One of my favorite books is Cooking with Dogs--because as long as I have been able to cook, there's always been at least one canine in the kitchen. As long as I can recall, I've lived in a house with dogs. I've had a dog of my own since my sister was sixteen and was given a poodle instead of the car she yearned for. (Without a stick shift, Suzette wasn't appealing to my sister. She was dead-set on four wheels, not four legs. So the dog just sort of defaulted to be mine, even though I was only four at the time.) My grandmother had a "gift" regarding dogs--she never met a dog she didn't like, and every dog liked her. Maybe it's genetic? I once accidentally and completely ruined Mr. T, a trained attack Doberman because he wanted to be one of my pack of basenjis, but I will tell that story another time and another place. Suffice it to say that when Amberquill came out with a book Let's Talk Dogs, I leaped at the opportunity to review it.

Maybe one day I'll learn to look before I leap.

The author, Anne Roditis-Muscat, talks a little bit of her dog show experience but prefaces that the book is written for the potential exhibitor and breeder of dogs. She says "It is your responsibility to feed and water sufficiently, to protect, to train and to bring that dog up correctly, so he fits in as an accepted and respected member of today’s society." Excuse me? My dog is not going to be a member of society. My dog is going to be a member of my household. And--respected? This is more of an editing issue than anything else, but I ask you--how many dogs do you respect as members of society?

I know what the author means--that we take dogs into our homes, and become their pack leaders, their de facto parents. It is our responsibility to teach them to get along with other dogs; and in our own homes, to socialize them as family members within the context of our environs. But that is not what the statement says: only what I surmise that it means. As a reader, I should not have to translate what a writer means. I found myself making similar translations throughout the book.

I admit to a bias. Call me radical if you will, but it is my opinion that you should NOT get a dog if that dog is not intended to be a family member. We're talking pets here, not working dogs. Granted, people get dogs for a lot of reasons; and I object to many of those reasons: people who get dogs "for the children" and then permit said under-aged children to torment the dog until the dog bites and then the dog is put to sleep for being vicious; people who are afraid of dogs who get big, mean looking curs, feed them gunpowder and lock them behind chain link fences to "guard." (What dog can guard against a bullet? In this age of technology, why would anyone need a dog to guard?) Dogs are social animals and they need a pack. A dog being a companion is not one option among many; as far as I am concerned it is a primary requirement, (with the possible exception of legitimate service dogs and that is a huge exception that isn't applicable here because no police dog trainer or seeing eye guide trainer would rely on this book for information.) This is my standpoint. Take it or leave it.

Consider this quotation from Let's Talk Dogs: "Whatever you decide you want to do with your dog, whether it be showing, breeding, obedience training or a loved family member and companion, the basic and most important requirements for any dog is good health and a good upbringing." I could go on for three pages about the flawed construction and grammar of the above-mentioned quote. As I have already expressed, in my opinion, the dog being a valued family member is the primary consideration, and all others--except for working service dogs--are subordinate.

I have misgivings about much of the content of this book, but I will start off with a few minor issues. The author's meaning should be out there on the page. I should not have to laugh over half the statements I read before I get down to revising them from what the author actually is saying into what the author probably means. But this is just the start.

There is NO table of contents. A non-fiction book like this should really have a table of contents. (Well--it is not really non-fiction; in my opinion, it is mostly opinion. But that doesn't negate the need of a TOC.) The book starts off with bringing home the new puppy, puppy ailments and then leaps over the whole meat and potatoes of dog rearing and life--and goes right into Breeding. When I went from puppy ailments to breeding, I even looked to see if chapters were missing.

Why would you write a book about getting a puppy, taking care of that puppy, and skip everything about raising it, living with it? Such a crucial omission changes the book from being a dog book into a puppy mill book, simply by virtue of the non-existent chapters on raising and living with your dog. After breeding, the chapters go into pregnancy, preparing for birth, birth, and then hand raising orphans. (Is the author expecting the purchaser's bitch to die in puppy-birth?)

It boggles the mind that someone who loves dogs would write a book for a neophyte and start waxing about dog genetics. She says, "Through my experience, I’ve learned to first have a thorough familiarity with the background of my dogs. By this I don’t mean only the dogs standing before me to be mated, but their ancestors as well. This is where it becomes essential to keep records, as they prove to be a very valuable tool. One cannot rely on one’s memory alone. " No responsible dog aficionado would recommend breeding to anyone at this level of ignorance. If you have to define out-crossing, line-breeding or inbreeding to your readership, then your readership should not be considering breeding. I strongly wonder if the author should be breeding if she can even posit relying on memory. Most of the educated breeders I know prefer out-crossing (breeding two non-related dogs); line-breeding and inbreeding drastically increase the rate of genetic disease such as the deafness and blindness in Dalmatians, hip dysplasia in German Shepherds

Then, there's the chapter on Orthomolecular Medicine. Orthomolecular is a therapeutic pseudo-scientific term mostly predicated on healing with vitamin concentrations; it's the branch of pseudo-medicine you see so often on late night television--the kind info-mercialers pull out to back up flashy over the counter (or mail) mega-doses of vitamins plus mystery ingredients as purported cure-alls. The author makes a fairly rational statement about holistic medicine, and gives decent information about recognizing disease; then she advises varieties of vitamin therapies she's used on her dogs. As she is not a vet, and the fact that she is throwing around a worthless ten dollar word like "orthomolecular" to borrow authority further convinces me the inadvisability of taking any of her orthomolecular advice, and I hope no one else would either. Again, this is just my opinion.

I do not believe Anne Roditis-Muscat means deliberate harm by her book. I even went thru the same back and forth about the BARF diet and came to my own conclusions. She probably has a good measure of experience, yet I cannot recommend this text as is for several reasons. She targets a dog-ignorant audience, which is tantamount to writing "How to Establish Your Own Puppy Mill" or at the very least "How to Screw up More Litters of Inbred Purebred Puppies in the Vain Hope to Winning Recognition at a Dog Show." Both underlying themes are reprehensible and probably not intentional on her part, either. The manuscript organization needs serious work if the author means it to be a legitimate resource. Add the missing chapters between puppyhood and pregnancy. Or write separate books on each topic. The book also needs to be edited carefully so that some of those sentences more accurately deliver what they mean. And if she's got such a long history with dogs, then surely she can find something special within her to add a spark to this book. I would also suggest that she finds a co-author--perhaps one of those vets she mentions--and then re-organize and rewrite. Or better yet, just read some of the excellent works that are already out there, such as Super Puppy by Daniel Pinkwater.

Reviewed by Allie
© Dec 2006