Some Interviews with E. M. Forster, 1957-58, 1965 - British novelist

Twentieth Century Literature, Spring, 1997 by Wilfred Stone

In 1957-58 and again in 1965 I had a number of interviews with E. M. Forster in the course of writing a book on him. At the time, I entertained no idea of publishing them, partly because I was busy with the book, partly because I didn't think they were worth it, but mostly because, in that same period (and before), some fifteen interviews with Forster had been published(1) and I had no desire to add to that overload. But on reading my notes today, some 40 years after the event, they seem on balance worth saving from the wastebasket.

Unlike, say, Angus Wilson,(2) I had no amanuensis to take notes while I asked questions - and Forster specifically banned tape recorders (which anyway I didn't possess). So my record consists of notes written down immediately after the interviews, as verbatim as I could make them - except occasionally when I just noted the gist. I was never at ease during these sessions (though Forster was kindness itself) since, in a word, I was ill-prepared for them. In the preceding months, family obligations, a heavy teaching load, complications of an ocean voyage, and the now-or-never constraints of a sabbatical fellowship all conspired to deliver me into Forster's presence before I had even had time to reread his novels. If many of my questions seem to deal with biography, Bloomsbury, and other nonfictional matters, that is the reason.

But here are my notes, for what they are worth.

OCTOBER 23, 1957, 6:00-7:00 p.m.

I begin by noting my own nervousness, followed by a description of Forster's rooms in King's College Cambridge (where all the interviews took place) and of his appearance and manner. Since the first issue has no literary importance and the others are covered in a hundred other accounts, I shall let the accompanying photograph (taken March 1958 and hitherto unpublished) stand for many words and cut directly to the interview itself.

WS This is a lovely room.

EMF Yes, isn't it? [Silence]

EMF [Breaking the ice] Well, how is your work coming? [Forster had agreed to talk to me on the understanding that I would undertake a work of literary criticism and not a critical biography (like my earlier book on Mark Rutherford" which Forster had read). Basil Willey, who had reviewed the Mark Rutherford book, had helped introduce me to Forster.]

WS It's just now getting under way. I've been tied up with other things through the summer and am only now beginning to shape my thoughts.

EMF Have you seen this book? [He showed me a book by D. J. Enright containing a chapter on himself and Virginia Woolf.(4) He offered to lend it to me, but I declined, since he was just now reading it himself. From here on, in a rather hit-or-miss way, I consulted my prepared questions.]

WS Do you think your own writing method has anything in common with Virginia Woolf's "tunneling process"? [This referred to a term VW uses in A Writer's Diary, edited by Leonard Woolf, but EMF apparently was not familiar with it, since he interpreted tunneling process in his own way.]

EMF I never took writing so seriously as Virginia. She was always transmuting all experiences into writing. She was always tunneling. For me writing was never that kind of full-time job.

WS In your writing, did you begin with an idea, a character, a situation - or how were your books conceived?

EMF I think with an idea.

WS In your essay on Virginia Woolf, you remark that she was not indifferent to criticism. Her diaries, published by Leonard Woolf, indicate a woman extremely sensitive to criticism.

EMF Yes, isn't that extraordinary? I was surprised to read that remark about her being furious with me in front of the London Library. I was only trying to be amusing.(5)

WS She had a sharp tongue - reminds one a little of Jane Carlyle.

EMF Yes indeed - a very good comparison.

WS I suppose the full diaries will contain a good many surprises. I wonder if they will be published?

EMF Yes, I should think they would. Leonard has them all, I believe.

WS I have been reading Roger Fry's Transformations lately and have been struck by parallels between his aesthetic theory and your precept and practice. The emphasis on "plastic" or "intrinsic" values as opposed to representational or "psychological" values (as Mauron uses the term)(6) struck me as similar to your emphasis in Aspects on rhythm and pattern, and so forth, as opposed to story.

EMF Oh, yes?

WS Yes. Also, in "Art for Art's Sake" and "Anonymity," I noted a similar emphasis - that the real artistic achievement is anonymous, that beyond the author and his worldly identity there is the art, which is an organic whole with an intrinsic, not extrinsic, value. [This was, I thought, at base a good question (and embodied ideas I later used in chapter 5 of The Cave and the Mountain), but I was aware of expressing it badly, and I had a feeling that EMF was getting bored, which panicked me a little. I thought I'd better ask shorter questions, lest I stop the conversation.]

WS Do you think these observations are correct? Were you conscious of following Fry in any way?