During my college years, I went through a phase in which I wanted to absorb myself in strangers and new friends because the relationship I had kept a rift between myself and those who loved me. (It wasn't that I didn't still love, or 'was loved by' them it was just that I didn't want to be the burden in their lives that they had to pretend to be happy for.)
In this time, I had made a friend with a young girl named H- from a group of people who were close to each other and several years younger than myself. We were friends for two weeks, and then life took her elsewhere and I was stuck in that same hole I liked.
There were a lot of people I knew in that time, but I somehow felt a close relationship with her.
The first week we spoke about the lovers we shouldn't have had, and in her tipsy state she pointed out one of the other youngsters to me and with a stupor told me that he was nice to her, and hot, and funny.
I could see none of these things about him. In fact I thought he was far detached from the things I find attractive in a man. But when i looked at the way she watched him, I could see his reflection in her face, and I knew without a doubt that everything she felt was true.
The second week we hung out was her twenty first birthday. Of course, in America, turning 21 was like becoming a superstar. She partied hard, with a bottle of Belvedere clutched to her lungs. By the second hour of her birthday (since she started birthday-eve) she was plastered. All the while, her shy demeanor prevailed and she tried to drunkenly justify hiding her affections for C-, who, IMO, was trying only partially veil his own sweet concern for her.
The last memory I have of H- was bringing her water as she leaned pleasantly half passed out by the toilet seat of the small college apartment telling her I had gotten C- and he was going to take her home when she was ready to leave.
Somehow, that look on her face is still clear in my mind's eye. She was satisfied and she was innocent (or... at least as innocent as a drunk college birthday girl could be) and she said with no reservations.
"You are so nice. You are so so nice."
I sent her off with her crush that night and I knew that I had ended something. But still, I couldn't be sad-- something about her had already told me she was going to be all right.
On Facebook, C- posted a Top Gear link. I am a fan of the Top Gear page, so even though I do not put C's stuff up high on my list of priority articles, his showed up on top. He had linked an item to H- and I saw that his profile picture was of the two of them in a cheerful embrace.
And I thought to myself:
"I'm happy they are together."
Almost five years later, I am happy that a couple of strangers that I had known for a dozen days are happy together. Their romance had been seeded in that exact moment I had met them, and although all I did was fetch H- water and lead C- to that frat party toilet, I still felt like I was a part of their relationship.
I doubt either of them remembered me, or even really care that I exist.
But I'm still so happy that they are happy.
October 2, 2013
I have decided that the people who say they 'know people' (how they think or act or what they want), actually knows nothing.
Due to the recent finger war that is the 'blame game' of the government shutdown: Facebook has been plagued with political shouts and crazy outrages. I don't usually do a political opinion piece because, well... frankly I don't care about politics enough for someone to come criticize me as a whole based on an opinion I don't feel strongly about.
Still, sometimes I find accusations from one party to another (Usually republicans, but largely because republicans are more viciously outspoken about their attacks and not because I find republicans themselves to be offensive) kind of.... well... narrow minded.
Today i noticed a friend had put up a photo of a story labeled 'The $50 Dollar Lesson'. The story is as follows:
I recently asked my friends' little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President of the United States. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there. So I asked her, "If you were President, what would be the first thing you would do?" She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people." Her parents beamed.
"Wow... what a worthy goal," I told her. "But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my driveway, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house."
She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can gust pay him the $50?" I said "Welcome to the Republican Party."
Her parents still aren't speaking to me.
Obviously this was written by a Republican who thought that outwitting a 'little girl' made him sublimely clever.
So my complaints about the paragraphing aside, I was struck by this story on a logical level. First of all, the narrator assumes that the girl is a democrat in need of a $50 dollar lesson.... Second of all, that the narrator equates a single homeless person with what i believe the girl is equating to poverty.
I would assume that a little girl at that age thinks all homeless people do not want to be homeless. She is a child, she should think that. A man at that age, however, should know that there are two kind of homeless people: 1) the people who want to be homeless and 2) the people who do not want to be homeless. The government shouldn't or at least, couldn't do anything for the first type, but the men and women who work through their bones and still don't have enough money to afford any kind of home should not be punished as if they are not trying.
A part of this story that irritates me is that the narrator asserts that the Republican Party's primary goal as it pertains to charity and unemployment is that people get what they work for. To some degree, this is not untrue. But following the analogy of the story, do you honestly believe that this 'homeless guy' would NOT go mow a man's lawn, pull his weeds, and sweep the driveway if he were offered $50 dollars for the job? If he wanted that money, he would have done it. Instead, this narrator offered a girl of his same class the opportunity that he has not and most likely will never offer to the homeless man. And why? Because she is more capable of physical labor than a man on the street?
Poverty, and being homeless, as I understand it-- is rarely a path one desires to take, and if it were as simple as doing work to get out, then I'm sure there would be fewer people bitching about their bills. What I stand for is not the quest to put every man woman or child without a roof into a sturdy home, but to give them more opportunities to get them out of homelessness. Could this mean giving a home to a family that cannot afford one? Yes, Possibly.
I don't believe in government handouts for the simple sake of charity; but I do practice giving when I can. I have given others my money with the faith that they will spend it on something they need. I have given organizations my money with the faith that they will use it how they claim to. But I do also believe that one should put an effort to earn sympathy. It's like any other friendship, I will give to those I think will use it, and if all you are doing is taking my money, I shall not be likely to give to you again.
There is nothing wrong with expecting someone to get what they work for.
Does this make me a Republican?
On a side note: I am not much of a fan of the Deomcrats vs. Republican dichotomy that runs today's politics. Not only for reasons like the 2013 Shut-down for one, but so many other reasons. To have only two such antagonistic views to chose from is such a terrible way to divide the nation. And what is even worse is that there are very few media channels that just tell you what happens without putting bias spins in either directions. You will watch what you agree with, which just means you will be influenced further into partisans.
More often than not, I hear politicians voice such hateful things toward oppositions just to be heard. It's not about who is the best candidate, it's about who is the worst. And that results in the god-awful finger-pointing and judgement that is running the government now.
Children....
But whatever, if the nation's leaders want to kick and play rough on the school-yard, who am I to stop them? I just hope that we are better than those few who 'represent ' us. This is why I am an engineer, and not a politician.
PS: I was just thinking to myself recently: "If I were an American movie star that had a ridiculous amount of wealth, I would donate money to the US Treasury in an attempt to support the nation." .... I really would.
Actually, I believe that the word I am looking for is not necessarily the 'opposite' of the definition of excitement, but rather an alternative meaning to the first-impression of the word. I bet you, 'excitement' can be applied to this feeling too. I shall describe it:
That feeling you get when something you dread is approaching and that dread is intensifying. Eventually, the anticipation of said event magnifies your distaste or your expectations such that even if the event itself is benign, whenever or whatever you hear or think about it furthers negative feelings.
I thought 'ominous', if ominous was a noun.
At this point, the only thing I have been doing is bitch though. And I can't seem to un-think any of the things I have said or already have deduced. It's one disappointing turn after another. Which is upsetting because I had started off really hopeful that things would be better by now.
Suppose you should never initiate anything with the expectations that things will change for the better. Best start with something you are already are enthusiastic about.
On a side note: I am a little selfish/disappointed in myself knowing I can actually make a list of things that are bothering me about my upcoming project. Only bitches make lists to justify their reasonings.
So you know that really excited feeling that you get when it's the afternoon of the last workday of the week and the weekend is coming. the little gleeful anticipation that the next day will bring hope and joy (and probably some much needed extra sleep). It feels like Christmas Eve....but every week.
It use to be that Fridays in my head were that day. It was the day of the week that I loved the most (yes, even more than Saturday). It was the day when it didn't matter if shit happened because you can celebrate the weekend the next morning and you don't have to deal with the working week crap until the far future. The reward of the work week was always the precious couple of days in which I could write my own schedule, break my own plans, or just... do NOTHING. Oh rewarding nothingness.
Well, the day of gleeful anticipation has now changed-- because my weekend reward has changed. Thursdays are now the days I sit giddy at my table excited for my reward days to come. And what is my reward? Being with Greed.
