Week 8 - Beginning Howard's End

I had serious problems getting into Howard’s End.  For me it has always been critical for me to identify with some aspect of a novel to really like it.  The only reason I actually read to the end of the novel was because I had to for this class.  Furthermore I couldn’t find any of the characters to be actually believable as human beings.  There was seemingly no reason for Mr. Wilcox to suddenly fall in love with Margaret, a women who is so completely unlike his wife who just died. Then Margaret suddenly changes from this totally self-sufficient woman who has radical ideas to this docile little housewife in a traditional old money household.  Characters have to have some sort of realistic motivation, but none of Forster’s do. 

         I can’t think of any books that remind me of Howard’s End.  I mean I have read other book written about the same time period, but nothing that reminds me of Forster’s style or lack there of.  While the themes were complex, I felt there was so much lacking in the actual writing of the novel that it just doesn’t matter what the book was actually about. 

         The one thing I did relate it to somewhat was contrasting it with the theory of evolution.  Forster displays a world so different from the one we have been learning about in class.  His world is fixed and solid with definite rules and boundaries.  I find that makes it even less believable for me because I know that is not the way the world works.  When people step outside of the boundaries bookshelves don’t fall and kill them, they go on living their lives.  Rules are made to be broken, a fact that Forster seems determine to ignore. 

I thought listening to the music in class and seeing our different reactions was interesting.  It's interesting that some of us saw colors, that some of us tried to form stories, or associate emotions, and some of us tried to do much more- from these auditory signals.  It's interesting to think about what it is- who we are, where we've come from- whatever it is that's influenced our minds to interpret music- or try to associate it- with certain things. I tried associating the music with emotions, or realms of emotion- either as sadder, calmer, or happier.  I wondered though, why I immediately wanted to do that- why I wanted to find logic, or order, or meaning, or whatever it is I was searching for, in that way.  Why couldn't I appreciate the music, just...as music? But.. in that case, would I only be appreciative of music as music when it makes me feel a certain way, in which case it wouldn't be the music I'm hearing, but the emotions/feelings it evokes? For that matter.. can anything be appreciated for what it really is, as opposed to our reactions/the way it makes us feel? We react to each other- we don't like everyone, but those we do interact with- we get something out of these interactions that make us want more, that make us continue.. they fill a certain niche, making us feel a certain way- maybe intrigue us, stimulate us, make us feel good, or some other way... maybe there's nothing we can appreciate for itself.. maybe everything is tied to the way it makes us feel.

In our group we talked (or tried to) about the literary cannon, and why certain novels were chosen over others to be included.  As I listened to the discussion, I realized I had no idea how we might choose what goes there, I just knew that some novels seemed to belong there, and some didn't.  To push one of Paul's analogies, I was sort of being a bad scientist about it, not really observing for myself what I thought might be the criteria.  I just read novels considered to be literary greats.  I agree with Megan's point that just because we can't relate, or it is not applicable to today, we can't automatically through it out, but, not being an English major, this is something that I need to find in a novel in order for it to grab my attention.  

But I am really not comfortable with deciding what belongs in the canon and what doesn't.  So really, I can observe/read all I want, and I don't think I could define any novel as great lit or bad lit, because it is incredibly subjective.  I think this is where I see a big difference between science and the humanities.  While I do agree that science is subjective, we do have "the crack", to me the humanities tend to be much more flexible.

 ..still thinking..

Our class discussion prompted me to further examine the sisters' reactions to Beethoven's symphony.

When we listened to the clips of classical music and closed our eyes, people shared such different reactions and stories they had each built to the music. Yet we listened to the same notes at the same time in the same scenario; that is to say, there were no variables that separated our experiences making them more unique than any one other's. But for one classmate, she was featured in a parade while listening to one clip. For me, I was somewhere in a murky ocean, floating on a raft. Why these different responses - different stories to the same starting point?  Now I'm starting to get somewhere else.. suppose there is no reality that we can each perceive, no one story we can all reach and that's the reason our reactions are so different? Because the limit of how many stories can emerge from one source are infinite, boundless, making reality impossible to achieve. What have i done.. It seems I can't even read a novel without wondering why our interpretations of this novel are so different, yet the words are the same..

I completely agree with Jean’s post, however, that the novel has remnants of Wuthering Heights (I have not read Pride and Prejudice so I could not agree on that count). It is so interesting to note the parallels between the two stories, both thematically and even structurally. The developing loving between Margaret and Mr. Wilcox is a poignant aspect of the novel, proving that it is within ourselves that we relate to each other and not by external means (such as through money, status or wealth). 

As I continue to read in “Howard’s End” I find Henry and Margaret’s relationship more and more intriguing. Margaret does not love Mr. Wilcox yet, she often gives into him and will do whatever he wants for them. On one particular occasion, “She protested no more. Whether Henry was right or wrong, he was most kind, and she knew of no other standard by which to judge him. She must trust him absolutely.” Pg. 279 Her relationship with her husband is unique because while she does not love him she does value everything he says. In fact, she often gives into what Henry wants whether or not she agrees with his decision.

This particular aspect of her relationship struck me as strikingly different than the liberal persona she often portrays. Margaret has the gift to observe society and address what is wrong it. Throughout the novel, the readers are graced with Margaret’s social commentaries. The epitome of these comments is made when she is riding in a car with Charles and proceeds to jump out of the car while it is in emotion. She makes the observation that “Ladies sheltering behind men, men sheltering behind servants- the whole system’s wrong, and she must challenge it.” Pg. 213 Margaret astutely recognizes that the entire class system is delicately interwoven and is based on using one’ status against others. It is in situations like this one that I assume Margaret is different from the women in her time because she is willing to stick out of the norm and argue a position that is not popularly accepted. But, then all I have to do is look at Margaret’s relationship with her husband to realize that she is not the entirely liberal person she appears to be in public.

It seems I have forgotten how to read a novel. Or perhaps, I have forgotten how to enjoy a novel, and I can't help but feel it is the fault of this class. If meaning is truly meaningless (as it is the product of random chance) why do I rack my brain for substantial evidence of the contrary? I feel as though I have trained myself to question everything, because, of course, there is no truth. Why then, has my ability to experience literature been conflicted? Literature, and fictional novels in particular, were not necessarily intended to offer the reader fact in a time of questioning. There are no "truths" to be had (or are there? I suppose it depends on what you're looking for). With this in mind, I have surprised myself in my interpretation of Forster's intentions. I keep asking "what is he trying to convince me of?" and have, thus, lost the ability to "hear the golbins" as it were. This is a problem.

I envision Mrs. Wilcox walking across the green and imagine the magical elm tree at Howard's End, but cannot appreciate these visuals for their beautiful simplicity. Instead, I wonder why and how these details will be utilized to work towards the "goal" of this book. In my mind, there is a check list, and I am not surprised to find that almost every character has radiated out from a fixed position into the worlds of those they would not normally experience.

I am trying to predict the destination without taking time to notice the path along the way. It's sad. Perhaps Howard's End will act as my transition from the critical reading of scientists to the enlightened imaginations of dreamers...at least, I hope so. 

I continue to strive for meaning in art.

In our discussion group on Thursday we talked about a lot!  However, what interested me the most was Forster’s “only connect.”  We talked for along time about what could be connected and what Forster intended.  We do see connections however, we see more than just interpersonal connections we see social class, world views, the arts, gender and all ages connect.  Is it possible that in order to see a “whole” view of the world one must connect all of these areas?  Perhaps that is what Margaret and Helen are doing when they start to interact with Leonard, they are trying to connect their experience with his and then with the outside world.  What struck me as interesting is the use of the word only; we are to “only connect.”  Is this connection that Forster is asking us to make meant to be limited?  Is this a restriction, and why must there be a restriction?

As I read further I began to see that connection in this sense is only a connection like connecting a cable there is no inherent meaning.  I wonder why this would be so.  After I finished this week’s reading it became a little clearer to me. At least in this setting, at this time, classes should only connect for a slight understating and nothing more.  We see Helen and Margaret go beyond connecting with Leonard and his wife and it ends in a horrible mess for the lower class, the Bast’s.  Perhaps the classes are meant to connect in a way that they see and know each others existence but to make no more connection than this, for the outcomes are negative.

 I do not think that the limitation of “only connect” applies to our lives to day, but perhaps.  In this class we are doing just that we are connecting the idea of literature and evolution however is there a restriction on this?  Are there limitation that we should be making or perhaps will these become clear further along in the course.

Although i may be able to relate to the English lifestyle more than one would had they not lived in England, I find it to be narrowminded to want to read only the familiar. This class is about evolving and part of evolving is experimenting is it not? Discovering new things in not only beneficial but rewarding, therefore we should try and read things we are not familiar with.

Is there a difference between a novel that exposes to a certain way of life because it happens to be about that way of life, and a novel that exposes us to a certain way of life because the novelist intends for it to? Could Forster have predicted that he would be conveying British culture to American students in 2007? Was this part of his intention in writing the work? Does intention even matter? In biological evolution there is no intention, and direction arises out of selection. In writing, there is much intention on the part of the writer, but the interpretation (direction?) is left up to the reader.

Some of what he was doing in his references to classical literature and the contemporary British lifestyle was an effort to engage his contemporary reader in a world they would understand, full of inside jokes that they could get. It is difficult for us to understand all the references, but we have the added experience of figuring out what life was like during this time.

Then the question becomes is he is accurately portraying English life at this time? What sort of revision work is he doing? How is the author responsible for portraying reality accurately? I’m sure this question becomes trickier in an adaptation. What was Homer’s intention for the reading of Ulysses and Beethoven’s intention for his 5th symphony? Is Forster giving an accurate portrayal of a typical early 20th century British response to these works? Does it matter?

Danielle

In class today, I have to admit, it made me kind of angry to think about if Howards End was relevant enough to us to be in the literary cannon. I really enjoy Howards End as a story...and I don't feel like it has to be relevant to us in order to be appreciated. Can't we just appreciate it and analyze it for what it is? 

I guess this kind of relates to the discussions we had the first half of class about meaning, and how as humans we search for meaning in everything. Perhaps in trying to relate this book to ourselves and our modern culture we're searching for meaning that wasn't intended (by the author) to exist. Forster clearly wrote this novel for his time, and I think by trying to turn the novel into something that it's not is kind of..being disrespectful of that. I think the only way to really pay tribute to Howards End in a modern context would be to do what Zadie Smith did in On Beauty. (I haven't yet read On Beauty so I'm just assuming.) We can ask who Margaret and Helen would be if they were living today, but we can't legitimately ask if Margaret and Helen are close enough to ourselves to be relevant in modern times. 

So, Howards End, a very interesting read.  This is the first time I have read the book, though I saw the movie years ago and remember next to nothing about the plot, so it’s a surprise all over again!  It’s funny though, the only image I can clearly recall from the movie is that of Mrs. Wilcox on page four, “Trail, trail, went her long dress over the sopping grass…”  Perhaps this is not such a coincidence though, because the description of Mrs. Wilcox exemplifies the style of the book for me, a kind of rich description and detail that gives the reader a sense of intimate knowledge of the situation.  Forester’s layered descriptive ability is mirrored in the complexity of many of the main themes, the delicate interplay between classes and sexes at the turn of the century.  I’m not sure how to tie all of this neatly into evolution, but I think after finishing the book, and especially after comparing it to Zadie Smith’s work, all will become clear.
Elise