I read this
novella because it won both the Scotiabank Giller Prize and the Rogers Writers’
Trust Prize for Fiction. Unfortunately,
I didn’t find it as extraordinary, insightful, and original as suggested by the
juries’ citations. It gets only 3 Stars from me.
The book begins
with Hermes and Apollo discussing “what it would be like if animals had human
intelligence” and Apollo betting that animals “would be even more unhappy than
humans are, if they had human intelligence.” This bet leads them to grant human
consciousness and linguistic skills to a group of dogs overnighting at a
Toronto veterinary clinic. Suddenly capable of more complex thought, the pack
is torn between those who resist their new consciousness, fearing the loss of
canine pack mentality, and want a return to their old instinct-driven ways, and
those who embrace the change. And human
intelligence does not necessarily foster dog/human relationships; only a poodle
named Majnoun ends up forming a real bond with a human.
The book
does offer some interesting speculation about how dogs see the world – a place
of almost overpowering sensual experiences, especially of the olfactory
kind: “There was, first, the lake
itself: sour, vegetal, fishy. Then there was the smell of geese, ducks and
other birds. More enticing still, there
was the smell of bird shit, which was the kind of hard salad sautéed in goose
fat.” And the dogs’ observations about
humans point out some of the absurdities of human behaviour: “it being astonishing to watch the already
pale beings applying creams to make themselves paler still. Was there something about white that brought
status? If so, what was the point of
drawing black circles around their eyes or red ones around their mouths?” Having a dog companion, I found myself
agreeing that my behaviour towards her might be interpreted as
condescending.
The setting
of Toronto will have added appeal for some readers, especially since actual
street and place names are used. These
names are somewhat disconcerting, however:
how would the dogs know these? I
agree with a review in the National Post
which suggests that the author “misses out on an opportunity to let the dogs
have a stab at naming their own world” (http://news.nationalpost.com/arts/andre-alexis-fifteen-dogs-reviewed-speaking-truth-to-happiness).
The book
addresses questions like “What . . . did it mean to be human?” and “what it
meant – if it meant anything at all – to be a dog.” Is human intelligence a gift or just an
“occasionally useful plague”? What is
the value of human consciousness if, as one of the dog argues, humans are so
limited in their perceptions? Does
awareness of one’s death hinder happiness?
What is the connection between abstract thoughts and language?
The problem
is that I found that the philosophical musings often overshadowed the
storyline. The book is more like a
series of anecdotes about the fate of each of the fifteen dogs. Only Majnoun’s story and that of Prince, the
dog poet, really held my interest. And
though it allows us to see the world from a different perspective, the book
does not provide profound insights. I
have to read the other books on the shortlists of the Giller and Writers’ Trust
awards to determine if I agree with the judges’ decisions, but I don’t see Fifteen Dogs as exceptional in quality.
No comments:
Post a Comment