grim tale of split personality - Rated 
This sequel to Regeneration starts with a sordid homosexual encounter. I found that I almost stopped reading the book. Having said that, I'm glad that I didn't, as the book does - eventually - move towards a meaningful denouement. This is care of the character Billy Prior, one of the shell-shock patients from the previous book. This book's themes are important, including sexual tolerance, uniformity and the nature of both mental illness and psychiatry. Like its predecessor, the book is thought-provoking.
Healthy and Unhealthy Mind Dualities Driven by War Tragedies and Paranoia - Rated 
If you haven't read Regeneration, you are making a big mistake if you read The Eye in the Door before Regeneration. Regeneration sets the stage for The Eye in the Door and provides much background information that you need to appreciate this book.
Those who liked the first book in the Regeneration trilogy, Regeneration, will absolutely adore The Eye in the Door. The characters from Regeneration return, and you have a chance to find out the consequences of the treatments they received from Dr. William Rivers in Regeneration. Pat Barker builds on the tensions, damage, doubts, and despair of mid-World War I to show how much more desperate matters were for the British by the spring of 1918.
In developing these themes, Pat Barker does a masterful job of explaining how a soldier has to operate both by emotion and by objective distance in order to function. From there, she helps us use the crucible of war to see how that duality is important to everyday functioning for all people.
As the title indicates, the book builds on a central metaphor of everyone being under observation as doubts build about Britain's ability to win the war. Those on the margins are most under pressure and at greatest risk.
I thought that the portrayal of Lieutenant Billy Prior was brilliant. He comes across as the kind of complex, interesting character that can help us learn a lot about Ms. Barker's messages for us. The eye metaphor is nicely developed in the context of Billy's life.
Brava, Ms. Barker!
I didn`t like the first one.. - Rated 
and i didn`t like this one either. Barker jumps about all over the place, making point after point - all adding up to nothing and leaving you wondering what the hell it`s all been about anyway.
Anyone....?
Very loose ends - Rated 
Books you have enjoyed stick with you, while books you didn't like fade away. But just occasionally, a bad book niggles and irritates your subconscious, until you stumble across it on Amazon and get the chance to exorcise that demon.
I didn't like 'The Eye in the Door'.
After a fascinating opening, the book rapidly tails away. Barker is clearly a good writer and has a sure grip on the darker side of language, but it becomes clear that she has two misguided motives for writing this book.
The first is to tie up all the loose ends of the previous book and pave the way for the next one. If you haven't read the previous book, then very little of the plot will make sense. And by the end, you won't care to read the third volume.
Her second motive is to make several left-leaning political points about Britain in the early 20th Century. I agree with much of it, but political statements don't make literature and the British Empire is a big and easy target. If I want to read political tracts, I'll read ones that are relevant to my own century, and preferably ones that are not disguised as literary fiction.
Barker has also succumbed to that modern habit of inflating a book's importance by introducing famous characters from history, hoping some of their kudos will rub off. Siegfried Sassoon is used like a celebrity endorsement for the rest of the book. Given that he is largely irrelevant here, his inclusion seems just a little crass.
I won't give away the ending, largely because I can't remember how it ends. And nor will you.
Interesting, but not compelling - Rated
Fascinating historical facts (primarily about the hypocrisy of the English) are woven into a moderately interesting fictional story. But the treatment seems slightly lightweight somehow. The book is rather dialogue-heavy, the prose stlye very un-showy (dare I say plain!) & there's not much interior reflection. Barker's main interest is in her characters but they are not always strongly drawn. The relationship between Prior and Rivers, his therapist, is by far the most successful, and most deeply explored aspect of the book. But in general, the personal struggles don't always meld convincingly with the particular historical background that Barker is interested in bringing to light. Some minor characters appear as ciphers for "issues" rather than fully drawn individuals in their own right. Maybe I'm just spoiled by having recently re-read Michel Tournier's stunning and deeply profound, WW2 inspired 'The Ogre', besides which this seemed very insubstantial fare.
|
