Thursday, April 2, 2015
Cascade Raptor Center: Capture.
Our group began by talking about the form of this poem and what it was trying to tell us about the authors experience in this situation. At first i concentrated a lot on the bird but then came to realize that the bird was not what this poem was about, but instead was used as a tool to provide social commentary on human reaction. In the first half of the poem the author is constantly rationalizing the actions of this 11 year old boy. In particular in the second to last stanza in the first part the author says that they might have more compassion for the boy if his victim had been human. at first I read this very literal, but as I studied the poem more, particularly the second part, I came to realize that this statement was more ironic. I began to think why he concentrated so much on the reaction of the boy in the first part, and then the reaction of the dad and the boy in the second part to the immediate past. What I came to realize is the bird was acting as a sympathetic figure to only the poet/voice in the first part. The poet does not distinguish between the raptors and instead loves and wants to save all of them, he holds them in a reverence much higher than say a human he doesn't know. For instance, many times in a movie when a dog dies people often comment that the dog dying was much more jarring than say a human dying as well in the movie. This is because all humans, at least that have had experience with dogs, understand that most pet dogs behave the same. The dogs are loving, loyal, kind, and playful. Humans can then equate this personality onto any dog. However, humans can't place all of the same characteristics for every human based on the humans they have met. For instance when we read the news and see that three people died overseas, unless we know those people we generally feel indifferent to their deaths. Yet if we hear of a dog being abused, we may find we have more sympathy for the animal because we can relate to all dogs. In this poem the author sees all raptors the same, they are creatures he was worked closely with and understands there nature and why they do what they do. When the author comments on the people however, they are all reacting differently to the death of this bird. The father being apathetic and the son being more upset about what his father thinks, and lastly the author is more concerned about the bird. This I think is the authors commentary on human nature and how it is different from animal nature in that humans can't be assessed based on natural instinct, this is because they have more drive behind the things they do that deal with emotion. Whereas animals all generally share the same instincts and feats within their species. Maybe I am stretching this a bit much, but I think that this poem is all about social commentary and the idea that the reaction to animals can be much stronger, only because we don't understand humans other than the ones close to us or ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Of my reading, I feel the poet investigates a dichotomy which faces every naturalist and conservationist.
ReplyDeleteAs people, it might be assumed that we are most concerned with what happens to our own species--such a reaction could be dubbed "animal," since it is animals who are most concerned with their own and lack both a social awareness and interest in others not of their kind. However the conservationist (in particular) contradicts this in that his/her concern is not necessarily preoccupied with humanity, but those things outside it. That a person like the subject of the poem can be more concerned with something else outside of his/her own species stems from the human ability to rationalize and reason, viz., humans possess the will to feel strongly about things/creatures of their choosing.
Where the dichotomy appears is when our passions conflict with our natures. As a person, it might be expected that the speaker, though passionate about raptors, identifies with the boy and his father more, since he shares their same origins. This is exactly what the speaker struggles with, since he demonstrates a desire to feel more concern for the injured raptor. Elsewhere, the speaker acknowledges his humanity in his shifting perspective from bird to boy and father, as does the poem structurally when it shifts from the speaker's limited perspective to a more omniscient view of the boy's and father's reactions.
All of this plays with the relationship between our humanity and interests which often converge, forcing us to ask, as the speaker seems to ask himself: what exactly do we focus our attentions on? What do we feel more unity with? The nature we conserve, or the people whom we are from?