What do you think?
Rate this book
None Shall Look Back (Southern Classics)
A study of the hero in his archetypal struggle against death, this novel follows the Civil War in the West through the career of Confederate Rivers Allard, a Kentuckian who rides with Forrest. Southern Classics Series.
400 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1937
3 people are currently reading
117 people want to read
About the author
Caroline Gordon
40 books19 followersCaroline Gordon was an American novelist and literary critic who, while still in her thirties, received a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1932 and an O. Henry Award in 1934.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
September 12, 2014
The best Civil War, no strike Civil, War period, novel I’ve read. Gordon’s depiction of battles, the plight of the soldiers, the horrors of war for both combatants and civilians, is stunning. Her portrayal of the Kentucky plantation, Brackets, and its inhabitants, particularly patriarch Fountain Allard, is convincing and realistic. She pulls no punches. I was shocked to learn that publication of this book was delayed in order not to compete with the earlier published Gone With the Wind. They are simply not comparable. Kudos to Southern Classic Series for reissuing None Shall Look Back.
April 5, 2023
4.5 stars. The blurb says that this book is the study of the hero’s archetypal struggle against death, and that seems appropriate, but that’s only one facet of the novel. General Nathan Bedford Forrest is the hero spoken of, though he is not the main character. The (other) main storyline of the book is Rives Allard, a soldier in Forrest’s calvary, and Lucy Allard: their families and homes, their marriage, and their lives during the Civil War.
It seems that Caroline Gordon had a lot she wanted to do with her Civil War novel and she may have tried to fit too much into one book. None Shall Look Back has three distinct storylines: (1) Nathan Bedford Forrest’s command and warfare, (2) Rives Allard and the struggle of the Confederate army, and (3) Lucy Allard and the homefront during the War. All three of these threads vie for attention in the novel.
1. Forrest's Story. Gordon had a lofty view of Gen. Forrest. She, her husband Allen Tate, and Andrew Lytle (the Tates and Lytles lived together for several months during the writing of this book) all saw Forrest as the best general of the Civil War, and the man who could have changed the outcome of the war if only Jefferson Davis would have made him commander in chief of the Confederate army. They thought that the Southwest held the key to the South's strength--a more decentralized agrarian country led by small planters and self-made men like Forrest, as opposed to the Virginia gentry and the West Point-educated tacticians. Gordon's high esteem of Forrest comes through strong in the novel. He is the image of the devoted leader, fighting for a lost cause. He epitomizes the active man, as Aunt Cally puts it: "There’s just two kind of people in the world, those that’ll fight for what they think right and those that don’t think anything is worth fighting for.” Forrest is opposed not only by Yankees but also by other Confederate Generals (Bragg, Hood, Buckner) who fear death and prioritize their own safety and image.
2. Rives' Story. Rives is a young Southerner who likewise represents the best of his class. He wants to fight to protect his homeland. He loves the land that gave him brith and is committed to fighting for it. He follows Forrest and is inspired by his heroism, willing to give his life for the cause. Within the Confederate ranks their are plenty of deserters and cowards, but Rives embodies the famous Latin phrase, 'dulce et decorum est,' (it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country). Much like Chance Llewelyn in Penhally, Rives showcases the strength and honor of a dying world--dying because many of his peers do not share these qualities, which in part leads to their defeat (thus, the title taken from Nahum 2:8: "stand, stand shall they cry, but none shall look back"). Forrest had his opposing Generals, and Rives has his opposing soldiers, businessmen, and those who welcome, accept, or profit from the new order brought by the destruction of the old. Much like in Gone With the Wind, their is a dividing line: those are welcome or accept the new South and those who can't or refuse to, though Gordon's sympathies, unlike Mitchell's, side wholeheartedly with the latter.
3. Lucy's Story. Lucy Allard seems like a stand-in for Caroline Gordon herself, with her love, Rives, symbolizing the Old South. The book opens with many a reference to youthful passions and young love, with an allusion to a Thomas Moore poem “Believe Me If All These Endearing Young Charms," which include the lines "let thy loveliness fade as it will,” and with the slow recognition of life‘s precariousness: “in a flash [Lucy] realized what a precarious business life—and particularly love—is and his impalpable the forces which makes for success or disaster. And it now seemed to her as improbable that she could be happy in this life as it had once seemed certain.” Lucy comes to learn the harshness of life and the inevitable suffering that one must face. She has lost her world and must live as an exile and stranger in the land from henceforth. She and the other Southern women must acclimate, but she does not have to accept. As one character puts it: "Women are the devil. They never know when they are licked."
