What were the key features (political, economic, and social) of the early Middle Ages compared with the features of the high Middle Ages/Renaissance? How did one's view of the world change during this long period? How did these new ideas and inventions lead to the voyages of Columbus and the Portuguese fleets, under the direction of Prince Henry the Navigator? Lastly, what could be accounted for this possible transformation?

This is a very, very ambitious question, and could suffice to inspire an entire book. In any case, because of the complexity involved, I want to address the last part of your question first: "what could be accounted for this transformation?" In this case, simple as it may seem, the most important factor was probably time. The Middle Ages constitutes a vast span of time. If we start the clock with the fall of Rome and end it at around 1400, we're looking at a period of roughly 900 years, and that is a lot of time in which cultures and politics can evolve.
In any case, I would suggest that the early Middle Ages were more than anything defined by the collapse of Roman power in Western Europe, with the Empire fragmenting into various more localized power structures. That being said, the image of the Dark Ages has largely been refuted as historical myth. Even so, we should not underestimate the power vacuum that emerged from the imperial collapse. At the same time, we should note that there was a great deal of political instability and turmoil present within this time period, resulting in Feudalism's evolution in Western Europe. Finally, while accepting that the Roman Empire collapsed, we should not forget that Christianity remained a Roman religion, and the Ecclesia a Roman institution, and moreover it was one whose domain and authority stretched over all of Western Europe. It was not by accident that the Church was the most powerful of all institutions in the Medieval world.
From here, you would need to trace how Europe evolves in the centuries that comprise the Middle Ages, and there are many themes you can tackle. You can speak about societal trends: the revival of towns and cities, growing from trade fairs along trade routes to become new European urban centers. You can focus on political trends: the emergence of new Kingdoms and dynasties, as well as the gradual consolidation of power. Historians have tended to suggest that there was a fundamental conflict of interests at play between Kings and Feudal Lords, and that across the Middle Ages, we see Royal power and authority gradually increasing at the expense of local power structures. You can discuss the universities and the intellectual evolutions within Christian Scholasticism (which is much more vibrant and multifaceted than it is often given credit for). There is a lot of dynamism within the Medieval world, and there are a lot of angles through which to take this investigation.

Write a description of the curse on Stanley’s family from Holes.

Stanley Yelnats comes from a family that believes they were cursed by an ancestor’s actions. This ancestor’s name was Elya Yelnats, but the family refers to him as Stanley's "no-good-dirty-rotten-pig-stealing-great-great-grandfather" (chapter 1). Elya’s infraction was stealing a pig from a one-legged gypsy, who then called down the curse on the whole family.
The pig was part of a marriage negotiation that Elya was conducting in his native Lithuania; he needed a pig to compete with his rival in offering Myra’s father an appropriate gift. He sought the help of Madame Zeroni, but he failed to uphold his bargain when he left for America.
Although several generations later and the family members do not really believe in the curse, they refer to it whenever bad luck befalls a family member, as frequently occurs.

How important is theory and research when policy makers write laws or make new policies? What role does theory and research play in policy making?

The answer to this depends on what kind of policy is being created and perhaps implemented. For example, a policy created that addresses an environmental issue would certainly require both theory and research. The lawmakers would (hopefully) have an understanding of environmental issues, the reality of climate change and humans' impact on global climate, and how the specific policy could impact the environment. If the Environmental Protection Agency wants to create a policy around limiting a coal company's pollution into a nearby stream, research displaying how that pollution is affecting the watershed or how the pollution of other similar company's pollution is affecting the watershed would aid in the creation of the policy. There will be clear numbers and expected outcomes for limiting this pollution.

Why was there upheaval in America after the WWI?

