The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both And be one traveler, long I stood And looked down one as far as I could To where it bent in the undergrowth; Then took the other, as just as fair, And having perhaps the better claim, Because it was grassy and wanted wear; 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. Oh, I kept the first for another day! Yet knowing how way leads on to way, I doubted if I should ever come back. I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I- I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. I had read this poem back in elementary school, but I thought it was fitting to revisit now that I am a senior with new paths opened to me, similar to the speaker in the poem. There is a sense of ambivalence in the opening sentences of the first stanza when it reads “And sorry I could not travel both/ And be one traveler.” Here the speaker is presented with a decision, but of equal weight, and the speaker struggles to choose which path to take. He acknowledges there is only one of him but two roads that were nearly equal as is illustrated in the phrase “Then took the other, as just as fair” and therefore insinuating that the paths are equal. Though the speaker makes a concession saying that “perhaps the better claim/ Because it was grassy and wanted wear,” the speaker quickly corrects himself in saying that though they both, “had worn them really about the same.” As seniors in high school, the college decision process has been a fork in the road like the one the speaker of the poem encounters. Our yellow woods can be anything really that serve as either distractions, obstacles, or people and things that pull our decisions towards one road or another. Yet like the two paths that diverge, these yellow woods work to separate our decisions. And like the speaker realizes, he cannot take both paths without denying the other. Yet most importantly, the speaker acknowledges once one path is taken, there are no returns, second chances, retracing footsteps. Yet despite the many qualities that the paths share, so that the speaker even acknowledges “…passing there/ Had worn them really about the same,” the author still decides to travel the path that has less traveled upon, perhaps representing a denial against convention, societal norms, the general prototypical path to place one’s footsteps. Instead, it seems like rather than following the model of others, the speaker has decided to venture and discover his own purpose without abiding by the example set by others. Moreover, the speaker also highlights the difficulty of making choices and the consequences of them. Though this poem seems inspirational in the sense that there’s a degree of individuality and trust behind one’s decisions, this poem can also be viewed as the inability of humanity to avoid certain decisions or to make incorrect ones and thus suffer the vulnerability of moving through life carrying the burden of a decision that cannot be altered. The even greater aspect of this poem is that in accepting one path, one is therefore denying all the bounties and privileges another has the offer. Thus throughout Thanksgiving break, I was thinking to myself, what am I thankful for? All the things I’ve been given, all the wonderful people that have either stumbled into my life by mistake or I’ve accepted them through time, I’ve considered how much I value and respect these people, but yet while I was reflecting I also thought about the people who I no longer have relationships with, those that I dislike, those that I miss. In accepting others as my friends and families, I’ve also had to reject others in order to make time and sacrifice for these people, but what if I’m rejecting something say a person, a possession, a path, that could be beneficial to me? So over Thanksgiving, yes, I’ve learned to be thankful, but I’ve also learned to open my heart to other people that I haven’t met since summer, that I haven’t seen since three years ago. I’ve allowed these people to come back into my life, but at the same time I’ve missed seeing those from school, those at work. And again, I am presented with a similar parallel—when Thanksgiving Break is over, do I push those that I haven’t seen in years away again because I become absorbed in something else? Why are my paths always a fork in a road never capable of coming together? Perhaps there is a theme of doubles in nature. The rejection and expulsion of one, inevitably leads to the acceptance of another.

Intricacies

Little Lamb by William Blake Little Lamb who made thee Dost thou know who made thee Gave thee life & bid thee feed. By the stream & o'er the mead; Gave thee clothing of delight, Softest clothing wooly bright; Gave thee such a tender voice, Making all the vales rejoice! Little Lamb who made thee Dost thou know who made thee Little Lamb I'll tell thee, Little Lamb I'll tell thee! He is called by thy name, For he calls himself a Lamb: He is meek & he is mild, He became a little child: I a child & thou a lamb, We are called by his name. Little Lamb God bless thee. Little Lamb God bless thee. The connotation of the word ‘lamb’ has many meanings, but above all, it is symbolic of all the characteristics the animal itself possesses. A lamb is white and always dependent upon a shepherd to guide it. Moreover, a lamb is representative of a certain innocence, frailty, youth. Yet it can also be thought of as a sacrifice, and offering of sorts. In Blake’s poem, there is a constant emphasis on who the creator is and whether or not the little lamb knows who the creator is. This questioning signifies a deeper meaning that continuously fluctuates between whether or not the lamb knows of its own existence before answering whether or not it knows who made it. In the first stanza there is constant questioning, yet by the second stanza everything seems more resolute and steady. Yet between the transitions of the two stanzas there is more than simple questioning and answering. There is a shift in tone as well, for in the first stanza the lamb seems to be docile and guileless, though by the second stanza it is nearly corrupted with the knowledge that the lamb gains through experiences. Furthermore, there is also a religious allusion throughout the poem. With no specifics and shrouded ambiguity in the words ‘he’, ‘I’, or ‘you’ it is almost as if Blake is referring to the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. This further leads to more debatable though probably answers. Does God represent knowledge? And furthermore, is Jesus the shepherd or the lamb described? Yet even though these hypotheses remain uncertain, Blake says explicitly in the poem that ‘We are called by his name’ and ‘I a child & thou a lamb’ therefore claiming that both are synonymous and that we possess the same identity and are completely connected to our creator. In a sense, Grendel seems to represent the prototype of a pristine lamb gradually molded into a black sheep. In the beginning, Grendel is clueless as he lives with his mother in some cave that he literally defines as his world until, that is, he discovers the lake and the world outside. This also refers to the gradual evolution experienced by the character of Pluto’s cave as he is enlightened. Grendel, therefore, when he was an infant in his cave perceived a false reality, which he believed in with absolute faith and truthful entirety until the day he stepped out of his proximities. Yet as he evolved into humanity when discovering the human world, he also became more and more corrupted. This can be represented in the fact that Grendel began to notice certain things such as the fat on his mother. Suddenly, he realizes his mother is ugly, gross, disgusting. This recognition is, literally, Grendel’s enlightenment. He now notices the world. Yet the deeper significance also lies in the fact, that Grendel is enlightened four times: humanity, shaper, dragon, Beowulf, and in a fifth sense, almost by his mother but she is mute, therefore rendering her effectiveness. Thus like the lamb described by Blake, Grendel is also molded by multiple persons.

Beowulf's Physicality

The entire characterization of Beowulf confuses me as I read Grendel. He’s described with a “voice, though powerful was mild. Voice of a dead thing, calm as dry sticks and ice when the wind blows over them (153-154).” Looking into this quote specifically, there’s a sense that Beowulf seems almost mechanical for Grendel views all nature as dead due to their mindless, autonomic thoughts. Moreover, by describing Beowulf as calm it makes one almost feel as if he’s not easily disturbed or jostled by either the perils or the possibilities of the future. Additionally, when Beowulf’s voice is compared to sticks and ice, one can almost perceive a sound of cracking as stepping foot on either a tree branch or on top of a frozen lake there’s almost always that frightful Crack! that penetrates the air when one’s least unexpected. To say that Beowulf’s voice can produce such an effect seems to suggest that his words are caustic, audibly snapping at his adversary. Grendel’s attention then shifts from Beowulf’s voice to his countenance. Although no detailed features are recounted, Grendel does perceive the face as familiar as is illustrated by the following quote, “He had a strange face that, little by little, grew unsettling to me: it was a face, or so it seemed for an instant, from a dream I had almost forgotten. The eyes slanted downward, never blinking, unfeeling as a snake’s. He had no more beard than a fish.” The connotation of the word “strange” in this context doesn’t suggest that Beowulf’s face was disfigured or even unappealing, rather it suggests that Grendel can’t quite put his finger on where he’d seen the face from before. He considers whether or not it had been a fleeting moment from a dream that he had nearly forgotten. From this scenario alone, one cannot help but be drawn to the conclusion of Chapter 4 that nearly mirrors this dream-like stupor Grendel questions. His mind is described as “a blank” that “fell, sank away like a stone through earth and sea, toward the dragon (56).”Moreover, by describing Beowulf’s face with eyes that are slanted alludes to the Dragon whose eye “closed to a slit (63).” However, there is also a sense of cold that comes from the fact that Beowulf’s glance is perceived as unfriendly, unwelcoming. This again alludes to the juxtaposition of fire and ice. Ironically though Beowulf is portrayed as the defender of the people, in Grendel he is described with a more icy persona, while the Dragon despite his greed seems to be the much warmer individual, therefore suggesting one possible difference between the two characters. Yet Beowulf is also described to have no facial hair, like a fish which happens to be very coincidental considering the element of the zodiac sign in Chapter 11 is water. This is also significant in that this sounds like the travel that was made in order for Grendel to reach the Dragon’s cave in chapter 5. Although we don’t know if Grendel really swims in the ocean, lake, or whether the entirety is a product of his mind, we can be sure of the fact Grendel was descending since the connotation of “sank” leads to the image of Grendel either mentally sinking deeper into the thoughts of his mind, and that he has reached the Dragon subconsciously or metaphysically. To say that Beowulf therefore is a fish, means that perhaps, he has also been influenced by the Dragon, and therefore, also enlightened.

