Why should Jamal and Tito be tried as juveniles?

Jamal and Tito should be considered juvenile delinquents, first and foremost, because of their ages (twelve). There are three categories of juveniles in New York based on age: 1) a juvenile delinquent who is accused of a crime and falls between the ages of seven and fifteen; 2) a juvenile offender who is an adolescent, aged thirteen through fifteen, and charged with a felony or other violent crime; 3) a youthful offender who is at least sixteen to eighteen years old. Even though Jamal and Tito both committed violent crimes, neither one has yet reached the age of thirteen. For this reason, they should not be considered to be juvenile offenders, who face the possibility of being tried as adults. Aside from their ages, Jamal committed an assault, and Tito's crime was not premeditated. Based on their ages, intent, prior records, and the law in New York, Jamal and Tito should be tried as juvenile delinquents and not go to jail. Instead, the court should decide if they need treatment, supervision, or if they need a new home and placement through social services.Besides, in 2017 the age of criminal responsibility was raised in NY. As a result, sixteen and seventeen-year-olds who would automatically be tried as adults are now being tried in the juvenile system. This change also strengthens the argument for prosecuting minors (much younger than 16), such as Tito and Jamal, within the juvenile system rather than as adults in the criminal justice system.
http://www.nycourts.gov/404/index.shtml

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/10/new-york-raises-age-of-criminal-responsibility-teens-adult-prison

What word or phrase could be used to describe Judah?

A good word to describe Judah would be "indifferent." It's not so much that he's an actively wicked person; it's just that he doesn't show much empathy for what Lyddie and her family are going through. He doesn't see them as relatives to be helped but as a large burden to be cast off. To be fair to Uncle Judah, caring for Lyddie's mother would not have been easy, and so one can understand his decision to have her committed to an asylum. But at the same time, we get the impression that he's cynically taking the opportunity to sever all connections with relations to whom he has no blood ties. Uncle Judah's only related to Lyddie and her family by marriage and so he doesn't have a particularly deep connection to them. That would explain why he shows himself so indifferent to their predicament.

Judah is Lyddie's and Rachel's uncle. He is the husband of their mother's sister. Judah is mentioned early in the story, but only in passing. However, Uncle Judah is featured more prominently later on, when he drops off Rachel at the boarding house where Lyddie is staying.
In that particular scene, we see the true nature of Judah. He informs Lyddie that the farm must be sold to pay for Lyddie's mother's mental hospital costs. Judah is insistent, despite Lyddie's efforts to dissuade him.
The best word to describe Uncle Judah is "inconsiderate." However, he is not inconsiderate in the sense that he is selfish and thoughtless; he is inconsiderate in that he seems to only have accepted Lyddie and Rachel as family members because of his wife. He is also inconsiderate in that he doesn't show sympathy toward the sisters' plight.

Do you have chapter summary of the book, By the Great Horn Spoon!

By the Great Horn Spoon! is a humorous tale of travel by a twelve-year old boy named Jack Flagg and his butler, Praiseworthy. It takes them from Boston to the gold fields of California in 1849. Along the way, they meet with a variety of setbacks that have the power to disrupt their main purpose in getting rich to help with family finances. But each time, something unique happens to turn their luck around. The phrase “By the great horn spoon” is an exclamation used in this time period, similar to “Wow!” or “Gosh!”
1 – “The Stowaways.” Jack and Praiseworthy have stowed away on the Lady Wilma to sail from Boston to the gold fields near San Francisco, California. Before they can board, however, they lose their ship fare to a thief. They introduce themselves to Captain Joshua Swain, who seems more concerned with beating another ship, the Sea Raven, in a race around the continents. The two work off their fare by shoveling coal into the furnace.
2 – “How to Catch a Thief.” Jack writes a letter home to his Aunt Arabella and two sisters, Constance and Sarah. Praiseworthy has a plan to catch the thief who stole their money. He says that whenever a guilty person touches a pig, she squeals. The passengers line up to touch the pig, who has been coated with coal dust. The person with clean fingers who didn’t touch the pig is the thief. It turns out to be Cut-Eye Higgins. They get their money back. Jack names the little pig Good Luck.
3 – “News of the Sea Raven.” The two now share a cabin with a few other passengers, including Dr. Buckbee and Azariah Jones. Good Luck the pig follows Jack. They come upon another ship that needs a tow for several days. Jack and Praiseworthy take time to study the constellations. They hear that the Sea Raven is ahead of them.
4 – “The Pig Hunt.” Jack has to hide Good Luck in a lifeboat so that the cook won’t cook him. The ship lands at Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, and everyone explores the city. When they come back to the ship, they discover that Cut-Eye Higgins is gone, having taken the life boat with Good Luck in it. He had also stolen the map to a gold mine from Dr. Buckbee.
5 – “Land of Fire.” The sailing is quite rough, at the southernmost tip of South America. Praiseworthy had warned Jack to watch for the fires on the shores of Tierra del Fuego, but they hadn’t seen them. The captain steered the ship through the Strait of Magellan instead of sailing around the Cape of Good Horn. The Lady Wilma passes the Sea Raven as a result.
6 – “Spoiled Potatoes.” The Lady Wilma is running out of water and fuel. It waits for wind to pick up its sails. In the meantime, Azariah Jones’ barrels of potatoes are spoiling, and another man’s grape vines are drying up. Jack suggests that the vintner buy the potatoes and stick the grape vines into the potatoes for moisture. This tactic works. The Sea Raven passes the Lady Wilma.
7 – “End of the Race.” The ship docks in the major seaport of Callao, Peru [which is now part of Lima]. Jack sends another letter home. Cats come on board and eventually have kittens. The Lady Wilma passes the Sea Raven. When they are one day away from San Francisco, the Sea Raven catches up. The Lady Wilma inches ahead as they come into port. After five months and 15,000 miles, they have made it to San Francisco! Now, on to the gold fields.
8 – “Saved by a Whisker.” Jack and Praiseworthy check in to the United States Hotel. Praiseworthy starts giving miners “free haircuts” in order to collect gold dust and make cash for travel. He keeps the gold dust in his left glove. They meet a miner named Quartz Jackson, who tells them they should go to Hangtown.
9 – “The Man in the Jipijapa Hat.” Jack and Praiseworthy sail to Sacramento, then take a stagecoach to get to the gold fields. A man sleeping on the stagecoach turns out to be Cut-Eye Higgins.
10 – “The Rogue Out-Rogued.” The stagecoach is stopped and robbed. When one of the robbers wants to take Aunt Arabella’s portrait from Praiseworthy’s bag, the butler punches him and sends him sailing. Praiseworthy asks Cut-Eye Higgins for the map he stole from Dr. Buckbee, and the thief says that he kept it in the coat that the robbers took.
11 – “Jamoka Jack.” The two reach Hangtown and check in to the Empire Hotel. Jack and Praiseworthy meet Pitch-pine Billy, who shows them how to stake a claim and to look for gold. Billy gives Jack his first drink of coffee and decides to call him “Jamoka Jack.” Praiseworthy learns how to pan for gold with his umbrella.
12 – “Bullwhip.” When Jack and Praiseworthy get back to town, some miners are waiting for them. They had heard about the way Praiseworthy took care of the stagecoach robber. They want to hear more of the story, and they nickname him “Bullwhip.”
13 – “A Bushel of Neckties.” Jack and Praiseworthy get a letter from Dr. Buckbee. He says he will give them half ownership in his gold mine if they can find that map that the robbers stole from Cut-Eye Higgins. Jack accidentally wins a bushel of neckties in an auction. The miners want Praiseworthy to fight a man named Mountain Ox. The butler says he can’t possibly do it until August 15th, after he and Jack strike it rich. Quartz Jackson and his new bride arrive in Hangtown, and all the miners want to look good for the only lady in town. Jack and Praiseworthy sell all of their neckties at a profit.
14 – “The Prospectors.” Jack and Praiseworthy buy a burro named Stubb. Then leave Hangtown for the gold fields.
15 – “The Man Who Couldn’t Sit Down.” Jack and Praiseworthy hear that Cut-Eye Higgins is posing as a dentist in Shirt-tail Camp. Jack goes hunting for game and falls into a miner’s hole. The man who pulls him out happens to be wearing the coat that Cut-Eye Higgins wore in the stagecoach. Jack holds the man at gunpoint (sort of) and demands that he give him the coat, which he does. Praiseworthy slices open the coat later and finds no map. Cut-Eye Higgins must still have it.
16 – “The Gravediggers.” Jack and Praiseworthy head for Shirt-tail Camp to confront Cut-Eye Higgins. When they arrive, they learn that the thief has stolen so much from the miners that they are ready to hang him. Higgins makes a deal with Jack and Praiseworthy—the exchange of the map for his release. Praiseworthy looks at the map and realizes that it is worthless, as it points to well-worked Shirt-tail Camp. Still, he makes a speech that stops the hanging party from its mission. Jack and Praiseworthy are assigned to dig a hole six feet deep for whenever Cut-Eye Higgins is eventually hanged and buried. They strike gold.
17 – “The Fifteenth of August.” After two weeks, the gold plays out. Jack and Praiseworthy have eleven heavy pouches of gold dust hanging on their belts. They head for Hangtown. In the boxing match, Praiseworthy beats Mountain Ox with his book-knowledge of boxing strategy, not by strength.
18 – “Arrived at the Long Wharf.” Jack and Praiseworthy travel back to Sacramento and then take a ship to San Francisco. They are almost there when the steamboat blows up. Both are thrown into the water, and both have to unbuckle their belts in order to swim and reach the surface. Their pouches of gold sink into the bay. They see the Lady Wilma in port, but no one is on board except for the cats. They meet Azariah Jones, who has now become an auctioneer. He says that the stores all have problems with rats. Jack and Praiseworthy collect and auction off the cats from the Lady Wilma and make $400. They are thinking about sailing back to Boston when they are surprised to meet Aunt Arabella, Constance and Sarah on the wharf. All agree to make California their new home, especially after Praiseworthy asks Arabella to marry him, and she says yes.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/goldrush-california/

If Mr. White had listened to the sergeant, how might the outcome have been different?

In addressing this kind of question, it's important to note what kind of advice the Sergeant-Major provides. He gives a warning and gives details concerning the paw's history. He advises White against making wishes on the paw and asserts that it is better off destroyed.
The simple answer to this question is that, had White followed this advice, he should have at the very least resisted the temptation to make that fateful wish. If he had not made that first wish, his son would have survived and the events of the story would have been completely averted.
"The Monkey's Paw" ultimately exists as a work of fiction. With that in mind, providing an answer to this kind of question can easily amount to a creative exercise. After all, one can easily imagine any number of potential stories which all proceed from a similar starting point, in which Mr. White either determines not to make a wish upon the monkey's paw or perhaps even decides to destroy it entirely . . .

What reasons do Gramps and Sal's father give Sal for going on the trip? According to Sal, what are the real reasons? Why might the real reasons have been left unspoken?

In Walk Two Moons by Sharon Creech, Sal goes with her grandparents on a road trip that spans from Ohio to Idaho. Some of the reasons that are listed in chapter 2 include: 1) Gram and Gramps want to see Momma, who is resting peacefully in Lewiston, Idaho; 2) Gram and Gramps know that Sal wants to see Momma but is afraid to; and 3) Dad wants to be alone with the red-headed Margaret Cadaver. He has already seen Momma, and he did not take Sal. It is also stated by Sal's dad that she is being sent along to read maps, as Gram and Gramps don't know how.
As the story progresses, you learn more about the past travel experiences of Gram and Gramps that Sal hinted about early on in the novel. They were once stopped for driving on the shoulder instead of in the the designated lane. Readers also learn that they once stole the tires off a senator’s car in Washington, D.C. Also, Gramps once tried to help “a damsel in distress”—a lady who was having her own car trouble. He really thought he could fix the car, but he was unable to, and he actually made the problems worse by pulling parts away from the motor. The "damsel in distress" had to call a mechanic to get her car running again. As Sal thinks about it, all of the things that she has learned about her grandparents are good enough reasons for her to be on the trip out west.

Henderson mentions—either directly or by inference—the many things that he wants. What are the most important of his desires? What seems to be at the heart of his yearning?

One could argue that Henderson is afflicted by a profound sense of boredom. Not only is he a millionaire, but he's a millionaire who's inherited all his wealth. This is a man who's never had to work for anything in his life; everything has been handed to him on a silver platter. To most people this may sound like very heaven, but Henderson feels a huge spiritual void deep inside his soul. He can have all the good things that money can buy, but the one thing he can't have is any lasting satisfaction. Henderson seeks meaning in his life, and as he can't have it in the United States, he must look for it elsewhere. That's why he heads off to Africa; he believes that by going there, he will make good the spiritual deficiencies of his shallow, well-heeled existence.
Like many rich Westerners who seek to "find" themselves in the far-flung corners of the developing world, Henderson is woefully ignorant of indigenous culture. His vision of Africa remains resolutely stuck in the past: romanticized, exoticized, and inhabited by "savages" and "children of darkness." In heading off to Africa, Henderson wants to live a more authentic life, to get closer to nature. But his cultural preconceptions and prejudices mean that he's unable to fulfill this goal, and by extension attain the satisfaction that his tired, worn-out soul so desperately craves.

In terms of storytelling, what makes this town an appropriate choice for Pi's upbringing in Life of Pi?

Pondicherry, India is a city with a very diverse population. It has changed hands frequently between the French and the British, but it is now Indian. It is also a tourist destination and is home to many different religions.
Because of this, Pi is able to find "teachers" so he can learn about many different religions. The fact that he spent his childhood in close proximity to many zoo animals also serves to highlight this feeling of diversity.
It is not a stretch for Pi to think about his fellow castaways as animals since he is used to diversity and is able to believe two different things at the same time—just like he does when learning and believing in three different religions at once.

What did George take from Lennie and throw in the bushes?

Lennie likes to touch soft things. This often gets him and George into a whole heap of trouble, as happened back in Weed. George and Lennie's dream of owning their own ranch involves Lennie tending the rabbits, where he'll be able to stroke their soft, fluffy fur to his heart's content.
Lennie also likes to stroke mice. Unfortunately for them, the big man doesn't know his own strength and sometimes ends up inadvertently killing them. In chapter 1, Lennie has one such unfortunate creature's dead body mouldering away in his pocket. George makes him give it to him and George throws it away. Not only is it rather unpleasant—not to say unhygienic—to have a dead mouse rotting away in your pocket, it also draws attention to the fact that Lennie has learning difficulties, and George figures that might jeopardize their chances of employment at the ranch.

Describe the relationship Parson Hooper had with his community before the incident with the veil.

The Reverend Hooper previously enjoyed a fairly good relationship with his local community. He was renowned as a good preacher (if none too energetic). He gained a reputation as a minister who would always use persuasion to show his flock the way to heaven, instead of screaming hellfire and brimstone at them like some preachers would. Even more importantly, Mr. Hooper was known throughout the community as a good man; he wasn't called "good Parson Hooper" for nothing.
At the same time, one gets the impression that Mr. Hooper's relationship with his community wasn't all that close; the good folk of Milford generally found him a somewhat forbidding figure. This would explain why everyone was so reluctant to challenge him over his weird new habit of wearing a black facial veil.

What are the differences between herbivores and carnivores?

The main difference between herbivores and carnivores is in teeth and biting. Carnivores have teeth and bite strength designed for tearing. The jaws of a carnivore are capable of biting with a great force. Carnivores are known as meat eaters.
The teeth of herbivores tend to be flatter and designed for chewing or grinding tough, stalky vegetation. The bite strength of a herbivore is less than that of a carnivore but is substantial enough to grind food into digestible portions.
Between the carnivores and herbivores are omnivores. Omnivores eat both meat and vegetation. The teeth of omnivores are well suited to do both, and the bite force of an omnivore is more than adequate to feed on either plant or meat as a food source. Carnivores, herbivores, and omnivores can be distinguished by skull sizes. As jaw and bite strength increase, so does the size of the skull of the animal.
The role of herbivores and carnivores in the food chain differs as well. Carnivores feed on herbivores and omnivores. By keeping the population in control, carnivores protect the food source of herbivores and omnivores from becoming scarce from overgrazing. Herbivores and omnivores, which are grazing animals, have to be in sufficient numbers to maintain the balance of food sources for carnivores. Because they rely on plants and seeds for their diets, herbivores when they poop spread undigested seeds into fertile areas which helps sustain the natural balance of plant life in an area.
Some examples of carnivores are wolves and mountain lions. Examples of herbivores are sheep, deer, and antelope. Both play a crucial role in the food chain and in sustaining wildlife.

What is a thesis statement about friendship and betrayal in Memoirs of a Geisha?

The themes of friendship and betrayal are both present in this novel, so I think that you have a good starting point for a possible thesis statement. Friendship and betrayal are quite opposite, but they do come hand-in-hand at times within this novel. For that reason, I recommend a thesis statement that contains a point followed by a counter-point. It needs to be a single sentence, so make the sentence a complex sentence beginning with the word "although." This will allow you to have a dependent clause that introduces either friendship or betrayal. That is followed by the independent clause that introduces the second option. For example:

Although geisha school is all about teaching various forms of friendship and companionship, the competition that exists within the structure leads to inevitable betrayals.

For textual evidence to support that thesis, I would look to the relationship that exists between Chiyo/Sayuri and Pumpkin. There are times when Pumpkin is or appears to be Sayuri's only friend; however, Pumpkin's final betrayal of Sayuri really shows readers just how shallow that friendship likely was.

Who do you think were the intended audiences of Pericles' Funeral Oration and Xenophon’s description of the Spartan state? How might their purpose and intended audience affect their tone? Can we take these accounts at face value? Why or why not? What else would you like to know from the author?

Both Pericles’ Funeral Oration and Xenophon’s Constitution of the Spartans would have been directed to people quite like the authors themselves: Athenian, wealthy, educated and male. Women, slaves, and immigrants, whom the Greeks called xenoi (meaning “stranger”), were largely excluded from civic discourse.
Pericles was an important Athenian statesman and military general during the Peloponnesian War, fought from 431-404 BCE between alliances led by the polis (meaning “city-state”) of Athens and the polis of Sparta. His famous oration was delivered at a public funeral to honor the Athenians who died during the first year of the war. Pericles directly addressed his audience during the speech, saying “You, their survivors, must determine to have as unfaltering a resolution in the field,” (Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War 2.43.1, trans. by Richard Crawley). This statement offers a clear indication that Pericles’ intended audience was Athenian men who could fight on the field of battle. His oration was propaganda intended to inspire the civic pride and patriotism of a city-state still at war.
It is important to note that we do not have an exact transcript of Pericles’ Funeral Oration. His speech was recorded in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, in which he informed readers that speeches were not recorded verbatim (ibid. 1.22.1). Thucydides’ pro-Athens stance should caution readers to accept his account with a grain of salt.
Xenophon was also an Athenian and a contemporary of the Peloponnesian War. However, he lived for a time in Sparta and even fought with the Spartan army against the Persians. Xenophon preferred the Spartan form of government, which was oligarchic (meaning, governed by a small, powerful group), as opposed to Athens’, which was democratic (meaning, governed by the people). This would have put Xenophon at odds with his fellow Athenian citizens, and gives us a clue to the intended purpose and audience of Constitution of the Spartans.
The audience was the Athenians and the purpose was to explain and praise the Spartan’s life-ways (including parenting, education, and dining practices) and their political structure. By pointing to Sparta’s positive attributes, Xenophon could justify his affinity for the traditional enemy of Athens. Due to Xenophon’s personal interest and his strong pro-Spartan bias, his history should be approached critically.

In terms of audience, both works were aimed primarily at wealthy males, as slaves and women were generally excluded from civic discourse. Since both texts as we have them were written, the audience would have been very well-educated men or those who could afford literate slaves who could read to them; literacy rates in this period represented a small percentage of the population.
Xenophon's Constitution of the Spartans, although nominally written to supply information about the Spartan state which had not previously been written down and too explain the excellence of its culture, also serves as a form of self-justification for Xenophon, who despite being an Athenian was pro-oligarchic and actually served with Spartan military units. Since the Athenians fought against Sparta in the Peloponnesian Wars, this behavior required substantial apologetics. Because of this element of self-justification and propagandistic support for Sparta, one cannot regard Xenophon as an entirely reliable narrator.
Pericles' Funeral Oration has been preserved in Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War. The audience would have been Athenian and thus the text was designed to stir up civic pride. The speech would have been intended as political propaganda rather than straightforward history and thus is somewhat biased. Moreover, the work as we now read it was not a verbatim transcript of the speech. Thucydides may have done substantial editing.

How does "The Artist of the Beautiful" resist aspects of nineteenth-century daily life?

I would not say that "The Artist of the Beautiful" resists aspects of "daily life" so much as it depicts a situation that would not be possible in the early nineteenth century.
The invention that Owen Warland produces is a mechanical device capable of flight, an artificial butterfly. Other tales by Hawthorne, such as "The Birthmark" and "Rappiccini's Daughter," similarly show inventions that could be the product of either futuristic science or the supernatural. Earlier in the nineteenth century, two other writers explored similar themes: Mary Shelley (in Frankenstein) and E. T. A. Hoffmann (particularly in his story "The Sandman," in which a man creates a female mechanical doll). So Hawthorne's fiction is part of this early science fiction movement in literature. The technology actually available in his own time wouldn't support the wonders he describes.
If aspects of daily living are given short shrift in Hawthorne's story, this is also something typical of early nineteenth-century fiction, at least in comparison with the more realistic and naturalistic works written from the latter part of the century up through our own time. The mundane details of life weren't chronicled carefully by earlier writers. In "The Artist of the Beautiful," the focus instead is on the inner lives of people—especially Owen, as he agonizes over his work and his feelings for Annie. He is a dreamer, and the whole story is dreamlike, though perhaps not as intensely so as other Hawthorne tales (such as the two mentioned above) and those of Edgar Allan Poe. The physical setting is less important than the mental atmosphere Hawthorne creates, in which a man is struggling with his inner demons.

What are some interesting facts about Zachary Taylor?

Zachary Taylor was the 12th president of the United States and served from 1849-1850. He was a career military officer and decorated war hero, serving in the military for forty years. Over this time, he led troops in the War of 1812, the Black Hawk War, the Second Seminole War, and the Mexican War. Here are some interesting facts about our 12th president.
He was a descendant of William Brewster, who led the Pilgrims when they landed at Plymouth Rock.
President James Madison, the father of the Constitution, was his second cousin.
Zachary Taylor never attended college or practiced law, unlike many other presidents.
He earned the nickname “Old Rough and Ready” for his disheveled clothing and readiness to fight alongside his men.
When riding into battle he rode his horse side saddle. Due to his short legs, he found it easier to mount quickly.
In the election of 1848, the Whig party nominated Zachary Taylor without his knowledge or presence at the convention.
Taylor never voted in a presidential election before he ran for president. As a career military officer, he didn’t want to vote against someone who could become commander in chief.
He remained ambiguous about his views on slavery during the election, even though he owned slaves. This helped him gain support from both the South and the North.
He served as president for only one year because he died in office in one of the strangest deaths of any US President. On a hot day, he ate cherries and milk at a Fourth of July celebration. He died a few days later of cholera due to the contaminated snacks. Although some people believe he was poisoned, his body later exhumed, and it was determined his death was of natural causes.

Settlement houses in the east: what were their purpose?

Settlement houses were a philanthropic venture designed to bridge the huge gap between the classes in society. They first came to prominence in the late nineteenth century, after decades of unregulated capitalism had led to huge and growing divisions between those in the upper classes and those in the lower classes. Settlement houses were a way of narrowing those divisions by brining people of all different classes together in one single place. It was hoped that by doing so, people who wouldn't ordinarily give each other the time of day would come together in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect: sharing wisdom, knowledge, and expertise.
In the United States, settlement houses sprang up mainly in immigrant neighborhoods, where many people didn't speak English. Settlement houses became a kind of outreach project by the wealthy, educated classes toward the recent influx of immigrants, providing them with much-needed kindergartens, classrooms, and leisure facilities. It was hoped that, through this provision, new Americans and their families would be better able to integrate into society.
http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1135.html

What are the short and long term effects of Christianity in the Roman Empire?

To understand the answer to this very significant question one must first come to grips with a profound fact that is almost always lost in the conversation and missed by the most astute historians and even theologians. That is Christianity was, and still is, really two distinct genres of influence. It is a "religion"; arguably the largest one in the world. But that is the institution...human created and propagated organization now divided by Catholic and Protestant. The vast majority of people think that is the definition of Christianity and of course, it is not. The other distinction is first seen historically both in the history of Christianity recorded in the Bible (which is a historically viable primary source collection of documents) and numerous records like the Jewish Historian Josephus and Roman records themselves, that have been preserved and discovered. In the first century, followers of Jesus Christ considered themselves disciples based on a spiritual, metaphysical experience that they believed to be very real and transformative to each of them personally. That influence of spirituality influenced thought and behavior and (now to respond to the short term effects of Christianity in the Roman Empire) it prompted a complete change in the priorities of life. There was an immediate change in everyday life for this exploding part of the population. They forsook the worship of Roman deities and all that went with that. Of course, Rome itself, it's culture, its politics, its way of life was predicated on the influence of the Roman pantheon of gods. This led to great change in the Roman world and was perceived as a threat to Roman culture and way of life. Romans did not care if Christians worshipped Jesus per se, but the idea of loosing the bloodshed of the arena, the importance of military conquest, and focus of love and kindness instead of money and power prompted many emperors to persecute Christians. Periods of persecution and tolerance ebbed and flowed til the end of the empire; but Constantine changed everything by embracing Christianity as a cultural influence verses a spiritual one. His acceptance of Christ was based on military conquest and basically a replacement of Roman gods for Jesus. There is little historical evidence, apart from what he thought was a vision that Jesus told him to conquer in his Christ's name (which of course would have been contrary to everything Jesus taught). Constantine made Christianity in vogue in the Roman world and millions of Romans poured into Christian enclaves where only those who had the aforementioned spiritual experience had gathered before. Now there was a mixture of both disciples as Jesus identified them, and people that were just there because it was now a popular cultural trend that made them anthropologically part of the Roman community. The response of church leaders was over a long period of time, to separate the "true" Christians from the "cultural" ones by mandating everyone desiring to be baptized as a Christian, to go through a protracted series of classes (three years in fact) of training in the Old Testament as well as the teachings of Jesus. The result was only the really determined stayed. But that did not fix the problem as even those who stayed were still not necessarily those who had a spiritual personal experience with Jesus, but also those who simply had found a sense of belonging and community in the community with those who passed the required milestones of joining...biblical testing, observances of biblical requirements such as communion, baptism, etc. These all became part of being "confirmed" in the church. So an institution of people who religiously practiced Christian behaviors emerged along with those who had been transformed spiritually. This would become the "Roman Catholic (universal) Church. It remained a mixture with these institutional Christians (the majority) who were part of it because of the sense of belonging and the "true " christians (the minority) of those who claimed to be "born again" (John 3) Both groups were in "the church" but the majority (still focused on money and power) propagated matters and events that were very unChristlike (such as the crusades). That distinction of Real Christians verses cultural ones, impacted not latter Rome profoundly and effectively perpetuated the Roman empire as the Pope would come to replace the Emperor in the west. The long-term effect in the Roman empire is that this mixture (regarded as Christianity by those who don't know any better) still resound in culture today promulgating a tension in society that is spiritual, cultural, and political. In a sense, Rome still exists.

This is one of the major questions of the Roman Empire (and a question that could inspire entire books written about it). In any case, Christianity plays a critical role in Roman history, both in the short and long term.
In the short-term, we should admit that Christianity represented a challenge to Imperial authority. Roman religion had historically had a civic function, and this continued in the time of the Emperors, where Emperors had cults and carried with them a divine, religious claim to authority. The Early Church, then, represented a critique of Imperial authority, especially as the Church continued to grow throughout the Empire. At the same time, and in a similar vein, we might make note of conflict between Christian and Pagan communities within the Empire. To the early Emperors, Christianity represented a disruptive force within the Imperial Order. When looking towards the Early Church itself, you will observe a great deal of suppression, most famously expressed in the many stories of Christian martyrdom which precede the reign of Constantine.
In the long term, you should note that Christianity actually emerged as the official religion of the Empire. Part of this was undoubtedly the work of political calculation, but even before emerging as the religion of the State, Christianity had been spreading fast, and had emerged as a powerful force within the Empire. It had an egalitarian bend which was rare among ancient religions, and its message of salvation was immensely powerful in the Classical World. Even after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the Christian Church remained ascendant, and would become a powerful force (politically, religiously, socially and intellectually) across the Middle Ages and beyond.

How does Steinbeck’s description of the bunk house give us insight about ranch life and larger issues affecting migrant workers in the 1930s?

The bunk house is very spare and austere. The ranch hands all share it (except for Crooks, who is segregated because he is black) and have no privacy. The men each get a bunk and shelf for their belongings and not much else. A stove heats the space.
The bunk house tells us that the ranch hands are given the bare necessities in terms of living quarters. The quarters are impersonal, reflecting the migrant and seasonal nature of the work. George checks his bunk carefully for bugs, suggesting that sometimes bunkhouses are not as clean as they could be.
Part of the dream George and Lennie have about owning a farm is privacy: an allure is not having to share space with people they don't like. If the bunkhouse reflects the rootlessness, insecurity, lack of control over their lives, and low status of the migrant workers in 1930s America, the farm represents the urge for rootedness and security.

What would be a good summary of the story "Reb Kringle" for a presentation?

Short stories can be an enjoyable form to work with because the narrative often pivots around one major event. You can generally sketch out the premise of a short story after your initial reading. Subsequent readings will contribute to a deeper understanding of the work and save time in analysis.
One might begin describing "Reb Kringle" as a story about a Rabbi narrator who, for whatever reason, has been working as a department store Santa Claus for many years. He doesn’t seem too excited about playing Santa this time around, and, in a bittersweet moment of comedy, the limits of his patience are revealed.
Once you’ve acquainted yourself with the basic plot, it can be helpful to ask yourself a few questions:
What is the setting (where and when) of the story?
Who are the primary characters, and what role do they play?
What is the main conflict of the story, and how is it resolved?
Are there other notable conflicts happening, and how do they relate to the main conflict?
Are there elements of the writing style (e.g., figurative language, recurring motifs) that reinforce or alter the way the reader might interpret the story?
An engaging summary should exhibit a deep understanding of the work. Once you determine the plot and how it functions, it is often helpful to read the text again rather than rushing into analysis. While your emotional reaction to a piece of literature can be interesting, objective analysis should come first. Also, consider your audience: Refrain from revealing too many important plot details if you’re summarizing for people who haven’t necessarily read the story, and focus on less-obvious plot elements if you’re summarizing for an expert.

How was the relationship between the husband and wife in Home Burial?

The relationship between the two is fraught, to say the least. Things may have been fine between them in the past, but since their son tragically passed away, it's a different story entirely.
At the heart of this couple's increasingly bitter quarrels is Amy's charge that her husband has never adequately mourned for their son. The father is indignant at such a suggestion; he gets so mad at Amy that he threatens to bring her back by force if she makes good on her threat to leave:

‘If—you—do!’ She was opening the door wider.
‘Where do you mean to go? First tell me that.
I’ll follow and bring you back by force. I will!—’

There's clearly been a breakdown of communications here. The problem is that Amy and her husband have different ways of dealing with grief. There's no right or wrong here; everyone deals with grief in their own individual way, and it's the same in this case. Amy is more emotional; she wants to pour out her heart and be comforted and consoled by her husband. That he's unable to give her the comfort and the consolation that she so desperately needs is the reason why she's just about ready to head out the door.
As for Amy's husband, he's much more stoical, more matter-of-fact. His wife chides him angrily for coming into the house after he'd just buried their child and talked about "everyday concerns." She interprets his behavior as callousness, but it is simply his way of dealing with grief.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/53086/home-burial

What were Hamilton’s arguments for a strong government?

Alexander Hamilton believed in a strong central government. He was a federalist. The first argument for Hamilton was that he believed the common people of the country did not possess the skills to make national decisions. He felt that only the select few were chosen at the central level to run the country. Hamilton, at the New York Ratification Convention in 1788, argued,

It has been observed by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved, that no position in politics is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.

He was also an opponent of the Articles of Confederation. He found the Articles weak and left the infant country at risk both politically and militarily. He argued for a Constitution that strengthened the federal government and that the government should have the ability to call on a standing army in times of conflict.
Finally, Hamilton was in favor of a National Bank. He believed that the national debt could be a good thing for a strong government. Hamilton saw the profitability for the country to assume state debt and spark economic growth. This was met with fierce opposition by the anti-federalists who feared the power of the National Bank.
https://www.biography.com/political-figure/alexander-hamilton

What is a sad thing that happened to the Doctor in "Dr. Heidegger's Experiment"?

Dr. Heidegger is sad to discover that the wisdom of experience does not guide his guests after they drink of the elixir of youth. He's shocked to see these five supposedly mature individuals turning before his very eyes into juvenile delinquents after sampling a drop of his magic spring water.
The good doctor had hoped that his guests would draw upon their extensive life experiences and avoid what he calls the dangers of youth. He was sure he'd picked the right subjects for his scientific experiment, but he couldn't have been more wrong. Instead, he's profoundly disappointed by the childish behavior of his guests once they start to feel the elixir's intoxicating effect. Furthermore, the fact that he personally chose these people for his experiment doesn't reflect very well on him at all.

What causes Killer Kane to shift his attention from Loretta to Max?

After being released from prison on parole, Max's dad, the notorious Killer Kane, kidnaps him and takes him to Iggy and Loretta Lee's apartment. Loretta is no angel herself, but even she draws the line at kidnapping your own child and tying him up, as Killer does with Max. So she tries to help Max escape. But Killer catches her in the act and tries to strangle her. As Loretta struggles for breath, Max desperately tries to free himself. To get his dad to stop strangling Loretta, he tells Killer Kane that he witnessed him murdering his mother in the exact same way. Killer then immediately turns his attention to Max. He is now determined that his son should suffer the same fate as his late mother.

What are Cassius's negative qualities?

My heart is thirsty for that noble pledge. Fill, Lucius, till the wine o'erswell the cup; I cannot drink too much of Brutus' love (Act IV, Scene 3, lines 179-181).
Shakespeare depicts Cassius as a miser in various subtle ways throughout the play. Caesar tells Antony that Cassius has a lean and hungry look. When Cassius invites Casca to supper and then to dinner in Act I, Scene 2, Casca is obviously reluctant to accept but finally says:
Ay, if I be alive, and your mind hold, and your dinner worth the eating.
Casca has known Cassius all his life. Perhaps he has eaten at Cassius's home several times in the past and knows what kind of meal to expect. When Casca turns him down for supper, Cassius ups the ante by inviting him to dinner, which is a big meal served in mid-afternoon. Evidently Cassius thinks that Casca can be lured by a more elaborate meal—but Casca just doesn't like Cassius and is deliberately rude to him when he grudgingly accepts his second invitation. Note how Casca says "and your dinner be worth the eating." He doesn't expect much from Cassius's table.
The big argument with Brutus in Act IV is over money. Brutus sent to Cassius for gold he needed to pay his soldiers, and Cassius sent back a note refusing him. After the two men have reconciled and shared a bowl of Brutus's wine, Brutus still doesn't get the gold. This might contribute to the loss of the battle at Philippi, as the soldiers expected to be paid for risking their lives.
Brutus is not a good judge of human nature. He should never have formed such a close friendship with the selfish, stingy, greedy Cassius. Brutus lost everything, including his wife Portia and his own life, because he let himself be manipulated by Cassius. Brutus had nothing to gain by killing Caesar and everything to lose. Cassius, by contrast, had a lot to lose because he knew that Caesar hated him—and more power for Caesar would spell trouble for Cassius.

How did Jennings overcome his struggles? What inspires Jennings?

Jennings overcomes his struggles through sheer will and inspiration from an unlikely source: a stuffed dog named Doggie. The stuffed animal doesn't originally belong to Jennings. Instead, it was the property of the Home of the Angels. The nuns hand out individual stuffed toys to the children at night.
After the children fall asleep, the nuns always retrieve the stuffed animals. For his part, Jennings took such a liking to Doggie that he eventually "adopts" the toy. Our protagonist endures many stressful life events with Doggie by his side. For example, when Jennings is taken to St. Teresa's, Doggie goes with him. The journey to St. Teresa's is a devastating one for Jennings. After his stint at the Home of the Angels, Jennings never expects to be sent to another orphanage.
The treatment he endures at St. Teresa's is far worse than anything he experiences at the Home of the Angels. Jennings suffers extensive physical and emotional abuse there. Throughout his experiences, Doggie is his only comfort. So, Jennings relies on Doggie for love and companionship.
Other sources of inspiration for Jennings are Sal (a bus driver), Sister Ann Catherine from St. Teresa's, and Officer and Mrs. Daily. The officer and his wife actually take Jennings in after he runs away from the orphanage in Yonkers. So, Jennings overcomes his struggles with the support of Doggie, as well as several compassionate individuals in his life.

On pages 157–159 (Maus I), how do the graphics details prove that it is difficult to tell a story about the Holocaust?

Art Spiegelman’s two-volume graphic depiction of his efforts at documenting the horrors of the Holocaust through interviews of his father, a survivor, was an excruciating exercise for the novelist not only because of his difficult relationship with his father, but also because of his father’s reluctance to relive the most painful period of his life. Many veterans of war bury—or try to bury—their memories of the bloodshed and the losses of close friends and colleagues. The memories are too painful to endure. They don’t discuss their war experiences because they view themselves simply as having done the job they were sent to do and because they would rather not relive those episodes from the war. Survivors of the Holocaust similarly bury the memories—memories that include being forced to exist under the most horrific conditions imaginable while seeing loved ones and others brutalized and murdered for the sole “crime” of being Jewish.
By the time Spiegelman’s first volume of his graphic story, Maus: My Father Bleeds History, approaches its ending, he has drawn out of his father, Vladek, a great number of painful memories. By page 157, both father and son are emotionally drained by this ordeal, and the story is only now reaching its most appalling transition: Vladek and his wife Anja, Art’s mother, are being transported to Auschwitz, the infamous death camp, the name of which has become synonymous with the Holocaust. It is at this moment, as Vladek describes his and Anja’s understanding of this development, that the relationship between father and son reaches an ugly breaking point. Vladek has just noted to his son regarding his and Anja’s arrival at Auschwitz that the end is almost certainly near:

We knew the stories—that they will gas us and throw us in the ovens. This was 1944 . . . We knew everything. And here we were.

When Art pushes his father for his deceased mother’s diaries, Vladek informs him that the diaries were destroyed:

After Anja died I had to make an order with everything . . . These papers had too many memories. So I burned them.

Art’s response to his admission regarding the diaries is both understandable from the impassioned perspective of the historian but thoroughly lacking in sensitivity to his father’s emotional wounds:

God Damn you! You—You murderer! How the hell could you do such a thing?

Vladek Spiegelman was not a scholar. He was not a historian concerned about the preservation of historically-significant documentation. He was a husband whose wife had committed suicide rather than live with the emotional pain of having endured one of the worst periods in human history. Spiegelman’s illustrations depict the episode with the sadness and ugliness that it deserves. The author does not spare himself the harshness of his artistry. He depicts himself departing his father’s home with a forced display of civility immediately followed by a depiction of himself repeating the odious charge of “murderer.”
Pages 157 to 159 of Maus demonstrate the difficulties of telling a story about the Holocaust because of the limitations of the graphic illustrations employed. It also, however, demonstrates the difficulties because of the direct personal involvement of Vladek in the Holocaust and because of the relationship of the author to the subject. Anja wasn’t just Vladek’s wife; she was Art’s mother. Art isn’t a conventional biographer or historian; he is a graphic artist/novelist. These pages illustrate the scale of the task of attempting to capture the deliberate systematic mass murder of millions of innocent people through the prism of a single survivor as depicted by a son possibly too interested in telling a story and too uninterested in understanding the pain with which his father has lived.

Describe how the main character of the novel see’s himself, providing at least one specific example or quote to support your description. Is the characters perception of himself different from how other characters see him? How do you know? Explain.

This is a tough question because Gene sees himself differently at different places in the novel. That fits the novel's theme of identity as well. Gene struggles to figure out exactly who he is, and his relationship with Finny really messes with Gene's ability to find his own identity apart from Finny. If I had to pick a single way in which Gene sees himself, I would say that he sees himself as a "deceiver." That's not exactly high praise, but I think it fits. He deceives Finny about their friendship throughout the novel, and he deceives the others about what happened on the tree branch. In chapter 12, readers can find a good quote that highlights this trait being present in Gene.

None of them ever accused me of being responsible for what had happened to Phineas, either because they could not believe it or else because they could not understand it. I would have talked about that, but they would not, and I would not talk about Phineas in any other way.

Gene isn't quite sure the exact reason why the other boys believe his tree branch innocence, but Gene is aware that he has sold them the idea that it was an accident. I also like the following quote for Gene being a deceiver:

Phineas was a poor deceiver, having had no practice.

The quote is intended to describe an aspect of Phineas; however, it also tells readers an important detail about Gene. Finny is a poor liar because he doesn't get practice, but this quote seems to suggest that Gene is a good liar because he does get practice. It's for this reason that Gene is able to easily identify Finny's lack of talent in this particular area.

Did the benefits of immigrating to the United States at the turn of the century outweigh the challenges?

