Saturday 19 November 2022

poem with explanatory notes

 

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment