War is a game where there is a victor and a loser, but in the end both sides ultimately lose.
https://youtu.be/-3XHpDciM94

As I was reading your interpretation, I was able to comprehend fluidly, and saw the connections made distinctly as written. At the same time, however, I was being intrigued by a potential parallel of (and, very likely intentional) rhetorical ambiguity that allowed for me to consider another version of events simultaneously.

Is it possible that the children are meant to represent the childish nature of certain political, corporate or inherited wealth parties of power positions; whom pretend to be certain characters, filing certain roles and exerting authoritative rule over the people? Or, just rank higher?

The people of the chorus are not important enough to be on the playbill, simply filling voids between the scenes of the leading roles. The actors with the fame and notoriety to sell both themselves and tickets, staring in a spectacular story only a child’s imagination can generate?

The adults, on the other hand weep for them not because they pity them, but rather because they are made miserable and thus weep as a result of their destructive game-play. Some don’t want to be in the play, some have stage fright, and some aren’t even aware they’re in a play at all.

Insinuating in oddly phrased configurations and choosing a word that works, but is not specific enough to denote which ambiguous supposition is “true” to the intended meaning, the possibility forks in multiple directions. And based on the reader’s innate penchant of moral trajectory likely as well?

Could be what is meant by the line,
“Under a spell so the wrong ones can’t find it.”

Like, a choose your own adventure story, different endings vary depending on your good vs. evil/wave vs. particle/herd vs. Shepard inclinations when decisions be made.

Guides on either side of the supposition would aim to lose their touristy travel partners. For the sake of perpetual wander-herding in version one, and for the sake of rerouting the flock and getting them lost from what they are familiar with, to shed light vital to their fulfillment. Likely, though, only a few at a time, so not to be halted mid-mutiny.

The power the children have over the adults is immense in the playhouse (Shakespeare did say, after all, “All the world’s a stage…”) and the Ernest house (Oscar Wilde allusion, perhaps?) with serious dispositions, suffers. Adults, undermined by the broken dishes of the child’s reckless play makes them angry but without a conceivable strategy that would advance them forward in the game.

The children have no regard for the impact they are having on anyone bigger than themselves and their make-believe megalomania. They are, in the poem (by both time and imagination) separated from one another by worlds, and are thus exist out of mind to the children.

Despite the verbosity of my tangent, I can see that dark shadow of an alt-text, coded meaning all throughout the poem. Akin to the idea of Stephen King’s “twinners”. Do you hear it now? Weird!

Imagine what a skilled content creator like Frost could do with that masked messenger in the world today. Or, even a team of them!

Might be a stretch, but… By the way, this is my first genius contribution, so please forgive and advise upon faux pas, should you find any tracks.

You could also say that night is the time of dreams so when morning comes their dream is over

“Lightning” is rather unpredictable and sudden, showing she is discerning and questioning at this moment. This is because Romeo is a Montague and she needs to be logical about the situation. She needs to depict if this love is pure lust and momentarily or worth taking the risk . For is she does something wrong, due to the patriarchal society of the time, she would face terrible consequences in comparison to Romeo.