The upheaval in the United States after World War I (1914–1918) was due to three factors: a deadly disease, a severe economic downturn, and a fear of Communism.
About 550,000 Americans died during the influenza pandemic of 1918–19, and this number dwarfed American casualties in WWI. The movement of American troops to Europe during the war spread the disease. The disease spread panic in America because it was both lethal and mysterious.
There was a rapid economic expansion in the United States during the war. The end of the conflict caused economic tumult, however. Wages went down and labor disputes escalated as millions went on strike. In 1919, race riots exacerbated the economic unease.
The third cause of instability was the Communist threat posed by Russia. Communists seized power in Russia in 1917 and hoped to encourage Communist revolution around the globe. Also, bombs were mailed to 40 American leaders. The intense fear of Communism became known as the Red Scare, and it lasted until 1920.

In The Phantom Tollbooth, what does King Azaz and the mathmagician tell Milo after he returns?

In The Phantom Tollbooth, Azaz is king of Dictionopolis and the Mathemagician, his brother, is the ruler of Digitopolis; they have never agreed on anything since the two princesses, Rhyme and Reason, were banished to the Castle in the Air. Milo sets out with his dog, Tock, and the Humbug to recover the princesses.
After many adventures, they convince the princesses to return with them but then must escape the pursuit of numerous evil forces. The brothers must join together to help them safely home. When they make it safely back, Milo is greeted as a hero. He insists that he succeeded only because of everyone’s help. The brothers then tell him the information they had withheld before he left, thinking that he would not have gone on the quest if he knew.

"It was impossible," said the king, looking at the Mathemagician.
"Completely impossible," said the Mathemagician, looking at the king. . . .
"Yes, indeed," they repeated together; "but if we'd told you then, you might not have gone—and, as you've discovered, so many things are possible just as long as you don't know they're impossible."
http://butterfluff1066.tripod.com/toll/phantomtollbooth.htm

What was Abraham Lincoln's middle name?

Abraham Lincoln was named after his paternal grandfather, Captain Abraham Lincoln, but he was not given a middle name. It was actually not unusual in the nineteenth century to not have a middle name. Indeed, many of Abraham Lincoln's predecessors as president of the United States also didn't have middle names, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe.
Although he didn't have a middle name, Abraham Lincoln was given a number of nicknames, including "Honest Abe," a name he picked up as a young man, and "The Great Emancipator," a nickname he was given after his part in liberating Southern slaves during the American Civil War. Lincoln used the nickname "Honest Abe" as one of his campaign slogans ("Honest old Abe") when he ran for office in 1860.

Was the American revolution a radical or conservative event?

The answer to this question is subjective. Either answer can be adequately defended, and neither answer is more correct than the other. Additionally, "radical" and "conservative" are subjective, relative terms. What is radical for one person might not be anything close to another person's definition of radical.
Personally, I feel that anytime a group of people decides to overthrow a governing entity by using violence against that ruling power, it is quite radical. I generally consider violence to be a last resort option. The normal, "conservative," and/or political strategies have failed, and the only remaining option is violence. That's a radical step because thousands of lives would have been spared had the revolution not turned violent. America might be a very different country or maybe not independent at all, but saving lives is an admirable goal.
On the other hand, I suppose that staying passive and letting the British government dish out legislation that didn't aggressively care for the colonies could be considered the radical option. The idea of getting slapped and turning the other cheek is quite a radical idea to many people, so fighting back is the conservative option.

The American Revolution can unquestionably be labeled as a radical historic event. Radical in this sense, and according to Websters Dictionary, meaning "favoring or resulting in extreme or revolutionary changes, as in political organizations". In this respect the American Revolution was completely radical. The vision of the founding fathers, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, was to secure freedoms and liberties for the people of the American colonies which were actively being denied by the British Empire. By simply writing this declaration and sending it to King George III, the American colonies set in motion the most radical phenomenon of the day.
Furthermore, these colonies were now determined to abandon monarchial rule and govern themselves. Through this revolution the founding fathers and the American patriots who fought for it, were able to overthrow British rule in the American colonies. In 1783, the American people were victorious and broke free from the parent stem of the British Empire. This event was unprecedented, never before had a colony overthrown a monarch in order rule itself. The American people went on to develop one of the first true democracies in the world, another radical idea in a time dominated by Monarchs and Empires.
The American Revolution was an open act of rebellion against one of the most powerful empires of the day. A group of colonies banding together and declaring war against their monarch was the epitome of radical in the 18th century. Aside from the war itself there were radicals throughout the colonies. The "sons of liberty", responsible for everything from smuggling to tarring and feathering loyalists, would most definitely be considered a radical group. The revolution would serve as the spark to ignite further insurrections across the globe. Although it may not have been the most violent or sweeping in its scope, the American Revolution was far from a conservative affair.

