occasional willow tree. Through my binoculars I can study the flight of one particular swallow, intrigued by its mussel-orange belly, trying to trace its every turn and twist, and then, concentrating even more deeply, trying to anticipate where it will turn or bank next. I can actually watch the moment it opens its bill and snapsâthe exact moment it catches a damselfly out of the air. I follow the bird with my gaze as it hooks back over the bank, digesting.
From the trees near the banks I hear a songââpeterpeter-peterâ âa tufted titmouse. The titmouse sings for two main reasons, to define his territory and to woo a mate. Itâs late in the season for the latter, so maybe he, like the heron, is letting me know Iâm an intruder. This birdâs song
is partly inside it, encoded, handed down from its parents and their parents. Some speciesâherons and hawks and ducks, for instanceâwill never expand their repertoire beyond this genetic heritage, or if they do expand, it will be by the nudge of accident. But for my titmouse, and for most songbirds, their music is only partly in the genes. It is also l earned , which means it is varied and individual. This is why a modern mockingbird can imitate a chainsaw or car alarm. A birdâs song, then, belongs both to their species and themselves. Donald Kroodsma, the dean of avian vocal behavior, writes: âListen carefully to robins or individuals of almost any songbird species as well, and you can hear how each bird sings with his own voice by varying his songs in either small or large ways from birds of his own kind.â
My friends from my younger days laughed when they found out I had gotten deeply into birds. Birds , of all things. Fancy, pretty little birds. These friends were mostly athletes and they saw me as an athlete, too, not to mention as someone who was gruff and crude and drank too much. And now . . . birds!
What I might have said to them, if Iâd had the nerve, was that it was nothing fancy or pretentious that had led me to birds. Quite the opposite in fact. I believe that birds held the secret to something Iâd been searching for. I slowly came to understand that it had been contact Iâd been after the whole time, and that I had first sought out contact in drink and sport. What I might have said was that the contact that I craved was right there in an ospreyâs dive. But maybe itâs best that I kept quiet. They would have laughed back then, Iâm sure. But they are getting older now and it will not surprise me if a few of them gradually find themselves turning to birds.
But still, the question: Why birds? I mentioned contact
but it goes beyond even that. I think the answer ultimately has something to do with both narcissism and its opposite. I go to birds selfishly but I also go to them because they are one of the few things that are capable of prying me out of myself. They donât do this always or even often and when they do it itâs not for very long. But they do it. They give me transport along with contact. For that, and the fact that they fly, I love them. I donât like the geeky aspect of learning their names and calls as much as I like the sheer simplicity and transcendence of their lives. I am not talking about god here, and maybe god is not necessary. Maybe bird is enough.
At my worst moments I live trapped in what my old professor Walter Jackson Bate called âthe subjective prison cell of self.â I try to remember, during the dark, depressed, inward-turned times, that not only is there a world beyond me but that I have gone thereâhowever brieflyâand believe I will be able to go there again. This is the most reassuring thing I know. Not success or god or the big rock candy mountain. But the simple fact that there is still a world beyond us. That we are not alone.
Letâs just assume for a minute that the experts are right and the world is doomed.