On Writing - Aspects of the Novel by E. M. Forster

“Aspects of the Novel” is a collection of lectures given by E M. Forster in 1927 at Trinity College, Cambridge. The lectures offer plainly spoken literary criticism and discussion of ‘the novel’ aimed at a general audience. In the lectures he discusses various aspects of the novel, such as ‘The Story’, ‘People’, ‘The Plot’, ‘Fantasy’, ‘Prophecy’, ‘Pattern and Rhythm’, and references many books that were then current or in the recent past.

I hired this book out of the library because I am a writer and was interested in his theories regarding the novel, hoping to find something that could help me as I write mine. What I liked most about this book is that contradicts a lot of the more recent writing books that I have read, in that E. M. Forster cares less about rules than whether the author is successful in their individual approach.

For example in the discussion of ‘Point of View’ he writes —

“Look how Dickens bounces us in Bleak House. Chapter 1 of Bleak House is omniscient. Dickens takes us into the court of Chancery and rapidly explains all the people there. In chapter 2 he is partially omniscient. We still use his eyes, but for some unexplained reason they begin to grow weak; he can explain Sir Leicester Dedlock to us, part of Lady Dedlock but not all, and nothing of Mr Tulkinghorn. In chapter 3 he is even more reprehensible; he goes straight across into the dramatic method and inhabits a young lady, Esther Summerson. “I have a great deal of difficulty in beginning to write my portion of these pages, for I know that I am not clever”……Logically, Bleak House house is all to pieces, but Dickens bounces us, so that we don’t mind the shiftings of the viewpoint”

E M. Forster then continues with a discussion about shifting viewpoints in “The Counterfeiters” and “War and Peace” Although somewhat dated in subject matter and tone, “Aspects of the Novel” contains many such gems. His definition of plot as opposed to story is one example, with story being a sequence of events, the other emphasizing the causality of the events…

Let us define a plot. We have defined a story as a narrative of events arranged in their time-sequence. A plot is also a narrative of events, the emphasis falling on causality. “The king died and then the queen died,” is a story. “The king died, and then the queen died of grief” is a plot. The time-sequence is preserved, but the sense of causality overshadows it. Or again: “The queen died, no one knew why, until it was discovered that it was through grief at the death of the king.” This is a plot with a mystery in it, a form capable of high development. It suspends the time-sequence, it moves as far away from the story as its limitations will allow. Consider the death of the queen. If it is in a story we say “and then?” If it is in a plot we ask “why?” That is the fundamental difference between these two aspects of the novel.

One particular chapter/lecture considers the difference between ‘flat’ and ‘round’ characters. We would probably use the term one-dimensional or three-dimensional these days, but the idea is the same. A flat character can be defined by a single trait and be described in one sentence. They do not change or grow throughout the story. The benefit of flat characters is that they are easily recognized when they enter the story and easily remembered by the reader afterward. A round character, however, can surprise the reader. They grow and change over the course of a novel.

The test of a round character is whether it is capable of surprising in a convincing way. If it never surprises, it is flat. If it does not convince, it is a flat pretending to be round. It (A Round Character) has the incalculability of life about it — life within the pages of a book. And by using it sometimes alone, more often in combination with the other kind, the novelist achieves his task of acclimatization and harmonizes the human race with the other aspects of his work.

To E. M Forster, all novelists are faced with the same task and are using roughly the same set of tools and techniques. He chooses not to separate writers into various historical periods, tendencies or influences, and instead imagines that all writers, past, present and future, are working together in a circular room. It is a lovely image, and to demonstrate this he often supports his views by supplying examples side-by-side that were written 100 years or more apart. He presents his talks as being in this room — looking over their shoulders in the process of creation. This is not a ‘dry’ book. This is a book of literary theory/criticism with refreshingly little of either, and therefore can be enjoyed by anyone who loves to read, or desires to write.

End.