two frogs: my nephew Ian's totally kick-butt poem with my less kick-butt footnotes

Two[1] frogs[2]

In[3] a[4] fan[5].[6]

Oh[7] no[8]![9]

The[10] end[11]

by Ian, aged 6

If you prefer the tree-death (printable) version, please send that copy to Ian when you finish so his little sister can draw on the back of it.

---

[1] Note the subtle brilliance here: in a single word the author encapsulates all the dichotomies of our modern age.

[2] Of course, the reference to Aristophanes' classic satire is obvious even to the most feeble-minded congenital idiot. What is perhaps less obvious - and thus more compelling and effective – is the religious import of the choice of amphibian. Clearly an allusion to the biblical plague, this would at first blush appear to be a nod to the religious right; however, the author's post-modern self-referential style is too blatant to ignore—it is the religious right themselves who live in danger of incurring God's wrath, as Australia did in 1935 with the arrival of the cane toad.

This word also belies the troubled relationship the US has with France.

[3] Again, in a brilliantly economical use of language, the author reflects upon Indiana (IN) and its 11 electoral votes, hotly contested in the 2004 presidential election. The capital I implies the nation's capital, and the idea that the INcumbent presidential candidate did INdeed find himself voted back INto office. The reference draws on the concept of all the fashionable (i.e., "in") political constructs engaged to ensure his re-election.

[4] The choice of the indefinite article, as opposed to the far more limiting "the," allows the reader to embrace the experience of the poem. The fan is the fan of everyman, just as Rilke's panther is every prisoner.

[5] One can only marvel at the author's chosen device here, as it both speaks to the dangers of our present obsession with technology, at the same time that it harkens to a bygone age of manual cooling systems (the folding fan of the Japanese, for example). The fan is international (found in ancient Egypt, the Fiji Islands, and the hand of Oscar Wilde's Lady Windermere) and timeless, further lending the poem its "everyman" quality (see footnote 4, above). The fact that the fan in the author's poem takes on a violent persona can be interpreted as a metaphor for US gun control policy, the prevalence of media violence, the war in Iraq, and domestic abuse.

More significantly, in keeping with the poem's religious undercurrent, the fan would be the device used by the inhabitants of the Bible Belt to remain cool – thus underscoring their hubris. In believing they are the ones who shall remain cool (i.e., free from the flames of eternal damnation), they are like the eponymous frogs of the poem, doomed by the very thing they hope will save them.

Finally, the "cool" provided by the fan reinforces the author's use of what's "in" (see footnote 3, above).

[6] With a simple mark of punctuation, the author drives home his point, and reminds us that everyman must face the ramifications of his own period in history. The author is to be congratulated on his understatement here, as a lesser author would undoubtedly have employed an exclamation point (except the surrealists, who would simply obfuscate matters with a question mark); such a punctuatory decision would have undercut the gravity of the poem and broadcast the fate of the poem's protagonists, which fate, in the poem's present state, remains a delicious mystery.

[7] Here too, a clever use of a seemingly innocuous interjection brings up yet another 2004 electoral college scrapping-ground: Ohio (OH), where the 20 electoral votes went to Bush, who had a margin of victory of less than 2%.

[8] Without question the author chooses this word to reflect his political bias, which can be forgiven in a work of such importance. He decries the results in both Ohio and Indiana, and indeed in the 2004 election itself. Moreover, he cleverly introduces the concept of globalization, whose forces greatly influenced the outcome of the election. The consecutive letters N and O naturally make one think of other internationally-traded companies, such as ABC, KLM, OP, and VW.

[9] In contrast to the previous line (see footnote 6), given the emotional import of the implied fate of the frogs, one cannot help but see, with the author's confident guidance, that the exclamation point is entirely justified – indeed, one should even say required – here. The author is to be congratulated on his bravery and audacity in his selection of punctuation.

[10] Though critics will no doubt see the use of the definite article as contradictory to and even undermining of the poem's essential themes, the author clearly made his word choice with a great deal of forethought. If it is true that the situation outlined applies equally to frog and reader alike, then we must also share a common fate. We are, after all, one planet, whether united in our shared space or in our globalistic commercial viewpoint. One can therefore see no alternative to the definite article in this instance.

[11] Having come so far and infused the reader's mind with his myriad images, viewpoints, and popular and historical references, the author draws his work to a close with a phrase comforting in its familiarity and simplicity. But is it simple? In employing the phrase, the author connects his piece to countless thousands, nay millions, which have gone before, all concluding with the same word. The reader is every reader, the poem is every written work throughout history.

Here, finally, we find an author who provides something for everyone, as his "end" can be lowbrow bathroom humor for the unsophisticated, or a connection to "The End" by the Doors and "The End of the World" by REM for the more musically minded, or an allusion to John Barth's seminal American novel The End of the Road for those of a literary bent, and much, much more.

I myself cannot also help but smile at the author's knowing wink here, equating himself, as he does, in a self-effacing way, with Burt Reynolds, star and director of the 1978 flop The End. He does himself a grand disservice here, and one might accuse him of false modesty, but whatever the truth, his effort charms.