Independent Novel Research Paper

          War of Identity

            Few writers dare to venture into the World War I era. Many have not the guts or courage to write about such a topic. War, in general, is one of those touchy subjects that must be well crafted in dialect. Pat Barker braves this theme with a bold disposition. Born to a family that was torn by the war, Barker reveals to the public the deeper implications behind such an event. In her novels, The Ghost Road and Life Class, Pat Barker redefines the meaning of identity, revealing how war influences the development of character and lifestyle. When assessing identity, many factors come into play. One must examine the cause and effect relationship and then look back upon more subtle influences. Barker’s meticulous crafting of language is essential when articulating her meaning. Not only does she speak, but also advances the greater themes of gender and social class. Barker’s depiction of certain characters contributes to understanding identity.

Pat Barker uses dynamic dialogue, stunting the development of relationships in Life Class to point out the ability of war to corrupt identity. People tend towards conformity, thus someone who is put in an unfamiliar environment will adapt given enough time. Paul is a passionate artist and falls in love with another rising young painter named Elinor. She at first expresses optimistic and warm feelings towards Paul by saying she “. . .wishes [he] was here . . . it would be lovely to talk to him” (Life Class 140). It is evident that Paul and Elinor are profusely in love. Barker sets up the foundations that she will eventually change with dialogue in order to fully develop her meaning. Allowing the reader to get better acquainted with the characters through a long span of interaction solidifies their initial positions. All changes when Paul enters the war as a surgeon, revealing to him some of the “bundles of soaked misery” (Life Class 248) of the human race. Slowly, Paul starts to feel less and less love towards Elinor. He becomes cold and detached with her, and Elinor finally states that “I don’t think you can love a woman” (Life Class 305). Paul cannot help but become a different person. He realizes that the life he once lived is not attainable because of his experience with war. It points to the fact: war destroys relationships. The unexpected rift of a seemingly secure relationship reflects the psychological effects of war. These relationships become vital because they reflect the identities of the main characters. Elinor, who was isolated from the war, had the same emotions as Paul had before the war. She provided the juxtaposition to Paul, who underwent massive changes. The way Elinor’s dialogue represents Paul “illuminates the past and [implies] a future” (Kirk 607). Her language speaks a deeper meaning concerning her ideal form of love. She seems earnest in her desires to see Paul, but slowly degenerates this feeling. Paul cannot reciprocate her love because identity is different for everyone. Paul’s previous identity was defined by his love of art, identical to Elinor’s. It was his way of coping with society and expressing his emotions. Elinor maintained a connection to art and so her love for Paul was still around while he had his artistic ideologies. From their letters, Paul speaks less about the “art [that] once mattered more than anything else” (Life Class 184). He finds himself surrounded by the never ending images of war even when he is away from duty. Despite trying to maintain his persona, there was no possible way for Paul to keep his artistic identity. The surrounding environment became an unstoppable force when influencing Paul’s demeanor. He had to adapt in order to survive the onslaught of horrors. The logical ending would be for Paul to revert to his old ways once the war was over, but what “shocks and changes [Paul] . . . is the calamitous occurrence . . . of war itself” (The Australian). Paul can no longer assume his former role in society. He is dejected and looks upon those he loves with different emotions. War has ruined Paul’s order of principles; he has been bogged down to a cold hearted, unlovable nature because his prospective relationship with Elinor had faded. Even when everything returns to normal, the memories of war will forever change those who experience them.

Alongside the destructions of relationships, there are deeper elements that Pat Barker hints at. The crafting of tone reiterates the shifting of morals as a result of war, making the war personal and relatable. Barker shifts her characters in absurd, and often opposite directions, in which they were established, a distinguishing feature of her writing style. Billy Prior from The Ghost Road, much like Paul, finds himself changed by the war. Though Prior does not consider himself a superb soldier, he believed himself to be a devout one. When the war started, he was eager to enlist and serve his country. But Prior eventually states that “[he] can’t stand much more of this” (Barker 274). Prior’s principles that relied heavily on his sense of patriotism and duty were not strong enough to suppress the grueling images created by the war. His mood turns into frustration and longing as the war progresses. Language creates the images of death and destruction, revealing to the audience the reason behind Prior’s struggle. As Prior’s image is crafted throughout the book, any change in his thought process becomes apparent and obvious. The language of Barker is made “. . .up by her own rules” (Pierpont), so the shifts in attitude become unpredictable. The unique establishment of tone allows Barker to articulate her meanings by simply changing diction. She implies that the principles on which people stand are flimsy and indefinite by going as far as to manipulating the perception of her strong-willed characters. The “conditions of immobility, passivity and helplessness,” (The Ghost Road 172) that are produced by the war provide a catalyst for the soldiers to morph their ideologies. Through the scenes of morbidity, Barker shows that the feelings generated by war can create a level of uncertainty about one’s ethics. War can also cause one to lose hope. Dr. Rivers, the narrator throughout the book, “battles the moral issues relating to patching men up in order to send them off to die . . .” (Jordison). Rivers finds himself questioning the usefulness of his job and its moral implications. He is not bound to his job by any means, but finds his principles questioned like Priors’. Ultimately, the tone expressed in this passage shows desolation and resignation. Though River contributes greatly to the war, he loses hope, a principle that those who believed in the war were founded on. The disparity thus pronounces Barker’s message: war is an antagonistic force.

