Colm Toibin, author and critic, reviewed a new biography of E. M. Forster for the New York Times a few weeks ago and, as I was reading it over, I began to wonder, why does it appear that Toibin is misreading or incorrectly reflecting on Forster. The incorrect reflection? That after "A Passage to India" Forster wrote
"merely a few short biographies, some essays and literary
journalism."
Nowhere mentioned in the article are the radio talks he gave for the BBC (transcripts of which were published a few years back, reviewed by Zadie Smith in the New York Review of Books [Smith is E. M. Forster's most powerful disciple, perhaps a tad too influenced by him]). His essays fill several books. And to say that
"he wrote no more novels"
is technically wrong. He never finished writing the novels, but he did continue to write. There are fragments of two books, one of which was published in 2003 (Arctic Summer). And don't forget the libretto to Billy Budd. I know that Toibin is a devotee of Forster as well, and I can only hope that this was a slight oversight.
Also from the New York Times, a new biography of Maugham is reviewed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/books/review/Leavitt-t.html?ref=books
Most Intriguing
JPC
I mean, think about it. How would Colm Toibin respond if I said that he "merely" wrote some short stories and a literary study which began to touch the glories of his Henry James novel, "The Master"? And the journalism, of course, which no one I know has actually read.
ReplyDelete