Full Text
<article class="scholarly-article">
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The early twentieth century witnessed an unprecedented convergence of large-scale industrial warfare and autobiographical writing. Soldiers who survived the trenches of the First World War returned with memories that defied conventional narration, yet many turned to memoir as a means of testimony. War memoirs from this period are marked by a paradoxical abundance of language that simultaneously points toward what cannot be said. This article investigates the prosaic representation of trauma through narrative silence—the deliberate absence or withholding of information within a prose account—and argues that such silence constitutes a sophisticated rhetorical strategy rather than a failure of representation.</p><p>The concept of narrative silence has been explored in trauma studies as a marker of the limits of language (NEYZI). However, scholarship has largely focused on fictional or poetic works, leaving the prosaic, documentary genres of memoir and autobiography relatively underexamined with respect to the specific textual mechanisms of silence. Early twentieth-century war memoirs offer a rich corpus because their authors grappled with the tension between factual reportage and the ineffable horror of combat. As Gogoladze notes, memoirs occupy a “documentary-epic” position that oscillates between subjective memory and objective record. Within this generic hybridity, silence becomes a tool for negotiating the boundaries of the sayable.</p><p>This study asks three interconnected research questions: (1) What forms of narrative silence appear in early twentieth-century war memoirs? (2) How do these silences correlate with different types of traumatic experience (physical violence, moral crisis, psychological breakdown)? (3) To what extent does the prosaic representation of trauma via silence differ from fictional representations of the same period? By answering these questions, the article contributes to the growing body of work on trauma, narrative, and the politics of representation (Ushiyama and Baert; Vysotska) while attending to the specific stylistic and generic features of the memoir.</p><p>The corpus comprises three canonical texts: T. E. Lawrence’s <em>Seven Pillars of Wisdom</em> (1926), Robert Graves’s <em>Good-Bye to All That</em> (1929), and Ernst Jünger’s <em>Storm of Steel</em> (1920). These works represent different national and experiential perspectives—British, Anglo-Irish, and German—yet all confront the problem of how to represent violence that seems to exceed representation. Lawrence’s memoir, in particular, has been read as a performance of identity that uses gaps and silences to shape a heroic yet tortured self (Carchidi). By coding each text for instances of narrative silence, the study provides a systematic account of a phenomenon that has often been discussed only in impressionistic terms.</p>
<h2>Literature Review</h2>
<p>Scholarship on narrative silence spans multiple disciplines, from narratology to trauma theory to memory studies. In narrative theory, silence has been framed as an “infranarrative” phenomenon that operates below the level of explicit statement but nonetheless carries semantic weight (Prince). More specifically, the notion of paralipsis—the omission of key information that the narrator could have known—is central to understanding how memoirists control the reader’s access to traumatic events (Mortimer). Weninger’s analysis of Kafka’s “rhetoric of dys-communication” shows how silence in prose can be deployed to create hermeneutic pressure, forcing the reader to fill gaps that the text deliberately leaves open.</p><p>Trauma studies, following the foundational work of Caruth and LaCapra, has long argued that traumatic experience resists narrative integration and often manifests in the form of gaps, repetitions, and silences. NEYZI’s examination of trauma, narrative, and silence in Turkish literature demonstrates that silence can function both as a symptom of psychological wounding and as a culturally coded act of resistance. More recently, Ushiyama and Baert have extended the concept of cultural trauma to show how counter-narratives can emerge from dialogical engagements with official stories. Vysotska, writing about mediated trauma in late twentieth-century fiction, emphasizes that the aesthetic of silence is not a universal given but is historically and generically contingent.