Anglistisches Seminar

Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg

Proseminar II Literaturwissenschaft:

War in English Literature – From Shakespeare to the Gulf War(s)

Wintersemester 2004-2005

Pat Barker’s Regeneration – a piece of historiographic metafiction?   

written by

Christian Weckenmann

Heidelberg, April 2005

Contents:

1. Introduction  3

2. Facts and Fiction in Barker’s Regeneration  4

3. Discussion about facts and fiction in the historical novel  6

4. Historiographic Metafiction – a definition  8

5. Classification of Regeneration  10

5.1 “Intertextuality” in Barker’s Regeneration  10

5.2 Subjectivity in Barker’s Regeneration  11

5.3 War experience from an officer’s point of view 12

5.4 Fictive characters and their expressiveness  12

5.5 Factual characters and their expressiveness  13

5.6 Mode of narration in historiographic metafiction  16

6. Conclusion  18

7. Bibliography  19

1. Introduction:

This term paper will deal with Pat Barker’s Regeneration. Regeneration is the first novel in a trilogy, which also includes The Eye in the Door and The Ghost Road . Regeneration was first published in 1991. It is based on actual events during World War I and includes factual events as well as fictional ones. Opinions of how an author should combine elements of history and literature differ greatly, as well as opinions of what a historical novel is to achieve. Today’s conception is greatly influenced by Hutcheon’s term historiographic metafiction. Although this term has been widely accepted, there are still disagreements and discussion whether it is too narrow to describe the postmodernist historical novel. Here Nünning can be named as an example. 

With Barker mentioning in her author’s note that: “Fact and fiction are so interwoven in this book that it may help the reader to know what is historical and what is not.”[1], and Hutcheon stating that one of the features of contemporary historiographic metafiction being “the double awareness of both fictiveness and a basis in the ‘real’”[2], it is worth examining whether Regeneration fits into the category of historiographic metafiction, or if it proves to be right what Nünning criticized and the category is too narrow. It will also be attempted to make cross-references to Nünnings splitting of the historical novel into five subcategories.[3] 

To be able to answer the questions posed above, one has to briefly focus on which parts of Barker’s novel are historical and which ones are fictional. Furthermore the definition of postmodernist historiographic writing by Hutcheon is to be outlined. Afterwards this definition will be put opposite to Nünning’s approach in order to be able to highlight the commonalties and differences of the two definitions and apply the so established criteria of both approaches to Regeneration. Only after this has been done, a justifiable classification can be made.

2. Facts and Fiction in Barker’s Regeneration:

Regeneration is based on actual facts. The novel deals with the period of time between July 1917 up to November 1917. It takes place at the British hospital for mentally ill soldiers at Craiglockhart. It describes, among other things, the relationship between the army psychologist Rivers and anti-war activist and poet Siegfried Sassoon. Both characters are historical. Their stay in Craiglockhart at the above referred time is verifiable through the publicly accessible diaries and letters of Siegfried Sassoon, as well as through the published notes of W.H.R. Rivers.[4] The public protest about the conduct of war, which was read out in the House of Commons and which can be traced back accordingly, was the reason for Sassoon to be sent to a hospital for mentally ill officers. There Sassoon met Rivers for the first time, who treated him from then on. The treatment consisted of talking sessions, in which Rivers tried to make his patients face their war experiences so that they could learn to live with them.[5] Other historically verifiable characters in Barker’s novel are Wilfred Owen, who after being blown up on a railway embankment and buried alive suffered from a shaky, tremulous and confused memory and was therefore referred to the same hospital.[6] He, however, was treated by Arthur Brock, who has also published a book about his treatment methods of ergotherapy. A description of this treatment can be found in Hibberd’s biography of Owen.[7] Sassoon and Owen met the first time when Owen, who had admired Sassoon even before they knew each other, knocked on Sassoon’s door to ask to have some copies of Sassoon’s latest book signed.[8] Barker sticks to the known facts here and retells the story as it is commonly accepted. She also incorporates the fact that Sassoon helped and improved Owen’s poetry and includes scenes like the one when Sassoon corrects mistakes in Owen’s poems and suggests alterations, which is documented in Owen’s original manuscripts.[9] 

Robert Graves should not be forgotten here, as he was a close friend of Sassoons’ at the time and appears in the novel frequently. Graves undertook great efforts to make sure his friend would not be court-martialed and locked away, which can be, to name just one source, confirmed in Graves autobiography Good-Bye to All That.[10] Regeneration ends with Sassoon’s discharge to duty.

