My question is about anthropomorphism and how far can you make an animal act, talk and have human qualities. In my story, my mouse can cook, sew, do household chores. She cooks stews and bakes pies and she lives in the woods (yes, something happened a long time ago that gave her the human qualities). However, my question isn't about whether she can think or talk like a human (that's been done a million times) but how can I explain how her little mouse oven came to be, little tables and chairs, and even the tools she uses like pen and paper to write letters. Is this taking it too far ? Does a writer need to "explain" it? Many thanks for your answers.
"First they fastened on greaves and covered their shins with green bean- pods broken into two parts which they had gnawed out, standing over them all night. Their breast plates were of skin stretched on reeds, skilfully made from a ferret they had flayed. For shields each had the centre-piece of a lamp, and their spears were long needles all of bronze, the work of Ares, and the helmets upon their temples were pea-nut shells. So the Mice armed themselves." (Batrachomyomachia - 400-150?BC) As far as we can tell, it has never required explanation - and I think that's just because most mammals are similar enough to us. If mice's paws were guided by a human mind, they might only need slight changes to do all the things we can do. It's more a problem for the illustrators - the typical approach is to sneakily give them opposable thumbs, but Arthur Rackham even manages to get pot handles between little pigs' trotters. Of course there can be tricky situations - but unless we want snakes playing piano, it will probably be fine.
As I said on your other thread, basically it's allegorical. The talking (and cooking, etc) animals essentially represent types of people. In Aesop's The Ant and the Grasshopper (which I mentioned on that thread) the Ant represents an industrous, hard-working and disciplined person who stores up food for the winter, while the grasshopper represents laziness and sloth (ok, the same thing). He makes fun of the ant each time he sees him trudge by loaded down with more stuff. But come winter, suddenly the grasshopper is getting very hungry, and goes to visit the ant to ask if he can mooch off all that food he so industrously and intelligently stashed away. So really the animls represent qualities or attributes of a person, and often are chosen specifically for whatever traits that animal possesses (or is thought to). Though sometimes it isn't so straightforward. I've never heard that grasshoppers are particularly lazy. Maybe Aesop used him because they're always heard playing music in the grass, like hippes. Maybe in his day grashoppers were thought to be lazy, I don't know. Or maybe he just chose it randomly as a creature that an ant would most likely encounter during his daily comings and goings, and made it represent laziness simply by telling us he's lazy and using characterization to show that (like him always lounging, never seen to be doing anything, and sarcastically mocking the industriousness of the ant).
It sounds like your mouse represents the archetype of the good nurturing woman, who would be able to care for someone and provide advice. She could provide food, possibly medicine, mend tattered clothing and maybe stitch up wounds—help a damaged or weary character get back on the mend and on their way after a difficult trek.
Awesome, thank you all for your input. That's been so helpful especially the excerpt about the armed mice. I've learnt from it a good way is if the animals can re-appropriate objects from the human's world, then that works perfectly. Bit trickier I suppose to have a mouse with a fully fitted kitchen with a stove and oven. Any ideas? Basically I just want the mouse to be able to cook, and have glasses to wear when she sews. ;-)
Pick one way or the other. Either go allegorical with it, where the animals represent people, or go realistic, where they have to scavenge stuff from nature or from trash cans or houses. But if you want mice that sew and cook, you don't need to explain how. Beatrix Potter never explained it realistically for her stories, nor was it explained for Paddington Bear, Winnie the Pooh, Curious George, or all the countless others. Though I believe in Winnie the Pooh it was all in Christopher Robin's imagination, he imagines his various stuffed animals being alive and interacting with the human world. In fact I'd say they're all primarily imaginative stories, that don't need to be grounded in physical reality. They take place on the imaginative level, like myths and fables, but comment on our real world. To try to explain the wonders of imagination is to kill them. If you do go realistic, then you need to also explain why animals have become intelligent to a near-human or fully human level, which requires some kind of evolution or mutation or something, like in The Secret of NIMH (if I remember right?) or in Planet of the Apes.
Xoic, thanks for the indulgence. In your above post post, you've answered the most important question of all ....allegorical or realistic. This has cleared the cobwebs in my mind. I must choose one now. Thanks also for the references to the stories. Have a nice weekend!
^^ That's a good question to ask. However, it should be noted that satiric writing for adults frequently employs antropomorphic animals., sometimes even interacting with humans. Duck Man, Family Guy, Orwell's animal farm. This sort of metaphor for human society and hierarchy has been around sincce Aesop's fables. Where do we differentiate whether they are they animals with human qualities, or humans with animal qualities/appearances?
