Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
chuntzy

A Passage To India - What Did You Think?

Recommended Posts

With such a long and complex book as this it's not easy to put my thoughts together but I'll have a go.

I liked the way the author made me have contradictory feelings about some of the characters. Aziz, for example: sometimes I was rooting for him and at other times he exasperated me. Again, with Adela Quested, I had mixed feelings but felt more sympathetically disposed toward her by the end than I would have thought. Regarding the women of the Raj, Forster leaves us in no doubt as to what we should feel and we shudder along with him.

I think that Forster also conveys well the complexities of India and the reactions of Indian people to the Raj. 'Only connect' is on the title page of his Howards End but it might just as well be on the title page of this novel for, in the end, it's the inability to connect that is a running theme. Only when the British leave India can there be any hope of real friendship between them, says Aziz.

As I wrote on a previous thread, when I was much younger I raced through the novel to get to the Marabar Caves incident: the re-read was more pleasurable as I'm more interested now in the social and political themes.

Yes, there are longeurs and I didn't particularly enjoy the chapter at the end in the Hindu temple etc but for me it was an excellent novel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know Chuntzy, I think you have expressed exactly what I feel about this book.

 

In the beginning, I got really angry at the way the English were made to behave, but it was still very believable to me as a reader. In fact I was positively embarrassed to be English. Forster seems to have portrayed the English so well - from what I know of some of the types who colonized places like India. I think the heated discussion between Ronnie and his mother sets it rather well. He says 'We're not out here for the purpose of behaving pleasantly!' and then 'We're out here to do justice and keep the peace.' and Mrs. Moore responds with 'Your sentiments are those of a god.' and 'Englishment like posing as Gods.'

 

Like you Chuntzy, my allegiances, though never entirely with the British Raj, did swing from Adela to Aziz time and again. I thought both characters were well rounded and yet for me Aziz had the most substance. In the end I could entirely see his point of view and totally believe he was right in saying they could never be friends while the British were in India. I was never sure about Fielding, however, until the end. Then, I felt sadness for his loss of friendship but understanding at its ending.

 

I think the thread that I loved the most was Aziz's love of Mrs. Moore and vice versa. And then at the end when he met Ralph, the spiritual or emotional connection between them, which for me, was tangible and very beautifully written.

 

I have to admit I enjoyed this book far more than I expected. It did take a while to get into, but then seemed to rattle along at quite a pace until, as you say Chuntzy, we got to the Temple. And yet, although this section went into infinite and seemingly endless and unnecessary detail, it did paint a marvelous picture of time, place and people.

 

My copy (Penguin Classics) has a great deal of reading matter in the form of Preface, Appendices and Notes, many of which I have left unread. Not sure if that's a good thing or bad, but it is the way I chose to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved this book. I am always interested in history and what is going on at other places in the world. Since I am not British, this part of the World history was taught, but it was probably not as important as it was for you at school. During the last couple of years, I have read quite a few books about this part of the world and have got to know both Indians who were born and raised there as well as British people whose ancestors were from India and still live in quite an Indian society in Britain.

So, it was very interesting to read about the part before India's independence.

By the way, I know exactly how you feel about being British, I get that all the time, after all, I am German. The thing is, we cannot change history, we can only try to understand how it happened and try to raise our children in a way that it will never happen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took it mainly as a description of life of the British in the colonies and how the relations between them and the local people were at the time. Of course, it is a novel, but Forster lived at the time and I'm sure it was also meant as a reflection of society. That's what I like about classic novels, they show you another time through the eyes of someone who had first-rate experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very late posting on this topic. I've only just managed to finish watching the film.

 

Some key points and quotes that during reading the book I noted at the time...

 

Aziz expected Adela to know about his religion and beliefs and what differences the fact that he was an Indian made – and was offended when she didn't. All of the characters made assumptions about others … demonstrating their ignorance of their culture, beliefs etc. The story highlighted that the main differences were cultural.

