On Returning Your Copy of “Dominion”
Aja wrote the following comment on "Matthew Scully Wrote Sarah Palin’s Speech:"
"I am so sad about Scully. I have decided to send my book back to him via his publisher. Would anyone like to join me? Maybe he can let Palin borrow it."
I think that’s a fantastic idea. Here’s the page for Dominion from the publisher’s site (including a rave review by Wayne Pacelle and a blurb about the book that includes several references to hunting), in case you’re interested in how it’s marketed. The address is:
St. Martin’s Press (St. Martin’s Griffin is the imprint)
175 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10010
Does anyone have any reason to think this is a bad idea? Does anyone think we should send the books to Scully at his home? Does the thought of that make you uncomfortable? Would you include a letter? The e-mail address on his website, which believe is not his personal e-mail address but is nevertheless useful, is dominionletters@aol.com (according to his website).
Any other thoughts?
Finally, though you may feel that all welfarists are traitors and we could make an argument for sending all of their books back, I consider Scully to be in a league of his own. He’s the only person, to my knowledge, who is so upset about the way we treat sentient nonhumans that he wrote a book about it and then wrote a speech for an avid hunter who wants to drill in ANWAR. Maybe that’s worthy of an action to demonstrate how disappointed we are.
When he found out whom he was writing for, he could have backed out in protest. He obviously felt writing for Sarah Palin was important for his party and for the future of the United States.
And I find that simultaneously disappointing and frightening.
For a far more scathing critique, check out Steve Best’s post (similar to the one at Critical Animal Studies, but with some extras) at Thomas Paine’s Corner.
As an "academic" I want to be excused from returning books! Imagine doing it to all the welfarists – pity Peter Singer's postperson.
Now, a serious note. Perhaps you can explain to Europeans what the problem is here? It is not as though this guy hid his political affiliations. Perhaps another read of Steve Best is warranted, because he is right to say, I believe, that the right in the USA (and you have to take on board that from a European perspective, that's virtually everyone) are a threat to the planet.
You guys consume SO much! Given Matthew Scully's credentials, never denied or hidden, is what he's done so shocking?
Roger.
Roger,
You say:
As an "academic" I want to be excused from returning books! Imagine doing it to all the welfarists – pity Peter Singer's postperson.
That's why I wrote the paragraph about welfarists. Scully's the only welfarist who wrote what could have been the most important speech in the life of someone who gleefully does one thing he is so against that he devoted over 40 pages to it (hunting). (That's not to say Singer's books shouldn't be returned for other reasons.)
I asked whether you all thought Scully's a traitor because his politics are well known and he's been a speechwriter for Republicans for years. As I wrote yesterday, if you look at it from a single-issue perspective, he has betrayed the animals, no doubt. I then wrote:
"But I don’t look at it that way. He’s FOR his party and what it represents, and evidently his veganism isn’t as important as his party. Now, you can easily say that his party stands for repression, destruction, control and speciesism, which makes him a traitor to the people, the planet and the animals. What I'm saying is that he is being true to his party, and therefore not a traitor to it."
As for the single issue, he makes such a convincing case that he cares about animals (cares–not respects them enough to think they deserve to live lives of their own) and that he's so vehemently anti-hunting, that it's surprising he didn't back out after he found out whom he was writing for. That really is shocking to me, as I thought his pro-animal stance was important to him. It was important enough to take the time to write 400 pages about it.
We simply learned that it isn't as important as his party and his paycheck. And sending his book back might be a symbolic gesture that we noticed and we're disappointed.
Publishers receive damaged/used books returned to them on a regular basis. Some will simply destroy the books, others will resell them to used book sellers. So, if you think your book return will send a message that's stronger than the waste created by book destruction and/or the profits obtained by resell, go ahead.
I don't have a copy of Dominion so I won't be returning it. However, if I no longer want a book, I'm more likely to give it away than send it to the publisher. As a form of protest, I think returning books to their publishers isn't all that effective. A simple letter is probably just as good. And yes, it's probably a better idea to send it directly to Scully. The publisher might see this 'controversy' as a a chance for free publicity to sell more books.
