Last Updated on May 7, 2015, by eNotes Editorial. Word Count: 1031
World War I was the first conflict to produce a major body of literature written by men who had actually been involved in the fighting. Among the poets, novelists, and memoirists who recorded their experiences in the trenches of the western front, many strove to voice protests equal to the...
(The entire section contains 1031 words.)
Unlock This Study Guide Now
Start your 48-hour free trial to unlock this Under Fire study guide. You'll get access to all of the Under Fire content, as well as access to more than 30,000 additional guides and more than 350,000 Homework Help questions answered by our experts.
- Critical Essays
World War I was the first conflict to produce a major body of literature written by men who had actually been involved in the fighting. Among the poets, novelists, and memoirists who recorded their experiences in the trenches of the western front, many strove to voice protests equal to the enormities that they had suffered and witnessed. Henri Barbusse was one of the first of these, and Under Fire was one of the few World War I novels that was written and published before the war ended. It furnished a model for later writers. Barbusse composed the book in the hospital from diaries he had written at the front in 1914-1915, and he published it in both serial and novel forms late in 1916. Under Fire proved an immediate success. In France, it won the prestigious Goncourt Prize, and by the end of the war it was a worldwide best seller, having sold almost a quarter of a million copies.
The novel’s critical reception was mixed. Early reviewers tended to judge it according to whether they believed that life at the front was as wretched as Barbusse depicted it to be. Some were outraged by what they felt to be seditious political views expressed in the work, but many critics greeted its graphic descriptions almost with relief: Here at last, they felt, was the truth about the war. At the time Under Fire reached the public, a time when the cost in human life continued to mount without any visible impact on the stalemate in France and Belgium, attitudes toward the war had begun to shift away from the enthusiasm and idealism of the war’s first year. Those critical of the war considered the raw immediacy of Under Fire to be its chief virtue; if the characters seemed less carefully drawn and the story line less tightly constructed than in more polished literary works, this only lent it greater plausibility as a documentary.
Under Fire came to be less widely read after the late 1920’s, when it was supplanted by a deluge of war writing. By the late twentieth century, however, many critics considered the novel an important milestone and a work exemplifying some of the difficulties of the protest novel, among them that of reconciling realism and prophetic vision. Although the most gripping chapters in Under Fire (“Of Burdens,” “The Portal,” “Under Fire,” and “The Fatigue-Party”) present a convincing picture of day-to-day survival in the trenches and of the chaos of battle, these sections are mixed with the kind of earnest political invective and dogma that can become tedious, as it does in the last chapter, “The Dawn.” Barbusse had joined the army with mixed impulses; as a committed socialist and pacifist, he supported the war because he believed he would be serving the socialist cause and fighting German militarism in pursuit of a new and peaceful Europe. Yet in Under Fire he argued that the war must be abandoned after all, for the enemy was not Germany but the profiteers and “sword-wavers” in the rear on both sides. The collapse of the trenches into mud and water during the final bombardment described in the book effects a kind of cosmic cataclysm, a dissolution of earth, water, fire, and air into a single muddy element that apocalyptically heralds the “new heaven and new earth” glimpsed by the soldiers in the last chapter. Here, however, the sudden transformation of Barbusse’s simple and unaffected comrades into unanimous spokesmen for socialist dogma strains the reader’s credulity.
Barbusse’s chief interest was not in his work’s qualities as fiction but in its power as protest—its ability to communicate the almost unspeakable facts about the experience of his fellow soldiers as a corrective to the heart-cheering, idealistic accounts in the newspapers. As fiction, it could be published without interference from the official censors. Whatever its shortcomings as literature, Under Fire filled an urgent need, the thirst of both civilians and soldiers for an unrestrained firsthand depiction of the front lines.
Barbusse’s novel was an important influence on the war poetry of Siegfried Sassoon (1886-1967) and Wilfred Owen (1893-1918) and—perhaps partly by way of their poems—on the war prose of the late 1920’s and early 1930’s. Such later classics of the war as Erich Maria Remarque’s novel Im Westen nichts Neues (1928, serial; 1929, book; All Quiet on the Western Front, 1929) and Robert Graves’s autobiography Goodbye to All That (1929) employ a similarly episodic and graphic style but forgo the political didacticism, allowing themes to emerge from parallels among the episodes. Under Fire thus constitutes an important source of the enduring myth of World War I, which presents soldiers as the innocent victims of a belligerent and bloodthirsty older generation of politicians, generals, and profiteers.
Barbusse’s narrative strategy was influenced by naturalism, especially by novels of Émile Zola such as Germinal (1885; English translation, 1885) and La Débâcle (1892; The Downfall, 1892). Such novels strove, with almost scientific accuracy, to document the life of the working classes yet also to show how all life is subject to natural laws, just as science produces general theories from minute observations. Naturalist authors urge reform by demonstrating that individual lives are determined by social and economic forces greater than the individuals. Jonathan King argues that the strengths and weaknesses of Under Fire cannot be appreciated without reference to the risk inherent in social realism of submerging the author’s visionary purpose under the mass of detail. In Under Fire, it is where Barbusse abandons documentation that the writing become implausible and ineffective.
The disconnected vignettes that constitute the narrative of Under Fire were meant to acquire coherence from the novel’s prophetic purpose; from another perspective, however, they anticipated the discontinuous, juxtaposed scenes of the great works of the 1920’s. Perhaps both the strengths and weaknesses of Under Fire argue the impossibility of grasping the enormities of World War I, or of making coherent sense out of its wastefulness. It is as though the war had inaugurated the fragmentation that convinced such early twentieth century writers as Virginia Woolf, James Joyce, and T. S. Eliot that traditional narrative continuity was no longer appropriate.