The better modern Great War Novel?

[Paul Reed]

If this forum ever becomes the sole preserve of so-called "serious students of the Great War" then I, for one, will leave it.

My dislike of these books is nothing to do with their inaccuracy (although both are); I don't like either of them as literature. I have read novels by both of these authors which have nothing to do with the Great War, long before they published these, and not liked them either. Their style and approach to writing does not appeal to me, and of course taste in literature is a very personnel thing. But do we want to get bogged down in literary debate? I suspect not.

[Stephen Barker]

Gwyn

If we accept what you say, why are we discussing these two books that aren't historical accounts about the Great War on a web site devoted to the History of the Great War?

Can we not ask for discussion of their relative merits to be moved to a site about modern English Literature?

Bryn

The poll is relevant to this forum as the books being discussed are set in the context of the Great War. As such it is of interest to those of many of Pals who have read either novel. Unsurprisingly, that seems to be many as the theme of this forum is the Great War and to a lesser or greater degree we all have some interest in the Great War and therefore the poll is highly relevant. Whether we choose to discuss the literary merits of the novels is irrelevant. What matters to me is that many of us have read these novels - they are novels many of us have in common, therefore the inclusion of the poll is highly appropriate.

[Greenwoodman]

One of the great things about the forum has been the willingness of those who make their living from the study of the great war or military history to assist those whose only aim for the forum is to ask one or two questions to fill in a few details about Grandad. The "data-banks" of the "Serious students of the Great War" are dispensed freely to the rest of us, and in good humour. So the notion that the forum is for the use only of the serious student of the Great War, is, by example absurd.

I must declare an interest here. I could be classed as a "Serious student of the Great War", in that my chosen retirement occupation has been the undertaking of an MA in Military Studies, and within that I write on the Great War whenever I can. The worst part of an excellent course has been the compulsory "Representation of War" module, where the above were set books. It could perhaps be the resentment I felt at being required to read these novels that colours my perception of them. Resentment because these are the only two novels I've had time to read in the past eighteen months - I have to read a history book just to keep up with the reading lists (I find time for some of the forum tho'!) Or perhaps because I felt that Regeneration was only set in Craiglockhart to garner the kudos of the Sassoon name. Or because of the literatis emphasis on the "War Poets" to the near exclusion of other writers, thus allowing their experience to wrongly colour the impressions of generations (no pun intended). (Let me make it clear here that imho the War Poets have a perfectly valid experience of the war, but I feel it is the experience of a minority). Or because there is so much good non-fictional writing about Great War experiences out there in the form of memoirs, letters, diaries that fiction with any kind of Great War nuance from a writer with no personal experience holds no appeal.

Whatever, I did not like either Regeneration or Birdsong, as if you haven't guessed.

[Clive Maier]

Literary novels, and Birdsong and the Regeneration trilogy can all claim that distinction, are works of art. No two are the same or even have quite the same intention. The question “Which is best?” is rather meaningless which is why I will not vote here or in silly TV shows that try to impose a market model on art.

I do think that serious authors like Barker and Faulks should be able to refer to sexual matters and their powerful effect on life and motivation without being accused of smut.

[Stephen Barker]

To ask for individuals to comment upon their prefered choice is not a 'marketing ploy' merely a way of provoking discussion about a subject that many of us on this forum share. The best way to view such a dialogue is to view it as a stimulating chat down the pub with your friends. Asking which is better stimulates thought and discussion as this thread illustrates. Art stimulates debate.

Stephen Barker

[Dragon]

Billy Prior is a deeply disturbed human being and the homosexual elements of ‘The Eye in the Door’ cannot be dismissed as “smut”. Of course they are shocking, disturbing, unpleasant, but Pat Barker is not including the episodes to titillate. She needs to demonstrate Billy Prior’s ill-adjusted character if we are to travel with her in examining the psychological forces of environment, including war, on people. It is important to ask what her alternatives were in revealing the dysfunctional nature of Billy Prior’s personality.

