The whiskey on your breath
Could make a small boy dizzy;
But I hung on like death:
Such waltzing was not easy.
We romped until the pans
Slid from the kitchen shelf;
My mother's countenance
Could not unfrown itself.
The hand that held my wrist
Was battered on one knuckle;
At every step you missed
My right ear scraped a buckle.
You beat time on my head
With a palm caked hard by dirt,
Then waltzed me off to bed
Still clinging to your shirt.
Leave a guest comment (subject to review)
Comments
1 - 29 of 29
-
Poem
From guest Kayla (contact)
I really like this poem as soon as I read it in English class. At first I really didn't get the meaning of it, until , I actually sat down and thought about it. -
Don't Go
From guest Theo Brazeau (contact)
Before reading this poem it should be known that Theodore Roethke had a deep respect for his father and also that his father worked at a greenhouse. This information can be applied when considering whether or not the speaker in the poem was abused. The "waltz" that was going on may not have been physically enjoyable for the child because of the father's roughness, however it was not abuse. This is evident in line 3 because he "hung on like death." He probably does not get to see his hard working father often so he cherishes what time he does spend with his father, many people with divorced or workaholic parents can attest to that. This is further shown in lines 15-16 because the father had to carry his son to bed and the son does not want to let go. He just wants his dad to be around because he knows that when he wakes up in the morning that his dad will be gone at work. -
-
Just for clarity
Those lines you refer to can also be seen in different ways. It is all up to interpretation, this is why Roethke made the poem so ambiguous. Line 3 can be seen as he is clinging on tight so that he doesn't fall from his father swinging him around. Same goes for lines 15-16. This poem was made ambiguous so that you couldn't be sure about the exact meaning behind the words. And when looking into the poet's life to find meaning in the poem you should be careful, because poem's are not always or even mostly autobiographical. It may be somewhat related but the poet can freely exaggerate or missrepresent truth as much as he/she wants.
-
-
-
A Man's Love
From guest kevin brown (contact)
Even though one can make a case for abuse, I don't see this poem as having anything to do with violence. Roughness, yes, but this is the theme of the poem. A father, unlike a mother, may not show gentle, kind actions to represent his love. Instead, sometimes the best way a father could make his son feel good was to give him a pat on the head, especially in the "old fashioned" lifestyles of the author's time period. As a father fitting into the stereotypical hard-working (calloused hands) macho man, he is not allowed to express his love as a mother might. Instead, in the rough manner displayed in this poem, a son can love his father. This is not abuse, but rather an old fashioned way to show the love between a father and son. -
-
-
To guest Sylvia (and all readers)
There is often an answer to your questions in the comments BENEATH the poem if you scroll down and read them. That is the casse for this poem.
-
-
papa's waltz
From guest alan (contact)
the poem is to be read on two levels. The first a simple vignette, a sloce of life of the poet. There is little or no malace here. The father comes home after a hard day working (construction?) and puts his son to bed. It's a clamerous affair, mayhem, "frowning", but it seems to work for the boy and his father. The relationship is there to view, the steps the intent. The boy does not seem scared but knows he must hold on "like death" to keep with the father. The father is strong focussed on the boy ande a bit oblivious to the boy's trouble with the whole routine. Yet I feel this is how they relate and have a strong bond, esp boy to man, what is to what will be. The second level of the poem to me is the life journey. We start with our parents and need their protection. The boy has learned in the first few lines (such Waltzing is not easy) to hang on and hold fast to his father. This is a practiced act of the boys' self assertion. He can survive and even thrive without his Mom's help. It is a waltz with the implication of Baroque and Vienna overtones. A lovely 3/4 time with magesty and uplifting tones. I pucture the boy happy at the end in his own bed with a crucial gift from his father (may be the only "gift" the father knows how to give). I love the poem and it's immages! -
From guest Tonda (contact)
I think this poem illustrates that real love is messy. You take people as they are, flawed. To love deeply dispite the occasional pain is to live. Love is strong as death. -
From guest Fiona Bradley (contact)
I ave my own feelings on what the poem is really about but I was just wondering if you knew that this poem was published in an anthology dedicated to his father whi died when he was 15? does that change the meaning? F -
I've never heard a battered boy describe a like fight as waltzing, he surely picked a genius metaphor for such a hateful crime in his youth.
Pure brilliance, even if rhyme is not my forte`.
gorgeous -s- -
Great Poem
I think that anyone who believes this to be a poem about a father dancing with his son has a lot of evidence to prove this. However, I think this is just the surface of the poem. Why would Roethke use words like DEATH, BATTERED, SCRAPED, AND BEAT. He specifically chose these words to hint at the hidden meaning of the poem, tempting you to look further. -
-
You are right. It is not JUST about dancing although that is the vehicle chosen to convey the message.
The words you highlight could readily be thought of as the describing the dance of life itself. How, unthinking and uncaring, it affects us all. How it uses us even if it does not abuse us. How, if we are not in synch with life we can get damaged like the youngster scrapping on his dad's buckle when we are not in tune to the rhythm (of life).
K and I don't think it is about child abuse, others disagree. So be it. Only Roethke knows exactly what this poem meant and he chose to make his message ambiguous.
Jim -
-
After a lot of thought this poem seems to be about nothing and everything all at once. I believe Roethke purposely made this poem ambiguous so that any reader could see whatever he wanted in it and create discussions like this for eternity. Thats the real genius behind this poem.
-
-
-
The first time I read this poem, I felt sorry for the boy. It wasn't because I thought he was being abused, but because I was sure he didn't want to go romping through the house with his drunk father. Then I paid close attention to the last lines. The boy, though maybe not fully enjoying the waltzing, still enjoyed the time spent with his father.
But it is easy to see that there is no abuse in this poem. The father is a "happy" or "fun" drunk. All of the "rough" words describe the father, not the father's actions. As far as "beat"... for anyone who's been in a band, they know it means the "beat" of the music, and was probably used over "tapped" because the boy's father is drunk and being rambunctious.
And what mother would just stand by and watch her husband abuse their son?
I suppose readers will be torn over this poem: the ones who see the father's actions as abusive and the ones who see this poem as one filled with real memories of a loved father.
-K -
-
I agree with your interpretation K.
Personally I can see in these words the many real life visions of a parent happily dancing with their children perched on their feet and in so doing peacefully waltzing them off to bed (to sleep!)on an evening without provoking tantrums.
I feel that Roethke would have used fist rather than palm to describe tapping out the beat if he had wanted to imply violence.
Jim
-
-
it's not that you're saying that no one can relate to abuse, but that because you dont see enough evidence (whether there is or not), you will assume that it's happy and "sweeter" is a bit misguided. That's what I've been trying to get across thus far.
-
well yes i supose you are right about us never knowing unless we ask the poet but if you want to believe that no one can relate to abuse then go ahead. there is a fine line tho between optomistic and ignorant
-
Certainly Edgar Allen Poe was a great, popular poet, and his stuff was typically dark. However, he was expressing emotions that most people can relate to (love lost, greed, revenge, etc.). My gripe is with the slew of "personal" poetry that means something only to the poet. If the nuances of the poem have no meaning to another reader, then the art form is not effective.
I can see where anyone might think this poem is about abuse, but unless we actually ask the author, we may never know. I prefer to see it in a sweeter light because I don't think the evidence is sufficient to support the abuse position. -
Perhaps you don't like to actually read what I wrote, or maybe you just prefer to throw juvenile insults. I don't know. But, once again, I never said the negative poetry did not "have the potential to convey emotionally." I would argue further, but it is apparent you don't even read this, so ...
-
i just thought i would point out that i would point out that Edgar A. Poe who is indeed a very very popular poet writes about things that aren't pretty. heart-break etc. also i'd like to point out william shakespear! he most famous plays are tragedies. you know the one's that don't have happy endings. i.e. othello romeo and juliet they don't have happy ending but yet the only thing that has been read more than shakespear is the bible. why are these tragedies so widely read when people don't like negative feelings?
-
Forgive me. Prior to now, I thought that I was dealing with a poet. I assumed that you understood more about what positive and negative poetry have the potential to convey emotionally. Give me a poem about how it sucks that your girlfriend left you, and give me a poem about how a strak of sunlight is analogous to love, and I will dismiss them both, the latter more so.
Good, lasting, powerful poetry has nothing to do with subject matter; that is, both good and bad poetry could be written about any topic.
And in regards to the surface layer over the deeper meaning, I wish that for once, poetry would be taken away from the hands of the professors, and that people would take a poem as it's written. -
I never said that poetry was always wonderful and pretty. I said that poetry that touches the heart in a positive way is far more cherished than poetry that has a more negative feel. Of course, there are subtler negative emotions, like lament, that are also cherished because they evoke a more positive emotion.
I have found over the years that it is useless to share my negative poetry (poetry dealing with negative emotions) because people quickly dismiss it. This is not just true of my poetry. People have their own problems, and typically don't want to hear the problems of others unless they are similar. Give your mother a poem about how it sucks that your girlfriend or wife left you for some other dude and she will feel a moment of sympathy. Give her a poem about how a streak of sunlight coming through the clouds is analogous to the love and support that mother's provide, and she (and many other mothers) will love it forever. Think "Footprints".
