In Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro, why was the children's art collected and why was their creativity encouraged?

The children who grow up living at Hailsham are clones from originals living elsewhere. Public opinion is divided about the value of education for clones because they will eventually die after donating their organs. Miss Lucy is a passionate advocate for providing the students with an array of experiences; she expects to demonstrate their fundamental humanity. Madame has a less positive view of the clones, but she takes charge of the Gallery project as she comes periodically to collect their art.
After they have left Hailsham, Miss Emily tells them that the artwork in the Gallery was evaluated as evidence for whether the children “had souls at all,” rather than to offer a window into their souls as Tommy had come to believe.

What happens in Canto XIX of Dante's Inferno?

Canto XIX
Having passed the second pouch of excrement-encrusted flatterers, the poets carefully step down even lower into the Eighth Circle where they witness the worst punishment yet inflicted on sinners. These condemned souls are the Simonists, clergy who had sold indulgences, that is, money paid to priests that supposedly absolved people of their sins or paid for other special amenities in Heaven. Dante’s disgust with these fraudulent friars is unrestrained. He admonishes them saying that they prostituted themselves for money:

“O Simon Magus, O forlorn disciples,
Ye who the things of God, which ought to be
The brides of holiness, rapaciously
For silver and for gold do prostitute,
Now it behoves for you the trumpet sound,
Because in this third Bolgia ye abide.
We had already on the following tomb
Ascended to that portion of the crag
Which o'er the middle of the moat hangs plumb.
Wisdom supreme, O how great art thou showest
In heaven, in earth, and in the evil world,
And with what justice doth thy power distribute!”

Dante begins his invective by calling out Simon Magus, for whom all Simonists are named. In the Bible, Simon is a man who uses witchcraft (a “magus”). The story of Simon and the apostles can be found in Acts 8:9-24. After witnessing two of Jesus’s disciples, Peter and John, perform miracles, Simon Magus is so impressed that he asks Peter to teach him how to do the same...for money. Indignantly, Peter chastises the magician, insulted that he believes the gifts of Christ could be purchased. There is a more detailed story about Simon Magus’s clash with Peter in The Acts of Peter. (This story is recorded in one of the books known as the “apocrypha.” These books were written around the same period as the Bible and have many similiarities, but for various reasons, were not canonized by early Christians and are not included in the Bible proper.)
In the apocryphal book, Peter and Simon Magus, in service of the emperor Nero, engage in a magic contest. A demon comes to the aid of Magus, enabling him to fly. Peter performs the sign of the cross; Magus crashes, breaking his legs “in three parts” (presumably, this is symbolic of the godhead: father, son, and Holy Ghost). The crowd who had gathered to watch the contest turns on Magus, stoning him. Grievously injured, Magus later dies under the knife of two physicians.
The punishment for the Simonists is horrific. They are buried upside down in baptismal basins; their protruding feet are burned by flames. These sinners simultaneously suffocate and burn. The basins in which the Simonists suffocate remind Dante of a baptismal basin which he accidentally broke in Saint John’s Cathedral in order to save someone who was drowning in it. He describes the eternal horror:

“I saw upon the sides and on the bottom
The livid stone with perforations filled,
All of one size, and every one was round.
To me less ample seemed they not, nor greater
Than those that in my beautiful Saint John
Are fashioned for the place of the baptisers,
And one of which, not many years ago,
I broke for some one, who was drowning in it;
Be this a seal all men to undeceive.
Out of the mouth of each one there protruded
The feet of a transgressor, and the legs
Up to the calf, the rest within remained.
In all of them the soles were both on fire;
Wherefore the joints so violently quivered,
They would have snapped asunder withes and bands.”

Dante looks around at the kicking feet and sees one set whose soles are tormented more viciously than others around him. He asks Virgil:

"Master, who is that one who writhes himself,
More than his other comrades quivering,"
I said, "and whom a redder flame is sucking?"

Virgil replies that when they get closer, Dante will see who it is:

"If thou wilt have me bear thee
Down there along that bank which lowest lies,
From him thou'lt know his errors and himself."

Standing before the kicking feet, Dante asks:

"Whoe'er thou art, that standest upside down,
O doleful soul, implanted like a stake,"
To say began I, "if thou canst, speak out."

This is Pope Nicholas III, who had once been the leader of the Inquisition in 1262. Before being appointed to the papacy 1277, when the then-Giovanni Gaetano took the name Nicholas III. This pope was infamous for his nepotism, appointing favored family members to key posts.
Unable to see, the sinner assumes that Dante is Pope Boniface VIII, for whose arrival in Hell the shade has long anticipated. As Virgil instructs him to do, Dante says he is not Boniface.
Irritated, the shade asks what the travelers are doing in Hell. He also tries to excuse his own life of sin, claiming the money he charged was to support his family.

"Then what wantest thou of me?
If who I am thou carest so much to know,
That thou on that account hast crossed the bank,
Know that I vested was with the great mantle;
And truly was I son of the She-bear,
So eager to advance the cubs, that wealth
Above, and here myself, I pocketed.”

The former pope then describes to Dante and Virgil the punishment in Hell for the Simonists:

“Beneath my head the others are dragged down
Who have preceded me in simony,
Flattened along the fissure of the rock.”

They are buried in rock, and their bodies for the entire third “pouch” of the Eighth Circle of Hell. Nicholas says that he will descend lower into the layers of rock when Boniface finally is sentenced to eternal torment as will another corrupt member of the clergy, Pope Clement V:

“Below there I shall likewise fall, whenever
That one shall come who I believed thou wast,
What time the sudden question I proposed.
But longer I my feet already toast,
And here have been in this way upside down,
Than he will planted stay with reddened feet;
For after him shall come of fouler deed
From tow'rds the west a Pastor without law,
Such as befits to cover him and me.”

Boniface’s was Dante’s bitter enemy. This pope vastly expanded the power of the Church. Eventually, Boniface sent Dante, and and many other leaders of the white Guelphs, into exile. Pope Clement V’s sins include moving the Papal See to Avignon, France, from Rome:

“For after him shall come of fouler deed
From tow'rds the west a Pastor without law,
Such as befits to cover him and me.
New Jason will he be, of whom we read
In Maccabees; and as his king was pliant,
So he who governs France shall be to this one."

Tired of listening to Nicholas rants and defenses of his own simony, Dante interrupts the sinner’s diatribe to ask him if Christ would have charged Saint Peter for the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, or if the Apostle Peter would have asked Matthias for a fee when he replaced Judas, the betrayer of Christ:

"I pray thee tell me now how great a treasure
Our Lord demanded of Saint Peter first,
Before he put the keys into his keeping?
Truly he nothing asked but 'Follow me.'
Nor Peter nor the rest asked of Matthias
Silver or gold, when he by lot was chosen
Unto the place the guilty soul had lost.”

No longer interested in engaging the shade, Dante tells the former pope that he deserves his fate. Before he takes his leave, the poet rails further on the evils of the papacy. He colorfully calls Rome a whore who accepts money from kings for sexual favors. In doing so, Dante argues, the Church is also guilty of idolatry. The Church, therefore, is as culpable as the heretics which they freely condemn:

“Because your avarice afflicts the world,
Trampling the good and lifting the depraved.
The Evangelist you Pastors had in mind,
When she who sitteth upon many waters
To fornicate with kings by him was seen;
The same who with the seven heads was born,
And power and strength from the ten horns received,
So long as virtue to her spouse was pleasing.
Ye have made yourselves a god of gold and silver;
And from the idolater how differ ye,
Save that he one, and ye a hundred worship?”

Not yet finished, Dante goes on to condemn Constantine, the first Christian Emperor (299-337 C.E.) Constantine’s sin, known as the “Donation of Constantine,” was the granting political control of Italy to the Church. In Dante’s estimation, this transfer of power made the Church too wealthy, leading to corruption:

“Ah, Constantine! of how much ill was mother,
Not thy conversion, but that marriage dower
Which the first wealthy Father took from thee!"

Pope Nicholas, who is still listening, kicks his feet furiously. Virgil, attending to his protege's words quietly, is obviously pleased with his charge’s outbursts:

“And while I sang to him such notes as these,
Either that anger or that conscience stung him,
He struggled violently with both his feet.
I think in sooth that it my Leader pleased,
With such contented lip he listened ever
Unto the sound of the true words expressed.”

Virgil then lifts Dante into his arms and carries him over the bridge, and into the last “pouch” of the Eighth Circle. Once on the other side, Virgil puts Dante down and the two step very carefully down into the incredibly steep valley.

What is the setting of the story in "My Unknown Friend" by Stephen Leacock?

The story is set somewhere in the United States in a Pullman coach car.
Leacock himself was a Canadian writer, and his works were popular in the early part of the 20th century.
In the story, two men are conversing in a Pullman coach. Neither of the men recognize each other. However, each pretends otherwise. The text tells us that one of the men is wearing a "long fur-lined coat" and that he's carrying a fifty dollar suitcase.
Now, for a little bit of history. George Pullman built the first luxury coach cars in 1863. They were so popular that he commissioned more luxury cars to be built in 1868. These new cars were literally hotels on wheels. They were luxury accommodations and came complete with kitchens and dining rooms. Pullman coaches were usually reserved for private hire and were tethered to commercial passenger trains. Many of the hotels on wheels were leased by wealthy guests. For more about the history of Pullman luxury coaches, please refer to the links below.
Now, back to the text. Based on the history of Pullman coaches, we can make a few deductions. First, the man with the fur-lined coat and fifty dollar suitcase is presumably a well-to-do coach patron. As for timeline, Leacock likely wrote this story in the early 20th century. According to the CPI (consumer price index) calculator at the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) website, $50 in 1913 translates to about $1,285.74 in July 2018. Note that the time limits for the calculator are January 1913 to July 2018.
So, we can infer that a man who could afford a $50 suitcase in Leacock's time (valued at $1,285.74 today) and a fur-lined coat likely had quite a bit of disposable income.
By all accounts, the setting for the story is a luxury Pullman coach in the early 20th century.
http://www.pullman-museum.org/theCompany/

https://www.curbed.com/2018/2/1/16943216/pullman-private-railroad-car-history

What are some ways that The Reluctant Fundamentalist highlights the ways that a sense of self is determined by a person's social, political and cultural circumstances?

