1. For the prosecution:
The bees are gone.
Who gives a shit?
Other insects
And animals
Can pollinate
All the flora.
We will survive
Because humans are
Adaptable.
The bees are gone.
It’s a problem,
But one we’ll solve
With good science
And ambition.
Certain bees
Have disappeared,
But the other
More solitary
Breeds of bee
Are still alive
And pollinating
Like porno stars.
Who needs the bees
That are too weak?
Perhaps Darwin
Should be quoted
To prove our point.
The bees are gone,
But won’t stronger
Pollinators
Grow in number
And amorous
Intensity?
If you believe
In a good God,
As anyone should,
Then you must know
That God will
Create more bees,
Or replace them
With something else
Equally good,
Because God is
Infallible.
2. For the defense:
The bees are gone.
No one knows why,
Not even God.
Some blame cell phones.
Some blame disease.
A few blame God.
The bees are gone.
No one knows why.
If they stay gone
All flora goes
Without pollen
And will perish,
Starved and godless,
Within four years.
The animals
Will soon follow
Flora to dust.
And then we die.
Nothing can stay
Because the bees
Are little gods
Who gave us grace
Bloom by bloom.
The bees are gone.
I sing this song
To bring them back,
Or say goodbye,
Or to worship
The empty sky.
3. For the beekeeper:
The bees are gone.
We need new bees
Or we are fucked.
I find this poem, or series of poems, written by Sherman Alexie to be a very interesting one. It relates to the last poem I discussed, “Gentrification,” because Alexie talks about wasps in the previous poem and discusses bees in this poem. The major difference between the two is that this one about the bees is far more literal than “Gentrification.” In that poem Alexie discusses wasps and uses them as a metaphorical symbol, whereas in this poem when he says bees he really means bees.
The main focus of the poem is Alexie’s discussion of the dying bee problem in the world today. Basically our bee population around the world is growing smaller and Alexie argues for the two sides of the spectrum plus a third, which wouldn’t necessarily be considered and instead is in there to prove a different point. Alexie argues for why the dying bees will be a disaster and why the dying bees really isn’t that big of a deal.
After reading through the entire poem I personally felt as if there was a sense of bias in the arguments. I think that Alexie doesn’t see the bees dying as a real issue that our world should concern ourselves with. In the first portion of the poem, the persecution, Alexie seems far more critical and even more in depth with his argument in some places. In the defense section of the poem the argument is definitely not as well formulated and sound more like he is rewriting facts that he has heard or now about for the defense of bees. He doesn’t seem nearly as passionate about his argument for the defense of the dying of the bees. I think this can also be recognized at the introduction to the poem where he uses a quote from Albert Einstein about how when the bees die, humans will only survive for four more years after. In a small note after this he adds, “A quote attributed to Albert Einstein, but which was likely created by an anonymous source for political reasons.” This shows that from the very beginning he thinks the dying of bees is an issue that is insignificant.
His argument in the prosecution of bees is very interesting because he uses both secular and religious ideas. He first discusses how Charles Darwin would scientifically explain what the dying if the bees meant and why we are all going to be okay one way or another. Then, he discusses how if you believe in a good god then you must also realize that we will be fine because god will create something better than bees. By doing this I think he is furthering strengthening his argument by relating to two differing audiences.
The very last section of the poem is very important. He discusses how the beekeepers feel about the dying of the bees and he does this in a humorous way, which is similar to much of his writing. He says how the bees are dying and the beekeepers are fucked. This is very blunt humor, but humor all the same. It allows the reader to come back to reality after he argues such large ideas about how the bees are either important or unimportant. He is able to bring the reader back into reality because they realize in the end all these people can argue about the environment and the world, but in many cases the people most affected by this is the beekeepers. I found this very funny and interesting because of how true it really is.
The only major poetic technique used throughout this poem is repetition. He repeats throughout each argument, “The bees are gone.” I think he does this to reiterate the idea that no matter what you think the bees are gone. It puts it into perspective that this is a real thing and it is really happening in our world today.
I think the most interesting line is, “We need new bees or we are fucked.” It really just speaks to the meaning of the poem as a whole and Alexie’s style of writing. All Alexie’s poems tend to speak the raw truth and don’t beat around the bush very much. This line signifies that. The whole rest of the poem is very thought provoking, but when you get to that line you realize that the only point Alexie is trying to get across is that the bees are gone. There’s no deeper meaning to the entire poem. It is just straight in your face you can’t miss it and that is what I continue to enjoy about Alexie’s poetry. You never have to try and guess or understand what you are reading. Instead, it is always blaringly obvious and right in your face.
The bees are gone.
Who gives a shit?
Other insects
And animals
Can pollinate
All the flora.
We will survive
Because humans are
Adaptable.
The bees are gone.
It’s a problem,
But one we’ll solve
With good science
And ambition.
Certain bees
Have disappeared,
But the other
More solitary
Breeds of bee
Are still alive
And pollinating
Like porno stars.
Who needs the bees
That are too weak?
Perhaps Darwin
Should be quoted
To prove our point.
The bees are gone,
But won’t stronger
Pollinators
Grow in number
And amorous
Intensity?
If you believe
In a good God,
As anyone should,
Then you must know
That God will
Create more bees,
Or replace them
With something else
Equally good,
Because God is
Infallible.
2. For the defense:
The bees are gone.
No one knows why,
Not even God.
Some blame cell phones.
Some blame disease.
A few blame God.
The bees are gone.
No one knows why.
If they stay gone
All flora goes
Without pollen
And will perish,
Starved and godless,
Within four years.
The animals
Will soon follow
Flora to dust.
And then we die.
Nothing can stay
Because the bees
Are little gods
Who gave us grace
Bloom by bloom.
The bees are gone.
I sing this song
To bring them back,
Or say goodbye,
Or to worship
The empty sky.
3. For the beekeeper:
The bees are gone.
We need new bees
Or we are fucked.
I find this poem, or series of poems, written by Sherman Alexie to be a very interesting one. It relates to the last poem I discussed, “Gentrification,” because Alexie talks about wasps in the previous poem and discusses bees in this poem. The major difference between the two is that this one about the bees is far more literal than “Gentrification.” In that poem Alexie discusses wasps and uses them as a metaphorical symbol, whereas in this poem when he says bees he really means bees.
The main focus of the poem is Alexie’s discussion of the dying bee problem in the world today. Basically our bee population around the world is growing smaller and Alexie argues for the two sides of the spectrum plus a third, which wouldn’t necessarily be considered and instead is in there to prove a different point. Alexie argues for why the dying bees will be a disaster and why the dying bees really isn’t that big of a deal.
After reading through the entire poem I personally felt as if there was a sense of bias in the arguments. I think that Alexie doesn’t see the bees dying as a real issue that our world should concern ourselves with. In the first portion of the poem, the persecution, Alexie seems far more critical and even more in depth with his argument in some places. In the defense section of the poem the argument is definitely not as well formulated and sound more like he is rewriting facts that he has heard or now about for the defense of bees. He doesn’t seem nearly as passionate about his argument for the defense of the dying of the bees. I think this can also be recognized at the introduction to the poem where he uses a quote from Albert Einstein about how when the bees die, humans will only survive for four more years after. In a small note after this he adds, “A quote attributed to Albert Einstein, but which was likely created by an anonymous source for political reasons.” This shows that from the very beginning he thinks the dying of bees is an issue that is insignificant.
His argument in the prosecution of bees is very interesting because he uses both secular and religious ideas. He first discusses how Charles Darwin would scientifically explain what the dying if the bees meant and why we are all going to be okay one way or another. Then, he discusses how if you believe in a good god then you must also realize that we will be fine because god will create something better than bees. By doing this I think he is furthering strengthening his argument by relating to two differing audiences.
The very last section of the poem is very important. He discusses how the beekeepers feel about the dying of the bees and he does this in a humorous way, which is similar to much of his writing. He says how the bees are dying and the beekeepers are fucked. This is very blunt humor, but humor all the same. It allows the reader to come back to reality after he argues such large ideas about how the bees are either important or unimportant. He is able to bring the reader back into reality because they realize in the end all these people can argue about the environment and the world, but in many cases the people most affected by this is the beekeepers. I found this very funny and interesting because of how true it really is.
The only major poetic technique used throughout this poem is repetition. He repeats throughout each argument, “The bees are gone.” I think he does this to reiterate the idea that no matter what you think the bees are gone. It puts it into perspective that this is a real thing and it is really happening in our world today.
I think the most interesting line is, “We need new bees or we are fucked.” It really just speaks to the meaning of the poem as a whole and Alexie’s style of writing. All Alexie’s poems tend to speak the raw truth and don’t beat around the bush very much. This line signifies that. The whole rest of the poem is very thought provoking, but when you get to that line you realize that the only point Alexie is trying to get across is that the bees are gone. There’s no deeper meaning to the entire poem. It is just straight in your face you can’t miss it and that is what I continue to enjoy about Alexie’s poetry. You never have to try and guess or understand what you are reading. Instead, it is always blaringly obvious and right in your face.