What are reservoir rocks?

A reservoir rock is a rock that has the ability to store fluids. Reservoir rocks have two key characteristics that give them the ability to store fluids: porosity and permeability.
Porosity is a measure of how porous a rock is. In other words, porosity measures how much of a rock is open space.
Permeability is a measure of how easily a fluid can move through a porous rock.
Of course, it is possible for a rock to have both high permeability and porosity and still not be a reservoir rock. The rock has to contain enough hydrocarbon accumulation sealed inside of it to make it commercially worthwhile to obtain. Generally speaking, sedimentary rocks make good reservoir rocks. Sandstone, carbonate, and dolomite sedimentary rock are common reservoir rocks.
http://www.dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/TAD/education/BGBB/4/rocks.html

https://connect.spe.org/blogs/donatien-ishimwe/2014/09/29/reservoir-rock-properties

Discuss how the Risk-Needs Assessment (RNA) is used in making determinations about granting bail.

When a person is charged with a crime, bail refers to the money or bond that is secured in exchange for the person's promise to appear at all future court proceedings while residing in the community.
Making the determination of whether a person should remain in the community while awaiting trial is a critical one. What is the risk to the public, and what are the needs of the defendant? To help answer these questions, an instrument known as a Risk-Needs Assessment (RNA) is used. It can be calculated in paper form or through a computer algorithm.
Weighing the decision of a pretrial release by judicial officials is based on the following factors: age, sex, personality, prior criminal history, socioeconomic background, and current charge. A rating scale is used to calculate the level of risk based on the answers to the assessment questions. If an individual has a high score, he or she may be denied bail, whereas a low-risk individual may be released on his or her own recognizance (ROR). Of course, there is a wide spectrum of possibilities to consider when granting bail and the RNA is a tool that assists in this process.
To learn more about pretrial risk assessments, please visit the link below.

According to Connolly and Ward, why is it important for a rights-supportive approach to disability practice? Be sure to discuss normalization and person-centered approaches which embody the values of a human rights approach to disability. Why are choice and empowerment an important aspect of disability practice? How does it further assist the individual in living to their fullest potential?

The importance of a rights-centered approach to disability practice can't be overstated. Prior to the advent of human rights practices for those with mental or physical disabilities, the prevailing practices tended to alienate more than include those individuals. While equality was sought after in an attempt to better the lives of people with disabilities, there was a tendency to create "separate" norms, thereby essentially reinstating the idea of "separate but equal," which led to feelings of exclusion or being "less-than."
Advocating for the human rights of people with disabilities and treating their disabilities in this way gives them a much stronger voice as well as recognizes that they are individuals with thoughts, feelings, and passions—just like people without disabilities. The attempt has been made with this sort of advocacy to normalize disability (even the word "disabled" defines them against the norm; recently, there has a movement to redefine these individuals as "differently-abled"). It maintains many practices that outwardly help individuals with disabilities, but it is also a project of recasting the idea of "ability" that helps to strengthen and empower the individual.

The self-advocacy movement is part of the disability rights movement, and the power of the movement rests in the fact that it is largely informed by the personal experiences of people with physical or intellectual disabilities. It became more visible in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s, but arguably, it goes widely unrecognized, though the goals and initiatives of the people involved in the movement are crucial to civil rights. People from all races, ethnicities, genders, ages, and cultures experience disabilities, but not all of them receive equal treatment. People with intellectual disabilities, much like people of old age, are disadvantaged in society as a group. They tend to be devalued as persons, as abled people have historically viewed them as less "productive" members of society. Thus, historically, they have been denied basic civil rights, such as the right to procreate and attend college. Practitioners and government officials, in determining policies and procedures for caring for these people, must distinguish between a rights-based approach and a needs-based approach.
Historically, while the goal to meet the basic needs of people with disabilities (PWDs) has been the norm, practices that support this norm often deny them civil rights that all humans are entitled to. Human rights give people power—the power to dictate the course of their lives and create life experiences that make them feel valuable. A person-centered approach to providing for PWDs affords them more than just dignity—it affords them the opportunity to make choices that affect them. It promotes an understanding of PWDs as human beings who can self-advocate, when the normative response to these people treats them much the same any other group that was forced to fight for their civil rights in the past. During the era of slavery, African Americans were viewed as property, in policy and in practice, for instance. Morality dictated their treatment in individual circumstances, but as a group, they were subjugated and oppressed. A person-centered approach to disabilities recognizes that human rights extend beyond basic dignities and that people with disabilities are entitled to receive them. In effect, it addresses PWDs' individual preferences and desires and bucks the historical norm of stripping them of their individuality and addressing them as group defined by "weaknesses."

What is the consonance and the assonance of the poem, "The Gift Outright"?

Consonance can be defined as the repetition of similar sounding consonant letters, and it is often used to create a harsh or soft tone, depending on the sounds of the consonants that are repeated. Assonance can be defined as the repetition of similar sounding vowels, and is, likewise, often used as a means of creating a certain tone.
In Robert Frost's "The Gift Outright," there is an example of consonance in the following lines:


Possessing what we still were unpossessed by,

Possessed by what we now no more possessed.

The repetition of the letter "p" in these lines creates a blunt, harsh tone, implying perhaps that the speaker feels aggrieved by the memory of being "possessed" by the English, and by the idea of not possessing the land that was rightfully theirs to possess.

An example of assonance can be found in these lines:


Until we found out that it was ourselves
We were withholding from our land of living,
And forthwith found salvation in surrender.
Such as we were we gave ourselves outright

In these lines, Frost repeats the "ou" diphthong (a diphthong is the name for the sound produced by two consecutive vowels) seven times. This "ou" sound is a long, drawn out sound, and its repetition here creates a slow, calm tone, which echoes the calmness of the speaker at this point in the poem. Indeed, at this point in the poem, the speaker is reflecting on the collective insurgence of the American people to take possession of the land that was rightfully theirs. This is a memory which the speaker seems to find much more soothing than the aforementioned memory of being dispossessed by the English.

What are the themes, literary devices and structure/form of the poem 'An Unstamped Letter On Our Rural Letter Box'?

Frost uses a simile, a comparison of two unalike things that contains the word like or as, when he describes a tree as "pointed like the pip of spades" and a metaphor, a comparison of two unalike things where one is said to be another, when he describes the trees making "a suite of glades." Another simile describes this place as being "like a city park." The speaker uses another simile to compare a "low-slung juniper" tree to "a blanket on [his] chin" because it keeps some of the dew off of him and some of his body heat in. The coalescence of two stars in the night sky becomes symbolic of the convergence of two memories inside his own brain. A symbol has both literal and figurative meaning.
In terms of theme, we see the way nature is so personal to the speaker, the way his homelessness actually gives him this close relationship to nature that most people do not have. We might conclude, then, that things are not always as they appear to be. One might expect the homeless person to be depressed, but this speaker is happy about his condition because it gives him different opportunities. Every life has value, and everyone's perspective is worthwhile.

This poem by Robert Frost is written in rhyming couplets—that is, the first line rhymes with the second, the third with the fourth, and so on. There is no conscious attempt to repeat particular rhyme sounds outside of this framework. The rhythm and meter of the poem are also fairly regular, with each line for the most part having four stressed beats, or feet. This creates a sort of rolling rhythm, replicating the journeys taken by the tramp in whose voice the poem is written, and is also a very simple, almost childish choice of form, which again seems to reflect the subject matter.
The poem paints the tramp as an "astrologer," who is in some ways disadvantaged—he has to keep moving, for example, in order to stay warm, because of his poverty—but at the same time, he has advantages in terms of his freedom. He is able to follow the stars. These themes of being free, and how humans relate to nature, underscore the whole poem, asking questions about what really affords us freedom as humans.
Frost uses many literary devices in this poem, including similes ("pointed like the pip of spades") and aureate diction ("in forma pauperis"). This use of Latin is particularly notable as it is unexpected from the tramp, who has just been outlining the differences between him and his "involuntary host."

The poem takes the form of a series of couplets in iambic tetrameter. Two lines in a row will rhyme, forming a couplet. Each line is composed of four iambs, that is, two syllables whose natural stresses form a da-DUM pattern. So, for the first line, the stress pattern goes like this: last NIGHT your WATCHdog BARKED all NIGHT. Stresses in metrical poetry are often a key to what's important in the text, especially the final stress of a line, so bear that in mind when writing about it. Also, iambic tetrameter in rhyming couplets goes back to Chaucer, and it can often have a humorous connotation.
A few of the literary devices in the poem are similes, alliteration, and symbolism. "Like a city park" and "like the pip of spades" are both similes. "Firm-set firmament" is an especially interesting example of alliteration, since the whole first syllable is actually repeated. As for the symbolism of the comet, I leave you to decide what it represents, since multiple interpretations could be valid.
Some themes of this poem include socioeconomic class (poverty vs. living in comfort with "advantages"), the connection between internal emotions and the external world, and the relationship between man and nature.

Do you think the speaker feels guilty about what he has done?

I think the only feeling the narrator really registers is that they feel "Happy and proud" to know that Porphyria loves them (I use the gender-nonspecific "them" since we do not know for certain that the narrator it is male; they could be female). It is, after all, her love that the narrator seeks to sustain, and that is why the narrator strangles her. The narrator describes Porphyria as having blue eyes that "Laughed [...] without a stain" when they unwind the hair from her neck. The narrator describes her head as "smiling" and "rosy" and "So glad" that it can now have what it wanted: to stay with the narrator, whom Porphyria claimed to love before she was murdered by them. In the end, the narrator says that the pair of them,

"[...] sit together now, And all night long we have not stirred, And yet God has not said a word!"

The narrator seems to attribute God's lack of intervention as a silently condoning their behavior, as though, if God really objected to Porphyria's murder, God would have stopped it or would now punish the narrator. Therefore, the narrator does not seem to feel guilty; rather, they feel satisfied that they've found a way to possess and keep Porphyria forever.

How does Jim react to seeing Della with her short hair?

This question isn't necessarily easy to answer because the narrator doesn't expressly tell readers how Jim reacts to Della's new hairstyle. The text does tell us a lot about how Jim doesn't react.

