I think the novel suggests that people want to believe in Fate, but more often than not, there are sensible reasons for events falling out the way they do. That was the premise of the discussion about Cecil running into the Emersons at the National Gallery. George says, “I have reflected. It is Fate.” And Mr. Beebe responds:
He then goes on to tell George that the reason he met Cecil is that they are both interested in Italian art: “There you are, and yet you talk of coincidence and Fate. You naturally seek out things Italian, and so do we and our friends. This narrows the field immeasurably, and we meet again in it."
I didn’t find the coincidences in the book to be extreme and they didn’t bother me a bit. After all, there are a lot of little coincidences in real life, too, that we always marvel over.
I read the book eons ago, saw the movie in 1985 and always had fond memories of it as a lovely little love story. I was pleasantly surprised to find it’s a lot more than that. I had forgotten how witty it was and how satiric.
Don’t many books hinge on some bit of coincidence or fate? Thomas Hardy’s novels are full of such examples, the most notable one being when the letter slipped under a door goes under the mat and so never gets seen. But I think while chance perhaps gives things a nudge - that’s life. You meet a person because you were at a bar, you were in the same dorm, you were in the same pension… It is the people who actually take the actions that move the plot along.
I was very surprised to discover that the Honeychurches weren’t really upper-class. I think that is part of Cecil’s smugness about the classes mixing being a good thing. Lucy was close enough to his class to do. I don’t think he’d ever have gone for George’s sister if he’d had one. I think both Lucy’s mother and Mr. Beebe had some snobby feelings about Lucy having married down. I prefer to think that they will be forgiven. If for no other reason than England changed enormously in that period accelerating with World War One. The aristocracy was losing its power and the middle and working class gaining theirs. (Think Downton Abbey. )
Oh, and best chapter title ever, “The Reverend Arthur Beebe, the Reverend Cuthbert Eager, Mr. Emerson, Mr. George Emerson, Miss Eleanor Lavish, Miss Charlotte Bartlett, and Miss Lucy Honeychurch Drive Out in Carriages to See a View; Italians Drive Them.”
“one day music and life shall mingle” - Lucy is alive and is herself when playing music.
Did anyone else think Mr. Beebe was in love with Lucy? I think Mr. Beebe fails to support Lucy with George because he is in love with her. He didn’t think Cecil or George was right for Lucy. Even if Mr. Beebe never admits his love for Lucy, to her or to himself, it still impacts how he sees others with her.
Oh Mr. Beebe is an interesting character! Having read Maurice and knowing that Forster was a closeted homosexual I saw him as someone who is forced into celibacy. There’s only very subtle clues. Early on (Chapter 3) there is this passage:
I also thought it interest that he describes Cecil as an “ideal bachelor” like himself “better detached”. Maybe Cecil was such an inept kisser, because he really wasn’t that interested in females.
Apparently there are also some early versions of the manuscript where Mr. Beebe seems more intrigued by George.
I like the ambiguity. Mr. Beebe clearly wants people to discover their passions, but then is upset when they follow through. In the end he sublimates his feelings passively by listening to Lucy’s music.
Was I the only one surprised at his quickly Mrs Lavishedfinyshwd writing and published her novel with details about George and Lucy in the field of violets? It fren takes some time in the US for a new author to get anything published.
The timing was fortuitous for Lucy & George, but curious.
I do know masters of passive aggressiveness like Miss Charlotte Bartlet. I find them very difficult to tolerate for any period of time, even if they are relatives
Oh yes, there are many Charlottes in the world. In my world, at least.
I’m going to stop reading classics on my Kindle. When I started this on my Kindle, I did understand Forster’s sarcasm and wit, but I also fell asleep after 10 or so minutes of reading the darn thing. I was also thoroughly annoyed when, after 8 or so chapters in Florence, all of a sudden we’re back in England with Cecil. I was confused for a good while.
Then I reread the book in a paperback version and understood and appreciated it much much more.
But I didn’t love it. It was sort of cute, I suppose, and the way Forster portrayed Cecil was wonderful – I know a lot of men like that!! – but IMO there was a lot of nonsense that I really could have done without.
I remember I tried to read this centuries ago but I had no idea what a Baedeker was and no way to find out (I thought at the time), so it was nonsense and I stopped reading right after the murder.
I read the free gottenberg Book on my iPhone. Somehow I didn’t enjoy it as much as I do turning physical pages. It was what was handy though. Cecil forcibly reminds me on an in-law: nice enough but stuffy.
@mathmom Thanks for your reply. Mr. Beebe’s as a gay man also makes sense for his character. It was Mr. Beebe’s degree of anger/disappointment at Lucy and George’s relationship that made me think he loved her. I agree with you about liking the ambiguity.
@VeryHappy I’m glad I’m not the only one who doesn’t love this book! In fact, I’m not quite finished – I can only deal with reading short bits at a time. I will finish it, even though I already know Lucy doesn’t stay with Cecil … And can I say thank goodness for that! What a twit!
I wish Cecil weren’t quite so over the top. I think he’s kind of in love with his persona, and unlike Lucy he doesn’t have the passion of Beethoven to get him out of it. He seems stuck.
There’s a lovely scene in the 1985 movie where Daniel Day Lewis who has been pretty much insufferable up to that point, has just been told the wedding his off. He seems deflated. You just see him sadly helping her light a lamp and then he sits on the stairs and puts on his shoes.
The Cecils of the world take delight in finding someone to mold and who conforms to an image. Once the person they have idealized shows independent thought or ideas, the idealized person is promptly squealched or the relationship ends abruptly. Cecils are extremely controlling people.
I read this book with the perspective of a big romance novel fan and it really did fit a lot of the themes found in those kind of books. For a start, there was no real plot, just a lot of relationship problems and development. There was the protagonist feeling trapped in her expected social role. There was a twittery and somewhat malicious “old maid”. There was the younger brother (lots of romance heroines have younger brothers who create problems for them). There was the mother who wanted her daughter to advance socially but also to be happy. There was a genial but buffoon like local squire. There was the “good” boy and the “bad” boy. James Dean as George?
And there was the underlying current of physical desire. Rhett and Scarlett, Elizabeth and Darcy, Romeo and Juliet…to be honest, for most of the book, I couldn’t see any reason other than that for Lucy to be attracted to George. She really fought that attraction to the point of being cruel. Another typical romance theme is the hero treating the heroine as a woman rather than an ideal and overwhelming her senses. Lots of women near fainting from kisses in those books, although normally more than a peck on the cheek or lips.
I think Mr. Emerson was as manipulative as Charlotte in some ways. He put the responsibility for George’s happiness on Lucy’s head. He essentially said that if she didn’t marry George, that George would give up on happiness forever and live in the dark. Why was it her responsibility?
And yes, there was certainly an undercurrent of homosexuality with Mr. Beebe and Cecil. Cecil would have made a really good gay best friend for Lucy! And Mr. Beebe wanted Lucy to sublimate her passion to her music - passion of the mind rather than the body. He didn’t want her tempting men maybe?
As someone mentioned above, I felt that the whatever happened in Rome shouldn’t have stayed in Rome. I gather that Lucy was so mad at Charlotte that she took up with Cecil and his mother - did she actually send Charlotte back home and continue on with them? How did her relationship with Cecil develop? When did he propose the first two times and why did she turn him down? Did she change her mind because she felt stifled back home?
Lots of lovely imagery in the book. I’m looking forward to watching the movie when the DVD comes in to the library.
@marilyn I actually ended up watching both movies. While the 1985 is much more true to the book - including lots of dialog verbatim, I found the more recent movie interesting. It showed Mr. Beebe walking off down an alley with two young men. It invents an entirely new ending, and in fact structures the story as a flashback. One thing it did do quite well was to really show what the attraction of Italy was to all those stuff Brits! All those naked statues! George also seems less standoffish.
As to the earlier question about the speed with which Miss Lavish’s novel was published. I don’t think we are told that this is a first novel. I think that it’s quite possible she whipped it out and it got published straightaway.
Put me in the camp that didn’t love the book. It was a cute story, not a compelling read. To be fair, reading it on Kindle doesn’t give the enjoyment that thumbing through an old edition of the book would’ve given me. But I couldn’t lay my hands on an actual book.
I started the book 3 nights ago and fell asleep reading the first 2 nights. Somehow I got to chapter 5 last night after which the story gripped me and I stayed up late finishing it.
I must say that I do like Forster’s style of writing overall except for the Italy segment which was too slow for me and not as enjoyable as the rest of the book.