To some degree, the American Revolution was radical, as the American colonies revolted against a great imperial power. The Declaration of Independence enshrined the ideas that Americans had the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and that these were "inalienable rights," or rights that could not be taken away. The revolution was the embodiment of the ideals of Locke's social contract theory, and the new United States would become the closest thing to a democracy since Athens in ancient Greece.
However, the revolution was less radical than revolutions such as the French Revolution and the later Russian Revolution. The American Revolution did not change the status of slaves, who remained enslaved, and women were not allowed to vote. For these reasons, the revolution, which also preserved existing property rights, was somewhat conservative.

What is the moral of The Death of Ivan Ilyich?

I think, in answering this question, it's useful to consider how this story is structured, because The Death of Ivan Ilyich begins at the end, after its protagonist has died, with Ivan Ilyich's funeral. In a way, then, it might be useful to consider the funeral scene itself and how it relates to the larger story that follows.
In the funeral scene, what we see is a focus on appearances. Ilyich's friend Ivanovich (whose viewpoint we initially follow) is largely focused on giving an appropriate impression. You see this in his continued observance of the signing of the cross (which is joined with his internal preoccupation concerning the appropriateness of the gesture) or in his greeting the widow, Praskovya, who is herself primarily interested in maximizing the amount of money she can receive from the State, now that her husband is deceased. In reading this scene, you might get a sense of artificiality on the part of its participants and, ultimately. dishonesty.
From here, we follow Ivan Ilyich, starting in his youth and carrying on until his death, mirroring the funeral scene itself. We find that for much of his life, Ilyich had possessed a single minded focus on appearances. However, as his illness takes root, he comes to realize just how hollow (and ultimately meaningless) his entire life had been, and as his illness worsens, his despair only grows. What we see in Ivan Ilyich is a condemnation of the materialistic lifestyle, which provides no comfort in the presence of death.

The ultimate moral of the story is that life without love is unsatisfying and meaningless. Before his last days, Ivan was driven by material and social success. He married for social and economic reasons, never truly loving his wife. He worked only to get more furniture and goods. However, none of this ever made him happy.
So, when he realizes he is dying, he is distraught, even angry, at this twist of fate. Then he comes to regret that he did not love more. He feels pity for those consumed by egotistical desires that will never satisfy them.
Once Ivan starts thinking about others and loving them, he becomes happier in his final moments than he ever was in his "healthy" days. Even though his body is failing him, his soul has never been more alive. The people around him who have not yet awakened to his great lesson are more to be pitied than he—at least, that's what Tolstoy's text appears to suggest.

The message of The Death of Ivan Ilyich is simple. Ilyich was living the wrong life when he was thinking about his own selfish ego, and he was living the right life when he began thinking about others. His ordeal was a learning experience. The Death of Ivan Ilyich is similar to Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. Scrooge becomes enlightened and happy when he stops thinking selfishly and begins thinking altruistically.

I have to write a thesis about Dracula. It has to be about Modernism and the novel's attitude towards scientific advancement.

Dracula by Bram Stoker is a late-19th century novel about the eponymous vampire, Count Dracula, and the humans who encounter him. It is recounted as if it were a collection of primary sources, including letters, logs, and newspaper articles. As the novel creates tension with its contrasts between science and magic and between the past and the present, there are a few ways you can approach this question.
Modernism
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, modernism is “fueled in various literatures by industrialization and urbanization and by the search for an authentic response to a much-changed world.” To explore this in Dracula, you could start by comparing the modern world of Harker to the more ancient world that Dracula inhabits. Harker even compares his journey to Transylvania to a trip backwards in time. If Britain is the future and the center of civilization, then Transylvania is the past and the wild, uncivilized frontier. The human characters utilize the latest technological advancements of their time, including typewriters, telegrams, trains, and cameras, which are all a far cry from Dracula and the older world of Transylvanian society.
Science
The scientific method, as defined by the Encyclopedia Britannica, is “the process of observing, asking questions, and seeking answers through tests and experiments.” It seeks to collect observable facts and create theories that can explain them. The very structure of the novel lends itself well to the scientific method. By following the narrative through a series of letters and articles, the reader is forced to participate in the scientific process by treating the events of the story as information to record, process, and assemble in a meaningful way. Science and magic are often side by side, however. Dracula himself is a supernatural creature that science is unable to explain. He performs feats outside of what is scientifically possible, baffling the human characters who often rely on their confidence in what the modern world has taught them about reality.
I would recommend looking for these points of tension between the old and the new, the magical and the scientific, and relating these examples to the ways that Stoker uses modernism to respond to a world that was rapidly changing.
https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/dracula

What are five lessons that Santiago learned in part one of The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho?

Paul Coehlo's The Alchemist deals with several themes, including the nature of desire, coming of age, seeking your life's purpose, recognizing and attaining your dreams, and paying attention to the beauty and lessons you encounter on your journey. Below are a series of fundamental lessons that Santiago learns through the five main parts of his journey to self-fulfillment and understanding.
The protagonist, introduced to the reader simply as a young boy on the cusp of adulthood tending sheep in the Spanish country side, encounters a mystical figure who encourages him to take his first step into the wide world beyond his familiar, recognizable homeland. Thus the first lesson Santiago learns in the first part of the book is to recognize the inherent calling that makes you, you and to embark on a journey of discovery to seek after that calling (part one).
After Santiago embarks on his journey to seek a "treasure" hidden in The Great Pyramids, he begins to encounter difficulties and the struggle to stay your course in the face of challenges and complexity. He learns through daily living with a merchant in Morocco that everyone in life has a deep purpose and it's up to each of us to pursue it and not stay stagnant. Santiago sees a reflection of this potential future in the crystal merchant he takes up shop with, and he learns to avoid being lost in the minutiae of life's ups-and-downs, finally recommitting to his quest (part two).
Santiago begins the long journey across the wide desert of the Sahara on his way to Egypt, and now he has built up his skill for interpreting the signs in the world that can help or harm you. His time in the desert among the nomadic people teaches him to live without fear and recognize how the world teaches you to achieve your life's purpose (part three).
In his journey across the desert, Santiago also learns to set aside all else but the goal of your desire, understanding that everything works out in its own time (part four).
And finally, at the completion of his journey Santiago learns that you must always apply everything you've learned to overcoming the greater and greater difficulties that life sends your way to test your knowledge, resolve and dedication to achieving your purpose (part five).

What did the Cratchit family do before the goose was carved and they started eating?

The Cratchit family is not used to having sufficient food—and certainly not food of such quality as the goose they are offered on Christmas day. As such, the children carry it in as if in a "procession," and the family behaves as if the goose is a very rare thing. They are extremely excited, and they indicate this with much "bustle."
Before they can eat, various preparations have to be made. Mrs. Cratchit prepares the gravy and warms it up; Peter vigorously mashes the potatoes; Belinda sweetens the apple sauce; Martha dusts the hot plates; Bob takes Tiny Tim over to a corner of the table to make sure he has his plate; and the youngest two Cratchits set out the chairs around the table. They put spoons into their mouths as if to hold in their shrieks of delight. Finally, before the goose is carved, the dishes are laid on the table and the family says grace. At last, Mrs. Cratchit plunges the carving knife into the cooked goose, and Tiny Tim beats on the table with his knife and shouts, "Hurrah."

What are the strengths of “Girl” being written in the second person? In other words, what was the story able to accomplish specifically because it was told in the second person? Then, describe a weakness that the second person created, and describe why you see it as weak.

