Rating: 
Summary: Pseudoreality prevails
Review: "The Good Soldier" is a masterpiece of opacity. All first-person narrators are unreliable, but Dowell is a special case. He is so pathetic, so absolutely determined to stay deceived, so observant while always missing the most important things. But he has such a way with words that I'll listen for as long as he wants to talk, so that for a "modernist" novel "The Good Soldier" actually is quite a page-turner. If you have read piles of good old novels and think you've seen everything, I'll wager that "The Good Soldier" will still impress you. The more you like novels, the more you'll admire Ford's achievement. The level of craftsmanship will become even clearer on a second reading.
Rating: 
Summary: Discreet Harm of the Bourgeoisie
Review: Ford Madox Ford's "The Good Soldier" isn't really worthy of some of the more recent adulation heaped on it. It is not one of the greatest novels in the English language. Ford's friend and colleague, Joseph Conrad, was turning out far superior novels during this same period of time. Ford's rediscovery and positive reassessment by a new generation speaks more to their own concerns with finding truth at a personal level in a time of turmoil and deceit than it does to any transcendental perfection inherent in the novel. The same people who have re-inflicted Henry James on us over the past 15 years are this book's biggest admirers. So, why do I give "The Good Soldier" four stars?Because it is a damned fine novel in its narrative dimensions and its psychological analysis of its characters. Told through the tattered memory of John Dowell, the story weaves back and forth across time and personal perspective. Its non-linearity is acknowledged up front by Dowell, who warns us that he intends to tell this saddest of stories to us as if we were sitting right next to him in a room, listening to him speak while the night wind moans and thrashes outside. In fact, Dowell so tangles up his narrative that, at one point, he has to backtrack and put the sequence of events back into chronological order to clear up the confusion he has caused for himself through his knotted recitation of what happened. The non-linearity of the story line should be a major clue to the reader of the main theme of this novel -- how we deceive even ourselves when it comes to our most private passions. Dowell is a Nabokovian delight, an untrustworthy narrator who can only be relied upon for the basic facts and not the emotional nuances that create or shape them. Reluctant at first to admit anything unseemly in he and his wife Florence's twelve-year friendship with Leonora and Edward Ashburnham, Dowell eventually begins to trip himself up and, seemingly unknowingly, reveal things that contradict his earlier depictions of what transpired between the Dowells and the Ashburnhams. Dowell is sticking his hand in a fire and, in the process, coming to terms with his inner turmoil and pain at the turn of events which leave him widowed and nursing an insane young woman he loves, as well as Edward Ashburnham dead by his own hand, Florence Dowell likewise and Leonora Ashburnham, married off to a dull, proper member of the English gentry. Ford's mastery of psychological detail and insight into his characters is astonishing. It also reinforces the untrustworthy nature of Dowell's role as narrator. We wonder how a man can be so keen an observer of human behavior, yet not understand until after his wife has committed suicide that she has cuckolded him throughout their marriage. Nevertheless, Dowell's ability to analyze the motives and behaviors of those around him is uncanny. By the end of the novel, it is obvious that Dowell has lied to us about his understanding of his own feelings and actions. He knows Ashburnham, a man he claims to love and admire without reservation, is about to slit his throat, but makes no effort to stop him. "The Good Soldier" is a well-told tale of deceit between lovers and between the self and the soul. It is set at a time when an old ethos was rotting from within due to its own contradictions. That same sense of tearing through the hypocrisy of conventional wisdom and expectations of what we should expect in the form of love from others is what makes this novel very relevant for our own troubled era.
Rating:
Summary: A Great Read
Review: I read this book for a class 30 years ago, forgot about it, and then saw it on a list of the top 100 novels of the 20th Century. This is a wonderfully constructed, thoughtfully written, and facinating story. Independent of the story and the issues of change and transformation thematically dominating the book; the style and prose are intriquing and creative. An easy read well worth the time to revisit or discover new.
Rating:
Summary: It truly is one of the saddest stories ever told
Review: I was in a bookstore and picked a copy of this novel up, and from the second I read what I later learned was a famous first sentence (and justifiably so)--"This is the saddest story I have ever heard"--I knew I had to read it. What is truly sad about the book is that the narrator has no conception of where the tragedy in the book lies. While he is articulate and seemingly insightful in his analysis of others, he remains blissfully unaware of his own enormously failings, both in morals and in character. It is indeed a very sad story, but the narrator leaves out the fact that he is quite possibly one of the most pathetic characters in all fiction. If one prefers one's narrators and ostensible heroes to be truly heroic and sympathetic, then this novel will not please. If one, however, can imagine enjoying a novel written with J. Alfred Prufrock as the narrator and central character, then one is in a position to appreciate THE GOOD SOLDIER. The novel is not a page-turner. If you read this novel quickly, you have read it wrongly. The beauty of the book is the exquisite prose, and should be read slowly, savoring each sentence and each sentiment. There is a dreamlike (one could say nightmarish) quality to the book, and one will most enjoy it by allowing oneself to become entranced by the atmospheres summoned up. If you are willing to take the novel on its own terms, with its unheroic and unadmirable characters, with its pathetic elements and situations, and its subtle psychological observations, then there will be few reading experiences that will match THE GOOD SOLDIER. One of the most remarkable novels of the past century. But if you only like novels where there is a definite hero and admirable characters, you probably wouldn't enjoy this very much.
