He’s no dummy: Irving the talking dog
As is now known by fans of Irving the talking dog — and I’m not one of them, at least when it comes to the talking part – the Boston terrier didn’t make it to the finals of “America’s Got Talent.”
Still, in terms of the exposure alone, it was a win for ventriloquist Todd Oliver, whose Branson, Missouri-based act has become more popular than ever.
Branson features three dogs in his performances, all equipped with flapping contraptions attached to their lower jaws. He controls the devices remotely, making the dog’s mouth move in time with the words he supplies, via ventriloquism.
In other words, Oliver uses his dogs for dummies.
No, I don’t think Oliver’s act should be banned. I don’t think we need to get PETA on the phone. I don’t think the appendages attached to the dogs for the act are hurting the dogs, or even bothering them to any great extent.
I am merely saying that it’s another example of us putting words in dogs’ mouths, of our humanization of them — solely for our own amusement.
I don’t like that Pedigree’s DentaStix ad campaign, featuring dogs with human dentures, either — for the same reason. In addition to the TV ads, the campaign allowed us to, with help from our computers, put not just human dentures, but the words of our choice, into dog mouths.
I’m not one of those to unnecessarily sound the anthropomorphization alarm — mainly because it’s too hard a word to say — but I do believe we should enjoy dogs as dogs, and not try to transform them into us.
Oliver seems like a nice guy who does a lot for dogs and animals, and as far as what he does to them for the act, it’s probably not abusive and even somewhat cute, at least for the first few minutes.
He says on his website that the device was developed with a veterinarian.
“Todd is just a true animal lover. He often assists local shelters and rescues dogs from unfit environments,” the website says. ”Everything in Todd’s act is 100% safe and registered with the USDA and the Missouri Department of Agriculture.”
I know that, again, I will be criticized for being overly sensitive, but in my opinion we’ve already tinkered with dogs too much — by shaping them, over the centuries, into breeds whose looks please us; by using them in lab experiments and, in recent years, cloning them; by dressing them up, teaching them to dance, and all the other things we do for our own amusement.
They’re pretty amusing and animated just as they are, without our help. Our attempts to make them more amusing, I think, are often both dopey and disrespectful. But who’s going to listen to me?
If only I could get a dog to say it.
Posted by jwoestendiek September 4th, 2012 under videos.
Tags: act, america's got talent, amusement, animals, anthropomorphization, dentures, dog, dogs, dogshaming, dummies, dummy, entertainment, funny dogs, humanization, humans, irving, irving the talking dog, mouth, pedigree, pets, talking dogs, tinkering, todd oliver, ventriloquism
Comments
Comment from vida
Time September 4, 2012 at 5:31 pm
Still firmly on your side, so I guess I’m oversensitive too. I’ve been called worse, lol. And as for ‘dog shaming’ I hark back to Mark Twain, “man is the only animal who blushes, or needs to”. Enjoy the dogs for who and what they are.
Comment from Eighteenpaws
Time September 4, 2012 at 5:37 pm
I enjoy (most of) AGT, but truly hated this particular act, and as well all those of dogs doing back flips, hopping thru fire rings, etc. Maybe I am a little too much PETA at times, but I agree with STM above, can’t we just let all animals be animals? Why the shows…the races….the tricks….the pomp for our supposed pleasures? Dogs, and all pets, give so much diverse, surprising pleasure. I like my own Furs fairly rowdy, full of personality, and always putting on some kind of a “show” for me….shows that they devise themselves. Thanks for this provoking op-ed, JW.
Comment from barry knister
Time September 4, 2012 at 6:00 pm
It’s a question of sensibility. If you think of dogs principally in terms of distraction and amusement, dressing them up, or posting photos and videos of them doing “shameful things” is harmless enough. But if for whatever reason you actually think of them as capable of thought and consciousness, then your point of view towards them is reflected accordingly.
Comment from jw
Time September 12, 2012 at 12:45 am
If animals will do this for the love of their handlers (significant other? Associated benefactor? I hesitate at master…) and are HAPPY with it… what harm??? They’re getting deep love and needed exercise. Caution: don’t over do it… it’s cruelty.
But really… is it different than roll over, sit, stay, play dead, etc????
Comment from jw
Time September 12, 2012 at 12:49 am
For the “do animals have thought & consciousness” crowd… the answer is… of course silly… otherwise they’re incapable of the unspeakable acts of devotion they’ve displayed over centuries!
Comment from smoketoomuch
Time September 4, 2012 at 12:46 pm
I’ll listen to you John, and I’ll even go so far as to agree with you.Why can’t we just let dogs be dogs?
After reading your piece (and the outraged [over-reaction] from many of the commenters) about the Dogshaming site, I just had to check it out for myself. My takeaway? Those dogs are all 100% guilty of doing things that dogs do, of being what they are. I don’t believe for one minute that shame should be attached to that. They are, after all, dogs, not people. If uncle Ralph chewed the crotch out of the jeans belonging to his female keeper, that might engender some shame, but if Fido does it, it’s only because he’s a dog, and that’s what dogs do. If anything, due to the similarities of “misdeeds”, the site points up common dog behaviors, and in so doing lets us know that “dogs will be dogs” and not people. We have enough foibles of our own, that we don’t need to go around pointing fingers at other species. Everyone should just take a deep breath, and relax. And you should keep doing what you do best, pointing up our human foibles where our dogs are concerned, and keeping us up to speed with our friend Ace.