Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Robert Frost's Invitation


The Pasture

I'm going out to clean the pasture spring;
I'll only stop to rake the leaves away
(And wait to watch the water clear, I may):
I sha'n't be gone long,--You come too.

I'm going out to fetch the little calf
That's standing by the mother.  It's so young,
It totters when she licks it with her tongue.
I sha'n't be gone long,--You come too.

-- Robert Frost --
Frost: Collected Poems, Prose, & Plays
The Library of America




He's inviting us to go along, but to where or to what?


One place, obviously, is the pasture, to watch him do some simple, ordinary, uncomplicated things-- things of no great consequence. 

This poem is placed on a page immediately before the rest of his poetry, so I might say that this is an invitation to his poetry.  Perhaps I should read this first whenever I decide it's time for Frost.


Is there somewhere else he's inviting us to go?

24 comments:

  1. My reading of Frost leads me to this: he is such a personal, almost confessional-- poet that explication seems to require biography as a lens. By coincidence I was reading some poems by Frost this morning, and I nearly chose one for a posting but changed my mind. As for the poem you've included, I wonder when it was written rather than where it appears in a collection. Would that matter? At any rate, I read the poem and avoid explication but accept it as a mood piece. Contemplating trumps explicating as in experiencing a Zen koan. Does that make any sense at all?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim,

      Yes, there is much in his poetry that seems so personal. He reminds a bit of Emily Dickinson, although he seems more accessible. With ED I'm frequently not sure if I understand her, while Frost is understandable but ambiguous so often.

      Delete
  2. i detect a grim note: what is he going to do with the calf? is he hungry? veal cutlets on toast?
    in past readings of Frost, i've occasionally discovered a brutal underlayment in his pastorality: "Whose woods these are i think i know..." what is he planning, here... maybe F was an incipient logger....
    at any rate, i think he was well aware of the "red in tooth and claw" quality inherent in nature...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mudpuddle,

      That's interesting, for I don't detect a "grim note." What gives you that feeling? Why does he have to have a bad reason to get the calf?

      Well, as the cliche goes--beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But, only partially so.

      Delete
  3. I love Frost. This is a perfect introduction to his poetry and his mind.

    Mudpuddle's comment is interesting. I must think about it and perhaps reread some Frost to see if I think that it applies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brian,

      Yes, it's a great invitation. If one sees life as brutal, then I guess there's some brutality in all poetry that shows us reality.

      Delete
  4. I read poetry for the beautiful image it invokes, at least in my imagination. This is a lovely poem.

    It seems as if he is talking of order and calm. That is what I think of with a lot of pastoral themes. There's specific chores to do and great satisfaction in accomplishing them.

    But that may be my own take. I guess it would make interesting character studies as to why we see what we do in poetry. Rather like a Rorschach test.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sharon,

      I see poetry or all literature as a collaboration between the writer and the reader. I think N. Scott Momaday's quotation that I posted about some time ago went a bit too far in claiming the writer was in complete control, but I understand where he was coming from--he disagrees with the present conceit of completely ignoring the writer and the text and giving the reader full credit for everything.

      The writer, the text, and the reader are real and present and all have a role to play in the complex interrelationship of the process called reading: it is not an illusion, but it is real and present.

      Delete
    2. Sharon,

      Yes, I also see it that way: a simple poem about the simple chores of life, quiet and orderly, things to be done, and an invitation to come along and be a part of that. Life isn't always struggle and conflict.

      Delete
    3. Fred, I agree. When I read a book, I do want to know the author's intent. I don't think I'm free to interpret what they said howsoever I wish. It is a form of communication after all.

      That would be like me deciding what people were saying to me as opposed to what they were actually telling me.

      I think the reader's participation is in our reaction to the story. How much (or little) we enjoy or relate.

      Delete
    4. Sharon,

      Be careful! That's heretical in some literary circles nowadays.

      I agree: it is communication and communication by its very nature must be two-way, else it ain't communication.

      Delete
  5. Fred and Sharon: well, what's a reader supposed to do when he sees something in a poem that no one seems to have mentioned?.. i admit to having a rakish imagination and i certainly don't guarantee the truth of all my propositions... speculation is an important contribution in itself, although maybe i'm wrong about that... correct me, please...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mudpuddle,

      Where do you see brutality in the poem? That's what I was questioning.

      " i certainly don't guarantee the truth of all my propositions..." You don't? Does that mean that sometimes you lie in your propositions? Or do you really mean to say that you don't guarantee the accuracy of all your propositions, that you sometimes are wrong. There's a difference between being wrong and telling a lie, or at least I think so, although I have known some people who see no difference.

      Delete
    2. Mudpuddle, Fred, and Sharon: Let me put my oar in the water here. Words are slippery signs, and readers understand words in different ways based upon their experiences, emotions, and more. In short, no one word has an absolute, universally agreed upon meaning. So, its stands to reason that a collection of words (e.g., a poem) conjures up different meanings for different people. Since no one person is the authority upon a poem's meaning (not even the poet has that power), it stands to reason -- based upon my argument above -- that different meanings (sometimes widely divergent, and sometimes only slightly nuanced) are not only possible but also probable for any given poem. Well, that is my oar in the water within these swirling waters. I hope I have not created problems with my Swiss-cheese mind's thoughts.

      Delete
    3. Tim,

      If words do not have generally agreed upon meanings, then communication is impossible.

      Mudpuddle said "i detect a grim note: what is he going to do with the calf? is he hungry? veal cutlets on toast?
      in past readings of Frost, i've occasionally discovered a brutal underlayment in his pastorality:"

      He did not say what that grim note was nor did he explain what those brutal underlayments were.

      That's all I'm asking. Granted, many interpretations are presented, but not all are equally valid. Or at least, I don't think so. If you believe all opinions are equally valid, then please let me know.

      Delete
    4. Is there something wrong with me that I thought what Mudpuddle said was kind of funny?

      Although I would be a vegetarian if I had to slaughter my own meat.

      Ignore me and read Tim. His answer is better than mine.

      Delete
    5. Fred, here's an example: I say "cat," and you, Mudpuddle, Sharon, and others all "see" something different. That is what I was suggesting about different meanings.

      Delete
    6. Tim,

      ???

      I see "cat." Why wouldn't I see "cat"?

      Delete
    7. Fred, describe the cat you see. Mine, I bet, is different. Mudpuddle and Sharon will see different cats. Words, I insist, are slippery things. This pertains to many (most?) words.

      Delete
    8. Tim,

      I detect a note of brutality underneath your comments.

      Delete
    9. Good Lord, no! Brutality? Not a bit of it. What are you saying, Fred? Are you being ironic in such a statement? This troubles me. Really. And I'm not being either ironic or duplicitous. What's happening here? We went from Frost, to woods, to me being brutal. Huh?

      Delete
    10. Tim,

      Are you asking me to explain my statement? That's what I wanted Mudpuddle to do--that's all, nothing more.

      Delete
    11. On the one hand I see Tim's point. We automatically pull from our prior knowledge in order to imagine or comprehend what the other person is expressing, be it in a poem or conversation.

      However, there has to be ultimate consistency. When I say cat everyone pictures a different kind of cat but none of us pull a hippo or a shark out of our mental hats.

      It's be impossible to communicate otherwise. But it is also why we have to elaborate or otherwise people can mistake our meaning.

      Well, I'm lecturing so I'll shut up.

      Delete