Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://ebookmass.com/product/the-disneyfication-of-animals-1st-ed-edition-rebecca-r ose-stanton/ THE PALGRAVE MACMILLAN ANIMAL ETHICS SERIES
The Disneyfication of Animals Rebecca Rose Stanton The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series
Series Editors Andrew Linzey Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics Oxford, UK
Clair Linzey Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics Oxford, UK In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the ethics of our treatment of animals. Philosophers have led the way, and now a range of other scholars have followed from historians to social scientists. From being a marginal issue, animals have become an emerging issue in ethics and in multidisciplinary inquiry. This series will explore the challenges that Animal Ethics poses, both conceptually and practically, to traditional understandings of human-animal relations. Specifically, the Series will:
• provide a range of key introductory and advanced texts that map out ethical positions on animals • publish pioneering work written by new, as well as accom- plished, scholars; • produce texts from a variety of disciplines that are multidisciplinary in character or have multidisciplinary relevance.
More information about this series at
http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14421 Rebecca Rose Stanton
The Disneyfication of Animals Rebecca Rose Stanton Northumbria University Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series
ISBN 978-3-030-49315-8 ISBN 978-3-030-49316-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49316-5
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Series Editors’ Preface
This is a new book series for a new field of inquiry: Animal Ethics. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the ethics of our treatment of animals. Philosophers have led the way, and now a range of other scholars have followed from historians to social scientists. From being a marginal issue, animals have become an emerging issue in ethics and in multidisciplinary inquiry. In addition, a rethink of the status of animals has been fuelled by a range of scientific investigations which have revealed the complexity of animal sentiency, cognition and awareness. The ethical implications of this new knowledge have yet to be properly evaluated, but it is becoming clear that the old view that animals are mere things, tools, machines or commodities cannot be sustained ethically. But it is not only philosophy and science that are putting animals on the agenda. Increasingly, in Europe and the United States, animals are becoming a political issue as political parties vie for the “green” and “ani- mal” vote. In turn, political scientists are beginning to look again at the history of political thought in relation to animals, and historians are beginning to revisit the political history of animal protection. As animals grow as an issue of importance, so there have been more collaborative academic ventures leading to conference volumes, special journal issues, indeed new academic animal journals as well.
v vi Series Editors’ Preface
Moreover, we have witnessed the growth of academic courses, as well
as university posts, in Animal Ethics, Animal Welfare, Animal Rights, Animal Law, Animals and Philosophy, Human-Animal Studies, Critical Animal Studies, Animals and Society, Animals in Literature, Animals and Religion – tangible signs that a new academic discipline is emerging. “Animal Ethics” is the new term for the academic exploration of the moral status of the non-human – an exploration that explicitly involves a focus on what we owe animals morally, and which also helps us to under- stand the influences – social, legal, cultural, religious and political – that legitimate animal abuse. This series explores the challenges that Animal Ethics poses, both conceptually and practically, to traditional under- standings of human-animal relations. The series is needed for three reasons: (i) to provide the texts that will service the new university courses on animals; (ii) to support the increas- ing number of students studying and academics researching in animal related fields, and (iii) because there is currently no book series that is a focus for multidisciplinary research in the field. Specifically, the series will
• provide a range of key introductory and advanced texts that map out ethical positions on animals; • publish pioneering work written by new, as well as accomplished, scholars, and • produce texts from a variety of disciplines that are multidisciplinary in character or have multidisciplinary relevance.
The new Palgrave Macmillan Series on Animal Ethics is the result of a
unique partnership between Palgrave Macmillan and the Ferrater Mora Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics. The series is an integral part of the mis- sion of the Centre to put animals on the intellectual agenda by facilitat- ing academic research and publication. The series is also a natural complement to one of the Centre’s other major projects, the Journal of Animal Ethics. The Centre is an independent “think tank” for the Series Editors’ Preface vii
advancement of progressive thought about animals, and is the first Centre
of its kind in the world. It aims to demonstrate rigorous intellectual enquiry and the highest standards of scholarship. It strives to be a world- class centre of academic excellence in its field. We invite academics to visit the Centre’s website www.oxfordani- malethics.com and to contact us with new book proposals for the series.
General Editors Andrew Linzey and Clair Linzey Contents
1 WDAS’s Problematic Portrayal of Food Farming 1
Part I: The History and Romance of Animal Farming 3 Part II: Data 11 Part III: Animal Farming in WDAS Films 12 Part IV: Animal Farming and Home on the Range 21 Conclusion 26
2 Hunting and Fishing in WDAS Films 29
Part I: The History of Hunting and Fishing 31 Part II: Data 39 Part III: Hunting and Fishing in WDAS Films 40 Part IV: Hunting, Fishing, and Brother Bear (2003) 49 Conclusion 54
3 Clothing and Other Objects Made from Animals 57
Part I: When Animals Become Objects 58 Part II: Data 65 Part III: Disney’s Depictions of Clothing and Other Products Made from Animals 65 Part IV: Fur, Leather, and One Hundred and One Dalmatians 71 Conclusion 79
ix x Contents
4 Pets and Working Animals in WDAS Films 81
Part I: The History and Ethics of Pets and Working Animals 82 Part II: Data 89 Combined Numbers 89 WDAS’s Pets 89 Working Animals 90 Part III: WDAS’s Pets and Working Animals 90 WDAS’s Working Animals 99 Part IV: Pets, Working Animals, and Lady and the Tramp 104 Conclusion 115
5 Animal “Entertainers” in WDAS Films119
Part I: Animals in Entertainment 120 Part II: Data 126 Part III: Circuses, Zoos, and Dumbo (1941) 128 Part IV: Animal Actors and Bolt (2008) 141 Conclusion 150
6 Conclusion153 How Are Animal Harm and Objectification Depicted in WDAS Films (1937–2016)? 157 How Have Different Animal Species Been Depicted in WDAS Films? 160 Why Have Different Forms of Animal Harm or Objectification Been Depicted with Differing Levels of Sympathy? 161 Can Depictions of Animals and Animal Harm/ Objectification Affect Species in Reality? 163 What Does WDAS’s Depiction of Harm Towards Animals Reveal About Violence in WDAS Films Generally? 165 Contents xi
A ppendixes169
Bibliography189
Index223 Introduction
This book explores how animal harm and objectification are depicted in the fifty-six Walt Disney Animation Studios (hereafter: WDAS) films from 1937–2016, beginning with Snow White and ending with Moana. Since 1937, the treatment of non-human animals (hereafter: animals) in the Anglo-American world has changed for both the better and the worse. By August 2016, there were more laws and charities than ever before to protect animals from harm, yet there were also record numbers of animals being routinely mistreated and killed for the production of food. Some of the routine harm and objectification that animals commonly experience are depicted in WDAS films, but other forms are not. This book will demonstrate that whether or not animal harm and objectifi- cation are depicted in WDAS films depends upon four factors: the social accep- tance of the harm or objectification, the species affected, the number of animals involved, and how visible the harm is to humans (in both film and reality). Animals populate every WDAS film, and their roles vary greatly. They have been depicted as protagonists, pets, best friends, background characters, and much more. They also commonly appear in objectified forms: as meat, leather, and so forth.1 Their characterization or objectification within WDAS films depends largely on the species of animal they are based on. For example, as primary characters, rats are always villainous.
1 Within this text, “objectification” refers to the literal reduction of animal to object. For example, a cow being processed into a hamburger. This book will not use “objectification” to refer to sym- bolic objectification (such as a live tiger caged in a zoo) unless explicitly stated.
xiii xiv Introduction
They also commonly exist as minor characters to symbolize a dangerous
location, such as a witch’s dungeon. In contrast, dogs are usually detailed, heavily-anthropomorphised, individualized, neotenous, pro-social char- acters that are depicted as loyal, friendly, and undeserving of even minor harm, such as name-calling. To illustrate, in Lady and the Tramp (1955), the pet dogs are heavily anthropomorphised, neotenous, and detailed. The narrative repeatedly implies that dogs should be respected and not harmed in any way. Yet in the same film, the villainous non-anthropo- morphised rat character is unceremoniously killed by one of the dogs, which is portrayed as a justified action by the dog. Further to this, some species, such as cows, are more frequently depicted in their objectified form (as meat or leather) than in their living form. Yet other commonly- depicted species, such as cats, never appear in an objectified form. Thus, an animal’s species very much determines the harm or objectification it experiences in WDAS films, as well as its characterization. Animals, both living and objectified, pervade WDAS films. However, in most WDAS films that feature animals, or products made from ani- mals, something significant is missing: the processes that transform ani- mals into objects, such as those that occur in slaughterhouses. Additionally, the routine mistreatment animals frequently experience in reality, such as being caged, is rarely depicted by WDAS. When WDAS does depict harm towards animals, it is often romanticized, which is particularly evident with their2 depictions of animal farming and pet ownership as Chaps. 1 and 4 will demonstrate respectively. However, the fact that WDAS films commonly romanticize animal harm and objecti- fication is unsurprising given that WDAS romanticizes many challeng- ing areas of life. For example, WDAS films often romanticize poverty. To illustrate, Cinderella (1950) optimistically depicts the destitute, overworked, and verbally-harassed Cinderella as content with her miser- able situation. However, Walt3 was well documented to be proud of the
2 “WDAS” is being used as a singular noun in this text. However, the pronouns used to refer to WDAS in this text are they/ their/ themselves and not it/itself. This is also true of “Disney”, “PETA”, and the “AHA”. 3 This book will refer to Walt Disney (the person) as “Walt” rather than “Disney”. While people should be referred to by their surname in academic writing, to do so would be confusing with Walt Disney in this book because the main focus is Disney films. In this text, “Disney” will refer only to Introduction xv
romantic nature of his films. For example, in response to criticism that
his films were too sweet, he famously said that: “There’s enough ugliness and cynicism in this world without me adding to it” (Walt, in: Schickel 2019: 58). This seems to confirm that WDAS’s romanticism of complex issues was intentional, at least in the studio’s early days. The scope of this text begins in 1937, with a film that changed anima- tion, film, and Anglo-American culture overnight. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was an expensive risk that many doubted would succeed (Wasko 2001: 14). However, it was a gamble that paid off handsomely; Snow White was a resounding critical and financial success. As a result, it has received much academic attention from film scholars (for example: Inge 2004: 132–42; Kalmakurki 2018: 7–19; Layng 2001: 197–215). Despite this, the film’s many animal characters, and the harm or objecti- fication they experience, have not yet been studied in sufficient detail. Yet, there is much to be said about these elements of the film. The open- ing shot of Snow White depicts the angelic Snow White scrubbing steps and singing tunefully to a dole of adoring, slightly-anthropomorphised, white doves. Prince Charming enters the scene soon after with a non- anthropomorphised horse by his side and a large fluffy white feather in his regal blue cap. This moment – the first time that WDAS depicts ani- mals – not only establishes how ubiquitous animals are in WDAS films, but it also captures three very different depictions of animals that will be focused on individually within this book: as anthropomorphised beings that interact with the human characters (the doves), as subservient non- anthropomorphised beings (Prince Charming’s horse), and as objects (the white fluffy feather in Prince Charming’s hat). However, the main focus of this book is animal harm and objectification, so the feather and Prince Charming’s subservient horse is what this text will analyse in detail. Yet the doves are still significant as they present the romantic alter- native to animal harm and objectification that is commonplace in WDAS films. As Snow White continues, more animal characters and objects appear, and more harm and objectification are evident. To illustrate, the
the general Disney company. Similarly, “Roy Disney” (Walt’s brother) will be referred to as “Roy”. This is consistent with other recent Disney scholarship, such as Davis (2007). All other people will be referred to by their surname. xvi Introduction
huntsman who takes Snow White to the forest wears leather clothing, and the dwarfs use a deer to pull their mining cart. Moreover, certain spe- cies (such as doves) are clearly associated with pro-social characters and safe situations, yet other species (such as bats, rats, and eagles) are clearly associated with anti-social characters and danger. For example, when Snow White subsequently gets lost in the forest, she is frightened by a cloud of black bats; rats populate the evil stepmother’s potion-making dungeon; eagles gleefully follow the stepmother as she falls off a cliff to her death. Additionally, certain species experience socially-acceptable harms, and other species do not. For example, the bird whose feather decorates Prince Charming’s hat is never mentioned; therefore, the objec- tification of this bird is only implied and is thus contextualised as being acceptable. In contrast, the anthropomorphised, neotenous, subservient rabbits that assist Snow White with cleaning and cooking face no harm or objectification at all. As this book will evidence, this discrimination between different species recurs throughout WDAS’s outputs. It was not until 2016’s Zootopia, the second last film included in this text, that these speciesist attitudes were challenged.
Book Structure Each of the five chapters in this book will explore how a different form of animal harm or objectification have been depicted within WDAS films. The forms of harm or objectification discussed are the ones that have been the most commonly depicted by WDAS. Some common forms of animal harm, such as medical testing, have never been depicted, or even referenced, in any WDAS film. Thus, there is not enough information to warrant a full chapter on these types of harm or objectification. Each chapter will begin by summarizing the literature, history, and theories relevant to that specific area of harm or objectification. Each chapter also contains at least one WDAS film case study relevant to that topic. The specific filmic case studies in each chapter were chosen because they explicitly depict the harm or objectification relevant to that chapter’s topic. For example, Brother Bear depicts both hunting and fishing, mak- ing it an appropriate case study for Chap. 2. Therefore, previously Introduction xvii
under-studied WDAS works, such as 2004’s Home on the Range, will be
explored in this text, countering the tendency in prior research to focus on WDAS’s more commercially-successful films. To illustrate, Beauty and the Beast (1991) has received much more academic attention than some other, less financially-successful, WDAS films (for example: Cummins 1995: 22–28; Olson 2013: 448–480). In order to better understand ideas of animals and animal harm, this text will utilize several theories. Firstly, this text will utilize ideas of specie- sism, which is defined as “the unjustified disadvantageous consideration or treatment of those who are not classified as belonging to one or more particular species” (Horta 2010: 244). It is claimed that speciesist atti- tudes are based on a “socio-zoological scale” of value (Arluke and Sanders 1996). This scale determines how important a species is, or is not, to humans. For example, cats score very highly on this scale, whereas cock- roaches score very low. A species rank is determined by the following five criteria: usefulness, relationship to humans, appearance, danger factor, and how demonic the animal is to humans (Arluke and Sanders 1996). The socio-zoological scale is vital to this text and will be used in every chapter to describe the status of WDAS’s animal characters alongside speciesism. Secondly, this text will often refer to the “collapse of compas- sion” effect. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that humans care more about animals when they are presented as named individuals, rather than when they are shown in groups (Payne 2010). Generally, the more vic- tims a tragedy has, the less humans will care, and the less-likely they are to donate their time or money to help solve the situation (Payne 2010; Cameron et al. 2011: 1). This is termed the “collapse of compassion” effect. Thirdly, this text will often reference romanticism, particularly in relation to how animal harm is depicted in cultural representations. The term “romanticism” is said to have several meanings. This book will define “romanticism” by using the definition that is sometimes referred to as a misunderstanding of it, that is, someone who romanticizes the past or present (Ruston 2007). However, this definition is only seen as a misun- derstanding when used to refer specifically to the romantic British poets, which is not the case in this book (Ruston 2007). Chapter 1 will examine depictions of animal food farming, encom- passing meat production, dairy farming, farmhouses, farmers, and the xviii Introduction
various species that usually live on farms in WDAS films. Part I of this chapter will explore the history of animal farming, and the common tropes that are evident in notable cultural representations of it. Part II will document how often farm locations, farm animals, and the products of farming (meat and so forth) have been depicted in WDAS films. Part III will analyse key depictions of farming within WDAS films, conclud- ing that WDAS is complicit in keeping the “happy farm” myth alive. It will also explore the limited ways in which WDAS has depicted charac- ters that consume farm products, such as meat. Finally, Part IV will examine Home on the Range (2004), a WDAS film set on a dairy farm that reinforces many misconceptions about the farming industry, the tone of which is shaped by romanticism and comedy. This chapter will conclude by arguing that WDAS’s image of animal farming has been consistently unrealistic and saccharine, even though life has evidently become far worse for farm animals during the period in which WDAS has been producing films. This is because over the past one hundred years, farming has become increasingly industrialised and efficient, to the detriment of animal welfare. Chapter 2 will focus on WDAS’s depictions of hunting and fishing. Hunting and fishing are analogous practices; they both involve tracking and (usually) directly killing an animal. However, these practices differ in terms of the species involved, the location of the practice, and the degree to which they are socially accepted. Part I of this chapter will explore the history and current discussions surrounding these two practices. For example, it will question why trophy hunting has become socially- unacceptable, yet fishing is still socially-acceptable. Then, Part II will document the frequency with which these practices have been depicted in WDAS films. Next, Part III will explore how WDAS has portrayed hunting and fishing, paying particular attention to how hunted and fished animals have been depicted, as well as the portrayal of humans who participate in these practices. Finally, Part IV will concentrate on how hunting and fishing were portrayed in 2003’s Brother Bear. Brother Bear was chosen for this chapter’s case study because it reinforces the idea that hunting mammals is immoral, but that fishing is socially-acceptable. This chapter will conclude by arguing that the manner in which WDAS has depicted hunting and fishing reflects common speciesist attitudes. Introduction xix
Additionally, WDAS has helped to sustain these speciesist attitudes with
their own texts. Since hunting (as a hobby in contemporary Anglo- American culture) is broadly no longer socially-acceptable, it is rarely romanticized in WDAS films. It is only depicted as socially-acceptable when committed by indigenous people or towards villainous animals. This is true both in WDAS films and wider media. Chapter 3 will examine how WDAS has depicted clothing and other objects made from animals’ bodies, such as fur coats, leather books, and feather quills. While the production of fur has become socially- unacceptable in the Anglo-American world, the production of leather, feathers, and so forth, are still widely considered to be socially-acceptable. Part I of this chapter will outline the relevant history surrounding cloth- ing and other objects produced from animals’ bodies. It will explore why similar products made from different species have been responded to very differently. It will also illustrate how PETA4 has campaigned, both suc- cessfully and unsuccessfully, against the production of fur, leather, and so forth. Part II will provide data that demonstrates how often these prod- ucts have been depicted in WDAS films. Then, Part III will delineate how WDAS has depicted fur products, compared to how they have depicted other products made from animals’ bodies (such as leather-bound books and feather quills). Finally, Part IV will scrutinise WDAS’s most famous film about the ethics of producing clothing from animals: One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961). This chapter will conclude by claiming that WDAS is selective with their criticism of products made from animals’ bodies. Comparisons will be drawn to the inconsistencies highlighted in Chaps. 1 and 2 with farming, hunting, and fishing. This is because the social-acceptance of clothing made from animals depends significantly on both the species affected and the demographics of the human con- sumer, which is also true of farming, hunting, and fishing.
4 PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) claims to be the largest animal welfare charity in the world with 6.5 million members (PETA 2019a). They focus their campaigns on the four areas in which they believe animals suffer the most: laboratories, the food industry, the clothing trade, and the entertainment industry (PETA 2019a). Because of their broad scope, PETA’s cam- paigns and research will be utilized throughout this book. However, it must be acknowledged that PETA is often criticized for various reasons, some of which will be discussed in the chapters of this text (for example: McWilliams 2012). xx Introduction
Chapter 4 will assess depictions of pets and working animals in WDAS
films. These two types of characters are widespread in WDAS films. That prevalence perhaps reflects how central pets and working animals have been in human cultures throughout history. Part I will explore that his- tory, outlining the common ethical objections towards keeping animals as pets and using animals as labourers. Part II will quantify how often pets and working animals have been depicted in WDAS films, docu- menting the species, scale of anthropomorphism, and purposes that these characters serve. Then, Part III will examine this data, highlighting the types of direct and indirect harm and objectification these animals face in WDAS films. Finally, Part IV will examine Lady and the Tramp (1955), a WDAS film that focusses on pet animals and also features various work- ing animals. This chapter will conclude by claiming that direct harm towards non-villainous pets appears to be acknowledged and criticized more than any other type of animal harm in WDAS films. In contrast, working animals tend to face routine physical harm, which is rarely criti- cized or even acknowledged by WDAS. This chapter will conclude by stating that this disparity reflects wider socially-acceptable speciesist atti- tudes towards these two types of animals. Chapter 5 will explore how animals in entertainment have been depicted in WDAS films. This is one of the most-debated and controver- sial areas of animal welfare. This is evident from the many high-profile campaigns surrounding this issue, several of which will be highlighted and discussed in this chapter. Part I of this chapter will explore the most common objections towards using animals for entertainment. Part II will document the number of times animal performance has been depicted in WDAS films. Part III will begin by outlining the history of zoos and circuses. Then, this section will focus on how WDAS has depicted these locations. This section will employ Dumbo (1941) as a case study. Finally, Part IV of this chapter will contextualise the use of animals in the North American (hereafter: American) film industry. It will begin by examining the history of animal actors in American films, and then it will explore how WDAS has depicted animal actors. This section will employ Bolt (2008), a CGI film about the ethics of using animals as actors, as a case study. This chapter will conclude by arguing that it has evidently become socially-unacceptable to use animals to produce entertainment. A study Introduction xxi
of WDAS films and numerous welfare campaigns will demonstrate that
this issue has garnered attention because animal performers are higher- order species that are typically individualized. This text’s conclusion will highlight several original contributions to knowledge that have been made apparent from the chapters of this book. First, the conclusion will demonstrate that WDAS films reflect speciesist attitudes. WDAS films repeatedly imply that it is unacceptable for cer- tain species, such as dogs and elephants to be harmed, yet WDAS films also imply that is socially-acceptable to harm other species, such as fish and insects. Second, WDAS has only challenged animal welfare issues that are already socially-unacceptable, or are becoming socially- unacceptable. Moreover, they only question harms that affect small num- bers of animals, such as the use of animals in entertainment. Third, WDAS repeatedly romanticizes, humourizes, and minimizes the routine harm and objectification that animals experience during processes that are potentially harmful, such as dairy farming. Fourth, WDAS films can influence how viewers feel towards animal welfare, perhaps more so than even many animal-centred organizations, such as PETA. Fifth, individu- alization significantly influences how viewers feel towards animals, even when these animals are fictional and animated. Sixth, the amount of harm an animal character experiences, and how much sympathy the nar- rative offers that animal, depends largely on how anthropomorphised that character is. It is often implied that heavily-anthropomorphised ani- mals should not be harmed. In contrast, non-anthropomorphised ani- mals are often depicted experiencing harm that is portrayed as acceptable. Seventh, since WDAS films rarely feature violence towards animals (which is the most prevalent form of violence globally), WDAS fails to depict scale of harm done to animals in the real world. Animals exist in every WDAS film, yet their most common causes of death (slaughter- houses and so forth) have barely been mentioned. Therefore, in WDAS films, animals are disconnected from the harms they often experience in reality. WDAS has benefitted from animals in the sense that some of their most memorable films and scenes feature animal characters. Thus, WDAS owes their unique success and global prevalence to their many anthropo- morphised neotenous animal characters. However, WDAS has shown xxii Introduction
little interest in the problems most animals face. For example, during WDAS’s history (1937–present), farming has moved increasingly towards industrialised efficiency, and the numbers of animals involved has risen exponentially. Today, animal farming kills more land animals than any other industry. Since WDAS films include numerous images of farms but do not depict the reality of modern farming, they are complicit in propa- gating misleading images, and consequently the continuation of poor animal treatment. WDAS (and Disney) are not directly responsible for the problems associated with farming; however, given how large and global their audience is, they have the ability to improve public knowl- edge about contemporary agricultural practices. Additionally, given that WDAS has the attention of many children, they have a responsibility to consider the attitudes embedded within their narratives. While WDAS continues to negate the realities of contemporary industrialised farming, they are suggesting that there are few problems associated with it. These points will be examined in detail in the first chapter of this text: animal farming in WDAS films. 1 WDAS’s Problematic Portrayal of Food Farming
If you’re gonna kill the cow, I don’t wanna hear the rest of the story – Mortimer Snerd, Fun and Fancy Free (1947)
The quote above is taken from “Mickey and the Beanstalk”, the second half of WDAS’s Fun and Fancy Free (1947). This short film opens with images of fertile fields that are inhabited by happy, free-range, farm ani- mals living comfortably in small numbers. However, the fields become barren overnight after an antagonistic giant steals the town’s magic harp. As a result, three humanoid farmers – Mickey Mouse, Goofy, and Donald Duck – become starving and destitute. All they have left is their farm and cow. Upon hearing this, the little girl listening to the story optimistically exclaims: “At least they had milk”.1 It is then apparent that even though the three farmers are starving, they have not eaten their dairy cow. Instead, the farmers share a vegan meal: a tiny slice of bread and a single bean. However, after going mad with hunger, Donald Duck tries to kill their
1 Fun and Fancy Free features two short films, “Bongo” and “Mickey and the Beanstalk”. “Mickey and the Beanstalk” is narrated by notable ventriloquist Edgar Bergen who tells the story in live- action to a young girl with his ventriloquist dummies, which is segmented between the animation.
R. R. Stanton, The Disneyfication of Animals, The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49316-5_1 2 R. R. Stanton
cow with an axe. He is stopped by Mickey and Goofy, who are both hor- rified by Donald’s murderous intentions. Upon hearing that Donald planned to kill their cow, the little girl announces that this is terrible given that the cow was their “best friend”. One of the ventriloquist’s pup- pets then suggests several gruesome and cartoonishly-dramatic ways that the farmers could kill their cow, such as by pushing her off a cliff whilst she sleeps. This is when Mortimer Snerd states: “If you’re gonna kill the cow, I don’t wanna hear the rest of the story”. Of course, the dairy cow is not killed or harmed in any way. Therefore, “Mickey and the Beanstalk” depicts a farm cow as a character worthy of a life without harm. It also implies that farmers do not harm animals, even in desperate circum- stances. Both of these points are unrealistic given the harsh reality of agriculture both today, and when Fun and Fancy Free was produced and set. This first chapter will explore WDAS’s portrayal of animal farming. This will include analyses of meat production, dairy farming, farmhouses, farmers, and the various animals that usually live on farms in WDAS films. These concepts will be studied alongside theories of romanticism and speciesism, two techniques often used to justify, attenuate, and hide the harsh realities of modern animal farming. This chapter will also note the influence that the “collapse of compassion” has upon farm animals. Part I of this chapter will explore the history of animal farming, and the common and notable cultural representations of it. Part II will list how often farm locations, farm animals, and the products of farming (such as meat) have been depicted in WDAS films. Part III will analyse farming in WDAS films, concluding that WDAS is complicit in keeping the “happy farm” myth alive. It will also look at the limited way in which WDAS has depicted characters that eat farm products, such as meat. Finally, Part IV will examine Home on the Range (2004), a WDAS film set on a dairy farm. This film supports many of the misconceptions about the farming industry that are commonplace in cultural representations, the tone of which is shaped by romanticism and comedy. This chapter will conclude by arguing that WDAS’s portrayal of farming has been consistently unre- alistic and saccharine, even though over the past one hundred years, 1 WDAS’s Problematic Portrayal of Food Farming 3
industrialisation and striving for efficiency (under capitalism) have been
detrimental to animal welfare.2
art I: The History and Romance
P of Animal Farming The exact number of animals reared and slaughtered annually for meat and dairy production is so large that it can only be roughly estimated to the nearest billion. In 2011, the approximate number was 70 billion land animals worldwide (Khazaal and Almiron 2016: 375). This is larger than the number of animals killed for hunting, shelters, and research com- bined (Brown 2011: 23). The only industry responsible for more animal deaths is the fishing industry (Safina 2018). The population of living farm animals is about four times that of humans (Khazaal and Almiron 2016: 375). Most of these animals are denied meaningful protection and treated as nothing more than machines (Perry and Brandt 2008: 118). For example, most chickens in factory farms are unable to stretch their wings, a natural behaviour for birds (Leder 2012: 73). However, despite the staggeringly high numbers involved, farming is not the area of animal harm that attracts the largest amount of human concern. Three factors contribute to this lack of concern. The first reason is speciesism; the ani- mals involved in food farming do not score on the higher-level of the socio-zoological scale. The second reason is because of the “happy farm” myth; romantic images of animal farming generally suggest that modern farms are happy and wholesome places for animals to live at. This mis- leading image is frequently repeated and is often at the forefront in WDAS films set in rural narratives, as this chapter will evidence. The third reason is because farm animals are rarely individualized; this factor leads to the “collapse of compassion” effect. To summarize, speciesism, romanticism, and the “collapse of compassion” effect have resulted in the problems with animal farming being widely ignored.
2 This chapter will focus only on the farming of land animals for food: therefore, fur farms, puppy farms, fish farms, and so forth will not be discussed in this chapter. 4 R. R. Stanton
After the last Ice Age came the Neolithic Revolution (around 10,000 BC) in which humans changed from hunter-gatherers to farmers (Pringle 1998: 1446). During this period, humans began to settle close to each other and develop complex social bonds. These social bonds are what would subsequently become early human civilizations (Norwood and Lusk 2011: 18). As a result of farming, human societies began to produce healthier children, which allowed societies to grow much larger than they had previously, and at a much faster pace (Pringle 1998: 1446). In the past, not all regions had huge amounts of animals and land suit- able for farming: therefore, early farming somewhat shaped the future wealth of many countries (Norwood and Lusk 2011: 13). Today, around 38% of the Earth’s ice-free land is used for farming, with about 70–75% of this land being used to farm animals (Deckers 2016: 22). During the past 10,000 years, most humans would have been farm workers of some kind. For example, in the fourteenth century, 76% per- cent of people worked in farming, but today just 26% of all workers globally work in agriculture (Van der Zee 2018). Additionally, in devel- oped countries, this number drops even further. For example, in the UK, only 2% of people are directly employed by the farming industry (Van der Zee 2018). However, this does not mean that farming has declined; in fact, more animals than ever before are killed as part of the farming industry’s routine operations. This decrease in employment is because agriculture has become industrialized; many of the jobs previously under- taken by humans are now performed by machines. Traditionally, farm animals were used to assist in farm labour, as well as to provide meat, dairy, and so forth (Leder 2012: 74). However, the rise in farm technol- ogy meant that animals were no longer needed to help with the labour; they were only needed for the products they could produce, and this shift led to the development of factory farming. The first species to be factory farmed was the chicken, then pigs, and more recently cattle (Van der Zee 2018). The increased production scale of factory farming requires that these animals live shorter lives, and also that they weigh more. For exam- ple, since 1925, the life of a farmed chicken has dropped from 112 days to 48 days, while their weight has risen from 2.5 pounds to 6.2 pounds (Van der Zee 2018). Because of this efficiency, the cost of meat and dairy has dropped considerably (Brown 2011: 23). For example, the price of 1 WDAS’s Problematic Portrayal of Food Farming 5
chicken has decreased by 110 percent over the past fifty years (Norwood and Lusk 2011: 39–40). The efficiency of modern agriculture quickly became more profitable than the more humane, free-range, farming alter- natives. However, these shifts have been detrimental for the animals involved. For example, Brown (2011) suggests that modern factory farms have no regard for the individual needs of the animals (2011: 23). This has been repeatedly demonstrated through the many exposé videos that have been produced by undercover animal rights activists (for example: PETA 2019f ). As a result, factory farming is often compared to infamous examples of the poor treatment of humans in history, such as the prison- ers in the gulags, or the way that privileged classes once colonized indig- enous peoples (Plumwood 2012: 57, 72). In general, there are very few laws protecting farmed animals, and the ones that do exist are inconsis- tent. For instance, in America, the Humane Slaughter Act prohibits the unnecessary suffering of farmed animals, but this act excludes birds, which is problematic because more chickens are slaughtered for food per year than any other land animal (Norwood and Lusk 2011: 60–1). Thus, chickens, the most commonly-farmed species of land animal, can legally be neglected and mistreated in American farms. As with some other forms of animal harm and objectification, humans are negatively affected by the farming industry. The majority of slaughter- house3 employees in America are low-paid, young, single, men (Fitzgerald et al. 2009: 160; Schlosser 2004: 149). It is claimed that large farms (also known as megafarms) are purposefully built near deprived areas, presum- ably to attract people who are more willing to work in poor conditions for low-wages (Deckers 2016: 16). It is noted that the rate of suicide amongst farm workers is three times the national average in America (Schlosser 2004: 146). It is also claimed that the annual staff turnover rate in the meatpacking industry is around 400 percent, with the average worker leaving or being dismissed within three months (Schlosser 2004: 160). In fact, Adams (2010) argues that the staff turnover rates amongst slaughterhouse workers are the highest of any occupation in America 3 Factory farms and slaughterhouses are separate locations with separate purposes. Thus, they are not synonymous terms. However, almost all animals raised in factory farms will die in a slaughter- house or similar facility (PETA 2019g). This is why the two locations are discussed alongside each other and often interchangeably in this chapter. 6 R. R. Stanton
(2010: 80). Moreover, a 2018 Guardian article claimed that American
meat plant workers are three times more likely to suffer serious injury than other US workers, with an average of two amputations per week (Wasley et al. 2018). Cumulatively, this evidence suggests that working in the modern farming industry has severely negative physical and mental effects on employees. Additionally, given the economic background of these workers, it seems likely that most employees of the modern animal farming industry work in that industry because they have few other options, and not because they have chosen to work in such a challenging environment. Singer (2009) claims that the people who kill animals in socially-acceptable ways, such as in slaughterhouses, are generally not “cruel and wicked” (Singer 2009: 97). The reality is that the jobs these people undertake are a result of normalized speciesism, rather than an intention to inflict harm for personal gratification. Given that the evi- dence presented here suggests that these industries have a high turnover and are purposefully built in deprived areas, Singer’s claims do appear to hold merit. Despite this, cultural portrayals of those who work in slaugh- terhouses are often unsympathetic. To illustrate, in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), an antagonistic family of villainous cannibals repeatedly reference that they used to work in a slaughterhouse. Throughout the film, a connection between cannibalism, violence, and slaughterhouse work is frequently alluded to (Bernard 2011: 413–32). Massacre seems to suggest that the cannibal family became evil as a result of their earlier slaughterhouse employment, or perhaps that evil people are attracted to these violent industries. Thus, from either reading, the portrayal of slaughterhouse employees in Massacre is an unflattering and unsympa- thetic one. As will be discussed in Part III of this chapter, the harsh reality of farm work is far removed from WDAS’s romantic portrayal of it, and this inaccuracy extends to the humans who work in these industries. WDAS commonly depicts farmers, but these tend to be nomadic or organic farmers that live harmoniously alongside a small number of pet- like farm animals. WDAS has not yet included a modern slaughterhouse worker or factory-farm worker among their large cast of characters, only organic, “free range”, farmers. WDAS has, however, depicted some hunt- ers and fishers (i.e. people who attempt to directly kill animals, some- times for food). These characters will be discussed in the next chapter. 1 WDAS’s Problematic Portrayal of Food Farming 7
Despite the fact that farming has changed greatly during the past one hundred years, cultural representations of farming suggest that this prac- tice is still aligned with its nomadic roots. Singer notes that most depic- tions of farms are optimistic, romantic, and far removed from the reality of most modern farming (2009: 96). Singer further claims that many people think of farms as more pleasant than “our own industrial, profit- conscious city life” (2009: 96). Misleading depictions of farms often include happy, subservient animals that are treated as willing co-workers and pets, rather than objects (Buller 2013: 159–60). Additionally, farms are rarely depicted as places where intentional killing occurs (Buller 2013: 159–60). These misleading, romantic, and unrealistic images are particu- larly widespread in children’s media, such as storybooks (Connell 2018). For example, children’s books often depict picturesque, spacious farms, occupied by a variety of happy farm animals (Newkey-Burden 2018). In reality, most modern farms only house one type of species, but in huge numbers. For example, in the UK, chickens are typically housed in artificially-lit barns with 20,000–30,000 other chickens (Lawrence 2016). Each chicken will typically have the space of a sheet of A4 paper to move and live in for most of their short life (Lawrence 2016). In addi- tion to the culturally prevalent “happy farm” image, modern megafarms are often kept hidden from the populace by being purposefully built in areas uninhabited by humans (Plumwood 2012: 55–74; Singer 2009: 216). Moreover, the buildings themselves do not usually advertise their purpose. As a result, few people would be able to differentiate a storage barn from a broiler shed (Singer 2009: 216). Part of this attenuation is also evident in the way that meat and dairy is sold. The majority of com- mercially sold meat is neatly packaged and sealed (Connell 2018). This meat is sometimes dyed with a red colorant and injected with water to make it look more appealing, or perhaps more like the meat people are used to seeing in common cultural depictions (Connell 2018). This high- lights that consumers are not only misled about the reality of farming, but also the reality of animal products. Perhaps because of its established romantic image, it is believed that the average person has little knowledge about the realities of modern farming (Norwood and Lusk 2011: 246, 259). This miseducation may be because of the false portrayals of animal farming fed to the public, such as those present in WDAS films. 8 R. R. Stanton
Additionally, it is noted that the meat and dairy industries have run many high-profile advertising campaigns that promote their products as both healthy and natural. For example, the dairy industry often boasts about the apparent health and nutritional benefits of their products (Wrenn 2017: 74). However, even though these images are somewhat misleading, and in some cases incorrect, it is argued that there is much interest in keeping this romantic image alive in order to protect these profitable industries (Buller 2013: 159–60). The romanticized “happy farm” image frequently depicted in children’s media is usually set in the pre-industrialized past, as is the case with the farms in most WDAS films. However, it is unlikely that ancient farms were as ethical as the “happy farm” image suggests. As evidenced earlier, farm animals were usually required to participate in the hard labour of pre-industrial farms. This practice would likely be viewed as cruel by many today, hence why it is often omitted in depictions of nomadic farming. The reason that the “happy farm” image exists is simple: when animal harm is visible, it can drastically change how people feel about the end product. For instance, a 2013 study found that when people were shown images of animal cruelty in slaughterhouses, the most common reactions were sympathy for the animal and disgust at the situation (Tiplady et al. 2013: 869, 882). Animal rights activists have successfully used this sensitivity to further their cause (Lancaster and Boyd 2015: 186). For example, a common tactic of the modern animal rights move- ment is for activists to go undercover on farms, film the worst instances of cruelty that they see, and then portray it as being normal practice. Upon their release, these videos are evidently met with outrage towards the farms or equivalent. In fact, documented instances of animal harm have put many farming companies out of business (Shea 2015: 349). This type of activism has worked well to reduce consumption of certain farm products, such as veal and foie gras (Paynter 2014). For example, the production of veal, which involves keeping male calves in crates, was banned in the UK in the 1990s after many anti-veal campaigns focussed on the cruelty of this practice (Levitt 2018; Paynter 2014). Consequently, the American meat industry has recently tried to stop the production of videos and photography in their slaughterhouses and farms (Shea 2015: 349). For these reasons, some companies that use animal products, such 1 WDAS’s Problematic Portrayal of Food Farming 9
as McDonald’s, have publicly attempted to help improve farming condi-
tions to better their own PR image (Leder 2012: 74). However, despite these points, American consumers spend more on meat than any other food category (Norwood and Lusk 2011: 204). In addition to these points, some research has noted that people who oppose the consump- tion of meat and dairy, such as vegans, are frequently ridiculed in the media (Cole and Morgan 2011: 134–153). Therefore, it can be con- cluded that most people do not want to see an end to meat consumption; they want higher standards of welfare for farm animals. However, a desire for ethical farming is somewhat illogical given that meat cannot exist without the un-consensual death of an animal (Adams 2010: 66). This problem is also partly caused by the “happy farm” image, which creates the illusion that farming does not involve death. Even though billions of animals are slaughtered for food annually, only a select few species are used by the farming industry. In the Anglo- American context, farming mainly affects chickens, cows, pigs, and tur- keys (ASPCA 2018).4 This is one of the main arguments against animal farming from an animal rights viewpoint: farming is speciesist. Not all animals are capable of being domesticated, and thus farmed. Species that were able to be farmed grew quickly. Such animals are comfortable in packs, eat a mostly herbivorous diet, and are docile (Norwood and Lusk 2011: 12–3). Over time, humans have selectively bred these species to accentuate what humans have believed to be their more-useful features, such as large breasts on chickens (Schatzker 2015). However, as a result, these species have since been genetically altered by humans, and therefore would today struggle to survive without human assistance (Norwood and Lusk 2011: 8). Therefore, even if animal farming was stopped, it is unlikely that modern farm animals could ever return to their natural habitat.
4 It is noted, however, that farmed species vary somewhat between cultures. For example, in India, cows are worshipped, but, in the UK, they are commonly bred for slaughter (Norwood and Lusk 2011: 20). This text is focussed on animals in the Anglo-American context as this is the location of the majority of WDAS films. Therefore, in this book, cows, pigs, and chickens are considered to be the three most commonly farmed animals (ASPCA 2018). Additionally, while horses often “live” on farms, they are not usually eaten in the Anglo-American world. Therefore, they will be discussed in Chap. 4 alongside working animals. 10 R. R. Stanton
While some species, such as cats and dogs, are often individualized in WDAS films, farm animals are usually depicted in groups. However, this is problematic from an animal welfare perspective because depicting ani- mals in larger groups can result in the “collapse of compassion” effect: thus, any harm the group undergoes might result in a less compassionate response than individual instances elicit. On the rare occasions when farm animals have been individualized in fiction, perceptions of their rights have changed. For example, Babe (1995) is a film that appears to have influenced some viewers’ perceptions of eating meat. Babe is a comedy-drama about an anthropomorphised pig that dreams of being a sheep dog. During the film, Babe (the pig) escapes being slaughtered several times, often in comical circumstances. The story ends happily with Babe achieving his ambition of becoming a “sheep dog” and thus avoiding his fate as a farmed pig. In the period following the film’s release, there was a dramatic rise in the number of vegetarians, especially young female vegetarians (Nobis 2009: 58). This change in attitude was dubbed the “Babe effect” (Nobis 2009: 58). The “Babe effect” likely occurred because this film depicted farm animals as intelligent, individual, and compassionate individuals, something that had seldom been done previ- ously and is usually reserved for higher-order species (Plumwood 2012: 55–74). Because they are purposefully built in uninhabited areas, very few peo- ple have been inside a megafarm or slaughterhouse. Most people’s only experience of them is vicariously, such as through a book or film (Adams 2010: 78). While farms are often portrayed positively, Babe providing one example, slaughterhouses and the like are rarely presented favourably. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is one such example of this point. Burt (2002) notes that the slaughterhouse image rarely appears in mainstream films. Similarly, documentary films that accurately document realistic slaughterhouses and the like are usually reviled. For example, PETA has produced many videos that aim to expose the harsh reality of these places (Tonsor and Widmar 2012: 59–72). Such films have often been cen- sored, or in some cases banned outright (PETA 2019c). A rare exception to this is Chicken Run (2000), a British stop-motion animation centred around a chicken pie factory. However, in Chicken Run, most of the farmed chickens manage to escape from their farm unharmed before they 1 WDAS’s Problematic Portrayal of Food Farming 11
are turned into chicken pies (Cole and Stewart 2014). The animals in Chicken Run spend the rest of their lives on a chicken sanctuary after suc- cessfully escaping their farm. None of the primary characters die, and the only chicken deaths mentioned are off-screen and typically involve name- less characters. Thus, while Chicken Run offers a slightly more realistic look at modern animal farming, its optimistic ending is unrealistic because real farmed chickens have almost no chance of escape. To summarize, this section has demonstrated that animal farming has been a key component of human civilization for the past ten thousand years. Animal farming initially benefitted humans, but it has resulted in a massive amount of animal harm and deaths. Moreover, the species involved have had their biology permanently altered by selective breeding practices. Yet despite the many problems with modern farming, farms are typically represented in an old-fashioned romantic way in cultural repre- sentations, which has perhaps led to people being mis-educated on the realities of contemporaneous agricultural practice. This is often termed the “happy farm” myth. Only a small number of cultural representations, such as PETA’s exposés, have attempted to address the reality of the situation.
Part II: Data
Please see pages 125–127 for a full list of all of the individual instances of animal farming in WDAS films. In summary, WDAS has depicted dairy5 in twenty-five films (45%),6 eggs in twelve films (21%), meat in thirty films (54%), a farm house in fourteen films (25%), chickens in nineteen films (34%), cows in fifteen films (27%), and pigs in sixteen films (29%). In total, this means that thirty WDAS films (54%) feature a species that is usually considered a farm animal.
5 This includes any product that can reasonably be considered dairy, such as milk, cheese, or ice- cream. This does not include products that often include dairy, such as pies or cakes, as dairy is not the primary ingredient of these products. Additionally, only dairy and eggs normally consumed by humans, such as chickens’ eggs or cows’ milk, are included. Thus, the list does not include the dinosaur eggs in Fantasia (1940), for example. 6 The percentages have been rounded-up/ down to one decimal point. 12 R. R. Stanton
Part III: Animal Farming in WDAS Films
Walt spent his early-childhood on a rural farm, which he often claimed were the best days of his life: “Those were the happiest days of my life, and maybe that’s why I go in for country cartoons. Gosh, I hated to leave it” (Walt, in: Jackson 2005: 11). Roy also remembered this farm fondly and stated that it was “a very cute, sweet little farm” (Roy, in: Barrier 2007: 11). The farm itself was forty-five acres and included orchids of apples, peaches, and plums, plus fields of grain (Barrier 2007: 11). The farm also housed animals, such as hogs, chickens, horses, and cows, but it is claimed that there were only a few dozen of these animals (Barrier 2007: 11). This suggests that the farm’s emphasis was on crops rather than animal products. It is clear that these fond memories affected Walt’s early-animations, an influence that can still be seen throughout WDAS films today. However, Tobias (2011) argues that:
For the Disney family, as for most Americans, farm animals were objects, devoid of subjective content. Their capacity to suffer was limited, and their duty in life was to serve. [Walt]’s barnyard humour provided the founda- tion for much of his early work. He relegated domesticated animals to the lowest echelon of life because he, like most Americans, considered them soulless husks, undeserving of moral consideration.
Given how favourably some animals were presented in the early Disney works, it would be unfair to agree that Walt viewed animals in the way that Tobias (2011) suggests. However, it is clear that Walt afforded much more moral consideration to certain species of animals, as this book will demonstrate. For example, higher-order species, such as dogs, have been spared negative depictions in many WDAS works, such as Lady and the Tramp and Oliver & Company. Yet Tobias (2011) is correct in claiming that some species have been largely placed in the background of Disney media, and WDAS’s common depictions of farm animals as subservient characters and objects demonstrate this. Overall, the farms, farmers, and farm animals depicted by WDAS are overly positive, optimistic, and romantic. This may be because the time- line of the Disney company corresponds with the public’s own 1 WDAS’s Problematic Portrayal of Food Farming 13
detachment from nature (Wills 2017: 114). Walt’s childhood farm was undoubtedly very different from the ones that existed later in his lifetime, given that farming has become much more industrialized since 1901 (when Walt was born). It simply would not have been possible for WDAS to depict farming realistically and still appeal to mainstream film audi- ences. As evidenced earlier in this chapter, realistic depictions of farming are usually disliked by Anglo-American film audiences. However, while WDAS’s farm animals, farms, and so forth have been unrealistic, they have not been accidental. In animation, nothing appears accidently since everything must be drawn purposefully. Thus, WDAS’s depiction of farming is an intentional one, which means that its romantic nature war- rants questioning. While WDAS has ignored the negatives associated with farming (such as slaughter and factory farming), they have not neglected farms them- selves. As shown in the data presented in Part II of this chapter, farms are depicted in 25% of WDAS films. WDAS’s farms are usually family-run and based around family homes with free-range paddocks that house a small number of pet-like animals. Additionally, most of the farms in WDAS texts are part of a wider community and do not hide the fact that they are farming animals. As evidenced in Part I, modern factory farms are intentionally built in uninhabited areas and hide their true purpose. In contrast, WDAS’s farms are proud of their existence. For example, in The Black Cauldron (1985), the sweet-natured protagonist Taran lives on “Caer Dallben”, a little farm populated with a small number of happy free-range animals. Taran’s farm is depicted as a warmly-lit, safe, and happy location for both humans and other animals. In contrast, the out- side world (which Taran later travels to) is presented as dangerous and with many villainous characters. Additionally, it has also been noted that the plants on WDAS’s farms are also unrealistic and somewhat romanti- cized. For example, Whitley (2008) notes that the crops in Pocahontas (1995) are unnaturally organized in straight neat rows with few insects, meaning that they resemble idealized genetically-modified crops rather than the crops that would have existed in the pre-industrial period in which Pocahontas is set (2008: 86). Therefore, WDAS’s romanticism of farming extends beyond animals. 14 R. R. Stanton
Despite the lack of realism in WDAS’s depictions of farming, it is
worth noting that critics have often praised Disney for their commitment to realism compared with their animation rivals, such as Warner Brothers and UPA (Pallant 2010b: 105–6). It is claimed that Disney’s early work displayed a predominantly-abstract and non-realist form, but with verisi- militude in respect to characterization, contexts, and narratives (Wells 1998: 23). Walt wanted his characters to move realistically and be plausi- bly motivated (Wells 1998: 23; Pallant 2010b: 104). This form of anima- tion continued throughout Walt’s career, and by the time WDAS was founded, Walt insisted that his animators study the movements of real animals and people in order to perfect the movement and appearance of their characters (Wells 1998: 23). However, this commitment to realism has not yet extended to WDAS’s portrayal of the farming industry. Additionally, this accuracy seems to only apply to the positive aspects of animal behaviour and appearance. For example, the usefulness of farm animals, such as cows providing milk, is depicted. However, the reality of modern farming, such as cows being milked via efficient machinery, is not. A slaughterhouse or similar facility has never been shown in any WDAS film. This is problematic because the farming industry kills more land animals than any other industry. Thus, WDAS is misleading their viewers by negating a large part of the modern farming industry and real farm animals’ lives. Since every WDAS film features animals, it seems fair to suggest that their second most common cause of death should be acknowledged. It seems that WDAS leans towards realism when accentu- ating positive elements and eschews realism if it means engaging with negative elements. The same approach is evident elsewhere; WDAS often depicts overweight middle-aged male characters (such as the sultan in Aladdin or LeFou in Beauty and the Beast), but they do not regularly depict the negatives of middle-age obesity, such as heart attacks or diabe- tes (even though that is a commonplace reality for this demographic). Thus, WDAS seems to only ever depict the more light-hearted or roman- ticized elements of serious issues. This will be further evidenced in this text with analyses of pet-keeping, animal performers, and the produc- tion of fur. Furthermore, it is clear that WDAS’s commitment to realism applies to some species of animals more than others. There is no evidence of 1 WDAS’s Problematic Portrayal of Food Farming 15
conventional farm animals being brought into Disney’s animation stu-
