Reactions

To me, watching the movie of Maurice was interesting on more than one level. I was looking around the room to see other people’s reactions to try and understand the way people of our time respond to situations where homosexual intimacy and love are present. It seemed to me that some of the guys in the class might have been uncomfortable with the intimate situations in the film which made me think about the conversations we had in class about male nudity in U.S. movies vs. abroad. Perhaps it is the social situation in which we are presented that really persuades our mindset into reactions like this one. My point is that while us women were not uncomfortable with viewing the movie, some of the men seemed surprised or squirmy with the situation.

Other than the observations I tried to view outside the movie, the movie itself was only slightly different from the book. Mainly, hearing the English accent and language while viewing reactions and unspoken body language definitely helped me understand the language better. It is so unusual how the same language spoken in two different countries can vary so much, and the social situations can vary also. The movie helped me understand the prudeness of the entire area and time of the setting, and the portrayal of the love between Maurice and Clive was clearly displayed and believed; however, I did notice a few differences in the movie, such as the letter from Clive to Maurice from Greece that did not show up in the movie, while the Greek ties to sexuality were clearly not as abundant and profound as in the book. I believe the foreshadowing of the Greek studies and conversations were very important to understanding and believing the love that exists in the book; which would have been more pertinent had it existed as robustly in the movie.

I'll stick to the book

Watching the movie version of the novel Maurice altered my perspective specifically in regards to how I viewed the characters. Through reading the book, I pictured Maurice to be more serious of a character than the movie showed. I realize that Maurice is not supposed to be an extremely intellectual man, but I feel like the movie did him wrong. The movie depicted Maurice on more than one occasion as someone who has little control of his emotions and impulses. When Clive and Maurice were laying together in the field towards the beginning of the movie when they first fall in love, Maurice is very aggressive and does not stop even after Clive suggested they savor the moment without serious physical activity. Also in the movie, Maurice looks very foolish in one particular scene when Clive and Maurice first see each other after Clive’s return from his trip to Greece. Clive and Maurice are in a room alone. Maurice is very excited to see Clive since it has been a long time apart, and, of course, because he is truly in love with him. But unlike the book, which does not include this scene because Forster has Clive send a letter from Greece breaking the news to Maurice that he is no longer in love with him anymore instead, Maurice in my mind is made to look pathetic. Maurice is basically attacking Clive’s lips in hopes of getting a kiss or any sign of affection for an extended time until Clive shoves him straight into a chair. Throughout this entire “scuffle”, ever since Clive looked him in the face and told him they cannot be together any longer, Maurice is sobbing as well. Finally, Clive leaves the room and Maurice continues to sob very intensely. I was disappointed with a few scenes in the film solely because I prefer the way the novel made me visualize Maurice’s character. Although he is naive in both the film and the novel, I thought the movie went overboard and took away from Maurice’s intellect instead of emphasizing that he is simply very sexually frustrated, confused, and heart-broken.
I am changing the subject because I have to add a little bit on how reading the Symposium affected my understanding and perspective towards the novel. First off, I think it is obvious that Plato must have had a significant influence on Forster. Plato’s Symposium. This is easy to see simply from the dialogue between characters in both the movie and the novel. An easy example is how Forster emphasizes Clive’s disgust after he heard Mr. Cornwallis label the Symposium as “a reference to the unspeakable vice of the Greeks,” (51). Also, many of the speakers’ views on love and sexuality in the Symposium are depicted in the novel and the film. Pausanias sticks out to me because he spoke about the uniqueness and beauty of a homosexual relationship very passionately. I am glad we had the opportunity to read the Symposium even though I had trouble interpreting it before we discussed its meaning as a class. Now that I am no longer lost, I strongly believe that the Symposium must be read along with Maurice. I gained a higher appreciation for Forster’s work in Maurice because of the role one of the most historically significant and progressive cultures ever, the ancient Athenians, played in the writing of the novel.

Maurice Plato Symposium

I saw the movie Maurice last night in Woolson House. The movie was very 80's. The filmmakers had the task of creating a movie set in the early 1900's during the 19880's and they did an okay job. However I could not help but notice how 80's the film was. Now to the movie itself. Overall, I liked the movie. The movie cut out several things from the book, i.e. Maurice and Dr. Barry's nephew. The movie could have been so much better in my opinion. The plot was spread out and the flow of the movie seemed rigid. Also, the actor who played Maurice was not very attractive. Hugh Grant was hot in the movie, however I always pictured him differently. Scudder is really attractive as well. I liked the book way more than I did the movie. I did like how the movie takes up less time than reading the book. The movie needed to focus as much on the characters as the book did.

I am still confused with Plato's Symposium. I understood a little tho. I liked Aristophanes theory/speech more.

The Movie vs. The Book

After watching the movie, I feel that I have gained a better understanding of the book. I have had difficulty reading the book through various parts, partly because of the language. For myself, it is difficult to retain some of the information that the book provides unless I reread and reflect certain parts of the book. Although the book portrayed the characters differently than Foster did, I feel as though a visual comparison helped me understand Maurice’s story. It was also interesting to see the correlation of Plato’s “Symposium” throughout both the book and the movie because I was able to better understand the connection between the two. The influence of Greece and various historic articles, such as the “Symposium” have greatly affected the lives of many people and scholars during the books particular time, which helps to explain the attitudes towards homosexuality. However, the movie and the book portray homosexuality through different respects. For example, the book’s approach to homosexuality appears to be more reserved and something that people ignore, whereas the movie handles sexuality as a sinful dead and unspoken deed. It is difficult to declare which form of the story was more beneficial because the movie and book manage the story in different ways. Maurice’s risk for love and Clive’s resistance for a relationship with Maurice was the main point of the movie, while the book focused more the struggle of sexuality and its impact on society during the 1900’s. Like most books turned into movies, there were parts of the book that were lost and added; however; the story of Maurice was successfully capture through both representations for visual and conceptual purposes.

end of reading

Throughout the last reading that was assigned, I found a few parts particularly interesting. The first being Maurice’s relationship with Scudder. This relationship was based on love and lust showing that the men truly cared for each other. They shared feelings that Clive and Maurice would have never expressed. This is seen in the part where Hall tells Durham about his relationship with Scudder. Clive was in no way jealous, but more so disgusted as to how much they shared with each other.
Maurice found a mutual happiness with Scudder, which they were able hide from the public, but still get past the fact that they didn’t care as much sexually for women. In such a culture, being gay, was considered “rubbish”, so Maurice tried to fix his sexual preferences in order to get married and carry on with a “normal” life with a wife and kids. In order to “fix” his sexuality to like women he tried to get hypnotized, however it obviously did not work.
Another thing I found interesting was the difference in class status between Maurice and Alec. This made me think back to the Halperin essay during the Greek ages. When men experienced with other men, although it was more for pleasure and not as much as a relationship. Maurice was the one who had more power, as Alec was a worker for Clive. As the times had changed they could get passed that and base their relationship on more than just pleasure.

