Fire and Ice
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.
"Fire and Ice" is a popular poem by American poet Robert Frost (1874-1963). It was written and published in 1920, shortly after WWI, and weighs up the probability of two differing apocalyptic scenarios represented by the elements of the poem's title. The speaker believes fire to be the more likely world-ender of the two, and links it directly with what he or she has "tasted" of "desire." In an ironically conversational tone, the speaker adds that ice—which represents hate and indifference—would "also" be "great" as a way of bringing about the end of the world. There are two reported inspirations for the poem: the first of these is Dante's Inferno, which is a poetic and literary journey into Hell written in the 14th century. The other is a reported conversation Frost had with an astronomer in which they talked about the sun exploding or extinguishing—fire or ice.
Summary
The speaker weighs up two different scenarios for the end of the world. Some people think the world will end in fire, whereas others think ice is more likely. Based on the speaker's experiences with desire, he or she tends to agree with those who believe fire is the more likely scenario. If the world were to end twice, however, the speaker feels that, based on his or her knowledge of human hatred, ice would be an equally powerful method of destruction—and would do the job sufficiently.
Themes
Hatred, Desire, and the End of the World
Despite its light and conversational tone, “Fire and Ice” is a bleak poem that highlights human beings’ talent for self-destruction. The poem is a work of eschatology—writing about the end of the world—and poses two possible causes for this end: fire and ice. The speaker uses these natural elements as symbols for desire and hatred, respectively, arguing that both emotions left unchecked have the capacity to destroy civilization itself.
The speaker begins by relating that, when it comes to how the world will end, “some” people favor fire and “some” ice. At this early stage of the poem, these two elements could easily relate to a natural disaster. For example, a potential world-ending “fire” could be something like the asteroid that most likely destroyed the dinosaurs; and ice could relate to a future ice age, or the extinguishment of the sun. But as soon as those more naturalistic ends to the world are suggested, the poem changes direction and makes it clear that fire and ice are symbols—not of natural disasters, but of humanity’s ability to create disasters of its own.
By “fire” the speaker actually means “desire”—and from the speaker’s limited personal experience, the speaker knows desire to be a powerfully destructive force. Humanity, then, could bring about the end of the world through passion, anger, violence, greed, and bloodlust. Indeed, the “fire” now seems like an image of warfare too. (Indeed, the poem was written shortly after then end of World War I.)
Though the speaker feels “fire” is the likely way for humanity to destroy itself and the world, the speaker also feels that human beings’ capacity for destruction is so great that it could bring about this destruction more than once. (This is tongue-in-cheek, of course, as once would certainly be enough.) Here, the speaker presents “ice” as another method for ending it all, aligning it with hatred.
Ice works differently from fire in this eschatological prediction. Human destruction doesn’t have to be bright, noisy, and violent—hate can spread in more subtle ways. Ice has connotations of coldness and indifference, and so a possible reading here is that the end of the world could be brought about by inaction rather than some singular major event. A contemporary reading could map climate change onto “ice” here: if people fail to act over humanity’s effect on the climate, it will gradually, but assuredly, bring about destruction.
By the poem’s end, though, the choice between “ice” and “fire” starts to seem a little false—particularly as the speaker’s tone is so casual and even glib (“ice is also great”). Ice and fire, though utterly different in the literal sense, here represent one and the same thing: the destructive potential of humanity. Either method will suffice to bring about the inevitable end of the world. In just nine short lines, then, “Fire and Ice” offers a powerful warning about human nature. Finally, it’s important to notice something that isn’t in the poem: any hint of a possibility that humanity won’t end the world.
불과 얼음
어떤 사람은 세상이 불로 끝날 것이라고 말한다.
또 어떤 이는 얼음으로 끝날 거라 한다.
그런데 내가 경험한 욕망으로 비춰 보건데
난 불로 끝난다는 이들을 지지한다.
그러나 세상이 두 번이나 멸망해야 한다면
증오에 대하여 충분히 알고 있는 나는
얼음도 파괴하는 힘은 대단하며
그래서 (세상을 파괴하기에) 충분하다고 본다.
여기서 불(fire)은 인간의 자연스러운 욕망이- 지나친 욕심으로- 경쟁적 배타적 투쟁의 탐욕으로 변질되어, 사랑이 죽어 차갑고 간악 해진 인간성의 세상으로 상징된다.
다시 말해 불(fire)은 자아의 사랑이 지나쳐 자신과 남을 다 태우는 욕망의 불이고, 얼음(ice)은 무관심-사랑의不在- 냉정- 질시- 증오(hate)심으로 변질된 인간성을 의미하는 것으로서,
만약, 문명의 종말, 인류의 종말이 온다면, 神의 심판에 의해서라기보다는 먼저 인간 스스로가 자연의 섭리와 인륜을 거스를 때, 즉 자연과 사람, 사람과 사람, 혹성과 혹성 사이의 애정과 화평의 삶과 그 길을 가지 않고 이기적 탐욕(fire)이나 배타적
증오(hate)의 세상이 되면 인류는 스스로 상극적 모순에 당착하여 파멸하는 것, 이것이 시인 프로스트의 경험과 지혜가 발견한 보편진리이다. 불과 얼음의 대조의 詩學이다.