Sunday, February 27, 2011

Will Cuppy Tonight: A Pliny the Elder special edition -- "The Goose," "The Oyster," and "The Ostrich" (from "How to Attract the Wombat")

>

"Pliny the Elder says pearls are formed by drops of dew falling into the Oyster when he is yawning. Can't something be done about that man?"
-- Will Cuppy, in "The Oyster"
(from How to Attract the Wombat)

THE GOOSE

There are forty different kinds of Geese in the world. It seems as if there were more. The main problem about Geese is whether they are foolish as they are supposed to be.1 Dr. Feldkamp says the average Goose has a mental age of three weeks.2 On the other hand, Pliny the Elder states that Geese are extremely sagacious. But would he know? Pliny based his opinion on the old tale that a flock of sacred Geese saved Rome from the Gauls in 390 B.C. by cackling and gabbling in the night, thus arousing the citizens to their danger. Ever afterwards the Romans held Geese in the highest esteem, but the Gauls were so sore that they went back home and invented pâté de foie gras. I don't think those Geese had the faintest idea that the Gauls were approaching. Geese wouldn't know a Gaul if they saw one. They simply felt like making a racket at that unearthly hour, so they did.3 The fact remains that a good deal of history has been made by Geese. Sometimes a Goose will take a fancy to you and follow you round wherever you go, stopping when you stop and starting when you start and cackling every foot of the way about things that do not matter in the least. You can't get a word in edgewise. Some people naturally attract Geese and there is nothing much to be done about it. You just have to grin and bear it. Or leave town. A Goose always accompanied the philosopher Lacydes, head of the Academy at Athens, having singled him out when a mere Gosling as a congenial companion. They can tell. Personally, I don't expect any sense from a Goose, so I am never disillusioned. Their feathers are nice and soft and they lay Goose eggs and the Goslings are wonderful. What more can you ask? You have to take Geese as you find them. That's the way they are meant to be. Common Domestic Geese are monogamous. They look it.4 Wild Geese migrate in flocks, or gaggles, flying in V-formation and honking as loud as they can.5 When they fly north in March they are hailed wherever they pass as harbingers of spring. Everybody stops work and rushes, outdoors, shouting happily, "Geese! Geese! Spring is here!" I generally go right on with what I am doing. I know when spring is here.
1 Favorite remark of Early Woman to Early Man: "Oh, don't be a silly Goose!" His reply is unknown.
2 If I had time I would tell you more about Dr. F.
3 No proof exists that a flock of Geese saved Rome, either on purpose or accidentally, but to Pliny the Elder it was the gospel truth. That man would believe anything.
4 It is said that Geese choose their mates on Saint Valentine's Day. I always forget to check on it -- too busy with my own problems.
5 The mating call for the White-fronted or Laughing Goose is "Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!" What's so funny?
Drawings by Ed Nofziger

§ § §

THE OYSTER

The Oyster is so small when he is born that you cannot see him without a microscope. Something generally swallows him by mistake before he becomes visible.1 Only one Oyster in a million is lucky enough to grow up and be stewed. The infant Oyster swims around for a few days by means of his microscopic cilia, or eyelashes. If he had any sense he would continue to do this for the rest of his days, but he has other ideas. He starts to develop a shell, sinks to the bottom and fastens his left valve2 to some solid object with a little bag of cement which he carries with him for the purpose. He thinks he is fixed for life. Ah, youth! The Oyster has many enemies such as the Starfish, the Whelk, the Oyster Drill, and the Slipper Limpet.3 He also has friends who move him about from one Oyster bed to another so that he will be fat and healthy and a credit to the Pelecypoda, or bivalved mollusks. When he is four or five years old they tell him that he ought to be more of a mixer and see more people and pretty soon he is on his way to the Grand Central Oyster Bar.4 Oysters are good all the year round but you never heard an Oyster say that. They are busy spawning in the months without an R and prefer to be undisturbed, as who wouldn't?5 European Oysters change from male to female, or vice versa, whenever they feel in the mood. To an American or Canadian Oyster that would seem just silly. Oysters hibernate in the colder months. A frozen Oyster feels fine as soon as he thaws out unless he has been roughly handled. If you shake him hard or hit him when he is frozen, his machinery comes apart and he is never the same Oyster again. Pearls are found in the Pearl Oyster of tropical seas, if you don't mind diving among the Sharks.6
1 He was hardly worth seeing anyway.
2 I would call it his left shell but let's be scientific.
3 The Piddock is perfectly harmless.
4 Some hold that Oysters have no nerves. I say an Oyster on the half-shell is a nervous Oyster.
5 Don't believe all you hear about Oysters. The Emperor Vitellius ate twelve dozen Oysters for supper one night and nothing happened.
6 Pliny the Elder says pearls are formed by drops of dew falling into the Oyster when he is yawning. Can't something be done about that man?

