Laia’s answer to “Animals seem to be a constant on this book, sometimes they're crucial to the development of Ursula'…” > Likes and Comments

Thanks for writing, Laia. I was looking forward to seeing an answer to my question.

It is true that foxes, wolves and larks appear very frequently in the novel, but I was also very shocked by how animals in general appeared in almost every page. Also, almost every character has an equivalent animal at some point: Howie is an ox, the History teacher husband is an elephant, she is a "little-bear", Sylvie's deer...and so on.

I'm doing my final degree project for University about this book and I asked my tutor this question. She told me that maybe Atkinson is opening a possibility for studying her book from the point of view of new critical theories like eco-ethics, because there are many references about nature, animals, the countryside and so on.

Although this could be interesting, I'm more inclined to think that animals are just another way for Atkinson to show how everything can be affected by Ursula's (or anyone's) decisions. That is: whether the rabbits live or die, if they are eaten by the foxes or not depend on whether Ursula keep them inside the house or in the garden and so on... Or maybe it is a way of suggesting the idea of reincarnation that Dr. Kellet also explains in the story (but this is just me theorising)

I would appreciate any feedback as well! :)

Very interesting! Thank you as well; I was hoping to find someone interested in talking about this aspect of the book! Right now my impression of all the animal references throughout the book, is not that they are sending one unifying message or representing one specific idea, but used more as a texture or color that is woven throughout the book, and used on occasion to meaningfully draw focus or attention to an idea, but in an indirect way. When you find those moments, it is like finding a bit of pattern out of randomness, which makes you think that there might be pattern & meaning in the other parts of randomness, but when you examine it closely...no, it is just a random and wild thing you are looking at that just exists, and has beauty in its existence without meaning. Haha! Kind of like echoing a theme you could get out of the book...we are looking for pattern and meaning in randomness...one "right" answer, and when we are frustrated in finding it, maybe we are open to seeing the beauty in the wild things for their wildness. How's that for an interpretation you? ^,^ I don't claim that it's the "right" one. ;)

*interpretation for you?, I meant to write

It's a very aesthetic approach, buy it also makes sense if we think about it. I think there's no possible way we'll ever know Atkinson's purpose unless we could ask her directly, specially because the circular structure of the book makes clear that we only get to see just a short part of what could be Ursula's life, so I think there are as many possibilities as there are people reading the book, and I think here it is where Atkinson's richness resides.
(I wished I could ask Atkinson! argghh) hahaha :)