THE RIGHT WORD Imtiaz Dharker About the poet

THE RIGHT WORD Imtiaz Dharker

About the poet • She was born in 1954 to Pakistani parents. • Brought up in Scotland. • She is an award-winning poet, artist and filmmaker. • Many of her poems focus on home, freedom and displacement and feminism.

About the poem • This poem was written in 2006, five years after the (11 September 2001) terrorist attack in the USA. For some people the perpetrators of “ 9/11” were people fighting oppression while others saw them as murderers. • The poem explores the power of words and their connotations. The poet tries different ways of describing the person outside her door but eventually, in stanza six, she abandons words and just uses her eyes. In this way she moves from fearfully describing the person as a ‘terrorist’ to inviting a child into her home. • This poem is written in free verse – there are no rhyming words and no regular rhythm. This could be indicative of her bafflement and confusion. Conversational/colloquial style, albeit in nine separate stanzas. • • The poem is a conversation that the poet is having with herself about the perceptions and the connotations of words. She states: “I work with film, and I know that I can take one image and edit it ten different ways, write ten different sets of words, and make it into ten different stories. That's one of the things that I'm trying to do in the poem 'The right word'. There is just one image, but it's an image that is interpreted in different ways depending on the preconceptions that fit into each verse. ”

The poem

TITLE The right wordthe poet is suffering from an internal debate trying to find the right word to describe the person outside her door.

The word outside suggests the person is excluded from the narrator’s home. The poet isolates him due to a human desire to ignore or fear what we do not Extended Metaphor. fully understand. 1. “door” – serves as a barrier between the narrator and the person outside. 2. “shadows” – can be a welcoming shelter for the person outside/means to hide evil intensions. (ambiguous). Stanza 1 1. Outside the door, 2. lurking in the shadows, 3. is a terrorist. The word “lurking” implies something dishonest. The word “terrorist” indicates that the poet feers the person outside.

The poet already doubts her previous statement, she searches for a politically correct description. The poet now describes the 4. Is that the wrong description? person outside the Repetition. 5. Outside the door is a “freedom 6. Taking shelter in the shadows fighter” – suggests 7. Is a freedom fighter a justifiable warrior against The stranger is not “lurking” anymore but tyranny and taking shelter. (positive connotation) injustices.

The poet is continuing with her internal debate. The metaphor of shadows continues. It still masks her Language is simple and colloquial. This shows understanding. We still don’t know wholike hethe is – she that she is an ordinary person, baffled cannotrest hetofclose us. enough to identify him. 8. I haven’t got this right. 9. Outside, waiting in the shadows, 10. Is a hostile militant. The poet speculates something more threatening.

Repetition of barriers to understanding – the Alliteration: to describe the barrier effect ofbut door represents not only her words – the words those that thetwo media maytogether cause. with their shaky rhythm suggests uncertainty. 11. Are words no more 12. than waving, wavering flags? The word 13. “guerrilla” threatening Outsideisyour door, but “warrior” implies a romantic freedom fighter. The poetto moves her internal debate about thethe person 14. Watchful inconfusing the shadows seems be deliberately herself/ outside to 15. a debate about poetry and words. The poet reader. Is a guerrilla warrior. poses a rhetorical question – the subject is language itself and how it can move to influence people. “watchful” a more neutral Language has its ownisdanger if misused – it can be description. It also suggests that the positive/negative. person is either wary or waiting for an opportunity to strike.

The idea defiance suggests Theofpoet asks “God” forthat help. the This personisoutside the door is beyond this like a pivot because courageous/daring. The shadow still the mood changes. exists – we are still distanced from the 16. God help me. person. 17. Outside defying every shadow, 18. is a martyr. The poet suggests that the terrorist has been misunderstood. How society wants us to view a person is how we normally do.

Shows how shocked she “face”- suggests a man withabout a personality and feels her previous identity- the poet moves closer. descriptions. 19. I saw his face. Implies the child is 20. No words can help me now. coming closer. 21. Just outside the door“lost” –indicates that the child might be 22. Lost in the shadows, indoctrinated by evil – the childmine. might also not know 23. Is a child who looks like howthe he person is to be described Dramatic climax – she has identified outside the door as an innocent child. She makes him even more personal by saying he looks like her child – this also indicates the humanity of this person.

The child has lost his innocence – “hand too steady” – refers The poet refers touse theareader to him being able to gun. – this makes it “eyes too hard” – he might seentothings child is personal. She wants thehave reader also that see athe child notshe supposed as does. to see. 24. One word for you. 25. Outside my door, The metaphor continues. 26. his hand too steady, 27. his eyes too hard, 28. is a boy who looks like your son too. Again the poet draws the reader in to make it personal.

29. I open the door. 30. Come in , I say. 31. Come in and eat with us. The poet has lost all the fear she had before- she invites the child in for dinner.

32. The child steps in 33. And carefully, at my door, 34. takes off his shoes. The child takes off his shoes as a sign of respect – this emphasises theme of “judging a book by its cover”. The poet has made up her mind and has erased all society’s judgements and prejudices – she has decided for herself what to call this person outside the door.