The Bird With The Missing Foot

[Moth]

We spotted him on the wall
posing too perfectly,
almost
too unperturbed

Even for one used to the crowds
that flocked around the sea-front Wimpy
idling away their time
throwing crumbs.

Even he who desired such treats
would surely have backed away
from the snap, flash, snap
of an otherwise empty handed spectator.

An observer? A fan?
Or just someone after an angle,
a shot
which captured so much
but failed to reveal the truth
of what he lacked.

[brianedwards]

Typo line 4: unperturbed.
Full stop missing after "spectator".

Still reading.

B.

[Gazelle]

The title is used well though I don't like the whole thing in caps. You seem to change perspective in the last section, who is asking those questions? Something is not quite right. Good poem topic though.

[Moth]

Thanks, will sort the typo. The perspective doesn't change, Gazelle. Its an observation - first of the bird, then the person behind the camera. But if someone can pinpoint what might not be working, I'll be happy to edit.

[JohnLott]

Observant and good balance
Nice



J.

[Moth]

Thank you. Was curious as to whether this would stand as a poem on its own. Had a photo to go with it originally.

[JohnLott]

Pix and poems:

I've thought that in the past but have come to realise that each should stand on its merits. Otherwise one is the crutch for the other.

Your bird stands on his own.

I think what Gazelle is commenting on is that switch from observing the bird to observing the photographer/spectator. Sometimes sharing the poem weakens both. The attribution of 'he' to the bird and 'he' to the spectator and one is an anthropomorphic attribution - and finally why is the bird a 'He'

Any help?

J.

[Moth]

anthropomorphic attribution -

I have to confess I didn't know the term, but I roughly guessed it meant what it did as this was my intention. Why he? Because 'it' wouldn't have worked with what I had in mind. What 'he' lacked refers both to the bird and the spectator. The photo I mentioned, one in which the missing foot didn't show, provided the inspiration for the poem which I was hoping would then be read on 2 different levels. With you mentioning the above term, I feel you know that. So yes, that helps. To clarify, it was a deliberate use of this device, as opposed to something which occurred by accident. Thanks so much.

[Arian]

I nearly didn't read this becasue the title has the sort of ugly literalness that, to my mind, sets expectation and kills curiosity.

I'm glad I did, though, as - title aside - it's very good. It has a nice sense of poignancy about it, to my mind, and a well-judged pace. The first stanza is excellent.

Personally, I can't see any change of perspective. The observer observes, then reflects on that observation. Perfectly straightforward. Nor can I see any anthropomorphism. Animals have sexes, and the term we use for the male of the species is the pronoun he. That's not anthropomorphism, that's just the way language works. Anthropomorhism is the projection a uniquely human value or feeling onto an object.

Anyway, two nits:

1. A comma after "perfectly"?
2. "Crowds" are made up of people, true. But a crowd itself is a non-human entity. So "crowds that..." which also sounds better, to my ear.

That's my take, for what it's worth. Nice piece.

Cheers
peter

[JohnLott]

Sorry to be a pain Peter but can I suggest that:
Even he who desired such treats
would surely have backed away
is ever so slightly anthropomorphic. After all do birds desire? And how do they know it's a 'treat'?

But not really a big issue



J.

[Moth]

Anthropomorhism is the projection a uniquely human value or feeling onto an object.

'uniquely' being the key word. So yes, I suppose, in this case, that will be depend on whether birds desire (I think they do when it comes to food) or desire treats... wishing for some foods as opposed to others.... er... maybe...not. There's know way of saying for sure. Sorry, still trying to get my head around this. But as far as I see it ,if this is the name of the device I was using all good and well, if not, it has to be something similar, because I did intend the poem to be read in two ways which is why the words bird and foot are only (and have to be) mentioned in the title. Peter, thank you so much for your comments - and you, John for expanding on yours - and I must say I agree, it's not the most promising title, is it? But I really think it's the only one that fits. Glad you think the poem works.

Only now, I'm curious to know the name of the device used should the situation with the birds be reversed as I've done in another piece describing humans as birds. Tempted to post it up, but feeling a little self-conscious as the beginner's section is very quiet.

[JohnLott]

I'm curious to know the name of the device used should the situation with the birds be reversed as I've done in another piece describing humans as birds. Tempted to post it up, but feeling a little self-conscious as the beginner's section is very quiet.

Good question. I don't know and I've never tried to find out.
Do any English Teachers out there know if there is such a descriptor?



Don't worry about traffic (provided you don't exceed the daily dose and you do your share of crits) is my advice - if anyone objects tell them to post more.

J.

[Arian]

Sorry to be a pain Peter

You're not a pain, John. It's a fair point, I can see your argument. If it's right, though, it's trivially right, because it entails that a vast amount of metaphor, or any figurative speech anywhere, is anthropomorphic in nature. Perhaps, only perhaps, it's more useful to keep the word for more obvious usages - extended conceits, for example, or pivotal perspectives.

Cheers
peter

[Arian]

But I really think it's the only one that fits.

Pity.

cheers
peter

[brianedwards]

[Do any English Teachers out there know if there is such a descriptor?

Zoomorphism? Though that isn't strictly an "opposite" term as it doesn't include likening humans to inanimate objects.
Reification?

Nice poem Moth. Agree with Peter regards the title though.

B.

[Moth]

Zoomorphism, yes I've heard of that. Dreadful how much I've forgotten. Thanks, Brian.

[RichardSanders]

Hi Moth,

I like this one.
observant and touching.
Kindest,
Richard

[Moth]

Thanks, Richard.

[dragonfly]

The title drew me in. And I felt there was definitely some resonance there - I couldn't get the idea out of my head that this was also about the cult of celebrity. Whether or not this was intentional I found this possibility ingriguing and I like poems where you're left with thoughts like this.

Thanks,
dragonfly

[Moth]

I couldn't get the idea out of my head that this was also about the cult of celebrity.

Had to stop myself from cheering when I read that. Thank you so much for not only liking the poem but reading it in the way I'd hoped. Liked your poem too, was going to comment, but can't seem to find it anymore.

[dragonfly]

Hi Moth,

Cheer away (unless you're using a computer in a library!) I know poems are there for readers to make of them what they will, (something I'm learning about at the moment) but it's hard not to be happy when your message gets across, isn't it?

I wasn't sure if I was ready to post my poem yet. I did and then changed my mind. Sometimes I think things are still forming inside and I haven't quite worked through my thought process enough - I kind of need distance and time before I can make sense of input from anyone else. My head's often in a bit of a fog after writing! Thanks for noticing its absence though (the poem's not my head's) I appreciate that.

All the best,
dragonfly

[dragonfly]

Hi again moth. I've been rereading your poem and thinking some more. I think it was the word 'fan' which shifted my attention from the image of a bird onto the idea of a celebrity. Now I'm wondering slightly if the word works on both levels - in the context of someone looking at a bird as well as in the context of celebrities. Birds do have fans, as bird-spotters often go to great lengths to catch a glimpse sometimes, so the concept works for me, just wondering about the word itself. On the first read, it wasn't a problem so I could be over thinking it. Just throwing in a few questions in case they're any help. Thinking out loud, I'm afraid.

I've enjoyed this metaphor. I think it works really well. And I feel more compassion for celebrities now.

[lemonstar]

This has a zen-view; adopt one position and you see what is initially intended (title suggests a bird,sea-front suggests seagull) but when you have your position moved you then see something different - I think the way this is handled is going to be the key to the success of this. It's only with the new perspective (and hindsight) that you see how "Even for one used to the crowds" can then take on the second meaning. On the one hand I like the subtlety of not giving too much away about the possible subject being a celebrity. It occured to me that if you were slightly more heavy handed about it, the zen-view type trick might be better appreciated - would a reference to an "end of the pier " attraction/star be too much? i.e. a reference that can be to the seagull or to a faded or almost forgotten music-hall star?

In defence of the title - I think many readers will have had the experience of suddenly noticing a bird with a gammy leg or no toes, it's not that rare so the title,for me, has a resonance, I have that "oh yes" moment and want to read about your observation - I like it, it works for me. Further I don't feel disappointed by what I actually find having read the poem - it seems appropriate - you didn't promise too much and fail to deliver (or deliver something different) - the idea for the poem seems a perfectly sound one to me.

There's another resonance - on rare occasion some of us will have had the unexpected surprise of coming close to passing, meeting or seeing a celebrity. I saw Richard Harris walking arm in arm with two gorgeous tall blond women (they looked like sisters) dressed in long furs - he looked happy (as well he might) walking down Hampstead High Street; I sat on a high speed hover craft on route to the Isle of Wight with Jarvis Cocker across the aisle and was not disappointed to see a rather scruffy looking James May in Sainsbury's in Hammersmith a few months ago. To me the key line to where the ambiguity must be clear (am I being clear or ambiguous?) is the "An observer? A fan?" When I ran into these celebrities I would perhaps have said I was a casual, accidental, curious or surprised onlooker but if had known or anticipated a meeting then I would have used different terms - maybe an interested onlooker - I don't have the exact answer I'd be looking for but I think finding the right words here to give the right amount of twist to the bird/celebrity ambiguity - saying stalker, autograph hunter or fanatic is perhaps too strong and besides, what ever words you use you still have to capture the ambiguity of the subject being a bird.

The only bit that struck me as as being maybe a bit too deliberately/prancing-ly(?!) poetic was the "Even he...backed away" line.

Finally there is the other type of "observer" I think you are referring to - the one with the camera ready to take pictures of literally anything that might make a good picture. Perhaps I would have opted to put "after a shot" first, as the priority then, "an angle" "to capture so much, but fail to reveal the truth about what was missing" -"missing" a back reference to the title and the bird and perhaps more layers of ambiguity if a celebrity is the subject - a faded star without -an audience, -recognition, -appreciation, etc. or a reference to failings in his personal life or character. It's a well bounded idea, 95% there imho but I'd just have another skim over it and I'd focus on the quality of the zen-view and the words used to create the shift in perspective.

Neil