The Dividing Line between Private and Public Values in Modern Literature

Essay from the year 2007 in the subject English Language and Literature Studies - Literature, grade: 1,3, Queen's University Belfast (School of English), course: Literature and the Politics of Modernity, language: English, abstract: This essay focuses on two modern literary works by E.M. FORSTER and George

ORWELL. While FORSTER¿s fourth published novel Howards End was already

written in the early twentieth century (1910), ORWELL¿s famous dystopia

Nineteen Eighty-Four was only published in 1949 and may therefore be

considered as a late modern work.

The historical background of the two novels obviously differs to a great

extent. On the edge of the First World War, E.M. FORSTER was particularly

concerned with a disrupted society under the direct influence of the significant

changes in modern social life. The increasing forces of imperialism and

capitalism and tendencies of a growing urbanisation largely changed the lives of

people, directly affecting their private and public spheres. When ORWELL wrote

his novel under the influence of the Second World War, modern life had

additionally been shaken up by two world wars and the effects of totalitarian

systems in Europe.

Despite the historical gulf between Orwell and Forster, which makes a

direct comparison of their works impossible, this paper will concentrate on the

private and public values of the novels¿ characters and thus also pay attention

to probable political notions of the authors. It will particularly figure out if the two

writers either endorse or contest a dividing line between private and public

values, additionally taking into consideration formal features as well as the

overall plot.

Forster¿s novel Howards End predominantly deals with the interrelations

of two middle class families called the Schlegels and the Wilcoxes. Despite

belonging to the same class, their actual social background differs to a great

extent. Margaret and Helen Schlegel are initially depicted as not being English

¿to the backbone¿, which is not only true because of their German origins, but

also because of their idealist attitude they seem to have adopted from their

father, who rather was ¿the countryman of Hegel and Kant, [¿] the idealist,

inclined to be dreamy, whose Imperialism was the Imperialism of the air¿.

Idealism and anti-imperialism are obviously not to be considered as being very

English any more, but rather seem to have died out all over modern Europe.