PoemoftheWeek

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.