**********************SPOILER BELOW****************************

While reading The Amber Spyglass I came across a scene where Iorek - a sentient polar bear - ate the corpse of a human who had been his friend in life. I thought this was very strange and felt that the action of a sentient being eating another sentient being was an act of evil, even if he was a polar bear. I had only come across this in other books with evil races like orks.

Am I alone? Would you have a 'good' sentient being eat another sentient being in your writing? Especially a human?

You said it was a corpse he ate, presumeably the person was dead already, killed by someone else or other means, right? So eating was an act of survival? Perhaps he was starving?

In such scenes the writer treads a fine line between making us queasy and repelling us entirely--and no doubt accepts that he may lose a few readers. IIRC Pullman kept us reading on because Lorek had already been established as a bear with whom we had sympathy, even if he was rather fearsome.

Cheers,
Pat

Without knowing the story, consider if the body would have been horribly desecrated, put on display, used to humiliate what the person was. The body being devoured could well be a way to protect the memory and honor of the dead.
Also, being devoured might be preferable to lay on the ground and waste away in the weather. It gives the one feeding on it strength to continue on, and in essence allow that person to live within its host.

Again, not knowing what was involved in the situation, Consider if the mission is extremely important to both races. It has to be completed. Both of them are struggling through horrible conditions, starving to death. Both are weak.
One dies due to exposure. feeding on the other might be what allows the mission to be completed, saving both races. It would almost be a wish by the one who died to be fed on to complete the mission.

When thinking about animals being sentient, we have to ask ourselves if, in this instance, sentience in a bear would be different from the bear's point of view than how a human would view sentience. It could be two totally different ways of looking at things. A bear doesn't think or look at life like a human would. Anyway, that's the way I would look at it.

Orcs might commonly eat even each other because food to consume was more valuable to them than another being’s life. Native Americans greatly value life and honor life given for life to continue. It is my understanding that most vegetarians choose not to eat meat because they see it as an act of disregard for animal life. Heinlein presented the act of eating as being the greatest respect that could be shown for a now ended life.

I think that this is why we struggle so much with situations where the value of meat for survival becomes greater than the value of our cherished traditions for honoring the dead.

There are people who believe all Chinese or Germans are evil or at least tainted by and complacent with it because the countries' leaders, both dictators, is doing/did, respectively, many horrible things. There are people who believe all Americans are greedy, self-absorbed capitalist. There are people who believe all lawyers are pond scum. There are people who believe(d) that everyone who filed bankruptcy prior to the 2005 amendment to the Code were abusing the system rather than truely seeking help.

Are there people who fit the stereotype? Sure. Is it representative of the entire group, generally not.

quote:

---

"I just don't want to eat an animal that's standing there inviting me to," said Arthur. "It's heartless."
"Better than eating an animal that doesn't want to be eaten," said Zaphod.

---

I thought Iorek's eating of the corpse as it was presented was reasonable. For starter's it was established much earlier that the ice bears do not think like humans, and don't intend to.