(Love cannot do physical things, but what is does inside can be very powerful.) As I mentioned before, the tone and form of the poem is really set by the opening line and it is carried out through the rest of the poem quite well with lines such as these. I enjoy how the form circles back to the main meaning of the first line.

This line makes me think of a woman putting on figurative armor against the harshness of the world or men. To me, this poem gives a sense of a man following flowers--women. Women are told to protect themselves, to prepare for the worst if it should happen. But maybe that creates a distance to those, or the good, around them (out of necessity?).

The narrator is saying that love is not everything to life, it is not what sustains our physical bodies. I think this is a good choice as the first line as it sets the form for the rest of the poem, which goes on to speak about what love cannot do.

This is kind of a stretch, but at what point does the road less traveled by become the road more traveled by because everyone takes the road less traveled by? I feel as if this poem is so moving and powerful to its readers that they are compelled toward the road less traveled, but then everyone is compelled toward that road. So at what point does it become the other road (the roads switch)?

Does this represent doubt in the narrator's choice to follow the road less traveled? It sounds as if they are looking for a back up plan, almost, or are hoping to have something to fall back on even though once we've started down a path it can be very hard or take a very long time to change or circle back to the other path?

What does the undergrowth represent? Does it symbolize how far we can look into the future and make predictions about where life will take us?

I think that this speaks a lot to the feeling that we want to do more than one thing in life, but we must choose one path to follow (be it career, etc.) There are regrets in life, or the "magic" of hindsight that lets us wish we had taken the other path. How would the tone of this poem be different if the narrator took the road more traveled? What would be the focus?

This is a long life, ninety-six, and an odd phrasing: "...lived enough..." I wonder about the time period and the privilege of this way of thinking. She has good health to make it to ninety-six. What is her social standing/class?

I really enjoy the circular form of this poem. It's almost lilting and rhythmic as you read it which I think matches how the poem is laid out on the page. Each comma seems intentionally placed along with each line break, and there are several soft/slant rhymes here and there.

These lines and the lines following (the conclusion of the poem) make me think of Adams and his many "teachers". He was unable to learn even from different people, and here the lines are speaking (to the readers? to the people mentioned? to the river?) about how they cannot "make you see" the truth.

At the beginning of the story, very converse to the ending and even the middle of the story, she trusts John. Even though her new living conditions are becoming abundantly clear, she is looking at her husband as if through rose color glasses. This is very different from the middle where there was push back and unease, and the ending, where she changed course and let John into the room. What could that choice mean?

John treats her as if she were a child. I think that her later mistrust has grounds. I think that their relationship is interesting because they are distant from each other as John has set himself upon a pedestal as "husband" and "doctor". He knows best, he is smarter. The main character's slow mental unraveling adds another layer to the story. (Can you trust her as a narrator?)

I find it confusing that she would tell John how to enter the room. It doesn't seem as if she trusts him, after what he put her through with confining her to bed and controlling her.

This reminds me of the line about Adams "historical neck" breaking but in a more positive way. There is a positive social change from "evil".

This reminds me of Adams entering the exhibition and experiencing it with Langley. A search for something that is just out of reach -- for Adams, understanding. I enjoy the imagery here. I think a difference is that Adams meets several teachers or guides, but no physical "guide" is mentioned here -- only later an "ideal" is mentioned as a guide.

This makes me think of the exhibition and the look into the future from Adams. It is a kind of contrast to this, as this is leans towards the past. What does it mean to have years of development, social or technological, if we continue to default to the past? Is that really progress?

I've read this section several times now. I wonder what made the other remarks so special that they made the "audience" change its way of thinking over time. It states that the 'hundred years of other remarks" were "no more fresh and certainly less simple" -- how does this lead to a change?

I am struck by the sudden shift to the male focus. In the previous paragraphs, it was very female focused (speaking of Venus and the Virgin) and with this line there is a sudden shift.

What does it mean to have your "historical neck broken"? Is it the whiplash of scientific advancement?

I find this line confusing because it states that the economies are absolute, and then goes on to define them with words that suggest that they go beyond -- "supersensual" and "occult". I don't really understand why these words were paired together in this way.

This line tripped me up because it says the forces were interchangeable, but then states a difference. The definition of the word "fiat" could also change meaning of the line depending on which meaning you choose.

Could "they Lion" represent "waiting"?

Could this represent strength? An arm that is used to work perhaps...

What could the contrast of "down" and "up" represent here?

Could this be representing their reaction to something? To a loss? I like the image that it creates.