Where Angels Fear to Tread, E.M. Forster - Term Paper Example

?Introduction British society in Where Angels Fear to Tread is portrayed as a society full of hypocrisy, which is juxtaposed with the more naturalistic and down-to-earth society which is represented by the Italian society in this novel (Kar-Man Ng, 1982, p. 16). The two societies are portrayed in opposition “between Apollonian and Dionysian, city and country, the British ‘insider’ and the foreign ‘outsider’” (Sampson, 2004, p. 316). Goodlad (2006) states that, in this novel, “morality embedded in affective relations will often be narrow, undemocratic, reactionary, violent, sexist, or simply selfish” (Goodlad, 2006, p. 320). Forster portrayed the British upper-crust society with a great deal of disdain, or as an object of ridicule, especially the matriarch of the Herriton clan, Mrs. Herriton and her daughter, Harriett. In this way, the novel closely parallels the poem upon which the novel is based, which is An Essay on Criticism by Alexander Pope. In the stanza where the famous quotation may be found, which is “For Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread,” Pope skewered the educated elite who are blind to the aspects of life that really matter. Pope describes the “Bookful Blockhead, ignorantly read, with Loads of Learned Lumber in his Head,” who nonetheless are ignorant about the world around them because they are always listening to themselves and not the wise men around them. Moreover, Pope feared that such fools were everywhere, as “No Place so Sacred from such Fops is barr’d.” Indeed, the line that “For Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread” was Pope’s way of saying that an Angel, being wise, would be hesitant to go into certain situations and would be circumspect. The fool, only listening to himself and not to the wisdom of society and the ages, will go into these situations where the wise Angels will not (Pope). Forster novel is therefore based upon this premise, and in so doing, shows the upper-crust British society to be the fools in Pope’s poem, as they are learned and educated, yet do not have as much common sense as an uneducated rube such as Gino. Discussion The first fool who will be examined will be Lilia, although, in the scheme of things, Lilia comes off better than do Mrs. Herriton, Philip and especially Harriett. Like Mrs. Herriton and Harriett, Lilia’s foolishness comes, in part, from an innate prejudice about supposedly “lower” societies, such as the Italian society and lower class people; however, it is not immediately obvious that Lilia does not harbor such a prejudice. After all, she married Gino. Lilia’s foolishness seems to be more a product of a rebellion against the British society then a sense of superiority over the Italian people, although there are some instances where she does show that she feels superior to her husband Gino. Lilia was oppressed by her former in-laws – “when I came to your house a poor young bride, how you all looked me over – never a kind word – and discussed me, and thought I might just do; and your mother corrected me, and your sister snubbed me, and you said funny things about me to show how clever you were! And when Charles died I was still to run in strings for the honour of your beastly family, and I was to be cooped up at Sawston and learn to keep house, and all my chances spoilt of marrying again” (Forster, 1905, p. 27). This shows Lilia’s state of mind when she left for Italy and met and married Gino. Because Lilia was so desperate to break away from this society, she married Gino without really knowing him, which set her up for the unhappy life that she had with him. Yet there was some indication that Lilia, despite the fact that she married Gino, had the same thoughts about him and the Italian society, for he treated him like a boy and as a fool “thinking herself so immeasurably superior to him that she neglected opportunity after opportunity of establishing her rule” (Forster, 1905, p. 32). Further, Lilia felt that she could do what she liked because she was wealthier and Gino was “stupid” (Forster, 1905,p. 32). Thus, this shows that Lilia was, in her way, part of the hypocritical British society, in that she felt that she was superior to Gino the rube. The irony was that, instead of Lilia getting the upper hand in the relationship due to her “superiority,” Lilia became a kind of doormat for Gino, as Gino carried on extramarital affairs and stayed out all night while leaving Lilia at home. Thus, Lilia looks foolish for marrying a man that she does not know, simply to anger her former in-laws, feeling superior to this man, then showing that she isn’t as superior as her mind had led her to believe, as evidenced by her putting up with Gino’s bad behavior. Like the Alexander Pope poem, Lilia had a vision in her head of what her relationship with Gino should be, and the reality of her life proved to be far different from this vision. Philip was also a fool in this novel. He initially was guilty of being the epitome of the learned fool, which was the subject of Pope’s poem, in that he knew everything there was to know about Italy, yet nothing of its people. When we first meet Philip, he is enthusiastically regaling Lilia about Italy, concentrating on the buildings and structures of Italy that Lilia must visit. Yet gradually, the reader gets the sense that Philip, while being in love with Italy is not really in love with the Italian people, for he had a myopic view of the Italians, or, at least Gino. For Philip thought, after hearing about Gino’s behavior towards Lilia that “Italy, the land of beauty, was ruined for him. She had no power to change men and things who dwelt in her. She, too, could produce avarice, brutality, stupidity – and, what was worse, vulgarity. It was on her soil and through her influence that a silly woman had married a cad. He hated Gino, the betrayer of his life’s ideal, and now that the sordid