Here is his explanation, from page nine:
All the events described here happened. They happened to me. But there are also so many ways in which it is not an autobiography; at least not a good one. If there is a star of the book, of course, then it’s not me. I’m just an insignificant extra bumbling around in the background. Good autobiographies are richly populated with other people. But in this book other people figure mainly by way of their absence - you may find the ghosts of the other people in my life, but that is all. ... Good autobiographies are also detailed and comprehensive. Here, however, the details are sparse and the memory is selective.
Of course, Rowlands is being a bit modest, for he is far from a bumbling extra, but his point on what makes a good biography or memoir is correct. And, this book transcends that, even as it, to Rowlands’ surprise, also embodies much of what he claims it is not. As the book goes on, Rowlands talks of the differences between domesticated dogs and wolves owing to embedded vs. embodied environments, and offers some anecdotes about Brenin’s relationships with other dogs he grew up with, including a near fatal battle with an aggressive pitbull named Rugger. The book also follows Rowlands’ peregrinations from Alabama to Ireland to France, and his and Brenin’s respective growths as they changed cultures and matured. Brenin’s relationships with two other dogs (both female - one a pup of a bitch Brenin impregnated) also figure into the narrative.
Yet, part of what makes Rowlands’ book so interesting is that when he makes a claim that wolves are too pleasant for civilization, it is not what one might surmise he means. He also discourses a bit on the pros and cons of animal and human nature, especially that of the wolf and the ape, as it concerns living in bubbles of recurring circular moments (the wolf) and living in a forwarded directed arc of time (the ape). While I agree with Rowlands’ general thrust, I think he overextends his thesis a bit, from metaphor to the literal. For instance, he attributes human intelligence mostly to the negative aspect of duplicity and scheming, which led to a deceitful ‘arms race.’ The problem with this sort of claim is that it’s one dimensional, and it ignores biology, which, as the maxim goes, ‘is destiny.’
As example, Rowlands does not deal with simian dexterity, as advanced by the biological differences of more flexible wrists and fully opposable thumbs, or hominid bipedalism which freed the hands from the constant wear and tear of survival, and how such physical adaptations enabled our ancestors to manipulate the physical world to an extent equal to, or greater, than their minds could manipulate other apes. Yes, there was a feedback loop involved on both ends, to be sure, but intelligence is surely not based upon deception alone, or in the main. One need only look to other intelligent mammals -- the whales or elephants -- to see that Rowlands’ claim is an oversimplification, even if its thrust is an important factor.
Article comments
1 - Sebastian
"smite the apostate down"
That's the language of the Taliban. It has no place in educated society... not even as a metaphor.
This article was a muddle-headed meander of pseudo-science, and superstitious moralising. The errors of logic and fact are so numerous the article is not worth correcting.
Incidentally, fish have a highly developed sense of touch (including an organ designed specifically for it which we do not share: try to guess what it is) and are perfectly capable of feeling pain. What little research there has been into their intelligence also demonstrates a capacity for learning and memory.
It is an error of Victorian proportions to assume that lack of personal knowledge is equivalent to knowledge of lack.