What is the theme of the chapter Lead?

Primo Levi's complex probing of the Holocaust, including his survival of Auschwitz and pre- and post-war life, is organized around individual elements. Some parts are factual memoir, others are fiction, and some read like fairy tales or ancient fales.
Two such fables, written while he worked as a chemist before joining the resistance, are paired according to the elements' radically different properties, also metaphorically present in people. These are lead, which is stable and represents stolidly persisting, and mercury, which is volatile and linked to instability and rapid change.
Levi incorporates the qualities of the element into the tone of the story and makes the character's personality compatible with those qualities as well.
"Lead" centers on a lead artisan, or smith, apparently in ancient times. His itinerant progress to find work takes him to many places and stimulates him to try different jobs and crafts. But lead is what he understands and excels at. Another quality of lead is that it is toxic. Continued exposure poisons the person who touches or ingests it. By not changing his craft, the leadsmith is signing his own death certificate. However, he is returning to his emotional home as well, to his pregnant wife, in time to meet their new baby before he passes away—a child who seems destined to follow his path.

What kind of images online could represent the meaning and theme of Sonnet 18? Think about how the colors, images, ideas, and emotions expressed in the sonnet help convey its meaning and theme.

Considering that Sonnet 18 is a comparison between the object of the poet's affection and a summer's day, a summer-themed image would make the most sense. However, the sonnet makes it a point to mention the ugly or at least less-attractive sides of summer—its winds, hot sun, obscuring clouds, and impermanence. The poet tells us that, because of these things, the sonnet's subject is superior to summer. Perhaps when looking for an image, you can consider one that shows the ugly side of a summer's day.
Samuel Palmer's mid-19th Century painting Summer Storm Near Pulborough, Sussex comes to mind as a good image to choose from. This painting shows some of the less attractive sides of summer. Even though there are hints of blue sky and far off sunshine, a torrential rainstorm is moving in and the wind is picking up. Peasants rush to get the laundry off the line, and a shepherd urgently moves his flock down the road. The colors are a mix of light and dark, further showing the dual nature of the season. After viewing this painting, it is clear that comparing a person to this particular summer's day would not be much of a compliment. Even more, this painting is set in the English countryside, so it is an image of a subject and landscape that William Shakespeare would have been familiar with.

How does the setting function in the story "The Snows of Kilimanjaro"?

"The Snows of Kilimanjaro" is a short story by Ernest Hemingway that takes place on the African savanna; The protagonist, Harry, and his wife are sitting outside having a discussion about his leg, which is decomposing at a worrying rate. The two are waiting for a plane to arrive for medical treatment for Harry. Everything about the savanna is a reflection of Harry's physical state; this is a hot, unfamiliar, confusing, dismal place. Harry does not feel welcomed here, nor is he comfortable. In fact, Harry longs to be near Kilimanjaro, which he sees as a symbol of truth, purity, and benevolence; he reminisces about the peak with ardent fondness throughout this story. Since his decaying leg is a constant reminder of his decaying soul, it is no wonder that he needs to be reminded of something that exudes purity.
Flashbacks are also part of the setting, and there are several throughout this story. As he gets sicker, his flashbacks become intermingled with real life, and it becomes difficult for him to distinguish one from the other. At one point he actually feels Death's breath upon him. In the next scene, however, Harry is boarding a plane and is flown right up to the peak of Kilimanjaro. At this point, Harry

knew that there was where he was going.

Then the woman wakes up because the hyena has finally stopped making one sound and started making another, and she realizes that Harry has died. Only in death is Harry physically free to ascend to Kilimanjaro. Until then, his diseased body was bound to a diseased place.

Define pluralism, assimilation, and suppression.

Pluralism implies that different communities and cultures that enter a foreign one will hold on to their culture and traditions. This will lead to small pockets of people holding on to their cultural identity while at the same time respecting the values of the larger group that they enter. An example of pluralism can be seen in larger cities that have neighborhoods defined by foreign cultures (ie. Little Italy, Koreatown).

Assimilation is different because it means that the minority cultures will abandon their culture and values and wholly adopt those of the larger community. This can lead to less cultural conflict at the loss of original traditions and values.

Suppression is when the dominant culture imposes values and traditions with the purpose of eliminating the minority values. Suppression also generally involves the elimination of the rights of a minority culture. Two recent examples of suppression are the Jim Crowe era in the United States, and apartheid in South Africa.

These are valuable distinctions regarding how a society responds to diversity.
Pluralism is often conflated with multiculturalism or cosmopolitanism, though each is its own reality. Pluralism occurs when different groups coexist on essentially equal footing. In this instance, the goal is to avoid hierarchies of power and to disperse power across multiple stakeholders. Decentralized power theoretically invests more people in the governing entity. Many people suggest that Canada offers an example of what pluralism might look like, though they cannot claim a purely decentralized government.
Assimilation assumes the presence of diversity as well. In this case, however, the non-dominant group takes on the qualities and values of the dominant group, such as to be largely indistinguishable in any practical way. In the United States, for instance, immigrants from many nations were not initially well-received and clustered in tight-knit areas that replicated their homeland. Over time and generations, the distinguishing qualities they possessed and the discriminatory attitudes toward those qualities waned. In Chicago, the old neighborhoods were strongly defined by the ethnicity of the largely European immigrants who settled them. Over time, these ethnic groups have assimilated, moving to suburbs where Lithuanians feel comfortable living among Irish, German, and Ukrainian descendants. Each of these groups may celebrate certain holidays or foods differently, but in matters of great importance now, their ethnic background does not play a major deciding factor.
Suppression also assumes the presence of diversity, and in this case diversity is viewed as a problem to be solved. The minority group's culture, language, and value differences are seen as a threat or a burden to the dominant group, which seeks to minimize or eliminate these differences, on the way to the minority group's assimilation. We can see suppression in certain movements that insist that the dominant culture's language, religion, and values must be incorporated into governing policies so that all others will be assimilated or will at least keep their own customs out of the public sphere.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/pluralism-politics

https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/43865_2.pdf

What conditions might produce a reversal of the "virtuous circles" that have brought increasing peace to much of the world?

Conditions that might produce a reversal of the “virtuous circles,” or advantageous feedback loops, that have brought increasing peace to much of the world would mean returning to the conditions that existed before those circles were established—for example, re-establishing authoritarian systems of government, patriarchal culture, and capitalist economies would reverse the virtuous circles that are now thriving in some areas.
For example, what has brought peace to much of Africa, after decades of bloody internal warfare, has been the education and the equal voice of women in politics and economics. Micro-lending among women’s collectives in East Africa has rescued devastated economies, and the Women’s Mass Action Movement gained peace for Liberia in 2003, ending their civil war. In the Western Hemisphere, war has returned when virtuous circles have been uprooted. For example, when the privatization of NAFTA threatened the sharing economies of the Yucatan Peninsula, the Zapatistas raised arms. El Salvador experienced its bloody revolution after a capitalist, authoritarian regime dominated the culture and economy. Pinochet's capitalist, authoritarian government also led to revolution in Chile.
Where women have the economic power to take care of their families, and a voice in government, economies can stabilize, more collective decisions can be made, and peace can be achieved. These virtuous circles of peace are also evident in pre-Columbian North America, where there was already relative peace and stability among First Nations and where their economies and cultures were more matriarchal, their system of government was non-authoritarian, and they enjoyed sharing economies.
History shows that overturning any egalitarian culture or economy will eventually and inevitably reverse their virtuous circles.

What does Hamlet say about Yorick?

As if Hamlet were not obsessed enough with death, his uncovering of the skull of Yorick, the court jester from his youth, really sets him off on a contemplation of mortality. Upon unearthing the skull in act V, scene 1, Hamlet recalls fond memories of Yorick. He recalls the many jokes that Yorick was full of and how the jester used to carry him around on his shoulders in play.
Upon gazing at the skull, Hamlet's thoughts turn more existential. He asks the skull what happened to its former jokes and songs. Yorick was a person "of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy," but now he is just dusty bones.
Ever the one to brood, Hamlet compares the fate of Yorick to that of Alexander the Great. Despite the vastly different lives and accomplishments of the two, their fate is the same: to die "and returneth to dust." It seems that here, while contemplating what has become of the once merry jester, Hamlet truly accepts that he too will meet the same end, as all people do. After this scene, Hamlet appears to have accepted his own mortality.

Hamlet's interest in the skull of Yorick shows his introverted character. The introvert, according to C. G. Jung, who coined the terms "introvert" and "extrovert," is interested in the subject, whereas the extravert is interested in the object. The skull does not especially interest Hamlet as an object, as can be seen from the train of thought he expresses while he is holding it up in front of him.
Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio: a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy. He hath borne me on his back a thousand times. And now how abhorred in my imagination it is! My gorge rises at it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know not how oft. Where be your gibes now? your gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment, that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not one now to mock your own grinning? Quite chop-fallen? Now get you to my lady's chamber, and tell her, let her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must come. Make her laugh at that.
Hamlet is thinking of himself--his own thoughts, memories, and impressions--when he says, "I knew him," and "He hath borne me on his back a thousand times," "how abhorred in my imagination it is!" "Here hung those lips I have kissed I know not how oft," etc. It is because of his ceaseless introspection that Hamlet is not able to act effectively in the real world. His thinking interferes with his emotions. He is the exact opposite of the extremely extraverted Laertes, who is guided by his emotions and acts impulsively and rashly.
The introvert sees everything that is in any way valuable to him in the subject; the extravert sees it in the object. This dependence on the object seems to the introvert a mark of the greatest inferiority, while to the extravert the preoccupation with the subject seems nothing but infantile autoeroticism. So it is not surprising that the two types often come into conflict. - C. G. Jung
In this famous scene, Shakespeare seems to have wanted to show the contrast between the object which Hamlet is holding directly in front of him and the subjective thoughts which that object is capable of arousing. "Alas, poor Yorick!" characterizes Hamlet very effectively. Everything causes him to think, and once he starts thinking he can't stop.

How have women’s actions remade the world for women, and how not, from 1790 to present? To what extent have the things that Olympe de Gouges called for in the 1790s “Declaration of Rights of Women” been realized, and to what extent are they things women are still struggling to attain two centuries later?

