OK, I finished the book. Still not a fan.
I’m trying to figure out which character I “liked” the best … I’m not sure there is one! 
Charlotte is right up there at the top of my “Disliked Characters” list.
I’m sympathetic to the Miss Alans. Pretty brave women to run all over the world by themselves! And when they were cheated out of the villa, they came up with an alternative plan. Not to mention, they were willing to take Lucy along.
I am so glad that I am not the only person who is not a fan of the book. It was really slow for me. I found it more interesting when the group got back to England, but the first part of the book was almost lumbering. I do not care about any of the characters. While some of the descriptions were wonderful, there were too many gaps that we just had to accept. The book was too long and not long enough. Does that make sense?
I really wanted to like this book. I am glad that I read it, but I would never recommend it to anyone, unless their choices were worse.
^ I agree, I wouldn’t recommend me this book for leisure reading, but it engaged me more and more as it went on, and I hope to fondly remember this classic.
I had never read the book or seen the movie, so it was all completely new to me.
I’m glad I waited until 2019 to read this, especially on kindle, so I could use the dictionary, andgoogle translator, to help with the unfamiliar words, and Italian phrases. Luckily, I have been to Florence, so the setting was vivid, and enhanced by internet research. Whenever, Forster, mentioned a statue, painting, building I had an image in an instant.
I thoroughly, enjoyed Forster’s comedic, satiric tone.
There were moments in the book, when I feared for George’s ending, a foreboding feeling that things might end up “dark”…for George, even though most of the book had a delightful, light tone which I thoroughly enjoyed, yet I was on edge. George seemed so vulnerable, so unstable and young.
Would Geroge be diagnosed as a bipolar today, swinging from depressive lows, to mania? Or, was it love ?
In @Mary13’s interesting link above, I found this about Forster’s struggle with ending the book.
At the end of Chapter 2 Lucy prepares to leave for a walk alone to the dismay of Mr. Beebe and a Miss Alan. Her parting comment hints at what’s to come: "“Perhaps I shall meet someone who reads me through and through!” That someone turns out to be George Emerson. A hint of what’s to come that I missed the first time around. There’s something similar with Charlotte. I’ll look.
Found it. First sentence of Chapter 5: It was a family saying that “you never knew which way Charlotte Bartlett would turn.”
Speaking of possible homosexuality, I picked it up most with Charlotte and her infatuation with Miss Lavish.
I had not thought of Charlotte and Miss Lavish in that light, but I can see it. I have always assumed that there was some suitor in her past she rejected as not good enough for her, that she then later regretted. Hence Lucy’s mother’s complaints that Lucy was just like Charlotte. Did anyone else feel compelled to go listen to the music Lucy played? I don’t know enough about music to really know what I was supposed to think. She clearly wasn’t playing safe feminine music. In Chapter 11 (In Mrs. Vyse’s well appointed Flat) Lucy plays Schumann, which is described as having “querulous beauty” and “the sadness that is often Life, but should never be Art”, while Cecil keeps asking for Beethoven. (Which she had happily played before she met him.)
At first, I wasn’t sure if George was just being melodramatic or if he was battling depression. We don’t know enough about him or his backstory to be sure. Certainly his father was concerned about him. I lean toward a family history of depression, as Mr. Emerson tells Lucy that George has “gone under naturally…As his mother did” and elaborates:
It does make you wonder what married life might be like for Lucy after the honeymoon is over.
I agree that Lucy shouldn’t have been guilted into rescuing George from the depths, but honestly, I don’t think she ever felt like she had to save him. It was more that she had to save herself.
George has one long speech near the end (Chapter XVI: Lying to George), and he comes across as a sensible, thinking person, so at least there’s that. He opens by asking the direct question that that reader wants to ask, “You don’t mean that you are going to marry that man?” And then he sums up Cecil’s personality really well. At one point, he tells Lucy:
And then ironically, as @AnAsmom pointed out above, Lucy breaks up with Cecil using George’s words. But she must have eventually found her own voice, because it’s pretty clear at the end of the novel that she had to deal with a lot of pushback for choosing George, ultimately having to elope because “mother wouldn’t give her consent.”
(^ That was sort of a long post because I’m trying to catch up. I have houseguests all week–lovely to have them here, but I don’t have a minute to even peek at the computer until everybody’s gone to bed.)
Yes, I think I would not have done well in that pension with all the social and other rules and conventions hemming one in.
If George is bipolar or depressed, Lucy would indeed be in for a challenging time, especially as I don’t believe there were many services or treatments available.
I had a hard time plodding through the book as well and none of the characters really resonated with me and I wouldn’t like to spend much time with any of them. The Misses Alan were pretty adventurous and seemed less passive aggressive than Charlotte, as far as we could tell.
@mary13 even with a houseful of guests, (and,not a minute to look st this discussion) you find such interesting connections to point out! Well done.
Glad you mention George’s mother.
Did Forster resolve the rumor that Mr Emerson had murdered his wife? This weird cloud hung over Mr Emerson, and ‘ don’t recall if Forster cleared that up at any point.
As I said, I’m in the camp who found this book delightful, especially as someone above said, once the group returned to England, the novel picked up pace, and for me became a page turner.
I enjoyed the strong, female characters, especially Lucy, a modern
“Feminist”in many ways, until she confronted Cecil and ended their engagement.
Lucy’s spunk, her feminist outlook were refreshing, until she used “ George’s exact words, (quoted by @mary13 above) when she broke up with Cecil.
Mmmmmmmm …for a free thinking woman, unable to formulate her “own” words confused me. This scene left me baffled about Lucy, the “independent minded free spirit”!
And, then when Lucy wanted to run away with the Aunt’s my strong, feisty refreshing protagonist, succumbed to “ denial” of her true feelings, to “ repression” and fear.
We, the reader, knew the truth. That twist was a pivotal plot device, kudos to Forster.
I will remember this book mostly as a depiction of Forster’s portrayal of Lucy’s journey to discovery, through the lense of Forster’s closeted homosexuality, during those “dark” days of 1908.
How sad those times must have been for him unable to find loving partners, unable, even illegal, to be his authentic self, always being the outsider.
It makes me very sad, actually, to realize those times, but,thankful and relieved we live in more “enlightened” times today.
I didn’t know anything about Forster that he had written “ Maurice” a novel about homosexual love in 1913-14, which was not to be published until after his death in 1971. He was a voice of his generation for acceptance, even modeling George on H.O.M.
Forster had a view of the world, outside of a boxed-in room… he knew there was more, and I’m glad in 2019 many share his view.
@mathmom you asked
Yes, I did. Also, I just leaned that I can say to “Alexa, play Beethoven” …and I’ve been listening to that too, trying to appreciate the “intense” passion mentioned by Forster. Fun. !!! Today’s technology, love it.
@ignatius I, also, thought Miss Lavish and Charlotte, possibility could have more of a relationship, too.
Loved Miss Lavish.
@AnAsmom loved this, so delightfully Forster
You questioned Mr Emerson, putting such burden on Lucy, to cheer his son.
I just thought Mr Emerson, a loving dad, on vacation with depressive Geroge, thinking this young, lovely girl, could just distract him enough to lift his worrisome mental condition. Yes, it was a lot to ask, but he did seem worried, maybe. Desperate about Geroge. ( hence my concern as a reader)
I don’t think George was really depressive, but he was out of sorts. I’ve known a few Mr. Emersons, including to some extent my father. They knew best (and usually were right) and always trying to get people matched up, and getting on with life.
That’s a good point that Lucy rejects Cecil with George’s words. On the one hand, yes, you wish she’d used her own words, but I think the point is that George really does get her and Cecil. He knows the right words for her. They are destined to be soulmates.
The book explains that Mrs Emerson died after George recovered from typhus. She caught it and then died — perhaps of depression or exhaustion or complications? Mr Beebe was upset that they refused to baptize George when he was ill with typhus.
I also wondered about the relationship between Charlotte and Miss Lavish, especially when they sent Lucy away so they could be alone together. There were many other times I assumed Charlotte had an almost husband that didn’t work out. Forster seems to like undefined characters and relationships.
I was just okay with this book. I didn’t mind reading it, but never really got excited. My husband usually asks if he should read our CC book after I’m done and I told him not to bother. I felt like I missed most of the British humor I was supposed to be reading.
I agree that for me, the book was so-so. Actually , when I first saw the title, I thought it was the story about three women who went to (maybe) Italy and rented a villa or something and found love and/or learned to be free and/or discovered some other passion. Now I see that Enchanted April is coming to tv - is that was I was thinking of?
Part of my issue was the style. It might have been bold and innovative and unusual for the time, but it seems very dated and sometimes creepy in this modern age. All the coy asides to suggest that the author and the reader know all these secrets that the characters don’t know, or what will happen to them in the future - not all of which happens - took me away from the story. Between that and the undefined characters and the lack of a plot…I did enjoy the descriptive language!
Maybe it’s because I haven’t experienced a grand passion that sweeps away all misgivings and changes my life and takes me away from my expected path and crosses class lines and creates a barrier to friends and family.
And I agree that Lucy and George are going to have some rough times when the honeymoon is over and she’s back in a little flat being a depressed railroad clerk’s wife without family support. Hope he can afford a piano!
You are thinking of Enchanted April.
Well, maybe Lucy can afford her own piano, depending on the amount of the funds left to her from her dad. Being a partner of someone with a history of depression is difficult, if you have cut yourself off from loved ones to bond with the depressed person it’s that much more isolated.
I dated a guy who was depressed when we were in HS. He refused counseling or any assistance. I had no idea what to do. It was very isolating. I ended up leaving the state to go 3000 miles away to a different U. Not ideal but it the the best of tough choices.
I’m surprised at how many of you felt “meh” about the novel! I really liked it. Granted, it could be because I had the lovely Merchant Ivory film in my mind’s eye with every chapter.
I found the dated element (that @Marilyn mentioned) to be interesting. Forster was ahead of his time in many ways, but also a product of the Edwardian era, which makes the novel a peculiar mix of sexism and feminism. He could write things like, “At last she longed for attention, as a woman should” and “so illogical are girls,” and in the next breath say, “This desire to govern a woman—it lies very deep, and men and women must fight it together before they shall enter the garden."
Lucy was too wishy washy, and mostly paralyzed by indecision. She didn’t have the wit of an Elizabeth Bennet or the backbone of a Margaret Hale or the intelligence of a Jane Eyre (all women around the same age). So I’d say Forster was not terribly skilled at writing complex female characters. I don’t know; maybe the women are different in his other novels. I read A Passage to India, but so long ago that I barely remember it — except that I recall being frustrated by the actions of the female protagonist.
I think that as far as the novel goes, Lucy is right. Freddy hasn’t abandoned the couple, and Lucy and her mother are too close to be estranged for very long. As far as E.M. Forster’s personal life goes, Lucy’s assertion may have been wishful thinking. Forster himself was unable to effectively “act the truth” with those he loved: