Anyone want to talk about Donne or A Passage to India with me?

[StringFever]

I've found that the best way to revise for Lit is to discuss - in that way, I can talk views and values; and why they may or may not work. Also, by talking to relative strangers, I become aware of alternative readings that I never encountered.

So just maybe I'll offer a few points about Donne's poetry and India, and hope this thread grows into something beautiful and worthwhile for those fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to study the aforementioned texts.

Donne:
* The distinction between public and private audience (as seen quite clearly in perhaps "His Mistress" and "Song" respectively), and how that shapes the poet's language use and, by extension, use of conceits.
* The recurring motif of subject/s of poems being objects of Donne's love and affection (even in the later Divine poems)

A Passage to India
* Forster embracing and endorsing the Hindu/Oriental lifestyle as a means of explaining the "spiritual muddledom" of India
* Because "India" in "in compartments", the only link between the separate entities that make up the "hundred Indias" are the Hindu/Orientals.

Discuss?

[iamdan08]

It has been a while since i have looked at a Passage to India but i think this thread is a good idea.

I found with A Passage to India, Forster imparted a lot of his own personal traits into the character of Mrs Moore, who was portrayed as "the ideal British woman" because of her accepting and anti-racial attitudes that were so different from the majority of the British living in India at the time. After she died, i felt Forster changed her character from a mortal woman into something greater, a symbol or even a God. I thought this was shown particularly in the scene outside the courtroom when the Indian public started shouting her name, because it showed that even despite her death, her presence and the influence she had was still felt.

[StringFever]

You know, I heard a really interesting reading that suggested that Forster made Fielding a representation of himself - like Fielding, Forster did not see Christianity as the all-encompassing religion that could explain the mysteries of the world. By that same token, Fielding and Forster were outcasts in a highly facile and vacuous society (The Club) - Fielding for his liberal humanist views, and Forster for his homosexuality, something not particularly "tolerated" in England at the time.

For Mrs. Moore, on the other hand, I personally believe that she is an Oriental/Hindu, and like Godbole, she manages to survive India; by that I mean, she leaves India in the same fascinated state she arrived in. Similarly, there's this very non-Western idea of reincarnation that is applied to Mrs. Moore; as you mentioned, she reappears in the courtcase as "Esmiss Esmoor", the Hindu goddess, but she also reappears in the form of her son, Ralph, who also shares the same timidness and "premature aging"...

I mean, does that sound too far-fetched?

[iamdan08]

You know, I heard a really interesting reading that suggested that Forster made Fielding a representation of himself - like Fielding, Forster did not see Christianity as the all-encompassing religion that could explain the mysteries of the world. By that same token, Fielding and Forster were outcasts in a highly facile and vacuous society (The Club) - Fielding for his liberal humanist views, and Forster for his homosexuality, something not particularly "tolerated" in England at the time.

Yes, i think i remember reading something about that. Through writing A Passage to India, Forster was potentially ostracizing himself from his peers and many people in England at the time, since he is almost antagonising the British in his novel and portraying them as petty in some of the scenes when they are insulting the Indians attempts to conform to the British way of life (particularly in the scene where they had that party and the Indians were on one side and the British on the other-sorry memory a little fuzzy).

For Mrs. Moore, on the other hand, I personally believe that she is an Oriental/Hindu, and like Godbole, she manages to survive India; by that I mean, she leaves India in the same fascinated state she arrived in. Similarly, there's this very non-Western idea of reincarnation that is applied to Mrs. Moore; as you mentioned, she reappears in the courtcase as "Esmiss Esmoor", the Hindu goddess, but she also reappears in the form of her son, Ralph, who also shares the same timidness and "premature aging"...

I mean, does that sound too far-fetched?

No, you have made a good point, and that doesn't sound too far fetched at all! Actually, I remember my lit teacher saying something about  "esmiss esmoor" and her Goddess influence.

I didn't actually do A passage to India on the exam, and i'm just going by what i remember from the sac, but i think the ideas you have are very good!!!

[StringFever]

I got a prac exam back, and got an average mark; I got told that it was a good idea to talk about HOW the text creates meaning rather than WHAT meaning it creates - so I am wondering what they mean by that? Do I perhaps focus more heavily on language use?!

Do you have any tips for a good response which isn't too "dry" and "WHAT"-orientated? Haha!

[iamdan08]

Yeah language use is a big one and apparently assessors love it lol. It is all about how the writer uses language to create an image in the readers mind. Things such as word choice, how they sound, do they force the reader to so slow down through use of vowels (they take longer to pronounce) or speed up, sentence length, connotations of words, literary techniques (metaphors etc.), contrasting words, tone. All these things talk about HOW the writer has created meaning in their work.

