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