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.
