Look Down in Mercy

by Walter Baxter, Gregory Woods (Introduction)

One of the finest British novels to come out of World War II, Look Down in Mercy is the story of the moral disintegration of an ordinary British Army officer when faced with the unspeakable horrors of war. Newly arrived in Burma and waiting for the fighting to start, the outwardly brave and rugged Capt. Tony Kent passes the interminable and swelteringly hot days in bouts of heavy drinking and casual sex. But when the campaign begins in earnest, Kent is forced to confront his own inner darkness as his cowardice and fear lead to treason and cold-blooded murder. Surrounded by brutality and death on all sides, Kent’s sole source of comfort is his love for his batman, Anson. But in the face of nearly insurmountable obstacles—enemy artillery, legal and social condemnation, and Kent’s own doubts and self-loathing—can their love possibly survive?

Look Down in Mercy (1951) was both a bestseller and a major critical success for its author, Walter Baxter (1915-1994), whose second novel, The Image and the Search (1953), landed him in court on criminal obscenity charges and ended his writing career. This edition, the first in more than four decades, features a new introduction by Gregory Woods and includes both the original ending and the alternate ending from the 1952 American edition.

Genres: Fiction, Historical Fiction, War, LGBT, M M Romance, Classics, Military Fiction

290 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1951

About the author

Walter Baxter was born in 1915. During World War II, he was a commander in the British Army and served in Burma, taking part in the fighting retreat when the Japanese invaded. Later, he served as aide-de-camp to General Slim of the 14th Army; his wartime experiences would provide the basis for Look Down in Mercy (1951).

Returning to London after the war, he worked briefly in his family’s business before deciding in 1949 to pursue a career in writing. Around the same time, he converted to Catholicism and volunteered as a missionary with the Jesuits at a jungle mission station in India.

Baxter’s first novel, Look Down in Mercy, was published to widespread acclaim in both the United Kingdom and the United States, and he was immediately hailed as a young writer of immense talent and promise. His next novel, The Image and the Search (1953), was more controversial and landed both Baxter and his publisher, the firm of William Heinemann, in court on criminal obscenity charges. After two trials, Baxter was acquitted, but, disheartened by his ordeal, he never wrote another book.

Christopher Isherwood records in a diary entry for 1961 that Baxter had “become a rather tragic self-pitying drunken figure with a philosophy of failure,” but nonetheless Baxter enjoyed great success as a restaurateur, owning a French restaurant, the Chanterelle, in South Kensington, which was very highly regarded. In 1962, Baxter met the chef Fergus Provan and the two would become companions for the rest of Baxter’s life; Provan would also take over the running of the Chanterelle after Baxter’s retirement. Walter Baxter died in 1994.

Biography used with permission from Valancourt Books.

Reviews

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this! Definitely a story that will stay with me for a while. I haven’t really ever read anything quite like it. Disturbing and graphic, vivid and realistic, with moments of tenderness, never cliche or overly sentimental.

Another reviewer described “Look Down In Mercy” as being ponderous, and I’d have to agree, however, I think that’s part of what makes the book so effective and why it leaves such a strong impact - the fact that you’re on this long, treacherous journey with Kent every step of the way. And you FEEL it as you’re reading, it’s exhausting! You’re there with him through it all, the fighting, marching, waiting, fear, starvation, killing, sickness, boredom. Nothing is glossed over (well, except the sex, but come, it was 1951!!!).

Kent and Anson’s growing relationship wasn’t sentimental in any way, shape or form, and I really like that there was so little dialogue between the two. Conversation wasn't how the author showed their bond and how it progressed. He showed it through Kent and Anson simply being together, surrounded by outside circumstances: catastrophe, malice and violence. Even near the end of the novel when they’re saying goodbye, there’s a nurse in the room, keeping them from saying anything truly meaningful. For me, they didn’t need words in order for the reader (or at least me) to see their intimacy grow, it was their actions and the outside circumstances of war that pushed them closer and closer together, both emotionally and physically.

