Background to Poem Essay Example For Students

Background to Poem Essay Mending Wall is part of Robert Frosts second anthology of poems entitled North of Boston published in 1914 Having been a farmer, Frost is heavily influenced by nature, resulting in the natural settings and imagery used in many of his poems like the Wood Pile, After Apple Picking and Mending Wall On the surface, Mending Wall appears to be a poem where the speaker contemplates why he and his neighbour have to rebuild the wall demarcating their respective farmlands each spring. However, on a deeper level, the poem is less about the physical separation of the wall and more about the divergences in the modes of thought of two individuals and how the speaker tries to reconcile the mental differences that exist between him and his neighbour Structure of Commentary Given the use of enjambment and blank verse in Mending Wall, I shall adopt a linear analysis of the poem in order to trace the evolving mindset of the speaker as the poem progresses. However, I shall be focusing on three main points in this analysis: The portrayal of the speaker and his neighbour in the poem (1) The creation and use of irony (2) The changing meaning of the wall (3) General Observations The poem can be seen to be divided into two portions, each ending with the neighbours unchanging apothegm: Good fences make good neighbours. Each portion contains its own unique significance to the subject matter of the poem. From lines 1 to 26, the speaker presents his argument against the absurdity of building the wall, to which his neighbour rebuts his stoic addage. From lines 28 to 42, the speaker develops a contentiousness against his neighbour, elucidating the personal differences that exist between them, ironically revealing the need for both characters to reconcile and mend fences, or in this case, the wall. As the poem progresses, there is increasing tension between the speaker and his neighbour as the speaker becomes increasingly aware of the differences in mindset between them. It is the speakers very own contention against the unpragmatic existence of the wall that places him in opposition to his conservative neighbour, ironically confining the speaker himself inside of his own beliefs, rendering him just as inflexible and unchanging as his old stone savage neighbour. By the end of the poem, the wall has become a symbol for the barrier between human contact and understanding. It is erected by all that is primitive, fearful, irrational and hostile (i.e. The neighbour) and is opposed by a higher, more progressive something (i.e. The speaker, and arguably Frost himself) who have become allegorical figures representing opposing views of freedom and confinement, reason and rigidity, tolerance and violence, civilisation and savagery. Lines 0-4 The title of the poem is significant as it creates an arresting image in the mind of the reader of two men mending the wall. Immediately this contextualises the literal subject matter of the poem, aiding understanding on the readers part as the poem develops In the first four lines of the poem, Frost reveals the speaker to be of a causal, light-hearted sort. Although there is a sense of whimsy and mystery about that something that doesnt love a wall, the speaker introduces no complex subjects for the reader to consider. However, through his language and the rhythm of the lines, readers sense the underlying conflict in this poem From these few lines, readers also gain an idea of the speakers character. His discursive indirection, portrayed through the combination of the indefinite pronoun Something and the loose expletive construction there is, the speaker evokes a sense of ruminative vagueness and ambiguity even before the curious subject of walls is introduced. The use of informal, convoluted language provides a linguistic texture for the dramatic conflict, between the mindsets of the speaker and his neighbour, that develops later in the poem. The employment of anastrophe (inversion of grammatical syntax) serves to introduce the speaker as an unorthodox character with an unorthodox mindset (1) The speakers lively imagination is revealed (1) through his diction in describing the destruction of the wall. Something That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it And spills the upper boulder in the sun, And make gaps even two can pass abreast The speaker anthropomorphizes this mysterious, seemingly intelligent force that wrecks the wall from year to year. The three active verbs used in lines 2 to 4 (sendsspillsmake), create a sense of dynamism in the destruction of the wall, calling into question the need for the wall at all if nature herself opposes its existence. Frosts diction in line 2, frozen-ground-swell, seems to imply that winters frost is what undermines the stability of the wall. The concealed pun indicates that Frost himself is against the existence of walls. Lines 5-11 The work of hunters is another thing: The speaker digresses from his preoccupation with the mysterious force that doesnt love a wall into a discussion about hunters who actively tear down the wall in search of rabbits and the rebuilding that follows after, I have come after them and made repair where they have left not one stone on a stone. Again the speakers whimsy and casualness is shown (1) in yet another inversion of syntax (have left not, instead of have not left). The indulgently convoluted style of the speaker evinces his unorthodox character and unrestrained imagination. The speakers mention that the hunters would have the rabbit out of hiding, contains connotations of the exposure of vulnerabilities. The rabbit appears so defenseless against marauding hunters and dog, causing the reader to reconsider the necessity of the wall as it protects our vulnerable aspects from external forces. At this point, the speaker seems to be challenging the implications in his earlier statement, Something there is that doesnt love a wall, and his opposition towards the existence of the wall, showing presence of progressive thought in the speakers mind. 