Book vs Movie

I have not exactly finished the book yet but when I saw the movie the other night it surprised me that the hole movie was so similar to the book. The dialogue and everything seemed exactly straight from the book, which was surprising because usually movies that are filmed by the story from a book are usually very different from the book, usually there are more differences between the movie and the book than similarities. But in Maurice it seemed exactly the same as the book.
One major difference in the movie than the book was when Risley was arrested for what seemed like gay prostitution. This part of the movie definitely emphasized the fact that homosexuality was forbidden in England. It is also known in the book that homosexuality is forbidden but without a scene like this one, it is only known to the reader through underlying suggestions that homosexuality was socially unacceptable. The movie also makes it seem like Clive decides to end his relationship with Maurice because of what happens to Risley. Clive stays away from Maurice and starts to suggest that they should fall in love with women because Clive does not want anyone to find out about his relationship with Maurice and lose his career and his reputation.
Another difference that I saw was that in the book Maurice starts to have lustful emotions towards a younger boy and realizes what he was doing and feels ashamed. Maurice feels guilty and ashamed because he hit on a young boy and when the boy did not respond to Maurice he then realized that he had to be more careful of his emotions, whether it is love or just lust, and to whom his emotions are towards. This part was not in the movie.
I liked the fact that the movie was mostly the same as the book because it was easier to follow the story line. I enjoy movies better than reading the book because I am a visual learner and being able to actually see the story helps me understand it better.

Intimacy Revealed

I think the following passage from Maurice, pg. 233-244, shows the intimacy level between Maurice and Clive during their relationship. It begins with Maurice saying:

“I have shared with Alec,” he said after deep thought.
“Shared what?”
“All I have. Which includes my body.”
Clive sprang up with a whimper of disgust. He wanted to smite the monster, and flee, but he was civilized, and wanted it feebly. After all, they were Cambridge men…pillars of society both; he must not show violence. And he did not; he remained quiet and helpful to the very end. But his thin, sour disapproval, his dogmatism, the stupidity of his heart, revolted Maurice, who could only have respected hatred.
“I put it offensively,” he went on, “but I must make sure you understand. Alec slept with me in the Russet Room that night when you and Anne were away.”
“Maurice- oh, good God!”
“Also in town. Also- “ here he stopped.
Even in his nausea Clive turned to a generalization- it was part of the mental vagueness induced by his marriage. “But surely – the sole excuse for any relationship between men is that it remain purely platonic.”

It seems from this excerpt that Clive and Maurice were only intellectual lovers during their relationship based on Clive’s disgusted, confused response to Maurice’s confession. By stating that all relationships between men should only be platonic, this validates that Clive and Maurice experienced nothing physical together besides kissing and cuddling. Maurice is very blunt with his words, and even apologizes, but he wants to make sure that Clive knows of their sexual intimacy. Maurice also is annoyed by Clive’s reaction, which tells me that Maurice expected Clive to be jealous and hate him for it. Instead, Clive is described as for having “stupidity of his heart,” meaning that he didn’t realize that sexual intimacy is part of love. I think Clive was just as naïve as Maurice concerning the extent of how their relationship should be expressed, even though Clive did seem to be the dominant person during the three-year affair.

The soul mate

Something in Plato’s Symposium that I found very interesting was the part when Aristophanes tells his speech. Where he explains one of his idea on how different sexualities begin. At first everyone have two heads, four arms and legs, everything was doubled. Humans started out as a blob, neither male nor female. The gods were threatened by these creatures and it was Zeus who finally made the decision. Zeus decided to split them in half, making them weaker and increase in numbers. Once Zeus had cut them in half, humans were made. Each had one head, two arms, two legs and feet, walking up straight on two feet. Aristophanes is able to explain everything from the bellybutton and wrinkles to hair.

Two different types of humans were created through this process, the male and female. After being cut in half and made into their own, they each desired to be reconnected with their other half. When cut in half, sometimes two males were made, two females, or and sometimes a male and a female were made. This belief creates the idea of a “soul mate”. It explains that each human is out there seeking another, their other half, no matter if they are of the same sex or a different one. The story or belief that Aristophanes creates becomes a modern myth on the soul mate. He explains that there is no right or wrong partner and your other half can come in any shape, size or sex.

I though this idea was amazing and really intelligent for the time period, that he thought of a way to explain the soul mate. Many people even in today’s society cannot even understand the concept that you’re searching for your other half no matter what sex they are. Today society has defined what is right and wrong and here Aristophanes explains that sex does not matter. I think its pretty amazing that someone so far into the past can realize in put into terms what many people today cannot understand or grasp.

Plato's influence in Maurice

After reading the first part of “Symposium,” as well as the novel Maurice, it seems clear that Forster was significantly influenced by Plato’s classic work. This is particularly true when examining the language Forster used in his novel. Many of the phrases and ideas that appear in the “Symposium” are also found in Maurice. For example, in the “Symposium,” during Pausanias’ speech, he raises the issue of heavenly love vs. common place, lustful love. According to Pausanias, heavenly love is far more lasting, meaningful and mature. In a heavenly love relationship, the participants do not bounce from one lover to next. When looking at Forster’s description of Maurice and Clive’s relationship, it seems that Pausanias’ account of heavenly love was somewhat of an inspiration. Forster writes, “Clive knew that ecstasy cannot last, but can carve a channel for something lasting, and he contrived a relation that proved permanent. If Maurice made love it was Clive who preserved it, and caused its rivers to water the garden” (Forster 98).
Pausanias also mentions that heavenly love is associated with love between two men. Men rather than women, he believed, were more worthy of this sacred, divine kind of love. This sentiment is also seen in Maurice. Clive, speaking of is mother explains, “She would have no mercy if she knew, she wouldn’t attempt, wouldn’t want to attempt to understand that I feel to you as Pippa to her fiancé, only far more nobly, far more deeply, body and soul, no starved medievalism of course, only a- a particular harmony of body and soul that I don’t think women have even guessed” (Forster 90). It certainly seems clear that the novel Maurice was greatly inspired by Plato’s “Symposium.”

Movie verus Book

I have mixed feelings about how the film accurately portrayed the book, Maurice. First of all, the characters were not how I would have portrayed each of them from reading the book. Maurice is supposed to have dark hair and Clive blond which in fact is opposite in the movie. Also, the movie leaves out certain scenes that I thought were important for revealing Maurice’s character. Also, the movie really portrays homosexuality as being a not normal/anti-Christian “bad” thing, whereas, in the book I feel the author doesn’t negate the morality of homosexuality quite as much. For instance, in the movie there is a scene where Risley solicits sex from another man getting caught and jailed by the police. In the movie Risley is actually seen jailed for immortality whereas the book does not show that. Also, many of the letters between Clive and Maurice are not shown in the movie, particularly when Clive goes to Greece. I feel that one letter was quite important from Clive to Maurice when he is explaining all of his feeling. In the movie none of what Clive is thinking and feeling about Maurice at this time is recognized. His first bout of influenza is also not shown. Overall the movie did portray some scenes quite accurately, such as when Clive faints at the dinner table and cries, and does a good job showing their love for one another. I like how Maurice stays true to his sexuality throughout the book and the movie despite Clive’s decision to become “normal”.

Pausanius: Male Shovinist

Among the speeches given during the evening described in Plato’s “Symposium,” I feel I have the most difficult time with Pausanius’ speech. In his speech made at the party, Pausanius states he has a problem with Eros because he is in fact not one, but, in a sense, has two versions. He speaks of two types of love including commonplace love, which is ordinary, vulgar, and lustful, and heavenly love, which is noble, divine, and longer lasting. Pausanius states that common place love is primarily experienced between men and women and young boys, while heavenly love is experienced by men and other men. Heavenly love, from man to man, is held with higher regard than commonplace love because it is a stronger commitment and involves an intellectual exchange. My problem with this is the fact that Athenian women were seen as intellectually equivalent to young boys and that they were incapable of being seen as anything else but an object of lust and desire. However, this did not occur in other societies around the world. For example, in Sparta, a woman was treated more as an equal than in Athenian society. When Spartan men went to war, the women would be in control of the city, much like American women during World War Two. Also, in Ancient Egypt, women had the same legal rights and status under the law as men. Women could be employed outside their home, run small businesses such as linen and perfume manufacturing, and although there was no formal grade school for girls, they could attend professional schools for medicine. Furthermore, in the Hindu religion, women were to be treated with affection and also deserved to be honored.

Movie vs book; and the symposium

After watching Maurice on film, i was trying to compare the similarities and differences between the movie and the book. I have not finished the book yet, but i really feel that i like the book much more. The movie seemed to skip around too much, leaving out certain scenes that are quite important in the book. I think that we missed out alot in Maurice's life. The beginning of the movie starts off when he is a child, and in the next scene, he is in college. Another difference, i found, that to me, in the movie when Risely was arrested, it seemed as if that is what made Clive change his mind about loving Maurice. Whereas in the book, Clive actually goes to greece, and there he changes his mind because of his dissapointment. Overall, i thought the movie did a pretty good portrayal of the book, but there were many things that could have been changed.

I think part of the reason of why i felt the way i did about them movie, is because when i read any book, i tend to get a better feeling for the character. I did not really enjoy the acting in the movie. I thought Hugh Grant played well, but i always think that. To me, the character's relationship in the film did not seem that believable. Maybe its due to the way i imagined the people from the book.

When we were discussing the symposium, i felt that i got a much better understanding from it, rather that when i read it on my own. I was really confused as to who was talking. I understood most of the article, but some of the details were quite blurred when i read it myself. As we discussed the speech made by Aristophanes, i remembered that i had heard the same story about the three races of people, all split in two, in a song from movie called Hedwig and the Angry Inch. The movie is a musical, about a transexual german rockstar who is looking to find his "other half."

These are the lyrics:

When the earth was still flat
And the clouds made of fire
And mountains stretched up to the sky
Sometimes higher
Folks roamed the earth
Like big rolling kegs
They had two sets of arms
They had two sets of legs
They had two faces peering
Out of one giant head
So they could watch all around them
As they talked while they read
And they never knew nothing of love
It was before...
The origin of love
The origin of love

And there were three sexes then
One that looked like two men
Glued up back to back
Called the children of the sun
And similar in shape and girth
Were the children of the earth
They looked like
Two girls rolled up in one
And the children of the moon
Was like a fork shoved on a spoon
They were part sun, part earth
Part daughter, part son

The origin of love

Now the gods grew quite scared
Of our strength and defiance
And Thor said,
"I'm gonna kill them all with my hammer,
Like I killed the giants"
But Zeus said, "No-
You better let me
Use my lightning like scissors
Like I cut the legs off the whales
Dinosaurs into lizards"
Then he grabbed up some bolts
He let out a laugh
Said, "I'll split them right down the middle
Gonna cut them right up in half"
And then storm clouds gathered above
Into great balls of fire

And then fire shot down
From the sky in bolts
Like shining blades of a knife
And it ripped right through the flesh
Of the children of the sun and the moon and the earth
And some Indian god
Sewed the up into a hole
Pulled it round to our belly
To remind us of the price we pay
And Osiris and the gods of the Nile
Gathered up a big storm
To blow a hurricane
To scatter us away
In a flood of wind and rain
A sea of tidal waves
To wash us all away
And if we don't behave
They'll cut us down again
And we'll be hopping 'round on one foot
And looking through one eye

Last time I saw you
We had just split in two
You were looking at me
I was looking at you
You had a way so familiar
But I could not recognize
'Cause you had blood on your face
I had blood in my eyes
But I could swear by your expression
That the pain down in your soul
Was the same as the one down in mine
That's the pain
That cuts a straight line down through the heart
We call it love
We wrapped our arms around each other
Tried to shove ourselves back together
We were making love
Making love
It was a cold, dark evening
Such a long time ago
When by the mighty hand of Jove
It was the sad story how we became
Lonely two-legged creatures
It's the story of the origin of love
That's the origin of love


The origin of love

I am glad that we are reading the symposium because i can link it to other films and literature other than just Maurice.

Movie vs book; and the symposium

After watching Maurice on film, i was trying to compare the similarities and differences between the movie and the book. I have not finished the book yet, but i really feel that i like the book much more. The movie seemed to skip around too much, leaving out certain scenes that are quite important in the book. I think that we missed out alot in Maurice's life. The beginning of the movie starts off when he is a child, and in the next scene, he is in college. Another difference, i found, that to me, in the movie when Risely was arrested, it seemed as if that is what made Clive change his mind about loving Maurice. Whereas in the book, Clive actually goes to greece, and there he changes his mind because of his dissapointment. Overall, i thought the movie did a pretty good portrayal of the book, but there were many things that could have been changed.

I think part of the reason of why i felt the way i did about them movie, is because when i read any book, i tend to get a better feeling for the character. I did not really enjoy the acting in the movie. I thought Hugh Grant played well, but i always think that. To me, the character's relationship in the film did not seem that believable. Maybe its due to the way i imagined the people from the book.

When we were discussing the symposium, i felt that i got a much better understanding from it, rather that when i read it on my own. I was really confused as to who was talking. I understood most of the article, but some of the details were quite blurred when i read it myself. As we discussed the speech made by Aristophanes, i remembered that i had heard the same story about the three races of people, all split in two, in a song from movie called Hedwig and the Angry Inch. The movie is a musical, about a transexual german rockstar who is looking to find his "other half."

These are the lyrics:

When the earth was still flat
And the clouds made of fire
And mountains stretched up to the sky
Sometimes higher
Folks roamed the earth
Like big rolling kegs
They had two sets of arms
They had two sets of legs
They had two faces peering
Out of one giant head
So they could watch all around them
As they talked while they read
And they never knew nothing of love
It was before...
The origin of love
The origin of love

And there were three sexes then
One that looked like two men
Glued up back to back
Called the children of the sun
And similar in shape and girth
Were the children of the earth
They looked like
Two girls rolled up in one
And the children of the moon
Was like a fork shoved on a spoon
They were part sun, part earth
Part daughter, part son

The origin of love

Now the gods grew quite scared
Of our strength and defiance
And Thor said,
"I'm gonna kill them all with my hammer,
Like I killed the giants"
But Zeus said, "No-
You better let me
Use my lightning like scissors
Like I cut the legs off the whales
Dinosaurs into lizards"
Then he grabbed up some bolts
He let out a laugh
Said, "I'll split them right down the middle
Gonna cut them right up in half"
And then storm clouds gathered above
Into great balls of fire

And then fire shot down
From the sky in bolts
Like shining blades of a knife
And it ripped right through the flesh
Of the children of the sun and the moon and the earth
And some Indian god
Sewed the up into a hole
Pulled it round to our belly
To remind us of the price we pay
And Osiris and the gods of the Nile
Gathered up a big storm
To blow a hurricane
To scatter us away
In a flood of wind and rain
A sea of tidal waves
To wash us all away
And if we don't behave
They'll cut us down again
And we'll be hopping 'round on one foot
And looking through one eye

Last time I saw you
We had just split in two
You were looking at me
I was looking at you
You had a way so familiar
But I could not recognize
'Cause you had blood on your face
I had blood in my eyes
But I could swear by your expression
That the pain down in your soul
Was the same as the one down in mine
That's the pain
That cuts a straight line down through the heart
We call it love
We wrapped our arms around each other
Tried to shove ourselves back together
We were making love
Making love
It was a cold, dark evening
Such a long time ago
When by the mighty hand of Jove
It was the sad story how we became
Lonely two-legged creatures
It's the story of the origin of love
That's the origin of love


The origin of love

I am glad that we are reading the symposium because i can link it to other films and literature other than just Maurice.

Differences between the film and novel

I found watching the movie Maurice to be somewhat difficult because I knew everything that was going to happen throughout the entire film since I had already finished reading the book. Many lines were word for word so I knew exactly what was going to be said before the actors spoke. Although there are abundant similarities between the book and the film, there were a few differences I found as well.

One of the main differences that I found was that Risley was imprisoned for immorality in the film and he was not imprisoned in the book. I felt like this played a major role in the film because it seemed that from the moment Clive read the headlines in the paper, he saw his relationship with Maurice in a different light. I felt that the film made it obvious that Clive wanted to end his relationship with Maurice because he was afraid it would ruin his career and reputation if it were made public knowledge. After Risley’s arrest, Clive avoided physical contact with Maurice.

The other difference between the film and the novel is how Clive ended the relationship. In the book, Clive sent a letter from Greece simply saying that he no longer was in love with Maurice. In the film, Clive waits until he returns from Greece to end the relationship. Clive uses the reasoning that they would both be better off marrying women so that they can express love in public. It takes Clive a while to say that he is no longer in love with Maurice. I think the film made it clearer that Clive no longer was in love with Maurice and that he did not just end the relationship so he would not jeopardize his career, because you can tell by his body language that he is not attracted to Maurice any more. Seeing in the film how Clive was no longer physically attracted to Maurice made me realize that Clive valued the relationship for the intellectual bond and Maurice is more passionate about their relationship.

Platonic Love in the film and novel Maurice

This is only the second time I have heard the words platonic love. The first for a statistics project on couples and the second while reading this book. Clive mentioned that he wanted platonic love in Maurice, the novel and book, but he never showed it until the end. According to the online dictionary Platonic Love is, "an affectionate relationship into which the sexual element does not enter; especially in cases where one might easily assume otherwise. A simple example of platonic relationships is a deep non-sexual friendship." If Clive wanted his and Maurice's relationship to be platonic, he should have not been so sensual with him by kissing him repeatedly, passionately, and touching him erotically. Also he was the first one to say that he loved Maurice and take their relationship to the next level. Because Maurice at first called it rubbish but then responded with sensual acts. At one point, "[Maurice] now cared less for Clive than Clive for him" (184). Even when Clive was married he wanted Maurice. Earlier on Clive admitted that he got intimacy from his relationship with Maurice. He stated, "We were young idiots, weren't we?--but one can get something even out of idiocy. Development. No, more than that, intimacy" (175). Clive admitted that he got intimacy from his relationship with Maurice and later states, "the sole excuse for any relationship between men is that it remain purely platonic" (244) yet he knows in his heart and love towards Maurice that that does not happen. Clive contradicts himself throughout the novel and the film by his actions and his words because he is going against his true love for Maurice.

Assignment #1

In a 3-page argumentative essay (double-spaced, typed), address one of the following prompts:

1. In “Is There a History of Sexuality?” David M. Halperin suggests that there is nothing “natural” about sexuality, and that it is a socially and historically determined construct. Following his line of argument, we could also say that gender norms within a given culture are social constructs. Select only one scene from Forster’s novel Maurice and examine it closely. Think about the relationship between gender, social power and sexual expression in that scene (i.e., what type of speech, action, or expression is permissible?). To what extent does that scene support Halperin’s view (via Foucault) of sexuality as “set of effects produced in bodies, behaviors, and social relations” enacted through “a complex political technology,” rather than as a “natural fact” (416). In other words, does Forster’s work seem to support the idea that sexuality and gender norms are socially constructed?

2. Compare the same or similar scenes from Forster’s novel Maurice (written 1913-14) and the 1987 Merchant/Ivory film production of the novel. Pick only one scene. Think about what omissions or additions were made to that scene in the film version, and what decisions by directors and producers may have led to these differences (the time it was made, etc.). To what extent do these additions or omissions in the film offer a different view of gender and sexuality than the book? (For instance, to what extent does the film heighten or subdue Maurice or Clive’s dilemma about “masculinity” in the scenes with Ann, Clive’s wife?) How does the film version alter or complicate our reading of the book?

3. What is the function of Greek culture (whether Clive’s classical studies, the students’ reading of Plato, or Clive’s visit to Greece) in relationship to the way gender and sexuality are constructed in either the film or novel version of Maurice?

• a fresh title strongly indicating the essay’s content
• a clear thesis statement in the introduction, including a “what” and a “so what”
• analytical points directly related to the thesis, arranged in body paragraphs
• a topic sentence at the beginning of each body paragraph (or a VERY compelling reason for putting it elsewhere)
• textual support for every textual claim
• deft integration of quotations
• correct citation of outside sources (these sources include handouts from class).

Essay Due Date: Tuesday, February 13: almost Valentine’s Day!
Put your name, course #, and assignment # in the heading.

Maurice- Greeks as a key word

Something that was brought up in class was how the word gay did not exist, how Forster had to use other words to describe it. Not only did Forster have to do this while writing, but because of the situation and time period the characters needed a way to express this without letting people know what they were talking about. Forster uses the Greeks and the Symposium as references to how Maurice and Durham feel about each other. In class we discussed the first time this comes up, I wanted to further discuss and point out where this continues through the book. Before Maurice was two naive to know what Durham was referring two and what stood behind these two things when they were brought up. When he was asked if he has read the Symposium he said he had not. Later in the book after they had grown closer and realized and begin to express their feelings for each other. Durham states “‘I knew you read the Symposium in the vac’” (Forster 58) before stating he loved him. This was Durham’s way of expressing that he now knows that Maurice is homosexual as well.

Maurice, who is still naïve, does not understand. He was never told about this kind of a relationship or love. He was told in his youth that a heterosexual way of life is the right and only way. When Durham finally expresses his love towards Maurice he does not know how to feel or react, pushing Durham away. The idea of the Greeks being used as a way to describe being homosexual is later used when Maurice realizes his love for Durham and goes to talk to him. When Durham does not understand why he came he states “I mean the Symposium, like the ancient Greeks” (Forster 64). Maurice uses this to explain he understands now. He then tells Durham that he came to tell him that he is like the Greeks, that he is homosexual, that he always has been, he just did not know. The ancient Greeks and the Symposium became like a code word to explain homosexuality and the feelings between the two men.

I found this very interesting not only because of how Forster uses this as a code word for something that is not discussed but also how it relates to the Halperin article. Halperin also uses the ancient Greeks as an example of how homosexuality was accepted.

Contradiction

The two stories show contradiction. As far as the reader can tell, Maurice was a boy of sexual confusion whenever presented with the opportunity to express himself; however, he never fully understood his destiny until his encounter with another man grew deeper. What was the deciding factor that drove Maurice to homosexual contact, and was he ever really presented with the ability to choose?

On the other hand, Halperin seems to argue that our society, which in a sense is similar to the setting of Maurice, is a society that masks the true sexual decisions that all humans would inherently share. Maybe we really are all a little “gay,” but our society shows us what is acceptable or not and since we have defined “sexuality” and applied it to the human species in a peculiar and species-selfish way, how can we argue that pre-modern societies, regarding sex and sexuality in a separate and indifferent manner, to be the proper theory? Today we have people who conduct investigations, research, surveys and propose scientific theories, on what constitutes homosexuality and when it surfaces in the lifespan of a human being. Are humans gay at birth, gay because of their parents’ influences, peer surroundings while maturing? Why have I personally seen statistical evidence of a third born child of the same gender as his preceding siblings to be more probable of homosexual tendencies? Should I believe an article I read that claimed of differences in certain chemical levels in the brain, which are consistent throughout a lifetime, are consistently higher in homosexual males than heterosexuals? Is it the way our social system treats a third consecutive child of the same sex differently than any other? Why have I wondered about the chances are of my younger sister becoming homosexual in comparison of myself and my older sister? Also, why have I read a scientific article explaining that over 95% of males have experienced a homosexual moment with another male at any level? Can science prove anything? The stories of Maurice and Halperin give insight to a very confusing topic that has differed in theories over many years; theories which in themselves have been contorted by the social, political, and religious norms of that time.

The Modern Day Bisexual

Today, people say be Gay or be Straight. Choose a team. Pick a side. It’s annoying to think that people could be in the middle. They’re like Switzerland. STOP BEING NEUTRAL!!! You can’t have everything that you want. Of course, you could debate, “Why not?” But life isn’t that perfect. Bisexual lifestyle is not fair. It’s too much in the grey area for me. I don’t care if you are gay. I don’t have a problem with it AT ALL. If you’re into the same sex, then be into them. You can’t have both. You just can’t! It’s not fair to those of us that have already made up our mind. If a man is bisexual and falls in love with a woman and they get married and so on, does that mean that he made a decision? No, maybe, I don’t know. That’s why I don’t like the concept of being a bisexual. There always a question mark. Now, here is where the other side of me comes out. I think that it would be a perfect world, a Utopia of sorts, if everyone was bisexual. I am not meaning to contradict myself. My point is, we should live in a world where there is no Gay or Straight, where there isn’t even Bisexual. I hope that one day we can live in a world where people are in love with human beings. I basically hope that the Athenian culture that Halperin is talking about comes back. Men can love men or women and the same goes for women. It was just a way of life then and hopefully it will be the way of life in the future. A future where the world is grey. But we live in a world that is black and white. I do not think I will live to see that future, but I still hope it will come. Until then, conform to the masses. Gay or Straight. Choose a side.

Maurice

The basis of Halperin’s article stems from a quote by Foucault stating that sexuality is “a great surface network in which the stimulation of bodies, the intensification of pleasures, the incitement of discourse, the formation of special knowledges, the strengthening of controls and resistances, are linked to one another…”( Halperin, 416). I agree with Halperin’s article that sexuality is not an identity that differentiates us or should be a characteristic that designates human life. Sexuality should be as Halperin describes “an intellectual discipline designed to analyze the cultural poetics of desire” (Halperin, 426). In the novel “Maurice”, the protagonist’s (Maurice) character is struggling with his sexuality in the first part of the book. I feel the author had neither Halperin’s view nor a general view of what sexuality is today. The author wrote the book in the 70’s when homosexuality was behind closed doors so to speak in society. Today, I feel there is a more accepted view of homosexuality than in Forester’s time, which probably influenced the way to novel portrays Maurice. Having stated this I feel that the author did not have to reiterate Maurice’s “normalcy” over in the book. I feel the character was always being portrayed as average, which would not matter in this case when I see the book as being more about desire. Like Halperin I feel that sexuality is about love and desire rather than a fixed way we should identify ourselves. I do like the way Forester paints a poetic picture of all the feelings that Maurice experiences juxtaposing his emotions before he realizes that he is homosexual and the sincere feelings toward Clive in the second half of the book. Human nature is portrayed rather than a constitutionalized fixed sexuality.

Present Day Power in Sexuality

The most engaging aspect of Halperin’s article has to be his use of power in sexuality. He states that sex was the ultimate means of establishing social rankings within Athenian society. The more powerful man, or the penetrator, was dominant within the sexual relationship and the man of lesser power took on the passive, receptor role. There were no labels. There was no such thing as homosexuality and heterosexuality and there was no need to define the distinction. Sexuality was not controlled by innate biological preference, but by societal norms. Unlike Twiddle Dee, I have to say that there is not a vast difference between ancient Athenian society and present day American society. Within American society, sex continues to establish who is dominant within a given relationship. No longer is sexual domination the system by which we establish societal rankings, it is now the system for establishing which individual or group is more powerful in relationship to one another. The powerful man in Athenian society would demonstrate his power by sexually dominating boys, men and women. At present, within the Patriarchy, when a male rapes a female, he is aggressively dominating and oppressing her. Sexual dominance continues to influence relationships today because rape exists. Women who are sexually dominated are made to feel inferior and insignificant. Rape is an act which expresses a greater idea. Women are not unimportant, sexual objects and there is no inherent reason as to why they should be dominated. In the greater sense, the prolonging of rape results in the systematic oppression of women as a group. All women are affected by violent male domination. Women’s actions are altered everyday with the fear that they could be raped. Some do not walk alone, others think twice about going certain places or donning certain outfits. Rape is the most frequently committed violent crime in the United States. 1 in 8 women will be raped in her lifetime. 1.3 women are raped every minute. There are 683,280 rapes per year. Rape is undoubtedly a rampant social phenomenon. The sensible writer Kalamu ya Salaam pointed out, “as long as male domination exists, rape will exist.” Time has not significantly revolutionized since the Athenians. Power in sexuality endures in present day. I only wish it didn’t.

(no subject)

I found Halperins essay to be very interesting. I had never considered the history of sexuality or thought of how it had come about. In todays society, some people judge otherss for their sexual preferences. In some cases people see it as an affect on ones personality when it really doesnt change who they truly are. As sexuality has evolved people now have a better understanding of it. In the early 1900's Maurice was very confused with himself because being a homosexual wasnt really known or talked about. From Mr. Ducie's talk with Maurice on the beach, it showed that people didnt even consider others being with the same sex. It was only man and women and they would get married and have kids. To Maurice, the drawing in the sand was even weird. At that period in time people didnt disscuss sexuality. People just assumed that men would be with women. After the talk, Maurice was very confused with himself and his feelings. Being gay was almost a foreign concept. When Durham told Maurice that he loved him, Maurice didnt know how to responde. Maurice didnt know how to show or express his feelings. Now people are more aware of homosexuals and being gay doesnt have to be hidden or kept in secret. To some, being gay isn't accepted and still isnt part of the social norm. Maurice is a good exampl of showing how sexuality was percieved back in the 1900's.

Have we really come that far after all?

