Skip to main content

Abstract

In the course of his ‘summing up’ of E. M. Forster’s Maurice, C. Rising maintains that the novel is a ‘too-autobiographical justification for personal resentment so intensely felt that it robs its characters of charity and its symbolic devices of depth’, and hence ‘simply falls short of art’.1 For him, ‘Maurice at best is personal therapy, at least a fumbling insight into a tortured soul. But is this enough? When one turns to our original question, “Has Forster done a good job?” the answer must be a resounding No followed by a quieter Yes’.2

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. C. Rising, ‘E. M. Forster’s Maurice: A Summing Up’, Texas Quarterly, 17 (1974), p. 93.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Jeffrey Meyers, ‘Forster’s Secret Sharer’, Southern Review, 5 (1972), p. 59.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Evelyne Hanquart, ‘Maurice et E. M. Forster’, Etudes Anglaises, 28 (1975), p. 298.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cynthia Ozick, ‘Forster as Homosexual’, Commentary, 52 (1971), p. 82.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Marvin Mudrick, ‘Fiction and Truth’, Hudson Review, 25 (1972), p. 143.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Arnold Kettle, ‘All for Love’, The New Republic, 9 October 1971, pp. 26–28.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Noel Annan, ‘Love Story’, The New York Review of Books, 21 October 1971, pp. 12–15.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Simon Raven, ‘The Strangeness of E. M. Forster’, Spectator, 225 (1971), p. 237.

    Google Scholar 

  9. P. N. Furbank, E. M. Forster: A Life (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1977 ), I, p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Harry Moore, ed., Letters of D. H. Lawrence to Bertrand Russell ( New York: Gotham Book Mart, 1948 ), pp. 29–31.

    Google Scholar 

  11. E. M. Forster, Aspects of the Novel, ed. Oliver Stallybrass, Abinger edn. ( London: Edward Arnold, 1974 ), p. 75.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wilfred Stone, The Cave and the Mountain: A Study of E. M. Forster ( Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1966 ), p. 135.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 1982 Judith Scherer Herz and Robert K. Martin

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Grant, K. (1982). Maurice as Fantasy. In: Herz, J.S., Martin, R.K. (eds) E. M. Forster: Centenary Revaluations. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-05625-5_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics