1DebiCates
Links to all Maurice threads in this group read:
INTRODUCTION
PART ONE
PART TWO (This thread)
PART THREE
PART FOUR (end of novel)
FORSTER'S TERMINAL NOTE
Final Thoughts
Spoilers are allowed in this discussion, up through the end of PART TWO.
INTRODUCTION
PART ONE
PART TWO (This thread)
PART THREE
PART FOUR (end of novel)
FORSTER'S TERMINAL NOTE
Final Thoughts
Spoilers are allowed in this discussion, up through the end of PART TWO.
2GregM3
I'm really racing through the book; I have already finished Part Two somehow, though usually I'm a fairly slow reader. I'm quite enjoying the book, but . . . .
Spoilers for Chapters 22-25:
I feel conflicted about this weird development in Clive's sexuality, where he mysteriously changes sexual orientation. I would understand if he were attracted to a particular person and swapped his affections in a pansexual way, and I would understand if he had some bisexual inclinations originally. But I find it strange that he's depicted as someone who for all of his life up to that point always had sexual feelings for only men and then mysteriously after an illness, finds that he has sexual feelings for only women. He says that he's trying to regain his original sexual orientation but can't because his "body" has changed.
This is certainly not the way that I or anyone that I know has experienced their sexuality. Discovering bisexual feelings wouldn't strike me as strange, but this is something different.
Interestingly enough, if anyone has watched the Merchant Ivory film, they changed a minor but very key detail in this section of the story. Rather than having Clive's sexuality mysteriously change, the movie depicted him as spooked by an arrest of Risley for homosexuality. That one slight change made all of Clive's behavior instantly comprehensible. His sexuality hadn't changed; he was merely trying harder to repress it. But the way it's written in the book, I find Clive's character very puzzling.
It's a little like Orlando changing genders, except that Orlando was a fanciful book akin to magical realism. There, it made sense. Here, it just feels strange to me.
I'm possibly in the minority here as I didn't see any of my friends' reviews mentioning much about this aspect. I'm still very much enjoying the book, and I'm finding it beautifully done. But I don't know if I buy this one aspect. Maybe it's possible to happen? The human experience is very broad and wide and varied. But I certainly don't think it is at all common to happen, or even likely.
Spoilers for Chapters 22-25:
I feel conflicted about this weird development in Clive's sexuality, where he mysteriously changes sexual orientation. I would understand if he were attracted to a particular person and swapped his affections in a pansexual way, and I would understand if he had some bisexual inclinations originally. But I find it strange that he's depicted as someone who for all of his life up to that point always had sexual feelings for only men and then mysteriously after an illness, finds that he has sexual feelings for only women. He says that he's trying to regain his original sexual orientation but can't because his "body" has changed.
This is certainly not the way that I or anyone that I know has experienced their sexuality. Discovering bisexual feelings wouldn't strike me as strange, but this is something different.
Interestingly enough, if anyone has watched the Merchant Ivory film, they changed a minor but very key detail in this section of the story. Rather than having Clive's sexuality mysteriously change, the movie depicted him as spooked by an arrest of Risley for homosexuality. That one slight change made all of Clive's behavior instantly comprehensible. His sexuality hadn't changed; he was merely trying harder to repress it. But the way it's written in the book, I find Clive's character very puzzling.
It's a little like Orlando changing genders, except that Orlando was a fanciful book akin to magical realism. There, it made sense. Here, it just feels strange to me.
I'm possibly in the minority here as I didn't see any of my friends' reviews mentioning much about this aspect. I'm still very much enjoying the book, and I'm finding it beautifully done. But I don't know if I buy this one aspect. Maybe it's possible to happen? The human experience is very broad and wide and varied. But I certainly don't think it is at all common to happen, or even likely.
3elenchus
I took it as perhaps the biggest instance of having to read between the lines, as we mentioned a few times in the PART ONE thread.
