Another try at Regeneration

[Spreadbury]

I wrote this as close to exam conditions as possible, though I only did one essay so I halved the total time and reading time, this essay was more about how long I could make it, previous essay's lacked length but any comments, improvements or even a marking (out of 20 or something) would be a great help

Regeneration by Pat Barker shows the horrendous effects and reprocussions of the ‘Great’ War. It shows the difficultis the men face both on the front and at home. Through the men not only the horrors of war are shown but also the obstacles created by a blatantly ignorant society. The novel focusses on Rivers, a caring, empathic man and details the immense effort required by him to regenerate the men.

Rivers, throughout the novel faces difficulties due to the methods he implores. His empathic and caring methods engage him in their healing in a way which is seen through no other doctor. Rivers often become a fatherly, and in the case of Prior; motherly figure to his patients. This gives his patients an added “comfort” around him and through this they can gain a greater understanding of their horrific war experience. However even though Rivers methods are progressive for their time, are they truly more humane than that of the shock therapy used by Yealland?

Over the course of the novel Rivers questions his own methods multiple times. His main grievance with his methods - which gives the patient the means to understand and live with their war experience – is that the emotional pain caused to the patients is far too great. In passage 1, Rivers shows his fear that he is inflicting pain by forcing them to remember “he was, in effect, inflicting pain and doing so in a pursuit of a treatment that he knew to be still largely experimental.” Rivers concern that he may be inflicting pain on his patients contrasts him with Yealland, a cold, clinical MO.

Yealland’s use of electricity and his treatment of the patients makes him a direct contrast to Rivers. He doesn’t listen to his patients, no does he want to. His only concern is to send them back so that they may once again become “A hero of Mons” (Yealland to Callan). Yealland’s attitude shows he does not believe in shell shock and he, as would society, judge those that do break down to be “sissies, weaklings, failures” (Rivers, passage 1) Yealland acts not only as a direct contrast to Rivers but his views on the war mirror society’s misguided complacency with the war, some of these views Prior addresses in Passage 3.

Billy Prior is a complex character in Regeneration. He is layered, at times showing a vast insight into the war. He knows not to voice his objections (“The hoop is there for you to jump through, if you question it, you’ve failed.”) but more importantly show a much needed insight into society’s ‘understanding’ of the war. Passage 3 shows Prior’s knowledge of cencorship and also how neurasthenia patients were thought of by society. He explains the letters of condolence and what people want “They want to be told that George – or Johnny – or whatever his name was, died a quick death and was given a decent send off.” Much like Sassoon he too condemns the “callous complacency” of society.

The treatment of neurasthenia patients was generally negative. Yealland’s were more common than Rivers’ and society frowned upon the “shell-shocked”. As Prior states; “this is the club to end all clubs” and then that didn’t go, or didn’t function in France wouldn’t be worth anything. Sassoon also indicates the overwhelmingly negative response to neurasthenia patients when he tells his close friend Graves “Give everybody my regards. If they still want them.” As witnessed with Prior’s father when he was talking to Rivers, and frequently throughout the novel, society condemned those that came home via anything except “a bullet up their arse” (Prior’s father to Rivers).

Regeneration also questions not only society, but the legitimacy of the war itself and the power given to those who are allowed to control it. During passage 2 Rivers and Prior discuss the frequent issues for a certain class of officer. In this passage Prior’s disdain for England’s hierarchal system is shown. No one in society, including Rivers, truly understands the unjust seperation on the front. Officers are shown to be smarter, and far more valuable than the soldiers they control. Priors sees this another way. “that gaggle of noodle-brained half-wits” shows the true value of the officers on the front.

Through a range of techniques Barker manages to create realism and also vivid imagery, thus increasing the readers understanding of the current situation. Barker’s use of language is very descriptive and emotive, and she often lists things, feelings or ideas to help the reader envisage the situation at hand. The most used technique however is seen through the character’s conversations. Throughout the novel the conversation’s flow naturally and quickly which makes them realistic. Her use of stammers and emphasising specific words also allows her to create realistic dialogue.

Pat Barker’s Regeneration is an anti-war novel that questions not only World War 1 but society as well. It provides a comprehensive overview of the groetsque conditions of the trenches and absurd ideals of society to legitimately question the very justification of the war and show the desperate need for these men to be regenerated.

[Eriny]

Rivers, throughout the novel faces difficulties due to the methods he implores. His empathic and caring methods engage him in their healing in a way which is seen through no other doctor. Rivers often become a fatherly, and in the case of Prior; motherly figure to his patients. This gives his patients an added “comfort” around him and through this they can gain a greater understanding of their horrific war experience. However even though Rivers methods are progressive for their time, are they truly more humane than that of the shock therapy used by Yealland?

This is altogether quite good writing and you clearly have an argument, it's just that there isn't much substance to it. When you say that Rivers is fatherly/motherly, just put in a quote that shows that. At the moment, you're just telling us that he is fatherly, but just from reading this essay I can't plainly see that, I have to take your word for it.

The question you bring up at the end is an interesting one. The only thing I would say to that is that you need to make it more explicit that you will discuss this question in greater depth later on. Perhaps this is something to bring up in your introductory paragraph.

The next two paragraphs are much stronger. You use more evidence and its easier for the reader to follow what you are saying. The only thing is that it would be useful to link each paragraph back to your contention so that the examiner is sure that you are staying on topic.

"he is layered" should be cut, unless you talk specifically about the complexities of his character and how the passages show that he is complex. Otherwise, this paragraph makes good use of evidence also.

Through a range of techniques Barker manages to create realism and also vivid imagery, thus increasing the readers understanding of the current situation. Barker’s use of language is very descriptive and emotive, and she often lists things, feelings or ideas to help the reader envisage the situation at hand. The most used technique however is seen through the character’s conversations. Throughout the novel the conversation’s flow naturally and quickly which makes them realistic. Her use of stammers and emphasising specific words also allows her to create realistic dialogue.

These are fairly good points to make, but you need to explain how these points are relevant to what you are trying to say overall in your essay. I also think that an example of the type of language she uses would be effective. Why is it important that the text seems realistic?

As for your overall argument, it's only really clear in your first and last paragraphs. You need to keep reminding the reader what it is that you are arguing and how all of your paragraphs support that. I'm also concerned that your contention doesn't really relate to the points you are making. For instance, you talk a bit in the earlier sections about the characters and the manner they practice medicine, and indeed, many of your points relate to the nature of humanity and war, but you don't really explain how society has 'absurd ideals', although you potentially make reference to it in one of your paragraphs.

I suggest that if you don't already, you should plan your responses. You should write what your contention is and then you should write dot points about each paragraph and how it will really link to the contention. At the moment, you only really need to focus on structural issues like these, because as far as I can tell the content is fine. You just need to remember to make sure that you are staying on topic, you're showing the reader the relevance of each of your points and that you are using evidence for each of your points.

Otherwise, I think the essay is fairly solid. You've clearly read about the text and thought about it and have come up with an interpretation. You do need to put in some more work, but thankfully, for you, the most difficult part (i.e. actually knowing, understanding and interpreting the text) is over.

[Spreadbury]

thanks, much appreciated eriny