Great War Fiction: Yea or Nay?

[susanhemmings]

Well said.... Gabriele and Kim.

I should, VERY MUCH like to read each of your works.

Pass me details please.

By the way, how many of us have ever answered someone by saying "I can just imagine.... " . If we don't have imagination how can we ever relate to fact OR fiction. WE were not there, we do not know. We have to imagine to interpret what we read.

I enjoyed Regeneration and Birdsong. I enjoy factual books with fictional characters. I enjoy purely "factual" accounts.

I also have several of Lyn Macdonald books upstairs, some read, some wating to be read. I have a mixture of both. I also have some (what some would call "silly books" (Harrisons) Flowers of the Field - a totally sloppy saga written about nurses in France and Flanders during WW1. For me, it took nothing away from the fact that lives were shattered by the war. And, yes, I could imagine the mud, the blood, the smell, the fear. I could imagine the lice, the stinking shell holes and men drowning in their own faeces. The tunnels collapsing. All sorts or horrors were convenyed.

I think any account be it fact or fiction can educate if you keep an open mind and read as many accounts as you can.

Susan.

[Muskoka]

Thanks, Kim and Susan. You can find out about my latest novel at http://www.themuskokanovels.com/ .

Unfortunately, I don't have any stores outside of Canada carrying it at the moment, but you will be able to order online from my website in a few days, after we set up the International Orders page. You can also PM me with details and we can go from there, if you like.

I appreciate your interest!

Gabriele

[susanhemmings]

Superb Gabriele. It looks to be a promising read. Will log on to your website in a few days and keep an eye here also. I just know I will enjoy this.

and well done you.

Susan.

[Muskoka]

Thanks, Susan!

Here are some relevant comments from readers:

"I am very appreciative for your depiction of the first world war. My grand-mother lost two brothers in that war and I've always felt that I had no real understanding of it. This novel gave me a glimpse of the horror of war; it felt like a first hand account."

"I love history but tend to find the war stuff quite boring - however you made it all interesting by connecting it to great characters!"

Very rewarding!

Gabriele

[susanhemmings]

And true.

[Ozzie]

Sue,

My story has not been published, and is on hold till I get back from seeing the battlefields. I suspect there will be some rewriting afterwards.

So far, those that have read it have expressed good things about it, so here is hoping that it will hit your bookshelf one day.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Cheers

Kim

[susanhemmings]

Once it's in print, I look forward (very much) to reading it Kim. And ENJOY yourself on your tour.

Regards,

Susan.

[Ozzie]

Merci.

Kim

[Katie Elizabeth Stewart]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jan 26 2007, 08:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I haven`t found a non-veteran yet who could write convincing WW1 fiction. As soon as I see reference to the Loamshire regiment, my eyes tend to glaze! I think it will be done, though, just as Cornwell manages it for the Napoleonic era (and the Dark Ages) and O`Brien for the times of Nelson. And it may well be a forum member who pulls it off! Phil B

What is anyone's view on 'Birdsong', by Sebastian Faulks? I'd say that's a powerful enough interpretation - well, it worked for me, anyway! The start seemed a little graphic and irrelevant in places, and perhaps he places too much value on love between a man and a woman - I mean, some people would say the First World War was all about the love of comradeship.

I think what Sebastian Faulks gets across to me in a way I can't forget is how when the soldiers returned, so many of them found there was no longer a place for them in civvy life. Siegfried Sassoon might call it 'callous complacence of those who do not share the horrors, and have insufficient imagination to realise them.'

My view would probably be that no, fiction about the Great War is not the purest source for those who want to know what it was really like - but no-one who wasn't of that generation will ever know anyway. So, I think it's a personal question. If texts can engage with you emotionally, it doesn't really matter when they were written or who by. Some artists would say that the First World War made them feel things they'd never felt about anything else, and that their response to that was to take pen to paper. Sorry if that's a bit too philosophical!!!!!!!