It seems that Caroline Gordon had a lot she wanted to do with her Civil War novel and she may have tried to fit too much into one book. None Shall Look Back has three distinct storylines: (1) Nathan Bedford Forrest’s command and warfare, (2) Rives Allard and the struggle of the Confederate army, and (3) Lucy Allard and the homefront during the War. All three of these threads vie for attention in the novel.
1. Forrest's Story. Gordon had a lofty view of Gen. Forrest. She, her husband Allen Tate, and Andrew Lytle (the Tates and Lytles lived together for several months during the writing of this book) all saw Forrest as the best general of the Civil War, and the man who could have changed the outcome of the war if only Jefferson Davis would have made him commander in chief of the Confederate army. They thought that the Southwest held the key to the South's strength--a more decentralized agrarian country led by small planters and self-made men like Forrest, as opposed to the Virginia gentry and the West Point-educated tacticians. Gordon's high esteem of Forrest comes through strong in the novel. He is the image of the devoted leader, fighting for a lost cause. He epitomizes the active man, as Aunt Cally puts it: "There’s just two kind of people in the world, those that’ll fight for what they think right and those that don’t think anything is worth fighting for.” Forrest is opposed not only by Yankees but also by other Confederate Generals (Bragg, Hood, Buckner) who fear death and prioritize their own safety and image.
2. Rives' Story. Rives is a young Southerner who likewise represents the best of his class. He wants to fight to protect his homeland. He loves the land that gave him brith and is committed to fighting for it. He follows Forrest and is inspired by his heroism, willing to give his life for the cause. Within the Confederate ranks their are plenty of deserters and cowards, but Rives embodies the famous Latin phrase, 'dulce et decorum est,' (it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country). Much like Chance Llewelyn in Penhally, Rives showcases the strength and honor of a dying world--dying because many of his peers do not share these qualities, which in part leads to their defeat (thus, the title taken from Nahum 2:8: "stand, stand shall they cry, but none shall look back"). Forrest had his opposing Generals, and Rives has his opposing soldiers, businessmen, and those who welcome, accept, or profit from the new order brought by the destruction of the old. Much like in Gone With the Wind, their is a dividing line: those are welcome or accept the new South and those who can't or refuse to, though Gordon's sympathies, unlike Mitchell's, side wholeheartedly with the latter.
3. Lucy's Story. Lucy Allard seems like a stand-in for Caroline Gordon herself, with her love, Rives, symbolizing the Old South. The book opens with many a reference to youthful passions and young love, with an allusion to a Thomas Moore poem “Believe Me If All These Endearing Young Charms," which include the lines "let thy loveliness fade as it will,” and with the slow recognition of life‘s precariousness: “in a flash [Lucy] realized what a precarious business life—and particularly love—is and his impalpable the forces which makes for success or disaster. And it now seemed to her as improbable that she could be happy in this life as it had once seemed certain.” Lucy comes to learn the harshness of life and the inevitable suffering that one must face. She has lost her world and must live as an exile and stranger in the land from henceforth. She and the other Southern women must acclimate, but she does not have to accept. As one character puts it: "Women are the devil. They never know when they are licked."
October 19, 2019
I read just about everything Caroline Gordon wrote starting 1992 when we moved into the Clarksville house she and Allen Tate lived in from 1932. For some reason I've been moved to read much of her work again recently. I remember loving NONE SHALL LOOK BACK, but I realize now I'm confusing it with PENHALLY and perhaps other works as well. I give high marks to almost everything Caroline Gordon writes, and this book is no exception; however, I feel the need to make a distinction regarding it's comparison to GONE WITH THE WIND.
This is Gordon's major Civil War novel that came out in 1937 shortly after Margaret Mitchell's GONE WITH THE WIND. Apparently it has been thought that timing would have made all the difference... in other words, that if NONE SHALL LOOK BACK had beat Mitchell's book to the press it would have enjoyed that success. I don't agree with that conclusion.
NONE SHALL LOOK BACK has been touted by some as a major Civil War novel, perhaps surpassing Mitchell's. I recognize it is phenomenal in coverage of battles, details of the soldiers' lives and struggles. Gordon did her research and has written an exemplary book in that sense, a description of battles that is historically correct but fictionalized by adding her own characters and a bit of plot about how they were affected by the war. GONE WITH THE WIND, on the other hand, is a love story that takes place within and around the setting of the Civil War and its aftermath. There really is no comparison. Mitchell's book is always going to have the upper hand in terms of romantic poignancy and character development, while Gordon's book is a masterpiece from the historian's point of view.
