Reviews

QAs the second in the series, 'The Eye in the Door' picks up where 'Regeneration' left off and loses nothing in the way of pacing and style.
Where the first book focused on mental health among soldiers and war victims and the effects of the trench warfare raging in the fields of France, the second focuses on a quieter war being fought on the home front; that of conspiracies, conscientious objectors to the war and a homosexuality scandal and trial raging across the public sphere.

What struck me was that this shift in focus never felt undue or from left-of-field. These themes were, in fact, seeded in the first as ancillary problems that were poised to become larger issues in the future so when the second book dives into these issues in earnest, it's actually quite a natural transition.

'The Eye in the Door' is a much less hopeful book than the first one in the series, I felt, but then perhaps that's on me for expecting a war novel to be hopeful.

Content Warnings

sidneyellwood's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark emotional reflective sad slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

5.0

dotorsojak's review against another edition

Go to review page

4.0

This is better than REGENERATION. In particular it delves more specifically and empirically into the anti-war movement and into homosexuality. The scenes where Billy Prior visits characters charged with pacifism or with trying to bring down the government are plausible, highly charged, and moving. I thought the best chapter was chap. 13 in which Rivers finally gets Charles Manning, a wounded officer suffering from shell shock, to talk about the "ungraspable" nature of war in the trenches. It is an astounding achievement when you consider that Barker has never fought as a soldier. Has she ever even been in a war zone? Manning is gay, so he and Rivers are also able to discuss the love that men have for each other in the trenches. Here follows one of my favorite passages from the book. Rivers is talking to Manning about why the civilians in Britain are so blood thirsty and so keen to punish homosexuality:

'I'm not sure I do [understand why the all out attack on homosexuals]. I *think* it's the result of certain impulses rising to the surface in wartime and having to be very formally disowned. Homosexuality, for instance. In war there's this enormous glorification of love between men, and yet at the same time it arouses anxiety. Is it the right kind of love? Well, one way to make sure it's the right kind is to make public disapproval of the other thing crystal clear. And then there's the pleasure in killing.'

Manning looked shocked. 'I don't know that--'

'No, I meant civilians. Vicarious, but real nevertheless. And in the process sadistic impulses are aroused that would normally be repressed, and that also causes anxiety.' (chap. 12)

Like REGENERATION this is a novel of ideas, but this novel spends more quality time with the main characters and... shows them in action. I'm not sure what to make of the dual personality or multiple identity theme other than to think that Barker wants us to see this duality in terms of a larger social personality. Like the earlier novel, this one is not super strong on plot. I liked it enough to plan to go on to THE GHOST ROAD. Maybe not immediately, though.

More...