You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
tyheronthorn 's review for:
Regeneration
by Pat Barker
I had to read this for school, and I'm glad I did because it was interesting, if slow and with a clear message: war is bad. This novel focuses on Rivers and a group of patients with shell-shock at a ward during World War I. It's a look at early techniques in psychiatry and how absolutely horrible war is. Regeneration also includes many historical characters; Rivers himself was real, Sassoon was a conscientious objector and of course, the poet Owen is also present.
There are a handful of other characters that stand out: Burns, who can't eat due to his trauma, and Prior, who is selectively mute. It's an interesting demonstration of how war trauma affects people. My complaint is that at times it felt like the novel was written simply to showcase the horrors and aftereffects of the war; there wasn't much of a plot other than that.
I feel like how Baker uses fictionalized versions of real characters to tell a story lessens its impact. Now, I actually have read a history book about Britain's anti-war movement, and I can't remember reading about Owen or Sassoon, but this book makes me want to revisit it. Is it better to read a fictionalized version of events that gets the message across, or a history book that tells many different sides? I guess it's just preference.
There are a handful of other characters that stand out: Burns, who can't eat due to his trauma, and Prior, who is selectively mute. It's an interesting demonstration of how war trauma affects people. My complaint is that at times it felt like the novel was written simply to showcase the horrors and aftereffects of the war; there wasn't much of a plot other than that.
I feel like how Baker uses fictionalized versions of real characters to tell a story lessens its impact. Now, I actually have read a history book about Britain's anti-war movement, and I can't remember reading about Owen or Sassoon, but this book makes me want to revisit it. Is it better to read a fictionalized version of events that gets the message across, or a history book that tells many different sides? I guess it's just preference.