To sell–or give away–your copy at Amazon, go here: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/sdp/sai-condition/0312319738/ref=dp_sdp_sell/002-2004200-1077626?_encoding=UTF8&coliid=&qid=1220807355&sr=8-1&colid=
The only issue is that you have to pay Amazon probably $5 between their fee and shipping. You could then charge $5 and call it a day. And of course there are other ways of selling it, and you can give it to your library.
I think giving them away and writing a letter to the publisher, as well as Scully, is also a good idea. But sending them back after having made them unsellable somehow, and of course including a letter as to why you have done this, is I think more powerful as a message (though it does create waste, as Elaine reminds us). In my mind there has to be a gesture (the unsellable book or giving it away) and there has to be a message that reaches the Scully. Yes, this could end up publicizing the book and increasing sales, and that's something everyone has to think about.
While sending books back may send a powerful message, it seems more silly and wasteful than anything else. Why not give that shipping money to an abolitionist group and save the fuel necessary to ship the books which may just be redistributed… I think writing Scully a personal letter would be sufficient, but organizing a mass book return seems over the top.
I'm still not sure why this is such a big deal. Yes, Scully is a hypocrite, but he's also a dominionist, evangelical welfarist. Those who seem to care the most are athiests abolitionist liberals/anarchists. As Best notes, he never really gave a crap about Scully's ethic anyways, so why does he care so much? Scully probably could care less about what a bunch of athiests think about him anyways. And if people are so in favor of abolition, why do they possess a copy of his patriarchal book to begin with?
What is our aim in chastising this person who isn't really part of our community? Are we trying to make an example out of him to other pro-life animal welfarists? And how can he be a traitor to "our movement"[animal rights], when he has been a vocal opponent of it!
I don't mean to sound harsh. I'm just very curious (and frustrated) about what is driving people to go after a hypocritical quasi-ally rather than focus on those who are suffering.
A band with principles – rock group 'Heart' condemns the use of song 'Barracuda' after Sarah Palin's VP candidacy acceptance speech at 2008 Republican convention:
[Statement on Heart official website]
Heart Codemns the Use of the Song Barracuda at the Republican Convention [9/5/2008]
Ann and Nancy Wilson of Heart have informed the McCain/Palin Campaign that Universal Music Publishing and Sony BMG have sent a cease-and-desist notice to not use one of Heart's classic songs "Barracuda," as the congratulatory theme for Sarah Palin.
The Republican campaign did not ask for permission to use the song, nor would they have been granted that permission.
"We have asked the Republican campaign not to use our music.
We hope our wishes will be honored."
http://www.heart-music.com/
[I am currently downloading Heart Essentials off Itunes for $37.25]
Adam,
I can't speak for anyone else, but here are my thoughts . . .
My first post on this, in response to all of the questions, was:
"Forget about Matthew Scully. He's not an animal rights advocate, he's a staunch Catholic and conservative, and other than wanting 'mercy' for animals (and that's even a stretch, as I wouldn't say mercy), we have nothing in common. We don't have the same values. We don't want the same things for this country. And realistically, we don't want the same thing for animals."
If you look at it from a singe-issue perspective, which I don't, what he's done is indeed egregious, in my opinion, as he claimed to be pro-animal. But he's not a traitor to animal rights or to me–he's a traitor to the animals he claims to care about so much.
This isn't going after him rather than focusing on suffering (or rights) at all. It's simply pointing out that a person who did a fantastic job telling the world about factory farming and hunting appeared to do something against his own beliefs (until you pull the camera out and look at the entire picture, which smacks of "dominion" in every way and you realize that's what drives him).
Finally, you don't know why people buy the books they buy, or when. I was a card-carrying PETA member who held a fundraiser for the HSUS' Legal Fund when I bought and read the book. And I have amassed a lot of books written by people I don't agree with. (And yes, I try to minimize those and other book purchases via my library.) But I can see that this is a unique case, as he's the only welfarist who wrote such a high-profile, important speech.
Finally, whether or not a symbolic gesture is "silly" is a matter of opinion. The person who suggested that was deeply touched by Scully's book and I don't think the idea is "silly" for that person. I'm simply providing a platform for further discussion of the suggestion.
I get the "wasteful" part, for sure, and in fact though I adore my hundreds of books I really must start to part with them and send them to libraries and to prisoners. I've been lazy about that for the past couple of years.
This reminds me of the Wayne Pacelle conversation. I think he's a conundrum because I don't understand how someone could be a vegan and then do what he does. For me, he's less easy to understand than Scully, whose beliefs are well known and all fall into place when you look at the entire picture.
I might be in a "unique" situation. I think I mentioned in a previous post that "Dominion" was the first book I read when the truths about my vegetarian "ethics" clashed with the exposure to "factory farms".
As testament my copy is profusely dog-eared, highlighted and underlined… it was my "bible" during the first few days/weeks of my woeful discoveries. I was so moved that I wrote to thank him for his poignant work. Yes, he responded in kind. So, he does read his mail from he link Mary gave.
Returning his book is akin to what many couples do when "breaking-up". Some of the time it's cathartic. But in this instance I think a better "protest" would be to write him about how incongruous his actions are. How he's guilty of a philosophical "blind spot". How you can't understand why he became a "mouthpiece of victory" for The Party most contaminated with the "Safari Club" members he distains. I'd write how you're confused that he could write a speech for the likes of Palin, when only days prior she celebrated a "win" for wolf-aerial gunning!
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Alaska_Wolf_and_Bear_Protection_Act_(2008)
If I wrote and chose to be sarcastic – I'd tell him that if it was the "money", the vegan and animal rights community would have gladly paid him instead! I'd remind him that Palin's opponent Joseph Biden, is the very same man who supported legislation to stop horse slaughter, animal fighting, and dolphin netting. He also sponsered the Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act aimed at eliminating "canned hunts".
http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2008/08/where-do-the-ve.html
Matthew Scully has been demeaned by his actions. However, the intended message of his book is still legitimate… Those words that depict the brutal slaying of whales, the cruelty to farmed animals, the torture to primates in labs, the plight of the elephants are all still true. It warrants repeating to any who will listen (or read).
If the continued possession of his book offends – I'd suggest donating it to a (school) library or thrift store… Or "ebay" for the sum of .45 cents…
Scully wrote "I only put to you one simple proposition about the animals we raise for fur and flesh. If, in a given situation, we have it in our power either to leave the creature there in his dark pen or let him out into the sun and breeze let him play and sleep and cavort with his fellows – for me it's an easy call. Give him a break. Let him go. Let him enjoy his fleeting time on earth and stop bringing his kind into the world solely to suffer and die. It doesn't seem like much to us, the creatures' little lives of grazing and capering and raising their young and fleeing natural predators. Yet it is the life given them, not by breeder but by Creator. It is all they have. It is their part of the story, a beautiful part beyond the understanding of man, and who is anyone to treat it lightly? Nothing to us – for them it is the world."
Till these words no longer move me… I'll hold on to my copy, if that's alright.
Condemn the author, not the book.
I suggest that you keep Mr. Scully’s book as a reference and send him strong letters of rebuke instead. I am an atheist and I have a bible and several books “explaining” what scripture “might” mean. These are good references when I am questioned regarding my secular views versus nonsensical supernatural views.
Scully’s book can be a good tool to use especially, if you want to reference specific quotes with proper attribution. Dealing with persons who abandon their once strong principles and betray their constituency is difficult; however, having their very words in print is invaluable when debating any future departures from their “credo,” especially if exposing such deceit/hypocrisy might save the lives of animals.
Ms. Sarah Palin is a charlatan and an exposed liar who continues to lie when confronted with the evidence. Unfortunately, in keeping with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, lying is not against the law in her case or that of Mr. McCain. As a lifelong Republican, I will not be voting for the GOP.
Ron