Sales Management Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Sales Management - Assignment Example However this is not the case because they are being constantly let down by the sales managers and indeed the policy adopted by Mike Dalton. As Dalton believes in offering the sales representatives with the remuneration package alone and no salary, this stands as a very negative connotation of the entire payment structure. If for instance a sales representative is unable to find a single sales lead in a particular period of time, he would not receive any payments at all. It would mean that all his hard work and devotion for the sake of IFP would essentially go to waste. What is important is to understand how IFP can give its best to its own employees who are indeed receiving nothing at all, more so when they are being committed to the company and its stance in essence. There is a dire need to understand how IFP’s viewpoint would be taken over by the employees. I do not agree that the employees would be on their toes if they receive just the compensation for the sales leads that they bring in instead of the salaries that they should be getting (Weitzul 1993). This is a direct case of meting out differential treatment for the employees because they are being hard done by. Justice needs to be done so that they remain motivated and glued to their respective jobs. The remuneration package used by Mike Dalton might not serve the purpose of the sales representatives and indeed the employees at large because it does not warrant a just policy to meet their most basic needs at work. This should be done away with at the earliest so that the employees might heave a sigh of relief and work to their best effect in the future (Gunsch 1991). The sales team will always be at the mercy of their sales leads and they thus know that if they fall short on this count, they would be removed from their jobs and hence their termination would mean a lot of economic problems for not only their own selves

Bhagwad Gita As Seen By Osho

Bhagwad Gita As Seen By Osho I have always been intrigued by one question the response to which I was always not able to a find or say this one question always confused me , baffled me or say that this very question always made me contemplate or say left me pondering. Every time I would see a court scene in a Hindi movie, I would find it very funny rather very strange. A witness or an accused being called to the witness box , he being made to take an oath in the name of the holy Bhagwad Gita by touching it and saying mein jo hi kahunga sach kahunga , sach ke siva kuch na kahunga. I would find it funny and would think whether it was some kind of narco test being conducted or what, that the truth will automatically start flowing from the mouth of the person. I could never understand and thought would perhaps never understand the reason behind it. Every time the same holy Gita and the same old oath. Then why only the Gita why not some other religious scripture. Well it could always be the Ramayana, the Upanishads, or say the Puranas. The other day the same question again came to my mind and I found the answer to it in one of the editions of Osho times and I found it quite convincing and relevant and at the same time very interesting. In the words of Osho, no other person on earth has been as complete as the Krishna. Looking at the personality and the character of the Lord Krishna , one would observe that he has been the only multidimensional person with so many faces and in a way complete, imbibing in himself almost every possible aspect of human nature . If he is a warrior, a Kshatriya at the same time he is a very learned being, a knowledgeable person, a great pundit, a Brahman. At the same time a lover, a flirt, a musician, a dancer, a thief, a liar, and a politician as well. There is hardly any aspect of human nature, which you will not find in the Lord Krishna. It is almost impossible, something which is not imaginable. Krishna is a complete man, which is why he has been called a purna a vatar. Before him and after him no body has ever been so complete and so multidimensional. Ram has been there, Vishnu has been there but no one so complete, so interesting and so varied in his personality with all shades and colors of human nature. According to Osho, if God descends on earth, he would look somewhat like Krishna and no one else. Lord Ram, however big he may be, in the consciousness of this country has never been a complete avatar, he always been a part of it but never the complete. The rishis of Upanishads however knowledgeable they may have been are not complete avatars. Only Krishna has been complete and thats why the majority of Indian consciousness and mind has been touched by him .And the reason for this is his being a multidimensional person who touches all the aspects of human personality. As far as Lord Ram and others are concerned, they are all one-dimensional and they can be loved and worshiped by only a particular category of people. As far as Krishna is c oncerned, it will be hard to find a person on this earth who will not fall in love with any of the aspects of the personality and the being of Shri Krishna. A thief may fall in love with him, a dancer will love him, a sanyasi may adore him, a nonsanyasi as well and he may even be source of inspiration for a Kshatriya. Therefore, Krishna is like a complete orchestra with all the musical instruments and in this orchestra, everybody finds an instrument of his choice. However, the strangest thing is there has never been anyone who would have loved Krishna as a whole. Surdas loves only the BAL Krishna, he is afraid of the Krishna who dances around with the Gopies and flirts with them. Keshavdas on the other hand will love the young Krishna dancing and enjoying himself. But to love him as a whole is very difficult or rather impossible. To be able to love him as