dios for the animators to observe. However, this practice was common with other, often higher-order, animals, such as elephants (for Dumbo) and dogs (for Lady and the Tramp) (for example: Pallant 2011: 47). By not animating directly from farm animals, WDAS’s representations are even further separated from the reality of modern agricultural practice. For example, it is common practice for battery chickens to be de-beaked to prevent them from pecking other animals (BHWT 2019). Yet the farm chickens depicted in WDAS films, such as The Fox and the Hound (1981) and Home on the Range (2004), always appear to have their beaks, and this practice is not mentioned in these narratives. Further to this, WDAS’s farm animals are animated in a much simpler, less-anthropomorphised, and less-unique way than WDAS’s other animal characters. For example, chickens are rarely protagonists or antagonists, nor are they usually indi- vidualized. They are usually light-hearted supporting and background characters in small groups of their species. Their appearance is usually similar to other characters of their species with few individual character- istics. In contrast, higher-order species, such as dogs, are usually designed with a distinctive appearance and individual personality, as can be seen in Lady and the Tramp, for example. Additionally, the farm animals in WDAS films always seem happy with their situation and never show any signs of mistreatment. Moreover, none of the animal characters that have ever died in WDAS films have been conventional farm animals, even though animal farming is the most-common killer of land animals in reality. Singer notes that portrayals of dairy cows in cultural representations tend to be romantic even though most cows alive today have been essen- tially reduced to milking machines (2009: 137). In WDAS films, cows are usually depicted as being content farm animals, even when producing milk for humans or other animals. Outside of the industrial agricultural context, real cows produce milk for the nutritional benefit of their own offspring (RSPCA 2019b). However, there are no examples of calves drinking cows’ milk in any WDAS film. In fact, no calves are depicted in any WDAS film; all of WDAS’s cows are adults and never appear to be pregnant. This implies that cows’ milk does not exist for calves, but for humans and other animals. For example, in Dalmatians, there are several 16 R. R. Stanton
anthropomorphised dairy cows that happily offer their milk to the travel- ling Dalmatian puppies. The cows are shown as happy to lactate for another species, and they also seem quite content in their barn. This is evinced by their grins and the statements they make, such as “I wish they [the puppies] could stay with us for always” [sic]. This suggests that the cows’ only purpose in this film is to provide milk to the travelling pup- pies. They are not depicted before or after this scene, nor do they have calves or appear to be pregnant even though they are able to express milk. Thus, their only purpose is to provide milk when needed by other species. However, as Chap. 3 will highlight, Dalmatians argues that puppies are worth more than their fur, i.e. the objects their bodies can produce. This shows a clear contradiction between the errors of objectifying one species (puppies) and the social-acceptance of objectifying another (cows). This is because the production of milk is socially-acceptable, whereas the pro- duction of fur is not. A similar argument can be made for the way in which WDAS has depicted chickens. Connell (2018) argues that the scrawny mutilated chicken could serve as a mascot for the reality of factory farming. This is because around 80% of all meat produced is chicken flesh, meaning that more chickens are killed in the production of food than any other land animal (Deckers 2016: 54). Somewhat accurately, chickens are also WDAS’s most commonly-depicted farm animal. However, there are zero instances of chicken slaughter in any WDAS films; thus, WDAS is again ignoring the uncomfortable reality of modern animal farming. This is problematic because WDAS’s output negates the reason why most chick- ens exist: the species’ existence is almost solely defined by humans using their bodies (consuming their flesh or the eggs they produce). Evidence suggests that many people believe that chickens are happy with their lives. For example, an American study found that 71% of people believe that free-range hens are happy and content (Norwood and Lusk 2011: 247). This suggests that many people are unaware of how far removed farm animals are from their natural living conditions. Most chickens spend their lives in wire cages in windowless “barns” (Norwood and Lusk 2011: 247). These aspects of chickens’ lives are rarely represented in cul- ture, and certainly never in WDAS films even though chickens are such common characters. 34% of WDAS films feature chickens, but only in 1 WDAS’s Problematic Portrayal of Food Farming 17
free-range situations far removed from the lives that most chickens expe- rience. For example, The Fox and the Hound (1981) includes a single hen nesting with her three chicks in Widow Tweed’s barn. This hen is seen smiling and looks comfortable in her roomy nest. In this respect, WDAS has helped to sustain a notion that hens are content with their role in the agricultural setting. Even Amos Slade, the film’s fox-hating antagonist, has a large outdoor pen and hen house for his small brood of chickens. Thus, in WDAS films, even the villains treat farm animals kindly. The example above also demonstrates how farm animals are less- anthropomorphised than the other species in the same text. In The Fox and the Hound, the fox (Tod) and Copper (the dog) can speak and express many human-like facial emotions. In contrast, the nameless chicken and her nameless chicks do not speak. Additionally, WDAS’s jolly farmers are far removed from contempo- rary farm workers. From Johnny Appleseed in Melody Time to Pearl Gesner in Home on the Range, WDAS’s farmers are optimistic and whole- some characters with no interest in harming animals. It is usually the case that WDAS’s farmers live in a farm house with their animals performing pet-like roles. For example, in The Fox and the Hound (1981), Widow Tweed is a jolly elderly woman who lives in a bungalow with a barn out- side. In her barn, she has a small number of individualized farm animals whom she personally farms in a compassionate way. For example, she is seen gently milking and talking to her pet cow Abigail. Later, she is shown hugging Abigail after Tod scares her. This conflation of home and farm connotes that the cow-human relationship is semi-familial. Even if there is an inbuilt hierarchy, the cow and human co-exist in a productive way: it is not that the cow is purely of instrumental value to the human. The situation also contrasts with the now typical geography of contemporary agriculture – which happens far from the consumer’s everyday context. Thus, WDAS’s depiction of farmers is in stark contrast to the reality of most farm workers today. Part I presented evidence that most modern farm workers do work that is both mentally and physically challenging; additionally, they have little chance for bonding with individual animals because of the sheer numbers and short lives of the animals involved. Meat and dairy are often evident in WDAS films, but the intense farming required to generate those foods is rarely depicted. Cows are 18 R. R. Stanton
occasionally milked in WDAS films, but this has never been depicted as cruel or unnatural. Whenever WDAS has shown cows producing milk, the cows are happy to do so. Similarly, only once have chickens been shown laying eggs (Home on the Range). As highlighted in Part II of this chapter, 54% of the WDAS films in this study feature some kind of meat, and 54% feature a common farm animal. However, these instances do not always coincide. Some films that feature meat or dairy, such as Atlantis (2001), do not feature any farm animals. Similarly, some films that include common farm animals, such as Winnie the Pooh (2011), feature no farm products at all. This again demonstrates the disconnection between farm animals and animals as food. It implies that the two are separate, even though meat and dairy cannot exist without farm animals. Despite this separation, WDAS’s portrayal of meat-eaters is unflattering and not romanticized at all. Adams claims that patriarchal structures promote the idea that meat is masculine (2010: 48, 56). For example, physically-strong, heavily- muscular men, such as wrestlers and weight-lifters, are commonly por- trayed as heavy meat eaters (Adams 2010: 56–7). Moreover, men who abstain from meat eating are often perceived as un-masculine (Adams 2010: 57). This idea is echoed in WDAS films. For example, the overtly- masculine Gaston in Beauty and the Beast (1991) proudly boasts about his high meat and raw egg intake to other, less-muscly, men. Gaston has a large physique, brags about his hunting achievements, and even has his own eponymous song that celebrates his many manly features. Gaston’s henchman LeFou compliments him by telling him that: “No beast alive stands a chance against you, and no girl for that matter”. Another exam- ple of this characterization is found in 1963s The Sword and the Stone (1963), in which the spoilt and brutish Sir Kay is seen eating enormous amounts of meat after his knighthood training. This example also sug- gests that eating large amounts of meat produces more muscle. This con- notation is about mastery and control over the self (training), but also an exertion of power over animal flesh. Animal flesh is there to become part of his flesh, to improve him – he possesses it. As he eats large amounts of meat, Kay boasts about how little he cares about Arthur, whom he refers to as “the wart”. This slur, alongside the large amounts of greasy meat around him, portrays Kay as an insensitive character. It again suggests, as 1 WDAS’s Problematic Portrayal of Food Farming 19
Adams (2010) highlights, that meat-eaters are toxically masculine.7 These
men are insensitive to the processes involved in creating meat (death), and although the films seem critical of their insensitivity, the films are also complicit in negating those processes. In cultural representations, harming animals is often an indicator of a villainous character, so it makes sense that meat eating also indicates this because the production of meat always involves animal death (Arluke 2006: 3). In contrast to this, WDAS’s male characters that do not eat meat are portrayed as somewhat feminine. For instance, Johnny Appleseed in Melody Time (1948) is a skinny gentle unmarried man, who seems to only eat and farm apples and is never depicted eating any animal prod- ucts or farming animals for food. There are animals in his narrative, but Johnny does not use or harm them. To refer back to quote at the begin- ning of the chapter, it is worth noting that in Fun and Fancy Free, the starving farmers Mickey, Goofy, and Donald do not eat meat when they arrive at the giant’s castle, even though they are starving, and it is freely available to them. Instead, the three pro-social farmers feast on peas and jelly. In contrast, the insensitive oafish giant eats chicken ungraciously, which immediately establishes him as a villainous character. By depicting toxically-masculine men as meat consumers, and gentlemen as herbi- vores, WDAS implies that the consumption of meat is associated with villainy and toxic-masculinity. However, connecting meat-eating with antagonistic characters is inaccurate given that most humans today, male and female, eat meat (The Vegan Society 2019). Therefore, it is clear that WDAS’s inaccurate portrayal of farming also extends to the products cre- ated on farms, such as meat. It is also notable that most of WDAS’s meat-eating animals are also villainous. For example, in The Lion King, Scar feeds a large chunk of zebra meat to his villainous hyena minions. The mixed-gendered group of hyenas eat this meat aggressively, animalistically, and ungraciously, even though they are heavily-anthropomorphised in many other ways. They bend over the carcass, chomp quickly, and then talk with their mouths full. This action adds to the unforgiving and insensitive character
7 This book understands that “toxic-masculinity” is when men suppress emotions, mask distress, maintain an appearance of hardness, and use violence as an indicator of power (Salam 2019). 20 R. R. Stanton
that the hyenas display elsewhere in the film, such as when they attempt to kill Simba. In fact, at the end of the film, the hyenas turn on Scar and appear to eat him (off-screen) after he falls from a cliff. Unlike the hyenas, the pro-social lions in the film are never seen eating meat, despite the fact that lions are carnivorous animals in reality (although Simba is shown to reluctantly eat some non-anthropomorphised insects as he adapts to life in the jungle). Therefore, it seems that meat symbolizes villainy in animal characters as well as human characters. It is clear from both the data in Part II and the points raised in this section that WDAS has often depicted animal farming, but in a romantic way that does not reflect the harsh reality of modern agricultural prac- tices. WDAS’s farms are happy, wholesome places, inhabited by content, servile animals and considerate human farmers. This depiction perhaps originated from Walt’s own idealistic farm experience, which was evi- dently a pre-industrialised haven seen through the naive eyes of a child and subsequently a nostalgic gaze. On WDAS’s farms, there is never any mistreatment or slaughter, which is the reality for almost-all farm animals today. Thus, despite their modern prevalence, modern megafarms and slaughterhouses are simply not part of WDAS’s rendition of farming. Furthermore, WDAS’s depictions of meat and dairy consumers are typi- cally negative in tone. WDAS seems to associate meat-consumption with two types of character: toxically-masculine men and villains. However, this does not reflect the reality of modern western Anglo-American con- sumers, most of whom eat meat. Furthermore, consuming meat is not a socially-unacceptable act in reality, despite being portrayed negatively in WDAS films. These observations are further evident with a close exami- nation of 2004s Home on the Range, a Neo-Disney8 WDAS film set on a pre-industrial dairy farm.
8 The Neo-Disney period (2000–2008) was an experimental Disney period that included eleven films (Fantasia 2000 – Bolt). During the Neo-Disney period, WDAS moved away from the hand- drawn animation they had become famous for and started making animation using CGI-technology (Pallant 2010b: 104). There were several other changes too, many of which have since been aban- doned. For example, the Neo-Disney films did not use music as most popular WDAS films do, i.e. with characters singing. Instead, they used montage and background music (Pallant 2010b: 110). 1 WDAS’s Problematic Portrayal of Food Farming 21
art IV: Animal Farming and Home
P on the Range As the beginning of Part I demonstrated, the reality of animal farming industry is quite gruesome. However, as the end of Part I demonstrated, and Part III of this chapter indicated, WDAS only depicts romantic images of animal farming. Therefore, it seems that despite the negative aspects of modern agriculture, this chapter will have the happy ending that WDAS films are famous for. The story of Home on the Range is a WDAS original, rather than being based on external texts (Singer 2004). Range is about a trio of female dairy cows that attempt to capture a cattle rustler who wants to buy their dairy farm. All of the villains are human, and most of the heroes are animals, which could serve as a metaphor for the dairy industry. As shown in Part I, the dairy industry is often labelled as cruel because of its inattention to animal welfare. Thus, in reality, humans are the “villains” of the dairy industry. However, this metaphor is where the reality of dairy farming ends with Range. The film opens with a hot branding iron (the type that brands cattle) stamping the iconic Disney logo onto parchment. This opening seems to minimize what is a common way of harming farm animals. During this moment, there are no cattle on screen, and the music playing is country- western style. Because there are no cattle and the music is upbeat, cattle- branding is not depicted as a practice that is painful or which metaphorically objectifies cattle. Thus, branding irons are disconnected from their usual use and instead depicted as harmless objects that stamp parchment, not animals. The dairy farm that Range centres around is sweetly named “Little Patch of Heaven”. This farm offers a saccharine portrayal of farm life. When the film opens, a jolly opening song “Little Patch of Heaven” plays over an opening montage to introduce the location, and to exemplify the happy attitude the farm encapsulates:
Everything’s green Know what I mean Darlin’ it’s quite the sweetest sight that you ever done seen 22 R. R. Stanton
Ain’t nothin’ much out there.
Just life at its best On that little patch of heaven Way out west [sic]
These lyrics establish that the farm is a happy, peaceful, and natural location that is safe for animals, and this is indeed confirmed by the nar- rative. The story of Range begins with Maggie, an ex-show cow, being sold to “Little Patch of Heaven”, a transaction that she is happy with. Maggie’s previous owner (Mr. Dixon) had to sell Maggie after his cattle herd was stolen by Slim, the film’s villain. Upon seeing “Little Patch of Heaven”, Maggie grins and states that: “I hope it’s not one of them fat- free places”. By referencing “fat-free”, Maggie shows an understanding of how dairy products are sold outside of animal farms today. This is humor- ous because real dairy cows almost certainly have little understanding of the products made from their milk. This is the first of many jokes made about the modern farming industry, even though the film is set in the past. For example, Maggie proclaims: “Yeah, they’re real. Quit staring!” in reference to her prize-winning udders. These jokes allude to the reality of modern animal objectification, but in a way that children are unlikely to understand. It was because of these crude jokes that Range was given a PG rating, which is unusual for a WDAS film (IMDB 2018c). These jokes seem to exist in lieu of realistic depictions of modern agriculture. Further to this, the film’s subtle jokes also (perhaps more significantly) demonstrate that the film is not entirely blind to contemporary agricul- tural practices, and it expects the audience to share in that awareness (since the jokes rely on that awareness). Upon her arrival at the farm, Maggie describes the farm as “heaven”, “green”, and “roomy”. This is further confirmed by the visuals of the film. The farm is first shown through a wide camera angle, making it look large and spacious. Also, given that there are only a small number of animals living there, every animal has a generous amount of space to themselves. Each farm animal on “Little Patch of Heaven” has an individual name and personality. For example, there is an elderly grumpy goat named Jeb that collects tin cans. Because the animal characters are individualized, the “collapse of compassion” effect does not occur. Thus, when the trio of 1 WDAS’s Problematic Portrayal of Food Farming 23
dairy cows later face danger and misfortune, the film encourages sympa- thy through their individual pain. The farm is decorated with various fruit trees and sweetcorn plants, which is an uncontroversial type of farming to depict (compared with battery chicken farming, for instance). During the farm’s introductory song, the cows help Pearl (the farmer) to collect fruit from the trees. Pearl does all the farming with just the help of her subservient farm animals. She has no machines or human workers to aid her, nor does she seem to need them. For example, Mrs. Calloway, one of the main cow characters, uses her flowery hat to help collect eggs from the hens. This scene implies that “Little Patch of Heaven” has a leisurely pace of life, which contrasts hugely with the inhumane efficiency of modern agriculture. Furthermore, most of the animals are depicted eating within the first five minutes of the film, implying that they are well-fed, and thus well-cared for. Pearl, the human farm owner, is a loving, kind, elderly lady who clearly loves her farm animals and refers to them as her “family”. After the open- ing song, it transpires that “Little Patch of Heaven” is in serious debt due to a bad harvest. This again suggests that the farm’s emphasis is on selling crops rather than animal products. However, Pearl refuses to sell her live- stock to save her farm on the basis that her animals are her family. She even aggressively threatens the sheriff with a hoe after he suggests it. Thus, the farm animals are clearly treated like pets rather than products by the farmer. Most of the harm the farm animals later face is a result of their own choices and jokes rather than harms inflicted by the human charac- ters. In reality, farmed animals are directly and indirectly harmed by humans, through no fault of their own. In addition to the subtle jokes about modern farming throughout the film, the way that the cattle are controlled by the film’s villain Alameda Slim is also comedic rather than violent. Alameda Slim, the film’s human cattle-rustling antagonist, uses yodelling to hypnotize the cattle into fol- lowing his commands. Slim uses no cattle prods, branding irons, and so forth. Again, the lack of violence or inhumane farming tools is not reflec- tive of how many cattle are treated by humans in reality. Slim was voiced by Randy Quaid, a famous American comedy actor (Collin 2017). This seems to further confirm that WDAS envisioned the character as humor- ous, rather than terrifying. Despite this humour, Slim and his gang are 24 R. R. Stanton
described by Maggie (the cow) as “The meanest bunch of cattle rustlers
in the west” before they even appear on screen. The trio of farm cows try to find Slim in order to claim the $750 reward for his capture and pay off their farm’s debt. People who directly harm animals are often vilified both in WDAS films and other cultural representations. However, despite his role as a cattle rustler, Slim never harms any animals, only humans. For example, he often hits his hapless (human) nephews when they do not do as he asks, or when they misunderstand his commands. It is clear that Slim does not value farm animals as dearly as Pearl does, but it could not be said that he harms, neglects, or mistreats the cattle in any way. If Slim did harm the cattle, it would likely detract from his engaging comedic character. The human villains are easily outwitted by the farm animals, suggest- ing that the farm animals are equally, if not more, intelligent than humans. The film also suggests that farm animals feel pain, prejudice, love, and friendship. Thus, these farm animals are depicted as sentient and capable of feeling pain. The fact that Range depicts violence towards humans as justifiable, and violence towards farm animals as unethical, seems to indirectly suggest that farm animals do not deserve to be harmed. Thus, Range opposes factory farming, albeit indirectly. What little vio- lence is included in the film is frequently perpetrated by animals rather than humans. For example, Patrick (the horse) and the cows defeat sev- eral human cowboys with a whip during the climax of the film. This scene ends with several of the cowboys being tied up. This sequence inverts the normal function of whips, which are typically used to control horses and livestock. However, this scene is problematic because it pres- ents the dichotomy between humans and farm animals as a fair fight, with the animals having an equal chance of winning. In reality, farm animals have little chance to “fight back” against their mistreatment because they are usually caged and do not have access to weapons. However, Range is not entirely without violence towards animals. After the film’s opening shot, a wild rabbit (aptly named “Lucky Jack”) is chased by a snarling grey wolf. Lucky Jack falls into a cactus and is then viciously pecked by a flock of owls. Subsequently, he is caught by a rattle snake and carried off-camera. This narrative continues throughout the film, often as a way of opening scenes. For example, Lucky Jack appears later in the Another random document with no related content on Scribd: “Well, I’m glad you’ve got here. We’ve been having a picnic up at the house. Julie’s been having the hysterics and MacDonald—you never knew MacDonald, did you?” Applegate listened politely. He had a curious feeling that Julie and her hysterics were already very far away and unimportant to him, but he did not wish to be so brutal as to show this. “When did MacDonald return and where has he been?” he asked, gravely. “He got here yesterday. He says he had a shock or something in that accident—anyhow, he just couldn’t remember anything, and when he come to he didn’t know who he was, nor anything about himself, and all his papers and clothes had been burnt, so there was nothing to show anybody who he was. He could work, and he was all right most ways. Says he was that way till about six months ago, when a Frisco doctor got hold of him and did something to his head that put him right. He has papers from the doctor to show it’s true. His case attracted lots of attention out there. Of course he wrote to Julie when he came to himself, but his letters went to our old address and she never got them. So then he started East to see about it. He says he’s got into a good business and is going to do well.” There was a long silence. Presently Hopson began again, awkwardly: “I don’t know how you feel about it, but I think Julie’d ought to go back to him.” Applegate’s heart began to beat in curious, irregular throbs; he could feel the pulsing of the arteries in his neck and there was a singing in his ears. “Of course Julie agrees with you?” he said, thickly. “Well, no; she don’t. That’s what she wanted me to talk to you about. She can’t see it but one way. She says he died, or if he didn’t it was the same thing to her, and she married you. She says nobody can have two husbands, and it’s you who are hers. I told her the law didn’t look at it that way, and she says then she must get a divorce from MacDonald and remarry you. MacDonald says if she brings suit on the ground of desertion he will fight it. He says he can prove it ain’t been no wilful desertion. But probably he could be brought round if he saw she wouldn’t go back to him anyhow. MacDonald wouldn’t be spiteful. But he was pretty fond of Julie.” Applegate had stopped suddenly in the middle of Hopson’s speech. Now he went forward rapidly, but he made no answer. Hopson scrutinized his face a moment before he continued: “Julie says you won’t be spiteful either. She says maybe she was a little hasty in what she said just before she came up here. But you know Julie’s way.” “Yes,” said Applegate, “I know Julie’s way.” Hopson drew a breath of relief. He had at least discharged himself of his intercessory mission. “I tell Julie she’d better put up with it and go with MacDonald. The life would be more the sort of thing she likes. But her head’s set and she won’t hear to anything Henriette or I say. You see, that’s what Julie holds by, what she thinks is respectable. And it’s about all she does hold by.” He hesitated, groping blindly about in his consciousness for words to express his feeling that this passionate, reckless nature was only anchored to the better things of life by her fervent belief in the righteousness of the established social order. “Julie thinks everything of being respectable,” he concluded, lamely. “Is it much farther to your house?” asked Applegate, dully. “Right here,” answered Hopson, pulling his key from his pocket. They entered a crude little parlor whose carpet was too gaudy, and whose plush furniture was too obviously purchased at a bargain, but its air was none the less heavy with tragedy. A single gas-jet flickered in the centre of the room. On one side a great, broad- shouldered fellow sat doggedly with his elbows on his knees and his face buried in his hands. There was resistance in every line of his figure. On the sofa opposite was Julie in her crimson dress. As she lifted her face eagerly, Applegate noticed traces of tears upon it. Mrs. Hopson, who had been moving about the room aimlessly, a pale and ineffective figure between these two vivid personalities, came to a standstill and looked at Applegate breathlessly. For a moment no one spoke. Then Julie, baffled by the eyes she could not read, sprang to her feet and stretched out her hands with a vehement gesture. “John Applegate, you’ll put me right! You will. I know you will. I can’t go back to him! How can I?” Her hungry eyes scrutinized his still, inexpressive face. “John, you aren’t going to turn me off?” Her voice had a despairing passion in it. “You won’t refuse to marry me if I get the divorce? Good God! You can’t be such a devil. John! oh, John!” Applegate sat down and looked at her apathetically. He was not used to being called a devil. Somehow it seemed to him the term was misapplied. “Don’t take on so, Julie,” he said, quietly. The room seemed to whirl around him, and he added, with a palpable effort: “I’ll think it over and try to do what is best for both of us.” At that MacDonald lifted his sullen face from his hands for the first time and glanced across at the other man with blood-shot eyes. Then he rose slowly, his great bulk seeming to fill the room, and walking over to Applegate’s chair stood in front of it looking down at him. His scrutiny was long. Once Applegate looked up and met his eyes, but he was too tired to bear their fierce light and dropped his own lids wearily. MacDonald turned from him contemptuously and faced his wife, who averted her head. “Look at me, Julie!” he cried, appealingly. “I am better worth it than he is. Good Lord! I don’t see what you see in him. He’s so tame! Let him go about his business. He’s nobody. He don’t want you. Come along with me and we’ll lead a life! You shall cut a dash out there. I can make money hand over fist. It’s the place for you. Come on!” For a moment Julie’s eyes glittered. The words allured her, but her old gods prevailed. She threw out her arms as if to ward off his proposal. “No, no,” she said, shrilly. “I cannot make it seem right. You were dead to me, and I married him. One does not go back to the dead. If I am your wife, what am I to him? It puts me in the wrong these two