His eyes were fixed upon Della, and there was an expression in them that she could not read, and it terrified her. It was not anger, nor surprise, nor disapproval, nor horror, nor any of the sentiments that she had been prepared for. He simply stared at her fixedly with that peculiar expression on his face.

The narrator lists a lot of things that Jim's expression was not, but there are still plenty of expressions that the "peculiar expression" could be. I like to think that his expression is a nice mixture of humor, acceptance, and irony. Jim doesn't get mad at his wife, and he tells her that he likes her no matter what her hair looks like.

"Don't make any mistake, Dell," he said, "about me. I don't think there's anything in the way of a haircut or a shave or a shampoo that could make me like my girl any less."

Jim does know what he bought Della for Christmas; therefore, he immediately knows that he is holding a gift that can't be immediately used by his wife to beautify her hair. It is the last thing that he expected to see when he got. Jim probably immediately sees the irony in the situation, and he has to check a couple of times to make sure that he is seeing things correctly.

"You say your hair is gone?" he said, with an air almost of idiocy.

Jim's peculiar expression is a perfect way to describe his reaction because it is so vague. It lets readers imagine exactly what his expression is that even his wife can't figure out. We are given enough detail to know that his expression isn't negative, and then the narrator strings us along until we finally understand why his expression was so unique.

They were expensive combs, she knew, and her heart had simply craved and yearned over them without the least hope of possession. And now, they were hers, but the tresses that should have adorned the coveted adornments were gone.

Jim stopped inside the door, as immovable as a setter at the scent of quail. His eyes were fixed upon Della, and there was an expression in them that she could not read, and it terrified her. It was not anger, nor surprise, nor disapproval, nor horror, nor any of the sentiments that she had been prepared for. He simply stared at her fixedly with that peculiar expression on his face.
O. Henry intentionally refrains from specifying the nature of Jim's reaction when he enters the flat and sees Della without her hair. The author says what the expression is not: It is "not anger, nor surprise, nor disapproval, nor horror, nor any of the sentiments that she had been prepared for." It is just "peculiar." O. Henry is saving the big revelation for a bit later when Jim will explain that he has sold his watch to buy Della a set of tortoise-shell combs.
Jim's "peculiar" look is partly attributable to the fact that at first he must think Della has decided to try out a bold new fashion in hair styling. He thinks she thinks she looks pretty! That is exactly the opposite of what she thinks of herself. This necessitates the explanation that she sold her hair to buy him a watch fob for Christmas, and that in turn necessitates his speaking the line that contains O. Henry's surprise ending.
"I sold the watch to get the money to buy your combs."
O. Henry knew that Jim would have to show some kind of reaction when he entered and saw Della without her long hair. But if Jim looked shocked and horrified, it would detract from the surprise ending O. Henry planned, because it would suggest that Jim had some special reason for expecting to see Della still adorned with her beautiful hair. So O. Henry intentionally describes Jim's reaction as "peculiar," which really tells us nothing. O. Henry can justify the use of the word "peculiar" because Jim doesn't understand what is going on. He may think Della has adopted an extreme new hair style. He is really not so shocked by his wife's appearance as he is dismayed at the realization that her new hairstyle has made his gift useless. He is telling the truth when he says he loves her just the same with or without her long hair.
https://www.owleyes.org/text/gift-magi/read/the-gift-of-the-magi

What are some examples of direct and indirect characterization in "The Devil and Tom Walker"?

Washington Irving’s short Gothic tale “The Devil and Tom Walker” (1824) is set in Massachusetts in the 1720s, a time in which Puritans believed the devil could be encountered like an actual person. This was a literal interpretation of several Biblical verses, such as Satan “going to and fro on earth, and walking up and down on it” (From the “Book of Job,” King James Version). Fittingly, the devil is one of the three main characters in Irving’s story and is defined both through direct and indirect characterization.
Direct characterization refers to the storytelling technique when we are told about a character’s traits up front. For instance, “Marie was a fiercely private person,” is direct characterization. On the other hand, indirect characterization allows us to make conclusions about a character's traits through showing us their behavior, such as in, “Marie guarded her journal with her life.” By using an omniscient or all-knowing narrator in “The Devil and Tom Walker,” Irving allows each character to be defined both directly and indirectly. However, some characters are more directly characterized than others, such as Tom Walker’s wife. She is defined to be as miserly as Tom and also as "a tall termagant, fierce of temper, loud of tongue, and strong of arm." Further, when she learns of the mysterious “black man’s” offer to her husband to reveal pirate’s treasure in exchange for a favor, she jumps at the deal with pure greed.

All her avarice was awakened at the mention of hidden gold, and she urged her husband to comply with the black man's terms, and secure what would make them wealthy for life.

Though Tom Walker is also directly characterized, like when the narrator tells us he is a “meager, miserly fellow,” sometimes the story allows us to form our own inferences about his actions. This has the effect of making Tom a more well-rounded character for us. For example, when his wife meets a macabre end, possibly at the hand of the devil, he muses:

He even felt something like gratitude toward the black woodsman, who, he considered, had done him a kindness.

This leaves us to infer that Tom is secretly happy of being rid of his wife and tells us something about the quality of their former relationship.
The character who is mostly indirectly defined is, of course, the “black man,” whom Tom encounters in the forest. Even the fact that he is the devil is not explicitly stated at the onset; rather, he is referred to as a “great black man carrying an axe” and the “black woodsman.” He is described more by his attributes, which would be relatable to an early nineteenth-century audience, as we can see in the following statement:

For, whatever people may think, he is not always to be had for the calling; he knows how to play his cards when pretty sure of his game.

Thus, from these lines we conclude that the devil knows how to patiently wait for a bargain to fall in place. He is also an excellent manipulator of people. Further, when Tom and the devil finally make a deal, we are told that there is one condition about the bargain which doesn’t need to be mentioned, “being generally understood in all cases where the devil grants favors.” The reference is of course to forfeiting one’s soul to the devil, because that’s the price the devil always seeks.
Finally, the devil’s reemergence at the end of Tom’s life happens when Tom doesn’t have any of his Bibles on his person, indirectly revealing Tom's hypocrisy. Though he has lived a sinful life and traded his soul out of avarice, he still thinks a show of piety can save him. However, the devil takes Tom completely by surprise, whisks him “like a child into the saddle,” gives his horse a lash, and disappears into a thunderstorm. We can clearly work out from his late, grand entry that the devil is someone who always keeps his end of a deal, another instance of indirect characterization.
By using repeated indirect characterization to illustrate the devil, Irving lends his story a mysterious and tense air, despite the comic conventions in place. Tom comes to a just end and, like his wife, is never heard from again.

Direct characterization is characterization that happens when a narrator or different character directly tells readers about a character. In "The Devil and Tom Walker," direct characterization can be found in the second paragraph when the narrator directly tells readers that Tom was meager and miserly.

About the year 1727, just at the time that earthquakes were prevalent in New England, and shook many tall sinners down upon their knees, there lived near this place a meager, miserly fellow, of the name of Tom Walker.

Indirect characterization happens when the reader must infer the characteristics of a character by observing how that character thinks, behaves, dresses, and/or speaks. Readers can also observe how other characters behave when around the character in question. I think that readers can look to the character of Tom Walker for some good examples of indirect characterization. We are directly told that he is a miser, but we aren't explicitly told that he is greedy; however, I think there is solid evidence for it in the story. We get to see evidence of Tom's greed when he decides that instead of taking the Devil's advice and lending money at 2%, Tom says that he will lend it at 4%.

"You shall lend money at two per cent. a month."
"Egad, I'll charge four!" replied Tom Walker.

What is the significance of the following? The Federalist Papers Bank War Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) Monroe Doctrine Panic of 1819 Lewis and Clark Expedition Marbury vs. Madison Shay’s Rebellion Lowell system Know-Nothing Party Nullification Crisis Northwest Ordinance Erie Canal American System

The Federalist Papers were a series of pseudonymous essays written in the late eighteenthcentury in the United States advocating for ratification of the United States Constitution. They were instrumental in securing the constitution's passage.The Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) were short-lived statutes enacted by the United States Congress during the presidency of John Adams that made certain types of criticism of government officials illegal and allowed deportation of those deemed dangerous aliens.The Monroe Doctrine was a foreign policy doctrine set out by James Monroe that established the overthrow of an independent state in the western hemisphere would be viewed as a hostile act by the United States. It has remained an enduring component of US foreign policy to the present day.The Lewis and Clark Expedition was an 1804 to 1806 transcontinental exploration led by Meriwether Lewis and William Clark to chart the western part of North America. The expedition helped direct later stages in the settlement of the West.Marbury vs. Madison was a United States Supreme Court decision that established the right of the courts to engage in judicial review.The Nullification Crisis was a constitutional crisis that onset in the late 1820s when South Carolina declared it would not obey, or "nullify," certain federal acts. It has been seen by some as a foreshadowing of the American Civil War.The Know-Nothing Party was a short-lived political party in the United States. Founded in 1844 and dissolved in 1860, its populist platform was anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic.

The Bank War was a political controversy over the Second Bank of the United States pitting Andrew Jackson against bank supporters and ultimately leading to the institution's closure.

The Panic of 1819 was an economic crisis in the United States often regarded as the country's first fiscal emergency.

Shay's Rebellion was an unsuccessful armed revolt in Massachusetts from 1786 to 1787 led by Daniel Shay. It was a reaction to perceived government corruption and draconian tax policies.

The Northwest Ordinance was a federal statute enacted after the American Revolution that established the Northwest Territory, roughly contiguous with the modern Midwest, and set out that slavery would be prohibited in it, thereby solidifying the geographic division of slave and free areas between the northern and southern United States.The Erie Canal is a canal that connects the Atlantic Ocean with the Great Lakes. Construction on the waterway was completed in 1825.The American System was the economic platform of the Whig Party. It called for protectionism in the form of tariffs, as well as establishment of a central bank.The Lowell System was a system for the mechanization of textile manufacturing innovated in the United States in the late eighteenth, and early nineteenth, centuries. It was an early episode in the eventual industrial revolution.

In chapter 3, when Candy finally gives in and allows Carlson to take his dog and put him out of his misery, why doesn't Candy look at his dog before Carlson takes him?

