What is the setting of The Talisman by Sir Walter Scott?

Right throughout his long and illustrious writing career, Sir Walter Scott was strongly attracted to the Middle Ages. During the Romantic era, many artists and writers hankered after what they saw as a much simpler time, when knights of yore embarked upon chivalrous quests, and the cultural and religious unity of pre-Reformation Christendom ensured an unrivaled level of peace and social stability.
Such a portrait of the Middle Ages is, of course, highly romanticized (suitably enough), as indeed is Scott's depiction of the Crusades in The Talisman. Current scholarship on the Crusades presents this period of history as problematic, to say the least. Contemporary historians tend to highlight what they see as the imperialist mindset of the Crusaders, manifested in countless atrocities against Muslims, Jews, and Orthodox Christians.
Yet Scott is uninterested in such historical analysis; he simply wants to give his readers a good old rollicking read, packed with adventure, heroism, and a dash of romance. The Talisman is set during the Third Crusade, which was a failed attempt by the armed forces of Christendom to wrest control of the Holy Land from the Saracen warlord Saladin. Much of the story's action takes place in what would now be modern-day Israel, in the Crusaders' camp, where the rival leaders are forever at each other's throats.
Although Scott's motivations for writing The Talisman were undoubtedly to provide his loyal readership with the usually light, undemanding entertainment they'd come to expect from him, the sympathetic depiction of Muslims in the story gives it a certain depth that it would otherwise lack. It's notable, for instance, that Saladin is presented in a positive light, as a man of honor and compassion, who, disguised as a physician, cures the ailing Richard the Lionheart by means of the titular talisman.

To what extent did the 1871 massacre at Camp Grant change the conflicts between the settlers and the Native Americans?

The Camp Grant massacre was a massacre of Apache Indians by Tohono O’odha Indians and whites, who carried out this act with the encouragement of the citizens of Tucson, Arizona. It is estimated that over 100 Apache men, women, and children were murdered, attacked as they slept in a camp administered by the U.S. Army. The men responsible for planning the massacre were put on trial, but nobody was found guilty. In the short term, this tragic event led to armed conflict between the United States government and the Apache peoples, who continued to face incursions onto their lands by whites. As whites continued to pour into Arizona, and the Apache, as well as other Indian peoples in the region (including the Tohono O’odha), found themselves forced onto federal reservations. Sadly, this incident was fairly typical of interactions between white settlers and Native peoples in the West. It joins Sand Creek and Wounded Knee as another example of mass murder of Native peoples.
https://www.historynet.com/massacre-dawn-arizona-territory.htm

What was the most impactful moment in Man's Search for Meaning?

For me, a most impactful moment is when a fellow prisoner rouses the others to come outside and view a sunset. Frankl describes the scene as follows:

Standing outside we saw . . . the whole sky alive with clouds of ever-changing shapes and colors, from steel blue to blood red. The desolate grey mud huts provided a sharp contrast, while the puddles on the muddy ground reflected the glowing sky. Then, after minutes of moving silence, one prisoner said to another, "How beautiful the world could be!"

This moves me because it shows that even at a place as horrible as Auschwitz, the human spirit couldn't be entirely crushed or eradicated. The beauty of nature also could not be stamped out, despite the barbed wire, crowding, and ugliness of the surroundings. Human beings in the worst of situations—a situation set up to be hell on earth and to make life as miserable as possible—were still able to enjoy a brief moment of contemplating the beauty of nature.
This moment helps support Frankl's thesis that human beings do better when they can find purpose and meaning. Even at Auschwitz, a prisoner could transcend his surrounding for a moment to appreciate the possibility of a beautiful world. This inspires me with joy at what the human spirit is capable of and encourages me to appreciate the small graces all around me.
Of course, different people will be impacted by different moments, but this is the one that sticks with me.

Discuss the stranger's character in The Lady from the Sea.

The Lady from the Sea is a play written by Henrik Ibsen, and it was first published in Norwegian. Like many of Ibsen's other plays, The Lady from the Sea is categorized as a mystical psychological drama. In this response, I will briefly outline the character of The Stranger and the significance of this character to the play's main character, a conflicted woman.
Ellida, the daughter of a lighthouse keeper, is the play's main character. She is married to a doctor but is also fixated on the sea. This is because in the past, she loved a sailor (The Stranger) with great intensity. As the play progresses, The Stranger returns for her and wants to be with her once more. But when Ellida's husband allows her to leave him if she wishes, she decides to stay within her marriage.
The Stranger is a character marked by his wildness and his insistence on being free. Ellida literally likens him to the sea during the play. This comparison might reflect his uncontrollable nature and the way in which he would offer both beauty and danger to Ellida if she chose to pursue a life with him. The following description of The Stranger by Otto Heller conveys the complexity of The Stranger's characterization:

He dwells outside of the society and the laws of men. Once he slew a man, his own captain at that, yet his conscience is clear, for it was a deed of justice. He is never without a loaded revolver, because death for him would be easier to accept than any restraint of his liberty. Ellida's marriage he ignores, since no formal contract can affect his ways.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Lady-from-the-Sea

https://www.theatredatabase.com/19th_century/lady_from_the_sea.html

What was unusual about Benjamin Harrison's win in the election of 1888?

Benjamin Harrison (1833–1901) won the presidential election of 1888 as the Republican candidate because he had a majority in the Electoral College: 233–168. However, Grover Cleveland, the incumbent, won 100,000 more popular votes than Harrison. The Electoral College had also been different from the popular vote, deciding the election of 1876.
The election was also unusual because Harrison was the first grandson of a former president to run for the presidency. His grandfather was William Henry Harrison, who was briefly president in 1841.
The election of 1888 was also fraudulent in Harrison's home state of Indiana. Capturing Indiana was an important part of the Republicans's strategy in 1888. The GOP employed "floaters" to cast ballots in Indiana for Harrison. These "floaters" were not residents of Indiana, but they were paid to cast votes in that state. The strategy worked: Indiana went to Harrison, helping him secure his Electoral College majority.
https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1888

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-vote-that-failed-159427766/

What are some quotes from Fahrenheit 451 that shows knowledge can help people in their society?

In Part Two, Montag visits Faber's home in hopes that the ex-professor can help him comprehend the texts that he has been reading. Before Faber explains the importance of literature, he comments on the positives of preserving knowledge to improve their superficial, destructive society. Faber tells Montag,

We do need knowledge. And perhaps in a thousand years we might pick smaller cliffs to jump off. The books are to remind us what asses and fools we are (Bradbury, 40).

Faber believes that by preserving knowledge, humans will be able to learn from their mistakes and improve the standard of living nationwide as society progresses. Faber goes on to tell Montag,

They're Caesar's praetorian guard, whispering as the parade roars down the avenue, Remember, Caesar, thou art mortal.' Most of us can't rush around, talking to everyone, know all the cities of the world, we haven't time, money or that many friends (Bradbury, 40).

In Part Three, Montag flees the dystopian city and joins a group of traveling intellectuals, who preserve knowledge by remembering complete works of literature. Granger makes a similar comment when he elaborates on the importance of literature. Granger also feels that humans should preserve knowledge in order to avoid making the same mistakes over and over. Granger compares mankind to a phoenix and tells Montag,

We know all the damn silly things we've done for a thousand years, and as long as we know that and always have it around where we can see it, someday we'll stop making the goddam funeral pyres and jumping into the middle of them (Bradbury, 76).

Overall, Montag, Faber, and Granger believe that knowledge is important to advance society and mankind as a whole. Without having books to preserve knowledge of the past, humans will continue to make the same mistakes and mankind will suffer.

Demonstrate how the setting of the story exemplifies the theme of developing self-awareness. When does the setting reflect the narrator becoming self-aware?

The name "Greasy Lake" foreshadows that the night's initiation could entail waking up to some of the darker aspects of life. The dark and seedy setting of the lake and forest is symbolic of the characters having to face the dark and seedy side of themselves.
The darkness of the setting makes the case of mistaken identity possible and the ensuing fight with the "greasy character" gets the night off to an exciting start until the narrator strikes the dodgy looking stranger with a tire iron and he falls down, apparently dead. Being alone by a dark lake in the woods with the guy's frightened girlfriend in the car brings out the worst in the boys. Who is going to stop them from doing whatever they want?
After a series of harrowing events in the lake and the woods the boys emerge from the darkness to confront yet another arriving car. The intoxicated girls take one look at the boys and remark that they look like some "bad characters." In a way they are bad characters.
This is the moment the narrator becomes self-aware. The setting of their emergence from the darkness of woods and being labelled "bad characters" is confirmation of the change that has taken place. Their new awareness of their dark side and their choice to leave that behind in order to get back to a less dangerous situation indicates the new self awareness. They reject the girls' offer of drugs and head home traumatized but wiser from having confronted themselves and both failed and ultimately succeeded in their initiatory test.

In "Rules of the Game," what is one way that Lau Po helps Waverly?

Shortly after falling in love with the game of chess, Waverly spots a group of old men playing chess in the park and runs home to grab her chess set in hopes of competing against one of them. When Waverly returns to the park, she befriends an old man named Lau Po, who ends up playing her in several games of chess. Despite losing numerous games to Lau Po, Waverly learns many secret tricks and moves by playing with him throughout the summer. As an experienced chess player, Lau Po teaches Waverly various moves like The Double Attack from the East and West Shores and The Surprise from the Sleeping Guard.
In addition to teaching Waverly a myriad of moves, Lau Po also teaches Waverly chess etiquette. Waverly learns to keep captured chess pieces in neat order, remain composed after a loss, and act humble while putting someone in check. By the end of the summer, Lau Po has taught Waverly everything he knew about chess, and she becomes a significantly better player.

Why do the cops force Maverick on the ground and pat him down in The Hate U Give?