[David Filsell]

This thread has become a fascinating display of enthusiasm, spleen and humour. But I would add a strong vote for Covenant With Death. It was a best seller - it was 'book clubbed' - in its day and one of the first post WW2 novels to deal with the Great War. Although fiction, its author undertook extensive research - from memory I think amongst survivors of the Bradford Pals.

It evokes the role and experiences of the Kitchener Regiments before and on the first day of the Somme which compares well with factual accounts by survivors. It is also extremely well written and it is the quality of writing which elevates good fiction above the commonplace - even if we are depressed by poor plot, poor research or even factual errors. Equally there are a large number of first hand accounts - Graves for example - where fictional recollections are used to lard factual memories. Fiction is afterall fiction and the Great War seems as good, if not a better, subject than many others to me.

[Dragon]

Katie - see this thread where some of us have already expressed our views.

Read the whole thread and you will find a range of opinions, including some of us who enjoy fiction set more or less in the Great War and can defend our views robustly.

Gwyn

[Katie Elizabeth Stewart]

I noticed that fiction does not get nearly as much attention in this forum as non-fiction (rightfully, I would think), but I was curious about people's general views on fictional depictions of the Great War. I remember reading a topic a couple of months back where someone mentioned that they disliked the very idea of writing fiction about WWI...or something to that effect. This member did not explain why (s)he felt this way, but it had me curious.

So, I guess I'm asking to hear your thoughts on WWI fiction:

Do you enjoy reading it, or do you prefer to avoid it (and why)?

Do you think that the study of the Great War benefits from fiction, or do you think fictional accounts do the subject a disservice?

Finally, if you're in the "nay" camp, do you think that Great War fiction is simply lacking in quality or should not be written at all?

I'm interested to hear everyone's thoughts for several reasons: I recently purchased one of Pat Barker's novels (haven't read it yet) and know that she elicits mixed reactions among WWI scholars; I have read several other Great War-themed novels and short stories and have a few to recommend (or at least suggest) to those interested; and finally...least importantly!...I'm also a writer and am working on a novel that deals peripherally with the Great War.

I appreciate everyone's input. Thanks in advance!

Perhaps there are those who fall into the sort of category where they approve of Literature written by those who fought in the war and knew what it was like, but disapprove of those of this generation attempting to convey a sense of what it was like. If this is the case, then I can see where they are coming from. There will always be 'purer' sources of Great War fiction. However, I am not sure if First World War poetry falls under the category 'fiction', because whilst many poems were probably based on soldiers' personal experiances, poetry is also using one's soul for artistic purposes, which can lend it a sort of coldness.

Wilfred Owen said 'these elegies are not conciliatory to this generation - they may be to the next.' The answer to the question: are they conciliatory? will always be a personal one. Many of Owen's poems do look into the light, for example, Greater Love and Apologia Pro Poemate Meo. They glorify the love of comradeship, the sacrificial love. However, perhaps they are not being as 'truthful' as they might be in this respect - perhaps trying to make the First World War seem more bearable obscures the reality.

My personal view is that the reason why the First World War yielded so much Literature is because nobody could contain their emotions, so they resorted to writing it down - something that is in itself very poignant. This may sound slightly romanticised, but War Literature is one of the only ways we can stay in touch with a generation that is nearly extinct.

Hence, I place myself firmly in the 'yea' camp! However, I would be interested to hear why anyone disagrees with me!

Thanks,

Katie

[PoW1988]

I'm pitching my tent next to yours in the "yea" camp Katie. I often indulge in a fictional representation of the Great War in between reading factual books, as they offer a bit of light relief from the "heavy stuff". I think that these kind of books are often not given the credit they deserve, as they can be a powerful tool to engage the interest of the general public towards the events of the Great War. In my view, more should be written.

Lynz

[Michael Johnson]

There really isn't a simple answer. All too often sloppy writers take modern characters (and opinions) and put 1914 clothes on them. The concepts of duty and obedience, let alone class, that I would say were earmarks of that era, are practically incomprehensible today. They may not even be palatable to some modern readers.

Attitudes that were prevalent then are taboo today. "Wogs begin at Calais." as an Old Contemptible Sergeant is supposed to have told his men in 1914.

Fiction, written by a knowledgeable writer, can be as good as history. Take "Kye Bay" http://www.amazon.ca/Kye-Bay-Brian-F-Turne...3704&sr=8-1

Turner served on the Pinetree Line, and his fellow veterans have attested to how accurate his story is.

But you have to understand the time period you are writing about. When I read Ellis Peter's "The Sanctuary Sparrow", which ends with a miracle in the church, with no attempt to rationalize or explain it, I said to myself that she understood the medieval period.

[Greyhound]

All too often sloppy writers take modern characters (and opinions) and put 1914 clothes on them.

A good example of this, though not WWI-related, is the James Cameron film Titanic. So much attention to detail elsewhere, but ruined by the unconvincing fictional characters and appalling script.

[Katie Elizabeth Stewart]

Delta , had to read your post twice there !!! had me worried . Ben Eltons "First Casualty" Is without doubt the Biggest load of cliched c*** I have ever had the misfortune to start to read. My wife got it for me for xmas .. within no time a poetry spouting officer was buggering his Subaltern !!!! need I say more. And Elton still has the nerve to call hisself a serious student of the "Great War" ? No doubt before kicking his football in to No Mans Land ??????

Just read the bit about Ben Elton a few pages ago - sorry - I know it's outdated - but I COULD NOT agree with you more!!!! That was the only First World War novel I have ever read that did not make me shed one tear.

I'm pitching my tent next to yours in the "yea" camp Katie. I often indulge in a fictional representation of the Great War in between reading factual books, as they offer a bit of light relief from the "heavy stuff". I think that these kind of books are often not given the credit they deserve, as they can be a powerful tool to engage the interest of the general public towards the events of the Great War. In my view, more should be written.

Lynz

History renders deaths mere statistics. Literature is using your soul for creative purposes.

[Katie Elizabeth Stewart]

Just read the bit about Ben Elton a few pages ago - sorry - I know it's outdated - but I COULD NOT agree with you more!!!! That was the only First World War novel I have ever read that did not make me shed one tear.

History renders deaths mere statistics. Literature is using your soul for creative purposes, as I said before. Sometimes, it is the only way to tell the truth. If you read Owen's letters, depending on who he is talking to, he can sound a bit of a stuffed shirt when he wants to. His poetry is stark.

[Katie Elizabeth Stewart]

There really isn't a simple answer. All too often sloppy writers take modern characters (and opinions) and put 1914 clothes on them. The concepts of duty and obedience, let alone class, that I would say were earmarks of that era, are practically incomprehensible today. They may not even be palatable to some modern readers.

Attitudes that were prevalent then are taboo today. "Wogs begin at Calais." as an Old Contemptible Sergeant is supposed to have told his men in 1914.

Fiction, written by a knowledgeable writer, can be as good as history. Take "Kye Bay" http://www.amazon.ca/Kye-Bay-Brian-F-Turne...3704&sr=8-1

Turner served on the Pinetree Line, and his fellow veterans have attested to how accurate his story is.

But you have to understand the time period you are writing about. When I read Ellis Peter's "The Sanctuary Sparrow", which ends with a miracle in the church, with no attempt to rationalize or explain it, I said to myself that she understood the medieval period.

Every generation thinks their own experiences are unique. We are not peculiar in that, neither were those alive in 1914. Sometimes, the only way we can adequetely grasp the events we are describing is by viewing them in a light we understand and are familiar with.

But whilst I can sympathise with a writer's motives in translating the First World War to a 2007 backdrop, that's not to say I appreciate Literature of that category.

Then again, those experiences of the First World War are probably lost forever with the last of that generation - a fact that I find almost unspeakably sad - and perhaps it is arrogant even to try to understand.

But there are always those who are utterly engaged by fiction, rather than by a tangled mess of statistics and facts, diagrams and maps. To appeal to those people, and to tell them what it was like (the full onus of that is falling more and more onto us as the Veterans become extinct) - it is necessary to write quality Literature, that will both educate them and (hopefully) make them feel as though they never want to read anything else again!

[PoW1988]

"History renders deaths mere statistics. Literature is using your soul for creative purposes."

You can tell you are going to be a writer you have a wonderful turn of phrase. I couldn't have put it better myself. Myself, as a budding academic historian, I want to try and strike a balance between the fact and the emotion.

Lynz

[Michael Johnson]

But to devil's advocate here, look at Shakespeare's historical dramas. Obviously Henry V isn't historically accurate. And yet there is a power there. George Macdonald Fraser tells in his autobiography Quartered Safe Out Here of lending a copy to one of his hardened veterans in the Border Regiment, only to have him come back asking if Shakespeare had been a soldier, because the dialogue rang true to him, as a soldier.

[salesie]

As a writer of Great War based fiction, I find this a fascinating thread. The differing opinions, some diametrically opposed, contained within this thread (and every other thread in this forum) show that FACT and TRUTH are elusive and abstract notions, perhaps more elusive and abstract than any other single thing in this world. A liking for fiction or non-fiction all boils down to taste (another highly abstract notion), based not only on the Point of View of the reader but also that of the writer.

Masses of research, cross referencing etc. still lead historians to wildly differing conclusions. Contemporary diaries of individual combatants and unit war diaries etc. were written by individuals who had massive external influences acting on them at the time. Memoirs etc. were written after the events, sometimes long after.

For example, do we believe that a man's diary, based on his own highly individual point of view, is not affected by external influences? That it does not contain hearsay? That the individual's interpretation of events is exactly the same as another's? That the diary writer's own dreams and hopes do not influence his scribblings? That some men's delusions are not present when they write? That some men don't lie to themselves in their diaries? Do we believe that all of these influences and emotions don't exist in all aspects of life?

I write fiction in an attempt to understand the human aspect of war, why individuals did what they did - and, from my point of view, no amount of so-called FACTS on their own can help me understand that.

Cheers - salesie.

[Ozzie]

This is hard to put in words.

If I can't see in my mind, what it is, then I can't write it.

To write about a soldier's experience of war, I read letters, histories, diaries, look at photos, listen to stories, and then let it all mix around in my head.

Then I close my eyes. I try to feel it, smell it, see it, touch it, and wait to see if it comes back as a mushroom, one that grows, and spreads into something I can believe in. Something strong enough to speak to you, and to let you hear the music.

When I can write, I call it, hearing the music.

Through this process you learn a lot of different things. Tactics, artillery, enfilade fire, (Ta, Glyn), Shell shock, endurance, and so much, much, more, until, the research can sometimes threaten to take over the creative process.

I dread moving on from The Great War, as I feel I have not 1/10000th learnt any thing yet, but one day, I shall have to move on, as another era, and another war calls to me, to try and understand, and to try and tell a story so that today's people, might understand, and appreciate what the men and women of that time endured.

That is, if the the first one ever sees the light of day.

Some people can tell you minute by minute , what happened in a regiments life, what the tactics were, what shells were used, who was where and when. I can't. I admire those that can retain all this information.

Instead, with me, it floats past, leaving me with an impression that I have to write as a third person, with a lot of help from friends in the know.

And this is where this forum is a writer's dream.

There is not one question I have asked on this forum, that has not been answered without professional knowledge, or hours of dedicated research. From members who are currently, or have served in the Armed forces, to the bloke down the street, who has made the research of an aspect of the Great War, his life's work. The help I have received here has found its way into my work, in a huge way.

Enough of my ****, there you go.

Kim

[salesie]

There's no doubt that this forum is a mine of information, and a Godsend for research. However, as stated earlier, my main interest is in the human aspect i.e. why men did what they did, and why they reacted in various ways to the far ranging stimuli of war, particularly the Great War.

Where a regiment was at any particular point in time, who was where and when, what shells they used etc. etc. is important for technical accuracy, if absolute technical accuracy is what you seek, I don't - I seek a deeper understanding of the individuals who made up the regiment's ranks. From this prospective, I can't see that it matters too much, say, if an individual's battery used 25 pounders or 18 pounders at any given point in time, or a certain regiment was equipped with a different marque of rifle to the others between such and such a date - I try to discover why they were prepared to load and fire any shell or rifle (whatever its calibre or marque), why they stood or ran in the face of certain death, why they put up with extreme discomfort and stress etc. etc. I try to discover if they were actually different to us now in our so-called modern era - being no less intelligent, in general, to what we are now, so what drove them? What motivated them?

Platoons, Companies, Battalions, Regiments, Brigades, Divisions, Corps, Armies etc. are made up of individuals, without those individuals no unit, no matter what its size, would exist. I want to tell the individual's story - for it seems to me that when we look at the "bigger picture" alone and/or concentrate on absolute technical accuracy then we lose site of the human aspect, that we cannot see the trees for the wood e.g. knowing where a regiment was, and what it did en-masse is not enough for me, in my opinion it doesn't tell the whole story. To this end, and given the gaps in so much research material (for the reasons given in my earlier post), gaps which many historians fill in and/or gloss over, I am of the firm opinion that fiction is an essential tool in filling those gaps and giving us a deeper understanding of the all important human factor.

Of course, the quality of any such fiction can have a profound effect on this matter - but there is plenty of poor quality non-fiction around, so why not treat fiction as a relevant and valid way of filling gaps in research? Perhaps a more honest way than most non-fiction techniques?

Cheers - salesie.

[truthergw]

Any contribution to a topic like this can only be a personal reaction. Personally, if I feel like a rest from the latest regimental history, I turn to poetry rather than fiction. When I do indulge in a novel, there is the all important factor of, ' the willing suspension of disbelief'. This becomes more difficult for me if the writer describes a situation which I know did not happen. It becomes all but impossible if the writer describes a situation which I know could not have occurred. If an author is going to describe an artillery action in such and such a place and at such and such a time, why not take the time and trouble to get the calibre of the gun correct. It may be that the style of writing is very impressionistic, in that case the details will not be so important. If, however, a story is seeking for an air of realism, then obviously they will. In sum, I would say that if I complain at the lack of authenticity, it is because the story line was too weak. I love Harry Potter and have cherished Lord of the Rings for many years. I do not stop to quibble at the description of Hermione's wand or the size of battleaxe that an orc is wielding.

[salesie]

Any contribution to a topic like this can only be a personal reaction. Personally, if I feel like a rest from the latest regimental history, I turn to poetry rather than fiction. When I do indulge in a novel, there is the all important factor of, ' the willing suspension of disbelief'. This becomes more difficult for me if the writer describes a situation which I know did not happen. It becomes all but impossible if the writer describes a situation which I know could not have occurred. If an author is going to describe an artillery action in such and such a place and at such and such a time, why not take the time and trouble to get the calibre of the gun correct. It may be that the style of writing is very impressionistic, in that case the details will not be so important. If, however, a story is seeking for an air of realism, then obviously they will. In sum, I would say that if I complain at the lack of authenticity, it is because the story line was too weak. I love Harry Potter and have cherished Lord of the Rings for many years. I do not stop to quibble at the description of Hermione's wand or the size of battleaxe that an orc is wielding.

I agree, personal taste is the key, making one man's poor storyline another's Shakespeare. And, if on the rare occasion that a plot at a certain point hinged on the calibre then it should be mentioned (and time taken to be accurate) but if not relevant then why bother? It seems to me that not mentioning it would apply the vast majority of the time, and, after all, an expert would already know the calibre of guns of a particular unit, and a non-expert wouldn't know the difference anyway. Unless, of course, the name of the piece gave away its calibre, in which case inaccuracy would be jarring and an author should aim for precision.

On a further point, you say that the willing suspension of disbelief is all but impossible for you when a writer describes a situation which you know could not have happened. But that does not square with you saying you love Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings - seems incongruous to me because you certainly know that Hermione and her wand, and Orcs with or without battleaxes, never existed and never will. So, consequently, no situation in either of the novels you mentioned could ever happen, past, present or future.

However, I think I know what you mean - are you saying that fiction only works for you within fantasy genres? Back to personal taste again?

Cheers - salesie.