Candy is an old swamper with bent shoulders, who knows his days of being a useful ranch hand are coming to end. He has an old sheepdog he is very attached to that he has owned since it was a pup. It is graying, like Candy, and it is blind and has trouble walking. Candy, however, remembers how it used to be, saying, "God, he was a good sheepdog when he was younger."
Carlton, another ranch hand, wants to shoot the dog because it sleeps in the bunkhouse with the men, and Carlton finds it a nuisance:

That dog of Candy’s is so God damn old he can’t hardly walk. Stinks like hell, too. Ever’ time he comes into the bunk house I can smell him for two, three days. Why’n’t you get Candy to shoot his old dog and give him one of the pups to raise up? I can smell that dog a mile away. Got no teeth, damn near blind, can’t eat.

Carlton tries to persuade Candy to shoot the dog, saying it would be putting it out of its misery. Slim also joins in, telling Candy he should end the dog's life, arguing that he would want someone to shoot him if he got so old and infirm. However, Candy is unwilling to shoot the dog, saying he doesn't mind taking care of him. He explains that the dog has been with him a very long time.
Finally, however, Candy feels he has no choice but to give in to the pressure. He lets Carlton take the dog out and shoot him:

At last Candy said softly and hopelessly, “Awright—take ‘im.” He did not look down at the dog at all. He lay back on his bunk and crossed his arms behind his head and stared at the ceiling.

Candy doesn't look because he loves the dog, doesn't want it to die, and feels he is betraying a friend by allowing Carlton to shoot it. He also identifies strongly with the dog. Candy is old too, and knows that, just like his dog, he won't be wanted once he can't work anymore. Candy is now alone: the lives of the seasonal ranch hands are lonely because they have to follow the jobs and can't put down roots. Candy has lost his one faithful companion.
Candy's loss of his dog and the emotional pain he feels over it foreshadows George's eventual loss of Lennie.

What does Ahab offer to the crew member who spots Moby Dick?

Captain Ahab offers the princely reward of a gold doubloon to any crew member who spots Moby Dick. Doubloons were Spanish gold coins and were considered quite valuable. They were widely used in North America right up until the mid-nineteenth century, so it wouldn't have been very difficult for Ahab to get his hands on one of them.
Ahab nails the doubloon to the mast as a way of preventing any of the ship's crew from getting cute and trying to steal it for themselves. By putting up the reward where everyone can see it, Ahab is also giving his men an excellent incentive to spot the great white whale. Anytime their spirits start to flag during the long, hard voyage, the men can look at the doubloon and remind themselves that there's a big reward at stake should they be fortunate enough to eye Moby Dick on the horizon.

What does the old man symbolize?

Ernest Hemingway's brief but compelling story "The Old Man at the Bridge" takes place on the side of a pontoon bridge on the Ebro Delta during the Spanish Civil War. The narrator, a soldier exploring the area around the bridge for signs of the enemy, finds an exhausted old man sitting beside the bridge, too tired to go farther. He had been watching his animals in his home town of San Carlos but had been forced to flee without them.
The old man symbolizes all innocent refugees who have been displaced by the horrific realities of wars that they do not understand. Although the narrator makes it clear that the enemy is nearby and they are in danger there on the bridge, the old man understands nothing of this. He only knows that his animals, a cat, two goats, and four pairs of pigeons, have been left behind in the village, and he wonders what will happen to them. The fact that there is fighting nearby and the war has displaced countless people is incomprehensible to him. He is a simple man concerned with the everyday things with which his life has always been absorbed. He represents all such common folk, the main victims of war, who lose their homes and their livelihoods and their possessions when war breaks out around them.

The old man could be said to symbolize the devastating impact that war has upon ordinary civilians. The old man has no political sympathies; he's completely harmless. Yet he cannot hide from the bitter, bloody conflict that seems to follow him around wherever he goes. He's already had to leave his hometown behind and all the animals he'd been caring for. Now, with the imminent arrival of Fascist forces, he's forced to move on again, just one of many innocent civilians caught up in the midst of the Spanish Civil War.
The old man may have thought that, because he's never been a political animal, he could somehow remain above the fray, letting the two sides get on with fighting each other while he goes about his ordinary life, caring for his animals in San Carlos. But in this age of total war, such detachment is impossible. Whether they like it or not, everyone is involved in the war in some form or another, even those peaceable, harmless souls like the old man, who represent no threat to anyone.

Ernest Hemingway worked as a foreign correspondent in Europe for years before he became a successful freelance writer of stories, novels and nonfiction. Like many foreign correspondents who had to cram a lot of information into brief dispatches under emergency conditions, Hemingway looks for sights and incidents that would represent the bigger picture of what was going on. "The Old Man at the Bridge" is a very short story. It reads like a cabled dispatch from a war correspondent who was up close to the fighting, gathering his own impressions. Hemingway captures the feeling of being close to the war particularly well in one paragraph:






The old man can be seen as a symbol of defeated liberal democracy in Spain, perhaps even the defeat of the hopes for liberal democracy all over the world. He is wearing black dusty clothes and has a gray dusty face, suggesting what he has been through.. He is too tired to go any further. If he stays where he is sitting he would probably get summarily executed by the Fascist forces, who are taking draconian reprisals against Spanish civilians. But he doesn't have the strength to stand up and continue fleeing, and he doesn't seem to care. He has nowhere to go, no future.






He has lost everything that was of importance to him. That was how the Spanish Loyalists felt after being defeated by the reactionary forces of Generalissimo Francisco Franco, aided and abetted by Hitler and Mussolini.


Hemingway was sympathetic to the Loyalist cause. After Franco's victory Hemingway refused to return to Spain, a country he loved. He chronicled the Spanish Civil War in what is widely considered his best novel, For Whom the Bell Tolls (1940). The import of the title is that all of us had suffered a defeat along with the Spanish Loyalists. The title was derived from a poem by John Donne, a leading English Metaphysical poet:

Why did Booker T. Washington's opponents criticize his "Atlanta compromise"? Are their criticisms valid?

The Atlanta Compromise is a short reference to a speech that Booker T. Washington delivered at the Cotton States and International Exposition in Atlanta, Georgia, on September 18, 1895, in which he asserted, to a largely white audience, that black people would be better served by pursuing a vocational education than by seeking a liberal arts education or political office.
At this speech, he also validated segregation, arguing that, in all things social, blacks and whites could be "as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress." He encouraged Southern blacks to "cast down [their] buckets" in the South, with the hopes that they would remain in the region and that white industrialists would not favor white immigrants for jobs. Predictably, black people who had formerly worked on plantations were not welcomed into industrial work in the South, which prompted the first migration to Northern states in the early twentieth century.
W.E.B. DuBois was Washington's primary opponent, seeing his accommodationist speech as an attempt to placate whites in exchange for meager opportunities. DuBois favored direct confrontation with white supremacy, which he believed would result in political enfranchisement and economic justice.
DuBois also disliked Washington's emphasis on vocational training and eschewal of liberal arts education. DuBois and Washington were opposed to each other intellectually. Washington regarded himself as a practical man who favored practical skills. When he did read, he selected non-fiction. DuBois, however, was a proponent of the liberal arts and believed that black intellectuals could play an important role in uplifting less educated members of the black community.
Both Washington and DuBois made valid points. DuBois was regarded as a radical in his time. He demanded swift change to ensure the uplift of black people out of slavery and their full integration into American society as equal citizens. DuBois believed that black people had earned their citizenship and should not have had to make compromises that still placed limitations on what they could do.
Washington, too, worked toward the uplift of black people. His best-known work, Up From Slavery, addresses that goal. However, Washington—a very practical man—sought progress within present realities. He likely suspected that black people would never attain political and economic power on par with whites and, therefore, encouraged self-sufficiency through the available economic opportunities.
Washington's unwillingness to disrupt white supremacy led to his finding a large white audience. He became the spokesperson for the black community with white philanthropists, whose assistance would facilitate the construction of the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama in 1881. He was also the first black man invited to dine at the White House with the First Family, during Theodore Roosevelt's presidency. This event sparked the outrage of Southern politicians and, interestingly, contradicted Washington's earlier expression in favor of social segregation—after all, this was an "integrated" dinner.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Atlanta-Compromise

https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9603/booker.html

In the short story "A Little Beaded Bag" by Morley Callaghan, who is the protagonist, and what is the conflict? What is the main character's goal, and what change does the character undergo? What are the images and their significance? What is the significance of the title? What is the irony in the story?

"A Little Beaded Bag" is a short story written by Canadian novelist, playwright, and short story writer Morley Callaghan. In it, Mrs. Evans tries to convince her husband that the maid, Eva, stole her beaded bag. But Mr. Evans doesn't believe her because he likes Eva. Mrs. Evans then sends Eva to the drug store so that she could search Eva's room. Mrs. Evans does, indeed, find the bag, but Eva confesses that she found the bag in the trash; the three discuss the problem, and, in the end, Mrs. Evans gives the bag to Eva in hopes that both Eva and her husband will forgive her for her accusations.
The main protagonist of the story is Mrs. Evans. She is stubborn and determined, but, by the end of the story, she learns how to be kinder, more humble, and forgiving. At first, her goal was to prove to her husband that she was right all along and that Eva really did steal the bag. Finding her beaded bag in Eva's club bag didn't help Eva's case at all. However, she realizes that she was mistaken and that she was quick to judge Eva—because there was actually a very simple explanation. This is, essentially, how her character develops throughout the story; Mrs. Evans gradually transforms into a better person.
The conflict is actually the rising action of the story, where Mrs. Evans tries to prove to her husband that Eva stole her beaded bag:

"You may be interested to know Eva stole that beaded bag of mine."
"What's that? What bag?" he exclaimed.
"You know the one, the one I had a year ago."
"Why, the kid wouldn't touch it," he said sharply. "You know that as well as I do. She's a fine kind. You've been trying for weeks to find some little flaw in her, and you've had to admit, you couldn't. Don't start picking away at her."
It seemed so unjust that he should challenge her, and as they faced each other, she said bitterly: "I'm not picking at her or you. I'm simply telling you a fact. The bag was there this morning and it's gone." (pg. 141–142)

In fact, there are three conflicts in the story: Mrs. Evans vs her husband, Mrs. Evans vs Eva, and, the most important one, Mrs. Evans vs herself, as she learns how to overcome her insecurities.
The title of the story is very significant because it puts Mrs. Evans's little beaded bag into focus. The beaded bag is actually a symbol for Mrs. and Mr. Evans relationship; it is noteworthy to mention that the bag is not new and even has some beads loose, and at the beginning of the story Mrs. Evans carelessly throws it away in the trash without looking at it twice. But her jealousy gets to her, and suddenly the bag becomes this valuable object which she uses as evidence to "confirm" her doubts about her marriage. In the end, Mrs. Evans begs Eva to take the bag in hopes that she will be forgiven. This action might actually symbolize Mrs. Evans's attempts to get rid of her character flaws and fix her relationship with her husband.
Interestingly enough, the little beaded bag represents the main theme and idea of the story, and it's also an object which helps the readers see where the author used irony. For instance, when Eva explains how she found the bag in the trash, she said that she wanted to see if it could be fixed. Ironically, Mr. and Mrs. Evans's relationship truly needs "fixing":

"I only wanted to see if it could be fixed." (pg. 145)

Mrs. Evans even suggests that Eva might be able to fix the bag, sardonically saying to Eva that she's good with needles. This is also ironic because, when one thinks about the narrative, it becomes clear that Eva did, in fact, "fix" Mr. and Mrs. Evans's relationship and helped them realize that they are capable of love and kindness.