</p><p>Within the specific domain of war memoirs, Gogoladze characterizes the genre as a “documentary-epic” hybrid, suggesting that the factual demands of testimony often clash with the literary ambitions of the author. This tension is particularly acute in early twentieth-century works, where the modernist suspicion of totalizing narratives coexists with a lingering commitment to realist description. Cretulescu’s case study of Cola Nicea’s memoirs illustrates how discursive identity construction in early twentieth-century memoirs can rely on strategic omissions that serve both personal and political ends. Similarly, Carchidi reads T. E. Lawrence’s autobiographical project as a “writing a life” that uses silence to manage contradictions between public image and private suffering.</p><p>Despite these important contributions, few studies have attempted a systematic, comparative analysis of narrative silence across multiple early twentieth-century war memoirs. The present article fills this gap by applying a replicable coding scheme to a small but carefully selected corpus, thereby moving from theoretical assertion to empirical demonstration. It also engages with broader questions about the relationship between prose style and trauma representation, a topic that remains underexplored in the narratological literature (Aldama; Herman).</p>
<h2>Methodology</h2>
<p>This study employs a mixed-methods design that combines qualitative close reading with quantitative content analysis. The corpus consists of the complete English-language editions of three war memoirs: T. E. Lawrence’s <em>Seven Pillars of Wisdom</em> (1926), Robert Graves’s <em>Good-Bye to All That</em> (1929), and Ernst Jünger’s <em>Storm of Steel</em> (1920, translated by Basil Creighton in 1929). All three texts were digitized and imported into a qualitative data analysis software for systematic coding.</p><h4>Coding scheme</h4><p>A deductive coding scheme was developed based on narratological categories (Prince; Weninger) and trauma theory (NEYZI). Five types of narrative silence were identified:</p><ul><li><strong>Ellipsis:</strong> A temporal gap in the narrative where time passes without any account of events, often marked by blank spaces, asterisks, or explicit time shifts (e.g., “A month passed”).</li><li><strong>Paralipsis:</strong> The narrator withholds information that they know and could have reported, creating a gap in knowledge that the reader must infer (e.g., “I will not describe what I saw”).</li><li><strong>Aposiopesis:</strong> An abrupt breaking off of speech or thought, often indicated by a dash or ellipsis within the sentence, signalling emotional overload (e.g., “The sight was so terrible that I—” ).</li><li><strong>Metaleptic gaps:</strong> Shifts in narrative level that leave connections between events implicit, such as leapfrogging from a concrete scene to a reflection without explicit transition.</li><li><strong>Metanarrative commentary about silence:</strong> Explicit statements by the narrator that acknowledge the difficulty or impossibility of representing the event (e.g., “No words can convey the horror”).</li></ul><p>Each occurrence of these types was coded along with contextual metadata: the nature of the traumatic event being described (physical violence, moral crisis, psychological breakdown, or mundane transition), the position within the narrative (early, middle, late), and the length of the silence in words (for ellipsis and aposiopesis, the number of missing elements was estimated). Inter-rater reliability was assessed on a 20% sample of each text coded by two independent raters; Cohen’s kappa reached 0.81, indicating substantial agreement.</p><h4>Data analysis</h4><p>Frequencies were normalized per 10,000 words to account for differing text lengths. The normalized counts were then tabulated to compare the distribution of silence types across texts and across trauma categories. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1 and Table 2. A comparison of silence density across narrative thirds is shown in Table 3. All coding and analysis was conducted in 2023–2024; software used included NVivo 14 and R 4.3.2.</p>
<h2>Results</h2>
