Books 2014 - Maurice by E.M. Forster

[byslantedlight]

Sort of a once-upon-a-time book this, but not in the way of the challenge, more in the way it was written in 1913, about a world quite different to ours. It was published in 1971, a year after Forster's death, at his request... oh, oddly enough, flipping through the introduction now (I never do until I've finished a book), there's this:
"...Ozick called it 'a disingenuous book, an infantile book, because, while pretending to be about social injustice, it is really about make-believe, it is about wishing; so it fails even as a tract. Fairy tales, though, are plainly literature; but Maurice fails as literature too.'
I don't know about fails as literature - I've yet to think particularly deeply about the whole what-qualifies-as-literature thing, and I don't really care, because I don't read to be consciously instructed (there - apparently I think that literature is supposed to "teach" us something! I suppose I do, that we're supposed to "get something" from it - but then who tells us we're supposed to, or what the something is, so there's still more to it... it's all very tangled, isn't it). I suppose for Forster it was a kind of fairy tale - that the hero and his beloved might live happily ever after...

So... what do I want to write about it, for a review? It's one of those books it seems a bit presumptuous to "review" - it's a Penguin Classic! But my "reviews" are really more I liked it or not, so... I liked it. *g* Very much, actually. Although Maurice himself isn't a very sympathetic character sometimes - he blusters and bullies on occasion, he's not overly bright, he works in the stockmarket, but... but he is actually, because he's also bravely struggling with something that's unfair, and he doesn't just lie down and let it roll over him - well, he can't, because it's his life we're talking about, but still. There's a thread through the book about how slow he is to catch on to things, how things become such muddles to him (I definitely sympathise there!), but he keeps going anyway, eventually working out what's going on where, and then facing the situation bravely, and I was caught up in it, and desperately, desperately want it all to work out well for him. And perhaps that's another thing - the book was written before 1914, before even the First World War, so I know it's pretty unlikely that things will work out for Maurice in the end, he's just the wrong age, but if only he can have a few years happiness before the world turns to a different kind of hell, then I want him to. Because in the end, and despite everything, I do like him as a character, and as I've said before, that's quite often what makes a book for me.

Comments

[moth2fic.livejournal.com]

I liked the book - and I suspect that for me, literature lies in good writing so that for example genre fiction can be literature in the hands of a brilliant writer. I find Forster good rather than brilliant but would still recommend the book to people. I also loved the film - have you seen it?

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

I suspect that for me, literature lies in good writing
But then, how do you define "good writing"? Lots of people would say that Stephen King is a good writer, for instance, but they wouldn't call his books "literature"...

I went to look for the film on Netflix when I realised there was one, but they didn't have it - waah. So I've ordered it relatively cheaply online... *g* Nice to hear a recommendation of it - I'm looking forward to it (and I'd really like to have watched it tonight, so waaah....)

[moth2fic.livejournal.com]

Enjoy! It's quite 'true' to the book and is very well done.

Actually, I do regard some of Stephen King's books as literature. I have just read The Green Mile' and was wildly impressed. And whilst his Dark Tower series is a kind of genre fic, it is like attending a master class in writing. And really, you'd have to say that about Dickens, Austen, etc. I don't go along with the school of thought that has modern litfic in a kind of special box.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's just it - you can end up in a big circular thingie where everything is literature or else nothing is.

Hmmn - now, right in there, you've said some of Stephen King's books as literature - what are you using to separate out the "some of"? You know, if you fancy having a thunk... *g*

I agree that litfic (ohmygawd - yet another term, litfic? How does that differ from lit... or even fic...? *g*) today is litfic yesterday and tomorrow. Something's either good or it isn't, however you define good, no matter when it was written... I mean, Dickens, Austen (and Shakespeare?) are all renowned for having written about the universal human condition, I guess, that's supposed to be applicable to everyone, everywhere... not just stories, but characters... so then if the idea is that "literature" is about people rather than stories, then I'd say that Maurice pretty much had to be literature... /thinking-out-loud-at-you... *g*

[moth2fic.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I would ever classify pure horror stories as literature, though maybe I'm on my own there, because writers like Wilkie Collins and Nathaniel Hawthorne count as classics. So maybe all King's stuff is lit - it's just that I have no intention of subjecting myself to some of the more blatant horror stories to find out! That's how I was separating them, and really, it's personal taste so I shouldn't.

And yes, Maurice is literature. In much the same way that today Hollinghurst's m/m novels are literature.

I shall think aloud back at you...

