F08250_smoon

"The Hornets’ Nest" Andrew Hudgins

We may have been just nine or ten, but still we knew it was a stupid thing to do. The drone drew us. We found it hanging, plump, beneath a Cypruss limb, vibrant with risk and fat with danger. That’s what drew us, that’s

what made us hit it with a rotten limb I found nearby. Though we weren’t ten years old, we felt, as boys, the dumb destructive need to show we had some power in the world. Not much. But some. The swinging broke the stick,

but one piece hit the nest, pierced it. When wasps exploded from the wound, we were already running beneath the frightening verticality of moss that hung; like beards, from ancient cypresses. We ran toward water. We’d thought that far ahead.

Two splashes. Joab made it. So did I. Jack tripped. They settled on him like a ghost. He blurred beneath the frenzy of their wings. “Get up! we hollered from the water. “Run! He rose, and staggered to the marsh. They clung

around him like a nimbus as he lurched toward us. “Come on, come on! we yelled, then ducked beneath the water as the wasps arived. They circled, swooped each time we stuck our heads Up for a breath of air. Once I was safe

I lay back in the warm mud and enjoyed Stealing my breath. The danger made it fun to jab my face back into the surface world, suck in some air and sink contentedly into the marsh. Jack’s eyes had swollen shut,

and oozed. We led him home and told his ma it was an accident. Eight years or nine. I did the proper things. I visited. I wrote. But what I thought was this: I’m glad It’s him. I’m glad it’s not me. Eight years old.

My first impressions upon reading this text were none too enthusiastic. I can honestly say that don’t care for this poem on any level. First off I don’t find the subject matter to be not at all entertaining or significant. I also find the odd stanza breaks in the middle of sentences to be mildly irritating.--and my colleague (roommate Steve) says “indeed”—Upon initial inspection this poem doesn’t seem to fallow any “typical poem patterns”, that is, it doesn’t seem to read like a poem, more like an extremely short story mistakenly written in poem format. This poem is about a group of kids aged either nine or ten as stated in line one—though for some reason he gives his exact age to be eight rather than nine or ten in the last line of the poem. These children are playing in the woods or some other outdoor setting where both Cyprus trees and a pond would be present, and they come across a hornet nest. And being that they are of young age, there first instinct is to hit it with a stick—we’ve all been there—which ultimately leads to the children being chased by some understandably angry hornets. The boys seek refuge in a nearby pond, though one of the boys, Jack, trips and is consequently stung many times. In the end Jack’s face swells up and the boys are left to explain to Jack’s mother what has happened to her son.
 * Way 1: First Impressions**

I’m really having a difficult time finding a rhythm for this poem, every time I read it it just seems choppy and “ungraceful”. And normally I’m very good at reading a poem and finding a rhythm to read by, but this one escapes me. There is also no rhyme to speak of, and alliteration is entirely absent, except for one instance in line 3 of stanza 1; “the drone drew us”. I’m still trying to figure out why exactly this poem is even considered a poem at all. I’m a big fan of free verse poetry, as far as poems go, though I normally avoid poetry all together when I can help it. But this text has no poetic feel what so ever. The sounds of this poem just serve to frustrate me, as they feel unnatural in a poem type format. The only repeated sound that I have been able to identify is a recurring W shound, which may or may not be cowincidence
 * Way 2: Engaging with the Text**

This poem has no identifiable rhyme scheme. There are no uses of simile, though there is one instance of alliteration in line 3 of stanza one. The poem is made up of seven five line stanzas, with each line containing ten syllables—this is something that I never noticed my first couple of times reading through this poem—which seems, at least, to lend this poem some semblance of structural integrity. Hudgins’s lack of Rhyme and relative form could indeed be intentional, relating to the fact that the poem is about a childhood event. This may have been done to connect with the childishness of the content, as children are often spermatic and uncoordinated. They are random, much as the form of this poem seems to be.
 * Way 3: Form/structural elements and their relationship to content**

Vertical Comment 1:
I have noticed, as I read this poem, a complete lack of figurative language. Andrew Hudgins seems to speak literally at all times, no sense of humor at all. I personally like to see things from the cynical side, with plenty of sarcasm. I find writing with exclusively serious undertones to be very boring and rather dull. Where’s the excitement?

//Vertical Comment 2: //
I do find it interesting that despite the fact that I don’t find this poem in the least bit entertaining, and would probably never read it if not for this class, My writing does have one thing in common with this poem, and that is the fact that my own writing—at least my poem-like writing—also focuses on a pattern of syllables rather than a rhyme scheme.

//Vertical Comment 3: //
Hudgins’s poem “The Hornets’ Nest” is told from a first person perspective, a man recounting an event from his childhood. You can easily tell that it is first person, as the narrator uses the word “I” and “We” a lot, such as in line 2 “We knew it was a stupid thing to do”, or line 7 “ I  found nearby. Though we weren’t ten years old,”.

//Vertical Comment 4: //
It strikes me as I read this that writing from the first person perspective really allows the author, or rather the narrative voice, to convey a deeper sense of emotion, as they are actually the one experiencing or reliving this event or events. You experience it right along with them, as if you are the character, something you don’t get with other perspectives, where the narrator generally allows you to witness the events of the story from a safe distance.

