"Run along, little man. Be thankful if you survive".

Not sure I will ever get a handle on just how horrific this war was.

Finished with the War
A Soldier's Declaration

I am making this statement as an act of willful defiance of military authority, because I believe the war is being deliberately prolonged by those who have the power to end it.

I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers. I believe that this war, upon which I entered as a war of defense and liberation, has now become a war of aggression and conquest…


This is a completely revised review of the book.




the first edition (1991) cover, Penguin Books Ltd.


So begins Pat Barker's Regeneration trilogy, the series of novels harking back to the second decade of the twentieth century … a series which won acclaim in the last decade of that century as one of the outstanding achievements of serious fiction as the century staggered towards its uneven conclusion. The last book in the trilogy, The Ghost Road, won the Booker prize in 1995

The statement quoted above winds down toward the bottom of the first page, where it is signed and dated: "S. Sassoon, July 1917".



The narrative continues,

Bryce waited for Rivers to finish reading before he spoke again. 'The "S" stands for "Siegfried". Apparently, that was better left out.'

'And I'm sure he was right.' Rivers folded the paper and ran his fingertips along the edge. 'So they're sending him here?'

Bryce smiled. 'Oh, I think it's rather more specific than that. They're sending him to you.'

The two main characters are introduced. Siegfried Sassoon (1886 – 1967), the British poet,


Sassoon, May 1915
by G.C. Beresford via Wiki

and W.H.R. Rivers (1864-1922), British neurologist and psychologist who pioneered the treatment of shell shock during the years of the first World War. During the war Rivers worked at the Craiglockhart War Hospital.




Rivers
from Wiki

Barker's fictionalized versions of these two has been accomplished superbly. A fictionalized portrait of the poet Wilfrid Owen joins these two in the story. Other characters are built up from psychological reports concerning other patients at Craiglockhart, and still others are entirely fictional.

The Wikipedia article on the novel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regener...) goes into a lot of detail, including (but not limited to) sections on Background and inspiration, Genre, Characters, Major themes, and Intertextuality. Of course the Plot summary section must be skipped unless you don't care about spoilers.

Here's an interesting part of the introductory section, slightly edited.

The novel is thematically complex, exploring the effect of the War on identity, masculinity, and social structure. The novel draws extensively on period psychological practices, emphasising River's research as well as Freudian psychology. In the novel Barker enters a particular tradition of representing the experience of World War I in literature: many critics compare the novel to other World War I novels, especially those written by women writers interested in the domestic repercussions of the war, including Rebecca West's The Return of the Soldier (1918) and Virginia Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway (1925). Barker both drew on those texts of the period that initially inspired her and makes references to a number of other literary and cultural works and events. These give an impression of historical realism, even though Barker tends to refute the claim that the novel is "historical fiction".

I read the book almost twenty years ago, and my memory of the narrative itself is pretty dim. However the experience of reading it is, I'm sure, well-represented by the rating I've given. If any of the above piques your interest, my advice is definitely Go for it!




The War Hospital today, part of Edinburgh Napier University

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Previous review: The Lost Sherpa of Happiness
Next review: The Ghost Road
Older review: Death at La Fenice

Previous library review: Weaveworld
Next library review: The Eye in the Door

Can’t believe I haven’t registered the Trilogy as read. Loved them, still think of them whenever I chance upon something WW1-related. I have difficulties reading anything from the world wars, partly due to this magnificent series.

Regeneration is an intricate entanglement of fact and fiction that makes an authentic and engaging contribution to the subject of tench warfare and, in particular, its human aftermath.

Dr W H R Rivers treats soldiers returning from the front in France who have 'shell shock', the term once used for what is now more commonly referred to as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

One of Rivers' patients is Siegfried Sassoon, the well-known 'war poet', whose pacifism and public objections to the war are as noteworthy as his poetry.

Sassoon believed fervently that WWI, which Britain initially entered in a defensive capacity, was being needlessly prolonged, at the expense of thousands of human lives, in support of expansionist aims that were far different from those initially used as justification.

Sassoon, and Rivers, also came into contact and formed close relationships with another well-known poet, Wilfred Owen and the author Robert Graves in the hospital at Craiglockart where the mentally fractured were being treated.

The interplay between these characters highlights the well-meaning intentions but apparent uncertainty of Rivers, who is trying his best to deal with a complex medical problem about which little was actually known in 1917.

It provides a contrast between the relatively gentle psychoanalytic methods of Rivers and the brutal, bordering on sadistic, methods of Dr Lewis Yealland, who persisted in using electric shock therapy to 'cure' patients. The scene involving Yealland repeatedly inflicting increasing powerful electric shocks to the throat of a soldier to make him speak again was positively horrific.

