What do you think?
Rate this book
Bridge Over the River Kwai
One of the finest war novels ever written, Bridge on the River Kwai tells the story of three POWs who endure the hell of the Japanese camps on the Burma-Siam railway - Colonel Nicholson, a man prepared to sacrifice his life but not his dignity; Major Warden, a modest hero, saboteur and deadly killer; Commander Shears, who escaped from hell but was ordered back. Ordered by the Japanese to build a bridge, the Colonel refuses, as it is against regulations for officers to work with other ranks. The Japanese give way but, to prove a point of British superiority, construction of the bridge goes ahead - at great cost to the men under Nicholson's command.
Paperback
First published January 1, 1952
142 people are currently reading
8772 people want to read
About the author
Pierre Boulle
145 books284 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Pierre Boulle (20 February 1912 – 30 January 1994) was a French novelist best known for two works, The Bridge over the River Kwai (1952) and Planet of the Apes (1963) that were both made into award-winning films.
Boulle was an engineer serving as a secret agent with the Free French in Singapore, when he was captured and subjected to two years' forced labour. He used these experiences in The Bridge over the River Kwai, about the notorious Death Railway, which became an international bestseller. The film by David Lean won many Oscars, and Boulle was credited with writing the screenplay, because its two genuine authors had been blacklisted.
His science-fiction novel Planet of the Apes, where intelligent apes gain mastery over humans, was adapted into a series of five award-winning films that spawned magazine versions and popular themed toys.
Pierre Boulle (20 February 1912 – 30 January 1994) was a French novelist best known for two works, The Bridge over the River Kwai (1952) and Planet of the Apes (1963) that were both made into award-winning films.
Boulle was an engineer serving as a secret agent with the Free French in Singapore, when he was captured and subjected to two years' forced labour. He used these experiences in The Bridge over the River Kwai, about the notorious Death Railway, which became an international bestseller. The film by David Lean won many Oscars, and Boulle was credited with writing the screenplay, because its two genuine authors had been blacklisted.
His science-fiction novel Planet of the Apes, where intelligent apes gain mastery over humans, was adapted into a series of five award-winning films that spawned magazine versions and popular themed toys.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 608 reviews
April 8, 2025
The bridge over the River Kwai still stands, and one can ride an old narrow-gauge railroad train over it, on a scenic journey through some beautiful Thai countryside near the town of Kanchanaburi. Yet the modern metal bridge that takes one across the Kwai has nothing to do with the wooden bridge that is the subject of The Bridge Over the River Kwai (1952). Pierre Boulle’s incisive and thoughtful anti-war novel may be better-known today for having inspired David Lean’s Oscar-winning 1957 film The Bridge on the River Kwai; but the novel has its own virtues that deserve and reward the reader’s attention.
Novelist Boulle, a Frenchman from Avignon, wrote about 20 well-regarded novels over the course of his career, but two of those novels are particularly well-known today because of cinematic adaptations. Boulle’s 1963 novel La Planète des Singes, a Swiftian satire set in a world where sentient apes rule and non-sentient humans are treated as lower animals, inspired the Planet of the Apes media franchise, with (to date) ten films, two television series, and enough action figures to stock every Toys “R” Us store ever constructed. And Boulle’s two years of World War II experience as a Free French prisoner, consigned to forced labour by Imperial Japanese forces, nourished the writing of Le Pont de la rivière Kwaï.
As the novel begins, one Major Clipton, a British medical officer, meditates that “‘saving face’ was perhaps as vitally important to the British as it was to the Japanese”, and concludes on that basis that “The insuperable gap between East and West that exists in some eyes is perhaps nothing more than an optical illusion” (p. 3). The immediate impetus for Major Clipton’s reflections is a war of wills between Colonel Nicholson, the leader of a British unit taken prisoner during the campaigning around Malaya and Singapore, and Colonel Saito, the commandant of the Japanese prisoner-of-war camp where Nicholson and his men are being held.
The conflict between Nicholson and Saito stems from the fact that Nicholson, in accordance with the Geneva Convention, refuses to order his officers to work alongside the enlisted men in the building of a railroad bridge over the River Kwai. Saito observes that officers are performing manual labour everywhere else along the Burma Railway, and applies physical and psychological force to try to break Nicholson to his will. Nicholson is just as determined not to be broken.
Once that conflict between Nicholson and Saito has been (after a fashion) resolved, Nicholson’s dedication to duty takes a surprising turn. The proposed bridge over the River Kwai is a vital link in Imperial Japan’s proposed Burma Railway, and Nicholson makes clear his determination, using the engineering expertise of his subordinate officers, to build a better railway than the Japanese could ever have done! For Nicholson, the letter of the law always trumps its spirit. One of the many virtues of Lean’s film adaptation is Alec Guinness’s brilliant portrayal of Colonel Nicholson. In Guinness’s interpretation of the role, Nicholson is almost robotic; once he has determined what his vision of “military discipline” dictates, he carries out that program with the undeviating, unthinking precision of a machine.
Throughout the novel, Boulle goes back and forth between (1) the experiences of the British prisoners and their Japanese guards as work on the Kwai River bridge goes forward, and (2) the plans of a British commando unit, Force 316, to destroy the bridge. The Calcutta-based commander of the unit, Commander Green, chooses, as the leader of the mission, Major Shears, “an ex-cavalry officer who had been transferred to Force 316…and was, in fact, one of its founder members” (p. 54).
Here, the fan of Lean’s film can start to see some of the differences between the movie and its novelistic source material. In the film, Shears (as played by William Holden) is an American sailor who managed to escape from the camp, and who reluctantly accepts recruitment by Force 316 for the operation against the Kwai River bridge. In the novel, by contrast, Shears is a Briton – a founder of the unit, and an enthusiastic believer in the Kwai bridge mission.
No doubt filmmaker Lean made these changes, at least in part, to improve the film’s box-office prospects in the U.S.A. – actor Holden was at the peak of his stardom, and had, in films like Sunset Boulevard (1950) and Stalag 17 (1953), made a name for himself playing rather scoundrelly antiheroes who eventually come round to doing the right thing.
Holden’s Major Shears, throughout the film, offers frequent commentary about the absurdity of the commandoes’ mission; Boulle’s Major Shears, in the novel, demonstrates that absurdity through his routine acceptance of commands that the reader is likely to find ridiculous.
In both book and film, Shears and his fellow commandoes are told that it is best for them to parachute into enemy country without having carried out practice jumps, as the likelihood of injury during a practice jump is prohibitively high. Holden’s Shears asks, in a deadpan manner, whether he should conduct the actual jump “with or without a parachute”. Boulle’s Shears, by contrast, takes it all in stride, saying to Green that “One of the great advantages of the modern army, sir…is that there are experts to solve all the problems for us. It’s no good thinking that we know better than them” (p. 57). The easy way in which Shears resigns himself, against all common sense, to the opinion of an “expert,” is as much an indictment of the military mindset as is Nicholson’s inflexible dedication to his vision of “discipline.”
Shears’s fellow commandoes include Warden, an academic whose knowledge of Asian languages will help the unit with their manoeuvres behind enemy lines, as well as Joyce, a young soldier who wins the reader’s sympathy through his frequent (though unspoken) expressions of self-doubt regarding whether he can really conduct the brutal work of hand-to-hand combat, should the situation require it.
In real life, the Kwai River bridge was destroyed by an R.A.F. aerial attack, the way many bridges were wrecked during the Second World War. Here, however, Shears goes into some detail regarding his sense of why it is essential that the Kwai River bridge be destroyed by commandoes, not by aerial bombardment:
“This isn’t a job for the R.A.F.,” Shears had observed. “It’s not easy to destroy a wooden bridge from the air. If the bombs find their mark, only two or three arches are damaged. The rest are just knocked about a bit….Whereas we can not only blow the whole thing sky-high and shatter the piles at water level, but also time the explosion for when a train is actually crossing the bridge. Then the whole convoy’ll come crashing down into the river, increasing the damage and putting every beam out of action. I’ve seen it happen before. Traffic was held up for weeks. And that was in a civilized part of the world where the enemy was able to bring up cranes. Here, they’ll have to detour in the line and build the bridge all over again – not to mention the loss of a train and its load of war material. What a show! I can just see it…” (p. 104)
Indeed, “all three could imagine what a show it would be” (p. 104); and Joyce even says to Shears at one point that “I only hope the Air Force chaps won’t have a go at it, sir, before we do” (p. 105). Joyce gets quite caught up in the vision, to the point that Warden once says to Shears that “I’ve never seen anyone quite so keen on the idea of destroying a bridge. I’m beginning to think, Shears, that Force 316 is a heaven-sent opportunity for men like that. If it didn’t exist, we’d have had to invent it” (p. 157).
In these passages, the commandoes sound partly like boys playing war, partly like movie producers imagining a spectacular explosive climax for a cinematic spectacle. Boulle shows the makers of war constantly hiding the ugly reality of war behind one rhetorical trope or another – the importance of discipline (or of saving face), the chance of putting on a brilliant show.
And at the same time, there is dramatic irony, and foreshadowing, in Shears’s worried observation of what he’s hearing from Thai civilian observers regarding the progress of the Kwai River bridge: “If what our chaps say is true, it’s a second George Washington Bridge they’re building. They’re trying to compete with the Yanks!” (p. 106). The determination of Shears, Warden, and Joyce to destroy the Kwai River bridge via a spectacular show is going to run up against Nicholson’s determination to build a Kwai River bridge so strong that it will last for centuries.
Much goes wrong, of course; and the final resolution of the Kwai River bridge campaign has a decidedly bitter quality to it – even more so than the manner in which Lean finishes off his great film. The reader is likely to be horrified by the context in which Warden tells Colonel Green that “I took the only line of conduct possible. It was really the only proper action I could have taken” (p. 207).
Today, a Buddhist temple of peace occupies the place where the Imperial Japanese prisoner-of-war camp once overlooked the Kwai. The JEATH War Museum in Kanchanaburi makes clear that the real-life experience of the Allied prisoners working on the bridge was much worse than anything shown in Lean’s film. And the nearby Kanchanaburi War Cemetery contains 6,982 graves of British, Dutch, and Australian POW’s who died in Imperial Japanese custody. One feels that history most acutely whilst visiting Kanchanaburi; and Pierre Boulle’s novel about that time and place, like David Lean’s film, makes that part of World War II history a locus for some seriously disturbing reflections regarding the mindset of war-making generally. What is war, after all? Let the film’s Major Clipton (well-played by the great British character actor James Donald) have the last words here: “Madness! Madness!”
Novelist Boulle, a Frenchman from Avignon, wrote about 20 well-regarded novels over the course of his career, but two of those novels are particularly well-known today because of cinematic adaptations. Boulle’s 1963 novel La Planète des Singes, a Swiftian satire set in a world where sentient apes rule and non-sentient humans are treated as lower animals, inspired the Planet of the Apes media franchise, with (to date) ten films, two television series, and enough action figures to stock every Toys “R” Us store ever constructed. And Boulle’s two years of World War II experience as a Free French prisoner, consigned to forced labour by Imperial Japanese forces, nourished the writing of Le Pont de la rivière Kwaï.
As the novel begins, one Major Clipton, a British medical officer, meditates that “‘saving face’ was perhaps as vitally important to the British as it was to the Japanese”, and concludes on that basis that “The insuperable gap between East and West that exists in some eyes is perhaps nothing more than an optical illusion” (p. 3). The immediate impetus for Major Clipton’s reflections is a war of wills between Colonel Nicholson, the leader of a British unit taken prisoner during the campaigning around Malaya and Singapore, and Colonel Saito, the commandant of the Japanese prisoner-of-war camp where Nicholson and his men are being held.
The conflict between Nicholson and Saito stems from the fact that Nicholson, in accordance with the Geneva Convention, refuses to order his officers to work alongside the enlisted men in the building of a railroad bridge over the River Kwai. Saito observes that officers are performing manual labour everywhere else along the Burma Railway, and applies physical and psychological force to try to break Nicholson to his will. Nicholson is just as determined not to be broken.
Once that conflict between Nicholson and Saito has been (after a fashion) resolved, Nicholson’s dedication to duty takes a surprising turn. The proposed bridge over the River Kwai is a vital link in Imperial Japan’s proposed Burma Railway, and Nicholson makes clear his determination, using the engineering expertise of his subordinate officers, to build a better railway than the Japanese could ever have done! For Nicholson, the letter of the law always trumps its spirit. One of the many virtues of Lean’s film adaptation is Alec Guinness’s brilliant portrayal of Colonel Nicholson. In Guinness’s interpretation of the role, Nicholson is almost robotic; once he has determined what his vision of “military discipline” dictates, he carries out that program with the undeviating, unthinking precision of a machine.
Throughout the novel, Boulle goes back and forth between (1) the experiences of the British prisoners and their Japanese guards as work on the Kwai River bridge goes forward, and (2) the plans of a British commando unit, Force 316, to destroy the bridge. The Calcutta-based commander of the unit, Commander Green, chooses, as the leader of the mission, Major Shears, “an ex-cavalry officer who had been transferred to Force 316…and was, in fact, one of its founder members” (p. 54).
Here, the fan of Lean’s film can start to see some of the differences between the movie and its novelistic source material. In the film, Shears (as played by William Holden) is an American sailor who managed to escape from the camp, and who reluctantly accepts recruitment by Force 316 for the operation against the Kwai River bridge. In the novel, by contrast, Shears is a Briton – a founder of the unit, and an enthusiastic believer in the Kwai bridge mission.
No doubt filmmaker Lean made these changes, at least in part, to improve the film’s box-office prospects in the U.S.A. – actor Holden was at the peak of his stardom, and had, in films like Sunset Boulevard (1950) and Stalag 17 (1953), made a name for himself playing rather scoundrelly antiheroes who eventually come round to doing the right thing.
Holden’s Major Shears, throughout the film, offers frequent commentary about the absurdity of the commandoes’ mission; Boulle’s Major Shears, in the novel, demonstrates that absurdity through his routine acceptance of commands that the reader is likely to find ridiculous.
In both book and film, Shears and his fellow commandoes are told that it is best for them to parachute into enemy country without having carried out practice jumps, as the likelihood of injury during a practice jump is prohibitively high. Holden’s Shears asks, in a deadpan manner, whether he should conduct the actual jump “with or without a parachute”. Boulle’s Shears, by contrast, takes it all in stride, saying to Green that “One of the great advantages of the modern army, sir…is that there are experts to solve all the problems for us. It’s no good thinking that we know better than them” (p. 57). The easy way in which Shears resigns himself, against all common sense, to the opinion of an “expert,” is as much an indictment of the military mindset as is Nicholson’s inflexible dedication to his vision of “discipline.”
Shears’s fellow commandoes include Warden, an academic whose knowledge of Asian languages will help the unit with their manoeuvres behind enemy lines, as well as Joyce, a young soldier who wins the reader’s sympathy through his frequent (though unspoken) expressions of self-doubt regarding whether he can really conduct the brutal work of hand-to-hand combat, should the situation require it.
In real life, the Kwai River bridge was destroyed by an R.A.F. aerial attack, the way many bridges were wrecked during the Second World War. Here, however, Shears goes into some detail regarding his sense of why it is essential that the Kwai River bridge be destroyed by commandoes, not by aerial bombardment:
“This isn’t a job for the R.A.F.,” Shears had observed. “It’s not easy to destroy a wooden bridge from the air. If the bombs find their mark, only two or three arches are damaged. The rest are just knocked about a bit….Whereas we can not only blow the whole thing sky-high and shatter the piles at water level, but also time the explosion for when a train is actually crossing the bridge. Then the whole convoy’ll come crashing down into the river, increasing the damage and putting every beam out of action. I’ve seen it happen before. Traffic was held up for weeks. And that was in a civilized part of the world where the enemy was able to bring up cranes. Here, they’ll have to detour in the line and build the bridge all over again – not to mention the loss of a train and its load of war material. What a show! I can just see it…” (p. 104)
Indeed, “all three could imagine what a show it would be” (p. 104); and Joyce even says to Shears at one point that “I only hope the Air Force chaps won’t have a go at it, sir, before we do” (p. 105). Joyce gets quite caught up in the vision, to the point that Warden once says to Shears that “I’ve never seen anyone quite so keen on the idea of destroying a bridge. I’m beginning to think, Shears, that Force 316 is a heaven-sent opportunity for men like that. If it didn’t exist, we’d have had to invent it” (p. 157).
In these passages, the commandoes sound partly like boys playing war, partly like movie producers imagining a spectacular explosive climax for a cinematic spectacle. Boulle shows the makers of war constantly hiding the ugly reality of war behind one rhetorical trope or another – the importance of discipline (or of saving face), the chance of putting on a brilliant show.
And at the same time, there is dramatic irony, and foreshadowing, in Shears’s worried observation of what he’s hearing from Thai civilian observers regarding the progress of the Kwai River bridge: “If what our chaps say is true, it’s a second George Washington Bridge they’re building. They’re trying to compete with the Yanks!” (p. 106). The determination of Shears, Warden, and Joyce to destroy the Kwai River bridge via a spectacular show is going to run up against Nicholson’s determination to build a Kwai River bridge so strong that it will last for centuries.
Much goes wrong, of course; and the final resolution of the Kwai River bridge campaign has a decidedly bitter quality to it – even more so than the manner in which Lean finishes off his great film. The reader is likely to be horrified by the context in which Warden tells Colonel Green that “I took the only line of conduct possible. It was really the only proper action I could have taken” (p. 207).
Today, a Buddhist temple of peace occupies the place where the Imperial Japanese prisoner-of-war camp once overlooked the Kwai. The JEATH War Museum in Kanchanaburi makes clear that the real-life experience of the Allied prisoners working on the bridge was much worse than anything shown in Lean’s film. And the nearby Kanchanaburi War Cemetery contains 6,982 graves of British, Dutch, and Australian POW’s who died in Imperial Japanese custody. One feels that history most acutely whilst visiting Kanchanaburi; and Pierre Boulle’s novel about that time and place, like David Lean’s film, makes that part of World War II history a locus for some seriously disturbing reflections regarding the mindset of war-making generally. What is war, after all? Let the film’s Major Clipton (well-played by the great British character actor James Donald) have the last words here: “Madness! Madness!”
