Answer these two questions: (1). Episode 1 begins at line 196 on page 27 and ends at line 413 on page 34. What are your impressions of Creon? What about the guard? How does this episode display different aspects of Creon’s personality? (2). Choral Ode #1 begins at line 414 on page 34 and ends at line 455 on page 35. This ode is often called “Ode in the Praise of Man.” Interpret this ode and try to relate it to the larger issues of the play. Think about what the chorus is saying about man and about law.

Episode 1 is prefaced by Creon's pronouncement to the Chorus, who represent the people of Thebes, and then consists of his interaction with the Chorus. Episode 2 is the Choral Ode that follows and reflects on this interaction.
In his announcement to the people about the deaths of Oedipus's Sons, of Eteolces and Polynices, Creon says the following:

Nevertheless, I say to you at the very outset that I have nothing butcontempt for the kind of Governor who is afraid, for whatever reason,to follow the course that he knows is best for the State; and as for theman who sets private friendship above the public welfare, ––I haveno use for him, either. I call God to witness that if I saw my countryheaded for ruin, I should not be afraid to speak out plainly; and I needhardly remind you that I would never have any dealings with anenemy of the people.

Here, Creon establishes the kind of ruler he intends to be. Before this, he tells the Chorus that he appreciates and recognizes their loyalty to the previous monarchs Laius and Oedipus. Creon then establishes himself as a rigid ruler who believes in putting "the State" first and all else second, including "private friendship." As we will see later in the play, this results in his placing law above familial responsibility, duty, and affection, and expecting Antigone to do the same. On the positive side, it means he cares for the people and the greater good; on the negative side, it means he is inflexible and stubborn in his interpretation of the law.
Next, Creon makes the crucial pronouncement that, because Polynices fought against Thebes, he should not be honored with burial because he is a traitor to the city, despite his affiliation with Thebes. The Chorus says they will follow Creon's will, and he asks them to support and defend his decision.
A sentry arrives to tell Creon that someone has buried Polynices, and it is clear that the Sentry does not want to be the one to tell Creon this news, because he knows how outraged the king will be. The sentry reports that it's not a formal burial but "Just enough for the ghost’s peace," and Creon grows visibly angrier and angrier. The Chorus suggests that "the gods" are responsible, and Creon is naturally outraged to hear this suggestion, which implies that his edict is against the gods' wishes. Creon instead thinks that there have always been people conspiring against him, looking to betray him and challenge his power. This shows Creon to be somewhat paranoid and desperate to have the approval and obedience of his people. The sentry suggests that Creon is actually disturbed by his own conscience, but if that's true, Creon is too proud and obstinate to admit it.
This scene is followed by the first Choral Ode, in which the Chorus then reflects on the nature of man and how he controls the world around him until death. Then, they assert that they do not sympathize with the man who would defy Creon, and that they would never help the traitor. At this point, the Chorus is therefore still loyal to their king.
This episode continues with the entrance of the sentry, followed by Antigone, who has been arrested for burying Polynices. Antigone admits to the "crime," and Creon begins to question why she would defy his law. She tells him:

Your edict, King, was strong,But all your strength is weakness itself against The immortal unrecorded laws of God.They are not merely now: they were, and shall be,Operative for ever, beyond man utterly.

Antigone asserts that Creon's law was against the gods, and that they are more powerful than man thus making their edicts more powerful than any king. She claims that she'd rather be dead than allow such an injustice to be visited upon her brother. The Chorus, at this point, identifies her as stubborn, like her father Oedipus, and unwilling to listen to reason. Creon and Antigone argue about whether Eteocles would be betrayed by Antigone's burial of Polynices, but she asserts that familial bonds are stronger than national or political ones. Antigone's sister Ismene is also arrested and wants to be punished, but Antigone insists that Ismene did not want to help and so should not be executed with her. Ismene lastly begs Creon to reconsider, as his son Haimon is supposed to marry Antigone. Creon says he doesn't want his son to marry a "wicked" woman. Choragos steps in at this point and asks if Creon really wants to take his son's bride from him, illustrating that some are starting to question Creon's edicts.
At this point, we have the second Choral Ode of this section, which you refer to as Episode 2. This Ode focuses on the justice of the gods more than the law of man. The Ode suggests that we have to pity those cursed by the gods, or Oedipus's familial line, in this case, because even if it seems like they are doing well for a while, the gods' justice always prevails in the end. The Strophe exclaims, "What mortal arrogance / Transcends the wrath of Zeus?" They go on to describe Zeus as eternal, and thus humans can never, even at the peak of their lives, compete with his power. The Antistrophe ends with a lament about how human life shows that fate works toward sorrow. Any happiness or success will be short-lived. This Ode implies that human law is nothing in the face of the gods, who have the ultimate say in human life.
The larger issue of the play is what "justice" means and who decides what is just and right. Creon tries to assert his will and explains why it is just; Antigone's actions show that she disagrees and thinks her decision more just than his law. The Chorus repeats Antigone's earlier claim that the gods' law is superior to that of humans.
In Sophocles's surviving Theban plays, of which Antigone is the last, there is a major connecting theme of how the gods or fate contribute to human lives; all of the plays struggle with this question of free will versus fate. In Antigone, the more specific focus area is justice and law, and the relationship between human law and divine justice.

Is there any study dedicated to the sentiments of memory and loss in George Seferis' poem, Mythistorema?

I've included a link below to an essay by Capri-Karka which talks about the symbols of love and journey in Mythistorema. I think the journey of love can be compared to memory and you might be able to get some useful information from that article.
Another article which I've also linked below called "George Seferis and the Erosion of Memory" which looks more specifically at memory in the poem "Mythistorema".
The poem is definitely filled with the themes of memory and loss. Most of the stanzas discuss a distant memory, often a memory of loss. Section 22 is one of my favorites when looking at memory, as it describes memory as a white sheet and gives others beautiful descriptions.
Finally, the last link I've provided doesn't specifically touch on the poem "Mythistorema" but it talks about Seferis and some of his other work as it speaks to loss and tragedy. This article goes into some of the mythology and tradition which affected Seferis' work and can be applied to "Mythistorema" just as well as to his other work.
I'm sure there are more studies available as well, but these are some which I found could be helpful for you as you read through this poem and consider what Seferis was saying about memory and loss in his poetry.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&ved=2ahUKEwjLq5q-oJDeAhXI34MKHUEvDcw4ChAWMAN6BAgHEAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Facademic.oup.com%2Fcrj%2Farticle-pdf%2F6%2F1%2F74%2F1325023%2Fclt012.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3Gllb4ZWF0t76MqBlDqT_R

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjayIndnJDeAhUR84MKHVHaCbUQFjADegQIBhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.tricolib.brynmawr.edu%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F10066%2F13028%2F08_3_1981.pdf%3Fsequence%3D2%26isAl

Why did Brutus care about Rome so much?

Brutus cared about Rome arguably more than any other Roman. Love for Rome, particularly the Republic of Rome, coursed through his very veins. A little Roman history is necessary to understand this point.
Brutus came from an old and distinguished family. His great ancestor, by the same name, expelled the last king of Rome and started the Republic. When Sextus Tarquinius raped a Roman matron named Lucretia, Collatinus (Lucretia's husband) and Brutus came together to drive out Sextus Tarquinius's father, Tarquinius Superbus—the king of Rome. They could not stand for the arrogance of Tarquinius Superbus and his evil ways. By successfully banishing him and his family, they established the Republic, which started in 509 BCE. So, by the time of Caesar, the Republic had been going strong for nearly five hundred years.
Based on this history, if anyone loved the Republic, it was Brutus. More than this, the Romans were also very attached to their ancestors. So, Brutus undoubtedly heard the story of his great ancestor all throughout his youth. This point, too, made him zealous for Rome.
Even when he killed Caesar with the conspirators, his love for Rome was on display. Shakespeare probably said it best when he put these words into Brutus's mouth: “Not that I loved Caesar less, but I loved Rome more.”

When comparing and contrasting Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman and Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion, how do Shaw and Miller use dramatic irony in their works to create comedy and tension?

It is surprising that these two plays have been chosen for comparison, since, in my opinion they have little in common in plot, theme, or dramatic technique. The one thing that links them is that both are critiques of the capitalist system. Shaw skewers the pretensions of both academics and the middle and upper class in their treatment of working-class people. Miller looks at the system from within and portrays the victimization of a man who thinks he's part of the system but in reality is left out in the cold when his usefulness to it has expired.
Shaw's dramatic irony in Pygmalion is that Eliza turns the tables on Higgins and gains a degree of power over him. This is much more pronounced in the musical version, My Fair Lady, than in the original play. Another irony is that Doolittle, once he is given a sum of money as an indirect result of Higgins' observations of his faults, is a much happier individual than Higgins or the other more favored characters. In Death of a Salesman, the irony, such as it is, is of a much grimmer nature. Much of Willy's negative behavior, a consequence of the strain of his work, has caused the failings of the sons in whom he places his hopes, especially Biff. The system has worn him down and created an unsavory individual. He is abusive to his wife as well, and this exacerbates his relationship to his sons. When he can no longer work and pay his insurance, there is nothing left to him, not even the human element that is supposed to bolster a family against misfortune, and his only option, as he sees it, is to end his life.
Is there a similarity between Shaw's and Miller's uses of irony? In my view, it is only that, as stated, the economic basis of the system by which we live is the cause of these developments. Higgins, though obnoxious and arrogant, is a kind of victim himself. He hardly seems to learn a lesson from his own "experiment" in turning a "flower girl" into a duchess, and this, as well as the other factors we have noted, is ironic. And Miller's Willy, though he continues to believe in the system as he desperately claims that he is "not a dime a dozen," is even more of a victim.

In Lord of the Flies, why did the Navy come to the island?

Jack and his followers light a fire that goes out of control and sets the whole island—whole walls of trees—ablaze in a giant conflagration. The fire symbolizes how out of control Jack and his group have become in their lust for violence. Ralph, who they have been chasing in order to kill him and eat him, collapses on the sand at the shore of the island as the flames come closer. He wakes up to see the white cap of a naval officer above him. The officer explains that his naval vessel detected the smoke of the fire and came to investigate.
Once the ship with its adult crew arrives to rescue the boys, the barbarous island adventure is over. Since the context of the novel is World War II, however, the ship that saves them is a symbol of the larger scale barbarity of a world at war. Civilization is a thin veneer, the novel asserts, thrown over mankind's inherently savage nature.