In effect, I think Merchant-Ivory's adaptation didn't so much change that detail as interpret it. We can quibble about the distinction, I suppose. For me, my reading was that Forster was writing it that way all along, but in a between-the-lines way, in keeping with both his characters and a reflection of the culture-wide effects of the UK anti-sodomy laws. The change for me was not in meaning but in presentation. I prefer Forster's approach in strictly literary terms, and think of the Merchant-Ivory decision as unnecessary but unsurprising: dumbing it down for the audience.
In effect, I think Merchant-Ivory's adaptation didn't so much change that detail as interpret it. We can quibble about the distinction, I suppose. For me, my reading was that Forster was writing it that way all along, but in a between-the-lines way, in keeping with both his characters and a reflection of the culture-wide effects of the UK anti-sodomy laws. The change for me was not in meaning but in presentation. I prefer Forster's approach in strictly literary terms, and think of the Merchant-Ivory decision as unnecessary but unsurprising: dumbing it down for the audience.
4GregM3
>3 elenchus: I guess you mean that Clive is an unreliable narrator here, and he is lying to himself and lying to the reader when he says that his body has changed and he now has no sexual feelings for any men anymore and now suddenly does have sexual feelings for several women? That's possible.
But I don't feel that having an external event clarifying the cause of that sudden transition into self-deception is really "dumbing . . . down" the text. That's just my opinion.
I suppose in Forster's text, if you take it in this way, the catalyst for that sudden change must have been the brush with death. We don't get any fears of damnation from present-day Clive, but he does say that as a child he thought he was damned.
If it is a delusion on Clive's part: I'd think that with a sudden psychological change, jumping into a full blown delusion of a new sexuality where there was no trace it before, there has to be a catalyst of some sort rather than just a generalized threat that has always been there. The brush with death, I guess?
If it isn't a full blown delusion on Clive's part, then either he is lying to the reader deliberately, which seems unlikely given the style of narration, or he really did experience this bizarre sexual change, which also seems unlikely.
I still find the whole thing a bit puzzling.
But I don't feel that having an external event clarifying the cause of that sudden transition into self-deception is really "dumbing . . . down" the text. That's just my opinion.
I suppose in Forster's text, if you take it in this way, the catalyst for that sudden change must have been the brush with death. We don't get any fears of damnation from present-day Clive, but he does say that as a child he thought he was damned.
If it is a delusion on Clive's part: I'd think that with a sudden psychological change, jumping into a full blown delusion of a new sexuality where there was no trace it before, there has to be a catalyst of some sort rather than just a generalized threat that has always been there. The brush with death, I guess?
If it isn't a full blown delusion on Clive's part, then either he is lying to the reader deliberately, which seems unlikely given the style of narration, or he really did experience this bizarre sexual change, which also seems unlikely.
I still find the whole thing a bit puzzling.
5elenchus
>4 GregM3: I wasn't thinking Clive was lying to himself as much as he was being circumspect with others. I don't have the text in front of me but don't recall that his explanations were to the reader or (internal dialogue) to himself, though. Weren't they all interactions with other characters? That is what I was thinking of primarily.
The brush with death persuaded him to conform to social expectations, and outwardly he is doing that even if he's clear about his true motivations inwardly. I could imagine him not having any different sexual feelings toward men or women, he's simply decided not to show the one and to go through what is necessary to have a family and life he wants. Is that self-delusion? Maybe. Or maybe he's simply making a difficult decision, one way or another it would involve sacrifice, this path is no more deluded than choosing to pursue relationships with men while sacrificing a family with children and/or social standing.
The brush with death persuaded him to conform to social expectations, and outwardly he is doing that even if he's clear about his true motivations inwardly. I could imagine him not having any different sexual feelings toward men or women, he's simply decided not to show the one and to go through what is necessary to have a family and life he wants. Is that self-delusion? Maybe. Or maybe he's simply making a difficult decision, one way or another it would involve sacrifice, this path is no more deluded than choosing to pursue relationships with men while sacrificing a family with children and/or social standing.
6GregM3
>5 elenchus: Chapter 24 in Clive's internal monologue as he thinks to himself while alone in Greece:
"The change had been so shocking . . . . It humiliated him, for he had understood his soul, or as he said, himself, ever since he was fifteen. But the body is deeper than the soul and its secrets inscrutible. There had been no warning--just a blind alteration of the life spirit, just an announcement, 'You who loved men, will henceforth love women."
And later,
"He noticed how charming the nurse was and enjoyed obeying her. When he went a drive his eye rested on women. Little details, a hat, the way a skirt is held, scent, laughter, the delicate walk across mud--blended into a charming whole...."
Still later,
"Clive did not give in to the life spirit without a struggle. He believed in the intellect and tried to think his way back into the old state. He averted his eyes from women, and when that failed adopted childish and violent expedients."
In Clive's mind, he is now so attracted to women that he can't keep his eyes off of them. He desperately tries to be gay again ("the old state", his former sexuality), but he can't make himself gay again and is now only interested in women sexually.
In Chapter 25:
"Now Ada bent over him . . . . He turned from the dark hair and eyes to the unshadowed mouth or to the curves of the body, and he found in her the exact need of his transition. He had seen more seductive women . . . ."
Clive's thoughts at the end of Chapter 25:
"The love of women would rise as certainly as the sun, scorching up immaturity and ushering the full human day, and even in his pain he knew this."
It sure seems as though Clive really believes his sexuality has mysteriously changed.
"The change had been so shocking . . . . It humiliated him, for he had understood his soul, or as he said, himself, ever since he was fifteen. But the body is deeper than the soul and its secrets inscrutible. There had been no warning--just a blind alteration of the life spirit, just an announcement, 'You who loved men, will henceforth love women."
And later,
"He noticed how charming the nurse was and enjoyed obeying her. When he went a drive his eye rested on women. Little details, a hat, the way a skirt is held, scent, laughter, the delicate walk across mud--blended into a charming whole...."
Still later,
"Clive did not give in to the life spirit without a struggle. He believed in the intellect and tried to think his way back into the old state. He averted his eyes from women, and when that failed adopted childish and violent expedients."
In Clive's mind, he is now so attracted to women that he can't keep his eyes off of them. He desperately tries to be gay again ("the old state", his former sexuality), but he can't make himself gay again and is now only interested in women sexually.
In Chapter 25:
"Now Ada bent over him . . . . He turned from the dark hair and eyes to the unshadowed mouth or to the curves of the body, and he found in her the exact need of his transition. He had seen more seductive women . . . ."
Clive's thoughts at the end of Chapter 25:
"The love of women would rise as certainly as the sun, scorching up immaturity and ushering the full human day, and even in his pain he knew this."
It sure seems as though Clive really believes his sexuality has mysteriously changed.
7elenchus
>6 GregM3: Appreciate you excerpting those lines, clearly I did not recall the internal monologues at all, and agree they indicate Clive believes it and isn't merely presenting to others.
And I don't understand this aspect of Forster's character, either. I think all sorts of things are possible, so it isn't that I find this impossible to accept in the story. But it doesn't seem typical at all, and I don't understand his choice to make this the character to profile in his novel.
And I don't understand this aspect of Forster's character, either. I think all sorts of things are possible, so it isn't that I find this impossible to accept in the story. But it doesn't seem typical at all, and I don't understand his choice to make this the character to profile in his novel.
8GregM3
>7 elenchus: Thanks elenchus, and I feel like you. Nothing is impossible in human sexuality, but it strikes me as uncommon for sure, and like you, I find it a strange choice. I know multiple people who desperately tried to change their sexual orientations in ex-gay ministries, but none of them was ultimately successful.
I suppose it could still be a self-deception on Clive's part? I guess we'll find out as the novel progresses.
It isn't preventing me from loving and enjoying the book, but I do feel puzzled.
I suppose it could still be a self-deception on Clive's part? I guess we'll find out as the novel progresses.
It isn't preventing me from loving and enjoying the book, but I do feel puzzled.
9elenchus
Mulling over this further, another possibility is that Forster is choosing to portray a scenario I'm familiar with and which is implicit in the arguments of many homophobic people I've met: the position which counsels, for anyone claiming they are anything but cis-gendered or heterosexual, their best course of action is to realize it's not true and so put a stop to their unnatural urges or feelings. I've never found this outlook persuasive in principle nor known anyone who did for themselves, but know many people who seem to believe it's both valid and true for others. Perhaps Forster is asking the reader to consider Clive's scenario with Maurice's, and decide for themselves: which seems more realistic? More natural? More persuasive or likely?