Every week I get this happy union and snuggle time with my SO, and it then means that in my head: Friday is no longer a work day, but a reward day!
From the open top of the red Mustang convertible, heat from the Texan Saturday poured over us. It touched us in just the same way the tragic news story on the car's radio did: It was the story about how the little Chinese girls died after surviving the horrible burning incident of the Asiana plane to San Francisco.
The irony of it all was that the vehicle meant to rescue the victims from the plane's fire ran them over. Even more tragic, the foam meant to suppress the fire... was what hid them from the rushing fire engine.
Greed and I had just returned from globetrotting Asia, and of course, as the cheap fresh-out-of-college-and-living-all-alone kids that we were, we had frequently used budget airlines. I love them, most were well worth the pennies saved, as long as you knew they were budget.
Recently, many incidents had been sited saying planes had been catching fire. These can be attributed to either shaudy engineering, shitty maintenance or just stupid flight attendants with burning coffee pots. Whatever the cause, all these fires were just becoming heartbreaking.
Greed sigh at the end of the article then said, "This is why you should never take budget airlines from China. You never know when your plane will catch on fire."
I tipped my head to him and then said, "Well, we cannot take budget airlines from America cause you never know when they'll pull a Hissing Cobra."
AN: A Hissing Cobra is a maneuver used in airplanes (usually small regional jets from a particular company) in which a smaller plane will accelerate, clip and overtake a second plane just before landing. This is done with the sole intention of 'being a jerk'. To achieve enough stopping momentum, the plane will have to angle usually high making unsuspecting passengers unhappy. It's much like cutting off an asshole on the road if they cut into your lane or are moving particularly slow-- thus transferring asshole-ness to you, but giving you great satisfaction in the process. I know people who have experienced this phenomenon first hand.... and possibly performed this phenomenon first hand.
I apologize to the people who adamantly believe that this song is not about World War II. Because I am thoroughly convinced that it is.
Jumping up and down the floor, My head is an animal. And once there was an animal, It had a son that mowed the lawn. The son was an ok guy, They had a pet dragonfly. The dragonfly it ran away, But it came back with a story to say.
Jumping up and down the floor: I feel like this should be important but for the life of me cannot figure out what it could relate to. While the whole line includes ‘my head is an animal’, it seems to mean that the narrator’s head is an animal that is either ‘jumping up and down’ in place or jumping ‘up and down the floor’ from one end to the other. Either way, I see this as something that should not be calm, and that the author is not calm.
My head is an animal. Thank god there are some straightforward lines here. The whole story is riddled with metaphors, and once this line has been introduced it becomes apparent that the whole story suddenly becomes metaphoric. While most people use metaphor to exaggerate or to highlight a particular idea, it seems in this poem, metaphor becomes reality and that it no longer becomes a highlighting quality, but a muting quality. To state ‘my head is an animal’, the narrator is either saying that there is something inside their head that is uncontrollable, OR they are setting the tone to which you are to equate animals with heads, leaders, thoughts or allegiances. From conclusions I drew in later parts of the poem, I chose to equate each animal (singular) with a group of peoples who act under one thought. One animal, is one ideal or one incident. This logic drives much of the rest of my conclusions of the lyrics.
Thus I conclude, the first couplet, or the first whole sentence, portrays someone’s thoughts as wild, chaotic of undecided about an issue out on ‘the floor’.
Easy song lyrics.
The first couplet seem to stand alone in the story, setting up a scenario, or a key in which to decipher the rest of the songs. And though most online deciphers of the song imply that the story must contain continuity, I find that it seems logical that this is not the case, and that instead the subject of the story switches from the narrator’s ideas, to someone else’s ideas.
And there once was an animal. All alone, ‘and there once was an animal’ implies that the animal mentioned in the second line is not the same as the animal in the third line. It is, however similar and should be related to each other, either as their ideals, or as their chaotic thoughts ‘jumping up and down’ the floor. The term ‘animal’, implies that there was something wild, that confusion or battle within the narrator’s head, mentioned in the first couplet, are then imposed to the imagery of the animal. Assume for now, that the ‘animal’ in question is the metaphor used to represent the participants or ideals of the First World War.
