![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
argurotoxosMaurice had two dreams at school: they will interpret him.
In the first dream he felt very cross. He was playing football against a nondescript whose existence he resented. [...]
The second dream is more difficult to convey. Nothing happened. He scarcely saw a face, scarcely heard a voice say, "That is your friend," and then it was over, having filled him with beauty and taught him tenderness. He could die for such a friend, he would allow such a friend to die for him; they would make any sacrifice for each other, and count the world nothing, neither death nor distance nor crossness could part them, because "this is my friend." [...]
Maurice's secret life can be understood now; it was part brutal, part ideal, like his dreams.
--From the 2006 paperback edition of Maurice
I bought Maurice this past Thursday evening and had it read by Friday night. It wasn't planned that way; I usually live in books, savouring each one by reading it over a period of weeks or even months so that by time I reach the end, I've become so immersed in the novel that it takes a few weeks before I'm ready to start the next one.
Maurice was different in large part because of the writing style used. Forster's writing is very straight forward and the narration moves along at a moderately quick pace. It's quite different from Renault's, which demands careful reading (and re-reading) if one is to catch the sheer amount of subtleties and layers involved. Another departure from Renault is that Forster writes from third person omniscient while Renault's third person is still mostly through her main character's eyes. The overall result is that Forster's writing feels more like narration while Renault's has an intimate quality based on personal introspection.
So as not to seem like I'm trying to undermine Forster here, his narration is very good narration and he also has a way of using nature and the weather to reflect the current atmosphere and Maurice's state of mind, particularly near the end of the novel. There is something to be said for not having to wade through subtlety and which writing style you prefer strikes me as a matter of personal preference.
Seeing the film beforehand was the other factor that made Maurice a quick read. Most of the scenes from the movie (including the deleted scene) are lifted right from the book, dialogue and all. Moreover, I found that I actually preferred the film to the book, which is relatively rare for me.
The advantage the novel has is that it offers further insight into the inner workings of the characters, particularly regarding Maurice and Clive. There's a chapter that gives a brief description of Clive's childhood and youth, which is something we never see or hear about in the film. The significance of Maurice's line to Scudder - ". . . did you ever dream you had a friend, someone to last your whole life?" - is also made clear in the novel; having a friend for life is one of Maurice's two dreams from his youth that stayed with him into adulthood. These dreams play such an important role in understanding Maurice in the novel that I've selected to quote them at the top instead of the novel summary one the back page as I was originally going to.
There are other changes as well. We see more of Maurice's suffering directly after his breakup with Clive, including Maurice contemplating suicide and eventually giving up the idea when his grandfather dies. Alec Scudder's visit to the London Museum is arranged with Maurice in advance instead of Alec arriving unexpectedly at Maurice's workplace as in the film (though I think the latter actually works better). There is more discussion of Christianity between Maurice and Clive and we see more of how Clive makes Maurice come to terms with things he'd only half be conscious of before.
On the other hand, there is no scandal with Risley to motivate Clive to repress his homosexuality. There also is no discussion in the fields between Maurice and Clive about keeping their relationship Platonic; in the novel Maurice simply accepts from the start it and follows Clive's lead.
It also turns out that Maurice's physical resemblance to Laurie of Renault's The Charioteer in the film version was completely coincidental; in the novel, Maurice has black hair and Clive blond.
There's not any single thing that makes me prefer the film over the novel and there are certainly scenes in the novel that don't appear in the film that I liked, but I think that Clive and Alec are both more relatable and sympathetic characters in the film version.
The novel also features an interesting commentary written by Forster in 1960 at the back.
In the first dream he felt very cross. He was playing football against a nondescript whose existence he resented. [...]
The second dream is more difficult to convey. Nothing happened. He scarcely saw a face, scarcely heard a voice say, "That is your friend," and then it was over, having filled him with beauty and taught him tenderness. He could die for such a friend, he would allow such a friend to die for him; they would make any sacrifice for each other, and count the world nothing, neither death nor distance nor crossness could part them, because "this is my friend." [...]
Maurice's secret life can be understood now; it was part brutal, part ideal, like his dreams.
--From the 2006 paperback edition of Maurice
I bought Maurice this past Thursday evening and had it read by Friday night. It wasn't planned that way; I usually live in books, savouring each one by reading it over a period of weeks or even months so that by time I reach the end, I've become so immersed in the novel that it takes a few weeks before I'm ready to start the next one.
Maurice was different in large part because of the writing style used. Forster's writing is very straight forward and the narration moves along at a moderately quick pace. It's quite different from Renault's, which demands careful reading (and re-reading) if one is to catch the sheer amount of subtleties and layers involved. Another departure from Renault is that Forster writes from third person omniscient while Renault's third person is still mostly through her main character's eyes. The overall result is that Forster's writing feels more like narration while Renault's has an intimate quality based on personal introspection.
So as not to seem like I'm trying to undermine Forster here, his narration is very good narration and he also has a way of using nature and the weather to reflect the current atmosphere and Maurice's state of mind, particularly near the end of the novel. There is something to be said for not having to wade through subtlety and which writing style you prefer strikes me as a matter of personal preference.
Seeing the film beforehand was the other factor that made Maurice a quick read. Most of the scenes from the movie (including the deleted scene) are lifted right from the book, dialogue and all. Moreover, I found that I actually preferred the film to the book, which is relatively rare for me.
The advantage the novel has is that it offers further insight into the inner workings of the characters, particularly regarding Maurice and Clive. There's a chapter that gives a brief description of Clive's childhood and youth, which is something we never see or hear about in the film. The significance of Maurice's line to Scudder - ". . . did you ever dream you had a friend, someone to last your whole life?" - is also made clear in the novel; having a friend for life is one of Maurice's two dreams from his youth that stayed with him into adulthood. These dreams play such an important role in understanding Maurice in the novel that I've selected to quote them at the top instead of the novel summary one the back page as I was originally going to.
There are other changes as well. We see more of Maurice's suffering directly after his breakup with Clive, including Maurice contemplating suicide and eventually giving up the idea when his grandfather dies. Alec Scudder's visit to the London Museum is arranged with Maurice in advance instead of Alec arriving unexpectedly at Maurice's workplace as in the film (though I think the latter actually works better). There is more discussion of Christianity between Maurice and Clive and we see more of how Clive makes Maurice come to terms with things he'd only half be conscious of before.
On the other hand, there is no scandal with Risley to motivate Clive to repress his homosexuality. There also is no discussion in the fields between Maurice and Clive about keeping their relationship Platonic; in the novel Maurice simply accepts from the start it and follows Clive's lead.
It also turns out that Maurice's physical resemblance to Laurie of Renault's The Charioteer in the film version was completely coincidental; in the novel, Maurice has black hair and Clive blond.
There's not any single thing that makes me prefer the film over the novel and there are certainly scenes in the novel that don't appear in the film that I liked, but I think that Clive and Alec are both more relatable and sympathetic characters in the film version.
The novel also features an interesting commentary written by Forster in 1960 at the back.
