New York Times: A Review of The General

On March 1, 1936, a review of The General appeared in the New York Times on page BR3, by C.G. Poore. The Article was titled "For He Is the Very Model of a Modern-Major General", a play on a line from the Gilbert and Sullivan Opera The Pirates of Penzance. Here are some intersting bits from this review:
"The post-war world that long ago agreed to the proposition that "generals die in bed" will appreciate Mr. Forester's sardonic and unsparing portrait of a self-made Englishman of war."

"Curzon[...] fundamentally belongs to all countries. In fact, he probably belongs to the ages, and they can have him whether they like it or not"

"No one would suppose that Mr. Forester took so many telling details out of thin air, certainly. And if that is true, the man or men who unwittingly sat to Mr. Forester have plenty of reason for a touch of choler."

"The book is an expandid portait without the full, rounded presentation the novel [as a form] demands."

"An though Mr. Forester fully describes Curzon's unthawed love for this wife, you realize that he has shirked his duties as a novelist in never bringing on the scene the cheery young woman that had beguiled his past."

"It may be that more men than women will be interested in Mr. Forester's longish descriptions of the mechanics of slaughter."

"Other [writers] have made the effects of war on man more compellingly apparent. That is partly because Mr. Forester is first of all a satirical commentator on just one man's experience [...]. Curzon, he constantly shows, belongs to the past. But were there not Curzon's in Charlemagne's army and Hannibals? they may die in their beds. But they take a long time dying at all. They are fighters- and one of their fights is for survival. When last seen, for example, Curzon was serenely promenading at Bournmouth, for all the world as though he was on parade."

(I'm sorry I couldn't post a url, but this article is not available gratis online. )
I though it was interesting for several reasons. First, because it was writen just as the novel was published, and the opinion of the reviewer has not been coloured by WWII or by the infamous stories of Hitler's Christmas list. Secondly, because it is decidedly American in its tone, (the article makes several references to fact that this book will appeal to the countries lingering anti-British sentiment still lingering from the American Revolution). And finaly because it is not entirely positive. The reviewer seems to find the Curzon's lack of relatability, or 'everyman' quality, problematic to the novel, however the last few lines of the review do brilliantly capture what this novel is (see above). Above all, reading this reminded me of the difference between litcrit and journalism. The truth is that this is not the most pleasurable read. Unlike the Hornblower series, you can't just escape into the world of the novel, (because Curzon's character is so hard to penetrate). And it is the job of this reviewer to convey that to the public.