Thanks for that! Much more informative than the article. I think the rest of the commentary is important too. Like the original article says, poems are meant to

Thanks for that! Much more informative than the article. I think the rest of the commentary is important too. Like the original article says, poems are meant to be interpreted, and I think Frost played with the words to encourage different interpretations, even the literal reading of the last few lines out of context. The poem is essentially a commentary on interpretation. There's the initial evaluation of the paths, evaluation along the path, and an evaulation of future evaluations, showing how those interpretations change over time. The initial evaluation is that the less worn one might be more interesting. During the walk, there's the interpretation that they're probably both the same, and an evaluation of future evaluation, emphasizing the importance of the choice and implying self-deception. I think this follows the actual propagation of consequences according to chaos theory. At the moment when a choice is made, the effects are relatively small, but we all know that long-term effects of those minor differences cause large divergences in the future. So there's an actual element of truth to the final evaluation, even though it's considered as self-deception, because of the passage of time and repeated self-interpretation of the choice, even if the roads were about the same. Essentially, the choice itself is consequential, even if the immediate results of the choice are not.