Fire and Ice

Robert Frost

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 it had to perish twice,

I think I know enough of hate

To say that for destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice.

I was first introduced to this poem when we conducted poetry

readings in class. After closing our unit involving literary works that

discussed the whole relationship between "good" and "evil," I

realize that I understand this poem a lot better than the first time I

encountered it. Just as we have been discussing the extremes of fire

and ice within the inner conflictions of the "monstrous" mind, this

poem employs fire and ice as symbols of larger ideas that

represent the human mind.

My perception of the poem read the poem as presenting two sides

of a universal argument. Fire represents passion, something that can

be kindled inside of humans - I perceive this as love, affection,

intimacy, desire, hate, anger, etc. Ice on the other hand represents

the lack of sort of "hot" desire, perhaps including cruelty, apathy,

indifference, solitude, or the lack of any intense emotion. Will the

crazy passion that consumes the human race be responsible for the

end of humanity? Or will the indifference and apathy that

condemns humans be responsible for the end of humanity? The

narrator claims that from what he has "tasted" of fire, he believes

that holds the upper hand in this argument. By using the word

"tasted," the narrator implies he has only experienced a small part

of this sort of "hot" and "passionate" emotion, and through this he

understands the overwhelming power of such a feeling. Because

this feeling is so powerful, he is convinced that it will be the more

"animal-like" side of the human race that will lead to its own

demise.

But as I continued reading this poem, the idea sort of shifted. The

narrator then claims if he had to "perish twice" (meaning if the

world were to end once again after it had already ended from the "fire" side of humans), he believes ice would be "suffice" in ending the world. But the difference here is seen in the way he backs his reasoning by saying he has seen enough of "hate" to know ice would be suffice in ending the world. Through that line, the implication shows that the word "ice" may not mean indifference and apathy the way I first perceived it to be, but rather it represents hate and negativity. This could mean fire represents love, and ice represents hate. The narrator essentially states that both extremes of love and hate are capable of ending the world - perhaps he is telling us we need balance to keep the world alive.

More importantly, the author shows us that both fire and ice have

the came capabilities, thus portraying them as one and the same.

Although fire and ice - love and hate (and whatever larger meanings

these connote), are treated as exact opposites, they may simply

both be extremes that are responsible for destruction. Through this,

the poem seemed to be stressing the importance of maintaining a

balance within our desires and actions.

The idea of balance is definitely an idea I saw repeated through

Frankenstein and Grendel, and due to this I was able to relate to

this poem more, and associate larger real life and literary examples

to give this poem deeper meaning.