What is the difference between Beowulf's youth and his older years?

When Beowulf first appears in the poem, it is as an epic hero. He is described as the greatest and strongest of the Geats, and his strength (a quality of youth) is emphasized above all else. When he greets Hrothgar, he tells him that the wisest and cleverest of his people have said that Beowulf should come to the aid of the Danes and fight Grendel. They say this because they know his strength. It is notable that Beowulf attributes wisdom to others and only strength and daring to himself, listing his feats in battle and planning to add the glory of killing Grendel to the list.
Fifty years later, Beowulf's strength has waned, but he has had time to acquire wisdom. The attributes of a great hero and a good king may overlap, particularly in a society where the king must defend his people and lead them in battle, but they are not identical. Beowulf does not rush into battle with the dragon. When he addresses his warriors, he says that fighting the dragon will be quite different from fighting Grendel, as the dragon will attack with fire and (he presciently says) poison. He will need to be heavily armed and well-prepared. Beowulf's provision for the welfare of his people before his death shows he is a good king. However, he no longer has the youthful vigor of the hero who defeated Grendel.

The epic poem of Beowulf presents two separate periods in the hero's life—one when he is a young man at the height of his strength and vivacity, and one in his waning years of life, in which is he still strong, but much older and more mature. He faces off against Grendel and his mother when he is a young man, and then as an aging warrior, he tackles the great dragon with his troop of men.
I think the biggest difference between the young and old Beowulf is his attitude and comportment. The young Beowulf is a brazen young man who will charge headlong into danger and is filled with pride at what he can do, which is rightly deserved but nonetheless brash. The older Beowulf is much more mature and level-headed, caring about his troops and kingdom above himself. Instead of rushing into danger, he leaves instructions for his men and tells them not to follow him because he needs to leave protection and leadership in case he perishes.

The young Beowulf is far more interested in proving his physical prowess than his older self. Everything he does is about showing what a great warrior he is and making sure his name will go down in history. He wants to do great deeds.
In contrast, the older Beowulf is mellower and wiser, with greater responsibilities on his brow. He is more interested in the welfare of his people. His positive qualities have gone beyond mere brawn: now, he is also generous to his warriors and compassionate towards his people, who look to him for strength and protection.
And yet, in some ways, Beowulf might be as arrogant as an old man as he was in his youth. It has been suggested that his insistence on facing the dragon could be a way of showing off in addition to protecting his people since it is pointed out that with Beowulf's death, his people will be left vulnerable to outside attacks from rival tribes. Depending upon your level of cynicism, Beowulf's death is either heroic or reckless—or perhaps it is both.

There is a huge distinction when it comes to Beowulf’s youth and his older years. He is more thoughtful in his older years. For instance, when the dragon destroys his hall, Beowulf thinks deeply about his life and the people he has lost in battle. Beowulf is not as impulsive as he was when he was younger. The experiences that he went through have made him more cautious in his actions. As a youth, Beowulf would defy orders and fight monsters. He was energetic and had a lot of confidence. Nonetheless, Beowulf is more courageous as an older man because he fights the dragon despite being aware that he could die. Many of his people have died because of the dragon, and he does all he can to avenge their deaths.

In the poem, we're essentially presented with two Beowulfs, spanning some fifty years in all. The younger Beowulf is a brave warrior, strong and boastful, itching to prove his valor in a society where acts of manly courage are considered all-important. The older Beowulf is noticeably more mature, as we would expect. He still retains the bravery of youth, but now, he possesses an added dash of wisdom gleaned from his years on the throne. Now Beowulf has responsibilities that he previously didn't have. When he was a young man, he could afford to act recklessly, as he was looking to establish his reputation as a brave and fearless warrior. But as king, Beowulf needs to think of other people; he needs to think of the good of his kingdom.
For the most part, Beowulf is conscientious in discharging his kingly duties. Yet the young Beowulf hasn't disappeared completely; some of that old lust for personal glory still lives on, buried deep within his warrior's soul. Beowulf's fateful—and fatal—decision to fight the dragon could be seen as a sign of immaturity, a sign that he's prepared to risk the security of his people for one last shot at glory. Indeed, after Beowulf dies, his people are worried about what will happen to them, making the late Geatish king's decision to take on the dragon alone all the more reckless and irresponsible.

Analyse how Moll Flanders and Evelina portray evolving ideas of femininity in the period as women in a competitive society, relating to their social and economic identities.

Moll Flanders and Evelina, from the novel Evelina, or the History of a Young Lady's Entrance into the World, represent contrasting feminist characters. For one, Moll Flanders is upward mobile, ambitious, and detests the patriarchal limitations placed on women during her time.
She even dislikes the name given to her by her criminal associates, Moll Flanders, because "Moll" is a term for female criminals in England and "Flanders" is the term for prostitutes. Before her criminal activities, Moll's ambition was to be come a gentlewoman, which shows her progressive way of thinking in the period.
During her era, it was rare for a woman to be on the same status as gentlemen. These "gentlemen" were usually affluent, highly-educated and sophisticated men from a high social status, such as businessmen and lawyers and politicians. However, this limitation did not dissuade Moll from working hard to rise to the top of the socioeconomic ladder. In essence, Moll represents a member of a minority group trying to attain the American Dream: to secure financial freedom and social power.
Evelina, on the other hand, contradicts the norms of the day, especially regarding women, by simply being "uncultured." When she arrives in London, she is unaware of the social codes and practices of the city's upper-class. In this sense, it is similar to a provincial person being ignorant of the ways of the cosmopolitan.
The similarities in the two characters is that they are both females attempting to construct a life of their own, and in their own terms. In an era when women were dependent on men for survival and security, they took the initiative to create opportunities for themselves instead.

If Alexander Hamilton had not created the infrastructure for today’s economy, how might America look today?

The United States would look quite different. Hamilton saw America as a nation of industrialists. Without Hamilton, the U.S. might have industrialized eventually, but it would not have been seen as a place for investment early in its history, and this lack of investment capital would have stunted its early growth. Hamilton also saw the need for a national banking system in which state debts were taken into the national debt. This was also meant to make the states dependent upon the federal government; after all, Hamilton was a Federalist. Without a strong national banking system, the states would not have had any financial reason to stay in the Union, and there would have been an even stronger movement for the states to secede in the period before the Civil War. The United States might have been a collection of city-states, such as what existed in Italy or Germany at the time, without Hamilton's federal banking plans. Hamilton also believed in excise taxes as an effective way to pay down the national debt. He especially thought that taxing whiskey would be an effective way to combat alcoholism and strengthen the federal coffers. Hamilton's excise taxes still exist today in taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and gasoline.

What does day-labour mean?

When Milton asks, "Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?" he seems to be using a term common in his day. "Day-labour" would apparently mean common outdoor labor performed from sun-up to sundown. A person who performed this kind of work would have been called a "day-labourer," and that term may still be heard in some places in America today. What Milton seems to be asking, rhetorically, and half-jokingly, or fondly, or foolishly, is, "How can God ask me to work in the daytime and then not give me any daylight?" If he is making a joke, it is a grim joke--which is probably why he says "fondly" rather than "jokingly."
https://www.owleyes.org/text/on-his-blindness/read/text-poem

How does Lady Macbeth employ argumentum ad hominem?

Ad hominem, in Latin, means "to the person": it is an argumentative strategy used by someone who avoids the actual topic under discussion and, instead, attacks the person who makes the argument. Lady Macbeth employs this tactic immediately after Duncan's murder. Macbeth is concerned about the potential negative consequences of having killed the king (who is also his guest, cousin, and good friend), and Lady Macbeth, rather than deal with his concerns, attacks him as weak and cowardly. He worries that he will never be able to sleep peacefully again, having murdered someone while they slept, and she responds,

Why, worthy thane,You do unbend your noble strength to thinkSo brainsickly of things. (2.2.58-60)

She accuses him of coming unraveled, losing his cool, being weak in the face of this stress. She suggests that he has the strength to keep it together but that he is allowing himself to dwell and be morbid. Her arguments increase when he refuses to return the daggers to the room. She says that he is "Infirm of purpose" and that it is "the eye of childhood / That fears a painted devil" (2.2.68, 2.2.70-71). She claims, again, that he is weak and acting like a child. She must return the daggers herself, getting blood on her own hands. When she returns, she tells him,

My hands are of your color, but I shameTo wear a heart so white. (2.2.82-83)

Macbeth fears that this terrible guilt, symbolized by the blood on his hands, will follow him forever, that he will never be able to do anything to remove its figurative stain. Lady Macbeth tells him that her hands are bloodied now too, but she would be ashamed to have a heart which is as cowardly as Macbeth's. Time and time again in this scene, Macbeth presents his very real fears about the consequences of murdering Duncan, and Lady Macbeth suggests that this makes him both a child and a coward.

In logic the argumentum ad hominem is defined as a fallacy of attacking the character or motives of the other person instead of attempting to disprove the truth of his statement or the soundness of his argument. The argumentum ad hominem is often called a personal attack. It is to be noted that when Macbeth and his wife are arguing about killing King Duncan, Lady Macbeth relies almost exclusively on the argumentum ad hominem. For example:
Was the hope drunk
Wherein you dress'd yourself? Hath it slept since?
And wakes it now, to look so green and pale
At what it did so freely?
What beast was't then
That made you break this enterprise to me?
When you durst do it, then you were a man;
And, to be more than what you were, you would
Be so much more the man.
Macbeth, on the other hand, never makes a personal attack on his wife. When he is by himself and thinking about killing the King, he considers the matter objectively. And as he tells his wife:
We will proceed no further in this business:
He hath honor'd me of late, and I have bought
Golden opinions from all sorts of people,
Which would be worn now in their newest gloss,
Not cast aside so soon.
She seems to interpret every one of her husband's reasons as signs of cowardice. She feels that he was brave enough to think about killing Duncan when the king was many miles away but that he has lost his nerve now that he has the golden opportunity to do the actual deed.
Nor time nor place
Did then adhere, and yet you would make both:
They have made themselves, and that their fitness now
Does unmake you.
Actually, Lady Macbeth is probably right. Her husband could think about killing Duncan and his two sons when they were far away, but now that they are right under his roof he can think of a dozen reasons for not acting. Many of his reasons for abstaining are sound enough--but he didn't think about them until it was a question of acting and time was of the essence. He is really afraid and she knows it. Ironically, she uses his fear to make him prove he isn't afraid.

Why would author Tim O'Brien continually use the full name and rank of the soldier in the story (Private First Class Paul Berlin) instead of referring to him as Private, or Paul, or Berlin?

This is Tim O'Brien's way of emphasizing how, in the middle of a war, a soldier loses his identity; how he becomes a member of a platoon rather than an individual. Back home, Paul Berlin may be Mr. Berlin, or just plain Paul to his friends and family. But out in the jungles of Vietnam its a different story altogether. There, he's Private First Class Paul Berlin, part of a much bigger whole: a fighting unit in which everyone pulls together to protect and defend each other.
One of the themes of "Where Have You Gone, Charming Billy?" is the conflict between the individual and the collective, and Paul's full rank illustrates the ever-present tension between Paul Berlin the man and Paul Berlin the solider. Paul is only in Vietnam because he was drafted; he didn't choose to be there. But if he's to overcome his deepest fears, he needs to put his former identity as a civilian behind him and think and act like a soldier instead.

What purpose do books serve in the novel The Book Thief? How can the topic of “books” connect to the deeper historical topic of the Holocaust and atrocities presented in the novel?

Books are important as material objects, as representations of the knowledge contained in them, and as symbols of the human connections made through them. The Nazis did conduct public book burnings such as the one that Liesel witnessed. Hitler’s government also banned “subversive” art and imprisoned creative and political dissidents. Although Liesel is actually committing a crime by stealing, her role as a book thief can be compared to that of resistance activists who opposed the Nazi regime. Similarly, Ilse Hermann acknowledge Liesel’s borrowings from her home and agrees to provide her with books. In doing so, she is encouraging the girl to learn information that might have been banned. While the Mayor’s wife is not speaking out against the Nazis and so can be considered complicit, she is taking an individual stand to help one person, which can be interpreted as a subversive act.

In what ways did World War II shape America's global role in the post-war world?

At the end of World War II, America emerged as the foremost superpower of the West. The other European allies’ power was waning. France was humbled by a swift defeat and occupation during the War. Britain joined America in victory, but over the course of the coming decades, it lost more and more of the colonies and economic dominance that made it a superpower.
With superpower status also came America’s role as chief adversary of the Soviet Union in the post-war era, the next four-plus decades of which would become known as the Cold War. Two events at the end of the War helped set the stage for this conflict.
First, the Yalta Conference in February 1945. The “Big Three” – US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin – divided post-war Berlin into 4 quadrants; one each controlled by the US, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. Along with their quadrant in Berlin, the Soviets were also ceded a “sphere of influence” in Eastern Europe, where they would spread their Communist rule.
Second, the atomic bombs dropped by the US in Japan both ended the war in the Pacific and marked the start of the technological side of the Cold War. From the nuclear bomb to the space race, both the US and the Soviets invested heavily in science and technology during the Cold War, each feeling that technological superiority would also result in a victory in the war of ideas and philosophy: democracy and capitalism versus communism.
Along with its prominent status as a political and military superpower, America also became a world economic giant. America’s actions in the mid-to-late 1940s accelerated the rate of globalization. The US played a chief role in establishing the United Nations. It established the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organization. Passed in 1948, the Marshall Plan led to $12 billion of investment in post-war Europe. The American economy was easily able to support these bold actions. The war had rescued America from the Great Depression. By the end of the war, unemployment was nearly non-existent, and America was the world leader in manufacturing and energy production.

To understand America's role in the post-war world, one first must understand America's role before entering WW2. It is fair to say that America and a great majority of Americans had no interest at all in entering another foreign war. Isolationism ruled the day throughout FDR's first two terms and into the third.
Recent scholarship suggests that FDR was more fully apprised of the dire situation in Europe than previously thought. His natural inclination was to assist the Allies in any way he could, but Congress was firmly against any proposal for aid. FDR (and others) thus arrived at the concept of the Lend-Lease Act, which provided materiel to the Allies without direct U.S. participation in the war.
Ultimately, America would not enter the war until the Japanese invasion of Pearl Harbor in 1941, despite the fact that FDR, his Cabinet and many members of Congress understood Hitler's megalomania. This reluctance to get involved, some would argue, prolonged and exacerbated the impacts of the war for Europe, causing ripple effects that continue until today.
Much has been written about the war itself and it is virtually impossible to succinctly boil down all the ways in which WW2 shaped America's role in the post-war world, but perhaps the largest single global impact, then and now, was the Manhattan Project and the use of the atomic bombs in Japan.
The Manhattan Project was a top-secret government program that recruited, housed and equipped the greatest scientific minds in America, many of them European Jews who had fled the Nazis, with the aim of creating the world's first true weapon of mass destruction, the atomic bomb. Primarily housed in a military compound in Los Alamos, NM, the Project began in earnest in 1939, but was not fully active until 1942, and grew to employ over 130,000 people.
On August 6 and 9, 1945, the United States, with assistance and cooperation from the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom, dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, respectively. The resultant destruction, both in terms of human life and infrastructure, shocked the world and has reverberated until today.
The Manhattan Project thus began a global proliferation of atomic weapons, an arms race between the U.S. and the then-USSR (today's Russian Federation), and the Cold War, the effects of which are felt worldwide by virtually every country in the world even now.

Due to the geographical separation of the United States from the other countries involved in World War II, the United States had a serious post-war advantage. Unlike most of Europe, the United States was not physically devastated and therefore did not need to take the time to rebuild the country's economy. The Second World War also proved the United States' abilities militarily, economically, and politically. The country created a nuclear weapon, which was entirely unique at that point in time, reducing the number of countries/groups willing to challenge US preeminence. Economically, the United States was better off as well since the majority of its competition was in post-war shambles. This allowed the United States to emerge as the economic power of the era. Politically, the United States had a significant role in ending hostilities and creating the United Nations which further cemented its power in the post-war world.

World War 2 was a major turning point for American foreign affairs. Because of the nation's geographical separation it was easy for them to remain neutral and stay out of other affairs. However, seeing the effects of fascism and communism (and how rampant they were becoming) as well as the United States' necessity in winning the war, the nation took it upon itself to become the bearer of democracy and the enforcer of western morals for the rest of the world.
Because of the conflict and the resulting rise of communism in the Soviet Union, the United States feared there would be similar actions from other countries as Nazi Germany had displayed (military aggression, genocide, etc.). So the US became aggressive in its foreign policy, taking measures to prevent the spread of Communism (such as by engaging in the Korean and Vietnam wars).
In addition to actively setting men on foreign soil, they also became much more engaged in political discussion throughout the world, connecting with other countries as much as possible so that their political and economic ties would prevent future conflict—due to the subsequent repercussions that would result from cutting ties with such a powerful country.

How does Charlotte Lucas demonstrate pragmatism?

Charlotte Lucas is critical in illustrating Austen's theme of love and marriage, which is developed through the representation of various kinds: arranged marriage after failed elopement; marriage for esteem and love; marriage for beauty and pleasure; exploitative marriage; pragmatic marriage.
Austen's favored kind of marriage is, quite naturally, marriage for esteem and love as represented by both Elizabeth and Darcy, and Jane and Bingley. Yet Austen acknowledges the pragmatic marriage, as represented by Charlotte Lucas and Mr. Collins, is a valid and viable alternative.
Austen herself had some experience with the pragmatic marriage, though her experience was one of twenty-four hours, a time period that ended with her hasty flight and a message left with her brother to be delivered to her cousin and would-be suitor. On a holiday to visit her brother, Austen's cousin proposed marriage to her, and she accepted. Overnight, she regretted this engagement and fled the scene at break of day. Yet, she has the presence of mind to understand that, for a pragmatic woman, with no lost love still kindling her heart, a pragmatic marriage was an effective solution to the social difficulties facing an unmarried woman.
Charlotte Lucas embodies this pragmatic woman and approach, although Elizabeth refuses to take her seriously down to the last:
"[It] is better to know as little as possible of the defects of the person with whom you are to pass your life." "You make me laugh, Charlotte; but it is not sound. You know it is not sound, and that you would never act in this way yourself." (Ch 6)
Charlotte, believing that happiness in marriage is a gamble,—Mr. and Mrs. Bennet affirm that couples "grow sufficiently unlike afterwards to have their share of vexation"—weighs the consequences of remaining single in her father's large household, operating on a modest budget, in a remote country village, against the consequences of marrying a foolish man with good intentions and a good position in his profession. She finds that marriage to Collins is less of a loss to her than continuing her life of dependency at her father's country home.
What is interesting is Elizabeth's staunch refusal to take Charlotte seriously, even up until Charlotte's announcement of her engagement to Mr. Collins. If we examine the evidence presented in the novel, we are faced with a married Charlotte who is happy in married life, who has shielded herself from unnecessary vexation from her husband, who enjoys the company and social advantages of her new neighbors at Rosings, and who is satisfied that her pragmatic decision was the right decision.
Charlotte's pragmatic nature is developed by Austen before her decision to marry Collins. If this were not so, we might be taken by surprise and find a logical inconsistency within Charlotte's character.
Three instances of Charlotte's development as a pragmatic character stand out. The first is her conversation with Elizabeth about whether Jane has spent sufficient time with Bingley to be able to know if she loves and would marry him.
"[If] she were married to him to-morrow, I should think she had as good a chance of happiness as if she were to be studying his character for a twelvemonth. Happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance."
This discussion leads into Charlotte's assertion that "it is better to know as little as possible of the defects of the person with whom you are to pass your life." While Elizabeth took her to be remarking in jest, later events concerning Collins show that she was indeed quite serious.
The second instance of Austen's development of Charlotte as a pragmatic woman occurs at the Netherfield ball during which Darcy surprises Elizabeth by requesting the pleasure of dancing with her. Elizabeth accepts him out of stunned surprise rather than out of willingness. While Elizabeth "was left to fret over her own want of presence of mind," Charlotte took the opportunity to caution her with pragmatic appropriateness not to be prejudiced by Wickham's charm and neglectful of Darcy's "consequence":
When the dancing recommenced, however, and Darcy approached to claim [Elizabeth's] hand, Charlotte could not help cautioning her in a whisper, not to be a simpleton, and allow her fancy for Wickham to make her appear unpleasant in the eyes of a man ten times his consequence.
The third instance relates to the aftermath of Collins' rejection by Elizabeth. Collins' has made his clumsy proposal. Elizabeth has refused. Mrs. Bennet is the height of dismayed and distraught. She is about to assure Collins that she will do everything to persuade Elizabeth that it is her best interest to accept Collins.
Elizabeth and all the other daughters quickly leave the room, but Charlotte, who has been visiting and has heard everything from Elizabeth, is first detained by Collins' polite inquiries after her family and then detained by curiosity. Charlotte lingers by a distant window to overhear what might be passing in so unusual a scene. This deliberate eavesdropping is a very calculated and pragmatic step, one that portends a pragmatic young woman suddenly calling to mind her own interests and concerns.
We have watched Charlotte develop and know that, while she has respect for persons of consequence, she has never said anything that sets her apart as a woman interested in material gain aside from gain in happiness and independence. Austen has used Charlotte to build a convincing case for the acceptability of a pragmatic marriage for a pragmatic woman.
"I am not romantic, you know; I never was. I ask only a comfortable home; and considering Mr. Collins's character, connection, and situation in life, I am convinced that my chance of happiness with him is as fair as most people can boast on entering the marriage state."

Where is and what is the action of grace in Greenleaf by Flannery O'Connor?

Mrs. May is the recipient of grace in this story. She is not, through most of the story, a true believer in Christ, nor is Mrs. Greenleaf. Mrs. May is not, through most of the story, able to perceive the grace that surrounds her. She believes her own hard work has made her successful, not how Mr. Greenleaf has helped her. She also thinks, suddenly tired in the mid-morning near the end of the story, that on Judgment Day she will be rewarded because as she puts it, "I've worked, I have not wallowed." She believes that she is superior to Mrs. Greenleaf, who does wallow in the dirt, praying to God. She doesn't believe accepting God's grace is sufficient for salvation.
God's grace comes in unexpected ways in O'Connor's stories, and here it is through a bull. In the first paragraph we are introduced to the bull as "like some patient god come down to woo [Mrs. May]." We also learn that the bit of hedge wreath the bull has pulled out with his horns is sitting on them like a "menacing prickly crown," an allusion to Christ's crown of thorns, reinforcing the bull as a Christ figure.
At the end of the story, the bull gores Mrs. May, though it has been Mrs. Greenleaf who has been praying to be gored. As she is gored, Mrs. May finally may have received God's grace. We sense this because she dies looking at the world in a new way, and finding the "light" she sees "unbearable:"

the entire scene in front of her had changed– the tree line was a dark wound in a world that was nothing but sky–and she had the look of a person whose sight has been suddenly restored but who finds the light unbearable.

The word "unbearable" might lead us to believe she has rejected the light of Christ, but in the final sentence of the story we learn she is leaning over the bull (Christ) as if "whispering some last discovery into his ear."
What has Mrs. May learned? We don't know, but it is apparent that her world changes as she dies. She has been pierced with light of Christ.

How does the theme of racism come out in The Pearl?

Racism can be seen most prominently in how the doctor treats Kino. The doctor is part of the racial elite; as such, he looks down on indigenous people like Kino, seeing them as racially inferior. That explains why the doctor sets out to cheat Kino out of his valuable pearl instead of giving him a fair price for it. The doctor doesn't think it right that someone he regards as his social and racial inferior should have more money or be able to enjoy a better lifestyle than himself. So he and his thugs do everything that they can to get their greedy hands on Kino's pearl without giving him anything like adequate compensation for his trouble.
Earlier in the story, the doctor had refused to treat Kino's son, Coyotito, even though he was seriously ill. Once again, we could see this as an example of racism. The doctor clearly doesn't believe that those of a supposedly lesser race deserve the same level of medical treatment as anyone else. He's only interested in patients who can pay their medical bills, and that immediately rules out the indigenous people.

Salva stops just before leaving for the airport because he realizes he is leaving his old life behind. Why does this particular place and moment make him have this realization in A Long Walk to Water?

After traveling for many hours to arrive in Rochester, New York, Salva is about to step out of the terminal doors for the first time in America. His journey has been a long one, waiting in a refugee camp for years before finally finding his name on a list of people going to America and traveling there to meet his new family. In this brief moment, pausing just a second before departing, he is overtaken by emotion.
Up until this moment, he had retained some connection to his homeland, as well as maintained a slight fear that he may not, in fact, find a home in America. Now, however, he was stepping onto American soil, and his new family was, in fact, standing there on the other side of the doors. All of this made the realization that he was leaving his home behind much more real, and it hit him hard.

What does Tolstoy mean in his book My Confession by saying “force was force, matter was matter, will was will, infinity was infinity, nothing was nothing,—and nothing else could come from it”?

In My Confession, Tolstoy is undergoing a mid-life crisis. As a result, he asks, what is the meaning of life? Why am I alive? What ultimate good will arise from the two parts of life I most love: my art (writing) and my family? Or as he puts it in chapter nine, where the quote above appears:

what meaning has my finite existence in this infinite world?

So far, he says, he has been studying this question solely within a rationalistic, logical framework, within the confines of what he calls finite knowledge; all that rational, finite knowledge can tell him is things are what they are, or as he puts it, "force was force, matter was matter . . . ." In this context, things are things, and beyond that, they have no other or ultimate meaning. Rationality alone, he is saying, will not reveal the larger meaning of life. It is a dead end, as the above quote shows.
In this chapter, he records how he realized that he needed to understand the finite in terms of the infinite. The infinite is God. As Tolstoy put it:

I understood that, however irrational and distorted might be the replies given by faith, they have this advantage, that they introduce into every answer a relation between the finite and the infinite, without which there can be no solution.

He discovers, therefore, that God or the supernatural brings meaning to a finite life. He determines he needs to live according to God's law, and that the result of how he lives will lead either to heaven and hell. Finally, he realizes that what death does not destroy is eternal union with God, what Tolstoy calls heaven.

What distraction jars Mitty out of his first daydream?

There's something significant about the fact that it's the voice of his wife that jolts Walter out of his first fantasy. Mrs. Mitty is so much more grounded than her husband; she has no time whatsoever for the imaginative dream world he enters into with such alarming frequency. One gets the impression that she's the one who wears the pants in this particular marriage, and that Walter retreats into his fantasies as a way of escaping from an overbearing wife.
At the time that the story was written, men were expected to be the dominant partner in a marriage. Yet in the Mitty marriage, that's clearly not the case, and so the only way that Walter can live out the traditional male role expected of him by society is by retreating into a dream-world, where he gets to be in control.

In Walter Mitty's first day dream, he is in the middle of a storm. He is an imposing figure, a naval commander wearing a rakishly angled cap, and he is piloting a hydroplane. The crew, fearful that the storm might be a hurricane, depend on his leadership. His technical expertise is obvious as he gives orders to the crew members. They work diligently and are confident that their commander will get them through.
"Not so fast!" someone interjects into the scene.
This is not an airplane crew member. It is Walter's wife telling him to slow down. Walter and his wife are in their car, and his fast driving has alarmed her. Walter is not taking bold risks on a daring mission, but instead driving his wife on errands in Connecticut.

How does globalization affect foreign policy?

Globalization includes both trade and migration, and both play a central part in the foreign policies of nations. Globalization also includes the spread of ideas and technology, affecting how nations perceive each other and themselves.
There have been a series of trade agreements in the past half century, from NAFTA to the Trans-Pacific Partnership to regional trade associations like Andean, Black Sea, Caribbean, and European Common Markets. All aim for mutual beneficial trade and lower or no tariffs. Agreements on immigration are often part of these arrangements, stipulating how many workers, refugees, or candidates for citizenship each nation will accept.
Globalization includes the spread of the Internet and other communication methods, like texting and phone cameras. Such technology makes dictatorial repression more difficult to hide and spreads human rights protests. When King Leopold of Belgium killed millions in the Congo and established slave trade in the late nineteenth century, it took almost a decade for news of it to spread and protests to build. Today's technology can spread protests in minutes.

Cite a situation in Pygmalion and relate this to a prevailing global issue.

George Bernard Shaw's play "Pygmalion" focuses on economic, cultural, and linguistic disparities between different social classes. The issue of the gap between rich and poor is very much a global concern today, as new technologies have reduced the gap in some ways (for example, through widespread access to cell phones) and exacerbated it in others (for example, with respect to unequal digital access).
In "Pygmalion," access to certain modes of English syntax and diction is a cipher for access to culturally elite culture more generally. Shaw creates a democratic fable about gaining access to elite culture through the reform of one's speech. Yet Shaw is also careful to show the limitations on cultural membership via accent reduction and training in grammar and manners. The question of how to become a gentlewoman is used by Shaw to examine larger issues about the shallowness of class distinctions and the moral danger of judging solely by one's eyes and ears.

How does the description of the setting in the opening paragraph reflect the drama in the End of Something?

