On Delusional Authors

Posted: 15 May 2008 08:29 AM CDT

I was actually going to let this one go because I knew I would write about the snubbing of Peaceful Prairie yesterday, but Bea (in the comments of this post) just couldn't stand by and have it go unnoticed.

What, you ask? An article about yet another book from Susan Bourette about how great it can feel to have animals killed for your meals. This one is called MEAT: A LOVE STORY. The article, "For Meat-Eating Authors, a More Tender Approach," by Jane Black of the Washington Post, features a photo of a smiling Catherine Friend, author of "THE COMPASSIONATE CARNIVORE" (which is a "warm and witty" book that tells you how to "reduce your hoofprint and still eat meat"), holding two sentient beings whom she apparently has no problem killing, or having someone kill for her.

The article is rife with delusion, as it merely describes books that are rife with delusion. At first, I thought, "Wow, these people have great publicists." But whether or not that's true, the real story is that the American reading public wants to have "experts" of any kind (or authors of any kind) provide them with ways to make the using and killing of animals sound acceptable, or even beneficial (for farmers, for instance, whom Friend wants to save).

"People are worried, but they still want to eat meat," says Roger Horowitz, author of "Putting Meat on the American Table" (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005), which charts historical patterns of meat consumption. "So there's a great market opportunity for people to talk about what really happens when you eat meat and tell people that it's okay."

So you can kill animals, but in a nice way and maybe after snuggling with their cuteness, and you can save small farmers at the same time. Plus, because the small farmers don't pollute on the scale of factory farms, you help the planet too. It's a win-win-win-win, right?

No, it's not. It's never--I repeat, never--a win for the animals. That's impossible, and that's why I call these authors delusional. They are not being honest with themselves or with their readers when they provide excuses for them. I haven't read the books and I don't know what the excuses are (but I can guess). What they are denying is the reality that whatever their equation is, it cannot be in the best interest of the animals. Period. No matter how you treat a nonhuman animal you created to use and kill, what you're doing cannot be called ethical because of the very premise of creating a nonhuman animal to use and kill. Why does that fact elude so many otherwise intelligent people? (I think the answer rhymes with: speciesism.)

This article has the obligatory and absurd:

"To be a real carnivore, a true carnivore, you have to be conscientious and discerning," Gold says [author of THE SHAMELESS CARNIVORE]. "Eat good meat and source it well. Acknowledge where it comes from. And respect the fact that the animal died for your dinner."

I think he's used that quote before and I even think I referred to it. Regardless, acknowledging you've paid someone to kill someone isn't respect. The animal didn't just die--she was slaughtered for you and you paid for the convenience of not having to do it yourself.

The language that The Delusional Carnivores use cannot be allowed to continue without commentary and correction. Friend writes a "Letter to the Lambs" in her book that says:

"Tomorrow morning, when we load you onto the trailer for your trip to the abattoir, we will be thinking about the life you've lived on this farm -- running around the pasture at dusk, sleeping in the sun, and grazing enthusiastically for the tenderest bits of grass. We will say out loud, 'Thank you.' "

Thank you? Did they have a choice? Did they do anything for her? No. All she did was take from them--there was no giving. She shouldn't be expressing gratitude, she should be begging for forgiveness.

Check out the comments and/or add your own, or write a letter to the editor.