 |
| “Mending
Wall” by Robert Frost
|
 |
Contents
1. Introduction
2. “Mending Wall” as a claim to build walls
3. Criticism of building walls
4. Conclusion
5. Bibliography
Introduction
Robert Frost is quite interesting modern poet who is characterized
by works which are really thought provoking and discussable.
In the same time, some of his works are quite arguable and
often are interpreted in different ways. One of such works
is his poem “Mending Wall”, where the author reveals
how neighbours regularly rebuild the wall but, on reading
the poem, an inevitable question arises whether the author
supports the idea of building walls or he is against it. Different
critics suggests different interpretation, for instance George
Montiero is rather for building walls interpretation, but
it is really quite a doubtful view since what the narrator
says and what he implies basically contradicts to what he
actually does.
“Mending Wall” as a claim to build walls
First of all it should be said that it is really quite difficult
to definitely say what idea the author really wants to convey
to a reader because some points are really controversial.
Not surprisingly that some critics stands on the ground that
the poet is rather for building walls. Among such critics
may be named George Monteiro who argues that the author quite
skilfully hints that walls are essential for human beings
and it is quite natural for them to build and repair them.
Basically the critic develops his ideas on the analysis of
the last lines, which really possess great potential and are
very significant:
…I see him there,
Bringing a stone grasp 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 neighbours”
In fact he considers such a reference to the past very important
and mainly he based his argument on the historical facts.
According to Moneiro this farmer of a New England is a kind
of continuation of a stone age savage. Moreover it even seems
to be that in such interpretation there is a piece of such
a savage, or to put it more precisely, some historical roots
of this archetype, is present in every person.
Furthermore, Monteiro’s references to history are quite
important and he goes further in his arguments indicating
that even the narrator who is obviously belongs to a very
intelligent sort of people also refers to the past, namely
to the ancient Roman festival of the Terminalia. This festival
was celebrated in Rome and in the country on the 23rd of February.
The critic depicts it as follows: “the neighbours on
either side of any boundary gathered around the landmark [the
stones which marked boundaries], with their wives, children,
and servants; and crowned it, each on his own side, with garlands,
and offered cakes and bloodless sacrifices” (1974:98).
Furthermore, the festival evolved and changed and eventually
became deep-rooted in people’s consciousness but it
is necessary to underline that this festival basically explains
the idea of the narrator’s neighbour proverbially expresses
as “Good fences make good neighbours”, which the
author, by the way, repeats twice and probably he does it
intentionally in order to underline its importance.
As a result, Moneiro treats the regular repair of walls by
both neighbours as the continuation of old traditions as a
kind of ritual that does not need any explanations since it
symbolizes good relations between neighbours and probably
is an essential part of their subconscious desires. Naturally
that, on interpreting the poem, or to put it more precisely
the poet’s message, the critic concludes that “for
whatever reasons, men continue to need marked boundaries,
even when they find it difficult to justify their existence”
(Monteiro 1974:101).
In such a way, there is a kind of fatedness and predetermining
in building walls. However, Monteiro’s views are quite
arguable and not very persuasive since they do not possess
strong background and even his conclusion bears some uncertainty
since it is not fully supported with evidences but has rather
vague basis.
Criticism of building walls
Obviously such a position of Monteiro and other critics who
believes that Robert Frost intends to convey the idea of building
walls is to a significant extent erroneous or at least quite
arguable and there are a lot of critics who stands on the
absolutely different ground believing that the author, on
the contrary, wants to say that people should not build walls
and, if they are not savage they are against any walls separating
people.
However, such a statement is not so obvious as one may think.
The reason is that the narrator, being quite intelligent person,
still repairs the wall and helps to his neighbour. But, on
analysing his words, way of thinking it becomes evident that
repairing of the wall for him is just a kind of activity that
unite him and his neighbour and in such a way the inner, spiritual
wall between them tends to be destroyed, while the physical
boundary gets to be insignificant.
At this respect quite noteworthy is the view of Frank Lentricchia
who underlines that the narrator does not openly says that
he against the building of the wall but he implies it, referring
to ‘something’, creating some mysterious power
that is against the repair of the wall that may be found in
the first lines of the poem:
Something there is that does not love a wall,
That sends a frozen-ground-swell under it
And spills the upper boulders in the sun,
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast
These words indicates that the narrator is a very intelligent
person for creates a kind of mystery in order to make the
argument against the building of the wall more persuasive
instead of simply naming this ‘something’ that
is just frost in fact. In such a way the author wants to show
that even nature is against the walls and people, being a
part of nature, should act respectively.
To a certain extent such view is quite contradicting and contrasting
to the view of Monteiro for in this case Lentricchia draws
‘something’ that at first glance cannot be explained
as a counterargument to Monteiro’s inexplicable trend
of people to build walls. But unlike Monteiro Lentricchia
underlines that this ‘something’ is quite explicable,
understandable and what is more important quite natural.
Basically what Lentricchia wants to emphasize in the analysis
of the poem is the fact that the narrator is against the walls
but he cooperates with his neighbour out of ‘sheer work’,
“the process itself which he sees as having non-utilitarian
value” (1975:298) and explains Frost’s words that
There where it is we do not need the wall
At this respect, John C. Kemp is quite close to Lentricchia
views, for he also treats the narrator assistance in repairing
the wall as a kind of a game:
Oh, just another kind of outdoor game,
One on side, it comes to little more
In fact he argues with his opponents, who supports the idea
of the building war as the main point of Frost’s message,
and says “the allusion to an ‘outdoor game’
evokes rivalry and competition, not only in wall repair, but
also in wall destruction” (1979:311).
Furthermore, in such interpretation, the image of a stone
age worker is quite ironic for in such a situation the farmer
looms not as an associate or co-worker, but as an alien being
whom the speakers observes, criticizes, and reflects upon
while maintaining his distance and objectivity” (Kemp
1979:319). In such a way the narrator again turns to be an
intelligent person who is against the building of walls and
he rather tends to help to a farmer who uses his father’s
cliche in order to justify senseless and useless repair of
the wall that quite contradicting to Monteiro’s views
of repairing the wall as a tribute to an old tradition or
some innate predisposition of every human being.
Conclusion
Thus, in conclusion it is possible to say that the views on
“Mending Wall” and its interpretations may vary
significantly but still this fact only underlines the importance
and significance of the poem. In the same time, when one tends
to interpret the poem as a claim to build walls he/she is
erroneous since what the author really wanted to convey is
the idea that people should destroy the walls that separate
them.
Bibliography:
1. Frost, R. Selected works. New York: New Publishers, 1998.
2. Hadas, Rachel. Cycle, Infinity: Landscape Imagery in the
Poetry of Robert Frost and George Seferis. Lewisburg, PA:
Bucknell UP, 1976.
3. Holland, Norman. The Brain of Robert Frost: A Cognitive
Approach to Literature. LA: Routledge, 1988.
4. Kearns, Katherine. Robert Frost and a Poetics of Appetite.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
5. Kemp, John C. Robert Frost and New England: The Poet as
Regionalist. Princeton UP, 1979.
6. Lentricchia, Frank Robert Frost: Modern Poetics and the
Landscapes of Self. Duke University Press, 1975.
7. Montiero, George "Unlinked Myth in Frost's 'Mending
Wall.'" Concerning Poetry 7:2, Fall 1974.
8. Montiero, George. Robert Frost and the New England Renaissance.
Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1988.
9. Raab, Lawrence. American Poets on a Favorite Poem. Ed.
Robert Pack and Jay Parini. Hanover: University Press of New
England, 1996.
|
|