§ § §

THE OSTRICH

The Ostrich is our largest living bird. A full-grown male Ostrich is eight feet tall and weighs three hundred pounds stripped. He is really too big for a bird and it must make him feel rather foolish.1 Because of his size, the ancients regarded the Ostrich as part quadruped, even though he has only two feet. It is possible to think of a biped as half a quadruped if you have that sort of mind, but the proposition will not hold up in the long run. In order to settle the matter, Aristotle took a close look at an Ostrich and announced, "It differs from a quadruped in being feathered." Just came to him in a flash, I suppose. The story that the Ostrich sticks his head in the sand when pursued, in the belief that this action renders him invisible, has brought undeserved ridicule upon the bird. It was started by Pliny the Elder, runner-up to Aristotle as an authority.2 Can the Ostrich help it if some people are not very bright?3 The popular notion that Ostriches subsist largely upon a diet of horseshoes is quite erroneous. They swallow sand, nails, and glass to promote the digestion of their food, which includes watches, doorknobs, and pieces of old machinery. Horseshoes are merely an occasional luxury.4 The Ostrich's egg is about the size of a coconut. It contains as much egg as eighteen ordinary hens' eggs and is somewhat gamy. One of them makes a meal for two to six Hottentots, depending upon the size of the Hottentots. You boil it for fifty minutes and call in the Hottentots.5 The Male Ostrich in search of a wife seeks to interest the prospect by displaying his feathers, dancing before her, fanning her with his wings, and uttering strange popping noises. As often as not she pays no attention whatever, but the male Ostrich seems to make out all right. He is frequently seen wandering around the desert with four or five females who lay their eggs in his nest and help him hatch out the young. This has given rise to certain rumors which I prefer not to discuss. I never repeat that kind of gossip unless I practically saw it myself.
1 Flightless birds like the Ostrich are called Ratitae, as their flat breast-bone reminds birdologists of a raft, the Latin word for which is ratis. Oh, well!
2 Although the old tale teaches us nothing about the Ostrich, it does shed light on the mental processes of Pliny the Elder. Shows what he would have done if he had been an Ostrich.
3 Pliny the Elder perished in 79 A.D. when he refused to flee from the great eruption of Mt. Vesuvius, insisting that everything would be all right. It wasn't.
4 Horseshoes lack certain essential vitamns. They are harmful when swallowed to excess.
5 An Ostrich egg is a natural for the emergency shelf. Just the thing for friends who drop in unexpectedly.