 

Mosque – Chapter 2. When Aziz says that few ladies take the trouble to remove their shoes, especially if they think no-one is there to see them, Mrs Moore responds "That makes no difference. God is here."

 

Caves – Chapter 14. Mrs Moore felt "that though people are important the relations between them are not … centuries of carnal embracement, yet man is no nearer to understanding man."

 

Caves – Chapter 16. Aziz "was inaccurate because he was sensitive. He did not like to remember Miss Quested's remark … because it was unworthy of a guest , so he put it from his mind… ."

 

Caves – Chapter 16. "Loving them both, he expected them to love each other. They didn't want to."

 

Caves – Chapter 20. "Although Miss Quested had not made herself popular with the English, she brought out all that was fine in their character."

 

Caves – Chapter 20. "…emotion gushed forth, which the women felt more keenly than the me, if not for so long."

 

Caves – Chapter 24. To the suggestion that Mr Das was "more frightened of acquitting than convicting, because if he acquits he'll lose his job." "Ronny did mean that, but he cherished 'illusions' about his own subordinates."

 

Caves – Chapter 26. "And the girl's sacrifice – so creditable according to Western notions – was rightly rejected, because, though it came from her heart, it did not include the heart."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only just finished the book (and not seen the film). As someone from an Asian background, brought up in the UK, I suppose I can understand and identify with both the Raj and the Indian side. Eg obviously the English apart from Fielding, Mrs moore and Miss Quested are all unsufferable bores and bigots (though in some ways well-meaning), but the the Indian faults are also laid bare - mainly the lack of plain speaking and an economy with the truth. It is so true of the East that losing face is the worst thing that can happen, worse than telling lies for instance. Aziz who is honest and open in many ways is also guilty of this - eg the way that he makes rodiculous excuses for not attending the garden party. When the other doctor presses him, he is angered by the other doctor's obvious "lack of breeding"! He should have accepted Aziz's excuses, weak as they were, instead of pressing him for the truth. Aziz's whole problem with the Marabar Hills incident, in fact, stems from his unwillingness to lose face. He foolishly invites the British women to his home as an expansive gesture, not realising that they would take it seriously. "When shall we come?" seems to be a question that takes him by surprise. He ends up concocting the trip to the Marabar as a way of avoiding having to invite them to his house. (The scene at the garden Party is also very amusing where two of the Indian ladies invite Mrs Moore and Miss Q to their house for tea. "When shall we come?" "Oh any time?" "Which day?" "Any day?"!)

 

I found the ending a bit unsatisfying. At first I though that the collision of the boats was going to end in some dreadful drowning tragedy. I would have ended the book with Miss Q also coming out with Fielding, Stella and Ralph. The boats would collide and capsize and somehow Miss Quested would save Aziz's life but lose her own. He would the be left bitterly regretting how much he had misunderstood and misjudged her. Also, I would have enlarged on Stella's character and shown her to be beautiful but empty and shallow like the Raj women (perhaps Forster is hinting at this anyway when Fielding says that she isn't walking the same path with them and wants Aziz to talk to her). Fielding would be left reflecting on his own shallowness - the fact that he had preferred Stella's beauty to Adela's good-heartednesss and depth of character.

 

Several people have said that they have started Howrads Enda s a result of reading this. How did you get on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Several people have said that they have started Howards End as a result of reading this. How did you get on?

 

I loved Howards End as well, but for very different reasons as it is quite a different book, but also tackling differences between people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An excellent novel, if not quite a great one. To me this is the least schematic of Forster's novels, although it's still pretty schematic - i.e. goodies and baddies, as you point out, Woofwoof. I got a bit bored with the temple fantasy which attempts to do justice to the Hindu position, as opposed to the Christian and Moslem ones. I never quite got clued up on 'Boom' either. Even so, I can't imagine there ever being a better novel about India, at least from a Westerner's perspective. (Though John Murray's short story 'Natural Learning' comes close).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read all of Forster's novels in order, and I think that this is his best written book.

 

In the earlier books, there's always some event (usually violent) which is important, but which Forster barely hints at; major characters can be wiped out in half a sentence. Here, we have the incident in the caves. What exactly happened? How can we be sure? Forster himself claimed not to know for sure. At least in this book, it doesn't really matter. What happens after is what concerns Forster, so I didn't mind this mystery at the heart of the book.

 

"Only connect" is a theme that runs through every one of his earlier books. In fact, one could argue that he wrote the same book again and again. Until this one. "Not yet" is the message of this book. How pessimistic is this? How true is it? I think Forster is soberly ammending his earlier thesis after the horrors of WWII, and now wants it to read: "Only try to connect." A ray of hope, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, one could argue that he wrote the same book again and again.
Interesting that because John Le Carre has actually admitted that that is what he has done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting that because John Le Carre has actually admitted that that is what he has done.

 

And on the 'Only Connect' theme, Salman Rushdie said last week on Start the Week that his over-riding 'message' is to try to connect East and West. It's a gigantic ambition, going back of course to Rudyard Kipling, appropriate for one born in Bombay and educated at an English boarding school. Forster, I think, handles it pretty adroitly in Passage to India, showing the faults and virtues of the three sides of the triangle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Flingo
      Rescued Thread When Bill has caught up with some things, please can we have the forum for this back, and then get it moved? Cheers!



      Flingo 8th June 2006 11:06 PM

      I thought in Bill's absense we could start a couple of threads about Holes here and have the discussion that so many people are keen to do before we forget what we want to say. It should be able to be moved once the new board is open, shouldn't it?

      So what are people's first impressions? I know some people have finished it - but please remember anyone could call in here, so spoiler if necessary!

      I really enjoyed Holes. My children's librarian mentor has been urging me to read this for ages but I had never got round to it, and am now really disappointed that I left it so long!

      It's really clever, although it takes a bit to understand where all the threads of the story are going.

      The writing is so easy to read, and you feel drawn in almost immediately. I could felt the heat of Camp Green Lake radiating out of the book - a huge acheivement!



      megustaleer 8th June 2006 11:34 PM

      I read it some years ago, and loved it. I really don't know why it has not been a bigger hit as a 'crossover' book. I thought that the way all those plot threads were neatly tied up was just so satisfying, and so clever!

      Have just checked my reading list, and it is six years since I read it, and I can still remember quite a lot of it; it really made an impression!



      katrina 9th June 2006 06:02 PM

      Hey, this is my second read of this book in a year, as I had to read it at the start of my PGCE course, its a really popular keystage 3 yext. I prefered it this time around, the first time I was annoyed by it, but I can't remember why now.

      Thought the writing was good, and the sense of the lake and the heat were well depicted.



      Momo 9th June 2006 06:20 PM

      I can well imagine that it's six years since Meg read it. My oldest son read it when he was a year younger than my youngest one is now and he is five years older. It had just come out otherwise he would have done it earlier as my younger one has.
      Anyway, even though both my boys had read it, I never did so myself. Somehow it always seemed like a book for little boys. So, I was pleasantly surprised when it wasn't that at all. (We even have the DVD and I never watched that either!)
      I will recommend this book to anyone. It's a quick read, yet very interesting and there is a lot in this. More than last month's read.



      katrina 10th June 2006 08:30 AM

      I was wondering if anybody had watched the film version of the book, if I have time this week I'm going to borrow it from school and take a peak at it, I've heard its quite a good adaptation



      Flingo 10th June 2006 10:45 AM

      I picked it up on Wednesday, and will be watching it tomorrow.

      I think we ought to have a thread about the film in this section, so that we can discuss comparisons and similarities? Whoever watches it first can start that!



      megustaleer 16th June 2006 08:56 AM

      belweb says on another thread that she thought the plot was full of holes! I beg to differ! The thing that I like about this book is that there are no 'holes', everything is all neatly sewn up at the end!

      Admittedly a lot of the connections are contrived, but I thought that was part of the humour of the book. My reactions were along the lines of 'Well I Never!! and 'Who'd've Thought It!' , and I thought it was all very cleverly brought to a satisfying (if not necessarily satisfactory) conclusion.

      I wouldn't have accepted the neat conclusion in a serious adult novel, but 'Horses for Courses', eh? And there's plenty of food for thought in there, too.

      The book probably suffered from being read in the middle of reading for an Eng. Lit. degree. I'm sure it wouldn't stand comparison to the other books occupying belwebb's thoughts.



      Momo 16th June 2006 01:45 PM

      I don't know either what kind of holes belwebb saw in this novel. As Meg already mentions, and we all should consider this, this is a children's book. We cannot expect deep meanings that you will only understand after studying English Lit.



      belwebb 16th June 2006 05:28 PM
       
       
       
      Yes, you've made some valid points. However, when you say 'contrived' I think that's the word I should have used - it was incredibly contrived, but then, like you say, I was in the middle of an English lit course!



      elfstar 16th June 2006 06:38 PM

      I enjoyed this book, it had a nice 'roundness' to it,there was no unhappy or unresolvesd ending for the protagonist, the characters were not as deep as they could have been but it is a childrens book and a such it was very acceptable



      donnae 19th June 2006 11:17 PM

      I really enjoyed this book. I loved how the story of the past was neatly interlinked with Stanley's story. Contrived maybe, but very enjoyable still. At least it ties up a lot more ends than last month's read!
       


      As this was a children's story, I liked the manner in which the anti-racialism was dealt with, not too heavy-handed. There were some obvious morals going on in the book, but they didn't overshadow the story.

      There is a sequel to Holes called Small Steps. This follows the lives of Armpit and Xray.

      Holes is a book I will be encouraging my children to read - I think they will all enjoy it. One of my daughters has watched the film and enjoyed it. Flingo, have you watched it yet?



      Adrian 20th June 2006 01:50 AM

      I was thinking the same thing, donnae. It's pretty obvious when you read it.



      megustaleer 20th June 2006 09:34 PM

      Because it is a children's book, and apparantly a straightforward account of Stanley's misadventures, perhaps there is a tendency to whiz through it without picking up the clues?

      Once you know how it all fits together, of course, a lot of it was clearly hinted at in advance.

      Hindsight's a wonderful thing!



      Adrian 20th June 2006 09:52 PM

      I certainly did that, not giving the book its due respect and racing through it. I'll have to re-read it, or maybe listen to the audio version.



      Flingo 23rd June 2006 08:47 PM
       
      I did watch it - though it was really nicely done. Louis Sachar actually wrote the screenplay, which I think helped keeping it true to the book.

      Recommend watching it if you enjoyed the book.
       
    • By Adrian
      This is for people who have read just the first few chapters. If you haven't yet, reading the following will be a spoiler.





      I watched the R&J review and have bought the book. So far I'm maybe a dozen pages into it.

      I'm not loving the double first-person narrative. It reminds me of Kevin Sampson's Outlaws, where the same story is told from multiple viewpoints. I find it just detracts from the story, and makes the book feel a bit gimmicky. Maybe it'll grow on me as I read more, and it certainly won't stop me reading it.

      Secondly, I'm not yet buying into this "Chrono-Displacement Disorder" plot device. It's too Sci-Fi for my liking, and just too "handy" for the author: "I need to have the guy time travel, so here's how I've made it happen." I'm hoping it's resolved later on. If it's a premise I have to swallow just so the book could be written I'll be disappointed.

      As you might have guessed, I'm not wholly convinced just yet.