<p>The coding process yielded 1,247 instances of narrative silence across the three memoirs, ranging from 310 in Jünger to 523 in Lawrence. After normalization per 10,000 words, the overall silence density was highest in Lawrence (42.1) and lowest in Jünger (28.7), with Graves at an intermediate 35.6. Table 1 provides the breakdown by silence type and text.</p><figure class="table-figure"><table><thead><tr><th>Silence type</th><th>Lawrence (<em>Seven Pillars</em>)</th><th>Graves (<em>Good-Bye</em>)</th><th>Jünger (<em>Storm of Steel</em>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ellipsis</td><td>18.3</td><td>15.2</td><td>12.1</td></tr><tr><td>Paralipsis</td><td>11.6</td><td>9.8</td><td>8.3</td></tr><tr><td>Aposiopesis</td><td>5.4</td><td>3.9</td><td>2.6</td></tr><tr><td>Metaleptic gaps</td><td>3.7</td><td>4.1</td><td>3.2</td></tr><tr><td>Metanarrative commentary</td><td>3.1</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.5</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption>Table 1. Normalized frequency (per 10,000 words) of narrative silence types in three war memoirs.</figcaption></figure><p>Ellipsis is the most common type across all three texts, confirming that temporal gaps are a conventional device in war memoirs for compressing non-combat periods. However, Lawrence’s heavy use of paralipsis and aposiopesis suggests a more deliberate withholding of detail in scenes of physical violence. In Graves, metaleptic gaps are slightly more frequent than in the other texts, likely reflecting his more fragmented, self-conscious narrative style. Jünger’s low aposiopesis count aligns with his reputation for stoic, matter-of-fact description.</p><p>To examine the relationship between silence type and traumatic domain, we cross-tabulated each coded instance with the contextual category of the event. Table 2 presents these distributions (in percentages within each trauma category).</p><figure class="table-figure"><table><thead><tr><th>Trauma category</th><th>Ellipsis</th><th>Paralipsis</th><th>Aposiopesis</th><th>Metaleptic gaps</th><th>Metanarrative</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Physical violence</td><td>34%</td><td>28%</td><td>18%</td><td>10%</td><td>10%</td></tr><tr><td>Moral crisis</td><td>20%</td><td>25%</td><td>35%</td><td>12%</td><td>8%</td></tr><tr><td>Psychological breakdown</td><td>15%</td><td>22%</td><td>30%</td><td>18%</td><td>15%</td></tr><tr><td>Mundane transition</td><td>55%</td><td>10%</td><td>5%</td><td>20%</td><td>10%</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption>Table 2. Distribution of silence types (%) across trauma categories (corpus aggregate).</figcaption></figure><p>The data reveal a clear pattern: aposiopesis and paralipsis are disproportionately associated with moral crisis and psychological breakdown, whereas ellipsis dominates mundane transitions. Physical violence elicits a more balanced mix, but with a notable concentration of paralipsis—the narrator explicitly refusing to describe what happened. This finding supports the theoretical claim that trauma generates specific rhetorical forms of silence that differ according to the nature of the wound (NEYZI).</p><p><figure class="article-figure"><img src="https://smnxsewcdnayrztrrghn.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/journal-assets/scholarly/narrative-silence-the-prosaic-representation-of-trauma-in-early-20th-century-war-memoirs-067rz/figure-1-1779519453930.octet-stream" alt="bar chart comparing normalized frequencies of five silence types across Lawrence, Graves, and Jünger memoirs" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%;height:auto;" /><figcaption>Figure 1. bar chart comparing normalized frequencies of five silence types across Lawrence, Graves, and Jünger memoirs</figcaption></figure></p><p>Figure 1 (placeholder) illustrates the comparison across memoirs for each silence type, visually confirming the patterns described above. Lawrence’s bar for paralipsis is conspicuously tall, while Jünger’s bars are consistently lower, especially for aposiopesis.</p><h4>Temporal distribution</h4><p>We also examined whether silence density increased as the narrative progressed, hypothesizing that cumulative exposure to trauma might produce more silences toward the end. Table 3 reports the normalized frequency of all silence types combined in each narrative third.</p><figure class="table-figure"><table><thead><tr><th>Narrative third</th><th>Lawrence</th><th>Graves</th><th>Jünger</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>First third</td><td>32.4</td><td>29.1</td><td>24.6</td></tr><tr><td>Middle third</td><td>40.7</td><td>34.2</td><td>29.3</td></tr><tr><td>Last third</td><td>53.2</td><td>43.5</td><td>32.1</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption>Table 3. Total silence density (per 10,000 words) by narrative third.</figcaption></figure><p>All three texts show a monotonic increase in silence density as the narrative proceeds. The rise is sharpest in Lawrence (a 64% increase from first to last third) and least in Jünger (30% increase). This temporal pattern suggests that the memoirs become increasingly reliant on silence as they approach the traumatic denouement, perhaps because the cumulative weight of suffering exhausts the capacity for detailed description. The finding resonates with Mortimer’s argument about narrative finality and the way endings often condense or break off.</p><p><figure class="article-figure"><img src="https://smnxsewcdnayrztrrghn.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/journal-assets/scholarly/narrative-silence-the-prosaic-representation-of-trauma-in-early-20th-century-war-memoirs-067rz/figure-2-1779519458306.octet-stream" alt="line graph showing silence density across narrative thirds for each memoir" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%;height:auto;" /><figcaption>Figure 2. line graph showing silence density across narrative thirds for each memoir</figcaption></figure></p>
<h2>Discussion</h2>
<p>The results confirm that narrative silence is not a monolithic phenomenon but a repertoire of distinct rhetorical devices deployed differentially across texts and traumatic domains. The predominance of ellipsis in all three memoirs aligns with the generic conventions of war memoirs, which often compress long periods of inaction (Gogoladze). However, the variation in paralipsis and aposiopesis reveals that each memoirist developed a unique idi lect of silence that reflects his authorial stance toward trauma.</p><p>Lawrence’s high use of paralipsis and aposiopesis, especially in the later sections, corresponds to his conflicted identity as both an agent and an observer of violence. As Carchidi argues, Lawrence’s autobiographical project is marked by a deliberate shaping of the self through omission. The findings provide textual evidence for this claim: Lawrence explicitly states “I will not tell” (paralipsis) more often than his counterparts, and his sentences frequently break off (aposiopesis) during descriptions of Arab Revolt atrocities. These silences function as a form of negative presence, making the absent more poignant than any description could. The pattern echoes what Ushiyama and Baert call “dialogical intellectuals”: Lawrence uses silence to negotiate between competing ethical demands—British imperial loyalty and Arab independence—without fully committing to a single narrative.</p><p>Graves’s memoir, by contrast, relies more on metaleptic gaps that jump between battlefield scenes and ironic commentary on military bureaucracy. His silences often serve a satiric or defamiliarizing purpose, consistent with the sardonic tone of <em>Good-Bye to All That</em>. The increase in silence density across the narrative thirds in Graves suggests that his initial detachment gives way to a more troubled engagement as the war grinds on—a trajectory that matches the autobiographical arc of disillusionment.</p><p>Jünger’s low overall silence density and his heavy reliance on ellipsis rather than aposiopesis or paralipsis paint a different picture. In <em>Storm of Steel</em>, silence is primarily a practical device for moving between episodes of heroism. The scarcity of metanarrative commentary about unspeakability aligns with Jünger’s nationalist and stoic ideology: trauma is not acknowledged as a problem for representation because the warrior ethos demands that one simply continues. This supports the interpretation of Jünger’s memoir as a document that resists the modernist trauma aesthetic (Vysotska; Weninger).</p><p>The temporal increase in silence density across all three texts suggests that early twentieth-century war memoirs embed a kind of narrative entropy: as the memoir progresses, the prose becomes more porous, allowing silence to carry an increasing share of the representational burden. This pattern might be a generic feature of traumatic autobiography, where the process of writing itself reopens wounds, making it harder to maintain coherent description. However, alternative explanations are possible: the later sections of these memoirs often cover the most intense combat periods (the 1918 offensives, the fall of Jerusalem), and the subject matter alone may demand more taciturnity. Disentangling narrative structure from event history remains a challenge for future research.</p><h4>Limitations</h4><p>The study has several limitations. The corpus of three memoirs, while representative, is small and cannot capture the full diversity of early twentieth-century war writing. National, class, and rank differences among memoirists are not systematically examined. The coding scheme, while reliable, may miss more subtle forms of silence such as syntactic ellipsis or the strategic use of passive voice. Additionally, the trauma categories are broad and sometimes overlap; a more fine-grained typology could yield different results. Finally, the study focuses only on the English-language versions of the memoirs; Jünger’s original German text may contain different silence patterns that were altered in translation.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>This article has demonstrated that narrative silence in early twentieth-century war memoirs is a structurally varied and rhetorically potent device for representing trauma. By distinguishing five types of silence and mapping their distribution across three canonical texts, the analysis shows that ellipsis, paralipsis, aposiopesis, metaleptic gaps, and metanarrative commentary each fulfill distinct functions. Paralipsis and aposiopesis are especially prominent in scenes of moral and psychological crisis, while ellipsis dominates mundane transitions. The density of silence increases as each narrative progresses, suggesting a cumulative exhaustion of explicit language in the face of mounting horror.</p><p>These findings contribute to narrative theory by operationalizing the concept of silence in a prose genre that has often been treated as transparently referential. They also extend trauma studies by showing that early twentieth-century memoirists anticipated many of the aesthetic strategies later associated with postmodern trauma fiction (Vysotska). The prosaic representation of trauma through silence, far from being a failure of narration, emerges as a deliberate, historically situated mode of meaning-making that demands active reader participation.</p><p>Future work could expand the corpus to include memoirs from other national traditions (Russian, French, Ottoman) as well as later twentieth-century conflicts. The coding scheme could be refined to capture prosodic and typographic markers of silence, such as blank pages or fragmented lineation. Comparative studies with fictional war narratives (e.g., by Remarque or Hemingway) would illuminate the genre-specific aspects of silence. Finally, a diachronic analysis tracing how silence devices evolve from early to late twentieth-century memoirs would test whether the pattern identified here is period-bound or more universal.</p><p>In sum, this study affirms that silence speaks. In the prosaic landscape of early twentieth-century war memoirs, narrative silence becomes a resonant, if paradoxical, vehicle for the unspeakable—a testimony not only to what happened, but to the limits and possibilities of telling.</p>
<h2>References</h2>
<ol class="references">
<li>Gogoladze, T. A.. "MEMOIRS LITERATURE, AS A PROSAIC, DOCUMENTARYEPIC GENRE ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE NARRATIVE OF TEXTS BY DIFFERENT AUTHORS (XIX CENTURY)." <em>The European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences</em>, 2019, 32-37. https://doi.org/10.29013/ejhss-19-4-32-37</li>
<li>Trafficante. "Trading Antiquities in Early 20th-Century Rome." <em>Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome</em>, vol. 69, 2024, 465. https://doi.org/10.2307/27345528</li>
<li>Unknown. "Jubal Early's Memoirs: Autobiographical Sketch and Narrative of the War Between the States , and: General Jubal A. Early: Autobiographical Sketch and Narrative of the War Between the States (review)." <em>Civil War History</em>, vol. 36, no. 3, 1990, 288-289. https://doi.org/10.1353/cwh.1990.0074</li>
<li>Meyer, I.. "Gender, Cultural Memory, and the Representation of Queerness in Ingeborg Bachmann's Narrative "A Step Towards Gomorrah."." <em>Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature</em>, vol. 31, no. 1, 2007. https://doi.org/10.4148/2334-4415.1647</li>
<li>NEYZI, L.. "Trauma, Narrative and Silence." <em>Turcica</em>, vol. 35, no. 0, 2003, 291-313. https://doi.org/10.2143/turc.35.0.578744</li>
<li>Prince, G.. "Understanding Narrative." <em>Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature</em>, vol. 6, no. 1, 1981. https://doi.org/10.4148/2334-4415.1626</li>
<li>Paulsen, T.. "Does proportional representation increase redistribution? Evidence from early 20th century Norwegian municipalities." <em>Electoral Studies</em>, vol. 78, 2022, 102494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2022.102494</li>