As far as the meaning of this poem, I guess we will just have to leave it at disagreement. Looking online, I found that most critiques dismiss the abuse angle. According to many of the analyses, the abuse impression is the surface layer over a deeper meaning. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. -
im not a product of ap. it seems, however, like you are. the other kind. not the cutter kind, but the kind who wants to pretend that poetry is a pretty wonderful thing, when it's often very messy and unhappy.
people do want to feel good, yourself included. unfortunately, people often do not feel as good as they might wish.
in response to the only actual arguent i could find in that first response, the clinging to the shirt is out of fear for what his father is becoming as an alcoholic, the fear of the contrast between the father he knew, and the father who beats him. he's clinging to him as the only thing he knows to do, out of a hope that his clinging will bring back the father he does know. (remember, this took place at a quite young age, roethke's father died when roethke was very young).
as ive said before, you have some sort of roadblock to believing that poetry can be written effectively about traumatic experiences. I assure you that it can (abuse being a traumatic experience), and I assure you that this poem is in fact about that abuse. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.
Edited on Nov 04, 7:03 p.m. because ''. -
Excellent argument, SomnusLupus. That is a very thourough analysis. However, I still think "abuse" is too strong of a word to be used here. The last two lines basically refute the whole idea of abuse.
Sure, the father was rough, but roughness does not constitute abuse. Any man who properly plays with his son will recognize that playing rough is part of the bonding. There are bruises, but they heal, and the bond is stronger.
I think your wrist-grabbing analysis is off. First, the fact that the child is carried off to bed still clinging to his father's shirt (which is obviously a sign of adoration) indicates that the child is small. One cannot hold hands with a small child and dance around a room. Their grip just isn't strong enough. Instead, a father must take his son's wrists in his hands, completely engulfing the child's hand, in order to get a good grasp. Have you never spun a child around by his arms?
I am not denying that there is a certain degree of reluctance on the child's part, but I think it is offset by other key phrases. For example, "But I hung on like death" contains the key word "but". In typical English usage, this word is used as a modifier to refute the previous clause. As such, the boy finds his father's breath repulsive, BUT he hangs on like death. If the author had said "and", then it would have continued the negative feel. Instead, it negates it and makes the act consensual.
The problem I have with the abuse analysis is that it is easily counter-balanced by the obvious love that the father and son have for each other. Father's are rough with their boys. This is not abuse.
I would disagree with your assessment that "poetry is not a pretty thing and is not a tool for documenting the pretty." Poetry serves this role very well. There are emotions other than anger, fear, and resentment. Poetry can capture any emotion, and it can do it by "documenting the pretty."
Lastly, when I say that poetry that conveys negative emotions is not popular, I mean that it is not enjoyed by non-poets. Give someone a poem about suicide and watch them lose interest. Give someone a poem about abuse and they will soon forget it. Then give someone a poem about a boy adoring an imperfect father and you will have made an impression. This is why most popular movies have a happy ending. People want to feel good. -
wow thank you. all those things are exactly what i was trying to say but couldn't get it out as well as you did! thank you! good job!
-
Silver Fox, I believe that you, in fact, miss the intended point.
Understandably, the short, regular meter, sing-song rhyme scheme, and term "waltz" in the title, could originally give the impression that this is a pleasant-spirited dance, however, for reasons I will state, I feel that this sing-song, playful tone is in fact sarcastic.
1) "But I hung on like death"
There are any number of ways for him to describe his hanging on as his father dances him around. Yet to choose "like death" to describe this attempt to not be overtaken in the "dance", is a quite obvious reference to the sarcasm in the tone, and the actuality of the "waltz".
2) "The hand that held my wrist"
Despite appearing an innocuous line, neither supporting nor refuting any interpretation, it is a very telling phrase. How many dances or waltzes do you know, even if it is a drunk father teaching his son as you suggest, where the dancers would hold each other by the wrist. There is actually a reason that this appears in no dances. Without some effort, two people have a hard time holding each other by the wrist. In the one position where this is possible, it is useless in most dances, because it restricts movement almost exclusively to moving from side to side. Also, it is "the hand that held [his] wrist"; no reference to an plural wrist holding. The fact that the father has the son held by the wrist implies that he is being dominant, in other words, beating the child.
3) "You beat time on my head"
This was used by Davidson above to support the theory of dancing lessons. However, when Davidson refers to the line, he says, "keeping time by patting time on his sons head". Davidson actually brings out in that phrase the two reasons that that line indicates drunken abuse. The first is obvious. When Davidson describes the action, he describes it as "patting". However, it was specifically stated in the poem as "[he] beat time". That word choice cannot have been unintentional. The reason for me saying that? Read more Roethke. He obsesses over word choice. However, there is more indication than simply the relative brutality of the word "beat". The coloquial phrase is not at all "to beat time", but as Davidson himself phrased it, "to keep time". This eliminates any doubt at all as to the intention of the word choice. If Roethke were being careless with his word choice, he would simply have said, "You kept time on my head". He did not do this. He chose deliberately to replace the typical phrase with a pretty brutal verb. This is to call attention to the sarcasm in tone, and to the intended meaning of the poem.
As it would turn out (do a google search if you're doubtful), Roethke had a drinking problem himself, and also had severe psychological trauma from his experiences with his father and his father's death while Roethke was young.
I understand the drive for some people to interpret this poem as pleasant and wistfully nostalgic, but it is in fact nothing of the sort. To these people (and I have met quite a few), I would simply remind them of this: poetry isn't a pretty thing, and it is not a tool for documenting the pretty. It is a tool for documenting the true, the real, and the emotional. When these are unpleasant, our job is not to misinterpret poetry, but to cringe if need be, and to take a greater understanding of people, and of ourselves as people, from it.
Edited on Nov 03, 11:13 p.m. because 'spelling'. -
no needto get **about it. it was just my oppinion and i have not been abused so please do not assume that about people. it's a pretty ** up thing to do. i am glad to see that other people agree with me. tho i already knew other's agreed with me because i also studied it in my english class and everyone seemed to agree that this poem is about abuse.
p.s. i am not a cutter and i donot write agnst poems see for yourself. donnot assume i read this poem and applied it to my life
expletives removed. (rufina) -
I studied this poem in my English 100 class in university just recently and my class was torn between whether the boy was just having a good time with his dad or whether he was being abused. Personally I agree with Davidson on this one. I think the boy is simply having a good time dancing around with his drunken father and making a mess.
-
I disagree with SeanJ, on the surface the meaning of the poem it seems as if it is a pleasant good night thing between father and son; however, if you look deeper the boy is very frightened of his abusive father, so he holds on tighter and closer to his father so he can't hit him. His mother's face which could not unfrown itself, is not frowned with minor disapproval at romping before bed time, is in fact scared for her son and her self; thus providing her disapproval.
Edited on Nov 03, 11:57 because 'wrong wordage and punctuation'. -
yes, that's what people do; they apply their own life experiences to a poem. I don't know what vast majority you're talking about but I think you better keep reading.
-
"There is no abuse in this"
Wether there is or there isn't, I don't really know. I guess the only way to know for sure is to ask Roethke (which is true of pretty much every poem).
Either way, it's probably best to stay away from definitives, since none of us know for sure. -
I think you are applying your own experiences to the poem. There is nothing in the poet's bio that suggests a familiarity with abuse. Also, the line "pans slid from the shelf" is hardly one of violence. It is there to express a reason for the mother's disapproval and to show that they were playing as boys.
You know, the vast majority of popular poets do not write about angst and violence and darkness. People don't want to read that. It is akin to walking into a room with strangers and bitching about your life. Most of the lasting poetry is about positive things, observations, and spiritually uplifting experiences. It is only the current set of generation Xers who think angst is worth sharing.
There is no abuse in this. Perhaps you are not familiar with how fathers play with their sons and how the little boys love the rough play. I guess you are entitled to your interpretation, but I believe you miss the intended point. -
i still strongly disagree
-
I think Davidson nailed it on the head. The boy is dancing with his father (there is no evidence of abuse in this) and it is rough. The whole of the poem builds an image of the father that is very raw. Yet the last two lines tell it all. Despite the roughness of the activity, and the wounds that he bore, the boy worships his father. All the roughness and hardplay is tactfully tempered by one gentle moment. It is very poignant.
-
i don't think they are dancing at all! i think that the boy is being abused. "we romped until the pans slid from the shelf" he is tossing him around the kitchen knocking things over.
"At every step you missed
My right ear scraped a buckle" imagine a drunken man trying to punch and missing. he would fall forward. the boy's head probably hit his belt
"you beat time on my head" he was hitting him
"still clinging to yourshirt" you can't hit someone when they are that close to your body. the boy was trying to protect himself.
i think the author used waltzing as a metaphore. to make the poem seem light but once you look into it it reveals itself to you. this poem made me cry the first time i read it! i love it tho
liz
-
Danna you are right about the poem seeming pleasent on the surface, but if you realy look, it isnt the son that is unhappy to be dancing with his father, the mother is unhappy, because the father works late, explaining the dirt and blood on his hand, he also drinks. He is teaching his son to dance in is keeping time by patting time on his sons head and they are dancing around, the boy clinging to his shirt because he does'nt want to let his father go because he never see's him. He loves his father and wants to spend time with him but his father must work, the mother is irritated because the father is keeping her son up and he is drunk, but she will not intercede because she see's that they are having fun togeather and they never get to spend time togeather.
-
If you don't look very deeply, this seems like a nice poem about a father/son moment, but Roethke chose his nouns, verbs and adjectives very carefully. Notice: whiskey, death, battered, beat, hard... this boy is not enjoying this "waltz" at all. He's probably clinging to that shirt because he is afraid he will otherwise.
Adding your comment:
1 - 29 of 29
