Week 10-The End of Howard, the Beginning of Beauty

            In finishing Howard’s End I find myself depressed by the moral I got from it in the end.  Nothing changes truly.  Mrs. Wilcox may have died, but Margaret has taken her place.  The only real changes are the shift in Margaret’s character and the birth of the illegitimate child.  Both of which leave little opportunity for real change in the future.  Margaret has left her liberal ways behind to pursue a quiet life in the country catering to her ill husband’s every need.  She held so many chances for opportunity.  She was in such a unique position for a woman of her time in that she was entirely independent of any men.  She was able to provide for herself and her family.  While the lease may have run up on her house, she had enough money to find them a new place to live.  Instead she gave herself over to the conservative Mr. Wilcox because she was so afraid of choosing the wrong house, and it seemed so much easier to have a strong, willful man in her life.  Helen’s child on the other hand I find even more depressing.  While it is a nice thought to think that the son of a poor clerk will inherit an old money mansion in the country, that is not the reality of the situation.  Somewhere in his mind the boy will know of his real descent, but it wont truly mean anything to him.  The male role models for him will all be Wilcoxes.  He will be raised a Wilcox too in the end.  He will never have to wonder where his next meal is going to come from or how he will pay the rent as his father did.  Really all it proves is that you can’t change the system no matter how hard you try. 

When Levi comforts his mother after Carlene Kipps’ funeral his comments remind me of the quote “Only connect…” at the beginning of Howard’s End. Levi says, “But sometimes it’s like you just meet someone and you just know that you’re totally connected. Even if they don’t, like, recognize it, you feel it. And in a lot of ways it don’t matter if they do or they don’t see that for what it is-all you can do is put the feeling out there.” Pg. 304

Levi recognizes that it is random that his mother and Carlene forged such a strong connection in such a short amount of time but, he still respects the bond they made. In direct contrast to Levi’s respect for his mother’s friendship, the Kipps family actively resists the friendship. But, in not fulfilling Carlene’s wishes the Kipps family actually disgrace her memory. Carlene may not have been able to explain the bond she felt with Kiki but, she recognized that there was something there and acted upon it. If the Kipps family really cared about Carlene they would have fulfilled her wishes and made sure that Kiki got the painting. Carlene put her feelings “out there” when she left a painting to Kiki that meant a lot to her. She made the decision to connect with Kiki and the painting was symbolic of the connection she was trying to forge with her. While it was very generous of Carlene to give the painting to Kiki I am not convinced that the act  of wanting to connect was enough. Is only connecting enough? Or is there something more needed?

My problem so far with reading Zadie Smith's novel is the fact that I have already read Howard's End.  Rather than trying to find meaning in On Beauty, I find myself only trying to make connections between the two novels.  The whole first part of On Beauty for example I was trying to pair up characters between the two books like Jerome and Helen, and Monty Kipps and Mr. Wilcox.  When reading On Beauty I often find myself thinking that Smith expects you to have read Howard's End with the amount of concurrence that there is between the two novels.  I wish I had not read  Howard's End first to see if I would get new meaning out of this novel. 

I have a problem with literary adaptations or "homages" in general after reading the first part of this book.  This is my first experience reading a book based on another book.  I am okay with film adaptations because, for me, you get to compare the characters from the novel that you have formed in your mind with the characters as they are represented in the film.  I feel that there is nothing rewarding about reading a novel based on another novel because all you can do is anticipate what's going to happen next in the novel. 

I think something that's already really grabbed my attention is the way Smith plays with the concept of identity. Within Howard's family, there are so many different kinds of "stock" identities: Howard is an intellectual, Kiki is a black woman in a white intellectual's world, Zora figures herself as spanning the bridge between Levi's urban ghetto identity and her parent's more academic identity, and Jerome is the oddball - he's a womanish kind of intellectual philosopher. And then in the larger group, all of these factors play into characters' identities: race, color, physical build, academic interests, class...it's really fascinating, and I think that Smith is picking up on Forster's dichotomies and expanding them. Sorry this is so half-formed.

Katie Baratz

I like On Beauty alot more than I liked Howard's End. I guess it's just the more modern writing style. Forrester's was terribly boring. Smith is a little more engaging. I got caught up in reading it. Especially during the party scene, wondering what Howard's actual infidelity was. I like the characters more too. There doesn't seem to be the "only connect" stuff looming over the book. And there isn't those terrible references, like the Ophelia reference in Howard's End that makes On Beauty alot easier and more relaxing to read.

There is a clear and definite connection between Howard's End and On Beauty. The beginning started out just the same. And there was the quick romance and someone went to stop it. Then there was the party. I see the clear connections but there are also some disconnections also. Like the plot of the story evolved, not just the time and place. The characters are easy/hard to relate to Howard's End. Jerome is clearly meant to be Helen, but then again he can't possibly wind up pregnant and alone. I think the house in Wellington is analogous to Howard's End. And I see Kiki as a Mrs. Wilcox. This makes me sad because Mrs. Wilcox dies and I like Kiki, so hopefully Smith has evolved this part of the plot too.

I have often wondered about morality, and whether the recognition that being a moral person and the decision to do so is a result of some absolute truth or calling that we perceive, or if it is merely something that is programmed into us biologically.  Biologically, there are many reasons to be moral.  Many things that are immoral seem like they are immoral for the simple fact that they harm members of our species, and thus our ability to adapt to life.  Stealing and killing someone are immoral because they harm members of our species; stealing by depriving someone of things they might need to live, and killing by taking their life away. 

 However, lying and cheating are also immoral; but how would lying to someone affect his/her chances of survival?  Likewise, how would cheating at something, like a game make any kind of biological difference?  It is less clear cut in these cases what the role of biology plays, if any, in the formation of our morals. 

 Nevertheless, all these morals and many more are ones that most humans agree to strictly live by, because they have been taught that it is the right way to live (and in some cases, such as killing, perhaps do not even have to be taught, but just instinctively know).  But what exactly is the reason why such teachings exist in the first place?

Ingrid

I do not like this book and I can find a meaning to it, something that I can disprove or agree with.  It is difficult to me to read a simple novel that is not asking me to agree on anything after reading “What Evolution Is” and “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” that are books full of meaningful things.  I find myself lost in a meaningless book. I hate to think that things in life are meaningless and I refused to it when it was proposed through the discussions during class but now I am kind of starting to believe that there are certain things that are truly meaningless like “On Beauty” and “Howards End.”  I think that in order for me to relate to something it has to be through emotions because they are timeless and since the two previous readings are more concern about a certain time in history it is impossible to do so.

I kind of agree with Elise about being ticked at Zadie Smith, I really so far don’t like the book and I think I feel a little bit bad about it.  First, yes Beauty is much much easier to read I think but I am soooooooooo bored with it.  Granted the story line is difference but not difference enough to capture my attention like, when Jerome writes to tell his father that he is marrying Victoria and he immediately sets off on a plane it’s like, ohhh no here we go again.  I guess I have just found the book to repetitive and a little predictable in some areas and I don’t like this.  I know this is supposed to be a great novel based on Howards End but so far I think that its kind of crappy that it is so closely based on the same some what story line.  Maybe this is illustrating evolution but I feel bad because I think I am looking for something more, more crestivity more links, not just a rephrased plot line.  Although I’m not thrilled with the book I still have hope there will be something more, I have only noticed this in the very beginning so I haven’t given up totally.

Since beginning On Beauty, I’ve gone through a cycle of different reactions.  At first I just thought, this is nice, well written, with some well-placed allusions to Howards End, and perhaps a similar structure.  As I kept reading, I admit I started to get a little ticked off at Zadie.  Is this what modern writing has come to, taking a classic and bending its plot, themes, and characters into a modern situation where the allusions to the previous work are all too obvious?  But then, I took a step back and reminded myself of the main themes of this course: evolution and storytelling. 