tragedy had come it filled him with pangs, not of sympathy, but of final disillusionment” (Forster, 1905, p. 52). In other words, Philip brands the Italian people with the same broad brush as he branded Gino, and his disillusionment with Italy was made complete by Gino’s betrayal of the ideal. Philip was thus in love with the idea of Italy, but not was not enamoured with her people, bringing the British view of the Italian people while still being in love with the land (Donaldson, 1979, p. 41). Indeed, when Philip first visits Italy, he was definitely considered to be an example of an Englishman who is “not fully comfortable in the Italy [he visits]” (Hill, 2008, p. 65). To his credit, however, Philip redeemed himself completely by the end of the novel when he chose to befriend Gino and, it is through this friendship, that Philip’s faith in the Italian people was restored. While Philip, upon coming to Italy, still had blinders on when it came to Gino’s character, in that he assumed that Gino would be willing to essentially sell his baby to Philip and Harriett, Philip began to change when it was revealed that Gino was sorry for an altercation that Gino had with Philip earlier, and this changed Philip’s entire outlook on not only Gino but the Italian people – “For romance had come back to Italy; there were no cads in her; she was beautiful, courteous, lovable, as of old” (Forster, 1905, p. 82). This shows that Philip is entirely self-centered – how he is affected by events colors his perceptions, so, because Gino was impertinent earlier, Philip felt that the Italian people were suddenly vulgar, brutal and stupid; upon learning that Gino felt bad about this impertinence, suddenly the people of Italy could not do wrong again. Again, Philip displays himself to be the learned fool of Pope’s poem, who does not look at outside influences to color one’s decision, but, rather, only looks inside oneself for this information, which will ultimately lead to faulty information. How Philip is affected is how he looks at the world around him, and this leads to faulty assumptions on his part. Philip, however, is redeemed in the end, perhaps moreso then any other character in the novel. He befriends Gino, sees Gino as a well-rounded person, as opposed to the black or white caricature which encompassed Philip’s previous view of the man, and this makes Philip make the moral decision that taking Gino’s baby away from him would be wrong. This shows that Philip was able to distinguish his feelings about a situation based not upon how events affect him directly, which brings Philip around to full redemption by the end. Harriett is a fool, and she was a fool without redemption. Harriett serves, as a caricature of the foolish British society, in that she was pure snobbery and remained so throughout the novel, never redeeming herself in any way. In fact, by the end of the novel, her snobbery has come into full fruition, as it was her actions that leads to the death of Gino’s child. Harriett felt that Gino had killed Lilia, with no proof of this at all and, in fact, was willing to condemn the Italian society as a whole with this accusation – “I condemn the whole lot” (Forster, 1905, p. 73). Harriett complains the entire way about the conditions that she encounters; Harriett assumes that Gino will be ready and willing to turn over the child for a sum of money. In fact, Harriett has such little doubt that this will occur that she assumes that the transaction will be made and the rescue party will be on the next train out of Italy. Harriett assumes that the child should be raised in the proper way of the British, instead of living with a rube who loves the child, which means that the child would be cared for people who did not love the child but can bring a proper upbringing, and that this is infinitely preferable to the life that he would lead in Italy with Gino. Thus, Harriett represents the inherent snobbery of the British elite who assumes that their culture is superior to other cultures, and that the British ideals of manners and propriety are the only things that matter in life. Love is something that matters much less than keeping up appearances, according to the stereotype, and Forster used Harriett to epitomize this stereotype. Like the fools in Pope’s poem, Harriett is blinded by anything that does not conform to her worldview, which makes her rush in where angels would fear to tread, by kidnapping Gino’s child and leading to the child’s death. Gino is another fool at the start of the novel, and he epitomizes, at first, the stereotype that British society has regarding cultures different from its own. Gino is a rube who spits on the floor during dinner, stays out all night and womanizes. He marries Lilia, but does not love her, and there is some indication that he marries Lilia for her money. Wooten (2009) states that Lilia was actually “little more than the incubator for his progeny rather than an equal partner in the creation of life” (Wooten, 2009, p. 253). Gino is therefore set up, in the beginning of the novel, to be the embodiment of what a British snob would view a person from a Latin culture - unsophisticated, overly sexed, and immoral. Forster, however, also effectively sets Gino up in the end as being a much more well-rounded character then originally anticipated, as it is shown that Gino has unconditional love for his infant child. Gino’s love for his child is so great that he is willing to marry a woman that he does not love, simply because he needs a mother for the child. Seeing Gino with the child enchants first Caroline, who, like Harriett and Philip, went to Italy to try to convince Gino to part with the child, then Philip. As indicated above, it is this love for the child that convinces Philip that taking the child would be immoral and wrong, thus redeeming Philip in the eyes of the reader. Moreover, Gino forgave Philip in the end, even speaking up for Philip in the investigation