We are also able to contrast the attitudes of individuals about returning to front line action once they have been deemed medically sound to do so. Some are keen to return, and others most decidedly anted nothing further to do with the war.

Surprisingly, Sassoon, despite his pacifism, is determined to return to do his 'duty'.

This is a really well-written and insightful novel about an aspect of war that is often overlooked. There are only a few descriptions of the actual conditions in the trenches, most them appalling and sickening, but this novel deals sensitively and insightfully with the often unspoken issue of the mental havoc that war creates in addition to death and physical ruin.

Interesting historical novel set in hospital for officers recovering from shellshock during the first world war. I found the portrayals of the historical characters more convincing than the fictional character of Billy Prior, which led me to give up reading the trilogy midway through the second book.

The book opened a brief but interesting controversy over the techniques used by Dr Yealland to cure the inability to speak caused by shellshock which some soldiers suffered from during WWI. In Barker's account electric shocks of increasing severity were applied to the back of the throat until the soldiers were able to speak again. In fact he didn't deal with that many patients - less than five hundred over the course of the war. Not all of them were mute, some had temporary deafness or loss of muscle power, nor were all of those affected from front line combat roles, at least one of those treated was serving as a waiter in an officer's mess comfortably behind the lines.

Yealland gets a bad press in the novel and this illustrates several basic difficulties of the historical novel in that it deals with its subject ahistorically and it falls into the possibly unavoidable trap of reflecting the state of the historical debate.

Yealland was from the colonies, young and relatively inexperienced. More importantly the organisational and social context he was working in stressed the importance of returning men to full time service not a humanistic concern for their personal wellbeing. The entire point of the First World War was that millions of men were fighting for the honour of their countries and the honour of their splendidly titled and decorated Kings and Emperors, their personal well being was secondary to that purpose. My phrasing is off there, its debatable why they fought as individuals, but the King-Emperor, in his gracious telegrams to the departing troops, was certainly kind enough to express the view that they were fighting for his honour and for his empire.

Clearly giving people suffering trauma as a result of exposure to the conditions on the western front electric shocks seems barbaric to us now but that seems to ignore the shock to the system of medical care flailing about looking for some kind of effective treatment for what was to them in those days when Freud was a new and radical voice (and a dangerously foreign one at that) an inexplicable condition and to overlook the intrinsic barbarity of the war itself. Horror at the treatment comes across as more horrific than the war itself (although as it happened at least one patient discharged them-self in order to avoid further treatment).

Further it misses the point that Faradic treatments and some of the approaches used by Yealland are still in medical use including ideas that the patient's memory of limb use and suggestibility could be used therapeutically. However Yealland's approach naturally looks wrong in an era when patient centred approaches dominate. One wonders how bizarre and terrible our own treatments will look in a hundred years time.

Curiously given Barker's humanistic take in her treatment of Yealland she repeats an elitist attitude in looking down on the Canadian colonialist who no less than the other characters she portrays was struggling to do what they believed was the right thing in the face of an overwhelming situation.

My experience with this World War I trilogy is bumpy, to say the least.

Starting by reading The Ghost Road without knowing it was the last in the series, I was not impressed. I have difficulties with historical fiction which mixes fictional characters with historical persons in a speculative interpretation of history. But considering the unfairness of judging a series after reading only the conclusion, I now embarked on the first one. Thus I find myself doing what Carol Ann Duffy did with the most famous Wilfred Owen poem: spinning history backwards.

The Last Post, by Carol Ann Duffy:

"In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking droning.
If poetry could tell it backwards, true, begin
that moment shrapnel scythed you to the stinking mud...
but you get up amazed, watch bled bad blood
run upwards from the slime into its wounds;
see lines and lines of British boys rewind
back to their trenches, kiss the photographs from home -
mothers, sweethearts, sisters, younger brothers
not entering the story now
to die and die and die
Dulce - No - Decorum - No - Pro patria mori
You walk away.
You walk away; drop your gun (fixed bayonet)
like all your mates do too -
Harry, Tommy, Wilfred, Bert -
and light a cigarette.
There's coffee in the square,
warm French bread
and all those thousands dead
are shaking dried mud from their hair
and queuing up for home. Freshly alive,
a lad plays Tipperary to the crowd, released
from History; the glistening, healthy horses fit for heroes, kings.
You lean against a wall,
your several million lives still possible
and crammed with love, work, children talent, English beer, good food.
You see the poet tuck away his pocket-book and smile.
If poetry could truly write it backwards,
then it would."

The problem is that it is not possible, really. History can't be unwritten, or rewritten.

And my issue with the third, Booker winning part of the series is accentuated and deepened by reading the first volume: I don't like this kind of historical fiction, and my dislike grows deeper with every novel I try. I prefer reading the authors who experienced the time themselves, thus giving authentic testimony, OR historians who keep to objective documentation, analysing the primary and secondary sources in their complexity and completeness, rather than through the lens of a biased fictional character, mingling with historical persons.

A mix of those two approaches is not for me.

So that leaves the question open: should I skip the middle? Having started with the end, then reluctantly moved backwards to the start, is it worthwhile to work my way through the action of the second in order to close the circle?

Or should I leave it wide open and read more Sassoon firsthand instead? The Poems Of Wilfred Owen, in the forwards direction, that is, I know almost by heart.

"Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.—
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori."

Set in 1917 at Craiglockhart War Hospital in Scotland, protagonist Dr. William Rivers, a psychiatrist, treats patients suffering from a variety of war-related mental disorders. One of the primary characters is Siegfried Sassoon, a decorated officer, who has written an anti-war declaration, but is torn between dedication to his men and a belief that the slaughter must stop. Dr. Rivers is charged with evaluating Sassoon.

The storyline illustrates the methods practiced by Dr. Rivers, how the patients improved (or did not), and what happened to them during and after treatment. It focuses on Rivers and Sassoon, along with a handful of other patients. They question their masculinity and courage at a time when a mental breakdown would have been viewed as weakness. The patients are not confined to the hospital, and the narrative occasionally follows their excursions to other locales. Through the characters’ conversations, the reader learns of their gruesome experiences of war.

We see these characters through the mind of Dr. Rivers, as we are privy to his thoughts. He ponders whether it is madness for his patients to break down in the face of the horrors of war or if it is madness to allow the massive casualties to continue. He is duty-bound to try to heal his patients but feels guilty for sending them back to be killed.

Though it is fiction, the book is based on several real doctors and people treated for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (called “shell shock” back then) during the Great War. It is enlightening in showing the early evolution of psychiatric care for PTSD. Themes include the impact of war on personal identity, honor, heroism, one’s role in society. I found myself totally immersed in it.

It has been more than four years since I read this novel. Thus, I am now just contributing impressions and integrating some background on the historical characters brought to life in the book. For a fresh and rich thematic response to the book, I would I recommend highly the reviews by Steve Sckenda and James Henderson.

I appreciated the in-depth character study of William Rivers, the psychologist treating shell shock victims at Craiglockhart War Hospital. His empathy for those broken men and the efforts he took to help them “regenerate” was remarkable. The book included some on how his experience with field ethnology among the Melanesians made him sensitive to mythic and cultural themes in his patients’ disorders. The key drama in the book concerned the moral dilemmas he faced due to success in his treatments leading to his patients being shipped back to the front. Such was the case of two of his famous cases he treated, that of poet soldiers Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen. In the case of the former, he was not in treatment for shell shock but under medical review after a protest statement he published in the newspaper while home on leave in 1917:

Finished with the War: A Soldier’s Declaration
I am making this statement as an act of willful defiance of military authority, because I believe the war is being deliberately prolonged by those who have the power to end it.
I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers. I believe that this war upon which I entered as a war of defense and liberation, has now become a war of aggression and conquest. I believe that the purposes for which I and my fellow soldiers entered upon this was should have been so clearly stated as to have made it impossible to change them, and that, had this been done, the objects which actuated us would now be attainable by negotiation. …

His friend Robert Graves had pulled strings of influence so he would get a medical review rather than a court martial. Barker does well in bringing to life a portrait of Rivers friendship with Sassoon, as well as the friendship Sassoon forged with Owen. To some extent we get a believable vision of critical encouragement that Sassoon provided to Owen over his writing. A reader’s dream of insight on their poetic vision is, as to be expected, unfulfilled.

The context of Sassoon’s case was brought out in Hochschild’s book
To End All Wars: Loyalty and Rebellion. Anti-war activists Bertrand Russell helped him draft his statement and Sylvia Pankhurst published it in her newsletter. Sassoon’s expectation was that a public court marshal would give him a platform for his message, while Russell and Pankhurst hoped that would trigger a movement of soldiers to follow the Bolshevik’s lead of laying down their weapons. Instead, the War Office a public statement proclaimed, “Sassoon has been reported by the medical board as not being responsible for his action, as he was suffering from a nervous breakdown.” Eventually, Sassoon chose to return to fighting at the front, noting in his diary that “I am only here to look after some men.” Hochschild summarizes: “It was a haunting reminder of the fierce power of group loyalty over that of political conviction—and all the more so because it came from someone who had not in the slightest changed, nor ever in his life would change, his belief that his country’s supposed war aims were fraudulent.”.

The fate of Owen is too tragic for words. Hochschild summarizes:
At only 25, Wilfred Owen had never published a book but had his notebooks the finest body of poetry about the experience of war written in the twentieth century. At noon on November 11, an hour into the celebration [of the peace accord], Owen’s mother received the black-bordered War Office telegram telling her that, a week earlier, her son had been killed in action.

The background story of W.H.R. Rivers is outlined in a great article in Wikipedia. . He was quite innovative in his approaches for treating what is now called PTSD. Barker captures how he used the “talking cure”to encourage his patients to relive and react to their experiences. Yet, he was no Freudian. Instead of seeing shell shock as relating to psychic neuroses and repressed sexual urges, he saw their trouble as simply related to the fear and trauma of their war experiences. .A quote from a professional source on his accomplishments has it that:

Rivers, by pursuing a course of humane treatment, had established two principles that would be embraced by American military psychiatrists in the next war. He had demonstrated, first, that men of unquestioned bravery could succumb to overwhelming fear and, second, that the most effective motivation to overcome that fear was something stronger than patriotism, abstract principles, or hatred of the enemy. It was the love of soldiers for one another.t

The article suggests that even though both Rivers and Sassoon were gay, the propriety at the time makes it plausible that the subject would come up little in their sessions, which in fact is how Barker portrayed the issue in the book. The likelihood that Sassoon might have loved Rivers is also covered in the Wikipedia article. Barker only goes so far as to impute the basic transference effect of Rivers being seen as a father figure. He must have been a great therapist. A friend and colleague summarized the strengths in his character:

Rivers was intolerant and sympathetic. He was once compared to Moses laying down the law. The comparison was an apt one, and one side of the truth. The other side of him was his sympathy. It was a sort of power of getting into another man's life and treating it as if it were his own. And yet all the time he made you feel that your life was your own to guide, and above everything that you could if you cared make something important out of it.

It turns out that the fictional Billy Prior is more of a main character in each of the three books more than Sassoon. He is a complex, violent, and manipulative character who also had a playful and humane side. Here in “Regeneration” we get a rendering of Rivers working with him, revealing a lot about issues of class in the war:
‘I suppose most of them turn you into Daddy, don’t they? Well, I’m a bit too old to be sitting on Daddy’s knee.’
‘Kicking him on the shins every time you meet him isn’t generally considered more mature.’
‘I see. A negative transference. Is that what you think we’ve got?’
‘I hope not.’ Rivers couldn’t altogether conceal his surprise. ‘Where did you learn that term?’
‘I can read.’
…
‘You have to win, don’t you?’
Prior stared intently at him. ‘You know, you do a wonderful imitation of a stuffed shirt. And you’re not like that at all, really, are you?’
…
‘How did you fit in?’
Prior’s face shut tight. ‘You mean, did I encounter any snobbery?’
‘Yes.’
‘Not more than I have here.’
Their eyes locked. Rivers said, ‘But you did encounter it?’
‘Yes. It’s made perfectly clear when you arrive that some people are more welcome than others. It helps if you have been to the right school. It helps if you hunt, it helps if your shirts are the right colour. Which is a deep shade of khaki, by the way.’
…’Do you know, for the first time I realized that somewhere in the back of their …tiny tiny minds they really do believe the whole thing’s going to end in one big glorious cavalry charge. “Stormed at with shot and shell,/Boldly they rode and well,/Into the jaws of death, Into the mouth of hell …” And all. That. Rubbish.’
Rivers noticed that Prior’s face lit up as he quoted the poem. ‘Is it rubbish?’
‘Yes. Oh, all right, I was in love with it once. Shall I tell you something about that charge? Just as it was about to start an officer saw three men smoking. He thought that was a bit too casual so he confiscated their sabres and sent them into the charge unarmed. Two of them were killed. The one who survived was flogged the next day. …’

Thus, you can see the book’s content does not draw the reader directly into the drama and horrors of the war. It is a more subtle, indirect take on the impact of war. It explores well the struggle of individuals messed up over the experiences to recover and the unpleasant reality of the medical professionals tasked with facilitating their transition back into harm’s way. Our twisted conceptions of courage and masculinity are elucidated with sensitivity.