The choice of the second person as a narrative voice is an unusual one which is always deliberate. Second person gives a text a very particular feel: the reader is necessarily the person being addressed by the text. In the case of "Girl," the effect of this is that the reader is now the recipient of the barrage of information and instruction that is delivered to the girl in question on a moment by moment basis. As the recipient of all this instruction, we can clearly sense how inexorable it feels: the long sentences, broken by semi-colons, add to this sense of continuous instruction and command without pause. The story is exhausting to read; we can only imagine, then, how exhausting this life must be for the girl herself to lead.
There are, of course, weaknesses and downsides to this type of narrative. The chief among these is that we have no idea how the girl feels about all this, other than what we can assume based on our own feelings. However, this may also be seen as a positive thing—we are forced to place ourselves in the girl's position and feel with a true immediacy, rather than being told how this feels. We understand the girl's life directly, rather than at a remove.

Writing "Girl" in the second-person point of view places the reader in the position of the "girl" who is evidently being educated about many different aspects of life. When she is accused of something, like singing benna on Sundays or in Sunday school, we feel her defensiveness. We also sense more easily how the "girl" really does not seem to get an opportunity to get a word in edgewise. We feel her relative powerlessness because we read the text as if it were directed at us—instead of at someone else in front of us.
One potential weakness of writing the story from this point of view is that imperative sentences end up dominating the story. We don't get much description or any background information (called exposition). This really just reads like a list of things the "girl" is expected to memorize and know, going forward. We don't know much about what she thinks or feels at all, and this could be considered a weakness.

Dostoevsky employs two different strategies to represent individual psychology. In Part One, he uses "stream of consciousness," in which the narrator theoretically express whatever comes into him mind without censor. In Part Two, he has the narrator engage others in behavior that is both self-destructive and destructive to others but leaves the narrator's motivations open to interpretation, which compels the reader to try to enter the narrator's mind. Which of these two techniques better expresses psychological realism?

Great question! Ultimately, the answer to your query is rooted in opinion but here are some thoughts that might help guide you answer this prompt.
Psychological realism is a literary style that aims to replicate the inner thoughts and hidden motives of a character as precisely as possible. Authors who employ psychological realism, such as Fyodor Dostoevsky, are frequently more concerned with inward characterization than they are with the plot. The result is often a gritty examination of human nature that is unflinching in its portrayal of the ugliness that can grow in the human soul.
Dostoevsky’s novel Notes From The Underground is written in the first person by a bitter former Saint Petersburg civil servant. The unnamed narrator is caustic and unreliable in his narration; Dostoevsky clearly expects the reader to question the sanity of the narration! The novel explores this ailing man’s mental state and his twisted, incomprehensible motives for his actions.
Part I, or “Underground”, is relayed in a stream of consciousness and is much more philosophical than Part II. The narrator expounds his varied philosophies, rants about events from his past, complains of his social status and acknowledges that many readers will find his ramblings bewildering. In Part I, the reader is introduced to the narrator and exposed to his contradictory value systems.
Part II, or “Apropos the Wet Snow,” is a narrative that displays how the narrator lived out his bitter philosophy with former friends and lovers. Most readers are repulsed by the narrator’s treatment of others, particularly his savaging of Liza.
I feel that Part I is the best example of psychological realism in Dostoevsky’s novel. This is because Part I mirrors the thought processes of the deranged protagonist and offers the audience a clear, accurate window into the mental depravity of the narrator.

What is the significance of Farquhar's heightened attention to detail?

I think the answer to this question depends on the reader. On one hand, I think his vivid and heightened attention to detail helps sell the idea to the reader that Farquhar's escape is actually happening. People often say that in the midst of some harrowing experience, like a car accident, everything slows down and they notice the oddest details. Anecdotally, I can confirm this. I remember the most odd and vivid details from a car crash that I had earlier in my life.
On the other hand, Farquhar's heightened attention to detail might clue certain readers into the fact that Farquhar isn't experiencing anything. He is imagining it all in vivid detail. This should also resonate with readers, because many people are likely to be able to claim that they have had a dream that seemed so real they weren't sure it was a dream. Scientifically speaking, there is hardly any difference in brain activity between actually seeing something and imagining it. The same brain centers are triggered in both cases. The significance of Farquhar's heightened awareness is that it makes the story believable and suspicious sounding at the same time.
https://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/31/science/seeing-and-imagining-clues-to-the-workings-of-the-mind-s-eye.html