July 21, 2025
I enjoyed this WW2 story that inspired the 1957 movie. The story follows two plots that come to a point in the end, like the movie, Colonel Nicholson and the POW construction crew building the bridge. The other being the demolitions/sabotage team conducting a special operations warfare style mission to blow up the bridge.
Colonel Nicholson was prideful, a hard-line disciplinarian, and 'snob' of the officer corps. Colonel Saito was the strict Japanese camp commandant under pressure from the Japanese High Command to build the bridge at any cost. Major Shears was the commando leading a small team into the jungle to demolition the bridge. These three characters created tension and overlapping dynamic that made a good book in my opinion.
I liked this book because Pierre Boulle does a good job at telling the story. The use of description in the writing added quality to the plot. I equally enjoyed the book and the movie. Thanks!
Colonel Nicholson was prideful, a hard-line disciplinarian, and 'snob' of the officer corps. Colonel Saito was the strict Japanese camp commandant under pressure from the Japanese High Command to build the bridge at any cost. Major Shears was the commando leading a small team into the jungle to demolition the bridge. These three characters created tension and overlapping dynamic that made a good book in my opinion.
I liked this book because Pierre Boulle does a good job at telling the story. The use of description in the writing added quality to the plot. I equally enjoyed the book and the movie. Thanks!
June 24, 2020
I enjoyed this tale of obsession within a parable on the futility and absurdity of war, loosely based on Japanese use of British prisoners of war to build a railroad bridge in the jungles of Siam during World War II.
Boulle as narrator opens the novel equating the values and behavior of the West, specifically the British, and more specifically its symbol, Col. Nicholson, with those of the East, i.e. the Japanese, i.e. and its symbol, Col. Saito.
More expected is the racism that both the characters and the narrator exhibit in describing the Japanese. Grating on the ear today as it might be, that was the language virtually all Allied troops and citizens used during the war and at the time the book was written.
But the driving force of the book is Col. Nicholson's obsession with proving the superiority of the West and its technology, and of the British soldier's character, by building a railroad bridge that will be used to help defeat the Allies. He reminded me of Dean Jocelin, the protagonist of William Golding's The Spire, whose vision of building a spire above his cathedral takes on a tragic life of its own.
Just as Boulle often departed from history in writing his novel, director David Lean often departed from the novel in making his 1957 Oscar-winning film of the same name. It's a tense action classic considered one of the best World War II movies ever made.
Boulle as narrator opens the novel equating the values and behavior of the West, specifically the British, and more specifically its symbol, Col. Nicholson, with those of the East, i.e. the Japanese, i.e. and its symbol, Col. Saito.
During the last war 'saving face' was perhaps as vitally important to the British as it was to the Japanese. Perhaps it dictated the behavior of the former, without their being aware of it, as forcibly and fatally as it did that of the latter, and no doubt that of every race in the world. Perhaps the conduct of each of the two enemies, superficially so dissimilar, was in fact simply a different though equally meaningless manifestation of the same spiritual reality. Perhaps the mentality of the Japanese colonel, Saito, was essentially the same as that of his prisoner, Colonel Nicholson.Published in 1952, and written as Allied war crimes trials of Japanese soldiers were just winding down, Boulle's suggestion that both sides were driven by the same beliefs of cultural superiority would have been unusually broad-minded for a former Free French agent and prisoner of war.
More expected is the racism that both the characters and the narrator exhibit in describing the Japanese. Grating on the ear today as it might be, that was the language virtually all Allied troops and citizens used during the war and at the time the book was written.
But the driving force of the book is Col. Nicholson's obsession with proving the superiority of the West and its technology, and of the British soldier's character, by building a railroad bridge that will be used to help defeat the Allies. He reminded me of Dean Jocelin, the protagonist of William Golding's The Spire, whose vision of building a spire above his cathedral takes on a tragic life of its own.
Just as Boulle often departed from history in writing his novel, director David Lean often departed from the novel in making his 1957 Oscar-winning film of the same name. It's a tense action classic considered one of the best World War II movies ever made.
September 6, 2019
I decided to finally read this "classic" after a trip to Bangkok late last year. My colleague and I took a day trip to (and, indeed, walked across) the Bridge Over the River Kwai and visited the nearby military cemetery (which is attractive, well organized and maintained, and, well, moving), and the extremely informative museum. (OK, we rode elephants too, but that's not relevant.) Of course, all of this merely reinforces that this popular book is a work of FICTION, as was the movie. One of the real highlights of the museum is the video interviews with a number of survivors - both Japanese and POW's. Some of the interviews highlight the inaccuracies of the movie, etc. But, again, it was one of the best - most engaging - small museums I've seen anywhere. As for the book, it's a great story, and it's very nicely written (or, more accurately, in my case, translated). The descriptions and the vocabulary are vivid, the story proceeds at a nice pace, and the characters merit your interest.
Topical supplement: If this topic interests you, I strongly recommend Richard Flanagan's Booker Prize winning Narrow Road to the True North..... https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
Topical supplement: If this topic interests you, I strongly recommend Richard Flanagan's Booker Prize winning Narrow Road to the True North..... https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
Want to read
October 14, 2020Movie Review
Master film maker David Lean did a great job while adapting this book for the big screen.It was a great success commercially and won the Best Picture Oscar as well.
Alec Guinness plays Colonel Nicholson,a British prisoner of war in a Japanese camp.He would rather die for his principles than give in to the demands of Colonel Saito,the Japanese camp commandant.
Those principles are not worth dying for,however.If his officers are made to do manual labour,he would rather be shot than agree.When the Japanese order his men to build a bridge (and the officers are exempted) he wants his men to do as good a job as he can,regardless of the fact that such an act would help the enemy.
William Holden plays an American,who succeeds in escaping from the camp,and is then asked to go back there.Jack Hawkins is a British officer tasked with destroying the completed bridge
An engrossing film,superb location photography in the Asian jungles.The shock ending adds to the impact.
Master film maker David Lean did a great job while adapting this book for the big screen.It was a great success commercially and won the Best Picture Oscar as well.
Alec Guinness plays Colonel Nicholson,a British prisoner of war in a Japanese camp.He would rather die for his principles than give in to the demands of Colonel Saito,the Japanese camp commandant.
Those principles are not worth dying for,however.If his officers are made to do manual labour,he would rather be shot than agree.When the Japanese order his men to build a bridge (and the officers are exempted) he wants his men to do as good a job as he can,regardless of the fact that such an act would help the enemy.
William Holden plays an American,who succeeds in escaping from the camp,and is then asked to go back there.Jack Hawkins is a British officer tasked with destroying the completed bridge
An engrossing film,superb location photography in the Asian jungles.The shock ending adds to the impact.
July 19, 2016
This is a book where I will fully admit that my modern perspective is a huge part of why I couldn't stand it. Studied as an historical text, with extensive contextualization before reading, it might come off different, but... from a 2016 perspective, this is a deeply (insistently, even ardently) racist book about... supreme stupidity, to be honest, in the guise of honor.
It's the racism that bugs me the most, honestly. I know when this book was written, and I know that the Japanese Army was responsible for truly heinous war crimes during World War Two, and I know that people in this time very likely would have been this racist, and yet - none of that makes it any easier to ignore. The Japanese people and their culture are denigrated at almost every turn in this book, by the characters but also by the narrative prose. They're referred to as children, savages, incompetent at every turn, incapable of accomplishing the feats of construction that the British can, or of running a well-organized camp; the Japanese commander, Saito, is repeatedly said to be 'shamed' by Colonel Nicholson's behavior, and to lash out in petty vengeance for it - there's no nuance to this portrayal. It's cartoonish, almost outlandish; it reads like propaganda. Not a single Japanese character is shown to be at all capable, in any sphere, whereas all the Brits are uniformly excellent. (In the background, you can hear me making extravagant gagging noises.)
And Nicholson - I have this pet peeve, developed after reading a lot of substandard fantasy, about characters who cling to the idea of honorable comportment to the point of idiocy. They're always written as if it's supposed to be admirable, and it never is, because pragmatic action would do significantly more good. Write this as a heroic fault, absolutely, but not a heroic strength! And it's true, in the end Nicholson's pride is treated as the failing it is, but that's after over a hundred pages extolling how virtuous and worthy a leader he is, even as he drives his men to not only complete but improve upon a construction which will aid enemy forces in attacking more British soldiers. All of the fawning prose doesn't just get erased because, in the last chapter, his foolishness is called by name.
At least, if I put myself through reading such thinly disguised propaganda, it was only 150 pages of it.
It's the racism that bugs me the most, honestly. I know when this book was written, and I know that the Japanese Army was responsible for truly heinous war crimes during World War Two, and I know that people in this time very likely would have been this racist, and yet - none of that makes it any easier to ignore. The Japanese people and their culture are denigrated at almost every turn in this book, by the characters but also by the narrative prose. They're referred to as children, savages, incompetent at every turn, incapable of accomplishing the feats of construction that the British can, or of running a well-organized camp; the Japanese commander, Saito, is repeatedly said to be 'shamed' by Colonel Nicholson's behavior, and to lash out in petty vengeance for it - there's no nuance to this portrayal. It's cartoonish, almost outlandish; it reads like propaganda. Not a single Japanese character is shown to be at all capable, in any sphere, whereas all the Brits are uniformly excellent. (In the background, you can hear me making extravagant gagging noises.)
And Nicholson - I have this pet peeve, developed after reading a lot of substandard fantasy, about characters who cling to the idea of honorable comportment to the point of idiocy. They're always written as if it's supposed to be admirable, and it never is, because pragmatic action would do significantly more good. Write this as a heroic fault, absolutely, but not a heroic strength! And it's true, in the end Nicholson's pride is treated as the failing it is, but that's after over a hundred pages extolling how virtuous and worthy a leader he is, even as he drives his men to not only complete but improve upon a construction which will aid enemy forces in attacking more British soldiers. All of the fawning prose doesn't just get erased because, in the last chapter, his foolishness is called by name.
At least, if I put myself through reading such thinly disguised propaganda, it was only 150 pages of it.
January 29, 2013
Three stars for The Bridge Over the River Kwai by Pierre Boulle. I liked it, but man 'o man, it annoyed me. A product of it's times (written in 1954), Kwai is both stereotypical and stiff in the telling of a 1942, WWII, Pacific Theatre event.
I suppose most have at least seen or heard of the film starring Alec Guinness and William Holden. The stiff-necked Brit Colonel Nicholson whose pride blinds his patriotism somehow and the attending figures that surround him. Colonol Saito his Japanese counterpart that is head of that particular POW camp and the bridge that must be built for the Japanese invasion to go as planned.
I'd seen most of the film many years ago, and really Guinness is perfect for the part of Nicholson, breathing a life into the character that is somehow flatter in the book. But I must get back to the book. Sorry. :)
Blind pride. Men following orders. Oppressive jungle temperatures. Partially unprepared insurgents. Boulle really brings out the similarities of nationalities, probably a bit ahead of his time, I think. A quote of the first page of the book kind of sums it up.
"The insuperable gap between East and West that exists in some eyes is perhaps nothing more than an optical illusion. Perhaps it is only the conventional way of expressing a popular opinion based on insufficient evidence and masquerading as a universally recognized statement of fact, for which there is no justification at all, not even the plea that it contains an element of truth. During the last war, "saving face" was perhaps as vitally important to the British as it was to the Japanese. Perhaps it dictated the behavior of the former, without their being aware of it, as forcibly and as fatally as it did of the latter, and no doubt that of every other race in the world.
I like that, in other words, we are all the same underneath the skin, as it were. Nationalism, racism and whatever other "isms" one can think of are essentially superfluous. It is true, and I wish more would realize it. We are creeping up on that thought, but faster, please!
I suppose most have at least seen or heard of the film starring Alec Guinness and William Holden. The stiff-necked Brit Colonel Nicholson whose pride blinds his patriotism somehow and the attending figures that surround him. Colonol Saito his Japanese counterpart that is head of that particular POW camp and the bridge that must be built for the Japanese invasion to go as planned.
I'd seen most of the film many years ago, and really Guinness is perfect for the part of Nicholson, breathing a life into the character that is somehow flatter in the book. But I must get back to the book. Sorry. :)
Blind pride. Men following orders. Oppressive jungle temperatures. Partially unprepared insurgents. Boulle really brings out the similarities of nationalities, probably a bit ahead of his time, I think. A quote of the first page of the book kind of sums it up.
"The insuperable gap between East and West that exists in some eyes is perhaps nothing more than an optical illusion. Perhaps it is only the conventional way of expressing a popular opinion based on insufficient evidence and masquerading as a universally recognized statement of fact, for which there is no justification at all, not even the plea that it contains an element of truth. During the last war, "saving face" was perhaps as vitally important to the British as it was to the Japanese. Perhaps it dictated the behavior of the former, without their being aware of it, as forcibly and as fatally as it did of the latter, and no doubt that of every other race in the world.
I like that, in other words, we are all the same underneath the skin, as it were. Nationalism, racism and whatever other "isms" one can think of are essentially superfluous. It is true, and I wish more would realize it. We are creeping up on that thought, but faster, please!
July 27, 2024
No ha estado mal, pero esperaba mas, en este caso y sin que sirva de precedente me quedo con la película.
Aquí creo que no se reflejan en exceso las penalidades que sufren los prisioneros, y si, que son superguais los ingleses y que pueden con todo, y los japoneses unas criaturas inmundas, en fin...
Si que me ha sorprendido, un poco, no mucho, ya que en el prólogo lo comentan, es que el final es distinto a la película, me quedo con ese final, este, pues bueno no está mal pero como que le resta protagonismo a lo que ocurre durante el libro.
Valoración: 6/10
Sinopsis: Soldados aliados prisioneros fueron obligados por los japoneses a construir una línea ferroviaria de 415 km de largo, entre Tailandia a Birmania. Esta línea fue apodada de ferrocarril de la muerte, ya que se cobró la vida de decenas de miles de trabajadores forzosos, entre ellos 16.000 prisioneros de guerra aliados esclavizados. Casi una cuarta parte de los hombres alistados en este trabajo sucumbió por agotamiento o enfermedades como el cólera, el paludismo y la disentería. La cuestión delicada era la construcción de un puente sobre el río Kwae Yai. La primera versión de madera se completó el 17 de octubre de 1943.
Aquí creo que no se reflejan en exceso las penalidades que sufren los prisioneros, y si, que son superguais los ingleses y que pueden con todo, y los japoneses unas criaturas inmundas, en fin...
Si que me ha sorprendido, un poco, no mucho, ya que en el prólogo lo comentan, es que el final es distinto a la película, me quedo con ese final, este, pues bueno no está mal pero como que le resta protagonismo a lo que ocurre durante el libro.
Valoración: 6/10
Sinopsis: Soldados aliados prisioneros fueron obligados por los japoneses a construir una línea ferroviaria de 415 km de largo, entre Tailandia a Birmania. Esta línea fue apodada de ferrocarril de la muerte, ya que se cobró la vida de decenas de miles de trabajadores forzosos, entre ellos 16.000 prisioneros de guerra aliados esclavizados. Casi una cuarta parte de los hombres alistados en este trabajo sucumbió por agotamiento o enfermedades como el cólera, el paludismo y la disentería. La cuestión delicada era la construcción de un puente sobre el río Kwae Yai. La primera versión de madera se completó el 17 de octubre de 1943.
February 18, 2021
After I had read Pierre Boulle’s “Planet of the Apes” and readily enjoying it I knew I had to read his other well know novel, “The Bridge on the River Kwai”. Much like the film, the story focuses on a battle of wills between WW2 Colonel Saito of the Imperial Japanese Army and captured British Colonel Nicholson over the construction of a bridge to connect a railway line through Burma and Siam. The latter half focuses more on the clandestine British operation to sabotage the bridge using a contingent of British Special Ops. Overall a very satisfying read.
April 29, 2012
I always feel odd rating a classic, as it is so far beyond my power to comment on, whether for good or for evil. I both loved the book and hated it, and now that I've gotten all the way through it, I will have to process and then read it again to try to get my mind around it.
I spent most of the book struggling to understand what I was reading. I couldn't connect with the characters, especially Nicholson--I spent the first part of the book beating my head against the wall trying to understand what he was doing and why. Finally I did some research into British army customs and regulations of the time, which helped me out. I kept going "But the first duty of an officer is to escape! This is aid and comfort to the enemy! How is this not treason?", until I manage to grasp that at the time, the first duty of an officer was to secure the lives of his men. I couldn't get around the extremely paternal attitude of the officers toward the enlisted men, until I realized that I was approaching the situation as a modern American, and wasn't taking into account the still class-based structure of the British army of the time, when the officers were still gentry and the enlisted men were still commoners, by and large. Eventually I was able to accept that I was reading something of a very different time and place, and instead of stumbling over the racism and paternalism, I had to just accept it for what it was and move on. The book is, as they say, what it is.
I saw the movie first, and I had no idea how much they'd changed the ending. I was shocked at the end, although having pondered it, I think that the book's ending is more true to the characters than the 11th-hour redemption of the movie. I was surprised that, for such an action and suspense heavy plot, that much of the action took place in narrative form, of characters telling other characters what happened instead of following it in "real time," so to speak. That disturbed the flow of the story for me, taking me out of the moment. I'm assuming that that was a style choice on the part of the author, although I have no idea why. I feel that the true application of the novel would not be in military history classes, but rather in psychology and sociology classes, to study the impact of stress and the mind's extraordinary abilities to take care of itself, and the level of cognitive dissonance we're all capable of to justify our actions with our deeply held beliefs and just keep going. How knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow, and Pierre Boulle, know.