[simpak]

HOW it creates meaning, would be Forster's constant satirical and ironic tone highlighting the futility of the human attempt to stage a "feeble invasion" upon the face of the universe.

I don't talk about Oriental/British stuff.  Or Racism.
I talk about unity of groups in the novel sometimes, maybe, if it fits.
I focus my main contentions around the irony in humanity's sense of false power in a universe that will never be comprehensive to man's simple logic and structure; how there is a greater truth that Forster implies that we cannot understand.

So, yeah.
I tend not to work well with discussions because my ideas are too different, but I thought I would add that in.  I spent most of my time talking about the conflicting logic of man with the overruling truth of the universe.
And it's not rejected by the examiners.  An external examiner marked my practice at an 18/20.

[StringFever]

HOW it creates meaning, would be Forster's constant satirical and ironic tone highlighting the futility of the human attempt to stage a "feeble invasion" upon the face of the universe.

I don't talk about Oriental/British stuff.  Or Racism.
I talk about unity of groups in the novel sometimes, maybe, if it fits.
I focus my main contentions around the irony in humanity's sense of false power in a universe that will never be comprehensive to man's simple logic and structure; how there is a greater truth that Forster implies that we cannot understand.

So, yeah.
I tend not to work well with discussions because my ideas are too different, but I thought I would add that in.  I spent most of my time talking about the conflicting logic of man with the overruling truth of the universe.
And it's not rejected by the examiners.  An external examiner marked my practice at an 18/20.

Haha, I don't doubt it. I'm sure you have evidence from the text to back it up.

But I was wondering - doesn't Forster offer Hinduism as a means of "understanding" a world that does not necessarily conform to the Christian or Muslim sensibility (e.g. logic, order and reason).

[simpak]

HOW it creates meaning, would be Forster's constant satirical and ironic tone highlighting the futility of the human attempt to stage a "feeble invasion" upon the face of the universe.

I don't talk about Oriental/British stuff.  Or Racism.
I talk about unity of groups in the novel sometimes, maybe, if it fits.
I focus my main contentions around the irony in humanity's sense of false power in a universe that will never be comprehensive to man's simple logic and structure; how there is a greater truth that Forster implies that we cannot understand.

So, yeah.
I tend not to work well with discussions because my ideas are too different, but I thought I would add that in.  I spent most of my time talking about the conflicting logic of man with the overruling truth of the universe.
And it's not rejected by the examiners.  An external examiner marked my practice at an 18/20.

Haha, I don't doubt it. I'm sure you have evidence from the text to back it up.

But I was wondering - doesn't Forster offer Hinduism as a means of "understanding" a world that does not necessarily conform to the Christian or Muslim sensibility (e.g. logic, order and reason).

Yes and no?
I feel that Hinduism is offered more as an acceptance of the fact that the universe cannot be understood.
Read Godbole's little rattle on about his acceptance of how minuscule his own existence is.
The fact that he can accept that he can call to God but God will not come, as he explains the song in the tea party, and Mrs Moore isn't so happy with that idea explains their different views quite well.
In a way he offers the religion as an 'understanding' I suppose.
But at the same time, I think he is trying to convey that there is no need for the structure of Christianity or British regime in Hinduism, and that those who follow the Hindu faith are happy within the clutter and "muddle" without a logical explanation for their worth.

[StringFever]

I reckon that Hinduism is endorsed by this novel - both in the narrative-sense and language use. I definitely agree with you that Hindus, like Godbole, believe that their existences are miniscule; but I firmly believe that Forster contends that (and I paraphrase) "Hinduiusm offers an explanation to things Christianity cannot" - its all-encompassing nature allows followers to be live happily in a spiritual-muddledom.

In the narrative, we see that Mrs. Moore, the Oriental, being the sole survivor of the Marabars/India. Unlike Aziz, Fielding or Adela; Mrs. Moore leaves the India in the same state she arrived - in absolute awe of the country. As the trees and land farewelled her, we are told that her final thoughts are of the places she had not seen - sentiments closer to the Mrs. Moore we saw at the mosque rather than the nihilistic, snippy woman affected by the "boum". Therefore, the Hindu religion seems adept at preparing its followers for the mystery of India, something Christianity and Islam are unable to do.

Also, stylistically, we see Forster's "richest" writing in the Hindu scenes. For example, in the Krishna scenes in 'Temple', we are confronted with a wall of vivid descriptions - its almost as if Forster is trying to smother us with something large and shapeless, something that defies logic. This is in stark contrast to passages about Anglo-India or Aziz, where Forster seems to write with irony or a sense of tongue-in-cheek. Compared to those scenes, Forster seems to be writing most "sincerely" (without irony) in the Hindu scenes - perhaps suggesting that he tolerated it more than Islamic or Christian scenes...

