pets and corpses

Yesterday, an Internet friend was kind enough to read over a short piece I had tried to write about animals/pets and their human counterparts. I sensed that the piece was insufficiently focused, but, as with other problems, could not see my way out of it. My friend put her finger on the mess I sensed was lurking within what I had written. It was really very kind, lending another pair of eyes to what was obviously my responsibility.

And, having put the piece into the "maybe some other time" basket, the mind skittered on to an associative thought, not new, but reinvigorated:

Pets and corpses have at least one thing in common -- they don't talk back. This is as obvious as it is frequently ignored. Ignoring the obvious allows for sometimes endless enthusing about the marvels of pets (as compared with their talkative human counterparts) and the good deeds of the deceased.

"Never speak ill of the dead" is a social nostrum that carries some weight. It seems churlish to speak ill of Uncle Harry now that he is gone -- self-serving, even when Uncle Harry was indeed capable of serial cruelties or idiocies.

But if speaking ill of the dead is frowned upon, why is speaking well of the dead not equally frowned upon? The dead are no longer capable of defending themselves, whether from blame or praise ... and both praise and blame seem equally self-referential.

As a social convention, OK -- never speak ill of the dead.

But as a personal consideration, I think it is worth examination: Has praising Uncle Harry or Jesus or Buddha or Gandhi got anything to do with Uncle Harry or Jesus or Buddha or Gandhi? Really? Has damning Aunt Sally or Hitler or Stalin or Genghis Khan got anything to do with Aunt Sally or Hitler or Stalin or Genghis Khan? Really?

This is a topic that might rightly be referred to your pet. See what s/he has to say. Pets never steered anyone wrong.