Maybe literature has to include really good writing (from a technical point of view) and by that I mean writing techniques that disappear to let you get at the story, plus excellent grammar, vocabulary, etc. It probably also needs good rounded characters, a well structured story and plenty of peripheral material, whether that is looking at the human condition or the environment or some other theme that is wider than the actual plot. Most of the classics give us a broad view of a number of social issues as well as the romance or tragedy or whatever lies at the centre of the writing. The minor characters are properly developed, too, often with side-plots of their own.

Really engrossing fiction can be re-read (I include fan fiction!!) with the reader getting different things from it second or third time around. I've re-read all Austen a few times, and Lord of the Rings, and some other fantasy books. I admit I haven't wanted to start again on Dickens and would scream if anyone made me re-read Tolstoy or Dostoevsky. Even crime stories can sometimes be re-read despite knowing 'who dunnit'. Not all, by any means, and I suspect it's the hardest genre to turn into literature! Agatha Christie certainly didn't manage it, though she gave a lot of readers a lot of pleasure. Dorothy Sayers did.

I think a lot of so-called genre fiction - romance, crime, horror, historical, sci-fi, fantasy, etc.- is dismissed by critics precisely because it fails in those areas. And then anything that can be loosely classed as 'genre' is dismissed in turn, however good it is. Austen, I think, and possibly Trollope, would have been dismissed if they were writing today because they can be slotted into the romance category. H G Wells would have missed out with The Time Machine and only made the grade with The History of Mr Polly. Midsummer Night's Dream and The Tempest would have been dismissed as fantasy...

So much genre fiction is churned out with poor editing by the publishing houses and simply isn't worth the effort so I can see why critics are wary, but it's a pity. That's been the case all along, of course, and in some ways it's for the reading public to decide whose work will last. Because I think literature probably has to speak to more than one generation of readers. You are enjoying Angela Thirkell so her work, whilst of its period, is also more than that. I have ordered a couple of hers for when I get home! And the earlier classic writers had the advantage of not so much competition!

Another problem, and one that makes our current crop of critics very sniffy about genre books, is that there is fashion for modern writing that lacks plot, to put it mildly. Character studies, studies of place or social trends, rambling exploration of e.g. divorce. I think the classic authors would have turned up their noses at a lot of it and gone with Stephen King. If you look at the shortlists for e.g. the Booker prize, there are some very depressing books, though most of them are quite well written. Depressing seems to get a thumbs up from critics, possibly because it can't be 'genre'? I cannot get my head round the idea of Vernon God Little as literature, prizes or not. Continued in another comment because of length...

[caffyolay.livejournal.com]

I can never quite decide whether I really like Forster's writing or not. I've read several _- Room With a View, Howards End etc, and while quite I enjoyed them I know I didn't really love them. Wish I had some idea why. *g* Maurice I haven't read though I do own it, would like to see the film too at some stage.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

I remember reading A Passage to India years ago, and loving it. I'd managed to forget he wrote the two you mention, though I'm pretty sure I've read them too... I should read them again to make sure... *g* I must admit that there were a couple of moments when reading Maurice when I thought "really?" about something, as a writerly comment rather than plot-wise... maybe the way the third character appeared seemed a bit obvious or something, though in the endnotes EMF specifically says he wrote him to appear gradually - in which case that didn't come off for me. Despite that I liked the book, but that's not to say it doesn't rub a bit, I guess...

[caffyolay.livejournal.com]

Funnily enough A Passage to India is on my list of books I really *must* read at some stage. One of those 'I know I'll like it so why the heck have I not read it yet?' kind of books. The film of Howards End is rather good too, btw. Starring Anthony Hopkins and er... er... lots of other people. :-) I'd better get to Maurice this year as it sounds like one that makes you think, which I like of course.

[gilda-elise.livejournal.com]

I've never read any of his books, though I've seen the movies based on several, including this one. I liked it.

And fails as literature? What does that mean? I certainly would think of it as literature. When a book manages to become a classic, it's hard to think of it as not, whether I personally like it or not. I mean, there are some of Dickens' books that I couldn't get into to save my life, but I still consider them literature.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I guess the real question is why some books become "classics" and others don't... trouble is, nowadays it probably all gets caught up with marketing, and doesn't always reflect the book... Hmmn, maybe that's one reason modern fiction should be or is treated a little differently to older fiction... (*muses on comment made by moth2fic above...*)

[miwahni.livejournal.com]