Chapters 11 and 12

Like chapter 5, chapters 11 and 12 of Grendel serve as a significant shift from the rest of the novel. Both chapters 5 and these last two chapters introduce new characters who radically cause Grendel to question his beliefs. After reading chapters 11 and 12, I have made some new analysis that I would like to question. And so, this blog post will largely be composed of my thoughts considering whether Beowulf’s influence on Grendel causes Grendel to modify his entire outlook before he dies. From the introduction of Chapter 11, Grendel shifts from the tedium apparent in its chapter predecessor and suddenly he’s ecstatic when the stranger arrives, before viewing it as “a whole new game (151).” Moreover, there is almost a religious overtone as Grendel honors the water, “kiss the ice…for by water they came (151)” which alludes to the fact that Jesus also walked on water. When people kiss the ground, there’s a sense of worship so why does Grendel kiss the water which Beowulf metaphorically walks upon in order to arrive at Hrothgar’s kingdom? Does this ‘bowing’ down by Grendel represent a servile quality or a sense of futility in that Grendel acknowledges defeat to Beowulf subconsciously? Moreover, could it be that Grendel simply is beginning to abide by Beowulf’s ‘theories’ and thus he is accepting them through such an act? Yet Grendel seems to still be part dragon for he “could feel them coming as I lay in the dark of my cave (151).” Such an ability to sense the strangers approaching shows that Grendel has been anxious for their arrival or expected them to show. Grendel described, himself, even to experience the same “strange sensation (151)” which led him as “the mind of the dragon did once.” This causes the reader to question, is there some sort of parallel between the dragon and Beowulf? Are they somehow related? Moreover, there is also the theme of footsteps that reoccur. In the prior chapter, footsteps precede the Shaper’s death. Ironically, in chapter 11 these footsteps foreshadow Grendel’s death, even though he waves it off as “nothing but the sound of my own heart (152).” Moreover, for the first time, Grendel’s mother does not try to prevent him from leaving, though just beforehand Grendel’s mother had tried to stop him from attending the Shaper’s funeral. Yet, I cannot help but question why does Grendel’s mother seem so indifferent and mechanical while Grendel is heightened and agitated by some strange new feeling? Even more so, why are the firesnakes also so similar to Grendel in his reaction? “They sense it too (152)” Grendel observes. And if the firesnakes perceive it does this mean that dragon realizes whatever ‘it’ is as well since he is also part reptile? Thus this entire section is confusing to me: Why does Grendel’s mother reveal no attempt to stop her son from meeting a perceived threat while she tries to stop Grendel from attending a dead, harmless man’s funeral? It makes no sense. Additionally, when Grendel finally does encounter Beowulf and his thanes he characterizes them “like trees, these strangers. Their leader was big as a mountain, moving with his forest (153).” Although, Grendel addresses the stature of Beowulf’s obvious size and strength, he nevertheless mocks him and his thanes derisively, rebuking them as inanimate, unthinking objects because he thinks of nature as “indifferent” in thought and sensitivity, but the irony is in how Gardner describes Beowulf’s army as trees and mountains. While Grendel mocks nature, he is further mocking religion. By mocking trees, Grendel is simultaneously deriding knowledge as symbolic of the apple tree from the Garden of Eden. Thus, Gardner presents a paradoxical duality to Grendel’s contemptuous scorn. Grendel mocks trees, but he claims that he is thinking so does that make him a hypocrite?