a whole requires one to be multidimensional. And the majority of us happen to be one-dimensional and all of us we have a single t rack mind set and in Krishna we choose what suits us. That is why all love Krishna and everyone finds a reason to do so. According to Osho, in a court of law, one will seldom find good people; people who are bad in some way or the other usually frequent court. A bad person in love with Ram may perhaps never go to the court .So taking an oath in the name of Ram is almost impossible. Taking an oath in the name of Krishna is quite relevant and possible because Krishna seems to be open to even the criminals and all kinds of bad people .His doors are open for all. That is why even the bad people, the offenders, love Krishna. According to Osho, it will be hard to find a person who would not feel like hugging Krishna, who would say that Krishna is not meant for him or her. Moreover, for Osho the greatest truth greater than truth is love and it is almost impossible to lie in front of a person we are in love with. Truth can be found only in a love relationship. If one is not able to be truth ful towards ones lover then it is something else in the name of love and love not at all. Moreover, the psychology has proved that if somebodys cord of love is touched it will be impossible for him to lie. So it is all in the name of love for Krishna that all the accused and the witnesses are made to take an oath in the name of the Bhadwad Gita. Like wise there have been other questions too troubling me and keeping me pensive all the time since my child hood. I have my exams and say I m not well prepared, I m worried and my parents would always say karm kar fal ki icha mat kar; this again would leave me wondering. How can you do anything, perform any karma without thinking of the outcome at all. Finding it written everywhere would again make me feel guilty because lord Krishna had said so as my parents told me. I would feel something wrong with me as I never did anything without the outcome, and even today, I do not do anything with out the result in mind. There are expectations all the time. But today there is no guilt associated with it at all and again Osho helped me resolve this quarry of mine which earlier would never let me feel free of my guilt. I used to feel as if I was a criminal. But I was not responsible because that was how my parents and the people around had interoperated it. But the Osho does it, its really i ncredible. He says something very interesting. Karmanye vadhikareste à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦.. he interprets it not by associating it with any result at all. According to him, it means being here and now completely. What so ever one does if done with full concentration and by immersing into it in ones totality, he or she would never fail. That is it. But the way people have been interpret ting it has been very unrealistic and impossible. How can you do anything without having the purpose in your mind? And doing anything without anything in mind would be foolish and stupid at the same time. But that is what we have told by all kinds of idiots and cunning people, or says the followers of Hitler. According to Osho, misinterpretation is done only with the purpose of creating guilt in the people. And it is very simple to dictate upon the people who feel guilty. Hitler also did that. He also created guilt among his people, ruled over them, and could have his way. Karma kar à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ That si mply means doing everything with full samagrata, with full concentration, by being here and now and that is what epitomizes the whole philosophy of Osho. Like wise, there are other questions as well. I once saw a film in which a serial killer goes around killing people and saying Na koi Marta hai na koi maarta hai à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦.. Aisa main nahin Gita kehti hai à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦. Nobody ever dies nobody ever kills, this again seems to be justifying the violence committed by General Dyer or the killings done by Hitler. But this is not what Krishna means to say. According to him just because no one dies does not in any way justify the desire to kill or the passion for violence? According to him, there is nothing wrong in the occurrence of violence but the sin is in the act of violence. So listening to Gita if someone concludes that killing someone is not killing at all is not right, that is all a fiction. Krishna is not saying, Go ahead and kill people. He is saying only if it becomes your experience that no one is ever killed, then, and only then, can you let whatever happens, happen. And there is one more thing who is Krishna addressin g this to. This is very important. This discourse is not meant for the common man, it is meant for the Arjuna who has refused to kill. And then he tells Arjuna that he is a Kshatriya and that he should perform his duty that of being one. But does that mean that Krishna is a warmonger? No. According to Osho, Krishna is only trying to help Arjuna realize who he is and what his duties are and how can he achieve the pinnacle of his being and that naturally is possible only by being what he is. In the battlefield, Arjuna has dropped his weapons and is talking like a Brahman, which he is not suppose to. This has only one message that all of us we should do everything to be what we are and that we should realize all our potentials and possibilities we have born with. Then there is one more important thing, which Osho says in the context of Bhadwad Gita. According to him, the Bhagwad Gita happens to be the first psychological scripture available to the East long before the works of Freud, Adler and Jung. And in his words, it would not be an exaggeration if Krishna were called the father of psychology. In the Bhagwad Gita, the way Krishna approaches Arjunas problems can only be appreciated once we really understand the working of the human mind with all its intricacies and complexities. According to Osho, all of us all the time carry an Arjuna within us and all the time we are confronted with situations and are facing one crises or the other. And as we listen to him it becomes clear that our situation too is not very different from that of the Arjuna, it is perhaps more complex and of a greater magnitude. In the words of Osho, the root cause of all of our problems, difficulties, miseries, dilemma, conflict and war is nothing else but mind. So in or der to find a solution to all these problems its very important rather imperative to understand the working of mind, its patterns and conditionings. According to Osho, only mind is the problem and all that chaos which we find all around ourselves, behind all this only mind is the one who is responsible. Some people have called the Bhagwad Gita a spiritual shastra but its not so according to Osho.In his opinion no shastra can ever be spiritual, it can only be psychological. Rather shastras have nothing to do with spirituality. The spiritual journey starts where the mind ends. And Osho goes further and says that there is nothing like a spiritual shastra because as far as spirituality is concerned, spirituality itself is life, is experience and shastra only helps understand the functioning of mind. Bhagwad Gita is not spiritual also because the problem of Arjuna is not spiritual; it is more of a psychological problem, a practical one. And the answer to a psychological question can only be a psychological one. According to Osho if someone says that Krishna is, addressing to Arjunas problem in spiritual words, that too would be wrong because then no communication would be possible between the two. According to Osho, no problem can ever be spiritual because spiritualism can be the solution and the problems always arise from the mind. In his words, all problems are psychological whereas spirituality itself is solution. Only mind is the problem. Mind itself is the chaos. That is why whatever is shastra cannot be beyond the mind and whatever is beyond mind has no name at all. According to Osho since most of our problems, arise from the mind, since most of them happen to be psychological, so the solutions to them too have to be of the same level. That is why Krishna in order to resolve Arjunas problem brings himself down to his level or say to his pedestal. How ever if Krishna addresses his problem from he already is i.e. is from his own pedestal, in that case no communication will be possible between the two; Arjuna wont understand anything. And that what happens to be difference between the modern teacher and the rishi of Upanishads. The difference is that of the methodologies. A modern teacher always keeps his student on the centre whereas the rishi of Upanishads, he himself happens to be the centre. Krishna talks to Arjuna just like a modern teacher. He does not preach him at all rather he discusses the problem with him. According to Osho, only those scriptures have future that are psychological. Metaphysics has no future at all. People have problems and they want those problems to be solved. All they want is a solution to them; and who so ever will solve them who so ever will answer to their questions will have a place, will have a future. According to Osho only if Krishna shows the courage to stand in a queue with Freud and Jung, then and only then Gita will have a future.

A Christmas Carol - Description Of Scrooge :: essays research papers

The true description of Scrooge first appears about quarter way through the book, before then there are only a few minor references to his character. The description begins metaphorically as it features the words â€Å" A tight-fisted hand at the grindstone†. Its metaphorical because it is trying to portray that Scrooge is literally as tight as the hand to the grindstone. Then soon after this seven adjectives follow, â€Å" Squeezing, Wrenching, Grasping, Scraping, Clutching, Covetous, Old sinner†. They are used effectively as each one has an individual meaning describing seven trates of Scrooges character, which begins to give the reader a visual picture of how the character may conduct himself. So far all qualities of Scrooge have been negative and so it continues. Then the writer brings in the object â€Å"flint† and states all the negative quality’s of flint then compares them to Scrooge. As soon as the writer gets across the way in which Scrooge conducts himself, he moves on to how Scrooge is happy to be by himself. Charles Dickens uses the word â€Å"Solitary† to great effect as it portrays that not only Scrooge stays alone it also gives a second meaning. It’s as if that Scrooge does not need anyone else. Then Charles Dickens attempts to compare Scrooge to the weather making him a very cold hearted character, and explains that even the worse weather can not match to how cold Scrooge is and how he cares not for anyone but himself. It mentions â€Å"The cold within him froze his facial features†, so it portrays that its not the weather affecting Scrooge its how cold he is inside. Its even to the extent that its as if Scrooge carries around a low temperature with him where ever he goes. Its not a physical effect he has, its more of a visual effect as whenever anyone would see him they would experience chills down the back of his neck. Scrooge is a very powerful character as whenever Charles Dickens attempts to describe him he uses words that seem to carry a visual picture giving the reader an idea of how truly nasty he is. He clearly states there is no positive trates Scrooge which also enhances Scrooge’s appearance. Charles Dickens continues with the theme of weather by finishing the paragraph with roughly, â€Å"The heaviest rain and snow often ‘came down’ handsomely and Scrooge never did†.

