Your opinion please on "Harry's War: A British Tommy's Exp

[Canadian J]

Good day everyone!

I saw this book in our local library and thought of giving it a go at some point. After reading the description of this book online, however, I became conflicted. Here is a portion of that review:

Harry's War: A British Tommy's Experiences in the Trenches in World War One

By Harry Stinton and Virginia Mayo

"...Ninety years since he compiled his memoirs, we can relive his war - despite the fact that he never intended his words and pictures to be published. Upon returning to civilian life, he recorded his wartime experiences in a humble black notebook, but never revealed its existence to anyone. Now, finally, we can share those experiences through Harry's engaging words and simple paintings - a truly personal piece of history that makes for richly rewarding reading."

It seems like a great read, but what struck me was that Harry has no idea that his personal accounts ended up published for all the world to see. Do you feel that we may be prying into his personal diary, his personal experiences during his time at war? Or do you think that he simply didn't have the resources at the time to have his voice heard, that he would be happy to share his experiences this way (of course we can only speculate)? I am sure it is a great read and that the author had good intentions, but I am just unsure about reading such personal accounts as it seems many (but of course not all) Great War veterans preferred to keep those things to themselves.

- Jordan

[clive_hughes]

I don't know this book, but many post-service writings of just this type exist. Some were perhaps designed to record feelings and events so as to look back on them later in life, or inform the family what they went through when it couldn't be verbalised. Other times it might be a cathartic exercise, recollecting experiences so as to drive away the inner demons. Others maybe did have some sort of publication in mind but would never have been accepted. I have handled many such manuscripts/typescripts over the years.

There are occasions where I have felt like an eavesdropper on intimate conversations that were certainly not designed for anyone else to read (but they were, as things worked out). Other times I find myself cross-checking statements which just don't square with the historical record and wonder whether the writer was spicing things up with a publishing market in mind.

However, just think how much poorer our historical understanding would be if we didn't have this sort of record - no Samuel Pepys' diaries of the great plague and fire of London, to take just one instance. It is perfectly possible to destroy diaries and papers which are never intended to see the light of day; we will never know what has been lost in this way, but that's a decision someone has made. In the same way most servicemen didn't want to record their experiences in any form - perhaps they couldn't. It is likewise possible to treat those papers that survive as a sort of message to posterity which says "This is what happened to me".

I tend to the latter view, and value even the clumsiest, semi-literate scrap of record if it seems honest. I have more difficulties with the dishonest, self-glorifying kind which also exists. Much of our history is based on being able to pry into people's thoughts and actions, if one can put it that way; so if his current family see no objection to letting the world know what Harry's war was like, and they can find a publisher, why not?

Clive

[kenf48]

I 've not read this book but arguably the truth of their experience can be found in their letters and diaries which were not intended for publication. Robert Graves for example famously wrote that he put everything in his memoir that the public expected, including ' a few good battles'. Other authors rushed to print to capitalise on the fashion for 'war books' in the twenties, a fashion that ebbed in the next decade.

I don't think you could regard it as 'prying' the IWM has many papers and diaries as well as oral histories that are often selectively quoted and I 've yet to read an account of WW1 where Siegfried b*****y Sassoon isn't quoted. I don't think we should feel guilty for reading these accounts especially by O.Rs, who were effectively written out of official reports and most of the 'war books' were written by officers.

However where I do have a problem is with the provenance and the editing of these newly discovered memoirs and being cynical why were they discovered at the same time as the Centenary? Is it coincidence or marketing? As I said I've not read this one but I think you need to apply fairly rigorous standards to separate fact from fiction.

Ken