What is the plan Dill and Jem come up with to talk to Boo Radley? Does it work? Why?

Jem and Dill decide to communicate with Boo Radley through a note. Scout goes outside to find them discussing the note, and asks how they plan to get it to him.  Jem explains the plan to Scout:

Jem was merely going to put the note on the end of a fishing pole and stick it through the shutters.  If anyone came along, Dill would ring the bell (To Kill a Mockingbird, Chapter 5).

...

Jem and Dill decide to communicate with Boo Radley through a note. Scout goes outside to find them discussing the note, and asks how they plan to get it to him.  Jem explains the plan to Scout:

Jem was merely going to put the note on the end of a fishing pole and stick it through the shutters.  If anyone came along, Dill would ring the bell (To Kill a Mockingbird, Chapter 5).

They had recently noticed a loose shutter.  Their plan is to poke the note through the crack in the shutters and leave it on the window sill inside.  The fishing pole would ensure that neither Dill nor Jem had to set foot on the Radley property to deliver the note.

The note contains questions about Boo Radley and a request for him to come out. They even promise to get him some ice cream if he does. Scout watches Jem try to deliver the note:

Jem attached the note to the end of the fishing pole, let the pole out across the yard and pushed it toward the window he had selected.  The pole lacked several inches of being long enough, and Jem leaned over as far as he could.

Unfortunately, Jem cannot get the note off the end of the pole. When he finally does get the note to detach, it falls down to the ground. Jem makes many attempts to deliver the note, but each time he fails. Scout and Jem hear Dill's bell ringing, and they look to find Atticus coming their way.  They abandon their unsuccessful mission.

I am working on composite functions, but I've gotten to a point that stumps me; I don't have any of this in my reading. I have f(x)= x/2 g(x)= 2/x...

Hello!

The way you use it, (-1) becomes a factor (you multiply the left part of your expression by this (-1)). But it is incorrect, (-1) isn't a factor, it is an argument of the composite function f/g. Actually all your steps are correct except the last one, where you should substitute x=-1, not multiply by -1.

I want to explain it from the beginning: if we have two functions, f(x) and g(x), then we...

Hello!

The way you use it, (-1) becomes a factor (you multiply the left part of your expression by this (-1)). But it is incorrect, (-1) isn't a factor, it is an argument of the composite function f/g. Actually all your steps are correct except the last one, where you should substitute x=-1, not multiply by -1.

I want to explain it from the beginning: if we have two functions, f(x) and g(x), then we may create a function h=(f/g) by the rule

`h(x)=(f/g)(x)=(f(x))/(g(x))`

(for those x's where `g(x)!=0,` of course).

Then we can substitute x with any specific value, for example -1. In our case, (f/g)(x) is equal to

`(x/2)/(2/x)=x^2/4.`

For `x=-1` this is equal to `(-1)^2/4=` 1/4 (this is the answer). Note that we obtain a specific number, not an expression involving x.

Also, we can substitute x=-1 before simplifying,

`(f/g)(-1)=(f(-1))/(g(-1))=(-1/2)/(-2)=1/4.`

The answer is of course the same.

In The Great Gatsby, who does Nick believe lives in the apartment in New York?

When Myrtle's sister, Catherine, arrives at the apartment, she acts as if she owns the place. Nick describes her as "worldly" and notes her attempt to resist "nature" by plucking her eyebrows. Her bracelets jingle loudly in what must be, to Nick, an overly extravagant and showy sound. So, she walks in with this air of pride and overconfidence. Nick notes,

"She came in with such a proprietary haste, and looked around so possessively at...

When Myrtle's sister, Catherine, arrives at the apartment, she acts as if she owns the place. Nick describes her as "worldly" and notes her attempt to resist "nature" by plucking her eyebrows. Her bracelets jingle loudly in what must be, to Nick, an overly extravagant and showy sound. So, she walks in with this air of pride and overconfidence. Nick notes,

"She came in with such a proprietary haste, and looked around so possessively at the furniture that I wondered if she lived here. But when I asked her she laughed immoderately, repeated my question aloud, and told me she lived with a girl friend at a hotel." 

Nick doesn't have good impressions of the other guests either. This is perhaps why he gets drunk. Mr. McKee is feminine and pale. His wife is "shrill, languid, handsome, and horrible." Mrs. Wilson is also showy and pompous. All in all, this is an annoying and uncomfortable experience for Nick. He only assumes that Catherine owns the apartment because of how possessively she behaves. But this is an apartment that Tom keeps (rents) so that he has a place away from home to be with Myrtle. He even has Myrtle ride to the apartment in a separate car to ensure that Myrtle's husband, Mr. Wilson, will remain totally unaware of their affair. 

What is the main theme of the novel A Conspiracy of Paper?

A Conspiracy of Paper is really more of a genre novel, a detective novel, and it's often difficult to ascertain a "theme" in a novel like this. However, if I had to choose something that masquerades as a theme it would be that of "identity." In 18th century London, Jews were considered inferior citizens. There were many rumors of their imminent expulsion from the country, and they were easy targets for everything from extortion to...

A Conspiracy of Paper is really more of a genre novel, a detective novel, and it's often difficult to ascertain a "theme" in a novel like this. However, if I had to choose something that masquerades as a theme it would be that of "identity." In 18th century London, Jews were considered inferior citizens. There were many rumors of their imminent expulsion from the country, and they were easy targets for everything from extortion to scapegoats. Liss's protagonist Benjamin Weaver runs away from home at an early age and changes his name. Some may say that Weaver is abandoning his heritage, his identity as a Jew, but that clashes with his later use of "The Lion of Judah" as his fighting name. Still, Weaver neither really acknowledges nor practices the rituals associated with his Jewish heritage. When his father Samuel Lienzo is killed, Weaver begins to investigate what increasingly looks less like an accident and more like murder. During the course of his investigation, he must make contact with his uncle Miguel Lienzo, who can give Weaver the most insight about his father. He also develops a love interest in Miriam, his Uncle Miguel's daughter-in-law, and has dealings with Nathan Adelman, a financier who has ties to the company Weaver is investigating. In addition, Weaver has several encounters with a boyhood friend, Abraham Mendes. All of these characters are Jewish and force Weaver to re-examine his own Jewishness. As his Uncle Miguel reintroduces Weaver to the rituals associated with his heritage, Weaver begins to find a sense of identity and security that society does not afford him.

The novel also potentially examines social Semitic stereotypes, positioning Jews both as 'stock jobbers,' or brokers, a socially inferior position, and, in the case of Adelman, as financier, a financially superior position, yet also one that plays into the stereotype of the rich-but-cheap Jew.

What does Grim call Gram in Philbrick's Freak the Mighty?

"Grim" and "Gram" are the special nicknames Max uses for his grandparents, but those aren't their real names, and they aren't the names that the grandparents call each other.

Although Grim rarely addresses Gram with a name, when he does, he calls her "my dear."This happens two times: once in Chapter 14, when Grim is comforting Gram while they are both worried about protecting Max from his father, and again in Chapter 15, when...

"Grim" and "Gram" are the special nicknames Max uses for his grandparents, but those aren't their real names, and they aren't the names that the grandparents call each other.

Although Grim rarely addresses Gram with a name, when he does, he calls her "my dear." This happens two times: once in Chapter 14, when Grim is comforting Gram while they are both worried about protecting Max from his father, and again in Chapter 15, when the family is celebrating Christmas and the normally reserved Grim is feeling more affectionate than usual.

Here's that first instance, from Chapter 14:

"Next thing, Gram is crying, and you can tell Grim is trying to make her feel better, going, 'There, there, my dear. I know, I know. There, there.'"

Here's the second instance, in Chapter 15:

"Gram says, 'How can you tell such lies on Christmas Eve?'

'I'm telling tales, my dear, not lies. Lies are mean things, and tales are meant to entertain.'"

It's worthwhile to consider what the characters call each other, because that reveals a lot about what kind of people they are. For example, Max calls his best friend by his nickname, Freak, though Freak's mother calls him by his real name, Kevin. This helps us understand that Freak's mother wants to see Kevin as someone normal and respectable, while Max accepts Freak for the unusual personality he's cultivated for himself.

Getting back to Gram and Grim, then, the fact that Grim calls Gram "my dear" shows that he really is a tender-hearted man, despite how reluctant he usually is to show it. And further, the fact that Grim usually calls Max by his name, even by his full name "Maxwell," shows that Max's relationship with his grandfather is a bit stiff and formal--but then on a rare occasion, Grim called Max "son," which made Max feel surprised and happy because of how affectionate his grandfather was being.

Why is the play called Pygmalion?

The title of the play Pygmalionis based on a classical myth about a story of a sculptor, Pygmalion, who crafts a beautiful statue of a woman and names the statue Galatea. He falls in love with the statue which is far more beautiful than any real woman and prays to Aphrodite, the goddess of love, to make the statue come alive. Aphrodite grants his wish and Pygmalion marries Galatea and they live happily ever...

The title of the play Pygmalion is based on a classical myth about a story of a sculptor, Pygmalion, who crafts a beautiful statue of a woman and names the statue Galatea. He falls in love with the statue which is far more beautiful than any real woman and prays to Aphrodite, the goddess of love, to make the statue come alive. Aphrodite grants his wish and Pygmalion marries Galatea and they live happily ever after, serving and honoring Aphrodite. The version of the story on which Shaw bases his play is the one found in Ovid's Metamorphoses. 

In the play, Higgins thinks of Eliza as if he were Pygmalion and Eliza an inert object he crafts by teaching her how to speak in aristocratic accents. Realistically, though, Eliza is not a lump of marble but an intelligent and strong willed woman who learns as much from Pickering (who treats her as a lady) and her own innate "street smarts" as from Higgins and thus the title is somewhat ironic.

In "The Road Not Taken" and "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening," how does Frost emphasize the importance of weighing and making choices? How are...

