The Missing of the Somme

[Will O'Brien]

The mention of this book on another thread prompted me to pick it up again (I bought it several months ago & struggled a bit to get into it, subsequently putting it down less than half way through)

The book is a study of the representation & remembrance of the Great War. It examines the many different ways this been done, through memorials, poetry, paintings, photographs etc. There is no doubting that the book has been beautifully written. It has also has received many rave reviews..................but I didn't like it...........in fact I didn't like it at all.............The trouble I am having is expressing why. My thoughts are based on a perception or feeling I got reading the book, rather than from something that was actually written. I found a cynical under current to it. I had what I can only describe as a feeling that the authors’ words questioned the sincerity of remembrance. In doing so it was if my small personal acts of remembrance were also being questioned.................No this one wasn't to my taste.

[Chris_B]

Will,

Its some months since I read Dyer's book, it was a library copy. My reading about the GW is so far rather limited. While I woud agree there is an undertone of cynicism, though I'm not too sure what its target is, it still made me think and motivated me to find out more about some of the memorials discussed in the book, their architects and the other literature referenced. Let alone what the act of rememberance is all about.

I knew little or nothing of Lutyens, Jagger, William Rider-Rider, or Scott's window Katheleen's "Huntington Thinker". I had probably walked past the memorials in Southwark and Paddington station without even noticing them. I wouldn't now.

I'm still determined to follow up other books he talked of: Paul Fussell's, Denis Winter's, Jean Rouaud's and Timothy Findley's.

As far as the memorials in France are concerned, I just hope one day I'll be lucky enough to visit just one of them. Dyer may have behaved like an **** travelling around between them, but did he show any disrespect when actually on the spot?

What does all this prove? Nothing, except to say what we may or may not get from a book can be a very personal thing. I'm sorry it wasn't to your taste.

I'd say, to others; if you have the luxury of time and money, buy it and give it a try. You may not like it, you may think Dyer's taking the p...... or it just might spark a new interest or give you one of those "well I didn't know that" type moments.

Chris.

[Michelle Young]

Will,

Couldn't agree more, I really didn't like this book,just couldn't get to grips with it.

Regards, Michelle

[David_Blanchard]

It has hallmarks of laddism, very journalistic in style but it is different and thought provoking, theres a different perspective here, and he captures moods of many of the cemeteries and memorials well.

[Will O'Brien]

but it is different and thought provoking, theres a different perspective here

David I agree wholeheartedly with this but I personally am not comfortable with the thoughts it provokes nor do I like the different, perhaps I might even say darker & more cynical perspective

[David_Blanchard]

I really don't think its unduly cynical; admittedly irreverent in places but hey with the running jokes about pink trousers and whisky in this forum, I think people can be. I think Dyer in the last chapter articulates his impressions of the sombre mood of the Somme battlefield at dusk very well, it is cold and bleak but perpetual as well and how well he conveys 'lonelyness'- this is above all respectful not cynical.

'I have never felt so peaceful. I would be happy never to leave...the sun is going down on one of the most beautiful places on earth.'

(incidently this reminds me of Bill Bryson's feeling about Ayers Rock in his book 'Down Under')

[wainfleet]

Just waking up a VERY old thread....

I bought The Missing Of The Somme years ago. It was in a cheap pile and had to be worth getting, or so I thought. But when I began reading it I thought I'd been short-changed. It seemed rambling, unfocused and egocentric. I found it hard to tell exactly what it was about, but it didn't seem to have much to do with its title. So I put it away in disgust.

I have recently been clearing some things out and was on the point of junking this book. Out of curiosity, I again opened it and this time have been drawn right in. If you can put aside any preconceptions and read it as a personal meditation on war and remembrance, it works. Well it does for me. Maybe that's just because I happen to be in the right mood for it, but I'm now very glad I bought it.

[peterhogg]

I'm interested by these comments. I too have had mixed feelings about the book. The "laddism" may have just been a nod to the style of the time in which it was written. (High Fidelity, About a Boy and all that ) though I can't say I found it as cynical as others have, funny that. I haven't read it in about five years so will look at it again. I'm interested in how I will respond.

peter

[priv]

I have to say that my comments ahev been echoed by the previous posts.

I drew it form the locla Library and was rather looking forward to it. I must say i found it anunstructured book, and ended up speed reading until I found the direction and any interesting sections. I got nearly half way without success and then decided to draw stumps.

Could have been a fascniating volume but sadly I was very disapointed.

priv

[Michelle Young]

I have read this more than once and every time I read it I get an overwhelming urge to give the author a kick! I read an article by him about smoking a joint at Thiepval, maybe that coloured my opinion of him?

Michelle

[wainfleet]

I’ve finally finished this book, at the second attempt. The first time round I kept wondering why the title? I know now that I’ve finished it, but only found out at the end of the book. I can see why the author wanted to call it what he did, but it was a bit misleading, and maybe a different title would have been better.

The lack of structure seems to me to be essential to the book. That sounds odd, but I see it as not about the war, but about the difficulty of remembering, many years on. As living memory fades away, remembrance is all that's left. It’s impossible to gather together into a structured form what remembrance means, because it is something different for everyone, and in that way remembrance mirrors the war, which was also different for everyone and remains a great shapeless mass that will always be impossible to grasp (though we can't stop trying to do so, and therein lies the enduring fascination of the Great War). Disjointed war, disjointed remembrance, disjointed book. It makes sense to me, and I’d like to believe that this was part of his purpose. I hope so anyway.

I feel that Geoff Dyer has done a remarkable job of depicting his own attempts to understand the incomprehensible and remember the unrememberable. I didn't find a cynical undercurrent to the book. It’s his individual journey, and is thus almost bound to be a bit idiosyncratic, self-indulgent even, but he has nevertheless put into words something of the British folk memory that had not been said before. It’s an uncompromising book – you take it on his terms or not at all – and I can see why the Observer critic called it “the great Great War book of our time”. In a way, it is the only Great War book “of our time”. He has taken on a vast subject that is incredibly difficult to pin down, and whilst the book is not always easily accessible, I for one found it very rewarding and am glad I persevered.