The exploration of the extent humans can endure suffering in ‘Birdsong’ by Sebastian Faulks.

Sebastian Faulks artfully takes inspiration from canonical war literature in order to develop his exploration of the human capacity to endure suffering in ‘Birdsong.’ Faulks opens a previously ‘closed book’ discussion about man's ability to adapt to survive, and seems to propel the reader to think critically about the extent of evil humans can - and did withstand - in the First World War for the sake of the further generations.

Faulks’ description of collecting corpses in part four of the novel uses an excess of dysphemistic language to erode even the dignity and relief soldiers could have reached in death. This deprivation of propriety and respect post mortem enhances Faulks’ focus on suffering as he emphasises that the evils of war did not cease with the ending of life. The fact that ‘bodies had lain for weeks uncollected’ exposes that these men's bodies would continue to be abused by the war as their corpses endured neglect (‘uncollected’), and were forgotten, left out on the fields to decay. Faulks’ descriptions here lend themselves well to the the wider scope of war literature, as a running trope of its canon is the fear of abandonment. The likes of Robert Graves’ autobiographical work have centred around the daunting anxieties of isolation. What is genius - and cruel- of Mr Faulks is how he takes from the canon of war literature real angst from real heroes to construct a realist novel -- as Watt notes about the genre's typical classical realism before Faulks -- through the confirmation of eventual isolation. This is truly shocking for Faulks’ targeted reader as they are confronted with the brute facts that soldier did not receive proper burials after dying for their country, highlighting the unjust fundamentals of war. Throughout Sebastian Faulks’ work we can see the influences of iconic war poets who help him create such an emotional and realistic story, for example Faulks pays homage to Owen’s ‘Anthem For Doomed Youth’ by echoing the rage Owen expresses in the face of neglected burials. However, Faulks is able to go further than Owen as he writes three-quarters of a century later, when the sensitivity towards the topic had passed. Thus he is able to access a very powerful level of graphic imagery which can be said to resurrect the scenes from 1917. ‘His fingers vanish[ed] into buttered green flesh’ and ‘flopped fatly over [...] what flesh fell left in mud’ immediately evoke an emotional and even to some extent physical reaction in the reader as the fricative sound animates the slimy decaying matter and prompts the reader to feel a bit queasy. The vivid simile of flesh and butter is strikingly unusual which jars against the typical consistency of skin - usually firm - the peculiar comparison by Faulks is unnerving, as it brings with it a question about man’s capacity to endue suffering.

Although in saying this, I feel I have only touched upon the superficial aims of this talented novelist, particularly given that Faulks is famous for his use of imagery to prompt questions about man's ability to adapt in order to survive. His grotesquely beautiful descriptions of war extend to his reader a rare opportunity to receive a three dimensional experience of the front line and man’s tolerance towards suffering, which has perviously not been attempted in literature. As Mullen notes ‘ A key to the novel’s success and its evident hold over so many readers is Faulks’ exacting attention to specific physical detail.’ The comment is particularly apparent in these descriptions, and further grounded with his use of dark humour and graphic imagery to dissect how men adapt to suffering. ‘Take his arms [...] not take his arms away, ’ is an example of how Mr Faulks uses humour, through the inclusion of italics, to further his commentary on the human condition as the grammar alters the way ‘away’ is read. The soldier's blasé attitude to the decay around them, expressed through the use of dark humour, is suggestive that there is an abundance of suffering so much so that it has forced the men to adapt their psychological responses and consequently the task of lifting rotting bodies has become quotidian. Faulks seems to want to irk the reader with the use of inappropriate humour, to force them to critically think about the extent man can endure pain for the greater goal of survival.

Faulks further dissects the human capacity to endure suffering though the over abundance of death throughout the novel. He keeps Weir’s death painfully short, ‘ Weir climbed on to the fire step to let a ration party go past and a sniper bullet entered his head [...] causing trails of his brain to loop out onto the sandbags.’ The transience of the action highlights how fleeting life is in the trenches, and emphasises how insignificant death has become to the soldiers who had to endure the smell, sight and pain of death every painful moment of each day (and sometimes night). The fact that Weir only meant to move out of the way of passing soldiers propels the interpretation that death so is common on the front that the men had to adjust their values and principles about the meaning of life, often turning to nihilism out of spite for God - if there was one - for letting this suffering go on. The economic style of writing that Faulks uses to describe Weir’s death jars with the dysphemistic descriptions in other scenes. Faulks’ decision to do this highlights the fact soldiers' individual lives were insignificant, which provokes the reader to think in depth about the meaning of their lives in relation to the sacrifices made and extremes of suffering endured - by soldiers - for their comfort. Faulks expands on Weir’s death to resurrect and emulate the intensity of evil on the front in order to receive a remorseful reaction : Weir ‘fell like a puppet [...] face smashing unprotected into mud’ his inclusion of the simile (‘puppet’) allows the reader to understand the worth, or rather worthlessness, of soldiers who generals like Field Marshal Haig would use like chess pieces and lead them out to be slaughtered, all to gain an inch of territory. Equally, the brief descriptions of the action contrast with the lengthy descriptions of the violence (‘smashing unprotected’) can allude to the negligence soldiers endured as their personal protection equipment was inadequate and that war masters did not view soldier’s safeties as worth the expense. Furthermore, Faulks’ use of a single adjective (‘smashing’) to emphasises that the action is quick, and also uniquely magnifies the brutality of Weir’s death as it creates imagery of bones breaking. This brings to the foreground Mr Faulks’ overall themes of futility and the transience of life as a result of the fast pace and brevity of Weir’s final scene. Barbusse notes Faulks’ inclusion and attention to fatalities and draws our attention to the question ‘ what is a soldier, or even several soldiers? - Nothing [...] in the whole crowd [...] like a few drops of blood that we are amongst all the blood.’ His comment is strongly indicated in Weir’s death as Faulks’ novel and narrative brushes unfazed and undisrupted in response to his passing. This may be put to Faulks’ incredible attention to accuracy and focus on constructing a realistic account of war: he chooses to set Weir’s death just after the battle of the Somme in 1916 - the most bloody battle in British history - which amplifies his commentary about the human capacity to endure as Weir’s death would be next to nothing of importance in relation to the many tens of thousands who died in the Somme. In doing this, Sebastian Faulks lets his debate, about the amount of suffering men can endure, oscillate in his reader’s mind.