One main similarity is that in each of these poems we see introspection on the part of the narrator. In "The Road Not Taken," the narrator carefully considers each path. His consideration of each path is much more thorough and careful than most people's might be. He sees two paths that are fairly similar and there is no correct choice. Many folks would simply choose one and go on, but the narrator stops and thinks at length about which one to take and feels regret at not being able to know what is down the other path. Then, in "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening," the narrator purposefully stops to enjoy, consider, and appreciate the woods at night during snowfall. Again, this might be something another person would pass by without much thought, but this pause shows that the narrator is thinking about the setting and how it makes him feel, just like in "The Road Not Taken." Each of these narrators takes the time to stop and appreciate nature and think about his own reactions to nature.

Another strong similarity is that each poem presents nature as a metaphor for the mysteries of life. In "The Road Not Taken," the two paths represent choices we are constantly faced with in our lives. We must choose only one and we often question if it was the correct choice. In "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening," the narrator stops to enjoy the sight of the woods, but is also aware that his horse may find him "queer," and he doesn't want the owner of the woods to know he is watching the woods for fear he will think him strange. Nature in each case represents something mysterious, unknown, and to some degree unattainable. The path the narrator does not take is the one he does not "have," and the woods do not belong to the second narrator.

A third similarity is that both poems are told by narrators who are traveling. This travel can also represent our life's journey rather than just the journey the narrator happens to be on in the poem.

One key difference between the poems is that the narrator in each poem arrives at his decisions differently. In "The Road Not Taken" there is no clear choice, so neither one would be incorrect; however, in "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening," the narrator can stay in the dark, cold woods all night and or continue on his journey. Clearly, he continues his journey. This is an easy and fairly clear choice for the narrator.

How would one give a summary of the major witnesses' testimonies (finding inferences in Mayella's testimony) and a summary of Mr. Gilmer's and...

Summarizing the witnesses' testimonies and the attorneys' lines of questioning is a good way to see the holes and lies in the testimonies, if any exist, and what the attorneys aimed to prove to the jury through their line of questioning.

One example can be seen in Sheriff Heck Tate's testimony. Under Mr. Gilmer's questioning, Sheriff Tate testifies that he was brought to the Ewells' home by Bob Ewell and found Mayella lying on the floor of the front room, looking very battered. After he had helped her to her feet and she had washed her face, at Sheriff Tate's questioning, she said Tom Robinson had hurt her. Under Atticus's questioning, Sheriff Tate makes two very critical statements: (1) A doctor had not been summoned to examine Mayella to prove she had been raped; and (2) Mayella had been bruised in her right eye, which could have only been accomplished by a left-handed man facing her.

Mr. Gilmer's line of questioning is very straightforward. Since he mistakenly thinks the case is very straightforward, he only aims to establish what he sees to be the facts of the case for the jury. In contrast, Atticus's purpose is to show that not enough evidence exists in the case for a jury to be able to convict Robinson beyond a reasonable doubt. The reason why Atticus begins his questioning by asking Sheriff Tate if a doctor had been summoned is because, in the US, a person cannot be tried for a crime if no concrete evidence exists that the crime had actually taken place. Though Mayella was bruised, Robinson wasn't being brought to trial on an assault and battery charge, he was being brought to trial on a rape charge. Only a doctor's evidence would serve as proof that the crime of rape actually took place.

Under Mr. Gilmer's questioning, Mayella testifies that she had been sitting on the front porch and was expected by her father to "chop up" an "old chiffarobe" in the yard to be used "for kindlin,'" but she didn't feel strong enough to do the chore (Ch. 18). Therefore, when Tom Robinson walked passed on his way home from work, as he did each evening, she offered him a nickel to do the chore. She further testifies that she went into the house to fetch the nickel when Robinson followed her inside and attacked her. Under Mr. Gilmer's questioning, Mayella contradicts her father's testimony by stating he had asked her who had abused her, whereas Bob Ewell testified he witnessed the whole thing through the window.

Under Atticus's questioning, Mayella states her age, number of siblings, that she can't remember when her mother passed away, and also testifies about other details of her home and family life. One of her most important statements is that her father treats her tolerably well "'cept when--" (Ch. 18). Though Mayella refuses to finish her sentence, Atticus finishes it for her by asking, "Except when he's drinking?" (Ch. 18). She also refuses to honestly answer Atticus's question about her father's abuse. Mayella's testimony particularly reveals that it would have been physically impossible for Robinson to have bruised the right side of her face, as he is crippled in his left arm and hand.

Again, Mr. Gilmer's line of questioning is straightforward. He doesn't question whether or not the Ewells are telling the truth; therefore, he skips right over any contradictions Mayella makes in her own testimony. Instead, all he does is use his questioning to lay out what he considers to be the very straightforward details of the crime.  In contrast, Atticus uses his line of question to establish the credibility of the Ewells as witnesses. He uses his questioning to expose Ewell as a drunkard and their home life as a very abusive one, thereby pointing to Ewell as the guilty culprit, not Robinson.

Describe the ''valley of ashes.'' What does it look like and what does it represent?

The valley of ashes is a desolate area that exists between West Egg and New York City where everything seems covered in ashes. In fact, such a thick layer of ashes sits atop everything that it seems as if everything were actually made of ashes: the houses, hills, cars—even men. On one side, there's a small and dirty river where people who get stuck at the drawbridge are forced to look at the "dismal scene"...

The valley of ashes is a desolate area that exists between West Egg and New York City where everything seems covered in ashes. In fact, such a thick layer of ashes sits atop everything that it seems as if everything were actually made of ashes: the houses, hills, cars—even men. On one side, there's a small and dirty river where people who get stuck at the drawbridge are forced to look at the "dismal scene" for thirty minutes. This sad area seems to symbolize a loss of life—consider how ashes are associated with death—the loss of vitality and vibrancy in someone like George Wilson or the other ash men who live in poverty there. Further, we could interpret the area as symbolic of the moral corruption or decay that results when individuals live only to accumulate wealth. Think of how close the riches of West Egg, East Egg, and New York City are: it's as though the valley of ashes is the dark and sordid underbelly of all that accumulation and materialism.

What is the meaning of Hilaire Belloc's poem "The Prophet Lost in the Hills at Evening"?

In “The Prophet Lost in the Hills at Evening” by Hilaire Belloc, the reader is given the chance to look inside the mind of someone struggling with connection to God through the imagery of an individual who is lost and afraid in a strange and hellish place. Throughout, Belloc is appealing to God as a protector, proclaiming that God alone can save him while twice repeating the phrase “remember me.” Each time, the poet is...

In “The Prophet Lost in the Hills at Evening” by Hilaire Belloc, the reader is given the chance to look inside the mind of someone struggling with connection to God through the imagery of an individual who is lost and afraid in a strange and hellish place. Throughout, Belloc is appealing to God as a protector, proclaiming that God alone can save him while twice repeating the phrase “remember me.” Each time, the poet is asking to be remembered by God while surrounded by imagery of dread, isolation, and the “Voids of Hell.”

Belloc himself, an ardent apologist for Catholicism, actually lost his own faith at one point in his early life, though he did return to it. His biographer suggested that Belloc never actually lost his faith completely, and in this poem we may see some of that experience’s influence. The poet never doubts in the poem that God is a real presence that alone can save him; he only writes of the experience of not feeling the presence of God.

The poem also bears a thematic resemblance to Psalm 23. Both declare the comforting strength of God in difficult situations, albeit in different ways. While the language of Psalm 23 is certain and assured, Belloc’s poem is more desperate and, as the title states, lost. While the psalmist never fears that God is with him while in the valley of the shadow of death, Belloc outright admits that he is "awfully afraid." In the end, he does not seem to find the triumphant rescue that he is asking for. Belloc simply states that he has remained faithful, and asks that God surround him on his darkening path. 

What are 3 quotes that support the thesis "social classes play a major role in human interaction in Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird"?

Jem has a really great quote that I think that you could use.  The quote is found in chapter 23.  Jem says the following lines to Scout.  

"There’s four kinds of folks in the world. There’s the ordinary kind like us and the neighbors, there’s the kind like the Cunninghams out in the woods, the kind like the Ewells down at the dump, and the Negroes.”

The quote illustrates a bit of racism, which you are not going for based on your thesis, but the rest of the quote should work nicely.  The quote shows that Jem sees the people of the world divided into four distinct social classes.  People like his family, poor but honest people, poor and dishonest people, and Negro people.  The order that Jem provided is interesting to note as well.  His list is a ranked hierarchy and moves from "best" to "worst."  

The next two quotes you could use to further explain the difference between the Ewell and Cunningham social classes.  

“You, Miss Scout Finch, are of the common folk. You must obey the law.” He said that the Ewells were members of an exclusive society made up of Ewells. In certain circumstances the common folk judiciously allowed them certain privileges by the simple method of becoming blind to some of the Ewells’ activities. They didn’t have to go to school, for one thing. Another thing, Mr. Bob Ewell, Burris’s father, was permitted to hunt and trap out of season.

The Ewells are members of the poor class that don't do anything to help themselves out of being poor.  They skip school and break laws.  That's contrary to the Cunninghams who are poor, but honest, hard working, law abiding members of society.  

 I thought I had made things sufficiently clear. It was clear enough to the rest of us: Walter Cunningham was sitting there lying his head off. He didn’t forget his lunch, he didn’t have any. He had none today nor would he have any tomorrow or the next day. He had probably never seen three quarters together at the same time in his life. 

 I tried again: “Walter’s one of the Cunninghams, Miss Caroline.” 

 “I beg your pardon, Jean Louise?” 

“That’s okay, ma’am, you’ll get to know all the county folks after a while. The Cunninghams never took anything they can’t pay back—no church baskets and no scrip stamps. They never took anything off of anybody, they get along on what they have. They don’t have much, but they get along on it.”

In Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, who unknowingly had the master bolt and who had the helm of darkness? What were the master...

In Chapter 19, Percy meets with Hades in the Underworld. He addresses Hades as 'Lord and Uncle' and tells him that he has two requests to make of him.

Hades is not amused that the son of Poseidon has dared to make any requests of him, but he decides to humor Percy. Percy's first request is that Hades return Zeus' master bolt to him in order to prevent war between the gods. Before Percy can...

In Chapter 19, Percy meets with Hades in the Underworld. He addresses Hades as 'Lord and Uncle' and tells him that he has two requests to make of him.

Hades is not amused that the son of Poseidon has dared to make any requests of him, but he decides to humor Percy. Percy's first request is that Hades return Zeus' master bolt to him in order to prevent war between the gods. Before Percy can get to his second request, however, Hades accuses him of having stolen both Zeus' master bolt and his own helm of darkness. Hades threatens to release the dead back into the world unless Percy returns his helm. However, Percy denies that he has Hades' helm of darkness and demands Zeus' master bolt back instead.

In reality, Percy was tricked into carrying Zeus' master bolt in his backpack; in Chapter 20, we discover that Ares had given the backpack to Percy. When Percy accuses Ares of having stolen both the helm of darkness and the master bolt, Ares admits cryptically that he had both items stolen, but he didn't do the deed himself. It was Ares who actually disguised the master bolt's sheath to resemble a backpack; since the sheath is so powerful that the bolt always has to return to it, Ares tinkers with the magic so that the bolt will only return to its sheath (the backpack) when Percy entered the Underworld. This is how Percy came to unknowingly have the master bolt in his possession when he stood before Hades.

Meanwhile, Ares has in his possession the helm of darkness. It is disguised as a ski cap,' the kind bank robbers wear.' When Ares deposits the ski cap between the handlebars of his bike, the cap immediately turns into a bronze war helmet. The chapter ends with Percy, the son of Poseidon, defeating Ares in battle. After changing into his immortal form, Ares vacates the scene of the battle and leaves the helm of darkness behind. Percy charges the Furies with returning the helm of darkness to Hades in the Underworld.

What type of characterization is used in Kate Chopin's "The Story of an Hour"?

In Kate Chopin's "The Story of an Hour" the author uses both direct and indirect characterization. Direct characterization is when a writer simply states a character's specific traits. Indirect characterization is when a character's traits are revealed through the words, thoughts, or actions of the character, descriptions of the character's appearance and background, and what other characters say about and how they react to the character.

Chopin uses direct characterization in the very first paragraph...

In Kate Chopin's "The Story of an Hour" the author uses both direct and indirect characterization. Direct characterization is when a writer simply states a character's specific traits. Indirect characterization is when a character's traits are revealed through the words, thoughts, or actions of the character, descriptions of the character's appearance and background, and what other characters say about and how they react to the character.

Chopin uses direct characterization in the very first paragraph by telling the reader that the main character, Louise Mallard, has a heart condition.  Louise is also directly characterized when she is described as suffering from "physical exhaustion" after hearing the news that her husband had been accidentally killed in a "railroad disaster."

Chopin uses indirect characterization when she describes Louise as "young with a fair, calm face, whose lines bespoke repression and even a certain strength." The term "repression" could also be considered an indirect characterization of Louise's husband who, though kindly, was a typical male in Victorian society who invariably made all the important decisions for his wife. Chopin also indirectly characterizes Louise through the character's words and thoughts. Twice in the story she says that she is free as she comes to realize that without her husband she will be much happier. She says, "Free! Body and soul, free!" She thinks that she now wants her life to last a long time as opposed to her feeling that "life might be long" before the news of her husband's demise. 

Because of these thoughts and words, the reader knows that Louise does not die of "joy" at the news her husband was still alive, as the doctors believed. Her heart stopped at the thought of going back to the repressive life in a male dominated society.

What is the theme of "Winter Dreams"?

Ambition is one prevalent theme in "Winter Dreams" by F. Scott Fitzgerald.

Dexter Green dreams of breaking free of his humble origins and becoming a part of the society of those who frequent the Sherry Island Golf Club, where he works as a caddy. In fact, it is his encounter with the imperious upper class young girl, Judy Jones, which precipitates this decision to follow the dictates of his "winter dreams," his ill-fated ambitions for...

Ambition is one prevalent theme in "Winter Dreams" by F. Scott Fitzgerald.

Dexter Green dreams of breaking free of his humble origins and becoming a part of the society of those who frequent the Sherry Island Golf Club, where he works as a caddy. In fact, it is his encounter with the imperious upper class young girl, Judy Jones, which precipitates this decision to follow the dictates of his "winter dreams," his ill-fated ambitions for the future.

After he quits his subservient job as a caddy in rebellion against his station in life, Dexter also declines a business course at the state university and goes instead to the East. There, at a prestigious university, Dexter entertains the hope of attaining social rank by his association with "glittering things and glittering people." After college, Dexter succeeds in becoming financially successful in the laundry business. However, he desires more in his ambition; so, before he reaches the age of twenty-seven, Dexter sells his business and moves to New York.

But, a couple of years before he sells his business, back in Minnesota Dexter accompanies the men for whom he once caddied in a round of golf at the Sherry Island Golf Club. While on the course, he again encounters the rich girl, whose "passionate quality of her eyes" and her imperious demeanor captivate Dexter. Now she is a young woman of arresting beauty and "passionate vitality." Indeed, Dexter perceives Judy as the embodiment of all that he envies. Therefore, his ambition now becomes the goal of capturing her. For, in doing so, Dexter feels that he will validate his claim as a member of the upper class.

However, this "Winter Dream," like the dream of wealth, proves itself false and costly as the selfish Judy later discards Dexter. For, wealth and social status are hollow dreams that cannot substitute for genuine relationships with people and genuine values that truly bring happiness and fulfillment to a person's life. Thus, Dexter Green's ambitions have been hollow ones. 

Are there similarities between the Thought Police in 1984 and the Military Police that run Guantanamo Bay?

The best way to address this question is to first establish the roles and characteristics of the Thought Police.  George Orwell’s 1984 is a dystopian novel that explores psychological manipulation and physical control within a totalitarian society.  Set in the super-state of Oceania, the novel chronicles the experiences of one man, Winston Smith, as he tries to evade the suppression of the omnipresent government, who employs surveillance and public manipulation to ensure all citizens abide by the Party’s rules.  The Thought Police are the individuals hired by the government to monitor all of the telescreens and identify any citizens who are “committing crimes against the Party,” whether it be an actual action or a “thoughtcrime,” which is the thinking of anything illegal.  And to this end, actions or thoughts are considered illegal if they promote individuality, for the Party wants all citizens to remain isolated and unable to ban together and rebel. 

Thus, the Thought Police are not merely enforcers, they are invasive, as they not only monitor actions and speeches, but thoughts as well.  However, there are key characteristics that define a member of the Thought Police.  Those individuals often go undetected in society, which enable them to fully monitor everyone around them.  For example, once Winston is brought in for questioning, the narrator states, “He knew now that for seven years the Thought Police had watched him like a beetle under a magnifying glass.  There was no physical act, no word spoken aloud, that they had not noticed, no train of thought that they had not been able to infer.  Even the speck of whitish dust on the cover of his diary they had carefully replaced” (Orwell 276).  The simile of “like a beetle under a magnifying glass” epitomizes the invasive role of the Thought Police—they observe and monitor absolutely everything. 

Further, the Thought Police physically and mentally torture any political prisoners in the Ministry of Love’s torture chamber, known as Room 101.  The following two excerpts describe the horrors of Room 101:

"You asked me once," said O'Brien, "what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world” (Orwell 283).

“The cage was nearer; it was closing in. Winston heard a succession of shrill cries which appeared to be occurring in the air above his head. But he fought furiously against his panic. To think, to think, even with a split second left – to think was the only hope. Suddenly the foul musty odor of the brutes struck his nostrils. There was a violent convulsion of nausea inside him, and he almost lost consciousness. Everything had gone black. For an instant he was insane, a screaming animal. Yet he came out of the blackness clutching an idea. There was one and only one way to save himself. He must interpose another human being, the body of another human being, between himself and the rats” (Orwell 286).

These two excerpts, although they do not explicitly mention the Thought Police, illustrate the abuse that occurs in Room 101 by members of the Thought Police.  To wear prisoners down, the Thought Police use abrasive methods, such as degradation, confusing conversation, and physical torture, in an effort to make the prisoners accept the ideology of the Party.  The prisoners are then released back into society, but are promptly re-arrested for fabricated charges and executed.  Therefore, the Thought Police serve as the main tool of oppression and destruction within the Party.

Given these roles and characteristics, there are some similarities between the Thought Police of 1984 and the Military Police that serve at Guantanamo Bay.  First and foremost, both factions are tasked with providing surveillance and control.  For example, the Military Police are used to maintain control over large amounts of high-security detainees during times of war.  It is interesting to note that Orwell’s Oceania is also in a perpetual state of war.   Further, the Military Police of Guantanamo Bay have been accused of using coercive management techniques that are hauntingly similar to those used by the Thought Police, including starvation, sleep deprivation, prolonged constraint, exposure, and psychological abuse.  The Military Police had the task of not only controlling the subjects, but interrogating them to get information for the U.S. government about potential threats.  Therefore, the Military Police and Thought Police served very similar roles and employed very similar tactics.   

What would be a good thesis statement for the theme of innocence in the novel The Boy in the Striped Pajamas?

A thesis statement should present an argument, and make a claim about a given topic that can be supported throughout the body of the essay. The following is a good example of a thesis statement that discusses the theme of innocence throughout the novel The Boy in the Striped Pajamas.

Throughout the novel The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, Boyne explores the theme of childhood innocence to suggest that having a naive perspective,...

