PoemoftheWeek

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktd222

Does Frost disprove of the Wall?

---

“Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,”

Could this cold something be 'frost' (as in Robert) by any chance or is this just a coincidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

“Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,”

Could this cold something be 'frost' (as in Robert) by any chance or is this just a coincidence?

---

hehe, and if it is Frost, he would be something there that does not love a wall. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackyyyy

He writes, 'Good fences make good neighbours', indicating a wall may be a good thing. Therefore, a wall may be needed. I say, yes, they can still be neighbours, but, without a 'good' wall, they may not be good neighbours. I am keying on the word 'Good' here, because he is making the point.. there are good, bad, useless, pointless, whatever type of wall.

---

Then I would ask what is it that the wall is walling off? Look at these snippets.

Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense

There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

“Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,”

Could this cold something be 'frost' (as in Robert) by any chance or is this just a coincidence?

---

I have no idea.

Quote:

---

hehe, and if it is Frost, he would be something there that does not love a wall.

---

I don't think Frost would like to be referred to as a 'something.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktd222

Then I would ask what is it that the wall is walling off? Look at these snippets.

Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense

There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.

---

Apart other things, neighbours. Any host of reasons. He is asking, however, 'what is the point of a wall'. In the first case, he would ask so he knows its reason, and in the second case, there is a natural division (type of tree), which would make a physical wall pointless. The 'he' keeps coming back and saying, 'Good walls make good neighbours'. So, I imply, its a people thing only because nature does not need walls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackyyyy

Apart other things, neighbours. Any host of reasons. He is asking, however, 'what is the point of a wall'. In the first case, he would ask so he knows its reason, and in the second case, there is a natural division (type of tree), which would make a physical wall pointless. The 'he' keeps coming back and saying, 'Good walls make good neighbours'. So, I imply, its a people thing only because nature does not need walls.

---

Ya, it comes back to a people thing, a nature thing, a people and nature thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktd222

Thanks, my second word choice was 'thingamajig'.

---

We use that in engineering too. :D

Try these – they are .pdf files from a site for English teachers.

http://www.teachit.co.uk/pdf/4645.pdf

http://www.teachit.co.uk/pdf/4713.pdf

There is an interesting set of articles here;

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poe...frost/wall.htm

In particular, I found the Lawrence Raab essay worth a go, although I can find no reliable evidence that Kennedy did quote the first line at the Berlin Wall. The Raab article begins:

“Robert Frost once said that "Mending Wall" was a poem that was spoiled by being applied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

“Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,”

Could this cold something be 'frost' (as in Robert) by any chance or is this just a coincidence?

---

Just a side note. I don't think frost by itself would cause damage to a wall, but the cycling of freezing and unfreezing of both the ground and whatever mosture got into crevices of the wall could and does. It is a thought, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Just a side note. I don't think frost by itself would cause damage to a wall, but the cycling of freezing and unfreezing of both the ground and whatever mosture got into crevices of the wall could and does. It is a thought, though.

---

I know that Virgil but do you really think Robert Frost didn’t think of frost when he wrote those lines? Come on!

In his famous 1963 speech, President Kennedy professed solidarity with the people of Berlin by declaring, "Ich bin ein Berliner." Unfortunately he was not only saying "I am a Berliner," he was also saying "I am a jelly doughnut" -- "ein Berliner" being a popular local pastry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

I know that Virgil but do you really think Robert Frost didn’t think of frost when he wrote those lines? Come on!

---

It could, but I don't think it's definitive. When I think of shifting ground and cracked foundations and crooked walls, I don't think of frost. I think of frozen ground, that is frozen earth to a certain depth that can be quite powerful. And look at the lines that follow:

Quote:

---

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun;
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.

---

I think it's describing what I'm saying, not some frozen suface moisture. Perhaps he's punning on his name, but I don't see it. I'm willing to accept it if you point it out. I'm not sure it makes a difference one way or the other to the poem. What's the significance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poe...frost/wall.htm

In particular, I found the Lawrence Raab essay worth a go, although I can find no reliable evidence that Kennedy did quote the first line at the Berlin Wall. The Raab article begins:

“Robert Frost once said that "Mending Wall" was a poem that was spoiled by being applied.

---

This is good stuff. The article is not at odds with what I've been saying. I sensed the wall's literal and figurative connotations to the 'relationships' being expressed in the poem, but I have not fully defined those relationships yet. I fear that after reading this article my ethusiasm for analyzing this poem has deflated. I guess we'll see...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “Virgil”

It could, but I don't think it's definitive. When I think of shifting ground and cracked foundations and crooked walls, I don't think of frost. I think of frozen ground, that is frozen earth to a certain depth that can be quite powerful.

---

Okay, I concede that, in the strictest sense possible, one of America’s most revered poets should have been called Robert Frozen but it’s close enough to be obvious to me and many others. He was a poet – do you think he wouldn’t have thought of possible puns? Donne did it and Frost does it elsewhere in this very poem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “Virgil”

What's the significance?

---

Okay, I’ll try. First of all, the significance is that he implies that he is one of those things ‘that doesn't love a wall”. Secondly, the whole poem is filled with a similar playfulness.

“We have to use a spell to make them balance:” – humorous (they don’t really)

“My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.” - funny – not gut-bustingly so but amusing nonetheless.

“Spring is the mischief in me” - The spring air makes him feel mischievous and he tries to make his neighbour question the proverb that sounds so wise on the surface.

“And to whom I was like to give offense.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.' I could say 'Elves' to him,”

offense – ‘a fence’! A pun if ever I saw one. He could tell the neighbour that elves are causing it?!

The speaker knows that his neighbour will never understand his feelings. The man is too deeply locked into tradition to be able to question whatever is customarily done. He points out, ironically, that his neighbour “likes having thought of it so well / He says again, 'Good fences make good neighbors.'" Isn’t it obvious that the neighbour hasn’t thought about it deeply at all?

Virgil, you do realise that this poem is about me and you, don’t you? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

Okay, I concede that, in the strictest sense possible, one of America’s most revered poets should have been called Robert Frozen but it’s close enough to be obvious to me and many others. He was a poet – do you think he wouldn’t have thought of possible puns? Donne did it and Frost does it elsewhere in this very poem.

---

No I agree it must have crossed his mind. Let me somewhat concede and say it's a loose fit. I can go with it, but not without a qualm.

Quote:

---

Okay, I’ll try. First of all, the significance is that he implies that he is one of those things ‘that doesn't love a wall”. Secondly, the whole poem is filled with a similar playfulness.

---

Ok. perhaps I was getting too scientific about it. He is having fun in the poem, especially where he decides to egg his neighbor on.

Quote:

---

Virgil, you do realise that this poem is about me and you, don’t you? :D

---

:lol: Well, I prefer to think we just disagree but can be friends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

There is an interesting set of articles here;

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/po.../frost/wall.htm

In particular, I found the Lawrence Raab essay worth a go, although I can find no reliable evidence that Kennedy did quote the first line at the Berlin Wall. The Raab article begins:

“Robert Frost once said that "Mending Wall" was a poem that was spoiled by being applied.

---

Thanks for the link, Unnamable. I also liked the Raab essay. I think it attempted to express something there is about Robert Frost's work in general, something which I was trying to get at in my post above when I alluded to the "rich simplicity" of his verse. People seem to be frequently tempted to reduce lines from Frost to the status of one dimensional sayings, and "apply" the lines in a cliched fashion that makes them shed the very ambiguity that made them so memorable: "Something there is that doesn't love a wall," "Good fences make good neighbors," "Nothing gold can stay," "I took the road less travelled by," etc. I'm sure I've used his lines this way myself in the course of my speech. All the same, his poems themselves are really much more complex than the way they're most frequently alluded to, but in a way that is not easily defined or readily apparent. I like Raab's observation that ""Mending Wall" is less a poem about what to think than it is poem about what thinking is, and where it might lead." I think that perhaps it's missing a large part of this poem to be overly focused on whether exactly he loves or hates the wall. Though it's obviously a question we'll want to kick around, I sense that this sort of dichotomy isn't really the "something" that the poem is after.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

The first line is indeed interesting. First of all the sentence is incredibly strained, if not grammatically incorrect. What he means to say is "There is something that doesn't love a wall." By twisting the syntax around he's giving us a crooked sentence, if you will, which mirrors the broken, crooked wall. It is indeterminant at that line, which is important because I think it will foreshadow a different meaning, but in the following line he tells us exactly what causes the crookedness, the frozen ground.

