The Happy Bird, more like the unhappy instinctual bird that John Clare throws too much romantic sentiment on!

I read the poem I will be reading in class tomorrow, The Happy Bird. God help me! Clare falsely depicts the happy bird, attributing it human qualities that simply do not exist in nature. It's one thing to whimsically say "the flowers dance and say" but its another to actually hold the notion that bird emotions are similar to human ones. "Swayed by the impulse of the gadding wind...singeth right joyously" is not the bird being so happy that he sings joyfully. Birds like most animals below human intelligence operate solely on instinct. Animals are instincts: fear, nurture, desire, aggression. The happy bird is not relaxing and singing for pleasure. Any bird song has a specific intention that is propelled by animal instinct.

This poem is both an indicator of ignorance and man's very common ability to put false traits on another "being" based on his own beliefs, opinions, perspectives, emotions. "Her little breast swells out in raptures gushing symphonies:" this view is one of a romantic poet drenched in beauty spewing what he "feels" nature looks like. Whats key is not that he is happy when watching the bird but that he is in a dazed beauty state that brings irrational thoughts and speculations much like being in love. For example, when one lover is angry, the other lover is their target like the bird is for Clare's internal feeling of beauty/happiness.

The diction present is overtly romantic, even too obvious, "gushing, inward melody, her blown wing softly prest." Clare leaves little room in this poem for interest when the entire time I feel like I am reading someone spilling romantic feelings about a bird. Yes, nature is extravagantly wondrous but here, you Clare said it in an uninteresting cliche amateurish poetic way. Let it be known I am only speaking specifically about The Happy Bird, this post is no reference to a poet that we know has incredible poetic ability.