Rating:
Summary: Clever and compelling narrative
Review: Like another reviewer I too bought this book because it was on a list of the top 100 books of the twentieth century. But it sat on the shelf for a while because I didn't like the look of it from an instinctive perspective. Being from a different time and by an English author, I was intimidated. I thought I would have a hard time getting past the language of the book, and I thought I would be bored. I mean come on, how many times have we heard about an English restoration piece in which there is some deep and horrible scandal amongst the English well-to-do in the late nineteenth century, and it turns out pretty mundane by modern standards.
But in The Good Soldier it isn't the scandalous behavior of the characters that makes this a fascinating read, it is the amazing narrative voice of John Dowell. Ford's accomplishment with The Good Soldier is not in the creation of an incredible story. The story to me seems more like garnish to the main attraction. What makes this a masterful work is Ford's creation of a storyteller. John Dowell as a storyteller is so complete and real. Oh I don't mean the details of his life or the veracity of his character or morals. It is John Dowell's voice that makes this book a classic.
After reading different reviews and analysis of the book after I read it I noticed how many people seem concerned with the trustworthiness of Dowell's story. Personally I don't understand why it's important. If I were indeed sitting beside him in a country inn in front of a roaring hearth, trying to pass the night while the weather had its way with the night outside - a scene Dowell suggests and I found myself in quite easily while reading - my concern would be for the method and the gripping nature of his storytelling. I would not only accept, but also expect embellishments, exaggerations and one-sidedness. But of course unless he were a mad sea captain I would also expect him to admonish himself for doing these things and to seem sincere and to seem to consciously be making an effort to tell the whole story, even when it embarrassed himself. People have mentioned the way Dowell says that "this is the saddest story I've ever heard" and how it seems an odd thing to say if one is in the story and not hearing it. I however like to imagine him saying this in front of the aforementioned fire (after dinner when all the other guests have already turned in for the night) as a beginning to the story he's about to tell, placing himself in the roll of one of the characters (perhaps to make the story more interesting, and perhaps because it really did happen to him). Ford's magic is in making a man who tells a story in a book, exactly as you would expect him to tell you in person. You can't tell for sure what's true or not; when you've caught him in a lie and when he's just made a mistake because he's tired.
The Good Soldier succeeds because a not very interesting man tells a not very interesting story in a truly real and interesting way.
Rating:
Summary: The end of the affair
Review: No sooner had I started reading Ford Madox Ford's "The Good Soldier" that it reminded me of one of my favorite novels ever: Graham Greene's "The End of the Affair". Not because the books are similar, but I think they bear much resemblance. Both novels are narrated by a character that is one of the protagonists of the love affair, and, in both cases, he is very sad and jealous.
If "The end of the Affair" is a "diary of hate", "The Good Soldier" is "the saddest story [the narrator] ever heard", is what John Dowel tells in the beginning of the book. Set in a period from 1904 to 1913, the narrative tells the story of two couples -- one American and another one British --that meet in Germany and become friends. Some time later, Dowel discoveries that his wife had a love affair with his friend.
This novel is considered a Pre-Modernist work, Ford wrote the book in 1914, immediate before the First World War started --however, the book has some modernists elements, like a break from the Edwardian and Victorian novels, more traditional novels that preceded it. Ford employs innovations: the plot is disjointed, non-chronological, and infused with reflective commentary from the narrator.
The feeling we have is that we are unveiling the story at the same time of Dowel. He never seems to know more than we do. His tone of narrative is, above all, confuse and angry, but sometimes he is also very naïve. But, at the end, what is left is the impression that he is/was a man seeking for the truth, for some console, and coming to terms with his wife betrayal.
Although it is a novel that discusses the moral of the adultery, "The Good Soldier" is not a book that preaches any kind of moral. Sometimes, the major theme in this book is the difference between reality and appearance.
Many consider "The Good Soldier" the best book of the pre-war period, mostly because of the issues it touched upon. By that time, the so-called polite society didn't use to mention subjects like adultery, betrayal and moral confusion. Today we may be tired of discussing these issues, but they still make an interesting book.