I spent most of the book struggling to understand what I was reading. I couldn't connect with the characters, especially Nicholson--I spent the first part of the book beating my head against the wall trying to understand what he was doing and why. Finally I did some research into British army customs and regulations of the time, which helped me out. I kept going "But the first duty of an officer is to escape! This is aid and comfort to the enemy! How is this not treason?", until I manage to grasp that at the time, the first duty of an officer was to secure the lives of his men. I couldn't get around the extremely paternal attitude of the officers toward the enlisted men, until I realized that I was approaching the situation as a modern American, and wasn't taking into account the still class-based structure of the British army of the time, when the officers were still gentry and the enlisted men were still commoners, by and large. Eventually I was able to accept that I was reading something of a very different time and place, and instead of stumbling over the racism and paternalism, I had to just accept it for what it was and move on. The book is, as they say, what it is.
I saw the movie first, and I had no idea how much they'd changed the ending. I was shocked at the end, although having pondered it, I think that the book's ending is more true to the characters than the 11th-hour redemption of the movie. I was surprised that, for such an action and suspense heavy plot, that much of the action took place in narrative form, of characters telling other characters what happened instead of following it in "real time," so to speak. That disturbed the flow of the story for me, taking me out of the moment. I'm assuming that that was a style choice on the part of the author, although I have no idea why. I feel that the true application of the novel would not be in military history classes, but rather in psychology and sociology classes, to study the impact of stress and the mind's extraordinary abilities to take care of itself, and the level of cognitive dissonance we're all capable of to justify our actions with our deeply held beliefs and just keep going. How knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow, and Pierre Boulle, know.
April 26, 2024
One of those books I've been meaning to read as I saw the movie-and the movie is one of my favorites. I actually prefer the film to the book. But the ending of the book was different-and I prefer that ending!
March 27, 2022
'অ্যা ফিউ গুড ম্যান' নামে একটা সিনেমায় জ্যাক নিকলসনের বলা একটা স্পীচ আমার অসম্ভব পছন্দের, বিশেষ করে ঐ পার্টটা 'ইউ ক্যান্ট হ্যান্ডেল দ্যা ট্রুথ সান'। এই বইয়েও একজন কর্নেল আছেন যার নাম নিকলসন। কোন এক বিচিত্র কারণে, এই উপন্যাসটা পড়তে পড়তে আমার বারবার মনে পড়েছে জ্যাক নিকলসনের মুখ।
ওয়্যার প্রিজনার নিয়ে লেখা এই উপন্যাসটার মধ্যে যেমন আর্মিদের শৃঙ্খলাবদ্ধ জীবনের ছাপ পাওয়া যায় ঠিক তেমন আত্মসম্মান, সুপিরিয়র কমপ্লেক্সেরও দেখা মেলে দারুণভাবে। তবে, এসবকিছু ছাপিয়ে উপন্যাসটার মধ্যে পাওয়া যায় এক চমৎকার থ্রিলারের স্বাদ। যুদ্ধ ও যুদ্ধ সংক্রান্ত উপন্যাস / গল্প পড়তে আমার চিরকালই ভালো লাগে। যুদ্ধ সংক্রান্ত অন্য অনেক বইয়ে পলিটিক্যাল কনফ্লিক্টকে বড় করে দেখানো হলেও এই বইয়ের গল্পে যুদ্ধ মূলত ক্যামিও রোল প্লে করেছে আর যুদ্ধকে পাশ কাটিয়ে পাঠক আমার মনে জায়গা করে নিয়েছে ���্যাপ্টেন ওয়ার্ডেন, মেজোর সিয়ারস এবং অবশ্যই কর্নেল নিকলসন।
ওয়্যার প্রিজনার নিয়ে লেখা এই উপন্যাসটার মধ্যে যেমন আর্মিদের শৃঙ্খলাবদ্ধ জীবনের ছাপ পাওয়া যায় ঠিক তেমন আত্মসম্মান, সুপিরিয়র কমপ্লেক্সেরও দেখা মেলে দারুণভাবে। তবে, এসবকিছু ছাপিয়ে উপন্যাসটার মধ্যে পাওয়া যায় এক চমৎকার থ্রিলারের স্বাদ। যুদ্ধ ও যুদ্ধ সংক্রান্ত উপন্যাস / গল্প পড়তে আমার চিরকালই ভালো লাগে। যুদ্ধ সংক্রান্ত অন্য অনেক বইয়ে পলিটিক্যাল কনফ্লিক্টকে বড় করে দেখানো হলেও এই বইয়ের গল্পে যুদ্ধ মূলত ক্যামিও রোল প্লে করেছে আর যুদ্ধকে পাশ কাটিয়ে পাঠক আমার মনে জায়গা করে নিয়েছে ���্যাপ্টেন ওয়ার্ডেন, মেজোর সিয়ারস এবং অবশ্যই কর্নেল নিকলসন।
July 12, 2019
2.5 Rounded up.
I have not seen the film that is based on the book, though I can imagine that the film might bring out some of the personalities better, especially given the cast. Boulle's idea for the book is certainly intriguing, but until the last few pages, it lacks drama. For such a short book (really almost a novella), I thought Boulle repeated himself, particularly about how great western engineering was, and how the British soldier was such a better example of humanity than his Japanese counterpart. I could make allowances for some of this--but the repetition of this theme throughout gave the book a xenophobic cast that detracted from the story. No doubt Boulle's own experiences gave him a jaundiced view of the Japanese (he served in a Japanese labor camp), so I certainly don't begrudge him his opinions, I just thought the ideas were overelaborated in the book.
I'm eager to see the film now, because I feel like there was a lot of depth to this story that the book didn't completely plumb.
I have not seen the film that is based on the book, though I can imagine that the film might bring out some of the personalities better, especially given the cast. Boulle's idea for the book is certainly intriguing, but until the last few pages, it lacks drama. For such a short book (really almost a novella), I thought Boulle repeated himself, particularly about how great western engineering was, and how the British soldier was such a better example of humanity than his Japanese counterpart. I could make allowances for some of this--but the repetition of this theme throughout gave the book a xenophobic cast that detracted from the story. No doubt Boulle's own experiences gave him a jaundiced view of the Japanese (he served in a Japanese labor camp), so I certainly don't begrudge him his opinions, I just thought the ideas were overelaborated in the book.
I'm eager to see the film now, because I feel like there was a lot of depth to this story that the book didn't completely plumb.
December 16, 2018
đọc chán quá trời, mãi mới lếch được đến cuối, sách chiến tranh mà chả thấy gì gây cấn, chưa kể tác giả phân biệt chủng tộc quá, tâng bốc phương Tây, dìm phương Đông, được cái đoạn kết hài :))
July 13, 2020
This was, in my personal opinion, a complete stinker.
This book is raved about by so many people, it and the movie it inspired were the forerunners of a great deal of historical literature, film and documentaries about the bridge in question and the Japanese WWII prison camps that worked on the Burma railway. Some have called it 'a classic war novel' but I found it appallingly badly written (or possibly translated, I would not know), stereotyped way past the point of caricature, incredibility verbose and insultingly incorrect on historical details.
Perhaps, if this was the first story of it's kind I had read, or if I knew nothing about the actual history, I might have tolerated it better but no matter what it would NEVER have been a good book.
First; The writing! It was very verbose, florid and clumsy. You have to give it some leeway for being a translation, sure. The romance languages do not always translate easily to English. But the descriptions of the camps and the conditions were vague and unconvincing, while the descriptions of the jungles and climate were pretty lame, considering the author was meant to have been in a few. On the other hand, I had to endure pages of a young soldiers inner agonising over the fact that he may have to kill a man with a knife, which was unlikely and honestly got boring.
In terms of story structure it was all over the place. We start with the POW's in the camp led by a batshite crazy Colonel as described by a medic who was the only even slightly likely character in the whole book. But after having set up the POW camp and the bridge as the main portion of the story, but about halfway through the author seems to get bored with them (which I understand as I, too, was bored with them) and then the story drifts off to the separate team that have been sent to blow up the bridge and which have no link at all to the POWs. Three men, almost no action, pages and pages of florid waffle. Did anyone REALLY enjoy this novel? Or did they watch the movie and pretend to have read it?
Second; the characterisation! Yes, it is as racist as you could possibly imagine. Actually, it is worse. Many historical novels are racist, sexist or imperialist in any one of many ways and I read a lot of historical stuff so I can usually read past that, accepting it as the perspective of the time in which it was written. Post WWII there was a lot of racism against the Japanese, which is the sort of response that can be understood (if not enjoyed), and during the war, as with any war, it is an effective technique to demonise and deminish the enemy. This book was by far one of the worst of this kind I have ever read though, the author could not mention a single Japanese character without abusing their physical appearance, he could not mention the Japanese as a nation without sneering at how they are 'primitives' and just generally subpar to Europeans. Leaving aside the fact that Japan is a old, rich, far from primitive culture, the racism was still excessive. Worse! He did the same thing to the 'Siamese' and that infuriated me completely. Thailand is an incredibly old, immensely civilized culture which I both adore and respect, and THEY WERE ALLIES in this scenario! There is no excuse at all for diminishing and abusing them, for calling them savages when they are your guides and allies.
