The Right Word is a very aptly named poem as it is ostensibly about the poet trying to find the truest word in order to describe the person who is at their door. Imtiaz Dharker describes this person and their action from the perspectives of different people and this approach helps highlight how changing words slightly can massively affect their context and points to the power that simply playing with phrase can have.
Form and Tone
The Right Word is quite serious in tone as it looks at people’s perspectives and looks to challenge the labels that are put on people by society. The poem is divided into 9 stanzas. The patterns of the stanzas help to delineate the narrator’s emotions as they struggle to right what they consider to be the black and white truth. When the narrator reaches a sense of clarity in what they are saying the stanzas return to three lines long. This is how the poem starts, the different length stanzas, therefore, represent uncertainty.
You can read the full poem The Right Word here.
Analysis of The Right Word
First Stanza
Outside the door,
(…)
is a terrorist.
This first stanza of The Right Word is very impactful. It is sharp and to the point. Taken in isolation we could assume from this opening line that the poem itself might just be about terrorism. What is also interesting is that Dharker uses the word shadow in this stanza. The shadows comes into play often in the poem as you will see as the poem progresses.
Second Stanza
Is that the wrong description?
(…)
is a freedom fighter.
Here we see the narrator question their first stanza, the effect of asking this question of themselves is to extend the stanza to a further line. It’s as if just questioning what has been said can contort what was thought to be true. The narrator then once again tries to describe the scene honestly. This time the character is taking shelter in the shadows rather than lurking in them and they are not referred to as a terrorist, but a freedom fighter. This is an interesting change in description, if you flip your perspective could a terrorist be classed as a freedom fighter if their cause was one that you believed strongly in. the narrator is forcing the reader to look at things from more than one perspective.
Third Stanza
I haven’t got this right.
(…)
is a hostile militant.
Still, the narrator feels they haven’t got the description correct. This repetition gives the impression of a writer that is really struggling to get the description that paints the most honest and legitimate picture. Although the description of the person in this stanza seems far more harsh, more of a character assassination if you will, the description of their actions seems less harsh, they are not considered to be lurking, as in the first stanza, but waiting, although this still certainly has negative connotations it is not as sinister as the first description.
Fourth Stanza
Are words no more
(…)
is a guerrilla warrior.
Still, the narrator struggles with finding the correct words to describe the situation. They postulate “are words no more than waving, wavering flags” flags are often associated with nationalities and the idea of one wavering is a play on words. A flag might physically waver, but I think the suggestion here is that different nations viewpoints are quite often flawed and these lines suggest that is the case Once again the description of the character and their actions are very different. This time they are watchful and are described as a guerrilla warrior. Is this complimentary? It seems more positive than being a terrorist and a hostile militant, but not as kind as being a freedom fighter. If you ever get the opportunity, you can play a game where you get a list of adjectives that all mean the same thing and put them into order of which is the most powerful, for instance angry, upset, livid, raging, and miffed. You could almost do that with the descriptions of the man in The Right Word.
Fifth Stanza
God help me.
(…)
I saw his face.
In this stanza, we see that the narrator has become so frustrated with their plight that they are literally praying to god for help. This raises the importance once again, from being an issue relevant to nations to one of being worthy of gods consideration. The man this time isn’t described as hiding in the shadows, but defying them! This is an interesting concept. What does this mean? That the man is clearly well defined and easy to see despite the shadow? Here the narrator actually sees their face. The person is described as a martyr. Once again this is like a terrorist, just seen from an opposing point of view. This subversion of meaning is present throughout The Right Word.
Sixth Stanza
No words can help me now.
(…)
is a child who looks like mine.
In this stanza, it would appear the narrator has given up trying to find the words. The use of the word “now” In the first line of this stanza brings a sense of immediacy to this part of The Right Word. The character is described as lost and a child that looks like the narrators. Describing the person as a child instantly brings forward the idea of innocence, having been described as everything from a martyr to a militant this description offers a nice contrast and highlights in some ways that every terrorist, or indeed freedom fighter is somebodies son or daughter.
Seventh Stanza
One word for you.
(…)
is a boy who looks like your son, too.
This is the last stanza to have more than three lines, but the tone appears to suggest a revelation for the narrator: like they have discovered something. They describe the character as looking like your son, suggesting that despite this character, with eyes that are “too hard” being of undetermined decency it could easily be your son at the door.
Eighth Stanza
I open the door.
(…)
Come in and eat with us.
This stanza simply describes the narrator’s actions. They are indiscriminate as the person is invited in to eat.
Ninth Stanza
The child steps in
(…)
takes off his shoes.
It would appear that this small act of kindness has reduced the freedom fighter/terrorist back to their innocent child-like state. The wider picture here is that peaceful action beget peace. Just by showing kindness to this man from the shadows he becomes like a boy again. Unspoiled and polite, with the suggestion being we should all be less quick to judge, and then people won’t have to live up to the labels that we give them.
About Imtiaz Dharker
Imtiaz Dharker is a Pakistan born poet. She lived most of her early life in Glasgow, but married a Welshman and (despite her husband losing his battle with cancer) She now divides her time between London, Wales and Mumbai/ Her poetry is varied but often concerns itself with themes such as feminism and as is the case with this poem displacement.
The right word
Outside the door,
lurking in the shadows,
is a terrorist.
Is that the wrong description?
Outside that door,
taking shelter in the shadows,
is a freedom fighter.
I haven’t got this right .
Outside, waiting in the shadows,
is a hostile militant.
Are words no more
than waving, wavering flags?
Outside your door,
watchful in the shadows,
is a guerrilla warrior.
God help me.
Outside, defying every shadow,
stands a martyr.
I saw his face.
No words can help me now.
Just outside the door,
lost in shadows,
is a child who looks like mine.
One word for you.
Outside my door,
his hand too steady,
his eyes too hard
is a boy who looks like your son, too.
I open the door.
Come in, I say.
Come in and eat with us.
The child steps in
and carefully, at my door,
takes off his shoes.
THE RIGHT WORD
by Imtiaz Dharker
Imtiaz Dharker’s poem “The Right
Word” focuses on a figure that is in the shadows outside the
narrator’s house. It is noticeable that the word “outside”
appears in the first seven of the poem’s nine stanzas, and the word
“shadows” or “shadow” in the first six. Because the figure is
in the shadows, it is difficult to make out who or what he is, and so
the narrator is searching for the right word to identify him.
The first stanza describes the figure
as “lurking” in the shadows and states that he is a terrorist;
the image is therefore a very threatening one. In the opening line of
the second stanza, Dharker wonders if that description was an
incorrect one. This time the figure is said to be “taking shelter,”
making him seem more vulnerable, and Dharker identifies him with
alliteration as “a freedom fighter.” The connotations are much
more positive than those connected with a terrorist. In the third
stanza, however, the narrator still feels that the figure has not
been correctly identified. He is now described as merely “waiting”
in the shadows and is seen as “a hostile militant.” This identity
obviously labels him as an enemy.
Dharker uses enjambment to link the
first two lines of the fourth stanza to extend a question about the
definition of words. She uses the alliterative metaphor “waving,
wavering flags”, asking if words are no more than that. Wavering
conveys the idea of hesitating, changing an opinion, and waving
creates an image of constant movement or fluctuating ideas. The words
we use to describe people or things can change from one moment to the
next. In this stanza, the figure is “watchful,” therefore alert,
in the shadows; this time the narrator identifies him as a “guerrilla
warrior,” in other words an aggressive fighter.
The fifth stanza opens with the words
“God help me,” signifying the fact that Dharker is in a state of
shock, perhaps. Now the figure is “defying every shadow,” and so
his identity becomes more apparent. He is “a martyr,” in other
words a person who dies for the sake of his faith. The stanza closes
with the line “I saw his face,” so there is now no doubt as to
the figure’s identity. Dharker opens the sixth stanza with the
comment that words can no longer help, as the realisation of who the
figure is dawns on her. Now the figure is “just outside” but is
“lost” in the shadows. This time, rather than a fighter or a
warrior, he is described as a “child” who resembles the
narrator’s own.
In the opening line of the seventh
stanza, the poet says “One word for you,” seeming to address the
reader directly. The figure is still outside; his hand is “too
steady” and his eyes “too hard.” These descriptions convey a
sense of purpose and confidence. The “word” for the reader is the
comment of the stanza’s last line, which states that the figure is “a
boy who looks like your son, too.” The implication is that a
terrorist, a fighter or a warrior is someone’s son. He belongs to a
family, and there are people who love him; he is not necessarily a
person to be feared or shunned.
Having identified the figure, Dharker
begins the eighth stanza with the line “I open the door,” marking
a turning point in the poem. She invites the figure to come into the
house and eat with the family. This underlines the idea that the
figure, even if he is a fighter, is part of the family and not a
threat. In the opening line of the ninth and final stanza, the figure
is referred to as a “child”. He enters the house and “carefully”
takes his shoes off. This action shows respect for the household as
well as politeness, especially since the action was performed with
care rather than brusqueness.
Dharker’s poem “The Right Word”
makes us question the labels that we give to people and the attitudes
that we have towards terrorists and militants. The poem’s stanzas are
of uneven length as the narrator reacts in different ways to the
sight of the figure and thoughts go through her mind. Rhyme is not
used, but the phrase “Outside the door” recurs with the word
“the” replaced by either that, your or my. The situation could
therefore happen outside anyone’s door. Repetition of the phrase “in
the shadows” allows for the figure’s exact identity to remain a
mystery until the narrator sees his face in the fifth stanza. The
shift in attitude once the figure is identified as a child or a son
is emphasised by the repetition of “come in” in the penultimate
stanza and “comes in” in the final stanza.
