Howards End, E.M. Forster’s 1910 novel of Britishness and class conflict, is without a doubt one of the most strangely contemporary old books I have ever read. While it fits politically nice and snugly into the mild meliorist tradition of someone like Turgenev, what makes Howards End so disarming to me is the specificity of its problem set. We might read a novel by Sally Rooney, who regularly expresses her political positions in public, but never really find those same views stated quite so obviously in the text itself. Instead, with her worlds of permissive and diffuse relationships she seems to describe what is, rather than tell us what she wishes for.
Not so here. Howards End very clearly advocates for empathy with its “only connect” tagline, questions the obligations of those with money by literally having a dinner party where alternatives are acted out, and shows a kind of class striation and conflict that is still uneasily present today in the UK and elsewhere. As a work, its sympathies are not just “liberal” in the sense that most books are because authors generally have to care about at least some people or they wouldn’t bother writing about them – it is liberal in the sense that a reader today who doesn’t agree with that particular sets of views will probably find themselves feeling attacked and yet unable to dismiss the book as being of another time as one might with, say, a feminist novel of the 1860s. That is its strangeness.
None of this makes great literature, however. I came away from Howards End disappointed in it, but I think in my disappointment I have found an interesting thread to expand on in this post. This book’s politics are unmissable, for good or ill, and they are important to Forster, or else he would not have written the book. But just how he presents his theme, the way he arranges and explores it through his characters, is full of choices. Here I find decisions of focus, narrative, and characterisation, that I cannot help but fault. What is more, I suspect Forster would agree. For connected to the novel’s politics is also a kind of conscious crisis of representation – the story itself is in strain – as the narrator practically admits of the difficulty of writing his theme with the toolset of an Edwardian novelist.
The Plot
Howards End is the story of the Schlegel family, in particular its two eldest children, the daughters Margaret and Helen. They are middle class in that hugely spacious definition of it current somewhere like the UK. Each has what today would be about one million pounds in the bank, according to the Bank of England’s inflation calculator – enough, in the 1900s, to live without working, but not quite enough to feel fully at ease. Though living in England, they are half-German, hence the name. Their father was first a soldier with the Prussians, then a philosopher of sorts, before he moved and settled in England. His name is a slight unsubtlety – a real Schlegel was an idealist philosopher in the early 19th century, and “idealist” is the word we might use to describe Margaret, Helen, and their younger brother Tibby. Without obligation to live in the world, the sisters are free to philosophise upon it at little gatherings of their friends and their brother free to enjoy the abstractions of beautiful music.
There is another world, however – the world of “anger and telegrams”. This is the world of the Wilcox family, with its patriarch Henry, scion Charles, daughter Evie and colony-bound Paul. The Wilcoxes are also middle class, (apologies to my international readers), albeit far wealthier than the Schlegels due to their involvement in business. Having met the Schlegels on a tour of Germany, the two families are later brought together by fate and chance within England itself.
The final family is the Basts, Leonard and Jenny. They are poor, but still in a way middle class too. (The narrator notes: “We are not concerned with the very poor. They are unthinkable, and only to be approached by the statistician or the poet. This story deals with gentlefolk, or with those who are obliged to pretend that they are gentlefolk.”) Leonard works as a clerk, which allows him some purchase above “the abyss” of true poverty, but as the novel progresses that abyss gets closer and closer. Jenny, meanwhile, is crude and childish. However, an experience in her past connects her to the Wilcoxes, just as Leonard’s accidental acquaintance with the Schlegels, via a misplaced umbrella, brings him into their world. In this way, Forster sets up the Schlegels to act as a balancing point between the two extremes of their class, and sets the stage for a conflict between them, one involving all the usual things we expect of an English novel – marriage, love, and property.
The Brilliance of a Missing Name
Our introduction to Leonard Bast comes in the novel’s fifth chapter, when all the Schlegels, including a relative from Germany, are gathered to listen to a performance of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony. This chapter is one of the novel’s best, because it manages to use not just this event as a way of delivering its themes, but also its very form. For a novel about the importance of connecting, Howards End tells us exactly how everyone responds in a different and hence disconnected way to the music: the Schlegel’s aunt taps, Helen visualises a heroic conflict, Margaret hears music, Tibby follows the score on his knee, and their German cousin thinks patriotically of how Beethoven was German. It is not quite a cycling of free minds, as in say, Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse, but it is still usefully weightless narration.
This, however, is not what makes the chapter good. What does that is the presentation of Leonard. Margaret, socially minded as ever, has been speaking to “some young man”. Later, after the next few pieces of music this man interrupts the Schlegels to say that Helen (who had just run off, overwhelmed by the music), has taken his umbrella. His awkwardness is obvious – he had “for some time been preparing a sentence.” Margaret helpfully gives him their address, but he suspects instead some hidden deceit. “To trust people is a luxury only the wealthy can indulge; the poor cannot afford it,” begins the narrator. We learn how “the young man” had been the victim of confidence tricksters in the past, and how it has made him wary. The Schlegels, learning instead from their father, view every deceit as “rent.” “Rent to the ideal” of a society where we trust one another, that is.
The young man comes home with them to collect his umbrella, but does not stay for tea. He is forgotten, except as a memory of another world, of how “beneath these superstructures of wealth and art there wanders an ill-fed boy, who has recovered his umbrella indeed, but who has left no address behind him, and no name.” This ending makes explicit what has given the chapter its force: not once is Leonard named. He is both forcibly a character in the sense that he physically occupies space, yet forcibly denied that most basic right of character – an identity instead of a mere description. It seems to me that this is the most interesting moment of the whole novel, because in the denial (which only lasts a chapter) we see reflected an attitude relevant to the work as a whole. This strange clerk, this young man, does not seem to matter. He does not matter to the people talking to him, even if politically he might be on their side, and Forster chooses to let this come across in the text. That the text both draws our attention to this, then reveals his name in the next chapter, serves a simple purpose – it shames us into realising how easy it is to think nothing of another human life.
A story told with the wrong tools
With the comment earlier about the text’s refusal to depict “the poor” there’s the clearest indication from the narrator there’s some kind of representational crisis afoot alongside all the other crises of the early 20th century, such as changing demographics (“our race is degenerating”, the progressive Margaret remarks) and the threat of war. The problem is that even if the narrator is uncomfortable with his telling, he cannot quite see the solutions that will come to change the face of literature only a few years later. Structurally, Howards End is as conservative as its politics are liberal. Even if we have advanced beyond the days of Turgenev or Austen, when the story must end with a harmonious marriage, Howards End still ends with its shadow – domestic happiness and stability at last achieved. So much, so acceptable – happy endings do happen.
What I find much harder to accept is the role of chance in Howards End, which substitutes for the representation of tragedy by other means. That Leonard Bast might make the acquaintance of the Schlegels at a concert is possible. That his wife might have become a fallen woman thanks to Henry Wilcox while he was visiting a business concern of his in Cyprus some ten years previously is too much. Chance becomes unfair when the reader feels they are not being taken seriously. Howards End reminded me a little of Hardy, who seemed in The Mayor of Casterbridge to enjoy the action of hurting his characters more than he cared for the point he was trying to make. I don’t believe Forster did have any great love of scandal, which makes his choices even more absurd to me.
What is so bad about Jenny’s history with Henry is that it is utterly pointless within the story. The reveal takes place some two-thirds of the way through the book at the wedding of Henry Wilcox’s daughter Evie, a time of conspicuous consumption and general opulence. Into this place arrives Helen, bringing the Bast couple, who are destitute following Leonard’s loss of his job. Leonard and Henry have already met, briefly, at the Schlegel’s. Following Henry’s offhand suggestion at that time that Leonard look for another job the richer man has caused, inadvertently, the latter’s stumble towards his abyss. To accuse Henry of responsibility for another man’s fall the text need do precisely nothing, for the matter is clear already.
