Henry J. Wilcox's maliciousness first led to Leonard Bast losing his job.
Then Wilcox's pursuit to disrobe Helen's lover ("seducer" as Wilcox put it) led to Leonard's death at the hands of Wilcox's son, Charles Wilcox.
What became of Jacky Bast? ... are we to imagine Helen must have given her some assistance as charity so she may survive, as both shared the love of the same man.
I've often wondered this myself. I have a copy of the book, and there is no mention of any help offered to her by the two sisters or the Wilcox family. I would hope that Helen, Margaret or Mr. Wilcox thinks of her and gives her money...unlike Leonard, I don't think Jacky would turn down money, but I also think she would probably go through it rather quickly. The way she is described in the book would make me think she would not find another man she could latch on to...she would probably descend into prostitution if she didn't get help from anyone. I hope she did!
shareHenry Wilcox was not malicious - thoughtless yes, but it was not Henry's intention to hurt the Basts. As for Helen, she was never in love with Leonard. She just had sex with him out of pity and gets herself pregnant that way. As for Jackie Bast, she probably ends up on the streets as a prostitute or some lower part of the social rung. I always do find it interested that nothing is mentioned of her but I guess she becomes insignificant as she has in society's eyes.
shareAs for Helen, she was never in love with Leonard.
Helen loved the absolute. Leonard had been ruined absolutely, and had appeared to her as a man apart, isolated from the world. A real man, who cared for adventure and beauty, who desired to live decently and pay his way, who could have travelled more gloriously through life than the Juggernaut car that was crushing him. Memories of Evie's wedding had warped her, the starched servants, the yards of uneaten food, the rustle of overdressed women, motor-cars oozing grease on the gravel, rubbish on a pretentious band. She had tasted the lees of this on her arrival: in the darkness, after failure, they intoxicated her. She and the victim seemed alone in a world of unreality, and she loved him absolutely, perhaps for half an hour.
I disagree with savagebiscuits on a few points:
I think that Helen really did care for Leonard, but, of course, in British society of that time, such a pairing was ruled out for at least two reasons - they were from different social class and he was already married. I see it the opposite way - it was into the social conventions of the time that Helen dipped to explain her initial interest and fascination with Leonard Bast. I think she had the hots for him (early version of a girl that liked "slumming it") and that slip on the river was when she let her real desires come to the surface.
As for Jacky Bast, Leonard's death is in no way hers. NO WAY. From the story it is clear that she is a survivor and will move on. She may not live well, but she will keep living. Isn't it clear that she latched on to Leonard at some point. Far from him not loving Helen, it is Jacky whom he does not really love. She latches on by playing the helpless victim (which in society of that time, she actually was, but she certainly used it to her advantage) and pestering him to within one inch of his life. Right after his death, I am sure she was at his brother and sister's home making claims upon them, demanding what is rightfully his. The story does not really tell us much about Leonard's family, but you get the sense that they are decently situated, but have shunned him, due to his connection with Jackie. If there is any family money that could have come to Leonard, she will be there demanding it. As she is so whiny and annoying, it is entirely possible they will give her something just to shut her up and get rid of her. After that, if she does not latch onto someone else, I agree with other posters that she will return to prostitution.
I think that Helen really did care for Leonard, but, of course, in British society of that time, such a pairing was ruled out for at least two reasons - they were from different social class and he was already married. I see it the opposite way - it was into the social conventions of the time that Helen dipped to explain her initial interest and fascination with Leonard Bast. I think she had the hots for him (early version of a girl that liked "slumming it") and that slip on the river was when she let her real desires come to the surface.
"I ought to remember Leonard as my lover," said Helen, stepping down into the field. "I tempted him, and killed him and it is surely the least I can do. I would like to throw out all my heart to Leonard on such an afternoon as this. But I cannot. It is no good pretending. I am forgetting him." Her eyes filled with tears. "How nothing seems to match--how, my darling, my precious--" She broke off. "Tommy!"
"Yes, please?"
"Baby's not to try and stand.--There's something wanting in me. I see you loving Henry, and understanding him better daily, and I know that death wouldn't part you in the least. But I--Is it some awful appalling, criminal defect?"
Margaret silenced her. She said: "It is only that people are far more different than is pretended. All over the world men and women are worrying because they cannot develop as they are supposed to develop. Here and there they have the matter out, and it comforts them. Don't fret yourself, Helen. Develop what you have; love your child. I do not love children. I am thankful to have none. I can play with their beauty and charm, but that is all--nothing real, not one scrap of what there ought to be. And others--others go farther still, and move outside humanity altogether. A place, as well as a person, may catch the glow. Don't you see that all this leads to comfort in the end? It is part of the battle against sameness. Differences--eternal differences, planted by God in a single family, so that there may always be colour; sorrow perhaps, but colour in the daily grey. Then I can't have you worrying about Leonard. Don't drag in the personal when it will not come. Forget him."
"Yes, yes, but what has Leonard got out of life?"
"Perhaps an adventure."
"Is that enough?"
"Not for us. But for him."
Helen took up a bunch of grass. She looked at the sorrel, and the red and white and yellow clover, and the quaker grass, and the daisies, and the bents that composed it. She raised it to her face.
As for Jacky Bast, Leonard's death is in no way hers. NO WAY. From the story it is clear that she is a survivor and will move on.
I think she went back to the streets where she came from -- prostitution. I can't see Margaret offering her any sort of help, and Helen needed all her money to support her child.
shareIt's a good question. I'm re-reading the book, but don't want to skip forward to see if the answer is there, so...
I think that as Leonard's wife, she would be due at least some court-mandated entitlement from the Wilcoxes, since her husband died of manslaughter, which Charles Wilcox was found guilty of. However, given the class situation at the time, that might have been a minimal settlement.
Due not least to his previous involvement with Jacky, and also because of his social standing, Henry might have been unwilling to be generous; on the other hand, he did go through a crisis of conscience at the end, and Margaret might well have influenced him to give Jacky more than he was required or would previously have been inclined.
Whatever Henry might have done or not done, Margaret and Helen would certainly have compensated her, probably generously.
Another question would be, would Jacky have ever felt that whatever she received was adequate? Aside from the obvious question of, is any compensation enough in return for the loss of anyone dear, I would have to say Jacky would NEVER be satisfied, given her nature.
My guess is Jacky Bast stayed in her class. She seemed quite content there; sleeping well enough. She didn't seem to have any aspirations or respect for those better off financially than her. She would take any charity offered but not change her ways.
I can't see the Schlegel sisters taking Jacky in as a housekeeper or nanny or anything. The Schlegels seem to have certain standards in that regard.
It was a good film. Excellent story, terrific acting and superb art direction; Oscar-winning in fact. I think about the characters stripped of their veneer.
9/10 Excellent
I doubt Henry would willingly give a farthing to Jackie Bast as he believed the poor were always going to be poor no matter what one did to help. It would be like throwing money out a window. However because of Margaret his wife, he would likely give her some yearly income to appease his conscience. It would be far better for him to see her situated far away so as to diminish his own guilt and embarrassment, perhaps in some sort of domestic situation where she could earn a respectable income. Butknowingackie as we do, she would scorn domestic work as she is prideful and stubborn even in the face of her uneducation and lower class situation. Yet she would not be against taking money from people she feels owe her. I do think that the Schlegal sisters would provide for her and never allow her to starve - and indeed Jackie would accept their support as she would feel they owe her in so many ways. As for Jackie personally, her modus operandi was to latch on to an unsuspecting man of means and take her comfort from him as best she can.
Interesting thread! I must admit that I, as a reader, gave Jacky's fate little thought, so I'm assuming that none of the characters did either. Even before Henry knew who Leonard was, he was unwilling to help him; to help his widow now, his former lover, would probably seem like bad form to him, as if she were his kept woman. But perhaps Margaret used some her HER money to keep the poor woman afloat?
I don't recall Jacky's former life from the novel (unlike Forster's others, I disliked it, as much as I loved the film!)...but wasn't she the orphan of a middle class official in Cyprus? Why does everyone say she will "return to prostitution"? Unless I missed something...? I got the impression that she was used by a series of men as a sort of mistress, not a prostitute. Some might equate the two, but I suppose it depends on one's definition.
I followed all the rules...and you followed none of them. And they all loved you more.