The answer to this question is found in chapter eleven of the text.
Mr. Lewis, the owner of the barbershop next to Carter’s Grocery, is having a conversation with Maverick about why Mr. Lewis identified King to reporters when questioned about an attack on some policemen by members of the King Lords. Maverick doesn’t quite understand why Mr. Lewis would put himself at risk by doing so.
However, some nearby police officers see the two men talking and assume that Mr. Lewis is being accosted. They intervene, asking to see Maverick’s identification.
After they see his ID, the officers pin Maverick to the ground as his three children watch. A gathering of people on the sidewalk grows, and the police officers let Maverick go with a warning.
According to Starr, the reason the officers pin Maverick to the ground after seeing his ID is because they recognize his last name. The officers must know that Starr Carter was the young girl who witnessed Khalil’s death at the hands of a fellow officer, and they are angry upon seeing the name on Maverick’s ID.
The reader can infer that the officers pin Maverick as an expression of their rage, but they also do this as a form of intimidation. They are communicating to Maverick—and thereby to Starr—that they are in power and that no amount of activism or testimony will change that.

How would one write a thesis statement that bariatric surgery (weight loss surgery) is not the easy way out?

Based on your question, I am assuming you want to write an argumentative claim. This is a type of thesis statement that includes a clear position and reasons to support that position. You have already indicated a position, which is in favor of bariatric surgery as a means of weight control.
There are several reasons why bariatric surgery is good for patients with obesity. One of these is that it stabilizes blood sugar and blood pressure while often eliminating sleep apnea. All of these conditions can adversely impact one’s health. The dramatic weight loss effect of bariatric surgery helps sufferers combat these conditions efficiently.
Another reason bariatric surgery is good is that it actually helps patients’ keep the weight off more effectively than traditional diets. Patients who have been obese for extended periods have lower metabolic rates, which makes it more difficult to maintain drastic weight loss. While not true in all cases, there is some research that indicates that metabolism does not hinder patients weight loss after undergoing bariatric surgery.
The biggest reason why bariatric surgery is good is because sometimes people have barriers to traditional weight loss that they haven’t been able to overcome on their own through diet and exercise. People whose lives are on the line because of their obesity-related health problems should be given the choice to have bariatric surgery because it is a relatively safe, effective procedure that would allow them to quickly address the problem that is adversely impacting their quality of life.
To put these reasons in a thesis statement, I would suggest using a stem that fills in the blanks with reasons:
Although many criticize bariatric surgery as the “easy way out,” bariatric surgery is good because _____________, ____________, and _____________.

Why did young Wes, who ran away from military school five times, finally decide to stay put?

Wes is finally persuaded to stay at military school by his mother, Joy, who tells him about the enormous financial sacrifices that had to be made to send him there. Once she'd made the decision to send him to military school, Wes's mother went around asking friends and family for a contribution towards the school fees. It was a substantial sum of money, one that Joy could never have afforded on her own. Wes's grandparents even used their retirement savings—with which they'd been hoping to fund their retirement in Jamaica—to send the young man to military school.
Wes didn't know about any of this before he was sent to Valley Forge. But now that he does, he realizes that he owes it to his family and friends to stay put and work as hard as he can to make a go of things.

How would you write an explication on the poem "Song for a Dark Girl" by Langston Hughes?

A poetry explication typically shows the connection between what a poem is trying to say and what stylistic devices the poet uses to get this across. "Song for a Dark Girl" is about a black man lynched by whites in the American South and he is being lamented by his young lover, the titular girl, so this is what the poem is about. However, what sort of style and devices do poet Langston Hughes employ to get this across?
When preparing to write a poetry explication, it is best to examine the poem in question for literary devices.
Here are a few elements of the poem you could examine in your explication:
The allusion to the Old South standard "Dixie" in the refrain "Way Down South in Dixie" gives the poem's frightening subject matter an ironic, even grotesque tone, since "Dixie" is an upbeat melody associated with the glories of the Old South.
Christ imagery and allusions are also at play. The lynch mob victim is hung on "a cross roads tree," which is an allusion to the crucifixion and Christ's similar unjust execution. However, the speaker addresses "white Jesus" and addresses him in an accusatory tone, suggesting the hypocrisy of white Christians who murder innocent people yet consider themselves religious.
The identity of the speaker is also significant. She is described in the title as a "girl" rather than a woman, suggesting youth and innocence. A woman experienced in the ways of the world might have a different tone to her lamentation than a young girl's. By making the speaker young, Hughes is also adding an element of innocence lost to this tragic poem.
In conclusion, pick two or three devices, then discuss them in detail. Look closely at the syntax, rhythm, and tone of the poem, then examine what effect they have on you as a reader. That is the best way to go about writing an explication.

When Eve bites the apple, does she do it out of temptation or does she make a rational decision? Explain your answer.

Eve's choice to eat the fruit (it is never specifically described as an apple or any other kind of fruit) is a result of giving in to temptation. Though she saw the choice as rational, it was only after the smooth talking of the serpent.
When the serpent asks if God commanded her not to eat the fruit, it is interesting to note that she not only says that she may not eat it, but also that she is not allowed to touch it, an additional restriction that was not in God's original comment in Genesis 2:17. This shows that it was alluring enough that she and Adam had to extend the boundaries.
The serpent catches onto this and sees that the fruit is highly appealing to Eve. To push her temptation into action he claims that the fruit is forbidden because God knows that His domination over creation will end if the humans eat it. The tree of knowledge of good and evil will make Adam and Eve like gods.
Eve does not think rationally. She does not consider why God would leave fruit that threatens Him in easy reach, and that the tree might be a test of humanity's faith. Thus she eats the fruit out of temptation, ignoring God's earlier warning that if she eats it, she will surely die.
On an additional many several theologians in the past have claimed that the serpent targeted the woman because women in general are weaker and more predisposed to temptation. It should be mentioned that in Genesis 3:6 Adam is said to be close by. He also gives in to the alluring fruit, choosing to listen to his wife rather than to God. This shows that he was as weak against temptation as Eve, and his failure sealed the tragic path that mankind would follow.

When eve bites the apple she does so out of temptation; This is why, in the book of genesis, the first book of the bible where we encounter the story of creation and the fall of man it is clearly stated of the boundaries allowed to man by God where they are allowed to eat of any fruit from the garden except that of knowledge, at first before the appearance of the serpent who is the tempter in this case the two show no signs whatsoever of contradicting God or questioning his authority until the serpent captures Eve's attention by what was unexpected which is him speaking.
the bible reads; [Genesis 3:4-6 "And the serpent said unto the woman, ye shall not surely die, for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat, and gave also to her husband with her;and he did eat.]
Here is presented before us the factors Eve considered before she ate of the fruit which is she saw it was good for food, pleasant to the eyes and desired to make one wise as echoed by the tempter which leads us to conclude that she took a bite from the fruit as a result of falling into the temptation presented to her and not by mere impulse.

Adam was told by God that he may eat from any tree in the garden of Eden except for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil unless he will surely die. It is made known that Eve is aware of this instruction from God as well from her encounter with the serpent.
Eve tells the serpent what God has told her and Adam, but the serpent tells her that she won't surely die from eating it. The serpent tells her that instead, the fruit will open her eyes and make her become like God, knowing the difference between good and evil.
After hearing this, she grew a desire to consume the fruit because:

...it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise" (Genesis 3:6b ESV)

To say that it was a rational decision would be incorrect because she consumed the fruit despite receiving specific instruction not to consume the fruit.

There is no evidence in the Bible that the fruit Eve partook of was an apple. Genesis 3:5 says: “So she began taking of its fruit and eating it.” But despite the type of fruit, she still partook of the only fruit that God had commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from. Genesis 2:16,17: “God also gave this command to the man: ‘From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. 17 But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.’”
In verse 3 of chapter 3, Eve tells the serpent that they were commanded not to eat from the tree in the middle of the garden: “But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.’”
The serpent then tempted Eve that it would be okay for her to eat from the tree in verse 4 and 5: “At this the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die. For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad.”
At this point, Eve knew what direction God had given her. Now she has been given new information that tempts her into thinking irrationally. Verse 6 then explains what she decided to do: “Consequently, the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something desirable to the eyes, yes, the tree was pleasing to look at. So she began taking of its fruit and eating it.”
Although she was unsure what the consequences would be from eating the fruit, she still allowed a temptation to influence her decision. She succumbed to the desire of the eyes instead of allowing her rationality to influence her decision.

Before he creates Eve, God tells Adam that if he eats any apple from the tree of knowledge, he will die.

You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

So, the first question is, did Adam relay this information onto Eve? Eve answers this at the beginning of "The Fall" section, when she tells the serpent,

We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, "You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die."

The serpent then persuades her to go against God by saying that eating from the tree will open her eyes to the world, and, like God, she will know good and evil. At this point, one could argue that her decision would have been rational if she made it based it on the serpent's suggestion that God was preventing her and Adam from evolving beyond who they were at that moment. The fact is, however, that good and evil would have probably been a difficult, if not impossible, concept for her to grasp at that point in her existence. As the Bible states, she made her decision based on how delicious the apples looked and how much more powerful she thought she would become.

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.

Overall, her decision is irrational because she eats the apple without truly understanding the consequences of doing so. The only thing that she knows for sure is that it will in some way change her (up to that point) pleasant life.

In the story The Cay, does Phillip understand the danger he's in?

As he is still only a young boy, and therefore somewhat naïve, Phillip doesn't quite fathom the full extent of the danger he's in. The only knowledge of war that Phillip has comes from reading books; he has no firsthand experience, and so doesn't have any in-depth understanding of war and all the horrors it entails. At first, when the Germans attack the island of Aruba, Phillip sees it as being terribly exciting, an awfully big adventure. For Phillip, war is something that happens to other people, and so he feels remote from any threat it might represent. But when the Empire Tern is torpedoed, Phillip is immediately disabused of any romantic notions as to what war might entail. He now knows that it means nothing but death and destruction.

Distinguish between Dante the poet and Dante the pilgrim.

The Divine Comedy is a fourteenth-century epic poem written by the famed Italian poet Dante Alighieri. It consists of three parts: Inferno (Hell), Purgatorio (Purgatory), and Paradiso (Heaven). The first part, Inferno, tells the story of Dante himself, as he goes on a journey through Hell alongside his trusted friend Virgil. It is in this part that we first see the distinction between the two Dantes: Dante the Pilgrim and Dante the Poet.
Dante the Pilgrim is the one who actually goes on the journey through Hell. He is presented as a weak and emotional person who cannot resist temptation, and, just like every human, he is prone to sin. Thus, Dante the Pilgrim is the one to whom readers can relate. This is actually one of the main reasons why Dante makes a distinction between the Poet and the Pilgrim. Dante the Pilgrim is a character through whom the readers can indirectly experience the consequences of and the punishment for one’s sins and can see what will happen if they choose the path of evil instead of the path of righteousness.
Dante the Poet, on the other hand, is exactly that—a poet who writes about the Pilgrim’s experiences in Hell. He tries to tell the readers that if they make the wrong decisions and choices in life and don’t redeem themselves, they will go through the same things that the sinners go through. He is a stern, righteous, and incorruptible person, and he tries to make Dante the Pilgrim realize that his feelings and emotions won’t change the sinners’ fate, nor will they ease their punishments.
Thus, Dante the Poet feels confident in his decision to make the sinners suffer the consequences of their unjust and immoral actions. The Pilgrim, in contrast, is a very compassionate and empathetic person and pities the poor souls who are trapped in the nine circles of Hell. He is terrified by the cruel punishments and tries to understand how the sinners got there.
It is noteworthy to mention, however, that Dante the Poet creates and deliberately portrays Dante the Pilgrim the way that he is portrayed. He wants to showcase two versions of himself—one who is moral and unyielding and one who is sensitive and emotional. The Poet is always certain that he is right and that he has made the right decision; the Pilgrim is rarely certain about anything and often relies on his emotions.

Why does Orlando urge Adam not to die?

We're in act 2, scene 6 in As You Like It, and Orlando and his servant Adam have just fled Oliver's house into the Forest of Arden. Tired, weary, and practically fainting from hunger, Adam tells his master that he cannot go on. At this moment in time, he wants nothing more than to lie down and die:

Dear master, I can go no further. Oh, I die for food. Here lie
I down and measure out my grave. Farewell, kind master.

But Orlando urges Adam to take heart. He tells him to "live a little, comfort a little, cheer thyself a little." Orlando takes on the role of protector, assuring Adam that if he can find any animal in the forest he will kill it and bring it back for his servant to eat. Either that, or the animal will eat him—Orlando—instead.
Orlando's trying to cheer Adam up, to get him to wait until he returns from his hunting expedition before entertaining thoughts of dying. Otherwise, he'll have made a mockery of Orlando's labors. Orlando's efforts to cheer Adam up seem to have worked, as Orlando remarks that Adam looks happier already.

How do the religious items mentioned in Chapter 15 characterize Pi?

There are many religious items throughout Pi's house; so many, in fact, that the author describes Pi's home as a temple:

Upstairs in his office there is a brass Ganesha sitting cross-legged next to the computer, a wooden Christ on the Cross from Brazil on a wall, and a green prayer rug in a corner.

In addition to these items, Pi also has a likeness of the Virgin Mary of Guadalupe, a green prayer rug in the corner of his bedroom, and a Bible next to his bed. Obviously Pi is influenced and inspired by several different religions: Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity.
Pi's family practiced Hinduism before his birth, so he was basically born into that religion. But Pi also finds himself drawn to the story of Christ after an interaction with a friendly priest named Father Martin. After this encounter, Pi considers himself both Hindu and Christian. Finally, when Pi is a teenager, he meets a Muslim holy man named Mr. Kumar who explains the tenants of Islam to Pi; Pi becomes so fascinated with Islam that he regularly visits the nearest mosque and prays with Mr. Kumar.
Since all three world views are so important to Pi, it makes sense that he would want physical manifestations of all three present in his everyday life. His faith in all three religions clearly helped him survive his ordeal in the lifeboat.

How did the ghosts keep the baby?

In The Graveyard Book, the matter of "custody" of the baby is decided both by the willingness of Mrs. and Mr. Owens to take the child into their protection, as well as input from the rest of the "community," as it stands in the book.
When the baby unknowingly escapes from its own murder by getting out of its crib, leaving the house, and walking up the hill to a nearby graveyard, it is discovered by a female ghost named Mrs. Owens. She is immediately charmed by the child and calls her husband over to see it as well. As they talk, Mr. Owens sees the child's would-be killer, a man named Jack, and mistakes him for "the babe's family, come to bring him back to the loving bosom." However, his wife is skeptical, and her alarm grows when she and her husband notice a new ghost, saying "My baby! He is trying to harm my baby!" This is the ghost of the baby's newly-dead mother, who is unable to protect her child because she has not been buried in the graveyard and is still getting used to her new "existence." The woman asks Mrs. Owns to protect her son, and while this would be difficult, Mrs. Owens says "if we can, then we will" and immediately asks her husband if he will be a father to the child. He agrees to do so, and the ghost of the mother disappears.
As Jack approaches, Mrs. and Mr. Owens vanish along with the child. Shortly after, a man dressed in dark clothes approaches. This is caretaker of the graveyard, Silas. He escorts the man Jack out of the graveyard, locks the gate, and then goes over the hill to where a number of ghosts are having a meeting to decide what should be done with the child. In support of Mrs. Owens's claim, Silas says, "I firmly believe that is is for good—Mrs. Owens and her husband have taken this child under their protection," followed by volunteering himself as guardian, saying "I can leave the graveyard and return. I can bring him food" since the ghosts themselves are unable to leave. There is still a lot of opposition to the idea of the child being given "Freedom of the Graveyard," and the council dismisses Mrs. Owens. As they continue to deliberate, another strong voice approaches in the form of the Lady on the Grey. Her words carry a lot of weight among the dead, and when she says that "The dead should have charity," the matter is decided. Gaiman writes,

The debate was over and ended, and, without so much as a show of hands, had been decided. The child called No-body Owens would be given the Freedom of the Graveyard.

You are working with Michelle, age 32, who is a single mother to Jaime, age 12. Jaime's father, Dennis, has been incarcerated since he was 5 years old, and he has had very limited contact with his father since his incarceration by choice. Dennis verbally and emotionally abused Michelle and was known in his neighborhood for his gang involvement. Fearing retaliation from other gang members and Dennis's family, Michelle moved out of state and has started over with the support of her family. Recently, Jaime has been engaging in aggressive behavior and giving Michelle a hard time at home. While you are conducting the intake, Michelle tells you that Jaime had gone to therapy when he was younger and was discharged after a few months because he seemed to have adapted to the transition and was not impacted by his father's behaviors. Michelle does not understand why Jaime is behaving this way and assumes that he hates her and is struggling because he does not have a male role model in his life. She also reiterates that Jaime never observed his father being aggressive and denies that there was any physical abuse in the home. Michelle is having a hard time understanding how Jaime may also be a victim of Dennis's abuse, gang involvement, and/or incarceration. How do you explain to Michelle the impact of Dennis's behaviors on Jaime? How do you clarify that Jaime was also a victim despite the fact that he was never physically injured or at risk?

Several key possibilities present themselves immediately that would have an impact on how one would analyze this case.
First, a caseworker should probably not reflexively accept Michelle's statement that Jaime "never observed his father being aggressive and denies there was any physical abuse in the home." We've already been told that Dennis emotionally and verbally abused Michelle. These forms of abuse are significant enough that even if no physical violence actually occurred, there would be a lasting impact on both Michelle and Jaime. It could also be that Michelle is in denial about the extent of what took place, or that she did not personally witness the boy being abused (or has suppressed her memory of it). Dennis was not incarcerated until Jaime was five years old. Even if Jaime says he does not remember scenes of domestic violence or abuse, it's difficult to believe that at least on an unconscious level, a child would not be affected by a repressed memory of such behavior.
It is possible that both Michelle and Jaime are presenting with PTSD (Post-traumatic Stress Disorder). The child also could be unconsciously blaming his mother for the overall situation of not having a father present in the home. This is especially likely if it really is true that Jaime himself never was exposed to abuse. Often children will build up an idealized picture of an absent parent and take out their anger on the parent who is present and is taking care of them, since no one else is available upon whom they can vent their frustrations. Additionally, Jaime is probably under tremendous stress at school because the other kids will ask him where his father is, and he then has to admit his father is in prison—or lie about it if he is too ashamed to admit the truth.
Michelle needs to be told that although she is not at fault and has done the best she could for her child, the family dynamic—one in which there was abuse, separation, and a parent in prison—has been a dysfunctional one, and therefore, her son was victimized by it. In addition, there has recently been research indicating that elevated stress-hormone levels can be passed from mother to child in utero. If, as is likely, Michelle was under stress during her pregnancy because of the abusive situation at home, Jaime may have had elevated levels of this hormone (cortisol) from birth. This fact can do much to alleviate a sense of guilt Michelle would have about "making the wrong decisions" during Jaime's childhood. It needs, again, to be emphasized that Jaime's troubled and aggressive behavior is not "her fault," but that they are both victims of the overall situation.

How do people who live in The Country of the Blind lose their sight?

In H. G. Wells’s story, the territory inhabited by blind people is located deep within a cleft in the high Ecuadorian Andes. The guide Nuñez stumbles upon them when he falls during an avalanche that buries a mountain-climbing expedition. While the valley’s people had lost their sight due to disease, they understand the cause as morally based in sinful behavior. For that reason, building a shrine at which they could pray for salvation and redemption was deemed crucial to curing the condition. By the time Nuñez arrives, fifteen generations have passed, during which the idea of sin has firmly replaced any notion of illness as the root cause. The valley’s people are no longer able to entertain any alternate explanation of their situation, and they resist any assertions to the contrary.

Where was the narrator asked to come out of?

The narrator is asked to come out of the bank vault.
In the story, the narrator is filled with anxiety about making financial transactions at the bank. He first approaches the manager, assuming that it is in his best interests to do so.
What the narrator wants to do is to open an account. However, his anxiety leads him to act in a furtive manner. As for the manager, he assumes that the narrator must be a detective of some sort.
When the narrator sits down with the manager, he informs the latter that he needs to deposit some money. Based on the narrator's secretive manner, the manager concludes that he must be dealing with a "Rothschild," or the son of a wealthy man. The narrator eventually sets the record straight: he has come to deposit what to him is a large sum—fifty-six dollars.
Upon hearing this, the manager drops his previously respectful demeanor. He opens the door of his office and loudly announces the narrator's intent to the accountant. As for the narrator, he stands up and promptly walks through the wrong door into the bank vault. In response, the manager coldly orders him to come out of the safe.

Who is Bo in The Thief Lord?

Bo, whose full name is Boniface Hartlieb, is one of the main characters in The Thief Lord. He is a five-year-old orphan living with his wealthy aunt and uncle. Bo is described as having curly blond hair (which he later dyes black), green eyes, and an angelic face. His aunt and uncle want to adopt him after his mother’s death, since he is young and looks angelic. However, they do not want to adopt his brother, Prosper, and plan to send him off to boarding school. The two boys want to stay together, so they run away to Venice and meet a gang of orphan children living in an abandoned movie theater. Under the leadership of Scipio Massimo, a thirteen-year-old known as the thief lord, the children steal items to resell in order to survive. Bo looks up to Scipio and wants to be just like him.

Why do you think Hamid arranged the narrative as Changez’s conversation with the reader? What does this allow the narrator to do that might be otherwise impossible in alternate, more traditional narrative forms?

I don't think Hamid arranges the narrative as a conversation between Changez and the reader but, rather, as Changez's conversation with an American who may have been hired to intimidate or even kill him. Changez refers to his conversation partner as "sir" and alludes to the specific time and place in which they eat, and so we can see that he is not speaking directly to us. This conversation partner is also somewhat paranoid, thinking that the "misfiring exhaust of a passing rickshaw" is a gunshot and worrying about the "few figures [...] in the gloom" walking behind them on a public street. In fact, Changez tells this American

[...] I was warned by my comrades that America might react to my admittedly intemperate remarks by sending an emissary to intimidate me or worse.

It seems possible that the American with whom he's been speaking this whole time is such a person, as, in the end, that American reaches into his jacket and Changez "detect[s] a glint of metal."
Changez is, obviously, critical of America, but when Hamid presents those criticisms within the framework of a friendly—at least on the surface—conversation, they seem much more palatable to the average American reader. Were these criticisms directed directly to, or even AT, us, we'd likely be much less receptive of Changez's ideas. We might get more defensive. However, we get to be a fly on the wall of someone else's conversation, watching them squirm, perhaps, but it's better than squirming under Changez's words ourselves. It also gives us a chance to recognize the American listener's defensive and somewhat paranoid behavior: he is wary of the waiter, the food, other people, everything. We might even recognize the fact that we, ourselves, could feel similarly in his situation and because we see how paranoid he is given Changez's tranquil and reassuring demeanor and history of nonviolence, we realize that this feeling is somehow both self-centered and ridiculous, helping to prove Changez's points.

Miller has said that tragedy springs from the individual's quest for a proper place in the world and from his or her readiness "to lay down...life, if need be, to secure [a] sense of personal dignity." Does this apply to all, or only American tragedies? Should America teach us there is no "proper place" or that we can define our own, thus avoiding tragedy altogether?

Arthur Miller's statement on the tragic consequences of not finding one's place in the world is a universal sentiment that is relevant even outside of the American tragedy. While Miller's work explores the relationship between people and places frequently, this theme can be seen in British and continental European plays as well. For example, Othello and Macbeth by William Shakespeare feature characters that exhibit self-destructive behaviors due to delusional ideas about their place in the world and the concept of equating attaining power with making your mark on the world.
Outside of literature, Miller's sentiment can be seen in everyday life, whether on a micro scale like individual perspectives on the self's relation to society, or on a macro level such as authoritarianism and genocide. America itself is a concept, or social construct, based on Enlightenment-era ideas about democracy and liberty. But these values, many of which were written in the U.S. Constitution, were not always applied in the real world. For instance, the white colonial populace fought for their freedom against the British Empire and believed in grand ideas about liberty, and yet slavery in the United States continued for centuries after the revolution.
This begs the question: Is the right to a place in the world only limited to a certain demographic? What about the African slaves who were literally displaced from their homes and had their identities taken away? The struggle of African slaves and African Americans is a true example of finding one's place in the world. The fact that African Americans and other minorities were able to create their own hyphenated cultures (e.g. African-American, Asian-American, Mexican-American, et al.) in a new environment illustrates that "place" is just as much as an idea as it is a geographical location.

Who are the main characters in The Vicar of Wakefield?

The main characters in The Vicar of Wakefield are the members of the Primrose family. There is the father, Charles; the mother, Deborah; and their two daughters, Olivia and Sophia.
Charles Primrose is is the eponymous vicar and also the narrator of the story. He is a simple, kind, and principled man—a loving husband and father. He sometimes can be irritable or stubborn and endures the various misfortunes that befall his family with good grace (for the most part) and perseverance. His is ,in a sense, an echo of the biblical character Job, who likewise endures much hardship but never loses faith.
Deborah Primrose is a loyal wife and a devoted mother. She devotes herself to domestic duties such as cooking and cleaning. One of her main aims is to see her daughters married well.
The two daughters, Olivia and Sophia, are dutiful and good-natured. Olivia is considered the more beautiful of the two. She is also more passionate and more extroverted than her sister. By comparison, Sophia is quieter, more sensible, and more introverted.

How does Thomas feel about his father's death in "Do not go gentle into that good night"?

Thomas contemplates humanity throughout the poem, and offers a look at four types of men as they are on the brink of death, and how they respond to death. Thomas seems to be offering his father the most noble and "right" way to die, or through his metaphors, "go gentle into that good night." While he wants his father to stay with him and remember their time together, he also encourages him to fight, and "rage against the dying of the light."

Thomas gives the impression of being very close to his father, and so naturally he doesn't want him to die. That being the case, Thomas wants his father to fight against his imminent demise with every fiber of his being, to summon up every last ounce of strength in his final struggle upon this earth. Thomas encourages his father by citing a number of examples of men who also "raged against the dying of the light," in other words, refused to give in to their inevitable fate. He doesn't want to grieve for his father, at least not yet. He knows that, like everyone else, his father must one day pass away. But so long as he's still alive, his son wants him to resist death with everything he's got:

And you, my father, there on the sad height,Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.Do not go gentle into that good night.Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
https://poets.org/poem/do-not-go-gentle-good-night

A group of African Americans sent the Petition of Black Residents of Nashville to the Union Convention of 1865 asking for an immediate end to slavery in Tennessee. Why do you think those that signed the petition placed so much emphasis on their loyalty to the Union cause during the Civil War?

As the Civil War neared its end in early 1865, a group of black residents of Nashville, Tennessee, petitioned the United States government to end slavery. They counted on the federal government's antipathy towards the Confederacy to further their cause.
The writers of the petition believed that Southern slave owners would try to reclaim their slaves at the end of the war and would try to force them back onto plantations. The writers of this petition furthered their cause by connecting slavery with the corruption and disloyalty of the Confederacy and wrote that the same corruption that had caused the Confederate states to break away from the Union had forged the Confederacy's close connection to slavery. In other words, both the Confederate government and its system of slavery arose from corrupt, evil roots. By making this connection, the writers hoped to win over the federal (Union) government, which opposed the Confederacy and was about to win the war against them.
The writers of the petition differentiated themselves from the Southerners who were faithful to the Confederacy and stated that they were loyal to the Union to further convince the federal government to grant their freedom. They stated that if granted their freedom, they would dedicate themselves to defending the Union. They used concepts from the founding of the nation, including the idea of "natural rights," to argue that it was also their natural right to enjoy freedom after the war. Their established allegiance to the Union would strengthen the federal government in the former Confederate states after the war was over.
http://www.freedmen.umd.edu/tenncon.htm

What political party did William Henry Harrison belong to?

William Henry Harrison, 9th President of the United States, represented the Whig Party, though he'd previously been a supporter of the Democratic-Republicans, the party of Thomas Jefferson.
Harrison has earned the unfortunate distinction of being the first President to die in office. He's also gone down in history as being the shortest-serving President, lasting just thirty-one days in the job before he was struck down by typhoid fever. It has generally been assumed that Harrison's premature death was caused by his refusal to wear a hat or an overcoat during his Inauguration, which took place on a cold, wet day.
Before entering politics, Harrison had distinguished himself as a war hero, and he wanted to begin his Presidency in a suitably martial style, riding to his Inauguration on horseback instead of taking a ride in a closed carriage. Once he'd dismounted from his trusty steed, Harrison proceeded to give the longest Inauguration speech in American history, lasting over two hours and comprising nearly 8,500 words.
Harrison's untimely death may have robbed him of the chance to make his mark on the Presidency, but he still occupies a unique position in American history, albeit for the wrong reasons.

What is the setting of the story?

During the summer when Carson McCullers’ novel takes place, twelve-year-old Frankie Addams goes through several transformations. She begins the summer as Frankie, but soon decides that she will change her name to F. Jasmine Adams. Later that year, she begins using her actual first name, Frances. These transformations accompany changes of status in her family and in their place of residence. Frankie lives with her father in a small Georgia town; her mother died when she was born. The period is World War II, and her brother Jarvis, who is in the military, comes home to get married. The action takes place primarily in and around her family home, and in a downtown café, the Blue Moon. By the novel’s end, the reader learns that Frances is moving with her father to the city to live with relatives and that he is selling the house.

Do expectancy violation theory and violation valence mean the same thing?

When we are communicating as humans, we have certain expectations about how people are going to respond. For example, when you ask the question "How are you?" you would likely expect someone to respond, "Good, how are you?" Expectancy violation theory is the theory that responses that go against our expectations are preferable as humans. So, if someone responds in a way that you are not expecting, you might be surprised and, therefore, it might capture your attention more than if someone responds in a typical way that you were anticipating. This would be an example of expectancy violation theory at work.
Violation valence is a component of expectancy violation theory. It has to do with behavior (nonverbal) actions. When someone behaves in a way that you do not expect, you will either respond positively or negatively to this action. This reaction is called violation valence, and refers to your emotional response to the unexpected behavior.
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/expectancy_violations.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectancy_violations_theory

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/cookieAbsent

How does the last chapter offer a non-political alternative to John Kwang’s vision of multiculturalism?

Native Speaker was written by Chang-rae Lee and published in 1995. The major theme of the book is identity in America. One of the main characters, Henry Park, the child of Korean immigrants, believes that he can assimilate if he becomes a native speaker.
John Kwang's vision of multiculturalism is one that divorces Americanism from ethnicity, instead of fusing the two concepts together. Henry eventually realizes that his ethnicity and American identity can co-exist harmoniously, and we clearly see the manifestation of that realization in the last chapter. Instead of viewing his Korean background as opposed to traditional American culture, as John Kwang would see it, Henry has found a healthy balance between remaining true to his roots and being American in every sense of the word. He believes that America is the land of opportunity for immigrants and natives, and Henry becomes a native speaker. His Korean and American identities are about more than just where he is from—they are also about releasing his inhibitions in his soul and opening himself up to be free.
Near the end of the book, we see Henry and his wife living peacefully together, Korean and Caucasian, respectively, and falling in love again. Henry has it all, and he is at peace with his co-existing American and Korean identities. He and his wife live happily together. This non-political alternative to Kwang's multiculturalism is about acceptance, harmony, and peace, instead of cultural division and civil unrest.

Why does the maggie like the quilts?

Unlike her sister, Dee, Maggie loves the family quilts because she knows the people whose lives and stories are represented by them. She even knows how to quilt herself. Her mother has promised Maggie the quilts, which Dee has already once refused, when she gets married because they are meaningful to her. Dee, on the other hand, only seems to want them so that she can display them as proof of her heritage without really valuing or understanding it as Maggie does. Maggie knows the stories and feels personally attached to them. When their mother realizes their difference in motive — as well as Dee’s sense of entitlement and Maggie’s humility — she snatches the quilts from Dee and gives them to her younger daughter because Maggie wants the quilts for the right reasons.

Why did Harding win the 1920 presidential election?

The Republican candidate, Warren Harding, won an overwhelming victory over the Democratic candidate, James Cox, in the presidential election of 1920. In fact, it was the most lopsided result in the history of presidential elections.
The election was largely a referendum on President Woodrow Wilson's policies. He had not kept his promise to keep the country out of the war, and his plan to join the League of Nations was controversial. Progressives were also unhappy with some of his domestic policies.
The Republican convention at Chicago had difficulty choosing a candidate in mid-1920. Finally, in a smoke-filled room, they chose Harding, a senator from Ohio, on their eleventh vote.
The Democrats were in disarray. Wilson was not healthy, so they ultimately chose James Cox, the governor of Ohio. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was their choice for the vice presidency.
Harding's campaign slogan was a return to "normalcy," and it was perfect for the country's mood. Harding rejected membership in the League of Nations and pledged conservatism in domestic matters. The Democrats were divided over prohibition and other issues.
After easily winning the election with sixty percent of the vote, Harding entered the White House in 1921.
https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1920

Offer a character analysis for Betsy Byar's The Pinballs.

Carlie, the female character, is tough, rarely says anything nice, and is suspicious of everyone she meets. She throws insults around constantly. Even though she is all those negative things, she is a likable character; you want to cheer for the underdog. Byars says about Carlie,

For some reason insults didn’t hurt her. People could insult her all day long, and she would insult them right back. But let somebody say something polite or nice to her—it made her feel terrible.

As Carlie’s character develops, she begins to let her guard down as she shows her concern for others. When another foster child shuts down emotionally, it is Carlie who is most affected. She begins to have normal conversations with others as she grows throughout the book. Carlie is the one who feels that foster children are pinballs with no real direction, but her foster parents feel she has the most direction of all of them.
Harvey is one of the two main male characters. In spite of life’s difficulties, he keeps his spirits up by sustaining the belief that one day his mother will return for him. In this story, two broken legs hobble Harvey. In his dreams, his legs were broken playing football instead of being run over by his father’s new car. If he were a football hero, he would receive attention from the likes of the cheerleaders who would fawn over him and smother his cast with kisses. Harvey's foster parents feel that he is in need of the most support because he will not let go of the dream that his mother will return. They think Carlie will be a great support for him when he comes to the realization that his mother just does not care about her family.
The third main character and foster child in the book is Thomas J. Thomas J. was two years old when someone left him on the steps of the Benson twins’ farmhouse. The Benson twins were the oldest living set of twins in the state and had a very difficult time hearing; therefore, Thomas J. learned to communicate by yelling. He lived with them for six years, during which the twins reached the ripe old age of eighty-eight. Due to the fact that he had to yell, he learned not to express his emotions often. Even after he learns to speak quietly, he rarely does, which weighs on his conscience, especially when he visits the twins in the hospital and finds himself unable to express his love for them.

Discuss some quotes from a Birth of a White Nation by Jacqueline Battalora.

One quote that basically sets the agenda for the book is found in the introduction. There, Battalora writes, "In spite of this common experience of 'race,' we should begin by realizing that white people, as a designation of a group of humanity, much less as a race, never existed until late in the seventeenth century." In other words, what people tend to view as a permanent, biological category related to skin color and other racial characteristics is actually a social construct, and it is one developed relatively recently in history. Battalora goes on to explain that "whiteness" was invented in the context of colonial development in seventeenth-century North America, particularly in the tobacco-growing colonies of the Chesapeake. It developed alongside "blackness," which, among other things, came to be associated with enslavement.
On the other hand, Battalora wants to be sure that her readers do not construe from this that race is not a meaningful historical and modern phenomenon. "While white people are clearly a fiction," she writes, "the organization of society and relationships that the fiction structured are very real and have resulted in consequences that have provided white people material and symbolic resources throughout U.S. history." In other words, "whiteness" was not constructed by accident. It was integral to political and economic power at various points in the nation's history, and it remains so today. In fact, "whiteness" as a racial construct was a consequence of the development of whiteness as a political ideal, not a cause. As Battalora argues in chapter five, it was an ideology used in service of wealthy capitalists and political elites.
These two quotes fairly neatly encapsulate the arguments advanced in Birth of a White Nation.
https://books.google.com/books?id=apa8BgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=birth+of+a+white+nation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_pMWIyK7fAhUQnKwKHTW0CugQ6AEIKjAA

In David Sedaris's "A Modest Proposal," how does the character face exclusion from his society and then push against the boundaries imposed by society?

"A Modest Proposal" is a nonfiction essay, not a short story, so the author is presumably writing about himself and cannot strictly be called a character. Written in the first person, the author discusses his reaction to the Supreme Court decision to affirm the lifting of a ban against marriage between two people of the same gender. Sedaris is gay, and he often writes about gender and sexuality issues. He has lived with his partner, Hugh, who he often writes about in his essays, for more than two decades. The boundaries he discusses in the essay are societal attitudes toward gay people and toward marriage.
For a number of reasons, the couple has lived in Europe for most of their time together; he has also written about their lives in France and, more recently, in England. In France, civil partnership has been legal since the 1990s, and in England, prohibition against marriage between people of the same gender was lifted more than two years earlier than in the United States.
Marriage, or being legally prevented from entering into this type of partnership, was not one of the reasons they left the United States. Until the Supreme Court decision, Sedaris claims, marriage had not been near the front of his consciousness. Nevertheless, the public endorsement of this civil rights breakthrough made a strong impression; he was so excited to learn what the court’s decision would be that he took his iPad out while he was walking around so he would not miss the announcement. It got him thinking about what the meaning of marriage compared to other manifestations of commitment.
Thinking of changes in such attitudes also prompted reflections about being gay as a youth in North Carolina, when “queer” was used as an insult—even by his mother—and many people thought that being gay could be “cured” through psychiatry. After he came out to a close friend, however, the need he had felt to deny his identity and the fantasies of “outgrowing” that aspect of his identity faded away.
Reflecting on marriage included, for Sedaris, his overall negative attitude toward weddings, of which he had sat through many; weddings were something gay people did not need to inflict on their family and friends. With this type of overall attitude, he was surprised to find how moved he was when the Supreme Court ruling came down and was published in the London paper.

I read it, and, probably like every American gay person, I was overcome with emotion.

Emotion aside, Sedaris presented the idea of marriage to Hugh as a financial matter, into which he refused to enter. Irritated, Sedaris insisted.
After an estimated 18 proposals over two weeks, once Hugh agreed, “reality set in.” He thought about having a “husband” and having other people speak of Hugh that way—even that the word would be used in his obituary. So he let the marriage question slide, and considers the two of them are “engaged, I suppose, [with] our whole lives ahead of us.”
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/09/28/a-modest-proposal

What prediction does the priestess make to Acrisius?

According to Greek mythology, Acrisius was the son of Abas, king of Argos. Acrisius had a twin brother named Proteus that he exiled so he could seize the inheritance and take over the kingdom. Eventually Acrisius and Proteus went to war with each other and divided the kingdom.

Acrisius married King Lacedaemon's daughter Eurydice, and the couple had a daughter named Danae. Because he did not have a male heir to the throne, Acrisius went to consult the oracle at Delphi. The priestess at Delphi made a prediction that the son of Danae would kill him.

To prevent the prophecy from coming true, Acrisius locked Danae in a bronze tower so that she would remain a virgin and not have a child. However, the god Zeus entered the tower in the form of a golden shower and impregnated Danae. She gave birth to a son that she named Perseus.

Acrisius could not kill Perseus because he was the son of a god, so he put Danae and Perseus into a chest and threw it into the ocean. The chest made its way to the shore of the island of Seriphos, where Perseus was raised. After Perseus was fully grown, he took part in some games in the city of Larissa, where he accidentally killed his grandfather, Acrisius, with a discus, which fulfilled the prophecy.
https://www.greeklegendsandmyths.com/acrisius.html

https://www.greekmythology.com/Myths/Mortals/Acrisius/acrisius.html

Explain why the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Sentiments was written the way it is. Do not explain content, merely explain why it was written in that particular style.

Overall, the Declaration is an argumentative piece which lays out evidence supporting the assertions made therein.
In the first and rather long single-sentence paragraph, the writers locate “one people” as the central subject. They also state that it is “necessary” for this unified group to act in a distinct way. Toward the end of that sentence, they say that this necessity requires said people to “declare” the causes of their future actions. The purpose of that whole long sentence, therefore, is to set up the following sentence, which enumerates the specific factors. As they have already established that the people are acting as one, the reader has formed an idea of who the “we” are in the next sentence. That “we” is confirmed as “the governed." While the paragraph begins with a long sentence, using “that” as a lead-in multiple times establishes it as a list of the “truths” referenced in the sentence’s beginning.

“[He] was close. I think maybe that’s why she kept so much to herself. She didn’t even belong to the Ladies Aid. I suppose she felt she couldn’t do her part, and then you don’t enjoy things when you feel shabby. She used to wear pretty clothes and be lively, when she was . . . one of the town girls singing in the choir. But that—oh, that was thirty years ago.” Identify the author and the title of the work, and then explain the significance of the quote as it relates to the poem, short story, or play in a paragraph (be sure to reference specific details of the text). Type your answer using 5–6 sentences.

This quotation is taken from a play called Trifles, written by Susan Glaspell and first performed in 1916. The play consists of only one act and one scene, and the given quotation can be found approximately halfway through the scene.
At this point in the play, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters are searching the kitchen of Mrs. Wright's farm house. Mrs. Wright's husband has been found dead upstairs, and Mrs. Hale suspects that Mrs. Wright killed him.
In the given quotation, Mrs. Hale is talking to Mrs. Peters about Mrs. Wright and is speculating about why Mrs. Wright has never socialized with the other ladies in the community. She supposes that it might be because she had no money to buy nice clothes. A little later, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters find evidence which incriminates Mrs. Peters, but they decide to hide the evidence because they feel sorry for her. They feel sorry for her because they now realize how lonely she was.

What are the masculine elements in "The Cask of Amontillado"?

This question presupposes that we understand what is meant by "masculine."
However, before getting into that, one element that can be seen as masculine is the absence of any female characters in this tale. This is a story of two men.
Second, if we understand traditional male thinking as hierarchical, with men organizing themselves according to rank and assigning one male "top dog" status, then we can understand Montresor as using his wiles to assert a superior position. This would differ from what is commonly understood as the more communal way of social organizing based on compromise that is often associated with women.
Feeling competitive and having to "win" is also a trait commonly associated with masculinity, as is defending one's honor in patriarchal cultures. Montresor feels he has been insulted; his honor has been attacked. In his traditional Italian culture, it might be all-important for him to protect his masculinity from this sense of dishonor, and this might justify his murder of Fortunato in his own mind.

According to the essay "Why I Write," what are the reasons that one must write for the sake of themselves and society?

George Orwell is one of the most influential writers of the twentieth century. His novels, novellas, essays, and journalistic output have inspired countless writers who came after him. His essay "Why I Write" is a favorite among aspiring writers. The essay not only articulates Orwell's genesis and motivations as a writer, it also serves as a guide for those wanting to use the literary arts for social change and political expression.
Orwell is famous for his criticisms of the British Empire's imperialist foreign affairs ("Shooting an Elephant"). He is also an observant critic of government control (1984 and Animal Farm) and outdated social structures (Keep the Aspidistra Flying).
In "Why I Write," Orwell states that he is left with "facing unpleasant facts." In the essay "Shooting an Elephant," Orwell tells the story of being an officer in Burma and how he had to deal with the unpleasant facts of being part of an imperial government. These types of experiences helped him develop his writing style and inspired the recurring topics in his later works.
Orwell suggests that writing and social commentary cannot be divorced and concludes that an author writes out of a primal need. As humans, we react to external stimuli and experiences, and writing is a medium in which to articulate those experiences. It is similar to a feedback loop on a circuit board. An input, such as experiencing the authoritarian oppression of government, will eventually lead to an output, which in Orwell's case is writing.
Orwell also talks about the revolutionary nature of writing. As a journalist himself, he opines that journalists of his time are concerned by the greater matters of politics, social issues, and economic disparity. For this reason, he indirectly advises young writers to not only write for themselves (i.e., out of a need for expression), but also to contribute positive change to society.
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/wiw/english/e_wiw

https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/06/25/george-orwell-why-i-write/

What were Franklin Pierce's major accomplishments?

Franklin Pierce was the fourteenth president of the United States. He served from 1853 to 1857. Although he was liked by both the North and South during his campaign, he lost that popularity while serving in office. His biggest accomplishment was the Gadsden Purchase, in which he bought 30,000 square miles of land from Mexico for $10 million to provide a route for the Transcontinental Railroad. This land would later become southern Arizona and New Mexico.
Under his presidency, Commodore Matthew Perry signed the Treaty of Kanagawa with Japan, which opened ports for United States trading and created a United States consulate in Japan. Pierce also attempted to purchase Cuba but was unsuccessful in doing so. One of his most controversial pieces of legislation was the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which allowed both states to enter the Union without defining their slave status beforehand. This directly refuted the Missouri Compromise and was another factor that led to the Civil War.

How does Eliot explore suffering and hope in The Waste Land and Other Poems?

Various characters in The Waste Land suffer from the loss of common meaning and shared heritage brought about by the increased atomization of post-war Western society. The typist, for example, has a brief sexual encounter with her lover that is entirely devoid of meaning as well as joy. In this rapidly fracturing society, people are separated from each other, occupying their own little worlds where they're forced back on their limited emotional and intellectual resources.
For some, this may seem liberating, but not for Eliot. He sees the radical separation of human beings from each other and from their shared cultural heritage—the heritage of what used to be called Christendom—as causing great spiritual suffering. People no longer know who they are; they're forced back on themselves, drawing upon their newfound freedom to create their own identities. But such identities cannot provide much in the way of stability for very long. Cut off from their heritage, each other, and most importantly of all, from themselves, people in the modern world find themselves trapped in a seemingly never-ending spiritual malaise.
Worse still, there doesn't appear to be much hope in this bleak cultural landscape. All that can be done is to retrieve as many of the broken fragments of Europe's cultural achievements as possible and see in them a possible way forward. On Eliot's reading, this is the only way that modern man can possibly escape from his present predicament. Whether he chooses to do so is another matter entirely. Nevertheless, so long as we can shore our fragments against our ruins, there is still hope, however remote, of redemption from the moral, intellectual, and spiritual sickness with which modern man is afflicted.

Compare Harappa and Mesopotamia.

The Harappan or Indus Valley Civilization spanned the northwest region of South Asia and lasted for the better part of 2000 years from around 3300 BC to 1300 BC. Along with Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt, it formed one of the three earliest known civilizations. Though extensive trade routes developed between Harappa and Mesopotamia, there were a number of differences between the two civilizations. For one thing, Mesopotamia was relatively rich in precious metals. Harappa wasn't, which is why it had to import a lot of its metals from Mesopotamia and elsewhere. Indeed, it was the trade in precious metals that was the main driver of commerce between the two civilizations.
Yet in other respects, the Harappans were considerably more advanced than Mesopotamia. They developed a sophisticated system of weights and measures, one of the first uniform systems to be established anywhere. They were also well advanced in the measurement of time. Harrapan civilization was renowned for its writing system, which was based on a complex symbolic script. The Mesopotamians, by contrast, used a more prime cuneiform system of writing, carving crude, wedge-shaped marks into clay tablets using a stylus.

How would you respond to “Why We Crave Horror Movies” by Steven King?

King's Why We Crave Horror Movies looks deep into the human psyche in order to make its analysis. As a result, his conclusions may be as disturbing as a horror movie itself. King claims that all humans are, to a degree, mentally ill: this mental illness surfaces as a desire for horror as well as sick jokes. According to him, we wish to see the reality of our world bent to produce pain, perversion, or other unnatural phenomena that we cannot observe in real life.
King's analysis is certainly not scientific: he does not plunge through medical data or statistics about the prevalence of mental health in the United States. As such, his essay can be considered speculative and is thus subject to critique.
The bias of King himself should also be considered. As an author who makes his living by writing horror novels, he is certainly encouraged by this appetite, whatever its roots. It does not necessarily matter to King whether his analysis is accurate, so long as it supports his own livelihood. While he has a strong understanding of his audience and the desire for horror, he may be drawing the wrong conclusions, much in the same way that a writer of historical fiction might draw the conclusion that people crave to return to the past.

Why was the mother angry with little Francis in The Swiss Family Robinson?

In The Swiss Family Robinson, the family is marooned on an island. They are very fortunate to land on the island because it provides them with a lot of living animals and food. Unlike other desert island narratives, this story follows the successful colonization of an uninhabited island.
The family has six members: William, Elizabeth, and their four sons. Franz, or Francis, is the youngest of the children. His place as the youngest child also makes him the most closely attached to Elizabeth, who is continuously looking out for his well-being and happiness. The older boys tend to gravitate towards their father, but Francis is always helping his mother.
In chapter 3 of the novel, Francis is helping his mother start a fire by gathering sticks. He goes off by himself to find more sticks for their fire, and when he returns, he is chewing on something he found on the way. The story says,

Just then little Francis came up with a large bundle of sticks, and his mouth full of something he was eating with evident satisfaction.
"Oh, mother!" cried he, "this is so good! So delicious!"
"Greedy little boy!" exclaimed she in a fright. "What have you got there? Don't swallow it, whatever you do. Very likely it is poisonous! Spit it all out this minute!" And his anxious mother quickly extracted from the rosy little mouth the remains of a small fig.

Elizabeth is distraught because she is frightened by the possibility of Francis being poisoned by eating something he finds in the wilds of the island. She tells him that he is “greedy” because at its heart, the story is a morality tale, and the parents often act as paragons of virtue that correct their wayward children.
It ends up that Francis finds a grove of figs that the family can eat. The anger his mother feels is derived from love and concern, which fits with how she treats him in the story, but it is interesting because the parents rarely get visibly angry with their children in the story.

In chapter 2, what does Lucy experience during her trip to see the animals? In other words, what unspoken realization does she come to when seeing the animals?

In life, as in literature, losses can take many forms, and not all of them are physical losses. In the memoir Autobiography of a Face, Lucy experiences many losses in her life, including the loss of part of her jawbone, which was taken to save her life when she was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer. Because she is taunted and ostracized by the people around due to her disfigurement, Lucy turns to animals to find comfort, as she knows there will be no judgment in their eyes and no painful taunts or jeers from their mouths. Lucy loses much of her apprehension and self-consciousness when she is around the animals and acquires a quiet bravery in their place. She realizes that she can cast aside her pretense and be her true self with the animals. She also comes to realize that companionship can come in many forms, and while she may never be accepted by her peers, she will always be taken for just who she is by animals.

Is Hamlet a revenge play?

Hamlet has many of the elements of the Elizabethan revenge drama or tragedy, but it is also a psychological drama in two significant ways. Young Hamlet does finally avenge the death of his father, also Hamlet, by killing his murderer, Claudius. Along the way, however, he accidentally kills Polonius, so Laertes must avenge his father’s death; he also does this at the play’s end by killing Hamlet. The second revenge plot largely serves to support the main one by emphasizing the motif of father-son bonds. However, although a lot of people die in the play, only a few of those killings are actually acts of revenge, which is different from the typical Elizabethan version.
Many people have argued that the differences from the genre account for this play’s longevity. Hamlet’s psyche is really the subject, as his conscience and indecisiveness block him for a long time from taking the act of vengeance. The psychological aspects also include suspense similar to a modern detective story. If the audience believes the Ghost right away, then Claudius is certainly guilty. Until Claudius admits his guilt, the audience cannot be sure if Hamlet is right to be so cautious.
https://www.britannica.com/art/revenge-tragedy

Shakespeare's Hamlet is considered a "revenge play." Quite specifically, the ghost asks Hamlet to "revenge his foul and most unnatural murder." The ghost, of course, indicates who the murderer is: "But know, thou noble youth, / the serpent that did sting thy father's life / Now wears his crown." Here we should also note that the ghost certainly does not extend this revenge to Hamlet's mother, the queen. We know this because the ghost warns in his monologue: "But howsoever thou pursues this act, / Taint not thy mind, nor let thy soul contrive / Against thy mother aught. Leave her to heaven / And to those thorns that in her bosom lodge to prick and sting her." As the ghost admits, Queen Gertrude will beat herself up enough with guilt. How does this introduction as a revenge play compare with others of its time? Well, as was important to all Elizabethans, the divine order of things must (above all else) be preserved. In this case (as in may other revenge plays), a corruption of this order appears in the killing of a king. The order must be set right through revenge. Hamlet, then, fits quite nicely within the revenge play genre.

How did Chester A. Arthur become president?

Chester A. Arthur became the 21st president of the United States after the death of James A. Garfield. Arthur was serving as vice president when Garfield, the president, was assassinated by a disgruntled job-seeker. He died two months later from infections, after which Arthur was sworn in as president.
Although Chester A. Arthur was a member of the Republican Party, he rose above politics. He signed into law the Pendleton Civil Service Act in January 1883, which mandated that government jobs were earned by merit, not by political connection, and that employees could not be fired for political reasons. Toward the end of his term, Garfield’s health began to suffer, which is why he did not seek re-election in the 1884 campaign.

How does Cheever make a broad social critique through focus on a single middle-class family?

When Irene begins listening to the tumult in her neighbor's lives, she is at first, intrigued. She lives a fairly vapid, upper-middle-class life with domestic help and spends her days shopping, decorating, and lunching with women like herself. When she learns of the struggles of her neighbors she initially feels smug and superior, but eventually gives way as her own insecurities are revealed. It is only when her husband Jim confronts her about her attempt to hide her excessive spending and her past misdeeds that Irene is forced to examine her own faults.
Cheever's social critique seems to have to do with the facade of upper middle class respectability. Although the people in Jim and Irene Westcott's building dress well and have many other outward trappings of decency, what goes on in their apartments as revealed through the radio suggests otherwise. Like the others in their milieu, the Westcotts present themselves to the world as above reproach, but they, too have worries and money problems. Irene has episodes in her past that call into question her morality. Cheever's story observes that the chaos of the human condition is concealed by the thinnest veneer of propriety.

In The Alchemist, what omen does Santiago see in the desert?

There are two omens mentioned in The Alchemist. The first, for Santiago, is Fatima's smile. When Santiago first meets Fatima, she smiles at him, and he immediately falls in love with her. He calls Fatima's smile "the omen he had been awaiting" and "the omen he had sought to find . . . in the silence of the desert." Fatima's smile is for Santiago an omen of true love, "the pure language of the world."
A little later in the story, there is a second omen. In the desert, Santiago's horse begins to slow down, and he knows that this means there is something else alive nearby. Santiago, with the alchemist and the Englishman, finds a deep hole. The alchemist puts his hand into the hole up to his shoulder and feels something moving. When the alchemist pulls his arm out of the hole, he is holding a snake by its tail. He says that this snake is an omen because it is "life in the desert." The snake is a symbol of life and, therefore, a symbol of hope.

Did Toby encounter any enemies throughout the book A Dog's Purpose?

Toby is the protagonist of A Dog's Purpose and, fittingly, a dog. He is reincarnated several times throughout the story, so he has plenty of time to gather some enemies. In his first life, he's born wild and is adopted by a woman who keeps a large number of dogs in a pen in her yard. Then he is found and put down by animal control due to the poor conditions of the pen. Animal control definitely establishes themselves as one of Toby'd enemies, and one could argue that the woman's negligence and her decision to take Toby out of the wild makes her an enemy as well.
In his next life, Toby is adopted by a truck driver who leaves him in a hot car while he goes into a bar, and he is rescued by a woman who gives him to her son, Ethan. The truck driver could be considered an enemy due to his negligence. Toby is later kidnapped by a neighborhood kid, Todd, a clear enemy who later burns down Ethan's house. A while after Ethan goes to college, Todd gets sick, and Ethan's family decides to put him down. It's for the reader to decide whether this was a kind action or positions them as Todd's enemies.
In his next life, he is owned by a cop who gets shot and forced into retirement, and Toby is then given to another cop. No clear enemies appear, unless you count his handlers for forcing him into dangerous situations.
In his next life, a man buys him to give to his girlfriend, who neglects him. He's eventually passed to the girlfriend's mother, and her boyfriend dumps him on the side of the road. Both the girlfriend and her step father could be considered enemies.
All in all, Toby lives several rough lives, but mostly he suffers from neglect more than active malice or from humans hastily deciding to buy him and then not actually wanting him for his whole life. The title of the book, A Dog's Purpose, highlights the fact that generally, humans think about what purpose dogs can serve for them, which doesn't necessarily set dogs up to live their own fulfilling lives.

In "god's promise," how do the three siblings feel about "Coraandhersisters" playing on their swings when they can't go outside on Sundays in Brown Girl Dreaming?

"Coraandhersisters" are described in terms which suggests that they are spoiled, mean, careless, and infuriating. For example, they are described as "brag[ging]" about their anticipated Christmas presents, and, when they start listing their presents ("dolls and skates and swing sets"), it suggests that they expect to receive lots of presents.
When the sisters play on the swing set they "stick their tongues out" at the siblings, taunting them because they, the siblings, have to stay inside and can only "stare from behind [their] glassed-in screen door."
"Coraandhersisters" are also described as "tearing [the swing set] apart," implying that they are careless about ruining something which doesn't even belong to them. They seem to be getting a new swing set for Christmas, yet here they are destroying that which belongs to the siblings. This suggests that they are spoiled and careless and also that they lack respect or empathy.
In the final stanza, the narrator says that if the siblings' "hearts were hands, they'd hit" the girls who were destroying their swing set. This implies that the behaviour of the girls infuriates the siblings.

What is the figurative language and tone in chapter 6 of Bud, Not Buddy?

Figurative language uses various figures of speech, like metaphors and similes, to make a piece of writing more effective. Figurative language also applies to imagery because it attempts to appeal to the senses of readers. Chapter 6 begins with Bud going to one of the shelters that is going to feed people. He has a little trouble getting in line, and he is fortunate that a family fakes being his family. This allows Bud to get into the building much sooner than he would have been able to do from the back of the line. We are told that everybody stands in line very quietly; however, once let into the building, the silence ends quite dramatically. Readers are given a great bit of figurative language that uses a simile.

When we finally got around the last comer and could see the doorand folks going in it seemed like a bubble busted and people started laughing and talking.

As for the tone, chapter 6 continues with Bud's standard storytelling tone. He's honest and straightforward with readers. His account of his hunger is quite frank, yet Bud is always somehow able to maintain a playful tone. Describing the people moving and talking like a bubble bursting is a fun way to describe a scene that is not about something fun.

How did people from different classes interact with one another in medieval europe?

Medieval society was rigidly hierarchical, with everyone expected to know their place. Most people believed that the division between the classes had been ordained by God; in a deeply religious age this was widely accepted as the natural order of things. To a large extent, the class into which you were born was the class in which you died. In the days of feudalism, peasants were pretty much tied to the land. They lived and worked on estates belonging to the nobility, to whom they were duty bound to give service. If you were a peasant in those days you couldn't just up sticks and seek better opportunities elsewhere; you owed your subsistence, your whole way of life to the lord of the manor and so you wouldn't be allowed to live anywhere else.
Although relations between the classes tended to be quite deferential, social disorder was still quite common in Medieval Europe. Peasant revolts took place with frightening regularity, often in the wake of a failed harvest. Desperate peasants would take out their anger and frustration on their alleged social superiors and their property—looting, destroying, in some cases even killing. Order was often quickly restored, but not before huge damage had been done.
Feudalism was largely destroyed, not by peasant revolts, but by the Black Death. This deadly plague wiped out around 60% of the population of Europe. It was no respecter of rank or wealth and many nobles died during this unprecedented catastrophe. With the ranks of the nobility decimated by the plague, society changed dramatically. A shortage of peasant labor meant that workers on the land could command higher wages and break free from the control of their lords and masters.
Medieval society, though still hierarchical, was now much more fluid. A wealthy middle-class quickly emerged, taking advantage of the economic opportunities inadvertently provided by the massive reduction in population. Though the population was much smaller, demand for basic goods remained high, and the rising middle-classes such as merchants and traders made huge fortunes from supplying them.

What is the theme of "The Moving Finger"?

The theme of "The Moving Finger" is generally regarded as relating to control. Ralph's first wife controls him so thoroughly that he is compared to the host for a parasite. He loses himself entirely; he isn't even aware of himself until she passes.
When Ralph marries the second Mrs. Grancy, he lives his fullest life through his happiness with her. If he is to be believed, the relationship was truly mutual, and they were both so overcome with joy at their union that their unexpected and sudden separation when she died was almost incomprehensible to Ralph Grancy. He realizes, through her continued "presence" in his life (it is not clear in the story if this presence was real or imagined), that he needs to bring her along, so to speak, into old age so that she will not be alone without him, even in death. This is why Ralph asks Claydon to age the masterpiece he painted of Mrs. Grancy—so that the couple can, in a way, grow old together.
Claydon believes himself to be in love with Mrs. Grancy, though the reader is given no clear indication that those feelings were ever returned. What both men share is a love for this woman that becomes obsession. Whether there is a paranormal occurrence that allows Mrs. Grancy to take hold of these men in the afterlife, or their fantasies grip them to the point of delusion, Mrs. Grancy has a firm hold on both men. Claydon uses his innate knowledge of Mrs. Grancy, and Ralph's desire to continue experiencing his life with her, to nudge him into death with merely a look upon the portrait's face. This is how Claydon comes to own Mrs. Grancy (the portrait) once and for all, remaking her back into his ideal image of her.
This control is nuanced; neither man is trying to control or manipulate Mrs. Grancy as she was when living. They have literally objectified her, projecting all their fantasies onto a portrait. Ralph Grancy idealizes unyielding companionship. Claydon idealizes the point in a woman's beauty when youth has ripened into womanhood, where innocence and experience exist in balance.
Both men want so badly to seize onto how Mrs. Grancy made them feel in those moments that they wanted her frozen at those moments in time—not because they desire to own the woman, but because they feel compelled to own those fleeting moments when they saw themselves idealized in her. They were chasing their own reflections in her face, like wanting to catch time in a jar.

One important clue to the story's theme is the title, "The Moving Finger." This is a quotation from a poem that was very familiar in Edith Wharton's day. Her story was published in 1885.
The phrase is part of one of the most well known passages of Edward Fitzgerald's 1859 translation (really, a liberal interpretation) into English of parts of The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyam. Khayyam was an eleventh and twelfth century Persian astronomer, mathematician, and poet. His long poem was popular in artistic and intellectual circles in both England and the U.S.

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

The idea is that fate or time moves with its own force and that no human action--whether based in faith or intellect or emotion--will have any effect on that.
The theme of these lines and the story is that we cannot change the past or the future.
Both Ralph Grancy and Claydon tried to alter reality, the former by asking that Mrs. Grancy's portrait be aged and the latter by doing the work. While the narrator is horrified at Claydon's actions, the artist is correct that his actions did not kill Glancy. The moving finger simply wrote its unchangeable story.
http://classics.mit.edu/Khayyam/rubaiyat.html

One of the themes of "The Moving Finger" by Edith Wharton is control—or, rather, the lack of it. However hard he tries, Ralph just can't seem to move on with his life. His sense of loss at the death of his second wife is ever present and haunts his every waking hour. Ralph is controlled by his past. As he cannot break free from the memory of the second Mrs. Grancy, Ralph tries desperately to exert some control of his own. There is a hint that perhaps Ralph's second wife had an affair with Claydon, the portrait painter. For Ralph, this must have represented a considerable loss of control over his life. One could argue, then, that in getting Claydon to repaint Mrs. Grancy's portrait to make her look older, Ralph is taking back some of the control he lost when his wife cheated on him.

How are Lia and Cassie connected?

Lia and Cassie are two of life's perennial outcasts. They're going through some major problems in their lives and as a consequence feel disconnected from the world around them. More than anything else, it's this overwhelming sense of isolation from a world they don't understand and which doesn't understand them that joins them together.
In addition, like a depressingly large number of girls their age, they both suffer from eating disorders; Lia is an anorexic, whereas Cassie has bulimia. For both girls, eating disorders are a way for them—one of the few ways available—to feel that they can exert some measure of control over their lives. But this is a mirage. To a large and damaging extent, Lia and Cassie's low self-image has been determined by society's expectations of what's considered the appropriate body-shape for girls of their age, and they've internalized those expectations, with truly disastrous consequences.

How, David realizes, do the people mistake his mercy for fear?

Absalom and Achitophel is a political allegory on events in Restoration England. The character of King David is meant to represent Charles II, who ruled England between 1660 and 1685. In Dryden's epic poem the Jews are presented, like late seventeenth-century Englishmen, as being stubborn and self-willed. As such, they are profoundly dissatisfied with David as their king, despite his mild, benevolent rule. They constantly plot against him, believing that they have the God-given right to overthrow a monarch who doesn't meet with their approval. Dryden is making a satirical point here, criticizing those of his contemporaries who took advantage of Charles's good nature and benevolence to undermine his rule.
One by one, the people David thought were his friends and allies start to desert him. The people are on the brink of revolt, convinced that David's mercy is a sign of weakness. Revolution's in the air and it seems like only a matter of time before the king is violently overthrown. Those remaining loyal to David such as Hushai and Adriel advise him that he must act firmly if he's to hang on to his throne. No more Mr. Nice Guy; David needs to assert his kingly authority and fast.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44172/absalom-and-achitophel

In the article “Reality TV Gives Back: On the Civic Functions of Reality Entertainment” by Laurie Ouellette, how does the author use the rhetorical appeals of pathos, logos, and ethos to construct her argument that reality TV is actually beneficial to society?

In classical rhetoric, there are three primary forms of argument: pathos, ethos, and logos.
Pathos is an appeal to emotions. It focuses less on facts and figures and more on making the audience feel something.
Ethos is an appeal to character. It inspires the audience to act a certain way or points to the character, experience, or expertise (or lack thereof) of someone as an argument for or against something. An argument by ethos may quote the opinion of an expert to prove a point, for example.
Logos is an appeal to logic. It focuses on using reason and facts and figures to make an argument.
Oullette uses all three techniques to make her argument that reality television is beneficial to society. Here are some examples:
Pathos: Reality television encourages viewers to sympathize with the hardships and stories of the people on the show. It often uses emotional appeals to convince viewers to give or volunteer.
Ethos: Many reality shows focus on improving the character of those on the show. For example, Oullette points out that the show Secret Millionaire helps make wealthy citizens aware of the wealth imbalance between themselves and the poor.
Logos: Oullette believes that reality television has taken the place of documentaries as a way of "citizen-building". She states that reality television shows can be used to educate and promote positive behavior. She gives examples of reality TV being used to promote charitable activities or bring attention to the plights of others. Oullette argues that although the situations on reality television are often embellished and exaggerated, that does not negate the positive message they can convey.

Ethos--she builds ethos by referencing a variety of sources including starting with an opposing viewpoint. Throughout the essay she provides a variety of examples and quotes a large number of other sources. There is little doubt that she is well versed in the topic. Her academic tone and professional language also provide evidence that she is a trusted source.
Logos--If you look at current reality television within the context of the current political reality--post-welfare--of this essay, then you must accept that there is an inherently civic aspect to reality television.
Many reality television shows feature good civic behavior like volunteering and giving back. This models positive civic behavior and to a certain extent normalizes it which will have a positive impact on the viewers--monkey see; monkey do.
Pathos--There is a pride in American reality television as compared to the British reality television. "Do-good television is especially common on commercial channels in the United States. Although European public broadcasters offer reality-based lessons on living, most lack the resources to intervene directly in reality on a philanthropic scale." This pride will encourage the audience to respond positively to Ouellette's message. There is an American pride, and perhaps even a generational pride, in the do good message of more modern reality television shows which supports the idea that society benefits from them.

Who were the Britons, and what are the four nations of Britain?

The Britons (meaning those who live in Britain) were one of few native peoples inhabiting Britain before the Anglo-Saxon invasions of the fifth century; they were once believed to be descendants of the Celts. The four nations that comprise the modern-day United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are Wales, which was annexed by the Laws in Wales Act of 1542 by King Henry VIII; Scotland, following its union with Great Britain with the 1707 Acts of Union; Northern Ireland, after Ireland joined in union with the United Kingdom in 1801 and five-sixths of Ireland seceded in 1922, with Northern Ireland being the sixth piece to stay; and England. As of 1922, England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are the four nations that comprise the United Kingdom.
https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/general-english/word-on-the-street/loch-ness/four-nations

What were some of the costs of the laissez-faire approach to economics for American workers?

While the premise behind laissez-faire economical philosophy driving much of American capitalism is that by minimizing and limiting the regulatory power of the government over the economic activity of the society, the "invisible hand" of market and capitalism will lift everyone up ("all are in one boat, thus all are lifted by the wave" concept) from their current socio-economic levels. The proponents of the laissez-faire economic philosophy also argue(d) that it will be in the necessary self-interest of everyone to ensure that everyone's rights are respected, otherwise, there are bound to be costs to the businesses in one way or the other.
However, in reality, this has not happened, as the American version of capitalism does not provide the framework to stop unfortunate individuals from falling so far to the bottom that they never can recover - compare the American approach to severe economic crises to say, the approach(es) employed in Germany, for example.
Another example is the perverse effects of laissez-faire economic system in America, especially in the healthcare industry - where an ever-growing share of the sector is devoted simply on the bureaucratic processing of the claims and counter-claims by myriad players and middleman in the healthcare system, thus depriving the patient (the customer!) of true transparency in the costs of medical procedures and medications.

According to the doctrine of laissez-faire, governments should intervene as little as possible in the running of the economy. They should simply set the rules and the legal framework in which businesses operate and stand back and allow market forces to work freely.
The downside of this approach, especially in late 19th and early 20th century America, was that workers went unprotected from the excesses of industrial capitalism. Without proper regulation or government control, businesses could get away with driving down or ignoring safety standards, leading to numerous work-related deaths and injuries. Workers could be routinely exploited by their employers, who could keep wages as low as possible—especially during a recession—safe in the knowledge that there were countless others willing to take their place.
Laissez-faire was consistent with a thoroughgoing hostility toward labor unions. The prevailing economic doctrine held that unions interfered with the operation of the free market in labor and that their activities should therefore be curtailed. With lack of protection from either the government or labor unions, workers often experienced shocking pay and conditions. This led to growing demands for change which, in due course, sounded the death knell for laissez-faire.