years. I cannot have it so, I tell you. I cannot have it so!” Applegate felt faint and sick. Rising, he groped for the door. “I must have air,” he said to Hopson, confusedly. “I will come back in a minute.” Once outside, the cool November night refreshed him. He dropped down upon the doorstep and threw back his head, drinking in long breaths as he looked up at the mocking stars. When he found at last the courage to ask himself what he was going to do, the answer was not ready. The decision lay entirely in his hands. He might still be free if he said the word; and as he thought of this he trembled. He had always tried to be what his neighbors called a straight man, and he wanted to be straight in this also. But where, in such a hideous tangle, was the real morality to be found? Surely not in acceding to Julie’s demands! What claim had she upon the home whose simple traditions of peace and happiness she had trampled rudely under foot? Was it not a poor, cheap convention of righteousness which demanded he should take such a woman back to embitter the rest of his days and warp his children’s lives? He rebelled hotly at the thought. That it was Julie’s view of the ethical requirement of her position made it all the more improbable that it was really right. Surely his duty was to his children first, and as for Julie, let her reap the reward of her own temperament. The Lord God Himself could not say that this was unjust, for it is so that He deals with the souls of men. It seemed to him that he had decided, but as he rose and turned to the door a new thought stabbed him so sharply that he dropped his lifted hand with a groan. Where had been that sense of duty to his children, just now so imperative, in the days when he had yielded to Julie’s charm against his better judgment? Had duty ever prevailed against inclination with him? Was it prevailing now? High over all the turmoil and desperation of his thoughts shone out a fresh perception that mocked him as the winter stars had mocked. For that hour at least, the crucial one of his decision, he felt assured that in the relation of man and woman to each other lies the supreme ethical test of each, and in that relation there is no room for selfishness. It might be, indeed, that he owed Julie nothing, but might it not also be that the consideration he owed all womankind could only be paid through this woman he had called his wife? This was an ideal with which he had never had to reckon. He turned and sat him down again to fight the fight with a chill suspicion in his heart of what the end would be. Being a plain man he had only plain words in which to phrase his decision when at last he came to it. “I chose her and I’ll bear the consequences of my choice,” he said, “but I’ll bear them by myself. His aunt will be glad to take Teddy, and Dora is old enough to go away to school.” Then he opened the door. Hopson and his wife had left the little parlor. Julie on the sofa had fallen into the deep sleep of exhaustion. MacDonald still sat there, with his head in his hands, and to him Applegate turned. At the sound of his step the man lifted his massive head and shook it impatiently. “Well?” he demanded. “The fact is, Mr. MacDonald, Julie and I don’t get along very well together, but I don’t know as that is any reason why I should force her to do anything that don’t seem right to her. She thinks it would be more”—he hesitated for a word—“more nearly right to get a divorce from you and remarry me. As I see it now, it’s for her to say what she wants, and for you and me to do it.” MacDonald looked at him piercingly. “You know you’d be glad of the chance to get rid of her!” he exclaimed, excitedly. “In Heaven’s name, then, why don’t you make her come to me? You know I suit her best. You know she’s my sort, not yours. She’s as uncomfortable with you as you with her, and she’d soon get over the feeling she has against me. Man! There’s no use in it! Why can’t you give my own to me?” “I can’t say I don’t agree with you,” said Applegate, and the words seem to ooze painfully from his white lips, “but she thinks she’d rather not, and—it’s for her to say.” A CONSUMING FIRE He is a man who has failed in this life, and says he has no chance of success in another; but out of the fragments of his failures he has pieced together for himself a fabric of existence more satisfying than most of us make of our successes. It is a kind of triumph to look as he does, to have his manner, and to preserve his attitude toward advancing years—those dreaded years which he faces with pale but smiling lips. If you would see my friend Hayden, commonly called by his friends the connoisseur, figure to yourself a tall gentleman of sixty-five, very erect still and graceful, gray-headed and gray-bearded, with fine gray eyes that have the storm-tossed look of clouds on a windy March day, and a bearing that somehow impresses you with an idea of the gracious and pathetic dignity of his lonely age. I myself am a quiet young man, with but one gift—I am a finished and artistic listener. It is this talent of mine which wins for me a degree of Hayden’s esteem and a place at his table when he has a new story to tell. His connoisseurship extends to everything of human interest, and his stories are often of the best. The last time that I had the honor of dining with him, there was present, besides the host and myself, only his close friend, that vigorous and successful man, Dr. Richard Langworthy, the eminent alienist and specialist in nervous diseases. The connoisseur evidently had something to relate, but he refused to give it to us until the pretty dinner was over. Hayden’s dinners are always pretty, and he has ideals in the matter of china, glass, and napery which it would require a woman to appreciate. It is one of his accomplishments that he manages to live like a gentleman and entertain his friends on an income which most people find quite inadequate for the purpose. After dinner we took coffee and cigars in the library. On the table, full in the mellow light of the great lamp (Hayden has a distaste for gas), was a bit of white plush on which two large opals were lying. One was an intensely brilliant globe of broken gleaming lights, in which the red flame burned strongest and most steadily; the other was as large, but paler. You would have said that the prisoned heart of fire within it had ceased to throb against the outer rim of ice. Langworthy, who is wise in gems, bent over them with an exclamation of delight. “Fine stones,” he said; “where did you pick them up, Hayden?” Hayden, standing with one hand on Langworthy’s shoulder, smiled down on the opals with a singular expression. It was as if he looked into beloved eyes for an answering smile. “They came into my possession in a singular way, very singular. It interested me immensely, and I want to tell you about it, and ask your advice on something connected with it. I am afraid you people will hardly care for the story as much as I do. It’s—it’s a little too rococo and sublimated to please you, Langworthy. But here it is: “When I was in the West last summer, I spent some time in a city on the Pacific slope which has more pawnbrokers’ shops and that sort of thing in full sight on the prominent streets than any other town of the same size and respectability that I have ever seen. One day, when I had been looking in the bazaars for something a little out of the regular line in Chinese curios and didn’t find it, it occurred to me that in such a cosmopolitan town there might possibly be some interesting things in the pawn-shops, so I went into one to look. It was a common, dingy place, kept by a common, dingy man with shrewd eyes and a coarse mouth. Talking to him across the counter was a man of another type. Distinction in good clothes, you know, one is never sure of. It may be only that a man’s tailor is distinguished. But distinction in indifferent garments is distinction indeed, and there before me I saw it. A young, slight, carelessly dressed man, his bearing was attractive and noteworthy beyond anything I can express. His appearance was perhaps a little too unusual, for the contrast between his soft, straw-colored hair and wine-brown eyes was such a striking one that it attracted attention from the real beauty of his face. The delicacy of a cameo is rough,” added the connoisseur, parenthetically, “compared to the delicacy of outline and feature in a face that thought, and perhaps suffering, have worn away, but this is one of the distinctive attractions of the old. You do not look for it in young faces such as this. “On the desk between the two men lay a fine opal—this one,” said Hayden, touching the more brilliant of the two stones. “The younger man was talking eagerly, fingering the gem lightly as he spoke. I inferred that he was offering to sell or pawn it. “The proprietor, seeing that I waited, apparently cut the young man short. He started, and caught up the stone. ‘I’ll give you—’ I heard the other say, but the young man shook his head, and departed abruptly. I found nothing that I wanted in the place, and soon passed out. “In front of a shop-window a little farther down the street stood the other man, looking in listlessly with eyes that evidently saw nothing. As I came by he turned and looked into my face. His eyes fixed me as the Ancient Mariner’s did the Wedding Guest. It was an appealing yet commanding look, and I—I felt constrained to stop. I couldn’t help it, you know. Even at my age one is not beyond feeling the force of an imperious attraction, and when you are past sixty you ought to be thankful on your knees for any emotion that is imperative in its nature. So I stopped beside him. I said: ‘It is a fine stone you were showing that man. I have a great fondness for opals. May I ask if you were offering it for sale?’ “He continued to look at me, inspecting me calmly, with a fastidious expression. Upon my word, I felt singularly honored when, at the end of a minute or two, he said: ‘I should like to show it to you. If you will come to my room with me, you may see that, and another;’ and he turned and led the way, I following quite humbly and gladly, though surprised at myself. “The room, somewhat to my astonishment, proved to be a large apartment—a front room high up in one of the best hotels. There were a good many things lying about which obviously were not hotel furnishings, and the walls, the bed, and even the floor were covered with a litter of water-color sketches. Those that I could see were admirable, being chiefly impressions of delicate and fleeting atmospheric effects. “I took the chair he offered. He stood, still looking at me, apparently not in haste to show me the opals. I looked about the room. “‘You are an artist?’ I said. “‘Oh, I used to be, when I was alive,’ he answered, drearily. ‘I am nothing now.’ And then turning away he fetched a little leather case, and placed the two opals on the table before me. “‘This is the one I have always worn,’ he said, indicating the more brilliant. ‘That chillier one I gave once to the woman whom I loved. It was more vivid then. They are strange stones—strange stones.’ “He said nothing more, and I sat in perfect silence, only dreading that he should not speak again. I am not making you understand how he impressed me. In the delicate, hopeless patience of his face, in the refined, uninsistent accents of his voice, there was somehow struck a note of self-abnegation, of aloofness from the world, pathetic in any one so young. “I am old. There is little in life that I care for. My interests are largely affected. Wine does not warm me now, and beauty seems no longer beautiful; but I thank Heaven I am not beyond the reach of a penetrating human personality. I have at least the ordinary instincts for convention in social matters, but I assure you it seemed not in the least strange to me that I should be sitting in the private apartment of a man whom I had met only half an hour before, and then in a pawnbroker’s shop, listening eagerly for his account of matters wholly personal to himself. It struck me as the most natural and charming thing in the world. It was just such chance passing intercourse as I expect to hold with wandering spirits on the green hills of paradise. “It was some time before he spoke again. “‘I saw her first,’ he said, looking at the paler opal, as if it was of that he spoke, ‘on the street in Florence. It was a day in April, and the air was liquid gold. She was looking at the Campanile, as if she were akin to it. It was the friendly grace of one lily looking at another. Later, I met her as one meets other people, and was presented to her. And after that the days went fast. I think she was the sweetest woman God ever made. I sometimes wonder how He came to think of her. Whatever you may have missed in life,’ he said, lifting calm eyes to mine, and smiling a little, ‘you whose aspect is so sweet, decorous, and depressing, whose griefs, if you have griefs, are the subtle sorrows of the old and unimpassioned’—I remember his phrases literally. I thought them striking and descriptive,” confessed Hayden—“‘I hope you have not missed that last touch of exaltation which I knew then. It is the most exquisite thing in life. The Fates must hate those from whose lips they keep that cup.’ He mused awhile and added, ‘There is only one real want in life, and that is comradeship—comradeship with the divine, and that we call religion; with the human, and that we call love.’ “‘Your definitions are literature,’ I ventured to suggest, ‘but they are not fact. Believe me, neither love nor religion is exactly what you call it. And there are other things almost as good in life, as surely you must know. There is art, and there is work which is work only, and yet is good.’ “‘You speak from your own experience?’ he said, simply. “It was a home thrust. I did not, and I knew I did not. I am sixty-five years old, and I have never known just that complete satisfaction which I believe arises from the perfect performance of distasteful work. I said so. He smiled. “‘I knew it when I set my eyes upon you, and I knew you would listen to me and my vaporing. Your sympathy with me is what you feel toward all forms of weakness, and in the last analysis it is self- sympathy. You are beautiful, not strong,’ he added, with an air of finality, ‘and I—I am like you. If I had been a strong man.... Christ!’ “I enjoyed this singular analysis of myself, but I wanted something else. “‘You were telling me of the opals,’ I suggested. “‘The opals, yes. Opals always made me happy, you know. While I wore one, I felt a friend was near. My father found these in Hungary, and sent them to me—two perfect jewels. He said they were the twin halves of a single stone. I believe it to be true. Their mutual relation is an odd one. One has paled as the other brightened. You see them now. When they were both mine, they were of almost equal brilliancy. This,’ touching the paler, ‘is the one I gave to her. You see the difference in them now. Hers began to pale before she had worn it a month. I do not try to explain it, not even on the ground of the old superstition. It was not her fault that they made her send it back to me. But the fact remains; her opal is fading slowly; mine is burning to a deeper red. Some day hers will be frozen quite, while mine—mine —’ his voice wavered and fell on silence, as the flame of a candle fighting against the wind flickers and goes out. “I waited many minutes for him to speak again, but the silence was unbroken. At last I rose. ‘Surely you did not mean to part with either stone?’ I said. “He looked up as if from a dream. ‘Part with them? Why should I sell my soul? I would not part with them if I were starving. I had a minute’s temptation, but that is past now.’ Then, with a change of manner, ‘You are going?’ He rose with a gesture that I felt then and still feel as a benediction. ‘Good-by. I wish for your own sake that you had not been so like my poor self that I knew you for a friend.’ “We had exchanged cards, but I did not see or hear of him again. Last week these stones came to me, sent by some one here in New York of his own name—his executor. He is dead, and left me these. “It is here that I want your counsel. These stones do not belong to me, you know. It is true that we are like, as like as blue and violet. But there is that woman somewhere—I don’t know where; and I know no more of their story than he told me. I have not cared to be curious regarding it or him. But they loved once, and these belong to her. Do you suppose they would be a comfort or a curse to her? If—if —” the connoisseur evidently found difficulty in stating his position. “Of course I do not mean to say that I believe one of the stones waned while the other grew more brilliant. I simply say nothing of it; but I know that he believed it, and I, even I, feel a superstition about it. I do not want the light in that stone to go out; or if it should, or could, I do not want to see it. And, besides, if I were a woman, and that man had loved me so, I should wish those opals.” Here Hayden looked up and caught Langworthy’s amused, tolerant smile. He stopped, and there was almost a flush upon his cheek. “You think I am maudlin—doting—I see,” he said. “Langworthy, I do hope the Lord will kindly let you die in the harness. You haven’t any taste for these innocent, green pastures where we old fellows must disport ourselves, if we disport at all. Now, I want to know if it would be—er—indelicate to attempt to find out who she is, and to restore the stones to her?” Langworthy, who had preserved throughout his usual air of strict scientific attention, jumped up and began to pace the room. “His name?” he said. Hayden gave it. “I know the man,” said Langworthy, almost reluctantly. “Did any one who ever saw him forget him? He was on the verge of melancholia, but what a mind he had!” “How did you know him, Langworthy?” asked Hayden, with pathetic eagerness. “As a patient. It’s a sad story. You won’t like it. You had better keep your fancies without the addition of any of the facts.” “Go on,” said Hayden, briefly. “They live here, you know. He was the only son. He unconsciously acquired the morphine habit from taking quantities of the stuff for neuralgic symptoms during a severe protracted illness. After he got better, and found what had happened to him, he came to me. I had to tell him he would die if he didn’t break it off, and would probably die if he did. ‘Oh, no matter,’ he said. ‘What disgusts me is the idea that it has taken such hold of me.’ He did break it off directly and absolutely. I never knew but one other man who did that thing. But between the pain and the shock from the sudden cessation of the drug, his mind was unbalanced for awhile. Of course the girl’s parents broke off the engagement. I knew they were travelling with him last summer. It was a trying case, and the way he accepted his own weakness touched me. At his own request he carried no money with him. It was a temptation when he wanted the drug, you see. It must have been at some such moment, when he contemplated giving up the struggle, that you met him in the pawn-shop.” “I am glad I knew enough to respect him even there,” murmured Hayden, in his beard. “Oh, you may respect him, and love him if you like. He died a moral hero, if a mental and physical wreck. That is as good a way as any, or ought to be, to enter another life—if there is another life.” “And the woman?” asked the connoisseur. “Keep the opals, Hayden; they and he are more to you than to her. She—in fact it is very soon—is to marry another man.” “Who is—” “A gilded cad. That’s all.” Langworthy took out his watch and looked at it. I turned to the table. What had happened to the dreaming stones? Did a light flash across from one to the other, or did my eyes deceive me? I looked down, not trusting what I saw. One opal lay as pale, as pure, as lifeless, as a moon-stone is. The other glowed with a yet fierier spark; instead of coming from within, the color seemed to play over its surface in unrestricted flame. “See here!” I said. Langworthy looked, then turned his head away sharply. The distaste of the scientific man for the inexplicable and irrational was very strong within him. But the old man bent forward, the lamp-light shining on his white hair, and with a womanish gesture caught the gleaming opal to his lips. “A human soul!” he said. “A human soul!” AN UNEARNED REWARD It is the very last corner of the world in which you would expect to find a sermon. Overhead hang the Colorado skies, curtains of deepest, dullest cobalt, against which the unthreatening white clouds stand out with a certain solidity, a tangible look seen nowhere else save in that clear air. All around are the great upland swells of the mountains, rising endlessly, ridge beyond ridge, like the waves of the sea. In a hollow beside the glittering track is the one sign of human existence in sight—the sun-scorched, brown railway station. It is an insignificant structure planted on a high platform. There is a red tool- chest standing against the wall; a tin advertisement of somebody’s yeast-cakes is nailed to the clap-boards; three buffalo hides, with horns still on them, hang over a beam by the coal-shed, and across the side of the platform, visible only to those approaching from the west, is written, in great, black letters: THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH. This legend had no place there on the September afternoon, some years ago, when Carroll Forbes stepped off the west-bound express as it halted a minute at the desolate spot. Because it looked to him like the loneliest place in all the world the notion seized him suddenly, as the train drew up beside the high platform, to catch up his valise and leave the car. He was looking for a lonely place, and looking helplessly. He snatched at the idea that here might be what he sought, as a drowning man at the proverbial straw. When the train had gone on and left him there, already repenting tremulously of what might prove his disastrous folly, a man, who was possibly the station agent—if this were indeed a station—came limping toward him with an inquiring look. Forbes was a handsome man himself, and thoroughly aware of the value of beauty as an endowment. He was conscious of a half- envious pang as he faced the blonde giant halting across the platform. This was, or had been, a singularly perfect specimen of the physical man. Over six feet in height, muscular, finely proportioned, fair-haired and fair-skinned, with a curling, blonde beard, and big, expressionless blue eyes, he looked as one might who had been made when the world was young, and there was more room for mighty men than now. The slight, olive-skinned young man who faced him was conscious of the sudden feeling of physical disadvantage that comes upon one in the presence of imposing natural objects, for the man was as august in his way as the cliffs and canyons. “I am a—an artist,” said Carroll Forbes. “Is there any place hereabouts where I can get my meals and sometimes a bed, while I am sketching in the mountains?” The man stared at him. “Would it have been better if I had said I was a surveyor?” asked Forbes of his confused inner consciousness. “We feed folks here sometimes—that is, my wife does. Mebbe you could have a shake-down in the loft. Or there’s Connor’s ranch off north a ways. But they don’t care about taking in folks up there.” “Then, if you would ask your wife?” ventured Forbes, politely. “I shall not trouble you long,” he added. “Ellen!” A woman appeared at the door, then moving slowly forward, stood at her husband’s side, and the admiration Forbes had felt at the sight of the man flamed into sudden enthusiasm as he watched the wife. She was tall, with heavy, black hair, great eyes like unpolished jet, one of the thick white, smooth, perfectly colorless skins, which neither the sun nor the wind affect, and clear-cut, perfect features. Standing so, side by side, the two were singularly well worth looking at. “What a regal pair!” was Forbes’s internal comment; and while they conferred together he watched them idly, wondering what their history was, for of course they had one. It is safe to affirm that every human creature cast in the mould of the beautiful has, or is to have, one. “She says you c’n stay,” announced the man. “Just put those traps of yours inside, will you?” and, turning, he limped off the length of the platform at a call from somebody who had ridden up with jingling spurs. Forbes, left to his own devices, picked up his valise, then set it down again and looked around him helplessly, wondering if there was a night train by which he could get away from this heaven- forsaken spot. “If you want to see where you can sleep,” said a voice at his side, “I will show you.” It was the woman. She bent as she spoke to pick up some of his impedimenta, but he hastily forestalled her with a murmur of deprecation. She turned and looked at him, and as he met her eyes it occurred to him that the indifference of her face was the indifference of the desert—arid and hopeless. The look she gave him was searching and impersonal; he saw no reason for it, nor for the slow, dark color that spread over her face, and there was less than no excuse for the way she set her lips and stretched a peremptory hand, saying, “Give me those,” in tones that could not be disobeyed. To his own astonishment he surrendered them, and followed her meekly up a ladder-like flight of steps to the rough loft over the station. It was unfinished, but partitioned into two rooms. She opened the door of one of these apartments, silently set his luggage inside, and vanished down the stairs. Forbes sat down on the edge of a broken chair and looked about him. “Now, in heaven’s name,” he demanded of the barren walls, “what have I let myself in for, and why did I do it?” To this question there seemed no sufficient answer, and for awhile he sat there fretting with the futile anxiety of a man who knows that his fate pursues him, who hopes that this turning or that may help him to evade it, yet always feels the benumbing certainty that the path he has taken is the shortest road to that he would avoid. When at last—recognizing that his meditations were unprofitable—he rose and went down the stairs, it was supper-time. The woman was uncommunicative, but he could feel that her eyes were on him. The man—it occurred to Forbes that he had probably been drinking—was talkative. After the meal was over they went outside. Forbes, by way of supporting his pretence of being an artist, took out a pocket sketch-book and made notes of the values of the clouds and the outlines of the hills against the sky in a sort of artistic short-hand. The man Wilson sat down on a bench and began to talk. Between the exciting effects of the whiskey he had taken, the soothing influence of the cigar Forbes proffered him, and a natural talent for communicativeness, he presently went on to tell his own story. Forbes listened attentively. It seemed a part of the melodrama of the whole situation and was as unreal to him as the flaming miracle of the western skies or his own presence here. “So the upshot of it all was that we just skipped out. She ran away with me.” It was a curious story. As Forbes listened he became aware that it was one with which he had occasionally met in the newspapers, but never in real life before. It was, apparently, the story of a girl belonging to a family of wealth and possibly of high social traditions —naturally he did not know what importance to attach to Wilson’s boast that his wife belonged “to the top of the heap”—who had eloped with the man who drove her father’s carriage. The reasons for this revolt against the natural order of her life was obscure; there was, perhaps, too high a temper on her side and too strict a restraint on the part of her guardians. There was necessarily a total absence of knowledge of life; there was also the fact that the coachman was undoubtedly a fine creature to look at; there might have been a momentary yielding on the part of a naturally dramatic temperament to the impulse for the spectacular in her life. But whatever the reasons, the result was the same. She had married this man and gone away with him, and they had drifted westward. And when they had gone so far west that coachmen of his stamp were no longer in demand, he took to railroading, and from brakeman became engineer; and finally, being maimed in an accident in which he had stood by his engine while the fireman jumped—breaking his neck thereby—he had picked up enough knowledge of telegraphy to qualify him for this post among the mountains. He and his handsome wife lived here and shared the everlasting solitude of the spot together, and occasionally fed stray travellers like this one who had dropped down on them to-day. “He drinks over-freely and he swears profusely,” mused Forbes, scrutinizing him, “but he is too big to be cruel, and he still worships her beauty as she, perhaps, once worshipped his; and he still feels an uncouth pride in all that she gave up for his sake.” It had never occurred to him before to wonder what the after-life of a girl who eloped with her father’s servant might be like. He speculated upon it now. By just what process does a woman so utterly déclassée adjust herself to her altered position? Would she make it a point to forget, or would every reminder of lives, such as her own had been, be a turning of the knife in her wound? Would not a saving recollection of the little refinements of life cling longer to a weak nature than to a strong one under such circumstances? This woman apparently gave tongue to no vain regrets, for her husband was exulting in the “grit” with which she had taken the fortunes of their life. “No whine about her,” was his way of expressing his conviction that the courage of the thoroughbred was in her. “No, sir; there’s no whine about her. Un she’s never been sorry, un, s’help me, she sha’n’t never be,” concluded Wilson. There were maudlin tears in his eyes. “Few men can say that of their wives,” said Forbes’s smooth, sympathetic voice. “You are indeed fortunate.” While her husband was repeating the oft-told tale of their conjugal happiness, Ellen Wilson had done her after-supper work, and, slipping out of the door, climbed the short, rocky spur to the north of the station. Beyond the summit, completely out of sight and hearing, there was a little hollow that knew her well, but never had it seen her as it saw her now, when, throwing herself down, her face to the earth, she shed the most scalding tears of all her wretched years. They were such little things this stranger had done—things so slight, so involuntary, so unconscious that they did not deserve the name of courtesies, but they were enough to open the flood-gates of an embittered heart. There was a world where all the men were deferential and all the women’s lives were wrapped about with the fine, small courtesies of life—formal, but not meaningless. It had been her world once and now was so no longer. Good or bad, she knew little and cared less, this man had come from that lost world of hers, as she was made aware by a thousand small signs, whose very existence she had forgotten; and silently, fiercely she claimed him as an equal. “I—I too was—” Slow tears drowned the rest. She could have told him how a déclassée grows used to it. She knew how the mind can adjust itself to any phase of experience, and had learned that what woman has undergone, woman can undergo —yes, and be strong about it. She knew how, under the impulse of necessity, the once impossible grows to be the accepted life, and the food that could not be swallowed becomes the daily bread. When the struggle for existence becomes a hand-to-hand fight, traditions of one’s ancestry do not matter, except, possibly, that some traditions bind you to strength and silence, while others leave you free to scream. She knew what it was to forget the past and ignore the future, and survey the present with the single-hearted purpose of securing three meals a day, if possible; two, if it were not. She had forgotten with what facility she might the faces and scenes that once were dear to her. She had nothing to do with them any longer, as she knew. She might, perhaps, have heard their names without emotion. But, even in this day and generation and among this democratic people, in the soul of a woman bred as she had been the feeling for her caste is the last feeling that dies. And to her anguish she found that in her it was not yet dead. The color died from the sky, and the stars came swiftly out.