This is Gordon's major Civil War novel that came out in 1937 shortly after Margaret Mitchell's GONE WITH THE WIND. Apparently it has been thought that timing would have made all the difference... in other words, that if NONE SHALL LOOK BACK had beat Mitchell's book to the press it would have enjoyed that success. I don't agree with that conclusion.
NONE SHALL LOOK BACK has been touted by some as a major Civil War novel, perhaps surpassing Mitchell's. I recognize it is phenomenal in coverage of battles, details of the soldiers' lives and struggles. Gordon did her research and has written an exemplary book in that sense, a description of battles that is historically correct but fictionalized by adding her own characters and a bit of plot about how they were affected by the war. GONE WITH THE WIND, on the other hand, is a love story that takes place within and around the setting of the Civil War and its aftermath. There really is no comparison. Mitchell's book is always going to have the upper hand in terms of romantic poignancy and character development, while Gordon's book is a masterpiece from the historian's point of view.
January 6, 2009
I love books written pre-1950 and this book did not disappoint. Great Civil War novel that concentrates on the western theater, specifically on Gen. Forrest. Historically accurate and intense. Loved it.
October 4, 2021
I picked up this book after reading an article about Caroline Gordon. I'm a believer in reading books outside of my normal range and her work certainly sounded like it would be that. I don't have a particular interest in the Civil War, but her point of view, according to the article I read, seemed quite different from that which now prevails, so I bought the book.
Complaint number one: it cost too much. Over sixteen bucks for Amazon to instantaneously transfer a bunch of electrons to my Kindle reader. This book is anything but a hot item. The writer is long since departed from this vale of tears. Why couldn't this one be sold for ten bucks?
Complaint number two: This book, unlike the epochal "Gone With The Wind," that was released in the same year (bad, bad timing, Ms Gordon) spends a great deal of its time on the details of battles. I guess there's a good side of that. Particularly for people like me who are generally ignorant of the military strategies in that war. I have to say that I did learn a thing or two about the shifting momentum in the early stages of the war.
But the chapters describing these battles are a labor to read. The South apparently had more Generals than you can shake a stick at. And she names them ad nauseum and tells us that they had "deep-set eyes" or a "russet beard" and then expects us to remember who's who in the whole mess. And the descriptions of the action. Ugh. I am sure Ms Gordon had a vivid image of the battles in her mind as she wrote, but that image is not communicated through her prose. She undertook a task that was too much for her. (or maybe anybody) We have this General, with his russet beard, leading his troops through one hollow and this other one, with deep-set eyes, coming over the mountain and then another one coming round the bend or across the creek. It was impossible for me to visualize these complex scenes and after a while I gave up and just waded through the battle chapters. And there are lots of them.
The one exception to this vagary is the figure of Nathan Bedford Forrest. The book, although ostensibly about a family torn by the war, is really about Forrest. The message - not very subtle - is that he (alone, almost) was insightful and courageous and honorable and would have won the war for the South if only those lazy dullards with their deep-set eyes and russet beards would have listened to him.
I didn't find a single character in the book convincing, not even Forrest.
Unless you have been assigned this book as a part of a school project, don't spend the money.
Complaint number one: it cost too much. Over sixteen bucks for Amazon to instantaneously transfer a bunch of electrons to my Kindle reader. This book is anything but a hot item. The writer is long since departed from this vale of tears. Why couldn't this one be sold for ten bucks?
Complaint number two: This book, unlike the epochal "Gone With The Wind," that was released in the same year (bad, bad timing, Ms Gordon) spends a great deal of its time on the details of battles. I guess there's a good side of that. Particularly for people like me who are generally ignorant of the military strategies in that war. I have to say that I did learn a thing or two about the shifting momentum in the early stages of the war.
But the chapters describing these battles are a labor to read. The South apparently had more Generals than you can shake a stick at. And she names them ad nauseum and tells us that they had "deep-set eyes" or a "russet beard" and then expects us to remember who's who in the whole mess. And the descriptions of the action. Ugh. I am sure Ms Gordon had a vivid image of the battles in her mind as she wrote, but that image is not communicated through her prose. She undertook a task that was too much for her. (or maybe anybody) We have this General, with his russet beard, leading his troops through one hollow and this other one, with deep-set eyes, coming over the mountain and then another one coming round the bend or across the creek. It was impossible for me to visualize these complex scenes and after a while I gave up and just waded through the battle chapters. And there are lots of them.