The narrator's description of how a thriving enterprise, a lumber mill, closed abruptly when the timber was depleted, prefigures how Marjorie and Nick's relationship will abruptly end.
In the first paragraph, Horton's Bay is recalled as a hive of activity; "no one who lived in it was out of sound of the big saws in the mill." The mill dominated the landscape and the lives of people in Horton's Bay. Then, with little warning and even less fanfare, it ceased operations and its remnants were loaded on a schooner that sailed away. At the end of Nick and Marjorie's relationship, Marjorie takes the boat and departs in a manner that is not dissimilar to the way the narrator describes the shutdown of the mill. Both "ends" are described unemotionally; the drama in both cases is muted. Nick tells Marjorie that their relationship isn't fun anymore, and it ends without argument.

What did Winnie NOT talk to the toad about?

Without a specific chapter reference, a reader can only guess as to which "conversation" with the toad the question is asking about. In general, you could claim that Winnie doesn't talk to the toad about a lot of things. Her first conversation with the toad happens in chapter 3, and Winnie doesn't talk about her name, her education background, or her friends (or lack of friends). What she does talk about is how tired she is of her family being extremely overprotective. She feels tied down and wants to do something grand and adventurous. She tells the toad that running away might be a good solution. She tells the toad to wait until morning, and then she'll show it just how serious she is about running away. Winnie doesn't share where she plans to run away to.
At the end of the book, Winnie sees the toad again, and she protects it from a dog. Winnie does not explain her adventure with the Tucks, nor does she explain to the toad why she is confined to the yard. Winnie does not explain how she got the bottle of water, nor does she explain what the water will do exactly. All that Winnie tells the toad is that it will now be safe forever.

"There!" she said. "You're safe. Forever."

What started the conflict in A Battle from the Start?

A Battle from the Start: The Life of Nathan Bedford Forrest is a biography of the controversial Civil War leader. Almost all of Forrest's life was—in a sense—a conflict.
Born into a poor blacksmith's family in 1821, he had to overcome the early death of his father and his lack of formal education. He succeeded in supporting his family. Then Forrest became an extremely rich cotton planter and slave trader.
When the Civil War started in 1861, he enlisted as a private. However, his wealth and military skill led to his promotion. His Civil War record was brilliant, as he constantly fought—and usually defeated—much larger Union forces.
After the war ended in 1865, he returned to business. He could no longer sell slaves, so he was not nearly as successful as in the years before the war. He died in 1877.
In addition to fighting for economic and military success, Forrest also had to fight for his reputation. He was heavily criticized for the Fort Pillow massacre of black soldiers during the war. Also, he was attacked for his role in the Ku Klux Klan after the war.
The conflicts surrounding Forrest's legacy continue to this day. He remains a very controversial and divisive figure. For instance, in 2017, a statue of Forrest was removed from a park in Memphis, Tennessee.

How is Vera an actress and a storyteller?

Mrs. Sappleton's fifteen-year-old niece Vera is depicted as a clever, intelligent girl with an affinity for "Romance at short notice" in Saki's short story "The Open Window." After a brief introduction with Framton Nuttel, Vera instantly discovers that he is a gullible neurotic, who is not familiar with anyone in the region and is a mentally troubled outsider. She proceeds to demonstrate her storytelling and acting abilities by telling Framton a fabricated, elaborate tale about why her aunt's French window is kept open. Vera's story is particularly unsettling, and its dark subject matter makes Framton extremely nervous. Vera's ability to fabricate an involved tale on such short notice is impressive, as well as her talent for creating a shocking story to describe a seemingly typical situation pertaining to an open French window. Even after Framton bolts from Mrs. Sappleton's home, Vera once again reveals her expert storytelling abilities by fabricating a tale about Mr. Nuttel's terrifying history with a pack of pariah dogs in India. Vera also reveals her impressive acting abilities by maintaining her composure while she tells the story and stares out the window with a look of "dazed horror in her eyes" when her uncles return from their hunting trip. Her combined storytelling and acting abilities allow her to shatter Mr. Nuttel's delicate nerves as he sprints from her aunt's home in fear when Vera's uncles return.

Vera is an actress in that she's pretending to be a harmless, inoffensive young girl. There's nothing about her appearance or demeanor that would suggest that she represents a threat to Framton's fragile nervous system. However, appearances can be deceptive, and Vera expertly hides behind her sugar-and-spice persona to play a cruel prank on her unfortunate guest.
In Vera, the roles of actress and story-teller are combined. She's very good at telling stories, which give her the opportunity to allow her vivid imagination free reign. And as she spins Framton her spooky yarn, she's completely convincing in giving the impression that something terrible really did happen on that fateful hunting expedition. Vera's acting skills are much in evidence later on when the supposedly dead men return from their day's hunting. She stares through the open window at the approaching figures, a look of dazed horror in her eyes. It's all just a show, of course, to keep the prank going. But Framton's completely taken in by Vera's prodigious acting and story-telling skills, and immediately runs for the hills, his nerves shattered to pieces.

When Saki was plotting "The Open Window" he must have given considerable thought to creating the character who would tell the spooky story to Framton Nuttel. He chose to give the role to Vera, a fifteen-year-old girl. He may have decided against using a boy because a boy would have been more likely to go off bird shooting with the three men. A girl is more convincing because girls generally appear to be better behaved, although they may harbor all sorts of mischievous thoughts. Vera had to be young enough to play such a trick on a visitor and to take a risk of getting found out after the fact. But she had to be old enough to be entirely credible. Fifteen seems like exactly the right age. She is described as very "self-possessed." Saki uses the term "self-possessed" twice. We picture her as calm, cool, relaxed, quite sophisticated for her age. This is for the sake of contrast with Framton Nuttel, who is just the opposite of calm, cool, and relaxed. Vera's description as self-possessed will also serve as a contrast with the way she behaves when she sees the three men approaching the open window.
Framton is seated with his back toward the open window when Mrs. Sappleton cries, "Here they are at last!" Instead of looking at the window, Framton turns and looks at Vera. The girl is anything but self-possessed.
The child was staring out through the open window with dazed horror in her eyes.
Vera is a good actress as well as a good story-teller. She must have been planning to fake a look of "dazed horror" from the start. It is the look of horror on her innocent young face that frightens Framton more than anything else. All he needs is a glimpse of three men approaching with guns to make him flee in blind panic.

What comforting news does Odysseus relate to Achilles?

On Circe's advice, Odysseus descends into Hades. He must visit the Underworld if he is to complete his journey home. There, he will seek out the blind prophet Tiresias, whose wise prophecies will guide him on his epic voyage.
Once he reaches Hades, Odysseus catches up with the ghost of the great Achaean warrior Achilles. Though a prince among the dead, Achilles is not exactly thrilled to be in Hades. He loudly laments his fate to Odysseus, claiming that he'd rather be a slave on earth than a king in the Underworld.
Fortunately, Odysseus has some good news for his former comrade-in-arms which will doubtless cheer him up. Achilles wanted to know about his son Neoptolemus and whether he'd gone to war and become a great soldier like his old man. Odysseus is happy to reassure Achilles that that is indeed the case. He relates Neoptolemus's numerous deeds of heroism on the field of battle, as well as the enormous courage he displayed inside the Trojan horse while all around him were shaking with fear.
Achilles is well-pleased to hear that Neoptolemus is a chip off the old block; he confidently strides off over a field of asphodel, exulting over the heroic feats of his son.

Discuss Ernst Theodor Wilhelm Hoffman's writing style.

Ernst Theodor Wilhelm Hoffman (or E. T. A. Hoffman) was a German romantic writer who lived in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. His writing is marked by the distinct way in which he interweaves the ordinary and the fantastic. He bounces between highly detailed, psychologically oriented tales grounded in ordinary events and disorienting, bizarre, and at times grotesque departures from reality. This is done in such a way that it often is ambiguous whether the reader is expected to understand these aspects as fantastic elements of Hoffman's stories or commentary on the madness of Hoffman's characters. Hoffman is also considered an early writer of horror, due to the way in which he depicted the mad, grotesque, and terrifying aspects of fantasy, going beyond the kind of darkness traditionally present in fantasy tales and taking these themes to an extreme in which they become more deeply troubling.
While most of Hoffman's work explores the fantastic, some of his stories are also early examples of what would eventually develop into science fiction, such as The Sandman and Automata.
Hoffman was a very deliberate artist, using satire to provide commentary on a wide range of politically and culturally relevant questions. In part, he focused significantly on the question of what it means to be an artist and how to embody romantic ideals as an artist. This, in addition to the fact that he was a painter and composer while also being a writer of novels, short stories, ballets, and operas is no doubt part of why his works have been so appealing to other artists. He inspired such well-known works as Tchaikovsky's The Nutcracker. Hoffman calls for artists to be self-aware as they create but to avoid the self-conscious tendency to write in an attempt to please an audience, making it clear that he believed true art needed to exist for its own sake.

What was the evidence that the squire had been talking too much as usual?

Captain Smollett, skipper of the good ship Hispaniola, isn't very fond of Squire Trelawney. For one thing, he hates the fact that the Squire's kept him in the dark about the true purpose of his ship's voyage, which is to search for the buried pirate treasure; he had to find it out from the crew. It's supposed to be a secret mission and yet the whole crew seems to know about it.
This indicates to Captain Smollett that Squire Trelawney's been shooting his big mouth off about the treasure map. As well as being disrespectful to the Captain personally—this is, after all, his ship—the Squire's reckless blabbering is deeply irresponsible as it could well incite this scurvy crew to mutiny.
Smollett's already none too pleased with the crew he's been forced to take with him on the voyage; he rightly sees them as a bunch of greedy, dishonest cutthroats. But now that the big blabbermouth Squire Trelawney has gone and told the men on board about the treasure map, he's made things even worse for Smollett by effectively dangling temptation in front of their faces, greatly increasing the chances of a full-scale mutiny. If Captain Smollett ends up walking the plank, he'll know who's to blame.

What did American people think about the British in 1776?

