After Montresor throws the torch into the one remaining opening in the wall, what is the only thing he hears from the other side of the wall, and why is this symbolic?

After successfully leading Fortunato deep into his family's catacombs, Montresor shackles his unsuspecting enemy to a wall at the end of the vaults and proceeds to bury Fortunato alive by building a wall in front of his body. Growing increasingly anxious and terrified, Fortunato initially laughs before screaming at the top of his lungs for Montresor to release him. After discovering that his screams are in vain, Fortunato refuses to answer Montresor, who ends up throwing his torch into the remaining opening in the wall. After throwing the torch into the opening, the only sound Montresor hears is the jingling of bells from Fortunato's cap. The jingling of bells symbolically represents Fortunato's death and is his last attempt at communication before he dies. Bells are typically rung at a person's funeral, and the sound of Fortunato's jingling bells symbolically relates to the sound of a death knell. The jingling of the bells also makes Fortunato's death more poignant and heightens the eerie atmosphere of the story.

Why was a perfectly ordinary bench so important to Karli?

The Bench is a story set in Apartheid-era South Africa. It begins with Karlie, a man who has been so indoctrinated into Apartheid racism that he has never considers the fact that maybe he is just as human as the whites who live alongside him. He attends a public protest of Apartheid, where whites and blacks are together on stage promoting the idea that all humans equal regardless of race. As he listens, he starts to believe them, and his entire view of himself and his world is changed.

These were new things and he, Karlie, had to be careful before he accepted them. But why shouldn't he accept them? He was not a colored man anymore, he was a human being.

Once he leaves, he goes to a train station and encounters a bench that is marked for Europeans Only. In Karlie's eyes, "it symbolize[s] all the misery of the plural South African society," just as the back of the bus symbolized African American misery for people like Rosa Parks. Karlie, as the narrator, perfectly encapsulates just why the bench is so important before he sits on it:

It was the obstacle between himself and humanity. If he sat on it, he was a man. If he was afraid he denied himself membership as a human being in a human society. He almost had visions of righting this pernicious system, if he only sat down on that bench. Here was his chance. He, Karlie, would challenge.

So, he sits on the bench and, a massive uproar begins. Eventually, a policeman comes and forces him off the bench, but Karlie is satisfied, as he asserted himself as a human being and won a personal struggle.
In summary, the bench is important because it symbolizes racism and the dehumanization that comes from institutionalized Apartheid. By sitting on it, he is able to overcome this, if only briefly.

How is The Truman Show a dystopian film?

A dystopian work imagines a nightmarish future in which the worst aspects of contemporary life are magnified. In The Truman Show, the aspects of contemporary life which are especially magnified are our fondness for reality television and the extent to which governments intrude into and monitor our lives. In the film, the government, in the form of the television company, is totally intrusive and monitors every moment of the main character's life, which is, in itself, directed purely for the entertainment of others as a reality television program.
Another aspect of dystopian fiction is the dehumanization of the characters. In The Truman Show, the main character is dehumanized in the sense that he is treated like an animal in a zoo—there for the amusement of other people. Truman's whole life is controlled so that he is reduced to a spectacle. He does not have any meaningful control over his life, and even his environment, like that of a zoo animal, is manufactured and artificial.

Who began the first English colony on Roanoke Island?

Historians credit Sir Walter Raleigh as the founder of the first English colony on Roanoke Island.
According to historical records, two explorers (Arthur Barlowe and Phillip Amadas) initially set out to explore the coast near Cape Hatteras in 1584. Cape Hatteras consists of islands located just off the North Carolina mainland.
Because of the glowing reports from Amadas and Barlowe, Sir Walter Raleigh sent out ships to establish a colony on Roanoke Island (off the shores of North Carolina). Raleigh didn't make the trip, however. His cousin, Sir Richard Grenville, commanded the fleet of seven ships to Roanoke in April 1585.
After a series of harrowing incidents, Sir Richard Grenville finally led his coalition of colonists to Roanoke in July 1585. He left in August after Fort Raleigh was established on the island. Governor Ralph Lane stayed behind with about 100 colonists: they were to man Fort Raleigh through the winter.
Ralph Lane expected to see relief ships in the spring of 1586. However, he didn't see anyone until June, when Sir Francis Drake made a visit to the island.
Because of an unexpected hurricane, much of the new settlement was destroyed. By the end of June 1586, many colonists decided to return to England with Sir Francis Drake. For more information, please refer to the links below.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roanoke-colony-deserted

https://www.marinersmuseum.org/sites/micro/cbhf/colonial/col002.html

How can dreams and aspirations positively affect people's lives and their relationships?

Various psychological analyses and researches have shown that dreams and aspirations are not necessarily detrimental but can seriously shape some components of people’s lives. How we think and feel about our goals, if we’re optimistic or pessimistic, can affect whether or not we reach those goals. As our feelings and thoughts are usually related to things and living beings we value, the majority of our life decisions and actions are focused on the realizations of our goals and ambitions.
In fact, having dreams and aspirations greatly contributes to our happiness, because we feel happy when we think that we are one step closer to achieving our goals. When we aspire to improve ourselves in various aspects of life (health, business, or relationships) we are actually measuring our progress.
Thus, psychologists argue that dreams and aspirations positively affect people and their lives by giving them a purpose. Without an end-point, we are lost and have no sense of direction; dreams and aspirations give us something to look and work toward, and they provide some motivation, inspiration, and determination in our lives. The moment we determine what our dreams and ambitions are, we can devise a plan to attain them. Basically, this is how we give meaning to our lives. In science, this is known as positive psychology, in which following our dreams is essential for our well-being and optimal functioning.
Our dreams and aspirations and the pursuit of them can also greatly affect the people around us and shape the way we build relationships. Chasing a dream transforms us into someone who has an interesting story to share with others; it makes us a person with a sense of daily direction and purpose. As a result, we’re more inspired and more courageous to pursue new relationships and meet new people. We have a much more open-minded and positive attitude, and we learn to appreciate all the good things life has to offer, but we also learn to appreciate failure and loss.
It is important, however, to remain realistic. We cannot allow people to “walk all over us” by being positive and forgiving all the time. When we work on our goals, we must remember that having high hopes and having high expectations is not the same. Having big dreams and aspirations and thinking positive is a good thing, but we must also be rational and sensible; we should aim high, but always with a clear head.

How does Thomas Hardy dramatize his ideas of man's cruelty to woman in Tess of the d'Urbervilles?

First, the beautiful and innocent fifteen-year-old Tess is raped and impregnated by her employer, Alec d'Urberville, who she trusted as a relative—although he simply adopted the d'Urberville surname because it sounded good.
After the baby is born and dies, the priest inflicts another cruelty on Tess by refusing the infant burial in the church grounds because it is illegitimate.
To get over her shame and grief, Tess goes to work on a dairy farm where nobody knows her. There, she lives an idyllic life close to nature and falls in love with the middle-class farmer Angel Clare. He falls in love with her too and marries her although she is a working class dairy maid.
Angel perhaps inflicts the worst cruelty on her after their wedding. He feels compelled on their wedding day to tell her he is not a virgin and to confess his infidelities. This persuades Tess it is safe to confess her own story of rape and childbirth. But while she can readily forgive Angel for his transgressions, he cannot forgive her. Even though he has been no saint, the double standard comes into play. He can't get over the fact she isn't "pure" and leaves her. He is a hypocrite: he condemns Tess for doing what he did, but he gives himself a pass.
Hardy illustrates clearly that Tess is the victim of men's sexual appetites and expectations. She has done nothing wrong but pays the price because of the cruel way men treat women in her society. Hardy subtitled the novel "A Pure Woman," which outraged Victorian audiences. We can see today, however, how nothing that happened to her was her fault.

What type of colony was Connecticut?

Connecticut was a self-governing, or charter, colony.
In effect, there were 3 types of American colonies. First, there were royal colonies, such as Virginia and Georgia. These colonies were under the authority of the English king.
Next, there were proprietary colonies, such as New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. Proprietary colonies were large land grants from the English king to a proprietor or colonial governor. The governor was given governing rights over the colony he presided over. Of course, such a governor worked in close collaboration with the English court across the ocean.
The last type of colony was a self-governing/charter colony, which included Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Plymouth. Such a colony was also called a corporate colony in that the English king granted a charter to the citizens of the colony as a corporate body.
The Connecticut colony was originally founded by Thomas Hooker, a Newton minister in the Massachusetts colony. Historians maintain that Hooker looked towards Connecticut to escape the influence of John Cotton, the leading Puritan minister in Massachusetts.
http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/colchart.html

https://connecticuthistory.org/thomas-hooker-connecticuts-founding-father/

Which act repealed the Stamp Act of 1765?

The Stamp Act was repealed through a resolution approximately one year after it was enacted. No specific act was passed to replace or repeal the Stamp Act. It was repealed by Parliament as an expedient meant to stop the unrest in the colonies and improve the economy in the colonies in order to increase trade.
After the Stamp Act was repealed, Parliament did move to pass the Declaratory Act, which reaffirmed Parliament's ability to tax the colonies for the purpose of raising revenue without colonial representation. This act was not limited to the American colonies, as the Declaratory Act reaffirmed that Parliament had the same powers and authorities over all English colonial holdings. Following the Declaratory Act, a number of new taxes were also established. These met with the same criticisms that the Stamp Act had.

How does agricultural mysticism affect the way Belle regards the nature around her?

Belle Graycloud has a strongly mystical relationship to her immediate environment, to the very soil beneath her feet. In keeping with tribal tradition she sees the natural world as an enchanted place, deeply infused with the spirits of her ancestors. This reverential attitude towards the earth sets Belle apart from many of the Osage people, who are only too happy to get rich off the land's exploitation by oil companies.
Although Belle comes close to being killed for her opposition to drilling on Osage land, she lives to fight another day. And one could say there's something significant about the fact that, while so many others have been murdered, she survives. The suggestion here is that Belle has escaped a violent death because of the close, mystical connection to the soil that she's maintained. It's almost as if she's protected by the ancient spirits that haunt the land and to which she's always shown such reverence and respect.

What is the root of unhappiness in this book?

The root of unhappiness, according to Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto, is the alienation of the working class, or proletariat, from the fruits of their labors. Marx and Engels describe all of history as a class struggle, one that is reaching its conclusion with the advent of industrialization. The development of industry has crystallized social structures into two classes. The proletariat, which constitutes the vast majority of humanity (or at least people who worked in industrialized societies) is one. Opposing them is the bourgeoisie. They are the wealthy people who controlled the means of production, and constantly tried to squeeze as much profit as they could out of their businesses and the people that labor for them. In the preface to the Manifesto, Marx and Engels describe the bourgeosie's relationship with the proletariat as "naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation." This is because, more than previous dominant classes, the bourgeoisie was driven purely by the profit motive. This outweighed any moral or ethical concerns business owners may have had, and encouraged them to view their workers simply as economic units.
The authors did not suggest that there had not been human misery, nor exploitation, nor unhappiness before the rise of industrial capitalism. They claimed, however, that capitalism had worsened, or intensified inequalities to the point that they were unbearable for people. Because the profit motive was the cause of all of this, it would only get worse, as the bourgeoisie constantly invented new ways to make workplaces more efficient and "rational" in their exploitation of human labor and their generation of profits. Fundamentally, what was happening was that the working class was generating more and more wealth, and seeing proportionally less and less of it. This was the source of unhappiness for the working class, and Marx and Engels predicted that eventually, or even in their own time, the proletariat would attain class consciousness, or an understanding of the roots of their predicament. When this happened, they would inevitably overthrow the bourgeoisie. The Communist Manifesto is intended to help workers understand the source of their oppression, and to inspire them to do something about it.

What are some good interview techniques that would help to find the angle that you need?

The Laramie Project's creator, Moisés Kaufman, and his theater company, the Tectonic Theater Project, are known for the form of documentary theater. This type of theater's goal is to engage with current events by incorporating the actual words and voices of the people most closely involved in the event. In a way, the documentary playwright partly takes on the role of a documentarian or a journalist.
To "find their angle," it's important for the interviewer to encourage their subjects to talk freely, naturally, and at length. A helpful starting technique to reach that goal would be to favor open-ended questions (e.g., ones involving "why" or "how") that are more likely to garner detailed responses. These are preferable to closed questions, which can be answered with a simple "yes," "no," or short phrase. It would be helpful for the interviewer to come to the interview prepared with a list of questions already generated, but they should also be flexible enough to ask insightful follow-up questions when more information or detail is needed. Even if the interviewer has an initial angle in mind at the start of the research and interview process, they should keep an open mind to chase new discoveries and hidden angles that may present themselves as they learn more about the event and the perspectives of the people most directly affected by it.

Who formed the New England colonies?

There are four current states that comprised the original territories of the New England colonies. They are Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.
In 1620, the Massachusetts Colony was founded by mostly Puritan settlers seeking religious freedom and freedom from persecution by the government. The Massachusetts Bay colony was capitalized by investors in England. William Bradford and John Winthrop played significant roles in the founding and governance of the colony.
In 1623, the Hampshire Colony (New Hampshire) was started by John Mason. Mason was a resident of Hampshire in England and sent settlers to the colony to develop the fishing industry. There is no record of John Mason traveling to the colony, though he had significant investment in Hampshire. In 1679, the colony was transferred to the government as a "royal colony."
In 1635, colonists from the Massachusetts Colony left Massachusetts and began to settle in what is now Connecticut. In 1636, Thomas Hocker organized the small settlements into a colony. Residents forming the colony were seeking more significant economic opportunity and respite from the somewhat rigid lifestyle they experienced in the Massachusetts Colony.
In 1636, the Rhode Island colony was established. The colony was founded by dissidents critical of the strict religious practices of the Massachusetts Bay Puritan leadership. Roger Williams started the colony after being permanently banished from Massachusetts. Williams, along with Ann Hutchinson, is credited as starting the colony. Hutchinson was banned as well for her outspoken views concerning the church in Massachusetts.
While there are other founding members of each of the four colonies, these are the ones that seem to generate the most acclaim from historians as being the driving force in establishing new colonies in the New England region.

What were the three most important problems Andrew Jackson faced as president of the United States? How successful was he at addressing those problems?

Andrew Jackson's presidency was from 1829 to 1837, and historians generally regard the Jacksonian Era as an extremely important period in the nation's history. The three greatest challenges President Jackson faced were the Eaton Affair, Indian Removal, and Nullification.
Secretary of War John Eaton was not popular with many of Jackson's supporters. Eaton's marriage to Peggy, daughter of a Washington innkeeper, was criticized by society. Peggy, who had a somewhat bad reputation, married Jackson after the death of her first husband. The Eatons were ostracized by most leading families. Jackson, remembering the recent slanderous attacks on his own wife, strongly supported Eaton. Jackson's visceral reaction to the scandal inflamed it and damaged his relationship with John C. Calhoun, the vice president.
A second problem for Jackson's presidency was the removal of Indians beyond the Mississippi River. Georgia was determined to carry it out, and Jackson supported it. Removal was both harsh and dangerous, and many Indians died along the way. Most tribes reluctantly agreed to removal, but the Seminoles bravely fought against it. To this day, many Indians despise Jackson for the Indian removal, which is also remembered as the Trail of Tears.
The third biggest problem for Jackson was South Carolina. That state opposed high tariffs and threatened to nullify federal laws. Calhoun supported the doctrine of nullification. South Carolina's relationship with Washington became confrontational. Jackson deftly managed the situation, avoiding civil war. He threatened South Carolina with the Force Bill but also agreed to the Compromise Tariff of 1833. The situation was defused, but Jackson was prescient enough to realize that further conflicts between South Carolina and the national government were likely.

The Tariff of 1828. This hugely controversial measure, passed during the dying days of the John Quincy Adams Administration, was strongly resisted by the Southern states. The imposition of taxes on imported goods had a particularly negative impact on the predominantly agrarian economy of the South. There was a general expectation that once Jackson was elected, he would take steps to reduce the tariff. When that didn't happen, Jackson's vice president, John C. Calhoun, resigned in anger, precipitating the Nullification Crisis (see below).
Jackson attempted to deal with the crisis by making modest reductions to the tariff in 1832, but the new measures were far too little, far too late to assuage mounting Southern anger and frustration.
The Nullification Crisis. South Carolinians, one of whom was John C. Calhoun, were so enraged by the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 that they convened a special convention at which they declared the tariffs unconstitutional and unenforceable in the state. As states do not enjoy the right to void acts of congress, the actions of the convention created a huge, potentially deadly, constitutional crisis. It seemed that South Carolina was on the brink of succession, and the United States was about to descend into civil war.
Although Jackson prepared for the worst, he also took active steps to deal with South Carolina's grievances. He enacted a compromise measure, the Tariff of 1833, which proposed a gradual reduction of tariff levels until they eventually reached the levels of 1816. South Carolina accepted the new proposals and a major constitutional crisis had been averted.
The Second National Bank. Like most Democrats, Jackson was profoundly hostile to the National Bank. He thought it put too much economic power in the hands of the east-coast financial elite, at the expense of the farmers and land-owners—especially those in the South—who formed the backbone of his support. To Jackson, the National Bank was a corrupt institution which lacked constitutional authority, and so he set about preventing its being granted a new charter.
Jackson persistently used his presidential veto to override any attempts at re-chartering the Bank. His stance, though controversial, was hugely popular with his supporters, and in no small measure contributed to his re-election in 1832. Once more secure in office, Jackson effectively destroyed the economic and political power of the National Bank by removing its federal deposits and diverting them to private banks instead.

In what work did Albert Camus say "Freedom is not constituted primarily of privileges but of responsibilities"? What does "responsibility" in particular mean to him? How does he see it?

The quotation comes from a collection of essays called Resistance, Rebellion, and Death. What Camus is driving at here is the notion that freedom isn't something that's given to you or something that's your right as a human being. Rather, it's something to be worked for and fought for as part of a lifelong struggle.
This inevitably puts the onus for the attainment of freedom squarely on the shoulders of the individual. It is his or her responsibility to see that they achieve freedom for themselves and for others. In is only when we recognize this responsibility, this overriding sense of duty, that we can join together with others to engage in the wider political struggle for freedom in society. Camus sees this struggle as primarily concerned with the rejection of the humiliation to which the lower orders of society have been subject for centuries.

Compare George Smiley and James Bond.

Whereas Ian Fleming's dapper James Bond is a latter-day symbol of the stereotypical British hero of the glory days of empire, George Smiley might be said to symbolize the British Empire in a state of appallingly precipitous decline. Bond is handsome, athletic, socially versatile, extroverted, and irresistible to gorgeous, sexy, exotic women all around the world. Smiley, on the other hand, is short and pudgy. He buys good clothes but always looks wrong in them. His wife Anne once told him he looked like a big tea cosy. He is shy, awkward, introspective, bookish, cautious, nothing at all like a dashing secret agent. He hardly knows how to handle a gun, and he ruins the excellent silk lining of his jacket when he keeps an oily automatic in his pocket. Far from being irresistible to the ladies, he has a wife who is so profoundly unfaithful to him that her promiscuity is notorious.
James Bond and George Smiley have virtually nothing in common except their devotion to duty. Smiley is never in danger, although he lived in constant danger as an undercover agent in Germany during World War II. Bond is always in danger and thrives on it. It seems unlikely that many people would enjoy reading about both James Bond and George Smiley. Bond is a man of action. George is cerebral. Bond drives the fastest cars and handles the latest spyware with confidence and dexterity. Smiley is totally inept with any kind of machinery or gadgetry. He has a terrible time wrapping a package with Scotch tape. He spends hours trying to make a print from a negative. He hates driving a car and takes taxis whenever he can; but when he has to rent an Opel in Germany to visit Otto Leipzig, the car gets so badly damaged that he is afraid to return it to the agency and leaves it in a public garage. James Bond is the last vestige of the derring-do that built the British Empire on which the sun never set. George Smiley is the hapless hero trying to cope with the two new superpowers on the world stage, the Soviet Union and the United States of America.
When Smiley goes to Saul Enderby for authorization and financing to set a trap for Karla, Enderby says:

"And it's not all a wicked Bolshie plot, George, to lure us to our ultimate destruction--you're sure of that?"
"I'm afraid we're no longer worth the candle, Saul," Smiley said, with an apologetic smile.
Enderby did not care to be reminded of the limitations of British grandeur, and for a moment his mouth set into a sour grimace.

Connie Sachs sees the big picture too. In Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, she tells Smiley:

"Poor loves. Trained to Empire, trained to rule the waves. All gone. All taken away. Bye-bye world. You're the last, George, you and Bill."

And Bill Haydon turns out to be the mole Smiley has been asked to unearth, making George Smiley the last man standing.

Discuss the general attitude of native-born white Americans toward immigrants during the 1920s. How did Sacco and Vanzetti fall victim to both the xenopobia of the Klan and the anti-communism of the Red Scare?

The 1920s witnessed a backlash against immigration in the United States as part of a general, nationwide outpouring of xenophobia. Although America had always been a land of immigrants, the vast majority of the huge influx of newcomers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were noticeably different; they simply did not talk, act, or look like traditional Americans. For one thing, they did not speak English. Another factor that aroused nativist hostility was their religion. Many of the newcomers were Jews or Roman Catholics, making them the object of fear and loathing for large numbers of American Protestants. The great wave of immigration of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries sparked fears that the whole complexion of American society was changing--and not for the better.
The subsequent backlash took many different forms. At the level of government policy, the Immigration Act of 1924 instituted a strict quota system that severely limited immigration from certain parts of the world, most notably Asia. On a completely different level, the exponential growth of the Ku Klux Klan, both in terms of its membership and political power, showed that increasing numbers of Americans were prepared to rally to the cause of "100% pure Americanism" even if it involved violence and murder.
The increasingly toxic political environment formed the backdrop to the notorious case of Sacco and Vanzetti. They were Italian immigrants accused of committing murder in the course of an armed robbery. They were also—crucially—political radicals, anarchists who had actively campaigned against World War One. In the popular mind, anarchism was associated with extremists who represented a danger to the very foundations of society. More to the point, anarchism was regarded as an alien ideology, a foreign import brought into the United States by the recent wave of mass immigration.
As far as the facts of the case are concerned, the evidence against Sacco and Vanzetti was flimsy to say the least. But in the prevailing atmosphere of xenophobia and hostility toward any political movement that was in the least bit progressive or radical, that was very much a minor consideration. It soon became clear that Sacco and Vanzetti were on trial not just for the crimes they were alleged to have committed, but also for their status as immigrants and political radicals. The presiding judge made no pretense of impartiality, openly showing his hostility and contempt for the defendants and their political beliefs.
When the guilty verdicts were duly delivered, there was a sense of inevitability about it despite the notable lack of hard evidence submitted by the prosecution. Sacco and Vanzetti were formally convicted—and subsequently executed—for murder. But in substance, they were condemned to die because they were thought of as not belonging in the United States: both by virtue of their status as Italian immigrants and their commitment to an "un-American" way of thinking. Sacco and Vanzetti were not the first or the last victims of the xenophobic backlash that engulfed the United States in the 1920s. But their case was by far the most famous, not least because it encapsulated all the various social, economic, and political tensions developing in America at that time.

What are the causes of the despair in the women in The Road to Mecca?

In addition to still mourning the death of her husband, Helen is despairing over the fact that she may have to move out of the house she's lived in for so many years and move into a church-run facility for the elderly. Helen is one of life's free spirits, and despite her age and growing infirmity, she still retains a fierce streak of independence. The last thing she wants is to sacrifice her independence by moving into a care home, especially one run by a church whose values she doesn't share.
As for Elsa, she's in despair over her recent abortion. She was pregnant with her married lover's child and thought perhaps that they might start a family together. But he chose to go back to his estranged wife instead. This proved to be a deeply traumatic experience for Elsa, who has been dealing with the emotional fallout ever since.

How does the reader identify with the Loisels?

The reader really begins to identify with the Loisels when Mathilde discovers that she has lost the borrowed diamond necklace.
She removed her wraps before the glass so as to see herself once more in all her glory. But suddenly she uttered a cry. She no longer had the necklace around her neck!
This is the way these things happen. Everyone has had the experience of losing something of value and suddenly discovering that it is gone. It brings out a number of emotions--fear, disbelief, bewilderment, shock, dismay, maybe even panic. The Loisels go through a whole spectrum of familiar thoughts, feelings, questions, speculations, and apprehensions, all of which are perfectly depicted by Maupassant. No doubt, like most of us, they keep looking in the same places, hoping that somehow the missing item will be there even though it obviously wasn't there before.
"You're sure you had it on when you left the ball?" he asked.
"Yes, I felt it in the vestibule of the minister's house."
"But if you had lost it in the street we should have heard it fall. It must be in the cab."
"Yes, probably. Did you take his number?"
"No. And you--didn't you notice it?"
"No."
They looked, thunderstruck, at each other. At last Loisel put on his clothes.
"I shall go back on foot," said he, "over the whole route, to see whether I can find it."
And the husband, although he must have already been exhausted, goes out on a desperate quest, knowing that his chances of finding a diamond necklace in the streets of Paris are practically nil. But he has to do something. He is hoping for a miracle. Meanwhile his wife stays behind, hoping against hope that her husband will miraculously return with the precious necklace. We too are hoping against hope that M. Loisel will find the lost necklace because we have been in a similar situation, although most of us have never lost anything as expensive as a diamond necklace.
Maupassant was a realist. The necklace was never found--at least by the Loisels. Perhaps some someone walking along in the dark had suddenly had their wildest dreams come true when they saw a diamond necklace lying right at their feet. When Cinderella loses her glass slipper at the ball, she not only gets the slipper back but gets the handsome prince along with it. That sort of thing never happens in a story by Maupassant.

Did women's social and political standing change at all during the late nineteenth century? If so, in what ways? Were these changes for the better?

If only everything in the world had a linear, direct causal relationship.
Perhaps, towards the end of the 19th century there were some relative improvements to, say, the social and political standings of females compared to their predecessors who lived hundreds of years before them. Change is always happening, yes.
But, I would argue the rate at which it occurs is the main question. I am afraid that many female academics, artists, and politicians of the late nineteenth century did not live to see their work and contributions appreciated by the masses. Even now, females are overshadowed.
As an extension, you will see that it is not until the early twentieth century, do we see a large scale, massive opening of post secondary education to females.
As for the politics and social aspects, I believe that many individuals in the current year(2018) are still stuck peddling outdated ideology, by virtue of sexist remarks, pseudoscience, and biological essentialism.

Women rose in social and political stature in the late nineteenth century, inspired by women's rights activist Susan B. Anthony. During the Civil War she collected thousands of signatures to abolish slavery. In 1868 she and Elizabeth Stanton co-founded a women's rights newspaper called The Revolution, then helped launch the National Woman Suffrage Association the following year.
In 1872 Victoria Woodhull, a leading figure of the women's suffrage movement, became the first female to run for U.S. President, even though it was still illegal for women to vote. In 1878 Anthony and Stanton presented their idea allowing women to vote to U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent, who introduced the legislation to Congress. It became the Nineteenth Amendment and was ratified in 1920.

The role of women in society and politics changed greatly during the late 19th century. In America, these major changes occurred during the Industrial Revolution. For the first time, women were active participants in the economy. Single women in particular flocked to urban areas in search of work. Young women would leave the family home in search of financial independence. While many still expected women to be mothers, wives, and homemakers, it was not unusual for a woman to contribute to the family income or to pursue a career of her own.
As women established themselves in the workforce, they became more involved in the political happenings of 20th-century America. Many led or participated in labor unions and strove to improve working conditions, limit working hours, and establish child labor laws. Inspired by their influence in the economy, women also became involved in political movements, such as the abolition of slavery and the rising feminist movement. Some of the most influential women of the 19th century were activists and business owners.

What is the climax of the short story "Misery"?

The climax of a story is its point of highest tension or crisis. All through the story, Iona, a poor man who drives a horse and cab in freezing, snowy Russian weather, wants to tell someone of his misery. His son died a week ago, and he is heartbroken. He wants to unburden himself and talk about the hospital, the death, the funeral, and his strong sense that it is he who should have died and his son who should have lived. He tries to talk to the few people who take his cab, but they are not interested in the least. He wonders if any one of the thousands of people in the city would listen to him, and he feels very alone. Finally, he goes back to the yard where the cabmen congregate, hoping he can talk to someone:

He wants to talk of it properly, with deliberation. . . . He wants to tell how his son was taken ill, how he suffered, what he said before he died, how he died . . .

But even here, there is nobody willing to listen. Finally, full of his pent-up misery, Iona goes to see his horse in her stall. At this point his need to tell reaches the breaking point. This is the climax, and he relieves his anxiety by telling his horse all about his son's death.

How does F Scott Fitzgerald portray woman in The Great Gatsby and The Beautiful and Dammed? Is the portrayal similar or different?

The Great Gatsby and The Beautiful and Damned are both known for their razor-sharp critiques of society and societal expectation—especially for the upper classes—during the Jazz Age in the United States. Key female characters in both books experience conflict between the financial and social stability found in the institution of marriage and their own desires. In The Great Gatsby, Daisy never seriously considers leaving her husband for Gatsby, despite her affair, because it is simply not in line with her idea of the American Dream. In The Beautiful and Damned, Gloria also follows the American Dream, retreating to the refuge and safety of marriage, only to later discover that its stability and fulfillment were specious. Through these characters, Fitzgerald casts doubt on whether the American Dream is worth seeking as it often stands in opposition to what brings people true happiness and love.
Both Dot in The Beautiful and Damned and Daisy in The Great Gatsby represent newfound freedom for women during the Jazz Age, where stricter traditions of the Victorian Age were systemically disregarded by the avant-garde. In both of these cases, their freedom was symbolized through their romantic trysts. In The Beautiful and Damned, Gloria chooses to discard her traditional duties as a housewife. The choices these three women make with their newfound freedom ultimately lead to tragedy. Through these examples, Fitzgerald draws attention to the inevitable conflicts that arise when Old World orders are replaced.

