This book is based on lectures Forster delivered in 1927, but it still felt (to me) very relevant and useful today, as well as being often amusing and thought-provoking. His approach avoids the standard `history and development' of the novel, concentrating instead on how novels work practically.
Some of the key concepts are ones he was (I think) the first to articulate. He formulates the distinction between the `story' (the sequence of events, where we ask `what will happen next?') and the `plot' (the events linked by causality, where we ask `why?'). He disputes with Aristotle (emotion isn't only in action, but in our internal secret lives, to which the novelist has access). He demonstrates the difference between flat characters (unchanging and `constructed round a single idea' like Mrs Macawber's loyalty to her husband) and round ones (`capable of surprising in a convincing way'). He looks at how characters are different from real people (they spend most time loving and desiring rather than eating and sleeping!). How points of view (omniscient, free indirect) can be mixed and matched. How novelists persuade us to accept the fantastic (whether in terms of coincidences or angels). How patterns work (the structuring of the plot and of symbols). And what the future of the novel might be (when individuals, through social and personal change, start to look at themselves in a new way, novels, he claims, will find new ways of representing things).
The style is witty and full of nice lines. `[The pseudo-scholar] loves mentioning genius, because the sound of the word exempts him from discovering its meaning.' `Speculations... always have a large air about them, they are a convenient way of being helpful or impressive.' `Love, like death, is congenial to a novelist because it ends a book conveniently.'
Examples range from the earliest of novels (Richardson, Defoe) to the (then) latest (Woolf, Lawrence) and across an international field: Tolstoy and Gide as well as Sterne, Dickens and Wells. Arnold Bennett said of the book, `I have never met this kind of perspicacity in literary criticism before'. I know what he means - I wish I'd read it years ago...