De Gouges's Declaration of the Rights of Woman was enormously influential. We can see its influences on early English feminist Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Women, on the Irish Rebellion of 1798 and Maria Edgeworth, and on early American feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton's Declaration of Sentiments. Since the publication of these works, women have partially achieved changes in access to work, education, voting, political representation, laws regarding rape and abuse, and family structure. However, women continue to be less protected or respected than men in a majority of nations in the world.
De Gouges's Declaration was part of a worldwide pattern of women asserting their equality. Many tribal nations, such as the Iroquois Confederacy, had strong traditions of women governing, and the Iroquois were used as a model by western feminists like Stanton. Women were central to the abolitionist movements in England, France, the United States, and Latin America. Many abolitionists were feminists, and vice versa. Women were part of revolutionary movements in the United States, Europe, and Latin America. It was women, the Lowell Mill Girls, who led the Ten Hour Movement and were central to labor struggles.
To date, almost sixty nations have had a female president or prime minister. Over seventy have a quarter or more of their congresses or parliaments made up of women. (The United States is not among them.) In the United States, where it was once standard and legal for women to earn half of what men did, white women typically earn about eighty percent of what white men do. Practices that were once completely legal, including sexual harassment, firing people for getting pregnant or married, marital rape, and child marriage, are now outlawed and condemned.
Women continue to have higher rates of poverty than men, especially among the newly divorced or widowed. In dozens of nations, women are barred from most education and physically isolated, often kept out of the public sphere by force or threats. While rape is outlawed everywhere, powerful stigmas make prosecution difficult. There remain striking examples of backlash against women's rights, such as chauvinism in the 2016 US presidential election and the ensuing election of Donald Trump, a man accused by two dozen women of harassment or assault.

Did his father ever realize what happens to Bruno in The Boy in the Striped Pajamas?

Yes, Bruno's father does realize what happened to him. It takes him a while to figure it out, though. One day, Bruno goes missing all of a sudden, and despite all the soldiers at Auschwitz searching high and low for him, he's nowhere to be found. All that's left of him are some items of clothing left by the fence.
Eventually, Bruno's father puts two and two together and realizes to his horror what happened to his son. He now knows that the only rational explanation for Bruno's sudden disappearance is that he somehow ended up in the gas chambers, where he died along with countless Jewish prisoners. He doesn't know about Shmuel, of course, but he does know that Bruno's dead and, what's more, how he met his end.

What is the author saying at the end of the novel, when Maxwell says "No big deal"?

Max's final words are an expression of his modesty, of his generally laid back nature. He's written an entire book by himself—inspired no doubt by his close friendship with Freak—and there are potentially more to come. One day, Max took the empty book out of the pyramid box and started writing down the "unvanquished truth" as Freak would have called it. Despite filing up all those pages with his incredible story, Max still lacks something in the confidence department. Max tells himself that he doesn't have a brain, and that's the "unvanquished truth." But at the same time, his lack of self-confidence ironically inspires him to get this so-called truth down on paper, filling up all those empty pages with his remarkable tale. Max may not think that his story is all that much of a big deal, but having read it ourselves we would beg to differ. And that's the "unvanquished truth."

What is the conclusion of The Stone Angel?

In the conclusion of Margaret Laurence's novel The Stone Angel, the main character, Hagar Shipley, finds herself confined to a hospital room, fighting to maintain control over herself and her surroundings in spite of her declining health. At the same time, she wants to let go and allow things to happen naturally and organically. Hagar knows that her time is near, and she reacts by alternating between wanting to be in control of her fate and surrendering her fate to those around her.
When she wakes to find the young girl Sandra Wong in the bed next to her, she lies to the girl in an attempt to displace the girl's fear of the operation she must have. The previous evening, Hagar had reacted to the nurse putting her in a bed jacket by insisting she doesn't need one and then apologizing for troubling the nurse. Her conflicting behavior is especially difficult for her son Marvin and Marvin's wife, Doris. When Hagar's nurse compliments Hagar for her constitution, Marvin replies "She's a holy terror." Doris responds by not accompanying Marvin on his final visit.
Hagar, in her final moments, comes face to face with the truth of her existence and toys with the idea of being the person those around her want to be—but she can't. Like the stone angel she identifies with, she is strong and resolute, but unable to sacrifice control.

What are some examples of free will in Lost Horizon?

There are many examples of free will in the novel Lost Horizon, but one of the very first examples is when the passengers depart the plane after fleeing India and are offered fruit and warm clothing by the strangers they meet. At this point the passengers have the ability to turn down the food and clothing and attempt to search for sustenance on their own. Accepting the offers of food and clothing creates a feeling of trust towards the strangers, but it also creates a sense of indebtedness in the passengers. Another example of free will is the ability of the passengers to leave the lamasery. They discuss whether they should stay or leave, weighing the pros and cons of each decision, but ultimately decide to stay and easily assimilate into their new culture and its mores. They can use their free will at any time to attempt to change things in their new surroundings, but they ultimately choose not to.

What is "mankind's essential illness"?

What Golding alludes to as “mankind’s essential illness” he doesn’t identify, leaving it to the reader to determine the nature of the darkness Simon recognizes in human beings. Literary critics frequently conclude that it is the presence of evil and that the novel expresses Golding’s view that man is evil by nature. How then can evil be defined in the context of the narrative? As a spiritual concept, the antithesis of goodness? As the chaos created by the savage, unrestrained Id of the human psyche? Specific passages in the novel support both interpretations. However, a scene in chapter 4 suggests that “mankind’s essential illness” can be defined another way, as well, based on the behavior of a littlun playing on the beach.
At the ocean’s edge, little Henry digs runnels in the sand with a stick and watches them fill with water; as the tide recedes, tiny sea creatures washed ashore are trapped in the shallow channels he has created. Fascinated with the “tiny transparencies,” he pokes the sand with his stick, directing them into the runnels where he wants them to go. Golding describes Henry’s behavior in a passage that implies the profound significance of his actions:
He became absorbed beyond mere happiness as he felt himself exercising control over living things. He talked to them, urging them, ordering them. Driven back by the tide, his footprints became bays in which they were trapped and gave him the illusion of mastery.
What drives Henry’s behavior is then underscored through literary parallelism. As Henry controls the creatures trapped at his feet, Roger controls him, surreptitiously throwing stones so that they land near Henry, prompting him to determine their source and confusing him when he can’t. Through this scene, another interpretation of “mankind’s essential illness” is suggested by the littlun’s actions, and it is validated by Roger’s. The darkness in human nature, their behavior implies, is man’s innate drive to dominate that which exists separate from the self. Moving in ever expanding circles, like the “spreading rings” in the water created by Roger’s throwing stones, it is the blind expression of human will that plunges the island into anarchy and the world beyond the island into war.

Discuss why it is important to understand physical development and brain functioning when working as an adolescent mental health therapist.

During adolescence and puberty, the human body undergoes the most drastic developmental changes; as we grow older and transition toward adulthood, we learn how to better coordinate our bodies, we gradually improve our motor skills, and we reach nearly complete physical maturity. Our physical development has a great effect on our psychological, emotional, and intellectual development as well. Thus, adolescence is a period in which we shape our moral and ethical codes, we determine how we're going to present ourselves to society and how we're going to interact with other people, we learn how to think reasonably and rationally, and we try to define and establish our identities.
This is why I believe that understanding the physical development and brain functioning of adolescents is one of the most important tasks an adolescent mental health therapist should do; therapists must evaluate their patients' mental and physical condition and be able to provide proper care, guidance, and support. This is of utmost importance for all physicians, teachers, therapists and parents, as even the smallest of developmental changes can majorly affect the behavior and the emotional state of the adolescents, and it can indicate how they will proceed to develop in life, both mentally and physically.
All mental health therapists should also be aware that adolescence is the most critical developmental stage in a person's life, as numerous studies show that various mental disorders usually manifest symptomatic changes in behavior during or after puberty. In order to cope with their condition, many teens or adolescents will either become extremely introverted or turn to substance abuse, and in the most serious of cases, they might even attempt to harm themselves or end their lives. This is why therapists should try to understand the changes their patients are going through; they should be honest, rational, open-minded, supportive, and, most importantly, they must focus on communication in order to help their patients overcome their psychological struggles.
I would also like to mention that therapy is not something that will magically work and fix all problems overnight; mental health therapists should carefully explain to their patients that all healing processes take time, patience, and cooperation. This is why I believe that schools should also include various educational programs about mental and physical health; their main goal should be to spread awareness about the subject and provide the best possible environment for students to safely grow and develop, without any judgment or barriers.

What does the hero Beowulf tell us about pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon values and ideals? Be sure to discuss at least three values or ideals, citing specific textual evidence for each.

Beowulf is the ideal Anglo-Saxon hero. He is physically strong and a cunning warrior, for one thing. During his three battles, he overcomes his increasingly stronger adversaries. He overcomes Grendel through brute force, but he overcomes Grendel's mother through cunning, grabbing onto a magic sword to strike her down right before she is able to kill him first.
Anglo-Saxons seek immortality through becoming famous. Beowulf does not speak much about an afterlife where he will be rewarded or punished. Rather, he talks about wanting to become famous by fighting monsters so his name will be remembered long after his death. Hrothgar tells Beowulf,

Thy fame is extended through far-away countries,
Good friend Beowulf, o’er all of the races,

Thou holdest all firmly, hero-like strength with
Prudence of spirit . . .


This shows how important reputation is to the Anglo-Saxon people. This is the fool-proof way to make sure one's memory lives on after death. When Beowulf is buried at the end of the poem, the love of his people is the greatest legacy he leaves behind. Even though he is gone and can no longer protect them, his memory will live forever.
The Anglo-Saxons also prize loyalty to a king. We see this with how Wiglaf remains loyal to Beowulf even in the face of fiery death at the hands of the dragon. The other warriors abandon their king, which is shameful. A good warrior is always loyal to his king, even unto death. The king, in turn, is generous with his warriors, letting them make merry in the mead hall and sharing treasures with them after battle.

What is “metaphysico-theologo-cosmolo-boobology” ?

