JAN 2026 "Maurice" discussion: PART FOUR (end)

Links to all Maurice threads in this group read:
INTRODUCTION
PART ONE
PART TWO
PART THREE
PART FOUR (end of novel) (This thread)
FORSTER'S TERMINAL NOTE
Final Thoughts

---

Discussion on PART FOUR, the end of the novel.

Just finished. My head is spinning.

The ending was lovely, though I wasn't always sure it would go in that direction.

I'm going to think on it a bit now. And be glad for any thoughts you all might have.

I'm tempted to read the Terminal Notes. But I'll wait for that, too. I want to let my thoughts reel out to the end of the spool, before letting Forster explain what he already has said, and didn't say.

>2 DebiCates: Now do you understand why I keep re-reading it? ;)

>3 amanda4242: I do! It's not just the story, although that is wonderful, but the writing is so good, insightful, even strange (to me) sometimes. The kind of stuff I eat up.

I must say that Scudder turned out to be more a dubious character, and quickly, than I expected. At end of Part 3 I was half in love with him myself but Part 4 I spent most of the time worried that he was a gigolo, a cad, a rapscallion.

Then there came the British Museum. I'm not sure what happened there exactly, but Maurice, god love him, did.

And after some thought, the ending was not quite a clear ride into the sunset, either. I let my own hopes take me that direction. Equally possible explanation to not hearing hide nor hair of Maurice again (as per Clive) is disaster.

STILL, Maurice tried for the gold ring and that was something in his time, in his set, in his "muddle."

Interesting that Maurice would have selected two men to be his loves that both were not clearly defined gay. Clive seemed more asexual than anything to me. Scudder seemed bisexual. Or maybe abrosexual that I just learned about, reacting more to the person than the sex or gender. But Maurice was certainly gay although he fought it just to not be ugly or any of the number of judgements he imbibed from society.

One thing that struck me as notable were the verbal expressions of violence in Part 4. In a way I think it was a manifestation of the psychological life and death conflict that accompanied the struggle within for each man, Maurice and Scudder, though they seemed to struggle for different reasons. Scudder seemed to naturally understand his sexual fluidity, but very sensitive about being treated less than equal especially once being told to call Maurice by his first name (a big deal between classes apparently at that time).

Lastly, the moments when Clive and Maurice, and Maurice and Scudder fell in love (head over heals both times) was hard for me to experience, even understand, vicariously in the writing. Perhaps that was intentional, since even plain jane romantic love is often inexplicable.

What do you imagine for the future of Maurice and Scudder?

I'm a romantic so I still see them living together until old age, sloughing all class distinction, with a magical woods safely surrounding them.

ETA: I should change all the references I made above from Scudder to Alec. Scudder just happened to stick in my head most since that is the name we first learned. I had the same issue with Clive and Durham, although I seemed grab on to his first name easier since it was mentioned so often.

I'm saving the Terminal Notes until further comments are here and so I can suck the marrow from the novel before reading the novelist's supplemental explanations.

Should we regard the Terminal Notes as integral to the novel? Or merely a tack-on that should not be needed usually, and its contents within taken with a grain of salt?

I suppose I'll know how I feel about that after I read it!

>5 DebiCates: Don't be too hard on Alec! For him to make the first move was not just brave, it was dangerous: if Maurice hadn't reciprocated, Alec could have found himself arrested for making "obscene advances." To do something that put both his heart *and* liberty at risk and then have his lover treat him as something lesser—when he deigned to speak to him at all—is a horrendous blow. I truly don't think Alec would have blackmailed Maurice, but I think the threat was the only way he could think of to get Maurice to actually speak to him again.

I'd like to imagine the lovers living happily ever after as equals, although realistically the best they probably could have managed would be for Alec to be publicly seen as Maurice's valet so they'd have an excuse to live together.

>7 amanda4242: I think the threat was the only way he could think of to get Maurice to actually speak to him again.

I can be convinced of that now that you put it in that perspective. I was seeing it so much from Maurice's point of view, the one of grave fear and also, to be honest, still bias against the lower classes, that I didn't expand to think about it from Alec's view as well.

We had the pov's from Maurice and Clive in the novel, but thinking back, did we ever get one from Alec (excluding his dialogue)? If not, I wonder why not.

>7 amanda4242: although realistically the best they probably could have managed would be for Alec to be publicly seen as Maurice's valet so they'd have an excuse to live together.

I played around with a similar idea as well. That would be such a hard ongoing issue for Alec. I expect Maurice would have grown to have as much distaste for it as Alec, too.

It does point out how many lies have to be piled on to the one lie, and the many choices that would deny them the even-playing ground for all their lives. Forster was good at pointing that out throughout the novel. By the time the novel came out, things were looking better but still very much in living memory.

>5 DebiCates:
I'm a romantic so I still see them living together until old age, sloughing all class distinction, with a magical woods safely surrounding them.

>7 amanda4242:
I'd like to imagine the lovers living happily ever after as equals, although realistically the best they probably could have managed would be for Alec to be publicly seen as Maurice's valet so they'd have an excuse to live together.

Both of these flit in my mind's eye. I suppose it's intentional that Forster doesn't take us there, the main thing was to consider it possible they could be in the position for us (and for them) to try their way. It's a non-answer, I know. The romantic in me sees this place, looking toward a possible future together, as the happily-ever-after. Like the ending to Casablanca -- or rather, like that film, the possibility and the character's longing is happily-ever-after. Unlike that film, they actually are together at the end, however long that may last.

I'm on Chapter 43, and it'll be a little bit before I can finish and read everyone's comments.

But I find myself quite taken by Scudder. I love this thing that Scudder tells Maurice very early in part four; it's about that moment when Maurice first came to Penge and saw Scudder playing with the two women:

"I saw you when you first drove up, Mr Hall, wasn't it Tuesday, I did think you looked at me angry and gentle both together."

What's different about Scudder is that he is actually observant enough to see what others are feeling. And I guess it makes sense, given his position. In his job, his has to stay continually on his toes, trying to please others. So, he would be looking at the people around him and noticing what they felt or wanted. But this is so different than either Maurice or Clive, who are both so inwardly directed.

This offhand comment from Scudder, or should I say Alec, touches me on two levels. From Alec's side, there's some intimacy in the thought and there's a sense that he actually sees Maurice. From Maurice's side, it shows that his feeling for Alec even in those first moments wasn't what his own internal monologue led him and led the reader to think. He was jealous, maybe, and angry, yes, but there was a tender reaching inside his heart too. And it touches me that both Alec and Maurice have that tender reaching deep inside of them, despite behavior that is at times outwardly awkward, angry, or gruff.

I don't know if the book is going to end like the movie, and it's really hard to resist flipping ahead; I already did skip forward and read a few pages. I'm going to try to discipline myself to take the story in order. But that just shows how invested I am in Forster's story at this point; I am itching to see what happens to these men. If only I didn't have to go to work . . . .

>11 GregM3: I'm so glad it is such an immersive read for you. You are in good company.

I even dreamt about this book last night! Sadly, I couldn't tell you an intelligible thing about it, though. It was something to do with something at Penge and the greenness around it and there was someone that did something....you know how it goes. Still, how fun is that to dream about a book?

Dreaming a book is good for the soul, even when our mind and memory can't keep hold of anything after. Perhaps especially then.

>13 elenchus: I like the way you think. I know I woke up feeling a bit jubilant.

Have you ever tried to read something that is written in dreams? It's impossible and I wonder why that is.

>12 DebiCates: and >13 elenchus:, I love that you dreamed of it Debi and maybe that's true elenchus, that dreaming of a book is good for the soul! Debi, I don't think I can remember what I read in dreams, but I do remember dreams where I was writing. Back when I used to write, I would sometimes end up using a few short passages that I remembered from composing them in dreams.

Speaking of dreams, I loved those two dreams that Maurice had early on in the book: the one where he has a sort of lucid dream where he wishes footballer that's coming toward him to tackle him into the servant George, and the second one a vague half-remembered one where the only thing he can remember is a voice saying "This is your friend."

Such a beautiful yearning in them, and the dream of George is kind of fitting since he ends up together with Alec!

>7 amanda4242: Completely agree with this Amanda! Thinking of how afraid Alec must have been sitting out in that boathouse for two whole nights after writing multiple letters, the first of which really bared his heart!

And you're exactly right that he also rightfully resents that Maurice at that point still sees him as lesser. In chapter 54, while in bed with Maurice, Alec tells him how angry he was back at the boathouse, thinking that Maurice was "too grand" to meet him. And based on Maurice's inner monologue, there are some places at that point in the book where Maurice does still have to struggle with himself in seeing Alec as lesser.

But I think Maurice nails it on the head when he figures out in Chapter 43:

". . . Maurice saw how natural it was that their primitive abandonment at Penge should have led to peril. They knew too little about each other--and too much. Hence fear. Hence cruelty. And he rejoiced because he had understood Alec's infamy through his own . . . ."

After that brief moment of intense intimacy, Maurice had fled Penge. And because the two of them couldn't really know each other well enough yet to trust one another, they were bound to fear each other given the horrifying Edwardian legal threats that they faced if exposed. Either of them could do great harm to the other by coming forward, and that's bound to be extremely frightening with a brief acquaintance. Fear does lead to cruelty, as a person in fear doesn't behave well; the terror of danger makes thought hard. Maurice is finally self-aware enough to recognize how badly he has behaved out of fear, and he's perceptive enough to see that Alec was lashing out from the same motivations.

Alec must have been wondering those two very long nights at the rainy boathouse whether Maurice really cared at all for him, whether he was taking advantage of him, whether he was going to harm him, and what he thought of him. On top of everything, Alec is sneezing at the Museum, presumably from those long nights out in the cold and wet. It's telling that unlike what Alec says, the brother wasn't even there - there was no conspiracy. My personal feeling is that Alec had convinced himself that Maurice was toying with him and he revolted against that in the moment; the blackmail threats were a way to strike back against what he saw as Maurice's callousness, but it was all half-baked and composed in moments of fear and anger. But as soon as he actually starts to carry through with him plan, he realizes he can't do it.

I do kind of wonder though: what if Mr. Ducie had been a different sort of man when in that moment, when Maurice stupidly tells Mr. Ducie that his name is "Scudder" and Alec bursts out about the "serious charge"? That is yet another moment where the novel could have taken a terrible, dark turn. If the novel had gone that way though, both of them would have had a part in making it happen. I feel sure that if Maurice hadn't given his name as Scudder, Alec never would have done that. Alec must have been completely bewildered by it, wondering what danger Maurice was putting him in by giving that name. Otherwise, he wouldn't have taken that next step. Luckily, Mr. Ducie took the whole thing as a juvenile prank!

I'm so grateful to Forster that at the end of the book, he didn't take the easy way out of having Maurice or Alec fall into one the many pits that the Edwardian legal and social systems had set up for them to fall into!

>16 GregM3: I know you are an engineer and no doubt a very good one, but in your next life, (the one where your INFP, instead of your INFJ side shines through), Greg you would make either a very good teacher of poetry. Or a poet.

Maurice is finally self-aware enough to recognize how badly he has behaved out of fear, and he's perceptive enough to see that Alec was lashing out from the same motivations

This is an excellent insight and so glad you explained the way you saw it. I see now that Forster is showing how Maurice has changed after his anguishing trials (trials are almost exclusively the catalyst for change, aren't they?). I was befuddled by the British Museum episode and now with your and Amanda's comment that I should maybe reconsider the position and motive of Alec, I probably need to read it again. I was stuck by such fear for their exposure when I read it, and was reading through it so fast, that I missed an important shift in our protagonist. Now, though, I feel quite a tender rejoicing.

>16 GregM3: Luckily, Mr. Ducie took the whole thing as a juvenile prank!

It was interesting that it was Ducie that made a reappearance, as blithely unaware as he was the first time, still thinking of boys and young men as pranksters. That was an enjoyable tidbit. Clever too for adding tension, then releasing it with such relief.

>10 elenchus: I suppose it's intentional that Forster doesn't take us there, the main thing was to consider it possible they could be in the position for us (and for them) to try their way. It's a non-answer, I know. The romantic in me sees this place, looking toward a possible future together, as the happily-ever-after.

You are dead-on. Turns out that possibility of happy-ever-after was crucial to Forster. And we aren't sops for wanting to believe it. Indeed, he had seen it with his own eyes in his friends at Milthorpe. That doggedness to keep that aspect in makes me adore this novel even more. It was progressive in all good meanings of the word.

>17 DebiCates: Oh, thank you for the kind words Debi!! :)

Mr Ducie was an enjoyable and clever tidbit, completely agree. When I rewatch the movie, I want to see if they kept all of those little details!

>20 GregM3: I'm showing an unusual amount of self control by not going this very afternoon to watch the film. The reason is because I'm seriously considering re-reading the novel now that I have a better understanding and all that exciting backstory too--part of which is in the Terminal Notes (albeit a little less exciting) but also in that BBC link that Amanda shared. Here it is that link again: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p057tpn8

Who am I kidding? I need to watch that film! ha

>21 DebiCates: Haha I give you my full support either way! But from what I remember of the film, I think it was very faithful to the spirit of the book and also beautifully acted. It's hard to go wrong with Merchant Ivory!

I watched it. It was good. Lovely to watch, in fact.

But the book is better.

ha.

Isn't that almost always true?

>23 DebiCates: Usually true as books have more space and time to develop things. Glad you didn't hate it though!

>24 GregM3: Yes, a lot of the interior thoughts were missing, but the book is nothing if not about those interior thoughts. However, there were a few scenes that really nailed it even without them. The scene of Clive breaking up with Maurice was astounding. And later, the short, almost micro scenes, of the marriage between Clive and Anne stuck me as saying as much as the book did.

I enjoyed both, but the book I loved.

I am happy with part four & am astonished at the hint toward a "happily ever after" for Maurice & Alec. And even if it wasn't happily ever after for life, I feel like it was still happy in that both men get to live their true selves with each other & in love, however long that lasts for them as a couple.

I also remain astonished at how forward E.M. Forster was in his writing, dangerously so given the laws in England & pervading social "mores".