“Sometimes as they lay awake waiting for the twilight of dawn Kent would feel his blood stir, and he would draw closer to Anson and touch his face with his fingers. But it was done subconsciously, his mind already walking away down the track, wondering if the coming day would mean waterless stretches, or whether they might perhaps reach the last ridge looking down on the plains and swamps surrounding Imphal. But he was well aware of the pleasure that came from Anson’s company and he refused all the suggestions made to him by other groups of refugees that passed them, civilians and soldiers, that he should join their parties and share their blankets. Their hardships and the months they had spent together, hardly out of each other’s sight, had bound them by ties far stronger than either of them understood, and they had reached a stage of intimacy when the presence of other people made them feel strange and awkward."

Another comment I’ve read about the book is that aside from Kent, the other characters are dull or two-dimensional. I like what Gregory Woods had to say in the Valancourt introduction, how Goodwin and Anson ARE a bit two dimensional, but the former is all “bad” and the latter all “good” - they’re different sides of the same (gay) coin. And ultimately, this is Kent’s story, he’s front and center. As Woods also said, “The real power of this novel comes from Baxter’s willingness to develop a central character who is morally ambiguous even to the extent of being thoroughly compromised.”

I also much prefer the US ending, and don’t see it as a cop-out or a typical, rushed “happy” one. I find it realistically open-ended - it’s “happy” if only because Kent doesn't die.

“He knew he had solved nothing and he persuaded himself there was nothing to solve, all he had to do was to go on living and be with Anson. He had resolved to try and be brave and to try and be good; to do more, he told himself, was not in his power.” Even though Kent has this little breakthrough, there’s no doubt in my mind, I just KNOW!!! his character would never actually go through with giving up his entire reputation, career and life to be with Anson. Maybe they'd continue as before, sneaking around, but I'm sure it'd eventually prove to be too risky and lead to all sorts of problems. I don’t read this ending as a “happily ever after.” At all. But it does show Kent’s love is real.

[Ihsan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Contrary to what an earlier reviewer has written, this harrowing book is very hard to forget. Look Down in Mercy is one of the most visceral novels to have emerged from World War II. If you've ever wondered what it would feel like to march across Burma during the Japanese invasion, prepare to vicariously feel your clothing blackened with sweat, jaundice and heat exhaustion; to experience a scorched throat burning for water; to wade through a mess of vomit, pus, blood, and shit.

The book is a character study that demonstrates—through spare but graceful prose—how war can break a man's character and leave him alienated from his own society, one unable to meet his needs. The protagonist, Captain Tony Kent, is noble yet incredibly self-centered, a complex man who performs acts of cowardice alongside heroism. What keeps him alive and sane is the selfless love of his servant Anson, a love doubly scandalous because it is between men and an officer and enlistee. It's a troubled love, since Anson is comfortable with what he is and Tony definitely isn't.

Some have complained that the language is overly allusive during the love scenes, but subtlety is preferable to explicitness, especially in a story about a man who finds emotional comfort in hell but doesn't know how to handle it. The book has two endings (written for the British and American editions); unusually enough, both are equally valid--and haunting.

[Fenriz Angelo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oh man...what can I say about this book? Suffice to say this book goes straight to the 'complex-gay-literature' shelf I've been drawn to this year, apparently.

Look down in mercy is one of the many war books that came out after WWII, however what makes this book stand out from the others is that it explores the taboo issue of homosexuality in the military/during the war with its main character.

In an omniscient third person PoV we follow the journey of Anthony Kent, a British Army Officer in Burma who is perceived by others as a good, brave officer whereas he is anything but. The physical hardships he endures with his mates is nothing compared to the internal turmoil he lives with in his mind whenever he feels forced to play the role of a strong leader in critical situations or the ladiesman when interacting with a female nurse with other officers on sight; the little acts of kindness his new batman, Anson, gives him increase this turmoil as much as it provides a bit of joy in moments of tragedy.

Devoid of sentimentality and very descriptive in the portrayal of the exhausting marches through the desert, the war crimes, the diseases, and overall decadence of the towns brought by the war. Baxter manages to tell a story with strong emotions nevertheless.

Though Kent isn't a very likeable character, he's very human in his instability, his conflicted feelings, his insecurities, selfishness, mistakes, and subsequent down spiraling to a self-destructive behavior.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said to the secondary characters for they represent a definite stereotype: Helen represents the female figure inside a war and the racism of the period; Goodwin represents a despicable side of the soldier (who is also queer); and Anson, who is always good, composed, ever so devoted to his officer, represents the gay man who knows and accepts his nature. If the author worked more on these characters I feel this book would have been perfect. This is one of the very rare instances in which I would have liked to know more about the love interest by seeing things through his PoV.

This edition comes with both the UK and US endings. I'm conflicted by this, because I hate when authors "fix" tragic/sad endings to appease an audience that can't take a less than a happy conclusion, but the US ending offers a closure where Kent gets a bit of mercy from life, a new chance, to try to fight to have the life he wants; this change in the character's lookout constitutes a needed evolution of his character. It's not happy (he and Anson need to survive the war first haha), just more uplifting and fits the story as well as with the original UK ending.

Overall, despite its flaws, i found this book very compelling.

[Kendrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anthony Kent is a captain posted to Burma, where he awaits his deployment to the rapidly changing frontlines of the war against the Japanese. He writes, infrequently, to his wife back in England, but long distance is casting a pall over their relationship. Female companionship is rare near the war front, and Kent struggles with his role as a leader - knowing he is always seen and judged. Only in private moments with the batman Anson, who cares for his gear and runs his errands, does he feel able to relax. Baxter's novel, released in 1951, was a frank look at the realities of the warfront. More uncommon was the love between Kent and Anson, one that unfurls itself with a tense wordlessness. Wordless because of the conventions around describing queer sex - a blink-and-you'll-miss-it situation - and because of Kent's own character and circumstances. Homosocial behaviour was frowned upon more if it crossed ranks.

Baxter's novel is a long one, and for the first half it glitters with some beauty - of the quaint, tenuous luxuries enjoyed on a warfront. The second half moves into the war proper, and here the pacing can feel sententious. The chapters lengthen, as supply chains vanish and the soldiers fast march with little water to outflank the enemy. The feeling of perpetual exhaustion is broken only by fantasies of water and simple creature comforts. Violence occurs in startling bursts, leaving imprints of lingering pain and illness. Amidst all this, the simple touch of a hand and the sharing of bodily warmth are vast intimacies.

The trope of intimacy amongst soldiers is not without precedent, but Baxter plays with this convincingly. Kent, as the novel repeatedly shows, is terribly flawed. There is a reason why the novel is blurbed as a story of "moral disintegration". But even as I read passages that frustrated me, Baxter kept me hopeful that the next chapter would improve. As Look Down in Mercy progresses, Kent moves towards an acceptance of Anson, tempered by the extraordinary conditions which made the two rely upon each other. War strips away the veneers of honor and morality, and while Kent believes that his love for Anson is yet another failure, the narrative journey implies it isn't at all.

The Valancourt edition, which holds both the U.K and U.S endings of the book, sees Kent convalescing and deciding how to move forward, with drastically different results. While the book reflects the period with its unfortunate presentation of race (Japanese - unambiguously bad, Eurasian - stuck in a racist doublebind), I found myself regularly moved by the writing. It can be a frustrating read - but it was deeply rewarding as well.

[Huw Collingbourne · Rating 4 out of 5]

An undeservedly forgotten book about the war in Burma, guilt, innocence and (remarkable for its time - it was published in 1951) a fairly sympathetic, if troubled, account of a homosexual relationship between and army officer and his batman. The first few chapters and the end section of the book are terrific. The central section - which mostly deals with the Burma campaign - is less successful, I think; even though the events in this part are crucial and highly dramatic, the book loses its focus a bit here. Another curiosity, dictated no doubt by the publishing requirements of the time, is that the 'sex scenes' are so oblique as to be almost invisible. One moment the two men are having a friendly chat, the next they are smoking and feeling guilty. So the reader has to remain alert to figure out what exactly has (or may have?) taken place.

This is not a great novel but it is a very fine one. It was Baxter's first novel and I can't help thinking that, had he continued writing, he should have been capable of producing some truly great work. Sadly he wrote only one other novel; that novel led to Baxter being put on trial at the Old Bailey, charged under the Obscene Publications Act, and he never wrote again.

[Nicolas Chinardet · Rating 4 out of 5]

Book's epigraph: "O God, our refuge, and our strength, look down in mercy on Thy people who cry to Thee..." Prayers after Low Mass.

Although there is ultimately very little fighting happening in it, Look Down in Mercy is first and foremost a war story, albeit one with the discreet but essential filigree of a gay love story weaving through the thread of its narrative.

The novel, divided in three parts and set over a few disastrous months of 1942 when the British forces are routed by the Japanese army as it invades Burma, is semi-autobiographical, which confers it an unmistakable authenticity.

Using a language that is at times a little clumsy but generally very serviceable, Baxter certainly doesn't shy away from the gruesome details of this slow and arduous journey through a country at war and a mind in turmoil. Here, human life is often of little value and even less meaning. Pain and suffering are not only omnipresent in the book, but are also overwhelming forces that brutally and ruthlessly destroy everything of beauty that comes in their way, like a blood-thristy invading army.

Surprisingly and disappointingly, none of the characters get a black story, which is one of the main defects of the book. Captain Tony Kent, the character through who's eyes most of the story is told, appears at first worthy of the admiration and utter devotion he inspires to his batman, Anson. But as the story unfolds, and his flaws are mercilessly exposed by his experience of war, he become less and less likeable, whereas the reader is not given an opportunity to learn much about the seemingly more likeable, and almost angelic, Anson, who is unfortunately but a mere shadow of a character.

Despite having a title inspired by a prayer, there is no sense of the religious in the book. There is also little sense of mercy in it. The book is imbued with that grim "kitchen sink" feel cherished by the era in which it was written (1951). It is a punch in the gut, but, while harrowing, it is also engrossing, despite the long descriptions and the minimal action.

UPDATE: Different endings
The UK and US versions have been given different endings. I first read the UK edition, which, in line with tropes of the time for books on this subject matter, is... "less optimistic", in contradiction, unsurprisingly, to the US version.

Kent commits suicide at the end of the UK version, although it feels like he was about to change his mind. He gets drunk in his hotel room, trying to make the thing look like an accident and, as he kneels on the window sill, vomits. As he watches "it falling into the night, spreading as it fell," he tries to straighten himself but the wood of the sill gives way and he falls to his death, crying out; "but not for mercy." These are the last words of the book.

In the US version, the last chapter of the UK version has been shortened (with a few details changed too, which makes me think this may have happened in the rest of the book as well) and Kent doesn't die. As he is about to commit suicide and sees his vomit precede him in his intended fall, he pushes himself back into the room and knocks himself unconscious.

An extra short chapter has been added to the edition: It is the following day, Kent is about to leave his room to catch his train as planned. He has been vomiting some more, which has proved cathartic, and he feels happiness at his lucky failure, a "near miracle" that the author describes as "inevitable" (though Kent is not aware of that, we are told), and, after pondering his luck, that he has to "go on living and be with Anson."

This is clearly a much more hopeful ending. It is however marred by the intrusion, in that pondering Kent does, of a veiled reference to religion and religious morality. "But mingled with this wonderment was a frustrating sense of gratitude, frustrating because he could not image to whom he should be grateful. And somehow connected with this puzzlement [...] was a cold thought that seemed to warn him that this knowledge was of vital importance. That without it he was, and would always be, incapable of experiencing any happiness except in its crudest and most ephemeral form." He pushes that thought aside, though, and "resolve[s] to try and be brave and to try and be good; to do more, he told himself, was not in his power."

Oddly the US ending seems more explicitly in line with the blurb of the UK edition than that edition itself, which, somewhat obtusely, describes the book as "an allegory of man's everlasting inhumanity to man, of the sadness of existence without faith, of the futility of self-centredness, of the implicity of us all in everything that happens."

In one version Kent looks down and finds mercy, in the other he doesn't. For all its expected yankee optimism, it feels like the US version is the better one, with a more complex ending. Or at least is it the one that proves more humane and more free of the negative judgemental outlook of the time at which it was published, and, as a result, that much more acceptable to modern readers.

[Lee · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not a fun read at all imo. Every character was so racist and mysognistic (i know it's accurate to the time period but still just made for an unpleasant experience). Far too much description of bodily fluids for my taste. Stars given for literary merit and hints of intrigue sprinkled throughout.

