3.56 AVERAGE


I was impressed with the book when it first began. However, it did grow a little tedious as it went on. It should be noted that much of the book is told through the third person. Someone else is describing the action that the main character went through. It isn't until the last third or so of the book that you get to see the action through his eyes. It wasn't a bad book, just not one of my favorites.

An excellent story about love, courage, and honor. After reading the novel you’ll realize how pitifully simple all the movies are, the only way you could do proper justice to the magnitude of the novel would be a first rate TV show. There are so many characters, so much background history, so many exploits and motivations, that the book is never boring. The characters will each evoke powerful emotions, and Mason really captures the full scope of the human mind. Harry Feversham is probably one of my favorite characters, because he is so real, and his person is not something that would have occurred to just any author. His motivations are so pure, yet never simple, that you won’t be able to stop yourself from admiring him. The ending of this book is just so powerful, that I feel I cannot do it justice in a review without giving away spoilers. Suffice it to say, it’s an often underrated masterpiece.
adventurous emotional hopeful inspiring reflective sad tense medium-paced
adventurous emotional medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven: Character
Strong character development: Yes
Loveable characters: Yes
Diverse cast of characters: No
Flaws of characters a main focus: Yes

Nota Bene: I can only review the book as someone who had seen the movie first.

That said, the book and the 2002 adaptation are quite different. In setting, in theme, in the portrayal of the characters, and in many other areas they differ quite a bit.

Not that that makes either of them not good. (minor spoilers follow) The movie is a romance, primarily is an adventure story, and takes place primarily in Africa. Harry Feversham (Heath Ledger) is the main character and the focus is on his journey to reclaim what has been taken from him via the titular four feathers. The book is much more interested in the psychology of its characters, is primarily an exploration of its characters motives and thoughts, and takes place mainly in Great Britain. Harry is still A main character, but is by no means THE main character. Others, namely Colonel Durrance, get much more time to shine.

The verdict? I think I preferred to experience them in this order: movie first and then book. I feel like I would have been disappointed by the movie's choices in adapting the story, whereas this way it's easier for me to appreciate them separately and for what they are. I like them both and would recommend them to those that I think would enjoy them.

'Every man would be a coward where he but brave enough' is a quote that I thought came from this novel.

Turns out I was wrong on both counts - the actual quote is 'For all men would be cowards if they durst', and was actually written by John Wilmot, the Earl of Rochester in his poem "A Satyr against Reason and Mankind" roughly 2 centuries before the publication of this novel.

It's also a line that Mason, ad the others of his generation, would have had absolutely no understanding of and would (probably) have been vehemently against, as depicted in the events of this story.

This story starts on the eve of his regiment sailing off to fight in Sudan, when Harry Feversham resigns his commission, having just gotten engaged to his fiancee. When his 'friends' find out they send him three white feathers - the symbols of cowardice - which he receives in the company of that fiancee, who adds a fourth.

In a bid to retain his honour - valued above all else by the Colonial British of the time - Harry hatches a plan to go under-cover to Sudan, looking for opportunities to prove his bravery to those friends and (finally) his fiancee so they will take their feather back.

(Personally, I don't know why he didn't just do the same as Nobby Nobs in [a:Terry Pratchett|1654|Terry Pratchett|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1235562205p2/1654.jpg]'s [b:Jingo|47990|Jingo (Discworld, #21)|Terry Pratchett|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1327921813s/47990.jpg|1128623], and save said feathers for a mattress ... )

The result is very much a book of its time, very much a 'boys-own' story of Harry and his daring escapades in the Sudan. It's also very much so a novel that needs read with that in mind: to modern minds, the entire premise might seem a little rickety (would someone really go to those extremes just to 'prove' their bravery?), but such was the mores of the day.


A quick-read romantic adventure story. VERY "stiff upper lip" "think of England" "steady on, old chap" "honor requires", etc. Very C. Aubrey Smith (upon reflection, it's no wonder he was in the 1939 film--who else??)

After reading it, at first I thought "well, the movie was better", but on further reflection I think its one of those occasions where the book and movie are different but end up as a tie.

always Wanted to read it, since I love the Korda adaptation from the 1940s so much. it's even better.
adventurous emotional inspiring reflective slow-paced

A romantic adventure that stands the test of time.