TOMORROW in WILL CUPPY TONIGHT: "Alexander the Great" (from The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody)


THURBER TONIGHT (including BENCHLEY TONIGHT and WILL CUPPY TONIGHT): Check out the series to date
#

Labels: ,

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Will Cuppy Tonight: "More About Wombats" (from "How to Attract the Wombat")

>

My poor weather-beaten old copy
of How to Attract the Wombat


"I found that I do have a slight tendency to write books purporting to teach how to do thus and so, and that I am too likely to stray from the main point, or omit it altogether, leaving the reader in what has been called, for some reason I have never quite understood, the lurch. Obviously, this is wrong. It may very well affect certain types with a sense of unfulfillment, an uneasy suspicion that they have been had. In a way it is only fair that I should explain the Wombat a little more fully, as long as I brought the subject up in the first place."
-- Will Cuppy, in "More About Wombats"


More About
Wombats
(from How to Attract the Wombat)


It has been brought to my attention, none too tactfully, that a book with the word "Wombat" in the title should contain more about Wombats than seems to be the case with How to Attract the Wombat up to the late point I have now reached, and I thank God I have reached it. I suppose the fellow meant more words by actual count, irrespective of the force and cogency of the words I had already written. "More about Wombats" is the way it was put to me, and that's all I can tell you.

Since I do not speak this person's language, I can only guess at his meanings and motives. All I really know about him is that a heavy glass bowl of Goldfish fell on his head when he was two years old (accidentally, he says), that what came out of him at the moment of impact you wouldn't believe, that some really valuable fish perished in the excitement, and that he survived to become a power in the literary world of New York, one whose least suggestion it is folly to disregard and ruin to oppose. H'm!

When he butted in the other day, as I was showing the outline of my book to somebody else, I had the distinct impression that he had never heard of a Wombat before. "Wombat!" he exclaimed. "Did you say Wombat?" I was looking straight into his face, if you could call it a face, and I could see him struggling inwardly for some frame of reference, as he would phrase it. I replied rather coolly, "Why yes, I said Wombat."

It took him exactly one minute to recover his poise, grab my synopsis, fix all four eyes on the last line, and make his considered judgment: "More about Wombats." If I had let him, he would have gone on to tell me that it would contribute to the esthetic effect of the whole, sort of knit it up, as it were, if I had more on the Wombat right there. He's all for those da capo effects in his own writings, always pounding away at his opening stuff as much as the traffic will bear, then harking back to the damn thing at the end, when all you want on this earth is to forget it. I understand he used to recommend that bit of technique -- and a fine one it is, in its place -- in his English One class at the University. It's very funny how he happened to leave there, too. I wish I had time to tell you.

Mind you, when this happened I was celebrating the completion of my manuscript, a state of affairs roughly comparable to release from a long jail rap into the sunlight and freedom, joyful communion with the birds and the flowers, and access to other phenomena too numerous to mention. I mean there is a considerable difference to the author between a book that is finished and a book that is not. So what did I do? I could have taken that one over the eight and called for another on top of that. But you know me. One dirty look from however low a source and I go in for soul-searching -- the sober, or most painful, kind. To spare you the details, I found that I do have a slight tendency to write books purporting to teach how to do thus and so, and that I am too likely to stray from the main point, or omit it altogether, leaving the reader in what has been called, for some reason I have never quite understood, the lurch. Obviously, this is wrong. It may very well affect certain types with a sense of unfulfillment, an uneasy suspicion that they have been had. In a way it is only fair that I should explain the Wombat a little more fully, as long as I brought the subject up in the first place.

Since I did not tell everything I know in my earlier remarks [see last night's installment, "The Wombat" -- Ed.], perhaps a paragraph or two on the Wombat as a pet would not come amiss. The burrowing habits of which I spoke offer the Wombat owner an interesting first-hand study of a true tunneller, whether the animal is digging into the underpinning of your residence or honeycombing the yard with subterranean passages in all directions. As Wombats seldom succeed in bringing down a large, solidly constructed house, you may as well dismiss your fears on that score and take a chance. Naturally, some people are unnerved at the thought that the Wombat is out there doing his best. Just forget it.

When the Wombat is excavating a tunnel, note that he often lies on his side, digging at the earth with his claws and his hard nose, an organ which is beautifully adapted to the purpose. You don't see that every day. Once he has started a tunnel, it is practically impossible to get him out again, for Mother Nature impels him to proceed until he has gone a hundred feet or so along under the sod and constructed at the end of the passage a nesting chamber for his comfort and repose. Even if you catch him at the mouth of the hole and attempt to extract him with a lasso or a shepherd's crook, you can't. He just braces himself against the earth with his powerful hands and feet and remains there indefinitely, a real lesson in endurance and stick-to-it-iveness.

