Comments | mr_edna_may: Paper about Greece and Platonic love in "Maurice" (the novel)

ea_calendula in mr_edna_may

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

Feb 25, 2010 19:49

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 ( ( Read more... )

forster, book discussion

Comments 12

eugenetapdance February 25 2010, 19:59:34 UTC

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 February 25 2010, 20:35:19 UTC

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 February 25 2010, 20:45:01 UTC

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 February 26 2010, 19:49:30 UTC

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 ( ... )

Thread 8

creativepseudo February 25 2010, 23:08:43 UTC

Thanks for the link! I'm actually rereading Maurice right now -- I'll be glad to get some new perspective. Clive's conversion has always been the weakest part of an otherwise great book.

ea_calendula February 25 2010, 23:17:55 UTC

It was for me, too. Certainly, from a writer's perspective, it's definitely odd and not well handled at all. The article offers an interesting new perspective - but we shouldn't forget that a story should work at several levels - i.e. you shouldn't need to be this knowledgeable with classical Greek(Athenian) culture to understand it ;) That's where I personally think Forster fails with regards this issue.

I recently re-read 'Maurice' several times. I'd be very interested to read your comments. Clive's 'conversion' has always been very puzzling to me.

resounding_echo February 26 2010, 05:02:32 UTC

Since Forster was clasically educated, I think it makes a lot of sense to do an interpretation such as this - but I think it*s also equally possible to interpret Clive as a suppressed, closeted homosexual man.

Haven't read the article yet, but can't it be both?

For Clive, trying to suppress what society deems inappropriate feelings, this would be the perfect outlet--a means to both feel justified within society while still feeling superior to it [contemporary British society as just ignorant and/or mis-educated. As if they could just over come their Anglicanism and embrace the classics, all would see how fitting and elevated such a same-sex love could be.]

Perhaps the article touches upon this, but what I noticed is that, when making an argument about Platonic love, most folks conveniently leave out the very physical and explicitly sexual part of it. At the very least, it was the initial step taken to accomplish such, er, accomplished love.

ea_calendula February 26 2010, 18:17:06 UTC

Haven't read the article yet, but can't it be both?

I agree. It's just a topic I haven't seen discussed elsewhere, and given Forster's background (and he even alludes specifically to Symposion in the novel), I think it's worth taking into account. I'm actually quite conservative when it comes to interpretation of texts :) (I remember a huge row I had with my Danish teacher in ... eh, "senior high school", about how much one ought to 'read into' a text when interpreting it ( ... )