The Interview

 

A Roadside Stand – Robert Lee Frost

  Robert Frost is known for his simple and colloquial language dealing with complexities of ordinary and everyday life, human relationships, isolation, morality, rural life and nature. Frost often used nature as tool and the central theme on which he knitted his ideas, experiences and emotions.

The poem was first published in 1936. It is very important to know the American society of that time. America was suffering from the infamous Great Depression (1929) which was a global economic crisis that continued till 1939 leading to unemployment and poverty. It was worsened by the Dust Bowl, a severe dust storm that disturbed the ecological balance in America leaving the farming families in utter distress and were compelled to migrate in search of livelihood.  America was struggling to recover through the New Deal of President Roosevelt (1933) who mostly emphasised on construction work, industrialisation and employment. The social fabric of erstwhile America witnessed sharp divide between urban progress and poor rural life. The urban life was recovering but the rural life continued to suffer from low crop price. This period (1915-1963) is also known as the golden Age of Hollywood.

The little old house was out with a little new shed

In front at the edge of the road where the traffic sped,

A roadside stand that too pathetically pled (alliteration),

It would not be fair to say for a dole of bread,

But for some of the money, the cash, whose flow supports

The flower of cities from sinking and withering faint.

(Note the use of ‘Little old house’ and ‘little new shed’. ‘New’ means that the shed of the shop is recently constructed as the poor family is desperate to earn some money by putting up a roadside stand. ‘Little’ in the phrase ‘little old house’ is indicative of poverty. The poet describes the earnest effort of the roadside stand owner through ‘pathetically pled (past tense of plead)’. The owner is not begging for charity or alms (a dole of bread) but expects to sell his produce of the farm and earn some honest money whose flow supports the luxuries of urban life and that city money does not allow the luxuries of cities to perish or fade away (sinking and withering faint). Important: The poet is not sympathising the poor people but with deep understanding critically analyses their situation.

The polished traffic passed with a mind ahead,

Or if ever aside a moment, then out of sorts (idiom: slightly irritated)

At having the landscape marred (destroyed) with the artless paint

Of signs that with N turned wrong and S turned wrong

Offered for sale wild berries in wooden quarts (basket),

Or crook-necked golden squash with silver warts, 

Or beauty rest in a beautiful mountain scene,

You have the money, but if you want to be mean,

Why keep your money (this crossly) and go along.

The poet criticised the attitude of the city people whom he sarcastically called ‘polished traffic’ (civilised people but unsympathetic or selfish). Usually, they do not stop to buy anything but if ever they stop, they become irritated at the artless advertisement of the shop with erroneously written ‘N’ or ‘S’. In fact, the poet is criticising the attitude of the city people who shamelessly denounce the education of the poor without ever understanding their plight. These poor people sale their farm produce of crook necked golden squash or berries in wooden boxes or offer beautiful rest amidst the serene mountain scene. The last two lines indicate the poet’s desperate criticism as he addressed the city people directly by using the second person pronoun ‘You’. He chided them by calling them ‘mean’ for hoarding the city money and go along without paying attention to the poverty stricken rural people.   

 

 

 

The hurt to the scenery wouldn’t be my complaint

So much as the trusting sorrow of what is unsaid:

Here far from the city we make our roadside stand

And ask for some city money to feel in hand

To try if it will not make our being expand (improvement in life style),

And give us the life of the moving-pictures’ promise

That the party in power is said to be keeping from us (hiding from us or depriving us of).

 

The poet says that the damage caused to the beautiful mountain scene by the artless roadside advertisements is not his main complaint. He is more concerned about the pitiable condition of the rural people and their unspoken sorrow. The phrase “trusting sorrow” acts as a metaphor, suggesting that their sorrow arises from the trust or hope that the city people would understand their suffering. However, the city people remain indifferent to their plight. The expression is also a transferred epithet, implying that even in their sorrow, the villagers continue to trust the city people with hope. At this point, the poet uses the first-person plural pronoun “we,” identifying himself with the rural folk and giving voice to their collective feelings. The villagers, he explains, hope that some city money will reach them and improve their living conditions—just as shown in the movies of the golden age of Hollywood or as promised by the opposition parties who claim that the government has deprived them of development.