Nor can you dig him out with any degree of success. He keeps ahead of you and before you know it you are spading up the adjoining back yard like one possessed. Neighbors being what they are, you are in for a little discussion on just what you think you are doing. This is known in the courts as Wombat trouble.

If there are small children around, they are sure to find a Wombat's burrows wonderful places to explore. They will probably crawl into one of them in an effort to reach the bark-lined nesting chamber and establish a playhouse there, a marvelous prospect for them but one which should be discouraged in view of possible cave-ins and total lack of ventilation. Such an adventure cannot be good for a child, and actual harm might come of it. Simply tell them not to go near those burrows that the Wombat made and you should have no further difficulty. If that doesn't work out, I'm sure some remedy can be found, short of getting rid of the children.

Having the yard full of holes, of course, might be dangerous even to grownups who are not willing to watch where they're going. Wombat holes have proved to be something of a nuisance to horses and cattle in Australia and Tasmania, and the stories that have drifted over here about it frighten the timid. Nonsense! You can stay in the house if you have to and observe your Wombat or Wombats through the window. If you must go outside, be careful, that's all. Wombat fanciers with exceptionally brittle bones might do well to have the condition attended to. If such persons are too lazy to see a doctor, they should at least take large doses of whatever vitamins are good for such things, try to build up their resistance with a spring tonic -- some calcium mixture, perhaps -- and they will soon be ready to own a Wombat. The wheel chair simply yawns for persons who will not take even the most ordinary precautions. Why blame it all on the Wombat?

Wombats who are kept outside need hardly any care. In a state of nature their diet consists largely of grass and the bark and roots of young trees and shrubs. If there is anything of the kind in your yard, it would be nice for the Wombat, and you could do lots of research on his gnawing methods. If you have a favorite tree you want gnawed, it might be simpler to get a Beaver to do it. Beavers accomplish more in the same length of time and they work longer hours.

The Wombat who is kept inside the house also deserves a word in any Wombat manual such as this. Like any nocturnal creature, he sleeps most of the day in his straw-filled box, snoring contentedly and somewhat loudly, if you care for that. About all this gets you is the opportunity to say you have a pet Wombat, a simple truth which is hard to demonstrate to visitors. All they see is a patch or two of brownish fur under the straw, but some of them are willing to believe that what they are looking at is a Wombat. The straw in the Wombat's box should be changed every few days. Every few minutes would be better.

At night the Wombat wakes up and starts living. If you strongly disapprove of this routine, and I find many people do, you might hint to him that no good will come of it, that there is no sense in it, and that you do not do it yourself. Tell him to stop sleeping his brains out in the daytime and go to bed at a decent hour, and you might add that we were never intended to turn night into day. You will then have done your duty as you see it, but I doubt if the Wombat will pay much attention. I am constantly receiving similar advice myself and it appears to make no perceptible change in my schedule. Some are built that way, some aren't. It would be my guess that the Wombat has no desire to be more like other people.

If you resemble the average pet owner, you should be able to cope handily enough with the Wombat's nocturnal activities around the house. You would hardly know he is there, unless you happen to hear him tearing up the floor by way of getting on with a new nesting chamber. You'd better do something about that, too. I suggest that you have the floors of your home reinforced with a layer of concrete over the boards and perhaps a layer of asphalt on top of that. Any road construction gang will do the job at reasonable rates if you catch them during their slack season. The Wombat will go through it in time, but it will slow him up considerably.

