Prac Crit on Frost's "Mending Wall"

Robert Frost as a poet writes on two levels of understanding- the literal level and the metaphorical level. Here, the main focus of his essay is to question why there is a wall between him and his neighbour, who lives “beyond the hill”, with the theme being on breaking down barriers, which is expressed both literally and metaphorically. On a literal level, he wonders about the significance and effects of a physical obstruction between him and his neighbour, and questions the need to maintain such a obstacle. On the metaphorical level however, the wall is representative of both a social barrier between humans, as well as representing a division between both the individual as a human, and nature in general, together with the implication of the need for such a clear distinction. Firstly, we shall analyse this on a literal level before discussing the metaphorical.
The title “Mending Wall”, when read in conjunction with the rest of the poem, implies that the wall is a obstruction preventing him from communicating well with his neighbour, and thus slowly segregating himself and destroying the relationship on a literal level. The symbolism of a wall here being a clear boundary or marker for an area, as well as affording protection from any unknown hostile intruders serves to reinforce this interpretation. At the same time, however, we note that this annual process of “Mending Wall” is the only time where he is able to meet his neighbour and share his emotions with him. Already the fact that he questions his neighbour “what [he] was walling in or walling out” establishes an emotional connection between the two humans, and the communication of emotions between them. Therefore, the process of “Mending Wall” could also be used to describe the mending of relationships between both of them, thus, the contrast between the two meanings of the title relate to the contrast between both the metaphorical and the literal level.
On the literal level, there is “Something… that doesn’t love a wall/ That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it/ And spills the upper boulder in the sun”, which describes an unknown presence which actually attempts to physically destroy the barrier between the two men by slowly weakening the wall stone by stone, and whom the speaker perceives as hostile in nature. An interesting implication about the unknown entity here is the fact that it uses elemental forces of nature to aid it in the destruction of the wall, both the “frozen-ground-swell” as well as the implication of the sun, another symbol of nature and life, giving it strength to “spill the upper boulder” of the wall. There is also a sense of anonymity in the identity of the entity destroying the wall, leading us to believe that the “something” could be a mysterious, supernatural force which the speaker, and humanity in general, is unable to oppose, which leads on to the fact that it could be fundamentally an abstract concept which exists in opposition to humanity, and thus is wearing down the wall of human differences in that sense. Frost even states here that the “work of hunters is another thing”; this entity exists as a higher power which does not want the wall up. Therefore, the personification of the “something” in the poem, as well as the fact that “no one has seen [the gaps] made or heard them made”, evokes primal fear in humans of the unknown, a concept we are able to link up with the notion of the neighbour being an “old stone savage”. Thus, from line one to line ten, we are able to see that the enemy without is supernatural and even magical in nature, and is not even a manifestation of the arbitrary passions or lusts (or even evil) of man, as symbolized by the hunters (who ravage the wall entirely, leaving “not one stone on a stone”) but natural forces, which seem to turn the very land against the speaker and his neighbour. To enhance this, Frost uses imagery and personification with the phrases “love”, “sends” “spills” and “makes gaps” from lines 1-4 to vividly describe the degradation of the wall, as well as to create a very realistic visual image for the audience. It is important to note that on a literal level the wall is also being destroyed by nature, by small animals and frost, and other elements, which hints to us that a wall is unnatural, and therefore, not able to exist and complement nature. This, in addition to the fact that the gaps are so big that “two can pass abreast”, could mean that nature wishes both the speaker and his neighbour to co-exist harmoniously and relate to each other more often.
