Comparing Frost’s Mending Wall and Rosenblatt’s A Game of Catch :: comparison compare contrast essays

Robert Frosts Mending W either and Roger Rosenblatts A Game of Catch Humans have an un loaferny major power to place themselves at a comfortable distance from each another(prenominal) and call it a mutual understanding, a friendship, or even full-strength love, but it is all lies. The essence of mans mystery is slightly of a paradox. He yearns to become more familiar with those around him, thus far he is unwilling to allow this to happen. The power of Mending smother, one of Frosts more or less often quoted poesys, rests upon an opposition. Its two famous lines contradict each other. The poem upholds that Something there is that doesnt love a wall. But it also asserts that Good fences make trusty neighbors. The contradiction is reasonable, for two different types of people utter the conflicting remarks and both are right. Man cannot live without walls, boundaries, limits and especially self-limitations yet he resents all fetters and is happy at the destruction of any bar rier. In Mending Wall the boundary line is useless There where it is we do not pick up the wall. And, to stress the point, the speaker facetiously adds He is all pine and I am apple orchard. My apple trees will never get across And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him. One may go through far-reaching connotations in this poem. As well as that it states one of the greatest difficulties of our sentence whether national walls should be made stronger for our safety, or whether they should be let down, since they freeze our progress toward understanding and eventual common humanity. Mending Wall can also be considered a symbolic poem. In the voices of the two workforce the younger, capricious, modern speaker and the old-fashioned farmer who replies with his one dogged sentence, his ancestral aphorism. Some may hear the opposition of two forces the zeal of revolt, which challenges tradition, and the nature of restraint, which insists that customs must be upheld, built u p and continually rebuilt, as a matter of principle. The poet himself looks down upon such symbolic analysis. He denies that the poem says anything more than it seems to say. The dispute is the heart of the poem. It answers itself in the paradox of people, in neighbors and competitors, in the antagonistic nature of man. Roger Rosenblatts essay, A Game of