A thesis statement should present an argument, and make a claim about a given topic that can be supported throughout the body of the essay. The following is a good example of a thesis statement that discusses the theme of innocence throughout the novel The Boy in the Striped Pajamas.

Throughout the novel The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, Boyne explores the theme of childhood innocence to suggest that having a naive perspective, while enduring inhumane circumstances, serves as an emotional barrier and protects an individual from fully experiencing the traumatic environment.

This thesis statement would be rather easy to support because there are many scenes and examples throughout the novel that show how Bruno and Shmuel's friendship overcomes the traumatic environment that surrounds them. Despite Bruno leaving his friends, grandparents, and home behind, he is rather optimistic because of his friendship with Shmuel. Both boys benefit from each other and are able to form a lasting bond despite their different backgrounds and situations.

During the flashback, what is learned about Montag and what kind of foreshadowing is present?

The flashback occurs in part two as Montag and his wife Mildred are reading. Montag feels lost amidst the complicated reading material and feels as if he needs someone to teach him how to understand what he is reading. The flashback starts as follows:

"Hold on. He shut his eyes. Yes, of course. Again he found himself thinking of the green park a year ago. The thought had been with him many times recently, but...

The flashback occurs in part two as Montag and his wife Mildred are reading. Montag feels lost amidst the complicated reading material and feels as if he needs someone to teach him how to understand what he is reading. The flashback starts as follows:

"Hold on. He shut his eyes. Yes, of course. Again he found himself thinking of the green park a year ago. The thought had been with him many times recently, but now he remembered how it was that day in the city park when he had seen that old man in the black suit hide something, quickly, in his coat" (74).

Montag remembers that the old man admitted to being a former English professor and that his name was Faber. The two spoke for about an hour's time, but it was mostly Montag listening to Faber recite poetry. From this flashback we learn that Montag was very interested in what Faber had to say. We learn that Montag has been interested in finding out what is contained in books for at least a year before he met Clarisse and before the woman burns herself rather than live without books--two very important events that push Montag over the edge. We also learn that neither Faber not Montag mentioned that Montag was a fireman during their first visit. Since Faber felt comfortable with Montag by the end of their time together, he gave Montag his number on a piece of paper and said, "For your file. . . in case you decide to be angry with me" (75).

The whole experience with Faber, and the fact that he gave Montag his number in the flashback, foreshadows that Montag will look for the paper and contact the professor for help in his current search for understanding. This is significant because Faber becomes an important part of Montag's plan to systematically frame the other firemen by planting books in their own houses. This is their plan to sabotage the system in an effort to bring back literacy to their society; so, the flashback and foreshadowing help to move the plot forward.

What is the subject of "Hope is the thing with feathers" by Emily Dickinson?

The simple answer is that the subject of this poem is a description of hope. By comparing hope to a little bird, Dickinson describes what it is without actually saying what she is doing.

The first two stanzas read:

“‘Hope’ is the thing with feathers –

That perches in the soul –

And sings the tune without the words –

And never stops at all –

“And sweetest - in the Gale - is...

The simple answer is that the subject of this poem is a description of hope. By comparing hope to a little bird, Dickinson describes what it is without actually saying what she is doing.

The first two stanzas read:

“‘Hope’ is the thing with feathers –

That perches in the soul –

And sings the tune without the words –

And never stops at all –

“And sweetest - in the Gale - is heard -

And sore must be the storm -

That could abash the little Bird

That kept so many warm – ”

(Poetry Foundation)

When she says, “sweetest – in the Gale – is heard”, she emphasizes that hope prevails even in the midst of storms. In fact, this is often when people notice hope the most. It is when things are hard that one realizes he has to hope.

“And sore must be the storm – That could abash the little Bird That kept so many warm”. Here, Dickinson points out that a storm must be exceptionally harsh to crush the flame of hope that exists during trials. Because of hope’s unconquerable nature—the necessity of people to have hope in something—it really takes a lot to extinguish such a powerful emotion.

Here is the third stanza:

“I’ve heard it in the chillest land -

And on the strangest Sea -

Yet - never - in Extremity,

It asked a crumb - of me.”

(Poetry Foundation)

In this verse, Dickinson stresses the unique places hope’s sound is heard. It appears in unusual locations—places where it is needed most, and where one might not expect to find it. Her last two lines imply that while hope provides a level of comfort during difficulty, it is not something that taxes you or demands something from you (see Brooklyn College’s analysis).

Describe the policeman on the beat in "After Twenty Years."

O. Henry does a remarkable job of introducing a major character without actually revealing who he is. The reader is deliberately misled into taking the cop for just one of many uniformed cops patrolling a beat in New York City. The cop (who we later realize is Jimmy Wells) also deceives Bob, who mistakes him for the cop assigned to this particular beat and thinks he is only stopping to talk to him because he looks as little suspicious standing in a darkened doorway. Bob doesn't give Jimmy a chance to identify himself but starts in doing all the talking.

“It's all right, officer,” he said, reassuringly. “I'm just waiting for a friend. It's an appointment made twenty years ago...."

Bob seems to be trying to show that he is completely innocent and at ease. He lights his cigar, both as a way of showing he feels at ease and of demonstrating that he is standing in a doorway because he can't very well light a cigar or smoke it out in the rain. When he lights the cigar he reveals that he is the man wanted by the Chicago police. So Jimmy refrains from introducing himself to his old pal and lets him do most of the talking.

O. Henry makes Jimmy seem like just another uniformed beat cop simply by describing an ordinary beat cop.

Trying doors as he went, twirling his club with many intricate and artful movements, turning now and then to cast his watchful eye adown the pacific thoroughfare, the officer, with his stalwart form and slight swagger, made a fine picture of a guardian of the peace. 

The ironic thing is that Jimmy really is patrolling his own beat--which just happens to be where he plans to meet Bob at 10 p.m. He is a bit early, so he does what he always does, which is mainly trying shop doors to make sure they are securely locked. Bob pulls out his ornate pocket watch.

“Three minutes to ten,” he announced. “It was exactly ten o'clock when we parted here at the restaurant door.”

This dialogue is to inform the reader that Jimmy is early, which explains why he was trying doors along the way and taking his time about getting to the rendezvous. It also informs the reader that the appointment is for ten o'clock. If Bob says he will wait a half-hour longer than that for his friend to arrive, then Jimmy knows he has until ten-thirty to get someone to make the arrest which he doesn't care to make himself.

Incidentally, the "handsome watch" with the lids set in small diamonds is one of the things by which Jimmy identifies Bob as the man wanted by the Chicago police. They sent a "wire," a telegram, in which they provided as much of a description of 'Silky' Bob as possible. Photos or even sketches could not be sent by wire. They also included two other things Jimmy saw when Bob lit his cigar.

The light showed a pale, square-jawed face with keen eyes, and a little white scar near his right eyebrow. His scarf pin was a large diamond, oddly set.

The setting for the large diamond would have been described in more detail in the telegram. Since Bob never gives his name, O. Henry would have to provide other means by which Jimmy could be sure the man in the doorway was really his old pal and really the man wanted in Chicago. Bob doesn't introduce himself by name because that would have pretty much forced the cop to do the same. And if the cop didn't introduce himself, that might have made Bob suspicious--in which case he might not have been standing there when the tall plainclothes detective showed up at around twenty minutes past ten.

Why must renewable resources be managed?

Our industrial development and growth has largely been fueled by fossil fuels. Our ever-increasing demands coupled with the finite quantity of fossil fuels and their role in climate change has prompted us to look for alternative energy sources. Renewable resources such as solar energy, wind power, and tidal energy have gained a lot of attention as potential replacements for fossil fuels.

These renewable resources need to be managed carefully. We know that we cannot exhaust...

Our industrial development and growth has largely been fueled by fossil fuels. Our ever-increasing demands coupled with the finite quantity of fossil fuels and their role in climate change has prompted us to look for alternative energy sources. Renewable resources such as solar energy, wind power, and tidal energy have gained a lot of attention as potential replacements for fossil fuels.

These renewable resources need to be managed carefully. We know that we cannot exhaust these resources, but indiscriminate adoption of renewable options is also not a viable scenario. Good examples of solar power concerns include how much solar power should be adopted and at what cost. Several governments are blindly setting unrealistic targets for renewable resources and such haphazard manners of adoption are going to be too fruitful. An example is the use of biofuels generated from corn, which has threatened this food crop and also incentivized the cultivation of cash crops instead of food crops.

We are in an infancy stage of renewable resource adoption and we need to manage these resources carefully.

Hope this helps.

In Elie Wiesel's Night, why don’t the Jews in Sighet listen to Moshe the Beadle's warnings about the Holocaust?

In Elie Wiesel’s memoir, Night, the Jewish residents of Sighet do not believe Moshe the Beadle when he tells them about his brush with death at the hands of German soldiers. Though Moshe is accurate in his depiction of the Holocaust, there are two reasons why other Jews brush off his warnings.

The first reason is that Moshe is known as an eccentric figure within Sighet’s Jewish community. He is also a foreigner, and...

In Elie Wiesel’s memoir, Night, the Jewish residents of Sighet do not believe Moshe the Beadle when he tells them about his brush with death at the hands of German soldiers. Though Moshe is accurate in his depiction of the Holocaust, there are two reasons why other Jews brush off his warnings.

The first reason is that Moshe is known as an eccentric figure within Sighet’s Jewish community. He is also a foreigner, and outside of Elie, no one proclaims any sadness when Moshe is deported in 1942 with other foreign Jews. As most people have no deep affinity for Moshe, they are not very likely to listen to his ranting.

The second and most important reason that the Jews of Sighet do not believe Moshe is that, in their minds, there is no way that anything like Holocaust could ever happen. The Jews that Moshe tells his story to are well-educated men and women, but they believe that in the 20th century, with its electric lights, indoor plumbing, and other miracles, no person or group would attempt to eradicate a race of people.

What quote from chapter 25 is an example of the title?

Chapter 25 is a super short chapter about how Melinda's Spanish class is going. The verdict? Not well. As with most language classes, the course is taught entirely in Spanish, which can be tricky for a beginner's class. It can also provide opportunities for students to pretend they don't understand things they want to avoid doing:

"My Spanish teacher breaks the "no English" rule to tell us that we had better stop pretending we don't...

Chapter 25 is a super short chapter about how Melinda's Spanish class is going. The verdict? Not well. As with most language classes, the course is taught entirely in Spanish, which can be tricky for a beginner's class. It can also provide opportunities for students to pretend they don't understand things they want to avoid doing:

"My Spanish teacher breaks the "no English" rule to tell us that we had better stop pretending we don't understand the homework assignments or we're all going to get detention. Then she repeats what she just said in Spanish, though it seems as if she tosses in a few extra phrases" (pg 51).

Though this chapter of the story seems to mostly be played for humor and to demonstrate the laziness of teens and irritation of their teachers, it does also relate to the title of the novel Speak and the theme of difficulties in communication. The Spanish teacher and students aren't on the same level as each other. Not only are they speaking different languages literally, but they are also speaking different languages in regards to their goals and motivations. Melinda notes that if the teacher had just taught them swear words up front, they'd have listened to her for the rest of the year. Since the teacher isn't clued in on how to motivate them, she has to resort to threats. Though this ends up getting Melinda to do the work, it doesn't endear the teacher to her very much.

Why did Germany enter World War I, and who were Germany's allies?

There are several reasons why Germany was involved in World War I. Germany became a unified country in 1870. By this time, most of the lands that were available for colonization were already controlled by other imperial powers. Thus, for Germany to get colonies, they were going to have to most likely fight to get these lands.

Knowing going to war was likely to occur, Germany began to build up its military. This alarmed other...

There are several reasons why Germany was involved in World War I. Germany became a unified country in 1870. By this time, most of the lands that were available for colonization were already controlled by other imperial powers. Thus, for Germany to get colonies, they were going to have to most likely fight to get these lands.

Knowing going to war was likely to occur, Germany began to build up its military. This alarmed other European countries that also began to build up their military. Germany built its military with the intent to put it into action. Germany wanted to be a world power and knew fighting would likely occur.

Germany had an alliance before World War I began. This was known as the Triple Alliance. It included Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. When World War I began, Germany had an alliance called the Central Powers. This alliance included Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, and Bulgaria. Italy fought on the side of Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union in World War I. Since Austria-Hungary asked Germany to support its upcoming declaration of war on Serbia, Germany felt obligated to honor its alliance with Austria-Hungary. Thus, Germany agreed to support Austria-Hungary if they declared war on Serbia. Germany also believed it might be able to accomplish some of its goals if Austria-Hungary was successful with its attack on Serbia and the Balkan region.

The start of World War I was partially an attempt by Germany and other countries to achieve various goals they had in terms of achieving the status of becoming a world power. This war, and later World War II, was Germany’s attempt to gain land, power, money, and influence.

How could I craft a thesis statement to discuss the poem "A Visit to St. Elizabeths"?

There are a number of ways to look at this poem, so there are multiple thesis statements one could use. 

First, here is some background about the poem. It refers to Bishop's visits with the famous American poet Ezra Pound when he was in an asylum. The asylum is St. Elizabeths in Washington, D.C. Pound had been charged with treason (for supporting Mussolini). Pound also shared anti-Semitic ideas and was pro-fascist during World War II. Keeping...

There are a number of ways to look at this poem, so there are multiple thesis statements one could use. 

First, here is some background about the poem. It refers to Bishop's visits with the famous American poet Ezra Pound when he was in an asylum. The asylum is St. Elizabeths in Washington, D.C. Pound had been charged with treason (for supporting Mussolini). Pound also shared anti-Semitic ideas and was pro-fascist during World War II. Keeping him in the asylum likely saved him from a longer jail sentence.

The name Bedlam is a derivation of Bethlehem and refers to the British mental hospital (Bethlehem Royal Hospital) which was notoriously chaotic and regressive prior to the British reforms for mental hospitals.

So, Elizabeth goes to meet a famous American poet (one of the most important poets of the 20th century). He is a great artist but has all of these subsequent flaws, including an insane devotion to unpopular political ideas. Bishop opens the poem with, "This is the house of Bedlam." In other words, this is a chaotic, disordered place. It is an asylum, so this makes logical sense. Her visits must have been even more odd because Pound was venerated as a poet, but he was also justifiably criticized for his political ideas. The poem uses an "add-on" style similar to "This is the House that Jack Built." It creates a redundant style that suggests a "crazy" repeating pattern. A thesis based upon these ideas should explain this odd experience. (Bishop's "Visits" illustrate the conflicting notions of a great and troubled man.)

You could also focus on the form of the poem. (The nursery rhyme style of this poem portrays simplicity, but underneath this is the description of a complicated man.) Then you could go on to describe how the style is useful in connecting Pound's different characteristics: "tragic," "talkative," "honored," "brave," "cruel," "tedious," etc. The repetitive style of the nursery rhyme sounds a bit insane, yet poetic as well. This also describes Pound in this state. He is a great artist, but some of his political ideas are crazy. A thesis statement should address this conflict of greatness and being clearly flawed.

I have to write a 5 page response paper about the Iranian movie Fireworks Wednesday. What are the main points I should focus on? How should I...

You seem to have a lot of freedom in how you approach your critical response to the film, which can often be an intimidating prospect for students. My suggestion is that you find a social element that the director presents that you find particularly interesting, poignant, or else reductive, and then discuss how the director's treatment of the subject influences you.

For instance, I am a feminist critic, so I am always interested in how...

You seem to have a lot of freedom in how you approach your critical response to the film, which can often be an intimidating prospect for students. My suggestion is that you find a social element that the director presents that you find particularly interesting, poignant, or else reductive, and then discuss how the director's treatment of the subject influences you.

For instance, I am a feminist critic, so I am always interested in how directors and writers address issues of gender. More specifically, I know that Fireworks Wednesday centers on several couples and their interactions with one another. So I personally would consider examining how gender dynamics function between each couple. How does the squabbling married couple compare with the couple who will soon marry? Indeed, looking at how the director presents marriage in modern-day Iran could prove fruitful.

Another avenue that you could pursue is how the director treats social stratification in Iran. The characters represent a number of different levels of socioeconomic success. How do these characters interact, and how do issues pertaining to social status contribute to the plot of the film?

Perhaps you could even examine your own personal reaction to the film. How do the values presented differ from your own? How are they similar? Can you relate to the film? Why? What are the parallels between your culture and the portrait of Iranian life the director presents?

These are merely suggestions. Ultimately, you should write about the aspects of the film that gripped you the most. That's one of the joys of this kind of prompt: you have the power to examine the film in the ways that you find most interesting.

Who is the speaker of “Dover Beach”? Is it Matthew Arnold or a character he created? What type of person do you think the speaker is?

While the speaker and his companion could be any two English lovers, it is supposed by many that the speaker of "Dover Beach" is the poet himself, Matthew Arnold, who, with his new wife, spent their honeymoon at the Straits of Dover near the time of the poem's writing (1851).

It seems apparent in this dramatic monologue, though, that the speaker is pensive and troubled as he gazes out to "where the sea meets the...

While the speaker and his companion could be any two English lovers, it is supposed by many that the speaker of "Dover Beach" is the poet himself, Matthew Arnold, who, with his new wife, spent their honeymoon at the Straits of Dover near the time of the poem's writing (1851).

It seems apparent in this dramatic monologue, though, that the speaker is pensive and troubled as he gazes out to "where the sea meets the moon-blanched land." He hears the "grating roar" of the sea as the pebbles of the beach are flung back by the sea's new waves after having been pulled off the beach. As he recalls how Sophocles heard in the sea's "tremulous cadence" the ebb and flow of "human misery," the speaker may well be anxious about how the societal changes made with the Industrial Revolution may affect English society.

In the fourth stanza, it is clear that the speaker is disturbed about the "Sea of Faith" which sounds 

Its melancholy, long withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.

Thus, challenges to traditional religious beliefs wrought by new evolutionary theories, as well as the social ills of industrialization that beset England seem reflected in the speaker's contemplation of the ebb and flow of the sea and the melancholy mood that the sea creates.

What does this statement mean to you? "It is better to have a lion at the head of an army of sheep, than a sheep at the head of an army of lions."

This famous quote has a disputed origin: many people attribute it to Alexander the Great (356–323 BCE), one of the most prolific military leaders in history and the founder of a large empire, which collapsed upon his death. Others attribute the quote to Chabrias (d. 357 BCE), an accomplished Greek general. Polybius (200–118 BCE), a Greek historian, is a third attribution. The proverb was quoted by Agostino Nifo (1473–1538 CE), an Italian philosopher. And finally...

This famous quote has a disputed origin: many people attribute it to Alexander the Great (356–323 BCE), one of the most prolific military leaders in history and the founder of a large empire, which collapsed upon his death. Others attribute the quote to Chabrias (d. 357 BCE), an accomplished Greek general. Polybius (200–118 BCE), a Greek historian, is a third attribution. The proverb was quoted by Agostino Nifo (1473–1538 CE), an Italian philosopher. And finally there is the widespread attribution of this quote to Daniel Defoe (1660–1731 CE), a British journalist, novelist, spy, pamphleteer, and failed businessman. 

Regardless of who originally made this statement, it is most often referenced in military situations, where its logic seems counter-intuitive (who wouldn't want an army of lions?). But the quotation is actually a profound statement on leadership: it makes the assertion that the quality/bravery/ferocity of the soldiers doesn't really matter; it is the quality of their leader that determines the army's strength. A good leader can take an army of 'sheep' and organize them to fight as if they were a pack of 'lions.' The quote further asserts that even if the soldiers are exceedingly brave, strong, and skilled ('lions'), if they have a weak, ineffective leader (a 'sheep'), they are no greater threat than an army of 'sheep.' The quote has obvious implications beyond the military, and is relevant to any situation where leadership or group cohesion is needed.

How did Hitler violate the Versailles Treaty?

Adolf Hitler violated the Versailles Treaty in several ways. The Versailles Treaty required that Germany would dismantle its military and have only a military with defensive capabilities. Hitler began to build up the German military so that it could have offensive capabilities. He also began to draft soldiers, which was a violation of the terms of the Versailles Treaty. He felt Germany was mistreated by the terms of the Versailles Treaty. He wanted to build...

Adolf Hitler violated the Versailles Treaty in several ways. The Versailles Treaty required that Germany would dismantle its military and have only a military with defensive capabilities. Hitler began to build up the German military so that it could have offensive capabilities. He also began to draft soldiers, which was a violation of the terms of the Versailles Treaty. He felt Germany was mistreated by the terms of the Versailles Treaty. He wanted to build up the military as part of his plan to restore German nationalism and to help stimulate the economy that was in a depression.

Hitler also moved his military into the Rhineland in 1936. This region, which borders Germany and France, was supposed to be a demilitarized area according to the terms of the Versailles Treaty.

Hitler also began to invade other countries. In 1938, he annexed Austria, and he wanted to take over part of Czechoslovakia where many Germans lived. He was able to get this land, called the Sudetenland, as a result of the Munich Pact. In 1939, he invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia.

Adolf Hitler violated the Versailles Treaty in many ways.

What does the plot graph look like for Nadine Gordimer, Once Upon a Time

A plot graph is composed of the following: exposition, rising action, conflict, climax, falling action, and conclusion.

It is drawn in the shape of a mountain with the exposition at the bottom left, the conflict at the peak of the mountain, and the conclusion at the bottom right of the mountain.

In Nadine Gordimer's Once Upon a Time, the exposition is at the beginning, and includes the section where the writer talks about writing...

A plot graph is composed of the following: exposition, rising action, conflict, climax, falling action, and conclusion.

It is drawn in the shape of a mountain with the exposition at the bottom left, the conflict at the peak of the mountain, and the conclusion at the bottom right of the mountain.

In Nadine Gordimer's Once Upon a Time, the exposition is at the beginning, and includes the section where the writer talks about writing her story, along with the beginning of the story where the neighborhood and family are described. So that information goes at the bottom left of the mountain.

On the slope up to the top, the rising action is where the family continually adds new security features to their house, as their fear of the outside world grows.

The climax (or the peak of the mountain) is when the little boy hears the bedtime story and decides to climb over the wall, where he is stuck in the barbed wire and has his body mutilated.

At the right side and bottom right of the mountain, the falling action and conclusion are basically grouped together. That is because in this story, the climax occurs in the very last paragraph. The conclusion is when the family takes the body of the little boy back into the house.

In Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men, why did George kill Lennie?

George promised Lennie's Aunt Clara that he would take care of Lennie after she died. Lennie's mind is like that of a child's so he couldn't take care of himself if it weren't for someone looking after him. When Lennie accidentally kills Curley's wife, Curley vows to kill him. George knows that if Curley gets to Lennie first, he won't just kill him, he may do something worse before he allows him to die. George...

George promised Lennie's Aunt Clara that he would take care of Lennie after she died. Lennie's mind is like that of a child's so he couldn't take care of himself if it weren't for someone looking after him. When Lennie accidentally kills Curley's wife, Curley vows to kill him. George knows that if Curley gets to Lennie first, he won't just kill him, he may do something worse before he allows him to die. George feels it's his duty to deal with Lennie in a more humane way. 

There's also a parallel connection about George's responsibility with Lennie and Candy's old dog. Carlson actually goes out and kills Candy's blind, old dog for him. Afterwards, Candy says to George that he should have taken care of his dog instead of letting someone else do it for him. George must feel the same way about Lennie. When Candy shows George the woman's dead body, they both know Lennie had done it. George says the following:

"Lennie never done it in meanness. . . All the time he done bad things, but he never done one of 'em mean. . . We gotta tell the guys. They got to bring him in, I guess. They ain't no way out. Maybe they won't hurt 'im. . . I ain't gonna let 'em hurt Lennie" (95).

Lennie was like Candy's dog: both were killed to prevent them from further suffering. After killing Curley's wife, Lennie wasn't going to live to be brought up on charges because Curley grabbed a gun and set out to kill him. It was difficult to do, but George killed Lennie because he felt it was his duty to save Lennie the horror of being faced with a mob of men who would make his death worse than it needed to be. 

Describe the lawyer's changing attitudes toward Bartleby.

The lawyer (who also serves as narrator) experiences many conflicting emotions towards Bartleby throughout the text. Initially, the lawyer views Bartleby as an efficient copier who happens to be a bit eccentric. As the plot moves forward, the lawyer grows increasingly frustrated with Bartleby's refusal to complete certain tasks, though he does not fire him. In fact, Bartleby's odd behavior and refusal to do required tasks bothers the lawyer, but these actions actually compel the...

The lawyer (who also serves as narrator) experiences many conflicting emotions towards Bartleby throughout the text. Initially, the lawyer views Bartleby as an efficient copier who happens to be a bit eccentric. As the plot moves forward, the lawyer grows increasingly frustrated with Bartleby's refusal to complete certain tasks, though he does not fire him. In fact, Bartleby's odd behavior and refusal to do required tasks bothers the lawyer, but these actions actually compel the lawyer's sympathies. When the lawyer discovers that Bartleby has actually taken up residence in the office, he feels pity for Bartleby rather than disgust. Even though the lawyer experiences instances of annoyance, as the story progresses, his sympathy, pity, and fear for Bartleby's well-being drive his decisions. For the reader, we might question why the lawyer allows his own sense of pity to trump conventional professional conduct. In spite of Bartleby's odd behavior and complacency, the lawyer still indulges Bartleby because he feels a misplaced sense of duty. While the lawyer's sympathy and pity help Bartleby, these emotions do little to profit the lawyer in a professional context.

From Lois Lowry's The Giver, please explain the community.

The community in which Jonas, the protagonist, lives is made up of family units. Mothers and fathers do not choose each other based on love; rather, they are placed together based upon compatibility for living together. Parents are required to apply for children, no more than one boy and one girl, and to bring them up according to the rules of the community. Children are born to birth mothers who, after three years, do not...

The community in which Jonas, the protagonist, lives is made up of family units. Mothers and fathers do not choose each other based on love; rather, they are placed together based upon compatibility for living together. Parents are required to apply for children, no more than one boy and one girl, and to bring them up according to the rules of the community. Children are born to birth mothers who, after three years, do not get to raise their children, but go to labor in the fields for the rest of their lives. There is no mating allowed, so those who hit puberty and beyond must take pills to suppress sensual desires. Parents receive one baby at a time, and only during the naming ceremony, which happens along with all of the other yearly ceremonies for all childhood age groups.

Each December at the annual ceremonies, children receive more freedom and responsibility as they age. For example, at age nine, girls are permitted to remove their hair ribbons and everyone gets a bicycle. However, with the bicycles, there are more rules to follow, such as maintaining it and parking it where it should go. The most important ceremony, however, is for those who turn twelve. This is the year they receive their assignments for the careers they will train and fulfill for the rest of their lives. 

The community lives under a condition which they call Sameness. This permits everyone to live as equals, happy and under no anxiety for their survival. As long as a person is fulfilling his or her role in the community, life can be pleasant. They are able to live this way, without stress, fear or pain, because of a Receiver who holds within himself all of the memories of the history of the world. Since all of the pain, misery, and even love resides in the Receiver, the people of the community can live emotion-free lives. 

One governing committee, called the Elders, run everything, keep an eye on citizens, and enforce the rules so that living under Sameness can be maintained. It is this group that decides what occupations children will train and study for. They are also the ones who make any changes to the community or rules, and also grant releases. People do not exactly know what the word release means, though. As a result, they do not know about or understand death.

According to Dr. Montessori in her book The Discovery of the Child, what is the role of an educator?

Dr. Maria Montessori believed that the child, not the teacher, was the creator of learning. As she wrote in The Discovery of the Child, "it is he, the child, who is the active being, not the teacher" (page 182). Nevertheless, as Montessori writes, the teacher plays several vital roles. She or he must first explain the uses of the materials and connect the child to the materials that he or she is going to...

Dr. Maria Montessori believed that the child, not the teacher, was the creator of learning. As she wrote in The Discovery of the Child, "it is he, the child, who is the active being, not the teacher" (page 182). Nevertheless, as Montessori writes, the teacher plays several vital roles. She or he must first explain the uses of the materials and connect the child to the materials that he or she is going to use to learn. The teacher therefore clarifies and creates the connection between the child and the materials that are going to lead to the long process of learning. 

The teacher must also, in Montessori's words, have a "moral alertness." Not through words but through observation and a humble attitude, she or he must watch the child and at times remove herself (or himself) from the child to facilitate his or her learning. Montessori compares the teacher to a gym teacher who shows his or her students how to use the parallel bars and swing but who allows the children to use this equipment on their own to develop flexibility, ability, and strength. Therefore, the teacher in her model is a guide rather than a direct instructor. 

Who could be the scapegoat in Romeo and Juliet?

There are two good candidates for the role of scapegoat in Romeo and Juliet. A scapegoat is a person who is ultimately blamed for the mistakes or sins of others. First off, Friar Lawrence could easily be considered a scapegoat. He is responsible for marrying Romeo and Juliet, despite the perceived objections of parents who were involved in a bitter feud. He also devises the foiled plan for Juliet to fake her death and...

