The Independent Review Essay Example for Free

The Independent Review Essay E. M. Forster (1879-1790) was the author of many well-known novels, and also several volumes of short-stories, essays and criticism. He is best-known for his 1924 novel A Passage to India, which has enjoyed a world-wide audience ever since its publication. Today he is considered as one of the prominent figures of British literature of the first half of the twentieth century. Forster once wrote, â€Å"Life is easy to chronicle, but bewildering to practice. † Edward Morgan Forster himself began his ‘bewildering practice’ on 1 January 1879, in London. When he was eight-years old, he inherited an amount ? 8000 from his great-aunt, Marianne Thornton, of whom he would later write a biography. This inheritance was sufficient to let Forster pursue his education and literary career in relative freedom from financial constraints and worries. Upon his graduation from Tonbridge School, Forster secured admission into Kings College, Cambridge where he studied classics and history, and was partly under the tutelage of Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson, of whom he would later write a biography. At Cambridge, he was exposed to the values of liberal humanism and cultivated a respect for the freedom of individuality of human beings. Under the influence of the philosopher G. E. Moore, Forster developed an aesthetic belief that contemplating beauty of art constituted a nobler purpose in life. He also became a strong believer in the value of friendships, and struck lasting friendships which meant a great deal to him throughout his life. He would later travel to India with a group of university friends. â€Å"If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country,† he would later say. During these years of higher education, Forster was a member of an intellectual clique at Cambridge called the Apostles, and through them came into contact with the members of the Bloomsbury Group, with which he would associate more closely in the subsequent years (Childs 6). Completing his education at Cambridge, he left England on a long trip to Italy and Austria, which would last for one year. Forster would spend a significant period of his life traveling. It was around this time, in 1901, that he began exercising his writing skills. He then started working at Working Mens College and subsequently taught at the extra-mural department of the Cambridge Local Lectures Board. Forsters literary career began in 1903, when he began writing for The Independent Review, a liberal publication that he co-founded with Lowes Dickinson and used as a platform for advocating anti-imperialism. Soon, Forster became a published author with the appearance of his first novel Where Angels Fear to Tread (1905). Forster used his knowledge of Italy to create a story that juxtaposed and contrasted the passionate world of Italy with the constricting values of suburban England. The result is a social comedy, which rather interestingly ends up as a tragedy dealing with rather unsavory aspects of death and frustrated love. It is the story of a young English widow, Lilia, who falls in love with an Italian, but the members of her family cannot accept this and try to wrest her back. This work was not well received by the public. By 1910, Forster would have written three more novels. The Longest Journey (1907) and A Room with a View (1908) exhibit a growing maturity in literary skills and artistic scope, and Howards End (1910) saw his rise to fame. Forster wrote most of his short stories and four novels before 1910. In the sixty years he lived after that, he would write only two novels, Maurice, in 1914, and A Passage to India, in 1924 (Tambling 2). After publishing his first novel, Forster left for Germany and worked for several months as tutor to the Countess von Arnim, in a place called Nassenheide. This experience would serve him in the characterization of Schlegel sisters in Howards End. Back in England, in 1907, he took on the role of a private tutor for an Indian Muslim, with whom he developed a close relationship that could be seen as homosexual love. Forsters famous work A Passage to India would be dedicated to this person. Forster was a covert homosexual all through his life. The posthumous publishing of his homosexual novel Maurice (1971) offers strong testimony to his sexual orientation, although it is difficult to ascertain how far his homosexual orientation may have influenced his work in general. However, he certainly felt frustrated for not being able to write about homosexual themes openly and it is possible that he stopped writing novels half-way through his life out of such frustration. In 1907, Forster wrote and published a novel about his Cambridge days, The Longest Journey. It tells the story of an undergraduate and a struggling writer, Rickie Elliot, who abandons friendship for the sake marriage, but is enlightened by his pagan half-brother. The Longest Journey was also Forsters favorite novel, despite the poor response it got from the critics and the public. Around this time, Forster was closely associated with the Bloomsbury Group, and was interacting with people such as Lytton Strachey and Rogery Fry. In his third novel, A Room with a View, which is also his second Anglo-Italian novel partly set in Florence and partly in English suburbia, Forster