the book (one of the one-star reviews,
obviously) criticizes George for humanizing Frightful too much. I just don’t
see it.
Other writers – notably Felix Salten, Sterling North, and
others – have shown authors can be true to accurate portrayal of animal
behavior in a way that is warm, endearing, and worthy of empathy, while still
sticking to the facts and proceeding without over-anthropomorphizing. It all
comes down again and again to how the author chooses to tell his or her story.
And I guarantee Salten and North have done more with their storytelling to
rapproach the worlds of man and beast than many other authors with a more
scientific bent have accomplished.
This is good stuff for me to figure out, because it’s my dream to write a great animal tale. There are many roads to take when writing such a story and knowing I’m on a branch of that road that I like will take me a lot further in accomplishing my goal than sticking to the Wikipedia facts, essential as they are.
That it’s good stuff doesn’t mean I’m not going to break my
own guidelines. I tend to favor stories that lean towards anthropomorphism
simply because such writing captivated me as a child and still captivates me as
an adult as I read and re-read the stories of my youth. The success of such
titles shows me there’s a great hunger in the world for such storytelling, so I
will maintain my presence on that side of the road.
Those who say they don’t like anthropomorphism confuse me. Anthropomorphism,
despite the criticisms, has its place. Such a technique is a stellar way for an
author to help get his or her characters into the readers’ heads – just as
assigning animalistic qualities to humans (zoomorphism) does the same, as long
as the writer uses either technique as an element of the entire story, not
simply for the element itself. Again, it all comes down to a writer’s choices
and readers’ preferences.
No comments:
Post a Comment