I already knew this whole family of birds (crows, rooks, ravens and so on) to be intelligent, even self-aware some claim, but reading Corvus I still found there's a lot more to them than I'd realised.
Woolfson's is the sort of home I reckon every kid should grow up in: ordinary suburban house on the outside, inside it's another world because she takes in stray birds. There's Bardie the cockatiel, Icarus the (non-flying) parrot, Marley the sun conure, Max the starling... What really changed her life though was the arrival of a rescued rook chick, immediately named Chicken; rooks are brainy, yes, as smart as apes perhaps, but it's also emotions, empathy, playfulness: personality. In fact, with Chicken there's even a touch of eccentricity as she eventually settles into a daily routine, becomes almost old-ladyish in some of her ways. Chicken snores, Chicken prefers J S Bach to Benjamin Britten, and here's how you start a typical day in the Woolfson household: "On meeting in the hall of a morning, we bow. She caws and I greet her. We bow again. She caws. I bow. She bows. I ask after her health. She caws. Eventually, we reach the kitchen."
And then there's Spike. Sure, I knew crows and rooks are intelligent, but magpies? - I just had no idea at all. Spike the magpie chick sort of explodes across the pages like a box of black-and-white fireworks all going off at once, and grows rapidly into an exuberant and playful rascal who Woolfson herself reckons was the brightest of all the birds who lived with her. He's as good a mimic as any parrot; he booby-traps a cupboard door and then cackles with glee as a human gets drenched. And is he conscious? Of course he's conscious (to even ask seems ridiculous now). Singlehandedly, Spike transformed for ever the way I'll look at his entire species.
This book is as full of wisdom, colour and life as the birds themselves (with some lovely illustrations too by Helen Macdonald) and if at times it's just a tad anthropomorphic, well maybe it is - although with animals so like ourselves as these, how much of it actually is anthropomorphism? In fact for me, as for Woolfson, that's what is most striking: "It's the points of similarity between us that delight me still. I admire the birds' anger and their rage, for I too (perhaps about different things) feel anger and rage. I like seeing their apparently purposeless play, for it indicates to me that they have minds free enough from concern to do it. I am astonished, always, by the way they'll appear to know without knowing, to understand, anticipate, react, for it makes me feel as if I live in an indivisible world, that my belief that we're nearer in every respect than I could have imagined is correct, that we are, whatever we are, something of the same."