displays his contempt for English snobbery. It is a light and optimistic tale, a story of misunderstandings which however ends on a happy note as Lucy Honeychurch, the protagonist, acknowledges her love for the impulsive George Emerson over her feelings for the intellectual Cecil Vyse. Forster’s novels have already begun to display a common theme of sensitive characters struggling with the inflexibility of social codes that they are encumbered with as well the relative insensitivity of those around them. It can be conjectured that Forster’s frustration at the opposition of the conservative values of his time to his homosexuality may have taken a general form portraying the oppression of social rigidness in his novels. In 1910 came Howards End which is a social novel about sections of the middle classes, focusing on the question of who will inherit â€Å"Howards End,† which is Forsters metonym for England. The story centers on the relationship between the intellectual German Schelgel sisters and the practical, male-dominated, business-oriented Wilcox family. In the novel, Forster attempted to find a way for Wilcox money to become the support for Schlegel culture, and also for the future of rural England to be taken away from the influence of urban, commercial interests and placed once more in the hands of the farmers. The novel presents an ambitious social message, though not wholly practical or convincing. Howards End finally secured Forsters reputation and established him as a novelist. However, he would only publish one novel in the rest of his long life, besides sporadic publication of short stories, essays and so on. In 1911, Forster brought out a collection of short stories entitled The Celestial Omnibus. In 1912-13 he made his first visit to India, with R. C. Trevelyan, Dickinson and G. H. Luce. Here, he had the chance to observe the British colonial administration first-hand. After this trip, he wrote most of the first section of A Passage to India, but it was not until after a second visit, in 1921, when he spent six months as private secretary to a Hindu Maharajah, that he completed it. His masterpiece was published in 1924 and was unanimously praised by literary critics. Around this time he also worked on the homosexual novel Maurice: A Romance. Though it would not be published until after his death, it was circulated privately at the time, and is a story of cross-class homosexual love the kind of which Forster himself yearned for. During World War I, he worked with the International Red Cross and was stationed in Alexandria, Egypt. He also became a strong supporter of the Alexandrian poet C. P. Cavfy. During his stay in Alexandria, he struck an acquaintance with a teenaged tram conductor, Mohammed el-Adl, with whom he fell in deep love. Mohammed would die of tuberculosis in Alexandria in spring of 1922, and this loss weighed heavily on Forster for the rest of his life. Forster returned to England in 1919, after the war, but set off traveling again in 1921. On this trip to India he worked as the private secretary to the Maharajah of Dewas Senior, and his letters home from the two Indian trips were later published as The Hill of Devi (1953). In 1922 he published Alexandria: A History and a Guide, but could get it into circulation only in 1938. Pharos and Pharillon, which is a collection of Forsters essays on Alexandria together with some translations of Cavafys poems, was published in 1923. All through this time, Forster had been reworking on A Passage to India, which was published in 1924, almost a decade and a half after his previous novel Howards End. It is a novel about the clash between Eastern and Western cultures during British rule in India, and is generally considered among major literary works of the twentieth century. It is the story of Adela Quested and Mrs. Moores journey to India to visit Adelas fiance, and Mrs Moores son, Ronny Heaslop. There they meet a college teacher, Cyril Fielding, who is an avatar of Forster himself, the Hindu Brahmin Dr Godbole and the Muslim Dr Aziz. The novel revolves around Dr Azizs alleged assault Adela. Ms. Quested reports of an attempted assault by the Dr. Aziz and subsequently retracts her complaint. Once again, misunderstanding features prominently in Forster’s narrative. A Passage to India was widely acclaimed. For example, a critic at New York Times wrote: â€Å"The crystal-clear portraiture, the delicate conveying of nuances of thought and life, and the astonishing command of his medium show Mr. Forster at the height of his powers† (Forster, front flap). But mysteriously, at the height of his powers, Forster would choose to renounce novel writing. Some have speculated this could be because he felt he could not write openly and honestly about homosexual relations which he longed to write about. In 1927 he gave the Clark lectures at Cambridge University, which were published as Aspects of the Novel the same year. He was also offered a fellowship at Kings College, Cambridge. In 1928, his second collection of short stories, The Eternal Moment, was published. It is a collection of six stories predominated by fantasy and romance. For a while during the 30’s and 40’s, Forster became popular as a broadcaster on BBC radio. In 1934, he published his first biography Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson. By this time he had been