Howards End discussion

Yulia, that was a good NYT article. I agree with Ruth that the closing of the gates is more losing interest in things that no longer seem useful or important. At the same time, other gates open. Priorities and interests shift.

Where do we think the priorities shifted? That she no longer cares about the world at large and cultural debates and is now more concerned with her immediate homelife?

Divina, I agree with the Woolf quote too. She gives him a lot of credit for his writing abilities. The line Mary Ellen quoted is an example of that. But there's a final leap that the book doesn't seem to take. Maybe he too was afraid of the abyss.

I always thought he was gay too. Being gay doesn't preclude a writer from writing realistic straight relationships but being in the closet, and for good reason since homosexual activity was illegal in 1910, may make you wary of revealing too much and keep you from having the courage to make that leap.

I almost think Forster might have been speaking more of himself than of Margaret when he wrote about closing gates in order to become a 'creative power.' As Happyreader points out, what exactly was Margaret 'creating' during her marriage to Henry? (Besides the new and improved Henry.) On second thought, maybe that did take a lot out of her.

Interesting information on MAURICE, that's a book of Forster's I've not heard of.

Connect, connection, only connect...I couldn't get those words and the idea out of my mind today.

Have you seen the movie Maurice? It's a very young and pretty Hugh Grant and James Wilby as lovers.

Speaking of James Wilby, I just watched him as Charles in the movie version of Howards End. He was a perfect Charles.

Wilhelmina, I can report that the ending is identical to the book. I think it’s just not memorable because it’s so subdued compared to the attack on Leonard the scene just prior (and it does seem like manslaughter in the book since Charles attacks him with so much physical rage).

In fact, the movie is very faithful to the book with some additional info to fill in some gaps. Helen and Leonard have a love scene on a row boat. Jacky is in Cyprus as a 16 year-old orphan, her export business dad having drowned, when she meets Henry. Just before his final scene, Leonard seems more moved by love for Helen and the artistic ideals she represents than by guilt as he heads towards Howards End. Margaret and Henry have real chemistry, making the marriage very plausible. Leonard and Jacky also seem more loving in the movie than in the book.

I don’t remember this in the book but at one point in the movie, Helen admits her overinvolvement with the Basts is a result of her being an old maid. I felt like the message was that women, if they don’t settle down, do crazy things. Speaking of crazy, Dolly was perfectly cast.

I think I may have enjoyed the movie more than the book.

Thanks, Happyreader. I think that I'll have to get it from Netflix soon. I enjoyed the movie when it was first released, but I think that it will be more interesting now, after reading the book.

I definately think the movie is more enjoyable if you've just read the book. Just like in the book, there are some abrupt transitions, although fewer than in the book, that make more sense if you know what's going on.

Plus it's so much fun seeing the characters on screen. The movie is very well cast with no false notes. Leonard wasn't how I visualized him but was true to the character.

Steve, interesting quote. Since I think Helen & Margaret certainly mistook culture for an end much of the time (isn't Helen the worst snob ever?), was their house superior to them?

This is a response to a long-ago question. I don't practice criminal law, so I'm no expert (and I know nothing of crim law in England), but it seems highly unlikely to me that Charles would be convicted of manslaughter. Assault, sure, but manslaughter? A good way for Forster to tie up his loose ends, as someone else pointed out.

But, they were not convincingly tied, IMO. I didn't buy the newer gentler Henry nor, for that matter, the newer, gentler Helen. Henry had been humbled before, and managed to talk his way back to complacency. Helen... well, she was just a maddening mystery all the way through.

As for "only connect" -- I guess Margaret is the character who tries to make the connections. She is able to bring things, people, together. (Though really, wasn't it Mrs. Archer, the one who unpacked their belongings at Howard's End, the one ultimately responsible?) And Ruth makes connections as well. Perhaps that is what so strongly connected them.

Mary Ellen

I actually did buy the new-and-improved Henry. The humiliation of having an affair exposed wouldn't have crushed him - after all, such behavior was the norm for men working away from home in the British empire. He was more angry than humbled. But to have your son thrown into prison is another matter. Henry is newly wealthy, still proving himself worthy to British society. I can only imagine what his business partners said. And, of course, Henry loved this son who seemed to be so similar to Henry himself. What could break you more than the downfall of your child?

I agree that Margaret and Ruth are those who connect others and who also connect emotionally to Howard's End. I believe that they were drawn together by sensing this similarity and that it led to the very surprising bequest of Howard's End to Margaret.

Isn't Mrs. Archer an interesting character, though? Her connection to place seemed to give her an almost supernatural knowledge of what should and would occur.

How interesting. I'd realized a few days ago, rather embarrassingly, that Henry hadn't in fact died at the end, as I'd remembered happening, probably in my attempt to convince myself that was the only way the relatively peaceful ending could have occurred. And everyone here was so tactful and didn't point out my faulty, wishful thinking. I imagine I must not have been convinced by the "new" henry, if I'd rather have believed him dead.