---

I like the thought of it as a crooked sentence mirroring the crooked wall. His choice to front the line with "something" is something of a Miltonic move--conspicuously changing word order as a way of placing stress and emphasis on a particular word and thus on a particular thing or concept. As you say, he goes on here to imply that the "something" is the ground, and the forces of nature that move both ground and wall. His repetition of the line later seems to imply that he himself is the one who does not love the wall. I'm not sure though, as I said above, if saying that it is either him, or nature, or even both that do not love the wall is really sufficient to explain that "something." The "something" remains predominant.

Also, I've always notice in this line the deliberate way in which he says "does not love" rather than "hates" or "dislikes." Not loving doesn't necessarily mean hating, though that's where the mind tends to jump first. It merely means an absence of love, which could refer to a whole range of emotions from active dislike, to neutral tolerance, to a not entirely unaffectionate respect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

The speaker know that his neighbour will never understand his feelings. The man is too deeply locked into tradition to be able to question whatever is customarily done. He points out, ironically, that his neighbour “likes having thought of it so well / He says again, 'Good fences make good neighbors.'" Isn’t it obvious that the neighbour hasn’t thought about it deeply at all?

---

But how does the speaker knows the neighbor hasn't thought about what he has thought about? The speaker 'plays around' and never is upfront with the neighbor about his feelings. The neighbor is saying 'Good fences make good neighbor', but that does not mean he hasn't thought about what the line means. The speaker assumes.
To the speaker, the farmer is antipathetic because he seems so antipoetic: he distrusts the flow of words, ideas, and feelings. Lacking a playful imagination and the willingness to "go behind" a saying or a concept, he seems cut off from the poetic. But we must not forget that the failure of communication in the poem is mutual. And in truth, Frost's persona is the less communicative and the more hostile of the two. His portrait of an intractable neighbor involves feverish speculation that makes us doubt the reliability of his point of view. On the surface of it, at least, the Yankee's brief adage bespeaks more amiability than do the speaker's speculations and suspicious conjectures. Yet Frost offers no answers in "Mending Wall," no clues about who is right or wrong. He does not moralize: he demonstrates.(John C. Kemp:http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poe...frost/wall.htm)

You’re determined to catch me out, aren’t you? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “ktd222”

But how does the speaker knows the neighbor hasn't thought about what he has thought about? The speaker 'plays around' and never is upfront with the neighbor about his feelings. The neighbor is saying 'Good fences make good neighbor', but that does not mean he hasn't thought about what the line means. The speaker assumes.

---

When I set my alarm I don’t know it will go off but I assume it will. Does that make me dogmatic? I base my assumptions of the evidence available to me. Why do you think Frost writes, “He will not go behind his father's saying”? Do you believe that the neighbour has thought deeply about the saying? I don’t.

As for John C Kemp’s comments, do they strike you as accurate? Do the speaker’s words exude ‘feverish speculation’? Isn’t it apparent that this critic is forcing his argument and is aware of it?

"On the surface of it, at least, the Yankee's brief adage bespeaks more amiability than do the speaker's speculations and suspicious conjectures.

So what’s under that surface? Kemp is careful to note that it is the adage and not the farmer that ‘bespeaks amiability’. Would you characterise the speaker’s thoughts as ‘suspicious conjectures’?

While I would agree that Frost doesn’t moralise, I believe that the neighbour is more responsible for the ‘failure of communication’ than the speaker:

He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.

Petrarch's Love said:
- I like Raab's observation that "Mending Wall" is less a poem about what to think than it is poem about what thinking is, and where it might lead." I think that perhaps it's missing a large part of this poem to be overly focused on whether exactly he loves or hates the wall. Though it's obviously a question we'll want to kick around, I sense that this sort of dichotomy isn't really the "something" that the poem is after. --
Your comment comes closest to what I feel about this poem. I can't say I like this stern dry master of wordings. This is what the poem seems to me to be about: reality or irreality of the word. A statement, an observation about how the world is made (the wall is inside us), specially our vehicle of communication. That we use to manage truth, a thing we know nothing about. The first line:
"Something there is that doen't love a wall" - a philosophical statement of the kind: there 'is' instead of 'is not'. Applied to the Berlin wall, applied to politics in general, to any politics, it becomes something different in whomever mouths you put it. That's the difficulty of existing. And inside ourselves? How many walls? Useful? Yes, but.

Sorry, MelanieD but at whom is this addressed?

Quote:

---

You’re determined to catch me out, aren’t you?