'Porphyria's Lover' and 'My Last Duchess' Essay Ironically, by attacking his neighbours lack of open-mindedness and social interaction, the speaker shows himself to be anti-social, pessimistic and morally-presumptuous. (2)Assuming the worse of his neighbour despite the latters express desire in being good neighbours. The initial irony in the speakers initiation of the spring mending-time, that showed him to be truly progressive and open-minded, unrestricted by his personal convictions, is negated and replaced with a different irony: by criticising his neighbour for taking part in an activity which he initiated, the speaker shows himself to be unfair and even hypocritical. (1) The irony also serves to heighten the undefined tension that exists between the speaker and his neighbour, reaching its climax when the neighbour utters, Good fences make good neighbours, a forceful line to which the speaker has no rebuttal. Frost presents the differences that exists between the two men even through the way they speak. The speaker, is wont to speak in an indulgently convoluted manner, fraught with syntax inversions, digressions and changes in rhythm while his neighbour is seen to be direct, simple and consistent in his speech (1), standing in salient opposition to the speakers rambling argument. Moreover, it is interesting to analyse how the respective aphorisms of the speaker and his neighbour differ. The speakers adage: Something there is that doesnt love a wall, sharply contrasts with the neighbours: Good fences make good neighbours. The speakers use of the word wall evokes a sense of fortification and fear while the neighbours use of the word fence connotes a less threatening image of the division that lies between the two men. The diction employed by the neighbour shows that he sees no sinister implications in the construction of the wall, and therefore does not question its necessity or desirability. The speaker on the other hand, through his criticisms of the wall and his neighbour, exposes his misjudgment as he reads too deeply into the implications of the wall, and only in his imagination does it start to take offense. In this first section of the poem, Frost presents to the reader the quizzical nature of the wall: Is it necessary/unnecessary? Is it desirable/undesirable? Is it threatening/non-descript? However, he does answer any of these questions, nor does he moralise the wall or the characters. He simply demonstrates a case in point, when a person reads too deeply into something, he ends up creating divisions between himself and others, possibly the reason for Frost depicting the speaker as the initiator of the wall, just as he is the initiator of the tension and division between the two men. Lines 28-35 The poem comes full circle when the speaker mentions, Spring is the mischief in me, referencing that mischevious force in the first line that doesnt love a wall. Again, he preoccupies himself with a thought that is to consume him. This time, he ponders over how he can challenge his neighbours point that Good fences make good neighbours. His need to attack his neighbours beliefs creates a barrier between the two, preventing either of them from understanding each other, giving new meaning to the idea of a wall (3). The speaker wonders, If I could put a notion in his head, and attempts to use reason to get his neighbour to question his own beliefsWhy do they make good neighbours? Isnt it where there are cows? But there are no cowsbut is ultimately incapable of challenging his neighbours adage. The theme of parallelism is shown here again, What I was walling in or walling out, indicating again that the speaker and his neighbour are on parallel paths, never to meet each other in consensus. This brings to mind the speakers earlier words, We keep the wall between us as we go (ll. 15) The wall continues to take on its metaphorical meaning of a barrier between two individuals as tension builds up between the two characters in the poem. The speaker becomes more contentious towards his neighbour saying, I could say Elves to him, but its not elves exactly, and Id rather he said it for himself. The speaker implies that his neighbour is stupid, thinking that he would be foolish enough to think that Elves were responsible for the walls destruction. While some readings interpret this as an example of the neighbours backwardness and old-stone savage as he is unable to appreciate the whimsy and light-heartedness of the notion, but it could simply be that the neighbour isnt curious about the reason behind the walls disrepair, and the speaker is simply addressing an uninterested audience. (check validity) Lines 37-43 In the concluding lines of the poem, the speaker finally decides to drop the issue about Something there is that doesnt love a wall, and focuses instead on his neighbour, presenting a vivid and imaginative caricature of him as a old-stone savage that moves in darkness. In doing so, the speaker frees himself from being confined to his pessimistic criticism and returns to his original role as a mere observer, leaving the poem inconclusive and the questions raised in the poem unanswered. The repetition of Good fences made good neighbours shows the perpetuity of the differences between the speaker and his neighbour, who, at this point, have become allegorical representations of diametrically opposed views and ideas, destined to be parallel with each other, never to coincide.