There is not much to be said about this book apart from the fact that it is a pillar in the field of literary criticism.

One will surely learn many valuable things about the craft of fiction thanks to Forster's witty and straightforward style which, unfortunately, did not remain consistent near the end of the book.I had the impression that Forster's choice of certain works to illustrate his opinions was made out of personal taste and stance towards a few of his contemporaries. Nevertheless, what the author excelled at is the way of making literay lectures appealing and not boring (at some point).

At any rate, this book is unvaluable when it comes to learning more about the realm of fiction.Forster is a savvy and eloquent professor who seemed, to my own dismay, trapped in the error of repeating himself about certain topics, maybe for the purpose of emphasis or for the purpose of testing one's attention span. A good and challenging read.

in order to judge this fairly, funnily enough, i have to cling to history. in other words, avoid imagining different theorists "at work together in a circular room" (he refers to authors here, putting them outside of time, but it fits the purpose) and remember forster predated a lot of crucial theory. in his own time, he stands on solid ground and one can appriciate how witty this man can be at various points.

Forster gives the reader much to contemplate in this book that looks at different aspects of writing. He’s funny, opinionated, and a bit vague at times which could be because I missed his point. Well written and interesting.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/70492

I am proofing this book for Free Literature and Project Gutenberg will publish it.

NOTE


These are some lectures (the Clark lectures)
which were delivered under the auspices of Trinity
College, Cambridge, in the spring of 1927. They
were informal, indeed talkative, in their tone, and
it seemed safer when presenting them in book
form not to mitigate the talk, in case nothing
should be left at all. Words such as "I," "you,"
"one," "we," "curiously enough," "so to speak,"
"only imagine," and "of course" will consequently
occur on every page and will rightly distress the
sensitive reader; but he is asked to remember that
if these words were removed others, perhaps more
distinguished, might escape through the orifices
they left, and that since the novel is itself often
colloquial it may possibly withhold some of its
secrets from the graver and grander streams of
criticism, and may reveal them to backwaters and
shallows.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTORY

II THE STORY

III PEOPLE

IV PEOPLE (_continued_)

V THE PLOT

VI FANTASY

VII PROPHECY

VIII PATTERN AND RHYTHM

IX CONCLUSION

INDEX

n  
لا يوجد روائي إنجليزي في عظمة تولستوي استطاع ان يعطي تلك الصورة الكاملة عن حياة الإنسان في منزله وفي بطولته. كما أنه لا يوجد روائي إنجليزي استشف روح الإنسان بذلك العمق الذي استشفها به دستوفسكي. ولا يوجد روائي في اي مكان نجح في تحليل الوعي الحديث كما نجح مارسيل بروست. إننا يجب ان نصمت امام تلك الإنتصارات."
n

مجموعة محاضرات تم تفريغها على الورق يتحدث بها فورستر حول أوجه الرواية: الحكاية، الناس (الشخصيات)، الحبكة الروائية، الإغراق في الخيال، التنبؤ، النموذج والوزن.

يستعين فورستر بالكثير من الروايات الإنجليزية وبعض الروايات الفرنسية والروسية المشهورة ليشرح أوجه الرواية المختلفة داخلها والفروقات ما بينها وحاجتها او عدم حاجتها لبعض العناصر.

يرى فورستر ان الرواية تروي حكاية، وسؤالنا عن كيف ولماذا هو الحبكة، وفي داخلها شخصيات فنية تختلف عن شخصيات الواقع وهي إما تكون مسطحة او دائرية.

n  
لقد عرّفنا الحكاية على أنها مجموعة من الحوادث مرتبة ترتيبًا زمنيًا. والحبكة ايضًا سلسلة من الحوادث يقع التأكيد فيها على الأسباب والنتائج. فإذا قلنا "مات الملك ثم ماتت الملكة بعد ذلك"، فهذه حكاية، أما "مات الملك وبعدئذ ماتت الملكة حزنًا، فهذه حبكة، وقد احتفظنا هنا بالترتيب الزمني ولكن الإحساس بالأسباب والنتائج يفوقه."
n

يشدد فورستر على ذكاء وذاكرة القارئ، فالحبكة الغامضة تحتاج منه الإنتباه والتركيز للإستمتاع بالرواية المقروءة. وفكّ شيفرتها

n  
الحبكة الروائية لا يمكن ان يهضمها جمهور من المستمعين من أهل الكهوف يفغرون أفواههم غباء، أو لسبطان طاغية أو لأحفادهم الحديثين كجمهور السينما."
n

بشكل عام الكتاب جيد، هناك مشاكل كثيرة في الترجمة من حيث المعنى والأخطاء المطبعية. طبعًا النقد تطور كثيرًا من أيام فورستر وبعض المعاصرين لا يؤمنون بالحبكة ضمن الرواية او التواتر الدرامي لكنه كتاب مفيد بجميع الأحوال.

يعد الروائي الانجليزي "فورستر" من ادباء مدرسة التحرر الفكري في بدايات القرن العشرين ، ولم يكن روائياً فحسب بل ناقداً وفيلسوفاً يبحث في معنى الحياة ..
تقدم هنا بسلسلة من المحاضرات عن فن الرواية ، وكيف يمكن معالجتها من أوجه مختلفة ، يستطيع من خلالها الروائي أن ينظر في عمله ( الحكاية ، الحبكة ، الاغراق في الخيال ، التنبؤ ، الاطار والنظم)..
جاءت المفاهيم بدائية وبسيطة مقارنة بها في الوقت الحالي ، ولقد طرح نقداً لعدد من الروايات ولكنه جاء مربكاً ومعقداً ولقد ارجعت ذلك لسوء الترجمة ..
يبدو أن السيد "فورستر" لم تسعفه الكلمات ليقول ما يود التعبير عنه لاسيما في الجزء الأخير من المحاضرات..
طرح سؤالاً هاماً ألا وهو " لنتخيل الروائيين في المائة سنة القادمة يكتبون في حجرة ما ، لابد وان الاختلافات في موضوعاتهم سيكون كبيراً ، اما هم فلن يتغيروا"
هل ستتغير طريقة الابتكار؟
هل يمكن ان تتغير الطبيعة البشرية ؟
يرى ان الطبيعة البشرية ان كانت تتغير فذلك يرجع الى ان الافراد ينظرون الى انفسهم بطريقة جديدة..
ارى يا سيدي ان هنالك ابتكار فيما يخص البنية الروائية وتقنياتها ، والقواعد التي يتبعها الروائي في الكتابة ولكن بنهاية المطاف الموضوعات مهما اختلفت تدور في فلك واحد وهو سبر اغوار النفس الانسانية والغوص في اعماق طبيعتها الذي يستعصى عليها ذاتها...

Differenziertes aus dem Nähkästchen Plaudern

Forsters Aspects of the novel, 1927 erschienen, steht als Vorläufer und Bezugspunkt für die darauffolgenden Narratologie-Diskussionen, bspw. von Gérard Genettes n  Die Erzählungn, Käte Hamburger n  Die Logik der Dichtungn oder Franz K. Stanzels n  Theorie des Erzählensn. Anders als diese will er aber naiv über den Roman berichten, aus der Sicht des Praktikers, er selbst schrieb Romane, und Konsumentens:

Etwas von Scheherazades Gemahl steckt in jedem von uns; auch wir wollen wissen, wie es weitergeht. Das ist allgemein menschlich, und deshalb eben braucht jeder Roman eine Geschichte als Rückgrat. Manche unter uns wollen von nichts anderem wissen; wir fühlen nichts als diese urtümliche Neugier, und folglich sind darüber hinaus all unsere literarischen Urteile grotestk.

Die Simplizität von Forsters Argumentation dient der Orientierung, wenn der Wald vor lauter Bäumen, die Bäume vor lauter Wald unsichtbar zu werden drohen. Für ihn gibt es drei wesentliche Elemente des Romans: die Geschichte (der Stoff), die Menschen (die Figuren) und die Fabel (der Plot). Diese drei Elemente haben sich zu verweben, indem die Geschichte spannend eine Abfolge von Begebenheiten enthält, die von flachen und runden, überraschenden Figuren, bevölkert werden, und die durch eine Handlungslogik einen Rahmen der Orientierung und so Perspektive erhält. Die Fabel ersetzt den aristotelischen Begriff des Konflikts. Er bringt Bewegung in die Ereignisabfolge:

Die Fabel also ist der Roman aus dem Blickwinkel der Logik, des Intellekts: sie braucht das Rätselvolle, doch die Rätsel lösen sich erst später. Der Leser mag sich in noch unverwirklichten Welten bewegen, den Autor kümmert das nicht. Er ist die maßgebende Instanz … entwirft sein Buch im voraus oder steht jedenfalls darüber; sein Schalten mit Ursache und Wirkung gibt ihm etwas von einer Vorsehungsmacht.

