" Fire and Ice"
Robert Frost, 1920
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.
To many of us, Robert Frost’s “Fire and Ice,” only holds significance because of its length. Frost’s abrupt, stark entrance to the end of an argument, served as a nine line scapegoat. And most of us probably only encountered this poem because of some “scary” assignment in the ending of your middle school experience, and fewer lines meant less memorization. I know because I was one of the nine students in my class, who googled “short poems,” and nailed, but overlooked the nine-liner. However, adolescence, mixed in with the millennial need for shortcuts, not only has Frost rolling in his grave but is leaving us out of a rather rad, timeless argument.
Literally speaking, the world could be hit by a giant comet, and burn. And despite global warming (which wasn’t a problem when Frost wrote “Fire and Ice”), the earth could retreat into another ice age. But the words used by Frost, do not display worry, the choice is logical, although subjective. Being burned alive, is a terrifying thought. The flames will wilt your skin until there is nothing left, and engulf your lungs, cooking everything in its path. Essentially, the fire will suffocate you, and you will drown in flame. Death by ice, or freezing to death, is unbearable and horrifying until your teeth stop chattering and the shaking stops. But when that happens, you go numb, and you become ironically warm. Then your organs fail, and you go to “sleep.” The extremities of the two choices Frost gives, parallel any gray area and are both morbidly cruel in their distinctions. The weight of this choice is mutually fractional, it’s one, or the other.
Figuratively, fire could equate love, and ice could equate hate. Emotions are easily substituted for actuality. And in “Fire and Ice” emotions withhold the same functions and sadistic qualities as their realistic counterparts. But unlike fire and ice, that cannot coexist, hate is not truly destructive without love. Love can come in many different forms, but is a mandatory part of hate. Love is a hot emotion, hate is a cold emotion. And if hate is born of passion, which is a hot emotion, they are not as exclusive, as logic may perceive. If you ask a person about love, they will tell you about heartbreak.The nature of emotions is too complex to have a predicted end. The cruelty conjured by emotion is uncertainty, and that is destruction originated by spite. The choice does not break even, it is not black and white.
So, if fate was not an obstacle, and the choice was personal, would you favor fire? Or would ice suffice?
