Am I alone in thinking the dog was the nicest and best character in this book? Thank heavens for poor old Mingo!
I remember enjoying my previous two Murdochs considerably more than I did The Nice and the Good, but while this book wasn't all 'the nasty and the bad', I'm hard put to it to express much enthusiasm.
I started off with high hopes: a mysterious death in a Whitehall ministry, the involvement of a senior civil servant who lives an apparently idyllic, hedonistic life in his home on the Dorset coast, but then you look at the strange group of characters Murdoch has assembled, their tangled webs of blackmail and the bizarre, their Shakespearean pairings, separations, swappings and pairings again, and it all becomes too much and seems to stretch credulity too far. Perhaps it's a book of its time (1968) in that it describes an almost urgent loosening of the bonds tying people to societal conventions, and a kind of psychedic pattern of behaviour, and it feels dated now; perhaps it didn't even work perfectly in those heady days?
Ducane was by far the most interesting character, I thought, while some of the others (e.g. the detestable Pierce) tried my patience. There were scenes and passages which were sticky and stuffy and tedious, while there were others in which the honeyed prose just dripped off the page, so the writing was of mixed quality and read as though the author was not on form. On the positive side, Iris Murdoch can insert a jagger of glass into what appears to be a smoothly comfortable, predictable scene: you cannot coast along relying on the expected to unfold, as she's wont to prick her characters and her readers, too. And still on the subject of glass - though literally rather than metaphorically - what was the significance of the giving of pieces of glass and stone and shells which occurs frequently throughout the story?
I'm wondering how many people will have read the book, how many will have looked at it and thought better of it, how many will have a higher opinion of it than I have! Let's see.