Like another reviewer I too bought this book because it was on a list of the top 100 books of the twentieth century. But it sat on the shelf for a while because I didn't like the look of it from an instinctive perspective. Being from a different time and by an English author, I was intimidated. I thought I would have a hard time getting past the language of the book, and I thought I would be bored. I mean come on, how many times have we heard about an English restoration piece in which there is some deep and horrible scandal amongst the English well-to-do in the late nineteenth century, and it turns out pretty mundane by modern standards.
But in The Good Soldier it isn't the scandalous behavior of the characters that makes this a fascinating read, it is the amazing narrative voice of John Dowell. Ford's accomplishment with The Good Soldier is not in the creation of an incredible story. The story to me seems more like garnish to the main attraction. What makes this a masterful work is Ford's creation of a storyteller. John Dowell as a storyteller is so complete and real. Oh I don't mean the details of his life or the veracity of his character or morals. It is John Dowell's voice that makes this book a classic.
After reading different reviews and analysis of the book after I read it I noticed how many people seem concerned with the trustworthiness of Dowell's story. Personally I don't understand why it's important. If I were indeed sitting beside him in a country inn in front of a roaring hearth, trying to pass the night while the weather had its way with the night outside - a scene Dowell suggests and I found myself in quite easily while reading - my concern would be for the method and the gripping nature of his storytelling. I would not only accept, but also expect embellishments, exaggerations and one-sidedness. But of course unless he were a mad sea captain I would also expect him to admonish himself for doing these things and to seem sincere and to seem to consciously be making an effort to tell the whole story, even when it embarrassed himself. People have mentioned the way Dowell says that "this is the saddest story I've ever heard" and how it seems an odd thing to say if one is in the story and not hearing it. I however like to imagine him saying this in front of the aforementioned fire (after dinner when all the other guests have already turned in for the night) as a beginning to the story he's about to tell, placing himself in the roll of one of the characters (perhaps to make the story more interesting, and perhaps because it really did happen to him). Ford's magic is in making a man who tells a story in a book, exactly as you would expect him to tell you in person. You can't tell for sure what's true or not; when you've caught him in a lie and when he's just made a mistake because he's tired.
The Good Soldier succeeds because a not very interesting man tells a not very interesting story in a truly real and interesting way.

I read this book for a class 30 years ago, forgot about it, and then saw it on a list of the top 100 novels of the 20th Century. This is a wonderfully constructed, thoughtfully written, and facinating story. Independent of the story and the issues of change and transformation thematically dominating the book; the style and prose are intriquing and creative. An easy read well worth the time to revisit or discover new.

This is a great novel, and I'm sad that I had not read it sooner. Ford shows his strange position in the history of literature: this novel has traces of Henry James and Joe Conrad (both who tutored Ford) but also has an innovative narration that makes it seem very modern and readable. It also has a tragic, haunting story powering the interesting style. It's a good read, and makes us wish Ford was known for more than inspiring and helping later writers such as Hemingway and Fitzgerald. Many reviewers find fault with the narrator, but I can't see how anyone can but help but feel sorry for this poor man. His tale is indeed worth hearing.

Very verbose, little power, read Patey if you are truly interested in Waugh. It is a pity someone of such little breeding has addressed Waugh at all.

As literary biographies go, this is pure excellence. One gains a better understanding of not just Waugh's writing, and not just the personality behind the writing, but also the social and historical context that helped shape Waugh. Martin Stannard has done an incredibly comprehensive job. But the fascinating Evelyn Waugh stands up to such scrutinizing detail.