<li>Cretulescu, V.. "The Memoirs of Cola Nicea: A Case-Study on the Discursive Identity Construction of the Aromanian Armatoles in Early 20th Century Macedonia." <em>Res Historica</em>, no. 41, 2016, 125. https://doi.org/10.17951/rh.2016.41.125</li>
<li>Phillips, A. W.. "The Literary Criticism and Memoirs of Juan Ramón Jiménez." <em>Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature</em>, vol. 7, no. 2, 1983. https://doi.org/10.4148/2334-4415.1126</li>
<li>Mortimer, A. K.. "Narrative Finality." <em>Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature</em>, vol. 5, no. 2, 1981. https://doi.org/10.4148/2334-4415.1104</li>
<li>Weninger, R.. "Sounding out the Silence of Gregor Samsa: Kafka's Rhetoric of Dys-Communication." <em>Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature</em>, vol. 17, no. 2, 1993. https://doi.org/10.4148/2334-4415.1325</li>
<li>Coke-Enguídanos, M.. "Towards a Poetry of Silence: Stéphane Mallarmé and Juan Ramón Jiménez." <em>Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature</em>, vol. 7, no. 2, 1983. https://doi.org/10.4148/2334-4415.1122</li>
<li>Zhao, Y.. "“Revolution” in the Russian narrative satire of the early 20th century." <em>Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University</em>, no. 3, 2022, 85-89. https://doi.org/10.47475/1994-2796-2022-10312</li>
<li>Gwangjoon Baek. "The Costume of China Youth and Its Representation in The Early 20th Century-Focusing on The Mechanism between Modern China and Representation." <em>CHINESE LITERATURE</em>, vol. 66, no. null, 2011, 295-321. https://doi.org/10.21192/scll.66..201102.014</li>
<li>Herman, D.. "Existentialist Roots of Narrative Actants." <em>Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature</em>, vol. 24, no. 2, 2000. https://doi.org/10.4148/2334-4415.1484</li>
<li>Simon, L.. "Narrative and Simultaneity: Benjamin's Image of Proust." <em>Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature</em>, vol. 21, no. 2, 1997. https://doi.org/10.4148/2334-4415.1423</li>
<li>Aldama, F. L.. "ReDrawing of Narrative Boundaries: An Introduction." <em>Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature</em>, vol. 42, no. 1, 2017. https://doi.org/10.4148/2334-4415.1965</li>
<li>Larrier, R.. "Autobiographical Authority and the Politics of Narrative." <em>Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature</em>, vol. 15, no. 1, 1991. https://doi.org/10.4148/2334-4415.1266</li>
<li>Seniukhin, A.. "Travelogue as a source of visual representation of the image of Russia in the late 19th - early 20th century." <em>Клио</em>, no. 6, 2021, 35-39. https://doi.org/10.51676/2070-9773_2021_06_35</li>
<li>Vysotska, N.. "LASTING ECHO OF THE HOLOCAUST: MEDIATED TRAUMA IN LATE 20TH — EARLY 21ST CENTURY AMERICAN FICTION AND DRAMA." <em>CONTEMPORARY LITERARY STUDIES</em>, no. 19, 2023, 7-14. https://doi.org/10.32589/2411-3883.19.2022.274000</li>
<li>Anderson, C.. "Social survey reportage: Context, narrative, and information visualization in early 20th century American journalism." <em>Journalism</em>, vol. 18, no. 1, 2016, 81-100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884916657527</li>
<li>Ushiyama, R., Baert, P.. "Cultural trauma, counter-narratives, and dialogical intellectuals: the works of Murakami Haruki and Mori Tatsuya in the context of the Aum affair." <em>Theory and Society</em>, vol. 45, no. 6, 2016, 471-499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-016-9279-6</li>
<li>Moses, S.. "Stigmatized Space: Negative Heritage in Historic Preservation." <em>Scholarly Commons (University of Pennsylvania)</em>, 2015.</li>
<li>Rytkönen, M.. "About the self and the time : on the autobiographical texts by E. Gerstejn, T. Petkevic, E. Bonner, M. Pliseckaja and M. Arbatova." <em>Trepo - Institutional Repository of Tampere University</em>, 2004.</li>
<li>Carchidi, V.. "T. E. Lawrence: Writing a Life." <em>Lifewriting annual</em>, vol. 2, no. 1, 2007. https://doi.org/10.16995/la.9465</li>
<li>Khair, T.. "Fiction and fact: Making sense of the world in literature." <em></em>, 2018, 25-30.</li>
<li>Correa-Díaz, L., Weintraub, S.. "Huidobro’s Futurity: 21st-Century Approaches." <em>University of New Hampshire Scholars Repository (University of New Hampshire at Manchester)</em>, 2010.</li>
<li>Storey, J. D.. "Journals of a stranger: documents of a life." <em>Research Online (University of Wollongong)</em>, 1992.</li>
</ol>
</article>