Portrayal of Family in Huckleberry Finn Essay

Huck is a kind of natural philosopher, skeptical of social doctrines, and willing to set forth new ideas. However, when it comes to the idea of a family, Huck is ignorant in all ways. Nevertheless, Huck’s adventures throughout the novel present him with opportunities to gain the family that he has secretly wanted all his life because of his lack of compassion from his remaining family. This new discovery to a family begins with Tom Sawyer. Tom Sawyer initiated himself as the decision-maker, with Huck listeing without argument, much like a big brother little brother relationship. In the first few chapters of the book, Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer are established as foils for each other-characters whose actions and traits contrast each other in a way that gives readers a better understanding of both characters. Due to these contrasts, Tom has established himself as Huck’s older brother. Later on in the book, Huck comes across the Grangerford family. The Grangerford family is a tragic family in a huge predicament similar to Romeo and Juliet. Huck finds himself attached to the family in a way. â€Å"Everybody loved to have him (Col. Grangerford) around, too; he was sunshine most always-I mean he made it seem like good weather. † Huck cries over Buck’s body because Huck has begun to think of Buck as a friend as well as a brother. Huck finds the feud that the Gangerford’s have with the Shepherdson’s unnecessary and harmful, and believes it will only bring hurt and loss to both sides, which it inevitably does. The future losses, which are inescapable hurt Huck because he feels connected to each family member in a different way, even the dead sister, Emmeline. Throughout all these situations that Huck goes through, Jim has supported him, even when Jim was not with Huck at every time. Jim first met up with Huck on the island. Jim escaped Widow Douglas’s home because he was to be sold down south, which would separate Jim from his family forever. Jim is hands down the most important person to Huck throughout the novel, putting himself in a category as one of Huck’s new family members. Jim has been associated as Huck’s father figure. During their time together, Jim and Huck make up a sort of alternative family in an alternative place, apart from society. Huck escaped from society for adventure and a new life, while Jim has escaped from society so that he wouldn’t be separated from his family by being sold down south. Jim is based off of his love, whether it’s for his family or his growing love for Huck. Jim was thought of by Huck as a stupid, ignorant slave in the beginning of the novel, but as Huck spends more time with Jim, Huck realizes that Jim has a different kind of knowledge based off of his years as well as his experiences with love. In the incidents of the floating house and Jim’s snakebite, Jim uses his knowledge to benefit both of them but also seeks to protect Huck. Jim is less imprisoned by conventional wisdom than Huck, who has grown up at least partly in mainstream white society. Jim proves his humanity to Huck by baring himself emotionally to Huck, expressing a longing for his family and his guilt when Jim mentions the time he beat his daughter when she did not deserve it. Nevertheless, throughout their time together, Huck has still had the idea of turning Jim in. Huck searches the social and religious belief systems that white society has taught him for a way out of his predicament about turning Jim in. In the end, Huck is unable to pray because he cannot truly believe in these systems, for he cares too much about Jim to deny Jim’s existence and humanity. â€Å"It was a close place. I took . . . up (the letter I’d written to Miss Watson), and held it in my hand. I was a-trembling, because I’d got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself: â€Å"All right then, I’ll go to hell†Ã¢â‚¬â€and tore it up. It was awful thoughts and awful words, but they was said. And I let them stay said; and never thought no more about reforming†. The logical consequences of Huck’s action as well as Huck’s growing affection for Jim, rather than the lessons society has taught him, drive Huck to tear up the letter. Though he does not admit this truth to himself, Huck trades his fate for Jim’s and as a result, accepts the life of a black man as equal to is own. By helping the doctor treat Tom after Tom was shot in the leg as well as shielding Huck from seeing his father’s corpse, Jim affirms that he is not only a decent human being, but also a model father. Huck’s feelings about society and the adult world are based on his negative experience, the main one being Huck’s drunk abusive father, â€Å"Pap†. â€Å"Paphe hadn’t been seen for more than a year, and that was comfortable for me; I didn’t want to see him no more†. Although Huck was free from his father for a long time, the new judge in town returns Huck to Pap because he privileges Pap’s â€Å"rights† over Huck’s welfare, much like the relationship between a slave and a master. The judge fails to take into account Pap’s drunkenness and abusive past, which puts Huck in a sizable predicament. Because of Pap’s abusive nature and drunkenness, Pap fails Huck in providing Huck with a set of beliefs and values that are consistent and satisfying to Huck, making Pap fail as a father figure in another way. Although Pap is a hideous, hateful man in nearly every aspect, Huck does not immediately abandon him when given the chance. Huck is grasping on the final thread he has of family. Huck truly believes in the sense of family, and desperately wants it, but