There is a definite evolution to be seen between these two works.  Smith has forced Howards End into the twenty-first century by telling her story through the eyes of a modern multicultural family that inhabits the world we live in today.  The main themes remain the same, but with a twist.  Class is addressed through the subtleties of changing economic status and racial backgrounds, rather than the clear distinction between rich and poor in 1910.  The clash of ideologies remains to some extent intellectual and practical, but with distinct overtones of liberal versus conservative.  In a sense, the story of Howards End has been adapted to fit its surroundings.  While the world of Forster’s original novel may seem alien to us now, Smith makes us see that the same issues are still relevant in modern society.  While I think her linkage of the two works would have been just as effective without the overt allusions to Howards End, at this stage I am content to view Smith’s work as an homage rather than an imitation.

Elise

I am fascinated so far by Zadie Smith's ability to describe normal situations with such attention to detail and precise wording. She does it so effortlessly that the scenes just seem to flow, the characters moving and waiting for us exactly as we left them every time we put down the book and resume it later. I skimmed over Hayley's post and found that she pointed out an aspect in the beginning of the novel that I, too, found especially interesting for multiple reasons: when Kiki changes her behavior and way of speaking when Monique, the black housekeeper, arrives. It caused me to really question Kiki's character and her place- what made her uncomfortable about a woman of the same race cleaning up after her as a mode of occupation is that the situation speaks to the inequality of the class system and the American Dream as well as Kiki's and her family's place in the intellectual sphere.

The family dynamic is amazing, and I am enthralled by Howard's position in the family. I am not sure where he stands, and the family's initial animosity towards the Kipps family raised questions. But I loved Smith's line in between Howard and Kiki's quarrel over where the Kipps's phone number was, which Howard had mistakenly left behind at a conference (the first explication that he chooses his occupation over his family: "when [he] had more important things on [his] mind than [his] wife and family" [page 13]). As Howard asks to talk about it later, Smith writes: "When you are guilty, all you can ask for is a deferral of the judgment." Touche! Touche!!!

one of the biggest differences between "on beauty" and "howard's end" is the treatment of intellectuals and practicals. forster, through the character margaret, identifies with the intellectuals but believes that "it takes all kinds" and he shows that despite his many shortcomings, practicals like mr wilcox have good qualities, too, and are needed in shaping a world in which intellectuals and practicals should come together. mr wilcox does worse things, especially at teh end of the novel, than margaret does, and margaret is able to forgive him, so forster seems to be saying that people need to accept others for who they are. people can change, as wilcox seems to soften at the end, but only up to a point. mrs wilcox is definitely the noblest practical in the novel, and she does have a powerful reserve and admirable selflessness, but i think that her taciturn behavior at the schlegels' party shows her limitations intellectually and socially, not any kind of power on her part as members of grobstein's discussion group were arguing. helen is mrs wilcox's foil, as she is too impetuous and mrs wilcox lacks spontaneity. but helen is the only one who truly understands how unjust they have been to leonard bast. forster is very diplomatic. he gives each character credit and criticizes each one as well. i think an appreciation of the merits of each character manifests in his writing.

i have finished "on beauty" so i am not going to give anything away, but one of my many, many issues with this novel is the way it unfairly skewers intellectuals. the only characters who are not caricatures, for whom smith shows some sympathy, are the practicals, kiki in particular, also mrs kipps, and levi. she mocks levi quite a bit, but he becomes a deeper character by the end and she sympathizes with his concerns. however, you'll see many parts where she makes fun of universities, professors, meetings, poetry readings. she hates howard belsey because he does not agree with her on beauty. this is a crime to her, so basically this novel is howard's end, and we watch his gradual decline. a good word to describe smith may be rootless because she is a writer, and on the intellectual side of the spectrum (she graduated from cambridge if that makes any differences, though plenty of non-intellectuals graduate from such institutions, and i don't mean to say that negatively) but her novel is all about skewering intellectuals. none of them is a realistic character, none of their merits is appreciated. joan didion's novels show more love for humanity than "on beauty." (i'm a big fan of diddie, don't get me wrong. but this smith woman, grrr....)