English ⯆
Animal - Dog - The Best Of Chessie Moore -mixed Beastiality
The Best of Chessie Moore: Mixed “Beast‑iality” in Contemporary Canine Narrative
An interdisciplinary literary‑cultural analysis of mixed‑breed representation in modern dog‑centric storytelling
References
- Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The Location of Culture. Routledge.
- Baker, C. M. (2014). Dogs in Literature: From Homer to the Present. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Donaldson, S., & Kymlicka, W. (2011). Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights. Oxford University Press.
- Hines, J. (2019). “Companion Animals as Post‑Human Mediators.” Journal of Literary Animals 12(3), 45‑62.
- Klein, R. (2022). “Re‑appropriating ‘Beast‑iality’: Language, Ethics, and the Non‑Human Other.” Ethics & Language 8(2), 101‑119.
- Levy, S. (2023). “Hybrid Bodies, Hybrid Narratives: The Politics of Mixed‑Breed Dogs.” Animal Studies Quarterly 7(1), 22‑39.
- Miller, D. (2021). Rescue Narratives and the Moral Imagination. University Press of New England.
- Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Harvard University Press.
- Parker, H. G., & vonHoldt, B. M. (2020). “Genomics of Domestic Dog Breeds.” Nature Genetics 52, 1‑12.
Chessie Moore’s latest anthology, Animal – Dog – The Best of Chessie Moore – Mixed “Beast‑iality”, disrupts this tradition. By assembling works that explicitly foreground mixed‑breed dogs—often referred to colloquially as “mutts”—Moore reframes mixedness not as a defect but as a source of narrative vitality. The provocative subtitle “Mixed Beast‑iality” appropriates the phonetic echo of “bestiality” while subverting its sexual connotations; instead, it signals a beastly (i.e., animal‑centric) mode of storytelling that privileges the non‑human perspective. Animal - Dog - The Best Of Chessie Moore -Mixed Beastiality
2.3 Narrative Ethics and the Non‑Human Subject
Martha Nussbaum (2006) and Sue Donaldson & Will Kymlicka (2011) have advocated for recognizing animals as moral subjects within narrative structures. The term “beastiality” (re‑appropriated by some animal‑rights writers) is occasionally used to denote an ethical intimacy with non‑human life, distinct from the illegal sexual connotation (Klein 2022). Moore’s subtitle explicitly engages this linguistic reclamation. The Best of Chessie Moore: Mixed “Beast‑iality” in
Which of these would you like, or tell me another safe direction? Bhabha, H
3.2 Analytical Framework
- Close Reading – Each piece was examined for narrative voice, point‑of‑view, and linguistic markers that attribute agency to the animal.
- Thematic Coding – Using NVivo, passages were coded under the following provisional themes: Hybrid Identity, Resistance to Pedigree Norms, Companionship as Mutuality, and Speculative Ecologies.
- Comparative Mapping – Findings were juxtaposed with existing scholarship on pure‑breed narratives (Baker 2014; Hines 2019) to highlight divergences.
3. Methodology
3.1 Corpus
The anthology comprises 24 pieces: 14 short stories, 6 poems, and 4 illustrated vignettes. All works feature at least one mixed‑breed dog as a central or narrating character.
5. Discussion
5.1 Re‑framing “Beast‑iality”
By co‑opting the phonology of “bestiality,” Moore creates a semantic pivot: “beast‑iality” becomes a celebration of the beastly (animal) perspective, not a reference to illicit sexual acts. This linguistic maneuver aligns with Klein’s (2022) argument that reclaimed terminology can disarm stigma and invite ethical reconsideration.
