The Ambiguity of Connotation and Structure: Ambivalent Result
In “My Papa’s Waltz” (1948), Theodore Roethke paints a picture of a father-son romp
around the kitchen that is at the same time both rough in its play, and tender in its memory.
Roethke uses simple words to create ambiguous phrases that can be read and understood in these
two different ways. The imagery in the poem is full of confusion as to what the actual meaning
is. The poem is also semiautobiographical, so Roethke is creating these images from his
childhood memories. In describing a purpose of poetry, he said himself that “poetry is the
discovery of the legend of one’s youth” (Blessing 18). But legends are a mix of actual physical
truths combined with story telling that paints a picture showing the way we would like to
remember the past. The fact that poetry discovers the legend means that the story within the
poem has both hard truths and fanciful memories. Roethke’s creates this legend using ambiguity
of language combined with the poem’s structure and connotation.
The structural frame of “My Papa’s Waltz” creates confusion in meaning among the
stanzas. The poem is not uniform. Few structural points are similar in the four stanzas. Each
stanza is one complete sentence, has an ABAB rhyme scheme, and is written in “iambic
trimeter” (Fong). The iambic trimeter creates a waltzing beat that flows through the poem.
However, there is a variance in this pattern with five lines having an extra beat in them. This
variance, or misstep, could have been written for two very different reasons. One reason could
be that there is a sense of carefree feeling in the waltz. The father doesn’t have to be in perfect
step to enjoy dancing with his son. He is playing with his son. The other reason could relate to
the whiskey mentioned in the first stanza. The father could be drunk or tipsy and is taking extra
steps in dancing due to the lack of sobriety. The most reasonable answer may be found in further
exploring the structure.
Butler2
The rhyme scheme plays a part in the missteps of the poem, too. The first two stanzas
contain slant rhyme and straight rhyme, while the last two stanzas contain only straight rhyme.
This slant rhyme is observed with “dizzy” and “easy,” and with “pans” and “countenance.” The
explanations for the slant rhyme create another ambiguity. First, “dizzy” and “easy,” being slant
rhyme, could be emphasis on the action of these words. It could create a sense of drunkenness,
or that of a sense of carefree fun. This delves into the words connotations, which will be
discussed later. Second, the pattern of two slant rhymed stanzas followed by two straight
rhymed stanzas creates the possibility for two interpretations of this pattern. The slant rhyme
creates a sense of strain and unevenness in the work. At the same time, the slant rhyme could
mean that there is a resourcefulness that the writer exploits, using words that necessarily would
not pair. With straight rhyme, the writer can create a sense of resolve. The writer has a more
concrete sense of the work and can translate it in the straight rhyme. On the other hand, the
straight rhyme can show a sense of chaos. Human nature uses structure as a coping mechanism.
When things inwardly become hectic or chaotic in one’s life, human nature tends to strive for the
outward appearance of neatness and structure. The chaos in the poem is created through the
meaning and connotations of the words, and the straight rhyme is the writer’s attempt to create
structure out of chaos.
The ambiguity that arises from connotations of the words that starts from the very first
stanza. “The whiskey on your breath/ could make a small boy dizzy;/ but I hung on like death:/
such waltzing was not easy.” The first two lines create a double meaning. The “whiskey on
your breath” could mean that the father was an alcoholic but
Butler3
it could mean that the father had just a sip of whiskey. The sip of whiskey could have made the
child dizzy because any child thinks alcohol smells strong. This creates an uneasiness with the
father and son relationship. What are we supposed to believe is the true meaning?
The second two lines create another sense of uneasiness. First, the son is waltzing with
the father, which creates a sense of fun. Yet, this son is only tall enough to reach his dad's belt
buckle. With a huge dad like this, the son would have to cling to his dad using every tiny muscle
available to him as he was being twirled around the room. This is the son's memory. From the
son's perspective the interactions are a bit overwhelming. The father is having fun with his son
and is unknowingly creating a minor sense of fear in the child. The game was played too harshly
for the young boy, as seen with the words “hung on like death” and “not easy.” It was a memory
that might have been fun to a certain point, but was taken over-the-top by the father.
The second stanza confirms the fact that the father might have taken things too far.
