Why should I believe David Orr? His argument is slim and I disagree with his conclusion. I read the poem again after reading Orr's article and it has the same meaning as it always has for me: go your own way and it will make all the difference. We will never know Frost's true intentions and, frankly, it doesn't matter. The words are the words regardless of what he intended.
You can know Frost's intentions by reading the letters he wrote to his colleagues about the poem. He makes his deception clear there. This was alluded to in the article and you can go read the source material yourself if you're not satisfied.
You are really making a statement about yourself and not about the poem. You want to read it a certain way, and intend to keep reading it that way, because that's the way you've always read it. The "words are the words" sentiment says nothing about the words, but rather how you read them.
The sort of traditionalism you're expressing fascinates me, as the psychological phenomenon appears to me to underpin things like climate denial-ism, anti-vaxxing and religious fundamentalism.
At the very core, I suspect, is a tendency to be defensive about our limitations. To apply enough critical analysis to the poem to divine Frost's true intent, to become informed enough about science to accept the basics of climate change, it takes a lot of time and effort, yet we treat people who can't / refuse / just don't have the time to do these things as if they're stupid.
So they retreat into defensive positions, that the evidence is suspect, why believe Orr, I / we had a way to interpret the poem / organize society so why should we change? Changing is cognitively expensive, just understanding that we need to change is the expensive part.
I'm reminded of an amusing incident Asimov wrote about. He came across a large class where the teacher was discussing the meaning of one of Asimov's works. Asimov slipped in and sat in the back, and then afterwards went up to the teacher, introduced himself, and said that the interpretation was interesting but in several parts it was not what he had meant at all. The teacher replied, "Just because you wrote it, what makes you think you have the slightest idea what it's about?"
It's an important point, however. If the teacher had said "Asimov means X" the teacher would be wrong. But, if the teacher is saying that he interprets the words as X he is right.
I haven't read Orr's book so maybe there's more evidence for Frost's intent there. But, in the article, there's just one quote from Frost on the subject: "I’ll bet not half a dozen people can tell who was hit and where he was hit by my Road Not Taken". This quote is as enigmatic as the poem and is inconclusive.
I cannot, as I didn't read them, I don't need to. The quote itself is enough to show that Frost's intentions with the poem weren't straightforward, despite what the actual meaning of his words was.
He could well have intended on a specific person that was hit, in a specific way, but that still implies deception, what he wrote was intended to be read in a different way than how he truly meant it, that the number of people who really grasp it are going to be smaller than the number of people who read it.
What I was saying is that you could have, if you were really interested, go and research Frost's letters, instead of holding on to your traditional way of reading the poem, for that reason. That would be my response if I was interested in maintaining that viewpoint for those reasons, to investigate them. To make sure I have enough context to support the conclusion I'm making.
The manner in which you dismissed the new way of looking at them indicates that you are more interested in retaining the old meaning. New context is thrown out, not even worthy of consideration. It's this binary response I'm interested in.
I take an article like Orr's, which tries to color things in history with additional context, work that new info into my understanding, and try to find a new conceptualization of the past. I'm not so much interested in retaining my experience of the poem as much as all of the clarifying context, how these poets interact with each other, how America tends to view poems and culture and itself. To me the actual meaning of the poem is somewhat of a side show.
You took it and read it as an attack on, well, what exactly?
>Frost's intentions with the poem weren't straightforward
But, it doesn't tell us what Frost's intent was. I did a Google search and didn't find much.
> The manner in which you dismissed the new way of looking at them indicates that you are more interested in retaining the old meaning.
Boy - you make a lot of assumptions. I read Orr's article and disagree with his conclusions. I'm not interested in retaining anything in particular. Frost's intentions with his poem are irrelevant. I read the words and draw a conclusion. If I listen to a piece of music, I'm moved in a particular way irrespective of the composer's intent.
>You took it and read it as an attack on, well, what exactly?
I think you've implied much more than what I wrote (irony?). My only issue with Orr is that I perceive him to be smug. "The Most Misread Poem in America" is a purposely inflammatory title. Is it really possible to "misread" a poem? Poetry is not non-fiction. It is intended to be subtle and have layers of meaning.
the layers of meaning is interesting. The layers of this poem extend beyond the words into heads and popular culture. That most people read it in a way that, when looked at it logically, reads in another way makes a layer. This was mentioned in the article.
Is anyone being tripped up here or being tricked or mislead?