Barker’s novel deals with the First World War. Not with the actual fighting but rather with the emotional and psychological consequences of it. She chose to present the war from an officer’s point of view. Images of war are conveyed through accounts of different soldier’s experiences. Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen are two of them. Barker was aware that Sassoon and Owen being two famous poets, who fought in the First World War, a lot of secondary literature about their lives, their experiences in the war and their work would be available. It also does not come as a surprise that the two gifted writers wrote many letters, poems and diary entries to fall back on. Although a huge amount of information was therefore accessible, it has to be kept in mind that Barker still had to invent, based on the obtainable information, “a psyche for her characters”[11]. That is, as Löschnigg points out, where fiction begins.[12]

3. Discussion about facts and fiction in the historical novel:

Before the current stand of affairs in the discussion about the contemporary historical novel will be dealt with, it is worth to shortly outline why it is so problematic to bring history and literature together. Furthermore two opposing definitions of what the historical novel is to achieve will be given to illustrate the still lasting differences in opinion considering this question.

The problem of historiography is an inherent one. History speaks of what happened in the past – it relies on facts. Fiction however is something thought of and need therefore not have happened. Historiography combines history and fiction. The author uses narrative techniques to convey a historical event. The discussion was led as early as the Antique.[13] Over the time opinions and attitudes have changed considerably.

To realize how much these views changed one must only look at definitions of the historical novel in the past and compare them to contemporary attempts. It would be wrong however, to convey the impression that today’s definitions would be homogeneous. Disagreements about the freedom of action, the responsibility of an author and the function of historical novels do exist. In his essay, “Von der Wahrheit im historischen Roman und in der Historie” Erwin Wickert is of the opinion that:

Die Aufgabe des historischen Romans ist doch, die von der Überlieferung ausgesparten Stellen zu füllen, vielleicht sogar auch das Handeln historischer Personen psychologisch verständlich zu machen – nicht aber die Geschichte, die unantastbar und sakrosankt bleiben sollte neu zu schreiben.[14]

While Wickert speaks of history as something „unantastbar“ and „sakrosankt“, the postmodernist approach as Hutcheon points out is rather different:

Postmodern fiction suggests that to re-write or to re-present the past in fiction and in history is, in both cases, to open it up to the present, to prevent it from being conclusive and teleological.[15]

Now that one feature of what Hutcheon labels post-modern fiction has been addressed, it is time to look at her definition of postmodernist historiography in more detail. 

4. Historiographic Metafiction – a definition:

In today’s discussion the term historiographic metafiction has been widely accepted as the description of postmodern historiography. This term was first introduced by Linda Hutcheon. It refers to “novels that are intensively self-reflexive but that also both re-introduce historical context into metafiction and problematize the entire question of historical knowledge.”[16] In other words, this definition states that historiographic metafictions still revolve around an actual historical event but that they are much more critical about the given and so far accepted historical facts and question their validity as the only truth or the only possible explanation.

 In her essay “The Pastime of Past Time” she also specifies other features of historiographic metafiction. Novels, which can be attributed to this genre try to show that there is always more than just one way of how a historical event can be perceived and interpreted. Therefore historiographic metafictions tell more than just one story. They convey different points of view. In doing so, they attempt to make the reader aware of the multiplicity of ways of interpretation. The reader is reminded that what he sees is dependent upon where he stands. Therefore an interpretation of an historical event is always subjective.[17]

Furthermore a focus has been put on showing that postmodern novels as Hutcheon puts it: “refer at the first level to other texts”[18]. What we now see as historical facts has been agreed upon by historians. Wickert says: “Das historische Datum, die Fakten an sich sind stumm.”[19] What he means is that in order to make statements historians interpret an event, have to compromise and come to an agreement. Hutcheon agrees when she talks of “the very difference between events (which have no meaning in themselves) and facts (which are given meaning)”[20].

If one compares Hutcheon’s to Nünning’s definition of the post-modern historical novel, it is obvious that both define it along the same lines. Nünning however is of the opinion that Hutcheon’s approach is too narrow.

Nünning’s criticism concentrates mainly on the lack of different categories of the post-modern historical novel and on the omission of defining functions for these. He therefore distinguishes different forms of post-modern historiography and also outlines their functions.[21] The advantage here is that in taking Nünning’s classification into account as well, it is not only possible to decide if Barker’s Regeneration fits into the broad category of historiographic metafiction, but also to see whether Regeneration can be defined in a narrower sense.

5. Classification of Regeneration

5.1 “Intertextuality” in Barker’s Regeneration:

In the above chapter ‘Facts and Fiction in Barker’s Regeneration’ it has been shown that Barker based her novel on historical facts. Yet, it has also been said that a description of a historical event in narrative form can in no case be completely neutral and objective. It has to be kept in mind, as Hutcheon in her essay “The Pastime of Past Time” points out that: “we only know the past (which really did exist) through its textualized remains.”[22] What is meant here is the fact that almost all the accessible sources about a period of time, which goes back as far as the First World War, are written ones. Consequently a person, whether involved personally or passively, whether present at the time or not, writes the same story down in a different, individual way. This is comparable to painters who paint the same still life but yet it looks different in every single case.

Barker used first-hand sources like Sassoon’s diaries and poems, Owen’s letters to his mother, his complete poetry and River’s notes on his treatment methods to get a picture of the character of Sassoon, Owen and Rivers but also had access to libraries and museums to attain information about Craiglockhart, the 1st World War, treatment methods for shellshock patients and opinions and attitudes at the time.[23] Barker incorporates pieces of historical evidence into her novel. She does so in case of  “A Soldier’s Declaration”[24]. She even dates the declaration so that it is obvious for the reader that he deals with a historical source. Barker puts into practice what Hutcheon meant with “intertextuality”. She shows the reader that her novel is based on written texts. Another example to bring forward is the inclusion of the creation of “Anthem for Doomed Youth”[25], which is one of Owen’s famous poems. Here again the educated reader will know of this fact and will be aware that the description is not fictional. Nünning also points out that it is characteristic for historiographic metafiction “daß die geschichtliche Welt dem Historiker nicht direkt zugänglich ist, sondern nur in sprachliche vermittelnder Form von Beschreibungen.“[26] Considering the “intertextuality“, Regeneration does apply to the criteria of historiographic metafiction.

The other side of the coin however, is that with the appearance of real characters like Sassoon, Owen, Rivers, Brock and so on, in addition to the verifiability of the included facts in the novel, the reader who is aware of the existence of some of these characters and the truthfulness of the facts might be led to believe that also all minor details are true and that no fictional elements, like Billy Prior’s character, are included at all.[27]

5.2 Subjectivity in Barker’s Regeneration:

Another issue in the discussion about facts and fiction in the historical novel that arouses when a novel like Barker’s is mainly based on first-hand accounts of Sassoon and Owen is that, as addressed above, subjectivity can not be denied. John Stuart Roberts in his biography of Siegfried Sassoon says about Sassoon’s attitude towards the war that: “It was all subjectivity, as though the world turned on his ego.”[28] And even Sassoon himself, whose memoirs and diaries were used by Barker to retell the story admits to himself in Sherston’s Progress that his “’protest’ […] was evoked by personal feeling”[29] and that his “intellect was not an ice-cold one" [30]. Dominic Hibbert states similar things about Owen when he mentions in his book that:

He was convinced he was writing the truth, and his defenders insist, no doubt rightly, that he was a most honest and honourable man. But he was also a talented artist, and his memoirs are best understood as a series of vivid, imaginative paintings, full of b colour and contrast. They illustrate the past as he wanted to remember it, but not necessarily as it really was.[31]

 Hibbert not only illustrates the subjectivity of experience with this statement, but also addresses another point which has to be added here. Both Owen and Sassoon as well as Graves were gifted poets. Their ability to use language in such an expressive way and the topic being with war an almost impossible thing to describe realistically, they might have conveyed not a wrong but individual picture of war, on which Barker based her novel and of which the reader should be aware.

5.3 War experience from an officer’s point of view:

Also a fact that might easily be overseen by the reader is that Regeneration deals not with the war experiences and mental illnesses of common soldiers but of officers. Craiglockhart was a hospital only for officers. Experiences of the First World War are therefore from an officer’s point of view.Why time at the front of the First World War in comparison to time spent in peace was perceived differently by common soldiers and officers although both had to bear fighting in the trenches and although both participated in the actual fighting is about to be explained. Löschnigg points out “that most of the English literature of the First World War renders the point of view of officers.”[32] He calls “their interpretation of the war […] to a large extend class-specific interpretations.”[33] It is most obvious that the difference of life before and in the war for a former privileged member of the upper class, which officers mostly belonged to, is much more extreme than for a common soldiers, who belonged almost exclusively to the lower class. One could therefore conclude that an officer facing a severe loss of luxury, would describe living conditions in the war in a more dramatic manner than the common soldier, who is used to a higher degree of deprivation in his ordinary life.

If one considers the subjectivity of Sassoon’s and Owen’s descriptions of war, the fact that they were gifted poets and both officers, in case of Sassoon even a member of the upper class, one can certainly not speak of the “Wahrnehmung des historischen Geschehens im Bewusstsein durchnittlicher Figuren”[34], as Nünning does, describing a feature of the contemporary historical novel.

5.4 Fictive characters and their expressiveness:

Billy Prior is one of the fictive character in Barker’s Regeneration. He is therefore of special interest. The reasons for this special interest will be addressed now.

With authentic characters like Sassoon and Owen, the freedom of the author is somewhat restricted. Barker had to conform to known facts writing about historical figures and in the case of Billy Prior, who is a fictional character, was able to create the person more freely, thus adding subjects that she considered worth including in her novel. This naturally applies to all fictional characters in Regeneration.

Therefore looking closely at Prior’s character or any other fictional one for that matter, a lot of information about Barker’s intentions can be attained. Evidence for this statement can be given by looking at Sarah Lumb and her female friends for example. What is meant here in detail is that Barker consciously decided to include the situation of women in the First World War. The inclusion of the description of the hard and unhealthy work in munitions-factories, which had to be done by women and caused the skin to turn yellow because of the toxic fumes and the details about one of the working-women who would rather not have her husband back form the front, who used to beat her up, illustrates one of the side-effects of war – war as one of the catalysts of the emancipation of women.[35] In the case of Billy Prior, Barker introduces the issue of class into her novel. When Prior is asked if he encountered any snobbery, he answers:

Yes. It’s made perfectly clear when you arrive that some people are more welcome than others. It helps if you’ve been to the right school. It helps if you hunt, it helps if your shirts are the right colour.[36]

With this answer, Barker shows that there were those differences of class at the time and also that officers belonged to the upper class to a high percentage.

5.5 Factual characters and their expressiveness:

As in the case of the fictional characters it is also possible to extract some information about the author’s priorities and intentions focussing on the factual figures. In the following it is attempted to show that just as Barker had to decide about the qualities of her fictional characters in the novel she also decided what qualities of her factual protagonists she wants to focus on  and  which ones she only mentions on the side or neglects completely. This thesis will be proven as follows. In quoting parts of Sassoon’s and Owen’s work, which Barker used for preparation and published facts about the two poets[37], which can be assumed to be known by anyone interested in the poets lives, qualities of Sassoon’s and Owen’s characters will be gained. These will then be compared to qualities of Barker’s characters of Sassoon and Owen as they are described in the novel. This way it can be seen whether Barker focussed on some features more than on others, which would consequently be a piece of evidence that she altered information and did consciously not stick to the known facts.

If this were the case the reasons for this would need to be established and as a last step the question would need to be answered whether this behaviour conforms to the features of historiographic metafiction.

From the diaries, letters and memoirs of Sassoon and Owen it is clear that both had a very schizophrenic relation towards the war. The poems of both officers and the protest of Sassoon speak a very clear language but there are also other references, which are clearly not anti-war. Entries in his diary like: “At present I am still feeling warlike, and quite prepared to go back to the line in a few weeks.”[38] leave little doubt that there were also aspects of war that attracted Sassoon. Biographies of Sassoon and Owen highlight this inner conflict. In Taking it like a Man Adrian Caesar points out that in Sassoon’s case:

it was in the army in France that the aesthete and the sportsman could happily co-exist; where anxieties about his homosexuality could be allayed by ‘manly’ heroism.[39]

Caesar also ascribes positive feelings about the war to Owen. He is of the opinion that Owen suffers this inner conflict because he “[…] is suing for peace whilst at the same time finding positive value, even ‘love’ and ‘glory’ in the fighting.”[40] Here the “value” both poets find in the war is of the same origin. They are both homosexuals at a time when homosexuality is completely taboo. They therefore both do not conform with the norm and have secrets, which if made public, would have ruined their social lives. In the war problems like these ceased to exist. The feelings Owen and Sassoon had for their fellow soldiers were perceived as comradeship and therefore welcomed and accepted.

The fact that Owen and Sassoon also linked positive experiences to the war and their homosexuality are well-known. Looking at Barker’s novel now with the focus on references to the just mentioned findings about Owen and Sassoon the following could be found. There are few and very subtle hints towards homosexuality in Regeneration.

 When Rivers asks Sassoon about the perception of his Declaration, he explains why Ross, a pacifist friend of his, was so anti the Declaration: “Ross was a close friend of Wilde’s. I suppose he’s learnt to keep his head below the parapet.”[41] Rivers then responds: “There’s nothing more despicable than using a man’s private life to discredit his views. […] I wouldn’t like to see it happen to you.”[42] Only if aware of the fact that Wilde lost his reputation and all his respect in admitting that he was gay, the reader is able to understand what Barker implies here. The hint is a very discreet one. Owen’s homosexuality is addressed only once when Sassoon talks to Rivers about the letters Owen writes to him and mentions: “’I knew about the hero-worship, but I am beginning to think it was rather more than that.’”[43] Sassoon’s statement is anything from conclusive and only an assumption. The interpretation is up to the reader.

In respect to the schizophrenic feelings towards the war, little information in the book is given. The impression is conveyed that Sassoon as well as Owen despise the war and only go back to it because of their duty to be there for their soldiers. This is partly true and confirmed  not only in diary entries and letters written by Sassoon and Owen, but also by the fact thatthe protest was made by Sassoon in the name and for his fellow soldiers. It is, however, not the only reason for them to go back to the front as tried to show earlier. Barker’s decision to focus more on the likeable features of the war poets such as the interest in the well-being of fellow soldiers than on the more selfish explanation to go back to war can clearly be seen. This is also expressed by Löschnigg when he talks about Barker’s “mythification of shellshock victims and of the shell-shocked ‘war-poet’”[44]. Emphasising the good in the soldier rather than the bad and stressing the suffering and the harsh conditions the soldiers have to endure without the fault of their own, plays on the reader’s emotions and sense of justice. In doing so the reader is more likely to see the war from the soldier’s perspective and develop b anti-war feelings.

Keeping Barker’s use of fictional and factual characters in mind, it is now possible to go back to the question which category of the historical novel Barker’s Regeneration can be ascribed to. The influencing of the reader in a certain direction through an intervention into the true and complete illustration of history or a character is not what Hutcheon’s historiographic metafiction is about.

Authors of this genre also adjust historical facts and sometimes details are even “deliberately falsified in order to foreground the possible mnemonic failures of recorded history and the constant potential for both deliberate and inadvertent error”[45]. The difference however is that in historiographic metafiction the goal of these adjustments is to make the reader more critical and to make him question the established historical facts by noticing that adjustments were made and that what is offered is not the entire truth. A precondition for this, however, is to make the mistakes most obvious as the consequence of failing to do so, would inevitably lead  to the exact opposite of what has tried to be achieved, namely the unconditional assumption by the reader that what is written is true and the establishment of a consciously falsified fact as truth. In Barker’s novel, as she herself points out, fact and fiction are so interwoven[46] that it is not possible for the reader to separate the two. Considering this it can be said that Barker has not succeeded in putting main features of historiographic metafiction like making the reader reflect about how information for the novel was obtained or causing the reader to “problematize the entire question of historical knowledge”[47] into practise.

5.6 Mode of narration in historiographic metafiction:

Another feature which Hutcheon found in many pieces of post-modern historiography is that “historiographic metafictions appear to privilege two modes of narration, […]: multiple points of view […] or an overtly controlling narrator [… ].”[48] Neither the presentation of multiple points of view, nor an overtly controlling narrator can, in the case of Regeneration, be confirmed unconditionally. Regeneration is mainly a third-person narrative.

 It is fair to say that different opinions about the war can be found in the novel. Rivers and Graves, for example, believe that the cause of war justifies the costs, whereas Sassoon, Owen and the pacifists, Sassoon has contact to, disagree in this respect. Rivers, however, is shown as someone who is in a continuing conflict between opposing points of view, which can be shown with the following quotation:

Rivers was aware, as a constant background of his work of a conflict between his belief that the war must be fought to a finish, for the sake of the succeeding generations, and his horrors that such events as those which had led to Burn’s breakdown should be allowed to continue.[49]

Graves, who also disagrees with Sassoon’s actions, meaning the protest against the conduct of war, agrees with the content of the Declaration.[50]

