The statesman and general, Julius Caesar, who lived from 100-44 B.C., is regarded as one of the great military minds in history and is credited with laying the foundation for the Roman Empire. Shakespeare turned his death, a key historical event in Roman history, into a drama to be performed at the Globe. However, Shakespeare based his play more on Plutarch's Lives of Noble Grecians and Romans than he did actual historical accounts.Compare and contrast the actual events with Shakespeare’s play.

Shakespeare's transformation of Plutarch's account has two main features which are in some ways opposite dramaturgic tendencies: the first is expansion, and the second is compression, or a telescoping of the action.
As in all of his plays, in Julius Caesar Shakespeare gives us a poetic treatment of his subject. Characters are permitted to expatiate at length on their situations, almost to the point of verbosity, but with such beautiful language that the characters themselves are ennobled. Plutarch and other historians tell us that omens accompanied the time of Caesar's death. Shakespeare hypothesizes lengthy conversations about these omens between Caesar and Calphurnia. In this, and in the scene of the assassination, we are shown a depth in Caesar's character which is hardly evident in Plutarch. The conspirators, as well, after they have killed Caesar, repeatedly and almost obsessively declare the nobility of their act and the ideological underpinnings of it: it was done for "freedom, liberty and enfranchisement." When they then rhetorically ask, "how many times will this our noble scene be played again in states unborn and accents yet unknown?" this is, of course, self-referential on Shakespeare's part. The essence of his take on the assassination is that of an analogy between Roman and specifically English values and English liberty.
The second feature of his transformed history is compression, the quickening of the pace of the events. In Plutarch's account, the uprising by the people against the conspirators did not occur as quickly and dramatically as in Shakespeare's depiction of it. The conspirators did, in fact, march arm in arm to the forum and make a long speech to the public to justify the killing of Caesar. But it was a number of days before they realized public sentiment against them was growing and that they needed to get out of town. In Shakespeare, all of this is telescoped into a single scene. The crowd applauds Brutus, but their approbation lasts only about five minutes once Antony makes his speech. Though Shakespeare's version takes liberties with history, it does so in the service of both drama and poetry and so ennobles Caesar himself, Antony, and the conspirators, showing that both sides of the conflict have their positive and negative traits. It's for us as readers to decide where our sympathies ultimately lie.

In the book Our Nig, identify the characters who represent the North, the South and those who are neutral, and discuss how their behavior toward Frado supports your position.

First, I would not necessarily identify characters in Harriet Wilson's book as representing "North" or "South." It was, in fact, in the northern states that the great majority of sentiment in favor of abolition existed, and it was the South that practiced slavery and seceded from the Union in order to uphold it. But not all northerners were progressive, and not all southerners were as cruel to African Americans as the majority were. In Wilson's story, Mrs. Bellmont is probably the cruelest and most regressive of the characters. She is sadistic toward Frado both verbally and physically. It's part of Mrs. Bellmont's overall nature, but it's clear that such people would take out their aggression and abusive tendencies chiefly upon black people. This was the dynamic of life in the southern states, unfortunately, and remained so even after the Civil War brought the "peculiar institution" to an end, though without granting proper rights to the freed people.
Both Mr. Bellmont and the Bellmont son Jack are more moderate In their behavior to Frado, but the only character we would focus on as a symbol of progressiveness is Samuel, an escaped enslaved man Frado meets in the North, who is involved in the abolitionist movement. In general, however, the story illustrates that Frado is basically alone and has to rely on herself for survival. The novel paints a realistic and grim picture of antebellum life.

What did Lyddie mean when she thought "The bear had won"?

The reference to the bear comes from the opening scene of the story, when a big hungry grizzly wanders into Lyddie's log cabin looking for some food. Although Lyddie eventually scares off the animal, it comes to symbolize all the trials and tribulations she must endure throughout the story.
In the short-term, the bear's appearance convinces Lyddie's mom that the family should pack up and leave. The increasingly deranged Mama is so spooked by the experience that she takes her two youngest children with her to her sister's place, leaving Lyddie and Charlie to go off and find work after their mom rents out the land.
In the long-term, Lyddie comes to see that the sudden appearance of the bear marked the beginning of the end of her family as a single unit. From that day on, the family would remain split apart, broken up into little pieces as each member was forced to make their own way in the world.
When Lyddie's fired from her job at the factory, she claims that the bear and all that it represents has won. Lyddie was exceptionally brave when the bear wandered into the family home, and she's been brave ever since. But look where it's gotten her: nowhere. Lyddie feels utterly dejected, like she's been defeated by life (or "the bear," as she now calls it).

Why does the poet leave a dash at the beginning of the first stanza of the poem?

Wordsworth had a distinct style in which he tried to inspire feeling in the reader by using visual markers to control how the reader read the poem. The poem “There was a Boy” in Lyrical Ballads thematizes this concept, featuring a boy who experiences “pauses of deep silence” in nature. This theme of silence is developed in Lyrical Ballads as something which brings men into communion with other men and nature. Wordsworth thus showed through his poetry the profound effect of a pause on the person experiencing it, which a poet can himself replicate by representing pauses on the page. Wordsworth himself used dashes to bring the reader to pause, bringing the reader to pay closer attention to particular lines and, in turn, have a closer sympathy with the narrator's perspective in the poem. In the first line of “We Are Seven,” we can read the elongated dash as something which, by bringing the reader to pause before reading the first line, dramatically sets it apart from the other lines. It is a dramatic opening, bringing us to pause and focus on three simple words: “A simple Child.” The simplicity of the phrase alone, demarcated from the other three lines, emphasizes through style what the narrator is describing: a simple child. Similarly, the second pause at the end of the third stanza is a visual marker which makes us pause when reading it, bringing a poetic emphasis to that line. Even though the poem is written in trochaic meter and it would be easy to rush through that last line because rhythmically it is undifferentiated from the other three lines in the stanza, the dash brings us to pause and revel in the beauty the subject of the poem is describing to us rather than speed through the poem.

What are the authors of "The Lottery" and The Hunger Games trying to make clear about society and people in general?

Suzanne Collins and Shirley Jackson are simply showing how cruel society can be and how much they rely on tradition.

In the Hunger Games, Each district in Panem must sacrifice two tributes to the annual Hunger Games. Once in the games, the tributes will face brutal attacks from the other participants until there is only one tribute remaining. The Capital residents watch the Hunger Games as if it were a sporting event. The president tries to justify the Hunger Games as a reminder to all of the districts what happens when districts try to rebel. Here, Suzanne Collins shows the society's comfort with watching and participating in violence. Even thought these people know that the Hunger Games are wrong, they are being brainwashed into thinking that it's okay.
In The Lottery, each family places a slip of paper into a box and then a household is chose. In the second lottery, a member of that family is chosen and the community rallies and stones that particular family member. Shirley Jackson demonstrates how cruel society can be and how violent they can be in the masses.

Both authors are able to demonstrate how violent and cruel a society can be when they are led by the wrong leader. Even in the Hunger Games, President Coin starts her term, she suggests another game where children of residents of the Capital would be tributes. Under the wrong leadership, this is the result, a society riddled with violence and cruelness. Both titles can relate to society today.

Both Suzanne Collins and Shirley Jackson illustrate society's propensity for violence and cruelty, as well as humanity's inherent desire to carry on outdated traditions and customs. In Suzanne Collins's novel The Hunger Games, the Capitol of Panem requires each district to send two tributes to participate in the nationally televised Hunger Games. The annual Hunger Games have been a tradition in Panem since the First Rebellion and the authoritarian regime uses the games to oppress and threaten the masses. The Hunger Games is a violent competition, where twenty-four children between the ages of 12-18 fight to the death in various environments while their home districts root for their hometown tributes. Weapons are given to the contestants and brutality reigns supreme in the Hunger Games arena. The majority of Panem's citizens enjoy watching the savage contest, but Katniss opposes the senseless violence. Suzanne Collins explores society's capacity to carry on savage traditions like the Hunger Games and humanity's affinity for violence and brutality throughout her novel.
Similarly, Shirley Jackson examines society's affinity for brutality and traditions. In Jackson's short story "The Lottery," residents of a small New England village place their names into a black box, where Mr. Summers, the lottery's official, randomly draws a slip of paper with each citizen's name on it. A second lottery is then conducted from the randomly selected household and the slip with the black dot on it indicates the specific family member that will be stoned by the community. The stoning of an innocent community member is both startling and deeply disturbing. The fact that friendly neighbors can casually throw stones at their defenseless neighbor illustrates society's affinity for violence and brutality. The annual lottery also reflects humanity's desire to create and follow traditions and customs. In both of their celebrated works, Suzanne Collins and Shirley Jackson depict humanity's inherently violent nature as well as people's capacity to follow outdated, brutal traditions.

Which is more effective: violent resistance or nonviolent protest?

While violent resistance can certainly seem the most gratifying in giving immediate release and spectacle, nonviolent protest can provide the most effective method in bringing awareness to an issue. Take for instance, the protest of Rosa Parks in Montgomery, Alabama. By refusing to move to a different seat on the bus that fateful December 1, 1955, she was arrested for disobeying the segregation laws. The repercussions of that decision, to peacefully stand her ground, led to the demise of those same segregation laws so that everyone can be treated fairly.1
One can argue, there are many peaceful protests that did not end an evil that was happening at a crucial point in history. One such moment is the Tiananmen Square Massacre. On June 4, 1989, Chinese students were massacred in protest to the Communist Regime. While Communism is still the ruling force in China, the nonviolence of these students only further illuminated how the Communist Party wanted to rule by dictatorship and this event is censored by the Chinese Government to this day.2
In short, peaceful protests, whether they are successful or not, bring an ironic and sometimes iconic shockwave for future change.

Barron, Christina. (2013, February 1). Rosa Parks’s little protest led to big change. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/kidspost/rosa-parkss-little-protest-led-to-big-change/2013/02/01/a2cc0746-5e5b-11e2-a389-ee565c81c565_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f28a794f7f01.
Langevin, Jacques. (2019, May 31). Tiananmen Square Protests. Retrieved from: https://www.history.com/topics/china/tiananmen-square.

