Coetzee's Elizabeth Costello

"There is first of all the problem of the opening, namely, how to get us from where we are, which is, as yet, nowhere, to the far bank. It is a simple bridging problem, a problem of knocking together a bridge. People solve such problems every day. They solve them, and having solved them push on" (Coetzee, 1). This is the very first paragraph of the book, and it's the most intriguing introduction I have ever read. It's so abstract, yet the title of the chapter is Realism. I read on the next couple of chapters and realized that they are not even part of the assignment! I didn't mind; the assignment, however, was an interesting read as well. Personally, I'm a numbers type of guy, and when Coetzee points out that we only die once, I was shocked at the realism of that statement. "We have only one death of our own; we can comprehend the deaths of others only one at a time. In the Abstract we may be able to count to a million, but we cannot count to a million deaths" (Coetzee, 63).

These are only 75 deaths, but I can only see them one at a time


How true that line is? It still shocks me. I think this is because there is difference between seeing (or talking) and doing. People, in general, have always claimed to trust what their eyes can see, what their hands can touch, what their senses can pick up. Another man's (human's) word is simply that, their word. It means nothing, but in today's world of marvels, there is the wonder of technology and there is no more room for doubt. I used to believe that dairy cows were the most happiest cows, and their farmer's would treat them nice, but technology, with its wonder of capturing video, has bursted my bubble. I would like to believe that I react with the same fervor as do the people around me (in this case, people in general), I only abandoned my perception when confronted with proof that proves me wrong. This I think is the major problem.

We are clearly above animals... NOT!


People like to be right. It is in our nature, and there is also the view of the consensus which is considered to be right; this is because people also like to share beliefs. I never really thought of where meat comes from or where leather comes from because people around me never really thought of it. When subject is being discussed, people will, at random, jump into the discussion and offer their opinion, but in the case of animal rights, there is little discussion expect of course in Elizabeth Costello, plenty of discussion there. Humans with our abstract thinking honour many things by setting aside a particular day in the year and marking it on the calendar. Birthday, Peace Day, Hunger Day, MLK Day... etc., but what about a day for the animal (apparently, October 4 is not well known)? It appears that animals are considered to be below humans. Whether this is true or not is relevant only to the concerned because the consensus in the world is that animals are below humans.

Happy October 4!!!


This view of animals brought about the obvious in my mind. Humans are viewed as above animals. It's not that animals are actually below us, but the fact that humans feel the need to be superior. To feel differently is to violate the consensus of the world. Galileo tried that once; he was right, but that didn't matter to the Church. My only problem with the consensus is that some humans are considered beasts, "By treating fellow humans like beasts... they themselves had become beasts" (Coetzee, 65). We are human, yet we are (can be) animals; there is a condescending connotation in this sentence that helps the understanding of a consensus belief. It is only natural for humans as predators to consume animals. If this is true then humans are animals, and they are no longer superior, but if this is true, then we must also carry all the qualities that are associated with animals, yet we cannot fly or run with the ferocity of animals. We can't see in the dark, and our hearing doesn't even compare to animals. Obviously, our animal nature is different. Our nature is to understand, "to get from where we are which as of yet is nowhere to the far bank, this is a simple bridging problem... People solve such problems everyday and having solved them, push on" (Coetzee, 1). This is our nature; we strive to understand everything we can about every 'far bank,' so as to bridge the gap and be able to connect with each and every 'far bank.' It's our nature to employ all of the tools necessary to bridge this gap which are namely logic, religion, science, nature, emotion. We have five senses for understanding the world as we have five actual senses.

We use these five senses of understanding to reason with one another and settle arguments. This happens when the consensus is in challenge. When Galileo challenged the notion that perhaps the sun, not the Earth, is the center of the solar system; the senses of understanding reasoned that who is this one man to question the word of the Church. Eventually he proved to be right. The current argument in consensus is animal rights. Are humans right to consume them? Are they superior? If indeed humans are superior then we preside over animals like the strong preside over the vulnerable. We are their guardians in a sense and then, aren't we responsible for them? The answer is simply no. We are responsible for our own actions; doing nothing is also an action, so every single human is responsible for the means by which animals are slaughtered. To treat others as beasts is to become the beast (as I quoted Coetzee earlier). The logic, nature, emotion and science senses deduce that we must do something either accept the current fate and slaughter methods of animals or change it, but we must do something. The religious sense gives us the position that it is okay for either action. There is a reason for choice, and we must choose which side of this argument to support. One can take the Hindu approach in which "[they] might be reborn as animals" (Anthology, 348), or one can take the Greek approach in which "[one] offers oblations to the gods before consuming fuel, animals, and vegetables" (Anthology, 349). With the religious sense, the human emotion of fear is epitomized. If people don't do things in a certain manner, there will be consequences, and people fear the negative consequences of defying the word of God or of the Gods!

Maybe we are PLASTIC PEOPLE for whom Loving is Dead!


In the argument concerning animals, there will be an eventual victor in the consensus argument, and people everywhere will have to accept the result or start a whole new argument. The battle between both sides has begun, but the winning side is determined not through their understanding of the argument but through the number of people on their side, through the notion of superiority, through the 'right' argument that will swing the masses of people who if not for this 'right' argument would rather do nothing. It may seem that I'm arguing for the side that wishes to create some change, but this is only because currently, that is the only action being taken. After it is determined that change is necessary, the people will argue on how to change the current state of animals for the better. Our nature of understanding will force us to 'push on' further and further until there are no more 'far banks' to connect with, until we have bridged all the gaps, but all I want to do is take the animals onto the ark to which no bridge can connect to because for as long as we seek to understand animals our nature will force us to push on, but to help animals, we must let them be. To do this, you must use your emotional understanding and feel for the animals. We should not fear for our fate or reason a better state of being. We must create because we feel it necessary because it our emotional nature is what leads us to push on, so we must use it to push on in a different direction!