Two essentially different forms are apparently placed as opposing facets at the beginning of this piece, and an incongruity is drawn

between these two forms. Thus, form is meant to be the atomic essence of the ideas that are proposed by the words fire and ice. It represents for each their true meanings, either literal or symbolic, when viewed objectively from their appropriate viewpoint. When "Some say the world will end in fire, /Some say in ice.", it gives the impression "as if a super-scientist were weighing possible ends to the world", trying to decide which is worse." There is also an ambiguity to the statements giving them a generalizing and universal effect. It is like there are two groups, and only two groups, made up of anyone and everyone on the Earth, debating their fate. There are presented two choices for them to decide on, and they are the only possible ones. Would their world end in a violent apocalyptical fire or a glacial ice age? It is never positively acknowledged which is definite and which is absurd.

Seemingly there is no emphasis as to which is the more preferred of the two evils, at least in the first reading. The speaker gives the impression that one is no more significant than the other, as stated by lines five through nine, " 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.", "it" referring to both worlds, Earth and individual. A second time through, it can be inferred that there is a distinction between the worse and the worst. Desire, as the speaker understands it, can be as violent as fire to destroy the world. The alliteration of "favor fire" adds to the emphasis of this avenue of inquiry. This knowledge is understated by the word "think", as if he is unsure about his judgment, which would acknowledge the idea that fire is the worst imaginable end to the world. However, it can and probably should be speculated otherwise.

Assuming when "Some say" that an astronomical force will destroy the world in fire or ice, the two opposing theories of global warming and the reoccurring ice age are brought to contrast. An associate and a close friend of Robert Frost claimed to have inspired him to write "Fire and Ice". Harlow Shapley was a Harvard professor and one of the most prominent astronomers in America at the time. He had claimed that Frost, while filling the position of poet-in-residence at Harvard, had met Shapley at one of the faculty meetings. According to Shapley, Frost approached him and asked "Now Professor Shapley. You know all about astronomy. Tell me, how will the world end?" Shapley replied "either the Earth would be incinerated, or a permanent ice age would gradually annihilate all life on Earth." Shapley had denied the meaning that had been intended and gave it his own convenient analysis. Still, this mistake is not and will not be the last to be made. The direct simplicity of these nine lines can easily conceal what is otherwise a boundless testimony to human strife. So, it is understandable how a person might mistake the symbolic connotation for the celestial reflection on the surface without sticking their head in the murk to see the quagmire underneath.

In Contrast, ice is coupled with ha

Some common words found in the essay are:
Robert Frost, Earth Shapley, Nine Circles, Fire Ice, Nicomachean Ethics, Inferno Frost's, Cartesian Dualism, Shapley Harvard, Professor Shapley, fire ice, Existentialist Dualism, desire hate, ice age, hate desire, ice/ great/ suffice, perish twice, cause death, hate/ destruction, i've tasted, tasted desire, desire speaker, destruction ice/ great/, hate/ destruction ice/, i've tasted desire,
Approximate Word count = 2102
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)