PoemoftheWeek

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.

I think that what the speaker really wants is for his neighbour to agree with him that walls are often a bad thing because they bring about unwelcome separation: “I'd rather / He said it for himself.” He doesn’t want the man to agree with him simply because he’s told it – he wants him to think about it and reach the same conclusion for himself.

I sometimes wonder if we are all reading the same poem.

And I wonder if people are not being as objective as they could be because they find an article that fits with their thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktd222

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.

---

Its a summary of their conversing. I am not suggesting the neighbour does not have 'a' notion, as I am sure he has many, but the speaker is here considering to give him one. I am not suggesting he has 'gone behind' it either.

He will not go behind his father's saying,

'go behind' refers to dropping this tradition.

Yes, they are both being vague in that they are not 'direct'.

Quote:

---

I think that what the speaker really wants is for his neighbour to agree with him that walls are often a bad thing because they bring about unwelcome separation: “I'd rather / He said it for himself.” He doesn’t want the man to agree with him simply because he’s told it – he wants him to think about it and reach the same conclusion for himself.

I sometimes wonder if we are all reading the same poem.

---

I agree with this, but am adding that 'apples versus cones' is the reason for the walls. The dialog is real, so communication is happening. I go further because he uses, and exactly, 'apples and cones'. Why would he tell his neighbour:

My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines,

?

And, don't you think the neighbour knows that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackyyyy

And, don't you think the neighbour knows that?

---

I don’t believe he thinks about it – the speaker is just being playful. Sometimes when confronted by such dense, unreflecting obtuseness, humour is the only response. You can see plenty of evidence of this on the forum.

One thing I like to do is sub divide them poem into sections and see if that leads to any conclusions. I find five rough sub-divisions in the poem. Here's how I divide it:

Quote:

---

Sub-Div 1
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.

---

Quote:

---

Sub-Div 2;
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.

---

Quote:

---

Sub-Div 3:
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
'Stay where you are until our backs are turned!'
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of outdoor game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.

---

Quote:

---

Sub-Div 4
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.

---

Quote:

---

Sub-Div 5
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.'

---

So here's how I would summarize the sub-divisions:
S-D 1: Intro of the wall and nature's effect on it.
S-D 2: What the hunters secretly do to the wall and meeting the neighbor.
S-D 3: Fixing the wall.
S-D 4: Trying to convince the neighbor it's not worth it.
S-D 5: Conclusion that the neighbor is unmovable.

At first I had interpreted the contrast between S-D1 and S-D 2 as nature versus man, but given the rest of the poem I don't think so. what Frost has done is create polarities: nature/man, pine/orchard, neighbor/narrator work/leisure with my slash mark "/" as a wall between the polarized units. Is Frost saying that there is an imperviousness between the polarites? ("He is all pine and I am all orchard.") Perhaps, but the wall does need annual mending. Given that Frost chooses to write the poem from the first person of one of these polarities we do sense his preference, or at least where he feels he fits.

As a side note, the neighbor reminds me a lot of my grandfather on my mother's side, a dedicated workaholic type who can't relax. And the narrator reminds me of my father's side of the family.