To answer this question, one must weigh the benefits against the challenges, and discuss in detail what the experience of immigration tended to entail.
First, this raises the question: what factors led people to immigrate in the first place? In general, historians have accounted for several motivating factors. Many immigrants were impoverished, and came to the United States in the hope of finding jobs. Additionally, one should factor in those who were fleeing political unrest or suppression—it could be ethnically based, or religiously based, or it could be based in something like political turmoil, but a significant number of immigrants came to America in order to escape very real violence and oppression within their homelands. You should be aware that for most immigrants there would have been an expectation that their lives would be improved by moving to the United States, compared against the lives they had lived in the countries they had come from.
That being said, there were serious drawbacks as well. Upon reaching the United States, they had to cope with prejudice and anti-immigrant sentiment. In addition, they had to reckon with culture shock. In immigrating to the United States, they would be introduced to (from their perspective) often very alien customs and religious practices, language barriers, etc. Even the very experience of traveling to the United States could carry with it significant hardship. To reach the Americas from Western Europe could take roughly ten days (spent in often very poor conditions) while, to travel from Asia could take roughly twice as long. Furthermore, prospective immigrants did not have any guarantee of entry at the end of it. Inspectors had license to bar immigrants from entering the United States for any number of reasons, and there are many stories of families being separated in this way. Furthermore, consider this: for many immigrants, employment meant work in U.S. factories and industrial centers, in jobs which were miserable and exploitative, and life would be lived in tenements.
That being said, I'm hesitant to say that there is a universal answer to this question. The hardships were significant on both sides of the immigration process, and I think the most accurate answer to your question would probably be to apply it on a case-by-case basis. Individual experience tends to vary from person to person.

What must be immediately reported to the elders in the Community in The Giver so that people might be medicated to prevent it?

When adolescents begin to experience sexual desire, they are given pills to suppress these feelings, which are referred to as Stirrings. Jonas has a dream about Fiona in which he wants her to take off her clothes so that he can touch her and bathe her in a bathtub. Jonas reports this to his parents and is given the same pills that adults in the community take.
When he becomes Receiver of Memory, Jonas is exempt from taking these pills. As the Giver shares memories with him, Jonas learns that true emotions cannot be experienced by the community without them. Emotions are suppressed within the community with pills and also by the ideologies of the community itself—there are no words to describe emotions.

Why does Smithers propose to share his flat?

This radio play, adapted from a Lord Dunsany story, opens with two men, Smithers and Linley, talking to a renting agent about rooms in London. Linley suggests to Smithers that they view the flats together to save the agent “mak[ing] two trips around the premises” (3). Both men seem to really love the property that they view, remarking that it is “rather nice. Airy too . . . this perfect apartment" (4). Both, however, balk at the price of fifty pounds per quarter. Then, Linley comments that if they shared it they “could do very well indeed,” and Smithers replies “that’s exactly what I was about to suggest" (4).
So, there is really one reason that they both want to share the flat: to save money. However, there is an extra reason that Smithers wants to share the flat: because he can tell from Linley’s appearance and manner that he is a “well-educated man” (5). Smithers hopes that Linley’s “Oxford manner” will rub off on him and “double [his] sales” (5).

Why are the Salem Witch Trials still studied today?

The Salem Witch Trials (1692–1693) concluded with the execution of nineteen people from more than two hundred accused. These trials, and the events leading up to them, are still studied today partly because the supernatural retains a strong hold over our imaginations, and partly because they offer a window into our own human nature.
The Salem Witch Trials are often held up and studied as a powerful example of the dangers of religious extremism and as an example of the dangers of scapegoating. Lots of the people accused were considered guilty of living immoral lives relative to a strict, puritanical understanding of the Bible. Many who were accused were also convenient scapegoats for problems beyond their control, such as a poor harvest one year or the death of a child during childbirth.
The dangers of religious extremism and of scapegoating are still relevant to our lives more than four hundred years after the Salem Witch Trials. Indeed, there are wars waged and acts of terrorism perpetrated every year in the name of religion, and we are still fond of blaming for the problems in the world groups of people who make for convenient scapegoats, such as immigrants and refugees. Clearly, we haven't yet learned the lessons of the Salem Witch Trials, so there is every reason, therefore, to continue to study them.

Why was David's birthday memorable?

In chapter 9, "I Have a Memorable Birthday," David finds out that his mother is dead, and that his baby brother is probably going to die, too.
When he's called into the parlor, David thinks that he's going to get a gift for his birthday. Instead, he's told that his mother was seriously ill and died. He was very close to his mother and feels grief when he finds out that she's gone. He stays in the parlor for the rest of the day with Mrs. Creakle except for when she gives him time alone. He cries, sleeps, then cries more while arrangements are made for him to go home for the funeral. He finds out that his baby brother also died.
The death of his mother is a turning point in David's life. Her second husband doesn't care for David properly and sends him to work in a warehouse.

While David is at boarding school, his March birthday arrives. He is summoned to the school parlor. He happily anticipates a hamper of treats from Peggotty and hurries off to receive them.
What makes this birthday memorable, however, is not anything happy. He learns that his mother has died and that his infant brother is also expected to die, which he does. David is in a state of shock, and he sincerely mourns his mother's death, remembering her as the young, happy woman she was when he was small.
At home from Salem House, he learns that his beloved Peggotty has been given a month's notice, meaning she will be laid off in a month's time. Further, he is neglected by the Murdstones, and he realizes the Mr. Murdstone hates him more than ever. A mother's death is not the kind of birthday surprise a child hopes to have.

How is a conversation shaped between John Keats poems and Jane Campion’s film The Bright Star?

In Jane Campion’s film Bright Star, John Keats’s poems are woven intricately into the story of the relationship between Keats and his great love, Fanny Brawne. The movie begins when Keats comes to stay with a neighbor of Brawne’s in the English countryside. After Fanny reads Keats’s long poem Endymion, she begins their first substantive conversation by quoting some of its lines back to him. She tells him she wished to love it, but she couldn’t—although she thought its beginning “something very perfect.”
Their relationship grows deeper as Fanny offers sympathy for Keats’s dying brother, Tom. At Christmas, Keats comes to Fanny’s house at her invitation, and at dinner her family begs him to recite a poem. He begins reciting a sonnet, “When I Have Fears That I May Cease to Be,” but loses track of the words when he looks at Fanny, as they both become aware how much they have come to care about each other.
Fanny begins coming to Keats for lessons in how to read and understand poetry, much to the dismay of Keats’s friend and fellow poet, Charles Brown, who thinks she is distracting Keats from their work. As Keats and Fanny fall in love, he writes some of his most famous poems, many of which are quoted in the movie. Brown praises Eve of St. Agnes as extraordinary, and perfect, and quotes lines back to Keats from memory—even as he warns Keats about his relationship with Fanny.
Knowing he doesn’t have the money to support Fanny, Keats tries to stay away, even as her mother warns her against continuing the relationship given his lack of prospects. But he returns from London to see her, and their reunion (in the film) inspires him to write the famous sonnet beginning “Bright star, would I as stedfast as thou art.”
Soon after this, Keats becomes seriously ill (like his brother, he suffers from tuberculosis) and Fanny nurses him, as he works on his new book of poems. She thinks it will be his best, and quotes back to him lines from the ballad “La Belle Dame Sans Merci.”
For his health, it is decided Keats must travel to Italy. Telling Fanny she cannot go with him, that they must cut ties between them for her own good, Keats quotes lines from “Ode on a Grecian Urn,” one of his most famous poems. After Keats dies in Italy, the film ends with a scene of Fanny walking the snowy countryside, reciting lines from “Bright Star,” the poem directly inspired by her.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/john-keats

How is Jaques an introvert?

Jacques appropriately first appears "in character" (i.e. doing something characteristic). He is all alone, shunning companionship, and moralizing on the spectacle of a wounded deer being abandoned by the other members of the herd.
DUKE SENIOR.
But what said Jaques?
Did he not moralize this spectacle?
FIRST LORD.
O, yes, into a thousand similes.
First, for his weeping into the needless stream;
'Poor deer,' quoth he 'thou mak'st a testament
As worldlings do, giving thy sum of more
To that which had too much:' then, being there alone,
Left and abandoned of his velvet friends;
''Tis right'; quoth he; 'thus misery doth part
The flux of company:' anon, a careless herd,
Full of the pasture, jumps along by him
And never stays to greet him; 'Ay,' quoth Jaques,
'Sweep on, you fat and greasy citizens;
'Tis just the fashion; wherefore do you look
Upon that poor and broken bankrupt there?
'Thus most invectively he pierceth through
The body of the country, city, court,
Yea, and of this our life: swearing that we
Are mere usurpers, tyrants, and what's worse,
To fright the animals, and to kill them up
In their assign'd and native dwelling-place.
According to C. G. Jung, who coined the terms "introvert" and "extrovert," the introvert is interested in the "subjective" aspects of things--that is, in what they suggest to him--rather than the things in themselves. Jaques is an example of an introvert, a type of person who existed long before Jung identified them. According to Jung:
The introvert sees everything that is in any way valuable to him in the subject; the extravert sees it in the object. This dependence on the object seems to the introvert a mark of the greatest inferiority, while to the extravert the preoccupation with the subject seems nothing but infantile autoeroticism.
Jaques is very conspicuously preoccupied with what the object, the wounded deer, suggests to him, rather than in the spectacle presented by the animal itself. There are many introverts to be seen in literature. Hamlet is obviously one of them, as is Shakespeare's Richard II, and Brutus in his Julius Caesar. Herman Melville's character Bartleby in "Bartleby the Scrivener: A Tale of Wall Street" is a supreme example of an introvert. Stephen Dedalus in James Joyce's novel Ulysses is another. Rodion Raskolnikov in Dostoyevsky's novel Crime and Punishment is another introvert, as is the anonymous narrator of his novella Notes from Underground.
Jung states that, whereas extroverts never try to become introverts, it is common for introverts to try to act like extroverts because extroversion is the "dominant mode" in the Western world. According to Jung, it is destructive for an introvert to try to become an extrovert, and he generally does a very bad job of acting, like the narrator of Dostoyevsky's "Notes from Underground."
As a rule, whenever such a falsification of type takes place as a result of parental influence, the individual becomes neurotic later, and can be cured only by developing the attitude consonant with his nature.
Jung
What makes Jaques such an interesting example of an introvert is the fact that, along with dramatizing his persistence in avoiding people, Shakespeare emphasizes the intricate complexity of his subjectivity.

In hindsight we can say that the road to disunion began with American independence. Do you see anyway disunion could have been avoided by pursuing a different policy at any time between 1776 and 1861? Or was it inevitable?

While this question depends largely on one's opinion, I think that disunion could have been avoided if the new nation immediately freed all the slaves after the American Revolution. It could have taken advantage of the spirit of unity within the colonies directly after independence. There were few slaves in 1783 compared to what there would be in 1860, when the amount of money tied either directly or indirectly to slavery would reach millions of dollars. As the number of slaves increased in the United States and agriculture related to slavery became more profitable, it became less likely that slave owners would react positively to the freeing of slaves.
If this happened, the newly freed slaves could have stayed in the United States, living side-by-side with whites, or perhaps settling the sparsely populated West. Civil rights for former slaves would have been a struggle even in this alternate history.
Given this answer, one could say that disunion began at the founding of the colonies and that it was inevitable. Slavery made the North and South culturally different, and it would take the Civil War to forge a common inseparable bond between the two regions, the bond being the Constitution's supremacy and the ultimate abolition of slavery.

What can't the travel agent guarantee in "A Sound of Thunder"?

When Eckels initially enters the Time Safari office, he experiences fear and anxiety as he raises his hand in the air to ask a question. When Eckels asks if the safari company guarantees that he will make it back alive, the official responds by telling him, "We guarantee nothing . . . except the dinosaurs" (Bradbury, 1). The safari official's statement suggests that the Time Safari is a dangerous expedition, and the company cannot guarantee the hunters' safety, which is unnerving and contributes to the suspense of the story. The official proceeds to introduce a Safari guide named Travis to the first-time hunters and warns them that there is a ten thousand dollar penalty for disobeying Travis's orders. Eckels and the other hunters are then required to sign a release form that states that if anything happens to them during the expedition, the company is not responsible. The fact that the company cannot guarantee the hunters' safety and requires them to sign a release form builds suspense and foreshadows Eckels's dangerous, life-threatening experience.

What is the significance of the name Godhigh? How does Julian’s attitude towards his ancestors and towards the Godhigh family home reflect the central conflict of the story?

Julian's mother takes great pride in the fact that his grandmother "'was a Godhigh.'" To his mother, this means that Julian should take great pride in his family and his heritage, because his ancestors were prosperous and powerful. She believes that her parents' and grandparents' status and identity are part and parcel of her own, and Julian completely disagrees. He says that

"Knowing who you are is good for one generation only. You haven't the foggiest idea where you stand now or who you are."

The name itself seems symbolic, as though the Godhigh family felt that they were as powerful as gods, even when they fell to "'reduced circumstances.'" Julian's mother asserts that they never forgot who they were, as though their high status and all it entailed--the manners, the traditions, the graciousness (their general superiority)-- kept them above everyone else, even when their wealth no longer could.
Julian's attitude toward all this reflects his feelings about the past in general: that it is really meaningless and that people have to look toward the future. To Julian, who one's parents or grandparents were has no bearing on who one is today. His mother thinks exactly the opposite, and so the two butt heads.

Using these three points (treatment of the crew, impressment, threat of mutiny), argue the effect of British maritime law on the death of Billy Budd.

Impressment is a critical theme of Billy Budd, as well as the brutal pragmatism that lies behind British maritime law. It's worth noting that Billy himself is not a volunteer; he's impressed into the British navy. Additionally, consider the ways in which Melville himself illustrates the brutality of naval life (I'd point to a particular incident found in chapter 9, just to give a potential starting point), and add that there's a strict hierarchy which defines naval life, by which the officers and common crewmen are set apart from one another, with an uneasy tension present between the two groups in question.
The third point of your question regards the idea of mutiny, and here I would begin by taking note of the degree of detail which Melville puts into establishing his setting. Billy Budd takes place in 1797, with Great Britain at war with Revolutionary France, in the wake of the naval mutinies at Spithead and Nore. Furthermore, I'd add that, given careful reading of the text, you should hopefully observe that insurrection emerges as a recurring theme in the story.
So, these three subjects tend to be interwoven across Billy Budd, and together they establish a picture of life in the British navy. It is brutal, it is harsh, but that brutality is itself based in pragmatism. The key scene, here, in which the entire story ultimately comes together, lies in the drumhead trial, where Billy Budd is sentenced to die.
Here I would begin by noting the conflict that emerges between regular law and martial law. All involved are actually in agreement that Billy does not deserve to die, and yet the punishment is death all the same. (In fact, the argument Vere makes during the trial scene is, essentially, that Billy has to die, because the laws of the British navy demand that he dies. To him, this is inescapable.) I'd suggest the key to answering this question is to read that drumhead scene very carefully and read into the arguments which Vere makes, where we see these undercurrents of brutal pragmatism on display. The harshness of British recruitment methods, the fear of mutiny, and the harsh brutality of maritime law, as they relate to times of war all come together in this scene, where we see the rationale which has shaped the brutality and how this entire picture fits together.

Write a modern day parable . A story which shows the message of either the Prodigal Son, or the Good Samaritan.

A parable is a story that teaches a spiritual truth. In order to write a modern parable that shows the message of the Parable of the Prodigal Son, or the Parable of the Good Samaritan, you first need to understand the meaning of those parables.
In the Parable of the Prodigal Son, a young man demands his inheritance of his father and leaves his father's home. This was a grave insult to his father! After some time of wasteful spending and riotous living, the son finds himself alone. His money is all gone, and he has no friends. He eventually sells himself into slavery to make ends meet. Ashamed, he comes to his senses and returns to his father. Hoping to be made a servant, he is amazed when his father forgives him and welcomes him back with open arms. The parable is intended to convey God's love and forgiveness for those who return to him, no matter what they've done.
In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, a Jewish man is beaten, robbed, and left for dead on the highway. Several people pass by him, including a priest, yet do not take the time to help him. Finally, a Samaritan walks by. This is significant because there was a great deal of prejudice and animosity between Jewish people and Samaritans. The Samaritan stops and cares for the man, even paying for his care while he heals. The parable shows that we should have compassion and love for everyone we meet, regardless of who they are.
To show these parables in a modern setting, you would want to update the setting while still keeping the message intact. For example, the prodigal son rejected and insulted his father, then hit rock bottom before returning and being forgiven. What would that look like in your culture today? Imagine someone in your culture who was beaten and left for dead, like the man the Good Samaritan helped. Who would be the least likely person to show him love and compassion?
https://www.gotquestions.org/parable-Good-Samaritan.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/parable-prodigal-son.html

https://www.openbible.info/topics/good_samaritan

What is the mood of the poem “The Passionate Shepherd to His Love” by Christopher Marlowe?

Despite the apparent simplicity of Marlowe's famous poem, its tone is multi-faceted. Above all the expression is a worshipful one, of both the speaker's love and of nature. It is also hypnotic in tone. The words are beautiful in the musical way that entrances the reader, as the shepherd is attempting to do with the girl he is wooing. If there is a quality about the tone that is paradoxical in some sense, it lies in the fact that the words could be construed as almost banal (by a cynic) in their way, and yet they are astonishing in the variety, in the multiplicity, of the ideas Marlowe uses to convey a simple thought.
As in pastoral poetry in general, the tone is intended to invoke an Eden, a realm in which man and woman can enjoy the fruits of the earth without fear or guilt. Above all, then, there is an innocence projected by the speaker, even though he is attempting a seduction. This could be seen as a kind of irony at the heart of the poem. One also can say that the wording is so smooth and gentle (and this is why it's hypnotic) that it could put one to sleep, like a lullaby.
Marlowe's poem inspired other poets to write "answers" to it, the most famous of which is probably Raleigh's "The Nymph's Reply to the Shepherd." What is interesting, apart from the fact that Raleigh's poem is also great, is that although its meaning is in some way the opposite of Marlowe's, one can find more similarities than differences between the "tone" of the two poems.

What is the name of the Happy Prince's palace?

In this story, the castle in which the Happy Prince lived when alive was called Sans Souci, which means "without worry or care." As the statue of the Happy Prince tells the swallow, he lived behind high walls and knew nothing but happiness—which, in his limited world, was the same as pleasure.
After the Happy Prince dies and is made into a beautiful, costly statue, he can see the misery all around him. At this point, the name of his castle becomes ironic to the prince; it comes to mean the opposite of without care. He realizes that his pleasure was built on the intense and overwhelming cares and worries of other people. His statue heart bleeds for the suffering he sees everywhere: sickness, hunger, cold, and want. He prevails on the swallow to use the rubies in his statue self and the gold covering it to help the poor to truly be "sans Souci." As the swallow reports, he

saw the rich making merry in their beautiful houses, while the beggars were sitting at the gates.

As the statue of the Happy Prince explains to his friend the swallow, he lived a very sheltered existence when he was alive, in a palace called Sans-Souci. In French, this means "worry-free," and indeed the Happy Prince goes on to state that he never knew what it was to be unhappy when he was living in this place, because sadness was not permitted to enter the palace. Instead, the Happy Prince spent his days playing with his companions and his evenings dancing with them, and the whole palace was encircled by a high wall which served to keep out everything that was beyond it. When he was alive, the Prince never questioned what the city might be like beyond the bounds of his sorrowless palace, but now that he is pitched far above it and can see how the poor people live, he is very much moved by their plight.

Discuss the role played by the protagonist in The Black Hermit.

In Ngũgĩ wa Thiongʼo's play The Black Hermit, the protagonist, Remi, encapsulates the conflict between tribal, traditional culture on the one hand and Westernized, then-contemporary culture on the other. Remi is also a symbol of chosenness, as he has been privileged enough to receive a college education and is regarded by his tribe as "the green seed." But when we first meet Remi, he is living in the city and has no desire to go back home, even though he thinks often of home. Tribal elders and a Christian priest visit him and convince him to return home.
Remi's state of being torn between two worlds represents the conflict between individualistic urban culture and tribal culture, with its focus on the family and the group over and against the individual. The individual who cuts himself off from tradition is the "hermit" of the play's title. Remi's return home is deeply ambivalent and ultimately tragic, as his incapacity to assume his role as husband to Thoni results in her death. The implicit suggestion is that neglect of the human needs of others to whom one has obligations is a moral problem much worse than indifference to tradition as such.

What is Bellingham's reason for taking away Pearl?

Governor Bellingham wants to take Pearl, who is now three years old, from Hester because he believes Hester's status as a fallen woman may endanger Pearl's soul after death as well as her well-being on earth. The governor questions Hester, asking her if it would not be better if Pearl were raised apart from her, put in more somber clothes, and brought up with discipline in a religious household? As the governor puts it:

Were it not, thinkest thou, for thy little one’s temporal and eternal welfare, that she be taken out of thy charge, and clad soberly, and disciplined strictly, and instructed in the truths of Heaven and earth?

Governor Bellingham then proceeds to ask:

What canst thou do for the child, in this kind?

Hester responds that she can teach Pearl the wisdom she has learned from her shame.
When Pearl refuses to answer the question of where she came from properly, saying she was plucked off a rosebush rather than that she was made by God, the governor is outraged and says it is clear she should be taken from her mother.
Dimmesdale, however, at Hester's request, makes a passionate appeal that the child be left with Hester, which convinces the governor to allow them to stay together for now.

