Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.47 AVERAGE
3.47 AVERAGE
mysterious
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
A book whose title was originally "The Saddest Story" might dissuade you from ever reading it. However, though extremely tragic, its character analysis of the numerous love triangles give you that soap opera hook, while also diving into some deeper questions surrounding the practicality of monogamous relationships. The characters are extremely in-depth and their motives are interesting; the main point of interest being Edward, the former war hero from which the book gets it title, who has little to no grasp on his ability to contain his passion for romance. At the end of the day, this book fits right in with the romantic tragedies penned by Fitzgerald and Hemingway.
slow-paced
Such a bore and turns out Ford was friends with Conrad so no wonder I didn't like it. Never before have I been so confused at a book being considered a great work of literature.
“This is the saddest story I have ever heard”, indeed, the opening lines of this book perfectly summarize the tenor of this novel. The American narrator, John Dowell, takes us into the story of the friendship he and his wife Florence had with an English couple, Edward and Leonora Ashburnham, a friendship that starts very innocently but whose dramatic ending (a suicide on each side) is immediately made clear. So there isn't much suspense there, except perhaps for the way the two victims meet their end. It soon becomes clear that infidelity and deceit dominate the intrigue, so no surprises there either.
Then what is the strength of this novel? I don't have to think about that: it's the seemingly spontaneous, engaging narrative voice. John Dowell is a tattler who takes us into a whirlwind of unlikely amorous developments, of which he - unwillingly - was the participating observer, and of which he still understands barely anything himself (or that's the impression he gives). It soon becomes clear that John is a very naive man who was misled by his wife from the start of their marriage, and who also has to admit how much he had a misguided view of the Ashburnhams. You can hardly help but feel pity and sympathy for him. But at the same time you also regularly get the feeling that he may not be completely straightforward, that his story is particularly colored, and that no matter how much he pretends to be the biggest victim, he may not be one.
Madox Ford gives the impression that this is a form of confession literature and therapeutic writing (“Forgive my writing of these monstruous things in this frivolous manner. If I didn't I should break down and cry”), in which the narrator, in an apparently impartial way, tries to discover what exactly was going on. Through Dowell Madox Ford plays a perverse game with the reader, pulling him into a whirlwind of constantly changing observations and emotions, continuously misleading him with semantic shifts in meaning in Dowell's argument (the title 'the good soldier' is one of them), and contradictory statements and emotions (the extremely warm feelings that Dowell continues to have for the Ashburnhams, for example). It is that endless accumulation of ambiguities that makes this an extremely fascinating piece of literature, very similar to the 100 year older novel [b:Dangerous Liaisons|326768|Dangerous Liaisons|Pierre Choderlos de Laclos|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1632510503l/326768._SY75_.jpg|3280025] by Choderlos De Laclos, and - why not - a predecessor of [b:Lolita|7604|Lolita|Vladimir Nabokov|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1377756377l/7604._SY75_.jpg|1268631] by Nabokov.
But the greatest strength of this book is also its greatest weakness: the author keeps the carousel spinning for just a little too long, in a (consciously) faltering associative narrative style, with new turns and twists every 30 pages, in a complex network of flashbacks and previews, shifts in perspective and chronology, bouts of analysis and self-reflection, and harsh dialogues, until it becomes a bit too much. Even three quarters into the book, Dowell begins a new series of developments, as if he cannot control his inner urge: “Perhaps all these reflections are a nuisance; but they crowd on me. I will try to tell the story.” At that moment you sigh, wondering what twist the story will take next. But don't worry, this remains an impressive novel, one of the really greats of interwar literature. (Rating 3.5 stars).
Then what is the strength of this novel? I don't have to think about that: it's the seemingly spontaneous, engaging narrative voice. John Dowell is a tattler who takes us into a whirlwind of unlikely amorous developments, of which he - unwillingly - was the participating observer, and of which he still understands barely anything himself (or that's the impression he gives). It soon becomes clear that John is a very naive man who was misled by his wife from the start of their marriage, and who also has to admit how much he had a misguided view of the Ashburnhams. You can hardly help but feel pity and sympathy for him. But at the same time you also regularly get the feeling that he may not be completely straightforward, that his story is particularly colored, and that no matter how much he pretends to be the biggest victim, he may not be one.
Madox Ford gives the impression that this is a form of confession literature and therapeutic writing (“Forgive my writing of these monstruous things in this frivolous manner. If I didn't I should break down and cry”), in which the narrator, in an apparently impartial way, tries to discover what exactly was going on. Through Dowell Madox Ford plays a perverse game with the reader, pulling him into a whirlwind of constantly changing observations and emotions, continuously misleading him with semantic shifts in meaning in Dowell's argument (the title 'the good soldier' is one of them), and contradictory statements and emotions (the extremely warm feelings that Dowell continues to have for the Ashburnhams, for example). It is that endless accumulation of ambiguities that makes this an extremely fascinating piece of literature, very similar to the 100 year older novel [b:Dangerous Liaisons|326768|Dangerous Liaisons|Pierre Choderlos de Laclos|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1632510503l/326768._SY75_.jpg|3280025] by Choderlos De Laclos, and - why not - a predecessor of [b:Lolita|7604|Lolita|Vladimir Nabokov|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1377756377l/7604._SY75_.jpg|1268631] by Nabokov.
But the greatest strength of this book is also its greatest weakness: the author keeps the carousel spinning for just a little too long, in a (consciously) faltering associative narrative style, with new turns and twists every 30 pages, in a complex network of flashbacks and previews, shifts in perspective and chronology, bouts of analysis and self-reflection, and harsh dialogues, until it becomes a bit too much. Even three quarters into the book, Dowell begins a new series of developments, as if he cannot control his inner urge: “Perhaps all these reflections are a nuisance; but they crowd on me. I will try to tell the story.” At that moment you sigh, wondering what twist the story will take next. But don't worry, this remains an impressive novel, one of the really greats of interwar literature. (Rating 3.5 stars).
I didn’t enjoy this as much as I thought I would. It started out alright but I became bored quite quickly. I didn’t connect with any of the characters. They weren’t fleshed out enough to care about them. You can tell it was written over 100 years ago.
as with all modernist books this took me a long time to get into. i read the first few pages on the train and sat absolutely baffled with very little idea about what was going on.
however, i have just finished and i can safely concur that 'this is [one of] the saddest stories i have ever heard'. the way the story slowly unfolds, the way ford drops absolute bombshells of information with no warning, the way time shifts and twists ... really lovely.
this is one of those books where very few of the characters are very likeable. i think the narrator's relationship with edward is very interesting - is it infatuation, or love, or jealousy ? most of the characters have to simply deal with the hand they have been dealt, very unhappily. it is a bleak vision of life.
ford lingers on the smallest details, exploring the smallest moments, while offering one sentence explanations for major plot points. it is very disorientating but i quite like it.
im very excited to have a seminar about this, led by the man who wrote the introduction to this edition, max saunders. safe to say this man knows a lot about ford madox ford.
however, i have just finished and i can safely concur that 'this is [one of] the saddest stories i have ever heard'. the way the story slowly unfolds, the way ford drops absolute bombshells of information with no warning, the way time shifts and twists ... really lovely.
this is one of those books where very few of the characters are very likeable. i think the narrator's relationship with edward is very interesting - is it infatuation, or love, or jealousy ? most of the characters have to simply deal with the hand they have been dealt, very unhappily. it is a bleak vision of life.
ford lingers on the smallest details, exploring the smallest moments, while offering one sentence explanations for major plot points. it is very disorientating but i quite like it.
im very excited to have a seminar about this, led by the man who wrote the introduction to this edition, max saunders. safe to say this man knows a lot about ford madox ford.