 

 

It is in the news that all these pitiful (unfortunate) kin (fellow beings)

Are to be bought out and mercifully gathered in

To live in villages, next to the theatre and the store,

Where they won’t have to think for themselves anymore,

While greedy good-doers, beneficent beasts of prey,

Swarm over their lives enforcing benefits (amenities and relocation)

That are calculated (planned, not out of kindness) to soothe them out of their wits,

And by teaching them how to sleep they sleep all day (lazy),

Destroy their sleeping at night the ancient way (traditional living with honesty and deeply rooted to nature).

 

The key theme of this stanza is the fake sympathy of modern society, and the poet’s anger finds full expression here. Frost’s irony and sarcasm reach their peak as he attacks the hypocrisy of so-called social reformers. Newspapers report that the poor villagers’ land and farms are to be bought out and that they will be relocated to model villages—a reference to Roosevelt’s New Deal, which promoted urbanization. In these so-called ideal settlements, people will live amid modern facilities such as theatres and stores, where they will no longer have to think for themselves, as their lives will be completely controlled. This forced dependence means a loss of freedom and individuality. The poet’s indignation intensifies when he labels the officials responsible for this process as “greedy good-doers” and “beneficent beasts of prey.” These expressions combine alliteration and oxymoron, exposing the moral contradiction in their character. Outwardly, they appear as kind benefactors, but in truth, they are greedy exploiters. Their pretentious acts of charity are meant to deceive the rural people—they “soothe them out of their wits,” robbing them of their simplicity and wisdom. In the name of progress, they impose a false idea of a “better life,” destroying the villagers’ traditional honesty, independence, and deep connection with nature.

 

Sometimes I feel myself I can hardly bear

The thought of so much childish longing in vain,

The sadness that lurks near the open window there,

That waits all day in almost open prayer

For the squeal of brakes, the sound of a stopping car,

Of all the thousand selfish cars that pass,

Just one to inquire what a farmer’s prices are.

And one did stop, but only to plow up grass

In using the yard to back and turn around;

And another to ask the way to where it was bound;

And another to ask could they sell it a gallon of gas

They couldn’t (this crossly); they had none, didn’t it see?

 

The above lines portray the hopelessness and humiliation of the village people who live in utter frustration. The innocent longing for a city car to stop there ends in vain as no one stops. The poet in unable to bear the emotional pain. The farmer quietly and innocently prays behind the open window for a city car to stop to inquire about the price of the produce of the farmer and buy something from the stand. The poet again expressed his anger by calling the city people ‘selfish’ (selfish cars). The hope and trust of the village people is turned down as cars stop for asking the direction or to use the yard and ruin the yard while turning the car or to ask if petrol is available in the stand. The frustration and annoyance make the villagers reply in anger that they had none (petrol) as it was clearly visible because they were selling vegetables of the farm.

 

No, in country money (small income), the country scale of gain (insignificant economic growth),

The requisite lift of spirit has never been found,

Or so the voice of the country (personification) seems to complain,

I can’t help owning the great relief it would be

To put these people at one stroke out of their pain.

And then next day as I come back into the sane,

I wonder how I should like you to come to me

And offer to put me gently out of my pain.

 

The poet is deeply aggrieved by the economic backwardness of the village people compared to the city dwellers. The economic condition of the villages has never been sufficient to inspire or sustain hope for a better standard of living. That is why the collective voice of the villagers seems to complain. The poet becomes so frustrated that he momentarily feels death—though immoral—might bring great relief to the villagers’ pitiable state. This reflects his impulsive and emotional reaction to their suffering. However, the next day, when he regains his calmness and rational thinking, he realizes that such a thought is cruel and illogical. He reflects that he himself would not like anyone to end his life to free him from pain. Here, the poet regains empathy and moral clarity, understanding that no one has the right to decide the means of relief for others.