The History/Literature Problem in First World War Studies Nicholas Milne-Walasek Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The History/Literature Problem in First World War Studies Nicholas Milne-Walasek Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a doctoral degree in English Literature Department of English Faculty of Arts University of Ottawa © Nicholas Milne-Walasek, Ottawa, Canada, 2016 ii ABSTRACT In a cultural context, the First World War has come to occupy an unusual existential point half- way between history and art. Modris Eksteins has described it as being “more a matter of art than of history;” Samuel Hynes calls it “a gap in history;” Paul Fussell has exclaimed “Oh what a literary war!” and placed it outside of the bounds of conventional history. The primary artistic mode through which the war continues to be encountered and remembered is that of literature—and yet the war is also a fact of history, an event, a happening. Because of this complex and often confounding mixture of history and literature, the joint roles of historiography and literary scholarship in understanding both the war and the literature it occasioned demand to be acknowledged. Novels, poems, and memoirs may be understood as engagements with and accounts of history as much as they may be understood as literary artifacts; the war and its culture have in turn generated an idiosyncratic poetics. It has conventionally been argued that the dawn of the war's modern literary scholarship and historiography can be traced back to the late 1960s and early 1970s—a period which the cultural historian Jay Winter has described as the “Vietnam Generation” of scholarship. This period was marked by an emphatic turn away from the records of cultural elites and towards an oral history preserved and delivered by those who fought the war “on the ground,” so to speak. Adrian Gregory has affirmed this period's status as the originating point for the war's modern historiography, while James Campbell similarly has placed the origins of the war's literary scholarship around the same time. I argue instead that this “turn” to the oral and the subaltern is in fact somewhat overstated, and that the fully recognizable origins of what we would consider a “modern” approach to the war can be found being developed both during the war and in its aftermath. Authors writing on the home front developed an effective language of “war writing” that then inspired the reaction of the “War Books Boom” of 1922-1939, and this boom in turn provided the tropes and concerns that have so animated modern scholarship. Through it all, from 1914 to the current era, there has been a consistent recognition of both the literariness of the war's history and the historiographical quality of its literature; this has helped shape an unbroken line of scholarship—and of literary production—from the war's earliest days to the present day. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION I. Preamble .................................................................................................................................. 1 II. “Oh What a Literary War!” .................................................................................................... 11 III. Outline .................................................................................................................................. 34 CHAPTER 1: Cultural and Ideological Backgrounds of the First World War, 1914-1922 I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 44 II. A Future Nightmare, 1870-1914 ........................................................................................... 46 III: Words for Waging War......................................................................................................... 55 CHAPTER 2: Writing the War: Historiography, Literary Scholarship, and Literatureof the First World War, 1914-1922 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 80 I. Historiography, 1914-1922..................................................................................................... 82 II. Literary Scholarship, 1914-1922 ............................................................................................ 98 III. War Stories: The Literary Output of 1914-1922 ................................................................ 107 CHAPTER 3: The War Books Boom in Thought and Practice, 1922-1939 I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 129 II. A Culture of Regret .............................................................................................................. 132 III. Words for Revision: Writing and Re-Writing, 1922-1939 .................................................. 148 CHAPTER 4: Re-Reading and Re-Writing the War: Historiography, Literary Scholarship, and Literature of the First World War, 1922-1939 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 169 I. History and Historiography after the War ........................................................................... 173 II. War Books Boom and Bust—Literary Scholarship and Critique ......................................... 176 III. Writing Back—Literature .................................................................................................... 190 CHAPTER 5: The Vietnam Generation and the Transition to Modern Scholarship I. The “Vietnam Generation” and the Development of Oral/Experiential History ................. 211 iv II. Paul Fussell and the Birth of “Modern Memory" ................................................................ 224 III. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 232 WORKS CITED .............................................................................................................................. 251 1 INTRODUCTION I. Preamble The year 2012 saw two deaths that each, in different ways, constituted a significant moment in the ongoing debate over how we are best to approach the cultural history of the First World War.1 The first, of Florence Green on 4 February 2012, marked the final severing of the line of living memory between the experience of the war itself and those of us studying it today. Green served as an officers’ mess steward with the RAF from September through November of 1918, making her the last living “veteran” of the war to have been alive in any country.2 With this last living link to the war having passed away, the responsibility of preserving the war’s memory now falls entirely upon those who were not alive to experience it themselves, and a great deal of care must consequently be taken. The war had come to haunt that generation of young men and women born in its aftermath, many of whom felt they had missed out on “the war that was called Great” (Scannell 39), and who could only hear it spoken of—or not spoken of—without ever having had a chance to participate in it themselves. It would be difficult now to imagine anyone regretting having missed out on the trenches, but for 1 A third and similarly meaningful 2012 death for First World War studies was that of Dominic Hibberd (b. 1941), the English scholar and critic best known for his work on the poets Wilfred Owen and Harold Monro. He was also one of the more prolific anthologizers of First World War poetry, often working alongside the less-prolific John Onions. While volumes like Poetry of the First World War (1983), Poetry of the Great War (1986) and The Winter of the World: Poems of the First World War (2007) have been important contributions to the field of First World War poetry, they have been more notable as inheritors of a pre-existing tradition than as creators of a new one. 2 Canada’s last known living veteran, John Babcock, had served with the Young Soldiers’ Battalion without ever having seen combat. He did not consider himself a “veteran” of the war in any meaningful sense, but continued to be hailed as one up until his death in 2010. 2 young people like Christopher Isherwood, George Orwell or Norman Mailer it seemed that some great test of manliness and courage had come—and gone, themselves never to be given the opportunity to try their strength in its cause. Isherwood refers to this as a subconscious feeling of shame; Mailer speaks of a morbid fascination with the war so powerful that it overrode even his own willingness to admit that he had it (Fussell 110). For those who fought in the war themselves, the situation was sometimes equally fraught; Guy Chapman, in A Kind of Survivor (1975), declares firmly that “to the years between 1914 and 1918 I owe everything of lasting value in my make-up” (280)—a claim on an individual level that has been echoed by others on a cultural one, as with Paul Fussell's declaration that the First World War is the “all- encompassing, all-pervading . essential condition of consciousness in the twentieth century” (GW 321), or Wade Davis' that “everything you know of your life, every sense you have of being modern,