How does billy describe the tralfamadorans

The Tralfamadorians are a race of weird aliens who abduct Billy and take him to their planet. Once there, he forms the main exhibit in the planet's zoo, where he's expected to mate with a young lady who's carved out a successful career in what can euphemistically be described as the adult entertainment industry.
In many ways, the Tralfamadorians are just like Billy's German captors in the POW camp. For one thing, they're prurient and don't allow their prize specimen any privacy. They also strip Billy of his freedom, preventing him from making any meaningful choices in life.
Physically, however, these aliens are—literally and figuratively—on a different planet from the Germans. As Billy describes them in his letter, they're about two feet tall, green, and shaped like plumber's friends, which are a kind of rubber suction-cup used to unblock sinks, drains, and toilets. The Tralfamadorians' suction cups are on the ground while their shafts point to the sky. At the top of the shaft is a little hand with a green eye in its palm. Though the Tralfamadorians may have abducted Billy, they're quite friendly creatures. They can see in four dimensions and have a lot to teach earthlings.

How is Bigger treated after his arrest? Does he resent that treatment?

Soon after his arrest, it's perfectly clear to Bigger that the authorities plan to make an example of him. They're not just planning to put him to death for the crime he's committed; they're going to use his forthcoming trial to terrorize the entire black community. For this deeply prejudiced society, Bigger's greatest crime is not so much killing a woman as killing a white woman, so at his forthcoming trial, his race will also be in the dock.
However, Bigger is not about to play along: he becomes proud and defiant, especially upon reading the newspaper reports of his case, with their dehumanizing, racist language. He resents his treatment at the hands of the authorities and the media alike, and he does whatever he can to maintain some semblance of dignity in the midst of this firestorm. At the same time, Bigger appears remorseful, and his sense of guilt is compounded by Jan's genuine forgiveness over the killing of the woman he loved.

Why does Crooks say he was only "foolin’" about wanting to be part of the dream?

In chapter 4 of Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men, Lennie wanders into the barn and can't help but see the light from Crooks's room. George and most of the other men have gone into town for the evening and Lennie is feeling a bit lonely. At first, Crooks is cranky and tells Lennie to get out, but he gives in and allows Lennie to come in. He complains to Lennie that he is not allowed in the bunkhouse because he is black which Lennie doesn't really understand. Soon enough, Candy also appears at the door of Crooks's room. He's looking for Lennie because he has figured a way they can make money on the rabbits which Lennie desperately wants to "tend." The conversation turns to the farm which George, Lennie and Candy hope to buy.
Although skeptical at first, Crooks warms to the idea of going off and living at such a place. He hesitatingly asks Candy,

" . . . If you . . . guys would want a hand to work for nothing—just his keep, why I'd come an' lend a hand. I ain't so crippled I can't work like a son-of-a-bitch if I want to."

At this point, Crooks seems totally serious about joining the men, but, just as he is finished speaking, Curley's wife breaks into the conversation. The three men instantly recoil from her presence but this doesn't dissuade her from entering the room. She is, of course, looking for Curley, who has also gone into town. She comments about how all of the "weak ones" have been left behind which draws protests from old Candy. Eventually, Crooks grows weary of her complaints and demands that she leave. Her response demonstrates the destructive racism of the time:

"You know what I can do to you . . . I could get you strung up on a tree so easy it ain't even funny."

After that exchange, Crooks "retired into the terrible protective dignity of the negro." It reminds him, once again, that he is a black man among white people. He is not even remotely considered equal to people such as Curley's wife. At the end of the chapter, Crooks tells Candy he was "jus' foolin'" when he offered to go to the farm to "lend a hand." He reverts back to his alienation and isolation even though Candy and Lennie are probably the least racist men on the ranch.

What are the implications of Holling Hoodhood's decision-making, and how does he change throughout the book?

Regarding your first question as to the implications of Holling's decisions, we need to start with a decision that has some major impacts on the story, his growth, or his relationship with other characters. If I had to pick a single decision that Holling makes that I feel shows the greatest strength of character and growth in Holling, it would be his decision to rescue his stranded sister, Heather. For most of the novel, Heather is quite antagonistic to everybody in her family. Her dad angers her a lot, but Holling is generally the recipient of her wrath. In Heather's defense, Mr. Hoodhood is not a loving father, and Holling is very intimidated by the man. When Heather runs away, Mr. Hoodhood expresses little concern, and he's not motivated to help her once she becomes stranded. It's Holling that goes against his father's example and rescues Heather. Holling puts himself out on the line for his sister's sake, and it pays off in their relationship. Readers finally see Heather's icy exterior break, and we see her transition into a loving sibling. We know that she will be there for Holling if and when he needs it. His decision to rescue Heather has huge future implications for their relationship. No matter how bad a family situation their father creates, Heather and Holling will be there for each other.

Of Bill and Henry, who is the optimist and who is the pessimist? How do their personality traits relate to their survival?

One would have to consider Henry as the more optimistic of the two sled drivers. He's a much more rational, thoughtful individual, who takes time to think before acting. He seems completely unfazed by life in the wild and prefers to use his brain to get himself out of a jam. This serves him well, as he's able to use his capacity for logic and clear thinking to outsmart the wolves and save himself from an almost certain death.
Bill really couldn't be more different. A pessimist and constant worrier, he simply lacks the requisite skills to survive in such a harsh, unforgiving environment. And so it proves. Instead of using his brain to ward off the vicious pack of bloodthirsty wolves, he impulsively grabs his gun and starts shooting at them. But this is a big mistake, because the wolves know what a gun is and so are able to run off at the sight of one. Bill foolishly and desperately runs after the pack, determined to shoot them dead. But his impetuosity costs him his life as the wolves attack and kill him.

What is the meaning of the metaphor “It's just a blink, or maybe a smile . . .” (line 115)?

Let’s look at this metaphor in context. In “Called Out,” Barbara Kingsolver writes about desert wildflowers that tend to bloom unpredictably. In the year 1998, these wildflowers bloomed explosively. She describes how there were “whole new species in this terrain we thought we had already cataloged.” She questions: Where did these flowers come from? Were the seeds simply lying in the ground in wait for the opportune climate to bloom? Indeed, she writes, the “magic” of the bloom is in the timing. A seed could have the right conditions to grow, but be hindered by a lack of rain. Kingsolver, however, notes that this cannot be the case for every seed because the different species would simply die off. Desert wildflowers, then, are special. They will not die if they don’t grow in a given span of time because they are “programmed for a longer dormancy.” These plants have developed mechanisms to protect “against a beckoning rain followed by drought.”
In this context of the special qualities of these enduring desert plants, Kingsolver writes:

That is our misapprehension, along with our notion of this floral magic show—now you see it, now you don’t—as a thing we can predict and possess like a garden. In spite of our determination to contain what we see in neat, annual packages, the blazing field of blues and golds is neither a beginning nor an end. It’s just a blink, or maybe a smile, in the long life of a species whose blueprint for perseverance must outdistance all our record books.

Hence, these wildflowers are not something that humans can accurately predict. The flowers we see in bloom each season are not “an end,” but a fleeting stage in the life of these species—they are quick and transient like a blink or a smile. The flowering that we actually see is only a brief moment, and the next flowering could very well be different. The wildflowers are the result of species that will keep changing as they evolve for survival. Kingsolver believes that we will not be able to keep up with these changes so they will forever mystify us.

Discuss the techniques and arguments Satan uses to tempt Eve.

Satan returns to Earth and tempts Eve in book IX of John Milton's epic poem Paradise Lost. Before Satan approaches her, Eve puts herself in danger by insisting that she and Adam can get more done by working individually, instead of together. Adam disagrees, arguing that the archangel Rafael has warned them of danger. However, Adam finally gives in and allows Eve to go off by herself. This makes her more vulnerable to Satan's enticements and arguments.

Satan appears to Eve in the form of a serpent, so his first technique is disguising himself. He piques her interest by using the technique of flattery, complimenting her on her beauty. He tells her that she should be "a Goddess among Gods, adored and served by angels numberless." Eve is surprised at the serpent's ability to speak, and Satan says that he attained this gift by eating from a special tree. He then takes her to the Tree of Knowledge.

When Satan suggests that Eve eat the fruit of the tree, at first she protests, telling the serpent that God has forbidden them from eating from this tree—if they do, they will die. Satan then uses the technique of deception, saying that eating the fruit of the tree will not kill Eve or Adam. In fact, says Satan, God told them not to eat from the tree because he knew that it would cause Adam and Eve to become gods themselves and live forever.


...he knows that in the day
Ye Eate thereof, your Eyes that seem so cleere,
Yet are but dim, shall perfetly be then
Open'd and cleer'd, and ye shall be as Gods,
Knowing both Good and Evil as they know.


So Satan also uses the technique of playing upon Eve's greed and pride, offering her a position of godhood equal to God himself if she will only disobey God and eat the fruit. She does eat it, and offers it to Adam, and then they are forced to leave the Garden of Eden.

Was life better in England or the Thirteen Colonies?

Comparing life in two different environments is not an exact science! Comparisons of this sort are often based more on opinion than fact. The question of whether life was better in England or the colonies very much depended on social class and situation. Let's examine this question by imagining that you are an English citizen who is offered an opportunity to move to the colonies.
If you were employed and earning a reasonable wage—unless there was a high probability that you could earn more money in the colonies—then giving up financial security would not be a smart choice from an economic perspective. However, if you were a laborer with limited skills or with a skill that could prove useful in the new world (for instance, carpentry), you might be more inclined to move. Additionally, whether or not you had a family would factor into this decision.
Life in England was not undesirable if you lived nearby a township. Therefore, it would most likely be the fact of land ownership that would factor into this decision. It is very likely that, if you were an English farmer, you probably would not have owned the land that you farmed. If you were given a guarantee that, when you moved to the colonies, you would be granted ownership of the land that you farmed, this would be an attractive incentive to leave England.
England—in comparison to the colonies—offered a vibrant city life, an economic opportunity, an educational opportunity for your family, and a degree of comfort.
If you were poor, however, the harshness of the unsettled lands in the colonies might provide a desirable alternative to the poverty of England. Impoverished citizens in England had no social or financial safety net: daily life was a struggle to survive and the quality of life was awful. There were few opportunities for economic or social mobility. Life in the colonies, on the other hand, provided some opportunity for social mobility—at least for some people.
The answer to this question therefore depends largely on the social and economic position of the individual in question (as well as other factors).

What is the significance of the dagger in act 2, scene 1, and how does it contribute to the supernatural elements in the play?

Macbeth's vision of the dagger shows us how deeply he's become embroiled in the world of the supernatural. Killing Duncan wasn't just a simple act of treachery (though it was certainly that, too): it was an act of blasphemy against God himself, who had chosen Duncan to rule Scotland (at least according to the Divine Right of Kings theory).
In committing such a foul, heinous deed, Macbeth entered into a diabolical pact with the forces of darkness, and the bloody dagger is an uncomfortable reminder of this. The appearance of this terrible vision also shows us once again that Macbeth never truly feels at ease in his position as usurper. He's achieved great power, and yet he is never able to enjoy it. The bloody dagger is a manifestation of that dark, troubled subconscious that prevents Macbeth from fully adjusting to the role of king.

In act two, scene one, of Macbeth, Banquo and Fleance exit the scene, and Macbeth begins to hallucinate by seeing an imaginary bloody dagger leading him toward King Duncan's chamber. Macbeth recognizes that the dagger is simply a figment of his "heat-oppressèd brain" and that it is a manifestation of his ambition to become king by murdering Duncan. In addition to Macbeth witnessing the illusory dagger, he also hallucinates during a banquet when he sees Banquo's ghost. Banquo's ghost is a manifestation of Macbeth's guilty conscience, which is similar to Lady Macbeth's hallucinations regarding her imaginary bloodstained hands.
Macbeth's imaginary dagger is the first hallucination in the play, and it contributes to the prominent supernatural elements throughout the production. During the dagger scene, the audience realizes that characters' hallucinations correspond to their inner feelings, which helps develop the particular character experiencing the hallucination. The audience recognizes Macbeth's inherent desire to murder King Duncan, which prepares the audience to analyze future hallucinations and associate them with each character's inner feelings.

Why is self-awareness important in intercultural communication?

Intercultural communication can be complicated because many of the conventions of communication and politeness vary among cultures. For example, in Scandinavian countries and North America, directness and clarity are favored in business communication, with being straightforward and using time efficiently considered businesslike or professional. In many Asian and Middle Eastern countries, though, such behavior would be considered very rude.
Self-awareness is important in that in one's own culture, one can rely on one's prior experience and cultural competency to guide one in appropriate modes of behavior. One can focus on the substance of what is being communicated without having to be constantly aware of communicative conventions. In cross-cultural communication, though, one must constantly monitor one's own behavior and make a conscious effort to follow conventions that are new or unfamiliar.

Self awareness is important in intercultural communication, because it enables you to effectively deal with the differences that come with different cultures. Something to always keep in mind is that not everybody will agree with your beliefs, and depending on where they come from, they might even find some of your actions offensive. The lack of self awareness makes you resistant to change. This can cause you to think that you're always right, and if someone doesn't share your thoughts on something, you may want to start an argument with them. Being self aware gives you emotional intelligence. You will be wise enough to avoid topics that are sensitive and be more welcoming towards new cultural beliefs and practices, because you understand that communication is a two way thing. You have to listen if you want other people to listen to you.
https://positivepsychology.com/self-awareness-matters-how-you-can-be-more-self-aware/

https://www.skillsyouneed.com/ips/intercultural-communication.html

Review the Lord’s speech (3.6.24-39). How does this contribute to the theme of regicide and echo Shakespeare’s revisionist history of Scottish kings?

Regicide is the deliberate killing of a monarch. It may be difficult to imagine the impact of that living in 2018 and in a constitutional republic, but in the middle ages, regicide was a very real danger for ruling monarchs. Cambridge University Professor Manuel Eisner conducted a study about regicide in Europe entitled "Killing Kings: Patterns of Regicide in Europe, AD 600-1800." This work is a statistical study of 1513 monarchs in 45 countries. He outlined four different scenarios for regicide and noted that 15% of all monarchs fell victim to one of these scenarios. They were: murder as a means of succession, murder by a neighboring ruler, personal grievance or revenge, and murder by an outsider.
In Shakespeare's Macbeth, regicide is plotted and carried out by the title character for the purpose of succession—with Duncan gone, Macbeth will rule Scotland.
In the Lord's speech in act 3, scene 6, regicide is once again being plotted. This time, it is MacDuff who is plotting to overthrow Macbeth. Malcolm, Duncan's son, is the rightful heir and is living in England. MacDuff appeals to English King Edward to help him form an alliance against Macbeth with the people of Northumberland, Malcolm, King Edward, and Lord Siward. He says it is for the following purpose:

That by the help of these—with Him above
To ratify the work—we may again
Give to our tables meat, sleep to our nights,
Free from our feasts and banquets bloody knives,
Do faithful homage and receive free honors.
All which we pine for now. And this report
Hath so exasperated the king that he
Prepares for some attempt of war.

This covers how the speech contributes to the theme of regicide. As for Shakespeare's revisionist history, Shakespeare took liberties with the historical facts of the kings of Scotland. Shakespeare wrote the play six hundred years after the actual historical figures lived. His primary source for historical events was Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1587).
Some of the liberties Shakespeare takes are that the real Macbeth was on the throne for 17 years rather than the one-year timeframe in which the play takes place.
In the play, Duncan is known as wise and strong, and in reality, he was a young, weak, and ineffective ruler. In reality, Duncan became king after Malcolm's death which occurred in 1034. Malcolm did not die of regicide, but Duncan was overthrown this way in a battle led by Macbeth at Elgin in 1040. He had formed an alliance with the Earl of Orkney to wage war against Duncan.

The actual Macbeth was respected for his strength and wisdom, unlike Shakespeare's character. In 1054, Duncan's son Malcolm, who had indeed fled to Northumbria (but had never relinquished his claim on the throne) formed an alliance with Earl Siward and attacked Macbeth. He was not defeated in this battle but did return Malcolm's lands to him. Macbeth was defeated three years later in battle at Lumphanan in Aberdeenshire.
https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/51/3/556/335045?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Okonkwo changes significantly after the killing of Ikemefuna. Describe those changes and how they reflect Okonkwo's struggle with his feminine side.

Okonkwo, the novel’s main character, is a tragic hero whose strengths become weaknesses. When Okonkwo is introduced in the novel, he is described as being famous for his personal achievements and holding many titles. He is known to have been a great wrestler in his youth, and in his adulthood, he is known to be a hard-working and successful farmer. His successes make him a very popular and respected member of his clan. Okonkwo works hard to be the opposite of his father, who he believes was feminine and cowardly. Okonkwo’s role in his familial relationship proves that he rules his household with a heavy hand: “Okonkwo’s prosperity was visible in his household” (Pg. 14).
With his desire to not be anything like his own father, Okonkwo is both verbally and physically abusive to his wives and children, showing little to no affection. The fifteen-year-old boy‚ Ikemefuna‚ is forced to leave his homeland and his parents to live with Okonkwo’s family. The young boy “…could not understand what was happening to him or what he had done” that would cause such a drastic change in his life (Pg. 15). During his time with Okonkwo's family, Ikemefuna personally experiences Okonkwo's "heavy hand." In chapter 4 it is stated,

When Okonkwo heard that he would not eat any food he came into the hut with a big stick in his hand and stood over him while he swallowed his yams, trembling.

Eventually, Okonkwo and his oldest son, Nwoye, become fond of Ikemefuna, but Okonkwo does not show this fondness on the outside. He keeps most emotions, except for anger, hidden deep down. However, he does treat Ikemefuna like his own son. The novel states, "Sometimes when he went to big village meetings...he allowed Ikemefuna to accompany him, like a son... Ikemefuna called him father."
Eventually, members of the Ibo tribe kill Ikemefuna. Okonkwo tries to demonstrate his manliness (and prove that he is not like his own father) by participating in Ikemefuna’s death. Okonkwo’s pride takes the form of anger, which causes his family and tribe to lose respect for him. Nwoye, having discovered that his father helped kill Ikemefuna, loses all respect for his father and distances himself from his family. Nwoye eventually joins the missionaries ("the white man") and leaves his clan against his father's wishes. After the killing of Ikemefuna, Okonkwo does feel some depression but does not go through any sudden changes in behavior or mindset. Okonkwo, whose sense of pride and dignity continues until the end, chooses to live and die on his own terms rather than submit to the white man. For Okonkwo, giving in to the missionaries would be against so much of what he has stood for: courage, tradition, and manliness.
His main change occurs at the end of the novel, when he makes the decision to break one of the clan's rules and hangs himself. Okonkwo tries too hard to be the opposite of his own father. Ultimately, the outcome of the killing of Ikemefuna caused Okonkwo to lose the respect of his family and clansmen, much of his masculinity, and his life.

The character of Okonkwo in the book Things Fall Apart changes dramatically after the killing of Ikemefuna. Before the killing, Okonkwo is known for being a strong, upstanding, masculine man and a strong provider for his family. Okonkwo wishes to be the opposite of his father (who was known throughout the tribe for being lazy and cowardly). After Okonkwo kills Ikemefuna and is exiled, a downward spiral begins for Okonkwo, and his world truly does begin to fall apart. Where once Okonkwo was a successful provider, now his crops shrivel in the field, and he cannot even provide for his own family. He is haunted by the fear of becoming his father and feels that his inability to provide for his family shows he is weak and "feminine," as in his tribe, weakness is a characteristic associated with women.

Who is Percy talking to in his dream in The Lightning Thief ?

Given that Percy is a demigod, his dreams give him the chance see into the lives and challenges of the immortals. Many of his dreams act as a pathway into him realizing who he truly is: a demigod (or half-blood). His mother is Sally Jackson (a mortal), and his father is Poseidon (the Greek god of the sea).
Percy's dreams are representative of "gifts" from the gods giving him much-needed information about both who he is and the lives of his immortal relatives. In one dream, Percy sees a "girl with curly blonde hair" hovering over him. She is feeding him pudding (which makes no sense to Percy). She asks him about the summer solstice. In the same dream, a "husky blonde dude" is there, covered with eyes. While Percy has no clue what his dreams mean, or who the people are, the gods are using his dreams to communicate with him.
Percy has many dreams before he finds out about his mythical origin. Most, if not all, of his dreams are meant to offer him hints into his origin and his task in saving those around him, if not the world.
At one point, Percy does identify as Hades as a person from his dream. He finally realizes that his dreams have played an important role in him finding out who he really is, who is after him, and what is at stake.
Essentially, Percy's dreams allow him to communicate with the gods or witness the battles between the gods.

Why was Hinduism more successful in India than Jainism or Buddhism?

Several factors contributed to the persistence of Hinduism, even while Jainism and Buddhism stagnated or declined. Some of these factors are intrinsic to these religions' more practical differences. Buddhism was a highly centralized Dharmic practice, enacted mainly in monasteries, and was therefore less scalable in India, where it had no ancient Buddhist monasterial basis. Moreover, Buddhism and Jainism relied on administrative orders of monks or otherwise enlightened figures. In contrast, Hinduism is very decentralized and scalable, basing its practice in the home, its "administrators" being any family. Hindu priests and monks were intermingled with families, often living among them in the jungle mathas and ashrams.
Buddhism also bore the brunt of several religiously motivated attacks. The most significant attack was performed by people who called their faith the "Religion of Peace." Along with the Mamluk Dynasty, they invaded and destroyed an important Asian university called Nalanda, along with its library full of Buddhist volumes, and killed many important Mahaviharas. Jainism faced similar persecution during numerous Muslim conquests.

What unusual qualities does Nunez notice about the village's houses?

When Nunez descends into the valley, he stumbles across a strange little village. He's never seen anything quite like this place before. For one thing, all the houses look like they've been built by blind people. There's a good reason for that: they were. For Nunez has entered into the fabled Country of the Blind, a place where no one has the power of sight.
As he walks through the streets of this unusual place, with its windowless houses, all bordered with curbs, he reflects on the old adage that in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. He thinks that the locals' blindness puts him in a position of power that will allow him to rule over this legendary corner of the globe. But in this particular case there are none so blind as those who can see, and Nunez soon discovers that the power of sight avails him nothing in a country where the locals have become use to having only four senses.

What is the significance of Liesl to Dunstan? Also, how does Robertson Davies empower her in Fifth Business? Please provide quotes and evidence.

More than any other person in Dunstan Ramsay’s life, Liesl (Liselotte Vitzlipiitzli) helps him learn to live in the here and now and to be responsible to himself. He meets her while she is managing the Eisengrim magic show. Dunstan is initially repulsed by her, thinking her "the ugliest human creature" he ever saw. Her comportment and demeanor are masculine, and she apparently has a sexual relationship with a lovely young woman in the troupe. Dunstan, while not a magician himself, is quite free with his advice on how to improve the show.
It is Liesl who makes him aware that he has voyeuristic, outsider tendencies and that these are harmful. It is her comment that gives the book its title. Liesl labels him the “Fifth Business,” which is a type of character in opera who is always the extra person in any set of matched pairs; he has no match.
Although Dunstan becomes comfortable talking with her about many aspects of his life, and she helps him move away from his long-standing guilt over the rock-throwing episode, it seems that his comfort stems from the fact of his absolute lack of attraction to her. Davies empowers her in part through her masculine persona and, related to that, her sexual aggression toward Dunstan. Because he thinks she is ugly, not only will he not consider having sex with her, but he even thinks her actions are diabolical. Later, after they know each other better, they do become involved sexually. He has apparently learned not to make up so many reasons not to get involved with people and to take what life offers him.

Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed on most matters. Describe Hamilton’s financial plan and Jefferson’s opposition to those policies. What compromises were made to adopt Hamilton’s policies?

Hamilton's economic plan was based on the founding of a federal banking system, the provision of credit for the growth of new businesses, and the encouragement and development of American manufacturing. In common with many opposed to the Federalists' economic program, Jefferson firmly believed that it gave too much power to centralized institutions of government. The proposal for the establishment of a federal bank was especially resented by Jefferson, who saw it as taking away powers that rightly belonged to state banks.
As the driving force behind the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson was a staunch advocate of radical republicanism, which entailed ultimate political and economic sovereignty residing with the states. He argued that Hamilton's economic plan violated the "Spirit of '76" by concentrating way too much power at the center. Furthermore, he decried what he saw as the damaging economic effects that the plan would have on the Southern landowners that he represented. Jefferson's vision of America was of a country whose wealth and political stability would be based on an agrarian economy, not the kind of industrialized system that Hamilton was keen to encourage. Jefferson felt that the proposed measures would take economic and political power away from large landowners such as himself and give it to the East coast banking and commercial elites whose interests were always so enthusiastically championed by Hamilton.
As Hamilton's plan proved so controversial, it was necessary to effect some sort of compromise to get it through Congress. In return for the federal government's taking over and paying state debt, the South would obtain the nation's capital. The assumption of state debt by the federal government was initially opposed by Jefferson and other opponents of the administration as it was perceived as an unwarranted infringement of states' rights. Hamilton, for his part, knew full well that, without the Treasury's being able to assume state debts, the whole basis of his proposed economic system would collapse. The ensuing compromise of 1790 gave the federal government more power, but crucially that government would now be based in the South.

What are the positive and negative impacts of geography on the development of Greece?

The geography of Greece played a couple of major roles in helping to mold Greek society, particularly during the ancient period. For one, Greece is very mountainous. This can be viewed positively because mountains serve as natural barriers, and thus as a form of protection from outside invasion. The downside of mountains acting as a barrier would be that they also serve as a barrier to trade and cultural diffusion. The mountains of Greece have been cited as one of the reasons many unique and different city-states developed in Ancient Greece.
In addition to mountains, Greece also consists of many islands, primarily in the Aegean Sea. As a result of that, the early inhabitants of Greece had to become well-versed in trading by sea. The peoples of the Greek islands would also utilize their location on the sea to become skilled fishermen. Finally, much like mountains, the sea could also serve as a natural barrier and make them less-likely to face invasions.

Was Rutherford B. Hayes a good president or not? Did he do anything important?

Rutherford B. Hayes (1822–1893) was ranked 29th out of 44 presidents in a recent poll of political scientists. His mediocre ranking was certainly influenced by the dubious way he became president after the disputed 1876 election.
Born in Ohio, Hayes had great success in his academic, civilian, and military pursuits before becoming president. After graduating as valedictorian from Kenyon College in 1842, he earned a law degree at Harvard. He did well as a lawyer. He was attracted to the Republican party because of his anti-slavery views. During the Civil War, he was wounded and became a major general. After the war, he served as governor of his state.
In 1876, Hayes faced the Democrat Samuel Tilden in the presidential election. He lost the popular vote but he eventually received disputed Electoral College votes, giving him a 185-184 advantage in the Electoral College. In exchange for the disputed votes, he promised to pull Northern troops out of the South and end Reconstruction. His opponents called his presidency "His Fraudulency."
He accomplished little during his presidency (1877–1881). He fought for civil service reform, but this came about only after he left the presidency (Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act 1883). His efforts to promote civil rights for blacks were thwarted by the House of Representatives. American workers resented Hayes because he sent federal troops against them in the Railroad Strike of 1877. Hayes had promised to leave the White House after one term, and he kept that promise.
https://www.businessinsider.com/greatest-us-presidents-ranked-by-political-scientists-2018-2

What is the difference between selective self-presentation and social identity deindividuation?

Selective self-presentation can come in two forms. The first is self-enhancement, which involves putting forth the positive aspects of one's identity in order to enhance social opinions of an individual. The second form is self-deprecation, which involves putting more humble characteristics on display. The main purpose of selective self-presentation is to put forward certain characteristics in order to manage the social view of an individual.
Social identity deindividuation discussed the phenomena of individually anomalous behavior becoming more likely within social groups. This theory looks at how the effects of anonymity within a group can lead people to act in ways that are inconsistent or even antagonist to their normal behavior.
Both theories deal with how individuals interact within groups. Selective self-presentation focuses on changing how other people view an individual while social identity deindividuation focuses on how people act within groups that provide anonymity. Both theories have been applied to digital communications making this realm easier for the provision of examples. Selective self-presentation is readily apparent on social media platforms like Instagram and Facebook, where an individual will usually put for the best version of themselves in their profiles. Social identity deindividuation, on the other hand, is more readily apparent in the actions of individuals taking part in Twitter mobs or comments sections.

What is the design of Thomas Sutpen in Absalom, Absalom!?

Absalom, Absalom! is a novel by William Faulkner (September 25, 1897–July 6, 1962), a Nobel-prize winning novelist from Mississippi. It was first published in 1936. As many of Faulkner's major novels, Absalom, Absalom! was set in the fictional Yoknapatawpha County of Mississippi and portrays a set of characters who recur across his other novels.
Thomas Sutpen is a white man born to a poor family in West Virginia. His main aim in life is to achieve the wealth and social respect he lacked as a child due to his parents' poverty. He is also a racist who in part sees achieving social status as connected with whiteness. He eventually becomes a plantation owner and his success is built on oppression of blacks.
His "grand design" refers to his path toward wealth and social position by marriage to an upper-class woman and success as a plantation owner. He sees the tainted of mixed racial heritage in his associates as a major obstacle to this design.

What evidence is there that shows that man has interacted with the natural surroundings described in the beginning of the novel?

The opening paragraph of the novel describes an unspoiled, Edenic landscape with the Salinas River and the foothills rising to the Gabilan Mountains. Willow and sycamore trees rim the river, and there are the tracks of rabbits, deer, raccoons, and dogs that visit to drink from the pool.
In the second paragraph, the narrator observes the marks that men have left on the landscape:

There is a path through the willows and among the sycamores, a path beaten hard by boys coming down from the ranches to swim in the deep pool, and beaten hard by tramps who come wearily down from the highway in the evening to jungle-up near water. In front of the low horizontal limb of a giant sycamore there is an ash pile made by many fires; the limb is worn smooth by men who have sat on it.

When George and Lennie arrive, the peace and beauty of the place is further disrupted. George is angry and fills the air with profanity as he maligns the bus driver who has put them out and scolds Lennie for his forgetfulness and carelessness. Lennie carries a dead mouse in his pocket, and when George discovers it, he tosses it into the brush. Their arrival furthers the observation that mankind has difficulty living harmoniously in nature.

What new information do we learn about the rings in chapter 6?

At the end of chapter 5 of The Magician's Nephew Digory and Polly had both touched their yellow rings in order to escape the Queen's evil clutches and return to the Wood. Unfortunately, as we enter chapter 6, it's clear that they haven't been able to shake her off. The Queen is able to come with them, holding on to Polly's hair. At first, Polly doesn't realize what's happening; she thinks that it's Digory who's grabbing her hair. That's why she yells at him to let go. But once they've both emerged from the pool, the shocking realization suddenly dawns on them that the Queen has come along for the ride. They realize something else too: the rings don't simply work for those who wear them, but for anyone touching the wearers. Uncle Andrew hadn't told Digory about this, but to be fair to him, he didn't know about it himself.

In Chapter 1, a thumb is cut from a VC corpse, after which character Mitchell Sanders says, "...there's a definite moral here" and, later, "...it's like with that old TV show - Paladin. Have Gun, will travel." What does the reference to Have Gun, will travel (which I remember) have to do with the"definite moral here."

The quotation about the severed thumb joins the experiences of the four men directly involved: The soldier whose thumb it was; Sanders, who cut it off and commented that there was a moral; Bowker, to whom he gave it and who carries it; and Dobbins, who did not see that there was a moral.
The author notes superstition as a possible reason, mentioning a pebble and a rabbit's foot. He describes Bowker as "gentle." Why Sanders would give him the thumb and why he would accept it are left unstated. Sanders, apparently, is not gentle--he kicks the corpse in the head.
It is left to the reader to decide if Dobbins is right about the moral, or if Sanders was right to remove it in the first place. It seems that O'Brien is suggesting that the reader suspend judgment, through the words, "There it is man."
"Have gun, will travel" seems to be an ironic interpretation of what these men are doing. They carry their guns and progress through the countryside, either surviving and dying. The person who lives can gain the power to mutilate the dead. The war might have no more meaning than that for them. (The association with the TV show would not have been remote, as the war was in the 1960s.)

What chapter shows the dark side of Umuofia?

One aspect of darkness in Things Fall Apart is the negative influence of religion. Although Achebe lays out many negative aspects of the introduction of Christianity to Nigeria, events in the novel make it clear that continued adherence to traditional religion and governance also had a dark side.
Chapter 7 illustrates the latter aspect. In return for the earlier killing of a girl, the powerful Oracle decrees that a sacrifice is needed. This is not part of an attempt at justice against the perpetrator. It is a sacrifice of a valued, innocent member of society. The person named is Ikemefuna.
For Okonkwo, this creates a moral dilemma, as he loves this boy, who has lived with his family. He does not want to participate in the killing, and at first, his presence at the event makes him seem just complicit. Ultimately, however, he must be the person to finish the killing, even though Ikemefuna turns to him and cries ("Father!") for help.
In the traditional society, a man was considered strong if he took bold, violent actions. But being strong also meant following what the Oracle decreed. Although Okonkwo, after the killing, is tortured by his personal betrayal of the boy—a choice for which he will later pay with his own life—he understands its necessity for his place in his society.

What is the MacGuffin in this story?

Wikipedia has an article on "MacGuffin" which begins with the following definition of the term:
In fiction, a MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin or maguffin) is a plot device in the form of some goal, desired object, or other motivator that the protagonist pursues, often with little or no narrative explanation.
The MacGuffin in "Contents of the Dead Man's Pocket" is a sheet of paper. It is nothing but an ordinary piece of cheap yellow paper, but it is important to the protagonist because of all the notes he has scribbled on it. The MacGuffin is important in a story because it creates the conflict. The protagonist wants the MacGuffin but cannot get it because of some obstacle. It could be that a protagonist wants the MacGuffin but cannot get it because someone else wants it. In Dashiell Hammett's novel The Maltese Falcon, the MacGuffin is the statuette of a black bird which many people want. The MacGuffin brings them all together and holds them all together. It is the source of the conflict among all of them—Sam Spade, Brigid O'Shaughnessy, Caspar Gutman, and Joel Cairo.
Jack Finney takes pains to make the MacGuffin important to Tom Benecke, although it would be of no importance to anyone else in the whole wide world:
It was hard for him to understand that he actually had to abandon it—it was ridiculous—and he began to curse. Of all the papers on his desk, why did it have to be this one in particular! On four long Saturday afternoons he had stood in supermarkets counting the people who passed certain displays, and the results were scribbled on that yellow sheet. From stacks of trade publications, gone over page by page in snatched half-hours at work and during evenings at home, he had copied facts, quotations, and figures onto that sheet. And he had carried it with him to the Public Library on Fifth Avenue, where he'd spent a dozen lunch hours and early evenings adding more. All were needed to support and lend authority to his idea for a new grocery-store display method; without them his idea was a mere opinion. And there they all lay in his own improvised shorthand—countless hours of work—out there on the ledge.
Finney specifies that the notes are in Tom's "improvised shorthand" because that indicates that the single sheet could contain more condensed information than a sheet covered with ordinary handwriting. It is so important to Tom that he is willing to risk his life to retrieve it after it flies out the window of his eleventh-floor apartment. The whole story is based on this MacGuffin. In analyzing any story, it is often helpful to look for the MacGuffin. What does he want? Why can't he get it? Why do we care?
We only care about the protagonist if he wants something important, something we can easily imagine wanting ourselves. In "Contents of the Dead Man's Pocket" we can imagine wanting that yellow sheet of paper because it represents recognition, promotion, and money. We have to identify with the hero in order to get involved in the story, and we identify with him on the basis—not of who he is—but on the basis of what he wants. What he wants is his motivation, and the motivator is often a MacGuffin.

Compare and contrast the liberal democratic and authoritarian visions of modernity as epitomized by various states in the 1930s. What features did they have in common?

Liberal democracy and authoritarian visions of modernity represent starkly different worldviews. In abstract, these ideologies are virtual opposites, but as we will see, in practice, some similarities will emerge. In the 1930s, the profound tension between liberal democracy and authoritarianism provoked mass conflict and, eventually, the Second World War. What follows are some key similarities and differences:
ElectionsRepresentative democracy is a hallmark of the liberal democratic state. Citizens elect politicians to represent their interests in federal and local governments. In authoritarian regimes, elections take a back seat. Authoritarian leaders demand a strict obedience to authority but do not seek to "legitimize" their authority through an election. Many authoritarian regimes are run by militaries, and if there is a parliament, it is often symbolic.
Individual rightsLiberal democracies prioritize individual rights and freedoms. Personal liberty—the ability to make decisions without the encroachment of others—is a very important aspect of liberal democracy. These rights are enshrined in documents like the Bill of Rights. Authoritarian regimes prioritize national identity more than individual freedoms. Individuals are expected to bypass their personal interests and desires for the sake of the state. Authoritarian visions of society place much more emphasis on group identity than the rights of any individual citizen. Unlike liberal democracies, which typically have a codified constitution, under authoritarian regimes there are no fixed rights.
Rule of lawThe rule of law was first established by the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta, which was first put in place to check the power of an unruly English king, is now considered the bedrock of liberal institutions. The rule of law establishes that no single person is above the law: the rulers and ruled are accountable to the same laws. Under authoritarianism, this convention is completely ignored.
However, in practice, liberal democracies don't always lift up the rights of individuals over those of the political community. Particularly in the 1930s and 1940s, liberal democracies forced citizens to join the army (conscription) and limited the food supply (rationing). Though liberal democracy holds up an idealistic notion of rugged individualism, in times of tumult citizens were often asked to sacrifice their personal liberty for that of the community.
Some scholars, especially following the political upheavals of 2016, argue that in the 20th and 21st centuries's liberal democracies have taken a sharp turn towards authoritarianism. After 9/11, the United States government suspended many features of its constitution, and United States presidents increasingly govern by executive order, bypassing the will of elected politicians.

What is the irony used in "The Open Window"? Explain this irony with quotes from the story.

"The Open Window" is a humorous short story, and part of the humor stems from the irony at work within it. In the story, a man named Framton Nuttel is introducing himself around the neighborhood as a means of "helping the nerve cure which he was supposed to be undergoing."
In one instance, he is talking to the fifteen-year-old niece of a woman named Mrs. Sappleton while he awaits the arrival of the aunt. Normally a fifteen-year-old would be portrayed as someone impulsive and naive. However, the niece is described as "self-possessed" and speaks to Mr. Nutter in an inquisitive, almost sly way. She asks him if he knows many people in the neighborhood, clarifying that he "knows practically nothing" about her aunt. She then launches into a story about her missing uncle and other relatives, who probably drowned years ago in a bog, and her aunt's delusional behavior of keeping a window open, believing that they shall return each day. Their disappearance is a lie, but Nuttel believes the girl and is shocked when the men return, running off "without a word of goodbye or apology," believing he has seen ghosts.The rest of her family, having no idea what caused Nutter to run off, is then treated to a story, spun by the niece, regarding a phobia that Nuttel had of dogs, due to having been "once hunted into a cemetery somewhere on the banks of the Ganges by a pack of pariah dogs," at which time he "had to spend the night in a newly dug grave with the creatures snarling and grinning and foaming just above him."This is a major aspect of the humor and irony of the story, as this young woman, who is essentially a child, is so intelligent and insightful that she is able to quickly ascertain Nuttel's character and come up with a story to manipulate him for her own entertainment.

How does the author use free indirect discourse?

Free indirect discourse, most associated with Jane Austen, occurs when an author slides from the omniscient narrative voice (while setting the scene or explaining events) to inside the thoughts of one particular character. The technique tends to blur the distinction between the narrator's voice and the subjective voice of a character. One must be an alert reader, for the slide often happens within the confines of a single paragraph or even a single sentence. No quotation marks are put around the character's thoughts.
Forster uses this technique to give a quick summary of what has happened to characters who have been recently off stage or to set a scene and then to slide inside one character's subjective headspace. An example would be in chapter five of A Room with a View.
After a quick synopsis of Miss Bartlett and Miss Lavish's adventure, Forster then has his narrator explain Lucy and Mr. Beebe's thinking, then slides into the thoughts going through Lucy's mind. The phrase, "it was too dreadful" triggers us to know these are Lucy's thoughts:

It was too dreadful not to know whether she was thinking right or wrong.

A short time later, after some dialogue and some description of the blush of shame on Lucy's cheeks, we slide back into Lucy's thoughts:

How abominably she behaved to Charlotte, now as always! But now she should alter. All morning she would be really nice to her.

This type of writing allows for a fluid movement between external descriptions and internal thoughts in a novel.

Through the use of free indirect discourse (a phrase that means that an omniscient narrator also provides insight into characters' innermost thoughts and feelings), Forster stays in the third person, yet he has access to the minds of his characters. For example, in chapter two, Forster relates that Lucy Honeychurch feels pleasant upon waking up in Florence and opening the window to the scene below. Later, the reader knows the reactions that Lucy has to Mr. Emerson and to his remarks as he speaks about his son, George. For example, Lucy feels like laughing at first when Mr. Emerson explains how unhappy George is simply because he has a kind of existentialist depression. Later, when George kisses Lucy in chapter six, the reader knows his thoughts as he sees the "radiant joy in her face" (55) before kissing her. By using free indirect discourse, the author can stay in the third person and yet have access to all his characters' innermost thoughts rather than only presenting only one viewpoint.

A key element of Forster's narrative technique is on particular show in A Room with a View, that of "free indirect discourse" or what Forster scholars have come to know as the "bouncing narrative." The technique is one especially on display in the opening pages of the novel where we originally encounter a narrative voice that seems to be omniscient in its statements about the Pension Bertolini as a place that reveres Englishness with its "portraits of the late Queen and the Late Poet Laureate." As readers, we passively sit back and are told of a fictional world whose description we accept just as readers would have done in 1908 when the novel was first published and when the omniscient narrative was the dominant way of telling a story.
However, in his later work Aspects of the Novel, which recounts the history of narrative art, Forster tells the reader that "the novelist must bounce us [...] that is imperative" and, indeed, he does just this in the opening pages of A Room with a View when the characters begin to "invade" the narrator's voice, expressing their views as if they were the "truth" which we accept from the narrator. The first to do this is Charlotte Bartlett when she comments, seemingly invading the narrator's perspective, that Mr. Emerson is "one of the ill-bred people whom one does meet abroad." Of course, as we later discern, this is far from the truth and Mr. Emerson is only "ill-bred" from Bartlett's own perspective and, indeed, his "view" will become the dominant one as the narrative goes on. Indeed, a little later on in the same episode, we also see Lucy "invade" the narrator's view in a comic display of reticence in which she describes how the "old man attacked Miss Bartlett almost violently" (it is, of course, difficult to attack someone in an "almost violent" manner).
This tactic is one deliberately employed throughout the novel in which Forster is able to subtly introduce and allow the reader to question the various "views" of the different characters.

What is humorous about Uncle Jack saying that Rose Aylmer "was one of the few women he could stand permanently"?

In chapter 9, Uncle Jack visits Maycomb to attend the Finch's Christmas family gathering and gives Jem and Scout air rifles as presents. The first question Jem asks his uncle is "How's Rose Aylmer?" (Lee, 81). Scout goes on to mention that Rose Aylmer is their uncle's yellow female cat and that Uncle Jack said she was "one of the few women he could stand permanently" (Lee, 81). Uncle Jack is a bachelor who named his cat after a woman who died of cholera in the nineteenth century and was the subject of a famous poem written by Walter Savage Landor. In the poem, Rose Aylmer is depicted as possessing every "virtue" and "grace." Uncle Jack's comment regarding his cat as being one of the few women he can stand permanently is humorous because it reveals his bitterness toward and negative view of women. The fact that Uncle Jack has a longer lasting relationship with his cat than any other female is also humorous and emphasizes his poor relations with women.

Rose Aylmer was a young lady who tragically died of cholera in the early nineteenth-century. She was the subject of a famous poem by Walter Savage Landor in which he pays fulsome tribute to her "every virtue, every grace." In To Kill a Mockingbird, Rose Aylmer is also the name of Uncle Jack's beautiful yellow female cat. In fact, she's one of the few females of any description Uncle Jack can stand. This is intended to be a humorous reference to his somewhat jaundiced view of women. Uncle Jack would appear to be something of a misogynist in that the only kind of female company he finds remotely agreeable is that of a female cat. Uncle Jack is a bachelor, and given his low opinion of women, that's not altogether surprising.

I need help connecting ideas about how women's suffrage from the time period of the Spanish War to the present has helped the United States become a Super Power, while also expanding on how that relates/connects to historical relationships in foreign policy and domestic affairs. Thank you for your help!

The U.S. defeat of Spanish forces in Cuba in 1898 dealt a decisive blow to the already declining Spanish imperialism and the resulting U.S. occupation of another former Spanish colony, the Philippines, gave the United States the solid East Asian foothold it had long been seeking. Although the global reach was thereby extended, the idea of Superpower status is associated with a later era, post World War II, and the Cold War contests with the Soviet Union.
The struggle for women suffrage had heated up in the mid-19th century as the women's movement built on the Seneca Falls Convention's success. The Civil War and the Reconstruction's attention to African American emancipation, rights, and male suffrage pushed women suffrage to the back burner.
The period in which U.S. international expansion and military power are associated most closely with women suffrage is the World War I era and its aftermath. Even as women played significant roles in the war, especially as nurses, the suffragists ramped up their efforts. In 1917, the year the United States entered the war, Alice Paul and associates marched in Washington, chained themselves to the White House fence, and went on hunger strikes.
President Wilson had opposed women suffrage as a distraction from the war and, like his fellow Southerners, worried about the effect of black women voters. After the war, noting women's contributions--influenced as well by England recognizing women suffrage in 1918, barely a week after Armistice--Wilson finally backed it in the United States, by the Constitutional Amendment that was already moving ahead.
With the last state's ratification (Tennessee), the 19th Amendment became part of the Constitution in August 1920.
http://www.crusadeforthevote.org/19-amendment/

https://www.britannica.com/event/Spanish-American-War

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/19th-amendment-anniversary-evaluating-woodrow-wilson-s-complicated-contributions-women-ncna903746

How does the playwright use symbols to accentuate the role of the characters?

Money is an important symbol in the play, not least because its relation to each character tells us quite a lot about them. Eben buys out his half brothers, so he can have a better claim on his late mother's land. With Eben, pride is all-important. He believes himself entitled to the land, because his mother died working so hard on it. For him, money is a means to an end, a way of getting what he wants in life.
We see this later on in the play when Eben vows to follow his half brothers to California, makes his fortune in the Gold Rush, and then returns to buy the farm, taking revenge on his hated stepmother. His stepmother, the voluptuous young Abby, is initially presented as something of a gold digger. Later on, it is her unhinged passion for Eben that takes over and leads to her murdering their baby. But Eben is convinced that Abby has been using him all along to get her grasping hands on his mother's farm.
To some extent, money corrupts the soul of virtually every character in the play. It separates them from the land, from their true selves, and from what they really are. Land is not seen by the characters as a home or a place of settlement; it comes to be looked upon as nothing more than an economic commodity to be bought and sold for profit. Money corrupts the innate natural beauty of the land as well as the relationship of the various characters to it.

How would you summarize Winston's thoughts in part 1, chapter 3 of 1984?

At this stage in the story, Winston has been traumatized by a nightmare about his mother. Winston still feels a profound sense of guilt over how he treated his mother prior to her disappearance, and the nightmare exacerbates this. He has another dream, this time a more pleasant one, in which a dark-haired girl—Julia—takes off her clothes in an act of defiance against the regime.
While performing his compulsory exercises that morning, Winston reflects on a number of aspects of life in Oceania. He cannot remember a time when Oceania wasn't at war; all that ever changes is the enemy. In a world where the historical record is frequently changed to suit the authorities, Winston understands the importance of memory as a means of making sense of the past. He vividly remembers his childhood experiences of war, forced to seek shelter in the London Underground with his mother while the bombs rained down outside. Painful though these memories may be, Winston knows he must hang on to them at all costs; this is the only way he will ever be able to remain faithful to the truth.
By controlling the past as well as the present, the Party controls the minds of the people. For Winston, this is the Party's most awesome, most frightening power. He reflects upon the nature of doublethink, the ability to think two contradictory things at the same time, as expressed in Party slogans such as "Freedom is Slavery" and "Ignorance is Strength." Doublethink is used by the regime to construct a whole different reality, a parallel universe in which everything has been turned upside-down. The Party knows that if it can control people's minds through doublethink, and if it can obliterate the past completely, then it can more effectively present its insistent propaganda as the sole truth.

How did chapter 5 end?

Chapter 5 of A Tale of Two Cities, entitled "The Wine Shop," ends with Monsieur Defarge, the wine shop owner and ardent revolutionary, showing Mr. Lorry and Lucie Manette the sad, pathetic figure of Dr. Manette, Lucie's father. The good doctor has just been released from the stinking hell-hole of the notorious Bastille jail, where he was falsely imprisoned for eighteen long years. During that time, to avoid going out of his mind, Dr. Manette kept himself busy making shoes. And when M. Defarge opens the door to reveal Dr. Manette to Lucie and Mr. Lorry, he's beavering away at his last, making what he believes to be women's shoes in the latest fashion.
Before opening the door, Defarge tells Lucie and Mr. Lorry that he only shows Dr. Manette to people to whom the sight is likely to do good. Even though Dr. Manette is no longer in the Bastille, he was only released because the revolutionaries stormed the place. According to the law, he's still a convict and so Defarge figures that it's best to keep him safely hidden away from the prying eyes of the authorities.

What’s the claim of this letter?

The general claim that King makes in the letter is that the civil rights movement is justified in using unlawful methods to achieve its goals. In writing the letter, King is attacking those Southern white clergymen who argued that the civil rights movement should use exclusively legal means to achieve its goals. He argues that such an approach is ineffective, not least because the legal system is one of the key institutional supports of racial segregation. Under the circumstances, the only way that the civil rights movement can achieve political change is through direct action, such as staging sit-ins at segregated lunch counters and holding street demonstrations.
King also goes on to remind the Southern clergymen of their duty as Christians to challenge unjust laws. Christians cannot look the other way while their fellow men are being persecuted and oppressed. They must join with them in their struggle for freedom, even if it involves breaking the law. Only this way will it be possible to achieve the kind of just society that all true Christians should want to see established.

What is a tragic realist novel, and how does Crime and Punishment belong in this category?

Tragic realism is a literary device that symbiotically blends the characteristics of a literary tragedy with those of a realist style, tone, or perspective.
A literary work is considered a tragedy when it chronicles the disastrous, unfortunate, or, indeed, tragic events and experiences in the main character's life. Often, tragedies are thematically centered on the roles and trials of humankind in the grand scheme of the universe. Tragedies are typically written in a very serious tone that conveys both implicitly and explicitly the sorrowful nature of those experiences.
Realism is characterized by a writer's decision to "tell it like it is," without exaggerated, elaborated, or decorated imagery and with a distinct lack of figurative language. Realism focuses on the actualities of human life without idealizing or romanticizing the experiences that make it up.
Considering these descriptions, Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment fits into the tragic realism category in that it very plainly and literally depicts the hardships in life—murder, poverty, isolation, compromised integrity, victimization, addiction, abuse, neglect, and so on—without sugar-coating, romanticizing, or embellishing those experiences. Dostoevsky creates as literal and true an image as possible for his readers.
https://literarydevices.net/realism/

https://www.britannica.com/art/tragedy-literature

What are the figures of speech used in the poem "There Is No Frigate Like a Book"?

Emily Dickinson uses a series of metaphors to describe how literature can transport the reader to new worlds of learning and enjoyment. First, she says there is no frigate, or ship, that is capable of bearing its passengers to faraway places as well as a book can. Second, she compares poetry to swift, prancing horses with another metaphor. Next, she extends the traveling metaphor into an analogy by bringing in the idea of a toll. Unlike traveling on a road or across a bridge that might charge a fee, books are generally free to those who really want them. They can be borrowed, or if purchased, their fee is a pittance compared with the great "distances" to which they can transport the reader. Finally, she offers one more traveling metaphor, comparing books to an inexpensive chariot that carries the "Human Soul."
Beyond the metaphors and analogy Dickinson uses lies a subtle pun. Although she never uses the word "transportation" in the poem, she gives four examples of things having to do with physical transportation. The underlying idea springs from a pun on the word "transport," whose secondary meaning is to overwhelm with strong emotion, especially joy. Books not only transport the reader to new lands, times, and situations, but they can transport, that is, delight him or her as well. Another more obvious pun occurs with the word "bears." It could also be taken to mean "bares," that is, lays bare. Books lay bare the souls of their authors and also expose the souls of their readers when readers respond to the written word emotionally.
This little eight-line poem by Emily Dickinson is packed with delightful and thought-provoking figures of speech.

In spite of the fact that she was blind, Helen Keller was passionate about reading. Why was this so?

Helen Keller lived at a time when blind people were generally not expected to be able to read, even with the assistance of braille. But it was clear from an early age that Helen was a very intelligent young girl, and she was absolutely determined to learn how to read, however long it would take. Society's general ignorance of the abilities of disabled people made Helen all the more determined to prove that she could fulfill her ambition to read. The more hurdles and challenges that Helen had to overcome, the more passionate she became about achieving her goals. And as her education progressed, a whole new world of ideas opened up to Helen, giving her a chance to broaden her intellectual horizons. As a result of her own experiences, in later life Helen became a passionate advocate for education for the blind. She knew just how vital it was for blind people to be able to read in order to get an education, and how important it was for them to get an education to be able to connect with the world around them.

What is happening in the plot lines 9 through 12?

The poem is narrated by the poor townsfolk who admire and envy Richard Cory when he walks by them on the street. In the first three stanzas of the poem, the townsfolk reflect on Richard Cory's clean-cut, regal appearance and refer to him as a "gentleman from sole to crown." Richard Cory does not only have appealing looks but is also a friendly person, who speaks to the poorer townsfolk whenever he sees them. The third stanza is comprised of lines nine through twelve, where the townsfolk compare Richard Cory's wealth to that of a king and praise his graceful, revered persona. In line twelve, the townsfolk mention that they would gladly trade places with Richard Cory. Their comments are significant and ironic after the fourth stanza is read. The townsfolk who wish to trade places with Richard Cory in line twelve are unaware that he has serious emotional issues that influence him to commit suicide. Overall, the third stanza is significant to the plot of the poem because it creates irony and emphasizes Robinson's message regarding the complex relationship between appearance and reality.

Why is the Miller’s child in The Marrow of Tadition nameless and how does this namelessness connect with the way the African-Americans are treated in the novel and in 21st-century America?

Namelessness can have two purposes. Sometimes, to leave a character nameless means that they are not important. In the context of this story, however, we know that the Millers' child is certainly important to his mother and father—William notes that his wife and child are the two people he loves most in the world, while Janet adjures her husband to be careful in operating by thinking of the sickly child as if it were his own. She asks him to think "what it would mean to lose him." So, this child, while nameless, is important to his parents like any other: within the context of their little world, he is very much loved.
In the wider context, however, his namelessness takes on a new meaning. We could interpret it in two ways:
1. To white people, all black people (in the context of this novel) are unimportant, unworthy of being named. This does not seem to be the overriding meaning of the story, however, because there are many other named black people in this novel, and they are allowed by the narrative to tell their own stories.
2. Namelessness connotes a kind of universal applicability. If the child is nameless, he need not be a specific child, and his story does not have to be particular to him. This can therefore suit two purposes. A nameless child's plight can be seen to reflect the plight of many similar children. Additionally, we can infer that, for many white people, black people can seem like a monolith, viewed as a group rather than as individuals.
Compare the Millers' child to the named child, Theodore. Jane thinks that if that white child had been black, his mole would have definitely connoted bad luck; because he is white, she is not certain of this, although she takes precautions anyway. This child, because he is white, will automatically be luckier within the context of the novel than a black child. At the same time, he is given a name at the very moment of his birth, whereas the Millers' son is not named despite being old enough to speak.
There are certainly many unfortunate similarities between the world depicted in this novel and our current world, and these are a result of slavery's legacy. White people can still have a tendency to view black people as a group, rather than as individuals, and it is still the case that white children are born with more innate advantages because of institutional privilege.

Can physical and chemical changes happen together?

Yes, the physical and chemical changes can occur together.
An example is the burning of a candle. When the candle burns, the wax melts and the wick burns. Even though the wax melts, it still stays wax and there is no change in its chemical formula. Hence this is a physical change. When the wick burns, carbon dioxide is generated. This is a chemical change as a different substance than the starting substance is generated.
Similarly, eating the food involves both physical changes and chemical changes. Breaking down larger pieces of food (say bread) into smaller pieces through chewing is a physical change. Breakdown of food molecules into simpler molecules, by the action of enzymes, is a chemical change.
Another example is eating chocolate, which involves breaking it down into smaller portions (physical change) and then metabolizing it (chemical change). The burning of wood is another similar example.

Hope this helps.

How does poetry evoke change and emotion

In Percy Bysshe Shelley’s essay “A Defence of Poetry,” the author discusses the different aspects of the literary genre that make it so impactful.
One of these is poetry’s ability to create change. Shelley discusses this in the last several paragraphs of the essay.
He introduces this idea in the following quote:

The most unfailing herald, companion, and follower of the awakening of a great people to work a beneficial change in opinion or institution, is poetry.

This quote suggests that at any time in which progress in society occurs, one will find a particular change in the poetry of the time. According to Shelley, art doesn’t imitate life but rather shapes it.
He states that anyone who reads the poetry written at the time can feel the “electric life which burns within [the authors’] words.” The passion with which a poet imbues his or her work transfers to the reader; as a result, the reader becomes inspired to conform his or her world to the idealized version presented in the poem.
In his final statement at the end of the essay, Shelley explains why people enjoy poetry:

Poets are the hierophants of an unapprehended inspiration; the mirrors of the gigantic shadows which futurity casts upon the present; the words which express what they understand not; the trumpets which sing to battle, and feel not what they inspire; the influence which is moved not, but moves. Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.

In Shelley’s view, poetry voices what the average person cannot articulate and thereby serves as a source of inspiration. People find the courage to change things because of the passion and enthusiasm transferred from poet to reader.

What are the themes in The River?

One of the themes of The River is the triumph of the human spirit. As in his earlier adventures in Hatchet, Brian is forced to dig deep into his innermost reserves to overcome extreme adversity. Only this time, he is not the only one experiencing such adversity; now, he is accompanied by Derek, a government psychologist. It was hard enough for Brian to deal with the harshness of life in the wilderness when he was on his own but now that he has someone else to take care of—someone without any experience of living out in the wild—things are even more difficult for the reluctant young adventurer.
As we learned in Hatchet, there is clearly something special about Brian that allows him to survive in such dangerous conditions. It is not just that he has developed outstanding survival skills—though they are still important—it is also that he possesses a strong spirit that remains unshakable in the face of everything that Mother Nature has to throw at him.

What are the names of U.S. presidents from 1877–1901?

There have been 8 presidents who have served between 1877 - 1901. Grover Cleveland is the only Democratic president who served between 1877 - 1901 and the only president to serve two terms non-consecutively. William McKinley is the only president who was assassinated between 1877 - 1901. The year 1877 saw the end of Ulysses S. Grant's second term and 1901 was the beginning of Theodore Roosevelt's first term. The following is a list of the presidents that served between 1877 - 1901.
Ulysses S. Grant (March 4, 1869—March 4, 1877).
Rutherford B. Hayes (March 4, 1877—March 4, 1881).
James A. Garfield (March 4, 1881—September 19, 1881).
Chester A. Arthur (September 19, 1881—March 4, 1885).
Grover Cleveland (March 4, 1885—March 4, 1889).
Benjamin Harrison (March 4, 1889—March 4, 1893).
Grover Cleveland (March 4, 1893—March 4, 1897).
William McKinley (March 4, 1897—September 14, 1901).
Theodore Roosevelt (September 14, 1901—March 4, 1909).

The Presidents of the United States, numbers 18– 26, who served from 1877 through 1901 are listed here. Grant’s second term ended in 1877; Roosevelt’s first term began in 1901. There are 9 presidents but 8 names because Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms.
18. Ulysses S. Grant (March 4, 1869–March 4, 1877).
19. Rutherford B. Hayes (March 4, 1877–March 4, 1881).
20. James A. Garfield (March 4, 1881–September 19, 1881). Assassinated.
21. Chester A. Arthur (September 19, 1881–March 4, 1885).
22. Grover Cleveland (March 4, 1885–March 4, 1889). The only president who served two terms non-consecutively.
23. Benjamin Harrison (March 4, 1889–March 4, 1893).
24. Grover Cleveland (March 4, 1893–March 4, 1897).
25. William McKinley (March 4, 1897–September 14, 1901). Assassinated.
26. Theodore Roosevelt (September 14, 1901–March 4, 1909).
https://www.presidentsusa.net/presvplist.html

For the Edexcel English literature paper 1, we were asked to compare the poem Sonnet 116, and I compared it to "Prayer Before Birth." Can they be compared, and if not, will they give any marks if they thought it was the wrong comparison? Or will they look at what I wrote for the comparison?

Almost any two poems could be compared to one another, as almost any two poems will have something in common—whether that be an idea or a stylistic technique, a common characteristic between the speakers, or a similarity between the narrative structures. Generally speaking, as long as a student can give evidence and explain their comparisons, an examiner will not penalize the student. An examiner should not penalize a student simply because they disagree with the student's choice of poems but instead should reward the student for any comparisons that are evidenced and explained well.
There are plenty of good comparisons that might be made between Sonnet 116 and "Prayer Before Birth." Both poems, for example, are about the power of love. In "Prayer Before Birth," the speaker asks for a love which will protect and nurture her, whereas in Sonnet 116 the speaker declares that love has the power to guide one, figuratively, through storms.
One might also compare the language choices in both poems. For example, in "Prayer Before Birth," the speaker uses metaphorical language to express her fears that she will be oppressed: "with tall walls [that] wall me." In Sonnet 116, the speaker also uses metaphorical language when he says that love is "the star to every wand'ring bark." Both writers use metaphors to make their ideas more accessible.

Please don't worry—I used to examine this paper, and unless the rubric specifically tells you which two poems to compare, you are free to compare any two which you feel offer any material for comparison. I am sure you chose to compare these two poems for a reason and that you wrote some valuable things.
I probably wouldn't have chosen these poems as an obvious pair to discuss together, but I can see some areas of focus. You might have talked about, for example:
The tone and diction—how are they similar and different?
The rhyme scheme and form—whereas Sonnet 116 uses a very regular sonnet structure, MacNeice's poem is written in free verse, lent cohesion through the use of repetition.
Theme—they both, to a certain extent, focus on constancy and continuity, particularly the relationship between Time and humanity, within which Time obviously holds the dominant hand. They also both talk about love, although one focuses on a romantic love and the other on the love between parents and children, and between otherwise unconnected humans united by their humanity.
The examiner is not there to decide what is the "right" comparison for you to have drawn. There will certainly be other poems which might receive more comparisons, but the examiner's job is to look at what you have written and mark it based on what you have actually said and how well you have expressed yourself.

Why did the driver of the Dover Mail carry a gun?

The detail about the Dover Mail guard having a weapon on his person comes from Book 1, Chapter 2.
The team of horses pulling the coach are struggling to haul the vehicle up the mud-covered Shooter Hill at night in November. The three passengers traveling in the coach have had to get out and walk in order to help ease the load. During a description of the passengers, the narrator explains that none can discern the appearance of his fellow travelers because each is covered head to toe in both clothing and mud.
The travelers are pleased to be so concealed because of their suspicion. According to the text, “anybody on the road might be a robber or in league with robbers.” As a result, many travelers were wary of letting a stranger know anything about themselves.
This also explains why the guard himself feels the need to carry protection. The narrator explains that the coachman is glad to have his chest full of weapons. The coachman keeps “an eye and a hand” on the chest, which contains “a loaded blunderbuss” and “six or eight loaded horse pistols” sitting atop a pile of swords. This shows that the guard is overprepared in case of an attack.
The narrator further explains the aura of suspicion among all on the mail coach. Each person is suspicious of all the others, and the driver trusts “only the horses.” This shows that people who traveled or worked on mail coaches at the time were paranoid.
The narrator explains how the guard has an additional store of weapons or tools that could be used as weapons, just in case something horrific were to occur.
Besides the fear of vulnerability to theft, this paranoia indicates a lack of faith in one’s fellow man, an idea that continues to be addressed throughout the novel.

Did the quest for “self-rule” change from 1700–1900? How (in what ways, by what means) and how not (that is, what has remained unchanged), and what explains the change or lack of change?

Self-rule, like independence, is a relative term. If we look at both Europe and what is now known as the Middle East in the year 1700, we can see that there were multi-ethnic states within which one national group held power over other groups, states in which power was held by outsiders, and states in which, regardless of the issue of ethnicity, power was held by a monarch or an oligarchy (a small group of ruling elites) and denied to the population at large.
However, in 1700, few people were actively complaining about this situation or demanding fundamental changes. In England, more than any other European country, a democracy of sorts already had been created, but it was a democracy only in a relative sense, based on a Constitutional system that had developed gradually over centuries, the latest phase of which had begun with the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688.
100 years later, by 1800, it was a different story. Both the American and French Revolutions had occurred, overthrowing, in the first case, power held by an outside oligarchy (the British government) over its colonial offshoot, and in the second, power held by a monarchy over its own people.
What had caused the quest for self-rule? The answer is enormously complex, but to try to sum it up in one sentence, I would say that various factors (beginning well before 1700) had changed the way people viewed themselves in relation to each other and in relation to both the government and the religious authorities.
By 1800, few people believed that monarchs ruled by "divine right." Moreover, just as the view of people in relation to each other individually and to their governments had changed in favor of an egalitarian philosophy, that same idea of equality began to be applied to different ethnic or national groups. In 1800, the Slavic nationalities, the Hungarians, the Greeks, and several other ethnic groups did not rule their own countries. Ethnic self-determination became a huge factor in nineteenth-century political thought. Over the course of the century and continuing up to the end of World War I in 1918, the Austrian and Ottoman empires were dissolved, and new countries were formed in Europe and the Mediterranean in which national groups now ruled themselves.
Therefore, over the course of a 200+ year period, authoritarian governments had been replaced by democracies, however imperfect, in the form of republics or constitutional monarchies, and people were no longer controlled by rulers from outside their ethnic group. This, of course, was only true of part of the world. At the same time that Europeans had liberalized their own continent, they had been busy taking over other people's in Asia and Africa. In 1900 those same ideals of self-rule that had animated Europeans were felt by people everywhere. It took at least another half century for self-rule to be realized throughout the world.

Explain how Americans used the language of freedom when discussing foreign policy: Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson. Did the meaning of freedom change with each administration or stay constant?

The reign of the "Imperial Presidents"—Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson—was an intriguing era of the United States presidency. As their collective nickname suggests, these presidents were heavily involved in foreign affairs, but they had different approaches that reflected their different definitions of freedom.
Roosevelt was a bullish Republican and foreman of the Progressive Era zeitgeist. His strong, forward demeanor, coupled with military education and experience, resulted in a foreign policy that mirrored his ideal of freedom: "Big Stick Diplomacy." Roosevelt believed that freedom entailed active participation in preserving such, and his presidential foreign policy did just that. Even though a big part of Big Stick Diplomacy was the visual display of potential force to discourage actual military action, the flaunting of such power (globally parading the Great White Fleet, for example) was an active effort to maintain freedom.
Taft was hand-picked by Roosevelt to succeed him; however, Taft lacked the boldness of Roosevelt. Roosevelt found Taft to be soft, and the Progressive Republicans derided him for abandoning the progressive agenda and yielding to special interests—he was seen as easily bought. Corroborating that style, Taft termed his own foreign policy as "Dollar Diplomacy." He used the United States' growing economic prowess to its advantage on the global scale. He urged Wall Street to invest in Latin American economies and supported revolutionary causes that furthered his financial agenda. Taft believed that freedom could be bought and maintained through national economic might.
The 1912 election was a bitter spectacle between three frontrunners who all served the presidential office. Roosevelt, dissatisfied with his successor, challenged Taft for his reelection nod from the Republican Party. When Taft won, Roosevelt formed his own party, splitting the Republican vote and allowing Wilson, a Democrat, to win the election.
Wilson was more concerned about the political structures of Latin America, involving himself (or not) in relation to how the resulting politics would benefit American interests in the long-term (he accused his predecessors of looking to benefit only in the short-term). His strategy was known as "Moral Diplomacy." As part of his "New Freedom" campaign platform, one major issue Wilson addressed was repealing high tariffs put in place by his predecessors. By doing so, the US gained favor with trading partners. He also repealed the act that made American vessels exempt from paying the tax to use the Panama Canal, which pleased nations like the United Kingdom. Wilson believed freedom was maintained by currying favor on the world stage through fair and moral political behavior.
Through these three presidents' administrations, the United States certainly asserted itself on the world stage—militarily, economically, and politically. All three presidents had a running theme of promoting "American exceptionalism." All three had great interest in Latin America and how it would affect the US, and all three were concerned with American power, global standing, and freedom. Their definitions of freedom may not have varied much, but their methods of protecting it did.

Theodore Roosevelt used the military as the "big stick" of his diplomatic strategy. He sent the Great White Fleet around the world in order to demonstrate America's arrival on the world stage and to intimidate a rapidly rising Japan who sought to become a power in the Pacific. He stationed warships off the coast of Panama when he encouraged that nation to become independent. Roosevelt believed firmly in American exceptionalism as well, having earned a Nobel Peace prize for brokering the end of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905.
Taft believed in dollar diplomacy. He oversaw the spread of American business interests throughout Latin America and China. He used the military to intervene when Latin Americans sought to get rid of their oppressive U.S. employers. Though Taft was criticized for being soft militarily by his predecessor Roosevelt, Taft ordered many military occupations of Latin America and this helped fuel anti-American sentiment in the region.
Wilson continued the tradition of military intervention but he did it in order to preserve what he thought were the rightful governments of the region. By rightful governments, Wilson really meant the ones most friendly to American interests. Wilson intervened in Mexico's civil unrest before WWI and sent a military expedition against Pancho Villa in 1917. Wilson abstained from entering WWI until 1917 and that was only after the American public clamored for war after Germany's resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman note. In his speech asking Congress to declare war, Wilson claimed that the United States was an associated power who was entering the war on the side of the Entente in order to make the world safe for democracy.
Roosevelt used the military to promote American exceptionalism and to show that the United States was willing to be an enlightened imperialist. Taft sought to use the military to help American business interests which he also believed would help the local economies of the developing world. Wilson believed in American exceptionalism as well but he used a moral tone thinking that it was the job of the United States to demonstrate democratic values to a world caught up in unrest and war.

Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson each had a unique approach to foreign policy. All three presidents used the American Military as a way to achieve their goals, but each goal was different for each president.
Roosevelt had "Big Stick" Diplomacy, where the president must be willing to act quickly and decisively when looking out for America's interests andspeak softly but carry a big stick. In some cases, that meant using military force. His corollary to the Monroe doctrine meant that the US would be the policeman of the Western Hemisphere, making sure European powers were kept at bay. Growing the US Navy and gaining perpetual control of the Panama Canal in 1903 with the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty are examples of this.
Taft, on the other hand, had Dollar Diplomacy. This, as its name suggests, intended to protect American economic investments. Taft wanted to strengthen trade of American goods in South America and China, but was not the most successful.
Like his predecessors, Wilson was also concerned with the US role in South America. While Roosevelt and Taft were concerned with the military and economy, Wilson wanted to make sure democratic governments friendly to the United States were established in these countries. However, as Wilson was coming into office, there was a brewing conflict in Europe. It soon erupted into World War I. Initially in 1914, Wilson wanted to keep America out of the direct conflict, reverting back to an isolationist stance from previous presidents. When it became clear that war cannot be avoided, and that this war was threatening not only US citizens but the livelihood of democratic governments across Europe, Wilson committed US troops to the conflict in 1917. He even drafted the Fourteen Points Plan to help end the war with "peace without victory."

What is the full summary of "The Dumb Witness" by Charles Chesnutt?

In the story, Charles Chesnutt places agency in the words of a biracial enslaved woman, Viney, after she has been viciously tortured by her white owner, Murchison. Viney has lived in the master’s home as his sexual slave. When he decides to get married, she knows that she will be ousted from the house and either sold away from the plantation or forced to work for the new mistress. Taking matters into her own hands, she visits the fiancée and tells her about Murchison’s sexual relationship with her. The fiancée then breaks off the engagement. Enraged, Murchison retaliates by savagely disabling Viney: he cuts out her tongue. She also resumes residence in a cabin on the property. The plot twist then places Viney into a position of power that ironically depends on her speaking. It turns out that she is the only person who knows where to find valuable documents and properties: the legacy of his deceased uncle, which the uncle had buried on the property and confided its location to Viney. Although she retains some power of speech, she withholds it, declining to tell the master the exact location. Murchison takes up a shovel and digs incessantly all over the yard in a futile effort to find the hidden wealth.

The narrator of “Death in the Woods” states that it was the woman’s destiny to “feed animal life.” Do you feel that this quote adequately explains the significance of the story? What are some of the other ideas and themes present?

No, the quote that the woman was destined to feed animal life does not adequately explain the significance of the story.
First, the story is about more than merely telling the old woman's story. It is about how, in general, we tell any story. The narrator doesn't simply provide a straightforward start-to-finish narrative but consciously explains how the story has come back to him and notes where he remembers new things. He repeats himself and circles back over his narration. He shows us how a narrative emerges from fragments of memories. He emphasizes the fictive nature of the story in telling us that he has learned much of it second-hand, pieced together from what others have told him.
Further, the story is also about the teller. It is not only the woman's story, but his story too. This seems to imply that every story we tell is in some way our own story. A story means something to us and is important enough to tell when it relates to our truth.
Finally, it's important to note the woman's fate as an animal feeder comes from her hard life—the people around her have acted like animals to her and treated her like an animal. The story of the animals and her struggle to keep them alive is also the story of her own struggle to survive.

How does Nosferatu capture its audience?

To answer this question, I want to define “capture the audience” as I think you mean it.
By one interpretation, this could mean how the exposition phase of the narrative hooks the viewer into watching the rest of the film.
By another, this could mean how the aspects of the film as a whole maintain viewer engagement from beginning to end.
I favor the latter interpretation, so I will focus my attention of the acting, cinematography, and editing of the film. First, you might examine how Max Schreck’s unnerving performance as Count Orlock was enigmatic and impactful during its time; viewers actually thought Schreck was a real vampire, for instance. Second, you should explore how F.W. Murnau’s decision to shoot large swathes of on-location, natural settings was revolutionary at the time and contributes to the foreboding atmosphere of the film. Finally, you might look into the use of early practical and special effects, such as the famous coffin-rising shot. These special effects, while not impressive in today’s CGI-laden films, were impressive at the time and still provide that creepy effect Murnau intended.
I hope this helps!

What are the character traits of Thomas in The Maze Runner?

Thomas, from “The Maze Runner,” is a somewhat naive, but intelligent and curious individual. To be fair, most anyone would be naive in his situation—stripped of his memories and placed into a mysterious glade in the center of a maze with other adolescent boys.Thomas, however, is defined by his courage and his upright nature, as well as his intellect and curiosity. He is always willing to stick up for other boys in the group, and he willingly goes into the maze to help find and save another boy from the vicious creatures that reside there.He is also a willing and capable leader, around whom the other boys rally and to whom they look to for guidance. His courage and care for the others make him a very good leader.

Jim hodges, every touch 1995. 1)Write a statement describing the work and explaining why you are drawn to the work. Why is this work your "Beauty"? Pablo picasso, Guernica 1937 1) Write a statement describing this work and explaining why you are not drawn to the work. Why is this work your "Beast"? 2)Find something in your "Beast" that you (not someone else) can appreciate and convince the class with your response that your "Beast" has beauty in its own way and is worth serious study and consideration as a work of art. This means you must take a closer look at the art and find something that is noteworthy. Do not state that you still do not like the work but someone else might because…... This is to make the viewer look at art in a totally different way than they are accustomed.

You’ve probably heard it said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Therefore, no one can tell you what is beautiful or not beautiful about a work of art. In fact, “beauty,” as it applies to art, encompasses more than just the idea of being aesthetically pleasing. The beauty of an artwork depends on the emotions it evokes in the viewer—and an artist can evoke emotions through form, color, shape, line, texture, composition, etc. You might be attracted to an artwork for its symmetry or its shapes, for instance, or you might be attracted to it for its color or juxtaposition of colors. You might also be attracted to it for its meaning or message—a meaning or message you understood because the artist expressed it visually in a powerful way.
Jim Hodges makes use of ordinary materials, such as flowers, to create artwork. In Every Touch, he used thousands of artificial flowers, and some say the work evokes a strong sense of love and loss. It speaks to the many people who touched the work and brought it into being. People in many cultures have been conditioned to believe that flowers are beautiful, but the power of Hodges's work rests largely on the feelings it evokes. Pablo Picasso’s Guernica makes a powerful political statement. It portrays the horrors of war, but moreover it evokes strong feelings about the war through its juxtaposition of color and form. In discussing these two works, think about how they make you feel when you look at them. View them not as works of art but as forms of expression. Sometimes reading about them can help you gain a better understanding of what they meant to the artist. But what really matters is what they mean to you. Beauty, in an artwork, is what evokes emotion and touches the soul.

How did immigration to America change a great deal during the twenties?

Immigration levels in the first two decades of the 20th century soared to over 14 million. The Dillingham Commission Report of 1911 fueled racial prejudice toward immigrants from southeastern Europe, discriminating against the "New Immigrants" rather than the "Old Immigrants" of northwestern Europe. The 1919 recession, its high levels of unemployment and associated strikes and violence triggered the Red Scare, a wave of anti-radical hysteria caused by the Russian Revolution and the impact of the Great War. The Eugenics Movement, Nativism, and xenophobia exacerbated anti-immigration sentiment and racism in the 1910s and 1920s.
Immigration to America in the 1920s saw the establishment of the United States Border Patrol and the Immigration Act (Johnson-Reed Act) of 1924. The act restricted the immigration quota, lowering it from 350,000 to 165,000. The quota system was reduced from 3% to 2% permitted from each country as the number of residents of that country living in the United States. The percentages were highly biased toward "Old Immigrants" over "New Immigrants." No quotas were imposed on Latin Americans, while countries in Asia that had previously been allowed to immigrate were no longer permitted to do so. As a result of this legislation, 87% of visas went to immigrants from Britain, Ireland, Germany, and Scandinavia.

Describe the various issues John Grady has with his mother. What is the source of his problems? Does John Grady have any other mother figures in the novel?

All the Pretty Horses is an award-winning novel by American author Cormac McCarthy. Set in 1949, it tells the story of John Grady Cole, a teenage boy who, upon learning the ranch where his grandfather raised him will be sold, runs away to Mexico. He eventually finds work as a cowboy and proves he has an uncanny ability to deal with horses. However, his infatuation with the boss's daughter ultimately leads to problems.
The story touches on themes of loss, suffering, and loneliness and explores the dichotomy between realistic and romantic portrayals of human interaction. These themes all play into John Grady's relationship with his mother, who remains nameless and appears only briefly in the novel's opening.
John's issues with his mother are numerous, starting with the fact that she divorced his father when John was very young and abandoned him to be raised by Louisa, the cook at the ranch where he grew up, all in the selfish pursuit of acting fame. She never tried to have a relationship with him, leaving them strangers and filling John with a repressed loneliness.
His mother cared little for her family or life on the ranch—things that John loved and found important, which only increased their emotional disconnect. She comes across as distant, absent, and more engrossed with social status than mothering. Her selfish behavior simply doesn't play well against John's code, which values honor, loyalty, and responsibility.
https://books.google.com/books?id=AbBKZvRo5S8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0

In The Tempest, what does the boatswain request Gonzalo do?

The boatswain tells Gonzalo and the other men that they're getting in the way of his work and should stay in their cabins.
The ship's in the middle of a violent storm whipped up by Prospero on his remote island. But despite the imminent danger that they face, Gonzalo and the other guests on board ship can't stop popping up on deck to see what's happening. The boatswain's none too pleased about this and openly chides his alleged social betters to their face, much to their displeasure. After he tells Gonzalo and the other men to stay in their cabins, Gonzalo effectively tells him to calm down:

Nay, good, be patient. (Act I, Scene I)

The boatswain says that if he's wound-up, it's only because the sea's wound-up. He once again tells Gonzalo and the other men to get below deck. This man is clearly no respecter of rank; he has no compunction in barking orders at aristocrats, even after Gonzalo ticks him off for speaking out of turn.
In fact, he has the last word with Gonzalo, mockingly inviting him to use his authority as a king's adviser to order the storm to calm down. The boatswain knows full well that irrespective of the huge differences in social rank between him and his passengers, out on the high seas, he's the one in charge.