At the end of the novel, the boys lose their humanity and become savage. They hunt and kill each other.
Ralph has been trying to maintain order and keep the signal fire going, but Jack's group would rather hunt instead. Piggy is killed when Roger pushes a boulder on him, Sam and Eric are captured, and Ralph is alone. He hides as the others search for him. Sam and Eric find him and tell him they joined Jack after being tortured. They also tell him Jack and the boys are coming for him. To flush Ralph out of the forest, the hunters set the trees on fire.
Ironically, the forest fire is what draws the attention of the Navy. A naval officer appears just as the boys are closing in on Ralph. The Navy comes because they see the fire.

What is the significance of Slackbridge as a character and the overall quotes he says to the thematic concerns of the novel?

Slackbridge is a trade union organizer who tirelessly campaigns to recruit union members and thereby improve the working conditions at Bounderby’s factory. Charles Dickens portrays him as an unscrupulous zealot. Slackbridge’s character and actions fits well with the novel’s overall theme of the changing attitudes to the horrific labor conditions in 19th-century England. In the 1850s, strikes crippled some of the largest mills; one was the Preston strike in Lancashire, which Dickens observed firsthand.
The conflicts arise both in Slackbridge’s goals and his methods. In his passion for the unionization cause, he rejects the validity of any challenges and takes down his opponents. His vigorous oration in the hall meetings aims to inspire the workers to action, as he calls to his “fellow-sufferers, and fellow-workmen, and fellow-men . . . [to] rally round one another as One united power.” Through the union, they can free themselves of “the galling yoke of tyrants on your necks and the iron foot of despotism. . . .” Throughout this speech, Slackbridge calls attention to Bounderby’s notice condemning Stephen Blackpool, a weaver who has been driven out of the factory. While he refers to Blackpool’s dishonesty as a reason for leaving, his refusal to support the union had led Slackbridge himself to discredit him.
http://dickens.stanford.edu/hard/issue6_gloss.html

In what kind of mood does Celia find Rosalind? How does she explain her state of mind?

At the beginning of act I, scene 2 in William Shakespeare’s As You Like It, the heroine Rosalind is sulking. The reason for this piteous mood is that her father, Duke Senior, has been banished from court. Rosalind’s uncle, Duke Frederick, usurped the throne from her father. Presently, her father and a group of lords who support him are wandering in the Forest of Ardenne.
Rosalind expresses her grief to her cousin Celia, Duke Frederick’s daughter, when she says, “Unless you could teach me to forget a banished father, you must not learn me how to remember any extraordinary pleasure.”
This shows that Rosalind is preoccupied with what has happened to her father, from whom she is now separated. She remarks that she already looks happier than she actually is, and Celia trying to get her to be even happier is an impossible suggestion for Rosalind to oblige.
Celia wants Rosalind to cheer up because, she explains, if their roles were reversed, Celia would find a way to accept the reality of the situation without sulking as Rosalind is. Celia accuses Rosalind of not loving her as much as Celia loves Rosalind.
Rosalind replies sarcastically, saying that she will just forget her grief and focus on how happy Celia is now that her father is ruler. To please Rosalind, Celia insists that she will return Rosalind’s inheritance—which was absorbed when Duke Senior fled—when Duke Frederick dies, since Celia is his only heir.
Rosalind then turns the focus of their conversation to the kinds of games they can play to entertain themselves, like falling in love.

What was the relationship between Tara and her mother?

Tara admired her mother, Faye, while she was growing up, even when her mother was refusing to protect her from her cruel brother. Once Tara moved away from the family and worked to get an education, however, cracks form in the relationship. Her mother refuses to see her now because Tara won't see her father, and Faye considers it an insult to her husband to go against his wishes.
Tara's mother was a reluctant midwife; she did the job and then came home pale and shaken. She wanted to quit, but her husband insisted that she continue, and then the only other midwife moved away. Tara says she was the only midwife for 100 miles then. The job changed her; she had her own money and some personal power for the first time. She used some of the money to purchase things to improve her midwifery.
When Tara attends a birth with her, she says she saw her mother's secret strength for the first time. However, her mother also often refuses to refute her husband's outlandish beliefs. She also still doesn't protect Tara from her cruel brother.
However, after Tara got an education and didn't believe everything her parents said with impunity, there was some tension between them. For example, when Tara insisted that her father not stand up and rebuke her professors at an awards ceremony, her parents refuse to come see her get the award. This causes problems between them that didn't exist when she was a child. She questions her mother and doesn't take everything at face value anymore, so they are less close. The following exchange provides an example:

"That doesn’t matter," she said. "I’ll adjust the chakra on Audrey and wing it to you.""You’ll what it to me?""Wing it," she said. "Distance is nothing to living energy. I can send the corrected energy to you from here.""How fast does energy travel?" I asked. "At the speed of sound, or is it more like a jetliner? Does it fly direct, or will it have to lay over in Minneapolis?"Mother laughed and hung up.

Despite the tension, it's clear that they still care about each other. Later, her mother apologizes for not being a better parent, and this helps heal the rift between them more than before, yet her mother doesn't then back up the words with actions. She takes up for Shawn again, even when he directly threatens to kill Tara. She tells her that the night Shawn killed their dog, Tara's anger was actually more dangerous than Shawn.
When Tara returns home to try to reconcile with her mother, she sees an email her mother wrote saying that Tara has been taken by the devil. She tries to reconcile with her parents, but she ends up cutting off contact with them. Later, she reaches out to her mother and offers to see her without her father. Her mother responds. She writes:

Mother’s message amounted to an ultimatum: I could see her and my father, or I would never see her again. She has never recanted.

So, ultimately, Tara's relationship with her mother is not good. They are not on speaking terms. Tara still writes to her mother and asks to see her without Tara's father, and her mother always quickly refuses.

Who put itching powder in the headmistress's gym knickers?

In chapter 10, "Throwing the Hammer," Matilda's older schoolmate Hortensia tells Matilda that she bought an itching powder called the skin scorcher—"made from the powdered teeth of deadly snakes"—and sprinkled it into all of Miss Trunchbull's knickers. It worked perfectly. One day in assembly, Miss Trunchbull began itching herself "like she had a wasp nest down there" and had to run out in the middle of the Lord's Prayer.
Though it is impossible for Miss Trunchbull to know exactly who the culprit was, Hortensia warns Matilda that Miss Trunchbull "has a nasty habit of guessing." A few days later, Miss Trunchbull grabs Hortensia by the ear, and ignoring her protests of innocence, throws her straight into the chokey. At the end of Hortensia's story, Matilda astutely observes that "It's like a war."

"You're darn right, it's like a war," Hortensia cried. "And the casualties are terrific. We are the crusaders, the gallant army fighting for our lives with hardly any weapons at all and the Trunchbull is the Prince of Darkness, the foul serpent, the fiery dragon with all the weapons at her command."

How does Montresor behave toward Fortunato?

Montresor's attitude towards Fortunato throughout "The Cask of Amontillado" can best be described as obsequious. This word is defined in various ways. Dictionary.com defines it as:
characterized by or showing servile complaisance or deference...fawning
"Fawning" is defined as:
displaying exaggerated flattery or affection
Montresor certainly displays exaggerated affection. Although he hates Fortunato and intends to murder him in a horrible way, he calls him "My friend" and refers to him as "my good friend" and "my poor friend" throughout the tale. Here are some examples of obsequious speech and behavior intended to reassure his intended victim of his good will:
I said to him—“My dear Fortunato, you are luckily met. How remarkably well you are looking to-day."
“My friend, no; I will not impose upon your good nature."
I took from their sconces two flambeaux, and giving one to Fortunato, bowed him through several suites of rooms to the archway that led into the vaults.

“Come,” I said, with decision, “we will go back; your health is precious. You are rich, respected, admired, beloved; you are happy, as once I was. You are a man to be missed. For me it is no matter. We will go back; you will be ill, and I cannot be responsible. Besides, there is Luchesi—”
Montresor's behavior is that of an inferior towards a superior. This suggests an answer to the questions: Why did Montresor put up with a "thousand injuries"? Why didn't he just stay away from him? Montresor is dependent upon Fortunato for money. The third paragraph suggests that these two men may invest or trade in luxury items.
He had a weak point—this Fortunato—although in other regards he was a man to be respected and even feared. He prided himself on his connoisseur-ship in wine. Few Italians have the true virtuoso spirit. For the most part their enthusiasm is adopted to suit the time and opportunity, to practise imposture upon the British and Austrian millionaires. In painting and gemmary, Fortunato, like his countrymen, was a quack, but in the matter of old wines he was sincere. In this respect I did not differ from him materially;—I was skilful in the Italian vintages myself, and bought largely whenever I could.
Perhaps Montresor put up with Fortunato's injuries because he needed him for business purposes. Meanwhile, Montresor's hatred keeps building, but he continues to act obsequiously while intending to take his revenge when the time is ripe.
It must be understood that neither by word nor deed had I given Fortunato cause to doubt my good will. 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.
It is interesting to note that even when Montresor has his "friend" chained to the granite wall, he does not gloat or vent his hate and anger. He maintains the same obsequious manner he has been exhibiting all along. Fortunato will understand that Montresor has been deceiving him all these years.
“Pass your hand,” I said, “over the wall; you cannot help feeling the nitre. Indeed, it is very damp. Once more let me implore you to return. No? Then I must positively leave you. But I must first render you all the little attentions in my power.”

What kind of ruler will Miranda and Ferdinand be from The Tempest?

We can imagine from their behavior during the play that Ferdinand and Miranda will be good rulers. Below are a few places that show they are virtuous characters, and you will no doubt find more evidence as you look through the play. (The counter argument might be that they are too good or innocent to be effective rulers.)
First, they show they are willing to sacrifice for each other. Though he doesn't like it, Ferdinand is willing to take on Caliban's job of moving and piling up thousands of logs for Prospero because of his love for Miranda. As he puts it:

The mistress which I serve ... makes my labors pleasures.

