|
1 2 [3] 4 5 6
Comment 39 of 59, added on February 1st, 2006 at 9:51 AM.
it all depends on how you see life. if you think of violence then of course you'll think this poem is about abuse but if you think pleasent then you'll juss see a father and son playing. but i see both a father loving his son and playing but hurting him at the same time. its very confusing!
erin
erin from United States
Comment 38 of 59, added on December 24th, 2005 at 1:59 AM.
In all the comments on this poem that I have read here, nobody has mentioned the recurring image of the HANDS of the father: "the hand that held my wrist was battered on one knuckle"; "a palm caked hard by dirt".
It's common knowledge that an abused child will often draw pictures of men with huge hands. The child is obviously obsessed with his father's hands. I see this poem as a written version of an abused child's drawing. We also have the words "belt", "beat time", "battered", "the hand that held my wrist", all of which connote violence and abuse towards the child.
We even have the passive mother, standing and watching helplessly as her husband and son "waltz", too afraid of the father to intervene, afraid it's her turn next? I agree that there is a playful, very loving tone which counterbalances this undertone of violence: "romped,"
"still clinging to your shirt", the use of the affectionate term "papa." However, I see this poem as a memory of a child who loves his father, wants his father's attention desperately, and is ready to take it whenever and however it is given. The father may well be simply be roughhousing with his little boy here in this particular instance, and the physical and emotional pain the boy is experiencing is because the father is too drunk and too out of control to realize that he's hurting his son. But I see the violent, dark words as his subconscious filtering through the wishful thinking and idealization of his father and their relationship. Who doesn't repress memories that are too painful to deal with?
maxine from Israel
Comment 37 of 59, added on December 9th, 2005 at 10:29 AM.
Although I am a little confused how the author felt about his father, I like "My Papa's
Waltz" very much. My first impression of the poem is that is flows easily from the tongue.
To me, how smooth a poem sounds when read aloud, is very important. This poem is so
nicely done, in such a matter, that the rhythm is impeccable. What the author is trying to
convey in the poem's meaning is confusing. In the first stanza, when the boy says he
held on "like death," I feel a small sense of fear towards his drunken father. But the last
line, "Still clinging to your shirt," causes me to contradict this fear. I believe the young
boy loved everything about his father except his drunkeness'. I think the boy had mixed
feelings about the "waltzing," but at the end of each night when his father put him to bed,
he still loved him very much. I believe this is the overall message the poem is trying to
express.
Josh Weber from United States
Comment 36 of 59, added on December 8th, 2005 at 11:11 AM.
This comment is very touching....a wonderful poem, well written.
Lindsey
Comment 35 of 59, added on December 5th, 2005 at 7:02 PM.
i likleyed the poem. it was pretty goodly. i readed it thought the daddy was funny. i think i write peotry goody. grow up and be a theodrore rathkey jr. i thinks thoedroer it pretty. bye bye yay
Ryan from United States
Comment 34 of 59, added on November 16th, 2005 at 8:37 PM.
Helloo there,
I'd like to know if any of you would perhaps have good sources for Roethke's "My Papa's Waltz" ? I would really appreciate it. I'm writing a research paper on this poem and would really like any help that I could get. So far, a number of comments that people added helped me grasp the main theme of the poem. I also think that the father was not abusive to the boy - it was simply the way the father showed his child love after coming home from work. It was waltz for bonding a father and child.
Thanks in advance, Friends!
Sabina from United States
Comment 33 of 59, added on November 10th, 2005 at 10:07 AM.
Maybe, We should ask him? There two diff line here, People are seeing, Each from two side, I can see both of the side,I'm sure everyone else can, I have been looking for the thing that he has posted on, About his on, and what it means, Does anyone really know? If So Email me. I really think they are danceing.
Tina from United States
Comment 32 of 59, added on October 25th, 2005 at 7:15 PM.
this poem must be looked at in its entirety and time period. The speaker in the poem is remembering his father(first through smell, which is a sense tied strongly to memory; even if it is the smell of whiskey).it was not unusual for a laboring man of this time to have a few drinks after a hard days work to relax and relieve. The father is seen at the same time every day and a ritual has ensued of a very young boy(possibly 4 or 5 because his ear only reaches the buckle of his father's pants.the words used in the poem may be rough to resemble the roughness of the father and of the waltz, but I think it exaggeration to use the "rough" words as evidence for abuse.
Nick from United States
Comment 31 of 59, added on October 18th, 2005 at 1:40 PM.
You all seem to have missed the point of the poem. We aren't supposed to be dissecting this poem. You have to kill it before you dissect it, and I doubt very much that Mr. Roethke would appreciate that.
Rather, we are supposed to be swepted up emotionally in the waltz, being jerked, as though by a large drunken man, from states of comfort to discomfort, from love to violence. Notice the way terms of innocence (small child) are followed by more sinister diction (death).
Also notice the meter and the breaks therein. Its not technically Iambic Pentameter, to whoever said that. Its iambic for the most part, but is what I think would be called a triameter. each line has three feet--six syllables. The breaks therein are found in the first and third stanzas, with extra beats at the end of every second line. The regular irregularity is supposed to pull us off balance, and place us in the shoes of the speaker.
Whether the father is abusive is a non-issue. Whoever stuck the fruedian analysis in here needs to realize that very few of frued's theories have proven true. Sure he offered the cornerstones of psychoanalysis, but is not the be-all-end-all, so pipe down.
When you stick a poem in a juicer and try to squeeze the meaning out, you fuck up the poem. Ever seen an orange come out of a squeezer? Have you? Huh?
Don't do it.
Ryan from United States
Comment 30 of 59, added on October 16th, 2005 at 3:29 PM.
Look, have you ever thought that the two meanings (love and abuse) exist simultaneously in this poem? That is, our task is not to show that it is categorically abusive or categorically playful. Maybe we should think about what it means to have abuse and love in the same instant.
Enjamb from Argentina
This poem has been commented on more than 10 times. Click below to see the other comments.
1 2 [3] 4 5 6
|
it all depends on how you see life. if you think of violence then of course you'll think this poem is about abuse but if you think pleasent then you'll juss see a father and son playing. but i see both a father loving his son and playing but hurting him at the same time. its very confusing!
erin
erin from United States