Which form of protest is more effective? There is no definitive answer to this question. It often depends on the local and unique circumstances of the situation and the protest leaders. There is no formula for a successful protest.
A recent nonviolent protest that had some positive results was in Sudan. A venal dictator who had ruled the country for decades was forced to resign. However, this resistance movement also saw the death of approximately one hundred protesters.
Recent protests in France have been somewhat more violent, and monuments have been defaced. These uprisings began as general protests against higher fuel prices and became a general demonstration of discontent with the government of Emanuel Macron. Results have been elusive, though.
In 1989, peaceful student protests were bloodily suppressed in Beijing, China. There have not been any major protests in China—with the exception of Hong Kong—since that time. China's intolerance of protests is not unique among authoritarian governments. In Russia, for example, suppression of dissent is more subtle than in the other dictatorial nations, but it is still palpable.
Mahatma Gandhi is often cited as the unparalleled leader of non-violent protest. His leadership led to India's independence from Britain. Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela were both influenced by Gandhi's example.

What were the revivalists' ideas about the individual's reason for existence?

Christian Revivalists believe that contemporary Christians should restore the presence of God in their lives. Christian Revivalism—especially during the Great Awakening era in the United States—grew out of a reaction to modernity. Some Christian leaders, particularly within the Protestant sect, saw the increasingly secular West as a departure from the ways of the Holy Bible.
Revivalists believe that the purpose of human existence is to practice the teachings of the Bible in their everyday life. Secondly, they believe that God gave human beings a purpose or mission on Earth, which is linked to reason why humans were created in the first place. The exact purpose is not laid out by revivalists, but they believe following the scriptures will lead to answers.
American revivalism, specifically from the Pentecostal tradition, emphasized on the metaphysical powers of the Holy Spirit. In practice, this meant adherents were encouraged to lead a life of righteousness as a form of purification, which revivalists believe would lead to salvation and divinity. This spiritual belief is similar to Buddhism's concept of nirvana, which could be reached by following the Middle Path and through yogic meditation.
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~tim/study/Keller-TenMarksofRevival.pdf

If the character Everyman was expecting Beauty, Discretion, Five-wits, and Strength to be with him, what made them leave him?

In answering this question we need to bear in mind that Everyman is a religious allegory, which charts the life journey of the Christian believer as represented by Everyman himself. Despite his fundamental honesty, decency, and the strength of his religious belief, Everyman is a flawed individual, as we all are. Like most of us, he attaches too great an importance to the things of this world, failing to see that, though they may be useful to us on our life's journey, they won't lead us to salvation.
So although Discretion, Strength, Beauty, and Five-Wits help Everyman on his earthly pilgrimage, when it comes to the hour of his death, there's absolutely nothing more they can do for him. And so they abandon him. The next stage of Everyman's journey will be the passing over of his soul to the after-life, where it will be judged by God. What Everyman thought were his friends are no use to him now as they were purely related to the mortal world and all its vanities.

Analyze to what extent the Indian Rebellion of 1857 encouraged a new identity among its followers. What goals did participants in the rebellion share?

The 1857 rebellion intensified nativist anti-colonial identities, particularly among Muslims and Hindus, but also among Punjabi Sikhs and other minorities. For many of the mujahid Sepoys in the twilight of Moghul rule in India, participation in the 1857 revolt gave an outlet to anti-colonial feelings and stirred a new sense of the possibilities of a new Islamic future. Although they hated native Hindus for being 'pagans', and the conquering Muslims were hated in turn by the Hindus for their persecution and violence against them, in the 1857 rebellion they learned they could successfully turn their East India Company's guns against the Europeans (for a time). The Hindu Sepoys also gained a proto-nationalism in which they could dream of a future without the British East India Company or the subsequent the British Raj.
Participants in the rebellion were united in the goal of killing all the Europeans they encountered, including unarmed women and children, with the objective of driving all of them out of India. The East India Company had inadvertently brought the crisis upon themselves by their choice of the Enfield rifle as the replacement of the outdated Brown Bess. They required greased paper cartridges that the native soldiers had to bite before use (nine of ten soldiers in British India were non-European). They contained either cow, pig, or sheep tallow. Muslims could not ingest pig fat, and Hindus could not ingest cow products for religious reasons. The mistake was quickly rectified but that did not stop the uprising which was obviously more deeply rooted in the perceived injustice of foreign rule.

Why did Huckleberry Finn and Tom go to the graveyard

Tom and Huck have this bizarre notion that you can cure warts using a dead cat. Apparently, what you need to do is take a dead cat to a graveyard one night, say a few words of mumbo-jumbo over a freshly-dug grave, and then throw the kitty corpse after the dead man's spirit. Tom and Huck have never actually tried out this weird experiment, but they're itching to give it a try. Hence their hanging around the graveyard that night.
Unfortunately, the two boys get a whole lot more than they'd bargained for. When they get to the graveyard, they see Dr. Robinson accompanied by Muff Potter and Injun Joe. It seems that they're involved in grave robbing, a very serious offense at that time. As an increasingly scared Tom and Huck look on from behind an old gravestone, the would-be grave-robbers get into a fight. In the ensuing scuffle, Dr. Robinson hits Muff Potter over the head, knocking him out cold. The doctor is then brutally stabbed to death by Injun Joe, who quickly flees the scene, leaving poor old Muff to take the rap for Dr. Robinson's murder.

How did the Bantu Education Act affect people's lives?

The Bantu Education Act of 1953 legalized aspects of the South African apartheid system, particularly segregated educational systems. Many "tribal" schools, denied proper financial support from the South African government, were forced to close down, denying thousands of native Africans an education. Universities, too, were affected by the Bantu Act.
The government claimed the act was passed in an effort to solve the ongoing ethic and racial tensions in South Africa, but many believe it was a tactic which forced black and non-white youth into the unskilled labor market, while white youth were set up for success. Many black and non-white children who lost a quality education due to the Bantu Act grew to experience economic strife.
The Bantu Education Act resulted in increased racial tensions, a drop in national educational standards, and the denial of a quality education to thousands of South African children.

Thanks to the Bantu Education Act, which was effective from 1953 to 1980, the education of black children in South Africa was controlled by the apartheid government.
The mission schools which black children had attended prior to this were shut down, meaning that the children had no option but to attend schools governed by the Bantu Education Act.
The Act was more than just another strategy to keep South Africa's population segregated—it was a way to ensure that black children were provided with just a menial education, which prepared them for jobs as manual laborers and servants.
The syllabus was also designed to indoctrinate the idea of inferiority into black children.
To add insult to injury, this education was taught in three languages: the child's mother tongue, English, and Afrikaans. The inclusion of Afrikaans eventually led to the Soweto Uprising on June 16, 1976.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Bantu-Education-Act

Explain the structure of the European alliance system on the eve of World War I. Who were the member nations of the Central Powers and of the Allied Powers?

The alliance system came about in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as a response to German unification in 1870. Germany's emergence as a powerful nation upset the European balance of power and led to British concern about losing its superpower status, especially as the Germans took more and more steps to challenge Britain's formerly unrivaled naval dominance. Further, the French endured the loss of the Franco-Prussian war and feared further attacks by the Germans.
Because Great Britain worried about German aggression, it entered into an alliance with its traditional enemy, France. It ended up allied with Russia, too, for Russia, also fearing a German attack, allied with France. Russia also backed Serbia against the Austro-Hungarian desire to crush it. The Balkans states were contested areas that both Russia and Austria-Hungary wished to control, while these states wanted independence from both powers.
Realizing that other countries were forming alliances to contain Germany, the German government entered into an alliance with Austria-Hungary. Germany feared it would be attacked on two fronts—from France in the west and Russia in the east—and thus "pinched" between them. Therefore, it sought Austro-Hungarian support in case of attack and began to build up its military. Germany's military build-up, naturally, motivated its rivals to increase the size and scope of their own militaries.
The Central Powers initially were Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy (which declared itself neutral at the start of World War I), and they were joined by the Ottoman Empire in 1914 and Bulgaria in 1915 during World War I. The Allies, or Triple Entente, included Great Britain, France, and Russia. These powerful countries were joined by Serbia, Romania, Greece, Montenegro, and Belgium as associate members.
This system of alliances, along with the increased military build-up in the late nineteenth and early years of the twentieth century, was a tinderbox that spread war across the continent in 1914. What could have been a localized conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary after Serbian rebels assassinated Archduke Ferdinand grew into a tragic and wasteful world war because Germany felt compelled by its alliance to support Austria-Hungary, while France, Russia, and Great Britain felt compelled to support their ally Serbia. This domino effect of alliances eventually dragged much of the world into this war.

What activities does November do?

November Nelson is the girlfriend of Josh Prescott. Josh is a cousin of Jericho Prescott, the protagonist of The Battle of Jericho. Josh comes to a tragic end one night in an accident that alters November's life forever. A high school club called the Warriors of Distinction has invited their group of friends to pledge. During one of the hazing activities, the pledge masters gave the pledges alcohol and asked them to jump out a window onto some mattresses. When November's boyfriend, Josh, jumped out the window, he hit his head on a rock and died.
November is, naturally, devastated, but she has even more trials in store. She soon discovers that she is pregnant with Josh's child. November grapples with the problem of how to tell Josh's grieving parents and how to tell her own mother. Her friendship with Arielle and Dana helps, but Dana is facing her own trials of sexual harassment from members of the club.

Any summaries on "In the Park" by Gwen Harwood, please?

In this poem, a young mother sits in a park with her four children. Two of them argue with each other, a third plays in the dirt, and a fourth is at her breast. Her clothing is no longer fashionable, and, when a former lover passes by, the narrator imagines that he thinks to himself, "'but for the grace of God..."; the implication is that he is so glad that he is not the father of this family, the husband of this woman, that he narrowly escaped becoming such a person as she now is. He and the woman make some small talk, and she says something nice about the joy of watching them "'grow and thrive.'" However, after he departs, leaving her alone again with the four children, she says to the wind, "'They have eaten me alive.'" She seems, then, to feel as if there is no more her left. There is only the her that is a mother, and she has no time or energy to be anything else. Her own individual identity is gone, and so it seems appropriate that we do not get her name or any other distinguishing characteristics about her.

Describe and explain the portrayal of women within "The Arabian Nights" (Thousand and One Nights). Use the literary criticism school, Gender Study. (What about the genders of the characters affects your reading?)

Like many contemporary schools of criticism, Gender Studies assumes that there are no disinterested story tellers. Gender is one lens by which we can see someone shaping the meaning of the story to suit a particular world view. Within such stories are often marginal characters or narrative gaps that allow for contrary or alternative interpretations.
The Arabian Nights is set within a highly masculine society, where women are meant to be absent or subordinate. In many stories this seems to be the case. However, the frame narrative in which Scheherazade tells cliff hanger stories in order to appease her husband offers a double perspective. She is subordinate to him in her outward demeanor, and she remains under his power to kill her, but she is also clever and uses her storytelling to stay alive and even to help reform him from his murderous misogyny. Other stories within the collection also demonstrate a subordinate woman aiding or outwitting a man, thus suggesting that women not only are not lesser than men, but in seeming to be so, they may also be finding ways to rise above men. This can be a destabilizing thought for the reader, male or female, for it changes the gendered power dynamics.
Then, since all the stories are chosen by Scheherazade, we can examine the sequence in terms of the overarching goals she is pursuing in creating a husband she can admire.
Because most of the stories in the collection come from diverse folk traditions, it is common that marginal voices would be used to speak against traditional forms of power. The questions that Gender Studies can ask about this text can be extended to many other types of historically silent or disempowered groups.

Identify 3 reasons why it was difficult for Gandhi to be a leader.

Gandhi believed strongly in Indian independence, but he also wanted to create a unified Indian nation, despite the fact that the nation and region were comprised of various groups of people with differing ideologies and faiths. Ghandi was essentially an outsider though, who failed to effect the change he desired during his life. One reason is because he was an idealist, not a realist. He did not realize that nonviolence is unpopular and even disliked.
Additionally, he miscalculated that change must come from within the people's thoughts and hearts first before a movement can bring about change within the culture. It is not enough to simply disrupt society or protest injustices.
Furthermore, he was unable to perceive how the mainstream culture would react to his teachings and beliefs. That is why he could not convince others to trust in his ability to unite different factions within the society.


Despite Gandhi's efforts to unify the region, tensions between Muslims and Hindus intensified over time and, when independence came in 1948, the subcontinent was divided into two distinct countries, India and Pakistan. India and Pakistan have been in conflict ever since.
https://www.inc.com/greg-satell/4-things-gandhi-can-still-teach-us-about-changing-.html

What happened to Aunt Loretta?

The manner of Aunt Loretta's death is somewhat ambiguous. She suffers an injury playing tennis and is taken to hospital where she's put on a course of antibiotics. It seems that her death is caused by an adverse reaction to the medication she's given. Yet it's also suggested that she dies of AIDS. It's notable that Loretta tells Helen that her husband Roger's been sleeping around with both men and women. And given that the the story is set in the early 80s, when the AIDS epidemic first began, it's not unreasonable to conclude that Aunt Loretta may have contracted the HIV virus from her promiscuous husband. This is by no means a definitive answer to your question, but it's a plausible interpretation nonetheless.

In the wake of a failed experiment, a scientist says, “The scientific enterprise is all about failure; I mean, you learn so much from failure. And you learn almost nothing from success.” Does Rebecca Skloot’s account of the story of HeLa support, dispute, or perhaps complicate this statement?

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks reveals how the cells of one black woman ended up being used in a huge number of scientific experiments. This process was begun without her permission, and only through Rebecca Skloot’s research did most of Lacks’s family members learn what the Johns Hopkins University physicians and researchers had done. One’s opinion of whether the staff members’ actions were a success or a failure depends largely on one’s individual conception of science and its goals. Overall, Skloot’s account seems to complicate the statement. We could say that the scientists succeeded in using the cells in a number of scientific procedures; they initially learned a great deal of scientific information and much later considered the high ethical cost of their neglect. In contrast, if we assume that one basic goal of research is to behave ethically, then they failed rather spectacularly.

Whose mind is better? Contrast Descartes’s view of the mind with that of Hobbes. Consider their accounts of thinking, imagining, dreaming, and willing.

This is a great question! There is no definitive answer, as both philosophers deal with theories of the existence. Certain modern-day philosophers lean toward Descartes, while others view the mind and existence in a way that is more relevant to Hobbes's arguments—ultimately, it comes down to how one perceives the mind and living creatures.
Descartes is recognized predominately for his theory "Cogito, ergo sum," which translates to "I think, therefore I am." In other words, the fact that he is questioning his existence means that he cannot doubt that he exists; he must exist, because he is questioning his existence in the first place.
Hobbes similarly deals with human existence, but he focuses on its relation to other beings. He argues that the "natural condition of mankind" is what existence would be like if there were no structures dictating the connections between other human beings (e.g., government, civilization, laws). He concludes that an individual's life, in a state of absolute nature (lacking other human connections), is a short and meaningless life. Individual thought means nothing, essentially, if an individual cannot interact with other human beings.
When comparing Descartes and Hobbes, it is difficult to compare which set of theories is better, because they deal with different circumstances of existence altogether. One focuses on existence of the self, while the other focuses on existence of the self in relation to other human beings.

Why is Della unhappy when the story begins?

Della is upset when the story begins because she wants to buy her husband, Jim, a lovely Christmas present, but she only has "One dollar and eighty-seven cents." She's been trying to scrimp and save up more money for several months, but it just has not been possible, due to various family expenses. Her relative poverty (Jim used to make quite a bit more money than he does now) has made getting by much more challenging, and so she seems to feel that "There was clearly nothing to do but flop down on the shabby little couch and howl" about her inability to buy Jim the kind of gift she feels that he richly deserves. Everything in her life seems a bit shabby: she powders her face with a "rag" and looks out "dully at a gray cat walking a gray fence in a gray backyard." Della desperately wants to purchase "Something fine and rare and sterling," something nearly worthy of being Jim's. Contemplating her situation, Della decides to sell her hair—her own most prized possession, because it is so beautiful—so that she can buy such a gift for her husband. She decides on a gold watch chain to go with the gold watch that had belonged to both Jim's father and his grandfather. The watch is his most prized possession.

What are some uses of bacteria?

1. Decay of organic wastes: Many saprotrophic bacteria act as natural scavengers by continuously removing the harmful organic wastes from man's environment. .
2. Sewage disposal : Ability of anaerobic bacteria to purtrify the organic matter is used in sewage disposal system of cities. The common bacteria involved in sewage disposal are - Coliforms, Streptococci, Clostridium etc.
3. Role in improving soil fertility: Saprotrophic bacteria present in soil perform various activities for their survival. Some of these activities improve the fertility of soil by formation of humus, manure, etc.
4. Medicinal uses : In the production of vitamins, enzymes and antibiotics.
5. Role in industry : Useful activities of various bacteria are employed in production of a number of industrial products like lactic acid, curd, cheese, butter, vinegar, curing of tobacco and tea etc.

All too often, people assume that bacteria are bad and always bad. It is not well known that only a very small percentage of bacteria are harmful to humans. The rest of bacteria are either completely harmless to people or beneficial. Bacteria live inside humans in a mutualistic relationship. The bacteria and the person both benefit. In fact, about 1% to 3% of a person's overall body mass is made up of bacteria. This means that a 100 pound person has a bit more than 1 pound of bacteria inside the body. These bacteria have various uses within the body, and helping the digestive process is a common example. Bacteria are also integral in producing various foods. Sauerkraut, sour cream, yogurt, buttermilk, pickles, and vinegar are all produced with the help of bacteria. Bacteria have also entered the manufacturing world, and they are useful for producing various drugs through genetic engineering. In nature, bacteria are also involved with nitrogen fixation and decomposition.
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/588-bacteria-good-bad-and-ugly

What is Pausch's lecture about?

When Randy Pausch was diagnosed with Stage IV pancreatic cancer, he did what he always did—he kept living his life. A man with passions ranging from education to science to local fairs, he decided to give one final lecture at Carnegie Mellon University to provide his family, friends, students, and co-workers with some meaningful tips about how to really live life. The lecture was titled "Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams" and has been viewed millions of times.
In this lecture, Pausch provides words of wisdom on many subjects, which are below.
Brick walls are there for a reason. Pausch relates that everyone runs into difficulties in pursuit of their dreams. But instead of letting these walls stop them, he encourages his listeners to consider the walls as a challenge and as a source of motivation. "The brick walls aren't there to keep you out. They are there to keep the other people out. The people who don't want it badly enough."
Apologize properly. Pausch says that it's not enough to throw casual words at someone as an apology. A sincere and acceptable apology has three parts: the actual words of apology, a verbal acknowledgement of being at fault, and an offer to somehow make things better.
Are you a Tigger or an Eeyore? Pausch says that everyone goes through life as one of these two characters. He stands firmly in the Tigger camp. (He even says that everyone should make an effort to have fun and follows with "I'm dying and I'm having fun!")
Pay attention when people who care about you aren't saying anything. Pausch says that your closest family and friends will steer you when you need to go in another direction. And when they stop, this is actually not a good thing. It means that they have given up on you. He urges that you need to pay attention to the advice and wisdom of people who love you.
Pausch relates lessons about living with humor and intelligence. His speech is both passionate and meaningful, filled with life lessons that are important and easy to apply—eliciting tears from both laughter and sadness. His speech quickly gained popularity and went viral, extending far beyond CMU. He was invited to appear on the Oprah Winfrey Show and gave several other interviews in the months that followed. He even turned his speech into a book that soared to the top of best-seller lists. Pausch's lecture is one that can quite literally change lives. Link included below.
Unfortunately, Pausch lost his battle to pancreatic cancer in July 2008.
"We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand."
~Randy Pausch
https://www.ted.com/talks/randy_pausch_really_achieving_your_childhood_dreams

One of the most compelling aspects of Pausch's work is how he renders a transformative vision of one's abilities. In a context in which so many struggle with the direction of their lives, Pausch manages to transcend such debate through his focus on what life can be. Pausch's envisions a world in which individuals are able to live out their dreams but do so in a way that recognizes the needs and aspirations of others. For Pausch, inspiration lies in being able to connect with others. In the line, “we cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand," Pausch presents individuals as agents of change and self-improvement. We all need to look to what can be achieved as opposed to merely existing for what is. Ultimately, Pausch's The Last Lecture acts as a blueprint for how to live one's life meaningfully.

In Chocolat, what is the background of Vianne growing up?

This answer is going to use information from the book rather than the film.
In terms of Vianne’s background, there is not that much difference between the two pieces. Readers know from very early on in the story that Vianne frequently moves from place to place, but we don’t know why. Readers are eventually told about her background, and we see that Vianne is continuing the gypsy or vagabond lifestyle that her mother established many years before the book takes place. A big part of their travels is the wind. We are told several times that they move wherever the wind of “gypsy wanderlust” takes them. This is something that the film hits upon as well.
From her mother, Vianne learned all kinds of mystic sayings and practices. She has also learned multiple languages, worked multiple trades, and been to many different countries. Vianne’s mother died of cancer, and Vianne was left to continue the lifestyle with her young daughter, Anouk.

What is the structure and meaning of Sonnet 29?

Sonnet 29 is a Shakespearean or English sonnet. This sonnet form is often known by Shakespeare's name, although others used the form before he adopted it.
In a Shakespearean sonnet, the fourteen lines are divided as follows: three sets of quatrains (a quatrain is four lines long), followed by a couplet that delivers the resolution of the poem.
This particular sonnet is structured so that the last line of each of the first two quatrains summarizes the quatrain in question. In the first quatrain, "look upon myself and curse my fate" sums up the speaker's feelings in the first four lines. The second quatrain's sentiments are summed up with "With what I most enjoy contented least." As we can see, in these first two quatrains, the speaker is filled with discontent and unhappiness.
In the third quatrain, his mood begins to shift from "sullen" to heavenly as he remembers his beloved. The final couplet provides the resolution:

For thy sweet love remembered such wealth brings
That then I scorn to change my state with kings.

In the sonnet, the speaker moves from deep discontent to joy. What causes the difference is his beloved. When he is dwelling on himself and not thinking of his beloved, he is unhappy. When he thinks of his beloved's "sweet love," however, he feels wealthy and blessed and wouldn't trade places with a king. This sonnet has a simple message and a clear structure.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45090/sonnet-29-when-in-disgrace-with-fortune-and-mens-eyes

The structure of Sonnet 29 is very interesting. The first eight lines are a relative when-clause indicating the time of the occurrence detailed (or occurrences, depending on how you look at the string of reactions):

PARAPHRASE WHEN I in disgrace weep and cry and curse and wish to be someone with hope, looks or situation, friends, art, intelligence, contentment;....

The relative when-clause is followed by an introductory adverbial clause:

Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising,....

This "Yet" adverbial can be paraphrased for clarity this way: PARAPHRASE Even so, even with these thoughts that make me almost despise myself ....
This adverbial introduces a variation on a standard if-then conditional. The clauses comprising the conditional form a zero conditional representing a statement of simple fact. The simple present tense is used for both sides of the conditional: e.g., If something happens, then the result is something. As Shakespeare puts it:

Haply I think on thee, and then my state, / ... / sings hymns at heaven’s gate;

The import of the expression "Yet in these thoughts" is that Shakespeare presents the paradox that leads to the resolution of the problem in the sonnet. The problem in the sonnet is that the poetic persona nearly despises himself because, for one reason or another, things are going rather badly for him professionally at the moment: "in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes...." The paradox presented is embodied in "Yet," which can be understood as the synonyms "even so," "nevertheless," "in spite of [that]."
What Shakespeare says in the one word "Yet" is that, even with all the woe the persona has described, in spite of all the failure he feels, paradoxically, something greater than all this can alter the course of his thoughts.
What is the the thing that is greater and how are his thoughts altered?
Line 10 identifies the something that is greater than all the speaker's gloomy, self-disparaging thoughts: "Haply I think on thee."
The something that greater is the person to whom the sonnet is address, the "thee" the very thought of whom can elevate the persona's mind from the dejection he feels. The thought of this "thee" raises the poetic speaker's psychological condition, like a lark on the wing at dawn, so that he feels like he is singing hymns at "heaven's gate."
The if-then element, present in a variation on the form, can be paraphrased as: IF I think on "thee," THEN my inner being rises up and sings hymns at "heaven's gate."
The summary of this sonnet can be presented as this brief PARAPHRASE: WHEN I am glum and despairing, comparing myself adversely against everyone, almost despising myself and what I love to do, IF I but think of "thee," THEN my soul soars and I feel like I'm in heaven singing.
The final two lines, lines 13 and 14--the ending couplet with rhyming end-words "brings" and "kings"--give the REASON ("For") and the CONSEQUENCE ("That then") that provide the resolution to the paradox and the problem.
The resolution of the sonnet is that thoughts of "thee" bring such a "wealth" of goodness that the speaker is no longer dissatisfied and would not even trade places with kings.
This is a "love conquers all" sonnet: The wonderful wealth of goodness thoughts of your love provide me with are greater than my problems and greater than the gold of kings.
Is the Sonnet Autobiographical?
One of the foremost theories about the nature of Shakespeare's sonnet cycle is that they are autobiographical. When trying to find an autobiographical explanation for the context of Sonnet 29, there are two events that would have affected Shakespeare and that happened around the time the sonnet was written.
The first is that theaters were closed because of the black plague sweeping through London. This incident--while it may have made Shakespeare despondent because he and all were blocked from the London stage--doesn't really seem to be in tune with the despair, dejection, sense of failure, sense of shame, humiliation and worthlessness evident in the when-clause.
The second incident is that a university educated playwright, who thought Shakespeare was an incompetent who dishonored the craft of play writing, published a scathing denunciation of Shakespeare. The consensus is that Shakespeare was rather shaken by Greene's vicious commentary. This is precisely the sort of incident Sonnet 29 harmonizes with and which would provoke the feelings expressed in the sonnet. Though all we can do is speculate, it seems sound to speculate that Sonnet 29 is a response to dramatist Robert Greene's 1592 scathing commentary (Amanda Mabillard, ShakespeareOnline):

"There is an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tygers heart wrapt in a Players hide, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you; and, beeing an absolute Johannes factotum, is in his owne conceit the only Shakescene in a countrey." (Robert Greene, A Groats-Worth of Wit, 1592)

The short story "B. Wordsworth" explores an unusual friendship between an old man and a boy with critical appreciation. Discuss.

In the short story "B. Wordsworth" by V. S. Naipaul, an old man appears at the gate of the unnamed narrator, a school-aged boy, and asks to observe the bees in the yard. He says that he is not a beggar but a poet named Black Wordsworth, a brother to White Wordsworth. This initiates a friendship between the poet and the boy. They take walks together, and Wordsworth invites the boy to his small house in the midst of an untended garden. He also tells the boy a touching story of a husband and wife who are both poets. She becomes pregnant but dies before the child is born, and the poet resolves as a result to never cut the garden. Wordsworth also tells the narrator that he is working on the greatest poem in the world.
One day the boy comes to visit and he observes that Wordsworth is dying. The old man tells the boy that he made up the story about the couple and the greatest poem in the world, and now that the boy knows this he can never come back. Later, when the boy passes by, he sees that Wordsworth's house has been torn down and the garden has been ripped up to make room for a large two-storied building.
A coming-of-age story involves the growth of the protagonist from youth to maturity. "B. Wordsworth" fits this category of literature. One of the first things that the old man tells the boy is that he too is a poet, and over the course of their friendship the boy begins to believe him. Through their interactions and conversations, Wordsworth impresses upon the boy the value of nonconformity and the importance of an artist observing things from a fresh perspective. The boy is skeptical at first but soon begins to realize that the old man is not an eccentric crackpot, but rather offers profound insights into the nature of life and art.
At the end, when the dying Wordsworth seems to refute everything that he has told the boy, Naipaul leaves uncertainty in the minds of his readers. It is possible that Wordsworth's intention is to definitively send the boy away so that he will not be traumatized by Wordsworth's death. Whether the poet's stories were true or not is ultimately not important. What's important is that he has given the boy the heart of a poet and awakened his senses to observe the world in a more vivid way.

The short story "B. Wordsworth" (by V. S. Naipaul) is a coming-of-age story about a young boy who encounters a "stranger caller" at the home of his mother. The stranger asks to watch the bees that inhabit the palm trees in the yard. The stranger "[speaks] very slowly, as though every word was costing him money." The man is a self-avowed poet and tells the boy that he is writing "the greatest poem in the world," at a rate of one line per month.
The shared appreciation between the boy and the man is their affinity for poetry, or, more broadly, personal observation. The man tells the boy that the boy, too, is a poet (though the narrator gives us no explicit reason for the stranger's conclusion). The boy and the stranger become friends, and, on one occasion, the poet/stranger waits for the boy after school on the corner of the street. He invites the boy to come to his yard and eat mangoes (which angers the boy's mother, when he arrives home late).
The poet and the boy share another formative experience, lying on the grass and looking up at the sky. The poet encourages the boy to "think about how far those stars are from us." The narrator reports that he "had never felt so big and great in all [his] life." The poet teaches the boy to appreciate nature and its bounty (i.e., fruit, grass, stars). The poet also tells the boy an oblique story of a relationship between "boy poet" and "girl poet," who died "with a young poet inside her." The narrator interprets this to be autobiographical.
The end of the story reveals the aging poet telling the boy that his poem is not going well. On his deathbed, he offers to tell the boy a "funny story" and announces that the story about the boy poet and girl poet was untrue, as well as the claim that he had been writing "the greatest poem in the world." The narrator "ran home crying, like a poet, for everything [he] saw." He reports visiting the home of the poet many years later and finding that it has been destroyed and replaced.
Despite the grand deception employed by the poet, the boy concedes through his narration that indeed he learned from the poet to cry and to see. The subtext of the poet's ruse is that being a poet is, independent of writing poetry, a lifestyle. For reasons once unknown to the boy, the poet claimed an affinity with him and, in so doing, convinced the boy of his own unique poetic sensibility. The stranger/poet, though deceptive and inscrutable, is a catalyst for the boy's coming of age. He teaches him to embrace his emotion and powers of observation.

Why is Junior so cynical about white teachers?

There are several reasons that Junior may be cynical about his white teachers. One underlying issue is the history of what white people have inflicted on Native Americans during the last five hundred years—including forcing them onto reservations, denying their customs and beliefs, and forcing them to attend white schools.
In addition, the title of the book gives a clue: "part-time Indian" refers to the narrative voice of Junior being stuck between two cultural worlds. He is not Indian enough and not white enough—and sometimes people end up not liking themselves and projecting it into others. Junior may subconsciously hate the white part of himself in some situations, just as he might hate the Indian part of himself in others.
In chapter 4, Junior reveals some specific insights and perspectives regarding his white geometry teacher, Mr. P, whom he identifies with because they are both outcasts and eccentrics (Mr. P sometimes doesn't come to school and other times attends in his pajamas).
In the novel, there is a significantly large lack of trust from Native Americans toward "well-wishing but insensitive white people." Although Junior is excited about class and perhaps wants to like his teachers, he can't help but be cynical about them because of the long history of oppression faced by Junior's Indian culture.
This is why, during Junior's first day of geometry class, he throws a book at Mr. P's face; he sees that his mother's name has been written on the front page, meaning he's learning out of a thirty-year-old textbook. This is another example for Junior of "white lies" and the feeling of being unimportant and devalued as an Indian teen.
Sherman Alexie, the author of the novel, draws upon personal experience, as the book is semi-autobiographical.
http://www.nativepartnership.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pwna_home

What is the conflict in the Hunger Games.

