![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I totally think I'm going to do this kind of review again - answering specific questions makes it so easy to decide which bits of the book to write about. This time I'm answering questions on one of the great E M Forster's novels - eep I hope I get them right (wait this is not school and this is not a test so it's ok):
bookwormans said 'I have been wanting to read "Passage to India" for awhile. Did you enjoy it? How does it compare to Forster's other works (like "A Room with a View"). How does its treatment of British imperialism compare with those of, say, Kipling?'
I honestly can not believe how few E M Forster novels there are. I’m trying to ration them out over my life, as I am Jane Austen novels, because otherwise I might get very sad about the lack of new novels from these authors. I love his novels so much because they make big issues so simple, without ever appearing simplistic. His prose is light, swift, witty and while he creates dialogue that flies he can slow the pace down, when he wants to indulge in descriptions of nature. So yes, I enjoyed ‘A Passage to India’ very much.
I read ‘Where Angels Fear to Tread’ last year and both books talk about the incompatibility of the English and foreigners. They’re also both scathing about the British meddling in foreign countries. Of course they both have that fantastic light, sharp writing style that makes it a breeze to read all Forester’s novels despite the fearful classic status.
As for Kipling, I’m afraid I’ll have to pass on that question. I’ve only ever read the ‘Just So’ stories and I’m worried reading Kipling’s adult books will spoil my memories of them. I am still not quite back on friendly terms with C S Lewis after starting to appreciate the subtleties of Narnia’s train wreck ending. It seems like I’m constantly hearing bad things about Kipling’s political views (although after seeing ‘My Boy Jack’ I’m currently inclined to view him as patriotic and naïve). Let’s just say Forster is not on the side of the British at all, ever. Even when he creates British characters he wants the reader to sympathize with he undermines them, but then he’s constantly doing that with all his characters.
Jenny has a hard hitting question about Forster's politics: 'How well, sensitively and/or accurately does Forster deal with/portray the issues surrounding British imperialism and Indian independence? How PC is it by today's standards?'
Forster does not really do sensitivity and yet his novels transcend the term PC in the best possible way. Forster was, as far as I can tell, angry about a lot of things. He was angry at the British officer set and their wives for dealing so crassly and ignorantly with Indians. I don’t think there’s one British character that comes away from this novel with a completely positive endorsement from Forster, although Mrs Moore and Fielding are much more positive characters than the rest of the British because they at least try to understand and help Indians. While Indian characters are more sympathetically dealt with they aren’t presented as glowing, native saints, instead their character flaws are documented in a realistic manner alongside the positive aspects of their characters. The ways in which Indian culture is incompatible with British culture (especially when it comes to matters of time-keeping and invites to dine) are made clear. Forster avoids taking sides on these issues and also avoids making an argument for the peculiarities of separate cultures being important. Instead he plainly lays out how Indian culture frustrates the British and how British culture frustrates the Indians. When it comes to the central scene of Dr Aziz’s trial for an alleged attack on an English woman in the Marabar caves Forester is very clearly on Aziz’s side.
I think Forester was also angry at a world, filled with societies and prejudices that prevented people from different nations from forming meaningful relationships. Dr Aziz and Fielding are two pleasant young men who like each other and start out as friends, but their national identities come between them after Aziz is tried for improper conduct towards Miss Quested. That’s why in this book (as in ‘Where Angels Fear to Tread’) the attempts characters make to transcend national boundaries are unsuccessful and end in unhappiness, as well as deep resentment. This is definitely not an attitude we would call PC now, as we all (hopefully) feel that successful inter-racial/inter-national relationships and friendships are possible. The constraints and prejudices of society present in Forster’s time made them seem impossible, something which Forster wanted to present accurately and rage against.
Eva saw the film and wanted to know: 'Have you seen the earlier movie of A Passage to India? If so, does it follow the book well? (I've seen the movie and am trying to decide whether to read the book!)'
I’m afraid I’ve only seen part of the movie, what you could call the central event at the caves. From what I remember that part stuck pretty closely to the book (the chaperone misses the train and Miss Quested stumbles from the caves apparently attacked). From what I remember of the film the attack is set up in a much more ambiguous way than in the book, so that you’re not sure Azir, or someone else, hasn’t attacked Miss Quested.
It's quite possible I may crack and read 'Howard's Way' this year as well. So much for rationing, but it's a lot easier to get my hands on Forster's novels than on other authors who only wrote six or so books because my mum has part of a Forster boxed set. Keep watching the blog to see if I give in to temptation ;)
bookwormans said 'I have been wanting to read "Passage to India" for awhile. Did you enjoy it? How does it compare to Forster's other works (like "A Room with a View"). How does its treatment of British imperialism compare with those of, say, Kipling?'
I honestly can not believe how few E M Forster novels there are. I’m trying to ration them out over my life, as I am Jane Austen novels, because otherwise I might get very sad about the lack of new novels from these authors. I love his novels so much because they make big issues so simple, without ever appearing simplistic. His prose is light, swift, witty and while he creates dialogue that flies he can slow the pace down, when he wants to indulge in descriptions of nature. So yes, I enjoyed ‘A Passage to India’ very much.
I read ‘Where Angels Fear to Tread’ last year and both books talk about the incompatibility of the English and foreigners. They’re also both scathing about the British meddling in foreign countries. Of course they both have that fantastic light, sharp writing style that makes it a breeze to read all Forester’s novels despite the fearful classic status.
As for Kipling, I’m afraid I’ll have to pass on that question. I’ve only ever read the ‘Just So’ stories and I’m worried reading Kipling’s adult books will spoil my memories of them. I am still not quite back on friendly terms with C S Lewis after starting to appreciate the subtleties of Narnia’s train wreck ending. It seems like I’m constantly hearing bad things about Kipling’s political views (although after seeing ‘My Boy Jack’ I’m currently inclined to view him as patriotic and naïve). Let’s just say Forster is not on the side of the British at all, ever. Even when he creates British characters he wants the reader to sympathize with he undermines them, but then he’s constantly doing that with all his characters.
Jenny has a hard hitting question about Forster's politics: 'How well, sensitively and/or accurately does Forster deal with/portray the issues surrounding British imperialism and Indian independence? How PC is it by today's standards?'
Forster does not really do sensitivity and yet his novels transcend the term PC in the best possible way. Forster was, as far as I can tell, angry about a lot of things. He was angry at the British officer set and their wives for dealing so crassly and ignorantly with Indians. I don’t think there’s one British character that comes away from this novel with a completely positive endorsement from Forster, although Mrs Moore and Fielding are much more positive characters than the rest of the British because they at least try to understand and help Indians. While Indian characters are more sympathetically dealt with they aren’t presented as glowing, native saints, instead their character flaws are documented in a realistic manner alongside the positive aspects of their characters. The ways in which Indian culture is incompatible with British culture (especially when it comes to matters of time-keeping and invites to dine) are made clear. Forster avoids taking sides on these issues and also avoids making an argument for the peculiarities of separate cultures being important. Instead he plainly lays out how Indian culture frustrates the British and how British culture frustrates the Indians. When it comes to the central scene of Dr Aziz’s trial for an alleged attack on an English woman in the Marabar caves Forester is very clearly on Aziz’s side.
I think Forester was also angry at a world, filled with societies and prejudices that prevented people from different nations from forming meaningful relationships. Dr Aziz and Fielding are two pleasant young men who like each other and start out as friends, but their national identities come between them after Aziz is tried for improper conduct towards Miss Quested. That’s why in this book (as in ‘Where Angels Fear to Tread’) the attempts characters make to transcend national boundaries are unsuccessful and end in unhappiness, as well as deep resentment. This is definitely not an attitude we would call PC now, as we all (hopefully) feel that successful inter-racial/inter-national relationships and friendships are possible. The constraints and prejudices of society present in Forster’s time made them seem impossible, something which Forster wanted to present accurately and rage against.
Eva saw the film and wanted to know: 'Have you seen the earlier movie of A Passage to India? If so, does it follow the book well? (I've seen the movie and am trying to decide whether to read the book!)'
I’m afraid I’ve only seen part of the movie, what you could call the central event at the caves. From what I remember that part stuck pretty closely to the book (the chaperone misses the train and Miss Quested stumbles from the caves apparently attacked). From what I remember of the film the attack is set up in a much more ambiguous way than in the book, so that you’re not sure Azir, or someone else, hasn’t attacked Miss Quested.
It's quite possible I may crack and read 'Howard's Way' this year as well. So much for rationing, but it's a lot easier to get my hands on Forster's novels than on other authors who only wrote six or so books because my mum has part of a Forster boxed set. Keep watching the blog to see if I give in to temptation ;)
Tags:
