Great War related novels

[PhilB]

I was going to say that we older guys are in a good position to judge modern GW novels, having had reports first hand from the belligerents. But, of course, the belligerents themselves were in a far better position. So, which GW novels did they think were good?

[dycer]

My Father,of WW1 Vintage did not disapprove of "The First 100,00 by Ian Hay but then again he recommended I read "Covenant with Death" by John Harris and suggested I read "Biggles".

George

[sassoon]

I'd like to add my two cents and say that like many of you I have been disappointed with the more modern writers who pen novels about the Great War. Having said that, I do appreciate the fact that they try to write about the War because (in my eyes at least) it keeps the memory of it alive. The First World War often gets overshadowed by the one that followed it, so even if I am disappointed in a novel I still give kudos to the author for sharing their interest.

Having said that, I know when I open a book written by someone who was not actually alive during the time I am not reading a first hand account. If I wanted that, I could go and pick up "Goodbye to All That" for a more accurate picture of things. I think it depends what you're in the mood for.

[withcall]

I have said this before on the forum, but I think it is worth repeating. Novels have to function as novels; we shouldn't be disappointed about not finding a novel 'informative'. I do agree that if a novel is badly researched it can jar with readers who know the period, historically, but historical inaccuracies do not themselves make for a bad novel. I do agree that putting real life historical characters, e.g. Owen and Sassoon into novels is a high risk venture, as their lives are so well documented - the author just has to get everything right. My advice is, if you want historical accuracy and information, then stick to non-fiction. As for the complaint that only participants in events have the moral stature to write fiction based on those events, I think that is a view that is artistically and socially indefensible.

Two contrasting books - 'Covenant With Death' - it may or may not be historically accurate, but in my opinion it is a good novel because of the powerful writing and strong characterisation. 'The First Casualty' - I think that it is a silly book because of wayward plotting and poor writing. Historical accuracy cannot surmount bad writing. The quintet of novels from Ann Perry about the Great War are enjoyable hokum, with pretty preposterous plots, but I enjoyed them nevertheless.

To answer an earlier point, I don't think that a novelist has any obligation to help us understand history, but I think a novelist does have an obligation to entertain, enthrall, amuse and perhaps the biggest task of all-to help us understand 'the human condition' - what we are, why we are like that, and why we do things.

[MichaelBully]

I have said this before on the forum, but I think it is worth repeating. Novels have to function as novels; we shouldn't be disappointed about not finding a novel 'informative'. I do agree that if a novel is badly researched it can jar with readers who know the period, historically, but historical inaccuracies do not themselves make for a bad novel. I do agree that putting real life historical characters, e.g. Owen and Sassoon into novels is a high risk venture, as their lives are so well documented - the author just has to get everything right. My advice is, if you want historical accuracy and information, then stick to non-fiction. As for the complaint that only participants in events have the moral stature to write fiction based on those events, I think that is a view that is artistically and socially indefensible.

Two contrasting books - 'Covenant With Death' - it may or may not be historically accurate, but in my opinion it is a good novel because of the powerful writing and strong characterisation. 'The First Casualty' - I think that it is a silly book because of wayward plotting and poor writing. Historical accuracy cannot surmount bad writing. The quintet of novels from Ann Perry about the Great War are enjoyable hokum, with pretty preposterous plots, but I enjoyed them nevertheless.

To answer an earlier point, I don't think that a novelist has any obligation to help us understand history, but I think a novelist does have an obligation to entertain, enthrall, amuse and perhaps the biggest task of all-to help us understand 'the human condition' - what we are, why we are like that, and why we do things.

Yes I full understand novels have to function as novels: I have had a go at writing novels myself, but I could never personally combine my interest in the Great War with fiction writing and write a historical novel. My attempts at fiction writing have to connect to my own lifespan. I fully accept that this is just how I am, millions of people buy historical novels set in different time periods and are able to combine interests in both fiction and history.

In respect of the phrase " I don't think that a novelist has any obligation to help us understand history'......well arguably novelists have no moral obligation to do anything but entertain, but my concern is that historical fiction seems to be marketed as if it is somehow more than fiction but offers a historical insight. Pat Barker is a prime example, she seems to have much deeper agenda than just entertaining her readers.

But anyhow this year I am determined to try to broaden my reading to take in some novels set in the Great War,and to try and complete them, so am grateful for all the suggestions people have made on this thread.

[Verrico2009]

I haven't read through all the responses diligently so this may have been said before, but my view is that people will write good, bad and indifferent books about whatever takes their fancy (and even some factual histories are dire)whether it has my approval or not (and I reserve the right not to read them) and readers come in all persuasions. But surely it has to be a good thing if it inspires just one person to take a deeper interest in the events of the time and perhaps start looking into the reality of what happened?

[moggs]

As one who is trying to write a novel about my grandpa's experiences in WWI I tend to agree with many of the posters here. It is hard to get the balance right between entertainment and historical fact - there are some who say one should never let the facts get in the way of a good story and there are those who claim that fact is stranger than fiction so why change it!

