Dylan Thomas ‘s “ A Refusal To Mourn The Death, By Fire, Of A Child In London, ” is a verse form about mourning. More specifically, the verse form ‘s focal point is on the talker ‘s quandary of whether or non to mourn “ London ‘s Daughter ” ( L 19 ) . A inquiry arises from this quandary. Who is “ London ‘s Daughter? ” Is this a individual individual, or does she stand for a group of people? This verse form was published in 1945 at the terminal of World War Two. This is important because Thomas was populating in London during the Nazi “ Blitz ” onslaughts, which resulted in the deceases of over 20,000 people ( Stansky 3 ) . He most likely saw the devastation that resulted from the war firsthand. The verse form, so, can be read as a refusal to mourn a remarkable decease. The talker uses “ London ‘s Daughter ” to stand for the many people who died in London during the war. However, it is how the talker mourns, or his subconscious bereavement, that is interesting. By “ declining ” to mourn and oppugning his beliefs, the talker contradicts himself, and demonstrates his inability to to the full register the decease of another.
At first glimpse, the reader may believe that the talker is chiefly concerned with a kid ‘s decease. But a closer reading reveals that the talker is highly egoistic. The talker instantly focuses on himself in the verse form, instead than depicting the “ kid ” or group of people he is mourning. He is more concerned with his ain response to decease, instead than the unhappiness that accompanies decease, and the individual or individuals that have died. In line seven, the talker says, “ And I must come in once more the round/ Zion of the H2O bead/ And the temple of the ear of maize ” ( LL 7-9 ) . The talker is fall backing to his spiritual beliefs to happen comfort. He refers to a temple as a “ H2O bead, ” which could stand for a bubble of flight. The talker finds comfort in this bubble because it gives him intending sing decease, and it shields him from the unknown. He stuck in his ain small universe, unable to grok this decease. But so, he says, “ Or seed my salt seed / In the least vale of sackcloth to mourn / ( LL 11-12 ) . This is an interesting displacement in tone because the first nine lines of the verse form portray the talker as slightly spiritual and optimistic. Now the talker seems angry. Line 12, “ least vale of sackcloth to mourn ” seems to demo his deficiency of assurance in his faith ( L 12 ) . He is stating that he will non seed his seed in the vale of compunction, significance that he is non traveling to brood on this remarkable decease. He will non subject himself to mourn.
Throughout the verse form, we see the talker oppugning his beliefs and his actions. This is non an uncommon response when covering with loss. People experience a full scope of emotions when covering with decease ; oppugning one ‘s beliefs does non look out of the ordinary. The talker, after sing concealing out in his spiritual bubble, proclaims that he, “ shall non slay / The world of her traveling with a grave truth ” ( LL 14-15 ) . He is saying that there is no grave truth, and he is non traveling to maintain seeking to convert himself that there is an absolute truth. He is stating that to seek and enforce intending on her decease would be incorrect. It would take away from her memory. The talker does non desire to do this decease symbolic, “ Nor curse down the Stationss of the breath / With any farther / Elegy of artlessness and young person ” ( LL 16-18 ) . He feels that to laud decease, or excessively observe it would be scandalous. The talker is in denial. At this point in the verse form, he seems to miss the capacity to experience for this individual. This pick non to mourn seems to be less like a pick as the verse form continues.
The talker ‘s missing ability to mourn is demonstrated farther when he juxtaposes himself following to the Thames River. He says, “ Deep with the first dead lies London ‘s Daughter / aˆ¦ Secret by the unmourning H2O / Of the siting Thames ” ( LL 18,22-23 ) . His usage of “ first dead ” implies that there have been many more, or there will be more deceases. He says that he is non traveling to pass his clip brooding on this remarkable casualty when there are so many more deceases to worry approximately. How could he perchance experience the same emotions for all of the coming deceases? How could he set so much energy and experiencing into this one decease? He claims that alternatively of bereavement, he will flux like the Thames, omnipresent and ignorant. He would much instead celebrate life and continuity. However, he contradicts himself yet once more, with the concluding line, “ After the first decease, there is no other ” ( L 24 ) . By saying this “ truth, ” he is consciously seeking to do sense of decease, which seems like an act of mourning. There is a form emerging in the verse form. The talker goes back and Forth on what he believes to be the truth of the “ kid ‘s ” decease.
The talker ‘s faithlessness sing his beliefs takes off from the “ kid ‘s ” decease, and centers the verse form on the talker. From this little sample size, we can pull a decision that he does non possess an advanced capacity for mourning. Possibly he can merely mourn one time, and after that it is merely repeat. Worlds may non hold the ability to to the full register the magnitude person else ‘s hurting, and in this instance the talker is merely able to understand his ain hurting and experiences, and hence is unable to mourn this “ kid. ” The verse form, so, is the talker ‘s history of his desire to mourn, even though he says that he is non traveling to. The full verse form contradicts itself. The talker can non do sense of this decease. So alternatively of seeking to mourn, he refuses to, which becomes a subconscious act of bereavement.
