Critiquing Robert Frost, Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening Options

[Mary Boren]

Great responses, everybody. I'd say we've fairly thoroughly dissected it from every direction, wouldn't you?

Thanks for the graphic, Lori. Like Merlin, I'm a little confused about photo uploads. In Firefox, mine shows as a thumbnail, but in MSIE it only shows as a link. Yours shows as a full-size pic within the message pane. 'Splain that, if you will.

Interesting observations, Merlin. I agree with you about creating meaning where none may be intended, and I see that as the beauty of poetry. It's like the bible, which I am learning to interpret metaphysically, not literally. There are passages that I've been exposed to all my life, and no two times have they said exactly the same thing to me. Depends on where I am on the journey. I think a poet can stumble into writing something profound that he didn't even know he knew, and never even know he did it. (Or she.) If I should be so lucky as to ever write a few lines that could impact lots of folks in different ways across time, I'd be in hog heaven.

Golly, Ron, I hope you didn't seriously think I was expressing a lack of appreciation for the simple elegance of Mr. Frost's poem. It is a true classic.

My quest has been for over 5 years now to foster appreciation for the bards and the poetic practices of yore.

And we share at least half of that vision. Yay for all areas of agreement. The poetic practices of yore were hunky-dory for their day, but I wouldn't advocate adhering to them in this century any more than I would dress in Renaissance clothing on a weekday. Nothing wrong with history -- the SCA does a fine (and fun) job of honoring an era -- but where do you draw the line with your proposal? Ever tried to read Chaucer?

Maybe change should come only with improvement!

Ah, but change does come, regardless of opposition to it. Language is alive and constantly evolving. Who decides what constitutes improvement? Do I think Frost's poem would be better based on my critique? No. It has already earned its appropriate place in history and in the hearts of the public, and there's no room whatsoever for improvement there.

It was a fun exercise, guaranteed not to offend or discourage the poet.

Thanks again.

Mary

[AMETHYST]

My interpretation is split in 3 separate types of interpretations - each from a different point in my life ...

The first, early on when I first read this and fell in love with it and it's mezmerizing depth -

I imagined the narrator as Santa Clause; taking this implication through certain word choices that Robert made, like 'queer' - 'harness bells a shake' - 'the darkest evening of the year' and that he has promises to keep, and miles to go before he sleeps. The repeat of this final line expresses that there is a very long and weary task ahead... I believed that Robert Frost was writing about a momentary rest in his evenings travels to go from house to house, farmhouse to farmhouse - but had to stop in the loveliness of the woods. Also, L3, makes me feel that 'he should not be seen' that he felt safe to know that no one would see him during his moment of peaceful retrospect. The idea of the horse (he only refers to one horse) as finding it odd (queer) or strange to make a stop where there is no house to lure him to or no farmhouse, if it was in the Christmas spirit, then this makes good sense. As well as the ending ...'promises to keep' and miles to go before I sleep' ...

As I read this in a more mature insightful way, I think of the narrator as a man making his way through his life, and makes his way through these untainted woods. The narrator is saddened by the idea that the owner of these woods is not there to see this sight of the glistening lake, the flurrying snow drifting along the wings of the wind and the silence, only disrupted by the cruching of snow beneath the horses hooves. The horse, his lone companion, seems to me to be his dearest friend - he relates his expressions and understands that this is out of the norm for the narrator to stop and rest in a place so desolate. There is an implication of death here, a tiredness and yet, the narrator feels he has much depending on him and this keeps him going onward, knowing that there is still much to do in his life before he takes his final rest.


As I read my own interpretations I have a funny feeling that there is more validity in the Christmas/Santa Clause impressions than I originally gave credit to.