Candide is a satire, and the term "metaphysico-theologo-cosmolo-boobology" is Voltaire's way of poking fun of and mocking abstract philosophy. This specific wording is invoked in reference to Voltaire's introduction of Pangloss, who is himself a mocking caricature of Leibniz. This should give you some idea as to how Voltaire, at least within the context of Candide, views abstract philosophical inquiry.
Each of these terms (save for the last) refers to specific topics of abstract inquiry. Metaphysics is one of the cornerstones of philosophy, and it tends to point toward abstract questions as to the fundamental nature of reality and existence. Theology involves questions as to the nature of God. Cosmology refers to the study of the universe. Candide throws each of these three terms together into a caricature of philosophical inquiry, which is presented as ungrounded in reality and, speaking in practical terms, ultimately worthless.
This is reflected in Pangloss's teachings. Pangloss is presented as the finest philosopher of his age, with a reputation for great wisdom, and yet his philosophy is all nonsense. Furthermore, as if the emptiness of his reasoning is not sufficient in and of itself, his vision of reality is actively at odds with the reality which Voltaire's Candide represents. Pangloss's vision of the universe defines it as "the best of all possible worlds" (in this particular phrasing, Voltaire is referencing Leibniz), but of course, the world which Voltaire presents is rife with injustice and cruelty. Thus, when viewed within the context of the world Voltaire presents, the very idea that this could be "the best of all possible worlds" isn't just vapid abstract reason—it is a deception. That the world can be better than it currently is should be practically self-apparent given how dysfunctional everything is.
The term "metaphysico-theologo-cosmolo-boobology" must be understood as a term of mockery applied to abstract philosophy and particularly to Pangloss's ludicrous and ultimately irresponsible brand of it. Voltaire views this entire reasoning as nonsensical, and this particular phrasing is a reflection of that larger attitude.

What were the central causes for the genesis or creation of the tenements?

The tenements on New York's Lower East Side were described in the 1890 pioneering photojournalistic work How the Other Half Lives: Studies among the Tenements of New York by Jacob Riis.
These tenements arose in the nineteenth century. Although the main causes of their growth had to do with socioeconomic and demographic factors, it should be noted that a contributory factor was geographical. Manhattan, one of the five boroughs of New York City, is an island consisting of only 22 square miles, and even today it remains among the most densely populated areas in the world.
In the nineteenth century, immigrants flooded into Manhattan. The new wave of immigrants in this period included eastern Europeans and Italian and Irish Roman Catholics, especially the Irish who were fleeing the potato famine mid-century. These groups moved into formerly single-family houses in the Lower East Side, which had been vacated by wealthier people moving north into more fashionable districts. Real estate owners and agents made these buildings profitable by subdividing larger rooms into smaller ones so that they could rent to larger numbers of people, increasing their profits. This resulted in massive overcrowding, to which the infrastructure, especially sewage disposal, was completely inadequate. Since the new immigrants tended to be poor and unable to afford high rents, rather than maintaining buildings to make them attractive, owners invested as little as possible in the buildings to increase profits on fairly low rents.
Many of the rooms housing tenants were dark, unhealthy breeding areas for vermin, disease, and major fire hazards. Over two million people lived in tenements in the area.
https://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/tenementmuseum/history-of-tenements/

In what ways was the Civil War revolutionary?

The Civil War was certainly a watershed moment in United States history, and one could make the point that it was revolutionary from a number of perspectives.
Perhaps the most important issue (and where the Civil War was at its most revolutionary) applied to slavery. Before the Civil War, the Southern states were slave-owning societies and, with the Emancipation Proclamation, the Civil War became (from a Northern Perspective) a struggle to bring an end to this slave-holding culture. With the defeat of the Southern States, slavery was quickly ended with the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment. Later amendments passed during reconstruction would extend citizenship and voting rights. This was a revolutionary and critical step forward for American democracy.
In addition, we could discuss the issue of secession. Attempting secession was a radical step by the Southern states. It was also the most extreme expression of States's Rights theory (and States's Rights has had a long history in U.S. political thought). In stating that the states had the legal right to secede and acting upon that statement, the Southern states were presenting a challenge to the United States's very identity as a nation. In defeating the South and bringing it back into the Union, the United States disarmed an ideological challenge that could have had unimaginable implications for the future.
Finally, there were a number of additional factors that would qualify as turning points for US military history themselves. This was the first conflict in which the U.S. government adopted conscription (and both the North and the South instituted their own drafts). In addition, there was the introduction of breech-loaded rifles, which vastly improved range and accuracy, resulting in the vast and devastating casualties we associate with the Civil War experience.
In conclusion, there are a lot of issues that can be discussed in this question, and a lot of perspectives from which we can call the Civil War revolutionary, and a turning point in US history.

How does Mercutio serve as a dramatic foil to Romeo in Romeo and Juliet? (List 3 traits for each character and provide textual evidence for each.)

Mercutio is a foil to Romeo in several ways. The two close friends are alike in being young, passionate, and sometimes impulsive youth of Verona who both have a way with words. Three ways they are different, however, are as follows:
First, Romeo is in love with love. Romantic love is his chief pursuit in life. In contrast, Mercutio is jaded and cynical about love.
We know that Romeo is in love with love from the very start of the play. Lord Montague seeks out the level-headed Benvolio because he is worried about Romeo's mooning about, wandering around at night, and sleeping during the day. When Benvolio confronts Romeo in act 1, scene 1, Romeo can't stop talking about love, saying,

Love is a smoke raised with the fume of sighs;
Being purged, a fire sparkling in lovers' eyes;
Being vexed, a sea nourished with loving tears.

Romeo is lovesick for Rosaline, who doesn't return his love and admits, "In sadness, cousin, I do love a woman."
Not long after this, of course, Romeo will meet Juliet at the Capulets' party and fall head over heels in love with her, forgetting Rosaline and wanting to marry Juliet the next day. Romeo shows himself a master of passionate love language, which reflects his deeply felt emotions, in the balcony scene with Juliet after the masquerade ball. You can find many examples of romantic love language in this scene in act 2, scene 2. Here are a few:

O, it is my love!O, that she knew she were!

He then refers to Juliet in exaggerated yet always sincere love language, saying she is so bright with beauty the birds would mistake her for the sun and wake up in the middle of the night. He also longs to touch her cheek:

The brightness of her cheek would shame those stars
As daylight doth a lamp. Her eye in heaven
Would through the airy region stream so bright
That birds would sing and think it were not night.
See how she leans her cheek upon her hand.
Oh, that I were a glove upon that hand
That I might touch that cheek!

This is language you will never hear from Mercutio. He takes a harder, more cynical view of love and is more prone to connect it with sex and make jokes about it. He loves to make bawdy sexual puns. In act 1, scene 4, the cynical Mercutio says to Romeo,

If love be rough with you, be rough with love.
Prick love for pricking, and you beat love down.

in act 2, scene 4, Mercutio runs into Romeo, not knowing that Romeo has fallen for Juliet, and is delighted to see his friend has come back to life. Mercutio says to him that love is foolish, again showing his different view of romance (and his words are also ironic, since love is what has perked Romeo up):

Why, is not this better now than groaning for love? Now art thou sociable, now art thou Romeo; now art thou what thou art ... for this drivelling love is like a great natural [fool], that runs lolling up and down to hide his bauble [cheap trinket, but also a sexual innuendo] in a hole.

Second, Mercutio enjoys a fight for the sake of a fight. In act 3, Mercutio goes out looking for a brawl on a hot summer day. Romeo, in contrast, never shows much interest in the the street fighting that breaks out between the Capulets and the Montagues, even before he falls in love with Juliet. He will sword fight and do it well, but only when he has a score to settle.
While Romeo, who has just married Juliet, tries to stop the fight between Mercutio and Tybalt, Mercutio insists on fighting, saying, in act 3, scene 1, of Romeo's peacemaking efforts,

O calm dishonourable, vile submission!

He ignores Romeo's words meant to prevent a fight, stating to Tybalt,

Will you pluck your sword out of his pilcher by the ears? Make haste, lest mine be about your ears ere it be out.

It must be emphasized that while Romeo does fight and kill both Tybalt and Paris, in both cases he feels he has a strong reason; he does not, like Mercutio, simply go swaggering about looking for trouble.
Finally, Romeo is more likely to believe in dreams and portents. Mercutio is not one to waste time on forebodings or being dreary. For example, in act 1, scene 4, Mercutio says that "That dreamers often lie" and that dreams are "the children of an idle brain":

Begot of nothing but vain fantasy,
Which is as thin of substance as the air
And more inconstant than the wind

In contrast, Romeo in act 1, scene 4 worries about a dream he had the night before that leaves him with a sense something bad is about to occur:

fear too early, for my mind misgives
Some consequence yet hanging in the stars
Shall bitterly begin his fearful date
With this night’s revels, and expire the term
Of a despisèd life closed in my breast
By some vile forfeit of untimely death.

In sum, while the two friends have much in common, Romeo is dreamier, much more in love with love, and less prone to look for a fight for no reason. Mercutio is much more cynical and practical in general but especially about love. It is also worth noting that although vibrant and witty, Mercutio has a bit of mean streak that Romeo does not share. For example, near the end of act 2, scene 4, he can't resist insulting Juliet's nurse, implying she is a prostitute and truly getting under her skin. That kind of mean wordplay is not something the more earnest-hearted Romeo enjoys or indulges in.

Explain Thomas’s emergence from the dark elevator as a symbolic rebirth in The Maze Runner.

This is an interesting question, and I can imagine an answer that discusses how Thomas being propelled through a dark tube (elevator shaft) and suddenly being exposed to light is quite similar to what physically happens in an actual birth. Beyond that, Thomas's emergence from the elevator is mentally symbolic of a rebirth. He is a new person in the Glade because he does not know anything about who he used to be. All that he knows is his first name. He doesn't even know his last name.

And yet he didn’t know where he came from, or how he’d gotten inside the dark lift, or who his parents were. He didn’t even know his last name.

He doesn't remember his parents, his former friends, or anything else about his past life. The Glade, and the surrounding maze, is an entirely new world to him with societal rules and a hierarchy that he must relearn. Thomas even has to learn a new language. The Gladers do speak English, but they have an entire vocabulary that Thomas has to figure out. The lack of self knowledge combined with the newness of everything is quite similar to what a newborn child is faced with for many months and years to come.

What is the theme of "Poem in October," and what is the tone of it?

"Poem in October" by Dylan Thomas is a poem written on the occasion of the speaker's 30th birthday. This is an interesting poem because poems about autumn, especially nature in that season, often focus on the transition from summer to fall (as marked by oncoming death and decay). In Thomas's poem, the tone is calm and pleasant as the speaker observes and describes the beauty of the natural world he observes on the morning of his birthday.
About halfway through the poem, the speaker reflects on birthday memories from his childhood and the tone becomes quite joyful. The speaker even includes imagery explicitly related to summertime to describe his mood on this birthday. It seems like a possible theme could be that birthdays give us a chance to reflect on our place in the world around us and to recall with gratitude the milestones of our lives.

In his Farewell Address to the Nation (1961), what did Eisenhower say about the Cold War? How did his message reflect the ideas from George Kennan's "Long Telegram" (1946) and National Security Council 68 (1950)?

George Kennan’s “Long Telegram” to the State Department in Washington in 1946 was one of the main influences associated with the beginning of the Cold War, along with the Truman Doctrine in 1947; Kennan’s document contained US foreign policy toward the communist state and preceded the Truman Doctrine policy outlining containment of Soviet expansion.
Kennan’s “Long Telegram” was released less than a year after Roosevelt’s death. Kennan perceived Roosevelt’s interactions with Joseph Stalin to be overly friendly and cooperative. According to Kennan’s document, the Soviet Union did not view “permanent peaceful coexistence” with the US and its allies as realistic. Kennan ultimately concluded that the Soviets would resort to instigating a “deadly struggle for total destruction of rival power.” Note that, although Kennan disagreed with Roosevelt’s methods of interaction with Stalin, he did echo Roosevelt’s thoughts in terms of the insidious nature of communism, as well as its dangers. In reference to communism, Roosevelt said in his speech:

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

In the wake of the Holocaust, and given definitive similarities between elements of Nazism and communism (specifically, nationalism, anti-liberalism, and anti-Semitism), Roosevelt believed similar methods of violence could result from Stalin’s rule. The threat of communism was in direct conflict with each of the four freedoms Roosevelt outlined in his speech, particularly freedom of speech and expression. The most immediate freedom in jeopardy was that from fear; according to Roosevelt:

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

While Roosevelt proposed a greater focus on peace by means of diplomacy, Kennan concluded that weaponry development was the appropriate means of responding to the amassing of weaponry by the communist state. The proposed tactic contained in Kennan’s document was one of the key influences on the US response to the communist threat, which resulted in the amassing of weaponry (including nuclear arms).
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/george-kennan-sends-long-telegram-to-state-department

In what ways are Tom Sawyer's ideas of fun and excitement different from those of Huck? How does Huck view Tom's adventure games?

Tom has more imagination than Huck, which allows him to come up with all kinds of elaborate games and crazy schemes. Unlike Huck, Tom lives in a relatively civilized environment and so can afford to dream without fearing the consequences. Among other things, this means he can take more risks. Huck, on the other hand, is more cautious, because he's lived practically his whole life on the margins of society.
Huck tends to defer to Tom for coming up with ideas for fun and excitement. Huck knows that there's no way in a million years he'd ever be able to devise anything as ingenious as what his best friend comes up with. We see this when Tom comes up with a daring escape plan for Jim. Huck knows it's dangerous and that they could all get into serious trouble, but he goes along with Tom's plan because, as well as being more "stylish" than any potential plan of his own, it's also pretty exciting.

Huck is a far more pragmatic boy than Tom Sawyer, and so Tom's "adventures," such as the raid on the Sunday school picnic in chapter two, are faintly ridiculous in Huck's eyes. He does, however, value Tom Sawyer's friendship and social connections with other boys, so he goes along with it, even though he knows they aren't really "highwaymen" and that the spoils won't be treasure but only doughnuts and jam.
Late in the novel, Tom Sawyer's insistence on the convoluted plan to "free" Jim is another matter altogether. His toying with Jim and the Phelps's at their farm is cruel and unnecessary, but for Tom, it is the pinnacle of his adventures with Huck. Tom oversees what amounts to "gaslighting" Aunt Sally and needlessly delays Jim's legitimate freedom for his own entertainment. Huck goes along with Tom's games because he does not feel like he can challenge his apparent social superior. He does, however, rein Tom in somewhat from the more egregious things he intends to make Jim endure.

What are 2 ways that Holden protected Phoebe in The Catcher in the Rye?

One of the central themes in The Catcher in the Rye is Holden's desire to protect the innocence of childhood. In this way, his relationship with his younger sister, Phoebe, is pivotal to the story.
Holden often confides in Phoebe and believes she is one of the few people in his world that isn’t a “phony.” In one scene, Holden reveals his innermost desire:

That’s all I’d do all day. I‘d just be the catcher in the rye and all. I know it’s crazy, but that’s the only thing I’d really like to be.

The catcher in the rye is someone who stands guard to catch children before they might fall. This image symbolically describes Holden’s fixation on preserving innocence.
Two examples of Holden preserving innocence occur as Holden attempts to protect his younger sister. In one occasion, Holden desperately tries to erase swear words written on a wall at the school Phoebe attends. He doesn’t want her exposed to that type of language. In a later scene, Phoebe packs a suitcase and decides she wants to run away with Holden. He cannot allow this and convinces Phoebe that she must stay, distracting her by spending the day at the zoo with her instead.
It can be noted that in many ways, Phoebe also saves Holden. While watching the sweet and innocent Phoebe riding on a carousel, Holden is pulled out of his depression (at least momentarily). Phoebe gives Holden purpose.

Describe the economy of the New England colonies.

The New England colonies differed geographically from those in the middle region and south in not being able to rely as heavily on farming as a basis for wealth.
Coastal colonies and areas, such as Rhode Island, relied heavily on the fishing industry, which included whaling. Whaling could be dangerous but was also a profitable venture, as whale oil brought high prices.
The soil in New England was on the whole not as good as in other colonial regions. Therefore, the New England colonies developed a manufacturing base, turning raw materials into salable finished products. For instance, the New England colonies excelled at shipbuilding, and they produced rum. The rum industry grew as the New Englanders traded with other colonies for molasses, which they then manufactured into rum.
Great Britain had envisioned the New England colonies staying relatively poor, providing an abundance of raw materials to the mother country cheaply, and then buying high priced finished goods from England. This way, most of the profit would flow back to the homeland. When the New England colonies developed their own industries and trade, capturing much of the profit for themselves, this led the English to impose higher and higher taxes and tariffs to capture the wealth, creating tensions that ultimately led to the Revolutionary War. It has been said that while Great Britain was the wealthiest country in the world in the eighteenth century, the Boston area had the highest average income in the world because of more equitable distribution of income. Because of having to develop alternatives to agriculture, the New Englanders were doing quite well economically on the eve of the revolution.

What does The Travels of Marco Polo tell us about religion in China at that time?

Marco Polo was in China for almost two decades. This was during the rule of Kublai Khan, the Mongolian emperor and grandson of Genghis Khan. During his time in the Mongol Empire, Marco Polo studied the various cultures that made up the citizenry as well as foreign traders.
During that time, China did not have an official religion, but Buddhism and shamanistic practices dominated as common belief systems. In the book, it is evident that Marco Polo saw a melting pot of cultures and religions. Kublai Khan's financial administrator was a Muslim. The Muslim population was very much represented in the Mongol Empire, as was Christianity. In the book, it is evident that China at the time was a mixture of Far East and Near East (a.k.a. Middle East) cultures.

What was nature's holy plan?

In the poem "Lines Written in Early Spring" by William Wordsworth, "nature's holy plan" appears to be enjoying life. As the speaker sits in a grove and ponders the plant and animal life existing there, they note that joy is present throughout all sentient beings. The speaker sees joy in the flowers of spring, in the birds as they hop about and play, and in the budding trees as they stretch limbs out into the fresh spring air. The speaker wonders if this utter joy of living is, indeed, nature's plan. The speaker then thinks about the horrors that humans have committed against one another and feels a strong juxtaposition of sadness for the state of humans compared to the simple joy that non-human life seems to feel at merely being alive.

How does Liberty come to live with the family?

The little dog Liberty is a gift from Papi to his daughter, the narrator. Mami is not too happy to see the animal; she thinks it looks like a mess and wants her husband to take it back immediately. But Papi has no intention of doing any such thing. The dog is a gift from Mister Victor, the American consul in the Dominican Republic. It's his way of saying thanks to Papi's family for all they've done to help him. Mami retorts that if he'd really wanted to thank them, he'd give them the visas they've been waiting for.
The narrator's family is hoping to start a new life in the United States, far away from their home country, which is ruled by a brutal dictator. When the narrator takes Liberty for a walk, she notices a couple of strange men in dark glasses hiding behind the bushes. It would appear that the family is under surveillance by government spies. Given the heavily autobiographical content of the story, it's clear that the narrator's family is considered subversive by the regime, so one can understand Mami's impatience for everyone's American visas to come through as soon as possible.

Do you feel that the author is being critical of the values of the society of his time in a subtle way? Would this criticism hold true in this age also?

That's an interesting question. Madame Loisel, to be sure, seems to have all her priorities in the wrong order. She has a husband who loves her, and he has a secure (if minor) position in the government. Then, when her husband pulls some strings, going to a significant amount of trouble to procure the pair of them an invitation to a big fete at the home of the Minister of Education, she is completely ungrateful. She needs a dress, she says, so he gives her the money for a dress—money he'd been saving to buy himself something. Then she is not happy with the dress unless she has some jewels.
Maupassant certainly criticizes anyone of a similar mind to this materialistic and ungrateful woman. But her husband is not like her, so it does not seem as though her misguided ideas about what is most important in life are shared by everyone (or anyone else in the story). So, I'm not sure this reads as social criticism so much as a more specific kind of criticism that targets people like Madame Loisel, and because this type of person exists in all ages, it stands to reason that Maupassant's criticism would apply to our current era as well.

What is the rhythm and meter of "Poetry" by Marianne Moore?

Marianne Moore's poem "Poetry" is a short poem, with two versions—one a very brief, three-line poem about the poet's distaste for poetry, and the other roughly a page-long poem outlining the same sentiment. Moore uses this poem as a piece full of irony, expressing the fact that she is uninterested in typical poetry. She states clearly in the first line that she dislikes it and that there are much more important things in the world.
She uses the meter and rhythm of the poem to elucidate her feelings about poetry as well. This poem is jarring in its rhythmic scheme. It is free verse, meaning there is no truly defined structure or meter, nor is there a rhyme scheme. Each line has a different number of syllables and ends abruptly. While reading a normal prose sentence that, for instance, ends with the word "in" on one line and continues the next line with the word "it," it is very easy to continue with the flow of the thought. However, in a poem with deliberate line breaks, the mind automatically halts at the end of a line, expecting a definitive phrase or pause. This poem just stops abruptly, sending the reader reeling forward like a car lurching to a stop.
Moore's use of jolting, abrupt line breaks and loose, even nonexistent, form and structure in the poem illuminates the fact that it is not a normal piece of poetry—just the opposite, in fact. It is void of any of the natural and most well-known aspects of poetry. Therein lies its genius, however, as the poem smooths itself out in the final stanza. While it maintains its free verse, the lines become a little more tolerable, finishing closer to full sentences or phrases with each line. This stanza is about the idea that interest in the raw elements of poetry, such as beauty, nature, or human emotions, leads to genuine poetry. The final meaning of the poem, then, is that poetry need not have a rigid structure. In fact, in Moore's eyes, the concept of poetry should remain free. Her poem exemplifies this idea. It lacks everything that often makes a poem structured and even rhythmic to read, and it is rather jarring because of its strange meter and abrupt transitions, but it is still poetry, because it focuses on the inspiration behind poetry, not on form or structure.

Discuss Dwight D. Eisenhower's success in resolving the Suez crisis of 1956 as a pivotal moment in world history.

Eisenhower's resolution of the Suez crisis without resorting to gunboat diplomacy was crucial, as it showed the world that the heyday of old-style Western imperialism was over. The French and the British governments had reacted to Nasser's seizure of the strategically vital Suez Canal in the time-honored fashion of imperial powers: through threats and aggression. Britain and France joined with Israel to form a tripartite military force which invaded Egypt not long after Nasser's momentous decision.
But Eisenhower was strongly opposed to military action in Egypt. For one thing, supporting the tripartite invasion would've undermined the force of his condemnation of the recent Soviet invasion of Hungary, leading to charges of hypocrisy. Furthermore, he believed that if the Americans joined in the invasion, they would lose the support of the Arab world, thus driving the Arabs into the arms of the Soviet Union as part of an anti-imperialist alliance.
Eisenhower made strenuous efforts behind the scenes to work for a diplomatic solution to the crisis through the auspices of the United Nations. He was the main mover behind the convening of a special emergency session of the General Assembly, which would make concrete proposals to end the fighting. Eisenhower's efforts were ultimately successful, and Britain and France withdrew their forces from Egypt (though not Israel).
The diplomatic solution to the crisis and Eisenhower's key role in bringing it about represented the final nail in the coffin of old-style Western imperialism. From now on, a new kind of Western imperialism would emerge, one more subtle and sophisticated, with the United States firmly leading the way.

What can Satan gain from going alone for the journey, and how is this act typical of his character?

In Book II of Paradise Lost, Satan proposes he undertake the journey through Chaos alone. His reasons for doing so are purely self-serving. Firstly, when no one else volunteers, it makes him seem heroic in taking up the challenge. As Beelzebub says, upon the one who undertakes the journey "The weight of all and out last hope relies." Satan knows when he returns, he will gain a great deal of glory and praise from the other fallen angels. Secondly, Satan wishes to remain dominant in hell. His greatest ambition is power. Were another fallen angel to go with him, he would be forced to share the spotlight with someone else, undermining his authority and alleged heroism in undertaking such a dangerous journey.
This act is typical of Satan's character because he is egotistical. After all, his reason for rebelling against God the Father was his inability to submit to a higher authority. Even among the other fallen angels, Satan wishes to be the leader, the one most adored.

Why does the narrator assist Flora in her escape?

During the course of the story, the narrator gains more awareness of her identity and situation, in part through her own perception and in part through reaction to her parents' and brother's actions and comments.
While she is comfortable being around the foxes at all phases of their lives, deaths, and processing for skins, she seems not to give much thought to parallel processes by which the horsemeat was obtained for their food.
Although she shows no signs of sentimentality separating horses and foxes, after she sees one horse, Mack, skinned, she apparently does start to think differently. When she has a chance to help the other horse, Flora, escape, she does so.
The author leaves it up in the air whether the effect of Mack's death is more influential, or whether she impulsively helps Flora as a rebellion against her father associated with increasingly being dismissed because of her gender.

What happened to the Lost colony of Roanoke?

The simple answer is that no one knows for sure. The governor of the colony, John White, went back to England to pick up some much-needed provisions for the struggling settlement. But when he returned to America, he was astonished to discover that there was virtually no trace of the colony he'd left behind.
Initially, it was suspected that native tribes were somehow responsible for the mysterious disappearance of over one hundred men, women, and children, but as there were no obvious signs of a struggle or any kind of violence, there was not much evidence to support this hypothesis. The only tangible sign of anyone having lived at Roanoke was the word "CROATOAN" carved into a fence.
Historians speculate that this could be a reference to Croatoan Island, about fifty miles away from the Roanoke settlement. It's thought that perhaps the Roanoke settlers moved there in the belief that conditions on the island were more propitious for establishing a thriving settlement. In any case, a later search of Croatoan Island found no trace of any settlers, and so their true fate remains a mystery to this day.

Why did Amir feel it was either him or Hassan who had to go?

Immediately after Amir wins the kite-fighting tournament, he runs after Hassan and finds him surrounded by Assef and his two friends in a back alley. Instead of intervening and saving Hassan, Amir hides behind a cement wall and watches as Assef rapes Hassan. When Hassan returns home with the blue kite, Amir becomes overwhelmed with guilt and cannot look him in the eye or speak to him. Amir and Hassan's friendship is ruined after the traumatic event, and Amir feels like he can no longer be in the same home as Hassan. Amir goes out of his way to avoid Hassan and decides to set Hassan up by making it seem like he stole his birthday gifts. Amir then puts his gifts in Hassan's tiny shack, and Baba ends up finding them in Hassan's possession. Hassan accepts blame for "stealing" Amir's gifts, and Ali decides to leave Baba's estate even after Baba forgives Hassan and begs them to stay. Overall, Amir feels that either he or Hassan must go because he is overcome with guilt after refusing to help his friend in a time of need.

What does the Vatican Council’s document, Nostra Aetate, have in common with Rabbi Sack’s ideas as to the ways in which faith promotes peace?

The Vatican Council's "Nostra Aetate" was, simply put, a "peace declaration" between Christianity & non-Christianity, signed in 1965, that proved monumental in altering the relations specifically between Jews and Catholics—most importantly, the document exonerates Judaism from responsibility over the death of Jesus Christ some 2,000 years ago (and therefore, persecution of Jews is no longer justifiable).
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks states,

Peace in the Judaic sense will come not when all nations are conquered (as in tribalism) or converted (as in universalism) but when, under God’s sacred canopy, different nations and faiths make space for one another.
(Radical Then, Radical Now p. 94)

When addressing commonalities between Rabbi Sacks's words of peace (from the Judaic faith) and documents like the Nostra Aetate (from the Catholic faith), it is evident that faith itself should be an avenue for peace rather than an adversary to it. The "NA" did just that—create a safe space for different faiths to coexist beside one another, not through conversion, but through mutual respect and understanding.
The Nostra Aetate was conceived, in part, because of the Holocaust, and therefore Catholicism took responsibility over its seeming indifference to Jewish persecution (during WWII) through the signing of this document. Both religions appeared, at least at this time, to put aside differences in ideology for the sake of peace.
http://rabbisacks.org/topics/peace-2/

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

Identify the author and the story from which this passage comes, and examine the most important or striking details of the passage itself. Point out details on character and characterization, setting, conflict, style, and/or narrative point of view. Include a clear thesis statement that explains the importance of the passage in terms of the rest of the story. Depending on the passage, show how it contributes to theme, to character, to conflict, or to setting. "He doesn’t answer. The belt is coming off; not hastily. It is being grasped at the necessary point. All right you. He is coming over to Rose. He pushes her off the table. His face, like his voice, is quite out of character. He is like a bad actor, who turns a part grotesque. As if he must savour and insist on just what is shameful and terrible about this. That is not to say he is pretending, that he is acting, and does not mean it. He is acting, and he means it. Rose knows that, she knows everything about him. She has since wondered about murder, and murderers. Does the thing have to be carried though, in the end, partly for effect, to prove to the audience of one—who won’t be able to report, only register, the lesson—that such a thing can happen, that there is nothing that can’t happen, that the most dreadful antic is justified, feelings can be found to match it?"

This passage from "Royal Beatings" by Alice Munro reflects the theme of the performance aspect of Rose's beating at the hands of her father. Rose gets into an everyday kind of argument with her stepmother, Flo, who then asks Rose's father to beat his daughter. In this passage, the father does so in an almost ritualistic way. For example, he removes his belt slowly, and he speaks in a strange voice that isn't his own. Rose notices these things, even as a child, and she wonders if the aspect of performing also motivates people to commit severe atrocities such as murders. This passage reinforces the idea— which is one of the themes of the story—that Rose's father is administering this beating as a kind of family ritual, and that it has meaning only as a ritual, not as an act that is deeply felt or registered. You may have further thoughts about how this passage relates to the themes and characterization of the story.

How does psychology play into Macbeth?

Macbeth is a play about how ambition ruins a man, but it is also about a person who has no clear vision of his own, so he buys into whatever is being sold at the moment. For this reason, psychology plays an outsized role in Macbeth, as it does in some of Shakespeare's other great works, such as Hamlet and King Lear. Hamlet sees a ghost and speaks with a skull, while Lear is haunted by his past. Macbeth, for his part, is led astray by being easily thrown off by women and magic.
Macbeth is influenced from the beginning of the play by three witches, whose motivation is unclear. They lecture on dark topics, speak in riddles, and make prophecies. Their effect on Macbeth's frame of mind is unfortunate, because he is an ambitious man who is easily influenced by magic. His psychological weakness is similar to those who want to "get rich quick" and buy into unsound schemes, then lose all their money. But money is not exactly what Macbeth wants. He is seeking power.
When the witches, who don't appear trustworthy, tell Macbeth he will be king, he immediately climbs on their bandwagon. They have been accurate only once, but he hears what he wants to hear and decides their ravings make sense.
Because Macbeth is hyper-focused on power, when his wife suggests he do whatever it takes to unseat his enemies, he agrees. This is partly because he fully believes the witches' prophecy that he will be king, but partly because he prefers to be led, and Lady Macbeth is in charge.
Although Macbeth isn't sure killing King Duncan is wise, he goes along for the sake of pleasing Lady Macbeth and because his psychology requires someone else to lead him.
Although Macbeth used to be faithful to Banquo, his friend and a fellow soldier, he turns on him by hiring a trio of murderers to kill Banquo in the first three scenes of act 3. Afterward, he is haunted by Banquo's ghost, which he briefly glimpses during a banquet. His vision of himself—never very clear—is beginning to darken.
Shortly after the banquet, Lady Macbeth acts strangely and develops a sleepwalking habit. Her mental instability does nothing to anchor Macbeth, who by now is becoming more psychologically dependent upon the witches, in the absence of his wife. As he subjugates himself to the spell of the witches, he gets drawn into a murky and nebulous spiral of poor decision-making.
Each murder Macbeth commits leads to the need for more murder. By the time he meets Macduff in battle, he loses all confidence when Macduff reveals he was not born of woman, at least not in the usual way. The witches told Macbeth he could never be defeated by any man born of women. At this point, Macbeth's reliance on the witches is shattered, and, since he cannot stand on his own, his psychological weakness leads to his defeat by Macduff.

Judging from Macbeth's and Lady Macbeth's behavior and its psychological consequences, Shakespeare understood the human psyche long before Freud analyzed it and modern psychiatry categorized the ways it can come unglued. The Macbeths’ killing Duncan to steal the crown illustrates clearly the interaction of the id, the ego, and the super ego, as Freud identified them, and in the couple’s subsequent psychological deterioration, several manifestations of mental illness are evident.
The complexity in the Macbeths’ characters, and a great deal of the play’s drama, is developed through the interplay among these elements of the psyche. As psychologist Kendra Cherry explains, the id “strives for immediate gratification of all desires, wants, and needs.” After the witches' prophesy that Macbeth will be king one day, he and Lady Macbeth want the crown, and they waste no time in murdering Duncan to get it—the id at work.
After deciding to kill the king, the Macbeths are controlled by the ego, the part of the psyche that puts the brakes on the primitive id. The ego demands they satisfy their desires in a way that is acceptable to society. Initially, Macbeth rejects the idea of murdering Duncan, willing to delay gratification by waiting for the witches’ prophecy to be fulfilled without his intervention. Lady Macbeth, however, will not deny her need for immediate gratification. Through psychological manipulation in which she belittles her husband’s character and courage, Lady Macbeth forces Macbeth to proceed. There is no way to kill the beloved Duncan that will not outrage society, but through deceit, the Macbeths can make their behavior appear acceptable. They commit the murder surreptitiously with great attention to detail and skillfully deflect suspicion from themselves when the king’s body is discovered. With Malcolm and Donalbain blamed for their father’s murder, the Macbeths claim the throne, but they cannot enjoy the gratification of their desires because the super ego, the repository of the conscience, asserts itself.
The super ego is obvious in Macbeth even before the murder. Macbeth hungers for the crown, but the thought of killing Duncan, his king, benefactor, and friend, appalls him. Before entering the sleeping Duncan’s chamber, Macbeth agonizes over what he is about to do; after committing the murder, he is tortured by his conscience. Unable to sleep, he obsesses about the horrendous nature of his crime. In Lady Macbeth, the super ego is submerged temporarily through an act of will; before the murder, she steels herself against it, mistakenly assuming it is an expression of feminine weakness. After the murder, she denies its existence, insisting to Macbeth that “a little water clears us of this deed.” Washing Duncan’s blood from their hands, she believes, is all that’s necessary to escape retribution. She fails to recognize the presence and power of the super ego. Ultimately, however, it overrides Lady Macbeth’s psychological defenses, and she commits suicide.
Shakespeare doesn't employ the vocabulary of mental illness, but the manifestations of depression and psychosis are evident in the Macbeths’ mental and emotional deterioration. Shakespeare also understands their source—relentless, unalleviated guilt and fear. Macbeth lives in fear from the moment he first consents to murder the king, and after killing Duncan, he is consumed with guilt and plagued with insomnia. At various times, he suffers from visual and auditory hallucinations, and as his condition deteriorates, he becomes increasingly paranoid. Macbeth feels hopeless, his despair and bitterness expressed most vividly in the play’s conclusion as he prepares to go to war.
Shakespeare devotes much of the play to detailing Macbeth’s psychological deterioration, but he illustrates Lady Macbeth’s in one scene. As she walks in her sleep, sighing pitifully and trying to wash her hands of blood that now exists only in her unconscious mind, the extent of her mental destruction is made clear. That she soon kills herself, as her servants feared she would, comes as no surprise. Her death is entirely consistent with the psychological unraveling of her personality.

Describe how Miller uses the symbol of fire throughout the play and explain what it represents.

In act one, the Reverend Parris confronts his niece, Abigail, about the girls' activities in the forest the night before. He says,

I saw Tituba waving her arms over the fire when I came on you . . . She were swaying like a dumb beast over that fire!

The girls were, evidently, trying to conjure the dead, and Abigail even drank a blood charm to kill Goody Proctor. The fire, here, seems to symbolize the girls' lawlessness and wickedness. Tituba never meant harm, but Abigail certainly did.
Mrs. Putnam also declares that "There are wheels within wheels in this village, and fires within fires!" Rebecca Nurse says that she cannot understand or explain why Mrs. Putnam has lost so many children, and Mrs. Putnam gets angry because she believes that a witch is behind her children's deaths. The "fire" in her quotation, then, figuratively refers to the evil and wicked conspiracy of witches that she feels is behind her tragedies.
In act thee, Deputy Governor Danforth tells John Proctor, "We burn a hot fire here; it melts down all concealment." He is referring to the court, where he claims to be searching out and upholding truth. In reality, the court is championing the lies told by deceptive children and killing innocent people in the process. The "fires" here seem to signify the court's corruption. At the end of the act, while Proctor is being arrested on the word of Mary Warren, he "laughs insanely," saying, "A fire, a fire is burning! . . . God damns our kind especially, and we will burn, we will burn together!" Proctor now sees that everyone that has, in any way, contributed to this corruption will figuratively burn—himself included.

What are the values that the knight in Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales has from the beginning?

The Knight in The Canterbury Tales has the highest social rank among the travelers. He is also the first to tell a tale when he draws the shortest straw. Geoffrey Chaucer decided that the Knight should have a cliche romantic tale about two dueling knights.
The Knight's story is a parody of the glorification of knighthood and the sterile romanticism popular during that period. For example, the Knight's story of a love triangle is somewhat similar to the King Arthur tales, specifically the affair between Sir Lancelot and Guinevere.
Based on the tale that the Knight told the group, it is apparent that the Knight values what he believes to be poetic justice, or the victory of righteousness over victory of the sword. This conclusion is evident in the fact that the Knight chose to reward Arcite in the tale and made him look like the true heroic knight when the victor of the competition, Palamon, dies in an accident.
From the conclusion of the story, it can be assumed that the Knight believed Arcite's love for Emily is purer, and that fate will always favor what is genuine love. The travelers universally applaud the story, which shows they, too, value the same thing the Knight values.

What is a thesis for "How to Tell a True War Story"?

The following lines are as close to a proper thesis as one can find in the text of "How to Tell a True War Story":

Happeningness is irrelevant. A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth.

In brief, the core thesis of "How to Tell a True War Story" is that to emphasize the truth of a true story, one might have to embellish or fictionalize it a bit. This sounds contradictory, but Tim O'Brien explains that sometimes a one-hundred percent factual account of the story misses the experience of what it is like to be involved in combat.
A true war story also does not impart lessons to the reader. O'Brien claims that if a war story has a "moral," then its truth is questionable since virtue has nothing to do with war. He goes as far as to say that the idea that people behave themselves in a proper, virtuous way during war is "an old and terrible lie." In these cases, the story has been embellished too much, taking away credibility.
So, O'Brien is essentially claiming that a "true" war story has to walk a fine line between truth and fiction. One cannot expect to "get" the full experience of what war is like from a straightforward account of what happens on the battlefield, but one misses all of it if the story is prettied up with moral lessons. One must glean the experience from what happened, but not necessarily need to share what exactly happened.

Tim O'Brien's story is largely concerned with the relationship between truth and fiction. An effective thesis that addresses this relationship might treat the overall concept of this relationship or emphasize some specific content from the story.
In general terms, O'Brien (the narrator) claims that fiction can be more true than nonfiction because an invented story may capture some important essence(s) that would not emerge clearly from a totally factual account. A writer could develop a thesis statement that agrees with or challenges O'Brien's assertion.
Looking at the specific ways he develops this idea, one could formulate a thesis about the main points in the story. For example, O'Brien claims that all the characters are fabrications so the reader should also question the events he records. A writer might argue that the author is not consistent in his stated aim, as he is asking us to believe selective components and reject others. This contradiction emerges clearly in the segment about the woman's reaction to the water buffalo tale.

“How to Tell a True War Story” is a section from Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried.
It begins with the narrator’s recounting the story of a buddy from in Vietnam named Rat Kiley who wrote a letter to the sister of Rat’s best friend in the war who had just been killed in action. Despite pouring his heart and soul into the letter, he never receives a reply. This introduces both the central character, Rat Kiley, in this section and the idea that “true” war stories are often anticlimactic.
In order to narrow down O’Brien’s thesis, as your question asks, one can examine the beginning and end to see what that is.
In the second paragraph, O’Brien states:

A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things they have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it. If at the end of a war story you feel uplifted, or if you feel that some small bit of rectitude has been salvaged from the larger waste, then you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie.

This excerpt is thought provoking because it asserts that in order for a war story to be true, it can never have a happy ending. In addition, a true war story isn’t concerned will people behaving nobly and courageously in the face of mortal danger. In fact, O’Brien provides several examples in this story that portray the opposite of courage, such as Rat Kiley’s slow killing of the baby water buffalo.
O’Brien expands on his thesis near the end of the excerpt saying that,

a true war story does not depend upon that kind of truth. Happeningness is irrelevant. A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth.

O’Brien suggests in this quote that a true war story isn’t actually concerned with the truth at all. He redefined what truth actually is, suggesting that a single snapshot of war is never adequate in describing the truth of the experience of war.
If one combines these two elements of a true war story, then O’Brien’s thesis becomes clear. There is no such thing as a true war story as long as one clings to the belief that it must have actually happened exactly as it is told.

How dd Bilbo get the light to see in the cave in The Hobbit?

Because Bilbo is in a number of different caves in J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit, I'm going to assume that this question refers to the time in which Bilbo finds himself in a cave, alone, after he is separated from the company as they flee from their captivity in chapter 4: "Over Hill and Under Hill." During the escape, the goblins sneak up on the dwarves and Bilbo falls off of Dori's back. He is knocked out, and when he comes to at the start of Chapter 5: Riddles in the Dark, he finds himself alone in the dark.
He cannot find his matches, but when he pulls out his sword "[i]t shone pale and dim before his eyes" (116). Immediately, he knows that goblins are somewhere in the vicinity, because the sword glows blue when they are near. No goblins find him at this moment, but their proximity allows him to use his sword as a dim light to guide him. This is useful, because he is about to meet Gollum for the first time, and given that the creature can see in the dark, Bilbo will need whatever light he can get.

Who are the characters in "Little, Big" by John Crowley?

The following are the characters in John Crowley's "Little, Big":
John Drinkwater: An architect who develops the theory that within our world exists another, smaller world—and a smaller one within that, and so on. Towards the centre is the realm of the Faerie. He published this theory in his book, The Adventure of Country Houses. He also built a house called Edgewood, which is actually a portal into the Faerie Realm.
Daily Alice Drinkwater: John's daughter, who, at her introduction, is soon to be wed.
Evan "Smoky" Barnable: Daily Alice's fiancé. Their marriage has been prophesied by Nora Cloud.
Sophie Drinkwater: Daily Alice's sister. Her child is taken by the faeries at birth and replaced by a changeling.
Tacey, Lily, and Lucy: Alice and Smoky's daughters, who do not play major roles in the story.
Auberon II: Alice and Smoky's son. He eventually leaves for the city in order to find his destiny, desiring a life away from Edgewood and the Drinkwater legacy.
Lilac: Sophie's daughter, who is at first thought to be Smoky's illegitimate child.
George Mouse: Sophie's cousin and Lilac's real father.
Nora Cloud: Sophie and Alice's great aunt, who had clairvoyant powers which she passed on to Sophie through her set of Tarot cards.
Sylvie: A Puerto Rican woman whom Auberon falls in love with. She works at George Mouse's farm and is later taken by faeries as well.
Russell Eigenblick: The President of the United States, who is tyrannical and courts civil war. He is later revealed to be the re-awakened Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa.
Ariel Hawksquill: A mage and a distant relation of the Drinkwater family. She is the one who reveals Russell Eigenblick's true identity.
Violet Bramble: The progenitor of the Drinkwaters and the first to use their clairvoyant powers.
August Drinkwater: Violet Bramble's son. He is granted power over women by the faeries in exchange for his mother's Tarot cards. He is later driven to suicide because of this power. However, he is cursed to live and is transformed into a trout. From then on, he becomes known as Grandfather Trout.
Amy Meadows: August Drinkwater's love interest.
Auberon I: An uncle of Alice and Sophie, who is known to be eccentric. He cannot see faeries, but he believes in and attempts to record evidence of them.

In The Canterbury Tales, what is the Wife of Bath's opinion about her fifth husband?

The Wife of Bath's positive estimation of her fifth husband shows us that she likes to be with someone who can stand up to her. She's a formidable woman, who clearly prefers to be married to an equally formidable man. And Jankyn certainly seems to fit the bill. He is every bit as assertive of what he sees as his traditional male prerogatives as the Wife of Bath is of her rights as a strong, independent woman.
But however much affection she still retains for Husband number 5, this was clearly an unhealthy relationship, characterized as it was by physical violence. What this episode shows is that, however strong and independent a woman could be in those days, there were limits. And despite her independence, the Wife of Bath's immediate reaction to being made deaf by her husband's violent assault is to think how she can use the situation to win him back by making him feel guilty over his actions. A proto-feminist she may be, but the Wife of Bath has a long way to go before becoming the real thing.

That Wife of Bath states that Jankyn, her fifth husband, was her favorite—largely because he was so good in bed.
She proposes to him that they get married after her fourth husband dies, and he agrees.
Jankyn is different from her other husbands. He is younger than she is and poor. He is educated and refuses to let the Wife of Bath dominate him. Because of his education, he enjoys reading antifeminist writings at night. She gets so angry at him about these misogynist works that she tears out three pages of his book and throws them in the fire. This is more serious than doing so today, as books then were still hand copied and thus very expensive.
Although he beats her, once knocking her to the ground so that she faints, the Wife of Bath states that she eventually is able to totally dominate him.
Of course, we have to take everything the Wife of Bath says with a grain of salt, but the couple seems to have thrived in their stormy, quarrelsome relationship.

Comprare and contrast Jeannette's apartment with where her mother lives.

Jeanette's mother is something of a bohemian. She appears completely unconcerned about the squalid conditions in which she lives, no matter how bad they are. Wherever they go, Jeanette's parents seem content to wallow in filth, wasting their lives in places unfit for human habitation. Even when Jeanette's moved to New York and into a nice apartment, her parents refuse her help, stubbornly refusing to move out of their dilapidated squat on the Lower East Side.
Jeanette lives with her rich boyfriend in a swanky apartment on Park Avenue, a luxurious place with Persian rugs and fine china. Contrast that with the rundown squat where Jeanette's parents choose to live. The place is an absolute pig-sty, with boarded-up windows, a single light-bulb hanging from the ceiling, and no hinges on the doors. There's electricity, to be sure, but that's only because Jeanette's dad has managed to rig up an illegal supply to a utility cable down the block.
Nevertheless, in their own unique, individual ways, Jeannette's apartment and her parents' squat both have a certain homeliness about them. It's just that Jeannette and her parents have a radically different understanding of what constitutes a home.

Which chamber system offers greater deliberation?

Your question suggests you wish to understand the difference between a unicameral legislature and a bicameral one. A unicameral legislature has one chamber, and a bicameral legislature has two chambers. Which one offers greater deliberation?
The answer to your question depends on what you mean by deliberation, but let's assume deliberation is equal to thoughtful debate which produces effective legislation. That is, debate which results in laws with a clear purpose, and legislation which, when enacted, accomplishes that purpose.
A unicameral legislature might give you better debate, since everyone who can affect the making of a law is in theory present during its creation. There's no waiting for another chamber to register its views or attempt to modify bills under consideration. Decisions can be taken quicker, and agreement is more robust.
A bicameral legislature might give you better legislation, because a greater diversity of representation is possible and because the chambers can check and balance each other. Laws tend to be more tractable, fairer, and less subject to whims of interpretation.
So, which is better? If a unicameral legislature gives you better debate, and a bicameral legislature gives you better laws, how do you get better deliberation. Recall that, above, we agreed deliberation was a two-part thing.
Historically, bicameral legislatures have been most closely associated with freedom and democracy, and unicameral legislatures have been associated with less free societies, but unicameral legislatures are more common. There are exceptions, however. Ancient Greece convened a unicameral assembly. So did the ancient Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. Today, the best examples of unicameral-ism are China, Cuba, Israel, Sweden, and Finland. Contemporary examples of bicameralism are the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Japan, Canada, and Australia.
With some caveats and exceptions, therefore, you can make a strong argument that, because of its checks and balances and more effective laws, bicameral systems give you better deliberation. It depends on the circumstances of individual countries. Watching the US Congress deliberate can be stultifying, while watching Israel's Knesset make legislation is frequently exciting and contentious.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk_politics/2001/open_politics/lords/unicam_bicam_list.stm

What kind of campaign did Calvin Coolidge run to win the presidency?

Calvin Coolidge ran a safety first campaign. The President was popular; the economy was doing well and most Americans felt pretty good with how things were going. There was no need, then, for anything radical from the Republicans—just four more years of the same policies that had proved generally popular with the American people.
Coolidge's campaign slogan "Keep cool with Coolidge" summed up the Republicans' approach. Coolidge was presented as a safe pair of hands, someone who could be relied upon to offer firm, steady leadership in an uncertain world. The Democrats made things a lot easier for the Republicans by choosing a complete nonentity, John W. Davis of West Virginia, as their presidential candidate. Davis's personality was even less forceful than that of the incumbent and so he didn't provide the American people with a particularly compelling reason to come out and vote for him. Instead, they opted for Coolidge in overwhelming numbers, showing their support for his steady leadership and largely successful economic policies.

What are some good quotes that show the foreman's character?

The foreman is a practical man who wants to keep things moving and keep order. Early on, when tempers start to flare because of Juror 10's bigoted remarks, someone says they should stick to the facts. The foreman says, "I think that's a good point. We've got a job to do. Let's do it." He later tries to calm Juror 10 down when Juror 8 taunts him about believing "one of them."
When Juror 5 gets offended at people's comments about the type of neighborhood the accused lived in, the foreman tries to ease tensions again. He says, "Now let's be reasonable. There's nothing personal."
When Juror 8 shows a knife identical to the ostensible murder weapon, which he purchased from a shop, the foreman tries to get everyone to be quiet. When Juror 10 objects to Juror 8 pacing out the old man's steps, the foreman says, "We can't stop him." When Juror 3 calls for an open ballot vote, the foreman says, "That sounds fair. Anyone object?"
Jurors 7 and 11 get into a tiff over 7's insult toward immigrants, and once again the foreman chimes in to settle things down. He says, "All right. Let's stop the arguing. Who's got something constructive to say?"
From these examples, it's clear that the foreman is a level-headed man who takes his role seriously. He functions as a moderator, keeping order and making sure personal disputes don't derail the task at hand. He also seems willing to be out of the limelight and let others lead the discussion while he focuses on basic procedures like taking votes and requesting exhibits. Thus, we can infer that he is a somewhat humble or unassuming person as well. He is not one of the most interesting characters in the play, but he serves a useful function.

"All right. Now, you gentlemen can handle this any way you want to. I mean, I'm not going to make any rules. If we want to discuss it first and then vote, that’s one way. Or we can vote right now and see how we stand."