We can also see Faulks weave this debate into the novel through his attention to the endurance of grief, specifically mourning loved family: this is epitomised by Jack. Faulks reveals that Jack ‘felt guilty for a moment towards the memory of his dead comrades, as though he were not being respectful [...] but [...] he would take any pleasure that helped.’ Here it is exposed by our novelist that Jack’s character is adapting to survive amongst so much death and destruction. In so doing, Faulks touches upon the psychological impact of war on the behaviour of soldiers as their natural responses to sombre matters are distorted by the frequency of their occurrence. But once again we see Faulks brush past the deaths to redact its importance, and circle back to the theme of nihilism as he portrays soldiers viewing life as valueless and themselves as purposeless. As Faulks writes nearly a century after the First World War he is able to tie in strands of postmodern cynicism on the subject of life into ‘Birdsong’. Although the philosophical ideas that life is empty and death is a finality to a life which does not transcend earth, have been developed mostly after the setting of the novel. Faulks is able to carefully adapt the complex ideology of the enlightenment to enhance the portrayal of characters emotions, giving them a very lifelike feel. This is apparent with Jack as Faulks shows his character to be internally battling with the guilt of moving on and surviving. Faulks, in this scene, allows the reader to understand Jack’s thoughts about the significance of soldiers lives: showing Jack as debating whether soldier’s deaths require respect and mourning or whether their lives have no value. Overall, I think Faulks uses Jack to expose many men had lost their feelings of self-worth. This forces the reader to contemplate the mental anguish of soldiers who, while in the trenches are fighting for their lives, also had to endured the self-depreciating ideologies they had taken upon themselves. This begs the question: how much suffering can man truly survive?

Finally, Faulks goes to the peak of injustice to exasperate the debate about the human capacity for suffering by honing in on the treatment of soldiers post participation in war, specifically returning to London. This can also be said to parallel Faulks’ wider criticism of modern society forgetting and not appreciating the sacrifices of the past for the privileges and comfort today. ’They were frightening civilians because they had evolved not into killers but into passive beings whose only aim was to endure’ The gross unfairness of the way these heroes were disrespected is highly likely meant by Faulks to irritate the reader and push them to think about the audacity of these people who stayed in London’s comfort to be frightened of the men to whom they owed so much of their luxurious lives to. Faulks extends the suffering men had to endure from the trenches into London - an area of the First World War’s impacts not often covered in literature - which is egregiously shocking to read about. This sort of welcome back home account jars against the expectations of women falling to the feet of soldiers in gratitude, a lie which the likes of Jessie Pope promoted in the enlisting campaigns. However, Faulks was not the first to hone in on the reality of returning to ‘Blighty’, Wilfred Owen’s ‘Disabled’ which disillusioned us about the injustice towards war heroes was the antecedent to Faulks’ exposé on the truth of returning home , but Faulks takes this further than Owen ever could ,as he is writing so long after the bitterness of war had subsided, he is able to be ruthless is his attack on. ‘You don’t want me here, do you ?’ immediately proves outrage as these men who died for their country deserved recognition and gratitude were instead treated like rubbish that needed to be discarded, like they were used up and their usefulness had been consumed by society and now they were simply a burden. Faulks draws from the literary canon, such as Owens poetry, as he himself was not in the war; but where the icons of war literature were restrained by the tenderness and the freshness of war, Faulks is free to be raw and brutal in his criticisms of the battle which made men endure unfathomable amounts of evil.

As a result, we receive a painful novel that highlights the relentlessness of the suffering soldiers in the First World War had to endure but also explores the extent to which humans could withstand such cruelty. The novelist paints a cold and stark message to his reader: that these men underwent the most harsh treatment and tolerated some of the most evil experiences had by man and yet, amazingly adapted to it! His novel resurrects their memory and sacrifice; immortalising their endurance and preventing their actions from being forgotten.

By Tissa Sabeti