
The poem, “My Papa’s Waltz”, was written by Theodore Roethke in the early 1900’s. Growing up, Roethke helped his father in their family greenhouse. However, his father tragically died of cancer, after which he wrote this poem. Contrary to the true meaning of the poem, the majority of people look at the surface and see hurt. These people are confused at the words and phrases Roethke uses instead of digging deeper in order to find the true meaning of what he is trying to say. In actuality, Roethke is trying to convey a happy memory he has of his late father.

There are certain words and phrases in “My Papa’s Waltz” that make people think that there is an underlying tone of abuse and neglect, that is simply not true. Starting with the line, “the whiskey on your breath could make a small boy dizzy” (page 90), people begin to form untrue conclusions. It is generally at this point that people begin to conclude that alcoholism leads to abuse. However, what these people fail to realize is that often alcohol puts people in better moods than they would normally be in, much less not abusive moods. As demonstrated in the line “we romped until the pans slid from the kitchen shelf” (page 91), the speaker of the poem is obviously enjoying themselves, showed simply by means of the word choice of romp, which gives a positive connotation. It is at this time when the misunderstood begin to bring forth the word choice of the word beat, as used when the speaker says “you beat time on my head” (page 91). However, this sentence does not refer to physical abuse. It refers to the speaker’s father simply keeping time of the rhythm to which they are dancing to on the speaker’s head. This is not unusual as waltzes usually have a three four or six eight rhythm and it becomes increasingly difficult to stay on time. All of this comes to the same point. In spite of the fact that there are words and phrases that can be taken out of context to point to abuse, the true message of the poem has nothing to do with harm.

Furthermore, there are serious misconceptions about other phrases that Roethke uses. It is believed by the ill-informed that when the speaker states that his father’s hand was “battered on one knuckle” (page 91), that the speaker is speaking of abuse. People tend to interpret this as the father hurt his hand by hitting either his child or his wife. This is simply not true. In actuality, this phrase is just used as the first demonstration that the father is a hardworking man. This is often the case in literature of this nature. The speaker further demonstrates that his father is a hardworking man when he says that his father’s “palm[s] [are] caked hard by dirt.” (page 91). These two points lead to the conclusion that the father is actually just a hardworking man because they demonstrate what happens to the hands of hardworking men. As anyone who has ever worked long and hard outside can confirm, after a while your hands become dirty and callused, not to mention the minor injuries that your hands take. This goes well with the reading because it would easily explain the battered knuckle as a minor injury that would be common among hardworking outdoorsmen which would be further confirmed by the father’s hands being caked by dirt. At the time this literature was written, and into modern day literature, hardworking men were and are associated with values, especially moral values. In combination with the alcohol, the speaker begins to paint a picture of the typical man who works hard while he’s at work and likes to have a drink when he gets home. 

Throughout all of these moments in Roethke’s work, one begins to wonder if the true message is not one of abuse, then why are there so many ambiguous moments where the reader could interpret them incorrectly? The answer is that points are in fact not ambiguous at all. When Roethke speaks of the alcohol on the breath of the father and uses words like beat, he is not using ambiguous terms which leave his work open to interpretation. He is simply presenting his facts in the way they occurred. 

However, throughout the entire poem, the speaker is still trying to get across his main point, which is the love he has for his father. Aside from the alcohol and the flaws of his father, the speaker still emphatically pushes this point. He uses certain words and phrases that are meant to bring about a positive mental image. This point is most strongly brought across when the speaker speaks of his father “waltz[ing] [him] off to bed.” (page 91). Whatever one reads from the rest of the poem, this line is the strongest of them all. This line speaks to the most childlike nature of the very human soul. It speaks of a father’s love towards his son and of a son’s love for his father. If one reads the rest of the poem to speak of abuse, this line contradicts it. Furthermore, the speaker goes on to speak of “clinging to [his father’s] shirt.” (page 91). This again brings across the point of childlike love of his father. It directly contradicts any interpretation of abuse or neglect. It strictly points to the love of the father and more directly, to the recollection of a happy memory.

In conclusion, the misconception that most people have when interpreting this poem is easily overruled when one digs deeper into the work. Often this poem is misconstrued and readers believe that the speaker speaks of abuse and neglect by an alcoholic father. However, when one reads closer and digs deeper into the poem, it becomes clear that the speaker’s true intention is not to think back on the misdeeds of his father but to recall a happy memory of the father he loved and lost. The speaker does in fact speak of his father drinking enough whiskey to make a young child dizzy and also uses words and phrases that could be misinterpreted. However, the closest reading of this poem shows the most intimate form of love that can only be formed through the bond of a close relationship between a father and a son. This is the point that people who argue abuse simply cannot contradict. When a young child claims to be waltzed off the bed by his father and portrays himself as “still clinging” (page 91), that shows the deepest love that could be had. It is through these lines that it becomes apparent that this poem could not be about abuse, there is simply too much love in the poem. That is why this interpretation has to be the correct one. Any different interpretation would simply be in direct contradiction with the authors intentions. Because, at its deepest roots, this poem is talking about, love, not neglect.