The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

I wil be adding some more in the background thread, but it may take me a while. There was a lot in these chapters.

Lucy is finding her life somewhat dull, and takes herself in the piazza for some pictures of artwork. There she witnesses a murder. She is kissed. She attends the picnic where there is chaos at the arrival of a storm, and where the relationships between the individuals of the group seem a bit off. So much for boredom ;-)

Our discussion questions to get us started. Remember any comments you would like to make about the book are welcomed.

1. What impact would being restricted by society and unable to follow their dreams or interests have on a woman's mental and emotional health? What impact would there be if the woman rebelled?

2. What role does art play in society?

3. "It is not exactly that a man had died, something had happened to the living..." (Chapter 4, pg. 52). What happened to the living?

4. Lucy is left to process her experience of the murder alone. What does this say about women's roles? Isolation?

5. Lucy says she "...for the moment understood the nature of ghosts" (Chapter 5, pg. 55) What does Forester mean? How easily are we haunted?

6. Miss Lavish questions Lucy about the murder because she wants to write what appears to be a sensationalist novel. Is prying into others' feelings an integral part of creating art?

7. What is it about human nature that makes us drawn to harrowing experiences, especially vicariously?

8. Mr. Eager says separating the lovers on the drive is victory. Mr. Emerson says it's defeat. Which view, in your opinion is correct? Why?

9. Is "common man" closer to nature than someone from society? Why?

10. What is the importance of the storm? What does it symbolize?

11. What is your opinion of Lucy? Of Charlotte?

I read the book a couple of years ago but I remember Charlotte as being passive/aggressive and an unpleasant character. Lucy is a delight.

Rosemarie wrote: "I read the book a couple of years ago but I remember Charlotte as being passive/aggressive and an unpleasant character. Lucy is a delight."

I, too, feel Charlotte is passive aggressive. I great example of that in these chapters is during the picnic scene with the macintosh squares. She says she will sit on ground yet then makes all types of comments and includes a cough while mentioning the damp.

I sometimes find this book hard to understand, kind of like Henry James.

Other than that, I like it so far and am curious to see what happens next (I saw the movie long ago and remember the ending, but not how they got there).

An interesting thing about this novel is that, so far, there is no one that Lucy feels she truly likes, or can like. Mr. Beebe comes the closest, I guess, but even he comments about it not being proper for her to go out alone on the trams. Then again, I'm not sure if they were safe and he might have been right to tell her not to go. She doesn't know her own feelings about George - she knows how she's supposed to feel about him, but that seems to clash with her own feelings.

Lori wrote: "I sometimes find this book hard to understand, kind of like Henry James.

Other than that, I like it so far and am curious to see what happens next (I saw the movie long ago and remember the endin..."

On the surface, this book may seem simple, yet it has many many layers.

Deborah wrote: "Rosemarie wrote: "I read the book a couple of years ago but I remember Charlotte as being passive/aggressive and an unpleasant character. Lucy is a delight."

I, too, feel Charlotte is passive aggr..."

Charlotte was played in the film by that master of passive-aggression, Maggie Smith. I remember the film well enough to picture all the actors while I read.

Haven't gotten to the picnic scene yet.

Rochelle wrote: "Deborah wrote: "Rosemarie wrote: "I read the book a couple of years ago but I remember Charlotte as being passive/aggressive and an unpleasant character. Lucy is a delight."

I, too, feel Charlotte..."

Maggie Smith is great everything.

At the end of the last section, we were commenting on women's roles and society's expectation and here Forster addresses that at the beginning of this section. Lucy's little rebellions are kind of amusing.

The scene in the square and its aftermath reminded me of A Passage to India - English people abroad not really understanding other cultures, a mysterious moment that drives up unexpected emotions, and a lot of reaction to something that for us, doesn't seem all that momentous. The passion of the violent death, which supposedly includes a kiss, is linked with the kiss that Lucy receives.

The clash of cultures is a recurring theme in Forster's books. In Where Angels Fear to Tread, it's English vs. Italian again. In Howards End, it's 3 different classes of English society. I haven't read Maurice, but I know it concerns homosexuality.

Maurice is a wonderful book.

Why is Forester interested in the restrictions on women? How do they relate to being homosexual?

@11: I am not aware of any direct comments Forster made on the subject, so I can only project from my own experience. I grew up in a community with a large gay contingent (West Hollywood, CA, before gay liberation) as a heterosexual woman, and found a lot of gay men tended to put out sympathetic feelers toward me. Once they discovered that I didn’t worship or serve het male domination, they expressed a strong sense of common cause—women and “womanish” men against the ruling bloc, which devalued me as a woman and them as less masculine. They saw many commonalities between us and an opportunity to challenge together the ruling assumptions of society. Perhaps this might be the genesis of Forster’s identification with the situation of women in the society of his day?

Interestingly enough, when gay lib really developed momentum in the late 1970s, a lot of those same men turned away from their female supporters and began to create a male-only society that was every bit as misogynistic, though in different ways, as het male patterns of misogyny! It was sad and frustrating, especially when a lot of them started getting into self-destructive behavior like haunting the bathhouses, which ultimately (thanks to HIV) cost them their lives. I’m glad the pendulum has swung back to a more balanced and mainstream interpretation of what gay rights means.

Robin wrote: "The passion of the violent death, which supposedly includes a kiss,"

I feel like i missed something about that scene. Where was the kiss and what was he trying to say?

George first kissed her in that scene. But I was put off by the narration too. The violent death didn't include the kiss, it was separate.

How do the tourists reconcile their feeling that Italians are inferior with the grandeur of the art they've created?

Abigail wrote: "@11: I am not aware of any direct comments Forster made on the subject, so I can only project from my own experience. I grew up in a community with a large gay contingent (West Hollywood, CA, befor..."

Because of his time period, I don’t think he would have been able to say things directly. Yet there’s a lot of subtle sexuality in this book. Not only with Lucy and George, but Mr Beebe. The statement in the first week’s chapters about Mr Beebe not really caring for women comes to mind.

Lori wrote: "Robin wrote: "The passion of the violent death, which supposedly includes a kiss,"

I feel like i missed something about that scene. Where was the kiss and what was he trying to say?"

Lori, when George walked Lucy back to the hotel, they stopped by the Arno. He throws her pictures into the Arno because they are covered in blood, and he kisses her.

Rochelle wrote: "How do the tourists reconcile their feeling that Italians are inferior with the grandeur of the art they've created?"

Good question. What do you think?

Deborah wrote: "Lori wrote: "Robin wrote: "The passion of the violent death, which supposedly includes a kiss,"

I feel like i missed something about that scene. Where was the kiss and what was he trying to say?"
..."
I thought there was something else, though, about the killer and victim, that it looked like they embraced or something. I'll have to look back at it.

Deborah wrote: "Rochelle wrote: "How do the tourists reconcile their feeling that Italians are inferior with the grandeur of the art they've created?"

Good question. What do you think?"

Dunno. That's why I asked

Robin wrote: "Deborah wrote: "Lori wrote: "Robin wrote: "The passion of the violent death, which supposedly includes a kiss,"

I feel like i missed something about that scene. Where was the kiss and what was he ..."

The wording doesn't make sense.

Deborah wrote: "He throws her pictures into the Arno because they are covered in blood, and he kisses her."

Oh. I didn't understand that they kissed then. Must have been in Forster's opaque prose. I thought the first time George kissed her was at the picnic.

Robin wrote: "Deborah wrote: "Lori wrote: "Robin wrote: "The passion of the violent death, which supposedly includes a kiss,"

I feel like i missed something about that scene. Where was the kiss and what was he ..."

The killer kissed his victim, embraced him, and stabbed him

Oh.

Lori, I think you are right. At the square, Lucy fainted and George took her in his arms, but he didn't kiss her until the picnic. She felt that even ending up so close to him was wrong. It's interesting that what she says when she is fainting and coming to is "What have I done?" That is, she is somehow at fault - for being out alone, for seeing the murder, for collapsing?

As far as the murder, when Lucy and George are returning and talking about it she says "And the murderer tried to kiss him, you say - how very odd Italians are!" It's kind of a cliché about the Mafia, the kiss of death.

It seems like there's an overlap of death and sex. There is blood on the photos, and even though Lucy had avoided the "pity" of the naked Venus but there still had to be some nude or semi-clothed figures in them. Certainly none of the sculptures or paintings were dressed as Victorian/Edwardian Englishmen or women!

So is sexual attraction and violence two sides of the same coin?

Deborah wrote: "Why is Forester interested in the restrictions on women? How do they relate to being homosexual?"

I think its because of the similarities he sees in the restrictions put on women and that of sexual orientations. At some point most minority groups starts to bond over similarities they see in their groups and in their situations, which starts to link them up and eventually helps them come up with ways to elevate their situation and predicaments. I absolutely loved this book for the insight Forster displays in women's rights movement and a first hint of 'equality', and I felt it was because of his own issues with his sexuality and not been able to live fully (perhaps) that he was observant of the plight of women.
Even in A Passage to India (his most brilliant novel) he was able to sympathize with the natives, since during the British rule the natives were a minority.

Deborah wrote: "So is sexual attraction and violence two sides of the same coin?"

mmmm....controversial question, yet a very good one

I think we can push attraction to violence, but its our consciousnesses that holds our darker side back, hence the societies rules and restrictions, and the 'genteel' upbringing. Constantly reminding us that we are civilized people and not to give in to our animal instincts.
With the Emersons we see the boundaries been pushed, and yet, they are honorable men, quite a paradox for the argument.

Piyumi wrote: "Deborah wrote: "So is sexual attraction and violence two sides of the same coin?"

mmmm....controversial question, yet a very good one

I think we can push attraction to violence, but its our consc..."

Do you think the Emersons come from a country other than Britain? Or are they just pushing the boundaries?

Wow, I never thought to question whether the Emersons were from any place other than Britain...hhmmmm

I think through textual investigation it seems that they are from Britain (but yes they could be from another part of the Western world), but the reason WHY they push boundaries is because of the circumstances they had faced, with his wife 'going under' as he puts it and then eventually dying early on. THIS and the break from church, the sort of curse the clergy had put on their 'thinking' that because they didn't follow church law (baptism) they are facing all these bad incidents (George getting the typhoid and she dying later on).
I've noticed how these types of incidents make people break from society.
As much as my own experience has thought me. I was told my opinions were unfeminine, my looks are not attractive and my need for equality would not help me get a husband (laughable now I know :D, but for a young girl growing up, these Asian narrow minded thinking was suffocating me.) As I've mentioned earlier, I was fortunate enough to be raised abroad and traveled a bit for my education, so I got to meet liberal minded people and be educated in curriculum that helped ME 'push the boundaries'. I think that is why the Emersons travel, so that they can explore other 'thinking'.
But they push boundaries coz they need to make sense of what happened in their past and it does not correlate with the majority and thinking. They didn't fit in and were made to feel like outsiders, so 'they go outside to fit in'.
And also their need to make 'others' think like them. Emerson the older is always trying to get Lucy to think differently, to break from the rhetoric, and breathe.
That is another symptom of people who don't fit in and wanna push boundaries, I should know, I'm always trying to convert people to my way of thinking, at times :D.

6. Miss Lavish questions Lucy about the murder because she wants to write what appears to be a sensationalist novel. Is prying into others' feelings an integral part of creating art?

It felt a little crude to be asking for someone's feeling and report about a murder. Miss Lavish appeared to be just interested for her own benefit, not considering Lucy's emotions. If it was a year or more later, after the murder, it might have been a less sensitive topic. Art is suppose to be a reflection of the artist's feelings and such. Usually, if the artist wants to reflect someone else's feelings, they try to be more tactful and respectful of others. Some artist's would not even consider to interview people, but study other sources and meditate on what it must be like for other people.

For me, this book a little drab, "The Machine Stops" is more interesting to my tastes. The two books seem to be written by two entirely different people. How interesting.

Do artists need to be mercenary in their digging for information?

Piyumi wrote: "Deborah wrote: "Why is Forester interested in the restrictions on women? How do they relate to being homosexual?"

I think its because of the similarities he sees in the restrictions put on women a..."

Hadn't women in England already acquired the vote by 1908?

I just checked.
1918 for women over 30,
1928 for women 21+

Rosemarie wrote: "I just checked.
1918 for women over 30,
1928 for women 21+"

Ah Thanks for checking :)

Deborah wrote: "What impact would being restricted by society and unable to follow their dreams or interests have on a woman's mental and emotional health?..."

Not a favourable one, I believe. I can vouch for it through my own experience.
But still, even today, most women do live in self-denial either for fear of condemnation by the society or the fear to face the disapproval of their families.

Deborah wrote: "Miss Lavish questions Lucy about the murder because she wants to write what appears to be a sensationalist novel. Is prying into others' feelings an integral part of creating art?
..."

Now this is an interesting question. :-) I always thought observation is the most important part of creating an art.

Deborah wrote: "What is your opinion of Lucy? Of Charlotte? ..."

Charlotte is a subtle manipulator. Her sole intention is to secure the good opinion of Mrs. Honeychurch who was her benefactress. Her knowledge of the family and the given strict conventions on class difference makes the form the opinion that any union between George and Lucy is undesirable. Thus she subtly works on separating them and bringing Lucy safely to 'Windy Corner'.

Lucy is naive but spirited. She is of the age where a young woman of her time (who is so protected by the loved ones) tastes the first experiences of life. It can be both pleasurable and yet intimidating which I feel exactly what Lucy is feeling at this point of time.

Piyangie wrote: "Deborah wrote: "What is your opinion of Lucy? Of Charlotte? ..."

Charlotte is a subtle manipulator. Her sole intention is to secure the good opinion of Mrs. Honeychurch who was her benefactress. H..."

She is manipulative and passive aggressive. Was this “skill” needed to help single, poor relation women to survive?