Modernism, Truth, and the Canon of First World War Literature

Abstract

The First World War is a prominent point of convergence for modernist studies and early twentieth-century cultural studies. Both disciplines have scrutinised the impact of the First World War on literary and cultural production, with an increasing willingness to extend their scope to hitherto neglected sources. The academic canon was subject to an ongoing process of revision begun by feminist, queer and Marxist critics in the 1980s. In the wake of a rise in social and cultural historiography, historical inquiry into the war has moreover shifted from mere ‘factual’ evidence to the extensive consideration of literary sources. However, the questions put to these sources and their evaluation as material for academic study often differ widely between the two fields. This article interrogates literary and historical practices regarding ‘modernist’ writing on the First World War, and illustrates the at times considerable tensions between the two approaches by a new critical reading of Mary Borden’s The Forbidden Zone (1929).1 Borden’s work is representative of both contemporary and retrospective expectations connected with literary testimonies of the First World War, and the second half of this article argues that current readings of her work are affected by conflicting demands on war writing. The fact that Borden is not only a war writer but also a woman who served near the frontline as a nurse, opens up another layer of complication in her writing and its critical reception, which will be considered below. By dint of her experiences as a volunteer nurse on the one hand and the experimental nature of