I didn't set out to write a historical novel when I first started researching. The concept grew in my mind, and stays there, because of the vast sets of facts available. Each set has its own unique bits of information which when put together create a very tight picture. Within this there are conflicting point of view - history, too, is in the eye of the beholder.

To give an example of this, my Grandpa told the story to his son (my uncle) of how he saw the Red Baron go down. The way he told it he knew exactly what happened and who fired the fatal shots and everything. When I first heard of this, I thought wow what a great episode to put into the novel. Trouble is that Grandpa was still recovering in England when the incident happened - his eyesight was good… Of course, I think I understand what happened here and it's a normal thing to do. He returned to his unit not long after and the stories being passed around, especially the annoyance of the kill being given to the Canadian flyer, Brown, kept it fresh in their mind until, later on, one could well believe they saw it first hand too.

First hand accounts are, generally, terrific but often leave out details which may be assumed are known. I don't really know what my Grandpa thought or said or truly did when he was in the war. I do know where he was and what the unit was doing. I have collected various accounts from others who were there - which I am still trying to do. I have written for the family a biographical account which at the moment needs to be added to immeasurably because of extra information found. Ultimately, the novel is the only way I feel I can truly honour him and his mates. I hope to capture what it was that made them who they were, what they did for all of us and how it affected them as human beings. Yes, there may be a modern slant to my thinking, I am myself, and modern readers have similar aspects but we all have the ability to see the written word for what it is - a picture in our own mind.

And, if you don't like it you don't have to read it.

Jonathan

PS sorry about the cliches…

[MichaelBully]

Hello Jonathan

I have written novels ( unpublished as yet) and wish you every success with yours'.

What I would add is that once the novel is complete , looking for an agent , who in turn has to find a publisher, is a long time consuming process. And from talking to novelists who have been published the agent and the publisher might demand changes to the work in any case. They want a book that will sell.

At present I would not personally write fiction set in the Great War. I am not infering any sort of criticism of any writer who does. The difficulty I have is to try to understand the mentality of someone who lived through those years, what it must have been like to experience so many years of warfare on such a scale , not knowing when it would end. Encountering so many new weapons and ways of fighting that nobody had envisaged, the changes to life back home, the threat of revolution in several European countries at the end of the Great War.

But I fully accept that the family history you describe could best be described and preserved in the form of a novel more than in another format.

With best wishes

Michael

As one who is trying to write a novel about my grandpa's experiences in WWI I tend to agree with many of the posters here. It is hard to get the balance right between entertainment and historical fact - there are some who say one should never let the facts get in the way of a good story and there are those who claim that fact is stranger than fiction so why change it!

I didn't set out to write a historical novel when I first started researching. The concept grew in my mind, and stays there, because of the vast sets of facts available. Each set has its own unique bits of information which when put together create a very tight picture. Within this there are conflicting point of view - history, too, is in the eye of the beholder.

To give an example of this, my Grandpa told the story to his son (my uncle) of how he saw the Red Baron go down. The way he told it he knew exactly what happened and who fired the fatal shots and everything. When I first heard of this, I thought wow what a great episode to put into the novel. Trouble is that Grandpa was still recovering in England when the incident happened - his eyesight was good… Of course, I think I understand what happened here and it's a normal thing to do. He returned to his unit not long after and the stories being passed around, especially the annoyance of the kill being given to the Canadian flyer, Brown, kept it fresh in their mind until, later on, one could well believe they saw it first hand too.

First hand accounts are, generally, terrific but often leave out details which may be assumed are known. I don't really know what my Grandpa thought or said or truly did when he was in the war. I do know where he was and what the unit was doing. I have collected various accounts from others who were there - which I am still trying to do. I have written for the family a biographical account which at the moment needs to be added to immeasurably because of extra information found. Ultimately, the novel is the only way I feel I can truly honour him and his mates. I hope to capture what it was that made them who they were, what they did for all of us and how it affected them as human beings. Yes, there may be a modern slant to my thinking, I am myself, and modern readers have similar aspects but we all have the ability to see the written word for what it is - a picture in our own mind.

And, if you don't like it you don't have to read it.

Jonathan

PS sorry about the cliches…

[moggs]

At present I would not personally write fiction set in the Great War. I am not infering any sort of criticism of any writer who does. The difficulty I have is to try to understand the mentality of someone who lived through those years, what it must have been like to experience so many years of warfare on such a scale , not knowing when it would end. Encountering so many new weapons and ways of fighting that nobody had envisaged, the changes to life back home, the threat of revolution in several European countries at the end of the Great War.

I do understand this train of thought. It's why I am trying to find as many relatives of the soldiers in the hope they may have diaries or personal stories somewhere to add to the colour - the everyday thinking and descriptions of what they went through. Even then, I acknowledge, I will be unlikely to truly capture the reality - I'm not sure I really want to - but if I can capture an essence of his experiences then I will be happy to put it out for perusal or examination.