of the child’s death and retaining the friendship that was forged between the two men. Thus, Gino shows the error of the prejudicial ways of British society, in that the society portrayed in the novel assumes that the British way is the only way and that all other societies are inferior. Yet Gino, with his capacity for unconditional love and forgiveness, shows that there are other traits which are more important than simply having manners. Gino might spit on the floor, but he knows much more about love and forgiveness than Harriett, who is the only unredeemed character by the end of the novel and is used by Forster to exemplify the snobbish British upper-crust. Forster correctly implies that Gino’s characteristics are much more important that Harriett’s. Caroline is the angel of the novel, for she never was portrayed in an overly harsh light like the others were. She starts the novel as kind of a beatific extra, painting the Italian countryside while looking after Lilia. Then, after Lilia dies, Caroline is concerned about the child and decides to investigate how well the child has been cared for. However, unlike with Philip and Harriett, there is no indication that Lilia feels superior to Gino or that she feels that Gino is unsuitable, per se. On the contrary, the reader gets the sense that Caroline’s worry for the child stems from a concern that Gino, as a single father, might have his hands full and Caroline felt responsible for the child’s welfare, as she felt responsible for the union that brought Gino and Lilia together. However, once Caroline realized that Gino was willing to marry a woman so that the child might get adequate care, Caroline backed off. Caroline, like Philip, saw how much Gino loved the child, and this satisfied her enough that she no longer had concerns for the child’s welfare. Forster underscores that Caroline, out of all the characters in the novel, is the only person who is not a fool and does not do things for foolish reasons, but, rather, for altruistic reasons, by his religious imagery surrounding her character. Caroline is often seen praying for guidance and protection for herself and for others. Caroline is also referred to as a “goddess” – “All through the day Miss Abbott had seemed to Philip like a goddess, and more than ever did she seem so now….Such eyes he had seen in great pictures but never in a mortal. Her hands were folded round the sufferer, stroking him lightly, for even a goddess can do no more than that” (Forster, 1905, p. 126). Moreover, Philip felt that, in the end, his faith in humanity was restored, and Caroline was a large part of this. Caroline “saved” Philip. Gino also felt that Caroline was like a goddess – “But all through he took me for a superior being – a goddess” (Forster, 1905, p. 135). Thus, Forster, with this imagery, is implying that Caroline was the Angel of the title, which made her fearful to tread in the same footsteps as the fools in this story. In fact, there is a passage that shows that Caroline literally was afraid to enter Gino’s house (Forster, 1905, p. 80). Caroline was not hasty like the fools, and was willing to give Gino the benefit of the doubt. Thus, Forster set Caroline up as representative of the parts of British society that is not necessarily willing to let their prejudices stand in the way of getting to know other cultures without making hasty judgments about them. Caroline is the only character who does not embody Pope’s poem about fools rushing in where Angels fear to tread. Conclusion Pope’s poem with the line about angels fearing to tread was the basis for Forster’s novel for a variety of reasons. The poem shows that foolish people will have prejudices that are borne because they cannot listen to other people, but, rather, only sees the world from a myopic viewpoint. Harriett was the person who most epitomizes this foolish person, but Philip did too as did Lilia and Gino. All of them showed a great deal of selfishness through much of the novel, and Harriett, Philip and Lilia also showed a great deal of superiority. Caroline, however, managed to not embody Pope’s poem, so she was the voice of reason in the novel and proof that not all British society is snobbish and ridiculous. Sources Used Donaldson, G.R. (1979) A language for thought: Irony in A Room With a View, Where Angels Fear to Tread, and the Longest Journey. Open Access Dissertations and Theses. Paper 5075. http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/opendissertations/5075. Forster, E.M. (1905) Where Angels Fear to Tread. London: Penguin Groups. Goodlad, L.M. (2006) Where liberals fear to tread: E.M. Forster’s queer internationalism and the ethics of care. Available at: http://criticism.english.illinois.edu/pdf_docs/Goodlad_Forster_Novel.pdf Gould, K. (1994) The theme of connection in E.M. Forster’s fiction. Available at: http://www.le.ac.uk/engassoc/publications/bookmarks/20.pdf Hill, P. (2008) The architecture of identity: EM Forster and the use of space. Available at: http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1158&context=etd_hon_theses&sei-redir=1#search=%22architecture%20identity%22 Ng, R.M. (1982) Fantasy and prophecy in E.M. Forster. Open Access Dissertations and Theses. Paper 4445. http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/opendissertations/4445 Pope, A. An essay on criticism. Available at: http://ethnicity.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/essay.html Sampson, F. (2007) Writing as therapy. Available at: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QckF0OTZMpgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA312&dq=%22writing+as+therapy%22+fiona+sampson&ots=ucqNHZ_4E5&sig=4vChAZMLW5BIxZqrindswHk0n5g#v=onepage&q=%22writing%20as%20therapy%22%20fiona%20sampson&f=false Wooten, E. (2009) The family life that does not die with death: Continuity, reproduction and inheritance in the novels of E.M. Forster. Chrestomathy vol. 8, pp. 246-263. Read More