A perfect novel.

سرباز خوب
فورد مدوکس فورد
ابراهیم یونسی
انتشارات معین
فورد مدوکس فورد در تاریخ ادبیات ،معمولا به عنوان ویراستار تعداد زیادی از برترین آثار قرن بیستم به یاد آورده میشود . بسیاری معتقدند اثار کسانی چون دی اچ لارنس و جوزف کنراد، بدون حضور مادوکس فورد به عنوان ویراستاری جدی و بی رحم عملا چیزی نبود که امروزه در دست داریم.
مادوکس فورد درطول دوران فعالیت ادبی تعدادی رمان نیز نوشته است که مهمترین اثر این دوران رمانی است با نام سرباز خوب .

سرباز خوب رمانی به غایت پیچیده و فنی است . کار نویسنده ای کارکشته که سالها نوشته های ادبی بزرگان تاریخ ادبیات را ویراسته است. راوی داستان مردی است امریکایی که در ابتدای کتاب از زندگی ، فرجام و مرگ شخصیتهای اصلی داستانش میگوید . ادم هایی که سالها با انها دوست و دمخور بوده است .اما این راوی شوخ و شنگ و بیتاب داستان را نه به صورت خطی بلکه به صورت رفت و برگشت در زمانهای مختلف و به شیوه سیال ذهن روایت میکند. نکته اساسی در داستان (که شاید ویژگی منحصر به فرد این کتاب باشد به طوری که تا سالها بعد، زمانی که ناباکوف لولیتایش را نوشت چنین چیزی سابقه نداشته است )غیر قابل اعتماد بودن راوی داستان است که هیچ گاه دم به تله نمیدهد و در هیچ کجای داستان مشتش باز نمیشود . داستان از نقطه دید راوی باهوش و دروغگویی است که به هر ترتیبی از بیان حقیقت طفره میرود و در انتها خواننده داستان هیچ قرینه ای برای یافتن حقیقت نمی یابد ، تنها چیزی که خواننده میفهمد این است که مسلما چیزی ایراد دارد و حقیقت در جای دیگری است!
سرباز خوب دو ترجمه دارد . یکی ترجمه قدیمی ابراهیم یونسی (که من این ترجمه را خوانده ام)و دیگری به ترجمه زهرا نصر الهی . ترجمه یونسی گرچه قدیمی و پر از لغات و ترکیبات نامانوس است اما خواندنش دلپذیر است و شیرین .

A daring title for the year it was published – 1915 - for our male characters are anything but good soldiers. This novel seems to polarise readers into extreme love or hate. It also announced the Modern novel had arrived.

It is not the simplest of reads and it doesn’t take you long that something is very off kilter in the narrative. There aren’t that many surprises, you are told from an early time that most of the characters in the tale are dead. This is more how their actions may or may not have caused one or more of those deaths.

And all through this our narrator comes across as the injured party with a huge Jesus complex (all forgiving), it doesn’t take long for the reader to become suspicious – and rightfully so. Are we being manipulated by our narrator? Is he a very unreliable narrator? This is the wonderful aspect of the novel – and one I loved. We return to known events, like constants or baselines, if you like, and they morph through the novel. Has he remembered new details? or is he a pathological liar? Is he mad? If so, how much is delusion? It makes a tantalising mind game for the reader.

Progressing through the pages, what you do discover are these people are not very pleasant. You wouldn’t enjoy having a holiday with them. Everyone is manipulative – the Ashburnhams, the Dowells and the ward Nancy Rufford – and self-centred. Their aims are to get what they want, with no empathetic thought on the emotional cost. Leonora delights in her blackmail of her husband Edward over his previous affairs. And I do feel that our narrator likes milking his situation of being an emotional victim.

Desire and lust within both men and women are another theme that is interesting and daring. A woman acting out on her sexual needs! It must have been a shock to some and seen as pornographic. Florence is delightful in being so manipulative. Is Edward that naïve in not seeing through his wife’s behaviour? At a time of the suffragette and the depiction that they are unwomanly, here we have two women in beautiful relationships being destructive. It definitely destroys the fiction of the meek loving woman that was bandy in the media. The fiction of the Victorian heroine is being deliberately unravelled and exposed for the hypocrisy that it was.

The reaction, even now on Goodreads, of this novel is bipolar. I can understand this. It isn’t an easy book to read, as our narrator rambles, is repetitive and manipulates his reader. The very themes and style are what drew me in and gave me such enjoyment. It really is a book on the crest of change from the Victorian novel to the Modern novel. I can imagine people like the Bloomsbury set loving it, because it would have spoken to them, as it spoke to me. The characters are well imagined, and society traps these people into a nasty lie; a lie of a facade of respect, and duty to be married and be happy. It is hardly surprising that the four ruined lives would end in tragedy.

Embarrassed to say that I somehow missed this one. I know it is highly acclaimed and my fellow readers here seem to love it, but i must be missing something. The narrator is frustratingly stupid and naive and the good soldier is simply a bastard. Social constructs doomed the characters but their adherence to society's rules borders on foolishness, particularly when they clearly dont really care for these rules.

The point of view aspect is intersting and I wonder if I didnt miss something there. Are there hints that there was more to the story than we were told because we are given the highly biased view of a key player who portrays himself as ignorant and innocent/

I did like the a line/idea. the scorned woman tells her husband's mistress not to criticize her catholic beliefs. She is really saying "You had better not be critical of the belief system which prevents me from divorcing my husband and killing you."

An intriguing read - I loved the narrative style and the non-linear storytelling in this. The characterisation was fascinating too. I'm excited to read more by Ford Maddox Ford in the future.

I truly thought this novel was outstanding. The characters were so complex and the plot presented itself like the layers of an onion, each one needing to be peeled back in order to find the true story. John Dowell, our narrator and "tour guide" reflects and relates his life which intertwines with that of his amoral wife, his two friends, the Ashburhams, Nancy Rufford, and others. We have two Americans and two British as our main characters and the interaction between these four becomes the basis for our story. He tells his tale of heartbreak, deception, and manipulations through flashbacks. The character of these and others is explored and their many flaws and frailties are exhibited for all to see.

The concept is that people are all out for what they want. From marital infidelities to "falling in love," to achieving the right social strata, we see all the characters's souls and minds. Most of them are selfish, desiring what they want without concern as to how it effects another. From the submissive to the control freak we are exposed to a world which seemed to lack morals and certainly had no concern about breaking the marriage vows. The Catholic faith is brought into the picture with its constraints and ideas of the moral right. They are truly an odd mixture of people, miserable in their lot, and yet unable or unwilling to effect change unless it is that of something which can never be.

It was sad, pathetic and poignant to watch each character go down their "chosen" path with such heartbreak and pathos. These characters were so rigid in their minds and yet their heats and souls yearned to be free. They all try to find that freedom, but ultimately end up crushed and destroyed.

The novel was truly a character study in unhappiness. Bound so by the morality of the time, the characters flounder with their lives while still trying to maintain the proper "nobility" of the times. It was heart breaking, but many a time, one could not help but smile at the humor of their plight, particularly that of being a Catholic versus being an Anglican.

This book was a most satisfying read, not always easy as John flips back and forth in his tale of woe. Some of the characters the reader turns out hating, some you just feel pity for, and some you come to love. Not a one escapes unscathed. Touched by life in its very cruelest, these characters imprint themselves on your mind and at the end leave one to wonder could this really be.

Me ha gustado mucho, y me gusta saber su título original, proque se le da sentido al final del libro
Yo tuve muy claro cuál era la historia más triste. Aquella que se vive sin pasiones
http://entremontonesdelibros.blogspot...

È necessario premettere a questo scritto il fatto innegabile che io sia un’estimatrice della prosa enigmatica, elusiva e allusiva di Henry James e che la lettura di questo romanzo mi ha permesso di riconoscerne qui i tratti fondamentali della sua scrittura. È stata dunque una lettura piacevole in virtù del fatto che la tecnica narrativa utilizzata -narratore interno costantemente autorappresentato nello sforzo di ricostruire una vicenda di cui egli, all’epoca dei fatti narrati, non era per niente consapevole e che si ritrova più che a essere protagonista a fare semplicemente da testimone – pur generando numerose anacronie e il ricorso frequente ai flashback con conseguente sforzo ricostruttivo della vicenda da parte del lettore , genera nello stesso , o almeno questo capita a me, il pieno coinvolgimento nella narrazione col fine pressante di capire gli eventi .
Tutto è detto e taciuto fin dall’inizio, accennato ma non svelato; il narratore, John Dowell e la moglie Florence sono due ricchi americani che stabilitisi in Inghilterra entrano in amicizia con una coppia, gli Ashburnham, il buon soldato Edward, appunto, e sua moglie Leonora. John racconta in seguito alla morte della moglie e di Edward i fatti che apprende dalla rivelazione di Leonora: insomma sappiamo fin da subito di essere alla ricerca di una verità che ci verrà però consegnata solo attraverso un unico punto di vista supportato tra l’altro solo dal ricordo e dall’ipotesi ricostruttiva, quella riconducibile al “deve essere accaduto proprio così”. Il narratore inoltre non nasconde il suo imbarazzo a essere stato in un qualche modo estromesso da quegli stessi eventi di cui ora riferisce e non cela nemmeno il fatto di non riuscire, nonostante tutto, a giudicare i protagonisti della “ più triste storia” – questo sarebbe dovuto essere il titolo originale cassato dall’editore per via dei tempi di pubblicazione, correva l’anno 1915, - e in particolare a mostrarsi molto comprensivo nei confronti del “buon soldato” Edward, a più riprese giustificato per i suoi comportamenti e quasi commiserato. La stessa compiacenza viene mostrata inizialmente anche per le donne coinvolte, le quali, però negli sviluppi successivi, vengono entrambe, almeno “le mogli” giudicate e allontanate dalla propria sfera affettiva, la stessa che, per tutto l’arco dell’esistenza del nostro John, si rivelerà essere stata monca, deficitaria, incompleta e irrisolta. Probabilmente il commento che state leggendo sarà a sua volta percepito come allusivo e poco chiaro ma questo è fatto per tutelare lo stesso futuro lettore dell’opera che deve essere messo nelle condizioni di non sapere nulla per affidarsi totalmente alla voce narrante, a suo rischio e pericolo. Buona lettura.

