'Good bye to all that'

[Old Tom]

Hello,

I am just re-reading Robert Graves biography which I first read as a school boy too many years ago. Having read quite a lot of more modern stuff I found his accounts of operations in 1915 fascinating.

Old Tom

[jeremym]

Hello,

I am just re-reading Robert Graves biography which I first read as a school boy too many years ago. Having read quite a lot of more modern stuff I found his accounts of operations in 1915 fascinating.

Old Tom

Old Tom

You refer to Goodbye to All That, by Robert Graves, as biography (presumably autobiography). It is a powerful work. However, it is as well to be aware of the judgment of that outstanding critic of the literature of the Great War, Paul Fussell, in his The Great War and Modern Memory, that Goodbye to All That should be read as fiction disguised as autobiography. Without verification, it would be unwise to use it as a factual source. There are also substantial and significant differences between the 1929 first edition and the 1957 revised and subsequent editions.

jeremym

(Jeremy Mitchell)

[Muerrisch]

But, Dr Dunn the RMO who served with RG for a long period in 2nd RWF, although scornful of RG's style, found little to complain about factually, as anyone who has read Dunn's personal copy of GTAT [presented by RG] can testify .... although the good Doctor wrote 'balls' in the margin once, and was a bit dubious several times, there is little sign of Dunn disagreeing with the broad facts of RG's war.

It is certainly not fiction, but embroidered fact, and a darned good read.

Dull history it is not.

I do not have a first edition, and would be glad of a list of the significant historical changes, as opposed to changes of opinion [which most of us make in 30 years].

[David Filsell]

There seems little doubt that Graves romaticised his experiences for the book - artfull is perhaps the best description of him in its truest sense. Equally it is an extremely good book. But,I have often wondered if his claim to have had a death notice published in (I think) the Times was true. Has anyone ever seen it?

[Muerrisch]

No, but nephew RP Graves, in his magnificent trilogy on RG, quotes the Times on 3rd and 5th of August 1916.

[Muerrisch]

No, but nephew RP Graves, in his magnificent trilogy on RG, quotes the Times on 3rd and 5th of August 1916.

[Tom Morgan]

No, but nephew RP Graves, in his magnificent trilogy on RG, quotes the Times on 3rd and 5th of August 1916.

The one on 5th August is a notice from Graves himself:

[David Filsell]

Tom

Thanks for that, most interesting - but is there in fact a death report on the 3rd or am I just being suspicious by nature. It is just that it's such a good story, as one would expect from Graves, that one cannot but wonder. If it is true that his death was reported he joins Hemingway and Twain, both of whose deaths were greatly exagerated, amongst the litterati (there are I think other authors too, but I cannot remember them). Thanks again - I look forward to a posting with the cutting from the 3rd!

Best regards

David

[truthergw]

Graves is numbered among the top rank of English authors. He served with distinction as an officer in The Royal Welsh Fusiliers. No one who wishes to read about the Great War should lightly pass by a book, acknowledged as a classic by most literary authorities.

[Tom Morgan]

David, I searched The Times using the phrases Robert Graves and Captain Robert Graves but couldn't find any reference earlier than that 5th August one.

Tom

[IanA]

But, Dr Dunn the RMO who served with RG for a long period in 2nd RWF, although scornful of RG's style, found little to complain about factually, as anyone who has read Dunn's personal copy of GTAT [presented by RG] can testify .... although the good Doctor wrote 'balls' in the margin once, and was a bit dubious several times, there is little sign of Dunn disagreeing with the broad facts of RG's war.

References to this annotated copy of GTAT are simply tantalising. Might it ever be published? At the very least, an article in 'Stand To'. Grumpy, you don't know of anyone who has an interest in the RWF who might pen such an article?

[Muerrisch]

Not trying to tease!

The book is in the RWF Museum archive.

I transcribed all the annotations in red biro into a cheap copy of GTAT, so, unless Dunn's handwriting is needed, I have all the info. I fear I was not fussy about the editions, though. I expect Dunn had the original.

Never considered writing an article .... it could be quite short. The journal of the WFA carries most of my stuff, they might fancy it after the monster 3 piece series on the letters of FR to RG come out. First instalment next issue.

Meanwhile, if you have any specific query such as 'did Dunn react to .....' I will have a look for you.

[squirrel]

Sounds like a good follow up to the three you have in the pipeline.

[Muerrisch]

David, I searched The Times using the phrases Robert Graves and Captain Robert Graves but couldn't find any reference earlier than that 5th August one.

Tom

Fascinating: it raises the possibility that RG set the story up on 5th Aug 1916!

RPG refers thus:

' ..... on Friday afternoon [4th] Amy and Rosaleen visited Robert, who pointed out with some amusement that Thursday's Times had published his name among a long list of those who had died of wounds .....'

True? Delirium? Self agrandisement? Wrong newspaper? Setting up an anecdote for GTAT?

The bog mindles.

[IanA]

The book is in the RWF Museum archive.

Meanwhile, if you have any specific query such as 'did Dunn react to .....' I will have a look for you.

I'm a long way away from the RWF archives.

Thank you very much indeed for your kind offer but I have no specific questions, simply a great interest in this fine regiment which has been so well served by its literary sons. I'm sure an article would be welcomed by many others.

Ian

[Tom Morgan]

Ive just found the Roll of Honour page from The Times, Thursday, 3rd August 1916. It lists several officers who had died (and hundreds of ORs) but RG is not one of the officers mentioned.

Tom

[David Filsell]

Tom,

Somehow I always thought that Graves might have been a 'bit of a bounder'. But has anyone else checked other papers which might have carrioed the original?