Meanwhile, you can be thinking up other measures, the more the better. Why not revise your philosophy of life a trifle and sleep during the day, even if this does involve admitting that the Wombat was right, after all? It's no time to quibble. Should your business suffer too much from the new time scheme, should you find it impossible to carry it on while most of your clients or customers are unconscious, why not retire from the whole tiresome grind and take it easy? I understand this can be arranged upon payment of a small fee or something of the sort, and the people who have done it say it is fine. You probably need a good rest, anyway. You might travel, for one thing, leaving your house and grounds to the Wombat, lock, stock, and barrel.

I trust I have shown that a Wombat in the home makes all the difference. If you require more proof, I point to the experience of Mrs. O'Connell, of Bullallaba, New South Wales, who brought up a Wombat from the age of six months and never regretted it for one moment. This Wombat loved to be fondled in her arms and would follow her around with obvious devotion until she fed him. Although he preferred lettuce leaves, cabbage stalks and milk, he would accept scraps or anything and show his gratitude, just how I couldn't say. No trouble at all.

Charlie, as we may call him, for I think of all Wombats as Charlie, added to the gayety of the O'Connell household by rolling over and by rearing up on his hind legs and attempting to butt like a goat, a trick Mrs. O'Connell seems to have found more amusing than otherwise. I fancy her as a solid old body who was not likely to be upset by any amount of butting by a mere Wombat. We are told nothing of any spells of rage, accompanied by rather nasty biting, a characteristic of some Wombats. He didn't even growl.

Although Charlie was completely free and had burrows in the garden, he never damaged a plant or a flower. Nor did he ever keep a soul from getting his proper sleep at night. Mrs. O'Connell loved to talk about him and there was no word to any of her cronies about any vices whatever. In short, if Charlie had a single fault, large or small, you'd never hear it from Mrs. O'Connell. He was pure joy and delight as a pet and a pal. I, for one, believe that Mrs. O'Connell was telling the truth as she saw it, or at least part of it.

My file on famous Wombats of history is not as complete as I could wish, but I can give you an example or two. The first Wombat ever seen in England was taken there from Bass Strait by a Mr. Brown, a wandering botanist, somewhere around the beginning of the last century (probably in 1807, though I cannot be certain of this), and lived for two years in the house of Mr. Clift, of the Royal College of Surgeons. Here the Wombat's acquaintance was made by Sir Everard Home, the great anatomist and surgeon, whose paper (1808) on the animal has been used by naturalists ever since, generally in indirect quotation so that you can't tell what he actually wrote.

According to one scientist, Sir Everard found his new friend "not unintelligent," though no particulars are given. That's not quite the same as saying that the Wombat is as smart as a whip, though it does show that Sir Everard did not regard him as completely hopeless. The scientist throws in the following on his own: "In captivity it [The Wombat] is as a rule amiable, the amiability being possibly associated with stupidity." What do you make of that? I must say it's a fine way to speak of an animal who is trying to develop the better side of his nature, and succeeding.

In view of the varying opinions about the Wombat's mentality, one may conclude that some Wombats are brighter than others. Or perhaps it would be safer to say that some are dumber than others. Be that as it may, the most provocative, or do I mean disturbing, sentence I have encountered in my researches concerns the peculiar manner or mood of the Wombat's biting with his really formidable chisel-like teeth, a thing I mentioned in my shorter piece on the Wombat because it was essential to even the briefest report. It is fitting that we remind ourselves of it now, when we are about to say farewell to the Wombat.

The source of that information is Ellis Troughton's recent work, Furred Animals of Australia, where the author writes of Sir Everard's Wombat, perhaps in that great man's own words, or nearly so: "It good-naturedly allowed children to pull or carry it about, and if it bit them it did not appear to do so severely or in anger." It just bit them. You who hope to understand the Wombat will do well to read that sentence again. And reread it. And ponder.

