Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.94 AVERAGE
3.94 AVERAGE
Unsparing look at the treatment of shell-shocked soldiers during WWI. Barker delves into the carnage of the war and its effects on survivor's, including the humane and inhumane "cures" for those broken down by the Front. Based on Siegfried Sassoon's stay at Craiglockhart War Hospital and experience with the equally weary Dr. Rivers. An amazing read.
Read for a college course on Literature and Medicine (a really great course!)...not a big fan of books about war. And I was reading a lot of books about war for another English class. I didn't find this book very interesting at all and certainly won't be reading the rest of the trilogy.
challenging
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
N/A
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
emotional
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This book about the First World War, and specifically about the psychological damage it caused, is a book about all wars and all psychological damage. It's also a British Catch-22 http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/168668.Catch_22 because if Sassoon is not certified insane he must go back to the front, at which one of the world's most insane activities is taking place. A brilliant evocation of the period and of the fragility and strength of our psyches.
Very interesting look at the experience(s) of soldiers who needed to leave the Front in WWI.
Should you stumble across this book - as I have done - then I implore you to read it. The book focuses on the lives of a handful of service men who are struggling to locate a graspable reality, after having borne witness to the most insidious trappings of trench warfare. They are being 'rehabilitated' to return to the front - in the face of the absurdity of this aim. Barker does a phenomenal job of detailing the psychological consequences of trench warfare, and speaks to the greater question of war without grandstanding. There is a real ease to her writing style which suitably offsets the confronting nature of its content.
The First World War exposed the human psyche to the horrors of a mobilised, armed conflict for the very first time. It pitted Victorian ideals of courage, honour, manliness and patriotism against the grim reality of trench warfare - where these ideal were found more often than not to be lacking.
A common phenomenon of the Great war was the shell shocked soldier. Also dubbed war neurosis this phenomenon is better known today as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It entailed the gradual psychic breakdown of a soldier exposed to the dehumanising effect of the trenches at Flanders, Ypres and Arras. On a daily basis, living in conditions too horrendous to imagine, seeing their comrades die around them , with the spectre of death hanging over their head, Soldiers were made to face a harsh truth - there is no glory in war, it is a bloody, dehumanising and pointless ritual.
Without going into the implications of this realisation on the part of the ordinary soldier (which were far reaching) Regeneration by Pat Barker aims to address the issue of shell shock - and its social implications.
This premise is wonderfuly intriguing. While there are several books on the horrors of the 2nd world war, the humanistic perspective of the first is rarely given much weight. It inspired a lot of debates regarding the futility of war, inspired Sassoon, owen and other war poets and enabled fgreat leaps in the field of psychiatry. Pat Barker uses a large cast of characters, mostly real, some imagined in a fictionalised account of the psychic burden of World war one and turns what could have been, in my opinion, a deeply affecting and riveting account into an insipid and tasteless documentary.
I am sure there will be several people who like this book and many more who might tell me that this is just the first of a trilogy and I need to be patient but there was nothing in the book that moved me to read more. There was a toatl lack of dramatic orchestration of any kind, a lack of conflict and no resolution whatsoever at the end of the book. No characters made any journey, they werent changed by any of the events and most of them seemed to be cut from a standard template. IT was frustrating as the language, and dialogue were brilliant. NBarker is obviously a great author but the disconnect I felt with the characters has prevented me from seeking out the rest of the trilogy. Perhaps some other time.
A common phenomenon of the Great war was the shell shocked soldier. Also dubbed war neurosis this phenomenon is better known today as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It entailed the gradual psychic breakdown of a soldier exposed to the dehumanising effect of the trenches at Flanders, Ypres and Arras. On a daily basis, living in conditions too horrendous to imagine, seeing their comrades die around them , with the spectre of death hanging over their head, Soldiers were made to face a harsh truth - there is no glory in war, it is a bloody, dehumanising and pointless ritual.
Without going into the implications of this realisation on the part of the ordinary soldier (which were far reaching) Regeneration by Pat Barker aims to address the issue of shell shock - and its social implications.
