The Victims

“The Victims” is largely written as a retrospective poem from the point of view of an adult speaker reflecting on their childhood. The poem begins with a clear and unambiguous statement: “When Mother divorced you, we were glad” (Line 1). The action, on the part of the mother, signifies that it was the mother’s decision, and not the father’s. The “we” (Line 1) represents the children—or possibly other family members of whom the speaker was a part—who sided with the mother. This opening declaration is followed by a slightly more ambiguous line in which the speaker rationalizes the mother’s decision: “She took it and / took it, in silence, all those years” (Lines 1-2). The speaker does not define what “it” is, but tells the reader that it was taken “in silence” (Line 2). The fact that “it” was taken in silence signifies that for many years the mother was powerless against the father and had no voice. However, that all changed when she suddenly kicked out the father (Line 3). “[H]er / kids loved it” (Lines 3-4), the speaker states, insinuating that the children had also taken “it” (Line 2) “in silence” (Line 2) and stood in solidarity with the mother’s decision to rid the family of their father.

In Line 4, the poem shifts. Having set the scene of the divorce, the father’s ill-treatment of his family, and the father’s eventual removal from the family, the speaker shifts to what next happened to the father, offered in the form of a list. “Then you were fired,” (Line 4) the speaker states, and the “[the children] grinned inside” (Line 5). They were happy that not only was the father kicked out of the family, he had been kicked out of his job, which was representative of his power and identity. The speaker compares their happiness to that of the crowds watching former President Nixon lift off from the White House lawn (Lines 6-7). This refers to former President Nixon’s voluntary resignation from the Presidency in 1974 following the Watergate scandal which many believed would result in his impeachment. Like the American people watching their tainted President leave office, the speaker and their family were pleased that the father—who had committed wrongdoings against them—should be held accountable and face the consequences of his actions.

Following these lines, the speaker lists several things of which the father was stripped. The lines “your office taken away, / your secretaries taken away” (Lines 8-9) denote the father’s loss of power. There is a subtle hint of possible infidelity here, or the subservience of people (likely women) who served the father in his former position. When the speaker offers that the father also lost his “lunches with three double bourbons” (Line 10), it’s clear that he was a heavy drinker—a factor that likely helps to define the “it” (Line 1) the mother and children endured. The list continues, until the speaker reaches the smallest, seemingly insignificant items taken from the father: “your pencils, your reams of paper” (Line 11). By stripping the father down to his office supplies, the speaker’s tone is better understood. They happily watched their father lose everything to the smallest item he once had, which illuminates the amount of damage, trauma, and unhappiness the father must have caused his family.

Rounding out the list, the speaker poses a question: “Would they take your / suits back, too, those dark / carcasses hung in your closet, and the black / noses of your shoes with the large pores?” (Lines 11-14) The imagery of the father’s suits as “dark / carcasses” (Lines 12-13) and of his shoes as having “black / noses” (Lines 13-14) characterize the father as ominous. The father—like his suits and shoes—was a dark, negative presence in the speaker’s home.

In Line 15, the mother reenters the poem: “She had taught us to take it” (Line 15) the speaker states, reiterating the still undefined “it” from Line 1. The speaker further says their mother taught them “to hate [the father] and take it” (Line 15). Not only were the children taught to endure the father’s violence or abuse, but they were also taught to hate him. This gives the reader a stronger understanding of why the children were happy to see their father divorced and reduced to a penniless, powerless man.

However, this line complicates the mother’s character for she taught her children to hate their father until they “pricked at [his] / annihilation” (Lines 16-17). The verb “pricked” (Line 16) connotes a sharp feeling or remorse, sadness, or sorrow. Only after the father’s “annihilation” (Line 17) does the speaker question if what they did to the father was right. This is apparent in the literary device of the address used in Line 17 when the speaker directly says, “Father” (Line 17). The only time the word is used, to call him this rings of a tenderness, an intimacy, and could be interpreted as an expression of love—or at least of familial familiarity.

This address to the father marks a shift in the poem which is made clear by the word “[n]ow” (Line 17), shifting the poem from the childhood memory into the adulthood present. The speaker illustrates how they “pass bums in doorways” (Line 18), linking these figures to their father who, like these bums, has been stripped of everything he once owned or was. In these final lines, the poem leaps into imagery. The speaker describes “the white / slugs of their bodies gleaming through slits in their / suits of compressed silt” (Lines 18-20). Their suits are in such filthy tatters that their skin can be seen through the holes. Furthermore, “the stained / flippers of their hands” (Lines 20-21) characterize their hands as animal-like, dirty, and useless. They have been altogether stripped of their humanity. The speaker continues, noting the “underwater / fire of their eyes” (Lines 21-22), which the speaker compares to “ships gone down with the / lanterns lit” (Lines 22-23). This striking image paints the picture of these bums—and the speaker’s father—as having been taken down by a force larger than themselves, like the thriving, lit ships wrecked by the power of the sea.

The poem concludes with the speaker ruminating on the “it” (Line 1, Line 23) introduced in the first line. “I wonder,” the speaker says, “who took it and / took it from them in silence” (Lines 23-24). In this way, the speaker connects with the invisible spouses and children of the bums who were likely victimized in the same way their family was. There are unspoken multitudes of people directly impacted by the choices of selfish, alcoholic patriarchs.

The final lines of “The Victims” asks the question: Who are the victims? By the end of the poem, it’s not clear anymore if the speaker, the mother, and the family are the victims, or if the father (and the bums) have become the victims following everything that has been taken away from them. This ambiguity, and the opacity of what the “it” (Line 1, Lines 23-24) really is, drives the mystery of the poem, bringing up complicated questions regarding abuse, revenge, love, and forgiveness. The father, at the end of the poem, is left with nothing, having had everything taken away. The speaker, too, is left with nothing, having lost their father. The “this” (Line 26) that ends the poem signifies that all of them are left with this history, this troubled past, this brokenness with which each must learn to live.