To what extent do you agree that in Regeneration Barker questions the notion of Heroism in wartime?
To what extent do you agree that in Regeneration Barker question the
notion of Heroism in wartime?
Courage is generic, denoting fearlessness or defiance of danger; fortitude is passive courage, the
habit of bearing up nobly under trials, danger, and sufferings; bravery is courage displayed in
daring acts; valor is courage in battle or other conflicts with living opponents; intrepidity is firm
courage, which shrinks not amid the most appalling dangers; gallantry is adventurous courage,
dashing into the thickest of the fight. Heroism may call into exercise all these modifications of
courage. It is a contempt of danger, not from ignorance or inconsiderate levity, but from a
noble devotion to some great cause, and a just confidence of being able to meet danger in
the spirit of such a cause.
There are many different ways in which to show heroism, yet in this context there are only two,
the first is contemporary society's definition of heroism, being that of someone who shows
selfless bravery and valour in war and facing personal peril and death for the sake of their
country. The second is Barkers idea of heroism, the idea of someone overcoming their own
personal battles and facing their own demons.
By placing these two notions of heroism in her novel Pat Barker is immediatly facing them off
against each other, and not only does she question the idea herself but in each of her characters
there is a personal battle that they each face concerning society's recogntion of them and
heroism.
At the time Heroism came hand in hand with manliness, many at Craiglockghart suffer from their
insecurities of being a man, and they cannot be a hero if first they are no a man. By introducing
emasculation in the novel and allowing it to play so prominently in the minds of her characters
Barker is showing the struggle that men faced.
In the context of war heroics and heros played a huge part, then there were only two types of
men the heros who fought for their countries and the cowards who didn't, and society was not
afraid to show prejudice. Anyone who was of a certain age and physically able to go to war yet
didn't was openly treated disdainfully, for example the order of the white feather where young
women would give out white feathers to young men who had ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Barker is showing the struggle that men faced.
In the context of war heroics and heros played a huge part, then there were only two types of
men the heros who fought for their countries and the cowards who didn't, and society was not
afraid to show prejudice. Anyone who was of a certain age and physically able to go to war yet
didn't was openly treated disdainfully, for example the order of the white feather where young
women would give out white feathers to young men who had not joined the army with the
feather representing cowardice. However in the case of Barker's characters none of them
stayed at home, all went to war and probably carried out many acts of bravery, all were
respected and loved by their comerades due to their valour and courage, and when others
speak of them their is no disdain or even contempt of them because of their illness and instead it
seems that it is the characters themselves who can no longer see themselves as heros as by
breaking down and being forced to leave the war they have abandoned their friends and
comerades due to their weakness, and now they will have to face society's judgement on them.
Emasculation plays an important part in the idea of heroism as nearly everyone at Craiglockhart
suffer from this.
There is Anderson a former war surgeon who has had a mental breakdown and can no longer
bear the sight of blood, in chapter 4 he tells Rivers of a dream in which he was forced to dress
up with corsets, making him vulnerable:
"A pair of lady's corsets"
Chapter 4, page 28
Then there is Prior a soldier who recalls his weakness against his father and the undue influence
of his mother.
We then have to ask ourselves why does the motif of emasculation play such an important part
in the novel, and why does Barker use it?
Perhaps like Freuds theory the characters worries of emascuation come from a manisfestation
of not only them no longer beng a hero but more importantly them no longer being a man.
However in the novel the idea of heroism is precipitated mainly by the characters themselves,
and society is hardly mentioned, it is the characters themselves who are scared by the
powerlessness of their situation, and despite their original ideas of going out to war, saving their
country and becoming a hero they are faced with the shocking realities of war. Now after
having done the manly thing and enlisted they must now face society's reaction after having
suffered an unmanly breakdown. Here Barker is really demonstrating the true struggles that
young, naive men faced when they went to war and the precarious situation that they are in.
And then when arriving at the hospital River's method of treatment involves more oetensibly
unmanly and unheroic actions as the patients are forced to reveal their emotions and show their
feelings, and once again this is another thing that society frowned upon as men were to be brave
and not show their emotions as being emotional was seen as womanly. Many of the characters
are resistant to this treatment due to this, for example Prior who refuses to talk about how he
feels but like the idea of hynosis as it means that he is not openly admitting feeling, and yet when
he does talk to Rivers about what happened to him in chapter 8 he shows no emotion, and
Rivers notices this:
".... He seemed to be saying 'all right you can make me dredge up the horrors, you can
make me remember the deaths, but you will never make me feel."
Chapter 8. Page 79
Prior is perhaps most effected by the idea of heroism and manliness due to his upbringing as his
father is shown in the book to be an extreamally cold man who does not want a coward for a
son. This demonstrates how much pressure the soldiers were under to meet society's high
standards.
Another minor character who is opposed to the unmanliness of his condition is Willard who
refuses to believe that his inablility to walk is caused by a physiological deficiency rather then a
physical one in chapter 10:
"Willard gave a short, hising laugh. 'I know what you want me to say. I can't walk
beacause I don't want to go back.' He glared at Rivers. 'Well I won't say it. It would be
tantamount to an admission of cowardice."
Chapter 10, page 112
This brings up the qustion whether the treatment that River's friend Yealland's uses,
demonstrated in chapter 22 which forces the patient to recover, due to pain, is perhaps more
humane to a soldier who is already suffering enough from unmanliness, then forcing them to
admit emotions and with that weakness.
What else becomes clear by what Willard says and Sassoons own torment is that most of the
soldiers are not hiding from the war and are not coward and instead are desperate to get back
to the front line, as each continuoulsy tries to shoe heroism by continuously refusing to admit
defeat.
In this case Barker fills the book with the idea of manliness, heroism, patriotism, or more over
the lack of it, but now we have to ask why - is she doing it to question society's need to judge
people so harshly, or to demonstrate just how easily people are effected by labels.
However although none of Pat Barker's characters consider themselves as heroes, they are in
Barker's eyes and those of the readers as in truth they fufil every modification of courage
mentioned in the definition of heroism, each of them throughout the book may not be fighting in
the great war but they are fighting perhaps even harder and harsher personal battles and by the
end most have faced their demons and overcome their fears, each in their own way are heros
and this is one of the main points that Barker is trying to get across the universal idea that just
because in society you may not be someone elses hero you are always you own hero. Which is
something that everyone should remember.
Probably one of the greatest examples of this is Sasson who before coming to Craiglockhart
was a hero of society he was repected and loved by his men and recives the Military Cross for
saving life at the risk of his own, in his own right in the eyes os society he is a perfect example of
heroism, yet what Barker asks is it this action that makes him a hero or did it take greater
courage to turn away from conformity and speak out for his own beliefs even at the peril of
losing everything he love? For does this not make him a bigger hero? And yet Sassoon spends
most of the novel fighting a personal battle torn between going back to his friends and
comerades and being societys hero again or sticking to his beliefs no matter how pointless the
end may seem.
As a final point the second definition of a hero is as the principal male character in a novel,
poem, or dramatic presentation. In which case Barker could easily make Sasson her hero which
again brings in to the spotlight which of his actions make him so, in society's mind, Barker's mind
and of course our own? Was it what he did during the war and the battles he won or was it the
choice he made that may have cost him everything and may have seemed pointless just for the
sake of his beliefs?