What the hell is a wych-elm?

Good old Wikipedia to the rescue. There is even a picture of the leaves, nothing about the pig's teeth connection though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wych_Elm

Lagging as usual, I finished the book last night. one line that struck me towards the end concerned Margaret's thoughts about her assertive speech to Henry:

It was spoken not only to her husband, but to thousands of men like him -- a protest against the inner darkness in high places that comes with a commercial age.

If one is looking for a capsule statement concerning the theme of Howard's End, I think this would serve. And, in the end, Margaret's acceptance of Henry seems symbolic of all of England's acceptance of the industrial age. There is Helen on one side and Henry on the other. In between is Margaret shepherding them both along. And, Leonard Bast is the sacrificial lamb of the poor.

Excellent observation. Interesting too that Henry was first married to a woman who was clearly in the pastoral camp.

I am about halfway through this book after only having acquired it three days ago. I find the writing a little hard to read, not free flowing, at times, am I the only one? I do find my mind wandering and have to pull myself back to the words on the page. I like the story and will have to watch the movie at some stage but there's just something that isn't working right for me.

I would say that Forester looks at several different kinds of connections – connecting to others (being in another’s shoes, finding common ground, empathy, etc.), connecting to a place, and in the novel’s toughest case, Henry, connecting one’s outer and inner selves. Steve, the passage you quote is from before Henry decides to connect with his new wife and family by connecting to Howards End (the place), all made possible only after he connects with his innermost self after his son gets busted.

One thing I found interesting about this book was that, as much as it was about the changes brought by the industrial age, and about a successful businessman and son who goes off to make a colonial fortune, there was no real sense of people at work – except maybe the folks who took care of HE.

Why is it that for Forester connection to place was basically about being in a pastoral setting? There are only logistical problems leaving a long-time city home (Margaret, Helen, and Tibby’s place), compared with the profound attachment possible at the country place.

And, since we are in our last days of discussion here in HE, I’ll throw out yet another unrelated thought. I thought Tibby was great comic character. I think he grew up to write How to be Idle.

Aha! I like your explanation of connections, Sara. As for your comment about work, I've noticed that all English novels of a certain period take place on estates where people visit for weeks at a time, dress for dinner and no one ever lifts a finger to pay the bills.

This tendency to ignore the grueling labor associated with country life continues to pop up in the strangest places. I enjoyed the book The Color Purple by Alice Walker, but in the film version I kept asking myself (and my poor husband), "Who is doing the farm work?" The only person working is Celie, and she only works in the house and with the horrible children. I always picture the elves in "The Elves and the Shoemaker" showing up in the dead of night to take care of the heavy lifting.

Yes, Mina, that's a problem I've seen in many, many novels. Apparently the folks who actually do the work are just too tired at the end of the day to have, er, "interesting" lives. I've become impatient sometimes with the problems of people who are folks of leisure.

Actually Mr. Wilcox does work, just not on the farm or on the page. For farm work I would direct you to Willa Cather and John Steinbeck right off the top of my head.

The problem with novels about work is that most work is dull and repetitive, and even interesting work is dull to people who don't do it. How much better would this book have been if it had included a description of the financial analysis Mr. Wilcox did in making an investment or the negotiating points in a contract?

I recently read this, and I am writing a paper about it. I would like to add that Honesty in a marriage contributes to make you equals. Margaret could not stand to stay married to Henry when he refused to forgive Helen as he had been forgiven. Helen's actions affected his standing in society only because she experienced the full consequences by having a baby and that could not be hidden away like his actions had been.Perhaps he also felt a twinge of guilt caused by his own condemnation of Helen beside society's acceptance of what he had done. more thoughts on this later. loved reading every one's comments

I like the book.

Me too, it's a beautiful book but I cannot believe they were so appallingly unapologetic at the end, even Margaret, she had simply transformed into another Mrs. Wilcox. At any rate Helen did confirm that she loved Leonard, in her own way. I could so intensely identify with Leonard, it was such a pity he ended up like this. And Margaret had the audacity to say it was 'an satisfying adventure' for him. This book has gotten me upset with rich people.

Happyreader wrote: "In this novel, how do you think the narrator differs from Forster? I agree that sometimes the narrator differs from the author but I don't think he (and it's definately a he, nothing feminine abou..."

I believe there was a "we women . . ." or thereabout comment from the narrator near the end--

Steve wrote: "Would everyone consider me a complete asshole if I pointed out that it is the narrator who displays these attitudes and not Forster?

Yes?

I thought so."
No. IMHO, the narrator should also be considered a character. There is a position in literary criticism called Death of the Author, where the criticism separates the author from the narration. To me, whether the novel's narration is in first person, being the obvious fictional main character in the story, or third, where many take the words of the narrator to be the position of the author, it is still a novel and therefore fiction.