It would be a very subtle argument to be making, especially given those excerpts already noted in >6 GregM3:, but not beyond Forster to conceive nor his ability to pull off successfully.
Not yet sure what I think myself of that interpretation, though.
It would be a very subtle argument to be making, especially given those excerpts already noted in >6 GregM3:, but not beyond Forster to conceive nor his ability to pull off successfully.
Not yet sure what I think myself of that interpretation, though.
10amanda4242
Clive sexuality is...weird. The way I read it is like this: barring school vacations, he's spent the vast majority of his life in a single sex environment, and pretty much his entire concept of sexuality comes from reading ancient Greek depictions of idealized love between men. I don't think he really had the opportunity to think of women as objects of desire and was shocked when he suddenly started seeing them as such.
Do I think Clive loved Maurice? Yes, but I think it was as more a love of an ideal than it was a person. Do I buy that he's now solely interested in women? Not entirely, but I don't think he's introspective enough to ever look closely at the issue.
Do I think Clive loved Maurice? Yes, but I think it was as more a love of an ideal than it was a person. Do I buy that he's now solely interested in women? Not entirely, but I don't think he's introspective enough to ever look closely at the issue.
11GregM3
>10 amanda4242: That's interesting amanda, and I don't know, maybe?
What bothers me is that, for me anyway, feeling a physical response is something that's hard to mistake. And even if he was mostly in a single-sex environment, it's hard to believe that he had never seen at least a painting or statue of a woman that induced a physical response? I know that for me, as a teenager, I knew very well whether men or women induced a physical response in me.
There's a lot of reasons that a person would repress such feelings for the same sex, given the legal and social danger of it. But it's hard to imagine that a person would accidentally repress feelings for the opposite sex. What would be the motivation for that? And the way Clive describes his youth, it doesn't really seem like just an appreciation for men. To merely kiss a man was so dangerous for him; it would have taken a whole lot of internal pressures to jump over that barrier and act upon his desire to kiss Maurice, repeatedly.
But the social environment in the 1800s was so different; maybe I'm just failing to imagine it properly?
What bothers me is that, for me anyway, feeling a physical response is something that's hard to mistake. And even if he was mostly in a single-sex environment, it's hard to believe that he had never seen at least a painting or statue of a woman that induced a physical response? I know that for me, as a teenager, I knew very well whether men or women induced a physical response in me.
There's a lot of reasons that a person would repress such feelings for the same sex, given the legal and social danger of it. But it's hard to imagine that a person would accidentally repress feelings for the opposite sex. What would be the motivation for that? And the way Clive describes his youth, it doesn't really seem like just an appreciation for men. To merely kiss a man was so dangerous for him; it would have taken a whole lot of internal pressures to jump over that barrier and act upon his desire to kiss Maurice, repeatedly.
But the social environment in the 1800s was so different; maybe I'm just failing to imagine it properly?
12amanda4242
>11 GregM3: Yeah, I don't disagree with you. I can just barely imagine that a quirk of his nature combined with his upbringing might mean that he hadn't noticed women yet, but I'll concede it's a stretch. I find Clive a mind-boggling character and I admit I don't really have a good grasp on what's going on with him.
13TonjaE
Has anyone read My Policeman or seen the film?
It is inspired by the relationship between Forster and Bob Buckingham and offers a whole other perspective on the once hidden lives of homosexuals.
I don't believe Forster was writing freely when working on Maurice. The fear he would have lived in undoubtedly affected his work on this novel.... perhaps why there are parts to it and characters that appear confusing.
It is inspired by the relationship between Forster and Bob Buckingham and offers a whole other perspective on the once hidden lives of homosexuals.
I don't believe Forster was writing freely when working on Maurice. The fear he would have lived in undoubtedly affected his work on this novel.... perhaps why there are parts to it and characters that appear confusing.