Hugs, Liz

[jgdittier]

Dear Nada and All,
I expect this episode has run its course and what I write here may never be read by anyone!
Nonetheless, I must make this effort to indicate my appreciation for all who latched on to Frost's most popular verse, initiated by Nada.
My quest is to promote the appreciation for the poets and poetry of yore.
In that language has changed over the years and poetry with it, for me does not justify our apparent willingness to venerate what once was.
Nada has made it abundently clear how much emphasis has been placed on the modern style which I believe is at the expense of our glorious poetic heritage. It seems to me that all the forces in poetry have focussed so thoroughly on the modern style with all its new encumbrances now imposed on the style of yore, that we'll lose that heritage.
Read Longfellow's "The Day Is Done", with all its modern-day no-nos
and ask does it still justify being held in high esteem and taught in our
educational facilities? How, who, why, have we focussed on so many ways to criticize the style of yore?
That's my thought.
I greatly thank Nada as she has brought to light a gem from our past and
made us think how much it can be criticized now, less than 100 years since it was written. Are Mozart and Beethoven next?
Cheers, Ron jgd

[Alan]

Dear Ron,

Anyone here, and I never read it !

As with styles of poetry, there are opinions on styles of poetry.

I simply cannot read some of the "greats" - although I can have them read to me.

Their language is archaic and quite often obscure, and they reference a body of knowledge (the "classics") which I simply do not know enough about. And further, am not willing to put in the time learning about to get the references. I had to do some of that at school, isthmus of Darien etc, and certainly then did not appreciate the "waste" of time, ie got far too little out of the exercise.

Now, having fallen into writing poetry in 1993, when I was 51 or so, I am more able to enjoy a few selected old-style poets, Blake, Frost, Vernon Scannell (whom I knew slightly).

In them thar days they also had to pad - reciting poetry was a popular self-entertainment activity, and shost succint pieces were simply not wanted. You may know I attempt to write that precise way myself, I try to bring clarity, rather than to display cleverness and obscurity.

Hence Frost and Blake !

But Wordsworth (how much a ream ?) or Keats ? Now Shakespeare I can live with, because he too was writing for clarity !

Just some of my ramblings, offering a personal, and probably opposed view to yours. Thanks for making me think !

Love
Alan

[jgdittier]

Dear Alan,
I fully understand your position and in fact, agree with much of it.
My mumblings have, I believe, never been fully understood, as I.ve not gone into enough detail of provided examples.
Here at MM there are still a core of R&Mer. However, the requirements of modern R&M differ significantly from those of yore.
The poet of yore in order to expedite his writing, allowed himself some freedoms that now are scoffed at. He might use a significant word twice in a stanza, might invert a verb whilst retaining clarity, might elide a word or piar to maintain the beat, might prefer end rhyme stops over enjambment to support the flow, might attempt a rollicking cadence rather than reading monotone, might use many the-s and of-s as in "The Day Is Done"
rather than aim for terseness, might use filler words in maintaining the
cadence, might allow for the reader to assume what a pronoun might represent rather than feel obligated to build from the ground up with perfect clarity, might accept a word less specific to the case assuming the reader could properly interpret it, might use biblical pronouns solely for rhyming purposes, might put more effort into his poem and less to find a hook for the title, etc.
As I read critiques of R&M poetry written here at MM, I constantly wonder why all these constraints. An inverted verb is treated as if it deserved capital punishment even though the meaning is clear. Furthermore, if it were used to form a rhyme, it would be criticized as being rhyme-driven, just another constraint now placed upon the brow of R&Mers.
Why has the modern style demeaned all the ploys once used in our past, when poetry was memorable, and at the same time adopted a new style without any restrictions?
Please do read "The Day Is Done". Rate it against modern practices.
I suspect we have much in common. It's just that we're never exposed to
the thoughts above.
I hope to hear your further thoughts.
Cheers, ron

[Alan]

Dear Ron,

The main reason I think that inversions and Biblical pronouns are jumped on is because they stick out like sore thumbs, and drag attention onto the mechanics of the words and sentences, thus reducing the impact of the essence, the communication.

One can of course write a whole piece deliberately with such mannerisms, which works because there nothing stands out - compared to what is around it.

Ditto with a word repeated too soon - one is immersed into the communication, then suffers a slap in the face as one is jolted back to the mechanicals. Or course, deliberate use and re-use to pound a word home for effect also negates the general rule of what I say.

Use a word 2x in short order, and it is an error - use it 3 x or 4x, and that is "for effect" !

Love
Alan

[Alan]

Dear Ron,

I have crited 8 lines of that poem, mostly by using adverbs to replace too many "the", thus adding either alliteration, extra meaning, or perhaps both. In no way do I claim mine is better than his, but it is different.

I have to confess that on rereading just now, must of what I disliked in the original is now gone. He is perhaps a prime example of writing for endless recitation ?

OUR day is done, A DRAB darkness
Falls from the wings of Night,
As a feather is wafted downward
From an eagle in his flight.

I see WAN lights of A village
Gleam through the rain and the mist,
A feeling of sadness OVERcomes me
That my soul cannot resist:

I have just counted HWL's sylls per line, they are all over the place - 6, 10, 7, 8 etc. I never saw this before, and have to confess I do NOT rate the poem, even if the content/message has merit.

As a matter of curiosity, what do you think of my crit lines ?

Love
Alan

[Cleo_Serapis]

This is an enjoyable diversion, before I get myself psyched up (yeah, that's it ) to clean the house now.

I have not read many of the poets you mention Ron, and cannot for the life of me understand Shakespeare - all those doths, thees, wherefortoo's etc. get me wacked. One needs a dictionary from those centuries to figure it out, LOL! Oh where art thou, ye diction, lest thee wrap thy fingers and grasp thy language around thee?

Ah well, one must always remember, to each his own (that goes for opinions and critters, thankfully, we all have unique perspectives, else literary works would be a bore!

Cheers
~Cleo

[jgdittier]

Dear Alan,
I'm addicted to discussions re poetry and so I hope you've the time to read all that probably will follow!
I response to your comments re inversions and Biblical pronouns, it probably is true that they stick out like sore thumbs when immersed in a poem of the modern style.
What about all those other new no-no-s that I cited? In the modern style I believe all stick out similarly and that means that the style of yore is no longer appreciated.
It is my fear that that the modern urge to put constraints on R&M will destroy it.
The repeat of a word in the same vicinity I believe is another no-no that needen't be. I've written some accentual verse where in order to achieve the musical (some call it sing-song) element I have tried to make all the unaccentuated syllables ones and the accentuated ones, fours. Thus, I've actually deleted adjectives to be replaced with "the".
If you've ever attended a horse race with pari-mutual betting, you'll see that every betting possibility is covered with someone's bet. Thus we know that diversity reigns.
I believe it reigns also in poetry except that these no-no rules are accepted almost totally. I liken it to the hand that holds the fork when eating. In one part of the world it's different from the other, then again, some use chopsticks. If the no-no-s of poetry are currently accepted worldwide, then I'll resort to the temporal thought.
I am most different from the style of the times in that I care much more about the structure of verse than the message it carries. Perhaps that's the rub!
Poetry now places all the importance on message.
It therefore interests me that in adopting the no-no-s the message advocate pays so much attention to form. Then there's me and my love of "The Day Is Done".
Here I'm responding greatly to the message, but as I assume it's in accentual verse,
I see it as beautifully simple and direct and musical as I read it.
For me, the 24 "the"-s and 15 "and"-s add to the glorious simplicity of the piece. Note line 14, which I believe tells the reader he's deliberately appealing to our
most basic emotions, devoid of anything fancy.
As to our crit lines, it would be unfair of me to crit them in that I'm so taken by Longfellow. I'm speculating though, that had I never read the "DID", I'd find too little music in your version. I don't make terseness a goal in the verse I write or the poetry I read.
Alan, you and I are far apart in our views in this field, but if this field were a horse track, our having placed different wagers would make neither of us less fans of racing.
Perhaps it all comes down to whether there is a difference between verse and poetry!
Nada Lott has just brightened this forum with thoughts about Frost's "Stopping..."
Would someone here like to critique "DID" or even better, rewrite it to modern standards?
Cheers, Ron jgd

[Alan]

Dear Alan,
I'm addicted to discussions re poetry and so I hope you've the time to read all that probably will follow!
I response to your comments re inversions and Biblical pronouns, it probably is true that they stick out like sore thumbs when immersed in a poem of the modern style.
What about all those other new no-no-s that I cited? In the modern style I believe all stick out similarly and that means that the style of yore is no longer appreciated.

