I know that Sherry mentioned she already had a post written, just not posted, but as it is already September (gasp!), and she is on holidays, I think this post should suffice for us to share our joys, frustrations (Laine), and insights that arose while reading this book. For now. Because if we don't talk about it now, we may never look at it again. Until the movie comes out of course, then we will have to make it a field trip! But certainly the persistent use of gory details to paint a picture of World War One, is very effective, and worthy of some discussion.
I thought I should share that I checked a lot of the history (ie. locations, battles, timeline) and they are all historically accurate (unless of course the person who authored all the Wikipedia articles, only used this book as a source).
Anyways, hope you can still remember the book. And in the meantime, happy reading of Sedaris!
4 comments:
Gah!! I read the book so long ago that I don't really really remember the details, just the general impression I ended up with. The book in general was so-so with several moments of interest, but I was kinda left with a feeling of "What was the point of all that?" after finishing the book (which I will elaborate on later).
On the upside, I did learn alot about WWI tactics. Mostly on how it was very:
- uneffective (yes, our genius plan is to run into the line of fire)
- futile (okay, so we lost a couple hundred soliders last time, lets do it again in exactly the same way)
- and unlogical (now that we have the enemy's trench, let's go back).
I understand that they didn't have technology or equipment, but was that seriously the best tactic they could come up with? The world of the miners/diggers/how-to-blow-up-the-enemy-from-underground was all new to me and I found that informative. I also found small sections of the book memorable, like the authors very gory description of the slow-painful-eventual death of the poor kid that was gassed (not a way that I want to die)and the running across no-man's-land. But most of the time it was over shadowed by alot of "what was the point of that?" moments. Like the very in-dept description of the family picnic or the sneaked off to find a prostitute for the virgin soldier. Why so much description only to have its' relevance drop out of the story and just appear briefly alot later? My largest question was why did we have to know so bloody much about the solider grandfather, just so that we would understand why the daughter isn't mad at the granddaughter for having a love child? I mean, what was the point of the plot (except for the ploy to learn war tactics)? Someone? Anyone?
I'm not saying the book was completely without merits. Hearing it read to me by Toby Stephens is a big plus. It's just that I wouldn't read it again or recommend it to anyone...unless they were a war historian. :P Anyways, moving on....
G, I love the fact that you checked out the dates of the history. I look forward to Laine's bashing of the book. Happy reading!
Favorite line from the book: "There are no degrees of death."
G, thanks for posting this. I did indeed have a discussion post written but heck if I could find it anymore.
I too read this book awhile ago so I'll try to dig up the thoughts I had on it.
I think Cindy is right in asking what the point of all that, which I think is sort of what you're supposed to ask. What is the point of the war and all the fighting and loss? I think this book is largely a historical fiction about every day life during the first world war and if you're not really into that then it probably doesn't appeal to you.
That being said then, what is the point of the first part with Stephen and the affair with Isabelle? I think it was to humanize Stephen a little and to show that he was flawed and even though he's a protagonist, he's perhaps not the 'hero' of this story. What's interesting is that little was made of his background. Some stories would explore the fact that he grew up without a family and it made me wonder what was the point of mentioning it if it wasn't going to be explored further. I think it was to sort of demonstrate that even though Stephen had nothing to lose, he still suffered a great deal of loss because of fighting in the war. Everybody in the end of the day has something to lose and that is what all the soldiers had in common that were fighting. The German soldiers who rescued them, even though they were enemies understood that and it's what connected seeming strangers together.
I really liked that it pulled no punches in describing what life was like and the graphic way it described the boy in the hospital that died. It was a reality for some of these guys and that's what they had to live with. I also actually liked the scene with Weir (the virgin soldier) and the prostitute because it demonstrated just how messed up Stephen was from everything. All he knew at that point was violence and it showed through in everything. Even lust, which can be argued is just as a primal and animalistic reaction as violence.
The other thing I found interesting was that everybody had names. Even insignificant soldiers that you didn't know much about. It demonstrates that everybody had an identity, was a separate being and mattered to somebody.
All in all, I enjoyed reading it but I can't say I'm really into war novels all that much. I might read it again just to see if there were any details that I missed but I do agree that it won't be for everybody. It doesn't really have a specific narrative style, it's episodic in describing situations so it doesn't use much symbolism or any allegory. The author tells things like it is and the situations and scenarios are up for interpretation as to what their significances are. But maybe that's the point. What is the significance of anything really? Why do we want to find a deeper meaning to every detail when the simple explanation would be to just say things happen and you can't help it. Better yet, how can you attach a meaning to boys being sent out to fight a war other than what it is?
I am still struggling to understand what the significance of birds are to the story. I remember there being a passage where it is described that the soldiers couldn't even hear the birdsong in the distance. That was sort of an eerie image to me because it almost seems like nature has truly been destroyed by the works of man. Or maybe I'M just reading too much into it now.
Anyway, sorry for the disjointed thoughts.
I do have a couple of favourite quotes as well, that I actually earmarked while I was reading.
For example, "It was not all the tens of thousands of deaths that mattered; it was the way they had proved that you could be human yet act in a way that was beyond nature"
I think there were many interesting moments that really make you think about what happened in the war. And exactly like Cindy said how senseless it really was. It definitely brings me back to some lectures I attended on WW1. And reminds me of the displays at the war museum. I mean, there was a whole chapter dedicated to lice in this book. And however detailed and gory Faulks' narrative was, I would argue that the reality was nothing less, and even worse.
What I did not realize at first is that the account of the war is really specific in recounting just the Battle of the Somme. This really was one of the bloodiest battles in history. It was also when they used gas attack tactics at the beginning of the battle. So the account of the boy dying really shows its effects.
At first I was also wondering what the point of the story of the granddaughter really was. But when she visits the graveyard, and sees the graves, with just the unfound soldiers' names on it. Then she says "My God, nobody told me" (264). I kind of wish her story would have revolved a little bit more around her searching for answers than her love life.
It definitely shows the effect of the war on its veterans. Through Stephen's behaviour. But also through the men that were in the psychic ward for the rest of their lives. It is not surprising that there is a lot of debate about veteran services today.
I am very interested in what the movie will be like. I especially look forward to that moment when Stephen refuses the star that Gray offered him.
I just read on Wikipedia that this book is part of a trilogy, I think I will read the other books. And, in 2003 it came 13th as Britain's favourite book. Interesting!
I just want to add a couple of things to this, before I go back to Owen Sound to finally hand the book back to the library :D
I was just thinking about Sherry's point about humanizing the main character. I think that might be exactly the point. Because I think we remember the first world war mostly from its tactics, from poems such as In Flanders Fields, and maybe movies like All Quiet on the Western Front (we had to watch that in Grade 10 history). So we may not really think of the soldiers as individuals. Maybe that's why Faulks dwells on Stephen's love for Isabelle (plus it was interesting, I was dying to know if he would ever find out!) and Weir who was still a virgin, and Firebrace whose son past away in Canada. I mean, I think that is to emphasize that these soldiers loved, and were loved. It is very different today, where there is a separate news report for every soldier that dies in Afghanistan for example.
I know I am a bit of a geek when it comes to military history - but it is interesting how warfare progresses. I mean Cindy specified how futile these types of tactics were. But when you think of the American Revolution where they stood in line and fired at each other, and then you think of WW1 and WW2, maybe guerrilla warfare in Vietnam, and then today ... very interesting!
Post a Comment