an active member of PEN, which was an association of writers founded in 1921 to promote the interests of literature. His opposition against the suppression of Radclyffe Halls lesbian novel The Well of Romance in 1928 helped him to become the first president of the National Council for Civil Liberties, in 1934. He was also seen as a noteworthy personage associated with the British Humanist Association. Around this time, Forster enjoyed a fulfilling personal life. He was involved in a happy relationship with a constable in the London Metropolitan Police, and was on friendly terms with his wife. He was part of social circle, which included the writer and editor of The Listener J. R. Ackerley, the psychologist W. J. H. Sprott, the composer Benjamin Britten, and such noted figures of the society. Forster also associated with many writers such as the poet Siegfried Sassoon and the Belfast-based novelist Forrest Reid. In 1936, Forster published his first collection of essays and occasional pieces, Abinger Harvest. At this point, he was elected Honorary Fellow of Kings, which entitled him to live at the college, as he did for the rest of his life. In 1947, he set out on lecture tours in the United States, and two years later he was offered and refused knighthood from the King. The same year he wrote the libretto for Benjamin Brittens opera Billy Budd, based on Herman Melvilles novella. The year 1951 saw the publication of Forsters second collection of essays and articles, Two Cheers for Democracy. In the immediately following years there was the publication of The Hill of Devi and two short-story volumes, under the generic name Collected Short Stories. The last published work of his life was Marianne Thornton, the biography of his great-aunt whose gift allowed him to go to Cambridge. In 1969 Forster was awarded the Order of Merit. He died shortly thereafter. E. M. Forster has never lacked for readers, is widely studied, has had his novels turned into highly marketable films, and has encouraged criticism usually of a strongly liberal-humanist kind, notes Tambling in his introduction to a book of critical essays on E. M. Forster. Forster explored the shortcomings of the English middle class and their emotional deficiencies, employing irony and wit. Today he is remembered for the impeccable style of writing that is evident in all of his novels and short stories. References: Childs, Peter. 2002. â€Å"A Routledge Literary Sourcebook on E. M. Forsters A Passage to India† (Routledge Literary Sourcebooks). London : Routledge. Forster, E. M. â€Å"A Passage to India. † 1989. Orlando, FL : Harcourt Brace Tambling, Jeremy. â€Å"E. M. Forster: Contemporary Critical Essays† (New Casebooks). 1995. New York : St. Martins Press.

Hate Speeches -- Rights Equality Papers

Hate Speeches What do the words Cracker, Kike, Nigger, Jap, Chinc, Faggot, Queer, Dike and Spic all have in common? They are all derogatory remarks that humans call one another on a daily basis. Why can people use these terms and not have to worry about receiving any punishment or any ridicule? The reason is because of the First Amendment right of free speech. The first amendment gives people the right to basically say anything that comes to mind whether it is something nice or something like a derogatory remark. The first amendment is good and freedom of speech has its advantages like most things, but however, it also has its disadvantages. The disadvantages are that people can say words that are extremely hurtful to someone and nothing will happen to the one saying it. Most people will have a bigger problem with the people who are the victim, for stating that their rights were being violated. The first amendment rights do have certain restrictions on them as of now, such as yo u are able to say what you so choose as long as it does not infringe on any other persons rights. In my opinion the first amendment right should have restrictions or more restrictions than what it has now. Restrictions that deal with the derogatory remarks in public, many think that this will not work, but with the proper guidelines and cooperation I believe that we as a nation can have derogatory remarks not hurt anyone, or be said in public, where they can be heard by everyone not only the person who is the target of the name calling. Many people have opinions on the subject of free speech. Censorship of free speech is something that the random â€Å"Joe Shmo† can argue against because he feels that he will not be ab... ... against the KKK, they will also be removed and the proper punishment, will be served justice. As one can see, the bill does not and will not discriminate against a certain group or groups that are known for having such views and causing such problems in public. Many people say don’t take there free speech away, because of racial slurs and discrimination, but it not taking it away, they have the right to say it anywhere else, but in public. Some same why not just educate them? The reason for the censorship and not educating them is because people are stubborn when it comes to their beliefs and the way they were raised. People will never learn to deal with racial differences, and by trying to educate them we will be wasting money and time and efforts of the nation and the state governments. Education will not work, but censorship of free speech in public will.