“We romped until the pans/ slid from the kitchen shelf;/ my mother’s countenance/ could not
unfrown itself.” The “romp” suggests a playful behavior between the father and son. The force
created by the romp was so strong that it was making a mess of the kitchen. This suggests that
the interaction could have been too much for a small boy. Clearly, the mother is not very happy
with the interaction. The “mother’s countenance” would not be “unfrown[ed]”. Two images are
visible with the mother’s reaction. First, the mother is only dismayed that her kitchen is being
destroyed. Second, the mother is not only dismayed that her kitchen is being torn apart, but she
is not fully enjoying the rough-housing between the father and son. She is not stopping the
interaction, which suggests that she is approving that the father is playing with the son. Yet, the
fact that she is frowning suggests that she might know, as all mothers seem to know, that roughhousing always starts out laughing, but someone ends up crying.
Butler4
The mother’s intuition is only confirmed in the third stanza. “The hand that held my
wrist/ was battered on one knuckle;/ at every step you missed/ my right ear scraped a buckle.”
The buckle scraping the child’s illustrates that the child is a young child, and that the father, in
some way, is neglecting the child. The child is clearly encountering pain at the father’s hand,
and yet the father continues the waltz. Clearly, the father does nothing to stop the game
as soon as the child is encountering pain. This suggests a sort of negligence.
One might view the act as abusive, especially with the preceding lines, “the hand that
held my wrist/ was battered on one knuckle.” The “battered” knuckle on “the hand” could
suggest that the father was in some type of scuffle and might have used the hand as weapon.
However, , we must consider Roethke’s background and relationship with his father. Roethke’s
father was a gardener, and Otto “built his own house …just in front of the greenhouse, so that he
would always be nearby to tend his flowers” (Butterworth). Otto’s job was very physically
tasking so it is acceptable for a laborer to have a battered knuckle from a hard day’s work. This
removes the idea that the battered knuckle was a result of violence, or suggestive of abuse. It is,
rather, Roethke’s acknowledgment of his father’s rough demeanor that he carries over with him
from his work.
This roughness leads us to “the hand,” which is referred to in the third person. This
suggests that the child was either in admiration of his dad's powerful hand, or perhaps in fear of
it. The fear can be drawn from the fact that Otto was “a hard taskmaster, demanding perfection”
(Butterworth). Roethke sometimes failed to live up to his father’s expectations and would be
demoralized for his failure. However, there is a strong sense of admiration. This is drawn from
“the life-giving quality in Otto” (Butterworth). Roethke’s father did hard work, work he loved.
Roethke respected his father for his work and would often be in the garden helping his father. A
Butler5
child would try to stay away from a fearful thing, not join in tasks with the object of fear. Rather
than fear, the hand symbolizes the admirable quality the father has with his craft.
The interaction continues to be a rough-housing waltz.
The fourth stanza creates the final image of both rough-housing and love. “You beat time
on my head/ with a palm caked hard by dirt,/ then waltzed me off to bed/ still clinging to your
shirt.” As referred to earlier, the hand is still just a labor-roughened hand and is now clearly
demonstrated as a gardener’s hand. Although, the image of the “beat time on my head” phrase
could create this sense of abuse again. The dad could tap time, or pat time if he was being
gentle. He would “beat time” if the son's head was supposed to symbolize a drum. Though, in
this poem, it makes more sense that the rough-housing continued, and the "beat time" suggests
the vigor of the cadence of the dance. Then the father, like a good parent, takes the child “off to
bed/ still clinging to your shirt.” The “clinging” can be two things. It can refer to the past
waltzing and that the child was in fear that he would be tossed around and was desperately trying
to cling on. On the other hand, it can mean that the child loved his father and Roethke uses this
last line to ensure we know this. After reflecting on all the images that showed roughness in the
play, and the ambiguity that may have been minor traumatizing actions by the father, the father is
still shown in a loving image towards his son.
All of these ambiguities arise from differences in meaning that can be taken from the text.
The text contains duality that can be interpreted as both positive and negative. The parts taken
individually can support either claim and is supported through the poem's structure, words, and
phrases. The poem taken as a whole, on the other hand, is an image of a powerful dad, roughhousing with his child, frowned on but accepted by his mother, that leaves us with a snapshot of
Butler6
a loving and tender moment between a dad playing with his child.
The child remembers the
roughness in his memory, but he has a fondness for the interaction.
Citation:
Blessing, R. A. (1974). Theodore Roethke's Dynamic Vision. London, Indiana University Press.
Butterworth, K. (1980). "Theodore (Huebner) Roethke." American Poets Since World War II 5.
Fong, B. (1990). "Roethke's 'My Papa's Waltz'." College Literature 17(1): 79-82.