How many hours did they work in Buchenwald in Daniel's Story?

Buchenwald was a forced labor camp—as opposed to an extermination camp, like Auschwitz. This means that prisoners who passed through its gates were there primarily to work rather than to be executed. Of course, conditions were utterly appalling (with many prisoners worked to death), but the purpose of Buchenwald—forced labor—was different to that of Auschwitz: which was mass extermination.
As Daniel tells us, Buchenwald is full of factories, and the Jewish inmates are forced to work long and hard in them. Each working day lasts fourteen hours, with roll-calls every morning to ensure that none of the prisoners have escaped overnight. There is a truly horrible fate in store for anyone who makes the attempt, as Daniel sees for himself.
He witnesses the terrible punishment meted out to seven young Polish men caught trying to escape. They are tied down to their cots and fed nothing but salt water. They linger on in agony for three whole days until they eventually die. Buchenwald may not have the same purpose as Auschwitz, but it's no less of a monument to Nazi bestiality.

How would you describe the relationship between mankind and the gods?

One of Homer's themes in both the Iliad and Odyssey is the complicated and often destructive relationship between the gods and mankind. In both poems, we often see the gods treating mankind as chess pieces on a chess board, giving no thought to the effect of the game on its unwilling participants. In the Iliad, for example, the winning of individual battles often has nothing to do with the skill of the warriors but instead is based on the whim of a particular god. The Trojan War mirrors a war of personalities going on among the gods themselves, who use the Greeks and Trojans as their soldiers. In the Odyssey, Odysseus is tormented by Poseidon at every point in his voyage home but succeeds because he has the help of Athena and because of his own intelligence, strength, ability to endure. In addition, the gods tend to punish mankind brutally for any kind of disobedience—Odysseus's original crew is killed because they eat some of the sun-god's cattle while they face starvation. Ultimately, mankind has power to act only to the extent that its actions stay within the gods' plans and don't offend a particular god.

What are some examples of medieval military technology?

While medieval military technology spans a wide range of weaponry, some of the most well known and important devices include ranged weapons such as longbows, crossbows, and pole arms such as halberds and pikes.
Crossbows had been used by the Chinese long before medieval times; however, they were not designed to penetrate thicker armor such as that increasingly used by the Europeans. Unlike a traditional bow, the crossbow can be held in a drawn position using various triggers and mechanisms. This was advantageous in that the weapon did not require as much effort to fire, allowing more focus on aim. However, it took time to load and fire, and it was not as accurate as a traditional bow.
Longbows differ from a traditional bow in their length (hence the name). They were often as tall as the user. The longbow was able to be fired more quickly and accurately than the crossbow, but it required a high level of both strength and skill from the user.
The halberd was specifically designed for fighting men in suits of armor. It consisted of a long shaft with an ax blade and a hook on the back to combat men on horseback. The pike was an even longer pole weapon with a metal spear on the end intended for use by infantry. It required troops to be organized into specific formations in order to be effective. Close combat was avoided in these situations, as it would put troops at a disadvantage.
http://www.medievalwarfare.info/

https://www.britannica.com/technology/military-technology/The-infantry-revolution-c-1200-1500

How have high rates of divorce, single parenting, and spousal abuse affected US society? Do you consider these domestic issues to be private troubles or social problems?

High divorce rates, single parenting, and spousal abuse have affected US society in many ways; however, in this answer, I'll address the private troubles they can entail. For instance, despite its benefits, divorce can lead to parents experiencing financial issues and their children going through psychological stress, which adversely affects their social development. On the other hand, some argue that single parenting results in children who could be lonely or in need of social support. Furthermore, not having a spouse means fewer human resources and more additional work, especially in the realm of childcare. As a result of limited resources, parents may find themselves focusing more on work and less on social activities. Conversely, many victims of spousal abuse end up being socially isolated, with some having poor relationships with their children, friends, and colleagues.

Before the jurors are locked in their room, what is the last thing they hear that might influence their thinking when deciding the defendant’s guilt or innocence?

The last thing the jurors hear before entering the room to decide the case is one of the guards saying, "He doesn't stand a chance!" in reference to the young man on trial for murder. In other words, he means that there is no way the young man will be found innocent. What does this show about the guard's opinion of the young man? Even if he thought he was innocent, what does this say about the situation being a fair one? Why might the young man have no possibility of being found innocent no matter what? It's as if the case has been decided before the jurors even discuss the facts.
This is a strong statement to start the play, which could predict or even influence the jurors' opinions before they even begin to discuss his guilt or innocence. Have you ever been influenced by other people's opinions? Have you ever made a judgement based on appearance or before knowing all the facts? I know I have! The message: we need to be careful about what we say and try not to be influenced by others.

According to Herbert, what is Miss Havisham's eccentric behavior motivated by in Great Expectations?

Herbert Pocket describes to Pip in chapter 22 of the novel what supposedly happened to Miss Havisham in her youth and prompted her to become the eccentric recluse Pip knows her to be. He says that she wants Estella to "wreak revenge" on all men because of how she herself was treated. Having been brought up as the beloved child of a doting father, the father then married his cook and had a son, who was extremely "riotous" and extravagant. He ran up enormous debts.
At the same time, another young man of similar inclinations began pursuing Miss Havisham, scheming a lot of money out of her for his own purposes as well as on behalf of the brother. A wedding was fixed between the two of them—Miss Havisham refused to be told by anyone that she was being used by this man, as she was so in love with him. At the last moment, however, he jilted her, sending her a letter which she received on the morning of the wedding. At this point, Miss Havisham stopped all the clocks and went into mourning. It turned out that the suitor had been in league with Miss Havisham's brother in an attempt to swindle large amounts of money out of her.

Compare and contrast mitosis and meiosis. Include five similarities and/or differences should be included.

Mitosis and Meiosis are both processes in cell division. Mitosis starts off with 1 single cell and replicates itself by one parent. Mitosis turn 1 cell into 2 cells and they are genetically identical. Meiosis products are sex cells or sperm and egg. Meiosis is the process of turning 1 cell into 4 cells and they are each genetically diverse or different. Mitosis are diploid which means they have 2 sets of genetic information. Meiosis starts off with sperm and egg being haploid which mean they contain 1 set on chromosomes, once sperm and egg unite, they turn into a diploid organisms. Once Meiosis is complete the genetic material is cut in half, and the result is 4 haploid cells. Mitosis and Meiosis both go through interphase which is growth and DNA replication, and they both go through PMAT which are prophase, metaphase, anaphase and telophase.

In cell biology, mitosis is the part of the cell growth cycle in which one cell gives rise to two genetically identical daughter cells.
Also a function of cell biology, meiosis is the form of cell division that produces gametes, the cells employed in sexual reproduction. The outcome of this process is that four next-generation cells are produced from one cell rather than two.
Following are some of the differences between these two processes.
In mitosis:
the type of reproduction is asexual.
the number of cell divisions is one.
the mother cells are both haploid and diploid.
the number of daughter cells produced are two diploid.
the process produces every type of cell except sexual reproduction cells.
the process takes place in somatic cells.
In meiosis:
the type of reproduction is sexual.
the number of cell divisions is two.
the mother cells are diploid only.
the number of daughter cells produced are four haploid.
the process produces sexual reproduction cells.
the process takes place in germ cells.

What are some clues that helped them find Mr. Pickett in Turtles All the Way Down?

There are a few clues that they find in Turtles All the Way Down that help them find Mr. Pickett.
The Picture
In chapter 3, Daisy and Aza go across the river by Pickett’s golf course searching for him. The camera in the woods by the river is not password protected so that they can download the pictures to their phone. In one of the photos, they see Mr. Pickett in his nightshirt going toward the river to escape.

I swiped through more pictures until I got back to September 9th, and there, yes, in the shade of green I could see the back of a stocky man wearing a striped night-shirt. (Chapter 3)

The picture of Mr. Pickett helped them understand how he had escaped, and that gave them a good idea of the direction he went.
The Notes from Pickett’s Phone
The notes that Noah gives to Aza because he wants to find out what happened to his father are another clue. Davis doesn’t want Aza to keep up the search, but Noah, his younger brother, asks her to keep looking and gives her the notes he got off of his dad's phone. Of the notes, one includes the phrase “The Jogger’s Mouth” which is essential because it is eventually what helps Aza and Daisy realize that the jogger's mouth is the entrance to the tunnel at Pogue’s Run. She tells Davis, and he calls in an anonymous tip to the police who find his father’s body in the tunnel system.

Why did some democary surive in Europe after world war one and others didnt

This is a complicated question because the causes of a change in governmental system are complex and often not truly understood without both a thorough understanding of social context of the time and a good deal of hindsight. An additional difficulty is present in answering this question because none of the countries involved in World War I were democracies. This point may be pedantic, but it is important to remember that a democracy is a form of government in which all legislation requires a majority approval through direct referenda. Most countries that are referred to as democracies currently are actually democratic republics. In this form of government the people are represented by individuals who are popularly elected and tasked with administering government and enacting legislation.
Only three democratic republics took part in World War I: France, Portugal, and the United States. The remaining countries were all monarchies. There are different kinds of monarchy, both in form and practice. Parliamentary monarchies are embodied by Britain and Belgium during World War I. In this form of government the monarch is part of the government and remains unelected. Beyond this, parliamentary governments are akin to democratic republics. Constitutional monarchies generally have a legislative body that enacts legislation and approves budgets, though the cabinet and other ministerial posts are filled solely by monarchical appointment. Germany and Austria-Hungary are the exemplars of this style. Italy was also technically a constitutional monarchy, but in practice it acted more like a parliamentary monarchy. In an oligarchical monarchy, the monarch and a group of other oligarchs (similar to aristocrats) are completely in charge of governance. Japan, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire, despite being technically constitutional monarchies, acted closer to oligarchical monarchies.
The democratic republics of the US and France endured after World War I for two different reasons. The US entered the war late and was largely protected from any damage at home. France, despite suffering from significant deaths and destruction, obtained significant territorial holdings and commitments for repayment. As such, the hardships suffered by other countries after World War I were less pronounced in France. Germany (which became a republic after World War I) and Portugal suffered from high inflationary pressures and shortages of basic necessities. Portugal, which entered the war late and against public opinion, did not achieve much from the Versailles Treaty despite allying with the victors. Germany was punished in the Versailles Treaty and, along with the economic and material deprivations, this led to discontent. There is also some speculation that the large number of political parties in Germany did little to prevent consolidation of control under the Nazis once they started to gain power. Similar problems befell Italy as well. These deprivations created discontent, which led to unrest and, ultimately, coups or uprisings which placed fascists in power in an authoritarian manner.
Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire were broken apart after the war, preventing these governments from enduring. Japan largely retained its governmental system, though the high rate of assassination and the disproportionate power of the military significantly limited civilian control of the government.
In summation, the government systems that were discontinued generally fall into two groupings. Governments which were broken up because the country ceased to exist and governments that were overthrown because of popular discontent.

How does living in an apartment building in New York City affect Peter?

Peter Hatcher lives on the twelfth floor of a New York City apartment building with his mother, father, brother (Fudge), and pet turtle named Dribble. The first chapter seems to show that Peter enjoys living in an apartment building:

It's an old apartment building. But it's got one of the best elevators in New York City.

While Peter enjoys the elevator, living in an apartment with his three-year-old brother seems to negatively affect Peter. Fudge is always getting into trouble, except his parents and other adults seem to think he can do no wrong. He is simply too cute to get mad at. He often is getting into Peter's belongings, especially his prized pet turtle, Dribble. Also, when too much noise is made in the apartment, the neighbors below the Hatchers get very frustrated—as was the case during Fudge's third birthday party. His mother was able to ease the situation, however, by offering the downstairs neighbor some food and an invitation to join them until the party was over.

How do Stanley and Mr. Sir get even after the Warden punishes him in Holes?

I assume you are referring to the scene in which the Warden hits Mr. Sir and scratches him with her nails coated in varnish containing rattlesnake venom. Stanley does not get punished for stealing the sunflower seeds, and the Warden punishes Mr. Sir for bothering her with an insignificant, petty theft. Your question implies that Stanley and Mr. Sir worked together to get even with the Warden, which is not the case. Mr. Sir punishes Stanley by depriving him of water for an entire week.
In terms of Stanley's actions, him and Zero finding the long-lost treasure of Stanley's great-great grandfather can be interpreted as getting even with the Warden. The Warden had been searching for the treasure since her father forced her to dig holes as a child, leading to her making the juveniles dig holes at Camp Green Lake. Not only is the Warden deprived of the treasure that had taken over her life, Camp Green Lake is down by the Attorney General. At the end of the novel, the author mentions that the site will become a Girl Scout Camp in the future; assuming Mr. Sir will be required to work there due to his parole conditions, this is also a result of Stanley's and Zero's discovery of the treasure.

In Gem of the Ocean, is there any foreshadowing?

Rivers and the pennies play important parts in the foreshadowing that August Wilson inserts into Gem of the Ocean. Brown dies by drowning because he did not want to go through the sham justice that he wa ssure would condemn him. The river reappears in a different settting when Citizen tries to cross it, and realizes that Brown is the boatman. This confrontation between the two men is established through the water trope, as Citizen actually did the crime that which Brown was accused. Finding the two pennies is an assignment gift that Aunt Ester makes to Citizen. After he leaves, she admits that they have no power; rather, the power will arise in Citizen because of his belief in their special qualities. Ultimately, the pennies turn up as the price for his entry at the Twelve Gates to the City. He turns them over to Solly so that the deceased man can pay the gatekeeper.

When Dana has to explain to Alice that she is now a slave, there are several role reversals. What are they?

There are two main role reversals in this scene of the novel. Dana, as a modern black woman, has to inform her ancestor that she is no longer free. This is the first main role reversal. Here the characters question conceptions of freedom and enslavement. The scene centers around the idea of freedom and how someone who is free has to explain the concept of enslavement to a recently enslaved woman. The familial linkage is the second part of the role reversal in this same situation. A great-great-granddaughter has to educate her great-great-grandmother. As slaves were not allowed to read, and education was kept from African Americans at the time, it was extremely rare for an African American woman to be literate. Dana had access to education in modern California, while her great-great-grandmother is illiterate. Dana is able to bring this education back with her in her time travels. It is also unusual for a great-great-granddaughter to educate her great-great-grandmother. It is usually the reverse, with our elders teaching us rather than us teaching them as Dana teaches Alice in Kindred.

What is the contrast between the tones of "On My first Son" and "Song to Celia" by Ben Jonson? Thank you.

The tone of a poem is the mood or emotion it conveys. The tone of "On My first Son," is one of deep and sincere grief for the loss of a beloved child, as the opening lines reveal:


Farewell, thou child of my right hand, and joy;
My sin was too much hope of thee, lov'd boy.


In this poem, Jonson is lamenting the loss of his young son. He tries to comfort himself that his son is in a better place and has escaped the horrors of aging, but his heart is nevertheless full of pain at the loss.


"Song to Celia" is about the speaker's unrequited love for Celia. He loves her but she shows she does not love him when he returns the wreath he has sent her. The tone of this poem is one of desperation for the beloved and the wish to keep hope alive. The speaker expresses his desire for Celia through exaggeration, saying that the wreath he sent would not have withered if it had stayed in her presence and that now, although returned, it comes back carrying her scent. Its tone is far more stylized—more a conventionalized love poem tone—than the sincerely grieved tone of "On My first Son." In Celia, the speaker plays a courtly love game; in Son, the lament is deep and real.

What were some of Calvin Coolidge's major accomplishments?

Calvin Coolidge (1872–1933) became president after the death of Warren Harding in 1923, and he served as the nation's chief executive until 1929. He was known as "Silent Cal" because of his quiet demeanor.
His early accomplishments were in academia, law, and state politics. His mother had instilled in him a love of books. He graduated cum laude from from Amherst College in 1891. By 1898, he had opened his own law practice. Not content with the life of a lawyer, Coolidge entered politics in Massachusetts, rising to governor by 1918.
In 1919, the Boston police strike brought him national fame. The police wanted a labor union, and mobs took advantage of the situation by causing chaos for two nights. Coolidge restored order by using the militia and proclaimed: "There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time."
Because many Americans applauded his conduct during the strike, the Republicans nominated him as their vice-presidential candidate in 1920. As vice president, he attended cabinet meetings, but did not do much else. Also, the outgoing Harding and taciturn Coolidge were opposites in temperament.
Upon becoming president, Coolidge worked to restore the public's faith in government. That faith had been badly damaged by numerous scandals during the Harding administration. Honest and pious, Coolidge was successful in this respect.
In 1924, Coolidge easily won the presidential election. This was easily one of his greatest accomplishments.
His domestic policies as president favored big business and laissez-faire economics. Regulation of business practices was lax. Many historians later blamed Coolidge for policies that helped bring on the Great Depression, which began in 1929.

Where does the poet stand now? How it is different from the lake Isle of Innisfree?

Yeats does not tell us specifically where he is standing at that moment. Our only clue comes in the second to last line of the poem, which reads "While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements grey". This implies that he is in an urban area, perhaps a city filled with smog, the hustle and bustle of commuters and endless city noise.
This environment is vastly different to The Lake Isle of Innisfree, which is described as a serene, peaceful place, where the poet will live a simple life tending his bean rows and beehives. Yeats makes reference to sounds he will hear on the Lake Isle, such as crickets' song and the lapping of lake water.
The Lake Isle would therefore appear to be vastly different to the city environment in which he currently seems to be situated.

In Tears of a Tiger, why did Andy think his father likes to hunt?

Andy thinks his father likes to hunt because he's the proud owner of a hunting rifle. This is the very same rifle with which Andy will tragically take his own life.
There's something eerily appropriate about Andy's method of suicide. Long before his sad demise, he identified with the tiger after seeing the picture of the crying tiger drawn by Monty in class. As well as the tiger's sadness he identified with its being trapped in a cage from which it could never escape. It says something about Andy's hopeless condition that the only way he can be free is by killing himself. His dad's hunting rifle, which exists purely and solely to shoot animals, has now been used to kill this particular sad tiger.

How might Twelfth Night be considered a satire of sentimentality?

Love is the central concern of Twelfth Night, and most of the characters indulge in sentimentality at one time or another. The overall satirical stance is conveyed early on by Duke Orsino, as he listens to music and sighs while daydreaming about love: “If music be the food of love, play on;/ Give me excess of it.” His intention to over-indulge in love and the things that nurture it is a common attitude of other lovers in the play. Orsino’s supposedly deep love, which shifts rapidly, indicates that it is the idea of love that he actually enjoys the most. Olivia, originally the object of his desire, is similar in temperament, and her affections are also transferred quickly to another man.
The pairing up of the main couples by the end is achieved through a series of deceptive steps, including gendered disguises. Viola, the most level headed of the four, mocks constancy in love by defending it while actually pretending to be someone else, a man.
Another satirical aspect is presented by the plot in which Malvolio is fooled into believing that he is the object of Olivia’s love. He is so swayed by the idea of her adoration that he is willing to make a complete fool of himself by dressing in exaggerated fashion just because he thinks she likes that style. Excessive sentiment causes him to throw reason out the window.

Why is it ironic that Mercutio teases Romeo about Rosaline?

