Skip to main content

Never Cry Fox

The recent and truly horrific attack on young twins in their cot in London - apparently by a fox (subsequently caught and killed) - has raised an outcry, and a perhaps understandable desire to cull the more than 10,000 urban foxes who live in the city. Some animal experts claim foxes don't naturally hunt or attack humans, and this must have been an impossibly rare accident - perhaps caused by the young cub feeling trapped in the room. On the other hand, the parents describe a bold and fearless animal.

The upshot is the mayor of London has discussed perhaps ridding the city of these animals. To lose the urban fox would be a shame. Not only has it inspired several excellent poems, from Ken Smith, and Robert Minhinnick, to others, but the urban fox is in itself a wonderful creature that adds much to the environment.

Not vermin, then. One recalls the outcry against the Canadian Wolf, and Farley Mowat's book, Never Cry Wolf, in response, which "humanised" the beasts, and saved many of their lives.
Labels:

Comments

puthwuth said…
How about ridding the city of children instead?
Wed Jun 09, 10:03:00 am 2010
EYEWEAR said…
David, I love this Swiftian reply.
Wed Jun 09, 10:05:00 am 2010
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A  poem for my mother, July 15 When she was dying And I was in a different country I dreamt I was there with her Flying over the ocean very quickly, And arriving in the room like a dream And I was a dream, but the meaning was more Than a dream has – it was a moving over time And land, over water, to get love across Fast enough, to be there, before she died, To lean over the small, huddled figure, In the dark, and without bothering her Even with apologies, and be a kiss in the air, A dream of a kiss, or even less, the thought of one, And when I woke, none of this had happened, She was still far distant, and we had not spoken.
Post a Comment
Read more

Poetry vs. Literature

Poetry is, of course, a part of literature. But, increasingly, over the 20th century, it has become marginalised - and, famously, has less of an audience than "before". I think that, when one considers the sort of criticism levelled against Seamus Heaney and "mainstream poetry", by poet-critics like Jeffrey Side , one ought to see the wider context for poetry in the "Anglo-Saxon" world. This phrase was used by one of the UK's leading literary cultural figures, in a private conversation recently, when they spoke eloquently about the supremacy of "Anglo-Saxon novels" and their impressive command of narrative. My heart sank as I listened, for what became clear to me, in a flash, is that nothing has changed since Victorian England (for some in the literary establishment). Britain (now allied to America) and the English language with its marvellous fiction machine, still rule the waves. I personally find this an uncomfortable position - but when ...
15 comments
Read more

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se....
3 comments
Read more