Forum Replies Created
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
I think you are correct in interpreting the poem in viewing the poet as betraying both his family and his political group, potentially Heaney’s Catholic roots if we view the speaker as the poet himself. However, I think it is a bit harsh to state that Heaney is one who lacks all conviction. Conversely, in “Field Work,” I think he is attempting to make his poetry more politically motivated.
This poems seems to explain why Heaney’s poetry may have remained neutral for the earlier part of his career. The speaker likens the poet to Count Ugolino, whose family was imprisoned and starved to death because of his political actions. It is also said that Ugolino ate his children after they died of starvation, after being driven insane by hunger. When recognizing that a horrific fate could have fallen on the poet’s family had he taken a stronger political stance, the wife’s complaints seem absurd. However, she does admit to him, “You weren’t the worst.” It seems as if the choice to be neutral was difficult for Heaney, but choosing nonpartisan poetry, and accidentally neglecting his family in the process, seems like the better of two evils. It also seems as though this choice was intentional, and therefore full of conviction.