Connections

While Barker and O Brien seem to both be critical of the nature of war they both attack it from separate angles. Barker certainly critisices the war but she seems to be more scathing of the society that created the war. Her text "The Ghost Road" is riddled with criticisms of the age of empirical capitalism which perpetuated the British Class system. Barker also seems to argue that the Class system made the first world war the disaster it was. She argues that upper class fops such as Birtwhistle manipulated the lower classes to die for next to no reason- "no one knows what's going on, no one knows how to stop it". She argues the old system of politics had lost it's life force but was still kicking, as shown by the melanesian sub-plot concerning the issue of "Mate" or near death. The idea of son slaughter is epitomised by Barker in her portrayal of the "thin,pale" Hallet. He is eager to support the British empire and fight in the "just war", however he dies completely disfigured and destroyed in the presence of his "solidly bourjois" father. His last words "shotfavet" is translated by Rivers as "it's not worth it". A young boy, "Prior's grandson in trench time" having his life stolen by those who were supposed to protect him.

O Brien seems to be more critical of the treatment of soldiers by both their comrades, commanders, civilians and most of all the landscape of the war. The enemy seems to be the war itself, not the "poor man" that supposedly steps on Tim's grenade. At one stage in the book a character is sucked down into the mud of a "shitfield" until he is drowned. While this section may have many meanings one is that the shitfield is a metaphor for all wars in human history. It is a filthy disaster created by the men who eventually die in it. He is critical of war as a concept, not of the soldiers or the civilians. While he does criticise the public for not listening to the soldiers-"that poor buffalo", he does not blame them. How can they understand when they haven't "tasted shit".

Barker seems to be critical of war but her focus lies more on who was to blame for that particular war and the disasters it caused. Not the overlying concept of war.

While the settings of the two wars, the Great War and the Vietnam War, are on completely opposite sides of the globe the description of the battlefields seem to be similar. Mud is mentioned with high detail in both texts and the sheer boredom of the trenches and dugouts cause insanity in both texts. maybe what this reveals is how altough time has passed and technology changed betwenn the two wars very little changes in the nature of war. This could suggest that war will not change, it will always remain a destructive force that ruins those who survive just as much as those who die.

It's also important to remember that these two texts were published at a similar time, the early 1990's. This could pont towards a late 20th century social value of if not pacifism then a desire for the stop of needless waste. However as we have seen in the past in Korea, Vietnam and the fields of Flanders and Normandy, and in the present in Iraq, the human race seems incapable of learning from it's incredible self harm.

The Apocalyspe theory offered by Kandinsky and Marc in 19th century Germany did not materialise. There was a great purge which destroyed the bourjois society of the time, but 30 years later there was another, then another 30 years. An endless cycle which has operated from the beginning of the stone age. War does not cleanse, like a californian forest burn off, it does not help to build the future. It is a burning inferno which destroys and then leaves embers lurking in the shadows. Which when the world has regrown will once again enflame.

While Barker and O Brien may not be in agreement over the nature of war, or its causes, they seem to be in agreement that it is destructive and self perpetuating. While they may have not realised the common themes between their two chosen conflicts their portrayal of them reveals the senselessnes and pure waste of war.