Flipping Burgers

Five days out of the week, I walk into work. I put on my employee shirt, my apron, my visor, and I get to work. I have the pleasure of making a ton of pizzas for 8 hours straight, no I am not necessarily ‘fond’ of it, but I do it because it gets me by and pays my bills. Sure I would love to be in some upscale restaurant, but I a least have a job, and I do not take it for granted. Many people would prefer to not have my job; it’s a minimum wage, fast pace, difficult customer environment. But it is an opportunity that is not beneath my dignity, so to that, I quote Charles J.Sykes, in his article called ‘Life rules for Teenagers, â€Å"Flipping Burgers in not beneath your dignity†. I could not agree more with him. Millions of United States workers are employed at a fast food restaurant. Many Americans are probably working in two or more of them at one time, just to get by. They also realize that flipping burgers isn’t below their dignity, having n o job and living off of others should be below ones dignity. Every day I see people on the streets, begging for money. Yes, everyone has their reasons, but everyone is capable or picking their selves up and applying for jobs.You can always advance in the job you have, you gain experience, and once you have enough experience you can apply for higher jobs and get further up the chain. It just takes a bit of hard work in some low paying jobs. For many people, their first jobs are in a fast food place, and it is just a stepping stone. Many work their way through school and then once they graduate, they are able to find jobs in their degree. Others find that they love working in fast food and end up owning them or managing more than just one store.A lot of fast food restaurants offer benefits and are always giving the opportunity for raises, only good things come from hard work. You never know where you will go when you first start a minimum wage job, but you know it will all be worth it in the end. You are getting yourself somewhere, and can be proud of that. One of my first jobs was working at a Quizno’s, there I also had to wear an apron and visor, I was 16 when I first got that job and might I say it was one of the easiest jobs I have ever had.Back when I did not have any responsibilities and whatever money I earned, I just got to pocket it. All I had to do every day, was make sandwiches and run register. Half way through my shift I always got a free sandwich and at the end of the day we always got to take home cookies or left over bread. How could anyone take that for granted? I did. I hated working there, thought it was so hard and embarrassing making sandwiches for other people, but now I realize how crazy I was for thinking that way.The other day I was talking with some friends and telling them about the paper I had to write. I told them the rule I chose, and one of them piped up saying â€Å"it is definitely below my dignity! †; She lives at home with her parents, pays no bills, and doesn’t work. She is naive and obviously doesn’t have a clue of what it means to have an opportunity. There are so many other people who also think that way. They also do not appreciate what is just kind fully handed to them. Others work so hard to just have half of what they have.I wish there was a way to imprint into every ones minds, to appreciate what they have. So tomorrow, I shall go into work and put on my uniform and work hard, because I personally know that making pizzas is not all that I have in store for my life, I am working and paying my way through school and although I dread heading to work every day I know that I am helping my future and preparing myself for other difficult, low paying jobs further in life. No one should ever take a job for granted or be embarrassed for what they do; they should always look at it as an opportunity.