//Vertical Comment 5: //
Though setting is typically a very important aspect to a story, the setting of Andrew Hugins’s “The Hornets’ Nest” appeared to me at first to be quite trivia, nothing that was really mentioned in any kind of detail. But upon closer inspection, I realized that the setting of the forrest is rather parramount to the events of the story. For instance this wouldn’t have happened if the story had been set in the middle of a mall rather than the middle of the woods, and the same holds true if they had been playing in the back yard, odds are there would have been parrents around to offer aid. And so it is the Setting that allowed these unfortunate, all be it minor, events to unfold in such a way.

//Vertical Comment 6: //
This poem doesn’t really seem to be overly complex in any way. It tells a simple story in a relatively simple way. The only level of complexity that this poem brings forward would be its scheme of syllables. Writing in this way takes a bit of thought, though not nearly as much as developing a working rhyme scheme. I actually tend to do exactly the same thing by accident, don’t really know why, it just kind of happens.

//Vertical Comment 7: //
Much like the use of metaphor, Ambiguity doesn’t seem to make any kind of appearance in any form. Andrew Hudgins is pretty straight forward with the “story” of his poem “The Hornet’s Nest” and seems to make everything quite literal and precise. I see very little if any room for ambiguous interpretation. And I see nothing wrong with that. If you just want to tell a simple story for pure pleasure, then tell it. There’s no need to clutter a good smooth story with any kind of hidden meaning, “deeper” thought. Even though many people looking close at any piece of writing can generally find some kind of alternate meaning behind the words if they look close enough, or, as is more often the case, want to see it bad enough.

//Vertical Comment 8: //
Looking at difficulty, there are really two aspects to touch on. “The Hornet’s Nest” isn’t too complex as far as construction goes. As I’ve said multiple times throughout this project by this point; the most dificult this Hudgins had to deal with when writing this poem was getting the syslabols to match up in some kind of pattern—I know, I’ve tried—and also, I guess, deciding to write the poem in the first place, which is often just as dificult as the writing itself.

//Vertical Comment 9: //
I’ve always found it hardest to write about the real world. They always say to right what you know, but that has always been a flaw for me you could say. It’s so much easier for me to write about things that have never happened, fantasy. It’s easiest to write about what you know, but also what you can make up completely on your own as you go along. That’s you I like Fantasy novels and writing. What ever I want is entirely possible; flying dogs, rats with scales and lion paws. Giant goldfish that people can ride like horses, or even a toaster that works like a time machine. You also don’t have to do nearly as much research, it’s al you, your imagination is you only limitation.

**// Vertical //****// Comment 10: //**
I wonder what Hudgins was thinking when he wrote this poem. Why this perticular event? Why not choose something more exciting, ir interesting to write about? It could be that he wanted to write about something that he felt his readers could identify with, a situation that many people have found themselves in rather than something that most people wouldn't know anything about. Or it could be something as simple as he was just bored. I know i myself have writen about very trivial things simply to stretch the liturary muscles as it were.

**// Vertical //****// Comment 11: //**
I find myself wondering while i read this poem wheather or not Andrew Hudgins intended this poem to turn out diferently when he started. Did he try a rhymn scheme, and then decide that it was too dificult to successfuolly tell the story that way, or that comming up with a successful rhymn scheme was simply too dificult in itself.

**// Vertical //****// Comment 12: //**
This kind of plays off of my above comment 11, a sort of continuation if you will. But in reading this poem, i think that it might have been more successful writen in a short story format. The poem itself already reads like a story, and as far as i can tell from a surface look, without digging too deep, it has very few qualities generally atributed to poetry. In seeing this, I wonder why Hudgins didn't simply write a short story. It would have alowed him to go into more detail about what happened, even after the insident. It could be that he didn't want to go too in depth with this peice, in which case i still feel that it would have made more sense as a short story, all be it a very short story. And their is nothing wrong with that. I myself have writen and read many short stories that are no more than a page or two long. Their is a special name for this kind of story, though it escapes me at the moment.

**// Vertical //****// Comment 13: //**
I've never been too overly fond of poetry, mostly due to highschool english classes. Most of the poets that have been made canon seem to take themselves way too seriously, they go on about the dificulties of life without ever enjoying it. Or even worse they pick one single thing or object and use it as a metiphor for life in general, and all the things that they've experienced. I personally enjoy life and would like to see more poets who feel the same. I love Shel Silverstein because he writes poetry with a sense of humor, he doesn't take it seriously. I like that. I like poems about nothing at all, carefree and with no sense of depression so commen amoungst your more "mainstream" poets.

**// Vertical //****// Comment 14: //**
Based on this poem, Andrew Hudgins seems like the kind of guy who maybe regrets some of his choices in life, and that's way he focusses on the fonder memories of his childhood. He likes to remember simpler times. I can't blame him really, it's always enjoyable to sit around with old freinds and recall fond memories, or even bad ones that you can now look back on and laugh. I can see these particular memories as good "ammo" for story creation, or even to turn into stories of their own, like Hudgins has done here with "The Hornet's Nest".

**// Vertical //****// Comment 15: //**
The his story wouldn’t have had nearly the effect that it did if it weren’t told in from the first person perspective. I can see this story in third person, but it just wouldn’t have the personal feel that you get from first person. When you read a story in first person, you feel like you’re actually their, experiencing everything right along with the character or characters. You get a feel for the person. You get to know them on an intimate level. I’ve always enjoyed reading stories like that, and I’ve found that first person is probably the easiest perspective to write from.

**// Way 8: Considering Canonicity //**
I’m not entirely sure if Andrew Hudgins’s “The Hornet’s Nest” is indeed part of the canon. I consider myself to by relatively well read and I have not heard of this particular poem or poet before this assignment. I probably wouldn’t consider this poem to be of any particular importance, at least not so far as to consider it canon worthy. It seems all in all to be a relatively typical poem nothing overly special or under par, it’s just kind of there. It does invoke many images, many of them fast paced that some might consider aesthetically pleasing, such as the forest setting, or even the hornet’s nest itself. It really doesn’t offer much beyond aesthetics as far as canonicity goes. It doesn’t offer some deeper look into the human psyche, or the soul, or some other deeper emotional exploration. It tells a simple story with a simple meaning, and I can take it or leave it, it doesn’t strike me as critically important or horribly bad, it just is.

**// Way 9: Biographical Context //**
This poem is more Autobiographical than Biographical, at least as far as I see it. A biography is the tale of someone’s life, while an autobiography is the story of your own life. Andrew Hudgins tells of events from his own childhood making it more of an autobiography, though he is also telling of events that have happened in others’ lives as well, so it could be argued that he is writing biographically about their lives and he himself just happens to be a main character as well, though I think to do so would be quite a stretch, and a bit weak.

**// Way 10: Historical and Cultural Context //**
I don’t think there is much to say on the historical context of this poem. Is seems to be a poem out of time, it could have happened at any time: Yesterday, 30 years ago, there’s nothing to place it in any particular time period other than the fact that it is an event from the author’s childhood. But I do think there are cultural contexts at play here. It could just be me, but when I read this poem, it makes me think of the early 50’s, that real Beaver Cleaver apple pie kind of time. It seems like an old fashioned American kind of thing to do. For some reason it makes me think of the scene at the beginning of “It’s a Wonderful Life” when George Bailey is sledding with his little brother and their friends, and his brother falls through the ice and he jumps in to save him.

**// Way 11: Critical Context //**
For the first of these theoretical critiques I’m going to go with the view of a feminist critic. The feminist critic would probably point out the lack of any female characters. They would also most likely mention the fact that the characters are engaging in an unquestionably “male” activity of running around in the woods and pissing off a hive of hornets. Which I would probably agree with as young boys are usually foolish enough to find excitement in attacking a hornet’s nest, while young girls tend to by a little more “refined” playing with dolls and what not, though there are some girls who, at a young age would have preferred the Hornet’s nest and the woods.

**// Way 12: Theoretical Context //**
The psychoanalytical critic would look at this piece of writing and analyze why the author chose certain words, and perhaps what other possible meanings of those words might be. Like in line three of stanza two when he uses “dumb destructive need” to explain why they hit the hornet’s nest with a branch. He could be using this to say that adolescent boys frequently feel the need to destroy thing, to cause damage-the whole boys and explosions thing-describing the irrational actions of boys and their love of destruction and general mayhem.

**// Way 13: Unifying Interpretation //**
This poem is told from the first person perspective, but doesn’t have much in common with most of the poems I have read. I have read this poem probably a dozen times in the course of this project. Initially I didn’t like this poem because it has really nothing interesting going on. But I have to say that this poem has slowly grown on me. I like the fact that it is not a conventional poem as far as style or rhyme scheme. Hudgins wrote this poem without incorporating any kind of rhyme scheme to speak of. It is written in more of a story format, kind of like The Iliad or The Odyssey. Hudgins wrote this poem to describe an event from his past, from his childhood, or at least I assume it is autobiographical in nature. Almost anyone can identify with the story told in this poem because almost everyone has had a similar experience, not necessarily with hornets or in the woods, but something along these lines. It reflects the kind of trouble that kids are prone to get into. I myself have found myself in similar situations many times. For example; when I was little my friend and I found ourselves trapped in a garage that was filled with hornets and we had to fight our way out—my friend quite literally with a baseball bat—. My point is that this type of writing, be it poem, short story, novel, etc, is able to spark real feelings in its readers, because they can identify with and appreciate what is happening. Even though personally I don’t seek out these kind of things to read for my own enjoyment, I do understand why others like them. I do however stand by my initial response regarding its canonicity. I don’t believe that Andrew Hudgins’s “The Hornet’s Nest” should be canon, not because it is in any way inferior, because it is indeed a rather enjoyable kind of poem, but it doesn’t really offer anything in the way of learning. It doesn’t show any one aspect of poetry in a new or better light. I think that in order for something to be considered canon it should teach us something about its genre or style, it should be a useful learning tool, and although good, this poem really doesn’t do either of those things.