Thank you again to all new subscribers! Please keep recommending this free space with swerving subject matter.
I love Robert Frost. Not because he’s warm, cuddly, and treasures natural environments, but largely for the opposite—he possesses a bit of a mean streak and enjoyed, on occasion, really “getting one over” on his readers. Sly dog. He knew our flaws, the times we most needed a boost, and most of all, he knew that when it comes to story structure, Americans prize endings above all. “The ending” is the god of our story arcs. How many times have you heard, “I was really enjoying the movie, but the ending just made no sense.” Or how about our recent obsession with finales?
Thus, “The Road Not Taken.” You all know what I’m talking about. You’ve heard the final two lines endlessly quoted for inspiration, framed or displayed on walls as a “successory,” and if you walked the streets asking any passerby to name one American poet and poem, this would surely be in the top, if not the peak itself.
As a teacher, I have taught this poem countless times, with my pedagogy, over time, approaching that of boot-camp drills. Robert Frost knew readers didn’t care about middles, about the journey (that extra-special Frost dagger of irony, given the poem’s subject), and yet there the truth sits, exactly in the middle of the poem, written as plain as a road sign:
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Eight lines precede the four lines above. Eight lines follow. And these four lines may as well have been 20 centuries ago by the time readers arrive at the breathless lightning bolt of a conclusion, “I took the one less traveled by, / and that has made all the difference.” Even the three lines before these final two, as if Frost were giving us one last shot at redemption, read, “I shall be telling this with a sigh / somewhere ages and ages hence: / Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—.” The man may has well have been waving a massive flag, with the speaker using the pronoun “I” twice in succession, as if lifting himself to a heavenly podium.
I confess to admiring the deviousness here, the boldness of the game—like that of a trickster figure—to get his readers to perform in a mere 20 lines the very action he criticizes: looking back over one’s life and lending great importance and embellishment to that which, in the moment (or middle), was rather unremarkable. And not only that (this wouldn’t be enough for Mr. Frost), but to get readers to perform it again and again to the point where two versions of the same poem may as well be on Mount Olympus—the misread poem of inspiration, and the poem with the forgotten journey at its middle, where the paths “equally lay” and there is no road less traveled by.
Oh man, Robert Frost, you are tricky—I imagine him taking great pleasure in this. And if you think this is the only example of Frost the Trickster, think again. Let’s take another famous poem (the man did win the Pulitzer Prize four times after all), “Mending Wall.”
Oh Mr. Frost, I see what you are up to! The speaker says, “Before I built a wall I’d ask to know / What I was walling in or out, / and to whom I was like to give offense.” (What a pun on “to give offense”! Frost is slippery!). But here’s the thing, the speaker is literally building a wall during the poem, with his neighbor, the person he says he would ask these questions. Yet, he does not ask, even in performing the very action during which he says he would. He just builds. He accepts the wall. He will rebuild it again next year and not ask these questions he says that are important. He wants the neighbor to figure this out for himself; the speaker stays mute in the comfort of his superiority, and thus, no conversation or progress is made. Robert Frost. Cuddly exterior but so, so devious.
Anyway, back to “The Road Not Taken” (again, devious! As the speaker not only takes the road, but says it was “less” traveled, not “untraveled”! Sigh.) this is what I would say to my students, “There is no road less traveled by.” Even when pointing out the lines block quoted above, this fact is not easily accepted—but the ending says there is one! To which I respond, Why do you not care about middles or beginnings? Why does the end matter the most? We argue. Sometimes tension builds. We play tug-of-war over a treasured cultural object, and in some cases, the only poem many introductory students have ever known.
And then I admit the truth. I never came to this conclusion on my own: a teacher once pointed out this same thing to me. It’s like the allegory of the cave merged with Trickster Frost—the philosopher king drags readers back up into the light, which happens to shine on the poem’s middle, not end. So now I am repeating this bit of history, much in the same way Frost describes the people who inhabit his poems—repeating things, like the seasons, like swinging on birches.