Readers are often shocked by the conclusion of Bierce’s story when they realize that Peyton Farquhar’s escape and journey home existed only in his mind. The abrupt conclusion jolts them, just as Farquhar’s body is jolted when the rope plays out, ending his free fall. The truth of what occurred at Owl Creek Bridge is confronted quite suddenly, even though Bierce provides plenty of clues to the illusory nature of Farquhar’s experience after he falls between the railroad ties.
Many specific details in Part III of the story describe that which simply could not have happened. After fighting his way to the surface of Owl Creek, Farquhar could not have observed the veins on each leaf of the individual trees by the stream. He could not have seen “the very insects upon them: the locusts, the brilliant-bodied flies, the gray spiders stretching their webs from twig to twig,” nor could he have seen the “prismatic colors in all the dewdrops upon a million blades of grass.” Also beyond the realm of possibility is Farquhar’s hearing, in the midst of the fast-moving creek, the “audible music” of gnats humming and dragonflies beating their wings or the sound of “the strokes of the water-spiders’ legs.” His head above water, he very well could have heard rifle shots and seen the Union troops at the bridge, but in the distance, the soldiers’ forms would not have appeared “gigantic,” and he could not have seen “the eye of the man on the bridge gazing into his own through the sights of the rifle.” The rifleman’s eye is gray, Farquhar notes, another specific detail that indicates the illusory nature of his escape.
Numerous other details of Farquhar’s escape defy belief, especially toward the end of Part III as he makes his way home through a landscape both foreign and peculiar. The road he follows is “as wide and straight as a city street” but seems untraveled, and it takes him through a land with no signs of human habitation. The trees are black and form “a straight wall on both sides, terminating on the horizon in a point, like a diagram in a lesson in perspective.” That his experience is surreal is emphasized when he sees “great golden stars” shining overhead, “looking unfamiliar and grouped in strange constellations.” Reading Part III carefully makes it obvious that Farquhar’s escape is a fantasy.
Why, then, are readers so often shocked when they arrive at the final sentence in the narrative? Perhaps they respond to the conclusion of the story for reasons that have nothing to do with literary analysis. Many readers sympathize with Farquhar as he faces death. They identify with his love for his family and understand his desperate desire to go home. While reading Part III, they simply want Peyton Farquhar to survive. Consequently, many readers fail to consider, or choose to ignore, the evidence that his escape is not real. Thus the sight of Farquhar, his neck broken, swinging “gently from side to side beneath the timbers of the Owl Creek Bridge” shocks and disturbs, ending very abruptly what readers hoped for him, despite the impossibility of his escape.

What are the three hardships the people of Copenhagen must endure because of the war in Number the Stars?

The citizens of Copenhagen must cope with a constantly lessening supply of things they need. In the first chapter, readers are told that coffee and tea have long disappeared and that women sip hot tea with herbs. Then readers learn that fuel is in short supply and that the "winter nights were terribly cold." Electricity is rationed, and they often use candles for light. This doesn't even provide enough light for Ellen's father, a teacher, to see well enough to grade his students' papers.
They must also live in fear of the soldiers who walk their streets, ready to sneer at them and terrorize them at any moment. When the girls are walking home from school one day, they are stopped by soldiers questioning how well they do in school. Soldiers don't engage in small talk, so the girls are left to wonder the real purpose of the confrontation. Later soldiers burst into their home and demand to know how two blonde sisters could have a brunette sister as well. Annemarie's father must quickly devise a plan to hide the real truth and then sell this lie to the officers. There is no room for error in dealing with the ongoing threat of these confrontations.
They must leave their homes to survive. People falling into classifications established by Hitler were actively sought out and sent to concentration camps—or killed. Many people live in terror that their lives will soon end, so they are forced to flee their homes in hope of survival. With the brave assistance of those in the Resistance, some of these people found this hope—but at great risk to all involved. Annemarie finds that the fewer details she knows about how all this happens, the better she is in dealing with soldiers' inquiries.

