Comparative Essay Response Paper 1

Both text 1 and 2 are poems about the mistreatment of children,

although the approaches are very different. The two texts explore
the topic of abortion, each given form a different perspective. Text 1,
Bye-Child, is a poem written by Seamus Heaney that conveys the
torment and sterility that is experienced by an abandoned child. The
poem illustrates the sufferings that are experienced by a boy who is
imprisoned inside a henhouse from a third person perspective.
Through a compact structure, the use of motifs and figurative
language not only is Heaney able to express the depravity of the
child; but at the same time he is able to sympathize and create an
impact on his readers. Whereas in text 2, Spike Milligans poem
Unto Us is written from the perspective of an unborn child. This
monologue form effectively conveys his anti-abortion message by
instead appealing to the emotion of the reader through the voice of
a child.
At first glance, both texts are similar as they reference Roman
Catholicism in relation to the mistreatment and abuse of children. In
text 1, Heaney mentions the unchristened tears of the child in the
outhouse. This allusion to the church hints at the illegitimacy of the
child and lets the reader know a little more of the backstory, hence
allowing them to deduce that the reason that child is in the
henhouse is due to the conditions of his birth. This perhaps
encourages the reader to be outraged upon learning that the
mistreatment of the boy was due to the strict and uncompromising
Catholic community. Similarly, in text 2, the title of the poem is
taken from the Bible and comes from the quotation unto us a child
was born but in this case Milligan has cut the quotation short. The
ellipsis in the title is essential to understanding the context of the
text as the reader can begin to see what the poem is about, a child
that will not be born. Additionally, by quoting the bible in the title we
are reminded of the Catholic Church's opinion against abortion. This
in turn, may allow the reader to bring into question the morality of
abortion right from the opening of the poem.
The two different intended audiences of the text influence their
context and language perhaps giving readers a conflicting and ironic
outlook on Catholicism. Where in text 1, religion is a cause of the
boys suffering and deprivation, the poem seems to address those
who are in support of this religion and perhaps serves to highlight
the religious attitudes in Ireland at the time which were spiraling out
of control. However, in Milligans poem the values of Roman
Catholicism could have saved the narrator. Where the narrator of
text 2 adapts a sarcastic tone and refers to the good name of the
hand of one, this places the Doctor performing the abortion playing
the hand of God as has control over life and death. The irony in
this is that if Gods will had been followed, then the child would not

have been aborted. The use of the foetus perspective also helps
give the poem a strong message, as by implying the foetus has
thoughts and feelings this encourages the reader to feel
sympathetic towards the child. The capitalization ad repetition of I
WAS! also gives the narrator a sense of being, and gives the feotus
an identity with a desperation to live. Additionally, many people who
support abortion make the strong argument that the child has no
awareness and therefore is not alive, but in this poem the foetus is
portrayed as being intelligent and perfectly capable of realizing
what is going on. Furthermore this fuels the anger later on in the
poem at the discovery of the parents indifference towards the
abortion of their child.
Both poems both employ the use effective imagery and word choice
to help to evoke feelings of sympathy in the reader towards the
child. This can be seen in text 2 where the baby reminds the reader,
"I had no say in my being", which portrays the vulnerability of the
feotus and the extent of dependence upon the parents. The mention
of the unborn child relying on "trust" and "love" shows the
unconditional love a child has for its parents, which contributes to
the anger the reader feels towards the parents and also
foreshadows the lack of reciprocating love of the parents for their
child. The lack of Queens Council alludes to the lack of rights there
are for the abortion for children helps to emphasize the helplessness
of the child as there are no highly aid lawyer to fight his case.

Similarly, in text 1 Heaney uses motifs that create emphasis on the

child's physical and emotional depravity. The image of the boy
compelled by the 'yolk of light' links to the idea of eggs from the
henhouse and symbolises the potential of life, which is not allowed
to develop much like the boy. This metaphor may work to
emotionally impact the reader to feel empathy towards boy.
Nevertheless, the light also remains symbolic of hope and could
serve as a sense of freedom for the boy since it is a glimpse towards
the outside world. This is a deep contrast towards the monotonous
life the boy leads and evokes feelings of guilt, as it encourages the
reader to think of light as something they take for granted. The
moon is also a significant image that the poet has created much
emphasis on as the child is given moon like attributes as he is
described as "sharp faced as new moons" and "luminous." The boy
is even referred to as "little moon man." The moon may signify the
distance at which the boy has been isolated from the rest of the
world he should have grown up in and emphasizes his
defenselessness and. The use of man is also a transition from the
word boy in the previous stanzas and shows the passage of time

and highlights how long the boy has spent in the henhouse so long
that he has grown from a child into a man. It also holds connotations
of bravery, suggesting that the narrator thinks the boy is brave to
have endured the treatment he has been through, adding a different
view for the reader to consider, not found in Milligans poem, and
encourages them to place themselves in the position of the boy.
There is disgust built towards the controlling figures in both poems,
though in each they are expressed in different ways. In Heaneys
poem, the mothers presence is suggested where she puts a meal
morning and evening through his trapdoor. The impersonal use of
she could indicate that any woman who is doing this is not worthy
of being given a motherly association with the child. However, her
frequent visits to the henhouse perhaps suggests her desire to be
close to him, but her cowardice to do so based on her religious
constraints, hence making the reader dislike her more due to her
weak will. In contrast, Milligan portrays the mother and father of the
narrator to be wealthy and selfish, which is inferred through
references to Wimpole Street and Harrods, commonly known to
be places the rich visit. The use of the conditional tense, might,
poses the what if? question the mind of the reader, emphasizing
the parents unforgivable act farther, as the baby would have had a
wealthy life. Finally, referencing the Drag Queen, Danny la Rue,
suggests that the narrators mother couldnt possibly be a woman if
she was capable of abortion, ending the poem on a bitter, sarcastic
tone, much different to the somber mood at the close of Heaneys
Bye-Child. The contrasts in mood at the end of the poems could
indicate the differing objectives on the reader; Heaneys ending
evokes sorrow within the reader whereas Milligan ends his poem
bitterly, in which the anger established is a call to action on the
readers part.
Overall, the two poems both use a range of imagery and linguistic
techniques to directly evoke emotions of sympathy and anger in the
reader and to reflect their revulsion against children who are
abandoned neglected and mistreated. Both Heaney and Milligan
allude to the Roman Catholic Church to contextualize their views on
abortion and the values of religion. Heaney conveys with the use of
various poetic devices the trauma that the child has experienced,
subtly illustrating the notions of alienation and negligence creates
inevitable impact on his readers, as they sympathize with the boy's
situation. In the same way, Milligan uses a first person narrative to
isolate the reader to help engage them in the babys plight, and as a
result both texts encourage the reader to challenge their own views
on the topics displayed in the poem. Finally the overarching effect of
the reading both poems gives the reader an ultimatum through the
comparison of each scenario; what would be worse: giving a child

life, which is led in abuse and suffering, or taking away a childs

opportunity to live?
Thanya Jasinska