[ALEARDO ZANGHELLINI · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was hooked to this novel almost from the first. There is little romanticism in it. The brutality of war and environmental hardships are rendered with great skill. Too much skill, in some cases: certain passages are very hard-going. Kent, the main character, is painfully realistic — so flawed that at times you lose patience with him, until you ask yourself if you’d be able to act better than him in similar circumstances, and frankly you have no idea (though you hope you would), and so you give him a break. Anson is like a bright star — uncomplicated, at peace with himself and the world, the embodiment of an alternative (more hopeful) narrative about mid-century homosexuality. Yet, you gather all this about Anson almost by indirection, since 85% of the book is filtered through Kent’s perspective, who seems too self-centred to quite appreciate it all.

There are two different endings. I read a British edition of the book first (Readers Union, William Heinmann, 1953) and it depressed me - I hadn’t quite anticipated that that’s where the book was heading. I consoled myself thinking that in the end it was possibly the best outcome for Anson, but I still felt let down. Then I couldn’t resist, and got myself a US edition (Van Rees Press, 1952) to check the alternative ending. It pushed up my rating up to 4 stars. It’d be interesting to do a little research into why exactly the ending in the US edition was changed.

The writing style did not wow me (some of those commas could more comfortably have been semicolons); but neither is there anything particularly wrong with it.

[Garrick Jones · Rating 5 out of 5]

I couldn't help thinking how differently the relationships between Kent, Anson, and Goodwin may have been portrayed had this story been written twenty or thirty years after it was. However, perhaps it would not have been written at all, and certainly would not have carried the visceral impact of a man's personal experiences in WW2 written so soon after the event.

The prose is at times delicious, at other times dense and requiring intense concentration, but it's never bland or "skippable". The thing that I really liked about this story was the way the main character, Kent, is so human. He's fallible, he lies, he murders, he's a coward, he's afraid, he's everything that every soldier in war has ever been.

I longed for the sections that were in the author's mind but which never made it to the page because of the time in which the book was written-the scenes of physical intimacy between Kent and Anson. Not contemporary sex scenes, but the description of how the initial physical comfort evolved into something else. Anson is aware of his sexuality; it would have been gratifying to see, over time, how lying in bed with their arms around each other developed into an intimacy that gave Kent such continual short-term guilt and loathing.

Nevertheless, for a reading audience of its time, I'm sure the book raised more than a few eyebrows.

Highly recommended.

[Nathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I might've rated this a 4, but the sheer amount that it is sticking in my mind pushes it up to a 5 for me.

The highlight of this novel is certainly Kent himself - he's such a painfully real character, morally grey, and you're right there with him feeling his anguish as he falls apart. I doubt I can do him any real justice here, you'll just have to read it and get to know him. There is so much to unpack in Kent, I'd like to sit down and analyze his character properly some time.

Another thing I must praise is Baxter's intense imagery - I found myself truly transported. I might call the writing gorgeous, but this book is often gruesome and disgusting, especially regarding the WWII setting. As a warning, I would not recommend this book to one with a weak stomach. But if that's something you are alright with, it's worth it to be right there in the horrors with the characters.

And the ending? The original UK ending at least, was like a punch to the gut but was fitting.
If you are looking at purchasing a vintage copy, I do recommend a UK edition. I have a copy from Valancourt Books, which contains both the original and the US alternate ending, and, as much as I was hoping to like the US ending, as it ends on a happier note than the original, I couldn't find myself able to accept it. It felt so incohesive with the rest of the book, solving things in a rushed, half-hearted way. I find myself ignoring this alternate ending as I look back on the book.

My one other tiny complaint is that I would've liked to have gotten to know Anson a bit better (we don't even get a first name), but after all, this book is about Kent, not Anson, so everything we get to know about him is tainted with Kent's homophobia and self-hatred.

[Kate · Rating 5 out of 5]

A visceral and uncomfortable account of tenderness amidst the horror of war. The main character is both at once unlikable and sympathetic I.e very human! It’s not an “enjoyable” read by any stretch, and is at times a little too descriptive and ponderous. But it made my heart ache and I find myself thinking about it long after reading the last page. So for that, it gets five stars.

