In The Good Soldier, John Dowell recalls the story of his wife’s affair. Contrary to what most would presume, Dowell doesn’t angrily depict this situation, but rather tells his story in a very matter-of-fact manner, ultimately forcing the reader to be suspicious of the narrator’s mindset.
Since the story is told in this very casual and natural manner, Dowell is able to digress, painting a picture of how he sees the situation at hand, but also presumably over-exaggerating and understating in the process.
This natural style is established by conveying the story out of order instead of chronologically. This presents the main character as chaotic, possibly even neurotic-not stable, or ordered. At this same time, this style replicates life and natural thought.
Ultimately this brings to light how one-sided the story we are getting really is, making the reader somewhat hesitant about trusting such a chaotic narrator. We learn here to be weary of the narrator and everything he’s saying. Due to this portrayed sporadicalness, we’re reminded that we shouldn’t unquestioningly accept his portrayal of the situation.
It’s like this in life too-people have your trust until they prove themselves otherwise. My grandma always used to say, “You teach people how to treat you” and in this case, the narrator is teaching us to be hesitant of him through his method of storytelling. We learn to be cautious of how he’s portraying the situation, people, etc.
In addition to this, since we are given no solid way to credit the narrator’s judgment, we take everything the main character says with a grain of salt, fully acknowledging the fact that it’s covered in his bias.
We question Dowell’s judgement further through his portrayal of adultery. Normally, readers will see adultery as negative. However the narrator never explicitly conveys it as such, staying pretty detached from the situation. Due to this, we are again forced to question the narrator and his judgement. In this respect, every reader will see the narrator differently, as more or less reliable based on their own morals.
For example, while reading this I initially saw Dowell as irrational for being so calm about the situation, but then I remembered how I sometimes shut off completely if something is really painful or especially bad; choosing to shut off all emotion instead of process it. The way Dowell explains his adulterer and the situation at hand reminded me of this and made me, personally, feel sympathy for Dowell in this moment. Regardless, however, most readers would question Dowell’s judgement here, not understanding the rationale behind his passiveness.
Further, it doesn’t help Dowell build the reader’s trust when he changes his own mind repeatedly, providing the reader with no solid or concrete perspective. Dowell states, “I do not think that there is much excuse for Florence.” But previously he had stated, “She excused herself on the score of an overmastering passion. Well, I always say that an overmastering passion is a good excuse for feelings.” Due to this change in opinion, the reader is unable to create a vivid picture of the narrator, and is therefore unable to understand and ultimately trust him.
In this same sense, there is a consistent language of not knowing, Dowell repeatedly using language such as perhaps, etc. The narrator states, “So I guess Florence had not found getting married to me a very stimulating process.” This is one example, but we get a sense of unease from the narrator-a sense that he is in a lack of control within his own world; uncertain of his own world. And if the narrator is uncertain of his world, the reader will be too. Later Dowell even admits to misleading the reader stating, “I have unintentionally misled you when I said that Florence was never out of my sight. Yet that was the impression that I really had until just now. When I come to think of it she was out of my sight most of the time.”
We see this again through the character of Edward. Dowell originally introduces Edward as a good man, but later sheds a different light on him. Dowell even admits that he was blind-sided stating, “But think of the fool that I was.” We trusted the narrator and he told the story in such an order/way that misled us, losing our trust before he even gained it.
Further, Dowell states, “I don’t care. If Florence has robbed a bank I am going to marry her and take her to Europe.” From early on we’re introduced to Dowell as lacking a certain degree of rationale; letting passion rule over him. Again this adds to this feel of not being able to trust him. This passion leads him to a disordered frame of mind, conveyed through the form of the text.
Ultimately it is up to the reader how much he chooses to trust the narrator’s portrayal of these characters and the situation. In the same way that the reader must make his own image of the narrator, one must make his own image of Paris. Ford believed that, “You must invent a Paris of your own.” One makes Paris his own in the same way he makes the narrator his own; reflecting his own values, morals, and past experiences onto the character or place.
Both Hemingway and Ford wrote about Paris and if we are to use Hemingway and Ford as a face for Americans and the British, the British are significantly more straightforward than Americans. We see this again in The Good Soldier, Dowell's wife not directly telling him that she doesn't wish to sleep with him, but rather lying about an illness. Americans are portrayed as less straightforward than the British in both these readings. Further, Ford seems to ‘tell it like it is.’ He’s impatient and in a hurry. Hemingway is more relaxed, laid-back, taking Ford’s drink, for example, after the waiter brought the wrong one.
Hemingway is extremely polite, apologizing to Sylvia Beach after discussing his trouble selling his writing. Conversely we see Ford very blatantly tell Hemingway, “You’re very glum.” There’s a clear difference in the direct manner of their language and to a certain degree their manners.
Hemingway is also far less honest than Ford, although that too may stem from politeness. Hemingway states, “My stomach would turn over and I would say, ‘I’m going home for lunch now.’”
On this same note, the two authors view Paris in very different lights as well. Ford looks at Paris in a much broader light than Hemingway. Ford focuses on the bigger picture, including a variety of historical components, while Hemingway focuses more on his immediate relationship/experience with the city.
Ford states, “She has survived because the imaginations of her poets in ink, colors, sounds or stones, have given to her visions an unrivaled clarity, a frigid rectitude, an almost unthinkable resilience.”
We’re introduced to Paris as this city for artists and opportunity conveyed through both writers-a romanticization of a city that we can all relate to; a city that we can all project ourselves onto.
No comments:
Post a Comment