The volume of material relating to the soldiers’ experience of the Great War is truly astounding. It has grown dramatically in the last few decades and shows little sign of diminishing. Indeed, with the centenary of the outbreak of the war only two years away (at the time of writing), there is every likelihood that there will be a further upsurge, not least from those interested in family history for whom ‘grandfather's war’ (and increasingly ‘great-grandfather's war’) remains a matter of central interest. It would be hypocritical to bemoan such a wealth of material but, putting aside the practical problems of dealing with source material in such quantities, there are important questions about the quality of such evidence that need to be asked. The purpose of this chapter is to examine some of the more important categories of literary evidence – letters, diaries, memoirs, journalism and novels – and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of this personal testimony in the light of the issues discussed in the previous chapters. This will complete the backdrop for the detailed consideration of the war writings of Patrick MacGill that is at the heart of this book.

There are a number of general points that need to be made at the outset. First, there is the complex problem of what can or cannot be said, particularly in public, at any given time. Concern for the sensibilities of fellow soldiers and for those of the families of those killed in the Great War imposed an obvious constraint that diminished with the passing of time. In a broader sense, the cultural and socio-political context of the day could inhibit expression and bring about another form of self-censorship. For example, abhorrence of seemingly senseless killing born of shock at the visual images from Vietnam in the 1970s may well have inhibited Great War veterans from expressing their satisfaction at ‘a job well done’ earlier in the century. Secondly, it is important to recognize the necessary limitations of any personal testimony. At a very basic but nonetheless important level the individual soldier's experience, particularly of the confusion of battle, was difficult for him to put into a broader context. As Richard Holmes has pointed out, few, if any, soldiers had a ‘big picture to remember’; rather they had ‘disconnected snatches of unrelated events’.