I shall have to omit the bulk of my material on Dante Gabriel Rossetti's Wombat, the very thing I was leading up to. Christina tells us that when she lived at Tudor House with Gabriel, he had a Wombat, an Owl named Bobby, a Wood-chuck, and a Deer. The Wombat slept in a silver épergne in the middle of the dining-table -- a good-sized épergne, I should think, as Wombats often run to a length of forty inches. The Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dodgson used to call and there is a possibility that he turned the drowsy creature into the Dormouse of the Mad Tea Party, though I should think that if he wanted a model for a Dormouse he might have used a Dormouse. Christina put a Wombat into her poem, "Goblin Market," probably the same one.

Mr. Benson recalls other members of the Rossetti ménage without mentioning where they parked themselves: a Chameleon, a Salamander, a Raccoon, an Armadillo, a Zebu, and a Kangaroo. I have also heard somewhere about a white Bull and a white Peacock, who crawled under the sofa one day and died there -- a sensitive bird, no doubt. It is clear that with such a family running around regardless, Rossetti was hardly the man to strain at a Wombat. Indeed, he had a second one after the first had passed on, which would indicate that he found Wombats a necessity in every well-regulated home, if you will excuse that imperfect description of Tudor House. The right adjective does not occur to me.

I had hoped to trace the influence of Wombats on Rossetti's poems and right on up to the works of our greatest living novelist (you heard me), Angela Thirkell, who is some sort of relative of his by marriage, I believe. The Wombat who slept in the silver épergne may well be responsible for Mrs. Thirkell's strange, almost morbid, interest in the Golden-crested Mippet. I had stuff like that, all very cultural and significant, but there isn't a minute to spare as we rush to press. Ask me later, will you? (Later: What I meant to say was that Mrs. Thirkell is the niece of Burne-Jones on her mother's side -- no relation to Rossetti. As it is practically impossible to tell the two men apart, I feel that my theory still holds up.)

And now that we are bidding farewell to the Wombat, it strikes me as rather a good idea. Telling you more about Wombats has served to clarify my own views in some respects, so much so that I wonder what I could have been thinking of before. I ask myself, is it fair to a Wombat to try to lure him away from Australia and Tasmania, where he can dig up practically the whole of the antipodes if he chooses, and nobody cares? He does so love to play!

Would it not be downright cruel to keep him in semi-captivity in a town or city, where the opportunities for wreaking havoc and destruction upon the landscape are necessarily so limited? In a word, is it right to attract Wombats? There is a bright side to all this, however, for I have just called up the Bronx Zoo and they tell me you can't get one, anyway, unless you are an accredited zoological institution -- and who is?


TOMORROW in WILL CUPPY TONIGHT: "Cleopatra" (from The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody)


THURBER TONIGHT (including BENCHLEY TONIGHT and WILL CUPPY TONIGHT): Check out the series to date
#

Labels: ,

Monday, February 21, 2011

Will Cuppy Tonight: "Are Wombats People?" (the introductory piece from "How to Attract the Wombat")

>

Drawings by Ed Nofziger
"The public in general may of course decide that I've already done enough for the animals. This nasty thought occurred to me the other day on the street when an old friend came along and inquired, 'Are you still writing those little animals?' I was particularly struck, and not favorably, by this question because I have written about some of the largest animals in existence. I do think the elephant should be big enough for anybody, and how about the Sulphur-bottom Whale, the largest animal in the seven seas, sometimes reaching a length of a hundred feet and weighing up to a hundred and fifty tons? What more does he expect?"
-- Will Cuppy, in "Are Wombats People?"

Last night, courtesy of Thomas Maeder's afterword to the 1984 edition of The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody, we made the acquaintance of its author, that singular phenomenon Will Cuppy. Until you've read them, it's hard to imagine being interested, let alone mesmerized, by Cuppy's unique brand of fastidiously researched, heavily and hilariously footnoted pieces on God's creatures large and small. In this introductory essay from his third collection of animal pieces, he provides his perspective on his unusual calling. -- Ken

"I realize that a book which hopes to receive even passing attention today must be pretty snappy in regard to you-know-what. In preparing my material for the printer, therefore, I have kept constantly in mind our large and growing body of sex maniacs. They read books too."
-- Will Cuppy, in "Are Wombats People?"


Are Wombats People?
(from How to Attract the Wombat, 1949)

It would appear, from the record, that I have written my third animal book. How to Tell Your Friends from the Apes was published in 1931, How to Become Extinct in 1941. Perhaps I should have waited until 1951 before offering How to Attract the Wombat, just to make the dates come out even, but I felt I had things to say about the Wombat which needed to be said at this time.

This volume completes, at least in part, a project conceived some twenty years ago, when I first thought of writing a series of "How" books which should deal with various aspects of the animal world that particularly interested me, and at the same time rescue me from a rather sordid economic situation, leaving me free for certain other activities I had in mind, such as batting around and having a little fun in my old age. Well, life is like that.

As for this third attempt, the public in general may of course decide that I've already done enough for the animals. This nasty thought occurred to me the other day on the street when an old friend came along and inquired, "Are you still writing those little animals?" I was particularly struck, and not favorably, by this question because I have written about some of the largest animals in existence. I do think the elephant should be big enough for anybody, and how about the Sulphur-bottom Whale, the largest animal in the seven seas, sometimes reaching a length of a hundred feet and weighing up to a hundred and fifty tons? What more does he expect?

I'm only fooling, for I know well enough that the fellow meant to ask, "Are you still writing those little pieces about animals?" I should have replied, as I usually do: "Yes, I am still writing little pieces about animals. I am a person who writes little pieces about animals. I am in that business. That is what I do. See?" I didn't care to make the effort again. I merely nodded noncommittally and walked away, with the curt remark, "Nice seeing you again."

I knew so well what the fellow was leading up to, and there are times when I can't take it. In another ten seconds, or make it five, he would have asked, "Why don't you write about people, Will?" They always do. They have, through the years. They will, as long as I am spared. It is a cross I must bear.

To give you an idea, the first friend I met on the street after writing that book on Apes fought her way through the crowd as soon as she saw me and shouted from afar, "Why don't you write about people, Will?" This surprised me the more since I had used that very lady as the model for my article on the Chimp in that volume. I was afraid she would sue, but, as seems to be routine with my works, nothing happened. In How to Attract the Wombat she appears again as the main character in my chapter on the Goose, but she will never know it. She thinks I am not interested in people.

Was it for this, I often ask myself, that I have risked my scientific reputation time after time by an outrageously anthropomorphic treatment of the animals, that I have played fast and loose with the accepted distinctions between instinct and intelligence to the point of endangering some of the fundamental principles of Darwin himself, until I probably couldn't get the most menial job in a respectable Zoo?

Why do you suppose I did that unless it was to get in all those dirty cracks about the human race, a form of life I suppose I am a little too much inclined to look down upon. By the way, I must try to get over that or my views will become distorted in time. Not interested in people, indeed!

But they mean well, bless them. They want me to get ahead. They bring me examples of authors, from dim antiquity to this morning's papers, who have risen by easy stages or even jumped instantaneously to the top of their profession by writing about people. Some of these friends have done well in their chosen fields of endeavor. A few of them have what it takes, and God knows they hang on to it. Maybe I should listen to their advice.

Maybe, in response to what I can only regard as public demand, I should write a book about people plainly labeled and certified as such, so that there could be no possible mistake. Then they could ask me, "Why don't you write about animals, Will?" It would be a change.

And now a word on the Wombat. What is it? Animal, vegetable, or mineral? Give up? I feel justified in asking these forthright questions because the ignorance that prevails on the subject is simply frightening. "I know nothing about the Wombat except that it lays eggs and barks," said a lady on whom I was counting for useful information. And when I asked a man whom I had always supposed to be fairly civilized if he had ever heard of the Wombat, he replied, "Sure, he played third base on the Yankees in '35." Ninety-nine others merely said No. Really, I sometimes wonder what is the use.

For reasons of my own, I am not telling at this point exactly what a Wombat is or is not. I assure you, though, that the Wombat exists. In the Wombat we are confronted by a fact, not a theory. That is all I care to divulge at the moment as I prefer, in the interest of suspense, to keep the reader on tenterhooks until he comes to the article entitled "The Wombat" under the larger heading, "Problem Mammals."

There, I've gone and dropped a hint that gives part of the secret away. So the Wombat is a mammal! If I know my public, however, no great harm has been done, for I find the widest divergence of opinion on what is a mammal. Five of my acquaintances, when asked to define a mammal, replied, "Well, the Cow is a mammal." That is correct. Four others said, "Well, the Whale is a mammal." Right again, but two of these had been going through life with the erroneous impression, drawn from that fragment of truth, that mammal is only a more dignified name for fish. That is what comes of teaching innocent children what a Whale is. Something should be done about this.

I had no better luck with the young woman, a graduate of one of our foremost institutions of learning, whom I asked to define a marsupial, a special kind of mammal that comes into the plot later on. After she had flunked on the mammals in general by guessing that a mammal is any animal that is quite large (and I must confess there is a sort of fundamental Tightness in that view that I hesitate to disturb), she stated that a marsupial was something from the polar regions, and stuck to it. She could give no rational explanation, during a rather painful cross-questioning, of how such an association had occurred to her, and I wound up by feeling glad that she had heard of the polar regions at least -- on the radio, doubtless. Naturally, I apologized for what must have seemed to her a display of heartless brutality. I can't bear to see a woman cry.

As for the title of this book, of course it is stolen from, or let us say inspired by, that invaluable little volume I am always running across, How to Attract the Birds, by Robert S. Lemmon. Heaven forbid that I should ever attract a bird, or birds, but you can see how that title solved my problem when I was fumbling around for one of my own. If you knew my private opinion of birds, you would understand why I consider my version an improvement, with all respect to Mr. Lemmon. The whole subject of ornithology stirs me so profoundly that I mustn't go into it here. There isn't time. I will only say that the more I see of birds, the better I like Wombats.

There are moments, I may add, when my title, How to Attract the Wombat, does not entirely satisfy me. There's something a little cold, a little remote, about using a generic term like "the Wombat" when it's a question of attracting him. Nobody writes a book called How to Attract the Man, or How to Attract the Woman, so I took to favoring How to Attract a Wombat as more in tune with what really goes on, more urgent, more immediate, more business-like. Then I would wake up in the night thinking of people who might want to attract a lot of Wombats. Would they buy a book enabling them to attract one Wombat, or must I change the wording to How to Attract Wombats, in the plural? All those I consulted on these variations at the last moment said yes, they guessed it was all right if I liked it, and indicated that the subject, so far as they were concerned, was closed.

I suppose there are people who do not wish to attract even one Wombat, let alone a number of them. Most of these are simply indifferent. They do not care, one way or the other. Has it never occurred to them that they may be missing something, and that it might be Wombats? I am afraid their present attitude, if they persist in it, may occasion our sales manager more than one mauvais quart d'heure before he is through with it.

On the other hand, considering what we have learned of our fellow creatures in recent years, there are undoubtedly those who do wish to attract a Wombat or Wombats, just why is not for me to inquire. For them this book could be a treasure worth many times the price of admission. I might even say it would fill a long-felt want.

Finally a word to the more respectable of my readers, some of whom may be shocked by certain sensational passages I slipped into the text during final revision, just in case. God bless them all. I would not willingly bring a blush to their cheeks or upset them in any way, manner, shape or form whatever. Still and all, I realize that a book which hopes to receive even passing attention today must be pretty snappy in regard to you-know-what. In preparing my material for the printer, therefore, I have kept constantly in mind our large and growing body of sex maniacs. They read books too.


TOMORROW in WILL CUPPY TONIGHT: "The Wombat" (of course!), plus an additional mammal (or two) to be named later


THURBER TONIGHT (including BENCHLEY TONIGHT and WILL CUPPY TONIGHT): Check out the series to date
#

Labels: ,