Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

This thread is for a full discussion of our February 2019 New School Group Read selection, Howards End by E.M. Forster.

Discuss any spoilers in this thread.

There is a lot going on in this novel, from misplaced philanthropy to how to conduct a marriage. I enjoyed it in places but did not find it easy to read...there were just sections were I found my eyes glazing over and I wanted the story to progress at a better pace.

Helen irritated me. She never seemed to have any thought for the people around her (i.e. Margaret) and yet she professed to care so much about others that she made ridiculous gestures and meddled far too easily into their lives. I found her a bit emotionally unbalanced, which was of course the intent because it offered a contrast to reasonable Margaret. Still, I couldn't like her and I thought her unbridled happiness at the end of the book was quite undeserved.

I'm still chewing on this one, so I am looking forward to what others think.

I read this a long time ago and remember not liking this one very much, mainly due to some of the characters.

Interesting... I had the opposite response to this book. I haven't cared much for Forster before this, but I really liked this book. I liked his comments about the English class system, about the relations between men and women, about how society affects individual lives, and the difference between the artistic/spiritual and the practical/rational points of view.

I read this book many years ago, 2004. There really is not time for a reread now. My main memory of the book all these years later is how terribly things turned out for the poor clerk, as the Schlegels somehow imagined they were helping him. I also remember the plot took many twists and turns. There were some likeable characters. In the end Margaret I think turned out well.

I finished this a few days ago, and while I enjoyed it there were some things that bothered me. The philosophical ramblings at the beginning of the chapters bored me. I don't usually mind that kind of thing, so I'm not sure why it did this time but I had to skim through those parts.

I found it incredible that Margaret so quickly developed the love for Henry that she did. He was not at all the kind of man one would have paired her with since he was not interested in intellectual pursuits, and he was condescending about things that were important to Helen and Margaret like women's rights. Margaret seemed to think she could change him over time if she could only love him which seems a very naive attitude to relationships. I was happy when she finally stood up to Henry when Helen needed her at the end.

Helen was likeable but annoying to me. She had passionate ideas about the poor, but she didn't really do concrete things to help. I understand that she felt responsible for Leonard changing jobs and then losing his new one, but showing up at the wedding with the Basts and thinking it would do any good seems like poor judgement. She knew Wilcoxes would not care about the Basts' plight and this was only meant to embarrass with little possibility of assistance. Her idealism is admirable but it never amounts to much.

It isn't exactly a good vs evil story, but it is a story of conflicting values. The Schlegels value intellectual and cultural pursuits and muse about how money makes it easier, but they don't see making money as end unto itself, which annoys me since they didn't need to make a living. The Wilcoxes value money to have possessions and are very concerned about getting ahead financially and keeping what they have. They have little concern for the poor or of anyone outside their social class.

I think readers are meant to admire the Schlegels and dislike the Wilcoxes, which we do. And we can rejoice in the end when Margaret and Helen essentially win and Henry and Charles lose. That is a rather simplistic view but that's how I see it, and the ending in which the main characters get their due kind of bothers me. Especially since the Basts are a huge part of the story at the end and Leonard has a heartbreaking death while Jacky's future isn't mentioned at all. It was an unsatisfying resolution to the book for me as it seems too shallow.

Laurie wrote: "I found it incredible that Margaret so quickly developed the love for Henry that she did. He was not at all the kind of man one would have paired her with since he was not interested in intellectual pursuits, and he was condescending about things that were important to Helen and Margaret like women's rights. Margaret seemed to think she could change him over time if she could only love him which seems a very naive attitude to relationships. I was happy when she finally stood up to Henry when Helen needed her at the end...."

I don't think Margaret began as any kind of a feminist, unless in the abstract intellectual sense. I think she had reached an age where any kind of interest from a prospective husband would have been wonderful, especially if you consider the plight of unattached women surviving in a world at that time.

I also think Margaret was a benevolent person with a generous heart who would have had no problem learning to love someone she thought was a good man... and Henry certainly wasn't evil, he was thoughtful and generous according to typical male behavior at the time of the story. Even when the novel was published (1910) the idea of women expressing their own minds and talking back to husbands was only just emerging. So Margaret's passionate resistance to Henry's typical male behavior toward the end of the novel, at the time the book was published in England (1910), was probably considered heroic and radical.

Also, people didn't marry so much for love, as for property and security. Most couples figured they would either learn to love each other, or at the least find ways to get along. The idea of falling madly in love as a prerequisite to marriage was a very romantic and idealist notion that didn't have much to do with the reality of the times.

I would agree that Margaret had reached an age that attention from a man of standing would be agreeable, but her plight was not so terrible since she had an income that met all her needs. And since she did not need a husband to provide a living, she needed one for companionship and Henry was a somewhat odd choice for a companion given their differences. I didn't expect her to marry for love which I don't believe she did, but her love developed so quickly. It was all but instantaneous when he proposed.

Laurie wrote: "I would agree that Margaret had reached an age that attention from a man of standing would be agreeable, but her plight was not so terrible since she had an income that met all her needs. And since..."

I admit it seemed fast, but keep in mind she knew for some time that he was entertaining this idea, so she did have time to mull over the thought. It's not too hard to love someone who declares they love you. What I did find very telling and interesting was her disappointment after their first kiss, when Henry kind of grabbed her and planted a lusty (and lustful) kiss. She didn't like the aggressiveness or inherent violence behind it, and that reminded me that not only was she a romantic, she was also a virgin with probably virginal daydreams about physical romance.

I also have to keep in mind that this was written by a male, who might not have had a clue as to how people - women especially - fall in love.

I'm about 3/4 through the novel now. It seems a pretty traditional one, in that there is rather a lot that happens to the characters over a somewhat extended time period.
Characters have different personalities and values which at times mesh well but the emphasis is more on the clashes. Henry Wilcox I see as intelligent (as are all the Schlegels) but particularly flawed, especially in handling and expressing emotion. He couldn't bring himself to tell Margaret how much he cared for her- he believed his marriage proposal made that clear enough.
Margaret was approaching thirty, and was so flattered at a proposal from a man who was not "a ninny" but accomplished in business that she accepted. She believed, as many women do, that she could help him improve his shortcomings (I think some do succeed to some extent, though they are frequently disappointed). They remind me very much of my mother and stepfather who were both in their second marriage, esp since he was a successful businessman (their marriage was a pretty successful one).

About 25 years ago I read E. M. Forster's A Passage to India as well as A Room With a View. I don't know why I didn't read his other famous novel, Howards End back then- I did see the Merchant- Ivory film of it though. I've lived long enough now to finally read Howards End, and I enjoyed it very much. Its kind of funny that even a couple decades after seeing the film, I pictured the actors as the characters as I was reading it. I don't do a lot of five star ratings, but despite a few boring bits I'm giving a five star for this one- great characters, comments on people and life, and a very good story.

I’m glad you enjoyed it. I haven’t seen the film version of this, but I did watch a good BBC adaptation last year, which made me like the book even more.

Yay for good BBC adaptations so I can share it with my husband! I really liked this when I read it a couple years ago but am not ready to read it again yet... so many books.

This one was hard to put down. A very enjoyable read for me.

I haven't finished this yet, but so far I like it better than A Room With a View and Where Angels Fear to Thread. (But I only took a middling like to those.)

I have reached that part of the book where Margaret is engaged to Mr. Wilcox and I keep silently screaming, "No, Margaret, don't do it! He's utterly intolerable and self-satisfied, and barrels through discussions by relentlessly listing opinions (like they were facts) that make me want to punch him in the face. Tell her, Helen! You're not even married yet, Mags, and already you're letting him change you while he has no intention of changing at all."

Ok, so I have at least gotten more involved with this book.

LOl, I have screamed at a character before also. Nice to meet someone else who talks to books.

I yell at characters too. And sometimes I cringe.
I have also cheered when a character makes a wise decision--like Nora at the end of Ibsen's play, A Doll's House.

Ha ha! I had wondered why Margaret agreed to Mr. Wilcox's proposal. It just seemed to go against everything she'd stood for all along. But then I felt it was all part of her desire 'to connect'.

I appreciated the vision of this book - but the actual execution was sometimes bogged down too much with extra philosophizing for my taste. I love Forster's progressiveness and the way he writes female characters.

I watched the Merchant Ivory production the other day and loved it. Watching the movie combined with reading the book brought the experience up to another level for me. The casting and acting were superb.

I just finished the book and have now read through all of the group comments above. While I enjoyed it very much, I align my views with Laurie, who expressed her frustrations with it very well. I was bored with the philosophical bits, found the ending wrap up unsatisfying, and was particularly put out that no attention was given to the fate of Jacky.

By the way, the Merchant Ivory film with Emma Thompson as Margaret is quite good. If you liked the book, I recommend the film.

I just finished and really liked. The last 50 pages seemed a little rushed. At times, it made it hard to follow. Almost seemed like a different writer.

As to the critiques of Margaret, the Afterword in my edition (Signet Classics Centennial edition) said that Margaret was essentially a stand-in for Forster himself.