Father to son

This poem shows the estrangement between a father and his adolescent son. It seems to be a dramatic monologue, as the persona -the father- is addressing someone who is not present and his words reveal different aspects of his own personality.

I do not understand this child

Though we have lived together now

In the same house for years. I know

Nothing of him, so try to build

Up a relationship from how

He was when small. Yet have I killed

In the first stanza, the persona describes his relationship with his son: they are together and yet apart. The first line opens with the first person pronoun and finishes with the word “child”, which graphically shows the distance between them. Besides, the persona uses the phrase “this child” instead of “my son” to further emphasise their estrangement. It is as if the persona does not feel his son like his own but like someone else’s. In contrast, the words “together” and “same house” appear in the same stanza and suggest the opposite: their closeness. These set of words demonstrate that they are physically near but they cannot connect in an emotional way.

The phrase “for years”, in the third line, may be suggesting that the word “child” that the persona used in the first line is just an expression of the personal way in which he sees his son, but not a description of his age. In the sixth line, a reference to the time when the son was small suggests that the son is not a little boy anymore, but has grown into a young man. However, the father is trying to build a relationship with his son from the way in which the boy used to be when he was small, which is evidently a mistake. This detail reveals how short sighted the father is as he cannot see his own limitations and tries to construct the relationship from preconceptions which are far away from reality. The father does not accept his child has grown. As he does not know his son in the present day, he treats him as if he were still a child, when he did know him.

The use of enjambment in all lines seem to mirror the state of the relationship. As the father and son, the lines seem to be separated (by the line-end) but together (from a syntactical and a semantical point of view.) In the third and fourth lines, the use of line-break is quite meaningful. The third line ends with “I know” and the following line starts with “nothing”. The line break and the initial position of the negative pronoun (“nothing”) lays a lot of emphasis on it, and thus stresses the estrangement of father and son. In the fourth line, the line break splits a phrasal verb: “build up”. Separating these words emphasises the difficulty to build up the relationship or to reconstruct it.

The seed I spent or sown it where

The land is his and none of mine?

We speak like strangers, there's no sign

Of understanding in the air.

This child is built to my design

Yet what he loves I cannot share.

The first stanza ends with a metaphorical question which continues in the second stanza. This question conveys the way in which the father resents the son´s growing independence. The first possibility (“ Yet have I killed /the seed I spent(...)” ) suggests the father recognises nothing of himself in his son. His son seems to have become completeley different from him. The second one (“or sown it where the land is his and none of mine?”) makes reference to the fact that the son has grown independent, and therefore has become the owner of his own life and destiny. Both possibilities present the seed as a metaphor of the spermatozoid that originated the boy, and that should have- but apparently has not- left on him the genetic imprint of the father. In the first case, the sowing seems to have been a useless waste, as the seed seems to have died; in the second case, it is clear that the father´s part ended as soon as the seed was planted, as the growing process took part in an alien land.

In the third line, the contrast between the words “we”(which suggests closeness) and “strangers” (which shows the distance between them) reminds us of the ideas conveyed in the first stanza: father and son live together but they have a distant relationship. The line-break after the expression “no sign” highlights the complete absence of understanding between them. The use of the first person plural pronoun suggests that misunderstanding flows both ways: none of them understands the other.

In the last two lines, we can see that the father wished his son to grow in a predetermined way, according to a certain design he had in mind. The use of the passive voice reinforces the idea that the son is in the father´s view a passive performer of his plans. However, father and son are nothing alike because the son seems to have developed in a different way. Therefore, the son’s interests are far from being those of his father.

Silence surrounds us. I would have

Him prodigal, returning to

His father's house, the home he knew,

Rather than see him make and move

His world. I would forgive him too,

Shaping from sorrow a new love.

The third stanza begins with a short and effective sentence emphasising the lack of communication between them: they do not speak to each other. The sibilance suggests the silence that enfolds them. The caesuras reinforce the idea that communication does not flow easily between them.

There is a reference to a passage of the Bible: the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11–32). The words “I would have” suggest the father would like to have a choice in his son’s life but he doesn’t. The father´d rather see his son returning to him in need like the son in the parable of the Bible than have him grow independent: “make and move his world.” We can conclude that the father is oppressive and domineering as it is evident that he doesn´t want his son to go and live his life. Moreover, the use of the third person possessive adjective in the phrase “his world” suggests that the father resents not being included in the boy´s circle at all. On the other hand, the word “world” conveys the idea of a enormous and free space, which contrasts with “house”, i.e. the confined space where the father would like to cage his son. The father´s house used to be the son´s home, but it is not so any longer.

The last sentence of the stanza lets us know that, as in the parable of the Bible, if the son comes back, the father would welcome and forgive him warmingly, forgetting the rift between them. The word “sorrow”is ambiguous as it could be interpreted as either the father’s or the son’s, and the phrase “new love” seems to open up the possibility of a new beginning for them. However, the reader perceives the irony of this love as it would only emerge if the son renounced to his freedom and abode by the conditions the father imposed on him. It is not a love that can grow from real understanding and acceptance of differences. Rather, it is a despotic and stifling love.

Father and son, we both must live

On the same globe and the same land.

He speaks: I cannot understand

Myself, why anger grows from grief.

We each put out an empty hand,

Longing for something to forgive.

The fourth stanza summarises the persona´s ideas about what their relationship should be and the reasons why they fail to connect. The first two lines suggest that, in the father´s view, father and son must live together and share the same spaces in harmony. Furthermore, he highlights the desirable closeness that they must achieve by the choice of words and structures. The stanza starts with the phrase “father and son”. It is the first time the two words appear together in the poem, linked by a coordinating conjuction and isolated from the rest of the sentence by a caesura. Their togetherness is also conveyed by the use of the first person pronoun and the word “ both”, and by the repetition of “same”. On the other hand, the shared space in which the father and the son should interact and begin the process of understanding each other (“ the same globe and the same land.”) seem to have become wider than before: both in the first and in the third stanzas the space shared by them was just the father´s house. These words suggest that the father expects to be able to increase the range of the spaces they share.

However, his expectations and ideas about what the relationship should be are far from being met in the present. When the son speaks, the persona cannot help feeling angry. The caesura emphasises the distance and the lack of understanding between them. The father's anger is further emphasised by the snarl created by the alliteration of the letter “g”. The father´s grief for having lost his son is overcome by his anger and impatience when he listens to him. The last two lines let the reader know that neither father nor son is engaged in the reconciliation as they don’t offer anything to improve the relationship but just expect a sign of repentance or an apology from the other. It is clear that the relationship has come to a standstill, and will not improve because neither side is willing to offer anything.

Iara Ceriale- Catalina Humphreys.