Next was a really, really odd and even more icky element. We all know that the French and the English have issues, Pierre Boulle chose to write this novel using English characters rather than French and as far as I can see, he did that purely for the purpose of creating nasty, childish and stupid caricatures, as a sly way to mock the English. The Colonel was idiotic, the behaviour of the English POW's was so very far from reality I can only assume Pierre never met one, or maybe he did and still chose character assassination on these men that had suffered so much. While for a while I tried to believe that it was the translation that made the characters so immensely unbelievable - by page 50 I could no longer believe that. So, racist against the Japanese, the Siamese, AND the English. This author is a piece of work!
Third; the history! Here one might have expected the author to shine, since the fictional story claims to have used Pierre Boulle's own life experience working in Malaysia plantations and for allied forces in Singapore and Indochina during World War II. Well, wherever Pierre hung out I am dead certain that it was nowhere near the actual Burma Railway or with anyone who was really there. The things that the workers on that railway suffered were horrendous but Pierre barely mentions them, a casual wave of his hand about not having enough clothes. A glancing mention that the medic in the team was not happy about the conditions. There was one, pretty moderate beating. Knowing what actually occurred on the Hellfire pass and on the death railway - reading this actually made me sick with fury on behalf of the veterans.
I don't mind that the actual bridge and the mission to sabotage are fictional, that is fine for a novel. But the description of the British Colonel virtually subjugating the Japanese commandant of the work camp that was so idiotically ludicrous that I could barely read it. The complete lack of understanding on the part of the author of ANY of the actual events or conditions....ugh!
I will leave you with a couple of excerpts that annoyed me :
"The officers sir, the British officers. They are not being made to work... they are all in full uniform... badges of rank and all" [pg 92]
The Siamese were not qualified to appreciate the technical genius of Captain Reeves... but they were fully aware this was no shapeless scaffolding in the usual Japanese style. Primitive people have an instinctive appreciation of applied art and design. Primitive? Thai architecture PRIMITIVE. This dreck won awards?
Pretty horrid book really, if you are considering it maybe instead check out any of the really good stories based on real experiences. If you look at the page count as I did and think 'it is only 157 pages, I can do that easily' I warn you that most of those pages are as painful as having fingernails pulled.
This book is raved about by so many people, it and the movie it inspired were the forerunners of a great deal of historical literature, film and documentaries about the bridge in question and the Japanese WWII prison camps that worked on the Burma railway. Some have called it 'a classic war novel' but I found it appallingly badly written (or possibly translated, I would not know), stereotyped way past the point of caricature, incredibility verbose and insultingly incorrect on historical details.
Perhaps, if this was the first story of it's kind I had read, or if I knew nothing about the actual history, I might have tolerated it better but no matter what it would NEVER have been a good book.
First; The writing! It was very verbose, florid and clumsy. You have to give it some leeway for being a translation, sure. The romance languages do not always translate easily to English. But the descriptions of the camps and the conditions were vague and unconvincing, while the descriptions of the jungles and climate were pretty lame, considering the author was meant to have been in a few. On the other hand, I had to endure pages of a young soldiers inner agonising over the fact that he may have to kill a man with a knife, which was unlikely and honestly got boring.
In terms of story structure it was all over the place. We start with the POW's in the camp led by a batshite crazy Colonel as described by a medic who was the only even slightly likely character in the whole book. But after having set up the POW camp and the bridge as the main portion of the story, but about halfway through the author seems to get bored with them (which I understand as I, too, was bored with them) and then the story drifts off to the separate team that have been sent to blow up the bridge and which have no link at all to the POWs. Three men, almost no action, pages and pages of florid waffle. Did anyone REALLY enjoy this novel? Or did they watch the movie and pretend to have read it?
Second; the characterisation! Yes, it is as racist as you could possibly imagine. Actually, it is worse. Many historical novels are racist, sexist or imperialist in any one of many ways and I read a lot of historical stuff so I can usually read past that, accepting it as the perspective of the time in which it was written. Post WWII there was a lot of racism against the Japanese, which is the sort of response that can be understood (if not enjoyed), and during the war, as with any war, it is an effective technique to demonise and deminish the enemy. This book was by far one of the worst of this kind I have ever read though, the author could not mention a single Japanese character without abusing their physical appearance, he could not mention the Japanese as a nation without sneering at how they are 'primitives' and just generally subpar to Europeans. Leaving aside the fact that Japan is a old, rich, far from primitive culture, the racism was still excessive. Worse! He did the same thing to the 'Siamese' and that infuriated me completely. Thailand is an incredibly old, immensely civilized culture which I both adore and respect, and THEY WERE ALLIES in this scenario! There is no excuse at all for diminishing and abusing them, for calling them savages when they are your guides and allies.
Next was a really, really odd and even more icky element. We all know that the French and the English have issues, Pierre Boulle chose to write this novel using English characters rather than French and as far as I can see, he did that purely for the purpose of creating nasty, childish and stupid caricatures, as a sly way to mock the English. The Colonel was idiotic, the behaviour of the English POW's was so very far from reality I can only assume Pierre never met one, or maybe he did and still chose character assassination on these men that had suffered so much. While for a while I tried to believe that it was the translation that made the characters so immensely unbelievable - by page 50 I could no longer believe that. So, racist against the Japanese, the Siamese, AND the English. This author is a piece of work!
Third; the history! Here one might have expected the author to shine, since the fictional story claims to have used Pierre Boulle's own life experience working in Malaysia plantations and for allied forces in Singapore and Indochina during World War II. Well, wherever Pierre hung out I am dead certain that it was nowhere near the actual Burma Railway or with anyone who was really there. The things that the workers on that railway suffered were horrendous but Pierre barely mentions them, a casual wave of his hand about not having enough clothes. A glancing mention that the medic in the team was not happy about the conditions. There was one, pretty moderate beating. Knowing what actually occurred on the Hellfire pass and on the death railway - reading this actually made me sick with fury on behalf of the veterans.
I don't mind that the actual bridge and the mission to sabotage are fictional, that is fine for a novel. But the description of the British Colonel virtually subjugating the Japanese commandant of the work camp that was so idiotically ludicrous that I could barely read it. The complete lack of understanding on the part of the author of ANY of the actual events or conditions....ugh!
I will leave you with a couple of excerpts that annoyed me :
"The officers sir, the British officers. They are not being made to work... they are all in full uniform... badges of rank and all" [pg 92]
The Siamese were not qualified to appreciate the technical genius of Captain Reeves... but they were fully aware this was no shapeless scaffolding in the usual Japanese style. Primitive people have an instinctive appreciation of applied art and design. Primitive? Thai architecture PRIMITIVE. This dreck won awards?
Pretty horrid book really, if you are considering it maybe instead check out any of the really good stories based on real experiences. If you look at the page count as I did and think 'it is only 157 pages, I can do that easily' I warn you that most of those pages are as painful as having fingernails pulled.
November 21, 2022
Even 'excusing' the blatant racism and derogation with atrocities committed, victor's writing history and the age of this thing - and 'excusing' the bad narrative again with age and the translation from original French, this was in no way an enjoyable book.
The description of characters is so poor that even the major and named ones feel like cardboard, the rest are pure fillers. Actions and motivations are at no point logical or explained and no-one seem to ever think or doubt themselves or anything else. At the same time, descriptions of mundane things are verbose enough to get you derailed from the story on occasion - which is something, considering the simplicity and shortness of it.
I can't really remember too much about the movie, the ending was different and there were some good actors in it I believe, but this read did not make me want to re-watch it, probably ever...
The description of characters is so poor that even the major and named ones feel like cardboard, the rest are pure fillers. Actions and motivations are at no point logical or explained and no-one seem to ever think or doubt themselves or anything else. At the same time, descriptions of mundane things are verbose enough to get you derailed from the story on occasion - which is something, considering the simplicity and shortness of it.
I can't really remember too much about the movie, the ending was different and there were some good actors in it I believe, but this read did not make me want to re-watch it, probably ever...
June 17, 2018
I read this book the first time as an assignment for World History class in high school. I read the book and then later saw the movie. To me the book was a thousand times better than the movie. Pierre Boulle's writing was excellent and the best thing here is the great character study of these men. Since the book is based on his own experiences during World War II, it is a great look into what life was like for these soldiers.
It is a book that you can't read with 21st Century glasses on. You definitely have to remember this is a picture of what life was like during and after World War II when these feelings were still raw. For the love of history inside of me, I will always love this book.
It is a book that you can't read with 21st Century glasses on. You definitely have to remember this is a picture of what life was like during and after World War II when these feelings were still raw. For the love of history inside of me, I will always love this book.
March 30, 2016
মাঝে মাঝে চিন্তা করি সেবা প্রকাশনী না থাকলে আমাদের শৈশব বা কৈশোর কেমন হতো। সল্প মুল্যে অসাধারন সব ক্লাসিক বই গুলো অসাধারন অনুবাদ করে যেভাবে সেবা প্রকাশনী আমাদের কাছে পৌঁছে দিয়েছে বা দিচ্ছে তার তুলনা চলে না। সেবার অনুবাদের মান অসাধারন। দ্য ব্রিজ অন দ্য রিভার কওয়াই এর মতো বই এর সাবলীল অনুবাদ পড়ার সৌভাগ্য করে দেওয়ার জন্য অসংখ্য ধন্যবাদ সেবা প্রকাশনীর প্রতি।
December 29, 2017
I read this not too long after seeing the movie version back in the day. Excellent wartime prisoner of war story, based on actual events.
September 22, 2022
Sprawnie napisana satyra na brytyjskie oficerstwo, w duchu powieści sensacyjnej przedstawionej w dość zaskakujący, głównie narracyjny, sposób. Tylko i aż tyle. Czyta się przyjemnie, choć czuć jeszcze w tekście brzemię kolonializmu i zachodniej ksenofobii.
Z lektury innych opinii da się zauważyć ciekawą rzecz, mianowicie autorowi udało się stworzyć powieść z na tyle zawoalowaną ironią, że jej odbiór potrafi być dla jednychh oczywiście groteskowy, dla innych z kolei pozytywnie patetyczny.
Z lektury innych opinii da się zauważyć ciekawą rzecz, mianowicie autorowi udało się stworzyć powieść z na tyle zawoalowaną ironią, że jej odbiór potrafi być dla jednychh oczywiście groteskowy, dla innych z kolei pozytywnie patetyczny.
February 18, 2022
Книга починається із кількаразово повтореного в різних формулюваннях одного риторичного питання: а що, мовляв, якщо азіати – такі ж самі люди, як ми?
І одразу все наче стає ясно: от іще одна історія про постоколоніальне каяття. Англійці в полоні японців пізнають чужу культуру і зрозуміють, що треба робити любов, а не війну.
Хрін там.
До цієї теми зрештою Буль взагалі не повертається. Перший абзац навмисне зводить читача на манівці, а одразу ж за ним розпочинається історія, в якій насправді і війна-то не має особливого значення.
Це зовсім не воєнна драма. Та й навіть не антивоєнна. Це трагікомедія про людей, безнадійно в��дірваних від реальності.
У першій частині полковник Ніколсон постає таким собі шляхетним офіцером, що знається на міжнародному праві і понад усе цінує власні честь та гідність. Тож коли японці, які взяли англійців у полон, нібито цю честь англійських офіцерів принижують, він без усяких сумнівів готовий іти на конфлікт.
Але згодом стає очевидно, що ця шляхетність і гідність – то речі в собі. Сферичні у вакуумі. Єдині, хто подає ознаки здорового глузду – то рядові солдати, які саботують будівництво надважливого для японців мосту. Але навіть цей проблиск розуму згасає, коли англійські офіцери знаходять порозуміння з японськими і беруться будувати міст із баранячим завзяттям.
Для полковника Ніколсона це тепер особистий проєкт, привід для гордості. Для капітана Рівза, вправного інженера, – можливість нарешті реалізувати себе. Робота на ворога? Та облиште, їм навіть на думку таке не спадає. Вони виконують обидва свої священні обов’язки: обов’язок полоненого виконувати накази своїх захопників та обов’язок офіцера керувати англійським солдатами, щоб вони виконували роботу як належить і навіть краще.
Ці люди живуть в уявному світі рожевих єдинорогів і навіть не здогадуються про існування якогось іншого світу, де рожеве, залежно від кута зору, забарвлюється чи-то білим, чи-то чорним.
Інша справа – “Компанія Вибух”, завдання якої – підірвати міст Ніколсона до біса. Ці троє відчайдухів-добровольців введені в сюжет саме тоді, коли Ніколсон розкриває своє єство, і вони чудово його врівноважують. У цього загону з розумінням ситуації все гаразд. Ворога треба бити. Інфраструктуру ворога треба нищити. Їхня поява на сторінках – завжди проблиск світла.
Заключна частина книги, де лінії Ніколсона та “Компанії Вибух” мають нарешті перетнутися, – це чудовий трилер, де тремтиш, перегортаючи сторінки, розуміючи, що десь щось неодмінно має піти не так.
Принаймні для когось із персонажів – точно.
Гарне чтиво у дні, коли Росія вовтузиться біля наших кордонів та на окупованій території.
І одразу все наче стає ясно: от іще одна історія про постоколоніальне каяття. Англійці в полоні японців пізнають чужу культуру і зрозуміють, що треба робити любов, а не війну.
Хрін там.
До цієї теми зрештою Буль взагалі не повертається. Перший абзац навмисне зводить читача на манівці, а одразу ж за ним розпочинається історія, в якій насправді і війна-то не має особливого значення.
Це зовсім не воєнна драма. Та й навіть не антивоєнна. Це трагікомедія про людей, безнадійно в��дірваних від реальності.
У першій частині полковник Ніколсон постає таким собі шляхетним офіцером, що знається на міжнародному праві і понад усе цінує власні честь та гідність. Тож коли японці, які взяли англійців у полон, нібито цю честь англійських офіцерів принижують, він без усяких сумнівів готовий іти на конфлікт.
Але згодом стає очевидно, що ця шляхетність і гідність – то речі в собі. Сферичні у вакуумі. Єдині, хто подає ознаки здорового глузду – то рядові солдати, які саботують будівництво надважливого для японців мосту. Але навіть цей проблиск розуму згасає, коли англійські офіцери знаходять порозуміння з японськими і беруться будувати міст із баранячим завзяттям.
Для полковника Ніколсона це тепер особистий проєкт, привід для гордості. Для капітана Рівза, вправного інженера, – можливість нарешті реалізувати себе. Робота на ворога? Та облиште, їм навіть на думку таке не спадає. Вони виконують обидва свої священні обов’язки: обов’язок полоненого виконувати накази своїх захопників та обов’язок офіцера керувати англійським солдатами, щоб вони виконували роботу як належить і навіть краще.
Ці люди живуть в уявному світі рожевих єдинорогів і навіть не здогадуються про існування якогось іншого світу, де рожеве, залежно від кута зору, забарвлюється чи-то білим, чи-то чорним.
Інша справа – “Компанія Вибух”, завдання якої – підірвати міст Ніколсона до біса. Ці троє відчайдухів-добровольців введені в сюжет саме тоді, коли Ніколсон розкриває своє єство, і вони чудово його врівноважують. У цього загону з розумінням ситуації все гаразд. Ворога треба бити. Інфраструктуру ворога треба нищити. Їхня поява на сторінках – завжди проблиск світла.
Заключна частина книги, де лінії Ніколсона та “Компанії Вибух” мають нарешті перетнутися, – це чудовий трилер, де тремтиш, перегортаючи сторінки, розуміючи, що десь щось неодмінно має піти не так.
Принаймні для когось із персонажів – точно.
Гарне чтиво у дні, коли Росія вовтузиться біля наших кордонів та на окупованій території.
December 15, 2018
Comme la grande majorité des membres GR, j'ai lu "Le pont de la rivière Kwaï" après avoir vu le film ce qui a eu une forte influence sur mon expérience. Le film qui est un des grands chef-œuvres d'Hollywood plait carrément beaucoup plus que le roman. Pourtant, ce n'est pas une raison d'être déçu du roman qui est aussi une très belle réussite.
Boulle explique très clairement son jeu. Il commence avec une citation de Joseph Conrad pour annoncer son œuvre est une fable dans la tradition du grand auteur britannique; c'est-à-dire il raconte l'historie d'un anglais en position d'autorité dans un milieu coloniale en Asie. Isolé dans une culture étrangère, le protagoniste choisit de suivre rigoureusement le code d'honneur du métropole. Comme dans la majorité des romans de Conrad, le résultat est tragique.
Plusieurs critiques de GR ont reproché à Boulle d'être raciste ce qui est peut-être vrai. Ce qui est clair est que le racisme est le talon d'Achille du protagoniste qui mène à sa déchéance. Je ne nie pas pourtant qu'il y a plusieurs passages où l'auteur semble partager le racisme de son héros. Je laisse aux autres lecteurs de faire leurs propres interprétations. Surtout j'encourage tout le monde de lire ce roman qui a beaucoup à dire sur l'homme européen dans le contexte impérial.
Boulle explique très clairement son jeu. Il commence avec une citation de Joseph Conrad pour annoncer son œuvre est une fable dans la tradition du grand auteur britannique; c'est-à-dire il raconte l'historie d'un anglais en position d'autorité dans un milieu coloniale en Asie. Isolé dans une culture étrangère, le protagoniste choisit de suivre rigoureusement le code d'honneur du métropole. Comme dans la majorité des romans de Conrad, le résultat est tragique.
Plusieurs critiques de GR ont reproché à Boulle d'être raciste ce qui est peut-être vrai. Ce qui est clair est que le racisme est le talon d'Achille du protagoniste qui mène à sa déchéance. Je ne nie pas pourtant qu'il y a plusieurs passages où l'auteur semble partager le racisme de son héros. Je laisse aux autres lecteurs de faire leurs propres interprétations. Surtout j'encourage tout le monde de lire ce roman qui a beaucoup à dire sur l'homme européen dans le contexte impérial.
May 18, 2025
Kiedy kończy się dyscyplina, a zaczyna nadgorliwość?
Boulle ironicznie i zarazem bez cienia przesady rysuje obraz dramatu, rodzącego się z indywidualnych ambicji i skonfliktowań, tak częstych w czasie wojny.
Świetny przekład Jacka Giszczaka. Dobrze odświeżyć tę książkę w nowym wydaniu - czytając tłumaczenie Kydryńskiego w liceum zupełnie inaczej to zapamiętałem.
Boulle ironicznie i zarazem bez cienia przesady rysuje obraz dramatu, rodzącego się z indywidualnych ambicji i skonfliktowań, tak częstych w czasie wojny.
Świetny przekład Jacka Giszczaka. Dobrze odświeżyć tę książkę w nowym wydaniu - czytając tłumaczenie Kydryńskiego w liceum zupełnie inaczej to zapamiętałem.
November 23, 2018
3.75 stars
I usually came across this fiction during my college years in a number of good bookshops in Bangkok but I thought it was beyond my reading capability so I never picked it up to read. I vaguely knew from my reading that there was an acclaimed film entitled The Bridge On the River Kwai (1957) but, surprisingly, I had never watched it until the menacingly advanced internet era allows us to watch any film at will (provided that we are lucky, that film in question is copyright-free) by simply typing its title on YouTube. In the meantime, I think there is something worth reading and essential to our background information on the film production and more understanding on this military novel in which we can read on this website: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bri... However, the river's name itself may pose a problem to those unfamiliar with its pronunciation, especially, to foreigners or tourists who encounter it for the first time. 'Kwai' is transliterated from a Thai word (แคว) so it is right to pronounce the word 'Kwai' as if there is a letter 'r' following (just imagine it with an 'r' like this: Kwair). Please note, there is a pitfall on pronouncing 'Kwai' as you see rhyming with 'eye' because that is another Thai word meaning 'buffalo'.
I agreed with some readers' verdict stating that the film was worth watching and more interesting than reading this 4-part, 25-chapter military fiction. For some reason, I found reading its Parts 1-3 tedious while Part 4 more war-like with intense climax and action. Moreover, there is an inconstancy regarding the promulgated concept on the "Southeast Asia Coprosperity Sphere" (p. 21) and the "Southeast Asia Sphere" (p. 189). The author might have focused on Southeast Asia so he has rephrased it. In fact, the concept was entitled "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater...). In the early 1950's, I first came across this concept in some Thai tabloids translated into Thai as "วงไพบูลย์ร่วมแห่งมหาเอเชียบูรพา" and wondered what it meant.
To continue . . .
I usually came across this fiction during my college years in a number of good bookshops in Bangkok but I thought it was beyond my reading capability so I never picked it up to read. I vaguely knew from my reading that there was an acclaimed film entitled The Bridge On the River Kwai (1957) but, surprisingly, I had never watched it until the menacingly advanced internet era allows us to watch any film at will (provided that we are lucky, that film in question is copyright-free) by simply typing its title on YouTube. In the meantime, I think there is something worth reading and essential to our background information on the film production and more understanding on this military novel in which we can read on this website: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bri... However, the river's name itself may pose a problem to those unfamiliar with its pronunciation, especially, to foreigners or tourists who encounter it for the first time. 'Kwai' is transliterated from a Thai word (แคว) so it is right to pronounce the word 'Kwai' as if there is a letter 'r' following (just imagine it with an 'r' like this: Kwair). Please note, there is a pitfall on pronouncing 'Kwai' as you see rhyming with 'eye' because that is another Thai word meaning 'buffalo'.
I agreed with some readers' verdict stating that the film was worth watching and more interesting than reading this 4-part, 25-chapter military fiction. For some reason, I found reading its Parts 1-3 tedious while Part 4 more war-like with intense climax and action. Moreover, there is an inconstancy regarding the promulgated concept on the "Southeast Asia Coprosperity Sphere" (p. 21) and the "Southeast Asia Sphere" (p. 189). The author might have focused on Southeast Asia so he has rephrased it. In fact, the concept was entitled "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater...). In the early 1950's, I first came across this concept in some Thai tabloids translated into Thai as "วงไพบูลย์ร่วมแห่งมหาเอเชียบูรพา" and wondered what it meant.
To continue . . .
December 9, 2020
Enjoyed this very much. A short story, but such an interesting theme. Two ongoing stories, one to build a bridge by British POW's and the struggle by their Colonel to retain some control over his people from the Japanese soldiers and the second story, a mission to destroy the bridge by British soldiers as part of the war effort. Very interesting.
July 12, 2019
Burn in Hell, Colonel Nicholson!
March 23, 2023
To say this is a book about trying to build and destroy a bridge doesn’t make it sound very interesting. Yet somehow I was fully invested in the building while also waiting with bated breath for the destruction at the end. Better than I expected.
March 16, 2025
Normalnie prequel Drogi Królów - przez całą książkę budują most - ale to co odróżnia tę książkę to jest stopniowanie napięcia. Jakimś cudem autor z takiego tematu zbudował akcję, która w miarę przewracania kolejnych kartek, rozkręca się i nabiera tempa.
October 24, 2022
This 1952 novel has one exceptionally strong feature and one quite irritating drawback. Written by a novelist who actually experienced the rigours of being a prisoner of the Japanese in Southeast Asia, the novel’s attention to detail is compelling. While one of the saboteurs lies in the jungle at night during a reconnaissance mission, he is attacked by mosquitoes, leeches, and then ants. The ants are both of the red and black varieties, which makes a difference as to how they bite, how painful they are and how easy it is to get rid of them. When setting the explosives under the bridge, the men spend several hours immersed in the cold waters so that their hands become masses of torn flesh and they are forced to fasten the knots holding the bombs to the piers with their teeth. As one final example, the imaginative fancies Joyce subjects himself to when it becomes apparent that he may have to kill a Japanese sentry with his knife are as explicit as they are nerve-wracking for him. Many other examples of this highly honed attention to detail could be given. They make the novel quite a riveting, engaging read.
The drawback is the exceptional degree of Eurocentric, almost racist, attitude adopted by the lead characters in the story. While probably quite indicative of prevailing outlooks of the time, it is quite disconcerting to read Nicholson describe the Japanese as being ‘what I’ve always said they were, primitive people as undeveloped as children, who’ve acquired a veneer of civilization too soon. They can’t do anything by themselves. Without us, they’d be living in the age of sailing ships and wouldn’t have a single airplane. Just children.’ The Siamese insurgents who assist the attack force marvel at the completed bridge since ‘primitive people have a distinctive appreciation of art and design’ and since the bridge shows ‘the European and Anglo-Saxon sense of perfection.’ It was these ‘primitive children’ after all, who had captured the British while taking over an entire sphere of eastern Asia and one wonders how much Bouelle let his Kipling-like assumption of the ‘white man’s burden’ with respect to the ‘inferior’ races get the better of him.
Still, a highly engaging read which, unfortunately, was too much influenced by my memories of the truly exemplary film which was developed on its basis. In a crass example of political prejudice, Bouelle actually won the Oscar for best screenplay for this film since the actual writers of the script had been blacklisted.
Recommended.
The drawback is the exceptional degree of Eurocentric, almost racist, attitude adopted by the lead characters in the story. While probably quite indicative of prevailing outlooks of the time, it is quite disconcerting to read Nicholson describe the Japanese as being ‘what I’ve always said they were, primitive people as undeveloped as children, who’ve acquired a veneer of civilization too soon. They can’t do anything by themselves. Without us, they’d be living in the age of sailing ships and wouldn’t have a single airplane. Just children.’ The Siamese insurgents who assist the attack force marvel at the completed bridge since ‘primitive people have a distinctive appreciation of art and design’ and since the bridge shows ‘the European and Anglo-Saxon sense of perfection.’ It was these ‘primitive children’ after all, who had captured the British while taking over an entire sphere of eastern Asia and one wonders how much Bouelle let his Kipling-like assumption of the ‘white man’s burden’ with respect to the ‘inferior’ races get the better of him.
Still, a highly engaging read which, unfortunately, was too much influenced by my memories of the truly exemplary film which was developed on its basis. In a crass example of political prejudice, Bouelle actually won the Oscar for best screenplay for this film since the actual writers of the script had been blacklisted.
Recommended.
April 25, 2021
Pierre Boulle's The Bridge Over the River Kwai is a short parable about the ironies of war. British Colonel Nicholson, taken prisoner by the Japanese, is assigned to construct a railway bridge; after winning a battle of wills with the brutal camp commandant, Colonel Saito, Nicholson begins constructing a bridge better and more efficiently than the Japanese could have done on their own. Meanwhile, a British commando team seeks to destroy it. This simple story is laced with acerbic humor about an officer so dedicated to his ideas of duty that he betrays his own country; the valuing of the mission, a "job well done" over human lives or even tactical success leads the commandos to spin failure into "the only thing to do." Boulle's book is effective enough in the broad strokes but often feels crude; the characters never feel human, least of all Saito and the Japanese, who are caricatured as primitive monsters in true Yellow Peril fashion. David Lean's film adaptation is a marked improvement: its characters feel multidimensional, the commando plot (with the addition of William Holden, the POW-turned-reluctant secret agent, adding an additional layer of irony and a sympathetic character to root for) more compelling, the ending richer and more exciting. The book is a breezy but unremarkable read that's less than the sum of its parts.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 608 reviews