Paper about Greece and Platonic love in "Maurice" (the novel)

[ea_calendula]

I've just read an interesting paper, which is a reading of 'Maurice' in the context of Platonic love (éros) as it is described in Platos' Symposium and Phaedrus, and related to the actual context of Maurice's Edwardian England. The author suggest that in this light it's not surprising at all that Clive should suddenly 'change' - that within a (

Comments

[eugenetapdance]

I think that completely destroys Forster's authorial intent. Clive is supposed to come off as suppressed. It's part of Forster's intention with writing a novel about perfectly normal men who happen to be gay and all the problems that involves.

[ea_calendula]

I don't think you can say that it destroys Forster's authorial intent. At the very least, with Forster's background I'm very sure he would have been especially aware of this specific Athenian-Hellenic angle (he even points out in the notes that Clive has a "hellenic" character.) I think that that knowledge is well worth taking into account when reading the book.

On what grounds do you put forth that Clive is supposed to come across as a suppressed homosexual and that that is Forster's (primary) intent? Maurice, as a character, would be more in line with what you suggest - as it is suggested in that paper I link to. Plato is not an end-all, be-all - indeed, 'cure-all' - so to speak, for Forster. But he may well have provided a framework for Forster in his portrayal of Clive - and a framework that may explain, to some extent, why Clive turn to women from men so easily. If you read the paper, you may see why - not that you should necessarily agree, but it may explain.

[ea_calendula]

Edit to my post: what would be more in line what he paper suggest about Maurice is that Maurice can not continue his self-realisation within a Hellenic framework as he identifies with what we today term homosexual, or 'gay'. That does not fit within the 'Athenian-Hellenic Platonic framework that Clive positions himself within.

[eugenetapdance]

Well, yeah, that's sort of what I meant with the important caveat that self-realization is impossible in a Hellenic narrative for both men, not just Maurice. The problem with the paper's reading is that it reconciles Clive's conversion, the aspect of the novel that's supposed to be left unreconciled. That's contrary to Forster's intent. Clive's trapped within a Hellenic framework that, for him, is the only way being gay is acceptable. Maurice manages to move beyond it. That's why he has the character arch that ends in happiness and self-realization and not Clive. What Forster is trying to do is lift homosexuality out of the Hellenic narrative and make it a narrative of its own, on par as far as normalcy goes with heterosexuality -- so that it's not a "lifestyle" or philosophical system, just a way that some people are

[ea_calendula]

I understand you better now. Your first comment came across rather as if you hadn't read it - that it was just a few "throw-away comments".

You still make some very assured and firmly expressed assumptions about what Forster's intent was though, and I can't help being curious about what those assumptions are based in? Not that you may not have a point - I'm just questioning my source. It does sound as if, from your POV, Forster had one intent only; the one you present.

[eugenetapdance]

I don't tend to spend a huge amount of time on LJ comments? It's my guilty pleasure -- I browse my f-list when I'm supervising the quieter study halls at work.

Forster was trying to write a novel that normalized homosexuality and included gay people with the rest of the world instead of making them either a pitiable tragic minority (like all those books that end in tragedy for gays do) or making them evil and taboo. In the context of gay literature in general -- stuff like Dorian Gray that ends with gay people dying horribly, whereas Maurice lives a happy, well-adjusted life -- and Forster's letters and conversations with other gay men like Christopher Isherwood, it's pretty clear that Maurice is a book that's meant to spur social change.

The gay lit/activism/writing that Forster might have come across before the writing of Maurice would mostly have tried to justify homosexuality in the context of the Hellenic narrative, with all its obvious flaws. That way of thinking still makes homosexuality the Other. What Maurice does is

[ea_calendula]

Still curious... Is this your own thoughts - or if not, what's your source (I may be interested in reading it...) ? Your comments are interesting, but they also don't sound amateurish (as mine obviously are), and I have no idea of what your background with regards to making the judgements you do about Forster and Maurice is. You do say that Forster meant this and wanted that, but why should I believe it? Not saying it's implausible, just that I have no idea of from "where" you're speaking.

[eugenetapdance]

I find reading authors' letters really helpful with understanding their motives. Plus, it's fun. In those letters Forster talks a lot about how he decided to end the book, why he feared publishing it, stuff like that. And Isherwood keeps being all NO DUDE, GO FOR IT, but Forster doesn't.

I'm not saying that you can establish empirical truth about authorial intent from literary analysis, but come on. Considering the literary tradition of sad endings for gay characters and Forster's carefully chosen deviation from it, it's pretty clear Forster's trying to change the way we think about homosexuality from either a prudish Victorian viewpoint or a restrictive Hellenic one that characterizes homosexuality as a period of life as opposed to something one incorporates as a part of one's identity.