It had a son who mowed the lawn/The son was an OK guy. I believe that this is the only creature that wasn’t given explicit ‘beast’ status in the entire poem. The son (a product of the ‘once’ animal) was an ‘OK guy’: Sweet enough to mow lawns and keep things neat, but not remarkable enough to merit any other notice. While the narrator seems to have no particular qualms about the son, they also seem to have no respect or admiration for him. Allowing the compliment of ‘OK’ implies that in concept, this person should be a nice person, however they are not friends. Which brings me to believe that the ‘son’, or the product of the once-animal, is the metaphor for the League of Nations. In history the League of Nations was designed to keep the order of international law, and to ensure that another war of the same magnitude as the first would ever occur again. Though an admirable union of forces and ideals, the organization failed ultimately because it depended solely on the faith of mortal morality with no military strength to enforce any rules.
Many of the nations who joined the League of Nations withdrew, including Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union. Denmark, was a part of the League of nations from it’s founding (and as best I can tell) to till it’s dissolve in 1946. All throughout the league of nations, Denmark supported Iceland, the band’s country of origin. While Iceland was a separate kingdom, it was ‘dependent on’ and ‘in personal union’ with Denmark until the occupation of Denmark by Germany in WWII. During this time, communication with Denmark and Iceland was cut off, and Iceland then declared independence and insisted on staying neutral all throughout WWII. This fact is important for the next conclusion.
They had a pet dragonfly./the dragonfly it ran away, but it came back with a story to say. Assuming that the history of this song is from the perspective of Icelandic songwriters/Iceland, I made the assumption that the dragonfly is Iceland. I am torn, however, in also believing that the dragonfly is another League of Nations member that left the charter, and possibly came back—or that the dragonfly could also be Denmark after it was occupied and communications ceased. I lean more toward the ‘dragonfly’ being a metaphore for Iceland, however, because 1) it refers to the dragonfly as a ‘pet’ or in other perspectives, a being that belongs to someone else. As stated earlier, Iceland was a state in Personal Union with Denmark. Personal Union meaning they were separate nations share the same monarch but have distinct boundaries, laws, and national interests remain distinct. Pets, like nations under Personal Union, often require the support and provisions of their master nations, but think and feel and consider themselves separate entities. 2) During WWII, Denmark was occupied by Germany, with no desire to pick sides, Iceland declared independence from Denmark, running away from the supporting country while they were in dark hours. Although the Danes must have felt betrayed that Iceland chose to withdraw from them rather than support the nation during Nazi occupation, Danish King, Christian X, congratulated the Icelandic people on their independence. I gather this means that though the dragonfly ran away, it did not disappear completely from the Son’s influence.
From the first stanza, we have been able to equate animals, or insects, (or on the off-hand, the ‘guy’) with organizations of peoples or ideals. When we do, we find the first stanza of the song outlines the direct occurrences that led toward Iceland’s independence. I conclude from the arguments above that the whole poem’s purpose can be found here. While this may seem short and not very fulfilling, I find this is more like a summary of the rest of the poem. While the dragonfly left and came back a free entity, it acknowledges that other things happened to lead her to this decision. Thus the dragonfly’s story is the justification as to why it ran away, or the retelling of what it saw when it ran away.
From here, the song takes a new narrator. From the end of the first stanza, it is tempting to conclude that the dragonfly is the new narrator. By the opening word of the second stanza, you assume the ‘her’ refers to the dragonfly. The line in its entirety, however, destroys the imagery of a dragonfly, giving the insect both paws and a fur coat. Though there may be many interpretations to who the new narrator may be for the remaining two stanzas, for my review I will assume that the dragonfly is now telling the stories.
Her dirty paws and furry coat, She ran down the forest slope. The forest of talking trees, They used to sing about the birds and the bees. The bees had declared a war, The sky wasn't big enough for them all. The birds, they got help from below, From dirty paws and the creatures of snow.
