MovieChat Forums > Maurice (1987) Discussion > Did anyone else notice? (Only for those ...

Did anyone else notice? (Only for those who read the book)

posted 20 years ago by smoothhoney1265
11 replies | jump to latest

Hi there!

I really thought a long time whether to post this here or not and I decided to do that. I've read Maurice again and noticed something that might be a co-incidence, but it just appeared so often that I couldn't help thinking it was oin purpose. Did you notice how often Forster uses the words "gay", "fag", "queer" and even "dyke" throughout the whole book? I mean, the hints are so obvious. I thought it was hilarious.

Did anyone else notice or am I the only one?

Cheers, Smooth
But Nyah - you ask the question and you are the answer... (M:I-2; Dougray Scott)

[–] maraudertheslashnymph 20 years ago

I don't think it was intentional, as those words had different meanings at the time that he wrote the book. If you want to see really funny intentional double-entendres, though, read At Swim, Two Boys by Jamie O'Neill. It has a similar theme and time period as Maurice, but was written in 2001.

[–] film_buff12 20 years ago

Maurice and At Swim, Two Boys are both beautiful, wonderful books. I agree maurauder. And I highly recommend both books and the film version of Maurice.

"Ah, ya's fancy pants, alla ya's"
"Leave the gun. Take the cannoli."

[–] Guildfordian 20 years ago

I agree with maurauder and film buff, I don't think they were intentional, mainly because Forster wrote the book never to be published, in his life anyway, thus I do not think that they were intentional.

Fabulous book nonetheless, so nice to see English written as it should be!

Regards

[–] smoothhoney1265 20 years ago

Oh yes, the language in "Maurice" is wonderful and I'm glad that I bought a copy from Penguin and read it in the original version. I love this English and I prefer the elegant British English to the sloppy American English. And well, I loved it. I always try to read English books in English if I have the opportunity because no translation, no matter how well it might be, is as terrific as the original version.

Cheers! :-)

I love you so much that I could die! I'm an old bastard, Tommy, but I love you!

[–] squider12002 18 years ago

translation? do you mean they translate the book into American English, changing all the slang and colloqualisms etc? There can't be that much difference, at least not in things which can't be understood from their context, or a little common-sense. Much of the language in the book is archaic to us in Britain, but it's part of the nature of the book, and usually fairly self-explanatory. I'm glad you bought a proper copy, as a literautre student I feel it's quite insulting to an author to change their language in any way unless it's a bona-fida translation into another language, which would be necassary for reading in that country. One thing which I thought might be slightly strange to modern readers of whatever nationality was the reference to Maurice and Clive "making love" all afternoon. Obviously the phrase didn't used to mean in the physical sense like it does now, but even knowing that it seems strange to see it there; another example of language absorbing greater meaning over time.

Incidentally I once had to do a presentation on homoeroticism in a Henry James novel, the uses of the word 'queer' are unintentionally very funny. One woman asks another to come and live with her, part of a lesbian subtext according to our reading. James writes:

"It was a very queer thing, and the queerest thing was that she didn't think it was queer at all."

Apparently the use of the word "queer" as associated with homosexuality was first recorded in 1922. But I don't think it is in the sense that Forster uses it.

[–] pogostiks 19 years ago

At the time Forster wrote the book, in British English, "fag" was a term used about a boy at the public (meaning "private") schools in Britain who was in a lower class than you,and who had to more or less be your slave, cleaning up your room, running errands etc. The term had absolutely no sexual meaing at all.
"Queer" simply meant strange , "gay" meant happy, carefree.
Don't know about dyke, though.

[–] squider12002 18 years ago

Dyke is the British spelling of what US english would tern dike. I always thought it was a canal or water of some kind, but I've looked up the dictionary definition for clarification:

dike1 also dyke (dīk)
n.

1) An embankment of earth and rock built to prevent floods.
2) Chiefly British. A low wall, often of sod, dividing or enclosing lands.
3) A barrier blocking a passage, especially for protection.
4 )A raised causeway.
5) A ditch; a channel.
6 )Geology. A long mass of igneous rock that cuts across the structure of adjacent rock.
tr.v., diked also dyked, dik·ing dyk·ing, dikes dykes.
To protect, enclose, or provide with a dike.
To drain with dikes or ditches.
[Middle English, from Old English dīc, trench, and from Old Norse dīki, ditch.]

In the context of Maurice I believe it is referring to "A ditch or watercourse" (as my Oxford English Dictionary puts it)

Hope that helped

[–] jslasher 18 years ago

For 'smoothhoney1265',

I read a book for its literary merit, not for the so-called slang words within.
'Maurice' is a fine book. It is far from hilarious, as you put it.

John Steven Lasher

[–] keyser_soze_wales 18 years ago

Well, I agree that Maurice is a fine book, but I also thought the 'slang' words in it were pretty funny. Probably my rather childish sense of humour.

[–] glorfindel956 18 years ago

He does use them, but you've got to remember that the only word which actually meant 'homosexual' in E.M. Forster's day was 'queer', though (judging from his sense of humour in his other books) he probably did slip this in for a laugh, as it were.

[–] west_cavallo 16 years ago

Jslasher: you are a patronizing ponce. Lighten up.

-----
We could release a single.