Notes on Criticism of The Good soldier
Meixner says that Ford's intention was to take the author out of the equation and of the book, so that the reader's experience was such that they almost forgot they were reading a book. . .
Ford ultimately agreed he was an impressionist, defined by Meixner as "to render felt experience--what seemed to them to be the actual sensation of living" (p. 251)
Other Impressionists:
Early: Conrad, Crane
Mid period: Ford, Henry James Flaubert, Maupassant
Later: Woolf, DH Lawrence, Proust,
Ford says of impressionism that the author gives you his "impression" of the subject and what differs is not the subject but the impression from the particular ego (the author)
Ford states, "For the whole of life is really like that: we are almost always in one place with our minds somewhere quite other" (p. 263)
Ford states, "The really impassable mind is not the mind quickened by passion, but the mind rendered slothful by preoccupation purely trivial" (p. 271). Could this quote apply to ideas as well? That is the lazy mind that does not contemplate difficult and important subjects is unable to grasp those when it comes upon them? Is it that the mind must be continually challenged in order to undertake challenging topics?
Ford goes on to relate this topic to the English gentleman who is preoccupied with social status and thus unable to contemplate more complex topics (Ford says art, but couldn't this relate to Edward and Mr. Dowells? Their preoccupation with how they are supposed to be acting and how others are supposed to behave gets in the way of their addressing the more important and salient issues of their lives?)
Mark Schorer argues that Dowells has, for nine years, mistaken convention for fact and that he has in fact colluded in maintaining this erroneous perception because he could not live with it otherwise, p. 306. What is "real", the reflection of what happened in the rear view mirror or the feeling of what happened while it is happening? Are they both real even if they are entirely contradictory? Does it matter? Why does it matter? Aren't all perceptions a construction that we collude with? Are there some perceptions that are less "fake" than others? If, in order to live each day, we have to construct a reality that we can live with then isn't that reality?
A point I hadn't thought of--each character confronts his world alone. No one has anyone they can really depend on, no relationship that is good or healthy. They are all alone.
The action of the novel is Dowell attempting to understand what happened. Through this process, the reader is developing an understanding of Dowell and the other characters, one that is never full and is never uncontested. The reader, like Dowell, can never understand but, like Dowell, the reader can forgive and care. Dowell takes on the conventional role in this aspect; he stays around to clean up the messes that passion has left behind. Are we to appreciate finally that Dowell did what a good man could do in his situation or are we to be angry at him that he didn't act earlier? And what is it that could have been done?
What does Dowell understand by the end of the novel: that what happened cannot be understood or judged or put into a tidy category. It is beyond understanding (see p. 156).
To what extent is religion designed to "control" and "limit" passion and to what extent is that largely not just impossible but damaging to the individual if not to society? In contrast, is the alternative unbridled passion or is there something that is more measured and yet more honest? To what extent is love within the conventions destructive?
Quotes are from the Norton edition of The Good Soldier
What do we see when we observe The Good Soldier?
A tragedy where due to circumstances beyond their control people destroy one another.
That people are never one dimensional and that we can only see each person as they emerge so that we are always only getting a partial view (while our own perspective is also shifting simultaneously)
Ford ultimately agreed he was an impressionist, defined by Meixner as "to render felt experience--what seemed to them to be the actual sensation of living" (p. 251)
Other Impressionists:
Early: Conrad, Crane
Mid period: Ford, Henry James Flaubert, Maupassant
Later: Woolf, DH Lawrence, Proust,
Ford says of impressionism that the author gives you his "impression" of the subject and what differs is not the subject but the impression from the particular ego (the author)
Ford states, "For the whole of life is really like that: we are almost always in one place with our minds somewhere quite other" (p. 263)
Ford states, "The really impassable mind is not the mind quickened by passion, but the mind rendered slothful by preoccupation purely trivial" (p. 271). Could this quote apply to ideas as well? That is the lazy mind that does not contemplate difficult and important subjects is unable to grasp those when it comes upon them? Is it that the mind must be continually challenged in order to undertake challenging topics?
Ford goes on to relate this topic to the English gentleman who is preoccupied with social status and thus unable to contemplate more complex topics (Ford says art, but couldn't this relate to Edward and Mr. Dowells? Their preoccupation with how they are supposed to be acting and how others are supposed to behave gets in the way of their addressing the more important and salient issues of their lives?)
Mark Schorer argues that Dowells has, for nine years, mistaken convention for fact and that he has in fact colluded in maintaining this erroneous perception because he could not live with it otherwise, p. 306. What is "real", the reflection of what happened in the rear view mirror or the feeling of what happened while it is happening? Are they both real even if they are entirely contradictory? Does it matter? Why does it matter? Aren't all perceptions a construction that we collude with? Are there some perceptions that are less "fake" than others? If, in order to live each day, we have to construct a reality that we can live with then isn't that reality?
A point I hadn't thought of--each character confronts his world alone. No one has anyone they can really depend on, no relationship that is good or healthy. They are all alone.
The action of the novel is Dowell attempting to understand what happened. Through this process, the reader is developing an understanding of Dowell and the other characters, one that is never full and is never uncontested. The reader, like Dowell, can never understand but, like Dowell, the reader can forgive and care. Dowell takes on the conventional role in this aspect; he stays around to clean up the messes that passion has left behind. Are we to appreciate finally that Dowell did what a good man could do in his situation or are we to be angry at him that he didn't act earlier? And what is it that could have been done?
What does Dowell understand by the end of the novel: that what happened cannot be understood or judged or put into a tidy category. It is beyond understanding (see p. 156).
To what extent is religion designed to "control" and "limit" passion and to what extent is that largely not just impossible but damaging to the individual if not to society? In contrast, is the alternative unbridled passion or is there something that is more measured and yet more honest? To what extent is love within the conventions destructive?
Quotes are from the Norton edition of The Good Soldier
What do we see when we observe The Good Soldier?
A tragedy where due to circumstances beyond their control people destroy one another.
That people are never one dimensional and that we can only see each person as they emerge so that we are always only getting a partial view (while our own perspective is also shifting simultaneously)
Comments
Post a Comment