Two characters who demonstrate different senses of self that are strongly influenced by circumstance are Changez and Erica. While the notion of "determination" seems to eliminate free will, Mohsin Hamid does indicate that individuals make their own choices.
Changez decided, for example, to seek additional opportunities in the United States. Although he is from Pakistan, when he in his home country, he does not think as much about national identity as he does about how to maximize the opportunities presented by his class status. In his adopted country, however, his self-perception is influenced by others' views of him. Through the questions they ask, he learned more about their underlying assumptions.
His experiences in the US before and after the 9/11 attacks are night and day. The actions of individuals who others associated him with and the US political and social climate after that day helped change him. When he grew a beard—and his exterior appearance more closely aligned with those expectations—it also affected his interior identity.
Erica, a US-born woman, in contrast, does not think of herself primarily in terms of either race or class. She thinks of her identity as individual (although she is highly conscious of her gender), because she does not understand that white, class-based privilege allows her to ignore race. Her limited self-knowledge, heightened by her belief in a pure love (as experienced with her previous boyfriend), further precludes her lack of understanding concerning the profound effects that the 9/11 attacks have on Changez.

What is the setting of this story?

The famous short story "The Killers," by Ernest Hemingway, tells of two gunmen who intend to murder a man named Ole Andreson when he comes to eat dinner. It takes place during the Prohibition era in the 1920s. This is confirmed when Al and Max, the two killers, ask for "anything to drink," obviously implying alcoholic drinks, but are informed that the diner does not serve those kinds of drinks.
Despite the minimalist prose that is composed mostly of dialog, the two main settings in the story are clearly delineated. The first part of the story is set in "Henry's," a saloon that has been converted into a restaurant near Chicago. Outside, a streetlight comes on because it is getting dark. It has a counter where people sit down to eat their meals, a mirror and a clock on the wall behind the counter, a wicket through which food is passed, and a kitchen in the back.
Later, the setting changes to a rooming-house, where Ole Andreson is staying. Andreson's room is up two flights of steps. It has a bed that is too small for Andreson. The final dialog in the story once again takes place at Henry's.

The kind of writing that can be done. How far prose can be carried if any one is serious enough and has luck. There is a fourth and fifth dimension that can be gotten.
Ernest Hemingway, Green Hills of Africa
"The Killers" depicts a little incident occurring in a small town in Middle America, but it is set against an implicit backdrop depicting America as it was changing during, and because of, Prohibition. Even the setting in the little diner is different because of Prohibition. Henry's had formerly been a saloon, but the owner had been forced to change it to a lunch room. Instead of being crowded with noisy, laughing men drinking beer and straight shots of whiskey, it is virtually deserted. It is an appropriate symbol of a changing nation. The two killers are obviously from Chicago, the bootleg capital of America. Gangsters have become enormously powerful, and even regarded as heroes, because of their profits from bootleg liquor. They have an arrogant attitude which is memorialized in old movies by actors like James Cagney, Humphrey Bogart, George Raft, and Edward G. Robinson. The two killers regard themselves as something like movie stars. One of them keeps looking at himself in the mirror behind the bar. Many Americans resented government interference in their personal lives, and Prohibition sparked a minor revolution. The gangsters used their riches to corrupt the police, the courts, and the legislatures. Evidently Ole Andreson had been corrupted himself, although Hemingway does not specify exactly what he did to "get in wrong." Ole's role in the story seems to be principally to illustrate the extent of the criminals' power. There is no escape. All of America is becoming corrupted. When Nick Adams says that he is getting out of Summit, he may be speaking for Hemingway, who got out of America altogether and spent many years in Europe, where he did much of his best writing. It is well known that Hemingway liked to drink. But he probably did not like the idea of enriching and aggrandizing ignorant troglodytes by doing so. Max and Al are not just a couple of hoods, but symbols of the unanticipated but inevitable results of Prohibition.

What adjectives best describes Mr. White’s character?

In the short story "The Monkey's Paw," Mr. White is fearful. The story begins with Mr. White's fascination with the tales that Morris relates to the family about his travels in India. However, as the story progresses, Mr. White becomes fearful of the monkey's paw.
He is also doubtful of the power it may have. When Mr. White makes his first wish, he believes that the monkey's paw moves. He begins to fear the paw and is uneasy for the remainder of the night. Later, when Mrs. White presses him to make the second wish to restore Herbert's life, Mr. White is terrified that Herbert will return from the dead as he last saw him, mutilated by the accident. Because of his fear, he makes the third wish.
Lastly, Mr. White is obedient to his wife's wishes. Even though he knows it is wrong to wish "his son alive again," at his wife's insistence, he makes the second fateful wish.

Mr. White is careless, regretful, and desperate throughout W.W. Jacobs's short story "The Monkey's Paw." Mr. White can be described as being a relatively careless individual. At the beginning of the story, he puts his king in "sharp and unnecessary perils" while playing chess with his son and eventually loses because of his "fatal mistake." Mr. White also makes the careless decision to wish for two hundred pounds using the magic monkey's paw. Even after Morris's warning and ominous story regarding the monkey's paw, Mr. White saves the paw from the fire and makes a fatal wish. Following the death of his son, Mr. White regrets using the monkey's paw and experiences more feelings of regret after wishing for his son to come back to life. Mr. White realizes that he made another terrible, careless decision and becomes desperate to prevent his zombie son from entering the home at the end of the story.

Why was Warner’s suit malfunctioning in The Martian?

Watney's space suit malfunctions due to problems with the Hab. The Hab simply wasn't designed to be used as much as it is here—it wasn't meant to be used for this many cycles. Over time, Watney's constant venturing in and out of the airlock has placed enormous cyclic stress on the Hab, so much so that it's just a matter of time before the airlock explodes.
When it does, it inevitably damages the EVA suit that Watney's wearing. As well as having to fix the airlock, Watney also has to carry out some running repairs on his space suit; he uses duct tape to fix the airlock and glue to repair his shattered faceplate. When he finally returns to the Hab, Watney's able to get himself another EVA suit and fix the Hab with proper glue and fabric.

What would have happened if the US lost the Revolutionary War?

In the short-term, America would've remained a British colony. In the long-term, however, it's almost certain that America would've broken free eventually. The revolutionary fervor that had inspired the colonists in their fight against the British government would not have diminished over time; if anything, it would only have intensified.
That would have been hard enough for the British to deal with. But once you put their conflict with Revolutionary France into the mix, you have some idea of just how difficult it would've been for Great Britain to maintain control over her American colonies. Dealing with the ever-present threat of Revolutionary France took up virtually the whole of the British government's energy; they seriously believed that the French would invade at any moment and topple the British monarchy just as they'd done with the French.
That being the case, the British would almost certainly not have been able to devote anything like the level of resources necessary to subdue the American colonists by armed force. For this reason more than any other, the Americans almost certainly would've defeated the British eventually.

Who are the main characters in the story "A Party Down at the Square"?

This story by Ralph Ellison is told in the first person by an unnamed narrator, who recounts experiences he had as a northern boy visiting relatives in the south. The other main character is his Uncle Ed, who urges him to go to the “party” and afterward, when he feels sick, mocks him as a “gutless wonder.” Most of the other characters, or “folks,” are members of the crowd that has gathered in the square to torture and kill an African American man. The boy constantly refers to this man, also unnamed, with the N-word. He refers to the white male adults as both “men” and “boys”; he also mentions thirty-five women. One man with a truck is named as Jed Wilson; he later makes cruel jokes and throws gasoline on the fire, and he even takes some of the dead man’s bones as souvenirs. The boy estimates there were forty cars around the square. When the plane comes swooping through off course, the pilot is mentioned. When the plane hits the power lines, a woman is electrocuted and another woman screams. The narrator reveals that law enforcement had been present all along, as he mentions what “the sheriff and his deputies” do to move the crowd away from the lines.
https://classic.esquire.com/article/1997/1/1/a-party-down-at-the-square

Would you say that the idea of “Manifest Destiny” was new in the 1840s, or had it always been a part of US history? Explain.

Manifest Destiny came about in the 1840s, but it was really a new name for an age-old concept, and one which was very common to the nations that were predecessors to America. England, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Italy, and the rest of Europe were all very familiar with conquest.
There was a divine right of kings that England adhered to that eventually grew into colonialism, and Manifest Destiny was very similar. Manifest Destiny essentially claimed that the nation of America had the rights to the entirety of the North American continent, "from sea to shining sea." Once the settlers had ousted England, they began to venture further west and claimed more and more territory. Eventually it got to the point where, upon defeating Mexico in the Mexican-American war, they felt entitled to the entire continent. Essentially, they believed that God had given them the continent and that it was theirs to take and rule.
This is the same concept exercised by the old nations of colonial times and was simply a conqueror's mentality rebranded.

What is Hamlet's tragic flaw?

When discussing the "tragic flaw" first taught by Aristotle, scholars love to fight about what Hamlet's tragic flaw might be. Perhaps the most common possible tragic flaw mentioned and easily proved through the text is the flaw of inaction, or Hamlet's inability to act. Scholars who point to this as Hamlet's flaw deem Hamlet to be the top procrastinator of his time. Scholars who don't agree that inaction is Hamlet's tragic flaw must admit that Hamlet's inability to act is at the very least an important theme of Shakespeare's work. The reader doesn't even get out of Act I before this theme is being presented. The ghost has just demanded revenge by way of Hamlet planning his uncle's murder, and Hamlet delays the action first by "testing" all of the characters by putting "an antic disposition on." Instead of taking action, Hamlet simply pretends to be crazy. Hamlet furthers the theme just a few lines later by saying, "The time is out of joint. O cursed spite, / That ever I was born to set it right." Here, Hamlet admits that he does not want to take revenge at all.

What was the reason why Roger Williams left Massachusetts?

Roger Williams was a religious leader in Massachusetts who was expelled due to his “dangerous” ideas. He was an advocate for religious freedom and wanted to completely separate from the Church of England. The Puritans of Massachusetts wanted to reform the church and believed that if they lived according to scripture and set a good example, then the Church of England would follow. As an assistant to the minister in the Plymouth Colony, Williams’s teachings were tolerated well in the beginning. Over time, Williams wanted more separation from the Church of England and started questioning the validity of the colonial charters. He openly condemned the King, but in court this issue was smoothed over. Two years later, he was ordered to appear in court twice to explain his teachings as an acting pastor that were deemed to be erroneous and dangerous. He was removed from his church position but continued meeting with some followers in his home to spread his ideas. In 1635, he was banished from the colony as a result.

Consider the following statement: "The ideas of a text are heavily shaped by the prevailing values and ideas of the composer's context." How does this relate to David Malouf's book Earth Hour?

Australian writer David Malouf's Earth Hour is a collection of poetry published in 2014.
In regards to how a writer's texts are shaped by their own values and ideas, many writers can be said to craft poems, short stories, and novels about their own life experiences without actually naming themselves as the speaker or character/persona. By using their own experiences, writers can tap into what they are familiar with and share these experiences and revelations with the literary world and its readers.
Many of Malouf's poems speak about the definition of a person's individual place within the collective time and space they occupy. For Malouf, it seems to be of the utmost importance that individuals are able to come to a realization about how they fit into the great scheme of things. Malouf's poetry speaks to how the world humankind lives in is a subjective one. What this means is that each individual must look at how the world around them impacts and influences who each person is.
Malouf's use of first-person pronouns allows the reader to be a part of his poems, experiences, and emotions. Given that Malouf grew up the son of a Lebanese father and English mother, Malouf's personal identity is one he embraced and allowed to help to define him. Many of his poems speak to this ideology: self-identity and what molds that identity.
One example of this appears in his poem "Retrospect." The poem speaks of two young men, "one of them, not me." The poem speaks of how each of the young men moves toward "a town that at this distance never gets / closer.” Each young man must decide for himself what his journey will be. This poem in particular speaks to the individual journey that each person must take in order to find both the destination and the self.
Through reading his poetry, it seems that Malouf's own determination to find himself is mirrored in his poetry. He passes on important information about how to get through life without losing a sense of self.

Consider the individuals in George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" and Doris Lessing's "No Witchcraft for Sale," who are essentially powerless in their respective societies. How do these individuals behave? What do they do to those who have power in their societies? Why do these people act as they do, and what does their behavior demonstrate about imperialism as a political and social ideology? Use examples from the works in your response.

Ok, so for this question you are considering an important character in "No Witchcraft for Sale" and the minor characters in "Shooting an Elephant." Both stories share a similar imperial setting, with British rulers holding authority and power over the native populations. Orwell's story is told from the first-person perspective, with the narrator being one of the imperialists in control over the people. Lessing's story is told in the third-person, and the imperialists include a white family and white medical professionals, the former of which employs Gideon, an African man from the country.
Orwell's story takes place in Burma, in southeast Asia. Orwell tells the story from his own life, and in the story he, as an imperialist, polices the people who live there. Orwell describes his relationship with the native citizens as:

I was sub-divisional police officer of the town, and in an aimless, petty kind of way anti-European feeling was very bitter. No one had the guts to raise a riot, but if a European woman went through the bazaars alone, somebody would probably spit betel juice over her dress. As a police officer, I was an obvious target and was baited whenever it seemed safe to do so. When a nimble Burman tripped me up on the football field, and the referee (another Burman) looked the other way, the crowd yelled with hideous laughter. This happened more than once. In the end, the sneering yellow faces of young men that met me everywhere, the insults hooted after me when I was at a safe distance, got badly on my nerves.

The people of Burma lash out at those in power. Orwell, being a symbol of the British Empire, receives the brunt of their distaste. The local citizens have almost no authority—even the man who owns the elephant that is shot in the story has little recourse for compensation, despite his elephant not being violent when it was killed.
The people react the way they do—with underhanded actions and taunting—because that is how they can gain agency and power in a structure that gives them none. The people who rebel can choose for themselves, even if it is a small rebellion, when they generally have no choice in the matter, as most things are imposed on them.
To understand how little the people mean to their imperialist oppressors, one need only refer to the following quote, which describes how some of the police officers viewed the death of the elephant after it killed a Burmese man:

The older men said I was right, the younger men said it was a damn shame to shoot an elephant for killing a coolie, because an elephant was worth more than any damn Coringhee coolie.

Orwell shows just how little the English regard the Burmese citizens; their lives are worth nearly nothing. That belief bleeds over into their treatment and is illustrated by the legal status of the Burmese citizens. It is interesting to note that Orwell, despite being in charge, is pressured into shooting the elephant so that he doesn't look like a joke to the Burmese citizens who are watching. Orwell, despite his position of power, feels powerless in the face of their approval.
In "No Witchcraft for Sale," the situation of the Rhodesian cook, Gideon, who serves the Farquars (a white family) is a little bit different. Gideon is very close to the family. He loves their son, who he affectionately calls "little yellow head." In the story, Gideon has a loving relationship with the boy—at times treating him like a friend and at others like a son. Despite Teddy's developing racism, Gideon manages to impart in him some guilt about the way he treats the Africans in the story.
The central part of your question addresses how Gideon saves Teddy's vision with a unique herb, but then refuses—in several different, non-confrontational ways—to give the herb to the white doctors. Gideon saves Teddy's sight because he loves Teddy, but he does not want to sell the secrets of his people/family to the white imperialists to be exploited for profit. The story says:

There was silence after this further explanation, and then Gideon remarked indifferently that he could not remember the root. His face was sullen and hostile, even when he looked at the Farquars, whom he usually treated like old friends. They were beginning to feel annoyed, and this feeling annulled the guilt that had been sprung into life by Gideon's accusing manner. They were beginning to feel that he was unreasonable. But it was at that moment that they all realized he would never give in. The magical drug would remain where it was, unknown and useless except for the tiny scattering of Africans who had the knowledge, natives who might be digging a ditch for the municipality in a ragged shirt and a pair of patched shorts, but who were still born to healing, hereditary healers, being the nephews or sons of the old witch doctors whose ugly masks and bits of bone and all the uncouth properties of magic were the outward signs of real power and wisdom.

The white doctor holds a condescending view—similar to many British citizens—of African natives and their culture: he doesn't think any of the cures will work. He sees the natives as worthless, but the reality stands that Gideon does know a lot about medicine, and he does cure Teddy. His asserts his power (or he reclaims it) by keeping his peoples' secrets. He used it to help, but he would not give it to the white colonizers to pervert.

Who supported Benjamin Harrison?

President Benjamin Harrison served one term as the nation's chief executive (1889–93). Who supported him? This question can be answered by looking at his support during three periods: his nomination and election campaign, the results of the 1888 presidential election, and his presidency.
The Republicans sought to defeat the Democratic incumbent, Grover Cleveland, in the presidential election of 1888. As president, Cleveland had earned the enmity of big business. Cleveland had regulated the powerful railroad industry and fought for lower tariffs. Harrison was nominated to run against Cleveland for several reasons. First, he was the grandson of a former president. Second, he came from the pivotal state of Indiana. Third, his conduct as a Civil War general was exemplary. Finally, and most important, the Republicans wanted a candidate who was willing to keep tariffs high. In those days, presidential nominations were carried out by party leaders behind closed doors. (Today, candidates are elected by the public in voter primaries.) Cleveland's campaign benefited from large donations by big business.
The election of 1888 was controversial for several reasons. Harrison won the North and the West. This was typical as Republicans carried the North while Democrats carried the South during this period. Also, there was corruption. The Republicans carried Indian by using paid "floaters" who voted for Harrison. Finally, Harrison lost the popular vote and became president through his majority in the Electoral College.
As president, Harrison enjoyed the support of a Republican-controlled Congress for his first two years in office. In 1890, tariffs were increased to please business interests. Harrison had inherited a budget surplus, but he squandered it through lavish spending on veterans' pensions and big business subsidies. Harrison became increasingly unpopular as the public came to associate his presidency with affluent businessmen. Farmers, in particular, came to resent Harrison. His policies were repudiated in the 1890 elections for Congress. Harrison's party was badly defeated and he was no longer able to implement his programs during the last two years of his presidency.

Why does Pearl not tell Dimmesdale the real identity of Chillingworth?

In The Scarlet Letter, it is Hester who keeps this secret; her daughter, Pearl, learns the information much later. The man who goes by the name of Roger Chillingworth is actually Hester Prynne’s long-lost husband, who was presumed dead. When he returns and sees that she has a child, Pearl, he insists that Hester not reveal his true identity. Hester has already been punished by the town for adultery, as the baby was born long after her husband left; part of her punishment is wearing a red letter “A” on her clothes. The town’s pastor, Reverend Dimmesdale, begs Hester to go public with the father’s identity but she refuses.
Obsessed with finding out the father’s identity, Chillingworth takes up residence with Rev. Dimmesdale and soon realizes that he was Hester’s lover. Dimmesdale’s guilt has eaten at him so much that he has been cutting the letter “A” into his own flesh, as Chillingworth finds out by peeking into his shirt while he sleeps. Hester fears what Chillingworth will do in retaliation if she crosses him and tells who he really is.
Pearl is described as “elf-like,” an extraordinarily sensitive and intuitive but also moody child. As she grows up, one day she meets Dimmesdale and realizes the secret he has been keeping. Hester, in turn, finally tells him who Chillingworth really is. She can no longer bear being around Chillingworth, and begs Dimmesdale to run away with her. He agrees and then changes his mind and as he publicly confesses his long-held secret, reveals the “A” cut into his flesh. His infected wound soon kills him.

What happens in Canto VI of Dante's Inferno?

Canto VI
Having just left Francesca and Paolo, the lovers guilty of elevating their own lust and desire over God, Virgil and Dante descend into the third circle. Their progress however, is guarded by a three-headed dog whom Virgil knows as “Cerebus.” This hell hound keeps the sinners in their torment and torments them himself:

Cerberus, monster cruel and uncouth,
With his three gullets like a dog is barking
Over the people that are there submerged.
Red eyes he has, and unctuous beard and black,
And belly large, and armed with claws his hands;
He rends the spirits, flays, and quarters them.
Howl the rain maketh them like unto dogs;
One side they make a shelter for the other;
Oft turn themselves the wretched reprobates.