There are two good candidates for the role of scapegoat in Romeo and Juliet. A scapegoat is a person who is ultimately blamed for the mistakes or sins of others. First off, Friar Lawrence could easily be considered a scapegoat. He is responsible for marrying Romeo and Juliet, despite the perceived objections of parents who were involved in a bitter feud. He also devises the foiled plan for Juliet to fake her death and be rescued by Romeo at Capulet's tomb. His plan to get a message to Romeo is disrupted as Friar John is delayed by a plague threat in Verona. He flees the tomb after finding Romeo and Paris dead and just as Juliet is awakening. He makes a feeble attempt to pull Juliet away, but she remains to kill herself. The Friar even admits his guilt when he is apprehended in the churchyard after Romeo, Juliet and Paris are found dead in the tomb. He tells the Prince,

I am the greatest, able to do least,
Yet most suspected, as the time and place
Doth make against me, of this direful murder.
And here I stand, both to impeach and purge
Myself condemnèd and myself excused.

The Friar indicates he has already accused himself and found guilt. He goes on to retell the entire story of Romeo and Juliet's love, their marriage, the faked death and that they must have committed suicide in distress over losing each other. He agrees that if any part of the tragedy is his fault he should be put to death:

And if aught in this
Miscarried by my fault, let my old life
Be sacrificed some hour before his time
Unto the rigor of severest law.

The Prince pardons him, saying, "We still have known thee for a holy man."

Lord Capulet could also be blamed. His haste in marrying Juliet to Paris is responsible for much of the mischief which follows. He totally changes his mind about Paris in Act III. Earlier he told Paris to win Juliet's love. Now, he is willing to marry Juliet to him no matter what she thinks and, when she opposes his plan, he flies into a rage, threatening to disown her and throw her out of his house. He tells her in Act III, Scene 5,

Lay hand on heart; advise.
An you be mine, I’ll give you to my friend.
An you be not, hang, beg, starve, die in the streets,
For, by my soul, I’ll ne’er acknowledge thee,
Nor what is mine shall never do thee good.
Trust to ’t; bethink you. I’ll not be forsworn.

Capulet's total about-face and his quick temper force Juliet to agree to the Friar's desperate plan. Had Capulet been more understanding, the events that followed may have been averted.

What is Calpurnia's dilemma in Chapter 10 of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird?

In Chapter 10 of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, Scout and Jem notice a dog named Old Tim Johnson coming down the road that runs along the Radley Place, and he looks very sick. The children return home to tell Calpurnia what they saw, and she deduces that the dog might be rabid. After seeing the dog for herself, she is faced with warning the neighborhood and protecting the children; both tasks place her in dilemmas, meaning situations in which one must make difficult choices (Merriam-Webster).

After talking on the phone with Atticus and getting his instructions, Calpurnia very easily speaks with the telephone operator and has her phone the neighbors on the street to warn them the dog is coming. The most challenging task is trying to inform the Radleys, and the Radley Place will be the first house the dog passes once he reaches the neighborhood. Unfortunately, the Radleys don't own a phone, don't speak with other people, and never leave their house, realities that place Calpurnia in a position to make a difficult choice. Calpurnia could decide to try and warn them in person, or she could decide to assume they will remain indoors and that she herself could stay where it is safe, inside the Finches' home. Both of these choices represent a dilemma. Calpurnia, being a brave person, decides to run out to the Radley Place, bang on the front door and shout, "Mr. Nathan, Mr. Arthur, mad dog's comin'! Mad dog's comin'!" (Ch. 10). Her efforts seem to fail since she receives no reply, and she must return back to the Finches' home.

Her task of keeping the Finch children protected is a little easier than warning the Radleys but also places her in a dilemma. Though it is easy to keep the children inside of the house and away from the dog, she is faced with the decision of protecting them from the terrible vision of seeing the dog being shot or of allowing them to witness one of the brutalities of reality. Calpurnia arrives back at the Finches' porch just as Sheriff Heck Tate and Atticus drive up; Sheriff Tate has his riffle. Atticus orders the children to stay inside the house. As soon as the dog comes within shooting range, with the children already inside the house, Calpurina makes her choice, and Scout describes Calpurnia as having "opened the screen door, latched it behind her, then unlatched it and held onto the hook" (Ch. 10). Scout further narrates that Calpurnia "tried to block Jem and me with her body, but we looked out from beneath her arms" (Ch. 10). Since Calpurnia is obviously trying to block the children's view as well as keep them inside of the house, it is clear that she made the choice to try and protect the children from seeing the dog being shot. Yet, regardless of her efforts, the children witness the dog being shot, not by Sheriff Tate but by their father, a vision that truly surprises them since they had come to the conclusion Atticus wasn't good at anything due to his age.

Hence, as we can see, Calpurnia was faced with two difficult choices, or dilemmas in this chapter: (1) Attempting to warn the Radleys or keeping herself safe instead; and (2) protecting the children from a terrible vision or allowing them to face reality. Though she fails in her efforts to protect the children from the vision of the dog being shot, her failure does not seem to harm the children. Instead, they benefit from learning more about their father, whose actions and restraints teach them a lesson in humility.

How can I write a thesis about the theme of an individual’s attempt to determine his or her own destiny in Macbeth?

When writing a thesis statement, a good way to begin is to analyze exactly what the question is asking for. Some examples can be: comparison/contrast, informational, persuasive, analytical, etc. When you know what the question is targeting, you can then begin to formulate how you would answer the question and think of examples in the text that will support your response. 

You may find that, at the beginning stages, you end up with a thesis...

When writing a thesis statement, a good way to begin is to analyze exactly what the question is asking for. Some examples can be: comparison/contrast, informational, persuasive, analytical, etc. When you know what the question is targeting, you can then begin to formulate how you would answer the question and think of examples in the text that will support your response. 

You may find that, at the beginning stages, you end up with a thesis that is either too broad (meaning the topic is too large to be covered in the time you have or for the length guidelines of the assignment) or too narrow (meaning you don't have enough to write about without becoming repetitive). It's okay to change your thesis statement as you write; in fact, many writers are constantly revising the wording and scope of the thesis statement as they write.

For your specific question, ask yourself first: Do you think an individual can control his or her own destiny? Whether you answer "yes" or "no" will help guide the position your thesis will take. For example, if you think that yes, an individual can control his/her own destiny, a thesis statement that might work for you is:

Macbeth's attempts to control his destiny were successful temporarily, but the clumsy execution of his attempts led to his ultimate death.

If you think that destiny is predetermined and any attempts to control one's fate are futile, you may focus your ideas differently:

Though Macbeth attempted to control his destiny and believed he was acting of his own free will, he was actually a mere puppet for others. 

Of course, you may feel that Macbeth's attempts to control his destiny were completely successful; he did become king, after all. 

Macbeth executed his will to control his own destiny on several levels, each of which contributed to his ultimate success of becoming the King of Scotland. 

These thesis statements are just ideas for you to work with and think about. If one stands out, try writing an outline based on that thesis and see how it goes. If you think you'll struggle with examples/support, look for ways to expand the thesis. If it seems too broad or abstract, perhaps look for ways to narrow it more. 

In the 1820s, 1830, and 1840s, the Second Great Awakening helped to inspire a reformist impulse across the nation. As History in the Making points...

As you have pasted in the entire assignment sheet to the question field rather than asking a specific question, I'm assuming that you are struggling to get started on your assignment and are looking for help in developing a central theme and argument and some sense of what you need to do to develop it. 

First, on choosing sides, one's obvious instinct is to argue against slavery. To most of us in the twenty-first century,...

As you have pasted in the entire assignment sheet to the question field rather than asking a specific question, I'm assuming that you are struggling to get started on your assignment and are looking for help in developing a central theme and argument and some sense of what you need to do to develop it. 

First, on choosing sides, one's obvious instinct is to argue against slavery. To most of us in the twenty-first century, slavery is abhorrent and our immediate reflex is to oppose it. You actually will learn more, though, and probably get a better grade if you go against that immediate instinct, and rather than simply dismiss the anti-slavery arguments, try to use the paper as a way to understand how basically decent and intelligent human beings could uphold slavery. Thus your thesis statement might be something on the order of: "Although the overwhelming majority of twenty-first century Americans consider not only slavery but even racial discrimination self-evidently morally abhorrent, such was not the case in the nineteenth century."

Next, you should develop an outline focused on the categories listed in your assignment sheet. Some issues you should address are:

• Paternalism: Even now, we believe that certain categories of people, including children, the mentally disabled (including people suffering certain mental illnesses, the developmentally disabled, and seniors suffering from dementia) should have their behavior restricted in certain ways because they are not capable of caring for themselves or making good life choices. Many of the pro-slavery writers make a similar argument, that slaves, like children, need to be under the power of wiser people for their own good.


• Religious: Although some evangelicals tended to be abolitionists, many people argued for slavery on Biblical grounds, including its apparent acceptance in the Pauline letters. 


• Conditions of slaves: Here, you might look at how the anti-abolitionists argued about the conditions of slave life as opposed to how African-Americans might live if they were freed. You also might look at the image of the "happy slave" as portrayed in these documents. 

In "Through the Tunnel" by Doris Lessing, why does Lessing compare the two things in this simile: "Through his hot shame, feeling the pleading grin...

In this simile, Doris Lessing compares the desperate smile on Jerry's face to a scar, something that has an extremely negative connotation.  He had been swimming with a group of older boys with whom he very much wanted to fit in, and when they begin to swim through a tunnel in the rock -- something he is physically unable to do -- he panics and clowns around, trying to refocus their attention on him.  When...

In this simile, Doris Lessing compares the desperate smile on Jerry's face to a scar, something that has an extremely negative connotation.  He had been swimming with a group of older boys with whom he very much wanted to fit in, and when they begin to swim through a tunnel in the rock -- something he is physically unable to do -- he panics and clowns around, trying to refocus their attention on him.  When the boys frown at Jerry, judging him for acting like such a child, he smiles this pleading smile that isn't indicative of his joy or happiness as smiles often are; this smile is a nervous smile that implies his painful and burning desire to be accepted when he knows that he is not.  It's a remnant of pain, just like a scar would be.  Thus, the comparison shows us just how badly Jerry feels in this moment.

