Frost’s poem “Mending Wall” is about two neighbors and one stone wall. Every spring the two meet and make repairs on the wall. However, the speaker does not understand why there is a need for the wall. There are no cows to contain, it is simply there to separate the neighbors. The old neighbor responds to this by saying, “Good fences make good neighbors.” The speaker is still not convinced and continues to press his neighbor to look beyond this old-fashioned tradition. His neighbor cannot be swayed. The speaker thinks his neighbor is from an outmoded era. In the last line of the poem, the neighbor repeats his initial proverb. Like most of Frost’s poems, this one seems simple at first glance, but is actually filled with complex ambiguity. Frost uses his ‘artistic vocabulary’ to propose many ideas in this poem. The worth of boundaries and keeping the status quo are a couple of the main ideas that can be discussed after reading Frost’s poem.
This poem allows readers to question the worth of boundaries. Boundaries are made to confine things. In this poem, the wall was not necessary, but the two continue to build it every year. The specific example within the context of this poem leads to the universal question of why concrete boundaries are necessary. To me, people have walls to mark their property and they are used as a means of safety. Would a household be safe without a wall and without locks to protect them? Would there be violent behavior if everyone trusted everyone else? Or is it because nobody trusts anyone else and puts up walls that spark violence? I believe walls are seen as an object of distrust. However, people feel obligated to have walls because of violent behavior they have heard about. I also think walls and boundaries are used for privacy, and discourage communal feeling. Developed countries contain people who crave privacy, more so then less developed villages where everything is shared. So does the want for privacy and economic background correlate? I believe so.
In this poem, there is no need for the wall. The speaker explains that walls are needed to contain cows, but “here there are no cows.” He tries to question his neighbor, but continues to help mend the wall. This specific story brings up the universal idea of “changing the status quo.” People act in ways similar to how people have acted in the past. I saw this idea when we read about “Stubborn Stina” in Laterna Magica. She continued to wait for her seamen because the pattern she had grown accustomed to was comfortable for her. Should people continue to do something just because it is comfortable? Or should actions be changed if they are not applicable? I argue that if something is no longer necessary, change it. However, there are those who believe tradition is very important. I think the idea of tradition bleeds in to discussions about religion. Some rituals in religions do not apply to the twenty-first century like they applied when the religion was formed. I believe rituals and actions should be altered to fit the specific time and situation. However, it is very hard to change the status quo and alter what has been done in the past.
4 comments:
I found your question "Or is it because nobody trusts anyone else and puts up walls that spark violence?" very thought provoking. In reading your analysis of the poem, I was struck by how you connected this statement through the lack of cows. With no cows is there a need beyond distrust and reluctance to upset the status quo? While I believe this may be the case, I disagree with what I inferred to be your conclusion that everything we can no longer see a need for is useless and rather a cause of problems. Perhaps, instead we need to avoid that situation altogether and be careful of who we are walling out and walling in.
I see your point, but I think that you are taking the wall a little too literally. Yes, physical walls do serve as secuity and privacy, but try to think of it in the realm of the mind. Two neighbors who get along, and may not need the physical wall have already built mental ones. It lets the other know how far they can go, what the limits to the other man are. For instance, I love my brother and we get along well, however he claims to be a satanist and this disturbs me. But I love him and value his friendship and so we have built a wall between ourselves upon this point. We may choose to cross it from time to time but mostly we know what the limit of the other is and therefore we are able to be together in harmony. So walls don't really inhibit "communal feeling," but may in fact promote it or allow the peaceful exchange of feeling.
I enjoyed how you tied in Stubborn Stina to your analysis. It helped to really solidify your suggestion that the poem raises questions about changing the status quo. I had not seen this parallel. This example did a good job of illustrating the universality of the situation in the poem and how it can be seen in other literature. It is interesting that he questions his neighbor but continues to mend the wall anyway.
I think Rebecca's comment about the mental/symbolic meaning of walls in the relationship of the two men is very insightful. I had not extrapolated that far either, so I do find agreement with your discussion of civilized societies versus less developed villages. The more 'civilized' we get, the more we want to separate ourselves into small little private areas where we can control how far outsiders can come.
Good contemplation of the universal dimensions of the poem, Trevor!
Post a Comment