+0
"Had you thought it, then? that there are two kinds of people_ our kind, who live straight from the middle of their heads, and the other kind who can't because their heads have no middle? they cant say "I". They aren't in fact, and so they're supermen"
The above lines are taken from chapter 27. I couldn't understand three things in these lines 1st "Middle of heads" 2nd "They can't say "I"" 3rd why there is a question mark after "because their heads have no middle."
Please somebody clear these to me. Thanks
1 2
Comments  
For questions 1 and 2: this is an existential discussion. Emotion: wink As I haven't read the book, I can't say exactly what is meant by these terms, but they seem to imply being true to self.

For your 3rd question, there is a question mark because the sentence begins with Had you thought it, then? Even though there is already a question mark placed after that phrase, the question continues with that there are two kinds of people... This construction isn't used very often, and is usually mostly found in older texts.
I don't understand it at a glance, either. She is prattling a bit, but you are supposed to think about it. The idea of the Superman came from Nietszche some 15 years before, and it found its way into art galore. Forster has a stab at it here, seeming to offer a refutation of the criticism that the Superman is nothing more than a bog-standard amoral egotist, what we'd call a psychopath today, I guess. Helen claims that the Superman has no ego (no"I", no middle to his head) at all, and that is the source of his power.

The question mark is there because the sentence is a continuation of the one before, "Had you thought it, then?" In fact, it is not a sentence but a dependent clause, that grammatically should have been a part of the previous sentence, but in fiction, you can do whatever you think you can get away with, and Forster did.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Thanks both of you for your kind replies.
You know what in English novels it is the philosophy of the writer that makes the novel boring for English learners. Particularly when the readers aren't getting the philosophy.
Helen imagines herself to be a learned philosopher, but she only talks complete nonsense. This seems to be her theory of personalities and class.

Here is the following paragraph:

Leonard roused himself. If his benefactress wanted intellectual conversation, she must have it. She was more important than his ruined past. "I never got on to Nietzsche," he said. "But I always understood that those supermen were rather what you may call egoists."
"Oh no, that's wrong," replied Helen. "No superman ever said 'I want,' because 'I want' must lead to the question, 'Who am I?' and so to Pity and to Justice. He only says 'want.' 'Want Europe,' if he's Napoleon; 'want wives,' if he's Bluebeard; 'want Botticelli,' if he's Pierpont Morgan. Never the 'I'; and if you could pierce through the superman, you'd find panic and emptiness in the middle."
OK. A bit cleared. Thanks.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Well, it depends on how you look at it. I always think the philosophy of the writers makes the books more interesting, because it gives you a glance into the writers' minds and times. Emotion: smile
Elanguestgives you a glance into
glimpse
"a glance captures more than a glimpse" -- http://thesaurus.com/browse/glance ;)
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Show more