I suggest that were the episodes omitted, she would have had to establish Prior through gratuitous aggression, possibly to women, possibly involving direct harm; where the homosexual acts are carried out between two consenting adults, the potential for damage and horror is deliberately limited. They are sado-masochistic, and this is not to every reader’s taste, but such relationships happen and, if we are discussing truth versus fiction, truth is indeed stranger than fiction. In my opinion, she writes with considerable honesty and care.

The homosexual elements contribute to several themes in the trilogy. One is the officer–subordinate relationship and in the homosexual acts, Prior relishes the opportunity to reverse the relationship by inflicting pain on the wounded Manning. He knows, and enjoys, the fact that in civilian life, Manning would have regarded Prior as a working class boy far beneath his notice, yet now he is dependant on him for sexual release. Further, it illuminates the intimacy of the therapist–patient relationship. Rivers’ own sexuality is ambiguous and therefore his contacts with Prior provide some insight into the personalities of both men, including Rivers’ attitudes to his patients, however humane and professional he is. It is impossible to ignore the undertones running through this relationship.

However, I feel that the most frightening aspect of Prior is his intuitive understanding of the system. He can conform to it while instinctively, cynically, manipulating it to his own advantage and for reasons within his own dysfunctional personality. There are some parallels with Sassoon’s own clarity of thought about the War and the system, but he can intellectualise and manage his responses; Prior is a threat of nightmare proportions. He is terrifying.

Through this incubus of a man, Pat Barker is able to examine the forces imposed on society in 1918 of war, trauma, social class, gender, power, hysteria, poverty, conformity and lack of individual freedom. Though I am not a ‘serious student of the Great War’, I believe these themes have something to contribute to the reader’s understanding of both human nature and the waste exacted on society by war.

It is an intelligent, well constructed, complex, powerful and truthful novel. It is also disturbing. I can accept and respect that some people do not like it. However, to dismiss it as part of a “degeneration” trilogy is intellectually cheap and misses the challenging breadth of the writing.

Gwyn

[Chris_Baker]

Dragon, you have won the prize for being the first person to use the word "incubus" on this forum.

[David Filsell]

Genuine apologies if my comment "serious students of the Great War" has caused offense. I should have expressed myself in more moderate and less sniffy terms. But the wealth of expertise displayed by forum users surely qualifies those who use it serious students or seriously intrested.

But are not the majority of readers of these books likely to accept the 'factual 'aspects of these two books as being correct? It is through such writing in these books that the waters become clouded and the legend becomes established as reality. It is of course totally impossible to be knowledgabe about every aspect of the war, and out of our own particular fields of interest we are likely to accept what we read as accurate.

Perhaps I have also totally missed the point which has been made that they are just novels and should be judged on literary style and the author's ability as a writer. Nevertheless, having read both once I shall not read them again, nor shelve them amongst fiction of far better stripe about the Great War.

But again apologies if was was OTT.

[AGWR]

David,

I don't think that you need to apologise. I fail to see that your usage of the phrase 'serious student of the Great War' was calculated to cause offence. However, I do think that I might be offended if someone referred to my view as 'intellectually cheap'. (I'm sorry Gwyn, but I do feel that this comment was unnecessary)

I agree with other members of the forum that novels should be judged primarily on their literary merits. Indeed, I didn’t approach these books with heightened expectations solely because of their widely publicised Great War content. I just didn’t rate them as exceptional works of literature for a variety of reasons. However, bearing in mind that this is a dedicated Great War Forum, it is surely inevitable that many members will base their views on what they believe these books, given their widespread popularity, have contributed to society's understanding of the war. Afterall, this is an important issue.

Historical novels (and to a certain degree, factual history books) often reveal more about the prevalent attitudes and preoccupations of the day than those of the period they purport to illuminate. In my opinion, this criticism could be applied in equal measure to both Birdsong and the Regeneration trilogy.

One might want to go further and argue that these two books are part of a long tradition of 'artistic works' with popular appeal (some war poetry, Oh What a Lovely War, Blackadder Goes Forth etc) that have created a flawed mythology of the Great War, but I’ll leave that for someone else!

Regards

Andy

[john kemp]

Some "serious" debate going on here then.

These are two books that have sold many copies and bought by people from

all walks of life, those with an interest in the war and whose without.

Quite simply, I know many people who have read Birdsong as non "serious"

war experts and enjoyed the book and this has lead them onto wanting to

look into this subject more.

surely this can only be good ?

These books will continue to sell well

John

[Dragon]

'intellectually cheap'. (I'm sorry Gwyn, but I do feel that this comment was unnecessary)

I take it that it’s acceptable publicly to retitle an author’s creative work after excrement because one doesn’t like it. Renaming a serious novel as Birdshite and another as Degeneration is making one’s logic fit the quip instead of the quip fit the logic. That’s what I meant by intellectually cheap. It didn’t cost much intellectual effort.

I have read all the four novels discussed in this thread. What stays with me is the credible personalities of the characters and the atmosphere surrounding them, but only a hazy image of the war background. I have obviously missed something. Could someone please indicate to me a few of these inaccuracies or errors in either Birdsong or Regeneration. Are they serious?

If we are going to pursue to its logical conclusion the issue of historical accuracy in creative literature (fiction, poetry or drama), we will arrive at the point where we suggest that Shakespeare is giving an entirely misleading impression of Owain Glyndwr and Agincourt (the Henry IVs and Henry V) so we condemn him to Room 101, or Scottish history, so we pulp Macbeth.

Therefore, logically we should simply be arguing for a prohibition on all future authors writing fiction or drama which is rooted in any historical period.

Now, could the sky really have been that colour in that hideous painting by Otto Dix? Was the soil really that granular in David Nash’s trenches? And the soldiers’ buttons are surely wrong in that Merry Go Round travesty by Mark Gertler...

Gwyn

[Dragon]

you have won the prize for being the first person to use the word "incubus" on this forum

Huge smile!!

Gwyn

[AGWR]

Gwyn,

I was certainly not suggesting this. I have no doubt that even the most 'serious student of the Great War' would be able to reel off numerous 'artistic works' that had positively enriched his/her understanding of the war. I was just making the point that art has perhaps played a disproportionate role in the formation of our national consciousness in respect of not just the Great War, but history generally. As you point out, you only have to look at Shakespeare and the Tudors, particularly if one is an admirer of Richard III! For many people, whose passions, interests and hobbies lie elsewhere, such works can understandably end up being their sole frame of reference.

Given your obvious depth of feeling on this issue, would I be completely wide of the mark to think that you have written/are writing/aspire to write fiction or poetry relating to the Great War?

Regards

AGWR

[Dragon]

Andy, I agreed with much of what you said, particularly the suggestion that the creative arts reveal much about the preoccupations of the society in which the authors live. However, I would defend the novels and their content regardless of any position of my own on writing fiction.

If you visit my website My Webpage and click on Theres a book coming! you will see my account of what Im currently involved in. Yes, I do write poetry and Ive done some scripted drama on aspects of the Great War (which has been publicly performed) but my most recent thing has been a piece published under another name in a widely distributed health publication.

This evening, my website is having some additional material which Ive written uploaded and the photos changed, so it will look different tomorrow (I hope if the HTML works right: I am a total beginner).

Gwyn

[AGWR]

Gwyn,

Best of luck with the novel. Let me know when it's published.

I promise to judge it purely on its literary merits!

Regards

AGWR

[Roberta]

I know this is a fairly old topic, but I've been stewing over it for some weeks now. I just added my vote for *Regeneration,* which I've read several times, and I just finished watching *Behind the Lines,* the film adaptation of it. I marvel each time at the story's presentation of Rivers' and Sassoon's moral dilemma, brought about by Sassoon's statement protesting the war--its paradox, its irony, its essential human truth.

So many thought-provoking remarks have been made on this topic, some of which I agree with, and some of which I find troubling. However, lively discussion is one of the great things about the Forum, so I won't waste anyone's time by quibbling.

The bottom line for me, whether it be regarding *Birdsong* (which I also read and enjoyed) or a purely non-fiction work on the war is this: there are facts, and there is truth. Facts alone do not tell the story; facts help lead to the truth, but the imagination can also lead there. I want to read works in which truth--which is neither absolute, invariable, nor immutable--resides. For my area of interest, Eric Leeds's *No Man's Land* contains truth, as do Vera Brittain's journals, letters, and other writings. But so does *Regeneration* and, to a lesser degree, *Birdsong*. It's that modicum of truth that counts, not the fiction vs. non-fiction issue.

But how am *I* qualified to know the truth when I see it? How do I discern? I guess the same way anyone does: by trying to be well-informed, and then, from there, trusting my guts.

Cheers,

Roberta

[ianw]

Whilst one may personally not like either of the 2 famous works put up initially for comment , they are undoubtedly serious works and I agree that the cheap cracks about them are inappropriate. It is also quite proper for them to be discussed on this forum since they partly represent where Remembrance has travelled to since the Great War and similarly reflect general modern opinion and attitudes to the conflict. Indeed they may well create those opinions to a degree.

I suppose many users of this forum do not feel the need for an an interpretation of the Great War to be produced for them and delivered in modern novel form.

I personally agree that "Birdsong" in no way merited its elevated status in "The Big Read" league table. I also recently read Pat Barker's "Another World" and found it pretty awful. I suspect that these books may owe some of their high reputation to the increase of public interest in the Great War - and it is quite understandable for an interested public to seek out a modern novel for illumination rather than a work of history.

[Old Tom]

Having just stumbled onto this thread and noted that the greatest number of voters did not like either of the books put forward mayI mention a favourite of mine which is John Masters' trilogy, I think I have noticed some criticism of these three when wandering into this cultural field and wonder if it is still read.

Old Tom

[rose of picardy]

Old Tom, I read the John Masters trilogy and I enjoyed it as a saga. There again, I really enjoyed "The Flowers of the Field" which has received its share of shame on the forum. Philip Rock also wrote a trilogy about the a family that begins with the the Great War in "The Passing Bells" and I liked these also.

Here I will court true infamy by stating that I haven't read any of the books in this poll. I have mixed feelings about literary novels despite a university familarity with them. I heard enough about these to keep me from reading them, thus far..

[centurion]

The way in which classics are being rewritten these days I'm surprised that All Quiet on the Western Front hasn't resurfaced as 50 Shades of Feldgrau.

[MichaelBully]

I have regularly made a fuss about Pat Barker's novels, stating how as I have a great interest in Sassoon and Owen, can not switch off at it were ; Every time a ( non-fictionalised) character speaks, I immediately want to know 'Did they really say this?' 'What is the source ?' etc. And just couldn't read Pat Barker's work as fiction.

I was talking to a friend of mine whose maternal grandfather fought in the Great War, and died in the 1930's, Grandfather's health certainly suffered as a result of his war service and may have contributed to his death. My friend's mother was eight when he died, and now she has become an avid reader of Pat Barker's Great War novels as it seems to help her reflect on what her own father's experiences and how this could have impacted on the family. This lady is not one to read formal history.

I felt really humbled by hearing that, it seemed my criticism of Pat Barker's work seemed to be insignificant .

Now I am of the opinion that novels can have a part to play in wider rememberance. Of course possible inaccuracies need to be highlighted . But if I personally want the wider community as it were to remember the Great War, then have to appreciate that other people's way of remembering the Great War might be different from my own.

Michael Bully

[Steven Broomfield]

I've not read either of these books.

Does that make me a bad person?

[centurion]

I've not read either of these books.

Does that make me a bad person?

Nothing whatever to do with your reading habits.

[Tartan_Terrier]

I haven't read either of them, but I have seen the the film of 'Regeneration' which wasn't too bad in my opinion.

Best 'modern' Great War novel that I have read is "Covenant with Death" by John Harris (if 1961 is modern enough!).

[peterhogg]

The way in which classics are being rewritten these days I'm surprised that All Quiet on the Western Front hasn't resurfaced as 50 Shades of Feldgrau.