Mercutio first teases Romeo about Rosaline in act 2, scene 1, when Romeo has disappeared beyond the orchard wall after the Capulet party. Assuming that Romeo can hear him, Mercutio summons Romeo in the name of "Rosaline's bright eyes . . . high forehead . . . scarlet lip . . . and quivering thigh." Mercutio says that he summons Romeo only to "raise up him." This is a crude sexual innuendo. Mercutio is implying that Romeo is so besotted with Rosaline's beauty that he will become physically aroused simply at the mention of her various physical parts. There is a dramatic irony here because we, the audience, are aware at this point in the play, that Romeo is no longer in love with Rosaline, but is now in love with Juliet. Mercutio isn't aware of this.
In act 2, scene 4, Mercutio teases Romeo about Rosaline again. And again there is dramatic irony because Mercutio still does not know what we, the audience, do, namely that Romeo now loves Juliet. Mercutio teases Romeo by insinuating that he has been away all night having sex with Rosaline. He says to Romeo that "a case as yours constrains a man to bow in the hams." In other words, a distraction like Rosaline has, Mercutio implies, caused Romeo to flex his buttocks in the act of sexual intercourse.
The second irony to Mercutio's teasing of Romeo is that it perhaps doesn't make much difference whether Mercutio knows that Rosaline has been replaced by Juliet or not. Arguably, there is little difference between the two. Romeo falls recklessly and obsessively in love with both. He also expresses lustful desires for both. Perhaps, therefore, the only real difference between Romeo's professed love for Rosaline, and his professed love for Juliet, is that the latter reciprocated his feelings whereas the former did not. In this sense, it really doesn't matter very much that Mercutio's teasing is directed in part at the wrong girl.

The ever-mischievous Mercutio loves nothing more than to tease his good friend Romeo over his incorrigibly romantic nature. He's pretty cynical when it comes to matters of the heart and so finds Romeo's capacity for falling head over heels in love at the drop of a hat a source of endless amusement.
By the time we've reached Act II Scene IV, Romeo is on the verge of marrying his beloved Juliet. Yet Mercutio doesn't know anything about it. When Romeo doesn't show up for their meeting one night, he wrongly assumes that it's because he's still hopelessly in love with Rosaline:

Why, that same pale hard-hearted wench, that Rosaline,
Torments him so, that he will sure run mad.

But Mercutio doesn't know the half of it. Romeo's head over heels in love alright, but not with Rosaline. She was just an infatuation, but Juliet is the real thing. Mercutio's merciless teasing of Romeo is a fine example of dramatic irony, which is where the audience knows something that one or more of the characters does not.

What is the author's message in Ready Player One?

I would say, at the heart of Ready Player One, there is a tension between the post-appocalyptic dystopia of reality and the escapism in the digital universe. This is intertwined with warnings about corporate capitalism running amuck and the dangers this represents to the public good.
From the very beginning of the book, Wade lives his life in the virtual world (as do most people, given just how dystopic and miserable reality has become). The book proceeds to detail the unfolding race against time to determine who will gain control of the OASIS—a competition against corporate interests looking to seize control and monetize the technology.
However, it's notable that, throughout the book, Wade seeks to start a relationship with Art3mis, one of his allies/competitors within the context of that digital race. In the process, that relationship and that human connection itself becomes more significant and more real than the digital world, and through it, Wade (by the end of his journey) has rejected the misanthropy that characterized him at the beginning.

Ready Player One, by Ernest Cline, tells the story of a futuristic world in which there is ecological chaos, a lack of resources, and a culture that is obsessed with the technological opportunity to live inside of the OASIS, a virtual reality space to essentially live a second life. Indeed, that is exactly what most people in the novel do, including the main character, Wade Watts.
Ready Player One reads much like a classic monomyth, with a hero character setting off to conquer an obstacle. Wade Watts, our hero, is determined to win a prize by completing the series of tasks set up by the creator of the OASIS, James Halliday. Wade has to face multiple challenges in the path to his ultimate goal, and along the way he strengthens friendships he already had, forms new friendships, and also makes several enemies.
Multiple messages can be gleaned from this novel, but the primary theme seems to relate to the importance of building relationships that are set in reality. Since the OASIS is so integrated into the worldwide community, the novel reflects that some people carry on relationships, even get married, in the OASIS but never actually meet in person. Still others change their virtual appearances drastically to assume different persona than how they present in reality. Wade Watts illustrates both of these principles.
However, once Wade meets Art3mis through the OASIS, he begins to discover that the OASIS does not provide the depth in relationship that he is looking for. He sees that they must meet if they want to build a true and solid relationship. Another example of the importance of physical reality in terms of relationships can be seen at the end of the novel, when the final battle takes place. Ogden Morrow, the best friend of the late James Halliday, brings Wade and his friends together at his home to allow them physical closeness as they fight. This actual proximity symbolizes the unity that Wade and his friends have developed, which culminates in a physical reunion. A last example is the words of James Halliday himself when he tells Wade, "I created the OASIS because I never felt at home in the real world. I didn't know how to connect with the people there. I was afraid, for all of my life, right up until I knew it was ending. That was when I realized, as terrifying and painful as reality can be, it's also the only place where you can find true happiness. Because reality is real."
So, while Ready Player One is an interesting adventure story, it also contains a warning to readers about the potential dangers found in complete dedication to technology. Cline encourages readers to build relationships in actual, rather than virtual, reality. Indeed, at the very end of the book, when Wade is able to hold and kiss Art3mis, he explicitly thinks that he has no desire to log back into the OASIS, for the first time.

Evaluate the impact of Third World revolutionaries and radicals in transforming their societies. How successful were Mao and Castro in challenging the international status quo?

Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro both came to power when their countries were economically depressed and politically unstable.
Mao Zedong came to power in 1949 after a standoff between nationalist and communist forces in the wake of World War II. He successfully led a cultural revolution for China, inspired by his Marxist views and his study of the Russian Revolution when working as a librarian's assistant as a young adult. Mao was ultimately successful insofar as he created the People's Republic of China; however, it was not an especially just or prosperous regime. Nevertheless, he put China on the map as a major communist power, distinct from the Soviet Union.
Zedong was aided by a group called the Red Guards—young proponents of his philosophy (often students) who sought to rid China of its old culture, customs, ideas, and habits. This group shared Mao's vision for a Cultural Revolution in China, though the Red Cards wreaked havoc on China by seeking to brutally stamp out an entire tradition.
Castro came to power in Cuba as a dictator after leading a coup against Fulgencio Batista. In the 1950s, Castro resorted to guerrilla warfare, leading to a period of prolonged violence in Cuba. Though conditions in Cuba have improved since Castro, communism left many Cubans living in poverty despite Mao's promotion of a Marxist-inspired communist ideology that attracted many Cubans. Though his aims and tactics were questionable to say the least, Castro was so successful at fostering an ideology that promoted guerrilla warfare that the United States tried to assassinate him, undertaking the infamous Bay of Pigs invasion, wherein CIA trained Cuban exiles to fight against Castro's guerrilla fighters in an expedition that failed miserably.
Some political scientists (especially with the luxury of hindsight) argue that the communist revolutions—begun in China in 1949 and in Cuba in 1959 used communism as a convenient banner for revolutionary activity, but in effect acted only to propel the eventual emergence of state-level capitalism.
http://socialistreview.org.uk/312/third-world-revolution

Please discuss the conclusion of the novel.

The Road, though undeniably bleak, ends on a note of hope. The boy has learned to "carry the fire." In other words, his father was successful in teaching him not only how to survive but especially how to maintain their basic code of morality and right action under the most challenging and depressing conditions. Even though the boy's mother gave up, they will not do the same—they will not become suicidal, they will not become raiders, slavers, rapists, or cannibals. They will maintain their humanity despite the unrelenting grey desolation that has led so many around them sink to the level of predatory beasts.
After enduring so many hardships, the father and his son are successful in their quest to follow the road to the coast. The father completed his mission before his death. The boy stays with his father's corpse. Perhaps he is not sure what to do next. His father trained him not to be taken alive by raiders to be tortured, enslaved, or cannibalized. That is what the last bullets in the gun were for—just in case. Other than that, he was to carry on and "carry the fire."
Eventually, another group of "good guys," a mother and father with children, find the boy and adopt him into their family. This shows us that the entire struggle was worthwhile. The struggle of the father and son was not in vain. In this new family, the goodness in humanity will survive in spite of the badness all around them. That is the message of hope that I found at the end of The Road.

Why did very few French colonists move to New France?

New France was a very large area that would always be sparsely populated. Much of it was in the interior of North America—this would make it very hard to resupply or to defend in the case of invasion. There was also the worry of attacks by Native Americans. While French priests traditionally treated the natives with more respect, and French traders were likely to marry into a tribe, there were still incidences of bloodshed between the two groups.
Many in France at the time simply did not want to go. The country was large and quite successful. Taxation was onerous, but the people who could afford to go to the New World found ways around the French inefficient tax system. The country had some religious dissenters, but they were few compared to Britain, a country that experienced a great deal of the Protestant Reformation's early splinter groups. France controlled a great deal of territory on a map, but it was not able to successfully export people to this new territory. This would ultimately lead to France losing most of its North American holdings after the Seven Years' War.

Who is King Henry VIII? How and why did he challenge the authority of the pope?

King Henry VIII (1491–1547) of England took the throne after the death of his father, Henry VII, becoming second in the line of Tudor monarchs. Henry was only eighteen at the time he took the throne, so in the early years, the state was dominated by Cardinal Wolsey (ca. 1473–1530), who operated from his position as Lord Chancellor. Wolsey fell out of favor with Henry owing to the former's failure to mediate an agreement with the papacy over the issue of Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Henry sought an annulment of his marriage from Pope Clement VII, so he could marry Anne Boleyn. Henry struggled to produce a male heir and may have believed that it was God's punishment for having taken as a wife his brother's widow. Catherine had previously been married to Henry's older brother Arthur. Clement refused to grant an annulment, which led Henry to issue the Act of Supremacy (1534).
The Act of Supremacy established the Church of England as an entity independent of the papacy and Henry as the head of the Church. Subsequently, the kings (and queens) of England would serve as the heads of the Church of England.
In other words, Henry challenged the papacy owing to his desire to marry Anne Boleyn. Were there other factors? Henry certainly stood to gain politically in some ways by becoming his own pope, so to speak. The notion of the divine right of kings in England is usually traced to Henry's rule. The king was elevated to a loftier position than ever before and his rule became more absolute.
The religious pendulum swung back and forth for some time before England settled into its Anglicanism. Henry's son from Anne Boleyn became Edward VI (r. 1547–53). He launched Protestantizing reforms, which included the secularization of church property, the dissolution of monasteries, the institution of clerical marriage, and the introduction of the Book of Common Prayer. Edward died of tuberculosis in 1553. Queen Mary (r. 1553–58), daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine, restored Catholicism. She voided Edward's reforms and launched a persecution of religious opponents. Hundreds of gentlemen, clerics, and students fled to continental Europe. Three hundred Protestants were tried by church courts and executed by “Bloody Mary.” Then Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603), daughter of Henry and Anne, regarded a bastard by the Catholic Church, with no right to the throne, issued a New Act of Supremacy (1559). The Catholic priesthood was criminalized, one hundred and eighty Catholics were executed for treason. At this point, England settled into its Anglicanism.

Who is the play Hamlet about?

Hamlet is a play, a tragedy, written by William Shakespeare in 1599. The play's main character, Prince Hamlet of Denmark, is a young man beset with many problems. His father, King Hamlet, has been murdered by his own brother, Claudius. Claudius has taken over the throne and married King Hamlet's widow, Gertrude. The ghost of Prince Hamlet's father, the murdered king, appears to his son and urges him to avenge his murder.
Throughout the play, Hamlet struggles with many problems. He isn't entirely certain that the visit from his father's ghost was real, so he questions his sanity. He suspects, for good reason, that his classmates Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have been dispatched by Claudius to spy on him. He wonders if his mother is complicit in his father's murder. He suspects that his girlfriend, Ophelia, might also be working against him. He tests Claudius to see if he will implicate himself in the murder of Hamlet's father. Hamlet even considers whether he should kill himself, but he worries about what might happen to him after death.
In the end, Hamlet, Ophelia, Claudius, Gertrude, Laertes, and Polonius all die, and Hamlet's sole loyal friend, Horatio, offers his tribute to his fallen friend.

How does Virginia Woolf conceive of the relationship between economic independence and literary production in A Room of One's Own?

Woolf builds a careful and convincing argument that economic independence is necessary for literary production. In A Room of One's Own, she focuses on illustrating all the small details that are different between the life of a man and the life of a woman in her society to build a cumulative picture of male privilege versus female want. She discusses the university library that men can enter but women cannot. She compares the fine food and wine at the men's colleges to the austere mutton and water at the women's colleges. She shows that men have very often taken it for granted that they will have private space in which to work, whereas women seldom are afforded the same luxury. By doing this, Woolf paints a picture that shows how difficult it is for women to produce literature—especially good literature—because they lack the financial independence and privacy to do so.
Woolf is countering arguments that were still prevalent in the 1920s that women did not produce great literature at the same rate as men because they were intellectually inferior. She argues that the problem is not innate inferiority but manufactured, systemic economic inferiority under which societal wealth is unthinkingly given to men. Give a woman the same economic and social privileges as men, such as a room of her own, and they will produce fine literature at the same rate as men.

What is Mina wearing in the first scene in Skellig?

Skellig was written by David Almond, and it is widely considered to be a Gothic story for children. Skellig is a supernatural being who is capable of working miracles. Michael and Mina are two main characters who become friends. Michael is a ten-year-old protagonist who discovers Skellig in a garage. Michael opens up to Mina about his thoughts and feelings. Mina appreciates this openness, and she also opens up, too. Both are young and discovering who they are in the world, and they both take care of Skellig.
While discovering her identity, Mina experiments with wearing different clothes, and in the first scene in Skellig, Mina is wearing an open sweater that is unbuttoned, a shirt underneath, shorts over a pair of pants, and boots for walking around. The pants are not covering her legs entirely and stop just short of the top of her boots by several inches. It is a lively and even somewhat strange outfit, but it is indicative of a young girl who is finding herself as she grows up. It represents her personality and creativity as well, as someone who is schooled at home and thinks independently.

Is Elizabeth Bennet a reliable narrator?

An interesting question is whether Austen structures Elizabeth's character so that she represents a reliable character or an unreliable character. While the terminology for unreliability in literature was first coined by Wayne Booth in 1961, unreliability in literary characters and narrators has been existent since Roman times.
Are there any instances in which Elizabeth's understanding and thus her statements and thoughts have proven unreliable? We know that her understanding of Darcy and Wickham are proven unreliable. When new light is shed on their situations—in the Rosings letter and at Pemberley—Darcy is vindicated and proven honorable, though proud, while Wickham is proven villainous, vengeful and greedy. Are there other instances of faulty understanding and unreliability?
Instances of Elizabeth's Unreliability
Her misunderstanding of Charlotte's stated views on love and marriage.
Her reaction to Charlotte's engagement to Collins.
Her misunderstanding of Charlotte's tolerance of Lady Catherine.
Her misunderstanding of Charlotte's tolerance of and gratitude toward Collins.
Her thoughts about Charlotte upon ending her visit to Hunsford Parsonage.
Her initial approval of and affection for Wickham.
Her immediate disapprobation of Darcy.
Her failure to see her father, mother and younger sisters the way others correctly see them as, in order, being neglectful, proud, and uncontrolled.
Instances of Elizabeth's Reliability
Her comments to Jane about Jane's character flaw: Jane thinks no ill of anyone.
Her accurate understanding of Aunt and Uncle Gardner.
Her dislike of the Bingley sisters.
The sincere, genuine and unaffected nature of her character as illustrated by walking to Netherfield and keeping Jane company.
The sincere and genuine expression of her opinions: she is not duplicitous, though she is civil.
Her resistance to inappropriate influence such as her resistance to Lady Catherine's pressures about her piano playing.
Narrator's Role in Establishing Elizabeth's Unreliability
How does the narrator develop Elizabeth as an unreliable character while building a depth of sympathy and affection for her?
The use of irony: irony pokes fun at characters' folly and at inconsistency in situations.
The use of indirect dialogue through which the narrator extensively reveals a wealth of Elizabeth's thoughts, musings, inner debates and feelings.
The development of Elizabeth as an avid and astute observer of others and of human foibles (though she misunderstands and misinterprets what she observes).
The development of Elizabeth as confident and kindhearted. She does not take insults to heart, but rather she laughs at them and, as with Darcy and the Bingley sisters, keeps them at arm's length.
The conclusion of this examination of Elizabeth's reliability as a character is that Austen uses the ironic and intrusive (close in proximity and active in commenting) narrator to establish Elizabeth as an observant yet unreliable character because of her prejudicial and prideful misunderstandings and misinterpretations. We know about these through indirect dialogue, which allows ironic narratorial comment to shed the light of understanding on individual instances even though Elizabeth doesn't see it.

Steinbeck goes into a great amount of detail when describing Crooks’s room. What does Steinbeck's description tell the reader about Crooks? How is he different from the other workers?

From the narrator’s lengthy, detailed description of Crook’s room in the barn, the reader can infer several things that emphasize how he is different than the other men on the ranch.
The sheer abundance of his possessions is the first detail that highlights a difference. Many of the men on the ranch only have a few personal items, because they are migrant workers who must travel from job to job. Most migrants carried their meager possessions in a sack or bindle, which is why Curley’s wife often refers to the workers as “bindle stiffs.” In contrast, Crooks has far too many possessions to carry with him if he had to travel. This shows that Crooks has a permanent presence on the ranch.
Another difference that this description underscores is his separation from the other men. Unlike the ranch hands, Crooks lives in a secluded section of the stable that is his room. At one point, Crooks sarcastically remarks about the lovely smell of horse manure that pervades his living space. He is not allowed to sleep in the bunkhouse or even go in there because of his race. The description of his room as an isolated, somewhat undesirable location highlights the discrimination he faces on the ranch.

Why did President Grover Cleveland veto so many bills?

Grover Cleveland's penchant for vetoing bills started before he became president. As mayor of Buffalo and governor of New York, he vetoed many bills. He thought he had a duty to block bills that did not benefit the public. It was not surprising, therefore, that he continued this practice after becoming president in 1885.
He vetoed so many bills because he strongly believed that the government should have a very limited role in people's lives. He even vetoed a bill that sought to aid Texas farmers who were suffering because of drought. During his presidency, he vetoed myriad bills providing pensions to Civil War soldiers. His vetoes were popular with the public during his first term (1885–1889).
Cleveland's insistence on limiting the scope of government was far less popular during his second term (1893–1897). In 1893, the economy collapsed, and his refusal to help the public made him unpopular.

Why did Booth kill Lincoln?

John Wilkes Booth grew up in Maryland. As an adult, he became an actor who, over time, became somewhat respected among critical circles. Though he spent a good deal of time in the North, including performing in New York, he considered the secession of the South a bold move. Unfortunately, that support put him at odds with many locals in the state. Booth was an opponent of abolition and personally attended the hanging of John Brown, the leader of the notable Harpers Ferry raid that was intended to create a slave revolt. Given his opposition to abolition and support of the secession, Booth was quite obviously a strong supporter of the South, including his home state of Maryland. Booth felt that President Lincoln was responsible for the war that was devastating the Confederacy and as early as 1864 began to come up with plans to kidnap the president.
Over the course of the Civil War, Booth’s opposition to the North and Lincoln himself grew more intense, to the point that he was arguing with family over the issue. The surrender of the Confederacy only served to enrage him even more. After the victory of the North and the end of the war, Booth used his status as a popular actor to access the area where Lincoln was seated and kill him. The assassination of President Lincoln was just the final step in a long history of supporting his home state of Maryland, the larger Confederacy, and hating the actions of the North and President Lincoln.

John Wilkes Booth was a passionate supporter of the Confederacy as well as slavery in the South, although he never joined the Confederate Army himself. He was also an accomplished actor who enjoyed high levels of success and popularity in the South. Booth (along with co-conspirators John Surratt, Michael O'Laughlin, and Samuel Arnold) was originally involved in a plot to kidnap Lincoln and deliver him to officials in the South. However, the kidnapping plot failed on two separate occasions.
Enraged by the surrender of the Confederate Army, John Wilkes Booth desired to eliminate Abraham Lincoln, whom he viewed as a tyrant. Booth also felt that Lincoln's Reconstruction policies, which included extending the vote to African Americans, would destroy the South. Motivated by political zeal and a desire for revenge, Booth successfully shot Lincoln at Ford's Theatre on April 14, 1865; Lincoln died at 7:22 am the next morning.
https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24242

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/john-wilkes-booth-shoots-abraham-lincoln

What do we learn about Charlotte's life with Mr. Collins at Hunsford Parsonage?

Charlotte's first report of her new life as Mrs. William Collins was, "Mr. Collins's picture of Hunsford and Rosings rationally softened."
When the narrator takes us with Elizabeth to Hunsford Parsonage in Rosings Park, Kent, we are able to see for ourselves, along with Elizabeth, what kind of life Charlotte has found for herself. The probable negative aspects that we might wonder about, (1) Miss de Bourgh, (2) Lady de Bourgh and (3) Mr. Collins himself, are shown early as Charlotte experiences them.
Charlotte encourages Mr. Collins to pursue his exercise of gardening as much as possible: "Charlotte talked of the healthfulness of the exercise, and owned she encouraged it as much as possible."
We see that this gives Charlotte the double advantage of solitary hours indoors and a husband who has the emotional vigor and good humor resulting from fresh air and sunshine. From this we learn right off that Charlotte has influence over Mr. Collins and uses it to both their advantages. She also discloses that she has taken a back room, away from the lane, as her day room.
This adds another layer of distance and solitary activity to Charlotte's new life. We recognize that Charlotte is wisely buffering herself, in the most gentle and acceptable way possible, from potential aggravation by her husband's vain silliness. Charlotte has acknowledged Collins' deficits and used them to their mutual advantage thus gaining peace and content for herself along with esteem and increased dignity for her husband.

How does being oppressed and confined affect your psychological or mental health?

When an individual lives in an oppressive environment, their nature changes; we call this phenomenon social oppression. Social oppression has the power to corrupt a person’s thought process and emotional state and reshape their moral compass. If a person lives in an oppressive society, then they will learn to accept and even practice and identify with its norms and values. For instance, if a person grows up in a patriarchal society where women are considered the ‘weaker’ gender, or in a very conservative society where the predominant religion is constantly mixed with politics and used as a guideline to govern the country, then that person will probably grow up into a sexist, ignorant, intolerant and even violent individual; the worst part is the fact that this person will think that their belief system is the right one, as they were taught to follow it and conform to it ever since they were children. The more one society becomes oppressive, the more it will affect the rational and emotional part of human nature, and it will normalize the idea that the oppressive system of values is okay.

Considering your reading of 'The Storm' (literary elements and the story), identify three elements from the literature and discuss both their connection to each other and their overall effect on theme of the work.

The themes of Kate Chopin's The Awakening is a matter of perennial debate; some consider the themes to include adultery or lesbianism. A safe--and meaningful--understanding of the collection of themes represented by The Awakening certainly includes the theme of feminine self-discovery. The novel is can appropriately be considered Edna Pontellier's Bildungsroman, as she develops a sense of identity apart from her role as wife and mother. Her identity as a women includes important female friendships and a trademark dalliance with one Robert Lebrun.
The primary elements of a novel include its plot, setting, and characters. It can be seen that all of these elements in The Awakening support the theme of feminine self-discovery. First, the plot finds Edna with her husband and two sons on vacation at the Grand Isle. It is here that Edna encounters the son of the resort's owner, Robert. Another major development upon which Edna's own fulfillment hinges includes her husband's absence to New York City (at which point her children go to stay with his mother). This gives Edna time to experience life outside the confines of marriage and motherhood, and gives her an opportunity to have her first (and brief) extra-marital affair with one Alcée Arobin. Another plot point on which Edna's experience hinges is Mademoiselle Reisz's acquaintance and communication with Robert. If not for Reisz, Edna and Robert might never have brought their mutual passion to fruition, and Edna would not have experienced the consummation of her love for another man than her husband.
In addition to the plot, the setting is an apt choice for Chopin to portray the development of Edna's female sensibilities and freedoms. New Orleans is a progressive city among Southern cities in its environments, and is (symbolically) situated on the sea, which can be taken to suggest freedom. New Orleans is Edna's experimental zone, while New York (where Edna's husband travels) is a city of business and responsibility.
Finally, several characters are important to Edna's development as a woman. Robert, of course, is her locus for sexual and emotional fulfillment outside of marriage. Equally important is Mademoiselle Reisz, who serves as an example to Edna of what a woman can look like and achieve outside of the traditional roles of wife and mother. Conversely, Adèle Ratignolle serves as a constant reminder to Edna of what a woman's life looks like within such confines. These women allow Edna to make an informed decision and thus play an active role in her own development as a woman.

Who is the "I" in "The Brook" and what does he do throughout the poem?

The "I" in the poem is the eponymous brook. In other words, the poem is narrated by the imagined voice of the brook. A brook is a small stream.
Throughout the poem, the brook describes its journey through different landscapes and environments. In the second stanza, for example, the brook describes how it hurries down hills, slips between ridges, and travels beneath "half a hundred bridges." In the third stanza, the brook describes how it eventually joins with a "brimming river." In the subsequent stanzas, it continues to describe its journey through different landscapes and environments, such as "brambly wildernesses" and "many a fairy foreland set / With willow-weed and mallow."
Repeated throughout the poem is the refrain, "For men may come and men may go, / But I go on for ever." The implication here is that the brook, or rather the water which comprises the brook, will travel through thousands of tributaries, streams, and rivers in the course of an average human life. This perhaps reminds us of how fleeting human life really is and how indifferent nature is to human life.

Despite the generally dreadful reputation of medicine during the period 400-1400, there was evidence of progress both in the Arab world as well as the Christian world. Discuss what this progress was, especially institutional responses.

Both Arabic and Christian civilizations in the Middle Ages between 400-1400 made significant medical advances.
From an institutional perspective, hospitals began to crop up in the Middle Ages. The United States National Library of Medicine credits medieval Islamic civilization as the founder of the idea of a hospital, or a place where the ill were welcomed, cared for, and treated by trained staff. Baghdad and Damascus were two early cities famous for their hospitals.
These early Arabic hospitals tended to be more secular than religious, while the early Christian hospitals almost always were administered by monasteries.
While early medicines were not safe, from a conceptual perspective, these civilizations understood that illness could be combated with antidotes. It took a while for the different medicines to work well and many died as a result of bad medicine, but this process was necessary for the advancement of knowledge.
Similarly, before understanding germ theory, these civilizations had the basic conceptual understanding that sick humans could make healthy humans sick through close proximity. During this time period, cities practiced quarantines as a way of separating the sick from the healthy.
During this time period, these civilizations also began studying cadavers which displays a desire to learn about the human body and its role in medicine.

While medical practices have come a long way since then, there were a number of advancements in medicine during the Middle Ages. While knowledge of pathogens was still largely unknown, it was understood that sick people could make other people sick. Therefore, whenever there was fear of plagues, many cities instituted a quarantine. In fact, the very word quarantine comes from the 40 days in which visitors to certain Venetian ports during the Black Death had to wait before entering the city.
Hospitals were also established during the Middle Ages. They were usually run by monasteries in Europe but were secular in the Arab world. Many hospitals had features such as different wards for different diseases and medicinal herb gardens. In 10th Century Bagdad, medical costs were paid by the local government if a patient could not afford it.
Universities of both the Arabs and Europeans often had courses of study that focussed on medicine. At these schools, physicians could even earn a certificate to prove that they had formal training in medicine.
Many Arab and European physicians dissected cadavers in order to get a better understanding of human anatomy. This allowed them to be more successful when diagnosing certain ailments or performing surgery.
https://www.bl.uk/the-middle-ages/articles/medicine-diagnosis-and-treatment-in-the-middle-ages

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/magazine/2016/11-12/muslim-medicine-scientific-discovery-islam/

One reason that the medical field has such a bad reputation during this time period is due to the Black Plague, which hit the Italian city-states in 1349 and rapidly spread along European trade routes. Medicine did have many advancements during the Middle Ages, however. The first hospitals formed as church-run shelters for travelers and the poor. During the eighth century, secular hospitals were common in the Arabic world. Pharmacies in the Arabic world also date from this period. They would spread to Europe by the twelfth century. While the medicines were often just as dangerous as the diseases they claimed to treat, it was important that there were at least institutions committed to creating mixtures to combat diseases. Eyeglasses originate in medieval Italy with paintings dating from the fourteenth century of monks wearing glasses. Medieval Italian doctors were also pioneers in the field of dissection, though it was still taboo to many in the Church. Under the leadership of Frederick II, medical studies in universities became popular in the thirteenth century. This was important as one can see the beginnings of a secular practice of medicine that would rely on empirical knowledge and research. Medieval Arabic physicians were also pioneers in the field of ophthalmology and could even remove cataracts via syringe. Theodoric Borgognoni proclaimed new methods of wound cleaning. Thanks to him, it became standard medical procedure to remove pus from wounds before suturing. He also soaked rags to be used in surgery in wine before applying them to the patient. While the effects were not as efficient as using alcohol as a disinfectant, it was at least an improvement over no cleanliness at all on the operating table. During a plague outbreak in 1377, the city of Dubrovnik practiced quarantine in order to protect itself from plague ships. In a time without a knowledge of germ theory, isolating oneself from the sick was quite important. I realize that it is a little outside of your geographic specification, but China in 659 also started using silver and tin for tooth fillings. The procedure would not become widespread in Europe until the sixteenth century.
All of these advancements, if not demonstrating rapid medical advancements, at least demonstrate that scientists in the Middle East and Europe were looking more towards science and institutions to train physicians to use proper procedures to treat the sick and injured.
https://www.medievalists.net/2015/11/top-10-medical-advances-from-the-middle-ages/