14DebiCates
I just finished Part 2 and am glad to come here to see a lot of thoughts on this change, or is it a revelation?
All along I did not see what Clive loved about Maurice, their being so different. Clive would find the relationship less fulfilling as time went on. A break-up, for any reason, seemed a natural outcome to me.
It's an deeply interesting contrast of the two men.
Maurice had taken a long time to finally identify as gay due to his lack of self-awareness (and general slow wit), but he seems well and truly gay. It is who he "is."
Whereas Clive, what "is" he? Highly intellectual, when he meets Maurice he has a strong affinity and desire to be like the Greeks. Is he gay, bi, or perhaps even "undetermined?" By being interested in the Greeks, finding a handsome and moldable Maurice who is gay, also going through a phase of rejecting the heavy family pressures, he fell in love with the right fit at the right time. It fulfilled what Clive "was"--at the time. And he physically reacted as one would expect.
The sexual change is prompted I don't believe by the illness; nor did he suddenly wake up straight. The change is prompted by simply realizing he has fallen out of love with Maurice and simultaneously is looking seriously ahead to his looming role in the estate. He will become what he needs to become. Is being straight now who he is and always was or is it more accurate to say it is mentally who he is now? It's more than just being or not being bi, even. His sexuality seems almost opportunistic. He could even be, nearly, asexual. I'll be very keen to see if we'll learn more about him as time progresses.
I have a distinct feeling Forster knew about a person like Clive from some real-life experience. This person's sexuality is not entirely driven by nature. Whatever he is, responding to whatever stimuli, Clive is so deeply intellectualized in himself it is hard to peg him as any one thing or another. Is it possible this is what Forster is illustrating? Understanding the fluidity and breadth of human sexuality's manifestations in 1914!
Er, of male sexuality, I should say. His women, slight as they are to the novel, seem to have no sexuality, only gender roles. Oh well, there's other writers to take up that mantle as the century progresses.
Oh, and wasn't it interesting that the deans knew about the homosexuality at college, treated it as simply needing an invisible course correction? I love when Forster calls out that sort of reasonableness.
All along I did not see what Clive loved about Maurice, their being so different. Clive would find the relationship less fulfilling as time went on. A break-up, for any reason, seemed a natural outcome to me.
It's an deeply interesting contrast of the two men.
Maurice had taken a long time to finally identify as gay due to his lack of self-awareness (and general slow wit), but he seems well and truly gay. It is who he "is."
Whereas Clive, what "is" he? Highly intellectual, when he meets Maurice he has a strong affinity and desire to be like the Greeks. Is he gay, bi, or perhaps even "undetermined?" By being interested in the Greeks, finding a handsome and moldable Maurice who is gay, also going through a phase of rejecting the heavy family pressures, he fell in love with the right fit at the right time. It fulfilled what Clive "was"--at the time. And he physically reacted as one would expect.
The sexual change is prompted I don't believe by the illness; nor did he suddenly wake up straight. The change is prompted by simply realizing he has fallen out of love with Maurice and simultaneously is looking seriously ahead to his looming role in the estate. He will become what he needs to become. Is being straight now who he is and always was or is it more accurate to say it is mentally who he is now? It's more than just being or not being bi, even. His sexuality seems almost opportunistic. He could even be, nearly, asexual. I'll be very keen to see if we'll learn more about him as time progresses.
I have a distinct feeling Forster knew about a person like Clive from some real-life experience. This person's sexuality is not entirely driven by nature. Whatever he is, responding to whatever stimuli, Clive is so deeply intellectualized in himself it is hard to peg him as any one thing or another. Is it possible this is what Forster is illustrating? Understanding the fluidity and breadth of human sexuality's manifestations in 1914!
Er, of male sexuality, I should say. His women, slight as they are to the novel, seem to have no sexuality, only gender roles. Oh well, there's other writers to take up that mantle as the century progresses.
Oh, and wasn't it interesting that the deans knew about the homosexuality at college, treated it as simply needing an invisible course correction? I love when Forster calls out that sort of reasonableness.
