h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Nuptial Flight - A47151443
Author: Tibley Bobley - U170471

A love poem... I think

The theme word is 'energetically'. The lovers are leafcutter ants.

Again, the stretcher is to blame.

Stunned is the way I feel.

The description is flawless. The imagery exquisite. The subject undeniable. We can really see these bugs. It's definitely Valentine's Day material. It has passion - throbbing passion, expertly described, brilliant in its execution.

And you know how I feel about this Discovery-Channel stuff, Tib.

I'm sorry. I can't deal with the throbbing passion of nature or the ineluctable struggle for survival. I get out of control and have to go off and soak my head.

Which is my fault. Elektra laughs at French art films, I won't take her anymore.

I hope the more sober folk come along soon and offer fine points of criticism.

I just...can't deal with...the pursuit of perfect anthropomorphism...

to hide.

(I love you guys, but....)

I agree with Dmitri about this one. The description of the leafcutter ants is excellent.

But after the line 'Almost all will fail' it gets too anthropomorphic for me. Are ants capable of passion ? Or are they just following blind instinct?

Thanks dmitri and mVpoet

Just going to put up a little bit of a defence here. Hope you don't mind. I think the stretcher is open to interpretation and I might be pushing it to the limit, but still...

From thefreedictionary.com
anthropomorphism: n. Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behaviour to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.

I've just read through it again, looking for this anthropomorphism. I can see instinct, driven by hormones and pheromones. That's not unlike human behaviour, but it's not peculiar to humans. Everything that reproduces sexually must have something of the sort. The female looks and smells good to the male otherwise why would he bother? If he got no pleasure reward - something we might recognise as a blast of ecstasy perhaps - what would drive him? At the end she abandons him to die and goes off to attract some more mates. She doesn't do it "unkindly" but that's because kindness doesn't come into it. It's just sexual behaviour. Humans have tarted it up and invented a special day: Valentine's Day - to make it more cute and syrupy and profitable, but when you look for the *roots* of "romantic love", it's just chemicals in the brain and glands - instincts. I don't think I've made them any more feeling/thinking/conscious than that. Just going back to the roots.

If I'm wrong, tell me - and tell which bit is only true of humans and is untrue of leafcutter ants. I'll change it then.

Sorry to seem contrary. Don't mean to be difficult.

It's not the ants' behaviour, which is ethologically sound. It's the description that I find inappropriate to the subject.

From here, it looks like projecting onto the ants. Even the word 'nuptial' implies a comparison with human behaviour. A comparison which makes me extremely uncomfortable.

I'm sorry to be negative about it. Your use of language really is remarkable and vivid.

Perhaps somebody else has a more pertinent comment.

I didn't mean to wind you up dmitri and I won't argue. I'm still not actually sure what the problem is. I chose this subject for the poem because of the phenomenon called "the nuptial flight". I guess you know that name isn't my invention - but just in case, I'll point out that you only have to put the term into a search engine to find it's the recognised definition of this stage in ant, bee and termite reproduction. Even the online dictionary I use gives a definition of nuptial as meaning: "Of, relating to, or occurring during the mating season: the nuptial plumage of male birds". So it's not used exclusively to refer to human mating.

Anyway, we can just agree to differ

Wow, fascinating.

I had the same sort of reaction as dmitri and mvp, but having read your post, you're right. All of it is justified. she left him 'not unkindly' indeed. There is an implication in it that she could feel kindness - which isn't true - but your words are true for all that.

More fascinating is your belief that humans and insects equate anyway. You know, if you could get that idea in the poem somehow - I've no idea how - you'd really give it an edge. It's a good one as it is, but that would add extra.

Well, I suppose I've been told.

To me, 'agree to differ'= 'mind your own business, bub'. Which closes the discussion pretty effectively.

So I'll stay out of the debate, now and in future.

Sorry I said anything.

Oh dear. Not sure what to say. It's like Arthur Dent's comment about the difficulty he was having with his lifestyle, causing a terrible war between the Vl'Hurgs and the G'Gugvuntts. I can only apologise and assure you that, agreeing to differ doesn't mean anything so rude and offensive in British English. It's what friends say to each other when they don't want to argue about things that they see them fundamentally differently.

In which case, sorry for misunderstanding, and I will still stay out of this, because I think it may, indeed, be a fundamental philosophical difference, and not, as I first thought, something we could talk about in literary terms.

Thanks LLWaz Sorry I missed your post when I looked last night.

>>More fascinating is your belief that humans and insects equate anyway.<<

That's overstating it. I believe in biology and evolution. I think there's plenty of evidence that we share things in common with all life on earth. Genes that work in us also work in other species - to the extent that some are even interchangeable, apparently. We have instincts to reproduce. So do ants. They have hormones. So do we. I don't for a moment suggest that ants experience romantic love. But then, not all humans do either. And that doesn't necessarily prevent them from mating successfully.

I think I'd better resist the temptation to make it appear that the sex-lives of ants and humans are any more similar than that.

You know what I think the problem is, Tibley?

Humans only relate to animals that have nice faces. are all right but not

I expect you're right mVpoet. Love is a funny old word, isn't it? I love my family, friends, dogs - but then I know them. I love the planet - most especially in its current, friendly state. But for the planet to remain in its current state (with its current species) requires a few things - and not all of them are loveable. Ants fascinate me and I smile when I see them. Whether I love them or not (yeah, thinking about it, I reckon I do) - they're more important to the running of a healthy planet than humans or cats or dogs. If humans all disappeared tomorrow, the ecosystems of the world wouldn't collapse - sad to say, they'd probably improve rather quickly. I'd hate to see tigers disappear and they would leave a hole in their ecosystem but it would scab over, then change to something so similar perhaps, that we might, possibly, not even notice the difference. But lose ants, bees, termites, worms - those gardeners of the planet - and ecosystems would collapse in a way that would kill off the charismatic species with the pretty faces - including us. It's a shame most people find them unlovable - but we should at least respect them and feel the wonder of them. Well, I think so, anyway.

I do worry about bees, having heard about colony collapse.

I thought of writing a Valentine to the earth as my 'huge' Valentine but wasn't sure it would work. Perhaps I should try.

You should! Excellent idea

Ms GB

Looks good to me, and something a bit different. Well done.

mini

The description is spot on I really like the imagery that this conjures up in my mind.

Thank you very much