[Spanishliz · Rating 2 out of 5]

I've read this twice, twenty years apart, according to my lists, and I can't remember a thing about it. Really made an impression, I guess.

[Logan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was an absolutely incredible experience. I could feel every single struggle that Kent faced, whether it was the conditions of war or his inner self-loathing.

[Wright]

I sprinted through this book. It was fascinating to notice that the writing style is one that's mostly lost in the current styles of writing, which is that the author dips in and out of various characters in mere paragraphs, not deciding to dedicate entire chapters to either. And in this regard, all the characters are seen to move through the scenes in unison. Also, he goes on to tell the reader what the characters do not know themselves, giving us the 'knowing what they don't know ' vibes. The story flows non stop, no stalling. I cannot definitively say i enjoyed this book, but it kept me with it till the end. One thing I'll say is that the writing style I really enjoyed. I think more authors should utilize this kind of story telling. It brings in more characters, the major and minor and gives the story a fuller picture by showing us the inner workings of all of them.

Kent and Goodwin were the worst. Especially with Kent. It was just pitifully clear that this man had serious issues and even before I was halfway through the book, I suspected that with the self loathing and drinking and his excessive obsession with this public image, he was heading for a nasty ending, and I honestly think it was the UK version of the ending that came first. He's only redeeming quality is that he's brutally honest. Apart from that, he's a racist, a homophobe, nastily selfish, and the way he treats Helen and Helen's infatuation with him till some point towards the end where the truth abides with her reminds me of that song Save your tears for another day by The Weeknd. I only got to like Kent when he decided to go with Anson across the mileage to India instead of flying and leaving him behind, and he chose the reason that was closest to the truth in deciding this, even though he was seriously ill with hemolytic jaundice. He's portrayed himself as a coward in the book but he does certain acts of bravery that shows he's trying, though he has a very negative view of himself.

Anson was the angel to Kent's devil. He was steadfast, and he was clearly besotted to Kent. If any truth should lay in the statement that Love can change a person, from worse to better, then it should have been Anson's love for Kent. Na she was very real.

Helen. I kinda didn't bond with her and actually felt very little warmth towards her, mainly because of how she was portrayed as a very self centered woman, always thinking only of herself and spinning narratives to suit her wishes, even though it's clear as day she's wrong about her deductions. Through her though, I saw what it should mean for women of her stature and what they would go through to maintain relevancy during that time. And I was glad she survived till the end. I slowly developed warmth for her as the novel progressed, especially in those parts where she thought of Robert in a more kind way.

I always enjoy those parts of the book where a realization about the story or book jumps into my mind, which is what happened at some point when I realized the actual characters on the cover, with Helen in the foreground to the left, Kent in the foreground to the right, with his cigarette and Anson in the background.

The book was written in parts but for me, I summarized it as showing the part of war,and the introduction to Kent's demons in the first half , and the last half portraying him seated in ruminations of his life and especially the recent deeds after he's survived death in the absence of Anson and finally deciding on the course of action. Because as famously quoted, an idle mind is the devil's workshop, and Kent's was a full on factory.

[Rosa]

War is hell. This is one of the most difficult books I've ever read.
The horror of war, racism, cowardice, breathtaking callousness, and cold-blooded MURDER. I don't mean the murder of Goodwin; he was a rotter. I mean the two Burmese civilians.
I, for one, found the British ending with the successful suicide far more satisfying than the "happy" American ending.
The main character, Captain Tony Kent, does one unforgivable thing after another. He is truly self-centered and cowardly. His batman, Anson (no first name is ever given), follows him with servile adoration. You never find out anything about Anson's past or development.
I didn't much care for either half of the couple: Kent because of the reasons above, and Anson because, although he has decent instincts, suppresses them because Kent tells him to and loves Kent for no clear reasons at all.
I don't really enjoy most war novels because I can't keep track of the plots. With this one, I couldn't follow what was going on, where people were going and why, and where they ended up. But the wretchedness and visceral disgust of wounds and sickness were clear enough.
The Japanese were wicked, evil, barbaric, and cruel. The Man in the High Castle is one of my favorite books of all time, but why did Philip K. Dick make the Japanese 100% sympathetic? They weren't.
Disturbing and depressing.

