the
ruination of a memory
not a
painting but a memory
of a
painting that was but now is not
a place
but a memory
of a place
that was but now is not
a
childhood that is a memory
but now
that memory is of what is not
for it has
fallen down or was it pushed down
that
memory of what could have not
have gone
so wrong as to have not
lasted as
a memory that brought the lot
tumbling
down i remember thinking
this
memory is not what tumbled
but just
the memory of that tumbling
of a
childhood tumbling down what is
nothing
but a memory now of what was there
but now is
gone except in memory
for not
one brick ~ you hear
but all
the walls of ruination
resemble a
ruination that was not
a memory
but a
simple fact
now please
remember that
~~~
annotated
the
ruination of a memory
not a
painting but a memory
of a
painting that was but now is not
Actually a
photograph and a YouTube video of the dereliction of the lower Swansea valley ~
but a painting seemed more poetic. The poet could identify every ruined wall as
a part of his childhood playground in the worst industrial dereliction in
Europe
a place
but a memory
of a place
that was but now is not
Enjambment
and the use of couplets throughout the poem exemplify the vesiculation of the
fact / memory apposition
a
childhood that is a memory
but now
that memory is of what was not
A past
childhood, and a past time, but it raises the question: has memory altered what
the writer perceived as fact. Indeed the painting itself, although a
contemporary depiction, is an artist perception
for it has
fallen down or was it pushed down
that memory
of what could have not
This
couplet starts by bringing back the ruins of the lower Swansea valley that were
eventually demolished, but which the poet had a physical hand in pushing down.
The second line asks was the poet’s memory so wrong, in that he halts that
demolition by preserving a memory of a physical scene that in itself has
longevity. This is continued in the next couplet, and the sliding of memory
between couplets starts to demonstrate the slipperiness of examining memory
have gone
so wrong as to have not
lasted as
a memory that brought the lot
tumbling
down i remember thinking
this
memory is not what tumbled
but just
the memory of that tumbling
of a
childhood tumbling down what is
nothing
but a memory now of what was there
but now is
gone except in memory
Now we
have four couplets rapidly examining by enjambment the theme that runs through
the poem. It seems to be that we have to rush to stop the elver of memory
slipping through our fingers. It also brings in the pathos of all lost childhoods
for not
one brick ~ you hear
This line
is not so much a pivot in the poem but a buffer. It abruptly brings in the
reader, who up to now has been a spectator to the debate. ‘You hear’ suggests
that the reader will soon be asked to answer a big question based on an
understanding of the poem.
but all
the walls of ruination
resemble a
ruination that was not
a memory
but a
simple fact
These
lines remind the reader that what the memory was recalling, corrupted or not,
was a physical place at a particular point in time
now please
remember that
This final
line throws the whole question at the reader who is left holding the baby. Can
the reader rely on his or her memory ~ even of this poem
More
general notes:
The poem
is not simply a clever convolution of words but does ‘make sense’ when read
carefully. Apart from its description of a time that is gone, it examines and
exemplifies the tortured ambivalence between memory and fact. The slippery
methodology of examining a personal memory when looking at a visual depiction
of that place in that time. Indeed, can memories be altered by the holder of
that memory, other than by recognising its inherent subjectivity.
