Oh dear. Are we fated to have the opposite viewpoint about another book?

Forster's novel captures the conf

I haven't read the book, but I did watch and thoroughly enjoy the Masterpiece Theater production.

CMK-sorry, I wrote a long, long reply and it managed to go poof! I'm in the middle of work deadlines, but I'll return to the discussion when I can!

K

-carolyn thanks for noting that. I did not even know about it! I am curious to see who they got to play Aziz.

-Kay, I figued it was a malfunction! My computer gets some sort of perverted pleasure in bumping me off the internet JUST BEFORE I hit the 'submit' button.
Take all the time you need in responding. I will be here.
I am sure there are lots of books we both like. I think differences of opinion often help me see things in a new light, and note things I wouldn't have on my own. It makes me question my own beliefs and amend my ideals. No worries!
Have you read much else by Forster? I gather from the tenor of your first post that you really liked this book. I look forward to hear your thoughts on it.
Talk to you later!
CMK

LOVED this book when I read it several years ago. Unfortunately, my memory is shot so I no longer remember any details from the story (a frequent occurence with books I've read over a few months ago, I'm afraid). I do remember liking the writing style though, and thinking that I'd have to read more by Forster (which I never have yet--maybe this winter?)

Kelly

I haven't read this one by Forster, but plan to one day. I generally like Forster. I've read and enjoyed Where Angels Fear to Tread and A Room with a View (and why do I always confuse that title with Woolf's "A Room of One's Own?). Also, his short story, The Machine Stops is old style, classic SF/Dystopia -- not something some associate with him at all. I think you can find it online if you google for it.

A PASSAGE TO INDIA is one of the world's great classics. Unfortunately, like Kren, I don't remember enough in detail to discuss it - it has been many years since I read it.

Forster has a huge reputation as a novelist - and rightly so. He is a master of irony and understatement - often you have to infer his real meaning from the sometimes apparently superficial dialogue. He can be hugely funny, often in an offbeat sort of way.

I read my way through most of Forster some years ago and haven't had time to re-read him, except for Howard's End, after seeing the film (Emma Thompson and Helena Bonham Carter - a Merchant Ivory, like A Room With a View) A Passage to India is reckoned by many to be his finest work. The BBC dramatised it as a serial for television, quite a few years ago and it was excellent, with Geraldine James, Peggy Ashcroft (as Mrs Moore), Fabia Drake, and many other names which have since become famous.

Dido

Thanks for mentioning the different versions Dido. I googled it yesterday and, not knowing which it was, came up with the movie directed by David Lean and staring Judy Davis. I have not seen this or the one you mentioned unfortunantly.
I did get to see the movie poster while browsing online. I have to say the person they got to play Aziz (in the David Lean picture) seemed older and fatter than I imagined him in the book. In the book Mr. Fielding was considered old at forty. Aziz was called a young man, so he must have been in his twenties (in my way of thinking). Did anyone like this production? I may have to see if I can rent it.

There were two other things I did like about this book that I forgot to mention.
I thought that the middle part, where Aziz was arrested and put on trial, was at least somewhat exciting. And I liked that whole idea of one's mistake can ruin so much. Miss Quested's slip up broke the shaky and half-hearted understanding between the English and Indians. She almost ruined the life of an innocent man and the lives of his children.

But thats it. I wanted to learn more of the English colonization of India. What I have read about this time is all from text books I am afraid. Forster did not bring much new to the table in my opinion.
I did learn something about the dynamics of the relationships between the English and the natives. But I am afraid I am greedy in the areas of literature; I wanted MORE of it. I wanted to see more interaction, and hear more actual complaints both sides had. Detail is what I wanted!

I think there might have been some things that I just didn't 'get'. If any of you have any insight as to deeper meanings in this book do let me know!
CMK

I have always liked A Passage to India. To me, the sum of the book is much more than its parts.

To me, Forster's tale beautifully captures the experience of immersing oneself in a foreign culture, the tensions of the colonial era, and the difficulty of communication between others-- of really understanding others (and sometimes oneself).

To me Adela's experience in the cave symbolizes her immersion into a deeply mysterious and foreign culture. She herself is a placid and superficial young woman. India is a profoundly complex country and culture. As I see it, nothing happened in the cave, except that Adela was overwhelmed, confused, and distraught. She couldn't find a way to express that experience, and did so in the only conventionally obvious way that was available to a young woman--being violated.

The trial represents an imposition of that convention on poor Aziz, who is a victim of both the ruling party and this silly young woman playing tourist. It's a tour de force, in my opinion, as we (the reader) all know that Aziz had nothing to do with what happened to Adela. We are silent witnesses to the travesty of justice taking place in the court room, but we cannot give testimony.

It's a clash of cultures, writ large.

To my mind, it's a tremendous book. Forster captures this clash with just a handful of characters, creates a pivotal moment during a seemingly innocent outing, and follows with the ultimate unraveling of so much.

Masterful!

Forster assumes you know the history of the Raj-this book is more a story of relationships and conflicts between individuals and cultures, self-deception and self-awareness, and the end of a way of life. I dislike an author who spoonfeeds me every last thought and detail-I want to make my own inferences and draw my own conclusions from actions and dialogue. Fiction has often sent me to non-fiction to learn more-but I don't want them all lumped together. I think you can learn a great deal about Anglo-Indian relationships from the way the characters relate in the book-but if you want more fact, then you do need to go to non-fiction such as diaries or contemporary news reports. That doesn't belong in this book.
I think Forster's prose, rather than being hollow or amateurish, is so finely crafted that it glows.

CMK, I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. Are you saying Forster spoon feeds the reader? Or that he does not?

I don't think one needs to know the history of the Raj to appreciate this book, although the contemporary reader of his fiction was probably more familiar with it than we are. It's a tale told against the larger backdrop of culture. And I don't think one really needs to know the background and history of colonial India, other than the broadest of strokes, that of a ruling party who are outsiders, imposing themselves on a culture they do not understand (or care to understand, often).

And I do think Forster lets the reader draw her own conclusions, and beautifully so, with the enigmatic cave scene. There is nothing prescribed about that strange and pivotal turning point. He never makes it overtly clear what took place in there, which makes it quite powerful, I think.

-ccrdmrbks, yes I suppose to learn more about this subject I must go to non-fiction.
You said "I dislike an author who spoonfeeds me every last thought and detail- I want to make my own inferences and draw my own conclusions from actions and dialogue."

I agree with you on that. I don't like authors that doubt thier reader has any intelligence. But I am afraid I found Forster starved me by witholding the spoon so frequently. There comes a point where I get tierd of always trying to guess at the meanings the author never put in.

-Kay, you said that you thought that "...Adela's experience in the cave symbolizes her immersion into a deeply mysterious and foreign culture."
I am not sure that is what was meant. I thought that the sourse of Adela's inner turmoil was that she did not know how to proceed with her engagement. She was confused about her relationship with Ronny. She did not love him and, before going into the caves, was thinking this. Thats why she 'hallucinated' and thought that she was being attacked.
But thats just what I got from that part of the book.
I am not always surprised at it, but it does annoy me when we have to read about women comming unglued for no apprearant reason. Nervous women drive me a bit batty. I was really liking Adela at the begining of the book, and was starting to think we both thought the same.
I was very excited about reading this book. I had seen it at the bookstore before and wanted to read it. But it was just a let-down.
CMK

Kkay-I think you mixed up ccrdmrbks and christinmk

ccrdmrbks-Indeed, I did confuse the two! I had a thrill when I read that "Forster's writing...is so finely crafted, it glows" and thought that CMK had a sudden change of heart about Forster!

CMK, I suppose Adela's breakdown in the cave could be related to things sexual, too. To me, it (her breakdown) symbolizes the gulf between order/superficiality/convention, and feelings/the unknowable/the mystic.

Nervous women drive me batty in real life. In fiction, they are often excellent vehicles to move a story forward. In the context of this story, and in the context of the times, it makes perfect sense and doesn't annoy me at all. I think it's important to consider the context. This is something that I will confess frustrates me no end in discussions about fiction!

(I have tried to send this reply several times but can't seem to get it to "take"--I hope I haven't posted the same thing 15,000 times!)

Kay I had to laugh at your post when you said you thought I might have had a change of heart! Lol, my heart is still chilly towards this book!
Do note that I didn't actually hate this book. I just found it mediocre. I set high standards, so I suspect thats why not many books get past my critiques unscathed.

You said earlier on that "He [Forster] never makes it overtly clear what took place in there, which makes it quite powerful, I think."
I agree with you. Not knowing who was right and who was wrong gave it some interest. One did not know who to feel sorry for or hate.
I also agree with you that Adela's nervousness may fit for the times, though it was probaly going out of style. But compare Adela to that Miss (Mrs.?) Dereck woman though, who 'borrowed' the car and had a affair with another club member.

"This is something that I will confess frustrates me no end in discussions about fiction!"
Do you mean people taking things out of context? People not connecting that certain behaviors we think odd were perfectly normal in other time periods?
CMK

CMK- What I mean by my frustration in discussions about fiction is that I often find that people remove the characters or events from the "world" that the author has created, and apply their personal standards to those characters or events.

This is a topic that I have long discussions about with a friend of mine who (like me) is also a member of 2 book groups. I am frustrated because (as I've said to her) reading a book is not like reading a sociologist's report. One has to understand that the author has a meaning and a purpose (or one hopes the author does!) that propels a story line, or acts in some symbolic or representative way.

The best way I can explain this is to give an example. One of my book groups read a book (Plainsong, by Kent Haruf) in which the mother of 2 boys is mentally ill and essentially absent from their lives. A member of the group complained--repeatedly--that she felt it was irresponsible of the mother to not seek medical help and get antidepressants and get out of bed and be with her children.

To which I could only reply that if the mother were well, and occupied herself with her family, then we would not have had a story.

In other words, we must respect a book as fiction. Too often we insert ourselves and our logic into a story, instead of stepping back to try to understand the author's purpose and intent. Sometimes a story is not meant to delight, enlighten, or transport us; it might take us to dark places, or violate our own standards of what we feel are tolerable or decent or proper. But I think it's important to try to judge a book by honoring the author's trajectory in that book, trying to see it through his or her eyes, and discern the story's purpose. The author's intent should never be removed from the equation, I feel.

I wish I could explain this more clearly. I feel kind of passionate about it.

-Kay, you should be passionate about it, because it is a very good point.

One of my many faults is that I have a tendency to over analize things. I am gered toward detecting those small details, and because of that I think I often loose the bigger picture.

I do not try to remove the character from the environment the author has set up for it. It would be absurd to do so.
But I do tend to try to figure out the whats, whys, whens, and wheres, so I can better understand the character. Sometimes it is important to analize the charactor's actions and the reasoning that led to thier taking those actions to better understand the plot and point.

I too often try to break things down to make them logical. I should learn that not every book is based on logic and actions are not always explainable.

"But I think it's important to try to judge a book by honoring the author's trajectory in that book, trying to see it through his or her eyes, and discern the story's purpose. The author's intent should never be removed from the equation, I feel. "

But sometimes we CANNOT see it through the authors eyes and can never know how they personally felt about a subject they were wrighting. Therefore we often have to insert ourselves in the plot. By examining our own feelings in that scenario we can better understand what it is like and what is meant.
It is important to try to understand the author's point of view. But there are many diffrent ways of interpreting things. Just because we do not see something through the eyes of the author (agree with them) does not mean that we canot take something away from their book. And just because we take away a point that the author did not intend does not mean that it is wrong.

I did understand what I think are the main points of this book. But I think that it was the overall style of the book that did not appeal to me.
I have always had a philosophy about this. We know that authors often have a certain 'set' style of writing. I think that readers often have a style they prefer to read. I don't mean that a person cannot like or appreciate many styles, but that there is some that really just 'click' with them.
I personally love rich detail. And I love deep looks at a persons thoughts. I like points made. And I love lots of dialogue!
CMK

There is no doubt that we cannot read a book through the eyes of its author. And we may not know how they personally felt about a subject they were writing.

But what I object to is that so often in reading fiction, we forget that there IS an author's hand, that there is a motivation and purpose for the things that the author put down on a page, and that as readers, it enriches our experience to try to recognize that fact. That we should not just say "this was a silly young woman who did a stupid thing and I hate her (or the story) because of it" but to try to determine why the silly young woman did a stupid thing; what was her role in the story? Why did the author make her do a stupid thing?

If we only respond to a tale based on our values ("she's boring," or "she makes decisions based on trivial and superficial evidence") then we are overlooking an opportunity to explore a deeper meaning in the story.

I continue to think that I respond less to a style of writing than to a story well-told in any style. If an author wants to give me rich detail, explain how a person thinks, or have characters express themselves in abundant dialogue, that's great. I also like silent and still stories that are spare, and that call upon a reader to study the characters and their motivations. It's not a case of agreeing or disagreeing with the author; it's trying to see the world they have captured and sketched for us, and to try to appreciate it on those terms.

I know that without Adela there would not be the story, or at least the same story as we have read. I never said that the story would even have been better without her. She is indeed one of the biggest roles in this book. Disliking a character does not mean you do not realize thier importance.

And disliking a character is different than disliking the book they are in. One does not have to like or identify with a character to like the book.
Most of what we do is based on our likes and dislikes. If an author makes his characters even somewhat well we will see them as human. These characters should be able to withstand our criticism and dislike. Indeed, it would be strange if we DID NOT have personal opinions about someone in a book. If we did not then the author did not meet his goal in trying to make them human.

I do often set my own personal beliefs aside when coming to a descision and always try to see things, weather in books or real life, in an objective and just way. Adela was not the reason I didn't really care for this book. The characters themselves were only a part of the reason. I also disliked the writing of this book as you may recall.
-Ps. I am reading Gilgamesh right now!
CMK

It's true that when I read a book I may find that I dislike a character; sometimes I can't really identify with even one character in an entire cast of characters in a book. And (like you) I'll still love the book.

So I'm not saying we shouldn't have opinions about the different characters. But we should be aware of why the author may have wanted to elicit those responses from us.

How in the world do you find time to read so much--I'm impressed! I have had that book (Gilgamesh) on my shelf since it was hot off the press, and still haven't read it. I'm supposed to be reading The Enchantress of Florence right now and can't seem to bring myself to the task.

K

I noticed I have been reading more since comming on this forum. Even if I don't particularly like the book I read I know that I will have an interesting discussion (like this one!) about it with the people here.
I have a third of Gilgamesh left. I really like it so far! Beautiful writing.
Take care!
CMK