Rating: 
Summary: Regeration touches on interesting issues but has many faults
Review: Regeneration on the whole is not what I would call a great book. It touches quickly on some interesting issues but only deals and looks at them fleetingly. As well, it keeps on trying to drive home cliched and over done points such as "war has a great cost to society". It is confusing to read as it switches constantly between characters without giving you any idea that it has switched. Much of the book leaves you wondering what the point of any of it is. There is no real plot, no real thrust to any of it. You don't really care too much for any of the characters. The whole thing left me rather cold. If it was more coherent I would be much more pleased with it. As well, the book annoyingly blurs the line between fact and fiction, so you are left with the belief you have read something based on fact, but it is hard to discern what is factual and what is not.
Rating: 
Summary: Worthwhile - but a little confusing
Review: Regeneration, The Eye in the Door and Ghost Road make up Pat Barker's remarkable trilogy about England during the "Great War." The three books center around the character of Dr. William Rivers, a well known psychiatrist who served in Scotland and England during the war treating officers suffering from war-related neuroses - and restoring their sanity enough for them to return to the insanity of the front. Two of Rivers' patients play a central role in the trilogy - poet and decorated war hero Siegfried Sassoon, who was sent to Dr. Rivers after taking a public stand against the war, and Billy Prior, a working class boy who managed to work his way into the ranks of officer and whose psychological and personal conflicts drive a lot of the plot in The Eye in the Door.The trilogy is so multi-faceted it can be difficult to say what it's really about. It's first and foremost a story of England during the war - how the war challenged traditional views of "maleness" (and enhanced the role of women in society), the scapegoating of homosexuals, leftists, and others as a political tool, etc. Barker draws on historical material and characters to depict the times - I don't know the history so I can't comment on the accuracy. But it's more than a historical novel. It deals with the universal role of war in human culture and contrasts the WW1 orgy of death and destruction with the war culture of the headhunters of Melanesia (where Rivers spent some time doing anthropological research). It's also a psychological study of Rivers, Sassoon and Prior (the former two historical, the latter fictional) who all seem to encapsulate multiple personalities - in Prior's case these are true multiple personalities, but in the cases of Rivers and Sassoon they are more subtle differences between their empathetic, sensitive, selves and the automatons they become when faced with professional responsibilities or when they otherwise operate from deeper instincts. There are many other threads in the story that I can't possibly mention here. Parts of the book(s) are brilliant - great language and images, stories and sub plots at times harrowing and at times funny, great character development, witty dialogue. This is not a book that will be easily forgotten. It's also for the most part a great read. My major criticism is that it should not have been published as three separate books. I read Ghost Road - the Booker winner - first and was disappointed, but loved it the second time around after I read Regeneration and (my favorite) The Eye in the Door. Related to this is the fact that while the books don't stand on their own, the trilogy doesn't really hold together as one novel either. Regeneration takes place mostly in the Craiglockhart War Hospital in Scotland and focuses on Rivers and his patients (especially Sassoon). Prior is there but not as central a figure as he becomes later. The Eye in the Door takes place mostly in London and centers around Prior, his sexual escapades, his personality disorders, and his attempt to free an old friend and neighbor from prison where she has been charged with plotting to kill the Prime Minister. The Ghost Road returns the focus to Rivers, his patients (but now in a hospital in England), and flashbacks to his research in Melanesia but also weaves into it the experience of Prior now back at the front in France through a journal Prior keeps. All a little confusing for those like me that prefer more of a clear roadmap. One confusing thing is the focus on homosexuality (or bisexuality in Prior's case). Prior's appetite for sex was impressive and seemed to be very non-distinguishing (except for the fact that he "doesn't pay"). What I couldn't tell for sure was whether Rivers and Sassoon were homosexuals; I think they were but either they had repressed this aspect of their personalities (given the times probably understandable) or what I wasn't clear. I got the impression at points that every man in the story was homosexual or at least potentially so, and I'm not sure if Barker is saying something about the times, the WW1 environment, or just happened to pick out these characters for study. There are also references to nerve regeneration experiments that seemed important - I'm assuming the name of the book is related to this - but I wasn't sure how they tied into everything else. OK, nerve regeneration, psychological regeneration, etc...but so what? In any case, these books give the reader a lot to think about and while the Ghost Road by itself does not in my opinion deserve a Booker I would say that the trilogy as a whole probably does.
Rating:
Summary: An engaging work with solid technique.
Review: That a historical novel came across as readable as it did was surprise enough for me, but after completing the reading of Regeneration, I respected it purely as a piece of literature, period.
Barker's roving plotlines, sometimes switched by the mere presence of a new character in a scene, were weaved together in a way that lent believability and drama to what was surely an excellent combination of history and fiction. Though I found some of Barker's dialogue hard to follow and the characters (with the exception of Sassoon, Owen and Rivers, who the reader obviously identifies most with) names a little difficult to keep straight, they nonetheless worked well enough to create a foundation for some superb storytelling.
The strict Freudian psycho-analysis present throughout the book got on my nerves at times. The sexual layers that the characters constantly talked about didn't come across to me in any of the dream sequences where they were supposedly abundant. I did however like the ambiguity of certain characters sexual orientation, as well as Rivers' self-analysis sessions, which gave you a deep look into his character.
The shaping and wordplay of the novel itself was also excellent, with some beautiful descriptions and a variety of useful and telling metaphors and similes. Barker was well deserving of the Booker Prize, without a doubt. I would happily recommend her work to anyone.
Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant
Review: This book deserved the praise it has received. It is horrifying at times and incredibly clear-eyed about the situation the characters find themselves in. The story is succint, crystal clear, and short, but the characters are breathtakingly, brilliantly drawn. Barker has found amazing characters to work with, drawing liberally from real writers and doctors of the time. This can be read as an outstanding historical novel, or literary novel, but it is just plain brilliant.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant
Review: This book deserved the praise it has received. It is horrifying at times and incredibly clear-eyed about the situation the characters find themselves in. The story is succint, crystal clear, and short, but the characters are breathtakingly, brilliantly drawn. Barker has found amazing characters to work with, drawing liberally from real writers and doctors of the time. This can be read as an outstanding historical novel, or literary novel, but it is just plain brilliant.
Rating:
Summary: Get a feel for dealing with one's Mental Health
Review: This book was given to me as a gift. It's quite simply a book about the trials and tribulations of World War I soldiers who ended up in a British Mental Hospital for various reasons. It reminded me of the discrimination and improper treatments that took place....and most likely...still do...towards patients that find the misfortune to end up in a locked facility. This book will be rewarding to any one who has felt mentally depressed &/or has known any one who has been. It's very well written...Like always...I was hoping for more (that's why 4 stars instead of 5 stars). I liked these lines particularly: No raid tonight. It was ironic that on this one quiet night he should have woken himself up with a nightmare. As with all nightmares, the horror lingered...He didn't feel, however, that the underlying conflict had been sexual. OH...And I liked this one line (sounds like me--sometimes): Breakfast, lunch and dinner, he could do with out, but afternoon tea mattered.
Rating:
Summary: Haunting character study
Review: This excellent book is one of the most haunting and beautiful I have read of late. Its vivid cast of characters and their poignant struggles -- both without and within -- challenge the reader to understand the ramifications of the Great War and define what it means to be a member of society.