Things I liked: How well the characters came off from the book. Every character came alive with a unique identifiable voice. Charlotte, Cecil, Miss Lavish, Mr. Emerson, Mrs. Honeychurch, Reverends Eager and Beebe have been brought to life with a few skillful words.
I like the succinctness of the book, the ability to paint a picture for readers in as few pages as this book is something I appreciate a lot.
The description of places and art, I felt like I was actually experiencing it for myself rather than reading about it. One of the images that stays with me is the scene where Lucy comes upon George surrounded by the beauty of nature all around him. I can visualize what happens to the 2 young people at that moment.
Things I didn’t like so much: An exception to the excellent characterization is George. Frankly, I wasn’t able to capture the essence of how, when and why he fell in love with Lucy. His is an incomplete character study.
I think Lucy realizes that she is in love with him when she sees him surrounded by beauty behind him and her slip-up to Charlotte explains that. Also, I feel that Charlotte picks up on Lucy’s slip of the tongue and decides to make amends for parting the pair by giving them a last chance to be together.
What doesn’t make sense is Mr. Emerson putting the weight of George’s feelings for her upon Lucy and it changing her decision. She rejects George the second time even when he tells her Cecil isn’t the man for her, that he’s a figment of his own imagination and has no substance. But oh wait, the next time she sees Cecil interacting with her family the light comes on, and she breaks it off with him using George’s words but she still won’t consider a relationship with him. She would rather run away, enlisting her despised cousin’s help for this but when Mr. Emerson drops the emotional claptrap on her, she changes her mind.
I did get the sense that Mr. Beebe was a conflicted character, probably about his sexuality, but it was left to our imagination which was nice. His interest in Lucy seems to be more of the admiration for a thing of beauty type, her musical talent and the possibilities in her character for reaching heights fascinated him.
Lastly, I’m glad I read the book - having watched the movie as a youngish teen without enjoyment and/or maybe proper understanding of the nuances (I dislike most Merchant-Ivory productions and HBC and DDL are actors I personally don’t care for at all).
This has been a long post so I won’t post again for a while. I’ve had to spend the day today (and will probably do the same tomorrow) ‘staking my Dahlias’ à la Mrs. Honeychurch from the prospect of inclement weather later this week.
Another in the camp that didn’t love the book. I’m actually rereading it at the moment in hopes that I get more out of it. I put off picking the book up when I had time to read. When I did pick it up, I’d suddenly realize that I’d read several pages with no idea of content. My mind had wandered.
FWIW - I didn’t want Lucy to end up with Cecil - or George.
When I first saw the movie, I hadn’t read the book yet and thought Daniel Day-Lewis was playing the role over the top. And then I read the book and realized that, in fact, he had captured Cecil perfectly. I wonder why Lucy would be attracted to Cecil at all. Maybe she wasn’t, and that was the point: If she feared her own burgeoning sexuality, Cecil would be a “safe zone.”
Haha, yes. Cecil doesn’t engender much sympathy, except, as @mathmom pointed out, in the scene where Lucy breaks their engagement. If he were gay, imagine how discouraging it would be for him to know that he was now burdened with the task of starting over and finding another woman to woo, when his heart wasn’t in it. And it really wasn’t:
By the way, for the modern reader, “gold pince-nez” speaks volumes about Cecil’s unsexiness. Back in 1908, though, the pince-nez was all the rage, so Cecil was decidedly in fashion.
During the early part of the book when they are in Florence, I had no sense of George at all. He was just “the young Mr. Emerson.” In fact, I thought he might still be a youngster – 18 or 19 years old. it wasn’t until I finished the book the first time and realized his significance that, upon rereading, I paid more attention to him during the Florence chapters. I don’t think Forster fleshed him out sufficiently or gave him the proper “motivation” (in the theatrical meaning of the word) for his behavior. I had no idea he was in love with Lucy; I just thought he was an awkward adolescent.
I think the fact that George is so underwritten underscores that Forster wasn’t really that interested in the romance except as a plot device for his novel. It’s a comedy of manners and a critique of society much more than it’s a love story. It’s weird, because I think their attraction is primarily sexual. The closeness they feel after the murder, though Lucy tries to escape it, and of course the kiss at Fiesole. She’s willing to escape from that as well. George puts her in a panic and we really only see him as others see him. Forster never lets us see what he is thinking.
)