As The Good Soldier opens, Ford uses an allusion and a metaphor to outline the seriousness of the small, internal events of marriages and relationships for the reader:
Someone has said that the death of a mouse from cancer is the whole sack of Rome by the Goths, and I swear to you that the breaking up of our little four-square coterie was such another unthinkable event.
The metaphor comparing the "unthinkable event" of the group's breakup to a “mouse's death from cancer” suggests that the ugliness of their daily interpersonal dynamics—though it might appear trivial in the grand scheme of things—actually carries a hefty weight. The metaphor underscores the idea that the collapse of personal relationships is just as serious in some contexts as the destruction of a city or a death. Depending on one's perspective, things can either seem very trivial or extremely important: this is a key idea that Ford pursues throughout the entirety of The Good Soldier. It might not matter much to anyone else, but the mouse’s own “death by cancer” certainly matters to the mouse.
The allusion to the “sack of Rome by the Goths” adds historical context, dramatizing the disbanding of John’s shaky social group. In 410 C.E. the city of Rome was pillaged by a Germanic tribe called the Visigoths. It was the first time the powerful city had fallen to a foreign enemy. It was also the beginning of the collapse of the Roman Empire, and the transition to the global Medieval era. This historical reference to a transformative event in history parallels the emotional and psychological upheaval experienced by all of Ford’s characters. Just as the world was never the same after the fall of the Roman Empire, John's life and the lives of his companions are never the same after the events of this novel. The allusion suggests the gravity of their situation. It casts the destruction of their affections and intimacies as more than personal losses, but as events with historical and dramatic weight.
When they’re constantly in close proximity toward the end of the novel, Leonora’s hatred of Nancy becomes almost impossible to conceal. The narrator employs tactile imagery and metaphor to depict Leonora's desire for revenge against Nancy for her adultery with Edward.
Yes, Leonora wished to bring her riding-whip down on Nancy’s young face. She imagined the pleasure she would feel when the lash fell across those queer features; the pleasure she would feel at drawing the handle at the same moment toward her, so as to cut deep into the flesh and to leave a lasting wheal. Well, she left a lasting wheal, and her words cut deeply into the girl’s mind […]
The tactile imagery Ford uses is vivid and intense, focusing on the imagined sensation of inflicting pain. The description of Leonora wishing to "bring her riding-whip down on Nancy’s young face" and the graphic detail of the lash cutting into flesh create a powerful sensation of physical violence for the reader. This imagery does more than convey Leonora's intense anger and her desire for retribution. It also echoes the emotional "blows" that Leonora has endured due to Edward's behavior. She’s having to restrain herself from physically reproducing them on Nancy.
The metaphor in this passage comes into play with the phrase "she left a lasting wheal, and her words cut deeply into the girl’s mind." A "wheal" is a raised mark on skin, usually left because a blow has been struck. Although Leonora does not actually physically whip Nancy, the metaphor suggests that her words inflict a similar kind of “injury.” The "lasting wheal" is a metaphor for the enduring emotional and psychological impact of Leonora's words, which “cut deeply” into Nancy. This metaphor extends the tactile imagery of physical pain to the psychological realm. Leonora is nursing psychological “wounds” of her own and wants Nancy to suffer as she has herself.
As he tries to encapsulate the beauty and the concurrent tragedy of their relationship, John describes Edward and Leonora as being like Viking funeral ships drifting through a "river" of tragic lives:
Here were two noble people—for I am convinced that both Edward and Leonora had noble natures—here, then, were two noble natures, drifting down life, like fire-ships afloat on a lagoon and causing miseries, heartaches, agony of the mind and death. And they themselves steadily deteriorated. And why? For what purpose? To point what lesson? It is all a darkness.
The simile here paints Edward and Leonora as beautiful but doomed, indicating that the narrator believes they’re destined for tragedy without any hope. This fatalistic image conveys the chaos and predestination of their unhappiness. Of course, as this story is being told after the fact of the tragic events of infidelity and suicide, John knows that they are already condemned at the outset. As with many other points in this novel, this passage reminds the readers that they are hearing a narrative from a biased perspective. Despite their “noble natures,” to John they are inherently doomed, their lives marked by a continuous drift towards sorrow and pain.
The metaphor of the "fire-ships" extends to represent the ongoing emotional and psychological devastation caused by their marriage. It suggests that the relationship between Edward and Leonora is not just troubled but actively destructive, consuming them from within like a fire. This metaphor paints their union as a source of continuous disruption and distress, leading to their steady deterioration.
Furthermore, the idea of a "fire-ship" is significant because of the material cost of Leonora and Edward's failing marriage. When people refer to fire-ships in a historical context, they're usually talking about Viking funeral rites. Warriors who died honorably in battle would be set ablaze on ships containing all of their precious possessions. Describing this marriage as being like a "fire-ship"points to the destruction of all of the order and contents of their lives.
John’s observation of the "darkness" surrounding the couple—despite the brightness of the “blaze” of their dramatic interactions—indicates his inability to fully comprehend their situation. He struggles to find meaning or purpose in their suffering, questioning the lesson to be learned from such misery. The idea of darkness here also points to the fact that, although John feels as if he knows these characters very well, it's impossible for him to understand all of the internal complications of a marriage that is not his own.