Miranda is likewise willing to help Ferdinand and weeps when she sees him working so hard. She says to Ferdinand:

If you’ll sit down,
I’ll bear your logs the while

Second, the two are genuinely in love with one another and want to marry. You might consider whether this means they will have a good partnership as rulers. It seems to matter that they are both people of character who will support each other. Both are of noble birth, which would also be important in Shakespeare's day. Further, as a sheltered, innocent young woman who has never had a chance to be corrupted by court life, one could argue Miranda will be a good influence on her husband.


Miranda has a positive view of humanity that suggests both she and Ferdinand will rule well. When she first sees humans beyond her father and Ferdinand, she says:

How many goodly creatures are there here!How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,That has such people in't!


Finally, mastermind Prospero approves of this marriage and calls blessings on it, saying:


Fair encounterOf two most rare affections. Heavens rain graceOn that which breeds between 'em!


Prayers and well wishes are no guarantee, but they could bode well for the twosome.

Is the narrator of "The Fall of the House of Usher" actually examining the extent of their own nightmares or fantasies, or is Poe envisioning the downfall of humanity?

This is an interesting either/or question. Both interpretations can be defended as valid, though I would say both are atypical readings. What is interesting about the story is that it is so open to multiple interpretations.
A convention of storytelling is that we know Poe concocted the story: there is no house of Usher in real life and no Usher family. We are nevertheless meant to suspend disbelief and take the events recounted as "real." Therefore, the idea that Poe is writing a story that is, in itself, the fantasy of its main characters—a fantasy story within a fantasy story—is interesting.
Is the house of Usher a fantasy of the narrator: something that, even within the confines of the story's boundaries, does not exist? A case could be made that the events described—such as Madeline clawing her way out from the crypt and the house collapsing into the tarn—are so fantastic that they must be the narrator's dream vision. If so, the question becomes: what does that tell us about the narrator? Perhaps that he is a troubled soul running away from his own death wish?
Second, we could read Roderick and Madeline as symbolic of a humankind in decay and falling into ruin because of narcissism and self-obsession. Again, while unusual, a reading could be constructed that the tale serves as a warning to humans not to become too isolated from each other and the natural world.
I, however, tend to read the story as "real" within the context of being a fiction. I believe that the narrator "really" traveled to this place and met these people. I also take Roderick as an individual more than a symbol of fallen humanity, though that reading is more plausible to me than the first one. The important thing in interpreting a text is to back up with you are saying with evidence and quotes from the text.

Why does the poet say that life is real and earnest?

The poem's speaker is addressing those people who say we don't have to worry about doing good in this life, because our focus should be on heaven and the afterlife. Longfellow's speaker says that that idea is wrong. This life is not an illusion or an "empty dream." We will all, inevitably, die, but what we do in this life is nevertheless very important. This life is real and earnest because it is not just a stepping stone to heaven.
We are called upon, the speaker says, to live in an active and vigorous way that will make an imprint on this world. He calls that imprint "footprints on the sand of time."
The lives of great individuals show us that we can be remembered in this world. We should strive to be like these heroic people. In doing so, we can offer encouragement and hope to those who come after us, especially those who might be discouraged. As the speaker states:

Footprints, that perhaps another,/ Sailing o'er life's solemn main,/ A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,/ Seeing, shall take heart again.

Longfellow's purpose in writing the poem is to encourage us to live life as actively and as fearlessly as possible. He doesn't want us to dwell on the past or worry about the future. Instead, we should face whatever life throws at us with courage, fortitude, and resolve. We will encounter many hardships in life, many difficult challenges, but if we follow the example of the great men of history, then we too can make our mark in this world, or as Longfellow puts it, leave our "footprints on the sands of time."
But we can only begin to do this if we accept that life is not a dream, that it is real and earnest. We will all die one day, returning to the dust from whence we came. But the soul lives on, and it's the vigorous life of the soul that gives meaning and purpose to our own brief lives upon this earth.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44644/a-psalm-of-life

In antiquity and through the Middle Ages there was a distinction drawn between the contemplative and the active life. Chrysostom takes this dichotomy and applies it to the life of the monk and the priest, underling the superiority of the latter. Discuss Chrysostom’s argument and how one underlying principle guiding his argument is our responsibility to other human beings.

In "On the Priesthood: A Treatise in Six Books," John of Chrysostom explains why he did a good deed in tricking Basil into becoming ordained as a priest and explains why the priesthood is the most exalted of callings.
In Book six, he compares the life of the priest to life of the monk. The monk, he says, has more leisure time and is sheltered by the monastery from the realities of the world. Chrysostom compares the monk to a ship in a harbor: it is safe and easy to be in a harbor, as you never have to brave the perils and dangers of the high seas, but at the same, you don't test yourself and your character until you leave the harbor.
The priest, on the other hand, must manage his temptations amid what Chrysostom calls a raging tempest (storm) because he is in the middle of all the sins of the world. He must, therefore, be in the world and not of the world. He is more admirable than the monk because he faces the world head on.
John of Chrysostom is known for his concern for the poor and social justice, writing:

Do you wish to honour the body of Christ? Do not ignore him when he is naked. Do not pay him homage in the temple clad in silk, only then to neglect him outside where he is cold and ill-clad.

Given his concern for the here-and-now and serving the needy, it aligns with his theology that John of Chrysostom would favor priests.

Where is Jim living and with whom?

Jim Burden grew up in Virginia but was sent to live with his grandparents in Black Hawk, Nebraska after being orphaned. It is on the long train journey out west that he first encounters the Bohemian Shimerda family—including Ántonia, who will come to occupy a very special place in Jim's life. For the Shimerdas no less than Jim, life on the prairies of Nebraska will be a whole new experience. Though they come from a completely different part of the world and speak a different language, they share something in common with Jim in that they, too, are outsiders in this neck of the woods. It is that shared sense of being newcomers to a strange land that allows Jim to forge such a close and endurable connection to Ántonia.

What is the lesson of Orpheus and Eurydice?

The lesson in Orpheus and Eurydice is the importance of trust. Orpheus has to trust that Eurydice is behind him as he travels away from Hades because he is forbidden to turn around and look at her until they have left the underworld.
Though it seems easy, this is actually a very difficult task for Orpheus. After all, he already feels betrayed, as death took Eurydice on their wedding night. How bad is that? Wouldn't that fill anyone with fear that the universe is against them? Orpheus had to be very worried that death would trick and cheat him once again on the threshold of happiness. He must have felt he had to give just one little tiny glance back to make sure his beloved was going to truly follow him out into life.
Of course, this lack of trust was his undoing. He needed to trust the gods of the underworld and Eurydice. While none of us will be faced with having to go literally to the underworld to retrieve a dead spouse, the story holds a universal truth: at times, all relationships face being 'poisoned' by something similar to the snake bite that killed Eurydice—maybe an affair or financial irresponsibility. At that point, rebuilding the relationship, which can seem as if it has died, can feel like a trip into hell. But to rebuild, reestablishing trust is important.
The lesson is that we have to trust the universe and our loved ones. We can't keep looking over our shoulders—even once—and second-guessing.

How can I write a review of Catcher in the Rye?

The key to writing a good review of a book is to hone in on one to three ideas or themes that run throughout the narrative, depending on the length of the review. I would suggest limiting yourself to one or two ideas or themes for anything shorter than five pages—any more and your analysis could end up being rather surface level. It's easier to work backward from big to small than it is to go from small to big. This isn't to dissuade you from pursuing ideas that are less prevalent than others, since those often make for the most interesting essays, but to encourage you to think broadly and then flush it out.
For example, innocence is a pervasive theme throughout the novel. Holden, the protagonist and narrator, wants to preserve the innocence of children, and he often juxtaposes it against the crudeness of adulthood and a disillusionment with authority. Just in that rather basic thesis I've identified two key areas of focus throughout the review: one, discussing at length and providing examples of Holden's infatuation with children's innocence, and two, why Salinger decides to show it in contrast to adulthood.
It's important that your analysis arrives at a conclusion. You can say all you want about what's happening within the book, but if you can't articulate why it matters, you are simply summarizing. Depending on the format—and here I'm assuming it's essay—you want to formulate your thesis to preview your conclusion. If my thesis is something like, 'J.D. Salinger uses the character of Holden Caulfield to illustrate a generation's disillusionment with society in the wake of the second war,' it shows I have a path to my analysis while leaving room to expand on how and why society would be disillusioned after the war and why Caulfield is a vehicle for it. It's important to keep ing mind that you don't necessarily have to arrive at calling the text 'good' or 'bad.' I'd actually caution against doing so, because those binaries are often restricting. Just remember to be diligent in your analysis by providing many examples, and don't be afraid to consult academic scholarship from places like google scholar. Using others to strengthen your argument is always a good move—just be sure to cite!

The Catcher in the Rye is J.D. Salinger’s best known work, although before he published it, he was a short story writer, his work appearing in the New Yorker. He was urged to complete a novel, and he found this to be a daunting task, so he approached it in the best way he knew how: as a series of short stories. Eventually, these came together to be known as The Catcher in the Rye, a must-read, albeit sometimes controversial, book for most high school students.
Although it is often noted for Holden Caulfield’s relatable teenage angst, there is a lot more to The Catcher in the Rye. He has an astute eye when it comes to noticing the actions of those around him, particularly adults; the word “phony” is a favorite of his. He even uses it to describe his brother D.B., who has become a Hollywood screenwriter. The book begins with Holden seeking treatment in a mental institution, but the real story begins at his prep school. After he learns he is getting kicked out of school, loses the school fencing team’s equipment on the train, and gets into a fight, he travels to a hotel in New York to avoid seeing his parents before they learn of his expulsion.
He has adventures more fitting of an adult than a sixteen-year old, and his descriptions of the people around him are both depressing and accurate; his outlook is not one of optimism. He meets three women in a bar and dances with them, particularly one who he thinks dances well, but they lack the conversational abilities he is looking for. He has an encounter with a prostitute which ends with him telling her he just wants to talk and her pimp punching him and taking more money out of him. He calls several old friends and classmates and shops for a record for his younger sister, Phoebe, who idolizes him. He spends a lot of time thinking about his other brother, Allie, who died.
Holden is at a loss of what to do next, and he sneaks into his house to see Phoebe. He tells her that he sees himself as the “catcher in the rye,” that he is supposed to catch children about to fall off a cliff. Eventually he becomes fed up with what he sees as the futility of trying to live an “authentic” life, and he decides to leave everything he knows and head out west. Before he goes, he meets Phoebe to say goodbye, and she is ready to go with him. He changes his mind and watches her on the carousel. While Holden sees himself as the catcher in the rye, someone who is supposed to save children, it is Phoebe’s innocence and love for Holden that ends up saving him.

