If the animals–which I’ll address instead of simply the Gorilla, as, while the work (or “text”) is titled GOODNIGHT GORILLA, it assuredly addresses all of the animals–were not to be held in captivity, then I believe that you would have an utterly different analysis of the one-to-many dichotomy that Rathmann addresses. Rathmann’s scenario presents the thesis that society and the power-wielders (represented, of course, by the zookeeper) have an iron grasp upon the animals. If, however, this were not the case, then we might, perhaps, consider the possibility that the author of this hypothetical text takes the view that there is a much more egalitarian nature to society. There are no set power structures, in other words. Everything is much more fluid than the world of locks and keys that we see in Rathmann’s text.

Of course, if we were to assume that the author of this hypothetical text–let’s refer to him as Magilla–were to keep the narrative plot in place, then we would see that, while this egalitarian society exists, that Magilla would believe that it is the nature of “animals” to desire upheaval, or complete freedom if you prefer. Thus, from this, we may infer that the text’s “point” is to make the assertion that anarchy is an inevitable state–wherein “anarchy” is seen as a constant change in the rulers and the ruled, and not so much lawlessness.

To summarize: If the animals were not held in captivity, then the text would be utterly, sublimely different. Gone would be power structures and class, replaced by an equal society. But, assuming the presence of the same plot, then the drive to change society would still remain–thus, instead of a utopian text, we would have a thesis on the drive to seek power, even when one is as free as one can be.

Thanks for the comment!

To put it simply, if the Gorilla was not held in “captivity” how would this alter your interpretation and the behaviour of the gorilla or animal characters? In this context one has to revisit the concept of “animalistic emotion” (or the perception of) and its application given the bullshit the animals find themselves surrounded by.

As a parent I find explaining to the child the impact of screaming behaviour has on others is a good way to get the message through. I find telling the child “no simply because you are screaming” is less effectual. For a three year old it can be difficult for them to verbally express their feelings – hence the screaming but they can understand language better than they can verbalise it.

I say this from experience. My child has not had a screaming fit in over a month but I do not get upset if on the odd occasion he has a blow-out – it is usually out of sheer boredom while waiting for something or another and I would not be overly concerned