Discuss what elasticity conditions (labor demand/supply perfectly elastic, elastic, unitary elastic, inelastic, or perfectly inelastic) would be needed for the minimum wage to benefit low-income workers.

Although it might seem obvious that low-income workers would desire and would benefit most from an increase in minimum wage, that is not necessarily the case. Two conditions are most likely to benefit low-income worker. The first pertains to the minimum wage level, and the other concerns increases in the minimum wage rate. Therefore, one can observe the connection between the inelasticity of demand for low-wage labor and increases in minimum wage. This is the correlation identified by Leif Danziger in “The Elasticity of Labor Demand and the Minimum Wage.”
Minimum wage level corresponding to unitary elastic aggregate demand will generally most benefit low-wage workers. However, the same is not true for wage rate increases, as the best situation is associated with inelastic aggregate demand for labor. One main reason for this differential correlation is that raising workers’ wages tends to reduce the number of jobs because of lay-offs, so that the lower-paid workers end up with no employment and thus no wages. Instead, they will have a “reservation wage rate,” which primarily consists of account for benefits such as unemployment insurance. Workers may also benefit in non-financial ways from increased time available for other pursuits, including seeking employment.
Given the importance of reservation wage rates, analysis must account for the critical value of the elasticity of labor demand. This means in part that a higher minimum wage rate improves the low-wage workers’ situation when labor demand is less elastic than the critical value; in contrast, when labor demand is more elastic than the critical value, such workers will be worse off . Unemployment benefits are an important factor corresponding to decreasing elasticity of labor demand.
Danziger, L. J Popul Econ (2009) 22: 757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-007-0179-y
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00148-007-0179-y

What do the Mechanicals intend to do?

The Mechanicals want to put on a play that will impress the nobles at the wedding of Theseus and Hippolyta in A Midsummer Night's Dream.
Performing at the wedding is a big coup for any group of performers. The Rude Mechanicals, as they're called, aren't actors by trade. Instead, they're skilled laborers who don't have much experience with playwriting or acting; they also don't seem like the most clever characters. Because of this, the version of Pyramus and Thisbe they're attempting to put on is a bit ridiculous.
When Theseus chooses to watch Pyramus and Thisbe, it's every bit as silly and unlike the real play as the audience expects it to be by that point. However, the actors are funny enough that the audience appreciates the play as a comedy and everyone has a lovely time. The actors and the wedding party are satisfied.

What is a good thesis for a comparing and contrasting essay on Dr. Sasaki and Tanimoto? What are their differences and similarities within the book? What are some quotes that can support the differences and similarities?

I think a good comparison point to stress between the two men is that both men work tirelessly to help the bomb victims. Tanimoto is in a location that affords him the opportunity to get away from Hiroshima, yet he runs toward the destruction in order to help in any way that he can.

He had thought of his wife and baby, his church, his home, his parishioners, all of them down in that awful murk. Once more he began to run in fear—toward the city.

We see a similar determination to help from Sasaki. He winds up being uninjured from the blast, and that allows him to be in a position to help victim after victim in the hospital.

By three o'clock the next morning, after nineteen straight hours of his gruesome work, Dr. Sasaki was incapable of dressing another wound.

Regarding a difference, I think that it is best to examine how the bomb affects their later lives. Sasaki doesn't believe that the bomb is the most defining moment in his life or career. Instead, his lung problem and lung removal wind up being more life altering.

In later years, Dr. Sasaki came to think of that experience as the most important of his life—more important than the bombing. Haunted by the loneliness he had felt when he thought he was dying, he now did his best to move closer to his wife and children—two sons and two daughters.

That is quite different from Tanimoto. The bomb and its effects so deeply impact him that he makes it a life goal to promote peace and speak out against the use of such weaponry.

On the sea voyage, an ambitious idea grew in his mind. He would spend his life working for peace. He was becoming convinced that the collective memory of the hibakusha would be a potent force for peace in the world, and that there ought to be in Hiroshima a center where the experience of the bombing could become the focus of international studies of means to assure that atomic weapons would never be used again.

A possible thesis to guide this compare and contrast essay could be something similar to the following thesis statement: "Although Tanimoto and Sasaki had similar experiences in helping the bomb victims, each man had a completely different takeaway from the nuclear disaster."

How is the theme of exile represented in "Dedication" by Czleaw Milosz and what are the symbols in the poem?

With “Dedication,” Czesław Miłosz proposes the poem as an offering to those who perished in the siege of Warsaw as well as those forced to succumb to the German control that was then imposed. Exile is both a physical condition of leaving the city and an existential state of moving away from that control. The speaker calls attention to the errors in saying goodbye to a place and to the past: “You mixed up farewell to an epoch with the beginning of a new one.” While the dead are literally gone, the speaker indicates that they have been haunting him, which he aims to stop by leaving behind the words of his poem:

I put this book here for you, who once livedSo that you should visit us no more.

The symbolism used includes clouds or fog for hidden or obscured truths: “silence like a cloud” and “white fog.” The speaker also uses birds and their cries to symbolize the dead and their lost words: “the wind throws the screams of gulls on your grave” and “the dead who would come disguised as birds.”
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/49458/dedication-56d22b9082a83

How can the lawyer be sure of collecting if he wins?

This is a very serious bet these two men are making. The young lawyer is undertaking to spend fifteen years of his life in solitary confinement. But how can he be sure he will collect the two million rubles if he wins? It would be terrible to think that he might endure fifteen years of solitary confinement and then have the banker refuse to pay. After all, their agreement is not in writing. It is what might be called a "gentlemen's wager" confirmed and solemnized with a handshake.
The author of this ingenious story, Anton Chekhov, has taken this question into consideration and has done his best to make the bet binding. For one thing, the bet was made in front of a large number of fairly important witnesses.
The old banker was walking up and down his study and remembering how, fifteen years before, he had given a party one autumn evening. There had been many clever men there, and there had been interesting conversations....The majority of the guests, among whom were many journalists and intellectual men, disapproved of the death penalty.
Chekhov deliberately mentions that many of the guests were journalists. If the banker reneged on the bet his disgrace would be known all over Russia, because the journalists would surely see that the story got into print.
Another important factor is that the man who undertakes to serve the fifteen years in solitary confinement is frequently referred to as a lawyer. This is to suggest that if the lawyer were to win the bet and the banker were to try to get out of paying the two million rubles, the lawyer would know how to take him to court and sue him for something like "breach of promise" or "breach of a verbal contract." And the lawyer would have plenty of witnesses to call on his behalf.
Thirdly, Chekhov makes the other bettor an extremely wealthy banker.
And this wild, senseless bet was carried out! The banker, spoilt and frivolous, with millions beyond his reckoning, was delighted at the bet.
It would not be wise to make a bet involving two million rubles with anyone but a very rich man. At the time the bet was concluded the banker considered a couple of million rubles a trifle. He takes the young lawyer aside and tells him:
"Think better of it, young man, while there is still time. To me two million is a trifle, but you are losing three or four of the best years of your life. I say three or four, because you won't stay longer."
The banker fully expects to win and keep his money because he can't believe that anyone could stand to spend fifteen years in solitary confinement. But this banker finds himself in a tight spot when the lawyer amazes him by remaining a prisoner right up to the night before the time is up.
Fifteen years before, his millions had been beyond his reckoning; now he was afraid to ask himself which were greater, his debts or his assets. Desperate gambling on the Stock Exchange, wild speculation and the excitability which he could not get over even in advancing years, had by degrees led to the decline of his fortune and the proud, fearless, self-confident millionaire had become a banker of middling rank, trembling at every rise and fall in his investments.
The banker does not consider flatly refusing to pay the two million rubles. He couldn't stand the disgrace. And even if he did refuse to pay, there seems to be a strong possibility that the lawyer could take him to court and get a judgment against him for two million rubles. The banker made the bet without considering two possibilities. One was that the lawyer might actually be able to endure fifteen years in solitary confinement. The other was that he himself might lose so much money in fifteen years that two million rubles would no longer be a "trifle" but such a serious matter that he finds himself plotting to commit a murder to get out of parting with his money.

How did Tom manage to escape Aunt Polly's hold in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer?

In the opening chapter, Aunt Polly is trying to get hold of Tom. But first, she has to get her spectacles on, and then she mistakenly pokes under the bed before finding Tom hiding in a closet. She discovers he has been eating jam, because it is all around his mouth.
She grabs a switch and tells him she is going beat him, because she has warned him over and over to stay out of the jam. Tom is desperate to get away from the switch, so he uses a stratagem. He tells his aunt to look behind her, as if something is there:

“My! Look behind you, aunt!”

Aunt Polly falls for the trick and turns around, pulling her skirts out of danger (she perhaps thinks Tom has seen a mouse). Tom immediately runs away, climbs over a high wooden fence, and disappears.

Note the use of symbol in either “Young Goodman Brown” or “The Minister’s Black Veil.” Examine one central symbol in detail, explaining its significance in the broader concern of the story.

Nathaniel Hawthorne's "Young Goodman Brown" is full of symbols; in fact, it is a great example of an allegory, a literary work that operates on both literal and symbolic levels. You could choose any number of symbols from the story—the man Brown meets in the woods, the names of the characters, the satanic ceremony in the woods—but I want to focus on Faith's pink ribbon as a good example of how a symbol conveys the concerns of the work as a whole.
At the start of the story, Goodman Brown leaves his young wife Faith, aptly-named, as Brown thinks of her as representative of total innocence and purity. The note of her "pink ribbons" at the beginning of the story doesn't stand out much, but later, when the protagonist see the ribbon again in the forest, it takes on much greater significance.
As the story progresses, Young Goodman Brown meets a man in the forest who represents the devil. This man reveals all sorts of dirty secrets of Brown's strict Puritan town. Even Brown's religion teacher is friendly with the devil. This symbolizes that all people have some good and some evil, or rather than no one is perfect. A more cynical reading could even say that it means Puritans are hypocritical because they pretend to be good and pure but are actually sinners who are just good at hiding their flaws. Eventually, Brown reaches a satanic ceremony in the woods that seems to mirror a baptism where new members are being initiated into the church. Here, though, the new members are pledging allegiance to Satan. One of the new members is, of course, Faith, Brown's innocent wife. This is a huge shock to Brown, but the pivotal moment occurs when Faith's ribbon reappears:

The cry of grief, rage, and terror, was yet piercing the night, when the unhappy husband held his breath for a response. There was a scream, drowned immediately in a louder murmur of voices, fading into far-off laughter, as the dark cloud swept away, leaving the clear and silent sky above Goodman Brown. But something fluttered lightly down through the air, and caught on the branch of a tree. The young man seized it, and beheld a pink ribbon.
“My Faith is gone!” cried he, after one stupefied moment. “There is no good on earth; and sin is but a name. Come, devil! for to thee is this world given.”

When Brown realizes that Faith's pink ribbon has fluttered down to him, he takes it as a sign that his wife has gone to "the dark side" and is no longer innocent. The pink ribbon here could be a symbol of that innocence that is now lost. Along with her innocence, Goodman Brown's "Faith" in the good of his fellow people and in religion or God at large has been destroyed. Brown claims the devil rules the world now.
I think, however, that the color of Faith's ribbon is significant here. Pink is a mixture of red and white. In literature, white is often associated with purity and innocence. Red in our story here, as in other Hawthorne works (The Scarlet Letter) represents guilt or sin, and is associated with Satan. Faith's ribbon is a symbol of her larger persona—she is a mixture of innocence (good) and sin (evil), just like everyone else. Her ritual in the woods is almost like an introduction to adult life rather than a promise to worship Satan. This is why Faith and everyone else in the town is acting totally normal the next morning, while Brown is completely devastated by this knowledge. Faith's ribbons were pink all along; Goodman Brown simply did not yet know the truth that all people are complex and no one is purely good.

Explain what a "swale" is. What's the definition, and how is this word used in "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber"?

A swale is a moist depression in an area of land, often between two ridges. Because a swale collects surface water, it often contains marsh-like vegetation.
The word "swale" is used twice in "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber." The first instance is on page 9, when Wilson and Macomber's car drives "through the swale of high grass." This means that they drive through a depression in the ground which is full of grass. The grass is higher in the swale than elsewhere because, as mentioned above, swales collect surface water, which allows vegetation to grow abundantly.
The second instance of the word "swale" occurs on page 36. Here, the author describes an "island of bushy trees" which runs along "a dry water course that cut[s] the open swale." The "dry water course" is essentially a dry riverbed, or probably something a little smaller in this instance. This "course" widens out at some point into a larger depression, or hollow in the ground, and this larger depression is what's called the swale.

Was Harry S. Truman a Democratic conservative?

The 33rd President of the United States was a member of the Democratic Party. A conservative Democrat or a democratic Conservative is a term used in American politics to describe politicians who are members of the Democratic Party, but tend to have more conservative political views and opinions. While it is certainly debatable that Truman’s foreign policy was a bit more conservative in comparison to his domestic policy, as he didn’t have a very friendly attitude towards USSR, it is also safe to say that his domestic policy was much more liberal in character. Essentially, his policy included the reconstruction and reformation of the United States’ economy. He incorporated his liberal reform program called the Fair Deal which is, basically, a continuation of Roosevelt’s New Deal; he suggested that all Americans should have health insurance and equal rights, a higher minimum wage, better education and employment opportunities, better social security, and he fought against racial or religious discrimination. Nonetheless, Truman is respected and claimed by both parties to this very day.

How does Gurov change after leaving Anna?

The classic short story "The Lady With the Pet Dog" by Anton Chekhov tells of a man and a woman who meet while vacationing in Yalta. Dmitri Gurov is a banker in the midst of an unhappy marriage. He is used to picking up women and having brief affairs with them. He does not respect any of them, referring to them as "the lower race." Anna Sergeyevna has come to Yalta without her husband, so her marriage is obviously not going well either. The two have an affair together, and when it's time to leave, they expect to never see each other again.
The change that takes place in Gurov is due to the fact that, without realizing it at first, he has fallen in love with Anna. Unlike all the other women he has spent time with and then left, he cannot forget Anna. He thinks of her constantly.

Anna Sergeyevna did not visit him in dreams, but followed him about everywhere like a shadow and haunted him.

The thought of her obsesses him, and it bothers him that he has no one he can confide in and tell about his feelings for her. He resolves to find her in her hometown. When he does, she confesses that she has been thinking about him too, and they recommence their affair.

I need help thinking of a thesis statement and a theme for an essay on The Awakening. The main prompt of the essay is to determine what the author’s underlying intent is in shaping the reader’s understanding about being an individual in society. What is a thesis I could use that ties in a good theme? Thanks!!

A great strategy to use while developing any kind of literary thesis statement involves making a debatable point about the text and proving your side of the debate in your writing.
The question asks you to decide what the author is trying to say about individualism in The Awakening, so let's start with that point: what do you think is the underlying message of the work?
While focus your thesis statement on theme, you might consider these ideas: feminism in The Awakening, suicide as an act of personal empowerment, gender roles, self-reliance, and shows of personal strength. Select a literary term that emphasizes the theme, like characterization or a key event in the plot. Decide what you are trying to argue, and put all the components together in a thesis statement made up of these components, like this:

Chopin's depiction of Edna's suicide supports the theme of self-reliance in The Awakening.

You might discuss, in your analysis, the connections between Edna's act of suicide and what it means to be and to act as an individual. Does the fact that suicide results in death mean that it is less of an act of self-reliance, or is suicide Edna's only option if she wants to be self-reliant? How do you plan to link Edna's character with the theme of self-reliance? Check to make sure your thesis is debatable and that you have quotes to support your argument, and you're ready to write your essay.

What do the lost boys symbolize in Peter Pan?

According to Peter Pan, the lost boys are "boys who fall out of their prams when the nurse is looking the other way and, if they are not claimed in seven days, they are sent far away to the Neverland."
The lost boys can be understood as a symbol for all orphaned children. This is why Barrie presented them as carefree, playful, and—more often than not—naughty and ill-behaved, as they've basically grown up without adult supervision or guidance. By the end of the novel, they realize that they cannot stay with Peter forever and decide to return to London with Wendy.
Barrie believed that all children should grow up happy and loved and should be able to love in return. The fact that all of the lost boys end up being adopted and grow up into good and kind adults who live comfortable and fulfilled lives only solidifies the point that Barrie was trying to make.

What can readers infer about the relationship between Arthur and Sir Hector?

There are actually two Sir Hectors in Le Mort d'Arthur. The first Sir Hector we'll look at is Sir Hector de Maris, who it's fair to say has a pretty fraught relationship with King Arthur. Though nominally loyal to his king, his greatest loyalty is to his younger half-brother, Lancelot. When Lancelot is expelled in disgrace from the Round Table after his affair with Guinevere is exposed, Hector stands by him and joins him in exile. By choosing to leave court with his half-brother, Hector is displaying his outright opposition to King Arthur. His hostility towards Arthur is further shown by his willingness to participate with Lancelot in the rescue of Guinevere from execution.
The other Sir Hector is King Arthur's adoptive father. As a baby, Arthur was entrusted to Sir Hector by Merlin the magician, and Hector brought up the boy as his own. Foster father and son enjoy a close relationship, even after the disclosure of Arthur's true parentage upon the death of his birth father, Uther Pendragon. One gets the impression that Sir Hector cares deeply for his adopted son and knows just how special he is. We can see this when Sir Kay, Hector's biological son, claims credit for Arthur's pulling the sword from the stone. Sir Hector intervenes and makes Sir Kay swear on the Bible how he really came by the sword.

Can someone make a working bibliography for a Cinderella essay with at least 10 academic/scholarly sources?

A working bibliography for Cinderella will include sources that you can use as you write about the fairy tale. The focus of your essay will determine which sources are the most useful. It's important to remember that working bibliographies aren't final versions; they're intended to change as you narrow your search and decide which sources are best for you to use.
Alcantud-Diaz, M. (2012). “The sisters did her every imaginable injury”: power and violence in Cinderella. International Journal of English Studies, (2), 59.
This article is an analysis of the language in Cinderella and how it shows violence. The author says violence in a text needs to be considered from a publishing standpoint when creating literature for children.
Bettelheim, B. (1975). The uses of enchantment: the meaning and importance of fairy tales. New York, NY: Random House.
This book looks at child development through fairy tales and shows how people can use them to better understand things and face fears. The chapter on Cinderella includes the interesting tidbit that "long before Perrault gave 'Cinderella' the form in which it is now widely known, 'having to live among the ashes' was a symbol of being debased in comparison to one's siblings, irrespective of sex" (236).
Blankier, M. (2014). Adapting and transforming "Cinderella": fairy-tale adaptations and the limits of existing adaptation theory. Interdisciplinary Humanities, 31(3), 108–123.
This article uses Cinderella as an example to discuss how fairy tales can be adapted across different mediums and cultures. It also discusses the problems with adaptation and adaptation theory.
DeGraff, A. (1996). From glass slipper to glass ceiling: "Cinderella" and the endurance of a fairy tale. Merveilles & Contes, 10(1), 69-85. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41390220
This article discusses the adaptability of Cinderella and talks about the differences between text and video versions.
Dundes, A. (1982). Cinderella, a casebook. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.
This book contains a variety of essays on Cinderella. The author says they're intended to be a representative sample of over 100 years of work.
Fohr, S.D. (1991). Cinderella's gold slipper: spiritual symbolism in the Grimms' tales. Wheaton, IL: Sophia Perennis.
This book examines various fairy tales, including Cinderella. It talks about two major types of Cinderella stories and the symbolism behind the character archetypes.
Lieberman, M. (1972). "Some day my prince will come": female acculturation through the fairy tale. College English, 34(3), 383-395. doi:10.2307/375142
This essay discusses how reading fairy tales can guide girls into believing harmful stereotypes or prepare them to take traditional roles in society.
Panttaja, E. (1993). Going up in the world: class in "Cinderella". Western Folklore, 52(1), 85-104. doi:10.2307/1499495
This article is a liberal cultural analysis of class in Cinderella. The author says that earlier studies skewed conservative and made assumptions about fairy tales that need to be challenged.
Preston, C. (1994). "Cinderella" as a dirty joke: gender, multivocality, and the polysemic text. Western Folklore, 53(1), 27-49. doi:10.2307/1499651
This article examines a joke in a version of the story and explains how it relates to views of gender, class, and representation from the dominant culture.
Williams, C. (2010). The shoe still fits: Ever After and the pursuit of a feminist Cinderella. In Zipes J. (Author) & Greenhill P. & Matrix S. (Eds.), Fairy Tale Films: Visions of Ambiguity (pp. 99-115). University Press of Colorado. doi:10.2307/j.ctt4cgn37.10
This version explains that while the Cinderella character Danielle does break tradition, she isn't a fully realized feminist character. She still ends up in a traditional role and no one in the movie questions traditional gender roles.
Using keywords can help you find more journal articles and books to expand your search as you continue to increase the entries in your bibliography. While these examples are given in APA format, other formats like MLA may be required depending on what type of bibliography you're developing.