Busy with his work, it takes a moment for Cerberus to notice the intruders. When he does, the dog-monster snaps and snarls. To silence the beast, Virgil throws mud into the dog’s mouths. Surprisingly, the dog settles down to chew on his “treat.” Like the gluttons he guards, Cerebus too is obsessed with food.

When Cerberus perceived us, the great worm!
His mouths he opened, and displayed his tusks;
Not a limb had he that was motionless.
And my Conductor, with his spans extended,
Took of the earth, and with his fists well filled,
He threw it into those rapacious gullets.
Such as that dog is, who by barking craves,
And quiet grows soon as his food he gnaws,
For to devour it he but thinks and struggles,
The like became those muzzles filth-begrimed
Of Cerberus the demon, who so thunders
Over the souls that they would fain be deaf.

Once they can get closer, Dante observes sinners who are sunken in mud. These condemned souls are constantly bombarded with filthy water and they are pounded by hail. All of the sinners are laying down. However, as Dante and Virgil pick their way across the muck, they pass one sinner who sits bolt upright. His name is Ciacco and he wants to convey some information to Dante.
Ciacco knows Dante can return to the world of light. He calls out to the poet, but Dante knows him not. Perhaps trying to be polite, Dante says that he may be unable to recall the shade’s name as he is overcome by pity and disgust:

"The anguish which thou hast
Perhaps doth draw thee out of my remembrance,
So that it seems not I have ever seen thee.
But tell me who thou art, that in so doleful
A place art put, and in such punishment,
If some are greater, none is so displeasing."

Ciacco, though in Hell, nonetheless has some important information about the fate of the warring political parties above. He warns that the factions are committing sins for which they will be punished:

"They, after long contention,
Will come to bloodshed; and the rustic party
Will drive the other out with much offence.
Then afterwards behoves it this one fall
Within three suns, and rise again the other
By force of him who now is on the coast.
High will it hold its forehead a long while,
Keeping the other under heavy burdens,
Howe'er it weeps thereat and is indignant.
The just are two, and are not understood there;
Envy and Arrogance and Avarice
Are the three sparks that have all hearts enkindled."

Ciacco appears to be done with speaking but Dante prods the former Florentine to tell him the fate of some particular comrades Dante had known in life. He prods:

"I wish thee still to teach me,
And make a gift to me of further speech.
Farinata and Tegghiaio, once so worthy,
Jacopo Rusticucci, Arrigo, and Mosca,
And others who on good deeds set their thoughts,
Say where they are, and cause that I may know them;
For great desire constraineth me to learn
If Heaven doth sweeten them, or Hell envenom."

Weary, Ciacco replies that their fates are worse than his own, and Dante will discover what punishment was given them as he continues his journey:

"They are among the blacker souls;
A different sin downweighs them to the bottom;
If thou so far descendest, thou canst see them.
But when thou art again in the sweet world,
I pray thee to the mind of others bring me;
No more I tell thee and no more I answer."

Ciacco speaks no more. Dante and Virgil move on.

What is an analysis of the figures of speech in and message of the poem "Watermelons" by Charles Simic?

This is a tiny little poem, only four short lines, but there is a lot packed into it. It's a gnomic poem, almost like an Anglo-Saxon riddle poem which would leave the reader to figure out what is being discussed; but Simic makes it easy for us by signpointing in the title, "Watermelons," what his metaphors refer to. The fact that he does this gives some indication as to how he wants us to feel after reading this poem—he wants us to feel the same sense of peace and contentment that he derives from eating watermelons. This isn't a time for mental wrestling, but rather to remember how it feels to bite into a watermelon and "spit out the teeth" of life.
The first figure of speech in the poem, "green buddhas," also helps Simic convey this message. The image of the Buddha immediately conjures up thoughts of serenity, meditation, and contentment; we may imagine the Buddha as a fat, smiling man who wants to help us transcend this reality and simply enjoy a peaceful moment. We can picture the round, squat watermelons as "green Buddhas" clustered together in this way, waiting for us to reach out to them.
The "smile" of the watermelon, a second metaphor, of course refers to the way a watermelon slice appears to have a row of "teeth," symbolized by the black seeds. Think about it this way: watermelons are an opportunity for us to consume something pleasant and appealing—the "smile" of the watermelon's flesh—while at the same time simply spitting out the "teeth," the part we don't like. We can interpret this as having a broader application—"teeth" are biting, sharp; they are useful, but they are uncomfortable if they come into contact with us. Eating a watermelon, then, allows us simply to fill up with smiles while putting aside the niggling, irritating, and uncomfortable things about the world.
Essentially, Simic is here describing a very simple moment of bliss, achieved through the mundane, and yet beautiful, act of consuming a fruit.

Can someone help with an essay response to "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift?

“A Modest Proposal” is satirical essay by Jonathan Swift, which he originally published anonymously in 1729. Swift, who also wrote Gulliver’s Travels, was himself Irish. The essay responds through satire to popular discourses lamenting the widespread poverty in Ireland, subjects about which Swift had previously written serious pieces.
The straightforward brutality of the proposal (eat babies to eliminate poverty) no doubt accounts for the staying power of this essay.
For a response essay, there are multiple trajectories that might be effective. One would be to take the essay literally and take apart the supposedly factual bases that the author presents to back up their argument. Spurious statistics are deployed in support of the author's multi-faceted propositions, and the figures themselves and the possible benefits of the programs could be attacked.
Another approach would be to compare the subject and/or approach of Swift’s satire to a contemporary social problem in the United States or elsewhere. You could then match that “problem” by exaggerating actual proposals you have read about. One topic could relate to food, such as suggesting alternative food choices to solve hunger problems, as Swift has done—perhaps the squirrels or pigeons that populate cites? Another approach would deal with poverty more generally; you might propose some exaggerated form of workfare that would require people to do extremely undesirable jobs for any type of compensation, and you could address how effective this would be against poverty.

Why did Jack visit the tall house on the side of the hill in The Graveyard Book?

In The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman, the book begins by detailing a “man named Jack” and his entry into a house to kill its inhabitants. When Jack enters the house, he leaves the door slightly open. He kills the woman, the man, and the older child; all that is left for him to do is kill the baby.
Readers get the impression that the man named Jack is a hired killer, as he is described as a “professional” in the text. Jack also has an extraordinary sense of smell and can track people by their smell. When he gets to the baby’s room, he realizes the baby is no longer in his crib.
The book then describes what happened when the baby escaped his crib and made his way down the stairs and out the door that the man named Jack left open. The baby wanders up the hill and into the graveyard. Jack follows his smell up the hill and encounters the “caretaker,” who seems to be a ghost or at least some kind of otherworldly creature. The caretaker makes Jack leave the graveyard and tells him he won’t remember the conversation with him—and he doesn’t. The baby stays in the graveyard and grows up to be the character Bod.
Later in the book, we find out Jack was supposed to kill the family, especially the baby, because of a prophecy stating the baby would put an end to the secret society called the "Jacks of All Trades" of which Jack is a member.
Works Cited:
Gaiman, Neil. The Graveyard Book. Harper Collins, 2008.

What is the connection between Thomas Jefferson’s views on racial identity and the principles of the Enlightenment?

I think that the strongest source for understanding Thomas Jefferson's racial views is "Notes on the State of Virginia." The document is a thorough exploration of Jefferson's home state, including its flora and fauna, its mountains, and its mineral resources. However, the document is also an exhibition of Jefferson's racism.
Jefferson regarded both indigenous peoples and Black people as inferior to whites. The idea of indigenous and Black peoples as "savage" came out of the Enlightenment, and views about Black people were particularly damning. Both the Scottish empiricist David Hume and Immanuel Kant, who is often deemed the most important philosopher of the modern age, had racist views about black people. For example, Kant, in an encounter with an African, registered surprise when the man said something intelligent. He, like some other Enlightenment thinkers, believed that there was a link between dark skin and poor intellect. This view was not shared by all Enlightenment thinkers, but those who did express racist notions helped to legitimize racism and enslavement.
Like Kant, Jefferson had a physical aversion to Black people. In "Notes on the State of Virginia," he writes about Black people having a peculiar and disagreeable smell. He looks down upon the indigenous man, but allows that he can be civilized and converted to Christianity. Black people, in his view, were incorrigible. All of this is rather ironic, given what we now know about Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings, who was at least of one-quarter African descent. However, it's possible that Jefferson distinguished Sally from other Black people, something that might have been easier for him given her lighter complexion.
The view held by Jefferson and some Enlightenment thinkers that Black people were of inferior intelligence and ability made it easy to exclude them from the notion that liberty and equality were natural human rights. Thus, Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal" without a hint of irony, for, by this time, Black people were only regarded as three-fifths of a person and naturally subordinate to whites.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp

https://www.monticello.org/slavery-at-monticello/liberty-slavery/jefferson-and-enlightenment

What are the three reasons why and how fire was used in Lord of the Flies by William Golding?

The first reason the boys build a fire is to serve as a signal for passing ships to see that there are boys on the uninhabited island that need to be rescued. The boys decide to build the signal fire on the top of the mountain and Ralph puts Jack and his hunters in charge of maintaining the signal fire throughout the day and night. However, Jack excuses Samneric from their duties watching the signal fire and the boys miss out on an opportunity to be rescued when a ship passes the island.
The second reason the boys use fire is to cook the pig meat. After Jack and his hunters kill their first pig, they build a fire to roast the pig meat. When Jack establishes his own tribe of savages on the opposite end of the island, Ralph and Piggy start their own fire to keep them warm and calm the littluns during the night. Jack also uses fire in an attempt to smoke Ralph out of the forest toward the end of the novel. When Jack and his band of savages hunt Ralph, they set the forest on fire, which forces Ralph to run onto the beach to escape the burning forest.

During WWII, Why did the United States withdraw from world affairs?

If I understand your question, you're alluding to the fact that the US did not enter the war until December 1941, two years and three months after the war in Europe began. The reasons for this are simple, and can be summarized as follows:
Part of the rationale for the independence of the US has always been to create a haven for those who wished to escape the perpetual wars, violence, and conflicts of the Old World. Washington's warning to "avoid foreign entanglements" encapsulates this idea. It was never possible for Americans to remain totally aloof from the rest of the world, but the goal of doing so has always been, and continues to be, an ideal for many Americans. However, as the US became a major power in its own right, it was inevitable that it would be drawn into international conflicts. The entry into World War I by the U.S. in 1917 was delayed until nearly three years had gone by of the four years and three months the war was to last. After the massive and unprecedented carnage of World War I, there was strong pacifist sentiment among all the victorious powers: Britain, France, and the US. The British and French did not really want to stand up to Hitler, but finally did so in 1939 when the Germans invaded Poland. Given that the European governments wished to avoid war as long as they could, even when the aggressive actions of the Nazis were taking place in their own backyard, to put it colloquially, it's hardly surprising the US wanted to stay out of the conflict.
Apart from the American wish to avoid involvement in any war, there was an element of xenophobia in the US, especially within the "America First" movement. It was unfortunate, and it's embarrassing to have to acknowledge this today, that in both Britain and America there were many who had a sneaking sympathy for Hitler. As influential a person as the famous aviator Charles Lindbergh was openly anti-semitic and asserted that the US should not get mixed up in a war which, he claimed, was being fought "for the Jews." Given all these circumstances, and in spite of FDR's wishing to side with Britain in the conflict, there was insufficient support in Congress for participation in the war until US territory was attacked by the Japanese in December, 1941. Had this not occurred, it's anybody's guess when or even if the US would have relinquished its isolationist stance.

Who knocked over the “colored women bathroom” sign and why?

Al Harrison, the director of the Space Task Group, knocked over the Colored Ladies Bathroom sign. He did it to end bathroom segregation at NASA.
Harrison asks Katherine why she's so often away from the group. After Katherine points out that she has to walk half a mile to the bathroom, he's forced to stop and think about the fact that every time she goes to the bathroom, it takes her an hour to walk to the colored toilets and back. Harrison has to reconsider his attitude toward her and the other people of color working at NASA.
Ultimately, he decides that the sign designating the colored restroom needs to be taken down. He walks the half mile to the bathroom, takes a crowbar and knocks it down himself, declaring that from now on, there will be only bathrooms. The toilets at NASA will no longer be segregated.
This scene was not included in the book; it was only in the film. In the book, the author explains that she used the white bathrooms and just never went into the colored bathrooms.

In what ways is Blanche DuBois a classic southern belle?

Blanche, like most upper-class Southern belles, is like a hothouse flower. She needs protection. She never learned about the real world because she had the protected childhood of an elite Southern girl. That protection was destroyed by the Civil War. Stella likes a real he-man who gives her real sexual pleasure and satisfaction, while Blanche lives in a world of illusion and likes young boys who are only good-looking and potentially romantic. She was married to that type of boy, she said, and he died young. Notice how she talks to that young boy who comes to collect for the newspaper in Scene Five: “Young man! Young, young, young man! Has anyone ever told you that you look like a young Prince out of the Arabian Nights? Well, you do, honey lamb! Come here. I want to kiss you, just once, softly and sweetly on your mouth! Now run along, now, quickly! It would be nice to keep you, but I’ve got to be good—and keep my hands off children.”

What connection is the poet trying to establish between nature and himself in "Lines Written in Early Spring"?

The speaker sees himself as an intrinsic part of nature, no less than the birds and the periwinkles and the "budding twigs" that give him such enormous pleasure. By identifying himself so closely with the natural world he's consciously setting himself apart from humanity, with which he's become so thoroughly disillusioned.
Everything the speaker sees around him is part of what he calls "Nature's holy plan." This shows us that he doesn't regard the natural world as just something pretty to look at but also as a powerful, almost quasi-divine force with its own internal dynamic. That being so, it causes the speaker sadness to see how man has made such an almighty mess of his relations with his fellow men.
Nature is characterized by the close bonds between every living thing, and the speaker for one feels those bonds more keenly than anyone. But man has chosen not to follow the example of nature, and instead, his relations with his fellow men are so often marked by mutual antagonism.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51001/lines-written-in-early-spring

In Roosevelt's Four Freedoms Speech (1941): If he had survived, do you think Roosevelt would have characterized the Cold War and Soviet Union the same way he did World War II and the threat of the Nazis? Why or why not?

This is a very interesting question! Roosevelt's vision of a new world order was based on four essential freedoms: freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion; freedom from want; and freedom from fear. The first two were already enshrined in the US Constitution, and all four elements are contained within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). The threat of communism was in direct conflict with each of Roosevelt's four freedoms, particularly freedom of speech and expression. The most immediate freedom that was in jeopardy before the Cold War (which most historians recognize as having begun in 1946) was freedom from fear; according to Roosevelt:

Freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.

While American experts had predicted the Soviet Union would not have nuclear weapons until the 1950s, there was still grave concern over Russia amassing nuclear weaponry in Roosevelt's time, as evidenced by his speech. Months after Roosevelt died, the end of the Second World War left America and the Soviet Union the two dominant world powers. If communist influence spread, no coalition of nations would be able to defeat it. In 1950, months after the first Soviet bomb was detonated in 1949, National Security Council 68 concluded that the Soviets would manufacture more weapons, including nuclear, and that the best course of action was to respond with a similar amassing of weaponry. President Franklin Roosevelt was the only President to serve more than two terms (he served four). If Roosevelt had lived, and the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution had not been passed in 1947, let us assume that Roosevelt would have supported the conclusions of NSC-68 as Truman had.
One passage in Roosevelt's speech is directly relevant to the Nazi regime:

A revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions—without the concentration camp or the quick-lime in the ditch.

Note that the US was not fully aware of the horrific circumstances of the Holocaust until American soldiers began to liberate the camps (after Roosevelt's death). The US did not get involved in the Second World War because of the Holocaust, and liberating the Jews was not a priority (as opposed to defeating the Nazis and retaliating against Japan after Pearl Harbor). As such, I do not think Roosevelt was thinking of mass murder in his speech; until the time leading up to the end of the war and the subsequent Nuremberg Trials in 1945 and 1946, this scale of mass murder was viewed as inconceivable. Moreover, I would assume that Roosevelt would have included this in his speech had he been aware of the true circumstances.
So, given Roosevelt outlasted the Nuremberg trials and went on to win a fifth term, I would say that he would have recognized the potential for the Soviet Union, given its influence's spread, to proceed as the Nazi regime had, given crucial similarities. According to A. James Gregor, Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley:

Stalin had created a regime that had abandoned every principle that had presumably typified left-wing aspirations and had given himself over to notions of “socialism in one country”—with all the attendant attributes: nationalism, the leadership principle, anti-liberalism, anti-individualism, communitarianism, hierarchical rule, missionary zeal, the employment of violence to assure national purpose, and anti-Semitism—making the Soviet Union unmistakenly “a cousin to the German National Socialism.”

To focus on anti-Semitism: after the foundation of Israel in May 1948, despite his personal dislike of Jews, Stalin had been an early supporter of a Jewish state in Palestine. However, Stalin became increasingly afraid of pro-Israeli feeling among Soviet Jews, which he believed subverted the Soviet regime's influence. Whether these circumstances would have gone on to trigger a second genocide akin to the Holocaust will never be known, but the potential was there.

How does Shakespeare contrast Venice and Belmont in The Merchant of Venice?

Venice is Shylock's world. Venice is the ceaselessly active center of cut-throat commerce, ruthless business dealings, and hard-won wealth (which apparently buys happiness for no one in Venice). It is a place of religious intolerance and a place where harsh realities intrude incessantly on daily life. No one in the play has a good word to say about Venice.
In her second line in the play, Jessica, Shylock's daughter, might as well be talking about Venice as about her own home situation with Shylock:

JESSICA: Our house is hell. [2.3.2]

Belmont is Portia's world. Belmont carries its wealth with ease. Belmont is peaceful, even idyllic.

LORENZO: The moon shines bright:—in such a night as this,When the sweet wind did gently kiss the trees, . . . [5.1.1-2]

There's music in Belmont—

LORENZO: And bring your music forth into the air.How sweet the moonlight sleeps upon this bank!Here will we sit, and let the sounds of musicCreep in our ears; soft stillness, and the night,Become the touches of sweet harmony. [5.1.61-65]

—as well as singing. [3.2.65-75]
All is well in Belmont. Lorenzo and Jessica elope to Belmont to escape from Shylock's world. [2.4]
Finally, Belmont is where the play ends happily ever after for everybody but Shylock, who nevertheless has his life spared by the Duke, for which he should at least be thankful.

Explain how the conduction pathway in the heart coordinates the different stages of the cardiac cycle.

The conduction pathway, or system, of the heart begins with a process called, "normal excitation." The process of normal excitation begins in the sinoatrial node (SA), which is located in the upper portion of the atrium's right side. During this stage, the nodal cells of the SA create automatic depolarizations, which are responsible for generating a cardiac rhythm.
The depolarization process then spreads through the atria. Afterwards, the atrial depolarization disseminates to the atrioventricular node (AV). Then it passes through the bundle of what is called "His." At this stage, there is a longer interval between atrial and His bundle activation. Then excitation process--or the wave of cardiac depolarization--continues to the Purkinje fibers. These fibers are what composes the right and left bundle branches of the heart's lower portion. Finally, the ventricular muscle is activated
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/nursing/practice/resources/cardiology/function/conduction.php

How are arranged marriages portrayed in Romeo and Juliet?

This is an interesting question, and I've wondered if a Shakespearean audience might respond differently than a modern day audience to the possible message about arranged marriages in this play. From very early on in the play, readers are alerted to the fact that Lord Capulet is likely to arrange Juliet's marriage. Paris asks for Capulet's permission to marry Juliet, and Lord Capulet doesn't say "no." He asks Paris to wait and make an attempt to woo Juliet as well. Capulet might control her marriage, but he also wants Juliet to be happy. He wants her to be taken care of, but he wants a partner for her and not just a bread winner. As a parent, I can't fault Capulet's desire to control his daughter's future spouse, and I respect what he is looking for. Young teens might find it controlling, but that was normal back then.
I like playing the devil's advocate with my classes regarding this topic/question, but I'm also not defending something that the play doesn't seem to support. I think the play sends a very strong message about the importance of and appropriateness of arranged marriages. Paris is a well established, respected, cordial, and handsome man. He would be an excellent future husband for Juliet. She would likely learn to love him. That might sound coldhearted, but rushing to marry Romeo because of a belief in love at first sight ends in tragedy.
There is nothing beautiful about their deaths; it's a waste of human life. Had Juliet married Paris, she would likely have lived a long enough life to raise her own children with a husband that appears to be entirely devoted to her well being. I truly believe that Romeo would have "gotten over it" and fallen for some other girl the very next week. Look how quickly he gets over Rosaline. Capulet is making a marital decision based on logic. Juliet is making a marital decision based on emotion. When it comes to long term decisions, logic usually performs better.

Arranged marriages were standard in both Shakespeare's era and the Italian setting of the play. There are a few different ways to look at arranged marriages within the context of the play. A twenty-first-century reader might say that the main cause of the tragedy is Juliet's arranged marriage to Paris, which would have separated her from Romeo and which sets in motion the double suicide.
Another perspective, though, is that if Juliet had simply agreed to marry Paris and not had an illicit relationship with Romeo, and Romeo had not tried to seduce a girl from the wrong family, there would have been a good possibility of Juliet having a long life and a relatively happy marriage with Paris, who is not really portrayed as a bad guy. He appears in certain ways to be more responsible and less fickle than Romeo.
Thus, one can read the play as showing that arranged marriages are opposed to true love. Alternately, one could read it as showing that impulsive romantic attachments end badly and that, while arranged marriages might not be very romantic, they might actually be a reasonable practice.

An important theme is Romeo and Juliet is that of arranged marriages versus marriages motivated by love. In Juliet's time, it would have been quite natural for her to marry Paris. He looks like a perfect "catch." He is handsome, rich, and socially prominent. In Act I, Scene 3 when her mother tells her Paris is in love with her, Juliet replies:
I'll look to like, if looking liking move;
But she deviates from the norm by choosing Romeo because Romeo is the man she loves. Would she have been better off if she had married the man her parents chose for her? Would arranged marriages be better, worse, or just about the same for young people today?
Nowadays in America, young people want nothing to do with marriages arranged by their parents. They want to find the right person and "fall in love." The media encourage them to believe in "love." It seems as if every popular song is about love. There are so many millions of young women and so many millions of young men all looking for Mr. Right or Miss Right that it seems like an impossible task.

What three things are missing from the society in Fahrenheit 451?

When Montag wonders why books are so important, Faber offers his opinion of three things that reading does for people. In terms of books, both the physical objects and the content are missing. Faber does not believe that the other media that are widely available provide the same opportunities as reading does. He tells Montag that books provide the quality and texture of a vast range of information. People not only need this variety but also require the time to digest it; true leisure, Faber says, allows the brain to process information and make new connections.
The third missing aspect is acting based on one’s own knowledge and convictions. Because people are receiving so much pre-processed information, they have lost the ability to work through the implications on their own. Reading books thus encourages critical thinking and ethical behavior.

Obviously, the society in Fahrenheit 451 is missing books, but it's more than that. In a time when they have been inundated with passive and digestible media and their lives have been filled with activity as their minds are numbed by drugs, the world is lacking insight and introspection. This is a direct result of three main things that Faber says the world needs to recover.
First, it needs quality of information. Every type of media the people enjoy is senseless and not thought provoking, like the family room full of media screens that immerses Montag's wife in the petty squabbles of an imaginary community.
Second, it needs leisure to digest the information. The people's days are filled with dull and senseless activity, and therefore they can't spend time learning.
Finally, the society needs the right to act on what they learn by engaging in the first two activities. They are so heavily restricted and their lives guided that they have no freedom to pursue arts or improve themselves and their community with altruistic actions.

Describe the climate of the New England colonies.

The New England colonies had rocky soil (the result of glacial deposits) that was difficult to farm. As a result, the farms in these colonies tended to be small. The winters were quite cold, and the colonies were not as fertile as those in the Middle Colonies and in the South. The New England colonies received a great deal of snow during the winters. They raised crops such as squash, pumpkins, corn, and beans. They also turned to the oceans for food, and they developed a shipbuilding and fishing and whaling industry. New England fishermen developed ties with other parts of the globe, including the Caribbean, through trade. In addition, the forests of New England were thick with trees, and the New England colonies developed a robust timber industry.

What are the themes and ideas, as well as a line-by-line explanation, of "Song to Amarantha, that she would Dishevel her Hair" by Richard Lovelace?

This poem is a passionate expression of sexual love. The speaker admires the beauty of Amarantha (specifically her hair) after they have had sex.
In the first stanza of the poem, the speaker addresses a woman, named Amarantha, and tells her not to braid her hair, to let it "fly" loose. In the third line of the stanza, he compares her loose hair to his "curious hand," the implication being that his hands are free to explore her hair, or maybe even her body.
In the second stanza, the speaker says that Amarantha should let her hair be as "unconfined" as the wind. In the last two lines of the stanza he says that the wind has left its darling, "th' East" (perhaps meaning the sun) to come and play with Amarantha's hair, which he describes positively as "that spicy nest."
In the third stanza, the speaker compares Amarantha's hair to "golden thread," suggesting that it emits a golden light because it is so radiant. Otherwise, he simply repeats his instruction for her to let her hair hang loose, or be "neatly tangled at best."
In the fourth stanza, the speaker says that Amarantha should not tie up her hair ("that light") and that to do so would be like ruining a clear night sky with clouds. He tells her not to "o'er-cloud" the night. In the last two lines of the stanza, he suggests that she has sunshine in her hair, and that when she shakes her head, the sunlight "scatter[s]" outwards.
In the fifth stanza, the speaker says, playfully, "See 'tis broke!" He means that Amarantha has shaken her head and that is why day has now arrived. The implication is that the speaker and Amarantha have spent the night in "this grove," under the trees ("The bower"), and now the sun has risen. The speaker and Amarantha are "Weary" and "panting," implying that they have been having sex.
In the sixth and penultimate stanza, the speaker suggests that they should "cool our fire," meaning their sexual passions, in a bath of milk or cream. The milk and cream are probably euphemisms for the bodily fluids released during sexual intercourse. The speaker says that they should bathe in "cream below" and "milk-baths" until "all wells are drawn dry." This is another sexual euphemism. The speaker is suggesting that they keep having sex until they can't have sex anymore, or, in his words, until "all wells are drawn dry." In the last line he says that when this happens, he will "drink a tear" from her eye. This implies that the speaker is desperate for every last drop of passion from his Amarantha.
In the first two lines of the final stanza, the speaker reflects that the "joys" he experiences with Amarantha momentarily distract him, and her, from any "sorrows" that they might otherwise feel. They can "deceive" their sorrows, or forget about them momentarily, by being with one another. In the final two lines of the final stanza, the speaker reflects that they might also "weep" that they can "so little keep" these moments together, meaning that it's sad that their moments together are so brief and can't last forever.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44656/song-to-amarantha-that-she-would-dishevel-her-hair

How are women depicted in this text, and what is the difference between how Said thinks about women and how Mahfouz presents female characters in the novel?

The reader can distinguish between the author’s views of women and the character Said’s views. Naguib Mahfouz creates a portrait of one individual on the fringes of Cairo society at a particular time. Said, whose political views as a socialist are rather idealistic, has nonetheless been involved in crime (specifically robbery). After being apprehended, tried, and convicted, he was incarcerated for four years. The embittered man, whom the reader meets upon his release, is concerned primarily for himself and does not really consider his child’s welfare. He wants to take her from her mother.
The two female characters with whom he interacts are his wife and a prostitute. Because his wife had an extramarital affair, he thinks of her only in terms of betrayal and wants revenge on her lover as well. The prostitute, whose existence is in some ways even more marginal than that of Said, shows him compassion. Regardless, after Said kills a man (not his wife’s lover), the police, in turn, kill him.
In choosing an anti-hero as his protagonist, Mahfouz is making a statement about class and inequality in Egypt. While his depictions of women tend to be stereotypes rather than fully rounded characters, it should not be assumed that he believes that women are either cheating wives or prostitutes. Rather, he is showing types of women with whom, in his view, a man like Said would have associated. He also makes sure to give the lowest-status woman some positive attributes, emphasizing the idea of social inequality through the limited employment options available to a poor woman.

In Beggar My Neighbor, which term is used in Michael's school for an African child?

The setting of Beggar My Neighbor is racist, apartheid-era South Africa. White supremacy rules in the government and in society at large, including the school system. As such, in the novel, African children are referred to in Michael's school as "piccanins." This word can be found spelled different ways across countries and is derived from the Portuguese word pequeno, meaning small. The word "picannin," and the various ways it is spoken, is an absolutely racist term when used by white people, though it is used in some African cultures where Pidgin and Creole dialects of English are spoken. The term has been used in the United States, especially in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, as a racist, derogatory term for black children and, eventually, for any black person. It is akin to calling someone the n-word and should never be used by non-black people.

How does the narrator of A Long Way Home use Google Earth to find his original home?

On page 148, the narrator says he didn't have any maps big enough to show the village where he was born. He thought about going to West Bengal and searching "on the ground" until it occurred to him that he could find the village from the comfort of his own home using Google Earth.
Deciding that "'Berampa' was the most solid reference I had," he started to search for places that sounded similar in the West Bengal area. He knew if he saw it, he would recognize it, and from there, he knew his village was just along the train tracks.
Initially, however, it proved too great a task. It is not until he realized that he could calculate how far he had traveled on the train that he began to make progress. Working out that he traveled about 620 miles, he narrowed his search to a territory covering 962,300 square kilometres. From there, he went to the station he arrived before leaving for Australia, Howrah Station, and started working his way down the train line, hoping he would recognize one of the landmarks. On March 31, 2011, he finally found what he was looking for: a small town with an overpass and water tower nearby.

