Skip to main content

What does the buzz saw symbolize in “Out, Out—"?

The buzz saw in Robert Frost's "Out--Out--" symbolizes the mindless power of machinery that, when out of the control of man, can destroy human life.


Published in 1916 when Britain was already engaged in war, a situation that necessitated Robert Frost's return to the United States, this poem examines the duality of machinery; that is, the mixing of the danger and the productivity of machinery. 



And the saw snarled and rattled, snarled and rattled,
As it ran light, or had to bear a load. (ll.7-8)



In these early lines of the poem, it is the personified saw that performs the work, rather than the boy--much as with the young soldiers who fire weapons against their enemy. In the next line, there is a somber quality to the purpose of the saw, and the sense of finality that will come-- "And nothing happened: day was all but done."


But, just as in war, the machine can become such an extension of the man that it is as though the man is then the instrument rather than the machine. When this happens, tragedy can strike. In the poem, the saw



Leaped out at the boy’s hand, or seemed to leap—
He must have given the hand. (ll.16-17)



Underscoring the dangers of the machinery of war or of farm life, machinery that becomes the instrument of tragedy itself, the boy loses control of the chain-saw and his mishap costs him his hand, and eventually his life. Similarly, the machinery of war can cause fatalities that are accidental, and young lives are so quickly extinguished, as the title of this poem alludes,



Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, (Macbeth, 5.5.23-24)



Clearly, the machinery of labor, much like the machinery of war, is capable of overpowering man and becoming a destructive force that places man merely in the shadows of life and death.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.