This essay builds upon Joshua Pederson’s article, “Speak Trauma: Toward a Revised Understanding of Literary Trauma Theory,” published in Narrative in 2014. While Pederson’s three dicta for analyzing trauma are useful, his exclusive use of war-related trauma literature ignores the way in which hegemonic masculinity and public and private memory influence victims’ ability to tell their stories. Scholars also need to examine what the body “speaks” and the use of figurative language. If trauma is public, figurative language is used to describe an internal conflict and signals transformation. If trauma is private, figurative language is not transformative. Instead, it moves from ambiguity to silence, and the body becomes the only form of speech others can hear. Judith Herman proposes that psychological advances on trauma are dependent on political movements. She outlines three key movements: the study of hysteria at the end of the 19th century, the response to shell shock in World War I, and the women’s rights movement in the 1970s. I use two of Pat Barker’s novels—Regeneration and Union Street—because they mirror two of the movements Herman identifies: World War 1 and the 1970s. This essay illustrates the problems in assuming that victims have a choice in speaking about their trauma when it is private while also highlighting how the body speaks when language is limited or absent.

本文基于 Joshua Pederson 发表在Narrative上的文章“讲述创伤：对文学创伤理论的修订理解”2014 年。虽然佩德森分析创伤的三个格言很有用，但他对与战争有关的创伤文献的独家使用忽略了霸权男子气概以及公共和私人记忆影响受害者讲述他们故事的能力的方式。学者们还需要检查身体“说”了什么以及比喻语言的使用。如果创伤是公开的，则使用比喻性语言来描述内部冲突和信号转变。如果创伤是私人的，比喻性的语言就不是变革性的。取而代之的是，它从模棱两可转变为沉默，身体成为其他人可以听到的唯一言语形式。朱迪思·赫尔曼（Judith Herman）提出，关于创伤的心理进展取决于政治运动。她概述了三个关键运动：19 世纪末歇斯底里的研究、第一次世界大战中对炮弹冲击的反应、以及 1970 年代的女权运动。我用了帕特·巴克的两本小说——再生和联合街——因为它们反映了赫尔曼确定的两个运动：第一次世界大战和 1970 年代。这篇文章说明了假设受害者可以选择在私人的情况下谈论他们的创伤，同时也强调当语言有限或不存在时身体如何说话时存在的问题。