Terronique Brown's "She Hangs"

Reflections on: Terronique Brown’s “She Hangs”

The language of this poem is beautiful. The first section, where the title “She Hangs” originates, depicts a woman, likened to fruit on a tree, who is “Externally…nourishing,” yet rotting on the interior. This is an interesting image, which (once again) makes me think of the short story, "Flowering Judas" by Katherine Anne Porter—the ending of which depicts a dream scene in which biting into a large purple fruit brings forth an outpouring of blood. It’s human fruit—that can only be dangerous. We get the same feel from Brown’s poem, here. She sees this image, and her only response is “[I] can only imagine smashing her / into the earth, grinding her into the grass / beneath my bare feet.” This is a gruesome image—one that is not forgotten lightly. This image is the one that clings to our memory as we continue to read the rest of the poem, which is “Warped…” to another world, image, and tone—entirely unlike the one to which we have just been exposed. The second part of the poem is effective, not so much through its use of biting imagery, but rather through its repetition of an almost chorus-like few lines. Each time the writer uses this tool, the poem takes a turn. I think this is a very effective technique.

I like the language of the poem, but I think (in some parts) it could use some tightening up. For example, on the second page, the word “that” occurs twice in the same line: “That blends with that unknown light.” If the “that”s were being used for a bigger reason, then I completely agree with them being there, but I couldn’t see it. Another thing I would like to see in this poem is more of that metaphor ability that we know our poet is capable of. The line “They robotically drone on and on” is clear, true, but I think that just coming right out and saying “robot” (or whatever word you want to apply here) in place of the word “they” could be very potent. I also don’t really know what to do with the second-person address in this poem. I don’t think that I, personally, have “accepted their phony teachings / And praised their so called prophecies.” I understand that the writer intends to knock us off of our feet, but I don’t particularly like being called blind. Perhaps the “you” of the poem addresses a specific “you,” but that is not what I gathered from the text. I guess the wording of the second person will have to be a decision on the author’s part. I just want to bring it to her attention that it (if kept like this, exactly) may turn some readers off—which might be the intent. I don’t know.