Adding guilt for a crime committed in the past, about which there is no prior evidence or indication in the text, merely cheapens all this. (If anything, Henry is depicted as made uncomfortable by the idea of sex, which makes the incident harder, not easier, to believe.) If we want to comment, as I believe Forster does, upon the unfairness of economic outcomes, then the contrast of starving Basts and feasting Wilcoxes is entirely sufficient. Further, if it is moral intrigue that we want, then Margaret (engaged to Henry), forced into the morally unpleasant position of attacking her sister for her “theatrical nonsense” in bringing the two uninvited guests to the party, provides drama enough. This is psychology, rather than scandal, and all the more interesting.
In other words, Forster lacks subtlety here. Or rather, he’s capable of it, but allows unsubtle moments such as this into the plot at key moments. Through events like the running-over of a dog in the Wilcoxes’ motorcar and their response to it, (“the insurance company will see to that”), their attitudes and carelessness are skewered well enough.
The novel’s finale is another moment involving the Basts where Forster seems to prefer silly action to serious subtlety. After Margaret’s rejection of the Basts at the wedding, in a moment of rage and confusion, Helen sleeps with Leonard while his wife is in bed next door. This is reasonably plausible if we assume more alcohol than was previously mentioned was involved. Helen becomes pregnant from the encounter and with still more confused emotions leaves England for the continent. After some time and concerned by her sister’s lack of contact, Margaret devises a plan with Henry to catch Helen at Howards End, where the family books are now being stored. Helen arrives, Margaret and she meet, and they decide to spend one night together before Helen departs again. Meanwhile, Leonard, who has been living for the past few months by cadging money off family members, decides he must see Margaret to confess. Hot-tempered Charles also heads to Howards End, to get Margaret away and back to her husband.
When Charles sees Leonard, the cause of his sister-in-law’s shameful pregnancy, his response is to whack him over the head with the Schlegel’s sword. (The blunt side.) Leonard falls over and is crushed by a bookcase he bumps on the way down. He does not get up. The aspiring upper middle class murders the descending lower middle class – one cannot get more direct than that! But one certainly should be less direct. Leonard doesn’t need to die at all. A life of despair, as Leonard watches his family gradually give him less and less money until he becomes truly desperate, would be far worse. It would also serve the book’s key message, “only connect”, far better, by showing how he was slowly disconnecting from everything. Instead, at the novel’s end, it’s an attempt to connect that he dies, which certainly makes Charles look bad, but is far less impactful as a political message of the sort the novel seems to want to make.
In other words, it’s not just that the drama is silly, it’s that it is cheaper, less interesting, than the alternative. Margaret’s divided loyalty between her husband and her sister is much more morally meaty than having her be divided over her husband’s unbelievable indiscretion from before they ever met. Charles’ failure in life is much better depicted in the scraps of his home life that we see – his too many children, his too small prosperity, and his anxiousness over his own class position – than through having him become a murderer. And finally, Leonard’s abjection is far more interesting than his poor heart. In other words, I am trying to say something like – more Chekhov is needed. As he well knew, drowning, slipping into the wrong life and having no idea how to escape it, is far more horrible – and relevant to our own existences – than scandal.
Conclusion
Howards End is an accomplished novel. The pieces fit together, the characters exist reasonably well, the theme reaches the reader without too much difficulty. The rich remain so, the poor suffer, and those in the middle muddle along, maybe with a bit of mental torment but no real difficulties. Its strength is its articulateness – its discussions feel forceful in the way that only discussions felt as part of a tradition can do – and in many of its subtleties and images, such as the “rent” to the ideal of trust. Yet overall, I think it is ruined by structural decisions that devalue the effort Forster clearly put into his more subtle comments. If it had been published not in 1910, but say, 1924, as was A Passage to India, or even later, perhaps Forster would have had more opportunities to tell his story more effectively. He might have read Woolf’s “The Russian Point of View”, for example, and realised all the options he had missed.
As it stands, this is a strange work. It’s so modern in its sympathies, so outdated in its approach, that the overall effect is of a contemporary novel by a new writer who hasn’t yet mastered their craft.
For more ambivalent comments on Forster, I’ve written on Maurice here