Her Dirty Paws and furry coat,/ She ran down the forest slope. I have some confusion over this line, in that I expected the narrator to be the dragonfly. Now, this dragonfly is not only pawed and furry, she was also running through a forest. This could also be taken as the dragonfly is remembering someone she saw on her travels. The rest of the story is then spoken with a bit more of an objective perspective. As I believe that the dragonfly is a metaphor for Iceland, I believe that the dragonfly is instead a spectator and commentator for this pending war. Therefore, the creature observed that has dirty paws and furry coat is the creature running. The creature is running downward through the forest, which depicts this creature going through this dangerous tangle of trees with some degree of ease.
From later imagery furthering the possibility that the poem is about WWII, I researched the Allies and the Axis. I came across the key term coined by the WWII president, Franklin D. Roosevelt: “The Four Policemen”. The Four Policemen refers to the four major Allies of World War II: The United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and China. This phrase is the lynchpin of my resolve that the song Dirty Paws is about the Second World War and the peoples involved. The Four Policemen, according to Roosevelt, symbolized the strength and authority of post-WWII in which the four quadrants of the globe would be policed by the ‘trusteeship of the powerful’. Although it was idealistic, it was also unrealistic to expect that four nations would control the entire world. The historical Four Policemen, however, did become founders of the United Nations, an organization that is now 193 members strong.
Thus I conclude that the ‘her’ referenced by the dragonfly are the ally nations, the four paws (or the four major allies of WWII) and the furry coat (or the other allies that were powerful or provided military support, such as France, Brazil or Mexico, etc.).
The forest of talking trees,/ They used to sing about the birds and the bees. Not all of the participants of the story are traditionally sentient. Trees are traditionally stagnant and one would assume they are only ever able to observe. The second line of the couplet states that the trees ‘sing about the birds and the bees’. When one hears ‘sings’, the first impression is something pleasant. If you step back and consider it, it could also mean they ‘speak freely’ or ‘sings’ about defeat, as many songs may. As for the phrase ‘birds and bees’, one generally associates the idiom with sex, or relationships between men and women.
I have several theories as to who the trees represent. One conclusion is that the forest, a participant in this story, represents the innocents caught in the battles. These observers tell the story of how the birds and the bees are at war later in the poem. Another theory is that the forest could literally be the forest areas in Europe where many of the battles were fought. The final theory, which I find most likely, is that the forest represents the peoples crying out for help, or providing news, or spies in the country who ‘sing’ warnings about pending wars and the developing relationship between the birds and the bees. As they ‘used to’ seems to imply that now the nations are silent, either by an external force, or because they no longer want to be involved or are in hiding. Either way, the trees now become the story tellers for the rest of the stanza, saying what has transpired under their observations.
The bees had declared a war, Here, I conclude that bees are jerks.
The sky wasn’t big enough for them all. This declaration of war is the only act of aggression instigated and executed by a single character of the whole poem. The Bees started it. Later in the stanza, you can conclude that the bees declared a war against the birds, however, from this line alone it is unclear who their intended enemy was besides sky dwellers. I conclude that the bees (and the birds—but let’s focus on bees first) are flying threats, small in stature but great in numbers. Bees could easily be a stinging force led by a single head. This breaks from the previous pattern of the story, in which groups had been generally avoided. While neutral parties, like the trees, were acceptably separate minded, bees act under the authority of a single leader. In the case of the story and in many cases in real life, the bees are headed by a queen. Despite being a swarm of singular creatures, bees act as one body, and in my opinion, are expected to be seen as a single entity like the ‘her/she’ from the first line of the second stanza.
Like the bees, in World War II, Germany declared war on Poland and invaded under the pretext that Poland had launched attacks on German territory. Not long after, the Soviets also invaded Poland and soon were overrun. Despite their losses, and the division of Polish lands to the conquering nations, Poland who did not surrender established the Polish Underground State. Immediately following the invasion of Poland was the invasion of Denmark, if one recalls, the country of whom the Dragonfly once was a ‘pet’ of. These nations immediately invaded are located near German, which occupies northern Europe. I then propose that the sky is northern Europe and the bees are attempting to take over it.