Reading Halperin’s article, “Is There a History of Sexuality,” I became quite intrigued with the notion of a society that does not use sexual orientation as a form of personal identification. In ancient Greece, according to Halperin, modern day categories used to define a person’s sexual orientation (i.e. homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual) did not even exist. It seems that to the Greeks, sex was sex. Whether an individual committed sexual acts with men, women, or both men and women, one’s personal identity was not altered or shaped by sex practices. However, this did not mean that when it came to sex, the ancient Greeks had a total free-for-all. There were constraints. As Halperin explains, in ancient Greek society, appropriate sexual partners were identified and determined based on the social hierarchy and power relations. To act in a way that in some way deviated from the social norm (i.e. a socially dominant and powerful person assuming a sexually inferior role) would be considered abnormal and most likely would cause a social stigma. In much the same way, homosexuals in our modern day society are stigmatized for failing to conform to the socially accepted norm of heterosexuality. In our society today, socially accepted sex is defined by man and woman. Essentially then, we too have sex constraints. While the ancient Greeks created sex restrictions based on social class, our society makes restrictions based on gender. Therefore, when it comes to sex, it seems to me that we really haven’t come that far since the times of the ancient Greeks after all. There certainly still is progress to be made.

Maurice

In this blog I want to focus more on Maurice rather than the Halperin article. I am fancinated with the progress society has made towards homosexuals since this novel was written back in the eraly 1900's. 2000 years ago there was no distinction of homosexuality and heterosexuality. The rules of sex were simple. Make love to whom you please as long they they are inferior to you on some level. Christianity started off as a cult, and to make themselves stand out among all the other countless cults, Christians decided to do whatever was needed be the complete and extreme opposite of the pagan religions of the time. Specially the religions of Rome and Greece. This included outlawing male and male love and being making stuff up about the creation of the Earth. Anyways, I feel sympathetic with Maurice. He is living in a dreadful time for homosexuals. A time when it was seen as the devils doing or something outrageous. Maurice was not raised in a surrounding that spoke about homosexuality, or shown it anywhere. It was seen as abnormal and no decent man would even consider the act of loving, even desiring another man. This was due to the fact that no one knew how to deal with it so hey ignored it. Maurice was only able to find solace in the Ancient Greeks. He could relate to them, and I bet he longed to be in a world like that. A significant point that the author makes is that Maurice is normal. He is average, and there's nothing extraordinary or different about him. The author wants us to see that although Maurice has an attraction towards other men, he is just like everyone else. This is related to the article written by Halperin who states that sex and sexuality are 2 different things. Sexuality is a product of society and sex has been around since the beginning of human civilization. I am so glad that the civilized world, i.e. western Europe knows how to handle sex among men. They are fine with it, and for the most part the Americas are. Times have changed drastically since Maurice has been written and it would be sad if the world was still that way.

Historic Background and Modern Sexuality

Before reading Halperin’s article I had never considered the history of sexuality and the impact on which it has on modern day perspectives. The culture in which we live in has created images of sexuality that we base our ideas on. For example, the media has stereotyped homosexual and heterosexual behavior through numerous reality television shows such as, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and The Real World. Because our generation has developed with these concrete images of sex and sexuality, many people have neglected or have become discriminative towards alternative sexual preferences. Sexuality is commonly defined by being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual with the idea that a human is attracted to what they sexually desire. However, Halperin’s article analyzes the historic background of men during the time of classical Athens to imply that sexuality is more than desire and lust. Sexuality was not defined by a term or by what gender one had intercourse with, instead it served as a point of power. Superior and inferior roles of men were placed on people through sexual experiences, regardless of their gender. From this historic information, we understand the importance of domination through sex and how it has a significant impact on someone despite their gender. Dominance is still a factor in sex and sexuality of men, but it is now viewed as socially unacceptable. Could the history of sexuality in Athens with regards to superior and inferior sex relate to the issue of rape and masculinity? Questioning and analyzing the history of sexuality is one of the most important steps in how to understand and how we perceive sexuality. One of the most interesting topics that Halperin discussed in the article was his correlation to sexuality and dietary choice. The connection is made through by how people categorize characteristics depending on certain preferences. Vegetarians are categorized by the fact that they exclude meat from their diet, while homosexuals are categorized by an attraction towards the same sex. What differentiates the two situations is that people do not necessarily identify an individual by what they eat. Why should sexuality be any different? Sexuality is, and will continue to be controversial because it is an unfamiliar subject to many people.

Best of Both Worlds

Halperin made his point emphasizing the short history of sexuality despite the timeless act of performing sexual intercourse. Sex is our means of survival after all. As we discussed in class, there just was not noticeable sexuality in the first societies. Halperin specifically clearly explains how the ancient Athenian society regarded sexual relations as a part of politics. In other words, it did not matter whether sexual acts were homosexual or heterosexual, just as long as a social superior sexually dominated a social inferior. That idea is mind-blowing to me. The way I interpret it, ancient Athenians must have had sex for sheer pleasure. It almost makes the social superiors shallow in my mind.
As we analyzed Halperin's reading together, we came to a consensus that sexual preference is one of the most scrutinized parts of our identity and how strangers perceive an individual in the twenty-first century. Athenian society was more mature about personal preferences and lifestyle choices than our society today, but at the same time was vastly more immature in other aspects compared to our generation's culture. I am of course talking about the fact that they had slaves and generally did not look down on the oppression of social "inferiors". I have come to the conclusion that a combination of the two societies would make a better society than the one we live in today.
Supposedly, today's American citizens abide by the law and treat homosexuals one-hundred percent equal. Most people, although I can only speak for teenagers with certainty, have heard numerous derogatory terms aims at homosexual individuals in various settings. I have even heard successful, hard-working, family oriented adults stoop to that level as well. Humans have managed to mold our world into a place were people feel the need to be accepted. A world were many people fear to express themselves openly. The fear to let who we are and what we prefer out for everyone to see might not be as strong as it was a century ago, but there are still so many flaws in our society. How is it that ancient Athenians could accept homosexuality and so many of us still cannot?
Maurice finds himself in the same boat. He cannot be open. He cannot be honest. Up to where we read up to, he is lost and uncomfortable with himself. He even has trouble formulating his own opinions. Maurice might not be living in the twenty-first century, but I am sure he feels the same way as hundreds and hundreds of people all around the world.

Wow, times have changed.

In my opinion, the most interesting aspect of the Halperin articles was the use of power in “sexuality” that was observed in ancient Athens. The use of dominance in the act of sex conveyed a very non-romantic, non-loving atmosphere of Athens, where reproduction was the only positive sexual outcome. The social structure was so competitive and judgmental as far as social status that the intense act of sex was looked as primarily a way to show social ranking. Only the higher status member could gain pleasure from the act, which was oblivious of gender specifications. This is fascinating when compared to the modern view of sex and “sexuality” because in present times, the act of sex is solely about pleasure and romance, as well as carrying highly biased and opinionated views on hetero or homosexual actions. The social judgmental view has changed from status to gender preference. It is seen as “normal” in today’s world for women to be dominate over men in many areas of life, and our Western culture actually celebrates this feminine power. The Halperin article opened my eyes to the vast difference in cultural and social beliefs of ancient societies in comparison to present societies.
I am curious as to when the focus of society “sexuality” changed from social status to gender preference. It seems that throughout history, that act of sex has occurred between the same and different genders, whether society acknowledged that fact or not. This supports the belief that a person’s sexual preference is based on unchangeable nature instead of cultural surroundings. So, I am curious as to when the negative connotations on homosexuality arise when, in actuality, homosexuality or that act of sex between the same gender, has existed for much of history. Halperin states that “sexual desires are constructed, mass produced, and distributed among the various members of human living-groups.” (426). I couldn’t agree more.

The Halperin article got me thinking a lot about sexuality and how sexuality can be one of the main components that we use as a society to define people. For instance, when celebrities make it known to the public that they are homosexual, it becomes front page news and the celebrity is often defined by his or her sexuality. The dietary analogy expanded my thoughts even more about how sexuality defines people in our society. I liked how Halperin made reference to how we do not define people by their eating habits, which are a part of daily life. If we do not define people by eating habits, why should we define them by sexuality?
The positive part of sex and the ancient world is that sexuality was not a category and that homosexual or heterosexual did not make a difference. What I like about our current society is that two adults are permitted to have sex if they are both willing, no matter what class they belong to. I could not imagine living in a society where I was forced to have sex with somebody because I was of a lower status.
I enjoyed reading Part 1 of Maurice and sympathize with Maurice. I know that it is difficult in our society now for homosexuals to be open with there sexuality, but I can not even imagine what it would be like if they were not permitted to make it public knowledge. Being homosexual seems to cause a lot of confusion for Maurice and he can’t talk about it with anybody because it is forbidden. I am glad to see that our society has advanced to where homosexuality is now talked about and I hope that it will continue to advance so that it is no longer perceived as “abnormal”.

Halperin-Maurice Sexuality

I do not know why that Halperin addresses the sexual lifestyle of the Athenians and not the Spartans. The Athenians and the Spartans both did not address the issue of homosexuality even though it occurred. The Athenian citizens were dominant over the young boys, while in the barracks the men were very comfortable with each other. Each separate polis had a different reason why there existed homosexuality. According to Halperin's article, "Dio asserts that even respectable women are so easy to seduce nowadays, that men will soon tire of them and will turn their attention to boys instead" (421). In addition, Halperin discusses the issue of "satryriasis," or "a state of abnormally elevated sexual desire" (422). In Sparta, the men were together in barracks because of training for war while the women were seen rarely and only for procreation. It was also interesting in Maurice that one of the gay characters Clive wants to go to Greece and visits Greece. I think he wanted to go to Greece after reading Phaedrus and Symposium by Plato and learns that his way of living is not an issue as it is in their society. Clive wanted to go to a place where he thought he would fit in. Their society instead is concentrated on the Bible and what it says which in turn says that homosexuality is wrong. Maurice even searched the scriptures for the support and instead found that the Bible was against him (70). He also mentions Sodom of Sodom and Gnmorrah on pg. 69 because his desires were sins. In Sodom men were sleeping with prostitutes and other men if I remember correctly. In addition, "[Clive's] sincere mind, with its keen sense of right and wrong, had brought him the belief that he was damned instead" (69)(73). Halperin and Maurcie both address sexuality and homosexuality in different ways.
Halperin addresses the sexuality of the Athenians and also addresses "soft" men along with Forster. According to Halperin, "soft" men are unmasculine, and "these men willingly adopt the dress, gait, and other characteristics of women, thereby confirming that they suffer not from a bodily disease but from a mental (or moral) defect" (422). He also describes those men as passive instead of the dominators because they take the "feminine role in sexual intercourse" (422). Halperin describes "soft" men similar to the way Forster describes his characters. The fact that Maurice grew up with his mother and sisters and no father figure could be a part of why he is gay. On page 19, Forster portrays Maurice as a wimp, or feminine man because he is afraid of his room and the shadow which is stereotypical of a gay man. When Forster described Risley it was stereotypical of a gay man. Risley "made an exaggerated gesture when introduced, and when he spoke...he used strong yet unmanly superlatives" (31). Forster and Halperin addresss the stereotypical homosexual man in similar ways.
It is interesting how Forster never outright mentions homosexuality in his book. Forster only hints to it. He uses words like "friendship" between Maurice and Clive. And in the beginning of the book he emphasizes the idea of a man and a woman together for the survival of mankind. That is how it is supposed to be. On page 51 "Omit: a reference to the unspeakable vice of the Greeks." And in the novel, Clive "was glad to know that there were more of his sort about" (71). Because homosexuality is shunned in their society, Maurice and his fellow "friends" never outright mention it. They have to keep it a secret or else society will turn against them. Even though "Mr. Cornwallis always suspected such friendships" (79). Maurice describes himself and Clive as "outlaws" (127) because they do not want to be with women. Forster's novel, Maurice, brings up good reasons why he does not mention homosexuality but instead implies it. Halperin's article and Forster's novel come together to address sexuality and homosexuality in various ways.