      What's your first impressions of the book?
    • By Adrian
      I'm about halfway through (he's spending Christmas with her family and has just found out her Mum's a manic depressive - and after reading this book, love, so am I), and unless I get I get some positive feedback here, I'm giving up.

      I posted my first impressions earlier, and I'm afraid it's getting worse.

      Firstly it didn't grab me from the start and I read other books inbetween - always a bad sign. Still, I vowed to stick with it, and once I got past the awkward narrative structure it improved. The enforced double-narrative seemed a little contrived, and I felt whenever the authour switched voices in mid-scene Niffenegger was really forcing the change of voice to make it obvious it was now the other person narrating. Seemed a bit like Kevin Samson writing in Outlaws, where each narrator gets his own unique voice.

      Secondly, the basic premise of the novel, time travel, is mishandled and cack-handedly written. Two versions of himself in the same time frame? (Believe me ladies, if we could do that to ourselves the human race would be extinct). Some evolutionary mishap in the human genome being allowed to rewrite the laws of physics? Those I could live with, but TTW is just an affront to basic common sense. I keep asking myself questions instead of losing myself in the book. Why just appear now? Why just disappear now? More important is the where? How does he go to a particular place as well a particular time?

      Also, the nastiness of the bloke: "I can't help myself so I can do whatever I like." Beat people up? Sure! Rob and steal? Why not! Buy stocks cheap? Who wouldn't! Run naked through the neighbourhood? Well, I tried this, and the police would just not believe my story!

      Most importantly, I don't care about the love story. So he loves her and they love each other, and so forth. I find both of them so insufferable that I don't care about their relationship(s).

      I'm half-heartedly interested in the secondary goings on. I like Kimy, and I like Clare's room-mate, but can't stand the room-mate's boyfriend.

      My current thinking is, "This is not a book to tossed away lightly. It is to hurled with great force."

      I'd like either an incentive to finish it (bearing in mind I have a long list of others waiting on my TBR pile) or, preferably, a precis of the ending. I'm guessing she dies of some disease he can't prevent, and he knows it (of course he knows it, he just can't get involved in any ethical situation that would ruin the house-of-cards plot), but doesn't tell her.

      God, I hate them both. Hey Audrey, try going back in time before Stephen Fry wrote Making History.
    • By Mad Dog & Glory
      Having finally finished The Time Traveler's Wife last night (yes, I know, I'm a bit behind), I was left feeling a little dissatisfied. I loved it for around 200 pages, but then I thought it tailed off badly and left a lot of unanswered questions. Not only the time travel - I had no problems with suspending disbelief, although the most unbelievable part was that they were allowed to lead a 'normal' life, rather than Henry being captured and studied by the US government.

      It's the so-called 'normal' life that concerns me. It seems incredible that I could read a 500+ page novel centring almost exclusively on two characters, and at the end not really have much of an idea of each other's personalities or how they went about their daily lives. At one point, Henry buys a lottery ticket knowing the result and wins several million dollars, so Clare can have a studio. No other mention is made of this. So are they millionaires? They seem to live in normal-sized house, in a normal street. So what do they do with themselves when Henry isn't time travelling? They're not watching TV, as Henry can't. They can't spend all of their time in bed.

      The other huge problem with the novel is lack of conflict, which is essential to all drama. Henry and Clare have this 'perfect' relationship, and are only unhappy with each other over the miscarriages. There were all sorts of potential themes and conflicts that Niffenegger shied away from. Why does Clare never question the fact that this man came into her life at the age of 5 and, as they say, ruined her for other men?
      Niffenegger seems so intent on making this the perfect love story that she misses a lot of tricks.

      My guess is that Audrey Niffenegger will be a one-hit wonder. She came up with a brilliant idea, and also came up with a good structure (although some disagree), and played out every permutation of time travelling possible. But in the end a great idea can get you only so far, and I don't feel she has the skills as a novelist to get as much out of the story as was potentially there.
×
×
  • Create New...