notes on The Good Soldier
Florence (Jimmy) and Mr. Dowell (narrator)
Edward Ashburnham and Lenora
Mrs. Basil, Maisie
Nancy Rufford, the Ashburnhams ward
On a second or third reading, I find Ford's book to be more complex that I originally thought--the characters are more human and less one dimensional than I remembered. And, the way the narrator unveils their "being" also plays a part in how we see them. First, Edward is the bad guy, even though Dowell says good things about him, but then we find out he was quite heroic in the war and quite generous to his tenants (And that Dowell admires and even loves him). Lenora, in contrast, starts out as the poor, abused victim, but as we find out more, she becomes less appealing until finally it's hard to have sympathy with her (she is controlling at the least and greedy and self indulgent at worse).
What purpose would Lenora have to manage Edward's love affairs?
Their thoughts and desires are so far apart: Lenora is focused on managing their social life (how they will appear to others--they need to estate, a good amount of money, etc, no scandal); Edward is just thinking about his relationships to other people. But Lenora, on a deeper level, is also hoping that somehow Edward will want her back but she doesn't realize all the things she is doing that she thinks are "good" things are emasculating him. . . It is a tragedy of misunderstanding as so many tragedies are, but much else besides.
It is also clear that Lenora knows that the other women do some good for Edward, and here we have to question whether the whole institution of marriage is the problem. It's set up to be two people only, when in fact perhaps everyone would be happier if there were five people involved or people periodically involved. So, what is the goal of a marriage of two people instead of one with four or five? (see p. 121)
What's a good analogy? It's like you are trying to fix a plumbing problem and the two of you know nothing about plumbing but you've still got to fix it and you aren't allowed to get a plumber involved. You've been told your whole life and been read stories your whole live about how eternal bliss is fixing your own plumbing problems. Only bad or weak people call in a plumber. You've got to do it on your own. So you try your best, and you jury rig it and you try to get some tips from others without really involving the plumber him or her self. And sometimes the drain works and sometimes it doesn't and it makes an enormous mess but you've just got to keep living with it. but then one of you sneaks in a plumber and gets it fixed but can't tell the other one. So for a while things are working but the one who sneaks in the plumber feels so guilty, he/she finally has to tell. (This I guess is the good version--often someone brings in the plumber, I suppose, and it makes the problem worse. . .)
People are complex.
I never thought of literature as being "Picassoesque" but that is how this book is referred in the introduction, as how Ford saw it, I think. And it makes sense to me, the disjointed nature of our selves. Our inability to construct a connected and congruent image of ourselves or others. When I view a Picasso, it's hard to know what I see and the pieces don't seem to connect, and maybe this is how humans are as well. We think we've "got them" but then more is revealed or we open our eyes more (or perhaps close them . . .). What/Who is the actual person? Is there even such a thing.
Humans are like books-context specific, set in their milieu but then also subject to the moment of the reader, changing as we change. Inconsistent, fluid and unpredictable (at least the good books--does this fit for the "good" humans too?).
Ford does a good job I think of showing how marriages and friendships are never "known" but that they are shifting and hidden, manipulated and veiled. These are not necessarily bad things (although it does seem as if Ford is suggesting they are . . . maybe). They are just real things.
Reminds me of the painted veil--why do people have affairs? Are there times when they are not just understandable but necessary? What are the pressures that keep relationships together? When are affairs a "better" option than divorces? People stay together for all kinds of "reasons" that have nothing to do with reason. Perhaps a better way to view it is people stay together for all kinds of fears, whether reasonable or not. And the power of the relationship at alleviating those fears may come at the cost of fidelity . . .
Link to free versions of Ford Maddox Ford's books http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/f/ford/ford_madox/index.html
Edward Ashburnham and Lenora
Mrs. Basil, Maisie
Nancy Rufford, the Ashburnhams ward
On a second or third reading, I find Ford's book to be more complex that I originally thought--the characters are more human and less one dimensional than I remembered. And, the way the narrator unveils their "being" also plays a part in how we see them. First, Edward is the bad guy, even though Dowell says good things about him, but then we find out he was quite heroic in the war and quite generous to his tenants (And that Dowell admires and even loves him). Lenora, in contrast, starts out as the poor, abused victim, but as we find out more, she becomes less appealing until finally it's hard to have sympathy with her (she is controlling at the least and greedy and self indulgent at worse).
What purpose would Lenora have to manage Edward's love affairs?
Their thoughts and desires are so far apart: Lenora is focused on managing their social life (how they will appear to others--they need to estate, a good amount of money, etc, no scandal); Edward is just thinking about his relationships to other people. But Lenora, on a deeper level, is also hoping that somehow Edward will want her back but she doesn't realize all the things she is doing that she thinks are "good" things are emasculating him. . . It is a tragedy of misunderstanding as so many tragedies are, but much else besides.
It is also clear that Lenora knows that the other women do some good for Edward, and here we have to question whether the whole institution of marriage is the problem. It's set up to be two people only, when in fact perhaps everyone would be happier if there were five people involved or people periodically involved. So, what is the goal of a marriage of two people instead of one with four or five? (see p. 121)
What's a good analogy? It's like you are trying to fix a plumbing problem and the two of you know nothing about plumbing but you've still got to fix it and you aren't allowed to get a plumber involved. You've been told your whole life and been read stories your whole live about how eternal bliss is fixing your own plumbing problems. Only bad or weak people call in a plumber. You've got to do it on your own. So you try your best, and you jury rig it and you try to get some tips from others without really involving the plumber him or her self. And sometimes the drain works and sometimes it doesn't and it makes an enormous mess but you've just got to keep living with it. but then one of you sneaks in a plumber and gets it fixed but can't tell the other one. So for a while things are working but the one who sneaks in the plumber feels so guilty, he/she finally has to tell. (This I guess is the good version--often someone brings in the plumber, I suppose, and it makes the problem worse. . .)
People are complex.
I never thought of literature as being "Picassoesque" but that is how this book is referred in the introduction, as how Ford saw it, I think. And it makes sense to me, the disjointed nature of our selves. Our inability to construct a connected and congruent image of ourselves or others. When I view a Picasso, it's hard to know what I see and the pieces don't seem to connect, and maybe this is how humans are as well. We think we've "got them" but then more is revealed or we open our eyes more (or perhaps close them . . .). What/Who is the actual person? Is there even such a thing.
Humans are like books-context specific, set in their milieu but then also subject to the moment of the reader, changing as we change. Inconsistent, fluid and unpredictable (at least the good books--does this fit for the "good" humans too?).
Ford does a good job I think of showing how marriages and friendships are never "known" but that they are shifting and hidden, manipulated and veiled. These are not necessarily bad things (although it does seem as if Ford is suggesting they are . . . maybe). They are just real things.
Reminds me of the painted veil--why do people have affairs? Are there times when they are not just understandable but necessary? What are the pressures that keep relationships together? When are affairs a "better" option than divorces? People stay together for all kinds of "reasons" that have nothing to do with reason. Perhaps a better way to view it is people stay together for all kinds of fears, whether reasonable or not. And the power of the relationship at alleviating those fears may come at the cost of fidelity . . .
Link to free versions of Ford Maddox Ford's books http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/f/ford/ford_madox/index.html
Comments
Post a Comment