I really enjoyed this book, to the point of getting a hardcover version to keep. It's sad, seeing Maurice struggle through societal expectations both around sexuality and around class, and by the end of the book I was cheering him on. The film is good, too; a little bonus if you like Rupert Graves.
I do like E.M.Forster as a writer, but that could well be because I like the period he writes about. I've just recently found a book of his short stories in a second hand bookshop. Haven't started reading yet but it sounds interesting.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm glad someone else wholeheartedly liked it - it's definitely in my keep pile! I've got the dvd ordered, and I'm looking forward to it. Like you, I particularly like the period that Forster writes about, and I seem to be going through something of a phase of reading in it right now too (well, I'm taking breaks for fantasy etc., but I keep coming back to it... yeay!) I can't remember what else of Forster I've read - not short stories, I'm sure, cos that's not my favourite format at the best of times. Though I must read one tonight - I'm trying to upgrade my preferences! *g*

[moth2fic.livejournal.com]

Continuation...

I think I probably 'know it when I see it' but see it in genre fiction as well as what is called mainstream. It's interesting that some writers, like Margaret Atwood, get exemption from the genre thing and critics laud their work. They aren't actually that much better than some genre writers and sometimes worse. (Not Atwood, specifically, whose work I like, but you know the kind of writers I mean and I couldn't think of any examples we'd both know on the spur of the moment.) I think once a critic finds something they like - and often that's because of who they and the writer know - the books are somehow seen as acceptable whereas best sellers like King can be discounted because he isn't a critic, a critic's husband, a journalist, a publisher..... King himself praises John Irving, whose writing I cordially dislike, but there you go...

Anyway, I certainly know what I like, and which authors I will 'trust' and which I will keep and re-read. And for me personally, something I will keep to lend to others or to re-read is my 'literature' and to be honest I include the very best fan fiction in that definition as well as some crime, fantasy, and romance etc.

This long ramble, by the way, is what comes of downloading comments and replying to them offline. I hope you enjoyed the film, btw - I looked at my copy and remembered it was a Merchant Ivory film, which always means a feast for the eyes, whatever else!

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

I shall think aloud back at you...
That's what I like about lj! *g*

I think I probably 'know it when I see it'
Hee - a few times now you've differentiated between one thing or another as "literature" without explaining why it is, which is my question! I rather suspect we all do it though - I bet there's no one with an undisputed definition of "literature". I rather like what Orson Scott Card had to say in defense of Stephen King's writing, when it was criticised: "Let me assure you that King's work most definitely is literature, because it was written to be published and is read with admiration." It's somehow that last part - "read with admiration"... but then everyone's mileage varies over that, so we err towards everything being literature... I suppose what it really comes down to is what's defined as literature by those who think they're more qualified to define it than the rest of us...

And yes, Maurice is literature. In much the same way that today Hollinghurst's m/m novels are literature.
Oh, but why are you equating the two of them - surely not just for general theme? To be fair to Ozik, she was commenting very shortly after Maurice had come out, so it hadn't been tested as literature yet (there, I'm assuming that literature is long-lasting!)...

and by that I mean writing techniques that disappear to let you get at the story, plus excellent grammar, vocabulary, etc. It probably also needs good rounded characters, a well structured story and plenty of peripheral material
See, I'd describe everything up to your final phrase as what you need for publishable writing (*g*), but not necessarily literature - though literature needs to include those things... Perhaps, as per my comment above, it's that last phrase - peripheral material which is the key - literature tells us something more about the world in general, rather than just making our own little world happier whilst we're reading it... So where King or Gaiman or Le Guin or anyone, genre or not (surely everything belongs to a genre of some kind, even if it's just a "general" genre... *g*), involve insights about the wider world, it becomes literature... And hmmn - by that criteria, crime fiction would be no harder than any other fiction to turn into literature! It might exclude alot of fanfiction, mind, on the grounds that it's mostly written because we want more of the original story and characters, not because someone's trying to tell us something about the world in general (though that's not always true, I'm sure).

Hmmn, fiction that lacks plot... I've not read Vernon Little God, and I can't think of a book I have read that falls into that category, so I shall have to think about that... I guess if a book tells me about the characters, about something that's changed them in their life, then that's also plot to me, so it might be that we think of that differently... But have I read anything...? *wanders off to think more*

Ha - pops back to say that my dvd hasn't arrived yet, but I'm hopeful that it might next week! And yeay for responding off-line actually - nice to hear people's thinky-thoughts when they've had time to think them!

[moth2fic.livejournal.com]

Thinking aloud... Me too!! LJ and Dreamwidth are similar in that respect and quite different from all the other social networks. If you want long conversations they're really the only options!