How does Keats compare perfection with imperfection?

One of Keats' themes is the contrast between people and situations frozen in perfect representations and living people and evolving situations that are imperfect. On the urn, the bride and groom are represented as forever lovely and forever in love in stanza 2: "For ever wilt thou love, and she be fair!" In stanza 3, the trees of the woods and the musicians have "[m]ore happy love" because they will never "bid Spring" farewell nor ever grow weary of piping their song: "melodist, unwearied, / For ever piping songs for ever new." The procession, most likely the wedding procession leading both guests from the town and the young female cow to be sacrificed to the Hymen, is captured forever marching the garland draped cow to a "green alter."


The contrasts in stanza 2 to real living people and evolving situations is that in real life, pipers will write new songs, grooms will kiss their brides, brides will be "ravish'd" on the hoped for wedding night even though both will grow old and love may fade. In stanza 3, "Spring" will turn to fall while human passions are enjoyed even though they yield "A burning forehead, and a parching tongue." The town, the "the peaceful citadel," from which the procession departs will not know the return of its inhabitants and be forever "desolate." It is these contrasts that lead Keats to accuse the urn of "[teasing] us out of thought / As doth eternity."

How is the Theme of Fidelity Explored Throughout the Novel?

Fidelity is both a motif and a theme in Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina. The novel opens with a drama surrounding Oblonsky’s infidelities and features an affair as one of its chief story-lines as Anna Karenina and Count Vronsky fall in love and pursue a relationship outside of marriage. Fidelity (and infidelity) in the context of marriage is only one way the novel takes up this notional concept, however.
A great majority of Levin’s conflicts can be framed as a struggle to attain an internal fidelity. Being true to himself, as it were, is Levin’s central fixation. Exerting great efforts and suffering significant anxiety, Levin grapples with questions of how best to live in ways that are directly related to a fidelity of spirit, as it were, and a pursuit of self-knowledge. Thus fidelity is a thread that ties the novel together in terms of concerns with marriage and with individual integrity.

Illustrate what the major characteristics of the protagonist are.

The speaker of the poem is a magus or wise-man, one of the three who brought gifts to the baby Jesus in Bethlehem. As he looks back in time to that momentous, epoch-making journey, he comes across as having been nervous and agitated at the time, worn-down and irritated by the long, hard trek that he and his companions had to endure. Even when the magi finally arrived at their destination, the speaker recalls it as being nothing more than “satisfactory.” Upon reflection, the magus still seems a tad unsure as to the full significance of what he witnessed all those years ago:

were we led all that way for Birth or Death?

But one thing's for certain: the speaker's whole life has been completely transformed by his encounter with the Christ-child. His whole understanding of birth and death has also undergone profound change in the intervening years. Having witnessed the birth of a new historical era and all that it signifies, the speaker appears to be profoundly dissatisfied with life in his native kingdom, with its worship of pagan gods. He gladly wishes to die to his old life, and experience a new birth in Christ.
https://poetryarchive.org/poem/journey-magi/

What is the setting of Every Day by David Levithan?

Every Day has a variety of settings because the main character spends his life waking up in a different body each morning.
At the beginning of the novel, it is Day 5994. This means that the narrator has woken up in 5994 different bodies in different homes in different areas. The first thing he has to do is figure out who he is, where he is, and how to get through the day. He's in the body of a guy named Justin. They're in Maryland and about an hour from the ocean. It's September.
The day before—Day 5994—the narrator thinks he was in a town about two hours away from the one he wakes up in as Justin.
The narrator explains that he doesn't usually go very far between days. This means that most of the novel takes place on the East Coast of the United States of America. The narrator spends most days that he isn't near Rhiannon trying to find a way to get to her and spend time with her.
At the end of the book, when the narrator decides he has to move on, he wakes up in the body of a girl named Katie. He decides to get as far away from where he is as he can so that he can stop trying to reconnect with Rhiannon. He knows if he stays, he'll be tempted to take over a body for good—which he considers murder.

What is the main topic from page 70-71 of The Shakespeare Stealer?

In these pages, Widge joins the company.
In Chapter 10, Widge has decided on a plan to steal a table-book, but in the course of doing so, he manages to lose it. When he decides to go back into the theater to look for it, he gets hit in the head by an opening door. Apprehended by an actor, he is taken before Mr. Heminges. Another actor recognizes him as the boy who just disrupted their performance.
Widge tells him he just wanted to see the play but didn’t have a penny for the admission. When he denies having a master, although he had previously said he worked for Dr. Bright, Heminges assumes he has come to London on his own and asks him why he came. At this point, Widge realizes he needs a good, convincing lie.

“Hesitantly,” I said, “I want to be a player.”

When Heminges questions his intent, he swears by his own bones that is what he wants. After some laughter and some discussion with another man he had seen playing the first gravedigger a few days before, Widge is admitted to the Lord Chamberlain’s company.

In a philosophy essay of 3 paragraphs, describe your perfect society.

For your essay you can draw on a lot of different ideas from the history of philosophy. This topic is explicitly focused on the concept of a utopia. The interesting thing about utopias is that despite discussing them throughout history, the word was coined to show the fact that there will never be a perfect society run by humans—utopia literally means no-place from Greek, and the term was coined by Sir Thomas More in the early 1500s.
The reason a utopia is impossible is that all desires would have to be satisfied. Therefore I think you should focus on making the perfect society in the sense that it is the best for every person in it—perhaps even talking about who is allowed in and if there is even a very large group of people living together.
You should focus on four main points when talking about how you would structure your society: politics, economics, social connections, and religion. Generally, if your society was going to be perfect, you should have systems in place that are going to help everyone. For instance, politically some people think direct democracy is the best political system, while others would argue for monarchy or even anarchy—you need to decide what works best in your opinion based on pros/cons. I think there is a lot to be said of a government run by a positive and moral artificial intelligence.
Economically, you have a few systems to choose from, but whether you argue for communism, socialism, capitalism, mixed-market, or something in-between—you need to be sure that what your saying makes sense and can be argued persuasively. For example, Marx presents communism as a perfected system where people are equal and there is no ruling class. That is not how reality works out for the system, but because it's your perfect society, you could come up with a way in which communism or any other theoretical system would work correctly.
For social and religious systems, you should look at the pros and cons of how societies work. Do you want to have a mixed culture, or do you think there needs to be a single monoculture? Will there be racial or ethnic strife? How can you work to correct the social and religious issues that exist in our societies today? Maybe, going full speculation, humans cannot be human if they are to have a perfect community, but instead need to be controlled like in The Giver or 1984. We generally see those societies as dystopias, but there is an argument that could be made for the society where people don’t suffer as being “perfect.”

What role does imagination play?

W.W. Jacobs's 1902 horror story leaves the most gruesome and gory elements of the story to readers' imaginations. The villa, the weather, the domestic scene, the White family, and the visiting sergeant-major are all described with enough detail and imagery that readers don't need to use much imagination to visualize them. Readers have a very clear idea of the situation into which the sergeant-major introduces the troublesome monkey's paw.
When Mrs. White wishes, using the talisman, for the return of her deceased son, readers begin to wonder what kind of condition Herbert White would be in after being first fatally injured in machinery at his job, and then resting in his grave for ten days. The persistent knocking on the White's door and Mrs. White's inability to get the door open builds the suspense and leads readers to imagine what the horrible sight of Herbert might look like on the other side of the door.

Sergeant-Major Morris is making a big mistake in introducing the Whites to the monkey's paw. He knows all about its history, its background; he knows about the magic spell placed upon it by the old Indian fakir. And yet he still gives the Whites the opportunity to mess around with the forces of darkness. He seems not to realize the dangers of a vivid, overactive imagination. It should be clear to him that the Whites don't take the monkey's paw seriously at all; to them, it's all just a game. So once Mr. White has foolishly retrieved the monkey's paw from the fire he and his family allow their imaginations to run wild, imagining all the wonderful things that the three wishes could bring them.
Unfortunately, things don't quite work out the way they intended. And towards the chilling end of the story, the Whites call upon their vivid imagination once more, only this time it's to envisage what hideous sight awaits them should they open the door to their son's risen corpse.

In Shakespeare's play, Macbeth says:
Present fears are less than horrible imaginings.
This is an important truth. We will often find in our lives that things we dread turn out to be less terrible if and when we face them. This even includes final exams. The imagination can make the unknown seem worse than almost anything that is real.
The author of "The Monkey's Paw," W. W. Jacobs, displays brilliance in the way he evokes terror in the reader's mind without showing anything at all. The reader knows that Herbert was horribly mangled in the machinery at the textile plant. His father had to identify the body. When his wife is insisting on his wishing for Herbert to return to them:
The old man turned and regarded her, and his voice shook. "He has been dead ten days, and besides he—I would not tell you else, but—I could only recognize him by his clothing. If he was too terrible for you to see then, how now?"
So the reader must imagine a man who was so mangled that his father could only identify him by his clothing. And further, the reader must imagine the effects on the body of decaying for ten days in a grave. This is a case where the reader's horrible imaginings are worse than the sight of Herbert himself. Yet the author describes nothing but a closed and bolted door with someone knocking on the outside.
The scene is beautifully handled. Mr. White comes downstairs looking for a candle.
At the foot of the stairs the match went out, and he paused to strike another; and at the same moment a knock, so quiet and stealthy as to be scarcely audible, sounded on the front door.
Why would there be such a stealthy knocking? It makes the incident seem worse than if there had been a booming noise. The fact that the knocking is "stealthy" and "scarcely audible," for whatever reason, makes the reader imagine that Herbert is there and that he knows he looks so horrible that he hardly dares seek admission to his old home. This stealthy knocking is intended to make the reader feel sure it must be Herbert outside. And as the knocking becomes more and more insistent, the reader, along with the parents, is certain it must be Herbert. Why? Because Herbert is dead but caught between two worlds, the world of the living and the world of the dead. He must get in somewhere. And his parents owe that to him. If the house was paid for by his accident, then the house is really his. Furthermore, if he has come in response to the wish made with the monkey's paw, all the supernatural powers of the cosmos are compelling him to obey that wish.
https://www.owleyes.org/text/monkeys-paw/read/iii

Is capitalism somewhat designed to make successful business people into "robber barons?" Does capitalism, by it's nature, breed a heightened sense of personal interest?

When looking at a pure form of laissez-faire capitalism, economic and business decisions are not to be influenced by the government. Property and means of production are all controlled privately as well. Capitalism is based around the idea of supply and demand, which helps to determine what will be produced, how much is produced, and what the cost will be. A greater demand and a lower supply means prices will go higher, while a lower demand and greater supply will mean prices will go lower. Capitalism also relies on desires of profit or gain to function, as profit determines a business owner's income.
As income is related to profit for business owners, that creates a system of competition between business owners. Let's say, for example, that a car dealership is the only car dealership in a very isolated town. They control the supply (cars available for purchase) in this market. It would be hard for the people in town to go to any other dealership. Therefore, the dealership does not have to worry about competing with other dealerships' offers and holding special sales to entice customers. Basically, if you want a car in this town, you need to get it from this dealership, otherwise you have to find some other form of transportation. Now while they can't charge whatever price they want, because people simply won't be able to afford a car, they can charge a relatively high price because there are not other easily available options.
Now imagine that a new dealership opens up. Suddenly there is no longer control of the market. While the town's population remains the same, and thus demand for cars remains relatively the same, there is a big increase in supply. This means that the original dealership stands to lose money. They now have to make sure their prices are competitive with the new dealership, which likely means lowering them and thus eating away at some profits. Also, they may lose some customers to the new competition, which further eats at their profit. The end result is that the owner of the dealership is likely not making as much money as they previously would have.
When examining this situation, we can see that capitalism, which is fueled by profit, can lead to a situation where there is greater personal interest. The owner of the original dealership would likely be happy to see the new dealership fail, even though it is beneficial for car buyers because the price is lower. I think it is important to consider this is a very basic example, but I do think that it highlights how the capitalist system does breed a heightened sense of personal interest.
https://www.thebalance.com/capitalism-characteristics-examples-pros-cons-3305588

What proof do the Tucks give that they won't die in Tuck Everlasting?

The Tuck family tells their story to Winnie: 87 years ago, they drank from a spring while passing through a wood and marked that place with a "T" in the tree's bark. Angus, Mae, Miles, Jesse, and even their horse drank the water, but not their cat. After that, a number of odd things happened. Jesse fell on his head but was fine. The horse was shot by hunters yet was unharmed. As people grew old around them, they realized they were not aging. Eventually, the cat died. Tuck provided proof by shooting himself, which showed that the bullet went through him without harming him. The piece of proof that linked their immortality to the spring was the fact that the tree had not changed while the rest of the woods had. The "T" looked freshly carved.
Winnie is reluctant to believe this story, but the Tucks seem like genuine, friendly people. Tuck takes her out in the rowboat to try to demonstrate the wheel of life. The next morning, Miles tries to convince Winnie to keep their secret by making her imagine what the world would be like if mosquitoes never died.
Another piece of proof doesn't come from the Tucks, but the man in the yellow suit. He tells the Tucks that a friend of his grandmother talked of marrying into a family that never aged.

Winnie found that she could scarcely breathe. It was true, then! Or was the man who stood there crazy, too?

After the commotion with the man in the yellow hat, Winnie realizes the terrible truth.

Whatever happened to the man in the yellow suit, Mae Tuck must not be hanged. Because if all they had said was true, then Mae, even if she were the crudest of murderers and deserved to be put to death—Mae Tuck would not be able to die.

When Warren Harding called for a return to normalcy, what did he mean?

For Harding, a return to normalcy meant the end of the progressive and internationalist ideals championed by his predecessor, Woodrow Wilson. Harding wanted the United States to stay out of European affairs altogether—Harding knew nothing about foreign affairs and his campaign handlers endeavored to keep him out of that realm. Harding stayed true to the Republican party line of the time by not supporting the League of Nations. Harding also wanted to restore the business practices of the Gilded Age where business was able to do whatever it wanted without governmental involvement. Harding allowed oil interests to dig in public lands. He also cut taxes on business.
Harding would have been quite at home in the Gilded Age. He wanted his presidency to be forgettable. He even waged a "front porch" campaign where his campaign managers did most of the work and Harding made few public appearances. Harding's presidency was known more for personal and public scandal than it was anything positive.

When does Bud come close to experiencing death in the book Bud, Not Buddy?

Depending on the reader's interpretation, Bud may come close to experiencing death at several points in the novel.
For example, Bud could have been killed in Chapter 3, when he is attacked by the hornets' nest. Depending on the severity of the stings and a potential allergy, he could have died. He also THOUGHT the nest was a vampire bat which, from his point of view, could have certainly killed him.
Later in the book, Bud also comes close to death without truly realizing it. When he is found on the side of the road by Lefty Lewis, Lewis mentions how dangerous it is for a young black boy to be wandering alone in that area. Bud is most concerned by his belief that Lewis is a zombie, but he actually was endangered by his innocent wanderings as a young black boy in 1930s America.

Without a more specific chapter reference, I can only offer a couple of suggestions to answer this question. Different readers might think that Bud comes close to experiencing death at multiple times throughout the story depending on how each readers analyzes certain risks that Bud takes. Personally, I think that Bud comes close to experiencing death throughout the story because of malnutrition, hunger, and/or starvation. Bud mentions that he is hungry throughout the story. Additionally, adult after adult comments on how Bud simply looks hungry. Depending on his exact calorie intake, his body could very well be on the edge of simply shutting down on him. Anecdotally, I've seen this happen with a student of mine that suffered from an eating disorder, and I was the one that had to call the ambulance when she passed out and couldn't be roused.
While starvation might have been a constant threat to Bud, chapter 3 contains a specific moment in which I believe that Bud very well could have died. That moment is when he hits a hornet's nest, and the hornets begin attacking and stinging him over and over again. Reports of people being stung to death by hornets is not uncommon. Hornet venom can be deadly, and a mother, aunt, and daughter were stung to death in 2014 after accidentally disturbing a nest. Bud is trapped in a shed with hornets stinging him. His life is very much in danger at this point.

What I'd thought was a vampire bat hanging on the ceiling was really a hornets' nest and now there were about six thousand hornets flying around in the tiny shed and each and every one of them was looking for me!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2748897/Hornets-sting-mother-aunt-daughter-six-death-family-disturbed-nest.html

https://www.jcehrlich.com/wasps/7-facts-about-hornets/

Why did Sancho Panza not want to go with Don Quixote at first in Don Quixote de la Mancha?

Although Sancho Panza becomes a steadfast companion, he is initially hesitant to accompany Don Quixote on his adventures. Prior to asking Sancho to become his squire, Don Quixote had already returned from his first rather disastrous chivalrous outing, which only lasted a matter of days.
Don Quixote had gone no farther than a nearby inn, where he managed to mistake prostitutes for princesses, be "knighted" by the innkeeper, and get in a fight with other guests. Upon realizing he would need money for his journey, he headed back home, but not before picking a battle with a group of merchants and being soundly beaten by their mule-driver. A laborer from Don Quixote's village found him face-down on the road and helped him home, where his family put him to bed.
Already Don Quixote's adventures have been fraught with blunders, and his family and friends think him mad. When word gets around the village, who would want to let him venture forth again, let alone go with him?
Miguel de Cervantes does not explicitly offer an explanation as to any protests Sancho might have made, but he does note in chapter 7 that the peasant needed some convincing to join Don Quixote:

Don Quixote worked upon a farm labourer, a neighbour of his, an honest man (if indeed that title can be given to him who is poor), but with very little wit in his pate. In a word, he so talked him over, and with such persuasions and promises, that the poor clown made up his mind to sally forth with him and serve him as esquire. Don Quixote, among other things, told him he ought to be ready to go with him gladly, because any moment an adventure might occur that might win an island in the twinkling of an eye and leave him governor of it. On these and the like promises Sancho Panza (for so the labourer was called) left wife and children, and engaged himself as esquire to his neighbour.

We know that, in the early stages of their adventures together, Sancho seems to find Don Quixote and his ways bewildering, but he comes to respect the man and share in some of his chivalric ideals and fantasies. So it might be that, at first, Sancho was hesitant to embark on what might sound like a rather silly adventure with the local eccentric.
We are also told that Sancho is poor, so to suddenly leave his job and family would be foolish, even for a man described as one with "little wit." But when his master promises riches, Sancho Panza is quickly convinced. Thus, we can conclude that Sancho's original motivation to become squire to Don Quixote is dependent upon money.

How would you describe Billy Ray and Willard of A Time to Kill?

In John Grisham's 1988 legal novel, A Time to Kill, James Willard and Billy Ray Cobb rape a black girl in rural Mississippi. The enraged father of the victim, Carl Lee Hailey, kills the rapists, and the majority of the novel follows his trial at the hands of attorney Jake Brigance. Carl kills them as they are leaving the courtroom after a hearing. Before their deaths, Grisham describes them as rednecks. Cobb (the first character introduced in the novel) has already served three years in jail, and is described as "a lean, tough punk" (1) who had a small narcotics business. Willard, age twenty-seven, is "four years older and a dozen years slower" (1) than Cobb. Grisham tells us that he had worked as an arborist but had hurt his back. He has lost his settlement money in a divorce, so he works for Cobb, who pays him little, but supplies him with "dope," (2). The two men behave horrifically to their young, black victim. They tie her up after raping her, but do not kill her. Instead, they throw her off of a bridge, where she is found by fishermen and returned to her father, who takes revenge.
The novel's end reveals the the acquittal of the victim's father, Carl Lee Hailey, on an insanity plea. The novel's graphic introduction of the culprits (themselves turned victims), Cobb and Willard, position the reader against them for their awful behavior.