On the recommendation of a friend I've been reading E. M. Forster's works the last week. In the last week I've read: A Passage to India, Howards End, and Where Angels Fear to Tread. Fairly similar to other prominent early 20th-century British authors, but with some unique twists. The three that I read generally follow the outline of a Shakespearean / Greek Tragedy. The protagonists have some character flaw and they drive onward to their own doom despite having several opportunities to back out and set things right.

The common theme in these three (and likely extends to his other works as well) is that the difficulties stem from class or cultural differences which lead to misunderstandings with tragic results for both sides.

A Passage to India centers around the conflicts arising from the British in India attempting to associate with the native population. The characters that attempt to bridge the divide between cultures end up worse off than they start. The friendship that exists between a British man and an Indian doctor fails and resentment remains. Neither side is willing to give the other any benefit of the doubt and things progressively degenerate. A classic example of the Prisoner's Dilemma where both sides have chosen an "Always Defect" strategy. In such a strategy any side that attempts to make amends only gets burned and ensures that both sides view the other only in the most suspicious terms.

Howards End occurs wholly within England and uses class differences as the focal point of the misunderstandings. What I got out of it was something that Forster brings up in the first half of the novel, but then doesn't elaborate on later. He brings up the idea that places are the important things in existence and drive events. I think part of what he is saying is that Howards End "wants" to belong to Margaret and thus drives the events of the story so that it finally does despite the wishes and wants of all the characters involved. Had the house's first attempt to be given to Margaret after Ruth's death been heeded much tragedy and turmoil could have been avoided. It is a little silly but that was the notion I was drawing out of it.

Where Angels Fear to Tread discusses the cultural differences between the British and the Italians as well as the cultural snubbing which occurs in British society when a member doesn't do exactly as considered proper. Some simple sympathy and compassion from either side of the conflicts could have alleviated the situations before they led to death and heartache.


An interesting trend throughout all of Forster's works that I've read is that he has this odd way of sucking the tension out of a situation well ahead of time if that situation isn't actually one he plans to dramatically build the story line around. He'll take a paragraph discussing how some character wants to do such and such and you see it building to some dramatic conclusion later in the book, but the next paragraph will start with something like, "But that was never to happen and the last desire for her plans were lost the week she died." and you're kind of left going, "oh... hmm".

Another trend throughout is the inklings of a feminist movement. His characters often represent some struggle between male dominance in society and the women trying to emancipate themselves from that dominance. What I liked about it though is that Forster doesn't ever seem to place all the blame upon any one side, whether the conflict is between cultures, classes, or sexes. You very clearly are shown that both sides have kept up the trouble and that either side could help alleviate the conflicts. It is much more balanced in the discussion presented to the reader than a lot of books.

I think what I enjoyed the most was when Forster uses the story to bring about some topic of thought or philosophy and then just takes a couple of paragraphs and elaborates upon the idea completely outside the storyline. During these little asides he gets to say things more directly without trying to finagle the characters into representing the ideas.

[This Entry]