Άνισο έργο που με μπέρδεψε, με κούρασε αρκετά αλλά και με αντάμειψε, σε σημεία. Το μοντερνιστικό μωράκι του Ford ήταν σαν να έκανε τα πρώτα του (1914), αβέβαια βήματα προς τον πάγκο της κουζίνας και πραγματικά  κόντεψε 2-3 φορές να καταρρεύσει στο  πάτωμα, όπως κι εγώ  αντίστοιχα κόντεψα να το βάλω πίσω στο κρεβατάκι του - στη βιβλιοθήκη. 

Χαμένος στους μαιάνδρους της μοντερνιστικής του αναζήτησης, και μη μπορώντας να πείσει το εκλεπτυσμένο διανοητικά  εγώ του να μείνει κάπως στην άκρη, ο F.M. Ford συχνά μετεωρίζεται - και αναλώνεται - σε ασκήσεις ύφους, επίδειξης πνεύματος και τεχνικής. Σόρυ, Φορντ, έτσι ένοιωσα. 

Για να πω όλη την αλήθεια, κάπου γύρω στη σελίδα 200 βρήκε τον λογοτεχνικό βηματισμό του και η αφήγηση απέκτησε επιτέλους ρυθμό και συνεκτικότητα, όμως αλλοίμονο, ήταν μάλλον αργά πια.. 

Φαντάζομαι ότι περισσότερο ταλαντούχοι, ή σωστότερα,  εγγύτεροι στην προσωπικότητα μου συγγραφείς (σκέφτομαι τον Χαβιέ Μαρίας, τώρα) θα είχαν κάνει παπάδες με το υλικό αυτό: τη συμφιλίωση του ήρωα με την προδοσία, τη ματαίωση των προσδοκιών του και τη απελευθερωτική θέα των πραγματικών χρωμάτων τού εαυτού, μετά από την καταιγίδα.. 

Άξιζε τη ανάγνωση, αν ήμουν ο χαιλαντερ Κόννορ  Μακλάουντ και το είχα διαβάσει το 1915 θα ήταν αλλιώς.. Όπως έγραψα στην αρχή, είχε και τις πραγματικά καλές στιγμές του, ο καλός στρατιώτης: 

.. είναι οι ζωές όλων των ανθρώπων σαν τις ζωές μας, σαν τις ζωές των καλών ανθρώπων; Σαν τις ζωές των Άσμπερναμ και των Ντόουελ και των Ράφορντ - τσακισμένες, θυελλώδεις, αγωνιώδεις και αντιρομαντικές, περίοδοι με σημεία στίξεως κραυγές, ανημπόριες,  θανάτους, αγωνίες; Ποιος διάβολο ξέρει;

Why is this titled ‘the Good Soldier’? Edward was a soldier, for a spell. Edward of the nefarious quadratic epicentre where, after the music stopped everyone sat on the wrong chair. Is narrator John Dowell (where only Dowell seems to appear in the text and you have to read FMF’s intro to gather it was prefixed by a John, a man insignificant enough to not have a name?) in love with him? And did said John ever consummate his twelve year marriage to Florence? And, do lets dig some more dirt: did Edward ever consummate HIS marriage to Leonora? I ask because apparently as late as 1918 people didn’t know how babies were made. Yup. Mary Stopes had to spell it out in a 1918 publication of ‘Married Life’. So it might shed some light as to why Leonora and Edward had no issue, but later on, give her a wink and a nod in the haystack with Rodney Bayham and hey presto, the buns in the oven.

So thats the infamous quartet: Leonora and Edward, John and Florence. Everybody is shagging everybody else apart from the people they’re supposed to be shagging. Except maybe John, actually, who isn’t shagging anyone. Well, thats understandable. The thing is, you can’t shag and write. Its either one or the other. Mutually exclusive sort of thing. As in, if you’re out putting it about, then you’re not in writing it out. We know this from the fringe-alised narrator in Sophie’s Choice, or the Great Gatsby, or anywhere else where we have the Fringe Hero (umm, trademark?) holding the margins whilst the less loquacious but more virile specimens of humanity battle it out in delicto flagrante. So it goes. If you’re here reading and not out shagging, you know which camp you’re in . ‘Nuff said.

But even so, how can John Dowell NOT shag for the 15 years or so over the span of this story?

Because he is a Malesub.

He likes to Man Friday it about. The bloke is a nurse to his wife for 12 years: don’t tell me he didn’t felch it once in a while, wittingly or not. What does he do then? Move on to nursing a Nancy. Who has a brain like a swiss cheese, but is femmedom between the lines. Of his brain.

The rest? Trapped like a hare in headlights. Nowhere to go. Imprisoned within the confines of their own minds: minds which create worlds and prisons and mores to bind and break: just like the proverbial story of the elephant who was chained for so long to a tree, that when he was finally let loose he never strayed from that tree til he died: he had, effectively, become his own judge, jury and executor.

Its a quirk that you shrivel when all you’re ever doing is what you’re supposed to be doing rather than what you want to be doing. But prolly necessary. Where would we ALL be if 90% of us weren’t preprogrammed Borg drones, keeping the Hive going.
..........................................................
Sheesh, let me not forget how FMX fucks fiddles fuck time. Normally I hate contrived shenanigans, as in The Time Travellers Wife. Don’t get me started on Dr Who. But FMX, he is a time line Titan.

I love the unreliable narrator trope so much.. his wife just commits suicide, he barely mentions her again and we’re meant to just accept he was innocent lol? Everyone in this book is gross and so naive
“It is queer the fantastic things that quite good people will do in order to keep up their appearance of calm pococurantism”

Audiobook #197

I have, I am aware, told this story in a very rambling way so that it may be difficult for anyone to find their path through what may be a sort of maze. I cannot help it. I have stuck to my idea of being in a country cottage with a silent listener, hearing between the gusts of the wind and amidst the noises of the distant sea, the story as it comes. And, when one discusses an affair—a long, sad affair—one goes back, one goes forward. One remembers points that one has forgotten and one explains them all the more minutely since one recognises that one has forgotten to mention them in their proper places and that one may have given, by omitting them, a false impression. I console myself with thinking that this is a real story and that, after all, real stories are probably told best in the way a person telling a story would tell them. They will then seem most real.

İki sene önce 30 sayfa kadar okuyup yarım bırakmıştım İyi Asker’i, bu kez severek okudum.

İyi Asker, kısaca, Almanya’nın bir şehrinde tatil yaparken tanışan iki çift arasındaki ilişkiler yumağını anlatıyor. Çiftlerden biri zengin ve Amerikalı, diğeri ise İngiliz, aristokrat bir aileden gelen bir askerle fakir bir ailenin kızı. Yaklaşık on senelik bir dostlukla beraber, ihanet, kıskançlık, aşk gibi türlü insani duygu ve durumlar da dahil oluyor hikayeye. Kitabın başları biraz sabır istiyor zira sadece ilişki okumak biraz dikkatin dağılmasına sebep olabiliyor, ki benim de ilk okumada sıkılmamamın nedeni bu olmuştu. Ancak ilerledikçe sabrınızın karşılığını almaya başlıyorsunuz.

Kitabı beğenmemin üç sebebi var: Birincisi, aşk, evlilik ve ilişkiler üzerine kurulu hikayeyi Ford, kitabın sonunda çok güzel bir yere bağlıyor. İkincisi, gerçeğin ya da gerçeklik diye kabul ettiklerimizin, algımız ve bildiklerimizle nasıl kısıtlı olduğunu etkileyici bir şekilde göstermiş hikayede. Keza, gerçeklik diye algıladıklarımızın, ne kadar duygularımızın etkisi altında olduğuna bağlı olarak da değişken ve subjektif olabileceğini de çok güzel işlemiş. İnsanlara hangi duygularla yaklaşırsak, onlarla ilgili fikir ve önyargılarımızın o şekilde şekilleneceği ve bu nedenle aynı insanı farklı bilgiler ışığında, farklı açılardan ya da farklı duygularla değerlendirmeye çalıştığımızda nasıl adeta bambaşka bir grup insanı karşımızda bulabileceğimizi düşündüren güzel bir hikaye. Buradan hareketle de başta kendimiz olmak üzere hangi insanı gerçekten ne kadar tanıyabiliriz, o zaman insan ilişkilerinde her şey belirsizlik üzerine mi kurulur gibi sorgulamalara varıyoruz. Kitabın bana göre etkileyici olmasının üçüncü sebebi de bununla bağlantılı: Yazarın anlatımı, tüm bu anlatmaya çalıştıklarıyla muhteşem bir uyum içinde. İnsan karakterinin ve ilişkilerinin belirsizliğini de anlatıcının öğrendikleri ve yaşadıkları sonucu değişen ruh hali, duyguları ve karakterlere yaklaşımını da anlatıma çok güzel yansıtmış yazar.

Kısacası, biraz dikkat ve sabır isteyen ama özellikle duygular üzerine okumayı seviyorsanız anlatımı, detayları ve tespitleriyle hoşunuza gidebilecek bir kitap İyi Asker. Orijinal alt başlığı (A Tale of Passion) Bir Tutku Hikayesi’nin çok güzel özetlediği kitapta, ilerledikçe hikayede anlam kazanan detaylar, yazarın boşlukları dikkatini veren okuru ödüllendirircesine doldurmasını keşfetmek de ayrıca keyifliydi benim için. Sevdim.

Deeply hated everyone is this book. But a really fast and enjoyable read. If you like mystery, passion, people with blue eyes, and modern classics then give this a go. Also the writing is kind of gorgeous.

Brillante e carismatico romanzo che squarcia il velo di ipocrisia sull'alta società del primo Novecento, tutti i personaggi sono opachi, intriganti, nessuno sincero, un bell'ambientino...

ΤΟ ΒΙΒΛΙΟ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΜΙΑ ΕΞΟΜΟΛΟΓΗΣΗ, ΜΙΑ
ΚΑΤΑΘΕΣΗ ΨΥΧΗΣ, ΜΙΑ ΕΚΔΗΛΗ ΕΚΜΥΣΤΗΡΕΥΣΗ
ΤΩΝ ΣΚΕΨΕΩΝ, ΣΥΝΑΙΣΘΗΜΑΤΩΝ Κ ΤΩΝ ΑΙΣΘΗΜΑΤΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΑΦΗΓΗΤΗ ΣΤΟΝ ΑΝΑΓΝΩΣΤΗ.

ΔΥΟ ΟΙΚΟΓΕΝΕΙΕΣ ΟΥΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΑ ΣΥΝΘΕΤΟΥΝ ΑΥΤΟ
ΤΟ ΑΝΑΓΝΩΣΜΑ. Η ΟΙΚΟ��ΕΝΕΙΑ ΑΣΠΕΡΝΑΜ Κ Η ΟΙΚΟΓΕΝΕΙΑ ΝΤΟΥΕΛ. ΟΙ ΣΧΕΣΕΙΣ ΔΥΟ ΖΕΥΓΑΡΙΩΝ
ΠΟΥ ΕΞΕΛΙΣΣΟΝΤΑΙ ΜΕΣΑ ΣΤΟ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΟ ΔΙΑΣΤΗΜΑ
9 ΧΡΟΝΩΝ.

Ο ΑΣΠΕΡΝΑΜ ΕΝΑΣ ΤΕΛΕΙΟΣ ΚΡΙΤΗΣ, ΕΝΤΙΜΟΣ Κ ΑΞΙΟΠΙΣΤΟΣ.

Η ΛΕΝΟΡΑ, ΣΥΖΥΓΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΑΣΠΕΡΝΑΜ, ΡΙΨΟΚΙΝΔΥΝΗ. ΗΘΙΚΗ ΣΥΖΥΓΟΣ ΠΟΥ ΟΜΩΣ ΔΡΑ ΜΕ ΔΟΛΙΟ ΤΡΟΠΟ ΣΚΕΨΗΣ. Ο ΓΑΜΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΔΙΑΚΥΒΕΥΕΤΑΙ ΛΟΓΩ
ΤΩΝ ΕΞΩΣΥΖΥΓΙΚΩΝ ΣΧΕΣΕΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΑΝΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ.

Η ΦΛΟΡΕΝΣ ΑΠΡΟΣΙΤΗ, ΙΔΙΟΡΡΥΘΜΗ, ΑΠΟΜΑΚΡΗ. ΩΣΤΟΣΟ ΑΥΤΟ ΠΟΥ ΤΗ ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡΙΖΕΙ ΕΙΝΑΙ Η ΛΑΜΠΡΗ ΤΗΣ ΠΡΟΣΩΠΙΚΟΤΗΤΑ ΧΑΡΗ ΣΤΙΣ ΓΝΩΣΕΙΣ ΤΗΣ.

