Animals have long been an integral part of human storytelling, often serving as characters, symbols, or reflections of the human condition. In literary fiction, the way an author portrays an animal can profoundly shape the narrative, influence reader perception, and add thematic depth to the work. However, once a particular treatment of animals is established, maintaining absolute consistency is paramount. This is where the keen eye and strategic approach of a good editor become indispensable.
The role of an editor in this context is akin to that of a zoologist, meticulously classifying and ensuring that each creature adheres to the ecological (or fictional) rules set for it within the narrative. Any deviation can shatter a reader’s immersion, dilute the author’s intent and undermine the credibility of the fictional world.
A Spectrum of Animal Treatments in Fiction:
Writers employ a diverse range of approaches when integrating animals into their stories, each demanding a distinct set of consistent rules:
- Talking Animals (e.g., Watership Down by Richard Adams): In works like Watership Down, animals are granted the ability to communicate verbally, often in complex language, and possess fully developed intellectual capacities mirroring those of humans. The rabbits not only speak to each other but engage in sophisticated social structures, strategic planning, and philosophical discussions.
- Editing Focus: The editor must ensure that the animals’ intelligence, communication methods, and societal behaviors remain consistent throughout. Do they only speak to other animals, or can they converse with humans? Are their motivations purely animalistic, or do they transcend typical species boundaries? Any instance where their speech or thought processes suddenly become less complex, or where their physical limitations are inconsistently portrayed alongside their advanced minds, would disrupt the reader’s engagement.
- Semi-Sapient Animals (e.g., Tarka the Otter by Henry Williamson): Here, animals exhibit intelligence beyond mere instinct but typically do not possess human-like speech or overtly human societal structures. They demonstrate cunning, learning, and emotional depth, reacting to their environment with a heightened awareness that allows for dramatic narrative. Tarka, for instance, learns from experience, exhibits fear, joy, and even a form of territorial pride, but remains fundamentally an otter.
- Editing Focus: The challenge for the editor is to ensure that the animals’ intelligence is consistently portrayed without crossing the line into full anthropomorphism. Does the author inadvertently give the otter a human thought process or a reaction that an animal, even a highly intelligent one, would not realistically have? The editor must safeguard the delicate balance between heightened animal instinct and nascent sapience.
- Anthropomorphic Animals (e.g., The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame): These animals walk, talk, wear clothes, live in houses, and engage in entirely human social customs, professions, and moral dilemmas. Mole, Ratty, Toad, and Badger are essentially human characters in animal guise. Their animal forms often serve as a gentle visual metaphor for their personalities, but their actions and interactions are entirely human.
- Editing Focus: Consistency here revolves around maintaining the established human characteristics. Do they ever revert to purely animalistic behavior in a way that breaks the established rules of their world? Does a character suddenly express an instinctual urge (like a desire to burrow uncontrollably) that contradicts their otherwise human activities (like driving a car)? The editor must ensure that the “humanity” of these animal characters is unwavering.
- Symbolic Animals (e.g., The White Whale in Moby Dick by Herman Melville): In this treatment, the animal’s primary function is not as a character with independent agency but as a powerful symbol. Moby Dick is a physical creature but he also represents nature’s indifference, ultimate evil, and an unattainable quest. His actions are those of an animal but their meaning is imbued with human interpretation.
- Editing Focus: The editor’s role is to ensure the symbolic weight of the animal remains consistent without threatening the established reality of the narrative. Does the author accidentally attribute human motivations or intelligence to the literary creature? Is its symbolic power consistently reinforced through narrative framing rather than direct characterization? The animal’s actions must remain within its natural parameters, while its symbolic resonance is subtly or overtly developed.
The Editor’s Imperative: Maintaining Consistency
Regardless of the chosen treatment, the editor’s primary directive is to ensure unwavering consistency. If an author establishes that the animals can speak, they must always speak within the rules set. If they are semi-sapient, they must never spontaneously engage in abstract human reasoning. If they are symbolic, their physical actions must remain strictly animalistic.
An editor will meticulously scour the manuscript for any breach of these established rules. This involves:
- Dialogue Checks: Ensuring only authorized animals speak, and in the established manner.
- Behavioral Scrutiny: Cross-referencing animal actions against the defined level of intelligence and anthropomorphism.
- Narrative Voice Consistency: Confirming that the narrator’s descriptions and internalizations align with the chosen animal portrayal.
- World Logic Review: Verifying that the animal’s role and capabilities fit seamlessly within the broader rules of the fictional world.
The Takeaway?
By rigorously applying these editorial principles, the final work not only avoids jarring inconsistencies but also allows the author’s original vision for their animal characters to be fully realized, enhancing the magic and credibility of their fictional universe.
We hope this blog post helps you appreciate how Casagua writers edit fictional narratives featuring animals. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.