And our October Book of the Month is ...The Ghost Road by Pat Barker (discussion Tues 28th Oct 8pm)

[TillyBookClub]

We'll be chatting about our Book of the Month, Pat Barker's Booker Prize winner THE GHOST ROAD, on Tues 28 October from 8-10pm.

Will keep you posted here about author chat - and don't forget you can order your copy here.

Worth reading again as will put a lot of things into perspective that you maybe questioning.

Evening all

I think the jungle story/war story angle is a good place to start. I agree with Carrie that it felt some Important Messages were being shouted at me and that impinged on the enjoyment. And the research was a little too close to the surface, too obvious, unlike the war story which felt utterly realistic.

The main connection I took away from the jungle/war mix was that Power = Communication and that the most powerful man in jungle society was the one who could talk to everyone, including ghosts. And that the survivors of the war/mental breakdown were powerful because they could still communicate, they talked through their fear until it receded (like the guy who saw his friends face falling off every night, and then he talked to the ghost and the face started to reassemble).

The last pages of the book brought this home, when the men in the hospital are all in unison with the dying Hallett saying Not worth it. The fact that they are all 'one single voice of pain' was what made me want to howl.

Re: the previous 2 books, I've only read Regeneration but I don't think having read this one will have spoilt it at all - it is a very different story.

The oddest thing about reading this was knowing the dates of the war ending, knowing that Wilfred Owen dies on the last day etc, yet you are still so gripped by the climax, despite there being no real surprises.

I too found the ~Rivers part in some unknown country very confusing and couldn't make any connection, other than showing a different side to his character. I didn't find the book particularly riveting and thought Regeneration waz infinitely better. I also thought Sebatian Faulkes' "Birdsong" was better written. Pat Barker's latest book "Life Class" is along the same theme - I wonder if she can write about anything other than the first World War?

Oh. have just read Tillybookclub message and that explains it all. How clever of you to see all that. But I still don't think it is a fantastic novel and very forgettable, unlike the blurb on the front cover.

like you grandmabet i didn't make the connection between the two stories although i did enjoy them individually. and i thought it was maybe due to not having read the previous 2 books so thank you Tbc I may now read the other 2.

I did find the jungle parts interesting, and was always jolted when there was a move between the two. I didn't realise until the end note that Rivers was real, and apparently a book of his work came out.
One thing that struck me about the research and WW1 possible connections was the comment that the head hunting tribe were not the same once head hunting was outlawed, they just survived with no great purpose. Not that I'm making a case for WW1 or any war, but the impression you get of men who signed up the minute war was declared is that they looked forward to it, as well as it being their duty, obviously before anyone knew how prolonged the war would be.
Even once Prior and Owen knew how awful it was, they both still wanted to go back.

I thought that the writing about the WW1 stuff was really accessible. I did Sassoon and Owen poetry for GCSE 20 years ago, and this is the first stuff I've read since then about the same era.
I found the jungle stuff less accessible and found it difficult to see the point of it. But I too read it when very tired, often a few pages at a time, so probably missed lots.

grandma bet, I'm interested in the comaprison with Birdsong. I thought Birdsong was extremely moving but also very sentimental in parts and the romance was almost cringeworthy. It was far more soppy, which is funny considering it was written by a man. This book I found more clear-headed, realistic, clinical, which is interesting considering it was written by a woman.

Loved the book, expected it to be grim, and while it was, highly readable. Now reading Regeneration now, after a short detour into WW1 poetry. Haven't read Birdsong, but is on my (endless) list.

Oh my god, then am I the only one who was gripped by the jungle episodes and found the WW1 stuff predictable and a bit tedious?
Hadn't thought of the Power=Communication link ... it's a good one for further thought.

I saw the link as something as war = primeaval and possible even essential to our being. It's what makes us human; part of our life blood. Thus, the taking of heads is illegal, but they can;t give it up so 'reenact' it on a lesser level (ie kidnapping the little boy). And, Rivers, Owens are eager to return to France.
Does this make sense?

Yes, I agree that Birdsong is much more sentimental, but in between the romance I thought the writing about WW1 was more intense and left a bigger impression. Maybe there has been too much written and acted about WW1 that I am becoming a bit punch drunk - I think if you came to this book first without knowing too much about it I can see it would be very gripping.

lemurtamer, I agree, there was a crunching gear change in my head when moving between the two areas of the book. It did make me think about relativity - that a rotting corpse can be an everyday death rite or a mind-bendingly horrific memory for example. But it did seem a bit laboured.

I think the idea of civilized society was attacked through the two stories - that there is no such thing. The primitive needs and fears are never far away.

Feeling Lucky I also enjoyed the jungle story, I found the way the tribe culture was unable to move on after the taking of heads was outlawed, to the point when a chiefs widow had to commit suicide really interesting. it seemed that although they had kidnapped the child which allowed the chiefs widow her freedom it still wasn't really satisfactory to the tribe

Psychobabble, agree Prior is amazingly likeable. And original. I felt he was utterly real and yet he's one of the few properly fictional as opposed to historical characters.

What did everyone make of his promiscuity? I thought it was part of his honesty, his refusal to pretend to be civilized amidst all the horrors and pointlessness

Yes, Pat Barker does not seem to think much of society and the people in it. None of her characters was particularly pleasant - the mother, for example, was positively horrific, but I enjoyed the scene when they came back from the seance and hid behind the sofa - a rare bit of comic writing in a rather morbid novel.

I enjoyed the Melanisia episodes best, and they were all linked to the real time parts because you knew exactly what Rivers was doing as he remembered each episode and what other thoughts of his sparked it. It's interesting to compare the two seances - that everyone knew they were both all for show in both cultures, but they made the widows feel better.

I'm not sure I really liked Prior though.

Mum2oneloudbaby, I'm glad I wasn't the only one to enjoy the jungle story - it was unfamiliar terrain, whereas WW1 stuff is very well trodden, and what more can you say about war apart from it's horrific ?

The more I think about it, the more I think the essence of the book is about stripping everything back to the primitive. That's what war is: life and death.
This is clear in Prior - his promiscuity itself is basic, animal and simmers under the surface of the order of his station in the army.

grandmabet, I definitely felt more hard-hit by Birdsong. I remember not being able to think about anything else for days. But with this book I enjoyed the intelligence of her debate, the ideas that came out of it, rather than the junkie injection of gut wrenching gruesome detail from Birdsong.

There is a difference in knowing so much - you do find yourself skimming over descriptions of a trench thinking 'oh yeah, mud and rats and lice and stuff, I remember'. Which feels awful.

The most striking description in this book for me was the boring yet fear filled journey of the battalion being moved to its destination, the bleary eyes as they are passed from one impersonal holding pen to another. You sensed how inhumane, how beaureaucratic and senseless the whole enterprise must have felt.

Think all the comparisons of taboos between the societies are fascinating. And Prior's like a one-man taboo challenger. He reminds me of another book, called Her Privates We, that was banned for ages because it was too honest about the war - ie told from perspective of non-officers, lots of swearing and suppressed detail about boring, tedious, non-heroic side of war. The whole trilogy together gets my vote over Birdsong.

TillyBookClub, Wow what a description: "junkie injection of gut wrenching gruesome detail". Somebody should use that in their book! Am off now to watch Spooks - up to the minute warfare - fairly mindless but so watchable. Am really glad everyone liked the book, especially poignant at this time of year.

That's a good point, about the two seances. I hadn't picked up on that at all.

I had a thought about the ghosts, that perhaps the author was pointing out that our whole society might be troubled by the ghost of this war. There's a bit where Rivers is thinking Do you believe the external demands of the ghost to be valid because if you then meet those demands, you lose the shame and sense of low self esteem that are making you mentally ill, and then you can recover.

I wonder if English society is going to be forever haunted by the soldier's ghosts who demand 'Why was it worth it? and no-one can really answer that.

My favourite line in the book is when Prior and Owen and the others are debating the reason for the war, and Owen says there is no reason, men just lost their bearings in the night. I wonder if that's in a poem somewhere or if it is the author's words?

lalaa, have you read Regeneration? I loved it because of the Sassoon/Owen descriptions. I slightly wished there was more of Owen in this book.