Hawk Roosting vs. Grass: Nature, Power, and Humanity
This paper offers a comparative reading of Ted Hughes' "Hawk Roosting" and Carl Sandburg's "Grass," two poems narrated by non-human voices from the natural world. Through close textual analysis, the paper examines how both poets use personification to comment on human egotism, mortality, and the indifference of nature. Hughes' hawk voices a deluded sense of omnipotence that mirrors human narcissism and the Judeo-Christian self-image, while Sandburg's grass addresses the reader directly to render all human causes — including the sacrifices of war — equally insignificant. Together, the poems offer a humbling perspective on humanity's place within the larger natural order.
- Introduction: Two Non-Human Narrators: Overview of shared personification device and thesis
- The Hawk's Delusion of Omnipotence: Hughes' hawk as egocentric, godlike predator
- The Grass and the Indifference of Nature: Sandburg's grass erases human causes and sacrifices
- Egotism in Both Human and Animal Voices: Parallel narcissism in hawk, grass, and humanity
- Conclusion: Nature as a Humbling Force: Both poems humble readers about human centrality
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper opens with a clear thesis that applies to both poems simultaneously, allowing the comparison to feel unified rather than a pair of separate summaries.
- It uses well-chosen direct quotations from each poem to ground its interpretive claims, letting the language of the texts do real analytical work.
- The concluding paragraph draws the two poems into a single, synthesized reflection, reinforcing the thematic argument rather than simply restating it.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper models parallel comparative analysis: rather than discussing one poem fully before turning to the other, it consistently pairs observations — the hawk's godlike self-image alongside humanity's Judeo-Christian self-conception, the grass's indifference alongside the meaninglessness of wartime causes. This technique keeps the comparison active and prevents the essay from reading as two separate book reports.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens with an introductory paragraph establishing the shared device (personification) and shared theme (human insignificance in nature). Two body paragraphs treat each poem in turn with textual evidence, followed by a synthesizing paragraph that brings both poems into dialogue around the theme of egotism. A brief conclusion affirms the shared emotional effect — humility — and the poems' combined impact on the reader.
Introduction: Two Non-Human Narrators
Both Hawk Roosting by Ted Hughes and Grass by Carl Sandburg are narrated in the voices of silent, living objects in the natural world. Hughes' poem is told in the first person of a hawk, while Sandburg's poem is narrated by the grass. Through personification, both poets examine the place of humanity in a larger context, highlighting the extent to which what people consider important seems small when seen in relation to the broader picture of nature. Hughes' poem achieves this by showing how, in the eyes of an ordinary hawk, the bird is all-powerful because of its predatory capacity. The grass of Sandburg's poem is similarly powerful as it blankets the dead, without any apparent concern for the heroism the soldiers might have shown in battle or in any other facet of their lives.
The Hawk's Delusion of Omnipotence
The hawk's triumphant view of himself is expressed in his pride in his talons and beak; he is convinced that he is the pinnacle of all creation and that the creator himself took great pains to make him:
My feet are locked upon the rough bark. / It took the whole of Creation / To produce my foot, my each feather: / Now I hold Creation in my foot.
The hawk's ability to fly and to clutch his prey is viewed, in the animal's own mind, as evidence of his superiority and of his godlike power over life and death. Although this might seem arrogant, it has obvious parallels with how humans regard themselves. Humans, according to the Judeo-Christian tradition, see themselves as created in God's image. Hughes suggests that the hawk sees himself in a similar fashion, and like human beings, the hawk believes that the source of his creation justifies his ability to dominate and kill other creatures. "I kill where I please because it is all mine," says the hawk. "My manners are tearing off heads." The hawk kills without apology, as if it is his birthright. While it may be his instinct — even a necessity to survive — Hughes' choice of language suggests that the hawk misinterprets his gift. He views all of creation as his own because of his ability to kill smaller creatures, drawing yet another parallel between the hawk and humanity.
The poem ends:
The sun is behind me. / Nothing has changed since I began. / My eye has permitted no change. / I am going to keep things like this.
The hawk clearly, yet mistakenly, believes that it is by sheer force of will that he is the most important creature in the universe; he believes he rules all and can dictate that there will be no change — despite the fact that, like all living creatures, he will eventually die. The hawk sees himself as the root of all creation and believes the sun literally rises and sets due to his influence, but this is, of course, an illusion.
Conclusion: Nature as a Humbling Force
Hughes' hawk speaks in a voice the reader may recognize as his or her own — or as that of another human being — while Sandburg's grass speaks to the reader directly and reminds him or her of humanity's mortality and place in the universe. Both poems are effective in forcing the reader to think more critically about nature and the centrality of human life in history. Both poems are, ultimately, humbling.
References
Hughes, T. (1960). Hawk roosting. All Poetry. Retrieved from http://allpoetry.com/Hawk-Roosting
Sandburg, C. (1918). Grass. Retrieved from http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/174301
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.