What are the genre differences in the BBC show Sherlock's episode "Hounds of Baskerville" in comparison to Doyle's novel The Hound of the Baskervilles?

While there are obvious similarties in the plotline of both the TV show and Doyle's story, there are also some notable differences which don't necessarily mean that the TV show and the book are different genres. Perhaps the TV show has more horror elements in it in comparison to the book, which sticks to the classic adventure thriller genre.
In the story, Holmes and Watson go to Baskerville Hall to protect Sir Henry Baskerville from his fate to be murdered by a gruesome and bloodthirsty hound. In the show, John and Sherlock go to Sir Henry Knight's home to investigate his father's murder, which leads them to a military research base about genetic mutation in animals called Baskerville. In the novel, Stapleton kills Henry's uncle with his hound and tries to kill Henry, too, so that he could inherit Baskerville Hall; in the TV show, Dr. Frankland and a group of scientists develop a hallucinogenic drug, H.O.U.N.D., and Frankland murders Henry's father to shut him up, then scares and tries to harm Henry as well.

What are three problems and solutions in Hoot?

One problem that runs throughout the story is the problem of the owls being threatened by the construction of the new restaurant. Through the efforts of Mullet Fingers, Roy, and Beatrice, the construction project is hampered and delayed long enough to prove that the owls are really there and that there is a problem with the paperwork regarding the construction. Another problem concerns Dana's bullying of Roy. This problem comes to a beautiful end when Dana is framed for the construction site vandalism. This brings up another problem: the vandalism that was happening. Officer Delinko knew about it, as did Roy, but nobody could figure out how it was happening or who was doing it. Roy eventually figures out that it is Mullet Fingers vandalizing the construction site in order to help protect the owls.

What is Greg Van Eekhout's attitude toward his story "Native Aliens," and what is Stanley G. Weinbaum's attitude toward his story "A Martian Odyssey"? Both share the same subject, colonization.

Green van Eekhout's short story "Native Aliens" was first published in So Long Been Dreaming: Postcolonial Science Fiction & Fantasy in 2004. The story follows two temporal plot lines: the first is of a 1940s Dutch family that lives in Indonesia. Though this family has been living in Indonesia for dozens of years (and have since intermarried), they continue to identify with Dutch culture. The second narrative arc is supplied by a group of humans who have colonized a planet called Breva in the (future) twenty-fourth century. These humans have been genetically modified to resemble the native Brevans. Therefore, time and genetic or (in the case of the Dutch) biological changes have been wrought on each group of protagonists. When a revolution in Indonesia causes the Dutch family to return to the Netherlands and later to America, the Brevan-Terrans seek a return to earth. In both cases, the groups find they are no longer suited, culturally or physically, to the land of their ancestors. According to van Eekhout, only upon repatriation does a colonized people (especially the population's children) realize the extent of colonialism's effects. Colonialism cannot be undone.
In Stanley Weinbaum's 1934 "A Martian Odyssey," the colonizers are (more typically within the genre of science fiction) human. The colonizers are four scientists aboard a ship (Ares) which arrives on Mars. One lone chemist, Dick Jarvis, ends up losing the ship and, while making his way back, befriends an alien named Tweel. Tweel reveals his humanity when he steps in to aid Jarvis when the latter is being attacked by creatures pushing carts of organic matter to a domed chamber that houses a magic crystal. This crystal is, according to Jarvis's hypothesis, radioactive. When Jarvis is rescued by the Ares, he misses the friendship of Tweel, but his colleagues are enthusiastic at his retrieval of this magical crystal. As in van Eekhout's narrative, those who experience colonialism are effected differently than those who engineer or sponsor it.
Weinbaum's depiction of colonialism (while critically acclaimed) is a more typical colonialist narrative: the colonizing group seeks resources and, when it finds those resources, leaves. Greg van Eekhout's version focuses on the experience of those dispossessed of their ancestral lands over generations, such that they do not identify with their native (colonizing) land despite being irreversibly changed by it (through marriage or genetic modification).
Both writers are critical of colonization, but van Eekhout is more sensitive to the changes wrought over time. Insofar as he showcases the situation of the dispossessed, he demonstrates that colonialism can never occur without consequence.

How does Woolf feel about the bishop's comments about women?

In chapter 3, Woolf recalls a bishop who "once declared that it was impossible for any woman, past, present, or to come, to have the genius of Shakespeare." The bishop was so adamant in this opinion that "he wrote to the papers about it." Woolf responds, sarcastically, that "the borders of ignorance (must have) shrank back" at the approach of such bishops as this.
Woolf then concedes, as she looks at the works of Shakespeare, that the bishop may have been right, in as much as "it would have been impossible, completely and entirely, for any woman to have written the plays of Shakespeare in the age of Shakespeare." Woolf explains that this is not because, as the Bishop presumably supposed, women are intellectually inferior to men, but rather because men in Shakespeare's time were afforded many more rights and opportunities than were women. While Shakespeare was able to attend a grammar school, work in a theatre, "become a successful actor," and live "at the hub of the universe," a woman at the same time would have had to remain at home, with "no chance of learning grammar and logic" and certainly not with any of the other equal opportunities either.
Woolf thus turns the bishop's comments about women on their head: a woman could not have written the works of Shakespeare, she argues, not because women are intellectually inferior to men but because men have imposed so many limitations upon women. The implication is that she feels the bishop's opinions about women are ignorant and the product of centuries of entrenched, unquestioned sexism.

What does James need to do to the little green crocodile tongues to get them working?

At the beginning of the story, James is approached by a peculiar old man with a small paper bag. Inside the paper bag, there are "a mass of tiny green things" that the old man tells him are crocodile tongues. The old man gives the bag to James and tells him how to use the tongues to make a potion that will magically make "marvelous . . . fabulous, unbelievable things" happen to James. The old man promises James that if he follows his instructions, he will "never be miserable again."
To make the potion correctly, James is told that he must first of all pour all of the crocodile tongues into "a large jug of water." Next he must slowly add ten single hairs, one by one, from his own head. The hairs, the old man says, will set the crocodile tongues off and "get them going." After that, when the mixture starts to "froth and bubble furiously," the old man says that James must drink the potion, "the whole jugful, in one gulp." James is warned that he will then start to feel the potion "churning and boiling" in his stomach and that steam will start coming out of his mouth. "Immediately after that," the old man, says, the crocodile tongues will have worked their magic, and the aforementioned "marvelous . . . fabulous, unbelievable things" will start to happen.

The princess might have indicated to her lover the door with the tiger behind it or the one with the bride behind it. Give one reason why she might have shown the door with the tiger behind it.

We simply don't know which door the lady sends her lover toward. That's one of the many reasons why the story retains such an enduring fascination. The princess has perfectly valid reasons for wanting her lover to choose either her or the tiger. Most obviously, it could be said that she indicates the door behind which she's standing because she wants to be with her lover. At the same time, however, she could just as easily send him toward the door with the tiger behind it because she's insanely jealous and can't stand the thought of his being with another woman. In fact, it's notable that equal space in the story is devoted to the princess's anxiety about her lover potentially cheating on her than to the terrifying thought of his being torn to pieces by the tiger.

Is Caesar’s assassination as a justified means to freedom referenced to in the book that Plutarch wrote?

I do not feel that Plutarch draws a definite conclusion one way or the other as to whether the conspirators were justified in killing Caesar.
The assassination of Caesar is one of the pivotal points in history, partly because, 2,000 years later, there continues to be debate about its meaning and consequences for the western world. Plutarch seems to express the view that the conspirators were extremely naive, after having committed such an act, in believing in the purity of their own motives. He relates that after killing Caesar, they self-consciously marched in solidarity to the public forum to make a speech on the rightness of their actions, thinking the people of Rome would be sympathetic and grateful to them for eliminating a man they (the conspirators) considered a dangerous tyrant. But over the following days, public sentiment against them in Rome grew to the point where the conspirators realized they had to get out of town as fast as possible.
The outcome was, of course, that the freedom, in the name of which the conspirators said they had acted, was not restored to Rome. Instead, the Republic came to an end and an Empire was established after an extended period of war and civil disorder. Plutarch reports these events objectively, and basically lets the reader draw conclusions as to the ultimate significance of the death of Julius Caesar.

What are Nora's objectives in the play A Doll's House?

As is true with major characters in most successful dramas, Nora's objectives change throughout the play. Not only are her objectives varied in individual scenes but her overall objective shifts as more of the story of her past are made evident to the audience and other characters. A key point to remember is that Nora knows all of the information that she reveals throughout the course of the play at the beginning.
At the beginning, Nora seems quite content being Torvald's Doll (a comparison that she makes at the end of the play). She flits about the house, takes care of the children, and is apparently quite the spendthrift. All the while, she carries a deep secret about why money seems to flow through her fingers. She hints at that secret in the first act in her reunion scene with Mrs. Linde. It is in this scene, that the audience is first privy to the fact that Nora really wants to share her secret...even though they don't know what that secret is. She is obviously proud of something she's done in her past but isn't sure who she can trust with the secret.
When the audience first sees Nora interact with Nils Krogstad, they also find out some of what Nora has been hiding. It is at that point, when Nils confirms that Nora not only took out the loan without Torvald's knowledge but also forged her father's signature on the documents, that Nora's objective changes. She becomes, at least to herself, focused on the task of getting rid of Krogstad from her life and ending the financial relationship once and for all. While on the one hand, she wants Torvald to remain unaware of the truth, on the other hand, she seems to want to let him know so that he can take care of the situation and come to her rescue to break off the financial relationship.
In the third act, when Torvald and Nora return from the party, she first finds out from Mrs. Linde that Krogstad had not stayed to retrieve his letter from Torvald (even though it was Mrs. Linde who actually convinced him not to). Once Mrs. Linde leaves and Dr. Rank leaves his black-crossed card, Nora uses the apparent impending death of Dr. Rank as a reason to send Torvald to his office to read his mail rather than go to bed with him as he desires. Nora is thoroughly desiring and expecting the most wonderful thing...Torvald will come to her rescue, dismiss Krogstad, take whatever punishment comes and they will live happily together regardless of their financial future.

"When that was done, I was so absolutely certain, you would come forward and take everything upon yourself, and say: I am the guilty one."

When Torvald emerges furious with Nora, she realizes that her relationship with her husband has never been anything but as a plaything (a Doll). It is then that her objective changes to getting out, taking responsibility for her actions, clearing Torvald's name and enduring the consequences on her own.
Finally, when Torvald receives Krogstad's final letter, along with the promissory note and his statement that the debt and forgery are completely forgiven, Nora's final objective is to illustrate to Torvald how they have never really lived as husband and wife...but that both he and her father treated her as a doll rather than a young lady or woman.

It is perfectly true, Torvald. When I was at home with papa, he told me his opinion about everything, and so I had the same opinions; and if I differed from him I concealed the fact, because he would not have liked it. He called me his doll-child, and he played with me just as I used to play with my dolls. And when I came to live with you--

The answer to this question depends on your interpretation of the "point" of the play. Nora changes considerably during the course of the action, and finally, she strikes out on her own, leaving her husband. In that respect, her ultimate objective would be to gain her freedom. But throughout the play, she has numerous other, very different objectives; her ability to achieve them, or not, contributes to her final decision and action.
Nora wants to be a model wife to her husband, Torvald. Before the play begins, we learn, the couple spent time in Italy for the sake of improving his ill health. Unfortunately, Nora's objective prompted her to make some bad decisions. The contradictions between her goals in marriage and her inability to behave ethically set up the conflict that leads her to leave.
Nora also aims to keep her bad financial behavior secret, especially from Torvald, who is a bank manager. Stemming from her earlier act of forgery, keeping the secret involves a related goal: preventing another banker, Krogstad, from informing Torvald. In this, Nora does not succeed.
Because Nora has the goal of helping her friends, she sets in motion the events that lead to Krogstad’s writing to Torvald about her crime. Her husband is then revealed to be a hypocrite, rather than the honorable man she loved and wanted to support.
In the end, Nora’s objectives are to be her own person: to be honest and free, to not live without true love, and to not tolerate a false marriage.

In Farewell to Manzanar, what does Papa burn and why?

Farewell to Manzanar is a memoir written by Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston and James D. Houston. This memoir follows the life of Jeanne, a child of a Japanese immigrant (known as a Nisei), who was born in America. She was seven years old and living in California in 1941, when the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese took place. Now, because of the tension between the United States and Japan, most Japanese people were afraid of being arrested for simply being on American soil, which is why her father decided to burn his Japanese flag and his identity papers. He was hoping to be able to save himself from being arrested, but he did it in vain; he was still arrested by the FBI and beaten as he was taken to jail.
The next year, in 1942, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which stated that anyone who potentially posed a threat to national security could be relocated by the military. This was when Jeanne and her family were taken to the Manzanar Relocation Center, where they suffered inhumane conditions (not enough warm clothes, not enough room for all of them, spoiled food, etc.) alongside many other Japanese Americans. Her family was reunited with her father in this camp, although Jeanne was the only one to be happy with their reconciliation.

How does the birthmark affect Aylmer? What does this reveal about his character flaws?

Aylmer absolutely detests the little red birthmark shaped like a hand on his wife's left cheek. To him, it is a blemish on an otherwise perfect face. As a famed scientist, he has traveled all over the world, using his vast knowledge to solve problems, and he's absolutely determined that this particular problem—his wife's unsightly birthmark—will also be solved. To this end, Aylmer has invented a special potion which he believes will remove Georgiana's birthmark once and for all.
Aylmer's (over) reaction to his wife's slight physical flaw tells us a lot about his character. This is a man who simply cannot and will not accept his wife for what she is, warts and all. (Or in this case, birthmarks and all.) Aylmer comes across as a bit of a control freak, someone who always has to have his own way. His wife is no more to him than a guinea pig for his latest experiment, someone to be controlled and exploited for the advancement of scientific knowledge. He's also something of a perfectionist; everything in his life must be just right. That's why he finds the very sight of his wife's birthmark so incredibly offensive.
Despite being a man of science, Aylmer largely inhabits a world of his own imagination, and in this ideal world, everything is just as it should be, including Georgiana. He becomes so obsessed with making his crazed fantasy world a reality that he's prepared to risk the life of Georgiana, the woman he's supposed to love.

Which of Aristotle‘s appeals (ethos/pathos/logos) did Edwards use most often in his sermon?

"Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" was Jonathan Edwards’s sermon meant to drive fear into the hearts of his congregation and, later, a congregation he had been invited to speak at. It is perhaps the best example of what religion was like during the Great Awakening. To convince the congregation of the seriousness of his words, Edwards used Aristotle’s modes of persuasion: logos, ethos, and most of all, pathos.
Edwards was logical in his sermon: Sinners are going to Hell (which Edwards declared was, in fact, a real place), and the only reason we haven’t all been cast into Hell already is because God hasn’t decided to do it yet:

There is no Want of Power in God to cast wicked Men into Hell at any Moment. Mens Hands can’t be strong when God rises up: The strongest have no Power to resist him, nor can any deliver out of his Hands.

Our word "ethics" comes from ethos, and this is a vehicle for convincing the listener that what the deliverer is saying must be true, because the deliverer is an authority on the subject. Edwards, as preacher, was considered the expert on what God meant, but he also referred to the authority of the Bible. Because the Bible said sinners were going to hell, it must be so:

Divine Justice says of the Tree that brings forth such Grapes of Sodom, Cut it down, why cumbreth it the Ground, Luk. 13. 7. The Sword of divine Justice is every Moment brandished over their Heads, and ‘tis nothing but the Hand of arbitrary Mercy, and God’s meer Will, that holds it back.

Pathos relies on feelings, and this was Edwards’s primary tool for getting his message across. Everything about "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" caused great fear in Edwards’s listeners—intentional fear meant to persuade people that they must live exactly according to the Bible and repent, or they would go to Hell (and in fact, they were experiencing a bit of Hell here on earth if they were sinners, anyway):

The Devil stands ready to fall upon them and seize them as his own, at what Moment God shall permit him. They belong to him; he has their Souls in his Possession, and under his Dominion.”
“It is no Security to wicked Men for one Moment, that there are no visible Means of Death at Hand. ‘Tis no Security to a natural Man, that he is now in Health, and that he don’t see which Way he should now immediately go out of the World by any Accident, and that there is no visible Danger in any Respect in his Circumstances.
Consider this, you that are here present, that yet remain in an unregenerate State. That God will execute the fierceness of his Anger, implies that he will inflict Wrath without any Pity: when God beholds the ineffable Extremity of your Case, and sees your Torment to be so vastly disproportion’d to your Strength, and sees how your poor Soul is crushed and sinks down, as it were into an infinite Gloom, he will have no Compassion upon you, he will not forbear the Executions of his Wrath, or in the least lighten his Hand; there shall be no Moderation or Mercy, nor will God then at all stay his rough Wind; he will have no Regard to your Welfare, nor be at all careful lest you should suffer too much, in any other Sense than only that you shall not suffer beyond what strict Justice requires: nothing shall be with-held, because it’s so hard for you to bear.

Patient X has a large wound with opaque, yellowish pus oozing form the wound. A sample is sent to your lab. Outline the steps you would take to identify the organism causing a suspected infection. Include in your outline stains that would be used and what information you would gather from the results of the stains. For example, would the reaction be positive or negative, and why? Consider cell shape and cellular arrangement. Explain why certain types of media and biochemical tests would be used. Describe cultural and physiological characteristics of each organism.

This question is fairly dense, but the steps taken will be fairly straightforward in a prototypical case. If Patient X is discharging a yellowish pus from a wound, we can be certain that there is an infection. To outline what we would need to identify said infection, there are tests we would need to order to identify the strain of bacterium causing pathogenesis. With that said, if a patient presents with a yellow discharge oozing from a wound, my initial thought as a health are provider is that my patient could be presenting with a staphylococcal infection of the skin. Staphylococcus aureus is incredibly contagious and spreads quite easily in a hospital setting. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is especially dangerous in the hospital or community setting.
To be able to stop these specific strands of infection, as health care providers, we are required to find the specific antibiotic to combat them; this is where lab testing becomes paramount.
We would first take a culture of the infection to see if the strain of bacteria is gram-positive or gram-negative. Under a microscope, we would see that gram-positive Staph species have cellular arrangements that are grape-like in appearance. On a blood agar test, we would then see that the gram-positive strain has an opaque-white or cream color. We would then use a catalase test to distinguish Staph from Streptococcus, which is also a genus of gram-positive cocci and a common cause of skin infections. Streptococcus can cause “strep throat” and toxic-shock syndrome if left untreated, though S. aureus can cause toxic-shock as well. Staph species are catalase-positive, while Strep species are catalase-negative. Again, it is important that we distinguish between the two due to the required antibiotics to treat the infection. Other steps would then be taken to see if the strain of bacteria is coagulase-positive or coagulase-negative, which is unique to certain species of bacteria. Passive agglutination is the test that would be used to identify whether a strain is coagulase-positive or negative. If the sample is coagulase-positive, it is typically S. aureus.
Another important test in determining the strain of bacteria is the mannitol salt agar (MSA). The MSA test is another way of testing whether a strain is coagulase-positive or negative. Many staph species are able to grow on an MSA medium because they can exist in high concentrations of sodium chloride or specifically, (7.5% NaCl). The difference comes in, in that coagulase-positive strains of staphylococcus such as S. aureus ferment mannitol. Mannitol will turn yellow on the plate and distinguish itself as being S. aureus. A coagulase-negative staph infection will stay red and will be readily identifiable.
This is the basic outline of a test called for in identifying a bacterial infection, using staph as the main example, as it is so often encountered. With these markers that each strain of bacteria produces, common physical presentations on the patient often manifest themselves and help in identifying the underlying pathology.

What sentences give away the theme?

The first thing to do with this question is figure out which them you are trying to find quotes for. This story has more than a single theme, so start with picking a theme. I tend to emphasize the theme of dehumanization in this story. The boys are treated like animals and exist for the pure entertainment purposes of the wealthy elite; however, the nude woman is also treated as an object that exits merely for the titillation of wealthy white men in attendance. A supporting quote would be the following quote.

And all the while the blonde continued dancing, smiling faintly at the big shots who watched her with fascination, and faintly smiling at our fear. I noticed a certain merchant who followed her hungrily, his lips loose and drooling.

A number of the men eventually start groping her, and she is forced to flee in sheer terror. Once the boxing and fighting match begins, the narrator flat out tells readers that he felt as if he had no dignity. It has been taken from him just as his sight has been taken from him with the blindfold to make the boxing match that much more hilarious for the drunken onlookers.

Blindfolded, I could no longer control my motions. I had no dignity.

What is an example of a deductively valid argument for ethical relativism that appeals to tolerance?

Relativism and tolerance are closely linked, and often arise in situations of religious and cultural difference. Relativism refers to the idea that one must take into account the belief system by which people make decisions about practices that may be unacceptable to those of other cultures. Tolerance refers to not taking action to prevent others from acting according to their beliefs; it is usually but not always based on a relativist perspective. Other motivations for tolerance can include legal and political bases of civil rights in a given country or other jurisdiction.
Two cases that might work well for the type of argument you consider are eating meat and genital mutilation.
In many belief systems, it is considered wrong to eat meat. While there are different reasons, many people object to killing other animals because they respect their fellow creatures as living, sentient beings. For many, killing animals is especially heinous when done for the purpose of consuming their flesh. People who have these beliefs may consider flesh-eaters’ choices through a relativist perspective and tolerate their behaviors. That is, a vegetarian might consider that other belief systems do not place equal value on all living creatures. It may be neither possible nor advisable to try to persuade or prohibit everyone from eating animals.
Genital mutilation, or circumcision, is widely practiced in many cultures. These practices include male infant penile circumcision and female genital cutting. Opponents argue that subjecting children to any surgical procedure is inhumane because the children do not freely choose to participate. Proponents who argue for a relativist view point out that religious practices are a matter of personal concern and that parents are capable of making choices on behalf of their children.

Why did Tavana Nui's silence make Mafatu feel ashamed?

Tavana Nui is the Great Chief of the Hikueru, and Mafatu’s father. His silence shames Mafatu, because the boy knows that it signifies his disappointment in his cowardice. Mafatu knows that his father loves him and is understanding of his fear of the sea. However, the Hikueru have roles spelled out for each of the genders, and it is expected that boys should grow up into strong warriors and fishermen, able to protect and fend for the larger society—roles which Mafatu is unable to take up because of his fear. The villagers talk about Mafatu’s lack of bravery, some even taunt him. They ask themselves questions like "What manner of fisherman will Mafatu grow up to be? How will he ever lead the men in battle against warriors of other lands?" The text states that the Great Chief would grow "silent and grim" upon hearing this kind of talk from the villagers.
Being the chief’s son places a lot of responsibility on Mafatu’s young shoulders. The older people of the tribe quite understand Mafatu’s fear for the sea and blame "tupaupau, the ghost spirit which possesses every child at birth," for it. They do not pressure him into overcoming his cowardice, perhaps because they also understand the genesis of the boy’s fear—the boy has never forgotten the hurricane that swept him and his mother into the ocean, when he was only three years of age, finally killing his mother and leaving him for the dead. In fact, he is haunted by the voice of the reef, whispering these words in his ears: "You cheated me once, Mafatu, but someday, someday, I will claim you." The younger people of the tribe mock Mafatu often. The remaining members of his family also treat him with "open scorn." His father, on the hand, is silent—a silence that shames the boy. This is one of the reasons why Mafatu finally decides to leave the island to face his greatest fears and to prove to all, his bravery. He hopes to come back to Hikueru a brave man, deserving of the name “Stout Heart,” as given to him by his father. He hopes to make his father a proud father of a reformed, braver him.

Why didn't Basil Hallward want to exhibit the portrait?

In chapter 1 of The Picture of Dorian Gray, Basil Hallward explains that he does not want to exhibit Dorian's portrait because, as he says, "I really can't exhibit it. I have put too much of myself into it" (Wilde). He further explains to Lord Henry

every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter. The sitter is merely the accident, the occasion. It is not he who is revealed by the painter; it is rather the painter who, on the coloured canvas, reveals himself. The reason I will not exhibit this picture is that I am afraid that I have shown in it the secret of my own soul. (Wilde)

Basil feels that by painting such a portrait he has revealed his own soul and his own personality. The portrait has become too personal and too intimate to allow strangers to view it. He has poured his own work, heart, and soul into this painting. Basil believes that exhibiting the portrait would somehow be a violation of his own privacy because it reveals too much about him.
Additionally, he goes on to explain to Lord Henry that he feels that the subject of the portrait, Dorian Gray, has become a muse for him. Basil has an obsession with Dorian, and he believes that simply having Dorian around makes him a better painter and allows his art to reach new heights. However, he does not want Dorian or anyone else to guess at "all this curious artistic idolatry"(Wilde) and concludes that "my heart shall never be put under the microscope" (Wilde). Basil does not wish to allow his own feelings or heart to be on display for the public, and he thinks that he would be doing just that if he exhibited the painting.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/174/174-h/174-h.htm

What decisions did Jonas’s community make long ago that affect his family and community today?

I think that this question is asking about the Sameness. Many years before Jonas was born, the community adopted the Sameness. The intentions of it were good because the goal of the Sameness was to get rid of pain, suffering, hate, anger, sadness, etc. Other things that were gotten rid of were the ability to see color and memories of long ago. That is why the Giver and Receiver of Memory exist. They are there to preserve the memories of long ago. Getting rid of all of those "bad" emotions seems like a good idea, but none of the really "good" emotions function correctly anymore either. Jonas's community seems to be happy and content, but they really aren't. Without sadness, a person can't really know what happiness is.

Would you rate Costco’s competitive strategy as pursuing differentiation, cost-leadership, focus, or some combination? Why?

Costco's primary strategy is cost leadership. People go there expecting significant savings on a product, rather than on brand names.
Except for its own brand (Kirkland), Costco isn't in business to sell brand-name items at low cost like Walmart does. You won't consistently find the same brands at a Costco warehouse, but what you do find will be higher quality than most of Walmart's stock and heavily discounted. Costco regularly features non-Kirkland brands, including Gloria Vanderbilt women's clothing and various brands of liquor, wine, and beers.
I'd also argue that Costco has positioned itself as the anti-Walmart. It avoided a lot of the negative press Walmart received in the early 2000s surrounding employee wages and benefits that most full-time minimum-wage employees couldn't afford. Costco has always paid a decent enough wage to its employees, even part-timers. As a result, it benefits from very low employee turnover, which gives the company huge savings on human resources and training expenses.

What are the two types of fat that contribute to the structure of the plasma membrane?

I would like to clarify the question a little bit. There are two main types of fat that contribute to the structure and function of a cell's plasma membrane. The two major categories are the phospholipids and the glycolipids. A relatively quick and easy way to identify the difference between the two fat types is that the phosopholipids (as the name indicates) contain phosphate, and the glycolipids do not contain phosphate. The phospholipid usually forms up in a "bilayer" consisting of hydrophobic tails and a hyrdrophilic head. This structure helps aid in passive transport mechanisms like diffusion and osmosis. Glycolipids are lipids that have a carbohydrate (sugar) attached to it. Their role is to help with the overall stability of the cell. They extend from the bilayer into the extracellular environment.

How does poverty contribute to the development of the play A Raisin in the Sun?

The theme of poverty contributes to the development of the play by serving as the primary catalyst for Walter Younger's financial decision to invest Lena's insurance money into a liquor business, which drives the plot and increases the suspense of the play. The Younger family lives in the poverty-stricken South Side, where they desire to move out of their outdated, cramped apartment using Lena's insurance money. The ten thousand dollar insurance check is a significant amount of money to the poor Younger family and each member plans on using the money to invest in their own separate dreams. While Lena and Ruth are concerned with moving into a newer, comfortable home and Beneatha is focused on earning an education, Walter views the insurance money as a way to attain financial stability. The Younger family's current financial struggles act as a catalyst for Walter to make a risky business decision, which leaves the family broke again.
Walter's desire to attain financial security goes awry, which leads to a dramatic decision to sell Lena's home in Clybourne Park back to the white community. If the Younger family were not living in poverty, the insurance check would not have created such a disturbance in their home and influenced Walter to make a risky business decision, which leads to a dramatic scene between Walter and Mr. Lindner towards the end of the play. Overall, poverty serves as a significant aspect of the Younger family's lives, which serves as the catalyst for Walter's decision to invest Lena's insurance money in a liquor business while simultaneously driving the plot and contributing to the drama of the play.

What can be a good argument about the women in the house on mango street?

The women described in The House on Mango Street are loosely based on the author's own relatives, friends, and neighbors in Chicago.
In traditional Latino culture, while the matriarch is highly respected and has social power and influence within the family, women are generally designated to supporting roles by males. Machismo is a feature of the male-dominated Hispanic culture, and this is evident in the neighborhood that Esperanza lives in.
However, gender roles are blurred inside of Esperanza's household, because they have to take on duties that are necessary for their survival in a poor neighborhood. Esperanza and her friends meet various women in the neighborhood who experienced abuse in the hands of their husbands, or had to let go of old ambitions in order to support their family. There is a culture of suppression and oppression of women throughout the barrio, but the women remain resilient despite their circumstances.
It can be argued that the female characters and their experiences in The House on Mango Street are a microcosm of Hispanic women throughout the United States and beyond. It can also be argued that anachronistic traditions, gender roles, and poverty are challenges that some Hispanic women face even today.

What did Maria plan in Twelfth Night?

In Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, Maria is Olivia's waiting-gentlewoman and a central figure in Olivia's household.
Maria intends to humiliate Olivia's dour, pompous, prideful, self-righteous steward Malvolio for his constant criticism of her and other members of Olivia's household, including Sir Toby Belch; his friend and companion, Sir Andrew Aguecheek; and Feste, the fool.
Her plan is simple. She'll write a letter in Olivia's handwriting that will lead Malvolio to believe that Olivia is in love with him and leave the letter where Malvolio can find it.