at the same time, is scared by the idea (won’t let Widow Douglas close). By placing hope in the wrong person (Pap), Huck misses out on the possibility of a good family with Widow Douglas. As apposed to Jim, who represents the best of white society even though he is black, Pap represents the worst of white society: he is illiterate, ignorant, violent, and profoundly racist. Though to a very small degree, Huck has been led to believe the same. Pap represents the true evil in the book, making Huck’s belief in a family cynical and saddened. Through Huck’s adventures on the Mississippi River, he has created new homes for himself at the locations of his new family members as well as comfort zones for Huck. Huck and Jim, both alienated from society in fundamental ways, first find home on the island where they meet up. The island provides a pastoral, dreamlike setting: a safe peaceful place where food is abundant. Through two incidents on the island (the floating house and Jim’s snake bit), Huck and Jim are reminded that no location is safe for them. Because of this Jim and Huck leave on a raft as an escape from both being caught, as well as civilization and society as well. â€Å"We said there warn’t no home like a raft, after all. Other places do seem so cramped up and smothery, but a raft don’t. You feel mighty free and easy and comfortable on a raft. † Huck and Jim’s raft becomes a sort of haven of brotherhood, equality, and growing affection, as both find refuge and peace from a society that has treated them badly. Compared to the outrageous incidents onshore, the raft represents a retreat from the outside world, the site of simple pleasures and good companionship. Huck and Jim do not have to answer to anyone on the raft, and it represents a kind of utopian life for them. They try to maintain this idyllic separation from society and its problems, but as the raft makes its way southward, unsavory influences from onshore repeatedly invade the world of the raft. In a sense, Twain’s portrayal of life on the raft and the river is a romantic one, but tempered by the realistic knowledge that the evils and problems of the world are inescapable. Through different events, Huck ends up at the Phelps’s’ house. Although the reason Huck goes to the Phelps’s’ house in the first place is to find Jim, he still finds a sense of home there. When caught creeping around the house, Huck was caught. Aunt Sally came out, mistaking him for her nephew, who is inevitably Tom Sawyer. Huck pretends to be his best friend Tom so that he could find a way to help Jim as well as stay out of trouble. Although Aunt Sally thinks Huck is Tom, she still gives off that motherly vibe, even after Huck mentions his deception. After the final escape, the Phelp’s house seems to come to even more life then it was before. Aunt Sally smothers the boys, Aunt Polly scolds, and everyone bumbles along Ultimately, readers are left questioning the meaning of what we has been read: perhaps Twain means the novel as a reminder that life is ultimately a matter of imperfect information and ambiguous situations, and that the best one can do is to follow one’s head and heart. Perhaps Twain means also to say that black Americans may be free in a technical sense, but that they remain chained by a society that refuses to acknowledge their rightful and equal standing as individuals. Unfortunately, these questions seldom have straightforward answers, and thus the ending of the novel contains as many new problems as solutions.

Twentieth Century British Author

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 King's College, Cambridge where he studied classics and histo ry, 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 2002). 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 Men's College and subsequently taught at the extra-mural department of the Cambridge Local Lectures Board. Forster's 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 1995). 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 En d. 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.Forster's 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 Forster's 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 opposi tion 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 Forster's 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 Forster's 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 sta tioned 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 Forster's essays on Alexandria together with some translations of Cavafy's poems, was published in 1923. All through this time, Forster had been reworking on A Passage to India, which was published i n 1924, almost a decade and a half after his previous novel Howard's 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. Moore's journey to India to visit Adela's fiance, and Mrs Moore's 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 Aziz's 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.Forst er at the height of his powers† (Forster, 1989 : 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 King's 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.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. â€Å"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 (1995) 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, P. (2002). A Routledge Literary Sourcebook on E. M. Forster's A Passage to India† (Routledge Literary Sourcebooks). London : Routledge. Forster, E. M. (1989). â€Å"A Passage to India. † Orlando, FL : Harcourt Brace Tambling, J. (1995). â€Å"E. M. Forster: Contemporary Critical Essays† (New Casebooks). . New York : St. Martin's Press.