Sassoon, in comparison, has no doubts about the correctness of his deeds, only questions the effects of it and feels guilty of leaving his soldiers behind at the front. This can be seen when Sassoon is asked by a member of the medical board he has to attend, whether he changed his views:

‘You haven’t changed your views?’ Balfour Graham asked. ‘No, sir.’[…] ‘I believe exactly what I believed in July. Only if possible more bly.’ [51]

Rivers, however, starts questioning his own point of view and his work: “ Every case posed implicit questions about the individual costs of the war, and never more so than in the run up to a round of Medical Boards, […].”[52]

So although opposing points of view are given in the novel, there is a difference in how firm and convinced the characters believe in these. This difference between the b, unshakeable opinion of Sassoon in comparison to Rivers and Graves, who are not so sure about every aspect of their beliefs, makes Sassoon’s ideas more credible and convincing than those of Rivers and Graves. So although there are disagreements between the protagonists of the novel and multiple points of view can be made out, these are not presented in an equal way. If one takes into account that one characteristic of historiographic metafiction is to make the reader aware of multiple points of view, it is surely not compatible with an unequal presentation of those opinions as in Barker’s case. 

Barker succeeds however in conveying what the First World War meant from different perspectives. She does so in inserting minor stories, which in the case of Sarah Lumb and her colleagues illustrate the situation of women in the war. Thus Barker not only gives one answer of what war was like but several ones, dependent upon the individual person or rather section of the population. This way of writing can clearly be assigned to postmodernist historiography. Nünning supports this judgement with his statement that: “ die Vorstellung einer einheitlichen und verbindlichen great story im Zeitalter der Postmoderne ihre Gültigkeit […] verloren hat […].”[53]

He would, however, differentiate in a more precise way and ascribe the telling of “fiktive[n] Gegengeschichten aus der Sicht von Frauen, Unterprivilegierten oder Minderheiten“ to the „revisionistische historische Romane[n]“[54].

6. Conclusion:

This paper tried to show that Pat Barker’s novel Regeneration can partly be attributed to Hutcheon’s term of historiographic metafiction. Some features of this category defined by Hutcheon could be confirmed. The inclusion of historical sources in narrative form in order to make the reader aware of the “intertextuality” of the novel can here be named as well as the fact that Barker also brings attention to sections of the population that are normally neglected when talking about the First World War, thus enabling the reader to see the historical event in a broader sense, which is one of the goals of historiographic metafiction.

The list of findings however, which do not apply to the established criteria of historiographic metafiction is longer. It has been shown that with the inclusion of historically verifiable facts, Barker gives the impression that her novel is entirely based on truth and does not include scenes which cause the reader to reflect and to question the established interpretation of historical events, which is one central condition of historiographic metafiction. It has been argued that it is therefore not evident for the reader that Barker relied on very subjective sources, which only give a one-sided account of what really happened. 

Furthermore it has been highlighted that Barker did not describe her protagonists using all available information she had access to and that such behaviour can only be ascribed to the category of historiographic metafiction, if this is made most obvious and thus an invitation for the reader to be critical about given historical information. Also addressed was the fact that although multiple points of view are given, not all of them have the same powers of persuasion, which is again not combinable with the approach of historiographic metafiction. It has been reasoned that this way the reader might tend to favour the point of view, which is best explained and conveyed by the author and will not see the other ways of interpreting as equally justified.

Considering the violation of main principles of historiographic metafiction, as defined by Hutcheon, it is fair to say that Pat Barker’s novel Regeneration can not be ascribed to this category of historiography.

7. Bibliography:

Barker, Pat. Regeneration. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1991.

Caesar, Adrian. Taking it like a man: Suffering, Sexuality and the War Poets Brooke, Sassoon, Owen, Graves. Manchester/New York: Manchester UP, 1993.

Graves, Robert. Good-Bye to All That: An Autobiography. London: Jonathan Cape Ltd, 1929.

Hibberd, Dominic. Wilfred Owen: A new Biography. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2002.

Hutcheon, Linda. “‘The Pastime of Past Time’: Fiction, History, Historiographical Metafiction”. Essentials of the Theory of Fiction. Ed. Michael J. Hoffmann, Patrick D.  Murphy. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 1996. 472-495.

Löschnigg, Martin. “‘…the novelist’s responsibility to the past’: History, Myth, and the Narratives of Crisis in Pat Barker’s Regeneration Trilogy (1991-1995)”. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik: A Quaterly of Language, Literature and Culture 47.3 (1999): 214-228.

Nünning, Ansgar. “’Beyond the Great Story’: Der postmoderne historische Roman als Medium revisionistischer Geschichtsdarstellung, kultureller Erinnerung und metahistoriographischer Reflexion”. Anglia 117.1 (1999): 15-48.

Roberts, John Stuart. Siegfried Sassoon (1886-1967). London: Richard Cohen Books, 1999.

Sassoon, Siegfried. Sherston’s Progress. London: Faber & Faber, 1983.

Sassoon, Siegfried. Siegfried Sassoon Diaries: 1915-1918. Ed. Rupert Hart-Davis. Bristol: New Western Printing Ltd, 1983.

Wickert, Erwin.  “Von der Wahrheit im historischen Roman und in der Historie “.  Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur 1 (1993): 1-19.

[1] Barker, Pat. Regeneration. Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1991, 251.

[2]Hutcheon, Linda. “‘The Pastime of Past Time’: Fiction, History, Historiographical Metafiction”. Essentials of the Theory of Fiction. Ed. Michael J. Hoffmann, Patrick D.  Murphy. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 1996, 476.

[3] Cf Nünning, Ansgar. “’Beyond the Great Story’: Der postmoderne historische Roman als Medium revisionistischer Geschichtsdarstellung, kultureller Erinnerung und metahistoriographischer Reflexion”. Anglia 117.1 (1999), 25-26.

[4] See Sassoon, Siegfried. Siegfried Sassoon Diaries: 1915-1918. Ed. Rupert Hart-Davis. Bristol: New Western Printing Ltd, 1983.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Cf. Caesar, Adrian. Taking it like a man: Suffering, Sexuality and the War Poets Brooke, Sassoon, Owen, Graves. Manchester University Press, Manchester and New York, 1993, 145.

[7] Hibberd, Dominic. Wilfred Owen: A new Biography. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 2002, 251-258.

[8] Ibid., 264-267.

[9] Löschnigg, Martin. “‘…the novelist’s responsibility to the past’: History, Myth, and the Narratives of Crisis in Pat Barker’s Regeneration Trilogy (1991-1995)”. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik: A Quaterly of Language, Literature and Culture 47.3 (1999), 217.

[10] Graves, Robert. Good-Bye to All That: An Autobiography. Jonathan Cape Ltd, London, 1929.

[11] Löschnigg 1999: 218.

[12] Cf. ibid., 218.

[13] Cf. distinction between Facta and Ficta by Aristoteles

[14]Wickert, Erwin.  “Von der Wahrheit im historischen Roman und in der Historie “.  Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur 1 (1993), 4.

[15] Hutcheon 1996: 479.

[16] Hutcheon 1996: 474.

[17] Cf. Hucheon 1996: 479-481.

[18] Hutcheon 1996: 487.

[19] Wickert 1993 :5.

[20] Hutcheon 1993: 491.

[21] Cf. Nünning 1999: 21-22.

[22] Hutcheon 1996: 487.

[23] Cf. Barker 1991: 251-252.

[24] Barker 1991: 3.

[25] Barker 1991: 157-158.

[26] Nünning 1999: 37.

[27] Löschnigg 1999: 217.

[28] Roberts, John Stuart. Siegfried Sassoon (1886-1967). Richard Cohen Books, London, 1999, 118.

[29] Cf. Sassoon, Siegfried. Sherston’s Progress. Faber & Faber, London, 1983.

[30] Cf. ibid.

[31] Hibbert 2002: 18.

[32] Löschnigg, 1999: 220.

[33] Löschnigg, 1999: 220.

[34] Nünning 1999: 21.

[35] Cf. Löschnigg 1999: 220-221.

[36] Barker 1991: 66.

[37] details about the sources Barker used are given in her author’s note

[38] Sassoon 1923: 156.

[39] Caesar 1993: 90.

[40] Caesar 1993: 151.

[41] Barker 1991: 54.

[42] Barker 1991: 55.

[43] Barker 1991: 243.

[44] Löschnigg 1999: 214.

[45] Hutcheon 1996: 483.

[46] Cf. Barker 1991: 251.

[47] Hutcheon 1996: 473.

[48] Hutcheon 1996: 486.

[49] Barker 1991: 47.

[50] Cf. Barker 1991: 6.

[51] Barker 1991: 246.

[52] Barker 1991: 115.

[53] Nünning 1999: 38.

[54] Nünning 1999: 38.