Why do scientists teach against the existence of God when they know that everything in the universe must logically have been created by some...

The brief answer here is that this question is based on false premises.  The question assumes two conditions which are not (or are not necessarily) true.  Therefore, there is no way to answer the question as it is currently stated.

First, the question assumes that all scientists (or most scientists) “teach against the existence of God.”  This is not necessarily true.  Not all scientists actively argue that there is no God.  The question of whether...

The brief answer here is that this question is based on false premises.  The question assumes two conditions which are not (or are not necessarily) true.  Therefore, there is no way to answer the question as it is currently stated.

First, the question assumes that all scientists (or most scientists) “teach against the existence of God.”  This is not necessarily true.  Not all scientists actively argue that there is no God.  The question of whether God exists is simply not one that science can answer.  We do not have any direct evidence that can prove (through the scientific method) the existence of God.  Therefore, science cannot answer the question of whether God exists.  It is true that some scientists, like Richard Dawkins, are staunch atheists who teach that God does not exist.  However, most scientists know that the existence of God is something that they cannot prove or disprove, so they do not teach on that subject.

The second, and more important, assumption here is that scientists know that some “intelligent designer” must logically have created everything in the universe.  This is something most scientists do not believe at all.  It is true that some scientists do believe in intelligent design, but they constitute a very small minority of scientists as a whole.  Scientists as a group believe that intelligent design arguments are full of holes.  They believe that these arguments are unscientific in that parts of them cannot be proven or disproven.  In addition, they argue that there is no evidence to support those parts of intelligent design theory that could be falsified.  For these reasons, the vast majority of scientists reject the idea of intelligent design.

From this, we can see that this question cannot be answered as it is written.  The question is based on two assumptions and both of those assumptions are false.  A question that is based on false premises has no true answer.  

What hints and clues suggest the real relationship among the three strangers?

The people at the christening party learn that the second stranger is the hangman, and they assume that the third stranger is the criminal whom the hangman is scheduled to execute. To these folks, the first stranger is a nobody. But they see this third stranger's pale face, trembling knees, and shaking hands, and when they witness him bolting from the house, these party attendees make up their minds that he was definitely the criminal and they should organize a party to chase after him. After all, if someone runs away, that means the person is guilty. Right? Maybe not.

As readers who, unlike the party attendants, are probably paying very good attention to the details and not drinking mead or dancing until we're dizzy, we have a pretty good idea of who the first stranger really is! Although we'd have to guess about who that third stranger was and why he arrived, we've got a very good case here for pinning down the first stranger as the real criminal. Let's take a look at our clues.

Readers do have an unfair advantage over the partying folks; we got to see the first stranger from outside, as he slowly approached the house. 

We see that this stranger walks purposefully, that he strides “through the rain without a pause” with a regular tread that has “caution in it.” If that doesn’t sound like a wily criminal to you, I don’t know what will! By explaining how his manner of walking is both purposeful and careful, we know that something sneaky is going on with this guy.

Then we see him drinking rainwater thirstily from a vessel placed outside, and then he pauses to think before knocking on the door. This sounds like the behavior of someone who’s been travelling for a while, escaping even, and now he wants to be sure he’s entering a safe place.

When the family lets the stranger inside, he doesn’t immediately take off his hat, as would be polite, so we wonder what he’s hiding. And check out this important sentence:

“His manner, which, before entering, had been so dubious, was now altogether that of a careless and candid man.”

Somehow, this stranger has skillfully and swiftly put on an act. He went from having “dubious” manners while sneaking around outside alone, and now he has “candid” manners while at the party. The change happened in a split second. So we know this stranger has skills in deception.

As he makes himself at home—again, it’s probably a show of false confidence, since we know he was just outside, carefully skulking around and looking for safety—he answers the hostess’s questions vaguely and then gets her to quit asking them through flattery (by hinting that she’s young):

"'But you would hardly have heard of me,’ he said quickly. ‘My time would be long before yours, ma'am, you see.’

This testimony to the youthfulness of his hostess had the effect of stopping her cross-examination.”

Then he makes up excuses as to why he’s a smoke who has no smoking implements with him.

And then, look at the careful, measured nonchalance with which he interacts with the second stranger, having learned that this second fellow is the hangman scheduled to execute him:

"The stranger in cinder-gray took no notice of this whispered string of observations, but again wetted his lips. Seeing that his friend in the chimney-corner was the only one who reciprocated his joviality in any way, he held out his cup toward that appreciative comrade, who also held out his own. They clinked together, the eyes of the rest of the room hanging upon the singer's actions."

All these clues point toward someone who is escaping, and who now is hiding among these strangers. He’s definitely the escaped prisoner! We find out later that the third stranger was the prisoner's brother, which explains how quickly he departed upon seeing his doomed brother.

In "The Adventure of the Speckled Band," why does Helen Stoner come to see Sherlock Holmes?

Helen Stoner comes to see Sherlock Holmes because she is terrified. She thinks someone may be trying to kill her, just as someone killed her twin sister Julia two years before. Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson meet with her in the waiting room on the ground floor at 221B Baker Street. Holmes tries to soothe her obvious agitation and urges her to sit closer to the fireplace because she is shivering.

"Pray draw up to it, and I shall order you a cup of hot coffee, for I observe that you are shivering.”

“It is not cold which makes me shiver,” said the woman in a low voice, changing her seat as requested.

“What, then?”

“It is fear, Mr. Holmes. It is terror.” She raised her veil as she spoke, and we could see that she was indeed in a pitiable state of agitation, her face all drawn and grey, with restless frightened eyes, like those of some hunted animal. 

Holmes takes her case because of her "pitiable state of agitation." She tells him she does not have any money to pay his fee. Holmes often works on a "pro bono" basis if a case intrigues him or if he feels sympathy for the client.

Helen tells him a long back story involving her violent stepfather. Her sister Julia died of unknown causes two years ago. Before her death she had told Helen she had been hearing a strange, low whistle at around three in the morning for the past few days. Dr. Roylott has now forced Helen to move into Julia's former bedroom, directly adjacent to his, by ordering some apparently unnecessary repairs to Helen's own room farther down the corridor. The first night Helen slept in Julia's bed she heard the strange, low whistle her sister had described. This is what has frightened her so badly. She was already upset about having to sleep in her sister's room and in her sister's bed. She came directly to see Sherlock Holmes as soon as it grew light.

Among all the other details she tells Holmes in her back story are the important facts that Julia was engaged to be married when she died and now Helen is engaged to be married within one or two months. It seems pretty obvious that Dr. Roylott would like to see his stepdaughters dead, because he is desperate for money and is legally obligated to pay either girl one-third of the income from their deceased mother's estate each year if and when she marries. But the biggest questions are: How could anyone have killed Julia when she was sleeping in a room with the door locked and the window covered by a bolted iron shutter? And how could anybody get to Helen in that same locked room?

Quantitative economic historians (cliometricians) have argued that the Industrial Revolution should be considered revolutionary. Do you agree or...

Let's start with the second point. There is no official start date for the Industrial Revolution, but most historians agree that it began sometime in the mid-18th century, usually thought to be about 1760 or so, and ended sometime in the mid-19th century, usually thought to be about 1860. Different countries have also industrialized at different rates, so arguably some countries didn't have their Industrial Revolution until decades or even centuries later. There is also considerable controversy over when exactly wages began to rise; we know overall economic output rose, but by some measures it took almost a century before the average worker got to see any of that growth (which was instead concentrated in the hands of billionaires).

Back to the first part of the question. It sounds a bit redundant, "The Industrial Revolution was revolutionary", but really this gets to the heart of why we call it that in the first place. Why not the "Industrial Era" or the "Industrial Period"? Why the "Industrial Revolution"?

It's actually a bit of an odd term, because "revolution" suggests something that happened abruptly, over a few years or something; but in fact it occurred over at least several decades, probably about a century. But the reason we use this word is that the changes in human life were radical; they were essentially unprecedented in history.

The main trigger for the Industrial Revolution that agriculture became more efficient, so that there was all the sudden more food than we needed and people didn't have to spend all their time farming. This freed up people to suddenly take on other jobs. The next major change was the invention of reliable, economically affordable coal power; this allowed humanity for the first time to build machines that used more energy than what could be produced by human beings or animals alone.

This latter change really can't be overstated; up until that point, the way humans did things was either by ourselves, or with the help of work animals such as horses and mules. (We also used natural forces for a few things, such as sailing and windmills.) The steam engine was the first time we were actually able to harness a power source greater than our own bodies, and it increased our productivity dramatically. (This is why some believe that AI will be equally revolutionary---for the first time we will have minds that are greater than our own as well. I remain fairly skeptical; I think AI will increase productivity, but I don't think it will be as radical a change as the Industrial Revolution.)

But you asked about quantitative economic historians, so let me give you a graph (taken from the Atlantic article linked below). While GDP per capita had begun to rise in Europe (and almost nowhere else) in the 16th century, starting in the 18th century it suddenly shot upward, beginning an exponential growth path we are still on today.

That is, for most of human history, economic growth was very slow, and often reversed itself. Overall standard of living did not change all that much from 500 BC to 1500 AD, or even from 1000 BC to 1700 AD. But then all of the sudden in the 18th century, something changed, and per-capita economic output began to grow at an astonishing rate, rising exponentially until it had grown to 10, 20, 50 times what it had been before.

That moment, where the fundamental trajectory of economic history shifted, was the Industrial Revolution. No change in the pattern of economic growth before or since has been anywhere near as large. That is why we say it was revolutionary.