VCE Stuff > VCE Literature

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

<< < (3/5) > >>

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:

--- Quote from: StringFever on October 13, 2009, 10:27:21 pm ---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.

--- End quote ---

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page