Rating: 
Summary: A fine philosophical novel, but not for the average reader
Review: This first book in Barker's WWI trilogy is based on the real-life treatment of poet Siegfried Sassoon by psychiatrist and anthropologist Dr. William Rivers at Craiglockhart War Hospital. Sassoon has publicly denounced the war as a "senseless slaughter" and refuses to fight anymore. The powers that be assign him to Rivers' care as a victim of "shell shock" - a traumatic experience that leaves men unable to function. The hospital's aim is not so much to cure as to return men to active duty - an objective that leaves Rivers conflicted as doctor and a humanitarian. In an era when treatment of mental illnesses was often barbaric, (as in a memorable scene near the book's conclusion), Rivers' treatment plan is to cure with compassion and respect for the patient. He allows these men the freedom to work through their experiences instead of repressing them. In doing so, he takes some of their suffering onto himself, and is changed in the process. The give and take between doctor and patient is the real meat of the story. But beyond the plot, there's a lot to think about in this novel. In fact, the real genius of this work is not the plot or the characters or the setting, but rather the seemingly endless array of serious ethical questions that crop up as these men struggle with their situations. Was Britain justified in going to war against Germany? Can war ever be moral? Who is responsible for the actions of nations? Do soldiers abdicate their moral responsibilities when they don the uniform? How can a doctor cure a patient's infirmity only to send him back to the front lines to die? How does this apply to conscientious objectors? Is it enough to treat symptoms when the underlying causes are psychological? Barker doesn't provide answers, but wants us to look for them in ourselves. This would be a terrific book for teaching an ethical philosophy course, and surely that's why this novel is so highly praised by reviewers. However, as an entertainment, this book is substantially less successful. One patient's brief dalliance with a factory girl provides almost our only glimpse of a woman, and even this episode seems tacked on, and is decidedly unromantic. And as one might expect, there is absolutely no trace of humor in this book at all - no one ever cracks a smile, let alone a joke. Less predictably, there's very little action in this book, either. The patients' tales of horrors at the front are powerful enough, but rarely run more than a page or two, and we don't get many of those. So while this is indeed a brilliant work of fiction, it should only be recommended to those who are deeply into ethical philosophy.
Rating:
Summary: A fine philosophical novel, but not for the average reader
Review: This first book in Barker's WWI trilogy is based on the real-life treatment of poet Siegfried Sassoon by psychiatrist and anthropologist Dr. William Rivers at Craiglockhart War Hospital. Sassoon has publicly denounced the war as a "senseless slaughter" and refuses to fight anymore. The powers that be assign him to Rivers' care as a victim of "shell shock" - a traumatic experience that leaves men unable to function. The hospital's aim is not so much to cure as to return men to active duty - an objective that leaves Rivers conflicted as doctor and a humanitarian. In an era when treatment of mental illnesses was often barbaric, (as in a memorable scene near the book's conclusion), Rivers' treatment plan is to cure with compassion and respect for the patient. He allows these men the freedom to work through their experiences instead of repressing them. In doing so, he takes some of their suffering onto himself, and is changed in the process. The give and take between doctor and patient is the real meat of the story. But beyond the plot, there's a lot to think about in this novel. In fact, the real genius of this work is not the plot or the characters or the setting, but rather the seemingly endless array of serious ethical questions that crop up as these men struggle with their situations. Was Britain justified in going to war against Germany? Can war ever be moral? Who is responsible for the actions of nations? Do soldiers abdicate their moral responsibilities when they don the uniform? How can a doctor cure a patient's infirmity only to send him back to the front lines to die? How does this apply to conscientious objectors? Is it enough to treat symptoms when the underlying causes are psychological? Barker doesn't provide answers, but wants us to look for them in ourselves. This would be a terrific book for teaching an ethical philosophy course, and surely that's why this novel is so highly praised by reviewers. However, as an entertainment, this book is substantially less successful. One patient's brief dalliance with a factory girl provides almost our only glimpse of a woman, and even this episode seems tacked on, and is decidedly unromantic. And as one might expect, there is absolutely no trace of humor in this book at all - no one ever cracks a smile, let alone a joke. Less predictably, there's very little action in this book, either. The patients' tales of horrors at the front are powerful enough, but rarely run more than a page or two, and we don't get many of those. So while this is indeed a brilliant work of fiction, it should only be recommended to those who are deeply into ethical philosophy.
Rating:
Summary: A powerful WW I novel fought in the minds of the combattants
Review: This first novel of a trilogy of World War I is the most powerful although it was the last one, Ghost Road, which won the prestigious Booker Prize.
The setting is a hospital in England for those recovering from shell shock. The protagonists are a psychiatrist and his patient who is opposed to the endless slaughter of the war. Clearly to "cure" the patient, to find him sane, is to send him to his probable death.
The entire novel takes place within the hospital yet the horror of this war is omnipresent, the images sharp and overwhelmingly strong and sad. It is an amazing book because of the author's ability to portray the horror of war without being in the battlefield and the permanent scars left on the psyche.
Interestingly this novel has been built on the foundation of meetings between real people. I found this book irresitible and memorable, and immediately read the rest of the trilogy, but it is this one that is haunting.
|
