Customer Reviews:
 Fix Their Minds So They Can Go Back Into The Slaughter of World War I March 13, 2008
When the First World War broke out, most people assumed it would be over in a few months as their nation (whichever one that was) sent the others packing. In fact, many raced to enlist fearing that "the fun" might be over before they got there.
Instead, what they discovered in Western Europe was a stalemate with trenches dug from the North Sea to the Atlantic Coast across which English, French, and German soldiers faced each other for years from cold, wet, corpse-filled, and disease-ridden trenches.
No one knew how to break the stalemate. Millions died as shelling continued against these fixed positions.
Every so often some general would convince himself that a massive charge would break the other line. Each time this was tried, the slaughter accelerated as men ran into point-blank machine gun fire and artillery barrages.
Regeneration looks at the disillusionment that led one decorated English officer and poet, Siegfried Sassoon, to remonstrate against the military leadership in public. Rather than court-marital Sassoon, the military chose to send him to a psychiatrist, Dr. William Rivers. Regeneration creates a fictional account of their relationship at Craiglockhart War Hospital. The book also looks at how Rivers treated other "mental" cases sent his way.
The most interesting parts of the story come in looking at the ethical dilemma of being asked to help those who cannot mentally deal with the war any more . . . when that "help" may lead to them going back to France where their life expectancy is measured in weeks. I was reminded of stories I've read about patching up people who tried to kill themselves so they could be legally executed.
There's a revolting section on how less sensitive physicians dealt with these "mental" problems . . . basically torturing soldiers until they wouldn't resist going back to fight.
The book has two weaknesses that mar its obvious strengths in recapturing that difficult moment in English history.
1. Ms. Barker assumes that her readers already know about Siegfried Sassoon (or at least that they don't mind her holding back details about what he did for some time). I had never heard of him so it was annoying to try to figure out what all the fuss was about in the early pages. The book could use an extensive historical footnote as a prologue for those who don't know about the incident.
2. The book often skates around the edges of how Sassoon and Rivers related to one another. Much is tacit, and I found it hard to understand in all scenes what Ms. Barker was trying to suggest each one was thinking.
I commend Ms. Barker for picking real characters and bringing them to life in a way that's very poignant (even for those who aren't English) 90 years after the events have taken place.
|