Ο ΝΤΟΥΕΛ, Ο ΑΦΗΓΗΤΗΣ ΤΗΣ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑΣ, ΑΓΝΟΣ, ΠΡΟΣΗΝΗΣ, ΜΕ ΚΑΘΑΡΟΤΗΤΑ ΣΚΕΨΕΩΝ. ΕΤΣΙ ΑΡΧΙΚΑ ΜΑΣ ΠΑΡΟΥΣΙΑΖΕΤΑΙ. ΤΑ ΣΤΟΙΧΕΙΑ ΑΥΤΑ ΤΟΥ ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡΑ ΤΟΥ ΟΔΗΓΟΥΝ ΣΕ ΜΙΑ ΣΥΓΚΥΡΙΑ ΣΗ ΚΟΡΟΪΔΙΑΣ Κ ΕΜΠΑΙΓΜΟΥ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΟΣΩΠΟ ΤΟΥ.

ΠΡΟΣΠΑΘΕΙ ΝΑ ΔΗΜΙΟΥΡΓΗΣΕΙ ΜΙΑ ΣΧΕΣΗ ΦΙΛΙΚΗ Κ ΕΜΠΙΣΤΗ ΜΕ ΤΟ ΑΝΑΓΝΩΣΤΗ- ΑΚΡΟΑΤΗ ΑΝΤΙΜΕΤΩΠΙΖΟΝΤΑΣ ΤΟΝ ΩΣ ΨΥΧΟΛΟΓΟ Ή ΕΞΟΜΟΛΟΓΗΤΗ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΤΑΘΕΤΟΝΤΑΣ ΤΟΥ ΤΑ ΓΕΓΟΝΟΤΑ ΤΗΣ ΨΥΧΗΣ ΤΟΥ.

Ο ΕΝΤΟΥΑΝΤ ΑΣΠΕΡΝΑΜ ΚΑΤΑΦΕΥΓΕΙ ΣΕ ΟΛΙΣΘΗΜΑΤΑ, ΧΡΕΗ, ΓΥΝΑΙΚΕΣ. ΟΛΑ ΑΥΤΑ ΕΝ ΓΝΩΣΕΙ ΤΗΣ ΣΥΖΥΓΟΥ ΤΟΥ.
ΔΕΝ ΗΤΑΝ ΠΑΡ' ΟΛΑ ΑΥΤΑ ΘΙΑΣΩΤΗΣ ΤΗΣ ΑΣΕΛΓΕΙΑΣ. ΑΙΣΘΗΜΑΤΙΑΣ ΗΤΑΝ.
ΣΥΝΑΜΑ ΓΕΝΝΑΙΟΔΩΡΟΣ ΠΡΟΣΦΕΡΟΝΤΑΣ ΑΓΑΠΗ Κ ΒΟΗΘΕΙΑ ΣΕ ΟΛΟΥΣ ΟΣΟΙ ΕΙΧΑΝ ΑΝΑΓΚΗ.

Η ΓΥΝΑΙΚΑ ΤΟΥ, ΠΑΡ' ΟΛΗ ΤΗ ΔΟΛΙΟΤΗΤΑ Κ ΤΗΝ ΙΔΙΟΤΕΛΕΙΑ ΤΗΣ, ΕΙΝΑΙ ΑΡΩΓΟΣ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΛΥΤΗ Κ ΕΠΙΛΗΨΙΜΗ ΖΩΗ ΤΟΥ. ΟΙ ΑΤΑΣΘΑΛΙΕΣ ΤΟΥ ΚΛΟΝΙΖΟΥΝ ΤΗΝ ΕΜΠΙΣΤΟΣΥΝΗ ΤΗΣ ΘΕΤΟΝΤΑΣ ΤΗΝ ΣΕ ΜΙΑ ΔΙΑΔΙΚΑΣΙΑ ΣΥΝΕΧΟΥΣ ΑΜΦΙΒΟΛΙΑΣ Κ ΑΜΦΙΣΒΗΤΗΣΗΣ ΤΙΣ ΟΠΟΙΕΣ ΠΛΕΟΝ ΘΑ ΑΠΟΔΕΧΤΕΙ, ΘΑ ΑΝΑΖΗΤΑ Κ ΘΑ ΠΟΡΕΥΤΕΙ ΜΕ ΑΥΤΕΣ.

Η ΦΙΛΙΑ ΠΟΥ ΘΑ ΔΗΜΙΟΥΡΓΗΘΕΙ ΜΕΤΑΛΛΑΣΣΕΤΑΙ ΣΕ ΕΚΒΙΑΣΜΟΣ, ΣΕ ΠΡΟΔΟΣΙΑ Κ ΣΕ ΙΔΙΟΤΕΛΕΙΑ.

ΣΗΜΑΝΤΙΚΕΣ ΘΑ ΥΠΑΡΞΟΥΝ ΟΙ ΠΑΡΑΠΛΕΥΡΕΣ ΑΠΩΛΕΙΕΣ, ΟΙ ΘΥΤΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΑ ΘΥΜΑΤΑ. ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΙ ΠΟΥ ΑΓΝΟΟΥΝ ΤΗΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΙΔΙΑ ΣΤΙΓΜΗ ΠΟΥ ΟΙ ΥΠΟΛΟΙΠΟΙ ΣΥΝΩΜΟΤΟΥΝ, ΧΛΕΥΑΖΟΥΝ, ΕΚΜΕΤΑΛΛΕΥΟΝΤΑΙ Κ ΕΞΕΥΤΕΛΙΖΟΥΝ ΨΥΧΕΣ.

Η ΣΧΕΣΗ ΑΝΑΓΝΩΣΤΗ- ΑΦΗΓΗΤΗ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΔΙΑΔΡΑΣΤΙΚΗ. Ο ΑΝΑΓΝΩΣΤΗΣ ΓΝΩΡΙΖΕΙ ΤΑ ΓΕΓΟΝΟΤΑ ΕΞ ΑΡΧΗΣ Κ ΠΡΟΣΠΑΘΕΙ ΝΑ ΑΝΤΙΛΗΦΘΕΙ ΑΝ ΑΥΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΔΙΑΒΑΖΕΙ ΑΝΤΑΠΟΚΡΙΝΟΝΤΑΙ ΣΤΗΝ
ΠΡΑΓΜΑΤΙΚΟΤΗΤΑ ΚΑΘΩΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΠΡΟΦΑΝΗΣ Η ΑΜΦΙΒΟΛΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΛΕΓΟΜΕΝΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΑΦΗΓΗΤΗ.

ΣΙΓΑ- ΣΙΓΑ ΞΕΤΥΛΙΓΟΝΤΑΙ ΟΛΕΣ ΟΙ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΕΣ.
ΣΕ ΚΑΘΕ ΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΟ ΕΧΟΥΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΑΝΑΚΟΙΝΩΣΗ ΜΙΑΣ ΑΠΛΩΛΕΙΑΣ. ΟΛΑ ΤΑ ΣΤΟΙΧΕΙΑ ΣΥΓΚΡΟΤΟΥΝ
ΜΙΑ ΘΛΙΒΕΡΗ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ Κ ΟΧΙ ΜΙΑ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ ΠΑΘΟΥΣ...

#should I stay or should I go #5
GO!

DNF @10%

"Esta é a história mais triste jamais contada", segundo a primeira frase deste livro.
Talvez até seja, mas poucas vezes uma história foi contada de uma forma tão insuportavelmente pomposa.

I can't believe this novel is 100 years old. It feels more contemporary than novels we now call "modern" or "post-modern;" it's more like a midlist literary novel that could have been written yesterday. I especially enjoyed the way I was led into the story thinking this man was suffocating his wife with over-care, then learned she was a more than equal foil to him.

The only thing that marred my enjoyment somewhat is having read "The End of the Affair" before this novel. Greene's style in The End of the Affair so clearly owes a debt to Ford. But Greene failed to mimic the cunning and un-pindownable nature of Ford's narrator, replacing Ford's possible sociopath/double murderer with a humorless and petty narrator that I had to banish from my head before I could fully engage with The Good Soldier.

If you want a good case of cultural whiplash, read The Good Soldier and then the reviews of Michel Houellenbecq's Plateforme (thanks, Hazel). From 20-year-old virgins who don't know where babies come from to sex tourism in less than a hundred years.

Ford's book has been called a perfect novel by some. There are endless (and interesting) debates about the reliability of the narrator. The novel has been described as impressionist literature, and the story is told in kaliadoscopic flashes. One's understanding of the events changes as pieces are moved around --- for example, the meaning of the narrator's description of his wife as "poor, dear Florence" changes as one gets deeper into the novel.

Who was deluded and who was not? Who was victim and who was perpetrator? Who was to blame and who was innocent? The answer probably is: everyone.