[Muerrisch]

Perhaps RPG did not check, and used family anecdote for this ........ a HIT for the Forum's enquiring minds? Perhaps he got the day wrong?

[jeremym]

I have not done a detailed check of the differences between the 1929 first edition of GTAT and the 1957 revised edition, though you can bet your bottom dollar that some US academic has. However, the Prologue to the 1957 revised edition includes the following:

'A good many changes have been made to the text - omission of many dull or foolish patches; restoration of a few suppressed anecdotes; replacement of the T.E.Lawrence chapter by a longer one written five years later; correction of factual misstatements; and a general editing of my excusably ragged prose. Some proper names have been restored where their original disguise is no longer necessary.'

Graves is a very powerful writer, but it would be unwise to ignore Paul Fussell's verdict that GTAT is fiction disguised as autobiography. It should not be used as a factual source without verification

jeremym

(Jeremy Mitchell).

[jeremym]

I should have added that in his authoritative book on the Battle of Loos, Most Unfavourable Ground, Niall Cherry does not cite Robert Graves and does not list GTAT in his Bibliography and Sources.

jeremym

(Jeremy Mitchell)

[truthergw]

I know of several other books that Niall did not mention. I doubt if they are all bad. In particular, there is no mention of Patrick MacGill's The Great Push. A work of fiction describing the Battle of Loos from the standpoint of a stretcher bearer in The London Irish. Since MacGill had been a stretcher bearer in The London Irish and was a well known poet and author, I find that strange. There is no mention of Sassoon's semi autobiographical memoirs either. I shall refrain from adding to the list.

[jeremym]

I know of several other books that Niall did not mention. I doubt if they are all bad. In particular, there is no mention of Patrick MacGill's The Great Push. A work of fiction describing the Battle of Loos from the standpoint of a stretcher bearer in The London Irish. Since MacGill had been a stretcher bearer in The London Irish and was a well known poet and author, I find that strange. There is no mention of Sassoon's semi autobiographical memoirs either. I shall refrain from adding to the list.

I am sorry I didn't make my point clearly. It is not that a book is 'bad' if Niall Cherry did not mention it, but that he didn't rely on it for factual evidence. GTAT is a powerful book, but cannot be relied on as historical source material.

jeremym

(Jeremy Mitchell)

[Chris Martin]

It is not that a book is 'bad' if Niall Cherry did not mention it, but that he didn't rely on it for factual evidence. GTAT is a powerful book, but cannot be relied on as historical source material.

I think that depends on how you view the source. Any source has to be viewed with a critical eye. Graves work may not be the most reliable for hard and fast "fact" but it is wonderful in its descriptions of the men he served with, and a fantastic source for gaining insight on how he and others of his social class, the educated elite, viewed the war, included here are men such as Graves, Hemingway, Manning, and Owen.

In "The Collapse of British Power" Correllie Barnett uses these works to great effect to challange the notion of a "lost generation." Barnett successfully attacked this belief by showing that the notion applied to a very limited section of the British population, the educated elite. Influential writers such as Robert Graves, Ernest Hemingway, Frederic Manning, and Wilfred Owen belonged to this section of the population and saw the death of their friends and compatriots as a great detriment to the nation. This belief, popularized by them, was accepted and internalized by the larger population.

I haven't read Cherry's work, and I'm not saying he is unjustified to exclude it as a source, but "Goodbye to All That" should not be discounted as a valid historical source.

[wainfleet]

Paul Fussell’s fascinating book is an absolute must for anyone interested in the effect of the War on British society, but I am sceptical of his comments about the fictional nature of GTAT.

He justifies his view (I don’t have a copy of TGWAMM here, so apologies if I’m wrong) with two anecdotes in GTAT, both to do with machine guns: first, the removal of cartridges from the MG belt so as to make the gun “play tunes”. Obviously the gunners didn’t do that or the MG would have stopped, as PF rightly says. But there are reports of British and German machine gunners “playing tunes” by their skill in controlling the gun, which wouldn’t be too hard to do. So it’s not complete nonsense.

PF also refers to the gunners in GTAT saying the Germans are paying for their morning cup of tea when the water in the gun’s water jacket boils after extended firing. Here too he rightly says that this water would be oily and not fit to drink, but he seems not to consider the possibility that the remark is a bit of soldiers’ humour. I should think you’d exploit any opportunity for a laugh in a place where one was so badly needed. In fact there's quite a lot of humour in GTAT, but it is so understated that it's easy to miss. If one bears in mind that the grim "comedy" and illogicality of the war is central to the book, and that Graves seems to have got stuck with this mindset after the war, judging from the disconnected way he continued to live and report his life, the book makes a lot of sense.

Having never been present in a war zone I can’t judge whether these and his other anecdotes (and GTAT is basically a book of anecdotes) are realistic, but they certainly seem to convey the feel of the frontline to me, and I don’t really know why PF is dismissive of GTAT as “fiction”.

Regards,

W.

[truthergw]

Seems to me that there is a bit of dodging going on here. Graves did not set out to write an Official History of the war or even of his part in it. The book is an autobiography, not a story of the war. Approximately one half of it deals with his life during the war. We have had part of the Prologue to the 2nd Edition quoted, here is the first sentence from that prologue. " I partly wrote, partly dictated this book, 28 years ago during a complicated domestic crisis, and with very little time for revision. " To criticise this book on the grounds of factual error in details of military hardware seems to me to be akin to criticising Shakespeare's Middsummer Nights Dream for getting details of the weaving trade wrong.