The second sentence of The
Only Harmless Great Thing calls humans “flat-faced pink squeakers with more
clever-thinking than sense” (54). Things only get better from there. Humans are
described as “piteous little creatures,” with “short memories and shorter
tempers,” and as
“yowling monk[ies],”
whose “noses were stumpy, ridiculous things” (64, 107, 64). The elephant
consciousness that thinks these thoughts is spot on, both in the
alternate-history world of the novel and in the actual world that we live in.
Elephants surely have reason in today’s world to hate humans for isolating them
in circuses, hunting them for their ivory, and destroying their habitat. I am
reminded of Patricia Highsmith’s old short story “Chorus Girl’s Absolutely
Final Performance,” in which the titular elephant exacts revenge from years of
ill-treatment at the hands of humans.
In The Only Harmless
Great Thing, life is even worse for elephants. In one of the book’s three narrative threads, set in the early 20th-century, elephants have
been forced to do the work of “radium girls,” painting with radioactive
materials that give both humans and elephants cancer. In another narrative
thread, set approximately 100-years later, humans conscript elephants to serve
as sentries guarding nuclear waste in a desert wasteland. The other thread
details an elephant creation story every bit as believable as any human-focused
one. We learn of the sacrifice made by “Furmother-with-the-Cracked-Tusk” to
bring memory and “Story” to into the world.
Bolander gives herself a lot of ground to cover in this novella;
she makes an interesting decision right from the start that helps her to write in
a concise and evocative series of perspectives. Unlike lots of scholarship that
belabors the question of animal consciousness, Bolander presents the workings
of elephant minds on the page as a given. Elephants think and communicate on
the pages of this book in ways different from, and perhaps more sophisticated
than, humans do. Readers are given direct access to elephant thoughts and
perceptions. In these passages, vision is deemphasized in favor of smell,
tactility, and memory. Elephant language has its own system of metaphors that
reflect their lived experience. They hear a “voice like the earth split” (176);
they conceptualize in terms of “high-branch mangoes” (133) an “bone-rooted
ghosts” (294). What’s striking about this prose is not so much that it
defamiliarizes the human perspective, but that it places the elephant
perspective on equal footing. The Only Harmless Great Thing shows
readers that different sentient species perceive and think about the world in
different ways. A human clock, from an elephant’s perspective becomes ““the
metal bird in the box” that shows how humans are “obsessed with the rising and
setting of the sun” (259).
In addition to the well-wrought inner voice of elephants,
Bolander also gives us human-elephant communication through a sort of sign
language called “Proboscidian,” in which elephants gesture with their trunks
and humans gesture with their hands and arms. Proboscidian overcomes the
language barrier between species when an elephant signs “We feel” to a human
translator. Think here of the gestural language between humans and chimpanzees
in 2011’s Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,
but without any need for genetic mutation to develop communication skills.
Elephants, as the creation story in The
Only Harmless Great Thing tells us, have been thinking and communicating
just as long as humans have.
And this taken-for-granted approach to elephant
communication pays off in the novella’s character development. The main elephant
characters—Topsy, and an unnamed matriarch—are as fully developed as their
human counterparts—Regan and Kat. Topsy and Regan are both poisoned by radium,
and they reach a point of empathy with one another. Regan signs to Topsy, “You okay?” Topsy signs back, “Fine. I am . . . fine” (228). In
continuing the conversation, Topsy and Regan form a bond that becomes integral
to the novella’s plot (and which I will not spoil here). Regan is surprised
when Topsy signs back the simple question, “You?” In this moment, they form
what one would call a “human connection” in most circumstances, but what must
be called a “human-elephant connection” here. Regan signs back, “Not really . . . And I ain’t convinced you
are either” (228). The repercussions of this connection resonate through
the rest of the book.
In the contemporary section of The Only Harmless Great Thing, Kat works with an elephant
translator to try to convince a group of elephants to make a sacrifice for the
future of humanity (no spoiler, so I will not go into detail here). They
communicate as equals; the elephant matriarch might be more articulate than the
researcher Kat, which throws Kat into ethical doubt about her life’s work.
I read this book in one sitting and when I finished I made a
mental list of what The Only Harmless
Great Thing was “about,” for lack of a better world. Here is that list:
gender politics, gender violence, poverty, labor, slavery, embodiment, communication,
death, horrible compromise, satisfaction. Perhaps most importantly, the book’s “aboutness”
is doubled: Bolander shows us all these things as elephants experience them,
and as humans experience them. She does this, of course, as a human writer
must, with human language. The Only
Harmless Great Thing’s great strength is that it seems to be also written in
elephant language. As the elephant voice says: “Sticks can be knocked out of a
Man’s clever hands” (497).