MARIA: I will drop in his way some obscure epistles of love;wherein, by the colour of his beard, the shape of his leg,the manner of his gait, the expressure of his eye, forehead,and complexion, he shall find himself most feelingly personated.I can write very like my lady, your niece; on a forgot-ten matter we can hardly make distinction of our hands. [2.3.143-148]

Sir Toby approves the plan:

SIR TOBY: He shall think, by the letters that thou wilt drop, thatthey come from my niece [Olivia], and that she is in love with him. [2.3.151-152]

Malvolio does, indeed, fall for the trick, and he believes that Olivia is in love with him.
Maria writes in the letter,

"Remember who commendedthy yellow stockings, and wished to see thee ever cross-gartered:..." [2.5.137-139

And,

"If thouentertainest my love, let it appear in thy smiling; thy smilesbecome thee well; therefore, in my presence still smile, dearmy sweet, I prithee..." [2.5.155-158]


MALVOLIO: Jove, I thank thee. I will smile; I will do everything thatthou wilt have me. [2.5.158-160]

And he does. He appears to Olivia wearing yellow stockings, cross-gartered, and he smiles incessantly when he's in her presence.
Of course, Olivia thinks he's gone mad—

OLIVIA: Why, this is very midsummer madness. [3.4.53]

—and Malvolio is well and truly humiliated.

OLIVIA:Alas, poor fool, how have they baffled thee! [5.1.382]

What came upon the boss as a terrible shock?

The answer to this question can be found about halfway through this great short story. Woodifield and the boss are talking with each other and sharing a bit of top shelf whisky. Woodifield is quite pleased to be allowed some of the drink because his family no longer lets him have any of it at home. Soon after commenting on the amazing taste of the drink, Woodifield announces that his daughters took a recent trip to Belgium. While there, they visited the grave of their brother. They also happened to see the grave of the boss's son. Woodifield then comments about how beautifully the cemetery is kept.

"The girls were delighted with the way the place is kept," piped the old voice. "Beautifully looked after. Couldn't be better if they were at home. You've not been across, have yer?"

Woodifield then tells a story about how his daughters felt ripped off by the restaurant/hotel. By this point, the boss isn't listening very closely. He answers without understanding why he is answering.

"Quite right, quite right!" cried the boss, though what was quite right he hadn't the least idea.

The boss then shows Woodifield out, and we are told why the boss essentially shut himself down mentally from the conversation.

It had been a terrible shock to him when old Woodifield sprang that remark upon him about the boy's grave.

The boss never expected their dead sons to come up in conversation. The fact that it was brought up in conversation shocked him quite a bit. It has been many years since their deaths, and the boss has done an effective job of repressing/forgetting the emotional hurt of losing his only son. Unfortunately, Woodifield's comment brought all of those emotions rushing back, and the emotional flooding was a shock to the boss.

The boss is catching up with his old friend, Woodifield. Both men lost sons in the First World War, and during their conversation Woodifield talks about his daughters' recent trip to Belgium to visit their brother's war grave. The old man appears quite calm and matter-of-fact as he tells the boss about the immaculate, well-kept graves, and how his daughters were ripped-off for a little pot of jam at the hotel where they were staying. He also casually mentions that his daughters saw the grave of the boss's son.
The boss hadn't been expecting Woodifield to remind him of his tragic loss. His remark about his son's grave had come as a bit of a shock to him, stirring up all kinds of unpleasant emotions he'd rather not have to deal with. But deal with them he must, and to take his mind off the immense sorrow he's now feeling he proceeds to torture a fly to death on his desk.

What are the themes of "Fifth Grade Autobiography" by Rita Dove?

The most prominent and undoubtedly most important theme in the poem would be the love, affection, and appreciation the speaker feels toward her family.Looking at an old photograph, she begins to recollect the past days of her childhood spent with her brother and grandparents, setting up the scene and imagery in her mind as if she is reliving the moment. She fondly remembers the quirks and personalities of her closest family, describing her brother as follows:

His Davy Crockett cap
sits squared on his head so the raccoon tail
flounces down the back of his sailor suit.

Here, she seems to be painting him as an exuberant boy full of youthful energy.

In the last verse, she mentions that she remembers her grandfather's smell and his hands. She uses nostalgic, and maybe even elegiac, language, writing:
I was strapped in a basket
behind my grandfather.
He smelled of lemons. He's died—

but I remember his hands.

This is noteworthy, because throughout the poem she presents small and banal details that would be unimportant and uneventful to any other person, but to her they are some of the warmest and most endearing memories she has of her family.

What was the crew's main problem?

The Perfect Storm is a terrific book that was made into a great movie. It is an accurate portrayal of the men, women, families, and communities that comprise the fishing industry. It is semi-biographical in that the author Sebastian Junger tells the story of the six men on the Andrea Gail who were lost at sea during a horrendous storm.
The book contains numerous subplots and character conflicts. There are three problems in the book. The first is the fishing industry is in decline. The fishermen on the Andrea Gail are struggling financially, and the pressing financial needs of the men strain their relationships with their families and each other. The implication is the men know of the danger and unpredictability of the weather but choose to leave the safety of the harbor to fish one last time during the season.
The second problem in the book implies the men of the Andrea Gail were conflicted as to what to do when the massive storm suddenly overtakes the small fishing boat. The movie visually portrays the struggle and decisions of a seasoned captain and crew not unfamiliar with storms. But this storm is a "perfect storm": an unprecedented collision between two weather fronts from two different directions colliding at the point where the hapless boat happened to be.
The third problem is the main problem: the storm itself. The collision of two weather fronts was violent. Hurricanes are the most violent weather storms on Earth. It is hard to put into words in terms we can comprehend how much energy is released in a hurricane. NOAA estimates, "This is equivalent to 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity—an incredible amount of energy produced!" One can only imagine what the last few hours of the brave crew of the Andrea Gail must have been like.
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/review-of-the-perfect-storm-sonnet-144832841/

Why did Hollis make an x on another child's picture?

Having been abandoned as a baby, Hollis Woods has spent the whole of her short life being passed from one foster family to the next. Hollis may not have a permanent family but she has incredible artistic ability which she uses to create representations of families. This is about as near as Hollis can get to a family of her own at this stage in her life.
In one of her homework assignments Hollis is instructed by her teacher to draw a picture of something beginning with the letter W. Hollis draws a picture of a family, which of course begins with an F, not a W. But what Hollis means is that she wants a family, and "want" does of course begin with a W. However, Hollis's teacher doesn't understand this and so marks her picture with an X, meaning that she's flunked her homework assignment.
The kid sitting next to Hollis—a child with dirty nails—starts teasing Hollis about her supposed ignorance. Hollis responds by getting out her crayon and drawing a big X on the kid's picture of a snow-white washing machine. This is nothing more than a simple act of revenge. Hollis's classmate cries over her ruined picture, and as punishment Hollis is ordered by her teacher to sit in the hall with a timeout T letter for the rest of the long afternoon.

Who asked Captain Ahab if Moby Dick had taken off his leg?

At the beginning of Chapter 100 of Moby Dick, the Pequod pulls alongside an English ship, the Samuel Enderby. Naturally, Ahab's keen to find out from the captain of the other ship whether he's seen the great white whale. As luck would have it—for Ahab, that is, not the captain—the captain of the Samuel Enderby has indeed encountered Moby Dick; he lost his arm to the white whale and now sports an artificial arm made out of ivory.
He points his ivory limb east toward the horizon and tells Ahab that that was where he saw Moby Dick the previous season. It was during this unfortunate encounter that the whale made off with the captain's arm. When the captain sees Ahab's peg leg, he asks him if that, too, was caused by Moby Dick. Ahab doesn't give him a straight answer; instead, he asks the captain to spin him a yarn, to tell him what happened that fateful day when he encountered the fearsome Moby Dick.

Summarize the poem "Meditation" by Mikhail Lermontov.

Meditation is Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov's take on the failings of a generation. The speaker looks sadly at the men and women of the time, believing they have inherited the "errors of our sires" and "their tardiness of mind". He seems to have a very dismal outlook upon the present generation's prospects. The speaker believes the generation to be shallow. He does not believe the people of this generation have either "lofty aspirations" or "noble passions." That is to say, they are aimless and without strong feelings or interests in anything at all.
The speaker goes on to say of those of his generation that they "love and hate by chance, without conviction." They choose to like and dislike things on a surface level, never digging below the surface of anything to see whether there is malice or good in the thing.
The generation is rushing through life without ever truly pausing to reflect upon its true meaning. The speaker says, "we hurry to our graves, unhappy" and believes this is so because we never have true passion for anything due to the "chill constriction" in our souls.
The speaker ends with a damning conclusion as to the lack of merit the generation holds. He states that "posterity will sneer" at the generation because they have "no thoughts that might bear fruit for ages." He does not believe that anything this generation has done will survive the test of time.
Overall, it seems the speaker has no love for this generation. He believes them to be cowardly, with no strength of moral character or passion for life.

Show how monopsony may lead to increased employment after the introduction of a minimum wage.

An employer under imperfect competition (in a labor market where it has an employment pool largely to itself) may end up paying workers less than their productivity warrants and hire fewer of them than is efficient. Under these conditions, a higher minimum wage geared to the level of the marginal output of the least productive worker could theoretically both increase the wage level and induce a higher level of employment in the firm.
It is true that labor markets are not perfectly competitive because of frictions such as imperfect imperfect information which make them somewhat sticky. Under conditions of strong monopsony (which is not a given), and if the firm's profits are stable over time it could theoretically set its minimum wage level slightly higher to achieve both higher wages and employment. However, most small and many larger businesses experience periods of unprofitability where they must effectively subsidize their employees to retain them until seasonal profitability returns. In this case a higher minimum wage might be unsustainable causing the firm to exit the market and raise unemployment.

What image of India and its people is depicted through the novel A Tiger for Malgudi?

The complex image of small-town Indian life that R. K. Narayan presents in A Tiger for Malgudi shows distinct differences between mundane practical realities and spiritual devotion. Because they fear the tiger, the townspeople try to use practical means to stop it from behaving according to its nature. However, the political and administrative hierarchy blocks rather than aids them from accomplishing their goals.
Instead, they must turn to a person who can connect to the tiger on a spiritual level. The harmony that the sannyasi achieves with the animal originates in his recognizing their shared qualities. Although the tiger seems to have been tamed while living with the sannyasi, if released, he would resume his wild ways and so must live out his days in captivity.
Human beings, Narayan suggests, can coexist with nature if they respect its ways—ultimately, however, efforts to conquer it will be futile. The author seems to place greater trust in it than in modernity.