The foreman doesn't have much of interest to say in Twelve Angry Men. His main role is to facilitate the deliberation, to guide the direction of the discussion. As the play progresses, however, he's forced to become something of a peace-maker, regularly getting involved to prevent the other jurors from tearing each other's throats out.
The above quotation, made just prior to the jury's deliberations, show us the foreman's attitude to the job at hand. These simple remarks also reveal a lot about his character. He has a responsible, business-like attitude to proceedings, and he treats the other jurors as mature adults capable of making their own decisions without in any way trying to influence their verdicts. He certainly has authority, but it's a quiet authority, not based on the imposition of will, but rather emanating from his obvious intelligence and the respectful way he conducts himself towards others.

What were the causes of the Great Schism of 1054 CE?

The Great Schism is the divide between Christians in the East and West and split the Roman Empire in two. This divide was created due to differences in theology and beliefs on how the church should be run as well as political issues between the two factions.
Theological differences included disagreements over whether the Holy Spirit is derived from God the Father or from both God the Father and the Son of God, Jesus Christ. There was also much disagreement about the supremacy of the Pope. The western Christians believed that the Pope has supreme authority over the Church, as ordained by God. Other disagreements included whether bread used during communion should be leavened or unleavened.
Political issues were derived from the theological differences between the two orthodoxies and came to a head when the Greek/Byzantine churches in Italy were forced to either change their views or close their doors. In response, the Eastern Orthodox church gave the same ultimatum to the Roman Catholic churches, which led to the patriarch of each orthodoxy excommunicating the other.

Explain how the theme of loneliness is presented via Crooks, Candy, Lennie, and Curley’s Wife in Chapters 3 & 4.

In chapter three we are introduced to Candy and his dog. The men in the bunkhouse, specifically Carlson were going on and on about how the dog smelled and should be put down. Candy is seemingly non-confrontational and repeats that he had the dog far to long. As Carlson presses,

Candy looked about unhappily. "No," he said softly. "No, I couldn’t do that. I had ‘im too long.”

He was hoping someone would come to his dog’s rescue when

Candy looked helplessly at him, for Slim’s opinions were law. "Maybe it’d hurt him," he suggested. "I don’t mind takin’ care of him.”

This was the only constant in his life for so long because of how lonely he was. As an old man, this was all he had since when we first are introduced to the bunkhouse, we see how little these men have. When the men continue to press, “Candy said, ‘Maybe tomorra. Le’s wait till tomorra.’” as Carlson grabs his Luger pistol. What is really heartbreaking is that Candy didn’t go with, instead he “lay rigidly on his bed staring at the ceiling.” The men attempted to console him in the way men during that time attempted to and finally

A shot sounded in the distance. The men looked quickly at the old man. Every head turned toward him. For a moment he continued to stare at the ceiling. Then he rolled slowly over and faced the wall and lay silent.

All Candy could do was to roll over. He was now all alone in this world having lost his only constant-- that stinky, toothless dog.

Now Curley’s wife, she is a woman trapped in marriage to, well, to Curly. She expresses that she was chasing her dreams and ended up having to marry Curley, but she really wanted to be an actress. From the interactions we see of Curley and the crew, one can see that he is a cantankerous man. He is too busy asserting himself to the hands that he is not connecting emotionally to his wife and she is searching for attention from anyone that will give it. Because Whit tells George

“Ever’ time the guys is around she shows up. She’s lookin’ for Curley, or she thought she lef’ somethin’ layin’ around and she’s lookin’ for it. Seems like she can’t keep away from guys. An’ Curley’s pants is just crawlin’ with ants, but they ain’t nothing come of it yet”

as a way to warn him away from her. Curley thinks everyone is trying to sleep with his wife and she is trying to connect with someone, so the guys stay away from her actively which means she searches harder. It is a vicious circle for her as the men stay further away from her as Curley gets handier with the men. If he would just calm down and pay attention to his wife, she wouldn’t be sniffing around the men and angering him. Everyone would be happy.

Lennie and George’s dream is what keeps Lennie going. He doesn’t really notice his loneliness. He is happiest around the animals, probably because he has never been bothered by them. Between the mouse in his pocket, the dead puppy at the end and everything in between, Lennie seems to be attracted to the small, pretty things (Curley’s wife fits here pretty well, too) because the men in his life have been rough and hard on him. He knows that George is a constant for him, but he wants to get on that farm so he can have his rabbits. That is why he is always asking George,

“George, how long’s it gonna be till we get that little place an’ live on the fatta the lan’—an’ rabbits?”

He wants so badly for George to “‘Tell about the house’” because that his is dream--to be with George, his rabbits and relish the loneliness and solitude away from the mobs, the temptation to pet soft things, and to just live his life. He doesn’t recognize loneliness as other men do and wishes for the solitude as that brings him peace.

Crooks, on the other hand, was isolated and became violently protective of it:

For Crooks was a proud, aloof man. He kept his distance and demanded that other people keep theirs.

He was a black man on a migrant farm. There were men who hated him based on his skin color and found it is much easier to be cantankerous to stave away the attention and affection of others than it was to face rejection. When Lennie came into his room, Crooks reprimanded him by saying “You got no right to come in my room. This here’s my room. Nobody got any right in here but me.” Since he was a black man and was notably not allowed some places such as the bunk house, he said “I ain’t wanted in the bunk house, and you ain’t wanted in my room.” The thing is, Crooks is a black man from the south who was a slave and then freed. He had known freedom. He came from a stable home. He didn’t see a problem with color until he was older and it was used against him. He recounts to Lennie:

“I ain’t a southern Negro,” he said. “I was born right here in California. My old man had a chicken ranch, ‘bout ten acres. The white kids come to play at our place, an’ sometimes I went to play with them, and some of them was pretty nice. My ol’ man didn’t like that. I never knew till long later why he didn’t like that. But I know now.” He hesitated, and when he spoke again his voice was softer. “There wasn’t another colored family for miles around. And now there ain’t a colored man on this ranch an’ there’s jus’ one family in Soledad.” He laughed. “If I say something, why it’s just a nigger sayin’ it.”

He only shares this with Lennie after realizing he was slow. He figures he is a safe white man since he doesn't seem to have the faculties with which to even grow hate. Crooks has to hang onto his loneliness in order to avoid the rejection he has been subjected to because of racism, but Lennie can break through because they are both outcasts in this man’s world.

What is "old money"?

An important element of The Great Gatsby is the conflict between “old money” and “new money.” Gatsby, the self-made man, represents the nouveau riche, whereas the Buchanans represent the system of values perpetuated by generational wealth. Although both groups are in the same class, and equally wealthy, the differences between the groups have subtle social status issues.
People who are “new money” are seen by “old money” as gaudy, ostentatious, and overly extravagant. They are marked by excess and garishness. The wild parties that Jay Gatsby throws are indicative of this. On the other hand, “old money” folks think of themselves as elegant and refined.
The American Dream, an idea prevalent in all aspects of Fitzgerald’s novel, is based on “new money.” After all, it is conceptualized by the ability of the economically disadvantaged to move up.
The reality of this social mobility, however, is rather bleak. Gatsby, who gained his wealth through illegal means, is never fully accepted by people like the Buchanans. The separation and differences of West Egg (the new money area where Nick and Gatsby live) and East Egg (the location of the old aristocracy and gentry families) are symbolic of this divide.

What happens to the farm animals and vegetation? What causes this sudden change?

In chapter 1, Rachel Carson presents a dire prediction for the death of domesticated animals and crops, as well as song birds and vegetation, in the form of a fable. In chapter 2, she briefly presents this apocalyptic vision as the result of pesticide use. Her prose draws power from the combining harsh words and hyperbole with our familiar childhood language of fairy tales.
The changes that befall the idyllic rural community are caused by “a strange blight” and “some evil spell.” The silent countryside, under “a shadow of death,” is “deserted by all living things.” Inexplicable diseases strike the farm animals:

mysterious maladies swept the flocks of chickens; the cattle and sheep sickened and died. Everywhere was a shadow of death.... On the farms the hens brooded, but no chicks hatched. The farmers complained that they were unable to raise any pigs— the litters were small and the young survived only a few days. The apple trees were coming into bloom but no bees droned among the blossoms, so there was no pollination and there would be no fruit. The roadsides, once so attractive, were now lined with browned and withered vegetation as though swept by fire. These, too, were silent, deserted by all living things.

In chapter 2, she provides a scientific explanation but still inserts unscientific language: pollution initiates “a chain of evil” or “a chain of poisoning and death.” The chemical attack on living tissues causes universal contamination. Some is nuclear residue, as Strontium 90 enters the earth through rain or fallout, then “lodges in soil, enters into the grass or corn or wheat grown there….” But a more constant, widespread problem is the result of pesticide use, which reaches the soil directly or through the water, where it affects animals and humans alike:

[C]hemicals sprayed on croplands or forests or gardens lie long in soil, entering into living organisms, passing from one to another in a chain of poisoning and death. Or they pass mysteriously by underground streams until they emerge and, through the alchemy of air and sunlight, combine into new forms that kill vegetation, sicken cattle, and work unknown harm on those who drink from once pure wells.

No matter what the target, they “linger on in the soil” and are so toxic they should be called “biocides.”

What was the impact of the Civil War on the environment?

The Civil War (1861–1865) is known as the bloodiest war in American history. It is also remembered for the Gettysburg Address and the end of slavery. It is less well-known for the enormous damage it inflicted on the environment.
Forests were cut down or burned by the fighting. Trees were cut down to impede an advancing enemy; limber was also needed for firewood or for use in military camps. Perhaps as many as two million trees were destroyed.
In 1864, General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" inflicted severe damage to Georgia's environment; everything in his army's path was either consumed or destroyed. Sherman thought his calamitous policies would help end the war, and he did not consider their impact on the environment.
Another destructive path was torn through the Shenandoah Valley in 1864. General Philip Sheridan proudly reported the damage to Grant after his campaign:

435,802 bushels of wheat, 77,176 bushels of corn, 20,397 tons of hay, 10,918 beef cattle, 12,000 sheep, and 15,000 hogs.

The monstrous damage suffered by the environment was largely due to the fact that the Civil War was a "total war"—especially by 1864. In addition, military and political factors always had more weight than environmental considerations.
http://fighting-the-earth.leadr.msu.edu/