I don't suppose there's a definitive definition of literature - but I do think there is a sort of coterie of critics and their favourite writers who think they can dictate to the rest of us. And I really don't see why they should. We are just as capable of appreciating good writing, good theatre, good art, etc. even if we don't always have all the jargon to hand to explain our likes and dislikes. I do think pure genre fic - very run-of-the-mill crime, romance, etc. is unlikely to be literature by anyone's standards. Usually it is characterised by two-dimensional characters and forgettable plots.

I wasn't equating Maurice with Hollinghurst's books exactly - though there are some similarities. To begin with, both could be in danger of being dismissed as m/m genre and might have been if the authors weren't already well-known, Forster for his other work and Hollinghurst for his journalism and critical expertise. Then, both Maurice and most of Hollinghurst's stuff look at the central romance or tragedy in terms of the surrounding social mores of the period rather than just in terms of the characters' reactions to each other. Incidentally, whilst I admire Hollinghurst as a writer I prefer Forster!

Publishable writing - there is a frightening amount of published material that does not show any kind of technical expertise... And there are admired litfic authors e.g. Anita Brookner who give us almost no peripheral material at all. As to crime fiction - I think there is a sense that readers want a gripping plot that races towards a satisfying conclusion and many crime writers don't have perhaps the nerve, or the time (given by the publisher) to let themselves stray from the main plot. But then I think of things like The Quincunx and yes, you're right, it isn't harder to make crime into literature, it just isn't as profitable... In the same way that Mills and Boon romances could be literature but probably usually aren't. As for fanfiction - it does depend what you're most interested in. If it's just more about your favourite characters then yes, it probably falls short of literature. But when some writers place those characters in different settings and see how they cope (e.g. Birdwatchers Guide), or write semi-metaphysical stuff like yours where they're waiting to see what will happen in heaven, then I think literature is a possibility hovering in the wings. I must also say I find more 'literature' in some fandoms than others and to a great extent the best is in fandoms that are of books (or the films/shows of books) that are literature in the first place e.g. Austen, or LotR or Shakespeare. And before you say 'yes but...' (because I would!) there is plenty of dross in those, and plenty of literature elsewhere and in fact some of the very best writing I have come across has been in bandom and other rpf...

Vernon God Little had plot but was, I thought, unnecessarily offensive. I would need to have a look at my books, which are in boxes, or my Amazon history to find a good example of plotless fic. I do remember reading the second book (title forgotten) by the writer whose Brick Lane was shortlisted for the Brookner and wondering why she had bothered as there was no story. (And yes, I agree that character development can be story.)

Maybe I should do this more often - take time to set down thinky thoughts instead of making instant comments! *g*

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Sorry to take so long to get back! *g*

I do think pure genre fic - very run-of-the-mill crime, romance, etc. is unlikely to be literature by anyone's standards.
Hmmn - but then that sounds to me as if the basis for not being included as literature is the fact that it's run-of-the-mill rather than because it's defined as genre. Comes back to that elusive thing - what's good writing and does that make something "literature" or does the opposite, at least, disqualify it from the possibility of being "literature"...

both could be in danger of being dismissed as m/m genre
Hmmn - but that depends on whether a reader has defined "m/m" as a "genre" in their head. I don't, for instance! Well, except for that particular m/m romance "genre", which I rarely even try and read after having been continually let down by it. So now I read books, and if some of the books involve m/m relationships instead of f/m, well they're still just books. I guess I'm not mad on the idea of labelling anything in this or that "genre", because there should ideally be all kinds of cross-over between genres, and... well, and I just hate labelling and boxing things up... *g*

Publishable writing
Heee - I'd say there was a huge difference between "publishable" and "published", it's just that publishers don't always take note... *g*

If it's just more about your favourite characters then yes, it probably falls short of literature. But when some writers place those characters in different settings and see how they cope (e.g. Birdwatchers Guide), or write semi-metaphysical stuff like yours where they're waiting to see what will happen in heaven, then I think literature is a possibility hovering in the wings.
Interesting... (and hah - I'd forgotten about that fic! *g*) I think we'll divide here again - "more about your favourite characters" could absolutely be literature in my book (so to speak *g*), depending on what that "more" is. Just the pretty pr0n? Well, no... but as you say there are fanfic writers out there who write much more deeply than that, so that you end up considering the outside world that the lads (whichever lads) or lasses deal with. Hmmn - would seeing how the lads cope in different settings define literature...? I'm not sure - I suppose it depends how the different settings are dealt with, as much as the coping... and whether an author writes something that makes us think about the world around the lads (or after the lads *g*), or just the lads themselves! Trying to think of anything I'd think of as borderline "literature" in fanfic, now... well, maybe Rhiannon's Larton stories, of course! They leave us as much with an idea of the lads world as of what the lads are doing, and make me wonder about it... but then that's coming back to the definition I've been making up of literature as something that tells you more about the world and/or human nature...

...plus, enough rambling cos I have to get back to work (stoopid day) but yeay musing and rambling and thinky-thoughts!

[moth2fic.livejournal.com]

So maybe literature has to make us think about something new or in a new light? And a typical whodunnit rarely does that though there are some that do. And some run-of-the-mill stories can include good writing - maybe some nice descriptions or whatever and well structured plot without adding anything much to the world or asking to be re-read. Not sure at all about this... But I think really good writing makes us stop and think in one way or another.

I agree about the boxes - but critics do put work in boxes, and so do the publishing houses and the bookstores. So for example, sci fi was treated as 'genre' after a surfeit of what the publishers called 'pulp fiction' which was designed (by them, not the authors) to be read and thrown away, a bit like a magazine. Then along comes someone like Margaret Atwood with The Handmaid's Tale, and then Oryx and Crake shortlisted for the Booker, and she gets exemption because she's a 'respected' author. I personally read 'books' but I'm all too well aware of the boxes people apply. I'm busy writing a series of fantasy detective stories and am angsting about whether to label them YA or not - what effect that will have on marketing. And I have done beta work for friends who have similar 'problems'.

And you have been put off the particular m/m romance genre because of some bad experiences but I would say I've had similar experiences in every genre. And some delightful surprises, too.

Yes, I'd agree that a case can be made for Larton as literature and mainly because not only is it well written but it bears re-reading to get new insights out of it. And different settings can be as trivial as 'Cowley is going to ask the lads to take over' or as extreme as sci fi. I just don't often, personally, get much from stories that are simply following canon episodes and giving us extra thoughts or off scene action etc. They can be pleasant to read but not very memorable. Larton is definitely memorable! But I'm sure some readers could make a case for some episode fic! Every book or fic needs to be rated individually by the reader...

I'm enjoying thinking about this but I doubt if there's a full answer waiting anywhere in the wings...!!

[eveningblue.livejournal.com]

I love this book!

We have a radio show here called Studio 360, and there is a segment on it once in awhile in which someone discusses a movie/book/work of art that changed his or her life. About a year ago, I happened to tune in while someone was talking about the film version of Maurice, and how it had changed his life as a gay man, because he'd never seen a movie about gay men with a happy ending.

So I watched the movie and absolutely *loved* it. Then I read up on the book (as you said, written around 1913 but not published till 1971) and decided to give it a try. Loved it! I realize that some people may not go for the lyrical prose but I really loved Forster's description of what Maurice went through as a young man, trying to figure out who he was, trying to fit in, loving someone who was no good for him and then somehow recovering from that and finding love again.

There is something about the second love story that is not well developed but as a lover of fanfic it's easy to make up stories in my head about how Maurice and Scudder live happily ever after, in spite of the fact that they have class differences, barely know each other and also seem to have some trust issues. (Sadly, there is very little actual fanfic about the book or movie.)

I also went on a bit of an E.M. Forster kick, and read Room with a View (loved it too!) and Howards End (didn't finish it because I had to go back to work, but hope to finish it this summer). His theme of looking outside one's class and doing what's not expected of you, of living life fully, really resonates with me. It's an antidote to the more tragic Edith Wharton-type books in which everyone does what's expected of them and stifles their desires stoically and leads lives of quiet desperation. A bit fluffy and romantic, but what's wrong with that?

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

I'm so glad you liked it too! I'm waiting for the dvd to get here - it was "dispatched" today *g* Oh, I know what you mean about the second love story being not so well developed, I rather felt that too. I gather there's been debate over whether they would have lasted longer than a few months, but I like to think they did... *g* Not sure I'd want to read fanfic about them, though - I like having things left to my imagination sometimes. Mind you, I say that... *g*

I must read some more E.M.Forster actually - I have done in the past, but I'd forgotten how much I like him as a writer! I'm not sure I'd say he was fluffy and romantic, mind - I don't think he made it easy for Maurice and Scudders at all, and there's surely nothing to say that people can't really do that in real life - stand up for things, and not just do what you're told... *g*

[eveningblue.livejournal.com]

Please post about the movie once you've seen it! I'm eager to hear what you think.