rating: 5.5/5Maurice, as a character, is complicated in his simplicity. He belongs to an upper middle class in 1912 Britain; has a mother and two sisters where he is the head of the household, an Oxford education, a pre-determined job, and a house and servants to manage. His life should be simple… work, marry, produce heirs. And yet he feels different. This novel explores Maurice’s path to finding out just what makes him different and how to reconcile it into his life in a society riddled with class politics. Oh, and yes, to fall in love where his kind of love is condemned and criminalized. Written in 1913/14 but not published until the 70s (after the author’s death), this novel presents an insight into homosexuality at the turn of the century in England. It wasn’t published until that time because Forster feared about the legal and social consequences of writing this novel; however, by the 70s attitudes have changed. The below may contain spoilers in the sense where this novel being so thin on a plot, my emotional response to it and its characters may influence your own, which in this case is an important aspect in reading this novel. Therefore, if you choose not to continue to read, just know that in my opinion this novel is utterly brilliant on so many literary and emotional levels I haven’t even began to explore. Forster is a genius, this novel being a fine example; a definite must read.It took a little while getting used to the turn of the century British style of writing but once I did the payoff was enormous (can’t stress enough just how much depth and brilliance Forster packs into this little short novel with a very simple plot). The best description of this novel is a trip into Maurice’s heart and mind as he’s trying to figure out himself and his role in the highly structured society. Maurice is a character that grew on me. He’s a bit slow and emotionally immature, qualities that are annoying at first but become endearing in the end. From the first moment Forster peals back layer by layer this complicated character as Maurice learns, fumbles, and learns over again. At the same time I love Clive, at least I loved him at first. His quick wit, intelligence, thirst for knowledge and philosophy, as well as Hellenic tendencies (and love for ancient Greece) endeared him to me. And yet, due to Forster’s brilliance I found pity for him at the end as even with all those brilliant qualities, he couldn’t find in himself any understanding and compassion for others (at least others different than him). I love the ending, Clive ‘s intelligence proved to be a determent, he lacked the depth and sophistication that Maurice, even with his limited intelligence, was able to achieve. And Alec, oh Alec, we knew him such a short time but I grew to love him as much as Maurice in the end. The ending is perfect, just brilliantly perfect, and Maurice gets to live happily ever after (in the time that it was written a happy ending to an LGBT novel meant that it encouraged crime and that the criminals got away, that really put it into perspective just how big of a deal it was for Foster to write it so). In the end, I laughed and cried, and felt heartbroken and in love right along with Maurice; it was a very emotionally and intellectually satisfying experience.Movie Note: Based on the novel, Maurice (1987) movie was just as brilliant. With a few minor deviations (differences around the character Risley) and omissions (omitting philosophical discussions and some of the subplots) from the novel, it carries the spirit of it onto the screen. I would recommend watching the movie as well. Plus, a sexy and young Hugh Grant plays Clive and an even hotter Rupert Graves plays Alec.
E.M. Forster (Howards End, A Room With A View) finished this gay-themed novel in 1914, and though he showed it to some close friends, he didn't publish it in his lifetime. It eventually came out after his death, in the early 1970s.What a gift to have a novel about same sex love written a century ago by one of the premier 20th century British authors!When Forster penned Maurice, homosexuality was so taboo that there was no name for it. For a man to be with another man was a criminal offense. One of the most touching things about this very moving book is seeing the protagonist – the closeted, very ordinary stockbroker Maurice – struggling to describe who he is and what he's feeling. He eventually comes up with something about Oscar Wilde. So very sad. But how triumphant for Forster to have written this book and dedicated it "to a happier year." No one would argue that this is Forster's best novel. But it's an invaluable document about a group of men who experience the love that dare not speak its name. I appreciate the fact that Maurice, unlike Forster himself, is a very unremarkable man: he's conservative, a bit of a snob, not very interested in music or philosophy and rather dull. But he's living with this extraordinary secret that affects his entire life. And the book shows how he deals with it, in his secretive relationship with his Cambridge friend Clive Durham, and later with gameskeeper Alec Scudder. It would have been so easy for Forster to write a novel about a sensitive, soulful, brilliant, sympathetic character. How could we not love him, even though he's gay? But that seems to be part of his point. Maurice is a middle-class Everyman – certainly he's not as intelligent as Clive – but isn't he as worthy of love as anyone else?Some details in the book are dated. The language at times feels stilted. The class system isn't as pronounced today as it was then. And of course there's a whole new attitude towards homosexuality and thousands of books to reflect that.But there are still people and organizations trying to "cure" others of homosexuality (think of the group Exodus); young people are still committing suicide because of their sexuality; gays and lesbians are still choosing to live a closeted life by marrying members of the opposite sex; and let's not forget that in some parts of the world, being gay is cause for death.So really: how dated is this book? Considering that authors decades after Forster wrote veiled gay characters in straight drag, or killed off one or more characters (see: Brokeback Mountain), how revolutionary is it to have a gay love story with a happy ending? It's absolutely revolutionary. Now: who's going to write the sequel?
Do You like book Maurice (2005)?
It is quite impossible for me to write an objective review for Maurice, because its mere existence amazes me. So there you go, an "it's amazing", five star rating.The novel is set in that time period where modern technology is starting to seep through homes, but the 20th Century has not quite made itself known yet. There is a character in particular who seems to have been displaced from an Austen novel, as she schemes to make advantageous marriages for her offspring. As such, some of the characters are stuck in the past, while the title character could be interpreted to live beyond his time period.Maurice has been said to be the work where Forster proposes a possible reconciliation of class differences, whereas the rest of his work explores the opposite idea, i.e. social class differences are irreconcilable. Certainly, this novel displays Forster's most optimistic, hopeful and even romantic facets. And there's some merit to the idea. In a society where finding another gay person, especially one who was amenable to the idea of living more or less openly (e.g. not taking a wife), was all but a miracle, social class difference must forcefully take a background role.The novel was written in 1913-14 and had later revisions, which is why it is less miraculous than if it had been written even a couple decades earlier. At that point, the Bloomsbury group, with their push for sexual liberation (if only in their own lives), had gained a little ground for themselves. Still, the various characters featured in Maurice make it clear just how unfriendly society was to those who loved people of the same sex. And so, Maurice is amazing for its portrayal not only of same-sex relationships at a time where expressions like "gay" or "come out of the closet" were not in use, a world where there weren't words, not polite ones, for what Maurice pines for. But also for its belief that love can triumph over societal problems. Maurice may not deserve five stars for the quality of the writing, but it deserves them purely for being a beloved relic of a time past, that was so unimaginable that it had to be kept a secret.
—Aitziber
Irina wrote: "Well? Well? How was it, Lena?"It was good, very British! :) But also noticeably that it was made in the end of 80s-and I don't mean the baby face of Hugh Grant at the beginning! Anyway, I'm very motivated to read the book further!
—Irina
Perfect! There is probably nothing I can write that hasn't been written before about this work from one of our great English authors. It has no doubt been criticised, scrutinised, analysed, investigated, praised and acclaimed, I will just write about how the book made me feel. The style of English was so refreshing to read. A style and mastery that has been long since forgotten. It has a beauty to it that flows and melts coming from an era where conversation really was an art. Where every word was carefully picked and every sentence construction built to hold, last and sit precisely. A rare treat. Forster manages to describe the emotions of gay love by eluding to it but never the vulgar. I ask myself what would he think about our modern romances and language if he could read them today. The book itself was like having my own personal time portal, swept back to a time, though noble also ignorant. A look into, class, social etiquette, traditions, and values of an era gone by. Into this was born Maurice and his fight for happiness begins. He goes through a personal hell and back, jilted by Clive who turns to women, here I reckon Clive was probably what we know to be bi today and was easier for him to bow to the pressures of society although quite possibly a sexless marriage to Anne. Maurice finds his absolution and love in the arms of Scudder the game keeper. An unlikely combination but Scudder's naive acceptance of his homosexuality is refreshing in it's nature. A character that creeps out of the background and has a more profound effect on Maurice than originally anticipated. Maurice goes through an emotional hell and back, looking at his sexual orientation as an abomination, a disease that has no cure, though treatments are sought the internal struggle remains until it nearly drives him to suicidal feelings. This would be all quite normal for this day and age and attitudes from society, you would have no other choice but to stay firmly in the closet and remain there! An extremely lonely feeling. This book was far ahead of its time, therefore the publication after the death of the author in 1971, when society was ready to embrace its message. All I can say for anyone who wishes to read a classic from a master then READ THIS BOOK! It was a pioneering work of its day and anyone who takes their m/m romance literature seriously should read it as a shining example of how we've got to where we are today.
—Mark ~ Sinfully All Male Romance
