2008 Reading List - The Secret Battle
Book Thirty-two
The Secret Battle by A.P. Herbert
War sucks.
If there's a central message to this book, that's it: war sucks. There is no glory in war. War may be inevitable, it may even be necessary, but it is not good and it is not glorious. And no one who goes into war ever comes out unscathed.
This book was first published in 1919, soon after the war it depicts, World War One. While it is a fictional story, the tale of a young British officer named Harry Penrose, it is based on the experiences of the author and other men who served in the British army during that war. And those experiences are, in a word, hellish. From the dusty death-traps of Gallipoli to the battlefields in France, there is nothing good about being involved in this war. Penrose is painted as a kind of ideal soldier - someone who volunteered for the war, who still has some romantic ideals about service, and honestly tries to be the best officer he can. He cares for his men, he loves his country and he does his duty.
And what does he get as a reward? Crippling dysentery, the loss of nearly all his friends, and an eventual court-martial and execution. The war eats Harry Penrose alive, and doesn't give a damn what kind of person he is. The life of a soldier in wartime destroys good men and, if the narrator is to be trusted, often leaves the bad ones to be promoted in the ranks.
This book must have been a shocker when it was published, because it tries to paint the life or a soldier as truthfully and bluntly as possible. The discomfort, the boredom, the tiny, petty antagonisms that drive men mad in the trenches, all of these are the reality of war. Even getting to the point where men put themselves in harm's way, not because they are brave and noble, but because death is the only release they're even going to get from their service in this war.
It's also a criticism of certain army practices, especially the death penalty for deserters. The end of the book details Harry's court-martial for desertion and execution by his own men, and why it never should have happened. The author points out, through his characters, that there comes a certain point where a man just breaks. No matter how strong his nerve or how deep his devotion, there are limits to the amount of punishment one person's spirit can endure, but soldiers are expected to have limitless reserves. A soldier who balks, or disobeys orders he knows are dangerous to himself and his men are considered cowards by people who have no idea what he is going through, and the consequences can be tragic.
Even if a man should come through the war with all his limbs and a few friends left, he will never be rid of it. The memories, the dreams, even the compulsion to return to the battlefield are all there. Laced throughout the book is the idea of a soldier's duty to the war, and the incredibly, almost irrationally strong hold it can have. Penrose has, at several times during the book, an opportunity to take himself out of harm's way, and deservedly so. No one would have faulted him for taking a job away from the front line or being hospitalized for nearly terminal dysentery. But his sense of "duty" overrides logic, and the throws away his health, his marriage and his life for, essentially, nothing.
If there's one thing I cannot stand about the military - and there are several, but this is the big one - it's the complete disregard for the well-being of the soldiers who risk their lives based on some elevated sense of "duty." These men and women are drilled with romantic views of "a soldier's duty" and the idea that, without them, we'd be the Islamic Republic of America by now, and told that they are special, they are warriors.... If they manage to survive their service, having done their duty, what is their reward? If they're lucky, they come out of it with bad dreams and memories. If they're unlucky....
Humans have been fighting each other for thousands of years, and most of the time the soldiers who are actually killing and dying are not the ones who wanted the war. They are proxies for rich and powerful men who are angry at other rich and powerful men who are too afraid or can't be bothered to do their own fighting. And in those thousands of years, we have never figured out how to properly deal with those soldiers who survive their wars. They're given a pat on the back, maybe a medal and a little money, and told, "Go have a normal life. Thanks a bunch."
But if you're a soldier, "a normal life" just isn't going to happen.
It was true in World War One, and it's just as true now. Good people go to war for noble reasons, and what they get out of it is a lifetime of nightmares, pain and a big "Fuck you" from the government that told them how noble and important they were.
The Secret Battle by A.P. Herbert
War sucks.
If there's a central message to this book, that's it: war sucks. There is no glory in war. War may be inevitable, it may even be necessary, but it is not good and it is not glorious. And no one who goes into war ever comes out unscathed.
This book was first published in 1919, soon after the war it depicts, World War One. While it is a fictional story, the tale of a young British officer named Harry Penrose, it is based on the experiences of the author and other men who served in the British army during that war. And those experiences are, in a word, hellish. From the dusty death-traps of Gallipoli to the battlefields in France, there is nothing good about being involved in this war. Penrose is painted as a kind of ideal soldier - someone who volunteered for the war, who still has some romantic ideals about service, and honestly tries to be the best officer he can. He cares for his men, he loves his country and he does his duty.
And what does he get as a reward? Crippling dysentery, the loss of nearly all his friends, and an eventual court-martial and execution. The war eats Harry Penrose alive, and doesn't give a damn what kind of person he is. The life of a soldier in wartime destroys good men and, if the narrator is to be trusted, often leaves the bad ones to be promoted in the ranks.
This book must have been a shocker when it was published, because it tries to paint the life or a soldier as truthfully and bluntly as possible. The discomfort, the boredom, the tiny, petty antagonisms that drive men mad in the trenches, all of these are the reality of war. Even getting to the point where men put themselves in harm's way, not because they are brave and noble, but because death is the only release they're even going to get from their service in this war.
It's also a criticism of certain army practices, especially the death penalty for deserters. The end of the book details Harry's court-martial for desertion and execution by his own men, and why it never should have happened. The author points out, through his characters, that there comes a certain point where a man just breaks. No matter how strong his nerve or how deep his devotion, there are limits to the amount of punishment one person's spirit can endure, but soldiers are expected to have limitless reserves. A soldier who balks, or disobeys orders he knows are dangerous to himself and his men are considered cowards by people who have no idea what he is going through, and the consequences can be tragic.
Even if a man should come through the war with all his limbs and a few friends left, he will never be rid of it. The memories, the dreams, even the compulsion to return to the battlefield are all there. Laced throughout the book is the idea of a soldier's duty to the war, and the incredibly, almost irrationally strong hold it can have. Penrose has, at several times during the book, an opportunity to take himself out of harm's way, and deservedly so. No one would have faulted him for taking a job away from the front line or being hospitalized for nearly terminal dysentery. But his sense of "duty" overrides logic, and the throws away his health, his marriage and his life for, essentially, nothing.
If there's one thing I cannot stand about the military - and there are several, but this is the big one - it's the complete disregard for the well-being of the soldiers who risk their lives based on some elevated sense of "duty." These men and women are drilled with romantic views of "a soldier's duty" and the idea that, without them, we'd be the Islamic Republic of America by now, and told that they are special, they are warriors.... If they manage to survive their service, having done their duty, what is their reward? If they're lucky, they come out of it with bad dreams and memories. If they're unlucky....
Humans have been fighting each other for thousands of years, and most of the time the soldiers who are actually killing and dying are not the ones who wanted the war. They are proxies for rich and powerful men who are angry at other rich and powerful men who are too afraid or can't be bothered to do their own fighting. And in those thousands of years, we have never figured out how to properly deal with those soldiers who survive their wars. They're given a pat on the back, maybe a medal and a little money, and told, "Go have a normal life. Thanks a bunch."
But if you're a soldier, "a normal life" just isn't going to happen.
It was true in World War One, and it's just as true now. Good people go to war for noble reasons, and what they get out of it is a lifetime of nightmares, pain and a big "Fuck you" from the government that told them how noble and important they were.