This is a Great Book. I only give it 4 stars because I couldn't stand Dowell, winner of the well esteemed Most Unreliable Narrator award, which should actually make this book worth 5 stars. Just as I was beginning to think there is no less inconsistent a narrator than that damned housekeeper in Wuthering Heights, here comes Dowell...

.... like a moody and apathetic Puck.

"I know nothing - nothing in the world - of the hearts of men."

I thoroughly enjoyed the Nauehim spa-for-heart-ailments setting of the novel (left my own Heart in Berghof), Ford introduces the Heart as motif as soon as the fifth sentence: the Presumed medical condition of the heart is how the distinction is drawn onto those who have a non-medical Heart.

"This is the saddest story I have ever heard."

Ford Maddox Ford is a great writer. This sentence is a carefully constructed trap of lies and misconceptions, paving the way for a story of inconsistencies and hidden plot elements, where Ford deploys his love of Impressionism to spin a scandalous tale in which the integrity of narration matters more than the factual integrity of the story.

"Leonora adored him with a passion that was like agony and hated him with an agony that was as bitter as the sea. How could he arouse anything like a sentiment, in anybody? What did he even talk to them about - when they were under four eyes? - Ah, well, suddenly, as if by flash of inspiration, I know. For all good soldiers are sentimentalists - all good soldiers of that type. Their profession, for one thing, is full of big words, courage, loyalty, honour, constancy."

Even Dowell's flashback narration is mere disguise, but brilliant disguise nevertheless, Ford using his inconsistency to tackle big topics of sexual betrayal, religion and morals of gender that would have Edwardians reaching for granny's smelling salts.

“She laid one finger upon Captain Ashburnham’s wrist. ..I was aware of something treacherous, something frightful, something evil in the day.”"

Tale of the breakdown of relationships that I read roundabout the age of seventeen. What I found remarkable was the narrative style that cleverly pulls your sympathies from one character to another. Very effective piece of writing.

Ford Madox Ford was an admired but commercially unsuccessful writer and much of his work is sadly out of print, worth hunting down though.

I think I would have hated my first reading but liked my second if I had read it blind, but I skipped this process by knowing the entire plot before starting the story. As a result I could focus entirely on the little details and nuances of the characters, instead of getting lost in a sea of ideas. Is that cheating?
The story is really good, and so is the writing. Its only serious issue is how weirdly structured it is. But most would agree that there is an artistic merit to its unconventional presentation, as unamusing as it can be…as a first reading.
I’m not sure where I’m getting at here, but The Good Soldier is a good book. A great book even. But is an odd one too. I don’t know how this review would look like if I had read it on my own, instead of it being a part of a course in college.
I guess I should just be thankful it clicked for me…
As a final note, I’ll like to add that I don’t usually enjoy these sorts of stories (I hated The Turn of the Screw) but here it really worked for me. John Dowell and Leonora are fascinating characters to study. The former, a great narrator too (though, also a clumsy storyteller…maybe purposely so).

This is the saddest story I have ever heard.

Ford Madox Ford pulls the reader in immediately with this opening sentence. Really, who doesn't like a sad story now and then?

Much has been written about the novel's unreliable narrator, John Dowell. I knew this going in and have to agree that this truly is the most unreliable narrators I have encountered in literature. He has been referred to as enigmatic. Again, true. The events, as narrated by Dowell, are presented in such a way as to catch readers off-guard and possibly confused. Critical parts of the story and characters crucial to the plot are held back from the reader for a large part of the novel. The story is presented piecemeal in a very modern structure by a narrator that constantly contradicts himself. The reader is left questioning and is, ultimately, forced to decide where sympathy lies in this tragic tale. That is, however, if there is actually sympathy to be felt for these characters at the end of such an untrustworthy account. As I write this I'm suddenly struck by the thought that even that alluring opening line can now be questioned - this is not the saddest story the narrator has ever 'heard', but one in which he was very much a participant. Very clever - the narrator attempts to distance himself from the beginning. This was one of the more challenging novels I have read in recent years, not a particularly easy read for me, but a brilliant novel all around.