The rhythm of memory: a reading of poetic rhythm in David Jones's ...
The rhythm of memory: a reading of poetic rhythm in David Jones's ...
The rhythm of memory: a reading of poetic rhythm in David Jones's ...
- No tags were found...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Rhythm <strong>of</strong> Memory 5how glad we thought we were to step outside its brackets at the end <strong>of</strong> ’18…” (IP, xv). Jonesdoes not develop the surpris<strong>in</strong>g suggestion <strong>of</strong> an illusion <strong>in</strong> the words “how glad we thought wewere”, so that they close the preface <strong>of</strong> the poem with a diffuse sense <strong>of</strong> critical distance. <strong>The</strong>image <strong>of</strong> “stepp<strong>in</strong>g out <strong>of</strong> the brackets” is also a spatial one, which gives more than a h<strong>in</strong>t <strong>of</strong> the<strong>rhythm</strong>ic conception beh<strong>in</strong>d the whole textual enterprise. <strong>The</strong> text emerges, it seems, not at all asa memoir but as a conflation. Memory itself has no <strong>rhythm</strong>, or rather, it is not <strong>of</strong> <strong>rhythm</strong>. It is thestuff that dreams, nightmares, obsessions are made <strong>of</strong>, and <strong>in</strong> that sense, it is reiterative andrecessive: language perhaps, but hardly discourse. Mere rehearsal <strong>of</strong> <strong>memory</strong> is equally a-<strong>rhythm</strong>ic: discourse, but hardly more. What Jones suggests, with his dual image <strong>of</strong> seduction andparadoxical time brackets, is a bluepr<strong>in</strong>t for <strong>rhythm</strong>ic <strong>in</strong>tercourse. <strong>The</strong> process <strong>of</strong> writ<strong>in</strong>g and theexperience written <strong>of</strong> are historically conflated, <strong>in</strong> that the first reiterates the second. And thisreiteration concerns the paradoxical nature <strong>of</strong> both, <strong>in</strong> as much as each moves from marg<strong>in</strong> tocentre, from the accidental to the necessary. It should be clear that whether or not Jones is“tell<strong>in</strong>g the truth” about how In Parenthesis came to be written or about how he and othersconsidered the “brackets” <strong>of</strong> the war, is irrelevant. Fiction or actual fact, it makes no difference,because the real po<strong>in</strong>t is the dynamic nature <strong>of</strong> the relationship established between text andhistory. <strong>The</strong> text functions not as a memoir might, <strong>in</strong> the a-<strong>rhythm</strong>ia <strong>of</strong> <strong>memory</strong>, but by mak<strong>in</strong>gits discourse <strong>in</strong>to <strong>rhythm</strong>.Before I attempt to show how In Parenthesis reads <strong>in</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> this “<strong>rhythm</strong>icisation” <strong>of</strong> <strong>memory</strong>,it is necessary to make some further po<strong>in</strong>ts about the structure and scope <strong>of</strong> this text. AsDilworth po<strong>in</strong>ts out “structure is not […] the first th<strong>in</strong>g a reader notices <strong>in</strong> a poem by <strong>David</strong>Jones” (13). This is because <strong>of</strong> the length and plethoric nature <strong>of</strong> the texts. Jones wrote <strong>of</strong> <strong>The</strong>Anathemata, quot<strong>in</strong>g the 9 th century historian Nennius, “‘I have made a heap <strong>of</strong> all I could f<strong>in</strong>d’”(Ana, 9). But despite this suggestion <strong>of</strong> uncontrolled shape, his texts tend to be super-structured,they deploy several levels <strong>of</strong> construction. <strong>The</strong> scope <strong>of</strong> this paper <strong>of</strong> course precludes anyattempt to describe such multiple level structur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> In Parenthesis. What can be usefully said hereis that the overall narrative structure <strong>of</strong> this seven part text consists <strong>of</strong> an asymmetricalmovement <strong>of</strong> advance towards and departure from the battlefield <strong>of</strong> Mametz Wood (or simplythe Wood, s<strong>in</strong>ce the name Mametz is not actually used <strong>in</strong> the text). <strong>The</strong> other structur<strong>in</strong>gelements <strong>of</strong> the poem, that can, for convenience, be grouped together under the very generalhead<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> mythic, depend on and relate to this narrative basis.Jones’s elaborate approach to structure is a clear sign <strong>of</strong> the impetus towards mean<strong>in</strong>g that drivesthe entire project <strong>of</strong> In Parenthesis, and, as one might expect, lies at the heart <strong>of</strong> its <strong>rhythm</strong>. Most<strong>of</strong> the protagonists <strong>of</strong> In Parenthesis are either killed or wounded <strong>in</strong> the action at the Wood, and