Her father's death in Cyprus left her in a foreign land with no prospects, and sex was about all she had to offer. I don't see Henry Wilcox stepping up, as any association, however tenuous, would be a constant reminder of his indiscretion and his family's loss of honor. If Margaret stepped in, I suspect it would be without his knowledge.
shareThat explanation seems plausible. As for the sex she may have offered, I doubt that Henry would have got involved with her if she were a "Lady of the Evening". Still, many Victorian (and later Edwardian) men did visit prostitutes; it was almost expected! Henry just seems like the high-minded type who would want to maintain a certain image. Remember how angry he got at Margaret when she mentioned his infidelity toward Ruth (after their argument over Helen stopping at Howard's End)?
I like to think of Margaret helping out (yes, it would probably be in secret) and also Helen, who really owes Jacky more than Margaret, having seduced her husband and borne his child! She would probably see nothing odd in sending money to Jacky, possibly openly.
Also, I would guess that once Charles went to prison, the Wilcoxes were taken down a few pegs in society but possibly in their own rigidity as well. Helping Jacky in secret could well have become an open thing, with Henry not objecting any more. He seemed very downtrodden at the end.
I followed all the rules...and you followed none of them. And they all loved you more.
Dolly Wilcox does mention relocating to another part of England and changing their name after Charles' release from prison, hence their disinterest in Howard's End.
shareYes, that was rather sad. I briefly felt sorry for Dolly, to have married such a creep. I always wondered why the Wilcox children were so hung up on Howard's End when it seemed like none of them wanted it, really. I get the whole keep-it-in-the-family thing, but they even seemed lukewarm about that!
I followed all the rules...and you followed none of them. And they all loved you more.
The only member of the family that seemed to have any real love for Howard's End was Mrs. Wilcox. It would seem that the sole motivation of the childrens' interest in it was avarice and vindictiveness.
shareI believe she'll end up having to "fend for herself" again. (As it was delicately stated earlier.)
Jackie seems to be suffering from a lack of sympathy even from some of those who wrote comments about her. Remember when her father died SHE WAS ONLY 16. The fact Wilcox would have used her for sexual gratification and felt no concern for her wellbeing is an action that leaves me disgusted with him. He need not have taken her on as a long term mistress, but for him to just leave Cyprus knowing a 16 yr old orphan must resort to peddling her sexuality is appalling. It appears he did not even bother to ensure that she made her way back to England but left her in an alien culture with no means of support or education. If anyone thinks Jackie chose to resort to prostitution or "latch onto" someone to support her - what were her options, especially considering the social restrictions of the time. I'm disappointed with the author for also seeming to write off Jackie as though she was an incidental aspect to further his story. The movie was lavish and well-produced, but I have no respect for the author and his utter disregard for how Jackie ended up seeming to be "parasitic" on men. The author likely had very low regard for women in general unless they were of higher noble families and artistic. But even the sense of being cultured and artistic seems pretentious and contrived. The author is as much a heartless snob as the two Wilcox men. As for the younger Wilcox, Paul, he still behaved badly too. And Margaret was much too quick to rush into a marriage with Wilcox and disregard his obvious shallow and cruel nature. As for the words spoken by Helen, she seems like a flake, if not a noodle. There are no truly "noble" characters in this story at all. Still, I enjoyed a well-produced and well-acted movie despite the shortcomings in the book itself and its disregard for the issues I've raised.
shareCuriouser,
I know I'm late to the party here but I wrote a short epilogue that explains what I believe happened to Jackie. In the story, Helen is married to a farmer named George Weatherstaff and has three children. The eldest, Friedrich hears from the grapevine he is not his father's child. He confronts his Aunt Margaret and she tells him everything. He visits Jackie and her daughter Emily (his half-sister who was conceived at the same time, unbeknownst to him) to share a sweet moment with them by offering them a choice of his acrylic and watercolor paintings. George Wilcox was ordered by the court to make just compensation to Jackie for killing her husband when he got out of jail by sending her a hefty paycheck, once a year. After George dies in WWI, his widow Dolly still honors the pledge.
https://www.fanfiction.net/s/14278547/1/His-Father-s-Son-Epilogue-to-Howard-s-End#google_vignette
I was wondering that as well. Unfortunately I think it's likely she was left to remain in her place. As others mentioned, Helen had a child to raise, so she couldn't keep offering her charity. It was rather foolish of Leonard to refuse that check.
share