Skip to main content

The Field Mice: a Folk Tale for Adults

Image: Wood Mouse by Mike Pennington
Long ago in the olden days, field mice knew the meaning of life: to gather nuts and seeds no matter how cold or wet, how hot or windy, and to bring them back to the nest.

Were they happy? Who knew? There were seasons. There was birth and there was death, but no time to contemplate and no philosophers in the field.

Then came the hyenas across the river, hidden by long grasses, salivating at the sight of tender fresh meat. And these were not your common or jungle variety. These were a new breed who could plan, who saw ways of making the larder last longer.

In the river were beavers busy building dams. They looked too dank and tough to eat but the hyenas saw that they could be useful and entered into a contract called The Trans-River Deal which promised greater status for the beavers and wealth for hyenas.

Ah, a new way of seeing the world thought the beavers and they called it “The Economy”. Congratulating themselves on their ability to analyse and re-frame reality, they found ways of influencing the field mice, and to make capital from their labour.  

And so it came to pass that the beavers entered into the field with their blueprints. Luxurious nests with running water, separate bedrooms and indoor toilets in exchange for all the nuts and seeds they could gather which would be processed into cakes and preserved.  A vision of progress, bright futures with eight hour work shifts and time for leisure.  

At first everyone was happy.  Mice were comfortable, beavers were smug, and now there was time for parties and feasts. Sadly this didn't last forever because the hyenas across the river, which the mice had never seen and did not know about, were waiting to call in the debt.

“What debt?”, asked the beavers. They and the mice had provided the labour and the ideas – and the hyenas had contributed nothing. 

The hyenas reminded them of the deal they signed and were therefore obliged to provide the agreed-upon returns. If they did not comply there would be snakes in the rivers, rats in the field, storms and plagues, and the beavers would get the blame.

“For what ends?”, asked the beavers. All their profits would be destroyed and no-one would gain in the long run.  

The hyenas laughed and ridiculed the beavers for not understanding how power works. “Create a conflict among the mice, pit neighbour against neighbour with a manufactured crisis – be creative with the truth, divide and rule”, advised the hyenas, who were clearly above such sentiments as fairness. “As soon as we have everything we want we shall move on to the next field down river.”  

“What about the suffering, the misery and death you will cause”, asked the beavers.

Again the hyenas laughed. “We deal only in power. Life is fragile and finite whereas power is eternal and everlasting.  You have no choice and now you must go back to the mice and demand they do your bidding.”

Shaken and troubled the beavers wondered whether they should invent a crisis or tell the truth about the hyenas and the coming threat of snakes, rats, and plagues.  Should they defend their field or cave in? Should they train the mice in the art of war or the natural laws of justice?

They didn't know what to do so they told the mice the truth and after many hours of deliberation they all decided to have a party and enjoy life while they had it.

Eventually, after battles won and lost, they all died and their stories died with them. Their luxurious nests, their running water and indoor toilets, their BC ferries, their schools, their hospitals, their hockey teams, museums and libraries all crumbled into dust – and all that remained was silence, because power never had the insight to see, that it too, could not live without life.


  1. The end was inevitable.
    Because there were no philosophers.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Ultimate Goal of Patriarchy is the End of Life

I want to clarify the line between men in general and patriarchal values propagated and imposed on human society.

In order for patriarchy to succeed, it had to kill more efficiently than the nine months gestation it took for a woman to give birth.  So the craft of war  became more than simply defending territory. It became the ritualized erasure of our human nature for the rule of centralized power. 

And no, it hasn't succeeded in diminishing the human population on this planet but it has succeeded in sustaining an ideology of what it means to be a man. 

Civilizations built on myths of great conquerors. Histories about the exploits of the greatest killers. Inventions of race, religious ideology and ritual that transformed the teachings of thoughtful prophets into crusades. Endless games of winning and losing.
Men who celebrate life through medicine, science, education, art, philosophy and poetry must be dismissed as soft, shamed as effeminate. 

Men who have been raised with love, love …

Anonymous Sources

Where does "Greatness" come from? The imagination? Facts? Confidence? A willing suspension of disbelief in a slogan that makes us happy? A capacity to judge well? An ability to observe and find solutions that benefit most if not all? Taking responsibility for the community? A masters degree from Oxford or Yale?

Let me offer the opinion that greatness comes from extraordinary effort or talent.  Greatness as it may exist in our anonymous ambitions does not win fame except in isolated circumstances.  That is to say, fame is not a realistic goal for an individual.

Greatness is like a dove in the imagination, an angel, a temporary insight, a fleeting epiphany. Something aspired to in the privacy of our minds.

Greatness was an ambition I held when I was a teen and had no proof that I was good at anything or useful to the world at all. After repeated criticism and dismissal from the community around me where I attempted to win something, anything, like a medal, a competition, or a…

Torturing Youth is Okay with us?

“More than two-thirds of Canadians feel Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made the wrong choice in awarding a $10.5 million settlement to Omar Khadr, according to a new poll by the Angus Reid Institute.” CBC News
But we don’t see the survey questions in this article. How was the poll actually worded? Reading one article might make us believe we are well informed, but how does a single poll actually tell us how people feel?  
“And while the survey shows that a majority of Liberals and New Democrats are opposed to the government's decision, how the numbers compare to previous polling suggests that views on Khadr have hardened over the last decade — and that he remains a divisive figure.”
How can a single poll tell whether Khadr is a divisive figure or not? What information do respondents have to make such a claim? 
The article then switches to a former US special force soldier who was blinded in one eye during the 2002 firefight in Afghanistan involving Khadr.  Of course he would be critica…