I am convinced it may be the only way we can keep these extraordinary lives and deeds in the public eye - we must not forget what they did and why it was important. We cannot allow such things to happen again.

Jonathan

[MichaelBully]

Hello Jonathan

Yes I tend to agree that it is important that the Great War is continually studied and the lives of people who were caught up in it should be remembered, so wish you every success.

If you could find some diaries or correspondence at the time which has not been published, that would be great. I have found just looking at source material such as the War Service records at the National Archives has made me aware of quite a few issues that I had not really considered before.

With best wishes

Michael

I do understand this train of thought. It's why I am trying to find as many relatives of the soldiers in the hope they may have diaries or personal stories somewhere to add to the colour - the everyday thinking and descriptions of what they went through. Even then, I acknowledge, I will be unlikely to truly capture the reality - I'm not sure I really want to - but if I can capture an essence of his experiences then I will be happy to put it out for perusal or examination.

I am convinced it may be the only way we can keep these extraordinary lives and deeds in the public eye - we must not forget what they did and why it was important. We cannot allow such things to happen again.

Jonathan

[MichaelBully]

I seem to be mellowing with regard to Great War novels. Went back to reading Irene Rathbone's 'We That Were Young' and finished it this time round. The style is not to my liking but the book's different settings got me thinking about a number of issues such as the YMCA canteens in France, nursing, and the role of women in munition factories and made me want to read more about these aspects of the Great War.

Maybe it would have been better of Irene Rathbone had written a sort of 'Testament of Youth' type autobiography, but the fact is that she chose not to, but went for a novel instead, but for all its drawbacks it is a book worth reading.

Have made a few more comments in the 'Women' section

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...howtopic=146260

[michaelcarragher]

I fully agree that many modern novels about the Great War are dreadful. Some are quite brutally bad. Yet one, at any rate, which is at least as bad as Ben Elton's First Casualty, is Sebastian Barry's A Long, Long Way. This won more awards than you could shake a bayonet at, yet it was so badly researched that its author couldn't tell a lieutenant from a captain or a sergeant from a sergeant major; so badly researched that Mr Barry could have his "captain" bathing alongside his men.

To a very great extent Mr Barry, like Mr Elton, was portraying the political correctness of his own time rather than "weaving a fictive dream" from one point of past reality to another, a plausible account into which his reader could step and out of which step later with the feeling of having learned something about human nature--and, ideally, something about past events. Tom Clonan's The Canal Bridge was as bad as either of those others, and with less excuse, for Mr Clonan is a knowledgeable man; but in a similar way he allowed his views on General Haig to reduce his book to little better than high farce.

After such depressing experiences of recent Great War fiction, it took a real act of faith to purchase Alan Monaghan's The Soldier's Song. Now this is a really good novel. Mr Monaghan has done his research but he carries it lightly and he brings no political agenda to his writing. His simple but engaging style is in marked contrast to Mr Barry's cloying lyricism, and far more suited to the subject about which each man writes. This is a damn fine book that I can recommend. It is better than any of Pat Barker's. Ms Barker's books are quite good but over-rated for, I suspect, the same political reasons that Gilbert Frankau's terrific poem, "The Other Side", is very hard to find in anthologies.

Unfortunately for its author, the chattering classes who helped make A Long, Long Way such a success are likely to dismiss The Soldier's Song as some sort of re-take on the earlier novel. I hope I'm wrong in that, though.

More good news--well, we hope so--is that this is the first of a projected trilogy.

Michael Carragher

[edwin astill]

My favourite is "The Good Soldier Svejk" concerning the Austro-Hungarian army. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to say whether it is a fair reflection on their army, but my (unabridged) version is very amusing.

Edwin

[MichaelBully]

Michael - interesting comments. The conclusion I have come to is that Great War novels can sometimes steer us to consider different aspects of the Great War which we hadn't looked at before - and hopefully can stimulate more methodical research rather just taking the fiction- however well written- at face value. I used the example of Irene Rathbone's 'We That Were Young' as an example of throwing light on the war experience of the VAD nurses, the women amunition workers, and YMCA workers. Miss Rathbone's novel was published in 1932, and she was drawing on her own experiences, and that of friends, though of course we have to remember that she was writing fiction about a time period years earlier in her life.

More problems seem to emerge when a novelist who did not have any first hand experience of the Great War starts to use this theme , and also wants to just adopt a 'horses for courses' approach in bashing out a novel which confirms the preconceptions of the readership. An agent or publisher wants a product that sells. And with the 1914 centenary approaching, we can expect plenty more. But I will have to look out for 'The Soldier's Song'.

Edwin, I have read about 'The Good Soldier Svejk' and am very tempted to treat myself to a copy. Glad that you reminded us of this novel.

Regards

Michael Bully

My favourite is "The Good Soldier Svejk" concerning the Austro-Hungarian army. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to say whether it is a fair reflection on their army, but my (unabridged) version is very amusing.

Edwin