-- I used those 2 as examples - but nowhere would I claim that ALL old-style is wrong. Apart from most of what I know is called slam poetry, there are no wrongs ! As long as the mechanics lead the reader towards the essence of the communication, which is the definition of "art" (Precisely it is : Art is the quality of communication) then the issuer of that comunication will have achieved his objective.

It is my fear that that the modern urge to put constraints on R&M will destroy it.
The repeat of a word in the same vicinity I believe is another no-no that needen't be. I've written some accentual verse where in order to achieve the musical (some call it sing-song) element I have tried to make all the unaccentuated syllables ones and the accentuated ones, fours. Thus, I've actually deleted adjectives to be replaced with "the".

-- Ron, you are indeed a dedicated experimenter, and I thank you for that. Though it is not my path. I write what I feel, and then attempt to give it some form (or indeed LACK of form), to impinge on my reader. I have written old-style, lots in "voices" such as hick or cockney, or agricultural oik, but in all cases my aim is getting the communication across. I have an American lady friend poet who is a lovely girl, but if I try and read anything of hers, I go scatty - I once re-positioned her line breaks to flow with the sense, at which point I could accept her message, and even she said she liked it, but I see it has had no impingement on her style, so I have just stopped reading her stuff. If one is constantly having to watch for meaning-breaks which usually do NOT coincide with line ends, one is again stuck in the mechanics, rather than allowing the communications to flow. I am aware of enjambment of course, which makaes a nice break with breaks, if well done !

If you've ever attended a horse race with pari-mutual betting, you'll see that every betting possibility is covered with someone's bet. Thus we know that diversity reigns.
I believe it reigns also in poetry except that these no-no rules are accepted almost totally. I liken it to the hand that holds the fork when eating. In one part of the world it's different from the other, then again, some use chopsticks. If the no-no-s of poetry are currently accepted worldwide, then I'll resort to the temporal thought.

-- In the Philippines my wife took me to some friends, who were I later learned ashamed to be eating with their fingers in front of a westerner - Ha, I thought of taking them to any one of 1,000,,001 McDonalds all over the west, where the fork is non-existant. Re poetry, my only rule - did the meaning get across. I like that def of poetry - the best words, in their best order. All the rest is rules and violations of rules, and I really don't give a "Gone with the Wind" !

I am most different from the style of the times in that I care much more about the structure of verse than the message it carries. Perhaps that's the rub!

-- Aha, there is the give-away - we are diametrically opposite ! Not that either of us is more. or less, valid. IF I am writing a FORM, THEN I care about tthe rules of that form, otherwise not. The fact that pedants (the Poetry Police) are as active here as in political "correctness" is another matter, that seems to be human nature : I KNOW what MY faults are, so I'm going to make DAMN SURE you don't suffer from them.

On UK blogs a new word was invented recently for the officious types, politicians and bureaucrats who get off on constant meddling : Bansturbators. We got 'em in poetry too, though I hasten to add, NONE amongst the august company we keep on MM !

Poetry now places all the importance on message.
It therefore interests me that in adopting the no-no-s the message advocate pays so much attention to form. Then there's me and my love of "The Day Is Done".
Here I'm responding greatly to the message, but as I assume it's in accentual verse,
I see it as beautifully simple and direct and musical as I read it.
For me, the 24 "the"-s and 15 "and"-s add to the glorious simplicity of the piece. Note line 14, which I believe tells the reader he's deliberately appealing to our
most basic emotions, devoid of anything fancy.
As to our crit lines, it would be unfair of me to crit them in that I'm so taken by Longfellow. I'm speculating though, that had I never read the "DID", I'd find too little music in your version. I don't make terseness a goal in the verse I write or the poetry I read.
Alan, you and I are far apart in our views in this field, but if this field were a horse track, our having placed different wagers would make neither of us less fans of racing.
Perhaps it all comes down to whether there is a difference between verse and poetry!

-- Off the top of my head, I'd say verse plods and poetry sings ?

Nada Lott has just brightened this forum with thoughts about Frost's "Stopping..."
Would someone here like to critique "DID" or even better, rewrite it to modern standards?
Cheers, Ron jgd

Love
Alan

PS ... and finally, how the hell do others put those lovely boxes around the quoted text ?

[Guest_Don_*]

Dear jgd, et al,

I also have a nagging feeling that the extra load being added to modern R&Mers is intended to kill R&M. I seriously doubt the success of this attack. Interests swing and sway, and a each style or two will probably survive in someones heart.

First line in RF's Stopping is an inversion to be avoided in the modern scheme, but works perfectly well doesn't it? Since my poetry exposure is primarily the democratic Internet, flaws and rotten habits probably abound. It is akin to teaching myself golf. So many bad habits are ingrained that becoming good is beyond consideration.

I prefer R&M simply because all my working lifes' philosophy has been to learn how to do the difficult to make the easy easier. I also believe many poems should be judged on their form rather than meaning(s), which is more difficult to achieve with FV.

We may debate personal differences forever, but the bottom line is I appreciate your views and skills despite my inability to match and checkmate.

Don

[Alan]

Dear Don,

I must protest at your sour view of your own abilities ! What is wrong with "self-taught" ? I was taught poetry at school, which lead straight to 34 years of absolutely NO interest in the subject. So I too am self-taught, and proud of it. I was lucky to find my voice, and have benefitted greatly from the change from grumpy mutterer on the side-lines to slightly less grumpy poet in the main stream !

I think you are right about R & M - of course it will survive. The cadences and rhymes are one of the main attributes of a communication and helping it to get across effectively.

Love
Alan

[Guest_Don_*]

Oops, I did not intend sour. I've mapped the limits of my flat earth and know that monsters reside beyond. Being self-taught is only sometimes bad. Other than becoming a mediocre golfer, I taught myself morse code and in the process acquired sufficent bad habits to bar me from high speed communication. Since then, I automatically assume some detrimental habits are formed by self-teaching. In the case of poetry, mine is almost one-hundred percent self-taught and I am extremely happy with the result todate. Actually, my teachers are a variety of proficient people on the Internet. I also like the availability of the classics on the Web.

No doubt in my mind that academic instruction can be more detrimental than forming one's own views. Think, think, think and try, try, try.

I am extremely glad you have converted from a grumpy side-liner. I thoroughly enjoy your inputs and ninety-nne percent of your poetry. Sometimes the ball comes across the plate too fast for my old eyes to follow. Chances are my eye was on a cheerleader at the time.

Don

[jgdittier]

Dear All,
It looks to me that this thread has been one of the most successful I've experienced in my time on the net.
We've exchanged our views, explored the limits, stayed friends.
I think verse/poetry has benefitted.
Cheers, Ron jgd

[Alan]

Dear Don & Ron,

(Reminds me of a song ....)

Obviously sour was the wrong word, but I did not want to let lie what I thought was self-abasement !

I'm very pleased you like 99 % of my stuff, I was about to erupt and complain about the other 1 % when I got to your remark about the cheerleader - I can happily admit that ANY cheerleader would be easier on the eye than me !

I do enjoy your efforts as well, tho for my taste not every work benefits from centered text !

Ron, this has been good, though I wonder where many other voices were ? Did the holidays get in their way when accessing time for MM ?

Love
Alan

[Guest_Don_*]

Dear Alan,

You have me confused with someone symetrical. I seldom center text.

Turn your head away from the cheerleaders.

Hopefully you are correct that the holidays have diminished additional fruit from MM tree.

Don

[Merlin]

Here you will find Henry Austin Dobson and his thoughts on poetry. He lived 1840 to 1921.

If you really wish to delve deep – go to this site, there’s no end. CLICK – RPO. A lot of reading material, more than the holidays can handle.

Merlin

[jgdittier]

Dear Merlin and All,
I've read Dobson (at your suggestion) and found a goldmine of poetic thought in the other link. Thank you for hours of happy hunting!
Although our styles differ, I believe we have almost equal interest in the poetic
world. I'm eager to read your book as I believe you'll be fair in your assessments and accurate in your interpretations.
Cheers, Ron jgd

[Mary Boren]

I'm sorry, gentlemen, I didn't realize the discussion was still going on here. It will take me a while to absorb all the reading, but on first scan I'm extremely gratified that my little experiment led to such thoughtful responses.

Mary