The one exception to this vagary is the figure of Nathan Bedford Forrest. The book, although ostensibly about a family torn by the war, is really about Forrest. The message - not very subtle - is that he (alone, almost) was insightful and courageous and honorable and would have won the war for the South if only those lazy dullards with their deep-set eyes and russet beards would have listened to him.
I didn't find a single character in the book convincing, not even Forrest.
Unless you have been assigned this book as a part of a school project, don't spend the money.
October 20, 2020
Caroline Gordon--a female, Southern, Catholic convert, author who was very influential in her day-- has been on my to-read list for a while. I'm going to try her short stories after this. This novel did not quite do it for me, but I don't want to give her up yet.
The book spans the Civil War from the perspective of one Confederate soldier and his relations. I love the author's very understated way of describing the hardships and terrors of the War, especially as it progressed toward the end. I found myself thinking "oh wow," as the meaning of a sentence dawned on me. I prefer that to having an author spell it out for me (as more contemporary authors often do), "You are supposed to be shocked and horrified right now!"
The book jumps from one chapter on the homefront, to another on the battlefield. The battlefield chapters of full of long, technical descriptions of battery tactics and the terms are like a foreign language to me. I did not feel like doing all the work it would take to understand them all. And often, a battle chapter focuses on various real-life generals, not on the fictional "main characters." Knowing so little of Civil War history, these names mean almost nothing for me and made those chapters even less readable. Fully understanding this book would take more effort than I'm willing to do for pleasure reading right now, sad to say.
The book spans the Civil War from the perspective of one Confederate soldier and his relations. I love the author's very understated way of describing the hardships and terrors of the War, especially as it progressed toward the end. I found myself thinking "oh wow," as the meaning of a sentence dawned on me. I prefer that to having an author spell it out for me (as more contemporary authors often do), "You are supposed to be shocked and horrified right now!"
The book jumps from one chapter on the homefront, to another on the battlefield. The battlefield chapters of full of long, technical descriptions of battery tactics and the terms are like a foreign language to me. I did not feel like doing all the work it would take to understand them all. And often, a battle chapter focuses on various real-life generals, not on the fictional "main characters." Knowing so little of Civil War history, these names mean almost nothing for me and made those chapters even less readable. Fully understanding this book would take more effort than I'm willing to do for pleasure reading right now, sad to say.
June 9, 2025
This book was a ride y'all. We started off with a gorgeous Kentucky plantation and *dancing*. (I love to contra dance, if you didn't know). And then the main characters get married before Rives goes to war. How sweet, right? Then we went to Chikamauga. It was bad y'all. Lots of men died. And then the ending. Wow. Suffice it to say I didn't love it. A lot of things happened along the way, including one random chapter from the Union general's point of view. Ok, lots of random chapters with characters we never got to hear from again.😂 It was a bit violent for my preference, but the Civil War was certainly violent. Anyways, it was decent, but not the best historical fiction I've read. I loved the beginning, but not the end.
January 30, 2022
A delightful novel set in the South during the war between the states. Written in the early 20th Century, so don't expect politically correct prose, but if you want historical accuracy in your historical fiction, this is an excellent book to pick up. I deducted one star, because occasionally the narration was confusing.
November 19, 2022
The best Civil War novel I have read...tones down the romanticism of the iconic gone with the wind to a reasonable level. Provides accurate military history and great character development...highly recommend.
September 20, 2009
I've been vaguely interested in General Nathan Bedford Forrest after visiting Memphis and seeing a statue of him a few years back. My father explained that there was a lot of controversy over that statue - one argument fought to have the statue removed as he was an early leader of the KKK while another argument was that he was a Civil War hero and deserved to be recognized for his contributions to society.
This story focuses primarily on the Allard family in the South during the Civil War. Not quite as grand in scope as Gone With the Wind, though not published very far apart, it failed to draw me in the same way as Mitchell's masterpiece. Gordon's love scenes were much more saccharine, and though I am impressed any time a woman can write a decent war scene, I still felt entirely too far removed from even the most grim descriptions.
This story focuses primarily on the Allard family in the South during the Civil War. Not quite as grand in scope as Gone With the Wind, though not published very far apart, it failed to draw me in the same way as Mitchell's masterpiece. Gordon's love scenes were much more saccharine, and though I am impressed any time a woman can write a decent war scene, I still felt entirely too far removed from even the most grim descriptions.
April 28, 2012
Interesting to read from the 1937 perspective in which it was writte. Story itself seemed a bit artificial. Don't believe that character of N. B. Forrest that comes through.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews