Living With Geese
Novelist and gozzard Paul Theroux ruminates about avian misconceptions, anthropomorphism and March of the Penguins as "a travesty of science"
- By Paul Theroux
- Smithsonian magazine, December 2006, Subscribe
(Page 4 of 4)
There are many more wonders: the way they recognize my voice from anyone else shouting and how they hurry near when called; or follow me because they know I have food in my bulging hand. They will follow me 300 yards, looking eager and hungry. I have mentioned their inexhaustible curiosity—sampling every plant that looks tasty, as well as pecking at objects as though to gauge their weight or their use. Their digestive system is a marvel—almost nonstop eating and they never grow fat (Why Geese Don't Get Obese (And We Do) is a recent book on animal physiology); their ability to drink nothing but muddy water with no obvious ill effects; and with this their conspicuous preference for clean water, especially when washing their heads and beaks, which they do routinely. Their calling out to a mate from a distance, and the mate rushing to their side; or if one becomes trapped under a steepness or enmeshed in a fence, and sounds the faint squawk of helplessness, the other will stay by, until it is released. Their capacity to heal seems to me phenomenal—from a dog bite, in the case of one gander I had that was at death's door for more than a month, or from the bite of another gander in one of their ritual battles for supremacy. Such conflicts often result in blood-smeared breast feathers. Their ability to overcome internal ailments is a wonder to behold.
I had an old, loud China gander that was displaced by a younger gander—his son, as a matter of fact, who ended up with the old goose we named Jocasta. From the time of Adam, we humans have had an urge to name the birds of the sky and the beasts of the field. The old gander may have been defeated by the son, but he remained feisty. Then he became ill, got weak, ate very little, couldn't walk, sat only in shade and moaned. He was immobilized. I dissolved in water some erythromycin I got at the feed store and squirted it down his throat with a turkey baster, and added some more to his water.
Several weeks went by. He lost weight, but I could see that he was sipping from his dish. From time to time I carried him to the pond—he paddled and dipped his head and beak, but he was too weak to crawl out. Still he seemed to respond to this physiotherapy. After a month he began to eat. One morning, going out to give him more medicine, I saw that he was standing and able to walk. I brought him some food, and as I put the food in his dish he took a few steps toward me and bit me hard on the thigh, giving me a purple prune-size bruise. This is not an example of irony or ingratitude. It is goosishness. He was thankfully himself again.
Paul Theroux is working on a new travel book, which retraces the route of his bestselling The Great Railway Bazaar.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (4)
There is a photo of a "woman with a balanced pet in Yunnan, China" contained in this article in the December 2006 Smithsonian. Can anyone tell me how I can get a copy of this photo or painting?
Posted by Jackie on April 3,2010 | 04:51 PM
What is at the center of Theroux's discontent here? Distaste for a doddering old man? A respect for the sanctity of objective observation? Are we supposed to marvel in admiration at Theroux's restraint or his mastery of goose natural history?
Perhaps Theroux is projecting onto White his fear of one day becoming a deluded, uncritical old man, in much the same way he accuses White of projecting his insecurities onto his geese. Maybe Theroux is using White as his own anthropomorphic pet.
And is Theroux really so irritated by White's harmless anthropomorphization? Perhaps Theroux would argue that it isn't harmless; that it distorts our view of "science". If in fact he is sincerely presenting this as a point of contention, I take it as proof of my conclusion: Theroux is taking geese, and himself too seriously.
Posted by hogspook on February 25,2010 | 07:42 PM
I was fascinated to learn about geese since I have studied chickens these past 10 years and have come to believe there is no such thing as a "pecking order," that this is an anthromorphism created by humans to explain the unnatural behaviors of animals held in prison-like conditions (as Theroux noted!)
My biggest question remained unfortunately unanswered: does the "leader," the victor of dominance battles eat first-- or does he maintain the order while his goose and goslings eat?
That is what I have seen in chickens: the prize for the rooster is not to eat first, but to be the premier administrator and protector of the flock (with the vanquished remaining in the flock, same as with the geese). So, Theroux, do tell, pecking order or no pecking order?
Posted by Katha Sheehan on December 20,2009 | 08:02 AM
What patent, patronizing nonsense. Geese do mourn - geese do harbor animosities - read Lorenz, read Berndt Heinrich (and observe wild geese). Check Darwin. Geese do indeed establish bonds with humans without being fed (my personal experience.) "How pitiful," wrote Voltaire, "what poverty of mind, to have said that animals are machines deprived of understanding and feeling." And how human-centric. Must goose mourning be human mourning to matter, and to be observed? Susan Russell
Posted by Susan Russell on June 11,2008 | 03:57 PM