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]

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...