---

I'm determined to make sense of this freakin poem. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

When I set my alarm I don’t know it will go off but I assume it will. Does that make me dogmatic? I base my assumptions of the evidence available to me. Why do you think Frost writes, “He will not go behind his father's saying”? Do you believe that the neighbour has thought deeply about the saying? I don’t.

---

In short, I don't know either way about whether the neighbor has thought deeply about the saying. I know it's what the speaker seems to believe. It's not as if one 'goes behind' his father's saying that that will still not produce the neighbor saying, 'Good fences make good neighbors.' There could be multiple reasons why this statement, to the neighbor, still have validity-even though he doesn't explain it to the speaker.

Quote:

---

As for John C Kemp’s comments, do they strike you as accurate? Do the speaker’s words exude ‘feverish speculation’? Isn’t it apparent that this critic is forcing his argument and is aware of it?

---

The speaker's words do take on a kind of feverish speculation by belittling his neighbor with a word game meant to 'put a notion in his head' about why 'Good fences make good neighbors.' Again, the speaker is using the notion that the neighbor hasn't thought about what the saying really means and so its up to him to show the fallacies of such a statement.

Quote:

---

"On the surface of it, at least, the Yankee's brief adage bespeaks more amiability than do the speaker's speculations and suspicious conjectures.
So what’s under that surface? Kemp is careful to note that it is the adage and not the farmer that ‘bespeaks amiability’. Would you characterise the speaker’s thoughts as ‘suspicious conjectures’?

---

What's under the surface is a mystery to all except the Yankee. The speaker is obviously not straightforward in asking the neighbor about why he believes 'Good fences make good neighbors.'
Yes, I think suspicion and speculation are conveyed with the speaker's thoughts. The speaker is assuming things, like 'he will not go behind his father's saying,' and the speaker's game is meant for the neighbor to do just that.

Quote:

---

While I would agree that Frost doesn’t moralise, I believe that the neighbour is more responsible for the ‘failure of communication’ than the speaker:
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.

---

I agree that they are both responsible for the 'failure of communication.' When the neighbor says, 'Good fences make good neighbors,' why doesn't the speaker just say, "why do you think that 'Good fences make good neighbors'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

Sorry, MelanieD but at whom is this addressed?

---

Why? To all.
See the wall you draw? For what? So that I answer you politely, hey, look, I'm a good neighbor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktd222

In short, I don't know either way about whether the neighbor has thought deeply about the saying. I know it's what the speaker seems to believe. It's not as if one 'goes behind' his father's saying that that will still not produce the neighbor saying, 'Good fences make good neighbors.' There could be multiple reasons why this statement, to the neighbor, still have validity-even though he doesn't explain it to the speaker.

The speaker's words do take on a kind of feverish speculation by belittling his neighbor with a word game meant to 'put a notion in his head' about why 'Good fences make good neighbors.' Again, the speaker is using the notion that the neighbor hasn't thought about what the saying really means and so its up to him to show the fallacies of such a statement.

What's under the surface is a mystery to all except the Yankee. The speaker is obviously not straightforward in asking the neighbor about why he believes 'Good fences make good neighbors.'
Yes, I think suspicion and speculation are conveyed with the speaker's thoughts. The speaker is assuming things, like 'he will not go behind his father's saying,' and the speaker's game is meant for the neighbor to do just that.

I agree that they are both responsible for the 'failure of communication.' When the neighbor says, 'Good fences make good neighbors,' why doesn't the speaker just say, "why do you think that 'Good fences make good neighbors'?

---

The neighbour wants the apples and the speaker knows it.

There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors.'
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.


I tell him.

'He' is joking at the neighbour, that his apples will not eat the cones. Meaning, the opposite. He is playing with his neighbour's brain to suggest, 'There where it is we do not need the wall'. Of course they need a wall. And, the neighbour only says, 'Good fences make good neighbours.' I'll bet, reluctantly, like... sure, don't bother putting a wall there, because I really don't want your apples, what a waste of time.

He tries the same tactic again:

'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.

I don't think there is any failure in communication, they're a wily pair of old goats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackyyyy

The neighbour wants the apples and the speaker knows it.

---

edit: this is my comment:Your speaking for the neighbor. This is just another assumption

Quote:

---

'He' is joking at the neighbour, that his apples will not eat the cones. Meaning, the opposite. He is playing with his neighbour's brain to suggest, 'There where it is we do not need the wall'. Of course they need a wall. And, the neighbour only says, 'Good fences make good neighbours.' I'll bet, reluctantly, like... sure, don't bother putting a wall there, because I really don't want your apples, what a waste of time.

---

I don't know what your trying to say here.

Quote:

---

He tries the same tactic again:

'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.

I don't think there is any failure in communication, they're a wily pair of old goats.

---

He's answering his own question. Where is the communication if you answer your own question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

Sorry, MelanieD but at whom is this addressed?

---

I agree Unnamable. MelanieD, what are you addressing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktd222

He's answering his own question. Where is the communication if you answer your own question.

---

The speaker is asking a loaded question, the question holds the answer.

The speaker told the neighbour this:

My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.

The neighbour replied this:

He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors.'

Apples are edible, pine cones are not. He is indicating he has something of value, and the neighbour does not (at this point in the wall). However, he is talking ridiculous to his neighbour, who pretends to shrug it off. Of course the neighbour knows the difference between an apple and a pine cone. I think that suggests a LOT of communication (even if it was only a raised eyebrow over the top of the wall, but here we see, there is actual dialog). Moreover, its the neighbour who replies, 'Good fences make good neighbors.', sarcastic, because, of course he wants those apples, but would not admit it.

I don't think its an assumption, else why did Frost use an apple and a pine cone??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MelanieD

Petrarch's Love said:
- I like Raab's observation that "Mending Wall" is less a poem about what to think than it is poem about what thinking is, and where it might lead." I think that perhaps it's missing a large part of this poem to be overly focused on whether exactly he loves or hates the wall. Though it's obviously a question we'll want to kick around, I sense that this sort of dichotomy isn't really the "something" that the poem is after. --
Your comment comes closest to what I feel about this poem. I can't say I like this stern dry master of wordings. This is what the poem seems to me to be about: reality or irreality of the word. A statement, an observation about how the world is made (the wall is inside us), specially our vehicle of communication. That we use to manage truth, a thing we know nothing about. The first line:
"Something there is that doen't love a wall" - a philosophical statement of the kind: there 'is' instead of 'is not'. Applied to the Berlin wall, applied to politics in general, to any politics, it becomes something different in whomever mouths you put it. That's the difficulty of existing. And inside ourselves? How many walls? Useful? Yes, but.

---

I think you made a lot of interesting points there. I need to read this RAAB. Certainly, it goes way further than the detail he actually laid out here, and that is typical of many poems, where they contain a superior message. The applications are far reaching.

You know, it was the allies in 1961 who asked the GDR to build the Wall, and they preferred to build houses, but they obliged. And Kennedy was in front of it in 1963, they wanted it down, but up. Edit: There are conflicting stories on who wanted the wall in the first place, which goes to prove the poem again.

Amazing to realize just how fitting this poem is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackyyyy

The speaker is asking a loaded question, the question holds the answer.

The speaker told the neighbour this:

My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.

The neighbour replied this:

He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors.'

---

Where is the question mark?

Quote:

---

Apples are edible, pine cones are not. He is indicating he has something of value, and the neighbour does not (at this point in the wall). However, he is talking ridiculous to his neighbour, who pretends to shrug it off. Of course the neighbour knows the difference between an apple and a pine cone. I think that suggests a LOT of communication (even if it was only a raised eyebrow over the top of the wall, but here we see, there is actual dialog). Moreover, its the neighbour who replies, 'Good fences make good neighbors.', sarcastic, because, of course he wants those apples, but would not admit it.
I don't think its an assumption, else why did Frost use an apple and a pine cone??

---

And I thought he was just disguishing between them two's land. How do you know the neighbor 'shrug's those questions off? Maybe the answer is 'Good fences make good neighbor,' but the speaker is not understanding of what he means by that. And obviously, the speaker is not being straightforward with the neighbor because he keeps making references to things and hopes the neighbor will pick up on what he's saying.
How the sudden does 'Good fences make good neighbors' turn into I want your apples?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktd222

Where is the question mark?



And I thought he was just disguishing between them two's land. How do you know the neighbor 'shrug's those questions off? Maybe the answer is 'Good fences make good neighbor,' but the speaker is not understanding of what he means by that. And obviously, the speaker is not being straightforward with the neighbor because he keeps making references to things and hopes the neighbor will pick up on what he's saying.
How the sudden does 'Good fences make good neighbors' turn into I want your apples?

---

The question is implicit, begging a response by being ridiculous.

I know he shrugged it of because of his retort:

He only says, 'Good fences...'

He could have said, 'go take a hike'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackyyyy

The question is implicit, begging a response by being ridiculous.

I know he shrugged it of because of his retort:

He only says, 'Good fences...'

He could have said, 'go take a hike'.

---

If you want to believe that, but seems awfully broken to begin with, the conversation ;) I mean. I don't think a question could be a question without a question mark, but hey, what do I know. You could yell, whisper, scream, but a question mark will be needed to be in question form.

Look here, the speaker is so closer to being straightforward with this statement:
If I could put a notion in his head:
'Why do they make good neighbors?
Instead he choses this way to express himeself:
Isn't it/Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktd222

If you want to believe that, but seems awfully broken to begin with, the conversation ;) I mean. I don't think a question could be a question without a question mark, but hey, what do I know. You could yell, whisper, scream, but a question mark will be needed to be in question form.

Look here, the speaker is so closer to being straightforward with this statement:
If I could put a notion in his head:
'Why do they make good neighbors?
Instead he choses this way to express himeself:
Isn't it/Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.

---

You have not posted a poem today. :brow:

I don't know if you have or not, but it begs an answer. Don't you feel like answering it??

Yes, they move from 'dialog' to the speaker 'wondering' if he could play with his brain and put a more normal notion in his head instead, suggest a wall because of cows. But, as he concludes, there are no cows, so he knows that is not going to prevent showing offense.

He has his wall up because of his apples, but, he does not want to show offense to his neighbour (for whatever reason, possibly the neighbour has strawberries further down the wall).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackyyyy

You have not posted a poem today. :brow:

I don't know if you have or not, but it begs an answer. Don't you feel like answering it??

---

Can you decode this for me?

Quote:

---

Yes, they move from 'dialog' to the speaker 'wondering' if he could play with his brain and put a more normal notion in his head instead, suggest a wall because of cows. But, as he concludes, there are no cows, so he knows that is not going to prevent showing offense.

He has his wall up because of his apples, but, he does not want to show offense to his neighbour (for whatever reason, possibly the neighbour has strawberries further down the wall).

---

What?? strawberries?LOL...oh man. If your suggesting dialog(and I don't concur) the last line of the poem is he says, 'Good fences make good neigbors,' so is it movement of dialog to wondering to dialog? :confused:

Does anyone else find Frost's poems deceptively simple?

I mean that thay look so obvious when you first read them and you almost think you've got everything it has to offer, but...

Every subsequent reading throws up another little niggle of ambiguity. There is no overt obscurity in most of his works but there are plenty of layers there, hiding just below the surface.

I used to dismiss Frost as a lightweight poet, but I think this discussion shows that his lack of apparent depth is not the same as any lack of actual depth.

Unlike last week's Milton, you can easily understand every line in this poem - at least on the surface - you don't need a commentary to understand any of the references; everything is laid out in the open for easy access, but there is still more going on than meets the eye. I am of the opinion that, in the Milton, once you understand the references to ancient Greek and Roman literature and know the targets of his allegories, the meaning is pretty well established. In this poem however, there are no difficult words or names of forgotten gods and heroes to decipher - most readers won't find a word that will cause them to reach for the dictionary - yet there are a whole series of layers of meaning (and possible meaning) at work here.

Frost doesn't create ambiguity by using long words and complex sentence structures; he does it by using simple words and dropping hints.

There are many poets that make me feel far more deeply than Frost (currently, Sylvia Plath is turning my head inside out every night with her incredible word choices and phrasings), but I like him none the less, because he can make me think deeply about the simplest and most everyday of phrases. That I think is his particular greatest poetic gift.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktd222

Can you decode this for me?


What?? strawberries?LOL...oh man. If your suggesting dialog(and I don't concur) the last line of the poem is he says, 'Good fences make good neigbors,' so is it movement of dialog to wondering to dialog? :confused:

---

You are going to hate me for this, you just answered me with a question. I told you it was loaded.

Is this dialog or not: '?'

And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors.'

Yes, in the last line the neighbour says again, 'Good fences...'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackyyyy

You are going to hate me for this, you just answered me with a question. I told you it was loaded.

Is this dialog or not: '?'

And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors.'

Yes, in the last line the neighbour says again, 'Good fences...'

---

I don't know what you mean so I'm asking you to explain.

edit: who's doing the loading?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

Does anyone else find Frost's poems deceptively simple?

I mean that thay look so obvious when you first read them and you almost think you've got everything it has to offer, but...

Every subsequent reading throws up another little niggle of ambiguity. There is no overt obscurity in most of his works but there are plenty of layers there, hiding just below the surface.

I used to dismiss Frost as a lightweight poet, but I think this discussion shows that his lack of apparent depth is not the same as any lack of actual depth.

Unlike last week's Milton, you can easily understand every line in this poem - at least on the surface - you don't need a commentary to understand any of the references; everything is laid out in the open for easy access, but there is still more going on than meets the eye. I am of the opinion that, in the Milton, once you understand the references to ancient Greek and Roman literature and know the targets of his allegories, the meaning is pretty well established. In this poem however, there are no difficult words or names of forgotten gods and heroes to decipher - most readers won't find a word that will cause them to reach for the dictionary - yet there are a whole series of layers of meaning (and possible meaning) at work here.

Frost doesn't create ambiguity by using long words and complex sentence structures; he does it by using simple words and dropping hints.

There are many poets that make me feel far more deeply than Frost (currently, Sylvia Plath is turning my head inside out every night with her incredible word choices and phrasings), but I like him none the less, because he can make me think deeply about the simplest and most everyday of phrases. That I think is his particular greatest poetic gift.

---

Can you tell us what you think about the poem's meaning?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

Does anyone else find Frost's poems deceptively simple?

I mean that thay look so obvious when you first read them and you almost think you've got everything it has to offer, but...

Every subsequent reading throws up another little niggle of ambiguity. There is no overt obscurity in most of his works but there are plenty of layers there, hiding just below the surface.

I used to dismiss Frost as a lightweight poet, but I think this discussion shows that his lack of apparent depth is not the same as any lack of actual depth.

Unlike last week's Milton, you can easily understand every line in this poem - at least on the surface - you don't need a commentary to understand any of the references; everything is laid out in the open for easy access, but there is still more going on than meets the eye. I am of the opinion that, in the Milton, once you understand the references to ancient Greek and Roman literature and know the targets of his allegories, the meaning is pretty well established. In this poem however, there are no difficult words or names of forgotten gods and heroes to decipher - most readers won't find a word that will cause them to reach for the dictionary - yet there are a whole series of layers of meaning (and possible meaning) at work here.

Frost doesn't create ambiguity by using long words and complex sentence structures; he does it by using simple words and dropping hints.

There are many poets that make me feel far more deeply than Frost (currently, Sylvia Plath is turning my head inside out every night with her incredible word choices and phrasings), but I like him none the less, because he can make me think deeply about the simplest and most everyday of phrases. That I think is his particular greatest poetic gift.

---

Yes, 'deceptively simple' puts it perfectly, and I am a great fan of simple. Btw, that Mushroom poem of Plath's is still buzzing around my head, you're right about her. We should psychoanalyse that in this thread so it has more time to air. I think the thing with Frost is, his 'voice', not unlike Milton, btw. Once I got some background on Frost, I could roughly find the voice, and at that point the personality. Of course, I could be completely wrong and he is really Bob Dylan's brother, but the fun is in the challenge, eh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktd222

I don't know what you mean so I'm asking you to explain.

edit: who's doing the loading?

---

Mr Speaker

My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors.'
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.' I could say 'Elves' to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, 'Good fences make good neighbors.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackyyyy

Mr Speaker

My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors.'
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.' I could say 'Elves' to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, 'Good fences make good neighbors.'

---

Is this the way two people converse with each other?
If I could put a notion in his head
Why would the speaker suspect that the other doesn't have a notion about what the statement means? Just because the neighbor says, 'Good fences make good neighbor,' and thats all he says, doesn't mean he hasn't 'gone behind' the saying. That is an assumption made by the speaker. It could easily be that they both have different views of the statement. They are both being vague to each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MelanieD

Why? To all.
See the wall you draw? For what? So that I answer you politely, hey, look, I'm a good neighbor.

---

I wasn't trying to erect anything - least of all a wall. I only asked because you started your contribution by quoting Petrarch and then added “Your comment comes closest to what I feel about this poem.” I was trying to confirm that you were addressing PL here but I didn’t know if it was Raab’s or Petrarch’s comment you had in mind. That’s all.