In 1775, King George III gave his consent to Parliament to send troops to the colonies. His goal was to teach the colonists a lesson; he wanted to show them that betrayal was not to be tolerated.
For their part, Americans as a whole were ready to reject the primacy of the British crown. They believed that the king and Parliament had overstepped their boundaries in many ways. Yet, although American sentiment against the crown was near universal, many also felt that the cost of fighting such a formidable enemy was too high.
Initially, many able-bodied American men volunteered in Washington's army. As the war progressed, however, and the casualties increased on the American side, many men reassessed their participation in the hostilities.
As a result, Washington and his generals were forced to offer cash prizes, awards, and other incentives to encourage men to enlist. At this time, however, help came from an unexpected quarter. When all was said and done, about 5,000 African American men fought for America in the Revolutionary War. The contributions of these men made a huge difference to the independence effort. Both free and enslaved African Americans partook in the war effort. There were also a variety of efforts by the British to exploit slaves as a means to win the war.
For more on American sentiment towards the British in 1776, please refer to the links below.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/king-george-iii-speaks-to-parliament-of-american-rebellion

https://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/african_americans.html

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/myths-of-the-american-revolution-10941835/

What kind of life does the vagabond want?

The vagabond rather enjoys his life of wandering the highways and byways. It's a simple life being out in the open air; all the vagabond's needs are catered for by Mother Nature. If he wants food, he simply dips his bread in the water to catch fish; when he needs to sleep, there's a nice, comfy bed waiting for him in the bush. The vagabond may be poor, but then he doesn't seek riches; they're just not important to him, as he says, "Wealth I seek not, hope nor love," nor for that matter does he seek friendship with anyone. All he needs are the heavens above him and the road beneath him. And it doesn't matter how bad the weather gets; the vagabond will never be defeated by the harshness of winter or fall, as he says,

"Or let autumn fall on me Where afield I linger, Silencing the bird on tree, Biting the blue finger. White as meal the frosty field - Warm the fireside haven - Not to autumn will I yield, Not to winter even!"

The vagabond is a free spirit. Bereft of all the normal comforts of life, and free of the social attachments to his fellow man that most of us have, he is completely accepting of his fate. Whenever his times comes, he'll be ready. In the meantime, he'll continue to live his life on his own terms, with the road beneath his feet and the heavens above him.

In The Color of Water by James McBride, what does James value (find important) in his life? Include quotations from the book to support ideas. This should list three examples of what he values.

Three things that James McBride values are his mother, his siblings, and learning the truth about his biracial identity. The entire book, as the subtitle indicates, is a tribute to his mother.
One place where McBride reveals how much he values his mother is in a part of her narrative that he includes. While she and his father were married, she never traveled to North Carolina, because they feared the family would be attacked. After his death, she takes his body home to be buried. She later tells James,

I sat on that train and said to myself, “I’m gonna take him home. I will take him home to see him buried,” and no white man nor black man would have stopped me and I swear to God Almighty, had anyone stood before me to prevent it I would have struck them down.

McBride was one of twelve children. Although the siblings competed, they also supported each other. One place where he shows that he values his siblings is when they come to meet him after school when he has been waiting for his mother to appear. The children he sees coming

were a motley crew of girls and boys, ragged with wild hairdos and unkempt jackets, hooting and making noise, and only when they were almost upon me did I recognize the faces of my elder siblings and my little sister . . . . I ran into their arms and collapsed in tears as they gathered around me, laughing.

After McBride publishes his first, well-received essay about his mother, he considers the idea of doing a book. While he wants to tell his mother’s story, he also centers on the ways it will help him understand his own identity.

I decided to delve further, partly to get out of working for a living and partly to expel some of my own demons regarding my brown skin, curly hair, and divided soul.
https://books.google.com/books?id=F0aKDQAAQBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Why were the crew members speaking in hushed tones in the crew's quarters?-Charlotte doyle

You can find the answer to this question in Chapter 9, with some insight from Chapter 8. In Chapter 8, Charlotte writes that the captain had asked her to report back what she heard the crew saying to each other. Dutifully, Charlotte tells the captain that the crew is tired and disgruntled, and the captain promises her that they will soon have rest. In Chapter 9, however, Charlotte hears deliberately "muted" conversation from within the forecastle and strains to make it out.
What she hears is alarming: a number of crew members, at least four, are discussing having put down their mark in favor of something. Charlotte also hears them remark that they dislike her hanging around them and seemingly "spying," reporting what she hears back to their captain. Eventually, after having thought about it for some time, Charlotte realizes that she has observed the crew men plotting a mutiny—something she then reports to the captain.

How can the nation avoid a return to tyranny?

The United States Constitution is structured specifically to prevent the creation of another tyrannical government. For example, the modern United States political system emphasizes a separation of power between the branches (legislative, executive, and judicial) of government. Additionally, the federal government (national government system) is separate from state governments.
Another innovative feature of the American political system is what's called checks and balances. This type of federal system separates the executive branch (the president and cabinet), the legislative branch (the Senate and the House of Representatives, which together make up Congress), and the judicial branch (the United States Supreme Court and lower courts).
An example of the branches "checking" each other the president vetoing a bill passed by Congress. Subsequently, Congress can override the presidential veto if they so choose. This system of checks and balances lessens the powers of a president, at least in theory.
Additionally, the United States Constitution protects the rights of citizens to bear arms, form militias, publish criticisms of the government, and perform public protests. Each state government can also make sure that the federal government does not violate these rights. On the other hand, the federal government can "check" state governments who cause civil discord, as exemplified in the Civil War.
http://ccd.indiana.edu/file_download/27/vchecksandbalances_12.pdf

How is the Devil personified in the play?

The devil is personified from the beginning of the play. For example, Mrs. Putnam says that Betty is more than just sick. She says that "the Devil's touch is heavier than sick." Later in act one, Parris proclaims, by way of accounting for Betty's sudden illness, that "the Devil may be among us." He also says that he can't understand the constant arguments among the town's people, and admits to wondering "if the Devil be in it somewhere." When Hale enters the scene, he also blames the devil for Betty's illness, declaring that "The Devil is precise; the marks of his presence are definite as stone." From these examples, we can see that the devil is personified as something of a scapegoat for any seemingly inexplicable misfortune. If there is something amiss, and no apparent reason for it, the devil is summoned by way of an explanation.
Later in act 1, Tituba, under pressure from Hale, claims that she has conversed with the devil. She says that the devil spoke to her and told her that "Mr. Parris must be kill," and "You work for me, Tituba, and I make you free!" Hale tells Tituba that "the Devil is out and preying on (Betty) like a beast upon the mesh of the pure lamb." In this scene then, the devil is personified as cunning, manipulative, animalistic and predatory.
The devil is also personified as powerful. Hale proclaims that Betty is "in the Devil's grip" and Tituba says that he came "one stormy night" and told her that he had "white people belong to (him)." Tituba considers it a mark of the devil's power that he can seduce and enslave white people as well as black people. Abigail later says that she "danced for the Devil," implying that the devil also has a power to seduce, or charm. In act two, Hale reminds Proctor that the devil is also powerful because he is "a wily one." Indeed, "until an hour before the Devil fell, God thought him beautiful in heaven."
In one of his interjections, in act 1, Miller states that "the necessity of the Devil may become evident as a weapon, a weapon designed and used time and time again in every age to whip men into a surrender." Abigail uses the devil as a weapon against other women, realizing that if she accuses others first, she will more likely avoid being accused herself. In this way the personification of the devil as a real, living agent of evil, is used as a weapon. Abigail uses this weapon to deflect blame from herself and at the same time attack and do harm to others. Abigail frantically exclaims in the climax of act one that, "I saw Sarah Good with the Devil! I saw Goody Osburn with the Devil! I saw Bridget Bishop with the Devil!"

Put the woman at the center of “The Yellow Wallpaper” in gothic context. Consider, also, how this story, like those of other gothic writers, deals with the intricacies and the deterioration of the human mind.

There are two major parts to the question you have been asked. The first is:
1. How does "The Yellow Wallpaper" fit into the context of gothic literature, and what gothic tropes does it utilize?
The second is:
2. How does this story deal with mental deterioration on the part of this heroine, and how does this fit into the gothic genre?
Let us, then, begin with the first part of the question.
"The Yellow Wallpaper"was written in 1892. This puts it firmly into the category of the Gothic Revival, a group of fin de siecle gothic works which include novels like Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray and Stephenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Gothic works of this period drew upon many of the tropes of early nineteenth century gothic but had an increased fascination with the duality of human nature and, particularly, the fragility of the psyche.
Gothic elements which are used in The Yellow Wallpaper include:
- The house as a character, contributing to the tone and thrust of the story itself. The "colonial" house in which the protagonist of this story finds herself is essential to the plot: the house itself is what entraps our heroine and drives her mental deterioration;
- The tragic heroine, an archetype of early Gothic;
- The gothic hinterland, as conveyed in this story through the medium of the wallpaper itself. Gothic texts often use something to represent an in-between space, a place between what is real and what is not. Sometimes, this is conveyed through natural phenomena, such as fog, moors, or marshes. In this story, the wallpaper itself is the hinterland between the protagonist and what she fears, its patterns containing "things nobody knows."
- Gothic duality is a strong presence in this narrative. This idea of the dualism within ourselves is more particular to late gothic than to early gothic—see Jekyll and Hyde—but we can also see it in, for example, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, with its tension between the doctor and his creation. In this story, the duality exists between the protagonist in the story and the many "creeping women" she imagines within the wallpaper; it is the difference between the confined life she must live and the many unfettered lives she imagines.
This leads us on to question 2: how this story deals with the intricacies of the deterioration of the human mind and how this can be set in gothic context. Our psychology has long been a fascination for gothic writers. In Frankenstein, Frankenstein's narcissism and desire to innovate drive him to create a being he cannot love or handle; in Dorian Gray, a young man's innocence is corrupted, which leads him down a path of vice to his ultimate doom; in Jekyll and Hyde, a man's base desires are sublimated so fiercely that they emerge as an entirely separate personality. In this story, the protagonist's desire to be free, so pushed against by her husband/doctor, drives her slowly mad. Her imprisonment in the house, which they see as for her own benefit, seems to her a punishment which cannot be escaped. Eventually, she seems to trespass into a madness which is, in itself, a form of freedom—the woman trapped behind the wallpaper is a manifestation of herself but, in her own way, is freer than the protagonist. In moving beyond the hinterland boundary presented by the wallpaper, the protagonist steps over the encumbrance her husband presents and enters an upside-down world of her own, on the other side of reality.