A Passage to India

it has something to say, but i'm certain there's a more compelling way to say it out there

(probably hurt by the fact that this was a school read)

If I interpret EM Forster's writing correctly, he held an unconventional view of colonialism for his time. Published in 1924, over 20 years before India gained independence, this novel shows a the mutual distrust of the British and Indians, and racial prejudices take a fairly innocuous event and turn it into a major drama.

Colonialism and the British in India are painted in very poor light in this novel, and while the Indian characters are not necessarily much better with their own conspiratorial views and their quickness to riot they are at least the hard done by ones. Poor communication and cultural differences are key factors throughout this novel, highlighted in many ways throughout the narrative.

The conclusions jumped to continually throughout the story tell of the distrust, the pessimistic view the British have of the Indian's (and vice versa) and the the cultural misunderstandings. Even when Adela acts in the most unexpected way she is afforded nothing but spite from both sides (I won't explain more on the off chance there is someone left who has left this to read for longer than I have!)

Even Cyril Fielding, the most sympathetic of the British with the strongest friendship with Indian characters comes unstuck through mistrust and issues with communication.

The setting and characters are well described. Forster's writing, while slightly dated, is tidy and thoughtful, although for me it could have been shortened a bit with an edit. I enjoyed it, but it was a slow burn book for me.

There is plenty of analysis, better than I can offer, in other reviews.

4 stars

I'm torn on this review. On one hand, there's nice historical references for the tension between Britain and India during this time period. the writing is fantastic and really does paint clear pictures of what's being talked about. Unfortunately, on the other, not a lot....actually happens. The prose is great, the setting compelling, but not much else. There's little going on here beyond a very pretty setting involving very pretty characters in a very tense environment.

That said, I think I'm going to give it another try next year as a re-read. I really did enjoy the writing style, just not necessarily the substance, or lack thereof.

Very good all the way through. One underlying theme, that colonialism makes all forms of friendship impossible, resonates strongly.

“Most of life is so dull that there is nothing to be said about it, and the books and talk that would describe it as interesting are obliged to exaggerate, in the hope of justifying their own existence.”
Yeah, okay, Forster. SO, WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T YOU?

Tone: Dispassionate.
What could be described as the opposite of Dickensian.
Prose: Soporific. Savagely, sadistically tedious.
Felt an overwhelming urge to skim through the first 150 pages.
Social commentary: Strong.
Kind of awesome.
Story: Mind-numbingly, soul-destroyingly boring.
Might induce the reader to resort to some form of self-harm to rid themselves of the inevitable ennui it triggers.

I did like Professor Godbole, though. He was so very gay.