Comment on how Robert Frost presents the task of repairing the boundary between farms in the poem

‘Mending Wall’.

Regionalists in the early twentieth century were of the view that boundaries were necessary for the preservation of a
locality’s identity. They celebrated and interrogated the unique traits of regions in an attempt to beat back against the
currents of homogeneity brought about by industrialisation and rural-urban migration. Robert Frost, a regionalist
principally concentrated on the rural New England landscape, explores the necessity of a boundary between two
neighbours in his poem ‘Mending Wall’. The speaker and his neighbour take action to repair a wall constituted of
boulders between their adjacent farms. Whilst both characters present alternative viewpoints on the wall, Frost’s
sympathy lies with the speaker’s neighbour who acknowledges the significance of the physical boundary. Frost presents
the task of repairing the boundary between farms as one that not only allows for the respectful co-existence of two
distinct parties but that also provides a form of immediate human connection.

Frost’s portrayal of the ignorance of the speaker undermines the speaker’s belief that the boundary between the two
farms is redundant and, hence, that the task of repairing the wall is merely the unnecessary continuation of an
antiquated tradition. The speaker resents the presence of the wall, which he believes they “do not need” as the
speaker’s “apple trees will never get across” to the neighbour’s farm “and eat the cones under his pines.” The
zoomorphism of the “apple trees” serves to present the speaker’s argument as relatively rational or considered on a
surface-level, as such a proposition of apple trees moving and eating pinecones is absurd and preposterous. However,
one could also suggest that the use of zoomorphism attaches a certain ignorance or dismissiveness to the speaker, as he
is condensing a complex issue of boundaries and identity into a rather simplistic and somewhat childish metaphor.
Moreover, the speaker’s comment that his neighbour “only says, “Good fences make good neighbors,”” emphasises the
speaker’s inability to comprehend the significance of the wall to other individuals. The tonal indicator “only” elucidates
the way in which the speaker is attempting to belittle and dismiss his neighbour’s argument, which is suggested to be
relatively sophisticated through the use of the antanaclasis of the adjective “good”. Frost may be implying that the
speaker has overlooked his neighbour’s argument, failing to comprehend the use of antanaclasis and, hence, the
dynamic meaning of the repeated adjective “good”. The presentation of the speaker’s ignorance when repairing the wall
dividing the farms, encourages the reader to perceive him as an unreliable or untrustworthy speaker and, thus,
interrogate the legitimacy of his opinions. Perhaps, Frost does not give the speaker a voice in ‘Mending Wall’ to evoke
the reader’s sympathy for modernist views, but rather, to represent the way in which modernist artists and scholars,
who wished to abandon tradition, were dominating societal discourse in the early twentieth century. Frost’s position as
an outlier within his literary environment is discussed by critic Robert Faggen of Claremont McKenna College who notes
that Frost’s “disdain for political radicalism angered those with more revolutionary temperaments.” Thus, although the
opinions that the speaker expresses when repairing the boundary may be outwardly rational, Frost’s relatively bold
development of the speaker’s nescient character undermines or, at the very least, challenges such progressive views.
Crucially, whilst the repair of the boundary between the farms may not align itself with modernist ideals, it provides the
foundation for the co-existence of two distinct individuals with separate identities. The speaker notes that, “We keep
the wall between us as we go” along the boundary line, replacing “boulders”. The visual imagery of the two neighbours
walking together along the stone wall, which divides them, suggests that there is both mutual respect and a certain
distinction between the two characters. Importantly, this visual image may be a metaphor of the speaker’s relationship
with his neighbour, in that the wall allows both neighbours to peacefully exist alongside the other whilst still
encouraging them to maintain identity and tradition. Frost’s partiality for the view of the speaker’s neighbour that,
“Good fences make good neighbors,” is highlighted by the way in which this refrain, advocating for the role of
boundaries in facilitating independent co-existence, concludes the poem and, hence, is proffered to the reader for
further interrogation and consideration. Frost’s celebration of the existence of boundaries consolidates his position as a
poet who is reluctant to accept the homogeneity which modernist scholarship endorsed. Hence, the repair of
boundaries allows for the unique identities of regions and individuals to flourish.

Whilst boundaries have the capacity to distinguish and separate, the repair of such structures can also provide a form of
immediate human connection. At “spring mending-time” each year, the speaker visits his neighbour “beyond the hill,”
and they “meet to walk the line / And set the wall between the two of them.” The prepositional phrase, “beyond the
hill,” accentuates the neighbour’s geographical distance from the speaker and, hence, the relative isolation of both
characters. However, the enjambment after the verb phrase, “meet to walk the line,” encourages the reader to read on
and, hence, connect the poem’s central image of the farmers walking alongside each other with the supplementary
image of both individuals engaging in the repair of the wall. Thus, the enjambment suggests that the annual meetings of
the farmers, which provide both of them with human companionship, are dependent on and would not occur without
the necessity for the boundary’s repair. Clearly, the process of repairing the wall provides fertile ground for the
evolution of the relationship between two individuals who are typically relatively isolated and detached from each
other.

Just as physical boundaries can connect people, poetic boundaries can connect ideas by arranging them in a convincing
and cogent manner. Through his use of metrical deviation, Frost contemplates the poetic act and highlights the necessity
for one to remain faithful to poetic convention. Whilst the majority of the poem is written in iambic pentameter,
“Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,” Frost employs disruptions to this metrical pattern upon describing
instances when the boundary is either physically or figuratively challenged. Trochaic pentameter is used when the
speaker notes that he has had to correct the actions of hunters and mend the wall “where they have left not one stone
on a stone.” Similarly, the speaker’s figurative challenge to the necessity of the boundary is encompassed in lines of
poetry adhering to this alternative, trochaic meter, “My apple trees will never get across.” Frost’s association of the
disruptions to the established iambic pentameter with the destruction of the wall, an action for which his disapproval is
clearly implied, may reveal his position on the necessity for poetic convention. In the same manner as the removal of
boundaries may endorse homogeneity and destabilise a society, a poem without a consistent poetic foot and meter
ultimately collapses in want of structure and, hence, is unable to convey meaningful concepts to the reader. Critic Lisa
Hinrichsen of Boston University recognises Frost’s predilection for poetic structure in ‘Mending Wall’, claiming that he
“grants form to power and power to form, beautifully balancing the poem’s wildness with civilising walls.” Without such
“civilising walls” of meters and feet, poetry is merely a disparate collection of characters and ideas. Perhaps, writing in
the early twentieth century, Frost was attempting to repair the figurative boundaries of poetic structure and convention
within the literary landscape as others – the “hunters” of his society – were attempting to tear them down. Thus, value
can be found in maintaining both physical and figurative boundaries.

Frost suggests that the task of repairing the boundary between farms is one that creates a necessary distinction
between individuals whilst simultaneously providing a focal point for respectful and amicable relationships. Frost takes
the simple action of mending a wall and surrounds it with complex discussions of regional identity and of the necessity
for poetic structure. In doing so, Frost encourages the reader to abandon pre-conceived notions regarding the simplicity
of the rural setting and, instead, to recognise the way in which aspects of pastoral life have the capacity to be
microcosms of wider society.