I was looking forward to this one since you mentioned a while back that you'd read it! (I read this one about half a year ago too, never got around to reviewing it though.) Great discussion of the novel and the context in which it was written. I liked how Forster's tongue-in-cheek style often reveals the foibles of his characters and of society in a way that's easy to miss at first if you're not paying close attention, but is really clever once you notice it. (You mentioned a few of these characteristic quips in your review.) Thanks for the clarification on "more-EES" vs. "MORE-iss" pronunciation too; I read the former in my head but when I listened to an audiobook I realized it must actually be the latter.
It's a shame that you never reviewed it. It certainly would have goaded me into reviewing earlier! I'm still unsure as to why this gets looked down at as "lesser" than some of the other novels. Maybe critics couldn't reconcile themselves to the controversial nature of the subject matter. But I'd love to see a review, or at least a few canned sentences on what you thought about it. Thumbs up? Thumbs down?
There is a biography on the life of E. M. Forster where the author examines Forster's homosexuality titled, 'A Great Unrecorded History: A New Life of E.M. Forster' by Wendy Moffat.
Nice discussion! I was flabbergasted when I read Lady Chatterley’s Lover immediately after I first read Maurice-and saw that they are uncannily mirrored stories-clearly connected. I keep meaning to look up the story of how it happened!
Thanks, Hannah. I just realized I didn't discuss that aspect in the video. From what I understand about the dating, if any influence was going on, it was almost certainly Forster influencing Lawrence. "Maurice" was written (at least the first draft) around 1913, and Chatterley only published in 1928. But it does seem like an oddly specific set piece to steal from the novel, no? Maybe Lawrence did it so flagrantly because he knew that Forster would be forced to keep it private for rest of their lives, and therefore he (Lawrence) could never be accused of stealing ideas.
@@NicholasOfAutrecourt That is definitely what I was assuming. There is so much imagery etc that I would guess he had a complete copy in front of him. I would love to hear what conversations the two were having!
I was looking forward to this one since you mentioned a while back that you'd read it! (I read this one about half a year ago too, never got around to reviewing it though.) Great discussion of the novel and the context in which it was written. I liked how Forster's tongue-in-cheek style often reveals the foibles of his characters and of society in a way that's easy to miss at first if you're not paying close attention, but is really clever once you notice it. (You mentioned a few of these characteristic quips in your review.)
Thanks for the clarification on "more-EES" vs. "MORE-iss" pronunciation too; I read the former in my head but when I listened to an audiobook I realized it must actually be the latter.
It's a shame that you never reviewed it. It certainly would have goaded me into reviewing earlier! I'm still unsure as to why this gets looked down at as "lesser" than some of the other novels. Maybe critics couldn't reconcile themselves to the controversial nature of the subject matter. But I'd love to see a review, or at least a few canned sentences on what you thought about it. Thumbs up? Thumbs down?
@@NicholasOfAutrecourt I still might talk about it at some point, it'd have to be a shorter one at this point though. Overall thumbs up though!
I haven't read anything else by Forster though so can't compare it with his other works.
There is a biography on the life of E. M. Forster where the author examines Forster's homosexuality titled, 'A Great Unrecorded History: A New Life of E.M. Forster' by Wendy Moffat.
Nice discussion! I was flabbergasted when I read Lady Chatterley’s Lover immediately after I first read Maurice-and saw that they are uncannily mirrored stories-clearly connected. I keep meaning to look up the story of how it happened!
Thanks, Hannah. I just realized I didn't discuss that aspect in the video. From what I understand about the dating, if any influence was going on, it was almost certainly Forster influencing Lawrence. "Maurice" was written (at least the first draft) around 1913, and Chatterley only published in 1928. But it does seem like an oddly specific set piece to steal from the novel, no? Maybe Lawrence did it so flagrantly because he knew that Forster would be forced to keep it private for rest of their lives, and therefore he (Lawrence) could never be accused of stealing ideas.
@@NicholasOfAutrecourt That is definitely what I was assuming. There is so much imagery etc that I would guess he had a complete copy in front of him. I would love to hear what conversations the two were having!