Hier argumentiert Forster direkt gegen moderne Erzählversuche wie die von Gertrude Stein, bspw. in n  The Making of Americansn, oder André Gide in n  Die Falschmünzern in ihren Texten, ohne einen Plot, ein Telos auskommen zu wollen. Der Roman verliert dann an Intensität und Dringlichkeit und tritt als „eine gewaltige amorphe Masse“ voller „sumpfigen Niederungen“ in Erscheinung.

Forster schlägt vor die Begebenheitenfolge von der Fabel zu trennen (Stoff vom Plot) und in flache und runde Charaktere zu unterscheiden. Zur Analyse dient dann der Versuch, die Logik der Erzählung auf den Begriff zu begriffen und die Figuren mit jeweils einen Satz zu charakterisieren. Auf der nächsten Ebene spielen dann Überraschungsmomente (Phantasie/Übernatürliches), Rhythmus und Modell eine Rolle, die dem Gefüge Klang und Schönheit verleihen. Die letzteren verbleiben unscharf und dienen nur als Abhub vom Gelingen der Basis der Erzählung, die auf Stoff, Figuren und Plot beruht.

Obwohl die Musik menschlicher Wesen nicht bedarf, obwohl sie verwickelten Gesetzen unterworfen ist, weist sie in ihrem letzten Ausdruck einen Typus von Schönheit auf, den die Epik auf ihre eigene Weise hervorbringen muss: Weite. An diese Idee muss sich der Romancier klammern. Nicht Vollendung. Nicht Abrunden, sondern Sich-auftun.

Trotz der belebenden Klarheit fehlt Aspects of the novel die Reflexion aufs Sprachliche, ja, das Musikalische der Sprache, die, wenn die Fabel auch nichts taugt, dennoch im Klang und Erzählrhythmus zu tragen vermag. Ebenso fehlt die Reflexion darüber, wann eine Erzählstimme glaubwürdig erscheint, wann nicht und inwiefern dies mit der Komposition, dem Zusammenspiel von Geschichte, Figuren und Fabel zusammenhängt.

Was aber, auch mit E.M. Forester, nichts taugt, wären karge Sprachen ohne Dynamik, ohne Poesie, die in die sumpfigen Niederungen einfallsloser Belletristik tauchen und Gedanken in amorphe Massen verwandeln. Für manche enervierend, erinnert Aspects of the novel daran, dass ein Roman, will er überzeugen, von etwas handeln, von etwas erzählen muss, und sei’s nur wie bei Gertrude Stein und André Gide von der Sprachlust, und diese Erinnerung scheint, zumindest die sogenannte anspruchsvolle Literatur, immer wieder gebrauchen zu können. Der narratologische Mehrwert bleibt dennoch gering.

They said to me "Do you do Twitter?"

I said no, I have Goodreads.

They said "What about Facebook?"

I said no, I have Goodreads - this is funny, someone said it should be called Bookface.

They didn't get that.

They said "Do you have a blog?"

I said well, no, I do Goodreads.

They looked at each other, and then they said "We heard you don't even have a mobile phone."

I said yeah, you heard right.

They said "Don't tell us, you have Goodreads."

I said "Now you're making fun of me."

They said "Huh, we don't need to."

They said "This Goodreads, it's for like book reviews? Is that right?"

I said "Well... yes, but... it's kind of... more than that"

I wasn't convincing them.

They said "More than that? You mean you talk about music and movies and like real life?"

I said "Well, it is actually books we're talking about, but, er, life does come into it"

There was a silence.

Then they said they had to go.

The author of 'Howard's End' and 'A Room With A View' provides his thoughts on the elements that make up stories. Parts of this were great and other parts I skimmed through because they didn't seem relevant in this day and age.

I particularly enjoyed:
- His take on commercially successful writers versus those who create works of art.
- His take on other writers of his day (loved Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, didn't care for Sir Walter Scott, thought Gertrude Stein failed in writing execution, liked Austen, thought Dickens was a one-dimensional caricaturist).
- The relationship between story, plot, and time
- His recounting of H.G. Wells mocking Henry James

The weakest part of the book, by far, was the page-long quotes from other books in order to illustrate a minor point that could have just as easily been summed up. Forster has a habit of providing extremely long quotes when a simple paraphrase would have sufficed. He also spends too much time on ideas that are never hashed out (fantasy, prophecy) and that feel out of place next to chapters on the foundational elements of storytelling (characters, plot, rhythm).

All in all, a good book on novels but I much preferred Stephen King's 'On Writing' and other books in the genre.

Really stunning commentary, and I've come to expect nothing less from Forster. I think the best way I can review this is to say that it's an immediate add to my "Reference" book shelf -- I will be pulling this and rereading it often when I need reminders about writing theory

Roman Sanatı, E. M. Forster'ın 1927 yılında romanları, ağırlıklı olarak İngiliz edebiyatını, incelediği kitabı. Roman nedir, ne değildir, romanlara nasıl yaklaşmak gerekir, nasıl yaklaşmak tehlikeli olabilir sorularına cevap veriyor. Bunu yaparken de kesinlikle "kasıntı" olmayan bir dille, son derece şakacı, hatta geyikçi bir şekilde yapıyor ve ortaya okuması keyifli bir kitap çıkıyor.

Okuması keyifli, fakat pek aydınlatıcı değil. Bundan neredeyse 100 yıl önce yazılmış bir kitabın bizim romanlara bakış açımızı değiştirmesi çok zor bir iş zaten, bu yüzden Forster'a kızamayız tabii, lakin yine de kitabı okuyacak olanların bu konuda beklentisini doğru ayarlaması önemli.

Kitapta ne bulabilirsiniz?
Benim kitaptan çıkardığım en çarpıcı sonuç, Forster'ın haksız düştüğü durumlara bakarak oldu. Forster sık sık "Eh, aklı başında kimse şöyle roman yazmaz herhalde," diyor, ama bu söylediklerinin üstünden geçen yaklaşık 100 yılda "Öyle roman yazılmaz," dediği her şekilde gayet iyi romanlar yazılmış. Roman her şekle bürünüyor, her türlü kaliteli olabiliyor. Dediğim gibi, Forster bunları söylediği için aptal bir adam olmuyor.

Kitaptaki fikirlerin çoğu bana mantıksız geldi. Orhan Pamuk bu kitap için "modası geçmiş" diyordu, böyle tanımlayabiliriz. Sık sık dile getirdiği "tarih devam eder, sanat durur" minvalindeki sözüne ise hiç katılmıyorum. Yazarların zamansız bir odada yan yana oturup romanlarını yazdığı fikri romantik olsa da daha çok bunu bir yazarın avuntusu olarak okudum. Hiçbir yazar eskimek istemez, ama bence bu kaçınılmazdır. Sanat yan yana ilerleyen bir şey değil, ileri doğru gelişen bir şeydir. Çünkü her zaman hatalar tespit edilir, çareler üretilir. Bunlara farklılık değil, gelişim deriz.

Ufuk açıcı diyemesem de arada fark ettiğiniz ama isimlendiremediğiniz şeyleri dile getirdiği oluyor Forster'ın.

Bu tarz kitaplarda genelde kullanılan bir yöntem olan diğer metinlerden faydalanmanın bazen aşırıya kaçması canımı sıkmadı da değil. Kitabın ilk kısımlarında yazar kendi fikirlerini belirtip sonra örnek olarak diğer metinleri gösterirken, sonlara doğru direkt metinleri alıp onlar üzerinden anlatmış. Bahsi geçen bazı yazarları duymamıştım bile.

Ben okuduğuma pişman olmadım yine de. Bunda yazarın şakacı üslubunun payı büyük. Her türlü keyifle okunuyor. Fikirlere katılmasam bile ilginç bakış açıları da sunuyor.

Short but still manages to ramble off on book reviews and author dissing. Some references do not stick, and some interpretations do not land.

He's at his best when sticking to basics and defining elements of literature. I found this book worthwhile in three ways: historically, for my own creative writing, and when thinking about what "the novel" is.