15GregM3
>14 DebiCates: This is a fascinating way to look at it, and I really appreciated your comments! I'm partway through Part Three now, and I'm not sure I agree with everything you say Debi, but I do think you're partly right . . . and closer to right than the way I was seeing it.
My mind still has a hard time getting around and accepting what Forster is depicting in Clive's character here, and partly that's because my personal disposition is so different. At first I thought Clive and I were alike because I also had religious fears as a child, but in reality, we couldn't be more different.
But also, I think Tonja is very right to point out that Forster is writing at such an early time, when it was dangerous to speak of these topics and much was unspoken or unknown at large.
If Forster knew someone who told him they felt like Clive, what I wonder is: did that person misrepresent themselves to Forster, and did he believe what they told him, even though they were misrepresenting themselves? After all, there are many lies we tell ourselves, and even more so, we often misrepresent ourselves to others to preserve an image of ourselves that we want to keep. In a world where gay stories couldn't be told or could only be told in very indirect and murky ways, it would be a whole lot easier to misrepresent yourself. Nowadays there are so many, many stories out there that it's much easier to see which are fantasies, which are wish fulfillments, which are self-distortions, and which are likely authentic. That's not a value judgement. There's such a huge range of sexual realities in the human experience; I absolutely believe that anything is possible.
But setting that question aside and taking everything in this book at face value, in mid-part three I'm starting to feel that Clive does lean a little toward the asexual side of things. Either that, or he has a great deal of unacknowledged repression and self-denial there that isn't made clear in the book.
If you've seen the movie, the creators of the Merchant Ivory production definitely filmed it as though Clive was fully gay and also highly repressed. But I'm not sure - I'm trying to take the book as its own story and to form my opinions of it apart from the movie. Maybe I'll end up agreeing with them and maybe not?
My mind still has a hard time getting around and accepting what Forster is depicting in Clive's character here, and partly that's because my personal disposition is so different. At first I thought Clive and I were alike because I also had religious fears as a child, but in reality, we couldn't be more different.
But also, I think Tonja is very right to point out that Forster is writing at such an early time, when it was dangerous to speak of these topics and much was unspoken or unknown at large.
If Forster knew someone who told him they felt like Clive, what I wonder is: did that person misrepresent themselves to Forster, and did he believe what they told him, even though they were misrepresenting themselves? After all, there are many lies we tell ourselves, and even more so, we often misrepresent ourselves to others to preserve an image of ourselves that we want to keep. In a world where gay stories couldn't be told or could only be told in very indirect and murky ways, it would be a whole lot easier to misrepresent yourself. Nowadays there are so many, many stories out there that it's much easier to see which are fantasies, which are wish fulfillments, which are self-distortions, and which are likely authentic. That's not a value judgement. There's such a huge range of sexual realities in the human experience; I absolutely believe that anything is possible.
But setting that question aside and taking everything in this book at face value, in mid-part three I'm starting to feel that Clive does lean a little toward the asexual side of things. Either that, or he has a great deal of unacknowledged repression and self-denial there that isn't made clear in the book.
If you've seen the movie, the creators of the Merchant Ivory production definitely filmed it as though Clive was fully gay and also highly repressed. But I'm not sure - I'm trying to take the book as its own story and to form my opinions of it apart from the movie. Maybe I'll end up agreeing with them and maybe not?
16GregM3
>13 TonjaE: Oh my goodness, I had no idea that this movie was inspired by a relationship with Forster! I would really like to read it! I'm not sure if others would also be interested in the book (My Policeman), but if so, I'd like to add it as my choice to one of the months for group reads Debi (>14 DebiCates:)!
And I think you're really right about how Forster wasn't writing freely. Forster was such an artist and such an intellect that I tend to think of him as completely as a master of the social environment, perceiving everything, but I suppose no one can be above their environment like that. It's something that anyone who felt as he did would have had to muddle through as best as they could.
And I think you're really right about how Forster wasn't writing freely. Forster was such an artist and such an intellect that I tend to think of him as completely as a master of the social environment, perceiving everything, but I suppose no one can be above their environment like that. It's something that anyone who felt as he did would have had to muddle through as best as they could.
17DebiCates
>16 GregM3: I'd be down for that (need to see if I can find a copy). I haven't seen that film nor the film of Maurice. I purposely am saving that for some time after the book but not soon after. I need the book to fade in my memory a bit, otherwise I'm constantly comparing the two and usually unfavorably to the film.
@TonjaE is the moderator for this group and updates the roster. (I'm a backup.) What month would you like, Greg? Check the roster for availability here:
https://www.librarything.com/topic/375895#9026026
@TonjaE is the moderator for this group and updates the roster. (I'm a backup.) What month would you like, Greg? Check the roster for availability here:
https://www.librarything.com/topic/375895#9026026
18DebiCates
>15 GregM3: Clive's about face does seem off. No doubt. Most particularly, as I believe you pointed out Greg, because his body is responding to the change, and on a dime, too. I'm holding out that Forster will provide further exploration, although he may not. Hey, maybe it will be in that enigmatically titled afterward, "Terminal note."
19TonjaE
>16 GregM3: Shall I put My Policeman down for May as your choice Greg? That would be the next available month. I think it's a good choice, and became quite popular after the film was made, so I think it would be easy for everyone to find a copy.
20GregM3
>19 TonjaE: That works for me Tonja. Thank you!!
21DebiCates
>19 TonjaE: >20 GregM3: I'm already looking forward to it.
22TonjaE
>20 GregM3: Excellent! I have added My Policeman to the roster for May.
24StaciaV
I finished part 2 today & echo many of Debi's thoughts. Clive's change seemed sudden but, to me, I think there were a host of underlying factors where Clive was trying to do various things: extricate himself from his relationship with Maurice, take on more of his "expected" role (which would include marrying & having children), perhaps trying to turn away from his true nature due to society or religion.
Since studying the Greeks was what first "opened his eyes" (?) for Maurice (via Clive), was Clive's solo trip to Greece an internal reckoning to grapple with what he learned of the ancients vs. what he had to live in the present? When he said his trip was horrible, did that reflect him coming to terms with living for his role vs. himself?
Considering how repressive British society was at that time, I'm honestly surprised at Forster's candor in this book, especially part 2, even if he wasn't planning on publishing it. Just putting pen to paper was extremely subversive.
Since studying the Greeks was what first "opened his eyes" (?) for Maurice (via Clive), was Clive's solo trip to Greece an internal reckoning to grapple with what he learned of the ancients vs. what he had to live in the present? When he said his trip was horrible, did that reflect him coming to terms with living for his role vs. himself?
Considering how repressive British society was at that time, I'm honestly surprised at Forster's candor in this book, especially part 2, even if he wasn't planning on publishing it. Just putting pen to paper was extremely subversive.
25DebiCates
>24 StaciaV: The time it was written does make it difficult to figure out what was really going on behind the scenes...for character Clive and for writer Forster. Like you say, it's surprising he even dared to put anything like he did to paper.
26GregM3
There are some passages in Part Three that shed a little more light on Clive's sexuality. It's still hard for me to wrap my head around, but it's a little clearer. I'll wait to comment on those passages in the Part Three thread.
27DebiCates
>26 GregM3: Good to know! Thanks, Greg. I'll be reading part 3 starting today.
28DebiCates
The world is such a fascinating place and with the internet you never know when you might stumble on something actually useful.
Looking at Meriam Webster's slang words just now (it's a way to stay up with these here young folks in my life, aka my grandkids ages 7-21) when I discovered this word, so ripe for possible use understanding Clive (I've still not gone on to Part 3).
(for you @GregM3 especially)
ABROSEXUAL
https://www.merriam-webster.com/slang/abrosexual
Looking at Meriam Webster's slang words just now (it's a way to stay up with these here young folks in my life, aka my grandkids ages 7-21) when I discovered this word, so ripe for possible use understanding Clive (I've still not gone on to Part 3).
(for you @GregM3 especially)
ABROSEXUAL
https://www.merriam-webster.com/slang/abrosexual
29GregM3
>28 DebiCates: Sometimes the words strike me as funny, is that weird? Abrosexual, hmmm.
