Diverse Interpretations in Roethke’s 'My Papa’s Waltz'

731 Words2 Pages

One man’s trash is another man’s treasure. This proverb means that people can view the exact same object very differently. Doesn’t that imply people can also view the exact same events in a different light? This is what Theodore Roethke’s poem “My Papa’s Waltz” proves. The poem can be easily interpreted to be a scene of a troubled father and son in a dysfunctional home, while at the same time it can also be interpreted to be a warm scene of the relationship between the father and the son. Both interpretations are correct. There is enough evidence in the poem to argue for both sides. And because there is, that’s why there’s so much disagreement between the readers: The disagreement proves that people can interpret the same event, or in this …show more content…

The word romped, which is used in the second stanza, means to play roughly, which to some readers may warrant them to believe that it means the father and the son are fighting each other. And their fighting caused the pans to fall off the kitchen shelf, which causes their mother to frown because she’s sad that her household is so dysfunctional. This is continued proof of the interpretation of the troubled father and son relationship is valid.
Another reader may interpret the second stanza in a completely different light. They might believe that it’s a scene where the father and son are waltzing roughly with each other because they’re having so much fun with each other. But their waltzing causes the pans to fall off the kitchen shelf, which makes their mother sad because her pans fell to the ground and she has to probably clean it up. This is further evidence that the interpretation of the warm memory between father and son is valid.
Roethke purposely created this poem to have multiple interpretations. If he didn’t, then why would his poem be full of words and images with double meaning? And how much luck is required for the diction choice and imagery choice throughout every stanza would be consistent enough that they are able to create two different readings of the same poem? This poem is a polysemous poem: This poem has more than one valid interpretation and Roethke purposely created it this

Open Document