You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
While poetry dominated the literary response to the First World War during the conflict itself, prose — novels, memoirs, and autobiographical fiction — became the dominant form in the decades that followed. Prose offered what poetry, by its nature, could not: sustained narrative, the development of character over time, the exploration of psychological complexity, and the capacity to represent the war's impact on entire lives, relationships, and societies. For AQA Paper 2, Option 2A, the two prose works most likely to anchor your study are Pat Barker's Regeneration (1991) and Sebastian Faulks's Birdsong (1993) — both retrospective, late-twentieth-century reimaginings of the war rather than first-hand testimony. This distinction, between the writer who was there and the writer who researches and imagines, is itself one of the richest contextual questions the option raises.
This is Paper 2 of AQA A-Level English Literature A (7712), Texts in Shared Contexts, Option 2A: WW1 and its Aftermath. Prose is examined in the open-book Section A comparison and may also surface obliquely in the unseen-prose demands of Section B. The objectives, with their typical weighting for this material:
| Assessment Objective | What it rewards | Relevance to this lesson |
|---|---|---|
| AO1 | Coherent, terminologically precise argument | Handling narrative voice, free indirect discourse, dual time-frame with accuracy |
| AO2 | Analysis of how meaning is shaped by language, form, structure | Barker's present-tense restraint; Faulks's visceral battle prose; the talking-cure structure |
| AO3 (strongly in play) | Significance of contexts of production and reception | 1917 Craiglockhart and the 1990s moment of writing; shell shock then and PTSD now |
| AO4 | Connections across literary texts | Prose in dialogue with the soldier-poets; Regeneration beside Birdsong |
| AO5 (strongly in play) | Different interpretations, including the authenticity debate | Whether fiction by non-combatants can have the authority of testimony |
AO3 and AO5 carry particular weight here because the defining fact about these novels is their doubled context: each depicts 1916–18 but is shaped by the preoccupations of the 1990s — late-twentieth-century theories of trauma, gender, and memory. A candidate who reads Regeneration only as a window onto 1917 has missed half its meaning; the strongest answers hold both moments in view at once.
Quotation caution (in-copyright prose): Regeneration and Birdsong are both in copyright, and study materials have circulated inaccurate micro-quotations from each. This lesson therefore analyses their scenes, structures, and methods rather than relying on extended verbatim quotation. When you study your set edition, quote only short phrases you have checked against the printed text; a confident paraphrase of technique scores better than a fabricated quotation.
| Period | Key Texts | Characteristics |
|---|---|---|
| During the war (1914–18) | Barbusse, Under Fire (1916) | Rare during the conflict; censorship and the difficulty of writing during combat limited output |
| The "silence" (1918–28) | Relatively few major prose works | A period of recovery and processing; the war was too recent, too raw, for sustained literary treatment |
| The "war books boom" (1928–33) | Remarque, All Quiet on the Western Front (1929); Graves, Goodbye to All That (1929); Sassoon, Memoirs of an Infantry Officer (1930); Brittain, Testament of Youth (1933) | A flood of memoirs, autobiographies, and novels. Distance from the war allowed reflection and literary shaping |
| Later fiction (1990s–present) | Barker, Regeneration trilogy (1991–95); Faulks, Birdsong (1993); Barry, A Long Long Way (2005) | Writers who did not experience the war reimagine it through fiction, often with contemporary concerns (trauma, gender, class, empire) |
AO3 Insight: The gap between the war and its prose representation is significant. Memoirs from the late 1920s and novels from the 1990s are shaped by very different contexts: the memoirists write from personal experience, filtered through a decade of reflection; the novelists write from research and imagination, informed by contemporary understandings of trauma, gender, and history. Samuel Hynes's idea of "the Myth of the War" — the shared, simplified version the culture constructs after the event — is especially useful here: Regeneration and Birdsong both inherit and rework that Myth, written as they are for readers who "know" the war chiefly through Owen, Sassoon, and the imagery of mud and futility.
Regeneration is the most widely studied WW1 novel on A-Level syllabuses. It is the first volume of a trilogy (Regeneration, The Eye in the Door, The Ghost Road), set primarily in Craiglockhart War Hospital, Edinburgh, in 1917.