But the other day I changed course a bit, for the first time in longer than I’d like to admit (I think about poems and literature a lot; I’m pretty sure I saw Walt Whitman at the supermarket the other day): just because the two roads are “worn” the same or look the same, this does not mean that one was not less traveled by. It’s not as if there are turnstiles at the road’s fork, keeping count. It’s not as if the speaker is a mystic who can stir the ground leaves and obtain exact numbers. It’s not a toll road. The speaker may indeed have taken the road less traveled; they just wouldn’t know it for sure. Either way, others have traveled it, or else it wouldn’t be a path or a road, right? Maybe the thing to do here was take a hard right into the woods where there was no path, no “way” that would eventually lead to another way. Does it matter if you take the road less traveled and don’t know it? I press this in the context of my previous posts which ask, “Can one person make a difference?”
If there’s something to love just as much as endings (at least when it comes to stories), we in America love the trailblazer, the individual. But I’m sure Frost would laugh at this myth as well, considering our history where those trailblazers are a minority of some fashion. And again, in these instances, “The Road Not Taken” will play out in exactly the way Frost described (crafty bugger): when someone fights in the moment, or in terms of the poem, in the middle of the journey, many will feel one way. But much later down the road a new ending will read, “That person/those people took the road less traveled by, and I supported them on the whole journey!”
But there sure are a lot of faces in the images of history, lining and blocking the roads less traveled. But none of them are us right? Frost saw that as being as natural as apple trees.
Upon further reflection about this post and Frost's poem, I suddenly realized: Wait a minute! What's with the title!? How does it make sense? The poem's NOT about a road not taken, it's about the road the speaker HAS taken. Now, allegedly, the road has been "less" taken by others before the speaker takes it, but still, the road in question, the road the poem claims to be focused on, has been taken. The only "not taken" road is the supposedly more-travelled road the speaker avoids when he chooses to take the (again, allegedly) less-traveled road. As such, purely for accuracy's sake, the title really should be something like "The Road Less Taken." However, Frost not only understood the importance of endings, he also apparently was keenly aware of how important titles are, too, and "The Road Less Taken" is just not as "punchy" as "The Road Not Taken." But added punch does not equal added sense. In fact, I can't resist using the Negative Slam (use your best "Wayne's World" voice): "This poem is called 'The Road Not Taken.' And it's about the road not taken. . . . NOT!" [And now I wonder why Frost didn't title the poem "The Road Less Traveled" in the first place? It makes more sense; 'Traveled' seems to be (to me, at least) more evocative, and--dare I say it?--more poetic than 'Taken'; it's already in the poem. . . . hmmm, maybe that's the reason: Frost didn't want to reveal his "breathless lightning bolt of a conclusion" so early in the game. Still, why have a title that lies about what lies ahead? Just more Frostian deviousness?]
Your commentary on the ending (and middle and beginning) of Frost's "The Road Not Taken" reminds me of another Frost poem with a famous ending: "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening." I'm guessing that if "The Road Not Taken" is Frost's most well-known poem, then surely "Stopping by Woods" must be the second most-recognized of his oeuvre. And even non-specialist readers are struck by its ending in which the penultimate line is repeated and therefore (also) becomes the final line: "And miles to go before I sleep."
My high school debate coach, Jan Reed, was an English teacher by day and I still vividly recall her take on this poem's conclusion. To provide some context, I probably should explain that Mrs. Reed was decidedly "blue-collar" in her approach to literature. That is, she had no patience for hoity-toity elitist academic critics and their theories and their desperate searches for the "deeper meanings" behind a poem's supposed symbols and the like; no, she was a champion of "common sense" and straight-forward readings. One day Mrs. Reed and I were talking about something (I forget what exactly) and she began a mini-rant about the ending of "Stopping by Woods." With obvious disdain bordering on contempt, Mrs. Reed told me something like, "When I was in school and being taught this poem, there were all these critics and professors going on and on about the 'significance' of that repeated line at the end, all this blather about mortality and death and blah blah blah, when it's clear to me that Robert Frost simply just ran out of rhymes." As I was just 18 years old at the time and my only real investment in poetry consisted of writing sad rip-offs of Richard Brautigan's rip-offs of Japanese haiku, I had no way of gauging how accurate Mrs. Reed's assessment of this poem's ending actually was. It's possible I hadn't even encountered Frost's poem yet. Regardless, I recall adopting Mrs. Reed's explanation for the poem's ending as my own and imagined that by doing so I was striking a blow for "sensible" readings, while scoffing at the tortured interpretations of the egghead professoriate.
Years later, after spending a lot of time being trained to become a member of that egghead professoriate and having spent an equal amount of time trying to learn how to write poetry, I realized that Mrs. Reed's understanding of Frost's poem and its ending was flawed. Let me explain how. But first, here's Frost's poem, all 16 compact lines of it:
Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.
My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.
He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound’s the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
Frost employs a 4-line version of Dante's terza rima, in which the terminal word of a central line of one stanza is rhymed by end-words in the next stanza. The rhyme scheme for this poem can be mapped like this: a-a-b-a / b-b-c-b / c-c-d-c / d-d-d-d. The "problem" with such interlocking rhyme schemes is how to bring them to a close since every stanza contains an element that is supposed to be echoed in the next stanza. But what if there is no next stanza, no place for a rhyme word introduced in one stanza to be mirrored in the following one? Dante's solution was to close off a string of terza rima stanzas with a rhymed couplet. Frost does something similar by concluding with a rime royal couplet in which an entire line rhymes with itself. But Frost didn't choose to conclude his poem this way because he ran out rhyme: even a cursory examination of the poem should prove that.
Mrs. Reed assumed that Frost couldn't come up with another satisfactory -eep rhyme and therefore decided to repeat "sleep." A casual inquiry to the omniscient Google reveals that there are at least 177 -eep rhymes to choose from, so I'm skeptical Frost lacked the resources to include another -eep word. And besides, and most importantly, Frost didn't 'need' another -eep rhyme in the first place. That third line of the fourth stanza, were he to continue following the formal strategy he'd established, should have been some other rhyme-sound entirely, an 'e'-rhyme nesting in between the three -eep 'd'-rhymes. And that was Frost's real issue: how should he end that fourth stanza's third line? If he followed the pattern he'd set up in the first three stanzas, the end-word of that third line would either be an orphan (with no brothers or sisters to be found, since a fifth stanza would not be written) or it would have to rhyme with a word that appeared in a previous stanza, probably the first, making the poem circle back to its beginnings. Had Frost chosen that route, he wouldn't be seeking an -eep rhyme but rather an 'o' rhyme. And, c'mon, we can't pretend that Frost had run out of 'o' rhymes. Indulge me now as I engage in a profound act of hubris by proposing an alternative penultimate line that would fulfill the requirements of this 'circular' strategy:
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep
(Crops to harvest and seeds to sow),
And miles to go before I sleep.
Yeah, yeah, there are several reasons this proposed line sucks bilge water, not the least being that harvesting and planting are not winter activities; plus, the parenthetical rendering does not seem particularly Frost-like. But in my line's defense, this stanza is very future-oriented--the promises, the miles yet to be traveled--and so talking about future agriculture (with all the possible symbolic meanings that could be wrung from such activity) seemed . . . well, defensible. Mostly what my proposed revision demonstrates is how absolutely right Frost was when he chose to conclude his poem by ignoring a formal requirement he'd put in place and then--audaciously, in my opinion--simply repeating a line that already had finality inscribed in its DNA, making final even more final. And with all due respect to Mrs. Reed, the critics and professors she disparaged were right: repeating the line does change its meaning and, by extension, the meaning of the entire poem. A statement of physical fact ("miles to go") is infused with a metaphysicality not present before the repetition: the statement has been transformed into metaphor, and that transformation transports the poem into an entirely new realm of interpretive possibilities.
At least, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.