Question

Why did the two roads get branched off?

Answer 1

analogy on the impact choices have on life. However, it's commonly misrepresented, for many focus on the last few lines without considering the poem's greater context: "I took the road less travelled by, and that has made all the difference."

Given the common understanding of the poem (that the road he choose really is less traveled), the roads would represent the easy but less rewarding path of life and the harder but later more fulfilling path of life. Granted, this is still a broad analogy; these roads could thus stand for anything from choosing a harder educational path now, that many shy away from, and potentially receiving greater dividends later in life (perhaps higher salary); or it could stand for chasing an impossible dream when everyone around you is too scared of the risks.

These are nice thoughts, and perhaps there's truth to them. Unfortunately, that's not what this poem is really about. How can we tell? Glad you asked!

Our first clue is the path diverging, or "two roads diverged" to put it as Frost does. Now if you are not prone to walking in the woods, you might be picturing a dramatic comparison: one path is overgrown with briars and thorns while another is neatly trimmed with grass and flowers one might find in a quaint meadow. A lovely thought, but my experience of walking through the woods has proven that ultimately the paths tend to look the same. When you stay in the same woods, and this divergence does happen in the same yellow woods, the trees are of similar species, shrubbery is much of the same species, and the mushrooms and rocks and other little details all are of the same kind. So, it would be a strange place indeed if one path had dark knarly trees with tall menacing shrubbery (picture the woods from Dinsey's animated Snow White when she first flees the Huntsman), while the other side was open, peaceful, like a meadow. After all, they diverge in the same woods.

"But wait!" You might be thinking. "That's fair to say the flora would appear similar but the upkeep of each path, the wear and tear is certainly different!"

Ah, you've really got me there. ;)

Again, drawing from experience, this is a valid point. When trails on my family's property are not used, branches fall, grass overgrows, and nature begins reclaiming the path. While the essence of the trail's makeup stays the same, the appearance and passibility of the paths do indeed change. So perhaps the difference in the paths is the amount of wear? Ah, that's the ticket; after all, Frost concludes with the "path less traveled by".

Perhaps you are smugly thinking to yourself that all my explanation has been for naught. But let's return to the poem and see what exactly it says.

The first path seems passable until it "bend[s] in the overgrowth". Surely this is the easy path, commonly traveled upon?

Indeed, the first lines describing the second path seem to portray a path with grass untrampled. Ah, this path is less traveled, is the path he speaks of in the end, and is what has made all the difference, right?

We need to pause and consider what we've been told before reaching any conclusions. The first path later bends in undergrowth and the second has unworn grass. Given those descriptions, we really can't compare the two paths! Frost even says the second path is "just as fair" as the first.

Here is when we get our first insight into understanding what the roads really stand for. By objective measures, the paths have little contrast. However, as we will see in a moment, the subjective extrapolations of each path, as presented by the narrator, are where the differences lie.

Consider the line "and bearing perhaps the better claim". This does nothing to tell us about the paths. It merely tells us what the narrator believes is true of the paths. (Quick aside: if we can't trust the narrator on this, why should we believe anything else about the poem, including the seemingly objective descriptions outlined above? But I digress.)

The next two lines give the narrator's admission the paths really are worn the same. How is a path worn? By being traveled. Is there a direct correlation between the amount of wear and the amount of travel? Yes. In essence: the amount of wear shows the amount of travel and the amount of travel shows the amount of wear. Therefore, to be worn the same is to be traveled the same.

Here the shocking truth begins to dawn: there is no road less traveled by.

The next line even describes the paths as laying equally before the narrator!

Now here it becomes interesting: as he is arriving at this divergence in the morning, no step has trodden either path black yet. You could say no one has walked them since the dawn of that day. Interesting. I'll hark back to this later.