30GregM3
>24 StaciaV: Stacia, as I get further, I completely agree with your first paragraph, especially about his perhaps turning away from his true nature.
31DebiCates
>29 GregM3: Words strike me funny sometimes too. That one, with "bro" in it seems prime for a giggle.
32GregM3
>30 GregM3: Human sexuality is so broad and there is so much variety in it. I have no trouble believing that people experience these things, though it is very far from my own experience and the experience of the other people I know. Pansexuality within a non-repressive sexuality strikes me as completely intuitive, and of course, I understand my own orientation and the orientations of the people I have experience with. But it's hard to wrap my head around abrosexuality, though I completely believe anyone expressing the truth of their hearts. People have the right to define themselves in whatever way feels most natural to themselves and how they experience the world. If that word is abrosexual, I'm all for it!
33elenchus
>32 GregM3: I feel pretty similarly, nicely put.
Not something I'm personally acquainted with but want to remain open to. Having two kids, for instance, is a motivation: what feelings might they have, and how is society (and my behaviour as a parent) shaping or repressing those?
Not something I'm personally acquainted with but want to remain open to. Having two kids, for instance, is a motivation: what feelings might they have, and how is society (and my behaviour as a parent) shaping or repressing those?
34DebiCates
>32 GregM3: >33 elenchus: These new* definitions coming from this generation (I think it's coming from younger people) and plus at my age now feeling asexual, I have been pondering my life's sexual relationships and how much was driven by social norms, nearing outright propaganda, even.
Perhaps we are broaching an age where one grows up with the fundamental proposition that they choose a person to love and nature then will follow. That will be lovely to see, I think.
I like hearing how we all are thinking of it, how pertinent it feels even though we are "settled."
* They are not entirely new, but are being revisited, reconsidered.
Perhaps we are broaching an age where one grows up with the fundamental proposition that they choose a person to love and nature then will follow. That will be lovely to see, I think.
I like hearing how we all are thinking of it, how pertinent it feels even though we are "settled."
* They are not entirely new, but are being revisited, reconsidered.
35GregM3
>34 DebiCates: That's so true Debi, how much of our lives are unconsciously driven by social norms, whether we accept or resist those norms. They have a tendency to corral us. I do think it will be lovely if at one point, all of the phobias and judgements that surround and cloud human intimacy fade to the point that they can no longer corral us at all. I don't know if we're there yet, but I do think we're much closer to that point than when I was young! And when I was young, we were much closer to that point than when Forster was young!
36DebiCates
>35 GregM3: I thought you were going to end with "and we were much closer to that point than when YOU were young, Debi." ha ha
I'm telling you, this being an old lady thing can be fun.
Except when laughing makes me pee a little.
I'm telling you, this being an old lady thing can be fun.
Except when laughing makes me pee a little.
38DebiCates
>37 elenchus: LOL. Oh you wait until you get old. Your sense of humor will get extra real too. I hope. It is the best way.
39elenchus
You are assuming I'm not already old, when actually I'm fond of telling folks I'm well into enjoying my second half-century.
40DebiCates
>39 elenchus: I did assume that. I have recently begun assuming that I'm the oldest person in the room, virtual or otherwise.
So, the real test is, in your second half century, has your sense of humor begun to lean toward the TMPI yet? (Too much physical information.) I'm broaching septuagenarianism, which oddly sounds to me as alien as it does to anyone.
See comedian Susan Rice, aka "Funny Old Bag" for an example of my new hero worship.
So, the real test is, in your second half century, has your sense of humor begun to lean toward the TMPI yet? (Too much physical information.) I'm broaching septuagenarianism, which oddly sounds to me as alien as it does to anyone.
See comedian Susan Rice, aka "Funny Old Bag" for an example of my new hero worship.
41elenchus
Maybe the first sign is finding myself talking overly much of various maladies. I'm trying to shut that down a bit! Perhaps a good approach is leaning into TMPI. I'll let you know how that goes.
42DebiCates
>41 elenchus: LOL. Sounds good. I'll be on the alert for the telltale signs and let you know if they are hitting funny or just sad. Or shocking, ha.