While understanding how war affects identity is important, one must also examine the social class structures that drive the psychological consequences. Class struggle becomes a recurring motif in Barker’s writing. She creates contrasting class differences and advances the characters to reflect the state of each class. The magnitude of war’s impact can be derived from the various character backgrounds in The Ghost Road. Dr. Rivers is described as having “a hundred acres of safe woods and fields to roam in,” (The Ghost Road 91) showing that he is quite privileged. Prior, on the other hand, possesses “working class gentility” (The Ghost Road 5). His family is not as wealthy and he must make a living working for the allied army. When these characters meet, they express different opinions regarding the war. Prior sees Rivers as a representation of “everything in England that isn’t worth fighting for” (The Ghost Road 101). Rivers on the other hand feels less loyal towards his country and tries to do what is best for soldiers by giving them longer leaves and retirement. From River’s perspective, war is something that does nothing to benefit the society. His attitude toward war is unaffected by the propaganda of the government because of his place on the top of the social hierarchy. By being well-mannered and logical, he finds himself looking at the war from a practical point of view. Prior on the other hand is heavily committed to serving his country. Even when he is psychologically damaged, he chooses to enter the war. At the same time he is also influenced by “perpetual danger of being obliterated by oppressive surroundings and economic conditions” (Kirk 611-612). Thus, the war affects his identity in a different way; it tricks him to be an obedient soldier. Here Prior represents the idea of patriotic sacrifice and duty. His convictions are pure, but his purpose is blinded. Barker reflects that the war obliterates the concept of identity. By creating soldiers, the government groups people into replaceable fighting machines rather than individualistic humans. Barker uses Prior to point out the image that the working class was “‘passive,’ . . . and [bore] only an elementary simplicity of class consciousness” (Kirk 610). With scarce options, working class families were left with no other option than to participate in the war. Their justification for such a decision is derived not from a need to become financially stable, but an empty sense of patriotism. Unbeknownst to the working class soldiers, their identity fades into the very flag in which they pledge their honor. The distinction between Prior and Rivers shows how social class can set the path on which one’s identity is founded. Rather than crafting their own identities, the working class persona was shaped merely by the war and propaganda.

The gender difference also must be taken into account when calculating the effects of war on identity. Although usually overlooked, gender is something that plays a major role in determining how people act. Barker uses delicate representation and symbolism in order to establish this theme. Elinor from Life Class does not participate in the war to the extent Paul does.  There “isn’t the same pressure on girls . . . when [contributing] to the war effort” (Life Class 143). From the very beginning, gender roles put Paul and Elinor on completely different playing fields. Paul must deal with the war head on while Elinor isolates herself from all the fighting. The way society dictates gender roles ultimately causes the two to separate. But even so, the principles taught to women greatly differ from that of men. Elinor does not experience the full extent of the war. She continues to paint despite the call of society to join the war. Her art is symbolic of life outside of war. Paul can no longer relate to Elinor’s art, showing that he cannot return to his past life. He struggles to maintain his sanity as he progresses through the war. His soul speaks towards the violence and becomes one with it, defining his identity by the experience of war. Moreover, female identities are impacted greatly throughout the war. As on critic states, “The presence of women in the novel shows the potential for women to grow independently, but at the same time [provide] evidence of their independence at the expense of men’s restrictions” (Harris). With the absence of men at home during the war, women redefined their role in society. The fact that males returning from the war like Paul could not grasp their home lives gave women new found power. This suggests that a level of gender discrimination existed before the war. War puts perspective on what is important and what is not. By introducing a threat to the very foundation of life itself, people pay less attention to the development of gender hierarchy. Thus war provides an opportunity for those who are seemingly unaffected by it.

The combined analysis of the various themes point to one theory: identity change creates degeneration of human self-esteem. Barker’s narrative language used when articulating her meaning brings the various themes together. A drastic shift in principles and morals cannot help but leave one insecure and lost. Pat Barker’s writing style contributes to the changing identity by showing how the tone and mood of the characters shift. This relationship becomes all the more clear because the causes can be “understood by the . . . immensely sympathetic hero, Dr. Rivers” (Pierpont). At first he talks in a modest tone that has a hint of condescending pride and pompous. He has an intellectual mind set, when he states “Facts are what we need, man. Facts” (The Ghost Road 107). And so, Rivers, prior to entering the war feels that knowledge defines identity. But Barker shows this change when Rivers summarizes “[marching] all day through utter devastation. Dead horses, unburied men, stench of corruption” (The Ghost Road 304). With this, the reader sees an undeniable shift in tone from confidence to despair. Although rich and well off, Rivers finds himself empty at the end of the war. The source of River’s change in tone comes from his changing identity. Barker wants to speak through the lens of her characters in order to articulate her meaning. She does this by manipulating the diction of her character’s dialogue. He is not who he thinks he is anymore. Though he does not formally state this in the text, his word speaks for itself. The “narrative is a socially symbolic act of speaking an absent presence” (Kirk 606). Rivers is still alive but feels emptiness inside. Though Rivers exemplifies this loss of identity, every one of Barker’s characters finds themselves worse off than they were before the war. But ironically, none of the characters are physical damaged by the war. Their mindset and how they hold themselves changes. Barker writing speaks to change the greater themes of her text, and so she points in a different direction. By making the characters survive, Barker creates symbolism through each individual’s journey, an undertaking that never finds its end. The memories are forever and the changes to identity become permanent. For those who participate in war, are perpetually stuck in it.

Identity is indefinite and changeable. It takes a catastrophic event to mold the grounds on which people define themselves. Billy Prior shows the reader that principles and morals are temporary. With his changing disposition throughout the war, one can see that he does not stay consistent with his beliefs. At the same time, Rivers demonstrates that social class can have a big factor in determining how one develops. The relationship development of Paul and Elinor imply that war redefines relationships that were stable beforehand. War does not change those who participate for the good. Its antagonistic nature and destruction of human hope causes rifts with anyone it interacts with. War acts as a catalyst or indicator for those empty qualities and cold morals that people have not discovered about themselves.