Compare and Contrast the Relationship between Men in the Novels: 'Birdsong' by Sebastian Faulks and 'Regeneration' by Pat Barker

Rivers made no comment

'Don't you think that's rather severe?'

River response brings a much more serious outlook on the conversation. The fact that Prior is in a lot of trouble is effectively portrayed via Barker's choice of the words 'dealt' and 'the matter.' These words demonstrate the seriousness of the situation. This is furthered by Prior's response with the word 'confined' bringing associations of prison. It is clear from the beginning of this passage that no apparent characteristics of a relationship are evident. Rivers seems to be 'matter-of-fact' about the situation and Prior is un-cooperative and sarcastic: 'I AM A LOONY.' Rivers is very formal when speaking to Prior, phrases such as, 'I imagine' and 'I gather' illustrate this. This would be expected in a 'doctor/patient' dialogue, but hardly sets up a basis for a platform of a relationship. The effectiveness of Barker employing Prior with a satirical narrative along with Rivers constant questioning makes the dialogue somewhat uneasy and ultimately bothers Prior: 'Questions. On and on and bloody on.'

Another way of perceiving this passage could be that Prior is simply releasing stress that has built up and perhaps feels guilty for unfairly targeting Rivers. The 'muscle throbb[ing] in his jaw', could illustrate Prior's guilt for his hostile actions. This point can be furthered as Prior relies on Rivers for sympathy when asking whether the punishment for his actions were 'rather severe.' Rivers response of 'no comment', however leads me to reject the assumption that Prior's actions of aggression are a escape mechanism from the restrictions imposed on him, but rather that the two characters share a antagonistic relationship. Prior is however dependent on River and this is shown by him 'linger[ing]' around Rivers desk. I believe that Prior is dependant on Rivers due to Prior wanting to know why he is having nightmares and why he cannot remember them, he subsequently becomes dependant on Rivers for reasons and answers to his problems. This dependence is however, one-way just like the relationship, as ultimately Rivers does not reveal much about himself to Prior.

In contrast to Rivers antagonistic relationship with Prior in 'Regeneration', Steven Wraysford and Michael Weir share a reciprocal relationship in 'Birdsong'.

Stephen Wraysford undergoes most of the combat as a nihilist, detached from any sense of reason. He admits to Captain Gray: "I don't value my life enough. I have no sense of the scale of these sacrifices. I don't know what anything is worth". Both officers and men consider him cold, isolated and a little odd. He however shares a very strong relationship with Weir, which unlike Prior and Rivers, is also involved on a personal level. The passage that I propose to analyse takes place during an air raid. In an attempt to calm himself down from the air raid Weir turns to Steven: 'Talk to me, Wraysford.' The regular repetition of 'talk to me' gives the image of one being in a desperate situation and consequently looking for someone (normally a friend) essentially for support. This also sets up a dialogue between the two characters and the strength of their relationship is illustrated in a deep conversation about women, love and their sexual experiences. The trust the two comrades share is clear when Weir confesses to Steven that's he's never been with a women. 'Never ever been with a woman' Steven is surprised: 'What? Never?' Weir goes on to admit that he is still a virgin: 'I always wanted to, but it was difficult.' Weir also question Steven about whether he has been in love. This is Steven's first reference to Isabelle. The fact that he is open about his love for Isabelle again demonstrates the trust between the two characters: 'I didn't know at the time what it was [love] I was just aware of some compulsion.' For both characters the topic of women is a sensitive issue and the fact that they discuss it so freely establishes that their relationships is very strong. Faulks brings in laughter to diffuse a potentially life-threatening event (air raid) but also demonstrated the characteristics of a good relationship: 'Weir began to laugh.' More importantly the conversation takes Weir's mind off the air raid: '...Weir had stopped listening to the shellfire.'

In comparison of Steven and Weir's relationships to Rivers and Prior's relationship we see a direct contrast. Both passages are composed of short sentences however Steven and Weir's conversation consists of a lot longer sentences and less questions in oppose to Rivers 'no comment' and constant questioning. As a result Steven and Weir's conversation develops to a personal basis where they share their experience seen through the words 'smiled' and 'laughed', whereas Rivers and Prior conversation becomes uneasy. Another difference is throughout the dialogue Steven and Weir speak to each other informally whereas Rivers and Prior's dialogue is largely formal; the informal aspect of the conversation between Steven and Weir demonstrates a conversation characteristic of two friends. The similarity that both passages show is the 'dependant' relationships i.e. Weir's dependence on Steven and Prior's dependence on Rivers. However Weir and Steven enjoy are reciprocal relationship where the relationship is two-way as both characters reveal a lot about themselves. This differs to Rivers and Priors antagonistic relationship.

A reciprocal relationship that Rivers does have that is parallel to Steven and Weir's relationships is with Siegfried Sassoon.

Sassoon was sent to Craiglockhart following his famous "A Soldier's Declaration" in 1917, a text in which he condemned the destruction of human life at the trenches. The military authorities and his good friend, the poet Robert Graves, found it more convenient to assign Sassoon to the care of Rivers than to discuss his opinions publicly. As the relationship between Rivers and Sassoon develops Rivers also begins to question the war in particular the uses of psychiatry to manipulate the soldiers resistance against the war. Sassoon and Rivers develop a strong relationship and this is evident in their last consultation. Rivers is about to leave Craiglockhart for two weeks and travel to Queen Square where Dr. Yealland has invited him. Rivers comes to see Sassoon before he leaves and a conversation similar to Steven and Weir's dialogue becomes apparent as they discuss sensitive issues: 'Pacifists can be amazingly brutal', the freedom with which Sassoon tells Rivers about his pacifist friends and homosexuality; topics that were illegal to discuss, demonstrates the trust between the characters. Both characters also share their doubts of the war. Rivers appears as a 'father-figure' to Sassoon: 'he'd [Sassoon] joked once or twice to Rivers about him being his father confessor...but only now...did he realize how completely Rivers had come to take his father's place'

It is intriguing to see Rivers developing a reciprocal relationship with Sassoon yet an antagonistic relationship with Prior. Throughout the novel he refers to Billy Prior as 'Mr. Prior' and Siegfried Sassoon as 'Siegfried', this informal reference to the latter could be a possible explanation that the social class of an individual depends on whether a reciprocal relationship would be formed. This could be the case with Rivers. The fact that Rivers and Sassoon are well educated demonstrates their higher class in society. Prior on the other hand has been extremely successful, but from a lower class. This is evident through Rivers noticing his accent: 'northern accent... vowel sounds distinctively flattened' and we also get a clearer insight into Priors background when Rivers meets his parents. Here we learn that his father believes that Prior has deserted his class by joining the army: 'I told him, time enough to do summat for the Empire when the Empire's done summat for you.' References to words such as 'summat' and 'nowt' reinforce Prior's social class. I personally believe there could be a basis whereby Rivers forms different relationships with his patients depending on their social class i.e. he is more likely to form a mutual relationship with higher-class soldier's than lower-class soldier's.

In contrast with 'Birdsong' we do not see this difference to be as evident. Through the character of Jack Firebrace who is also form a lower class, we see the relationship that Jack shares with the tunnelers (lower class) is similar to that he shares with upper-class officers such as Weir. This is seen when looking at the passage where Jack has been caught asleep whilst on duty. Throughout this passage we see Faulks more subtle use of expletives, which I feel, set up a calmer environment where a relationship can nurture. Like Prior's offence of spending the night with Sarah is a serious offence, Jack falling asleep on duty perhaps more serious as he would almost certainly be court martialled. The meeting isn't hostile in comparison to Prior's offence in Craiglockhart. Indeed the potentially serious affair brings an element of socialism whereby the actual offence isn't concentrated on: 'Sit down, Firebrace. Have a drink,' this in comparison to Rivers matter-of-fact approach seen through the words 'dealt' and 'the matter' show the respective author's difference in treatment of soldier's of different social classes.

A similarity in language between both novels is that both authors' make use of short sentences that are factual, with the content being horrific and not exaggerated. This is normally the character talking about his experiences during the war:

'They brought in this lad. He was a Frenchman, he'd escaped from the German lines. Covered in mud. There wasn't an inch of skin showing anywhere... bleeding. Frantic with pain. No English... he started to haemorrhage... I just stood there and watched him bleed to death'

The tension between the factual report and horrific content creates an atmosphere where the other character can sympathise with and understand the events; hence building a platform for a relationship.

In conclusion both novels demonstrate the necessity for soldiers to form relationships; essentially to conquer the War but more importantly to act as a mechanism for survival. The different 'type' of relationships ranges from reciprocal to antagonistic relationships. We can also see from both novels the strength of relationships; the reason why many soldiers such as Steven returned to War was solely because they were 'appalled at the idea of being separated from the men [t]he[y] had fought with.' I find it rather fitting to leave this essay with a extract of Stephen displaying tenderness towards Weir as they have both just been through the battle of the Somme. The importance of relationships is effectively portrayed in both novels: this following extract somewhat concludes the importance of relationship between men during World War 1:

'Hold me,' said Weir. 'Please hold me.'

He crawled over the soil and laid his head against Stephen's

chest. He said, 'Call me by my name.'

Stephen wrapped his arms round him and held him. 'It's all

right, Michael. It's all right, Michael. Hold on, don't let go.

Hold on, hold on.'