The Hunger Games is a 2008 novel by American writer Suzanne Collins (born 1962). It is the story of adolescents living in a dystopian, future North America that exists as a single super-state called Panem.
The central conflict in the story is that of the individual versus society. Katniss, a girl from the impoverished coal-mining region of District 12, is compelled to fight in Panem's annual, gladiatorial event known as the Hunger Games. The conflict between her individuality and society's greater needs for political cohesion is revisited throughout the story. This begins when she first finds herself forced to participate in the games which are, themselves, designed to ensure the stability of Panem's social order. For instance, at the conclusion of the book, Katniss' individual romantic desire for Peeta is trampled by the greater need of Panem to see her slay him. For Katniss, her individuality can be preserved only by ending her life.

Does Shakespeare develop a more rounded character in Richard? If so, is this due to the contextual values of the time?

Richard III is an interesting character because he initially seems nothing more than a Machiavellian villain. He wants power at all costs and is willing to lie, seduce, cheat, and murder to get the job done. However, the play suggests he may not have been born this way, despite what the other characters think.
Richard says that his villainy springs from being treated with prejudice due to his deformity. His own mother balked at the sight of his "misshapen trunk"—or so Richard claims. Seeing as Richard is a regular liar, he could be lying even to the audience when he says these things. Like with Lady Anne, he wants to seduce us into siding with him by charming us and vying for our pity.
However, some disagree with this. Actor Ian McKellen, who played Richard on stage and screen, suggests Richard only ever tells the truth to the audience, making us co-conspirators, which could be quite true. Richard has been mistreated, and now he wants to make the rest of the world squirm.
One of the last scenes in the play also suggests there might be more to Richard than we see. After being visited by the ghosts of his victims in act 5, scene 3, Richard stares at his own evil as though for the first time and is horrified by what he sees:

O coward conscience, how dost thou afflict me!The lights burn blue. It is now dead midnight.Cold fearful drops stand on my trembling flesh.What do I fear? myself? there's none else by:Richard loves Richard; that is, I am I.Is there a murderer here? No. Yes, I am:Then fly. What, from myself? Great reason why:Lest I revenge. What, myself upon myself?Alack. I love myself. Wherefore? for any goodThat I myself have done unto myself?O, no! alas, I rather hate myselfFor hateful deeds committed by myself!

This monologue suggests Richard does have a conscience deep down, though he decides it is too late to bother repenting. He will fight to the bitter end.
Some don't buy this scene. Critic Harold Bloom thought it was pure bathos, a failed attempt at the sublime on Shakespeare's part. Others think this moment elevates Richard from being a simplistic villain, making his downfall more tragic because he is keenly aware of his own wickedness. His moral self-loathing permeates the play's last moments.
So, is Richard a rounded character? I would say yes, and it's probably due to more than just the values of the period. He may be evil, but his charm, self-doubt, and moral perspective make him one of Shakespeare's most interesting anti-heroes.

Did Lara Jean and Peter get together in the book like they did in the movie? If so, how?

It is implied at the end of To All the Boys I've Loved Before that Lara Jean and Peter get together. However, the first book in the trilogy isn't the end of the story and doesn't coincide with the end of the film.
At the end of the first book in the trilogy, Lara Jean decides to write a love letter to Peter. She's realized she's in love with him and wants to be with him. Their story picks up in the next book, called P.S. I Still Love You. That has some scenes from the movie, like the hot tub during the school trip and people sharing a video of Lara Jean and Peter. At the end of that book, though, she takes him back after a breakup.
At the end of the third book in the trilogy, which is called Always and Forever, Lara Jean, Lara Jean and Peter end up together. They decide to be in a relationship even after they go away to college. She thinks that when she tells people how they got together, she'll tell them it started with a love letter.

In the poem If—, does the speaker warn his reader to be careful in spite of ideals? Give two examples from the poem to highlight this.

I think the speaker does warn the reader to be careful concerning ideals in the poem's second stanza, yes. He describes the value of being someone who "can dream—and not make dreams your master." In other words, he does not want to see people become slaves to their dreams: dreams and ideals are wonderful, but it is also important for us to be flexible, and if we will not settle for anything less than our ideal, we can actually miss out on lots of good things.
There's a saying: don't let the perfect become the enemy of good. It means that when we keep striving for perfection, we aren't happy unless we reach it, even if what we do have is pretty great. This line seems to endorse that same sentiment. The next line extols the virtue of being the type of person who "can think—and not make thoughts your aim." Again, the ideal is not the point; the point is experiences and living. We must be careful not to make the ideal, either in hypothetical or in terms of our goals, our master or else we could lose out on a lot of other great (if not ideal) things.

Who tries to belittle what Gratiano says in The Merchant of Venice? Do you think Gratiano's friends take him seriously? Why or why not?

Gratiano does quite a lot of talking in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, and he often talks at great length, so we have plenty to choose from in terms of which one of his friends belittles what he says and fails to take him seriously.
In the first scene of the play, Gratiano holds forth for 25 lines on nothing in particular, but Gratiano is the first to make fun of himself about it:

LORENZO: Well, we will leave youthen till dinner-time.I must be one of these same dumb wise men,For Gratiano never lets me speak.
GRATIANO: Well, keep me company but two years more,Thou shalt not know the sound of thine own tongue. (1.1.109–114)

Gratiano isn't unaware that he talks a lot, and he's not unaware of the effect that his talking has on his friends.
Once Gratiano leaves the stage, Bassanio (supposedly one of Gratiano's friends) is talking to Antonio, another of Gratiano's "friends." Bassanio takes a passing shot at Gratiano:

BASSANIO: Gratiano speaks an infinite deal of nothing, morethan any man in all Venice: his reasons are as two grainsof wheat hid in two bushels of chaff; you shall seek allday ere you find them; and when you have them they arenot worth the search. (1.1.119–123)

Later in the play, Bassanio counsel Gratiano about his behavior:

BASSANIO: But hear thee, Gratiano;Thou art too wild, too rude and bold of voice;Parts, that become thee happily enough,And in such eyes as ours appear not faults;But where thou art not known, why, there they showSomething too liberal (2.2.167–172)

Bassanio isn't being entirely truthful, of course. His friends do find him wild, rude, and too loud.
It is Shylock, however, who best takes Gratiano to task for talking too much by belittling him and not taking him seriously:

GRATIANO: [to Shylock] . . . Can no prayers pierce thee?
SHYLOCK: No, none that thou hast wit enough to make.
GRATIANO: O, be thou damn'd, inexecrable dog!And for thy life let justice be accus'd.Thou almost mak'st me waver in my faith,To hold opinion with Pythagoras,That souls of animals infuse themselvesInto the trunks of men: thy currish spiritGovern'd a wolf, who, hang'd for human slaughter,Even from the gallows did his fell soul fleet,And, whilst thou lay'st in thy unhallow'd dam,Infus'd itself in thee; for thy desiresAre wolvish, bloody, sterved, and ravenous.
SHYLOCK: Till thou canst rail the seal from off my bond,Thou but offend'st thy lungs to speak so loud:Repair thy wit, good youth; or it will fallTo cureless ruin. (4.1.128–144)

Gratiano is uncharacteristically silent for quite some time after that exchange with Shylock. Gratiano's friends would do well to take a lesson from Shylock on how to control Gratiano's behavior.

Look at page 11, at the middle of that long paragraph in “What I Saw at Shiloh” where Bierce starts to describe being attacked. He says, “[t]hen—I can’t describe it—the forest seemed all at once to flame up… .” Also, examine page 14, the end of the top paragraph, where he writes, “[f]augh! I cannot catalogue the charms of these gallant gentlemen… .” Also, examine the last three paragraphs of the story, “Chickamauga,” where the reader discovers the child is a deaf mute. Why is this point relevant? How does the child’s garbled reaction to the violence comment on the limits of language? Why does Bierce use these interruptions: “I can’t describe it” and “faugh!” in “What I Saw at Shiloh”? What do they indicate about his attitude towards language?

"What I Saw of Shiloh" is Bierce's account of the bloodiest day of the Civil War for the Federal forces up to 1862, and although Bierce was an officer in the topographical corps (map-makers), he would have seen the disaster unfold and its aftermath. In the story, we see the action through the eyes of an infantry platoon commander.
One of Bierce's techniques in all of his Civil War stories is to precisely and carefully describe a scene—often a scene of horror—and then have the scene's narrator, in frustration, claim that he cannot adequately describe the horror by which he is surrounded. For example, as he moves his troops up to support another unit that is facing the enemy, he notes, with some surprise:

Then—I can’t describe it—the forest seemed all at once to flame up and disappear with a crash like that of a great wave upon the beach—a crash that expired in hot hissings, and the sickening “spat” of lead against flesh. A dozen of my brave fellows tumbled over like ten-pins.

Well, despite his protestations that he cannot describe the scene, he has done a masterful job of describing the forest exploding with "hot hissings" of bullets and the sound of those bullets hitting the flesh of his men. Even then, the effects are so horrific that the narrator believes his words are inadequate to accurately convey the horror of the scene. The problem is not that he cannot describe the scene but that such scenes cannot be described in such a way that conveys the full horror of the event.
Later, after the battle, a fire sweeps the field and consumes everything, including the men who have fallen. As the narrator observes the effects of the fire, he again paints a picture:

According to degree of exposure, their faces were bloated and black or yellow and shrunken. The contraction of muscles which had given them claws for hands had cursed each countenance with a hideous grin. Faugh! I cannot catalogue the charms of these gallant gentlemen who had got what they enlisted for.

Bierce's narrator, despite his exclamation that he cannot describe the scene, has succeeded in depicting the horrific results of the fire on the corpses. Still, as with his earlier frustration, he feels instinctively that the full horror is beyond description. By this point, however, the narrator is able to bring some irony and detachment to the scene; "the charms of these gallant gentlemen" indicates that the narrator is so overwhelmed by the horror before him that he shields his sanity by exercising irony.
In his short story "Chickamauga," also a battle that Bierce would have participated in, the main character is a young boy who, as we discover at the end of the story, is a deaf mute. After he wanders away from his home looking for firewood, he encounters the battlefield, including the dead and the dying. He doesn't seem to understand the full import of what surrounds him—primarily because the scene is so foreign to him that it's like a dream, unreal and unrecognizable.
As the child approaches a burning building, he realizes that he is looking at his home, and he is "stupefied by the power of revelation." The horror for him, unfortunately, is only beginning as he sees a bloodied corpse lying face up on the ground. As he recognizes his mother, the child makes the only sounds he can:

He uttered a series of inarticulate and indescribable cries—something between the chattering of an ape and the gobbling of a turkey—a startling, soulless, unholy sound, the language of a devil. The child was a deaf mute.

Bierce's characterization of the sounds as "soulless, unholy sound, the language of a devil" is not meant to characterize the child but to describe the language of horror, the language that war engenders in even those who cannot articulate their horror in words. And, yet, the inarticulate sounds of the child are as effective as words.
Bierce, as good a wordsmith as we find, understands that the horror of war can be described but that no description can adequately convey war's full effects on the observer's psyche. In an ironic way, the limitations of language lie in the words themselves.

What happened to the Sea of Flames in All The Light We Cannot See?

The Sea of Flames was left behind in the grotto as Werner and Marie-Laure escaped Saint-Malo.
Marie-Laure believed that putting the Sea of Flames back into the ocean would break its curse. As she and Werner attempted to flee the city under siege, she placed the stone in the gated grotto. It's still in the wooden model that held it for so long. Then she asks Werner whether it's in the sea; he says it is. She locks the grotto and they continue to flee.
When they part ways, Marie-Laure gives Werner the key to the grotto. Years later, long after Werner has died, she finds the grotto key in the little model house that Werner went back to retrieve. Though she can't be sure that he never went to retrieve the stone, she thinks it was likely left in the grotto down among the snails on the ground.
The book confirms this in the "Sea of Flames" chapter, where it says:

Another hour, another day, another year. Lump of carbon no larger than a chestnut. Mantled with algae, bedecked with barnacles. Crawled over by snails. It stirs among the pebbles.

What happens after the final sentence of Song of Solomon?

Toward the end of the text, Milkman has brought his aunt, Pilate Dead, to Virginia to bury her father's remains in his home. Suddenly, Pilate drops to the ground and Milkman hears a gunshot; Guitar had fired the gun, apparently aiming for Milkman. Pilate asks Milkman to watch over Reba, her daughter, for her. Birds swoop down and carry the earring with her name in it into the sky. Milkman turns to face Guitar, asking, "'You want my life? . . . You need it? Here,'" and without any preparation at all, he leaps at his former friend. The narrator says that it does not matter which of them dies, because

For now [Milkman] knew what Shalimar knew: If you surrendered to the air, you could ride it.

In this way, the author has included some intentional ambiguity. We do not know if Milkman lives, or Guitar, or neither. The speaker says that this is not truly the important part anyway. Earlier in the novel, Guitar said that in order to "fly" a person has to give up the stuff that weighs them down: greed, vanity, and so forth. Milkman has, evidently, given up all this stuff. We have seen him ruin his nice clothes, lose his gold watch, let go of his selfishness and materialism. He has taken responsibility for Hagar's tragedy and death; he has learned to rank others' needs with his own rather than putting his own needs first and failing to acknowledge anyone else's.
It is possible that Milkman kills Guitar, and it is possible that Guitar kills Milkman; however, I think it is possible that both men die. For Milkman, death would seem less tragic, as he will die having learned how to "fly," and this seems to represent the height of enlightenment: Pilate could fly, and she seems to be the most loving and generous and not self-centered character in the text. For Guitar, on the other hand, death would be more tragic, because he has not reached this kind of understanding of himself and the world. Morrison leaves it open, so we do not know exactly what happens after this last line. This gives us a lot more to talk about, though, doesn't it? We can weigh the possibilities and consider the consequences of each one rather than only discuss the one committed to paper.

How does Hanna's illiteracy affect the mood of The Reader by Bernhard Schlink? How does it affect the readers's experience and view on Hanna?

It is important to note the allegorical significance of Hanna's story. Bernard Schlink asserts that Hanna's illiteracy is a metaphor for individuals who had "forgotten their moral alphabet during the war"; they had forgotten the very foundation and basics of human decency, causing them to perpetrate and be complicit to mass murder.
Mood, as a response to Hanna's illiteracy, is engaged with later in the novel upon Michael's realization that Hanna is illiterate after one of the court sessions. When readers are given this information, their general response would be one of sympathy. Clearly, it would be difficult having to hide this from others for her entire life. Hanna is constantly ashamed and limited by her illiteracy, and if others discovered this, her shame would increase significantly. While reading the novel, one feels sorry for Hanna, though still angry at her complicity—particularly when we learn that Hanna did not open the church doors, causing the deaths of hundreds of prisoners, because she did not want to disobey orders and let the prisoners escape.
Hanna's illiteracy is associated with her downfall and, in a way, her partial redemption. She is given a life sentence based on a report that she did not write. Moreover, Hanna would have been better equipped to defend herself had she been able to read the court documents and the survivor's memoir that had been used to charge her. After Hanna's death, Michael visits her prison cell and learns that she had spent years reading Holocaust literature after learning how to read. This gave Hanna a deeper perspective on the atrocities she was part of, specifically her participation in the selection process at Auschwitz and the deaths of prisoners in the church. This makes readers more sympathetic toward Hanna and even sadder over her death. In the end, Hanna was fully aware of her crimes, and this awareness may have contributed to her suicide.
Hanna is such a complex and fascinating character. She undoubtedly loves Michael, yet she abandons him and causes him lifelong emotional trauma. Their relationship is beautiful in a way, but it is tainted by the fact that his many hours spent reading to her is reminiscent of the children that read to her in Auschwitz before they were sent to their deaths. Despite knowing her crimes, Michael records himself reading books for years, sending the tapes to prison and helping Hanna become literate.
I would say the general moods associated with Hanna are sympathy, sadness, anger, and indignation. She took a job as a guard at Auschwitz because she could fulfill its responsibilities without reading and writing, unaware of her part in a genocide that killed 6 million people across Europe. Was she evil for her participation in mass murder, even though she later understood and regretted her actions? Can she really be forgiven and understood for the lengths she went to hide her illiteracy? It depends on the reader and their interpretation of evil.

How are the monsters in Beowulf a threat to the social order?

The monsters could be said to represent the forces of nature in their seemingly perennial struggle against civilization. In this case, it's Anglo-Saxon civilization that's under threat from Grendel, his hideous mother, and the dragon. It's notable that Grendel chooses to do his killing at night, venturing out into the darkness while the Danes are feasting at Heorot, before returning to his gloomy lair. In this, Grendel represents unconquered nature, something that not even the bravest Danish warrior has been able to tame.
In this reading, the forces of nature are presented as a real and present danger to the Danes and the Geats as well as an abiding threat to civilization and human progress in general. Just as Grendel, his mother, and the dragon must be vanquished, so too must the forces of nature. The Danes and Geats have an exploitative attitude to the world around them. Their natural environment is a resource to be used for all it's worth. If nature can't be completely conquered, it can at least be tamed. Only in this way can the Danes and the Geats ever truly be at peace with their natural surroundings.

In Beowulf, the society's values are epitomized in Beowulf himself and in the other warriors. Social order is heavily dependent on the protection of these warriors and is supported by adherence to the values they represent. These warriors stand for honor, nobility, loyalty, bravery, and self-sacrifice.
The three main monsters are Grendel, Grendel's mother, and the dragon.
Grendel is an outcast. He roams around alone randomly attacking Heorot's people, including the warriors. Human happiness and music enrage him. Both by being antisocial and frequently killing members of society, he threatens social order.
Grendel's mother comes to avenge her son's death. She has become stronger and more fearsome in her grief and rage. Because she shares Grendel's violent ways, she also endangers social order and must die.
The dragon threatens order by attacking the Geats, so it must be eliminated.

What is Mr. Antoine's perspective on life for his students?

We learn about Mr. Antoine through Grant Wiggins's memories and his actions as a teacher. Grant Wiggins begins the novel by feeling as though he is above Reverend Ambrose and his student, Jefferson. Part of this inability to connect with his pupil is because of the interactions he had with his own teacher, Mr. Antoine.
Mr. Antoine believes that he is better than his students because of his lighter skin. In chapter 8, Grant remembers Mr. Antoine saying,

Don't be a damned fool. I am superior to you. I am superior to any man blacker than me.

His argument, almost convincing himself of his superiority, demonstrates his internal struggle with his Creole lineage as well as the struggles against racial stereotypes and prejudices that are often internalized in society, even within the African American community.
Grant believes that his education will separate him from his community; this education teaches him to look down on and despise his community instead of trying to make their lives better. This displeasure for the uneducated members of society is why he believes himself to be superior to the reverend and Jefferson. However, his desire for self-betterment through education angers Mr. Antoine. As a teacher, Antoine seeks to humiliate and ridicule his students. Instead of using his education to inspire and build up his students, he continuously tells them that most of them will end up dying young:

It was he, Matthew Antoine, as a teacher then, who stood by the fence while we chopped the wood. He had told us then that most of us would die violently, and those who did not would be brought down to the level of beasts. Told us that there was no other choice but to run and run. That he was living testimony of someone who should have run. That in him—he did not say all this, but we felt it—there was nothing but hatred for himself as well as contempt for us. He hated himself for the mixture of his blood and the cowardice of his being, and he hated us for daily reminding him of it.

What are three ways that the Untied States reacted to fear of communism at home?

Fear of communism made it more difficult for progressives to agitate for radical change. The prevailing atmosphere of Cold War paranoia meant that anyone vaguely left-of-center could find themselves tarred with the Communist brush. As numerous politicians and the public figures found to their cost, an accusation of Red sympathies, no matter how patently absurd, could be enough to destroy someone's career.
Anti-communist hysteria also undermined the rule of law. Millions of Americans—most of them not actually card-carrying Communists—found themselves harassed and persecuted by the authorities for their political beliefs, something that should never have been allowed to happen under the First Amendment.
Under the leadership of J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI played a leading role in rooting out alleged Communist subversion, often resorting to blatantly illegal methods such as unauthorized wiretaps. Hoover's work built on foundations that had already been laid during the previous Red Scare after World War One. But Hoover took anti-Communist persecution to a whole different level, greatly expanding the FBI's reach at the expense of individual liberty.
Finally, fear of Communism also led the United States to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy. A key component of this approach was the unswerving support—military, economic, and political—given to a variety of unsavory regimes across the developing world, who could be relied upon to counter the communist threat, often by the most brutal of methods. The Eisenhower Administration devoted huge resources, both financial and military, to propping up these client states as part of the world-wide struggle against the perceived communist menace.

What are some movies that involve intercultural communication?

There are many movies involving this type of communication. Some stories show it subtly, other more blatant. They may tell it through outward expressions or focus on how a character will wrestle with it internally.

Directed by Sanaa Hamri, Something New focuses on character Kenya McQueen, an African-American woman, and the challenges of dating outside her race. We see the internal struggle—what is acceptable to her, the perspectives of family and friends, as well as how everyone’s values have an affect on her romantic dilemma—slowly bloom a more open discussion over the course of the movie.


My Big Fat Greek Wedding, directed by Joel Zwick, follows Toula Portokalos coming out of her shell. It explores the issues arising from college studies, work, and marriage outside of a strong, traditional Greek heritage while living in America. Humor's abundant presence shows the dynamics within the Greek culture and the interplay with, as Mr. Portokalos calls "non-Greeks".

And then Gran Torino, directed by Clint Eastwood, throws race group interaction in-your-face. Walt Kowalski, delivers purposefully placed strong language, and raw, sometimes physical, emotional displays to further emphasize the tension amongst the characters when working to relate (or tolerate) each other’s cultural differences.

These are a few movies touching on intercultural communication.

There are a number of possibilities depending on the aspects you want to emphasize. A story about communication or lack thereof between people of different heritages could emphasize their shared interests or the gulf between them.
One film that explores these themes effectively is Mississippi Masala, directedby Mira Nair. It tells the story of an Indian American woman and an African American man in Mississippi.
Another film you might consider is The Wedding Banquet, directed by Ang Lee, about a gay couple in New York. Lee explores the intersection of sexual orientation and national heritage, including generational differences.
An Oscar winner for best screenplay is Kumail Nanjiani's The Big Sick, directed by Michael Showalter. When his white girlfriend becomes ill with a life-threatening illness, an Indian American man is forced to confront her parents' biases as well as his own parents' expectations.

The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao attacks the assumption that American identity, or any national or personal identity, is uniform. What other assumptions do you think the novel attacks? Why would it be important for Diaz to unravel these assumptions?

Within the large umbrella category of identity, Junot Diaz addresses elements of race, nationality, place of residence, gender, age and generation, and disability, among others. The author shows how different combinations of factors work together to shape an individual’s experience but cannot fully account for their personality or their life trajectory. The experiences of many Dominicans in their US neighborhoods, as well as the political repression and economic deprivation they fled back home, shaped their possible futures. The specific way that any one person handles these burdens is represented by the physical weight that afflicts the character of Oscar. As other characters positively interact with him, however, the reader is encouraged, for a while, to have confidence in the redemptive power of love. This idea seems connected to the assumption that emotional support can salvage any experience, which Diaz seems to reject.
Oscar’s outsider status leads him to seek love from Ybón, another outsider, which draws the negative attention that finally kills him.
The author’s approach challenges an assumption that fate—or in this case the fukú curse—would determine any individual outcome. The power of imagination to change a person’s understanding of their place in the world is an important theme, but Diaz also rejects the idea that the power of mind alone can overcome physical and social limitations. Oscar Wao, who immerses himself in literature, takes his name from Oscar Wilde, a man who not only enriched the world through his literature but suffered persecution for his sexuality. By drawing this connection, Diaz emphasizes the role of justice and its uneven application in society. Oscar’s alienation from social pressure and discrimination takes the route of escape into the fictional worlds that literature provides. At the same time, however, as he internalizes the negative opinions of those who bully him, he forms a negative self-image that is compounded by unhealthy behaviors which, in turn, exacerbate his health issues. Although Diaz does not dwell on Oscar’s habits, the implication of personal involvement in health decisions is an undercurrent.

Why is Romeo unafraid of Juliet's kinsmen?

In Act II, Scene 2, of Romeo and Juliet, Romeo, overcome by his immediate attraction to Juliet at the party, decides to go over the wall onto Capulet's estate to see if he can see Juliet again. After some memorably poetic lines between the two—"Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou..."—Juliet pleads with Romeo to leave the grounds before any of her family sees him:


How camest thou hither, tell me, and wherefore?The orchard walls are high and hard to climb,And the place death, considering who thou art,If any of my kinsmen find thee here.



It's really not so much that Romeo is unafraid of Juliet's kinsmen, rather he is afraid that the girl does not share his affection:



Alack, there lies more peril in thine eyeThan twenty of their swords. Look thou but sweet,And I am proof against their enmity.





In other words, if Juliet does not like him, the swords of her kinsmen are not as harmful to him as her rejection. Moreover, Romeo claims that they will never see him in the dark and, in any event, he would rather die at their hands if Juliet's love was out of reach:



I have night’s cloak to hide me from their eyes,And, but thou love me, let them find me here.My life were better ended by their hateThan death proroguèd, wanting of thy love.





Here, for one of the first times in the play, either Romeo or Juliet threatens death in regard to the young lovers' relationship. In Act II, Scene 6, Romeo says he would just as soon die after he and Juliet are married:



Then love-devouring death do what he dare,It is enough I may but call her mine.





Romeo again threatens to kill himself after the slaughter in Act III, Scene 1. Likewise, Juliet carries a dagger with her when she consults Friar Laurence after hearing that her father has betrothed her to Count Paris. These remarks foreshadow the eventual double suicide in Act V.

Who is the protagonist in "The Eve of St. Agnes"?

"The Eve of St. Agnes" is a romantic poem written by John Keats. The protagonist of the tale is Porphyro, the young man who loves Madeline, who belongs to an enemy clan. Although he is the third character readers meet in the poem and doesn't appear until stanza 9, he is the one whose conflict, goals, and actions drive the plot. Madeline also has goals and desires, but hers are less overt. She hopes only to dream of her beloved by following the St. Agnes's Eve custom of going to bed without supper and following the proper ceremonies.
Porphyro is much more action-oriented. He sneaks into Madeline's house even though there are many at the gathering who would do him harm. He persuades the nurse to hide him in a closet in Madeline's room. When Madeline appears again, readers view and hear her mostly from Porphyro's vantage point. He nearly faints from watching her say her prayers, gazing "upon her empty dress," and hearing her breathing slow as she falls asleep. He then lays a banquet for her and wakes her by playing a tune on her lute. He invites her to run away with him, and she agrees.
Because Porphyro is the actively wooing partner in the romance, it is appropriate to name him the protagonist of the poem.

How does Romeo describe Juliet in Romeo and Juliet?

When Romeo first sees Juliet at the Capulet's feast in act 1, scene 5, of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, he's totally smitten with her before he even knows her name:

ROMEO: [to a Servingman]What lady's that which doth enrich the handOf yonder knight?
SERVINGMAN I know not, sir.
ROMEO: O, she doth teach the torches to burn bright!It seems she hangs upon the cheek of nightAs a rich jewel in an Ethiop's ear—Beauty too rich for use, for Earth too dear.. . . Did my heart love till now? Forswear it, sight,For I ne'er saw true beauty till this night. (1.5.48–60, emphasis added)

In the same scene—and he still doesn't know her name—he speaks to Juliet directly:

ROMEO: [To JULIET] If I profane with my unworthiest handThis holy shrine (emphasis added)

And a little later, he says:

ROMEO: O, then, dear saint, let lips do what hands do. (1.5.114, emphasis added)

Then, in the balcony scene in act 2, scene 2, Romeo (who knows Juliet's name now) sees her at a window:

ROMEO: But soft, what light through yonder window breaks?It is the East, and Juliet is the sun.. . . Two of the fairest stars in all the heaven,Having some business, do entreat her eyesTo twinkle in their spheres till they return. (2.2.2–17, emphasis added)
JULIET: Ay me.

ROMEO: [Aside] She speaks.O, speak again, bright angel! (2.2.27–29, emphasis added)

He then refers to her as a "dear saint" and then "fair saint" in act 2.
Romeo doesn't have much more to say about Juliet until near the end of the play when he goes into Juliet's grave, and says a few words about her and to her:

ROMEO: For here lies Juliet, and her beauty makesThis vault a feasting presence full of light... (5.3.85–86, emphasis added)

Describe the courage of the boys working as a team in Trash.

A group of impoverished boys in an unidentified developing country—which the author has stated in website is based on the Philippines, particularly the city of Manila—scavenge through a sprawling landfill, and find a bag with millions of pesos. Despite being impoverished, they do not fight with each other over who will possess it or who will get a larger amount if divided. Instead, the boys work together to find out who the bag belongs to.
The courage they displayed is not a blatant type of bravery, but one that highlights their strong principles and virtues. The group of boys do not let a large sum of money automatically change their camaraderie and selflessness. They overcome various social, economic, and political obstacles to try to do the right thing, whilst also trying to secure a better life for themselves. Torture from the hands of corrupt police officers does not deter them in finding out the truth.

What is the role of the Fairy King in Sir Orfeo?

After Orfeo has a dream in which his wife, Heurodis, is abducted by the fairy king, he takes every precaution to prevent this from happening—but to no avail. The fairy king takes her, and Orfeo becomes so distraught that he wanders aimlessly for years. After glimpsing her in a group of women, he follows her to the fairy kingdom. He charms his way into the castle by playing his harp. The fairy king does not recognize Orfeo, who has let his beard grow long.
So impressed is the king with Orfeo's playing that he offers him whatever he desires. His request is of course for Heurodis, and despite the king's reluctance, his honor requires him to stand by his word. Orfeo takes her back to their own kingdom where they resume their rulership.

Explain the following quote from Mr. Stevenson's grandmother in Just Mercy: "Keep close. You can't understand most of the important things from a distance, Bryan. You have to get close."

While he was growing up, Bryan's grandmother was the undisputed matriarch of the family. She was his guide, his mentor, and the woman who, more than anyone else, set him on the path of educational and professional success. One of her many pieces of advice to Bryan when he was a boy was that you can't understand most of the important things in life from a distance; you have to get up close.
Bryan applies this advice to his own situation when he's studying at Harvard Law School. He feels that his academic studies have alienated him from those condemned by the criminal justice system. If he's to understand the numerous problems and challenges of that system he needs to get closer to the condemned, the very people who have been kept apart from Bryan and the rest of law-abiding society by their incarceration.

What literary elements are found in The Boy in the Striped Pajamas and how do they make the story more relatable for the reader? What similarities and differences can be found between The Boy in the Striped Pajamas by John Boyne and Inside the Walls by Eddie Klein?

Boyne's novel is in the third-person point-of-view of Bruno, following the thoughts and views of a young boy. Bruno's ignorance as a child is conveyed in a relatable way using terms like "the Fury" (Führer/Hitler) and "Out-With" (Auschwitz), which both function as symbols. Bruno and Shmuel both associate the Fury with disrupted family life, though in vastly different ways. Bruno's mispronunciation of Auschwitz is actually demonstrative of the camp's function: to take Jews, Communists, homosexuals, gypsies, and other minorities out of society. "Out-With" thus symbolizes imprisonment and mass murder. The theme of family and friendship is also relatable through Bruno's struggle with a domineering older sister, his pride for his father, Shmuel's, search for his own father, and the strong friendship between Bruno and Shmuel.
While The Boy in the Striped Pajamas is a work of fiction, Inside the Walls follows Eddie Klein's real-life experiences before, during, and after the Holocaust. Boyne's story takes place in and around the Auschwitz complex, while Klein's novel contains many settings: Lodz ghetto, Auschwitz-Birkenau, Sosnowiec labor camp, Mauthausen concentration camp, Gunskirchen, a hospital in Austria, Italy, Israel, and Montreal. The events of Boyne's novel take place around 1943 and 1944, whereas Klein's storyline ranges from the 1930s to the late 1960s. A very crucial difference is the fact that Boyne's novel is in the German perspective of the Holocaust— featuring ignorance, complicity, and nationalism—while Klein's novel focuses on the suffering and loss under the same regime. Both novels highlight isolation and imprisonment through fences and barbed wire enclosures, but in opposite perspectives.

If the narrator hates Fortunato, why would he refer to Fortunato as his "poor friend"?

To answer this question, it's important to keep in mind that "The Cask of Amontillado" by Edgar Allen Poe is a dark tale of revenge. This is clear from the narrator's very first line:

The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could, but when he ventured upon insult, I vowed revenge.

However, the narrator wants not only to be avenged, but to punish Fortunato. For this reason, he creates an elaborate ruse to lure him into the dark catacombs by pretending to be his friend. As he says,

I continued, as was my wont to smile in his face, and he did not perceive that my smile now was at the thought of his immolation.

In other words, he smiles at Fortunato to deceive him, all the while plotting to murder him.
The narrator uses the guise of friendship, as well as the promised Amontillado, to persuade the drunken Fortunato to accompany him. When they first meet he calls him "my dear Fortunato" and then appeals to his vanity by suggesting that he needs his assistance as a connoisseur of fine wines. In this way he draws him into the damp cellar vaults. He tricks Fortunato further by pretending to persuade him to go back, knowing that he will all the more insist on continuing.
When they pass the nitre that causes Fortunato to break forth into a fit of coughing, the narrator says: "My poor friend found it impossible to reply for many minutes." When he writes this, he is being ironical. In other words, he is saying the opposite of what he truly means. When he refers to his "poor friend" he really means "helpless victim." Remember, he is writing this account after he has already committed the crime, and so he is addressing his presumed readers, who are already aware that he is intending revenge. The story takes on the nature of a confession, although the narrator does not seem at all repentant.

Montresor makes this comment after Fortunato has had a coughing fit in the catacombs because of the nitre on the walls. Montresor says:

My poor friend found it impossible to reply for many minutes.

Montresor is being sarcastic when he states this. He means the opposite of what he says. Because he hates Fortunato, he is actually glad his enemy is having such a reaction to the air of the catacombs. Fortunato is his "poor friend" both because Montresor is enjoying his suffering and also because Montresor knows his "friend's" suffering will increase once he walls Fortunato up to die.
Montresor has carefully planned this revenge on Fortunato, whom he believes has injured him many times over. He wants the revenge to be effective. Therefore, he wants Fortunato to suffer as much as possible, which is why he walls him up to slowly die rather than just killing him.

Which parts of the plot are present and which do you think are absent from the poem? 5 parts of a plot: Exposition, Rising Action, Climax, Falling Action, and Resolution

“The Listeners” is a 1912 narrative poem written by Walter de la Mere, published as a part of his collection of verses titled The Listeners and Other Poems. It tells the story of a lone Traveler’s arrival in a house deep in the forest on a moonlit evening. The poem has an eerie, mysterious tone, and it is presumably set in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century, as the Traveler’s choice of transportation is a horse.
The poem consists of thirty-six lines written in an abcb masculine rhyme scheme with a loose meter, which suggests that the author chose to focus more on the plot instead of on the regularity of the tempo, the rhythm, and the meter. Because of the eerie, dramatic mood of the poem, “The Listeners” is considered to be a part of the supernatural genre as well.
As far as the composition of the plot is concerned, it is noteworthy to mention that it doesn’t contain all of the elements. In fact, literary critics and many of de la Mere’s colleagues argue that the poem only has a rising action and a climax, with some even saying that the poem doesn’t start with an exposition but with the main conflict instead. In this case, the rising action or the conflict would be the moment when the Traveler knocks on the door to get the attention of whomever might be inside. Furthermore, the climax is the part when the Traveler decides to leave the house without completing his original intent, saying,

Tell them I came, and no one answered,That I kept my word . . .

Moreover, de la Mere hints that the Listeners might have actually heard the Traveler’s words and his departure from the house. Perhaps they even started to murmur to one another.

Though every word he spokeFell echoing through the shadowiness of the still house . . .Ay, they heard his foot upon the stirrup,And the sound of iron on stone,And how the silence surged softly backward,When the plunging hoofs were gone.

This part is the actual ending of the poem. We can see an absence of a falling action.
Since de la Mere decided to put his focus on the narrative and the plot itself, the most captivating and interesting element of the poem is probably its meaning. At first glance, “The Listeners” doesn’t seem to be hiding a deeper meaning. But the more you read it, the more questions you will find. For instance, who are these "phantom listeners"? Are they ghosts? De la Mere writes words like "only a host of phantom listeners that . . . Stood listening . . . To that voice from the world of men," which might suggest that the Listeners are not part of the human world. Furthermore, who are the beings that the Traveler refers to as "them"? To whom did he promise that he would come and keep his word? While many readers are certain that the Listeners are ghosts, they are still confused when it comes to the identity of the mysterious "them."
Finally, one might wonder who the Traveler himself might be. At first, we are lead to believe that he is an ordinary man. But is he? Maybe the Traveler is also a ghost, which would explain why no one can hear him at first, and he must keep his promise to "them" so that he can transcend into the afterlife. Some have even gone as far as comparing the Traveler to God or some other divine entity. Others say that he represents the entire human race, wanting to know what the meaning of life is and to understand why we are who we are. Nonetheless, readers (much like the Traveler) are left with no answers and must solve the mystery on their own, which means that a final resolution of the plot is absent.

How would this story be different if it were told only in chronological order as it is in Part III? What do Parts I and II contribute to the details and information provided in Part III?

Parts I and II are not told chronologically, and they therefore force the reader to engage more with the text in order to understand who the characters are and how they are related. Part I actually takes place in the middle of the story, at a concert right before the affair starts up again. Part I introduces all of the characters and gives an idea of their relationships to each other. But it does not give much backstory.
Part II gives more history and context, specifically around the events that took place once the affair had ended for the first time. This section gives more insight into Anna's mental state, something that the reader can better understand and sympathize with because of the way in which the story was told.
Part III serves to tell the whole story chronologically, now that the reader is more familiar with both the characters and the series of events. On its own, this section might not have caused readers to feel any sympathy for Anna, but because the first two sections jump around in the story, this section feels more like it is summing everything up, and the reader is able to feel sympathy for Anna.

What are the similarities between Dahl and Poe?

There is a striking similarity between Roald Dahl's "Lamb to the Slaughter" and Edgar Allan Poe's "The Purloined Letter." In Poe's short story the brilliant amateur detective C. Auguste Dupin states a truth which applies to "Lamb to the Slaughter" as well as to "The Purloined Letter."
“Perhaps it is the very simplicity of the thing which puts you at fault,” said my friend.
“What nonsense you do talk!” replied the Prefect, laughing heartily.
“Perhaps the mystery is a little too plain,” said Dupin.
“Oh, good heavens! who ever heard of such an idea?”
“A little too self-evident.”
In both stories the police are exhaustively searching for a item which they fail to see because it is right under their noses, "hiding in plain sight." In Poe's story the police are searching for a letter which has been "purloined" from an important person. It turns out that the letter, rather than having been concealed, had been slightly changed in appearance and placed in plain view in a card-rack. In "Lamb to the Slaughter" the police never think of the leg of lamb as a possible murder weapon because it is so obvious. Mary Maloney is cooking it in the oven and the tantalizing aroma permeates the entire house. In the end she actually succeeds in getting the hungry policemen to eat the murder weapon they have been looking for. If C. Auguste Dupin had been involved in the story "Lamb to the Slaughter," no doubt he would have deduced that Mary Maloney killed her husband with a frozen leg of lamb. The police are put off in both cases because of their predetermined conviction that the item they are searching for must have been very carefully hidden.

How did liberty and rebellion come to shape the new nation?

I am assuming that this question refers to the United States. The United States was founded in rebellion. The colonists used to their own self-rule during Britain's longstanding policy of salutary neglect and rebelled when Parliament started to enforce its own taxation laws after the French and Indian War. The colonists saw this as a sudden intrusion on their own rights. When Parliament started to use force to collect tax money, the colonists fought and won the Revolutionary War, thus creating a new nation.
Since this period, Americans identified with seeking liberty and fighting against authority. American colonists moved west looking for liberty in opportunity, infringing on Native American lands and murdering many in the process. Mexico originally welcomed Texan colonists—until these colonists started to rebel against Mexican authority. These rebellions would ultimately become successful, thus creating the short-lived Lone Star Republic in 1836.
Americans have also tied the search for liberty to various causes. "Liberty" was the byword of the abolitionist movement, and some, such as Nat Turner and John Brown, sought this liberty through armed rebellion. Eighteen-year-old American males resisted the draft and rebelled by avoiding the draft to fight in the Vietnam War. Out of this rebellion came a constitutional amendment giving anyone over the age of eighteen the right to vote. The women's movement also cited the ideal of "liberty for all" to secure the right to vote and equality in the workforce. Liberty and rebellion are tied together in the American mind and continue to be two driving factors in securing rights and opportunity for many.