While I understand that Nazi German was not the only participant in the Axis of Power, I find it hard to see the bees encompassing the Italians and the Japanese and other Axis nations. Particularly because the bees are headed by a single small queen—and I do not want to assume that the author of the poem thinks that any one leader brainwashed members of other nations to be a part of this swarm. From propaganda about WWII, however, it is quite easy to draw parallels between ‘a mob of effective, hardworking and loyal bees (that all look identical) with their one ruling queen’ and ‘the fearsome Nazi regime and the dangerously convincing Adolph Hitler’.
In addition to the Nazi forces, the bees could also be the metaphor for the aircraft term 'B's' or ‘bombers’, more specifically bomber aircraft popular during WWII. This metaphor becomes more likely with the fourth line of the third stanza, which I will later discuss.
The birds, they got help from below,/ from dirty paws and the creatures of snow. Unlike the precise and uniformed imagery of the hard working soldier bees, birds appear to the minds eye as diverse, colorful and much less coordinated than their adversaries. Assuming that the birds are Poland and alike invaded nations, it is easy to imagine that the birds were overpowered and over run from their own homes flying for help from people who did not live in the territory that the bees had claimed, the Earth. This areal battle, which had nothing to do with the animals of earth, was suddenly thrust upon the furry friends. ‘Dirty Paws’ and the ‘creatures of snow’ then intervened by request of the birds.
Since the birds could be either Poland or Denmark, a country in the sky of the forest (As presented earlier, the sky is the metaphor for northern-esque area of Europe), then it can be concluded that the earth ‘down below’ are the nations south of the war between the bees and the birds; in other words, spain, china, Russia, the USA Australia and other ally nations. As stated before, dirty paws are referred to as ‘those four dirty paws’ later in the story.
Let's focus on the possibilities of meaning for the 'creatures of snow'. If the four dirty paws are the metaphor for the Four policemen, then the creatures of snow exclude the US, UK, USSR and China. There are many different interpretations of the creatures. I suspect, though, the creatures of snow are either nations north of the concentration of the Axis of power that may have been excluded by the ‘down below’ phrase implicating south of Europe (Norway for example). Alternatively, the creatures of snow could also be the nations who had been attacked and were recovering from destruction, rising out of ashes (results of the bombers during WWII).In 1940, Italy invaded the Mediterranean bringing in the 'earth' south of the concentration of power and the British were forced to intervene. When Germany got involved, however, that area was quickly over-run. And lastly, the Creatures of Snow could be the USSR, who refused to take a side during the earlier part of the war. Disassociating themselves with the Allies, USSR was an active participant in the firefights and though usually aligned themselves against Germany, didn't consider themselves an Ally until 1941, after the invasion of Germany into Russia.
The second stanza concludes with all of the participants of this epic battle in the forest finally coming together to assist the birds and assault all the bees. Here, the imagery of war is very prominent, and the parallels to WWII are also very uncanny. Without a doubt, one can say that the dragonfly perceives that the bees are the enemies and that the birds are the victims. Still, despite all of this, the dragonfly does not get involve and continues to recount the story as from an outsider party. This seems to enforce the notion that the Dragonfly is Iceland, considered neutral and probably (secretly) rooting against the bees.
Literally, this stanza implies that the north is not large enough for Nazi Germany and that they wish to push their boundaries out by ousting their fellow northern Europeans, the bird-like Polish, Norwegian and Danish – thus forcing them to cry for help from the Ally nations. The first couplet is the image the author associates with these nations going to war, rushing down the hill with no effort because logic, ethics, and the path of least resistance leads toward war through the forest areas of Europe.
And for a while things were cold, They were scared down in their holes. The forest that once was green Was colored black by those killing machines. But she and her furry friends Took down the queen bee and her men. And that's how the story goes, The story of the beast with those four dirty paws.
And for a while things were cold,/ they were scared down in their holes. An undetermined amount of time laps between the second stanza and the third stanza. All throughout, it appears a cold and frightening occurrence is keeping every forest creature in their holes. While the couplet itself does not address who 'they' were, one assumes that it should be the animals and not the bees since bees do not hid in holes.
From the opening line, we feel that there is some void of hope, that it seems the darker of the two combating parties has overtaken or intimidated all the other participants. This undisclosed time during the 'while' seems to be the moments in which the Axis' enjoyed success during the war. This power over fear forced the weaker team to cower and hide 'scared' in 'their holes'.
Holes, in addition to being an animal like home or hide away, also have this image of being under-ground, dark and away from harm. The use of holes in this couplet seems to be the type that were used in hiding. All throughout WWII, holes or hideaways and trenches played a crucial part of the war imagery. Refugees, or prisoners were often tucked away from sight. Even more so, the idea of trench warfare blazoned with the images of frightened soldiers from either side (Axis and Allies alike) in their dugouts. In addition to physical the physical underground were also the secret-underground, such as the Polish Underground State.
The forest that once was green/was colored black by those killing machines. The trees, I assume the singing trees, colored black. Green, the color of life for trees, have disappeared implying that the life of the forest has not only ceased, but have become black, with the violence and death of the 'killing machines' .
While the 'killing machines' could be weapons of the bees, it could also be a metaphor for a metaphor. Bees are often considered mindless, working entities. Thus the 'machines' would represent the 'bees' who represent the Nazi forces. Alternatively, the 'killing machines' could also be the 'B's, or Bombers (as argued from the second stanza), that leave blackened destruction on any that were hit. I think that either are as likely as each other, since there is no mention of the bees (or any other creature in the story) using weapons. On the opposite side, even though the 'bees' are homonyms to 'B's', both sides of the war used bombers extensively. The destruction from the birds, the beasts and the bees all destroy the forest (or Europe) equally, thus 'those killing machines' were never accredited to either combatants.
But she and her furry friends Here we see the return of She, the developing protagonist of the poem. Recall, she is not the dragonfly. She was introduced in this poem as a single entity running down a slope. In that stanza you see her as furred and pawed. Here, there is the introduction of her 'furry friends' which implies now she has an army (one would assume, made from the called 'beasts down below' and the 'creatures of snow'). As each animal represents an idea or a people, addition of the 'creatures of snow' participants each joined the war for different reasons though still 'friends' together.
Took down the queen bee and her men. YAAAAAAAAAAAY! Victory.
I have read criticism saying that if 'she' was America or the UK or any other singular participant in WWII, then this statement disproves that the song is about WWII since Hitler (the much perceived 'queen' of the 'bees') took his own life. My argument over this is simple: "Just cause one person did not kill Adolph Hitler, it doesn't mean that the Allie's contribution to the war did not factor into the dictator's death."
More-so, the poem never says 'how' the she-beast took down the bee queen. It just says that the bee was taken down. I then propose that the couplet, 'But she and her furry friends/ took down the queen bee and her men', is actually not important to the dragonfly's story. It is just the sweet victory, that ends the story. Where over half of the poem is about the battle, the darkness and the cold, only one line was used to address the victory. So even though the team won, there seems to be no rejoicing during this poem at all.
And that's how the story goes, the end... no more. So this poem is not about triumphing over evil, but rather just to recount what happened during war.
The story of the beast with those four dirty paws. This is where the term 'four dirty paws' first appears in the whole poem. Before, the number of paws were never mentioned. In fact, the paw count could have been omitted entirely. Emphasizing the four paws at the end stands to do two things, 1) states that she had to have been completely involved, with herself being whole committed into getting dirty with war. and 2) colors she as guilty of destruction and darkness as the bees had been, regardless of intention.
For much of the story, one assumes that the beast has four paws to begin with, since most forest mammals do. But up until the last stanza this is not specified. I feel strongly that the four paws, and thus 'she', is the metaphor for the Four Policemen (China, USSR, UK and USA). It is fitting that four not be mentioned till the end of the poem since the USSR and USA had not been Allies at the onset of the war. In fact, the USSR, though active in fighting, had not taken sides between 1939 - 1940. So that the paws are counted at the end means that to the author, only the final count matters.
This stanza starts with the darkest moments and ends on the climactic triumph of the animals against the bees.
While I think that the title of the song implies that the story is about Rosevelt’s Four Policemen, I thus present to you that the story is about Iceland’s independence from Denmark and the destruction of nations fueled by war.
Which is like, 'bite me' but better. Okay, not better-- but I thought I'd make some kind of publicized warning that I want to keep posting about my sex life and can't quite figure out how to make a wordpress site rated.
Recent Comments