Editors Reads Verdict
Lessing writes Alice with the sympathy that makes the book devastating: she's not mocking leftist idealism but showing what happens when it hollows itself out—when the performance of radical politics becomes a substitute for political thought.
What We Loved
- Lessing's portrait of Alice is both sympathetic and merciless—one of her greatest character creations
- The political analysis is precise without being polemical or ideologically driven
- The novel captures Thatcher's Britain with extraordinary accuracy
- The slow drift toward violence is rendered with a banality that makes it more frightening than melodrama would
Minor Drawbacks
- Readers expecting conventional thriller plotting will be frustrated by Lessing's pacing
- Alice's passivity and self-deception can be difficult to inhabit for extended periods
- The political context (1980s British left) requires some historical knowledge to fully appreciate
Key Takeaways
- → Political idealism, when it becomes performance rather than practice, can drift toward violence without anyone fully intending it
- → The domestic labor of maintaining revolutionary households is almost always done by women who are never recognized for it
- → The British left of the 1980s was organized around gesture and theory, not effective political action
- → Bourgeois children who reject their class often remain dependent on it in ways they refuse to acknowledge
- → The drift toward political violence is banal, not dramatic—a series of small capitulations rather than a single decisive choice
| Author | Doris Lessing |
|---|---|
| Publisher | Vintage |
| Pages | 384 |
| Published | April 15, 1990 |
| Language | English |
| Genre | Literary Fiction, Political Fiction, British Literature |
| Difficulty | Intermediate |
| Best For | Readers of political fiction and literary realism, those interested in 1980s British politics and the decline of the left, and serious Lessing readers working through her Nobel Prize body of work. |
Alice and the Squat
Alice Mellings is in her mid-thirties and has never held a job. She has organized her entire adult life around the service of other people’s revolutionary projects: typing their pamphlets, cooking their meals, fixing their boilers, cleaning up the squalor they produce and refuse to address because cleaning is not revolutionary. She is, in the terms of the novel, the woman who makes it possible for everyone else to perform their radicalism.
The squat she currently manages—a condemned house in a London suburb—is inhabited by a rotating cast of leftists: a charismatic leader who does not lead anything, a young man whose politics consist entirely of contempt for everyone around him, several lost souls who have found in the group a form of belonging that substitutes for any individual life. Alice begs money from her bourgeois parents, whom she despises, to pay for the squat’s restoration. She knows, without fully acknowledging, that she is dependent on the class she is performing rebellion against.
Lessing renders Alice with a specificity and sympathy that make the portrait devastating. She is not stupid or obviously deluded—she is intelligent, capable, and genuinely committed. What she cannot see is that her commitment is to the performance of commitment, not to any actual political project. The squat is organized around the idea of revolutionary action in a way that makes revolutionary action impossible.
The Drift Toward Violence
The connection to the IRA that develops in the second half of the novel happens gradually, almost imperceptibly. A contact appears; a meeting is arranged; a bomb is made and placed. No single decision is decisive. Each step is small enough to seem like not a step at all—a meeting, an introduction, a favor—until the group has crossed a line that none of them chose to cross, exactly, but all of them crossed together.
What Lessing is describing is the banality of political violence: not the dramatic radicalization of a convinced fanatic but the incremental drift of people who have organized their lives around the idea of action until, in the absence of anything else, action means this. Alice understands, on some level, what is happening. She understands and continues to make the meals and fix the boilers because the alternative—confronting what the group has become, confronting what she has spent fifteen years being—is worse.
The bomb that is finally planted kills people who have nothing to do with any political grievance. Lessing renders this with the same flatness she has used throughout the novel. There is no dramatic confrontation, no revelation. The damage is ordinary, like everything else.
Thatcher’s Britain
The Good Terrorist is published in 1985 and set in the early years of Thatcher’s government—a period in which the British left was in a state of demoralization and fragmentation that Lessing captures with precision. The miners’ strike has failed; the Labour Party is in disarray; the movements that seemed, in the 1970s, to be building toward something have collapsed into sectarianism and gesture. The radicals in Alice’s squat are not the vanguard of anything. They are the residue.
The comparison to Joseph Conrad’s The Secret Agent (1907) is apt: both novels are about left-wing radicalism that produces violence without political purpose, about the gap between ideological commitment and human reality. But where Conrad is ironist and satirist, Lessing is something closer to a social pathologist. She is not mocking her characters; she is diagnosing a condition. The condition is what happens when political idealism is separated from any actual analysis of power—when it becomes, as Alice’s squat has become, a way of life that its practitioners need to preserve because they have no other.
The Nobel Prize Lessing received in 2007 was partly a recognition of this kind of work: fiction that takes politics seriously without being polemical, that analyzes ideology without becoming ideological itself.
Our rating: 4.0/5 — Lessing’s most explicitly political novel is also one of her most controlled and most devastating. Essential reading for anyone interested in how literary fiction thinks about radicalism and its discontents.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is "The Good Terrorist" about?
1980s London: Alice Mellings lives in a squat with a group of leftist radicals, cleaning up after them, cooking, begging money from her bourgeois parents, keeping the house. The group is drifting toward terrorism. Lessing's most explicitly political late novel—and a devastating portrait of idealism in decay.
Who should read "The Good Terrorist"?
Readers of political fiction and literary realism, those interested in 1980s British politics and the decline of the left, and serious Lessing readers working through her Nobel Prize body of work.
What are the key takeaways from "The Good Terrorist"?
Political idealism, when it becomes performance rather than practice, can drift toward violence without anyone fully intending it The domestic labor of maintaining revolutionary households is almost always done by women who are never recognized for it The British left of the 1980s was organized around gesture and theory, not effective political action Bourgeois children who reject their class often remain dependent on it in ways they refuse to acknowledge The drift toward political violence is banal, not dramatic—a series of small capitulations rather than a single decisive choice
Is "The Good Terrorist" worth reading?
Lessing writes Alice with the sympathy that makes the book devastating: she's not mocking leftist idealism but showing what happens when it hollows itself out—when the performance of radical politics becomes a substitute for political thought.
Ready to Read The Good Terrorist?
Check the current price on Amazon.
Check Price on Amazon (paid link)Prices and availability are subject to change. See Amazon for current price.
Review last updated: