Compare Louisa, in Hard Times, and Gwendolen, in The Importance of Being Earnest. In what ways do these characters either reinforce or subvert conventional gender roles, including attitudes towards marriage and romantic love?

Louisa in Hard Times is the unhappy wife of an emotionally ascetic businessman. She is the product of an upbringing that relies on reason and social strictures as a means to efficient survival and living, and she brushes off emotion, imagination, and compassion as mere excesses. She is well provided for materially; however, the effects of shunning tenderness leave her destitute of inner fulfillment. She wishes to please her father and marries a prominent man whose stature will serve her well socially but, in doing so, she is plunged into a marriage of misery, breaking her spirit and leaving her longing for love. She plays right into her gender role and acts according to what is expected of her by society by repressing her inner desires. This leads to her eventual breakdown. Even greater than this is the social order in which the whole story is set, where the Industrial Revolution has made cogs out of all of them; they are unable to escape and are either broken or unchanged in the end.
In contrast, Gwendolen in The Importance of Being Earnest is both fierce and frivolous. She is likewise well off and is portrayed as a city girl. She stands by her ideal, which is to marry a man whose name "inspires absolute confidence." She does not repress her desires; as a matter of fact, she acts on them rather obsessively.
Both Louisa and Gwendolen adhere to the rules of polite society in that they both need the approval of their parents to choose a man to marry. However, of the two, it is Gwendolen who clearly subverts the conventions of gender with the way she plainly and openly refuses to be involved with anyone who falls short of her very specific ideal:

Jack? . . . No, there is very little music in the name Jack, if any at all, indeed. It does not thrill. It produces absolutely no vibrations . . . I have known several Jacks, and they all, without exception, were more than usually plain. Besides, Jack is a notorious domesticity for John! And I pity any woman who is married to a man called John. She would probably never be allowed to know the entrancing pleasure of a single moment's solitude. The only really safe name is Ernest.

Thou think’st ’tis much that this contentious storm Invades us to the skin. So ’tis to thee. But where the greater malady is fixed The lesser is scarce felt. Thou’dst shun a bear, 10 But if thy flight lay toward the raging sea Thou’dst meet the bear i' th' mouth. When the mind’s free, The body’s delicate. The tempest in my mind Doth from my senses take all feeling else Save what beats there—filial ingratitude. 15 Is it not as this mouth should tear this hand For lifting food to ’t? But I will punish home. No, I will weep no more. In such a night To shut me out! Pour on, I will endure. In such a night as this! O Regan, Goneril, 20 Your old kind father, whose frank heart gave all—Oh, that way madness lies. Let me shun that. No more of that. What are the literary devices in this passage?

Literary devices add meaning or value beyond the literal or factual meanings of words.
In this passage, Lear, who has been cast out into a storm by his ungrateful daughters, uses imagery to express how he is feeling. Imagery describes using the five senses of sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell.
Lear uses imagery to create a metaphor, which is a comparison that does not use the words like or as. He has us imagine taking flight or running towards a raging sea. He says the prospect of plunging into such a wild sea (and we can visualize and hear such a sea in our imagination and perhaps even feel how cold it would be) is so bad that we would rather turn and fight a bear. Facing a bear is another scary image that we can visualize. Preferring to meet and fight a bear (the storm) to plunging into a raging ocean (dealing with his treacherous daughters) is a strong and vivid way to describe his dire situation. Lear is saying that being in a storm matters less than how he has been betrayed.
Lear uses another metaphor when he envisions the ingratitude of his daughters as like a mouth tearing or biting a hand for lifting food into it. He has given his daughters everything, and now they are trying to hurt him.
Another literary device in the passage is repetition. Lear repeats twice "In such a night" (to shut him out), adding emphasis to how horrible the weather is. Even so, it is nothing compared to his daughters' behavior.
Lear is highly upset and uses charged, vivid metaphors, images, and repetition to convey his intense emotional pain.

For what reason does Oedipus blind himself? What meaning, if any, do you find in his choice of surgical instrument?

In this Athenian tragedy by Sophocles, Oedipus chooses to blind himself after it is revealed that he has, as foretold by a prophecy, killed his father and slept with his mother. Oedipus cannot bare the shame and horror of what he has done, and when he finds that his mother has killed herself from shame, he chooses to blind his eyes by piercing them with two of her brooches. Oedipus does not choose to fully relieve himself of his suffering by ending his life. Rather, he tortures himself by piercing his eyes and enduring the rest of his life in shame and blindness. Even with the knowledge of the prophecy, Oedipus is figuratively blinded by his actions, and so it is with deep irony that he then physically blinds himself when the prophecy is fulfilled. The use of the brooches to blind Oedipus are, of course, significant because they belonged to his mother and therefore are connected to the prophecy that ultimately led to his blinding.

