jagodasladoled: (alec s.)
( Aug. 28th, 2008 03:29 pm)
 I just found an article by Zadie Smith on E.M. Forster. It was pointed out in the community [profile] british_fiction I copied it and intended to read it later, but the first paragraph caught my eye. I haven't read on, because I don't have the time right now, but I like what she says in this first two  paragraphs, and the way she says it.

All in all, I like this way more than what I read in THIS article, written in 1974 by Andrew Hodges and David Hutter, which I find rather ridiculous in thinking that Forster could have actually brought on homosexual law reform by outing himself, and  agressively attacks him.

So much today, on E.M. Forster.
Before I returned E.M. Forster's novel "The Longest Journey" to the library, a book that took me a while to get into it but that nevertheless ended up being very dear to me, I copied out the following quote.

E.M. Forster on what he calls the `teacup of experience┬┤ in his novel "The longest Journey":

"Oh, that teacup! To be taken at prayers, at friendship, at love, till we are quite sane, quite efficient, quite experienced, and quite useless to God or man. We must drink it, or we shall die.
But we need not drink it always. Here is our problem and our salvation. There comes a moment - God knows when - at which we can say: `I will experience no longer. I will create, I will be an experience.┬┤ But do to this we must be both acute and heroic. For it is not easy, after accepting six cups of tea, to throw the seventh in the face of the hostess."

I really really like it, the style and the metaphor of the teacup and all!
jagodasladoled: (Default)
( Nov. 17th, 2007 05:09 pm)
The past two days while reading the novel "Maurice"  written by E.M. Forster I on one hand couldn't wait to find out what would happen in it,  but then again I  wanted to absorb every line, every sencence of the book.
I found myself re-reading passages, something I normally don't  do,  always dreading to go on with the reading when situations just seemed perfect,  but too curious to allow longer pauses before going on.

Now, having finished the book this afternoon, I count it to my favourite novels (others might be Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Choderlos de Laclos and works by Arthur Schnitzler and tales by E.T.A Hoffmann...) and I regret not to be able to read it again without knowing the storyline.

Now I warned myself to look up the movie on the net to catch a glimpse of when it was done and who the actors are,  because  I didn't want to know it yet as I wanted to keep my personal images in my mind a little longer, at least for a few days or even only this evening.  (Saying that, I must admit that some characters stayed rather blurred, especially I couldn't quite get  hold of Maurice, whereas Clive was easier to imagine-)
BUT: Of course I did look it up and found out that Clive was portrayed by Hugh Grand, which struck me with delight (I haven't been thinking of him while reading, as I hardly think of actors when reading a book) but the visual image I had of the character really matched young Hugh Grant.
The disappointment came when I saw the actor of Maurice: Bright blonde hair whereas he is described several times (! ) in the novel as dark and just a lot different from the actor that portrays him...
Alec on the other hand seems perfect again and a video I watched on youtube made me like the setting and the casting of the other characters. That seems fatal to me ! Everything might be perfect but he main part...  that's annoying me right at the moment, but I will have a shot at the film as soon as I can get hold of it.

Now, after having seen the film, I'm at peace with the casting. Rupert Graves as Alec Scudder is especially great, but James Wilby as Maurice was a good choice after all,  because he does a very good job!

Anyway: Reading "Maurice"  was an emotional up- and down I would have wished to prolong.


jagodasladoled: (Default)


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags