War has always been a source of inspiration for writers. From Shakespeare to the modern day, authors have used the setting of war as a basis for their work. For some authors it is personal interest of the subject: writing about war gives the writers an opportunity to research and immerse themselves into the world of war. For others, war supplies enough power, action and raw emotion as a stimulus for their ideas. Both authors of Birdsong and Strange Meeting use the setting of war, namely the First World War, to explore the nature of relationships.
Birdsong, by Sebastian Faulks, is an exploration of the life of a man, Stephen Wraysford, and the legacy he left behind. The novel follows Stephen from an affair with the wife of a French businessman, into the trenches of the First World War, and charts how his character changes and how he forms relationships with others. In an interesting plot device, Faulks also presents the reader with the life of Elizabeth, Stephens granddaughter, in 1979, as she attempts to learn about the wartime experience of her late grandfather.
Strange Meeting follows the experience of war that John Hilliard endured. After returning to France after a brief period of sick leave, Hilliard meets a new recruit, David Barton, who is not yet soiled by the horrors of war. Bartons optimistic look on life draws Hilliard to form an inseparable relationship with him. Susan Hills novel presents how this relationship develops throughout the war.
Interesting comparisons can be drawn between the two novels. Both novels have many similarities because they explore important relationships during the First World War and acknowledge how the war affects these relationships. In this sense they are using the setting of war to analyse human relationships. As novels, the two texts present fictional characters, but both authors set these characters against the backdrop of real events. Each text contains scenes from battles that actually occurred, for example the Battle of the Somme in Birdsong. This allows the reader to get more emotionally involved with the story and characters; even though it is fictional, it could have happened.
Another important connection between the two texts is that both authors are contemporary writers. The fact that neither writer experienced the war first hand could be seen as a negative aspect of the texts, as, unlike the Great War poets, for example, they cannot fully appreciate the situation: they are writing from other peoples memories rather than their own; however, by writing with hindsight, they do have a historical perspective, allowing them to add depth and realism. In this sense, fiction can offer the reader insights which factual writing cannot. Fictional writers craft their work as art to exploit ideas and emotions, and overall to move the reader emotionally. In Birdsong, Faulks often uses his historical knowledge alongside his own opinion to add to the drama, for instance he describes how The assault on the Messines Ridge was planned hard and in detail. Veterans of the previous July were mean with the human life at their disposal which adds a sense of reality to the fictional experiences.
The writers choice of narrative technique in both novels affects our response to relationships and the war. In both texts the authors have chosen to use an omniscient narrator. This style of narration allows the author to include different character perspectives, giving the reader a wider scope to view events. Omniscient narration is useful in exploring and presenting relationships as it leaves the author free to present different characters, showing the complete relationship rather than being one-sided. However, the main drawback of using such a narrative is that the tone often feels detached, whereas with a first person narrative readers can immerse themselves in the character. This detachment actually fits with both authors situation: they themselves are detached from the war. In this sense, the choice of viewpoint is fitting as otherwise the text might feel less convincing.
There are other reasons as to why the authors chose to use omniscient narration. It allows the opportunity to express the real feelings of the characters, which is important in the two texts as both major characters are repressed emotionally. The reader can get a more complete picture of the relationship as the narrative supplies untold feelings, such as in Strange Meeting: nothing mattered except Barton and what he felt for him; that he loved him, as he had loved no other person in his life. In Strange Meeting however, a first person narrative would have been more successful than in Birdsong. Firstly, Hilliard would be more open to the reader than Stephen would allow; even with his diary, Stephen is secretive, writing so that it could not mean anything to a chance reader. Secondly, The sheer wealth of characters and settings in Birdsong would only work with an omniscient narrator, whereas in Strange Meeting the story is predominantly with Hilliard for most of the novel, only changing to Bartons perspective in part two and with the continuous letters he sends back home.
An example of the benefits of Faulks using an omniscient narrator can be seen by the use of Elizabeth. The character of Elizabeth allows the writer to explore how the war affected future generations, also making the reader more aware that the events were real, as it brings the war closer to home. The reader learns of the long-term effect that the war had on soldiers as Elizabeth meets Brennan, who is still suffering from shell-shock, and describes how Such fireworks. We was all there, the whole street. There was dancing. The meeting with Brennan also shows how other soldiers thought of Stephen, We all thought he was mad, that one. However, the most useful aspect of the Elizabeth device is how Faulks uses it to conclude the life of Stephen. The reader gathers information regarding Stephens post-war life through the perspective of Elizabeth. This allows Faulks to cover much information within a small amount of time, yet still making the information credible.
Both authors also use letters as a narrative technique. During the war, officers saw letters as being highly important; they kept morale levels up. Both authors seem to appreciate this detail, and as a result, letters are used throughout both texts. However, both authors use them for different purposes. Faulks mainly uses the letter as extraneous material in the narrative to make the presentation more convincing. An example of this is before the attack at Auchonvillers where Faulks presents letters written by both major and minor characters. Not much information about the characters is delivered, but they give an interesting insight into life at the front line and the cold, irrelevant comments used to protect their families at home. Weir presents a typical example of this in his letter to home by saying Thank you for the soap, mother, which I assure you was put to good use. This part is made even more poignant as the reader knows that the next day the men are engaging in battle.
The use of letters in Strange Meeting reveals much more about the characters and relationships than in Birdsong. Susan Hill uses this device to explore the main themes in the novel and the characters. The character of Barton is explored most thoroughly in the text using letters. Unlike Barton, Hilliard cannot express himself whilst writing letters, admitting to Barton, Its different for you. You find things easier. Through Bartons letters, the reader learns much about his background and character, making up for the fact that the majority of the novel is from Hilliards perspective. The letters in Strange Meeting are more important than just extraneous material in the narrative; they act as a part of the narrative. They present to the reader more information about Bartons character than the main text, After what happened last night I dont believe that I can ever be badly shaken again. Here, Hill is not just reporting on Bartons feelings, but also foreshadowing future events.
Both writers use character presentation to reveal more insight into relationships. The characters of Stephen and Hilliard are surprisingly similar. Faulks and Hill present these characters as emotionally repressed loners who need to form relationships in order to survive the war, something which Hilliard admits to we need him, he has something none of us have when thinking of Barton. These relationships help to develop the characters, and so in this sense both authors draw positive aspects from the horror and atrocity of the war. For Hilliard, the relationship with Barton meant that he was able to express and be more open with himself, and he knew then that he had learned all this from David. In Strange Meeting, Hill often seems to be raising the issue that if it were not for the war, then Hilliard and Barton would not have met, thus the war was a positive experience for Hilliard.
Faulks presentation of Stephen, however, differs in some ways to that of Hilliard. Stephen seems to be presented as a more complex character than Hilliard, resulting in the reader becoming more emotionally involved with him. However, perhaps it was authorial intention for Hill to present Hilliard as more detached from the reader, as this allows a more objective look at the importance of relationships. This could also explain why Hill did not use a first person narrative. Faulks still presents how relationships change the character though. Whereas Hill shows how Hilliard becomes more open with himself, Faulks presents how, through relationships, Stephen regains his reasons for living. At the beginning, he managed only to exist, yet by the end he is hoping to survive his likely death in the collapsed mine we must find a way out of here. For this reason I believe Birdsongs character development to be more optimistic in reflection of the human spirit than in Strange Meeting.
The writers use the war as a variable of extremity to display how human relationships are affected and evolve: in a sense both texts are a study into than life. It could, however, be argued that Strange Meeting uses the war as a device more than Birdsong does. Faulks uses the war as a major part the novel; it is not just a device to display relationships, which Hill seems to do with Strange Meeting. Faulks divulges into great detail about the war, the effect on the senses the war had, and the way in which the soldiers led their daily lives: The communication trench was filled with orange slime that covered their boots and puttees. The closer they went to the front line the more it began to smell. As a result of this, Faulks presents a more vivid image of life in the war than Hill, who in contrast concentrates more on the relationship between Barton and Hilliard. This is authorial intention though, as Hill herself admits, I hope it is not thought only as a novel whose subject is war and the pity of war, for, more than anything else, it is about human love. Birdsong, then, can be seen as a study of human relationships as much as a study of war, resulting in a novel with far greater scope than Strange Meeting. There are differences in the style of both texts in how they present relationships. Faulks uses much more descriptive narrative and imagery than Hill does, for example, They looked as though they were bound for an expedition to the pole, explorers to the furthest regions. Strange Meeting relies on character interaction to move the action along; there is, therefore, more dialogue in Hills text. This gives Strange Meeting more pace than Birdsong, the latter going into much more detail about characters and setting. This is another reason why Stephen seems to be more complex than Hilliard is. The difference in both authors style is apparent when comparing the ways they both present the soldiers going over the top of the trench into battle. Faulks even uses a slow pace at the height of the action, allowing contemplation:
He clambered out and looked around him. It was for a moment completely quiet as the bombardment ended and the German guns also stopped. Skylarks wheeled and sang high in the cloudless sky. He felt alone, as though he had stumbled on this fresh world at the instant of its creation.
Hill, in comparison, adopts a much quicker pace to describe what is essentially the same action;
As the noise of the artillery got louder his excitement seemed to fill his body, took him over entirely so that, when they themselves began to go up, he was no longer conscious of anything except the urge to move forward
Both Faulks and Hill seem to have different purposes when using language and style. Hill wrote Strange Meeting as a work of drama, whereas Faulks wrote Birdsong as a work of art. This is the main reason for the differences in style that both authors adopted.
Both authors successfully present human relationships in the two texts. By using the First World War as a canvas on which to display this theme, Faulks and Hill have the opportunity to manipulate both moments of extremity and moments of calm to fully explore the nature of relationships. Although the two texts differ in technique and approach, the underlying study of these relationships is as clear in both. The novels act as entertainment, but also as a celebration of the human spirit, and so, for this reason alone, are equally important.
Already have an account? Log In Now
6786