In Oedipus Rex by Sophocles, Oedipus is overcome by guilt and shame when he learns that he has offended the gods. Although his fate was prophesied and he took steps to avoid the actions foretold, he cannot help but feel responsible.


After his mother, Jocasta, admits her role in trying to stop the Oracle's prediction from coming true, Jocasta takes her own life.


Oedipus does not kill himself, however. He feels he must continue to suffer but cannot bear to see the world of pain in which he will survive.


His choice of weapon is highly significant. First, the two brooches he grabs belong to his mother, and thus are appropriate weapons, because his sin was committed with her. In addition, there are two pins, so he can put out both eyes simultaneously and not risk changing his mind after gouging the first eye.

What is the setting of "The Red Convertible"?

The story is set on the Chippewa reservation in North Dakota. The two protagonists, Lyman and his brother Henry, buy a red convertible which they take on a road trip. They end up in Alaska, where they spend most of their summer. At the end of the summer, the brothers return home, and Henry is drafted into the American army to fight in the Vietnam war.
Towards the end of the story the river on the reservation, called the Red River, becomes an important part of the setting. Henry, traumatized after his experiences in the war, jumps into the river and is carried away by the current.
The story's setting in time is, of course, very important too. Erdrich published the story in 1974, but the story itself is set in the late 1960s during the Vietnam war. This war heavily influences the story. Henry returns a broken man, as did so many men who fought in the Vietnam war.

Early twentieth-century literary critic Lu Xun once wrote the following on the novel Dream of the Red Chamber: Those who study the Classics see the novel as conveying the ideas of the Book of Changes; those who uphold morality find it a book of lust; people with literary talent see it as a love romance; revolutionaries consider it a critique of the Manchu state; gossipmongers view it as an exposé of the secrets of the court. During the late 19th century, the reformer Liang Qichao criticized the novel's opportunistic use of immoral themes, claiming it to be an "incitement to robbery and lust." Based on the David Hawkes translation of the story in Story of the Stone, how should the narrative be interpreted? Is it a "book of lust," a "love romance," or something deeper?

There are compelling arguments to be made in support of lust or love as the central element in Dream of the Red Chamber. Those that favor “lust” emphasize sexual relationships and the hunger for power that drives many of the characters. The support for “love” leans toward the romantic, affectionate, and generous relationships among the characters. However, there is considerable overlap between these concepts—at different times in the novel and even within the same character. In that regard, the contexts in which particular events occur and the motivations for characters’ behaviors must be taken into consideration. Furthermore, the idea that either theme lacks depth should be addressed. As noted, the novel has strong elements of political criticism and includes information about court life, linked in part to the author’s drawing liberally on actual people and events; as those elements are among the reasons it was banned, the political dimensions deserve consideration. In addition, there is ample use of symbolism from the Buddhist tradition, encouraging allegorical readings regarding the material versus the spiritual realm.
The David Hawkes version includes 120 chapters (about 2,500 page), so evidence in support of all positions can be found therein. At the very outset, the “stone” offers improvement over past works. This stone, which is the story’s source, criticizes the shortcomings of other types of works: “historical romances . . . [are] scandalous anecdotes,” the “erotic novel [consists of] filthy obscenities,” and “erotic novels [are] volumes . . . of dreary stereotypes” of beautiful people. The stone’s work, it promises, rejects “stale old convention [in favor of] . . . a freshness these other books do not have.”
Lust as desire for sex and power is prominently featured. Characters who are thus motivated sometimes engage in sexual assault. One character who constantly seeks power is Phoenix, Chia Lien's wife, who asserts control over the household and earns money unethically through usury. Chia Lien in turn commits adultery, and his mistress’s sorrow over his likely abandonment leads to her suicide. Phoenix’s activities run afoul of the emperor, leading his guards to raid her and Lien’s home. Both husband and wife, therefore, stand for lust of different types, and their actions bring on different consequences.
Among the romantic elements are the love between Chia Pao-yu and Black Jade, his cousin. However, Pao-yu must marry Precious Virtue, another cousin. Although his family is initially unwilling to separate him from Black Jade, when she is abandoned, she dies of a broken heart. The family’s choices reflect their pragmatism in making the most advantageous match for the heir. After the guards invade their home, Pao-yu leaves to accompany Buddhist and Taoist monks, thus detaching from both love and politics.
As the novel lays out financial and political relations between the Chia family and the imperial forces, it can be considered primarily a political work. The author, Cao, almost certainly drew on his own family’s experiences, which put them into conflict with the state. The individual characters embody the push and pull of the quest for material gain—which in turn supports acquiring power—and the metaphysical domain, with its contemplation of morality and righteousness. Pao-yu’s withdrawal shows him taking the latter path.
The literal interpretation of the title, focusing on “chamber” and “dust,” supports the materialist explanation. Other meanings, stressing “stone” and “flower,” emphasize the ethereal quality of existence, backing the metaphysical perspective. Yet only as the stone left the sky for earth did it gain power to influence people. As the diverse characters’ behaviors, as they seek power or love, have consequences for others, they are inextricably linked to the larger themes.
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Story_of_the_Stone_The_Golden_Days.html?id=0U5ILHHIOZgC

What is Martha's character like? If she were an animal, what kind of animal would she be? What does it mean that she is a nervous and high-strung woman?

The character of Martha in The Children’s Hour by Lillian Hellman is driven by a dark secret, which makes her “nervous and high strung.” Lines that characters speak in plays are not always truths; just as people in real life lie, so do characters in literature. There are several moments throughout the play that Martha is covering up her real feelings and underlying motives when it comes to her friend and co-owner of the boarding school, Karen.
Written in 1934, the playwright chose the risky theme of a suspected lesbian love affair between the two central characters. The accusations against them spread throughout the community after being initiated by a disgruntled student. Karen and Martha's reputations end up destroyed before the truth is revealed that they did not engage in any illicit affair; however, the apologies are too little, too late, and they opt not to return to court to overturn a verdict.
The secret revealed by Martha to Karen is in a monologue expressing her inner truth that she indeed may have always been in love with Karen, and even though they never acted upon it, her shame and guilt over her feelings created great internal conflict. In the end, Martha commits suicide.
So what type of animal would Martha be? I see her as a rabbit, running away from herself, scared of her own shadow, hiding from others. She could also be considered a female deer, as she is young and sensitive, though when deer get scared, they usually freeze, and I see Martha portrayed as more of an internally nervous person.
I do not see her as a predator type of animal, so look at prey animals who have some type of nervous quality, and I think you’ll find one that fits.

Discuss the difference between the depictions of violence, war, and loyalty in Macbeth as compared to the Iliad. Compare the killing in Macbeth to the battle between the Greeks and Trojans. How is the Iliad similar to or different from Macbeth in terms of time period, context, and differences in the way they seize power? How do both plays battle for their “homeland”; that is Scotland/England in Macbeth or Troy/Greece in the Iliad ?

I would begin by noting that one of the critical differences between Iliad and Macbeth is that the violence in Macbeth tends to be much more personal, as much of the story's plot is shaped by murder. Macbeth takes power by killing Duncan and then oversees the murder of Banquo (and the attempted murder of his son) and, later still, the murder of Macduff's family. While Macbeth does feature war as well (Macbeth's rise and fall are both shaped in the context of war, with him gaining the thaneship of Cawdor through his exploits in battle, before later being defeated in battle by an army supporting Malcolm's claim to kingship), war is not quite front-and-center in Macbeth as it is in Iliad. The Iliad is primarily a war story. One cannot say the same of Macbeth.
That being said, this does not mean that there are not parallels. Violence is a major theme in both stories. Macbeth certainly comes across as a bloodthirsty character, and we see that same theme in the Iliad as well, although it is expressed within the context of war, whereas the greater part of Macbeth's violence can be found outside of the battlefield. Consider the violent intensity of someone like Diomedes, whenever he appears on a battlefield. One must also note the theme of betrayal: Macbeth himself is an usurper, who murders his lawful liege, Duncan, in order to seize the throne and employs further treachery in his attempts to secure it. In Macbeth, however, this treachery is largely unprovoked: Duncan was a worthy liege, Banquo was his friend, and Macduff's family has done nothing to Macbeth. In Iliad, by contrast, the themes of loyalty are far more complicated, particularly as they apply to the feud between Agamemnon and Achilles, which is in many respects a clash of egos. Agamemnon's decisions in Book One are largely motivated by his own pride and vanity, and in the process, he clashes with Achilles, who, with his own pride wounded and feeling mistreated, responds to these slights by removing himself from the war. To conclude, I think one might say that the underlying themes of these two works are similar, but they tend to reflect in different contexts and in different ways.