Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #1485412 in Books
• Published on: 1988-01
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback

Customer Reviews

Classic novel of the first world war

This is one of C.S. Forester's first novels about war, published in 1936 and hence pre-dating Hornblower.

Like almost all the novels which Forester wrote before he created the Hornblower books, this is brilliant, far less well known today than it deserves, and consequently quite rare. The author H.G. Wells described "The General" as "a magnificent piece of work."

Some of Forester's other books, particularly those describing battles against opponents of whom he strongly disapproved of such as Hitler's nazis or indeed Napoleon, can come over as patriotic to the point of jingoism or chauvinism. This story does not come into that category and it would not be far from the truth to call it one of the first great anti-war novels.

If you collect books about war, and you are fortunate enough to find a copy of "The General" for sale at a remotely reasonable price, buy it at once.

This novel describes the military career of a fictional first world war general. It begins and ends between the wars, with a sharp pen-picture of the retired general Curzon sitting in a bathchair on Bournemouth Promenade, having lost his leg during the great war and never managed to learn to walk properly with an artificial one.

Then the story goes back to Curzon's first battle as a subaltern in 1899 during the Boer war, and follows him through to the climax of the book at the battle of St Quentin on March 21st 1918 when the last desperate German offensive nearly snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.

Forester appears to have set out to do three things; to entertain, inform, and explain. He entertains with an engaging story; he informs by describing the ghastly conditions and waste of life which was the first world war in the trenches; and he tries to explain one possible answer to the question of how British commanders could possibly have given the orders which sent hundreds of thousands of young men to their deaths.

One of the most memorable passages in the book describes the debate as generals and senior staff officers of an army corps prepared a report of why the attack they had just organised had failed and how to succeed next time. "In some ways it was like the debate of a group of savages as to how to extract a screw from a piece of wood. Accustomed only to nails, they had made one effort to pull out the screw by main force, and now that it had failed they were devising methods of applying more force still ... they could hardly be blamed for not guessing that by rotating the screw it would come out after the exertion of far less effort".

Readers with strong preconceptions about the First World War should avoid the temptation to nod at the passages in this book which confirm their existing prejudices and skip lighlty over those which do not. Forester is neither presenting Curzon as a hero who "helped to win the war" nor simply repeating the popular caricature of First World War generals as dangerous idiots. In fact the book is highly critical of the mistakes of the generals who wasted hundreds of thousands of lives, but that criticism is far more sophisticated than the old "Lions led by donkeys" cliche.

Although Curzon, the central figure of this book, is old fashioned and conventional, he is intelligent enough to change his mind when confronted with clear evidence of the need to do so, and decisive enough to enforce that change of mind on others when many men would freeze in panic. Had he been as stupid as some reviewers make out, Curzon would not have survived the first few months of World War 1, let alone been rapidly promoted.

He is intelligent enough to realise that his men need to eat and to make sure that they are fed properly, and to make use of officers who understand newfangled things like engineering, railways, or how many men it takes to carry a gas canister. He is ruthless enough to sack staff officers who are not up to the job even when one of them is his wife's cousin.

Within minutes of arriving at the front and seeing what artillery and machine-guns can do, Curzon abandons his pre-war attitude of deliberately evading training on how to dig trenches, and instead orders his men to dig for their lives, demanding compliance from junior officers who are afraid that the men might get dirt on their uniforms. "God damn it, man!" he explodes, "Get your men digging, and don't ask damn fool questions."

In the first round of battles in the Great War, heroic efforts from Curzon in the face of greatly superior german numbers prevent the British from being flanked and probably defeated at the First Battle of Ypres. Having fought with distinction up to this point, he is promoted to much more senior positions. But then things start to go wrong.

Forester makes a great many good points about the need to use the tactics which will win the current battle rather than the last war: indeed, that even the tactics which won earlier battles of the current war should be dropped if they are out of date. But that is not the only message he is trying to put over.

The main theme of "The General" is a World War One version of the Peter Principle. The very qualities which make Curzon successful on the battlefield up to and including the command of a brigade have disastrous consequences for England when he is a Lieutenant-General commanding an army corps, and when both he and all the other senior officers of the army are still displaying, and promoting only junior officers who display, the qualities which colonels and brigadiers need to hold their regiments in the line.

Forester states quite explicitly in the book that the very strengths of the World War One generals, not just their weaknesses, were part of the problem. I quote - "It might have been ... more advantageous to England if the British Army had not been quite so full of men of high rank who were so ready for responsibility, so unflinchingly devoted to their duty, so unmoved in the face of difficulties, of such unfaltering courage."

This book is an unforgettable classic.

GENERALS AT WAR.
Probably one of the best and most sympathetic fictional accouts of a career soldier facing the horrors of high command in WW1. This is a neglected classic of how with no education as to how to win a world war in the mud and chaos of Flanders, through honesty ,integrity, and patriotism General Curzon helped win this war which was meant to end all wars. A wonderful read and an excellent portrait of an age.