Therefore, from line eleven onwards, we see the speaker’s need to make constant reparations to the wall, where he has to “walk the line” at “spring mending-time”, something which he does only annually. However, it is unclear whether this need stems from the intimate knowledge the speaker possesses of the neighbour’s habits and eventual need on his side to repair the wall, or whether it arises from his own unconscious desire to have a wall between them. This is justified by every human’s need to have his or her own personal space. As ironic as it seems, Frost’s only chance to relate emotionally to the neighbour is during this period, where they rebuild the wall between them, which symbolizes, on another level, the rebuilding of personal barriers to prevent one person from becoming too emotionally attached to the other. Strangely, the neighbour does not feel the same urgent need to rebuild the wall, and it is always the speaker who has to “let [his] neighbour know”, rather than the neighbour taking the initiative to invite the speaker to rebuild the wall. Thus, we are forced to question who really needs the wall, if the neighbour seems to be so disinterested in the rebuilding of a physical boundary between him and the speaker. In addition to that, spring is the time for rebirth, renewal and regeneration, and rebuilding the wall at this time of the year hints at the speaker’s urge to grow closer and connect emotionally to his neighbour, as well as to provide an overall light and nonchalant atmosphere within the poem, almost as if the neighbour would not care if the wall was up or not. The speaker’s exclamation of “Spring is the mischief in me”, and his casual admonishment of “Stay where you are until our backs are turned!” only serve to reinforce this mood. To the speaker, the rebuilding of the wall is “just another kind of outdoor game,/One on a side. It comes to little more”, and we see that the portrayal of the rebuilding of the wall as a game is effective in showing that the friendship between the speaker and his neighbour is strengthened whenever they come to play this “game”.
Therefore, by looking at the reparation of the wall as the mending of friendships, we could interpret the fallen stones, the “boulders that have fallen to each [person]/”, some which are “loaves, and some so nearly balls” as the faults or mistakes of both the speaker and his neighbour, which have led to arguments and the weakening of their friendship, which is represented by the weakening of the wall. Replacing them on the wall thus signifies the speaker resolving disputes and making up with his neighbour, and thus the faults, those “boulders that have fallen to each”, are now forgiven and replaced on the wall of friendship. On the other hand, the wall does denote a sort of physical boundary between both of them, and their property represents their respective personal space. The neighbour’s repeated quote of “Good fences make good neighbours” is a repeated cliché on his part to justify why the wall should be repaired, and it is, to him, an important matter, and should be treated with the utmost seriousness. This is in stark contrast to the speaker who is jovial in nature, and looks upon the rebuilding of wall as simply a game, “nothing more”. He therefore visualises the neighbour as being “an old-stone savage armed”, someone highly conservative in nature, and probably backward in the times, and provides a grimly comical view of him repairing the wall, befitting the situation and making light of the issue. It also begs the questions of whether the neighbour is “old” in terms of age or attitude, and reflects Man’s primal origins, where he lived as a caveman who “move[d] in darkness… Not of woods only and the shade of trees”. There is also an implication that his neighbour moves in the darkness of his own ignorance, and is therefore trapped in the past, set in his ways, and unable to change his own views.
The differences between the two men are very great, and even the fruits here can be seen to represent them. The speaker’s “apple orchard” symbolises someone who is warm, sweet, as an apple, while the neighbour is “all pine”, prickly, cold, unyielding. The poem therefore describes the two men very differently; the speaker provides the thoughtful, philosophical view, while the neighbour stubbornly sticks to his thoughtless, meaningless cliché, by repeating his view of “Good fences make good neighbours”, something which has held true to him for a long time, being “his father’s saying”, and which he believes will hold true for ages to come. “Mending Wall”, therefore, reflects that humans will always be different, and will always possess a certain personal private spot, no matter how close friends they might be, and thus do we wall in our own secrets, hidden in the “darkness” of what we do not want others to see. Frost therefore is able to use irony, in both the title and the neighbour’s repetition of “Good fences make good neighbours” to mean both the fact that the speaker and his neighbour need to be closer to each other, and the fact that they both need their privacy, which is the reason for the wall. It is only the speaker’s introspection and thought which help to convince us of this fact, and ultimately the poem’s symbolic representation of barriers and the stanzaic structure and free verse used, which imitate a wall in itself, convey the messages effectively in a tone which is not too critical of humanity.

1729 words