What does Alexander Pope mock in his poem An Essay on Man, and what techniques does he use?

An Essay on Man, unlike many of the other works for which Pope is best known, is not a satire. Mockery is thus not a prime feature of the poem, as it is in The Rape of the Lock or The Dunciad, for example. The ideas in the Essay, however, are put forward partly by showing the falseness of opposing kinds of thought, which Pope does hold up to ridicule, but not with the kind of sardonic or acerbic expression we find in the satires. It's more in a sad or regretful way that Pope demonstrates, or attempts to do so, that those who disagree with his views are misguided.
Though the "best of all possible worlds" philosophy of Gottfried Wilhem Leibniz was later much ridiculed (sometimes in a caricatured version) by Voltaire, for example, in Candide, this forms the basis of much of Pope's thinking. Pope's view is that it is wrong to regard the negative aspects of the world, the imperfections of life, as evidence that God is unjust—or worse, that God does not exist. To Pope, it is a sign of naivete or foolish pride for anyone to expect the world to be perfect, without problems and challenges for man to solve. It's also a sign of narcissism for man to think the universe was created for his personal benefit or comfort, because we have no way of knowing exactly what God's larger plan or overall purpose was in creating it. It's the self-centered, prideful view that Pope holds up to ridicule, through striking metaphors and, as with all great poets, his brilliant and beautiful word choice.

Ask for what end the heavenly bodies shine,
Earth for whose use? Pride answers, "'Tis for mine:
For me kind nature wakes her genial power,
Suckles each herb, and spreads out every flower . . .
Seas roll to waft me, suns to light me rise,
My footstool earth, my canopy the skies."

Pope's language is so striking that even those who don't agree with his views find it difficult to avoid quoting him once they have read his work. This is why Samuel Johnson (who disliked the Essay on Man despite his view that "if Pope be not a poet, where is poetry to be found?") referred to the "blaze of embellishments" with which Pope had expressed a philosophy Johnson himself considered absurd. Pope does not so much mock as express in sublimely powerful verse his view of those who disagree with him as unfortunately misguided and unrealistically prideful. As noted, there is a sad, regretful tone that dominates much of the poem in contrast to the slashing, merciless style of Pope's satiric works.

Translate act 2, scene 2, lines 85–127, between Romeo and Juliet into modern-day text messages that you would send via phone, but leave readers able to recognize some of the famous lines from the text.

There are a few ways we can tackle this assignment! One option is to look at each line of Shakespeare's text and directly translate the words and phrases into words and phrases that teens would use today. Another option is to review a summary of the scene and then write your own exchange based on the summary and without directly "translating." This version may end up being shorter, as you will get to the heart of what they are saying, but text messages do tend to be shorter than Shakespeare's lines.
Something else to make your writing stand out is to consider the characterization of Romeo and Juliet. Your task is to turn their lines into text messages, so consider their texting styles. Does Romeo have spelling mistakes in his rush to get his words out? Does Juliet use emojis as symbols for her words? Do they both use abbreviations, or just one of them, or neither of them? Consider what you know about their characters, and then try to imagine how this would come across over text.
Finally, your assignment is to make sure the famous lines are still recognizable, so before beginning your translation, you may want to highlight these so you make sure they stand out.
Let's review the context of this exchange. Romeo and Juliet have met at Capulet's party. This is the first time they interact, and it seems to be love at first sight. Their families are enemies, but this does not seem to stop them. Romeo sneaks into Juliet's backyard, where he gives a soliloquy about how much he loves her. He overhears Juliet's soliloquy about how she loves Romeo despite the fact that he is a Montague. Romeo calls out to Juliet, which startles her, and she asks how he got there.
In lines 85–127, Romeo says love led him to her balcony. Juliet admits she is blushing in the darkness. If he says he loves her, she'll believe it—but she also recognizes that he might be lying. She admits she has feelings for him too. Romeo swears that he loves her, and she stops him from swearing.
Here's an example of what I imagine their text exchange might look like. Yours will be different, based on what texting style you ascribe to them.
JULIET: How'd you get this number?
ROMEO: Love, bby <3
JULIET: aw, I'm blushing. Do you love me?
JULIET: don't answer, I know you'll say yes, and I believe you, but what if you're lying?
JULIET: I like you too. I think I like you too much. omg i'm triple texting you how embarrassing!
ROMEO: girl i swear by the moon i love u
JULIET: lol don't swear by the moon it's always changing!!!
ROMEO: wat should I swear by?
JULIET: Don't swear at all!
JULIET: on second thought, if you're gonna swear, then swear by yourself because that's what I hold highly, then I'll believe you <3
ROMEO: (...)
JULIET: wait this is all so sudden!
JULIET: i like you, but this is moving too fast, so i'm gonna sign off for the night :3

What an interesting question! I’m having trouble thinking of two forms of English more dissimilar than Shakespearian English and the vernacular used in texting and on social media! The first thing I would recommend is that you exclude or reword the instances where the characters imply that they can see each other. For example,

Thou knowest the mask of night is on my face,Else would a maiden blush bepaint my cheek

Here, you might say,

im blushing, lucky its dark here.

Or, where they talk about their physical location—

Lady, by yonder blessed moon I vow.

You might say,

I swear on the moon I can see out the window.

Unaltered, such references don’t make sense in text conversations, where we should assume that the participants are in different places.
A second technique you might think about using is abbreviation. You could take a word like “love” and transform it to “luv.” Since the language used in texts is a dynamic language which people are adding to all the time, you can be really inventive here. As one more example, each time a character uses the word “too,” as in

It is too rash, too unadvis’d, too sudden,

You might substitute the number 2 in its place.
Shakespeare’s dialogs are typically written in long iambic lines meant to express elaborate ideas, a style of writing that does not lend itself at all well to texting. One solution to this disjunction might be to take ideas that, due to the elaborate language he used to express them, Shakespeare had to put on different lines, and simplify them so that they fit into single sentences:

Dost thou love me? I know thou wilt say, “Ay,”And I will take thy word; yet, if thou swear’st,Thou mayest prove false: at lovers’ perjuries.

Here Juliet does three things. Firstly, she poses Romeo a question when she asks him if he loves her. Then, she states her belief that he will say yes and that she will believe him when he says it. But then she backtracks by saying that, in fact, if he does say he loves her, he might not be speaking honestly. By moving things around, I can make these three things fit neatly into one comparatively short sentence:

Do you love me? I think you’ll say yes, and I’ll believe you if you do, but you might not be telling the truth.

See how Juliet’s words, which would take far too long to express in the form of a text message, can be reduced into a far more manageable form?

Communications Theory in Therapy

Communication theory, adapted from the field of cybernetics or systems theory, was formulated by Bateson, Jackson, Haley, & Weakland (1956). The idea was that schizophrenia in one patient arose because of the communication style that was characteristically carried out by the family over time. In this style of communication, family members communicated with the individual with schizophrenia in a way that used a "double bind." In this style of communication, individuals in the family communicated in a way that involved confusion and contradictions and in which there was no way of winning. Essentially, communication in these families resembled a catch-22 situation. For example, a parent might tell a child to be sure to tell people how she feels, but the child might be punished for admitting her true feelings. In this style of communication, the person simply can't win. Though schizophrenia has been shown to be likely be caused by genetic and other factors, this theory has affected family therapy and has emphasized the model of a family as a closed system.
The idea behind the communication theory, which has been a central tenet of family therapy, is that the family is a system. Therefore, dysfunction in one part of the system—such as confusing or unclear messages—can cause dysfunction in other parts of the system. In a more functional family, messages are clearer, and they are used in a consistent manner. However, in a family with dysfunctional communication, one or more family members may develop psychological or other problems.
Sources:
Bateson, G., Jackson, D., Haley, J. & Weakland, J. (1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1, 251-264.
Nichols, Michael P. Family Therapy: Concepts and Methods, 10th Edition. Pearson, 2012.