The House of Atreus in Classical Greek Tragedy

Today we are so familiar with plays and movies that it may be difficult to imagine a time when theatrical productions were still new. Like many of the public gatherings in the ancient world, the original productions in Greek theaters were rooted in religion. The City Dionysia Festival It didnt matter that they already knew how the story ended. Athenian audiences of up to 18,000 spectators expected to watch familiar old stories when they attended the Great or City Dionysia festival in March. It was the job of the playwright to interpret familiar myth, slices (temache) from the great banquets of Homer, in such a way as to win the dramatic contest that was the center of the festival. Tragedy lacks a spirit of revelry, so each of 3 competing playwrights produced a lighter, farcical satyr play in addition to three tragedies. Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, the three tragedians whose works survive, won first prizes between 480 B.C. and the end of the 5th century. All three wrote plays that depended on thorough familiarity with a central myth, the House of Atreus: Aeschylus Agamemnon, Libation Bearers (Choephoroi), and EumenidesSophocles ElectraEuripides ElectraEuripides OrestesEuripides Iphigenia in Aulis The House of Atreus For generations, these god-defying descendants of Tantalus committed unspeakable crimes that cried out for revenge: brother against brother, father against son, father against daughter, son against mother. It all began with Tantalus—whose name is preserved in the English word tantalize, which describes the punishment he suffered in the Underworld. Tantalus served up his son Pelops as a meal to the gods to test their omniscience. Demeter alone failed the test and so  when Pelops was restored to life, he had to make do with an ivory shoulder. The sister of Pelops happens to have been Niobe who was turned to a weeping rock when  her hubris led to the death of all 14 of her children. When it came time for Pelops to marry, he chose Hippodamia, the daughter of Oenomaus, king of Pisa (near the site of the future ancient Olympics). Unfortunately, the king lusted after his own daughter and contrived to murder all her more appropriate suitors during a (fixed) race. Pelops had to win this race to Mt. Olympus in order to win his bride, and he did—by loosening the lynchpins in Oenomaus chariot, thereby killing his would-be father-in-law. In the process, he added more curses to the family inheritance. Pelops and Hippodamia had two sons, Thyestes and Atreus, who murdered an illegitimate son of Pelops to please their mother. Then they went into exile in Mycenae, where their brother-in-law held the throne. When he died, Atreus finagled control of the kingdom, but Thyestes seduced Atreus wife, Aerope, and stole Atreus golden fleece. Thyestes went into exile, again. Eventually, believing himself forgiven, he returned and ate the meal to which his brother had invited him. When the final course was brought in, the identity of Thyestes meal was revealed, for the platter contained the heads of all his children except the infant, Aegisthus. Adding another creepy element to the mix, Aegisthus may have been Thyestes son by his own daughter. Thyestes cursed his brother and fled. The Next Generation Atreus had two sons, Menelaus and Agamemnon, who married the royal Spartan sisters, Helen and Clytemnestra. Helen was captured by Paris (or left willingly), thereby starting the Trojan War. Unfortunately, the king of Mycenae, Agamemnon, and the cuckolded king of Sparta, Menelaus, couldnt get the warships moving across the Aegean. They were stuck at Aulis because of adverse winds. Their seer explained that Agamemnon had offended Artemis and must sacrifice his daughter to propitiate the deity. Agamemnon was willing, but his wife wasnt, so he had to trick her into sending their daughter Iphigenia, whom he then sacrificed to the goddess. After the sacrifice, the winds came up and the ships sailed to Troy. The war lasted 10 years during which time Clytemnestra took a lover, Aegisthus, the lone survivor of Atreus feast, and sent her son, Orestes, away. Agamemnon took a war prize mistress, as well, Cassandra, whom he brought home with him at the end of the war. Cassandra and Agamemnon were murdered upon their return by either Clytemnestra or Aegisthus. Orestes, having first obtained the blessing of Apollo, returned home to exact revenge on his mother. But the Eumenides (Furies)—only doing their job with respect to a matricide—pursued Orestes and drove him mad. Orestes and his divine protector turned to Athena to arbitrate the dispute. Athena appealed to a human court, the Areopagus, whose jurors were split. Athena cast the deciding vote in favor of Orestes. This decision is upsetting to modern women because Athena, who had been born from the head of her father, judged mothers less important than fathers in the production of children. However we might feel about it, what was important was that it put an end to the chain of cursed events.