Classic novel of the first world war.,

This is one of C.S. Forester's first novels about war, published in 1936 and hence pre-dating Hornblower.

Like almost all the novels which Forester wrote before he created the Hornblower books, this is brilliant, and far less well known today than it deserves. The author H.G. Wells described "The General" as "a magnificent piece of work."

Some of Forester's other books, particularly those describing battles against opponents of whom he strongly disapproved of such as Hitler's nazis or indeed Napoleon, can come over as patriotic to the point of jingoism or chauvinism. This story does not come into that category and it could probably be described as one of the first great anti-war novels.

If you collect classic novels about war, and you are fortunate enough to find a copy of "The General" for sale at a reasonable price, I recommend that you buy it at once.

This novel describes the military career of a fictional first world war general. It begins and ends between the wars, with a sharp pen-picture of the now retired General Curzon sitting in a bathchair on Bournemouth Promenade, having lost his leg during the great war and never managed to learn to walk properly with an artificial one.

Then the story goes back to Curzon's first battle as a subaltern in 1899 during the Boer war, and follows him through to the climax of the book at the battle of St Quentin on March 21st 1918 when the last desperate German offensive nearly snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.

Forester appears to have set out to do three things; to entertain, inform, and explain. He entertains with an engaging story; he informs by describing the ghastly conditions and waste of life which was the first world war in the trenches; and he tries to explain one possible answer to the question of how British commanders could possibly have given the orders which sent hundreds of thousands of young men to their deaths.

One of the most memorable passages in the book describes the debate as generals and senior staff officers of an army corps prepared a report of why the attack they had just organised had failed and how to succeed next time. "In some ways it was like the debate of a group of savages as to how to extract a screw from a piece of wood. Accustomed only to nails, they had made one effort to pull out the screw by main force, and now that it had failed they were devising methods of applying more force still ... they could hardly be blamed for not guessing that by rotating the screw it would come out after the exertion of far less effort".

But that does not mean that Forester is simply repeating the popular caricature of First World War generals as dangerous idiots. Where he is critical of the mistakes of the generals who wasted so many lives, his criticism is far more sophisticated than the old "Lions led by donkeys" cliche.

Although Curzon, the central figure of this book, is old fashioned and conventional, he is intelligent enough to change his mind when confronted with clear evidence of the need to do so, and decisive enough to enforce that change of mind on others when many men would freeze in panic. Had he been as stupid as simplistic descriptions of this book occasionally suggest, Curzon would not have survived the first few months of World War 1, let alone been rapidly promoted.

He is intelligent enough to realise that his men need to eat and to make sure that they are fed properly, and he also knows his limits. Recognising that fighting a 20th century war requires people who understand newfangled things like engineering, railways, or how many men it takes to carry a gas canister, Curzon also recognises that most professional army officers himself do not have that knowledge, so he brings in "university wallahs" who do. Curzon also has the combination of ruthlessness and integrity to sack staff officers who are clearly not up to the job even when one of them is his wife's cousin and the heir to his father-in-law's dukedom.

Within minutes of arriving at the front and seeing what artillery and machine-guns can do, Curzon abandons his pre-war attitude of deliberately evading training on how to dig trenches, and instead orders his men to dig for their lives, demanding compliance from junior officers who are afraid that the men might get dirt on their uniforms. "God damn it, man!" he explodes, "Get your men digging, and don't ask damn fool questions."

In the first round of battles in the Great War, heroic efforts from Curzon in the face of greatly superior german numbers prevent the British from being flanked and probably defeated at the First Battle of Ypres. Having fought with distinction up to this point, he is promoted to much more senior positions. But then things start to go wrong.

Forester makes a great many good points about the need to use the tactics which will win the current battle rather than the last war: indeed, that even the tactics which won earlier battles of the current war should be dropped if they are out of date. But that is not the only message he is trying to put over.

The main theme of "The General" is a World War One version of the Peter Principle. The very qualities which make Curzon successful on the battlefield up to and including the command of a brigade have disastrous consequences for England when he is a Lieutenant-General commanding an army corps, and when both he and all the other senior officers of the army are still displaying the characteristics which colonels and brigadiers need to hold their regiments in the line. And because only those officers who displayed the qualities required of a successful colonel or brigadier were promoted to more senior general officer positions, they failed to display the different strengths which would have been required to fight the war in a different way which did not throw hundreds of thousands of lives away.

Forester states quite explicitly in the book his view that the very strengths of the World War One generals, not just their weaknesses, were part of the problem. I quote - "It might have been ... more advantageous to England if the British Army had not been quite so full of men of high rank who were so ready for responsibility, so unflinchingly devoted to their duty, so unmoved in the face of difficulties, of such unfaltering courage."

This book is an unforgettable classic.