“The Right Word” is a fascinating
look at the way we react towards people’s identities. How does a
mother feel if her son becomes a terrorist, a freedom fighter, or a
martyr? A militant or a warrior still has a family and does not
necessarily pose a threat. Such a person is capable of respect and
politeness when welcomed into a home. Words are labels that have
strong connotations, but we should not allow them to influence our
judgement of people without looking at all the alternatives that we
can perceive.
First published on helium.com
‘Are words no more / than waving, wavering flags?’
Imtiaz Dharker explores how words create our understanding rather than objectively reflect reality – and the effect this has on our relationships with people unlike ourselves.
Outside the door,
lurking in the shadows,
is a terrorist.
Is that the wrong description?
Outside that door,
taking shelter in the shadows,
is a freedom fighter.
I haven’t got this right.
Outside, waiting in the shadows,
is a hostile militant.
Are words no more
than waving, wavering flags?
Outside your door,
watchful in the shadows,
is a guerrilla warrior.
God help me.
Outside, defying every shadow,
stands a martyr.
I saw his face.
No words can help me now.
Just outside the door,
lost in shadows,
is a child who looks like mine.
One word for you.
Outside my door,
his hand too steady,
his eyes too hard
is a boy who looks like your son, too.
I open the door.
Come in, I say.
Come in and eat with us.
The child steps in
and carefully, at my door,
takes off his shoes.
Analysis of ‘The Right Word’
The word ‘terrorist’ creates a complex set of expectations. We believe that we understand how this person will act; we may even think we know who they are, what they represent, their motives, even their appearance, just from this one word. ‘Lurking in the shadows’ further suggests that they are a hidden threat waiting for the moment to attack. Dharker creates tension and mood in just these three opening lines.
However, Dharker deflates these expectations when in the next stanza she asks ‘Is that the wrong description?’.
The ‘terrorist’ is recast as a ‘freedom fighter’ which immediately sets up a whole other range of expectations. In contrast, Dharker now describes the person as ‘taking shelter in the shadows’, seeking safety against an oppressive enemy. Even a subtle change in word choice significantly alters our interpretation.
Dharker continues to highlight that there are many ways to frame and reframe a situation. This same person also becomes a ‘hostile militant’, a ‘guerrilla warrior’ and a ‘martyr’. The speaker demonstrates uncertainty as they struggle to find the right words, asking ‘Is that the wrong description?’ and worrying that they ‘haven’t got this right’. Unable to settle on a satisfying description, the speaker asks: ‘Are words no more / than waving, wavering flags?’. Like flags, the meaning of words can waver, become partial or obscure. Words aren’t concrete and stable, objectively capturing the essential truth.
This means that the same person can be called a terrorist or a freedom fighter, depending on the views of the speaker and – crucially – the response they wish to invoke in others. Is this person brave or merely violent? Should we respect them or fear them? Each term provokes a different reaction.
However, the lurking figure is finally recast as simply a ‘child’. He is a ‘boy who looks like your son’, suggesting for the first time a familiarity, a fundamental sameness. In the penultimate stanza, the speaker even ‘open[s] the door’ and invites the child into the intimate family space to ‘Come in and eat with us’. Only once the figure on the outside is recognised as a child, rather than being described in alarming language, can the door open to them.
The image of the door returns throughout the poem. A wall simply divides two sides. Yet a door can open, providing an opportunity for the two sides to connect. One side must take the risk and reach out, opening the door to the other and welcoming them in.
Dharker argues that words can create an artificial barrier between people, hiding our similarities and emphasising – or imagining – fundamental differences. But the right words, like a door, can open up new spaces for friendship and understanding.
Outside the door,
lurking in the shadows,
is a terrorist.
Is that the wrong description?
Outside that door,
taking shelter in the shadows,
is a freedom fighter.
I haven’t got this right .
Outside, waiting in the shadows,
is a hostile militant.
Are words no more
than waving, wavering flags?
Outside your door,
watchful in the shadows,
is a guerrilla warrior.
God help me.
Outside, defying every shadow,
stands a martyr.
I saw his face.
No words can help me now.
Just outside the door,
lost in shadows,
is a child who looks like mine.
One word for you.
Outside my door,
his hand too steady,
his eyes too hard
is a boy who looks like your son, too.
I open the door.
Come in, I say.
Come in and eat with us.
The child steps in
and carefully, at my door,
takes off his shoes.
— Imtiaz Dharker
See the poem being performed at bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0110cs6
For those with access to BBC iplayer, Imtiaz chooses her desert island disks and talks about her life here. She grew up in a Lahori household in Glasgow and now divides her time between India, Wales and London.
«When I start making a line on a piece of paper, I don’t know if it will become a drawing or a poem» — see some of her drawings here.