Forster’s Maurice and the Birth of a Genre
Padlock IconThis article is only a portion of the full article. If you are already a premium subscriber please login. If you are not a premium subscriber, please subscribe for access to all of our content.



IN MY YOUTH, I had a strong gaydar when it came to literature, reveling in the homosexual undertones of the classics. Looking back now, it’s hard to believe that anyone could be blind to the essential gayness of Moby-Dick or Songs of Myself, but at the time, reading such works aroused no suspicion. When I finally came out to someone else—an older man with whom I had unexpectedly, overwhelmingly, fallen in love—he gave me more books, as a substitute for himself (he was taken; I was young and naïve). The reading list was huge and exciting—Christopher Isherwood, Andrew Holleran, Edmund White. Here were novels that didn’t mask sexuality behind the safety of symbolism. I didn’t have to read between the lines to find the messages meant for me and my kind. It was all right there on the page, just as I would soon discover it in the world.

To continue reading this article, please LOGIN or SUBSCRIBE


Articles in GLReview

Discussion1 Comment

  1. Foster defines and composes characters who are gay and who are repressed. Somehow these gay characters become somewhat affluent but only in looking at the potential for homosexuality to be revered by his archeypes. Somehow in the midst of homophobia Foster asks what happens to homosexuals who are able to sustain same sex relationships, and who allow their homosexual identity to influence their entire life. the result is telling about living in homophobic circles. It maybe that this sense of devotion and fulfillment is built on the faith restored in the integrity of his characters, as Foster depicts real and lasting homosexual lives.

Share Your Thoughts