W.H.R. Rivers


Lt. Siegfried Sassoon


Craiglockhart War Hospital, in Derby, U.K.

"Regeneration" is a fictionalized semi-biographical account of the poet Siegfried Sassoon´s sojourn during the great war in a scottish psychiatric hospital. The main protagonist however is another historical figure, W.H.R. Rivers, the renowned anthropologist and neurologist, under whose care the afflicted soldiers (Wilfred Owen features as well) find themselves at Craiglockhart Hospital.

I cannot imagine it as an easy task for an author to write about the "good doctor". There are myriads of traps that lurk and the cliche of the self-sacrificial saintly altruist looms above such narratives, threatening to make them untrustworthy. For me the fact that I work in the field makes it additionally difficulty to find a satisfactory rendition of such a character.
The depiction of Rivers is a remarkable feat by Barker. The introspective glances she gives us of the man suggest a very thorough personality study. There is reason to believe that the synthesis between clinical medicine and anthropology has come from a deep rooted interest in the human condition and the questions he asks are tentative, inquisitive and insightful in regards to the psyche.

Barker does not only successfully sketch the "good doctor" but gives a layman like me a hint at what might constitute the "good psychiatrist" an altogether even more remarkable feat.

I am utterly lost for words as to how good "Regeneration" by Pat Barker truly is. This novel is a masterful exploration of the psychological impacts of war, told with a depth and sensitivity that left me deeply moved and profoundly impressed. Barker's trust in her reader to navigate the intricate web of allusions to historical and literary texts is remarkable. She weaves these references seamlessly into the narrative, allowing the reader to uncover layers of meaning and resonance on their own.

What sets "Regeneration" apart from other war novels is its unflinching portrayal of the harsh reality of war. Instead of presenting war in a sanitised or abstract manner, Barker delves into the physical and emotional pain that is often hidden or minimised in other narratives. She focuses on the brutal, visceral experiences of the soldiers, laying bare the true cost of conflict. Through her vivid and often graphic descriptions, Barker forces the reader to confront the full horror of war—its chaos, its trauma, and its devastating toll on the human body and spirit.

Her descriptions of the bodies of dead soldiers are stark and unflinching, capturing the sheer horror and senselessness of the violence. This graphic portrayal is not gratuitous but serves a vital purpose: it reminds us that the soldiers remember the specific people they fought alongside, their faces and their stories, rather than an abstract concept of war. This focus on the individual amidst the collective trauma underscores the profound personal cost of the conflict.

Throughout "Regeneration," Barker also explores the tension between traditional models of masculinity and the lived experiences of soldiers during the war. The novel is permeated with a sense of conflict between the stoic, unfeeling masculine ideal and the raw, unfiltered emotional realities that the soldiers face. Barker's nuanced depiction of this tension adds yet another layer to the novel, challenging our perceptions of heroism, courage, and what it means to be a man in the face of unimaginable suffering.

In short, "Regeneration" is a novel that commands both attention and admiration. Pat Barker has crafted a work of staggering emotional depth and intellectual rigour, one that challenges us to look beyond the surface and confront the true horrors of war. It is a book that lingers in the mind long after the final page has been turned, a powerful testament to the human capacity for both destruction and resilience. I am truly lost for words to convey just how exceptional this novel is—it is a masterpiece that deserves to be read and remembered.

⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐

Many of the other reviewers have discussed this book's plot and its themes, as well as its remarkably good writing and its painstaking historical research. There's something else about this book that is also extraordinary: its sheer intelligence. Pat Barker introduces the reader not just to the mind of a remarkable psychiatrist, but also to those of various soldiers suffering from various degrees of shell shock from World War I, as well as a woman who is dating one of these soldiers. In each case, the portrayal is so real, so human, so deep, and so lifelike that the book almost reads like non-fiction -- not just because Barker's understanding of the human mind is so profound, but because equally profound is her ability to use words to convey that understanding. This is a book that should be mandatory reading for anyone interested in the effects of war on the psyche, in the inner workings of the mind, in the early history of psychiatry, and most of all, for anyone who wants to spend many hours inside a world carved of thoughtfulness.

Like so much other contemporary literary fiction, this was just meh. It was words on a page. It wasn't compelling, I didn't like it more than I disliked it or vice versa. In many ways it was like another meh book, Homer & Langley: historical fiction, based on a true story, with imagined conversations and fabricated details. The real story is always more interesting to me. I don't see the point of books like these. I don't understand why so many people read them, and literary award juries dote on them. I'd rather read Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen's poetry, and their biographies.