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Setting | Craiglockhart War Hospital, where officers suffering from "shell shock" were treated |
| Central relationship | Dr W.H.R. Rivers (a real historical figure) treats Siegfried Sassoon (also real). Their conversations form the novel's intellectual and emotional core |
| Other characters | Billy Prior (fictional) — a working-class officer whose mutism and aggression challenge Rivers's therapeutic methods; Wilfred Owen (real) — appears as a young, uncertain poet whom Sassoon mentors |
| Structure | Alternates between Rivers's perspective and Prior's, creating a counterpoint between the therapeutic establishment and the patient's experience |
The novel opens with the text of Sassoon's "Declaration" reproduced on the page — a real historical document placed at the threshold of a work of fiction. This is the first of Barker's structural signals: the book will move continually between the documentary and the invented, refusing to let the reader settle into either "history" or "story." The narrative then proceeds largely through paired consultations and conversations, so that its architecture is the talking cure — a series of scenes in which speech, hesitation, and silence do the work that battlefield description does in other war fiction.
| Theme | How It Is Explored |
|---|---|
| Shell shock and trauma | The novel examines the psychological damage of war — nightmares, paralysis, mutism, hallucinations — and the methods used to treat it. Rivers uses "talking cure" therapy; other doctors (notably Yealland) use more brutal, coercive methods |
| Masculinity | The war demanded that men suppress fear and emotion. Shell shock was often interpreted as cowardice or moral weakness. The novel explores how the war's version of masculinity — stoic, unfeeling, duty-bound — contributed to psychological breakdown, and notes the irony that the cure requires men to do the "feminine" thing of speaking their feelings |
| Class | The distinction between officers (sent to Craiglockhart for humane treatment) and ordinary soldiers (often treated punitively) reflects the class system of the British army. Prior's working-class background makes him an outsider among the officer-patients and a deliberate challenge to Rivers's assumptions |
| Authority and dissent | Sassoon's Declaration — his public statement that the war was being deliberately prolonged by those who had the power to stop it — is the event that brings him to Craiglockhart. The novel explores the tension between obedience and conscience, and the disturbing fact that the state's response to sane protest was to treat it as illness |
| The therapist's dilemma | Rivers faces a moral paradox: his job is to cure men so they can be sent back to the front — to be cured is to be returned to the conditions that caused the illness. The novel asks whether healing men only to return them to slaughter is a form of complicity, and lets the question rebound on Rivers's own conscience |
AO2 close analysis (de-quoted, in-copyright): Consider the way Barker stages the encounter between Rivers and Sassoon. Rather than dramatising the trenches, she dramatises talk about the trenches — and the most powerful moments turn on what the men cannot quite say. Sassoon's traumatic memories surface not as set-piece flashbacks but as halting, fragmentary admissions inside the consulting room, so that the reader experiences the war the way Rivers does: at second hand, reconstructed from broken testimony. Barker's prose at these moments is deliberately spare and clinical, withholding authorial emotion, which forces the reader to supply the feeling the characters suppress. The contrast with Yealland's electrotherapy scene later in the novel is structural and pointed: where Rivers's method is built on listening and patience, Yealland's is built on the imposition of the doctor's will on a silenced body — the two scenes together constitute Barker's argument about what "cure" means and whom it serves.
| Technique | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Blending fact and fiction | Real historical figures (Rivers, Sassoon, Owen) interact with fictional characters (Prior). This creates a sense of historical authenticity while allowing Barker imaginative freedom — and quietly raises the question of what a novel may responsibly invent about real people |
| The talking cure as form | The novel's structure mirrors psychotherapy: conversations in which traumatic memories are gradually uncovered, examined, and partially processed. The reader, like Rivers, pieces together the patients' stories from fragments |
| Restrained prose style | Barker's writing is precise, understated, and psychologically acute. She avoids sensationalism; the horror of the war emerges through the patients' fragmented memories rather than through battlefield spectacle |
| Free indirect discourse | Barker frequently slips into a character's consciousness without marking the transition, so that Rivers's doubts or Prior's defiance colour the narration itself. This blurring of narrator and character is central to how the novel generates sympathy and irony at once |
| Bodily symptom as language | Prior's mutism and the hysterical paralyses of other patients are presented as a kind of speech — the body saying what the mouth cannot. Barker makes the symptom legible, asking the reader to "read" trauma as a text |
AO2 Application: When analysing Regeneration, pay close attention to Barker's narrative techniques — the alternation between perspectives, the use of dialogue to reveal character and theme, the relationship between what characters say and what they repress. The novel's meaning is shaped as much by what is not said as by what is. Note how often the most charged moments are conveyed through gesture, silence, or somatic symptom rather than statement.
