User blog comment:Claweight/i threw a stone in the creek/@comment-32239721-20170527194159/@comment-26510374-20170529214943

ridiculous because each thing happens because the last person is needlessly overreacting? its very exaggerated but think "jumping in a flood to save a drowned mouse" sounds pretty ridiculous doesnt it? the general moral i was going for was to not make a giant deal out of little things-

for example, throwing a stone in the water because someone loves someone else and you don't like that someone/they don't like you- i always threw stones in water as a sign of aggression/frustration

this stone was probably a big stone which hit a salamander. the salamander really isnt at fault here, but instead of consoling it the fish swam away. their apathetic nature leads them to their end. the bear who catches them won't share, the eagle who wasn't shared with throws a huge tantrum, the spirit gets really angry and decides to kill them all

everyone in the poem is ridiculous since they overreact. this chain of events leads to the mouse drowning and the protagonist's end because they think a waterlogged, lifeless mouse is worth saving.

so in the end, they die a very unheroic death- all because they were upset about mouse romance.

ridiculous indeed.