Dissatisfaction with Where Angels Fear to Tread

I hate to give a book an unsatisfactory rating, but after reading Where Angels Fear to Tread I have concluded that it is not the best of E.M. Forster's works.

As I was reading the first half of the novel, I did not know what to make of the main character, Lilia. She seemed foolish and flightly, impulsive and ignorant. I was not quite able to sympathize with her, because I felt she had brought her unhappy marriage upon herself. I was not angry with her character either; honestly, I didn't really understand why she was a main character at all. Interestingly enough, she died in childbirth before I could really form any solid opinions. This event puzzled me more exceedingly, however; what was Forster's motive behind the new main character, Philip Herriton? Philip was indifferent to the world, it seemed. He didn't take chances, and he always expected to fail because he never tried. Forster suggests that he did this to avoid pain and disappointment, but these conclusions were told to the reader by the character himself; there was little room to infer for oneself. I did like Philip much more than Lilia, because he was a relatable character and I had the pleasure of watching him change and develop throughout the novel.

Still, Philip did not really engage my attention until I read of his interest in Caroline Abbott, whom I believed had great potential as a character. I witnessed Philip's subtle observations of Caroline's character, and hoped that the novel would redeem itself by seeing them married. Perhaps Caroline would change Philip, I thought. Maybe he would become a more likeable, passionate character instead of the uninterested, apathetic man he was so far.

I read of these people's troubles, their thoughts, and their hopes (or at least Philips'). I laughed at the absurdity of Philip's ridiculous, unreasonable sister, Harriet. I hoped that the few touching moments between Philip and Caroline would amount to something, and found myself beginning to expect a happy, tolerable ending.

BAM! Forster surprised me, which is not uncommon of him. I read plenty of surprises in one of his other novels, A Room With A View, and I really enjoyed them. This surprise, however, had not the same effect. Instead of love between the admirable Caroline and the impressively changed Philip, as I had hoped (and expected), I read the last two pages and found that Caroline was in love with somebody else.

The reasons Forster gave for this unlikely attraction are unclear to me. As I am a girl, I know how often we can fall for someone based on appearances, assertions, or other equally silly "reasons." But this was absolutely irksome. Forster had taken the pains of making Philip a character worthy of Caroline, and then decided his reader must be content with the fact that he (Philip) was still not passionate enough to attract her.

Although I think E.M. Forster an excellent writer, his first novel did not satisfy me. I didn't follow many of his conclusions, and those that I understood were explicit rather than implicit. I think Forster could have justified his reasons for the ending, but only if he had explained his motives more completely and provided more background information. My copy is only 117 pages, and I think a good story could have been made if the quantity and (sadly) quality was increased.

So, for those who have read the book: what do you think? Did you feel as if Forster explained himself fully? Of the two novels, (A Room With A View and Where Angels Fear to Tread) which did you like better?

For those who haven't read the book: Why do you think authors fail to explain their motives to the readers? Is it easier to "tell" the reader something than to "show" it to them? Can books still be successes if they rely more on telling than showing?