Not the most entertaining book I've read, and it was hard not to compare it to "All Quiet on the Western Front" (which might not be entirely fair) but it was thought provoking. It brought up points that I hadn't seen discussed before, or read about, with regards to the psychological impact of World War I. I read some of Sassoon's poetry in high school and this book did provide something of an insight (though speculative) into his state of mind. In that context I found it a worthwhile read. ( )

Couldn't read this novel. Not my type of book. Gave up in the 2nd chapter

Can I say I enjoyed this book? That sounds a bit wrong, given the subject matter. Nevertheless, I found it compelling and moving. The prose is lucid and never wasteful - there's barely a foot put wrong in the whole novel. The characters are wonderful - likeable and comprehensible in a way that isn't easy for people living in an incomprehensible time. Part of the genius of the plot, I think, is that Barker realises there's no point in writing about the war, both because it's already been done and because it doesn't necessarily help to bring the reader any closer to understanding it. Instead, the plot revolves around reactions to the war, or in fact the reactions of a doctor to the reactions of the officers to their experiences in the war. Seeing at such a remove, like observing the transit of Venus through a pinhole camera, I felt as a reader I could get closer to seeing the truth than I ever could by staring at the sun and reading directly about the horror.

I read this at university, for one of my courses, so technically this is a reread, but books read for class don't count, I think, and although the tone and the character of Rivers were familiar, it was otherwise like reading something for the first time. ( )

Perhaps even 4½ stars. This historical-fiction novel centers around the poet Siegfried Sassoon and his psychiatrist Dr. Rivers during his stay at the mental hospital Craiglockhart during 1917.

The central theme is conflict between duty and survival which Rivers recognizes as the basis for most of the cases of "war neurosis", shell shock or as we now call it PTSD. Where do we draw the line between a soldier's duty and a completely reasonable desire to survive? The heart-wrenching part was the fact that many of the men (especially officers) didn't want (at least in the conscious part of their brain) to be posted in a "safe" position because they felt it was shameful to desert their men. The stress of being responsible for others without having any power to control conditions must have been enormous... ( )

184 "The process of transformation consists almost entirely of decay."
184 "He had missed his chance of being ordinary."
222 "It was prolonged strain, immobility and helplessness that did the damage, and not the sudden shocks and bizarre horrors that the patients themselves were inclined to point to as the explanation for their condition."