Rating:
Summary: A Little Masterpiece
Review: One of the greatest examples of the spoken-word novel, The Good Soldier succeeds where authors as great as Conrad have failed. Our narrator does not tell a straight, linear story. No. He forgets things, comes back to them later, revives a subject you thought dead and meaningless only to shed new light on it and make it important. Perhaps the greatest effect the book has is the after-taste. When reading the book, I found it slow and boring. Once I set it down, though, I couldn't stop thinking about it. I had to read it again. And once I began again, I found myself reading it slowly once more, though not from boredom, but rather because I wanted to savor it and take it all in. I encourage anyone who has begun this book only to find themselves tired of it rather quickly to stick with it. You'll be glad you did. You'll find yourself buying copies for friends to read, as I do. This book truly gets under your skin.
Rating: 
Summary: Original but sentimental.
Review: The author of this novel written in the first person, discovers behind the perfect outward appearances of two upper class families, lechery, squandering, assailed purity, violent emotional conflicts and infighting, cuckoldry.
This is certainly not a new theme, but the originality here lays in the treatment: the first-person narrator tells the story as a calm and distant observer, although he is directly implicated in the venomous conflicts.
He discovers and reveals the facts little by little to the reader and gives his comments on the motivations and actions of the different characters as a 'good soldier'.
The confusion of sentiments is well rendered, but I found the main characters not so interesting. Out of date are also the religious motives: the impact of religion on the protagonists and the distinction between catholic and protestant characters.
The outcome is particularly sentimental and melodramatic. The reaction of an older man on the loss of a young girl, as well as the rest of the young girl's life are highly improbable.
There are better books on the same theme. To name a few classics: 'Dangerous Liaisons' by Choderlos de Laclos, 'Elective Affinities' by J.W. von Goethe or the more vulgar 'A Life' by Guy de Maupassant.
Rating:
Summary: achingly beautiful
Review: The Good Soldier is woefully underread, and it fully deserves its somewhat belatedly-restored status as a true classic of 20th c. English literature. Ford Madox Ford, a friend and collaborator of Joseph Conrad, lays out a deceptively simple, almost trite, plot, one which we first think we've heard a dozen times before. But the beauty of this book is in the telling. Ford's narrator is piecing together the events of the past decade as he tells the story, and as such he jumps back and forth over the course of the last ten years, offering glimpses of events yet to come, going back and re-telling accounts of events he's already shared (though always with a new twist and revelation). In essence, the narrator is "learning" the story along with the reader, and he never (if ever) truly "understands" what's happened till the very end. Ford shatters forever the old 19th c. English novel where good and evil are absolute polar opposites, where characters unfailingly embrace either one or the other pole, where decency and "good" almost always prevail in the end, and where characters are immediately transparent (take Dickens, for example: a paragraph or two and you know all you need to know about each and every character he introduces; whether they're "good" or "bad," etc.) Ford uses the genre of the novel to create a work of literature where art mirrors real life. His characters are never what they seem at first meeting, events are fraught with deep hidden meanings that bubble beneath the surface, and there are three sides to every story. Beautifully written with moments of sparkling wit and levity, it is also an emotionally draining work that tackles love (versus what simply goes by the name) and propriety (versus what society says is proper). You'll want to flip back to the first chapter and re-read it from page one, knowing then what you know by book's end. A true masterpiece which I cannot recommend highly enough. This particular edition from Everymans Library is particularly handsome and well-bound, with insightful introductory essays by thoughtful critics (which, needless to say, should be read after the novel itself).
Rating:
Summary: achingly beautiful
Review: The Good Soldier is woefully underread, and it fully deserves its somewhat belatedly-restored status as a true classic of 20th c. English literature. Ford Madox Ford, a friend and collaborator of Joseph Conrad, lays out a deceptively simple, almost trite, plot, one which we first think we've heard a dozen times before. But the beauty of this book is in the telling. Ford's narrator is piecing together the events of the past decade as he tells the story, and as such he jumps back and forth over the course of the last ten years, offering glimpses of events yet to come, going back and re-telling accounts of events he's already shared (though always with a new twist and revelation). In essence, the narrator is "learning" the story along with the reader, and he never (if ever) truly "understands" what's happened till the very end. Ford shatters forever the old 19th c. English novel where good and evil are absolute polar opposites, where characters unfailingly embrace either one or the other pole, where decency and "good" almost always prevail in the end, and where characters are immediately transparent (take Dickens, for example: a paragraph or two and you know all you need to know about each and every character he introduces; whether they're "good" or "bad," etc.) Ford uses the genre of the novel to create a work of literature where art mirrors real life. His characters are never what they seem at first meeting, events are fraught with deep hidden meanings that bubble beneath the surface, and there are three sides to every story. Beautifully written with moments of sparkling wit and levity, it is also an emotionally draining work that tackles love (versus what simply goes by the name) and propriety (versus what society says is proper). You'll want to flip back to the first chapter and re-read it from page one, knowing then what you know by book's end. A true masterpiece which I cannot recommend highly enough. This particular edition from Everymans Library is particularly handsome and well-bound, with insightful introductory essays by thoughtful critics (which, needless to say, should be read after the novel itself).
|