This premise is wonderfuly intriguing. While there are several books on the horrors of the 2nd world war, the humanistic perspective of the first is rarely given much weight. It inspired a lot of debates regarding the futility of war, inspired Sassoon, owen and other war poets and enabled fgreat leaps in the field of psychiatry. Pat Barker uses a large cast of characters, mostly real, some imagined in a fictionalised account of the psychic burden of World war one and turns what could have been, in my opinion, a deeply affecting and riveting account into an insipid and tasteless documentary.
I am sure there will be several people who like this book and many more who might tell me that this is just the first of a trilogy and I need to be patient but there was nothing in the book that moved me to read more. There was a toatl lack of dramatic orchestration of any kind, a lack of conflict and no resolution whatsoever at the end of the book. No characters made any journey, they werent changed by any of the events and most of them seemed to be cut from a standard template. IT was frustrating as the language, and dialogue were brilliant. NBarker is obviously a great author but the disconnect I felt with the characters has prevented me from seeking out the rest of the trilogy. Perhaps some other time.
I have been meaning to read Pat Barker's Regeneration - the 'classic exploration of how the traumas of war brutalised a generation of young men' - for such a long time, but only got around to it very recently. Probably her most famous novel, Regeneration has been considered a modern classic since its publication in 1991, and is the first book in a trilogy of the same name. The book has been highly praised. Margaret Forster calls it 'a novel of tremendous power', the Sunday Times 'brilliant, intense, subtle', and, fittingly, Time Out heralds it 'a fine anthem for doomed youth'.
Set in 1917 at the Craiglockhart War Hospital in southeast Edinburgh, Regeneration takes as its focus three very well-known figures - Dr W.H.H. Rivers, who pioneered shellshock treatment for soldiers, and two war poets, Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon. Robert Graves also makes odd appearances throughout. Barker has also created, alongside these figures, the character of Billy Prior, unable to speak and only able to communicate on paper, who feels just as realistic. Rivers' job is to make the men in his care healthy enough that they can be returned to the Front. 'Yet the closer he gets to mending his patients' minds,' the blurb continues, 'the harder becomes every decision to send them back to the horrors' which await them.
Regeneration opens at the point at which Sassoon has expressed his objections to the war in writing, in a piece which he calls 'an act of wilful defiance of military authority'. In consequence, he is sent directly to Rivers, who receives the news of his arrival as follows: 'Can you imagine what our dear Director of Medical Services is going to say, when he finds out we're sheltering "Conchies" as well as cowards, shirkers, scrimshankers and degenerates? We'll just have to hope there's no publicity.'
Justine Picardie writes that 'what gives the novel its authenticity is Pat Barker's impressive ability to capture her characters' voices and moods.' Indeed, Barker has a wonderful understanding of each of her characters, whether historical figures, or invented ones. Her interpretation of them made them feel highly realistic, and at points in conversations - particularly those between Owen and Sassoon - I had to remind myself that I was not reading a piece of non-fiction.
There is such humanity to Barker's examination, and I very much enjoyed the little glimpses of surprise in the behaviour of her characters, which often seem to be at odds with their public personas. When Sassoon first arrives at Craiglockhart, for instance, Barker writes that he 'lingered on the drive for a full minute after the taxi had driven away, then took a deep breath, squared his shoulders, and ran up the steps.' The descriptions which Barker gives of her characters do not just remark on the superficial; rather, they tend to have a lot of depth to them, and often err on the chilling. She describes Sassoon in the following way: 'Light from the window behind Rivers's desk fell directly onto Sassoon's face. Pale skin, purple shadows under the eyes. Apart from that, no obvious signs of nervous disorder. No twitches, jerks, blinks, no repeated ducking to avoid a long-exploded shell. His hands, doing complicated things with cup, saucer, plate, sandwiches, cake, sugar tongs and spoon, were perfectly steady... So far he hadn't looked at Rivers. He sat with his head slightly averted, a posture that could easily have been taken for arrogance, though Rivers was more inclined to suspect shyness.'
Other reviewers have commented upon the language used in the novel, believing it to be too simplistic. However, this was not the impression which I received. There are a lot of poetic descriptions, and the dialogue particularly is filled with nuances and undercurrents. The more stark, matter-of-fact language which has been used at odd times serves to highlight the horror of wartime. Given the nature of the book, I felt as though the balance which Barker struck between these descriptions and the examination of her characters was perfect. The moments of dark humour, which can be found from time to time, also worked very well.
Regeneration is very well situated historically, and scenes are vividly set in just a few sentences. One of Barker's particular strengths here are the comparisons which she makes between wartime and civilian life, particularly with regard to way in which she shows how quite ordinary things can be triggers for what soldiers had experienced in the trenches. When a character named Burns is travelling on a bus, to give one example, she writes: 'A branch rattled along the windows with a sound like machine-gun fire, and he had to bite his lips to stop himself crying out.' She also demonstrates an impressive emotional range in her explorations of isolation and freedom, wellbeing and mentality, nightmare states and hallucinatory moments, and the profound effects which each of these things can cause.
There is, of course, much in the novel about medical experimentation, and how best to treat such troubled men. Thoughts of, and explorations around, masculinity, have been cleverly woven in. Barker makes it clear from the outset that the methods which Rivers has adopted in his radical treatment plan go quite against the moral, 'manly' values instilled in him, of demonstrating only strength and valour. He, and too his patients, were not expected to show any signs of weakness. Of this, Barker observes: '... he was already experimenting on himself. In leading his patients to understand that breakdown was nothing to be ashamed of, that horror and fear were inevitable responses to the trauma of war and were better acknowledged than suppressed, that feelings of kindnesses for other men were natural and right, that tears were an acceptable and helpful part of grieving, he was setting himself against the whole tenor of their upbringing.' She goes on to write: 'The change he demanded of them - and by implication of himself - was not trivial. Fear, tenderness - these emotions were so despised that they could be admitted into consciousness only at the cost of redefining what it meant to be a man.'
I had a feeling that I might regret leaving it so long to pick up Regeneration, and I am. It is a stunning novel, compelling from the outset, and filled with moments of harrowing beauty, and poignant reflections on conflict and its worth. I already have the second book in the trilogy, The Eye in the Door, on my to-read pile, and am very much looking forward to continuing with it sooner rather than later. I imagine that it will be just as moving as Regeneration proved to be, this wonderful mixture of fact and fiction, in which Barker is constantly aware of the significance of every tiny thing.
Set in 1917 at the Craiglockhart War Hospital in southeast Edinburgh, Regeneration takes as its focus three very well-known figures - Dr W.H.H. Rivers, who pioneered shellshock treatment for soldiers, and two war poets, Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon. Robert Graves also makes odd appearances throughout. Barker has also created, alongside these figures, the character of Billy Prior, unable to speak and only able to communicate on paper, who feels just as realistic. Rivers' job is to make the men in his care healthy enough that they can be returned to the Front. 'Yet the closer he gets to mending his patients' minds,' the blurb continues, 'the harder becomes every decision to send them back to the horrors' which await them.
Regeneration opens at the point at which Sassoon has expressed his objections to the war in writing, in a piece which he calls 'an act of wilful defiance of military authority'. In consequence, he is sent directly to Rivers, who receives the news of his arrival as follows: 'Can you imagine what our dear Director of Medical Services is going to say, when he finds out we're sheltering "Conchies" as well as cowards, shirkers, scrimshankers and degenerates? We'll just have to hope there's no publicity.'
Justine Picardie writes that 'what gives the novel its authenticity is Pat Barker's impressive ability to capture her characters' voices and moods.' Indeed, Barker has a wonderful understanding of each of her characters, whether historical figures, or invented ones. Her interpretation of them made them feel highly realistic, and at points in conversations - particularly those between Owen and Sassoon - I had to remind myself that I was not reading a piece of non-fiction.
There is such humanity to Barker's examination, and I very much enjoyed the little glimpses of surprise in the behaviour of her characters, which often seem to be at odds with their public personas. When Sassoon first arrives at Craiglockhart, for instance, Barker writes that he 'lingered on the drive for a full minute after the taxi had driven away, then took a deep breath, squared his shoulders, and ran up the steps.' The descriptions which Barker gives of her characters do not just remark on the superficial; rather, they tend to have a lot of depth to them, and often err on the chilling. She describes Sassoon in the following way: 'Light from the window behind Rivers's desk fell directly onto Sassoon's face. Pale skin, purple shadows under the eyes. Apart from that, no obvious signs of nervous disorder. No twitches, jerks, blinks, no repeated ducking to avoid a long-exploded shell. His hands, doing complicated things with cup, saucer, plate, sandwiches, cake, sugar tongs and spoon, were perfectly steady... So far he hadn't looked at Rivers. He sat with his head slightly averted, a posture that could easily have been taken for arrogance, though Rivers was more inclined to suspect shyness.'
Other reviewers have commented upon the language used in the novel, believing it to be too simplistic. However, this was not the impression which I received. There are a lot of poetic descriptions, and the dialogue particularly is filled with nuances and undercurrents. The more stark, matter-of-fact language which has been used at odd times serves to highlight the horror of wartime. Given the nature of the book, I felt as though the balance which Barker struck between these descriptions and the examination of her characters was perfect. The moments of dark humour, which can be found from time to time, also worked very well.
Regeneration is very well situated historically, and scenes are vividly set in just a few sentences. One of Barker's particular strengths here are the comparisons which she makes between wartime and civilian life, particularly with regard to way in which she shows how quite ordinary things can be triggers for what soldiers had experienced in the trenches. When a character named Burns is travelling on a bus, to give one example, she writes: 'A branch rattled along the windows with a sound like machine-gun fire, and he had to bite his lips to stop himself crying out.' She also demonstrates an impressive emotional range in her explorations of isolation and freedom, wellbeing and mentality, nightmare states and hallucinatory moments, and the profound effects which each of these things can cause.
There is, of course, much in the novel about medical experimentation, and how best to treat such troubled men. Thoughts of, and explorations around, masculinity, have been cleverly woven in. Barker makes it clear from the outset that the methods which Rivers has adopted in his radical treatment plan go quite against the moral, 'manly' values instilled in him, of demonstrating only strength and valour. He, and too his patients, were not expected to show any signs of weakness. Of this, Barker observes: '... he was already experimenting on himself. In leading his patients to understand that breakdown was nothing to be ashamed of, that horror and fear were inevitable responses to the trauma of war and were better acknowledged than suppressed, that feelings of kindnesses for other men were natural and right, that tears were an acceptable and helpful part of grieving, he was setting himself against the whole tenor of their upbringing.' She goes on to write: 'The change he demanded of them - and by implication of himself - was not trivial. Fear, tenderness - these emotions were so despised that they could be admitted into consciousness only at the cost of redefining what it meant to be a man.'
I had a feeling that I might regret leaving it so long to pick up Regeneration, and I am. It is a stunning novel, compelling from the outset, and filled with moments of harrowing beauty, and poignant reflections on conflict and its worth. I already have the second book in the trilogy, The Eye in the Door, on my to-read pile, and am very much looking forward to continuing with it sooner rather than later. I imagine that it will be just as moving as Regeneration proved to be, this wonderful mixture of fact and fiction, in which Barker is constantly aware of the significance of every tiny thing.
Not yet sure how many stars to give as on the one hand I was really pleased to see that I had brought part 2 on holiday with me and started it right after finishing this one, but on the other hand when my wife asked me how the book ended I had already forgotten. To be fair, I have just had an operation and that may have affected my focus, but it was a bit strange to admit that I’d forgotten the ending within an hour.
On the other hand, it wasn’t exactly plot driven in the first place. I wasn’t reading it to see what happened (spoiler alert, several main characters are household names in the U.K. so I knew in broad terms what was going to happen to them). I’m going to give it four stars because it was very engaging (it had to be something engaging as I was partly reading to distract myself from the post op soreness!) but not five because it somehow felt a bit too much like End of Part 1. Which it is, but if you’re going to write a trilogy I think each part should also stand up as a book in its own right. Otherwise you should just publish it in one volume, in my view.
On the other hand, it wasn’t exactly plot driven in the first place. I wasn’t reading it to see what happened (spoiler alert, several main characters are household names in the U.K. so I knew in broad terms what was going to happen to them). I’m going to give it four stars because it was very engaging (it had to be something engaging as I was partly reading to distract myself from the post op soreness!) but not five because it somehow felt a bit too much like End of Part 1. Which it is, but if you’re going to write a trilogy I think each part should also stand up as a book in its own right. Otherwise you should just publish it in one volume, in my view.