The Lives of Animals is a metafiction novella written by the award-winning novelist and Professor of English J. M. Coetzee with accompanying reflections presented by Marjorie Garber, Peter Singer, Wendy Doniger, and Barbara Smuts. The Lives of Animals was first presented as a two-part lecture series at the 1997-1998 Tanner Lectures at Princeton University and was later published as a novella in 1999. The novella follows aging fiction author Elizabeth Costello as she gives lectures on animal cruelty in the industrialized modern world while arguing for the importance of literature and literary analysis. Coetzee addresses the theme of Science Versus Literature by pitting philosophy and poetry against one another. He explores The Distinction Between Animals and Humans and Determining the Value of a Life through fictionalized lectures and debates on animal rights. The novella explores Dysfunctional Families and Power through Elizabeth’s relationships with her son, John, and his wife, Norma. Coetzee wrote a subsequent novel, Elizabeth Costello (2003), that follows Elizabeth, the protagonist of The Lives of Animals, as she delivers further lectures on animal rights.

This guide uses the Princeton University Press 2016 version of The Lives of Animals with added “Reflections” by Garber, Singer, Doniger, and Smuts.

Plot Summary

Elizabeth Costello, a novelist, is staying with her son and his wife, John and Norma Bernard, respectively, and their children while in town as a visiting lecturer. She has been invited to give two lectures at Appleton College, where John works as a professor. Neither John nor Norma is pleased with the visit—John is worried how Elizabeth’s visit will affect him and Norma disagrees with Elizabeth and does not want Elizabeth to discuss her vegetarianism with the children. Although she is a fiction author, Elizabeth has elected to speak on animal rights during her two lectures.

Her first lecture is “The Philosophers and the Animals,” which begins with a reference to Kafka’s “A Report to an Academy” and its main character, a talking ape named Red Peter. Elizabeth uses Red Peter to symbolize her own feelings of not fitting in with her surrounding community. Next, she uses the Holocaust as an analogy for modern animal cruelty, shocking her listeners. She argues that reason is not a superior form of thinking and that humanness comes from sympathy. She argues that science is not objective, and she works to eliminate the separation between humans and animals. She states that animal lives have as much value as human lives. At the end of the lecture, an attendee asks Elizabeth about the purpose of her lecture, and Elizabeth gives a vague response indicating that she does not want to set guidelines for people to follow.

After the lecture, Elizabeth, John, and Norma attend a dinner party thrown by the college in Elizabeth’s honor. One of the invitees—Abraham Stern—is missing, electing to skip the dinner in protest to Elizabeth’s use of the Holocaust as an analogy. During dinner, conversation returns to the distinction between humans and animals and to the notion that humans created gods and religion to excuse their own cruel behaviors. Elizabeth says her reasons for being vegetarian are primarily spiritual—to save her soul. She returns to the idea that reason is not superior, insinuating that understanding of the world is relative to one’s perspective. Norma and John talk that night, and John does not think many people will attend the second lecture, “The Poets and the Animals.” Norma heatedly counterargues Elizabeth’s claims to John.

John is late to Elizabeth’s second lecture and enters during the question-answer portion. He is handed a copy of three poems that Elizabeth has used during her lecture. Through the after-lecture discussion, John learns that the lecture discussed poetry written with the intention of depicting the perspectives of animals. Elizabeth focused on Ted Hughes’s “The Jaguar” and “Second Glance at a Jaguar.” She used the poems to further develop the ideas that animals are complete beings and that humans have the capacity to imagine themselves as animals. After the lecture, John asks Elizabeth if she thinks poetry will make a difference. She says poetry will not and admits that she does not know what she wants to do.

Elizabeth’s final engagement at Appleton is to participate in a debate against Thomas O’Hearne, a philosophy professor. He is allowed three points which Elizabeth responds to. First, he posits that vegetarianism and animal rights are the product of an arrogant Western culture, but Elizabeth counters that vegetarianism has a long history and that the West is responsible for atoning for the invention of industrial animal processing. His second claim is that animals cannot have rights because they cannot understand the concept of rights. Elizabeth suggests O’Hearne’s views are anthropocentric and argues that science is biased towards anthropocentrism. In his closing remark, O’Hearne argues that animals do not care as much about life and that they are not scared of dying. Elizabeth is offended by his view. She responds that animals clearly fight for life, and ends by saying she cannot continue talking to someone with whom she shares no common ground.

Norma and John talk in bed that night, and John defends his mother against Norma’s attacks. John sees his mother’s argument as sincere, although he does not value her viewpoints. Norma sees Elizabeth’s beliefs as a power-play, and she is upset at the idea that Elizabeth might persuade the children. John drives Elizabeth to the airport and apologizes for Norma’s rudeness. Elizabeth admits that she feels like she is surrounded by violent criminals who cannot understand how corrupt animal cruelty is. John pulls over, hugs his mother, and tells her that it will “soon be over” with no elaboration.

The text is supplemented with four responses written by Marjorie Garber, Peter Singer, Wendy Doniger, and Barbara Smuts. Garber, a professor of English at Harvard, analyzes the implicit meaning of the text, concluding that the lectures are exploring the value of literature. Singer, who is an activist and Bioethics professor, responds in metafiction and suggests that The Distinction Between Animals and Humans arises from animals’ inability to imagine the future. However, the reader is not able to tell which character—Peter or Naomi—Singer’s beliefs align with. Doniger, a History of Religion professor, agrees with Elizabeth’s views, and she supports Elizabeth’s arguments by citing examples of compassion toward animals and vegetarianism in Hinduism and early Asian cultures. Smuts, who has spent her career working closely with wild primates and, more recently, with dogs, uses the form of a personal essay to detail her experiences forming communities with animals. She argues against O’Hearne’s argument that humans and animals cannot form communities, and she calls for readers to form close relationships with animals so they can see for themselves that community with animals is both possible and valuable.