[Crawfish Carlos · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is an unflinching account of the horrors of war and the internal struggles that it puts people through. It's a semi-autobiographical novel that focuses on Tony Kent, a captain in the British army who is very aware of how he is perceived by those around him, something which tortures him and makes him act in ways he wouldn't necessarily do otherwise. Kent isn't necessarily a likeable character, his focus on appearances barely hiding his fear and desperation and often being expressed in anger toward others, but he is pitiable. He's a young man in a horrible position that he is unsuited for but without any option other than to go forward and become more and more traumatized with each battle. He's also struggling with internalized homophobia, exacerbated by his closeness with his batman Anson, who at the same time is another source of stress due to the fear that someone will discover them and the only person from whom he gets any kind of comfort or love. I imagine much of this storyline was influenced by Baxter's own experiences, which is extra heartrending. The only drawback of this book is that, due to it being written in the fifties, it has a lot of racial views which are...uncomfortable to read, at best.

The book also comes with two endings, the original British and the American from a later reprint. I found myself much preferring the American, but it is interesting to see how they diverge.

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was so much better than I thought it would be. It warmed and broke my heart.

The hero of the book is tremendously human, tremendously flawed, and truly great. Horrible, realistic circumstances. He is a product of his place and time, behaves as such, and suffers for it. So do others.

[René · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books I've ever read.

[Patrick Huser · Rating 5 out of 5]

A wonderful tale of friendship and love without being a cliché.

[Kat · Rating 5 out of 5]

War novel: check
Morally dubious characters: check

[Cool Guy McCool · Rating 3 out of 5]

You can easily skip the first ~150 pages, you can get missing info from context.

[Nghi · Rating 5 out of 5]

5 stars to the US version. I feel that this book wanted to reach certain heights and was denied the right to reach those heights, which upsets me to no end.

[Victoria Slater · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’m still shocked by the cruelty by the Japanese soldiers.

Very interesting account and really details the hardships of a soldier that you don’t really see talked about.

I feel like the forward was misleading and Goodwin didn’t play a big part ??

I like that I got both endings !! Prefer the American one🥲

I didn’t know a lot of historical context for the book- like the Burma/india/japanese of it all.

I felt like I could relate to Tony in: having to be the one to make decisions and being selfish and the duality of self hate / doing what makes you happy.

Took forever to get thru

[Liam Ostermann · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great novel about war, armies, male dominated societies, colonial society, England's stultifying class system - all sorts of things of which its homo-erotic elements are the least important but also truly significant.

I read the book a long time ago and I wonder if I would read it again? Possibly not, these older 'gay' classics are problematic because they are not 'gay' novels, not even proto gay novels (admittedly that does depend on which ending you think reflects the author's true intentions). I see a novel like this more as a commentary on the decline of that governing class which in cliche had established an image of the English officer gentleman as a trope that appealed more to foregniers (see Adolph Hitler's and Goebbels's belief that 'Lives of the Bengal Lancers' contained real truths about the power and success of the British Empire) then actual empire builders.

Although largely written out of Britain's post WWII glorious technical colour account of the war as standing alone, muddling through, little boats, and similar fatuous nonsense the war in the far east, before the Americans came along, was one of sordid collapse. There was nothing glorious about the retreat from Burma, it was shoddy and ugly and there were no heroes or heroics. The losses and defeats by Japan broke something in the imperial legend that could never be rebuilt.

I see Look Down in Mercy as not so much a gay classic as a classic of the with drawl from the world that men of Baxter's generation, who knew the truth, made. It is interesting but not for the reasons most reviewers like it.

[Shannon · Rating 2 out of 5]

I truly feel that Look down in mercy is a good insight into the Burma jungle war and the conditions the men had had to survive in whilst fighting the Japanese.
However I was disappointed with the lack of events throughout the book. I feel that there was a lot of waiting, a lot of walking and whilst I understand that this is what it would have been like I think the book could have been so much more. For instance Captain Tony Kent and Anson are taken as prisoners by the Japanese, the whole scenario was incredibly brief and was over very quickly. Then it was back to the waiting and the walking.
Overall I feel the the book was well written, however I would not read it again.

[carelessdestiny · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very detailed and realistic account of war, men and what happens to feelings of tenderness.