The wonders of Frost

Robert Frost

Fire and Ice (1923)

Some say the world will end in fire

Some say in ice.

From what I’ve tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire.

But if I had to perish twice,

I think I know enough of hate

To say that for destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice

Robert Frost, one of the most influential poets of all time, displays an interesting view of the apocalypse in his poem “Fire and Ice”. Seeming to favor twos, Frost writes various works about pairs of contrasting situations.  One of his most well-known poems, “The Road Not Taken” also demonstrates two opposing circumstances, in this case two paths in the midst of autumn that “both that morning equally lay”. Two paths, two ways to perish, two choices. Frost, a man from the early 1900’s often uses the beauty or fierceness of nature (perhaps because of his last name) along with the power of the choices men make to write brilliant poetry.

                In “Fire and Ice” Frost is not only speaking of the end of the world, but also of the deeper cause behind its destruction. The dichotomy of fire and ice causes us to ponder what the elements represent. Commonly used to symbolize hell, fire can also stand for passion, violence, love, and life, while ice can represent emptiness, fierceness, vastness, and death. Symbols can have a multitude of meanings, depending on each person and their experiences; therefore, while the meaning of the elements in relationship to this poem is particular to each individual reader, I see fire as the embodiment of passion and ice as the lack of it. Frost writes in the third line of his poem,

“From what I’ve tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire”.

This creates the connection between fire and desire, also known as passion. When we think of passion, we think of a passionate love or a person passionate about their views. These are not necessarily “evil”, but they can be-as affairs are the result of passion, and violence the result of passionate views.  Later, Frost also draws a comparison between hatred and ice when he says,

“I think I know enough of hate

To say that for destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice”.

 

                Frost’s last four lines are significant in the theme he is trying to convey. The tone with which these words come across as is dismal and depressing. The word great is not interchangeable with good in this case, but rather large and formidable. I do not believe Frost is shrugging off the ice’s destruction, but lamenting it. He is saddened by the hate that has plagued the world and the ruin that he has already begun to see taking place.

                “Fire and Ice” speaks of the devastation of the world in two ways that might be the cause of our end, making them symbols of aspects which Frost is criticizing. Desire and hatred, two equally powerful emotions, will be the fuel behind our destruction.

 

 

Utopias and Dystopias

What would we do to attain utopia? The perfect world. Paradise. The Garden of Eden. Throughout time, humans have been constantly motivated by the notion that perfection can be achieved. Without something to work for, an ultimate goal, we would be a helpless species, victim to a despairing and futile life. A vast majority of people in society are working towards a personal and common goal. This common goal for most people is to reach a personal utopia, or one’s opinion of what an ideal society would be.  Sir Thomas Moore, in the early 1500s, displayed this image of the perfect society with his book Utopia, coining the term which we still use today. We are continually working at bettering ourselves and the world we live in, striving to “do better” each day. Is this not brought on by a subconscious desire to attain perfection, impossibility in itself?

 Now, we must also ask ourselves what we would do to survive dystopia. The opposite of utopia, this concept of an utterly ruined society is fascinating. We are drawn in by suffering, and authors commonly use this to their advantage. Literary works use dystopias to highlight the criticisms they wish to make about society. It can be said that modern day society is more representative of a dystopia than a utopia because of its destroyed state. Poverty, corruption, and war plague all corners of the world, and few places remain untouched by the misery that contrasts so well with our images of perfection.

Authors commonly use these portrayals of societies to create themes within their works. If a novel displays features from a utopian viewpoint, the disparity with our society is shockingly strong; on the other hand, when writers illustrate a dystopian setting, we see haunting similarities with our own surroundings. From Brave New World to the Hunger Games, these portrayals of society are used to make a point. The novel Frankenstein compares with a dystopia, at least in the case of Victor Frankenstein. His whole world is enveloped in tragedy and darkness, and we see shockingly unnatural occurrences, an unjust society, and selfish men. Shelley demonstrates a wide variety of themes within her work, and they are made clear by suffering and wretchedness, dystopian characteristics.  These portrayals of society are extremely interesting to read, and many successful literary writers have used these topics in their works to display a variety of themes.

Utopias and dystopias, two paradoxes, represent the split inner being within mankind. Yin and Yang. Man and Woman. Good and Evil. Balance between the two is essential for the development of our souls. Although most favor utopia to dystopia, factors from both are necessary in this world so that each individual can make the choices that shape their character. Without two opposing alternatives, and the free will to choose between them, we would be lost, forced to a predetermined life of either good or evil. What would be the point? What would we have to live for?? 

Science of Creation and Science of the Mind

Obsession, murder, revenge. We are repulsed by the actions undertaken by both Victor Frankenstein and his nameless creation, but is Shelley not hinting that within us exists the same evil?

This is not a new concept and it has even come up in the unrelated realm of psychology. During the summer, while I was trying to juggle all the summer work I had to complete, the two subject’s paths unexpectedly intertwined. I noticed the similarity when I switched out my novel Frankenstein for Roger Hock’s 40 Studies that Changed Psychology. Previously pondering the roles of Frankenstein and the creature as doubles I flipped straight to a study called “The ego and the mechanisms of defense”  by Anna Freud which read, “Freud believed that dark, antisocial, and dangerous instinctual urges (especially sexual ones) are present in everyone’s id and that these constantly seek expression… if you were lacking the other parts of your personality and only had an id, Freud would expect your behavior to be amoral, shockingly deviant, and even fatal to you and others” (Hock 237). This description is especially fitting to the behavior of the creation, who Freud would argue was acting on his id, the principle within us that only seeks to gratify our desires. After reading this, I was inspired to flip back through my psychology book in search of other parallels. I was not disappointed with what I found.

“Most psychologists agree that your experiences as an infant with closeness, touching, and attachment to your mother (or other primary caregiver) have an important influence on your abilities to love and be close to others later in life” (Hock 127). This quote explains the creation’s lack of ability to love others because of his miserable past full of abandonment. Similarly, Victor’s actions towards the end of the book are described in a study about control where it states that “…if someone tells you that you have to do something, you may respond by either refusing or by doing exactly the opposite. Or, conversely, try to forbid someone from doing something and they will find that activity more attractive… This tendency to resist any attempt to limit our freedom is called reactance” (Hock 151). Victor clearly exhibits reactance when he is on the verge of finishing a mate for his creation then dramatically tears it apart, ruining any hope of peace that existed within the two beings. Lastly, the theme of rebellion and isolation is apparent in many characters throughout the novel. Hock summarizes a societal study by stating that  “…rebellion (within certain socially acceptable limits) and an independent streak in individualistic cultures are seen as personality assets, whereas in collectivist societies they are seen as liabilities. The messages from the culture to the children, via the parents, about these assets or liabilities are loud and clear and exert a potent influence upon the kids’ development into adulthood” (Hock 225). This quote caused me to look back within the culture Shelley lived in and question whether she would consider rebellion a liability or an asset. By the consequences seen in her novel that were a result of rebellion, I concluded that she considered it a transgression, an act that led to isolation.

There are a vast amount of similarities between Frankenstein and Forty Studies that Changed Psychology and it was interesting to see how concepts that are widely accepted across the psychological world are present within Mary Shelley’s novel written more than a century before. Extraordinary, really.