12-30-2025, 11:56 AM
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.
Quote: 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.”