(Image from Penguin Books)

 It is of little doubt that Pat Barker produced a thorough and believable portrayal of Rivers in her trilogy, utilising the work of Sassoon, Graves and Hocart and several others to inform her writing of the character. However, there are some differences and grey areas between the Dr Rivers of Regeneration and the real man:

• Part of the difference lies in emphasis. Barker makes Rivers’ background and work trauma stark and obvious to the reader whereas in much that is known of his life, these aspects are implied. She walks the reader through his reaction to the horrific painting of his ancestor’s foot amputation on Victory during the Battle of Trafalgar, for example, and dramatizes the effect Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) had on members of the family, Katharine’s subsequent illness and life restrictions. In reality, although it is known from various sources, such as family tradition, colleagues statements and Rivers’ own works, that these things did affect him, it is not known to any further extent how he thought of them, or what , if any condition Katharine had.
• Rivers and Hocart did not camp on Eddystone (Simba) – this and the incident where an axe is left on Rivers’ pillow to suggest that he stop asking questions that the inhabitants did not want to answer is unfortunately entirely fictional. Barker uses this as a plot device, to bring tension, emphasise the hidden dangers that still existed for researchers and the natives’ strength of adherence to their traditional beliefs. Nevertheless, the real life expedition is a celebrated early example of ‘participant observation’
• The real Rivers called his therapy method Autognosis The ‘Talking Cure’ is a simplified and colloquial term, based upon therapeutic conversation being the main tool of investigation and re-education of the patient or client. He called the transformation of psychological trauma into physical symptoms Conversion Hysteria or Conversion Anxiety, historically the doctor used light hypnosis, gentle suggestion, and persuasion to break the physical block Pat Barker uses more accessible terms to allow readers without psychological knowledge to easily understand what was involved, and stresses his distrust of deeper hypnosis methods
• Three main plot devices are entirely fictional. a) Billy Prior did not exist – whilst his case is a combination of symptoms suffered by many victims, he was not a real person. In the trilogy he serves a dual device of bringing certain explanation of terms and issues prevalent at the time to the attention of the reader, and teasing out aspects of Rivers’ personality that are integral to the plot.b) The unfortunate patient, Burns, who vomits compulsively after regaining consciousness with his face buried in a German corpse was based on a real soldier, but Rivers did not rescue him during a storm in his home area. This sequence appears to be included to visually bring out the notion of how far Rivers would go to understand and ‘save’ his patients, in face of danger to himself. c) Lewis Yealland was a real doctor who also treated soldiers, and did use the methods related, thus being in direct opposition to Rivers’ own. The visit to his location of treatments, however, didn’t happen but is added to the story to provide a vivid depiction of why the techniques used by Rivers and others like him were so much more humane.  It also serves to give illustration to Rivers’ worries as to whether his methods were the best for the men he treated, and stress his inner conflict over this

All in all, none of the innovations to Rivers’ character are extraordinary or detrimental to the view of him that history itself provides. If anything, they merely provoke in the reader a sense of the doctor’s humanity and the importance of his role, particularly in Anthropology and Psychology/ Psychoanalysis. It is essential to note, however that these differences do exist for anyone wishing to learn more about the doctor or study his life and career.

*Regeneration (1991), The Eye in the Door (1993) and The Ghost Road (1995)