Who was Napoleon Bonaparte?

Napoleon Bonaparte was a famous general who rose from the minor Corsican nobility to become Emperor of France and the most powerful man in Europe. From an early age, it was clear that Napoleon had huge potential talent as a soldier, and it was no surprise when he became a commissioned officer at the tender age of 16.
Napoleon quickly rose through the ranks, establishing himself as one of the brightest young soldiers in France. He first came to national prominence at the Battle of Toulon in 1793, when he lead the successful capture of the sea-port from a combined force of British and French Royalist troops.
The early years of Napoleon's military career coincided with the French Revolution, and the young army officer willingly involved himself with politics, seeing the new order as providing him with a great opportunity to fulfill his destiny—not just as a general but as a political leader. During the Revolutionary Wars, Napoleon racked up an impressive string of victories, turning him into a national hero. When he returned home to widespread acclaim, he was seen by many as the only man who could bring order and stability to a country deeply immersed in economic and political chaos.
Sure enough, Napoleon seized his opportunity, and after overthrowing the Directory— the government of France—he was made First Consul. At first, Napoleon didn't enjoy absolute power, but it was only a matter of time before this intensely ambitious man, convinced of his own military and political genius, would attempt to become the sole ruler of France. In due course, still riding high on an impressive series of military victories, Napoleon had himself elected First Consul for life. Later on, in 1804, he crowned himself—literally—as Emperor in an elaborate ceremony that left no one in any doubt that he was now the undisputed ruler of France.
At home, the new emperor embarked upon a series of radical reforms, most notably the codification of French law, the modestly-named Napoleonic Code, which still exists to this day. Abroad meanwhile, Napoleon's genius as a general ensured that France expanded its territory, changing the whole face of Europe as a consequence. The crowned heads of Europe were terrified at the speed and extent with which Napoleon extended the French Empire, making deep incursions into their own territory and even replacing some of them on the throne by his cronies and relatives.
Napoleon was clearly a serious danger to the whole stability of Europe, but for a time, his opponents were unable to mount a serious challenge to his mastery of Europe, so the victories continued, and the French Empire expanded. It seemed that Napoleon couldn't be stopped.
However, Napoleon overreached himself by invading Russia. Despite assembling what was at that time the largest armed force in history, Napoleon was unable to conquer Russia, not least because of its vast size and the harshness of the notorious Russian winter. When Napoleon arrived in Moscow, he found that the Tsar has resorted to a scorched-earth policy, burning the city to the ground and abandoning it completely. Under the circumstances, he had no choice but to retreat and embark upon the long, hard road back to France.
During the return journey, Napoleon's Grande Armée was decimated by cold, hunger, and regular attacks from Russian troops. By the time they arrived back in Paris, the French Army presented a sorry spectacle, numbering only 27,000 men out of the original invasion force of almost 700,000. Such an epic disaster convinced Napoleon's many enemies that he was no longer infallible; he could be beaten.
However, this wouldn't happen for another year, when Napoleon was decisively defeated at the Battle of Leipzig, also known as the Battle of the Nations. Though Napoleon would continue to win more battles, the coalition against him was getting stronger and more confident and was rapidly making its way towards France. It seemed that for Napoleon, the end was nigh. Sure enough, after losing the Battle of Paris, Napoleon abdicated as emperor and was sent into exile on the remote island of Elba.
He wasn't finished yet. Napoleon escaped from his island captivity, returned to France, and during the so-called Hundred Days, he tried to stage a dramatic comeback. However, the members of the Seventh Coalition—Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia—were ready for him and pledged to defeat the Corsican general once and for all, which they did at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. This time Napoleon was exiled to the South Atlantic island of St. Helena, where he was kept under closer watch than on Elba. Napoleon's long, illustrious career was over. For the remaining six years of his life, he spent most of his time writing his memoirs and complaining about the conditions of his confinement.
When Napoleon finally passed away on the 5th of May, 1821, many throughout Europe breathed a collective sigh of relief, but many others mourned the death of what they saw not just as a great military genius but as a kind of Romantic hero—an inspired individual who'd used his god-given talents to write himself and his exploits into the pages of history as few others had done before. Whatever assessment we choose to make of this extraordinary individual, there can be no doubt that he was one of the most important figures of world history, continuing to fascinate to this day.

In William Cronon's The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature; Jason W Moore's The End of Cheap Nature or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying about 'the' Environment and Love the Crisis of Capitalism; and in Rob Nixon's Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor, what are the main differences and similarities of the authors' methodologies related to “nature-culture relations”?

Each author mounts a critique of what is meant by "the environment" or the "natural world," but each approaches the problem from a different perspective. Moore's critique is also a critique of capitalism; he traces our current concerns with "conservation" to what he calls the "long 16th century," a period during which nature became commodified. Rob Nixon's notion of "slow violence" places the environment in a geopolitical context, arguing that environmental degradation is an outcome of explicit policies by first-world institutions to export pollution to the third world.
William Cronon interrogates the idea of "wilderness" from a historical position; he argues that the concept of "wilderness" and the notion of conservation is a comparatively recent development, tied to an emotional connection to "wildness," with specific political underpinnings that actually work against preserving wildness. Although they approach the issue from different perspectives, the one thing they share is the notion that "the environment" as it is used in public discourse is a construction, and that nature, in realty, is a concept that far exceeds any attempt to conceptualize or conserve it.

What is Nussbaum's conception of capability theory, and how does capability theory address the moral situations of women?

The "capability approach" is less of a crystallized theory and more of a loose framework of ideas about "well-being." Specifically, the approach seeks to 1) assess individual well-being, 2) assess social arrangements that promote well-being, and 3) design social policies that enhance well-being. Nussbaum in particular breaks down the approach to five principles:

treating each person as an end; a focus on choice and freedom rather than achievements; pluralism about values; being deeply concerned with entrenched social injustices; and ascribing an urgent task to government.

The capability approach intrinsically acknowledges diversity. In assessing well-being, for example, factors that affect women's quality of life that otherwise would be ignored are explicitly considered. Nussbaum's core capabilities explicitly make space for women's issues, casting them as fundamental human rights: these include bodily integrity, or being secure from assault, including sexual assault and domestic violence; the ability to use the imagination and engage in creative work; and the ability to have and sustain emotional attachments, free from fear and anxiety.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/capability-approach/

I'm doing an analysis of the book Misery by Stephen King. Im a bit stuck on the characterization of Paul Sheldon and Annie Wilkes. I was wondering if you had any good tips or knowledge about these two interesting characters.

While Paul Sheldon is the protagonist of Misery and Annie Wilkes is a fearsome antagonist, Stephen King gives her a number of traits that arouse the reader’s curiosity and, at least temporarily, encourage a degree of empathy with her. Much of the novel’s suspense derives from wondering whether Paul will escape his predicament, and if so, how. But another part stems from trying to figure out Annie’s motivation and back story: how does a woman get to be so evil?
In most respects, Paul and Annie are very well matched. King presents characters through contrasting elements that are almost perfectly balanced, especially at the broadest level—male and female, good and evil, captive and captor, writer and reader. As Paul’s “number one fan,” Annie identifies with the character Misery and sees herself as that woman’s advocate; in her perspective, Paul is a villain for wanting to kill off Misery. King also develops their characters through exploring the blurry line between fact and fiction.
Paul must (at least superficially) obey Annie’s orders to save his own life, even as she “mothers” him—King’s ghastly parody of maternal care. Within the infantilized, passive state she imposes on him, Paul must use physical action to build strength and apply his intellect in the real world to a far greater degree than he had to do in the fictional worlds of his creation. Annie’s monomania and hubris initially blind her to Paul’s ability to thwart her plans, and her fury at being outwitted impels her to punish him with increasing cruelty.
Although, in the end, Paul rescues himself, the elements of role reversal help make the novel more than a simplistic melodrama. The reader is left to wonder at the price both characters pay—Annie with her life, and Paul in becoming the perpetrator of violence rather than the victim.

What areas from the Enlightenment influenced American Democracy?

The principles of American democracy are founded to a large degree upon the tradition of English liberty ultimately going back to the Magna Carta. English democracy evolved over a period of hundreds of years, and we can look at the English Civil War of the 1600's and the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 as great forward bounds in this evolution. In declaring their independence from Britain in 1776, Americans were in fact asserting what they believed were their rights as Englishmen, which they saw as having been violated by George III and his administration. And in doing so they were extending those rights, drawing on the ideas of philosophers such as John Locke, whose writings are in some sense a codification of the principles of the English Constitution.
What is the connection between these facts and the overall European Enlightenment of the 1700's ? First, it's obvious that Enlightenment philosophers such as Voltaire were influenced and inspired by the (relative) political freedom they knew existed in Britain in comparison with the mostly absolutist forms of government in the countries of Continental Europe. Second, the Enlightenment was a secular movement in which the adherence to religion, and its corollary notion that kings ruled by divine right, were rejected. American democracy is based on the separation of church and state. This, of course, is a change from the English tradition in which the Church of England is linked to the government.
The United States was thus created from a chain of influences beginning with the English Constitution and followed by philosphers such as Locke, Hume, Voltaire and Rousseau, who extended the general principles of liberty, secularism, and the natural and equal rights of human beings. This may be a simplified explanation of how the Enlightenment inspired the American Revolution and ultimately the U.S. Constitution, but it can serve as the basis for further research you might wish to undertake on the subject.

What did Daniel notice after he yanked Natasha away from the BMW in The Sun is Also a Star?

In this scene, Daniel saves Natasha from almost certain death beneath the wheels of a white BMW that skipped a red light: he yanks her out of the way just in time, sending them both crashing to the ground in a tangle of limbs. They both survive relatively unscathed.
The same, however, cannot be said of Natasha's cellphone, which has a spider's web of cracks across its screen. Not only that, but her earphones are also damaged; one of the ear pads is dangling from the wires and the casing is cracked.
Daniel feels bad about what happened, so he offers to buy her a new pair. But Natasha declines Daniel's generous offer; he's already saved her life, so she probably figures that one selfless act is enough.