It is worth isolating the fictional Billy Prior, because his invention is the clearest sign that Regeneration is a novel of its own moment rather than a costume history. Where Rivers, Sassoon, and Owen are drawn from the documentary record, Prior is wholly Barker's, and she uses him to introduce the two pressures the historical material alone could not carry: class and a frank, unromantic sexuality. As a temporary, working-class officer — risen from the ranks, accepted by neither the men nor the gentlemen-officers — Prior occupies the exact fault line of the British army's class system, and his resentment lets Barker interrogate the cosy assumption that Craiglockhart's humane treatment was extended to all. His mutism, and its eventual breaking, also let Barker stage the talking cure as a contest rather than a comfort: Prior fights Rivers, mocks the therapy, and exposes its power dynamics, so that the reader cannot simply sentimentalise the doctor. Through Prior, too, the novel presses on the question of masculinity — the war's demand that men neither feel nor speak fear — and on the irony, central to the whole book, that the cure requires precisely the "unmanly" act of confession. Prior is the device by which a 1990s novelist makes a 1917 hospital speak to late-twentieth-century concerns; analysing him is analysing Barker's doubled context in miniature.
Birdsong approaches the war through a very different aesthetic from Barker's restraint: where she withholds, Faulks immerses, subjecting the reader to the full sensory assault of the Western Front.
| Feature | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Dual narrative | The novel alternates between Stephen Wraysford's experiences on the Western Front (1916–18) and his granddaughter Elizabeth's attempt, in the 1970s, to recover his story. The dual structure explores the relationship between past and present, between lived experience and inherited memory |
| The tunnellers | Faulks depicts the work of military tunnellers — among them the sapper Jack Firebrace — who dug beneath enemy lines to plant mines. The underground sections are claustrophobic and intense, and they literalise a recurring war-literature image: men buried alive, the earth itself as enemy. The tunnels also let Faulks broaden the novel's social range below the officer class, since the sappers are working men, and they supply some of his most original material — a dimension of the war (subterranean, suffocating, fought in darkness) that the canonical trench poetry rarely reaches |
| Graphic realism | Faulks does not shy away from the physical horror of trench warfare. The battle scenes — above all his rendering of the first day of the Somme — are visceral, detailed, and deliberately overwhelming, a strategy to make a late-twentieth-century reader feel what statistics cannot convey |
| Love and sex | The pre-war sections, set in Amiens, describe Stephen's affair with Isabelle Azaire. The intensity of this love — and the imagery of the body in pleasure — is later violently rewritten by the imagery of the body in agony, so that the novel's structure stages a movement from eros to slaughter |
| The 1970s sections | Elizabeth's search for her grandfather's story dramatises the modern descendant's attempt to connect with a past slipping beyond living memory — and implicitly figures the reader's own act of imaginative recovery |
AO2 close analysis (de-quoted, in-copyright): Faulks's account of the first morning of the Somme is the novel's set-piece and its clearest contrast with Barker. Where Barker keeps the battlefield offstage, Faulks marches the reader straight into it, accumulating physical detail — the weight of equipment, the uncut wire, the bodies piling against it, the disbelief of men who had been told the bombardment would clear the way. The prose lengthens and slows to convey the surreal duration of the advance, then fractures into shorter units as the killing begins. The effect is documentary and immersive at once: Faulks wants the reader's body, not just the reader's understanding. This frontal method carries a risk that Barker's restraint avoids — the risk of aestheticising or sensationalising horror — and a strong AO5 answer will weigh whether Faulks's immersion honours the dead or consumes them as spectacle.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.