[simpak]

I have no doubt that he endorses the Hindu religion, and perhaps it may seem like he is implying that it brings the individual one step closer to a proper understanding of the muddled universe.
But, I don't think that it offers any explanation for anything, other than the explanation that human existence is minuscule.  I think it's neglect to offer any logical meaning that Forster attempts to make clear.

[StringFever]

Yeah, I think Forster likes to "pan out" for want of a better term to reveal that human concerns are rather unimportant - for example, Aziz's concerns post-trial are then juxtaposed against a world that never stops (with the men and the oxen) to show how insignificant it is...

Out of curiosity, do you think this novel offers anything meaningful/significant about human relationships?

[simpak]

I think that one of the certain comments on human connection occurs as the novel closes, and the land and the sky oppose the union of Aziz and Fielding.  But then, that could be more of a comment on the broader union of imperialists and natives...
I suppose that each of the characters can be viewed in a broader sense when Forster 'pans out' to be representatives of certain sectors of culture and behavior, but at the same time I suppose they're all still people and their connections are created to be meaningful...
At the same time, I generally choose not to focus on that side of things in my analysis pieces.
I'm not entirely sure what he is saying, to be entirely honest.  But I think that there is something there.

Your thoughts? 

[StringFever]

Well, for me, India presents a myriad of incomplete unions and I think Forster contends that India (and its inhabitants) are to be kept in "compartments" due to its mysterious nature. Not only do we see it in Aziz and Fielding at the end of the novel (where the personified Indian earth balks at the idea of their union); but also we example time and time again where unions never eventuate or fail. An example that springs to mind is Fielding missing the train. Another, more obscure one, is when the omniscient narrator notes that the flame were unable to "unite" in the caves.

If I may go off on a bit of a tangent, I think the novel is trying to explain that human relations are possible; but only when people give in to the all-encompassing nature of love. Unless people give up exclusiveness (like the people of the Club, and Moeslims - who I believe Forster views to have the same - although not as severe - sense of restriction as the Christians), they will never be able to unite. Perhaps my only evidence to support this is that in the novel, different "compartments" are brought together by an Oriental/Hindu (the embodiments of all-encompassing love). In Part I the Christians and Hindus are unified successfully by Mrs. Moore (and to an extent Godbole - who, according to the narrator, was the perfect union of East and West). In Part III, Ralph acts as a similar bridge. All other acts of union (Bridge Party) are considerable failures, because there is no Hindu to bridge the gaps that have are inherent in the ordered "compartments".

Thoughts?
Hopefully, I don't sound too batshit crazy when I'm talking about this stuff; but I honestly like discussing this stuff more than social crit etc.

[simpak]

Well, for me, India presents a myriad of incomplete unions and I think Forster contends that India (and its inhabitants) are to be kept in "compartments" due to its mysterious nature. Not only do we see it in Aziz and Fielding at the end of the novel (where the personified Indian earth balks at the idea of their union); but also we example time and time again where unions never eventuate or fail. An example that springs to mind is Fielding missing the train. Another, more obscure one, is when the omniscient narrator notes that the flame were unable to "unite" in the caves.

If I may go off on a bit of a tangent, I think the novel is trying to explain that human relations are possible; but only when people give in to the all-encompassing nature of love. Unless people give up exclusiveness (like the people of the Club, and Moeslims - who I believe Forster views to have the same - although not as severe - sense of restriction as the Christians), they will never be able to unite. Perhaps my only evidence to support this is that in the novel, different "compartments" are brought together by an Oriental/Hindu (the embodiments of all-encompassing love). In Part I the Christians and Hindus are unified successfully by Mrs. Moore (and to an extent Godbole - who, according to the narrator, was the perfect union of East and West). In Part III, Ralph acts as a similar bridge. All other acts of union (Bridge Party) are considerable failures, because there is no Hindu to bridge the gaps that have are inherent in the ordered "compartments".

Thoughts?
Hopefully, I don't sound too batshit crazy when I'm talking about this stuff; but I honestly like discussing this stuff more than social crit etc.

Sorry I haven't been online in ages.  And now I'm ill D:  Perfect time for it, with the English exam on Friday and then Biology on the Monday.  Lovely.

Reading what you have said, I can only agree.  The only way that I further extend on that idea is to talk about the incomplete union of humanity and the universe, and that of truth and logic.  I think I will considering focusing more in depth on the relations between the characters in the passages after reading your ideas

And yes, I don't talk about social crit stuff at all.
In fact, we were told not to.  It's only a surface level, really.