Why doesn't Zero want to be a ward of the state in Holes?

Zero doesn’t like the way “ward of the state” sounds, but does not know what it means. 

To be a ward of the state means that you have no parents, and you are in foster care.  Zero’s mother left one day and never came back.  He has some memories of her, but doesn’t know what happened to her.  He clearly misses his mother and wants to see her again. 

Zero’s real name is Hector...

Zero doesn’t like the way “ward of the state” sounds, but does not know what it means. 

To be a ward of the state means that you have no parents, and you are in foster care.  Zero’s mother left one day and never came back.  He has some memories of her, but doesn’t know what happened to her.  He clearly misses his mother and wants to see her again. 

Zero’s real name is Hector Zeroni.  When he and Stanley go missing, the Warden and Mr. Pedanski decide to erase all records of him so that no one will ever know he was there in the first place.  They think no one cares about Zero.  Stanley overhears them talking about it when they sneak back. 

"You sure he has no family?" the Warden asked Mr. Pendanski.

"He's a ward of the state," Mr. Pendanski told her. "He was living on the streets when he was arrested." (Ch. 31) 

Later, Zero says that he doesn’t want to be a ward of the state, even though he doesn’t know what it means to be a ward of the state. 

“… If they'd found out I didn't have a mom, they would have made me a ward of the state."

"What's a ward of the state?"

Zero smiled. "I don't know. But I didn't like the sound of it." (Ch. 41) 

Zero and Stanley have some old family history in common.  This is how Stanley is able to break Madame Zeroni’s curse.  The curse was supposed to be the result of Stanley's great-great-grandfather stealing the pig.  He was supposed to carry her up the mountain.  When Stanley carried Zero, that broke the curse.  Zero was also the one who stole the shoes that Stanley got sent to Camp Green Lake for.  He used the money from his share of the treasure to hire a private investigator, who found his mother.

How effective is the performance of the American criminal justice system in the enforcement of the constitutional safeguards in the 4th, 5th,...

Determining the efficacy of the American criminal justice system in upholding and protecting the rights guaranteed under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution is problematic for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that the notion of a singular American criminal justice system is untenable. What we think of as the American criminal justice system is actually many different criminal justice systems, from federal to local, that all work under the same minimum guarantees of rights but that do not necessarily all operate under the same interpretations and enforcement methodologies. Additionally, some of these different systems may have created enhanced minimums that offer more protections than those found under the above mentioned amendments to the U.S. Constitution. A further complication is that the conceptualization of any criminal justice system as a singular system masks the complexity that each individual criminal justice system is actually several systems that operate under different goals and authority to protect society via the enforcement of criminal laws and the punishments imposed for breaking those laws.

The protections guaranteed under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution apply to the actions of the federal government. Through the Fourteenth Amendment, these protections have been extended to apply to all government actors in the United States, including state, territorial, and local governments. These protections, and the line of court cases interpreting them, create a minimum level to which all government actors must adhere when seeking to investigate, prosecute, and punish violations of the criminal law. What these minimum protections do not do, however, is create a singular American justice system. Rather, they are the principles that inform the variety of criminal justice systems that operate in the states, territories, protectorates, etc. of the United States.

The individual states may have greater protections built into their own constitutions and/or statutes. Further, individual city/town charters and ordinances may also have enhanced protections. So, not only do these different entities of government have their own criminal justice systems, these systems must adhere to not only the minimum protections of the U.S. Constitution, they must follow any enhanced protections that may exists within their own direct hierarchy. Furthermore, these different systems may include differing interpretations as to how particular situations fall under the protections offered in that system, as well as differing means of enforcing the applicable protections. That the U.S. Constitution and federal court decisions give these systems a common baseline for what is protected and for the implementation of those protections does not create a single criminal justice system – it creates the principles to which the individual criminal justice systems must minimally adhere

To further complicate matters, each criminal justice system is not itself a singular system. Each one is several systems that have different responsibilities and powers, some of which are not necessarily in concert with other related systems. Law enforcement, prosecution, the judicial system, and the correction system are all part of a given criminal justice system, but they do not operate as a single, unified system. Each one plays a vital role in protecting the interests of society against malfeasance, the purpose of the criminal law, while also protecting the accused, at least to the minimum level guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution; however, each of these has their own goals and authority.  Additionally, in any given criminal justice system, the different systems within it may not share interpretations of how and when the minimum protections will apply, or even the extent of the protections themselves, in that particular criminal justice system.  

The sheer complexity of what we might call the American criminal justice system makes determination of the efficacy of the protections found under Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution a difficult task. Some individual criminal justice systems may do well protecting the federally guaranteed minimums, as well as having enhanced protections that are in place, while others may have problems in applying the minimum protections under the U.S. Constitution. And some individual systems may have issues with law enforcement pushing or even circumventing the boundaries of the protections while others may have a judicial system that interprets the protections differently from how they are interpreted in other systems.

Because these systems are not integrated into a singular American criminal justice system, the attempt to determine the overall efficacy of the variety of criminal justice systems in America in following the protections guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution becomes problematic. The failures, or even the successes, of any one system should not be imputed to all systems operating under the same guiding principles.

Compare and contrast "The Yellow Wallpaper" and The Awakening.

The story "The Yellow Wallpaper" and the novel The Awakening share a common theme: the subjugation of women toward the end of the nineteenth century. Both writings feature a female character that is dissatisfied with her current conditions. Part of the problem is that a patriarchal society bestows upon females roles that are as strict as they are unrealistic. According to the expectations of the time, women were second class citizens whose jobs were to be wives, mothers, homemakers, and "angels of the household." This Victorian ideal meant that specific behaviors were almost demanded of all women, equally. As such, those women who did not fit the female prototype expected of their time would have been considered outcasts, or unfit.

Such is the case with the main character of the story "The Yellow Wallpaper" by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. In this story, the main character (and first person narrator) is suffering from postpartum depression. In a time when the health and needs of women were of secondary importance, and greatly misunderstood, the main character depends on a treatment plan prescribed by medical professionals (at the time, mainly men) who do not understand her. As a result, she ends up in a country estate where she goes with her husband and child to do a "rest cure." 

No intellectual stimulation and very little communication cause the woman to become more and more overwhelmed within her condition. She ends up imploding, caving in, after a final nervous breakdown in which she felt that a woman was trapped in the walls of her bedroom, which were covered by the yellow wallpaper. She tears down the paper, trying to get the woman out. She does not solve her issue; she becomes a consequence of it. 

In the novel The Awakening by Kate Chopin, main character Edna Pontellier is another woman dissatisfied with her "womanly" role. She has been married for years and has had children. She is also a homemaker and enjoys a comfortable lifestyle. Still, she knows deep inside that she has never liked to be any of those things. That is what her "awakening" is about. The way that she attempts to solve her problem is by following her impulses and attempting, as best as she can, to distance herself from her family. She moves out of the household, takes in a lover, and does all the things she sees liberated women do. Then, another awakening occurs: she is still not happy.

Edna and the main character of "The Yellow Wallpaper" show us what happens when women become trapped: they either explode and take tremendous risks, or they implode and break down. This shows that the two literary pieces share in common the themes of subjugation and the unfair treatment of women.

How did Lyddie feel when she got fired in Lyddie?

Lyddie feels resentful of the injustice when she is fired, but she knows that there is nothing she can do about it. 

Mr. Marsden targeted Lyddie because she saw him harassing Brigid and stopped him.  Lyddie understands that Mr. Marsden lied about her to get her fired.  However, she also knows there is nothing she can do.  

When she was first fired for “moral turpitude” she had no idea what the word meant. 

...

Lyddie feels resentful of the injustice when she is fired, but she knows that there is nothing she can do about it. 

Mr. Marsden targeted Lyddie because she saw him harassing Brigid and stopped him.  Lyddie understands that Mr. Marsden lied about her to get her fired.  However, she also knows there is nothing she can do.  

When she was first fired for “moral turpitude” she had no idea what the word meant. 

She turned unbelieving from one man to the other, but they ignored her.  She fought for words to counter the drift the interview had taken, but what could she say? She did not know what turpitude was. How could she deny something she did not even know existed? She knew what moral was.  But that didn't help. (Ch. 21) 

It wasn’t until she got her hands on a dictionary that she found out what she had been accused of.  She was shocked.  Mr. Marsden claimed that she was the immoral one, when he was the person who had acted immorally.  He had tried to force himself on Lyddie.  Now he was trying to force himself on Brigid.  In his mind, factory girls were fair game because they could not defend themselves. 

Lyddie knows that she can’t do anything about being fired.  She was not given a certificate that will get her another job.  Basically, she has been blacklisted.  No other factory will take her, because they will assume that she did something wrong.  Lyddie does make sure that she gets back at Mr. Marsden and protects Brigid from him, however. 

"I have here a letter I wrote. I will tell you what it says. It says ifyou cause Brigid MacBride to lose her position I will see that your wifeis informed about what really happens in the weaving room after hours." (Ch. 22) 

Lyddie takes being fired in stride. The job meant everything to her, but that was back when she wanted to make money to support her family and bring it back together.  Now she knows that will not happen, because her mother is dead and both of her living siblings have essentially been adopted.  She plans to get on with her life, and hopes to go to college.

What are differences and similarities between our society and the society in 1984?

We continue to read 1984 because of the similarities people perceive between our society and that of Oceania. The most prominent is surveillance. With revelations by Edward Snowden and others about domestic spying by the NSA, it is not hard to apply the slogan "Big Brother [meaning the government] is watching you" to contemporary US life. Privacy concerns in terms of our cell phones, the internet and e-mail accounts continue to be a major concern in our society. A question we keep asking is the following: to what extent does the government have a right to look into our electronic data?

Second, many argue that we stay in a state of perpetual warfare, in our case, the "war on terrorism," in order to justify the government spying on its citizens in the interest of national security. Some people also believe that, just like in the world of Oceania, citizens here are deprived of material goods and infrastructure improvements to finance a perpetual war machine.

On the other hand, levels of personal freedom and material well-being are far higher in our culture than in Oceania. We more or less live the lives that Julia and Winston long for, which include having friendships and love affairs, keeping journals, and having free time that isn't programmed by the state. We also have better food, better clothing and better living conditions than the people of Oceania. For example, chocolate isn't rationed in this country. 

The fact that we argue about the degree to which we are a surveillance state or spend too much on wars shows we are a free society in a way that is not possible in Oceania. We have the freedom to speak our minds and criticize the government. However, we read the novel so that we can be reminded to safeguard freedoms while we still have them.

Why did the Federalists lose popular support during John Adams' presidency?

The Federalists lost popular support during John Adams’ presidency because John Adams was not George Washington and the Federalists’ ideology was not democratic enough for the tastes of most Americans.

The Federalist Party had been the party that promoted the Constitution of the United States as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation.  This meant that it was suspicious of democracy and wanted government to be less responsive to the people.  This was, of course,...

The Federalists lost popular support during John Adams’ presidency because John Adams was not George Washington and the Federalists’ ideology was not democratic enough for the tastes of most Americans.

The Federalist Party had been the party that promoted the Constitution of the United States as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation.  This meant that it was suspicious of democracy and wanted government to be less responsive to the people.  This was, of course, an ideology that was hard to justify in a country whose government was supposed to be based on the consent of the governed and the idea that all (white) men were equal to one another. 

Although Federalist ideas were not very popular, the people were willing to be governed by them as long as George Washington was president.  His personal prestige reassured people and it helped cause them to accept Adams as his chosen successor.  However, once Washington was out of the picture, people were less willing to accept Federalist ideas.  They felt that the Federalists were not democratic enough and that they even tended to prefer monarchy to democracy.

These worries about the Federalists were exacerbated by the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts during Adams’ presidency.  The Sedition Act, in particular, was very important.  In essence, it made it illegal for people to criticize the government.  The Federalists used this to do things like closing down newspapers that supported the Republican (aka Democratic-Republican) Party.  When the Federalists did this, it made people even more suspicious of them.  It made people suspect that the Federalists would not support American, democratic, values in the long term.

Basically, the Federalists’ ideas were no longer acceptable to most Americans.  Their ideas were not sufficiently democratic.  Moreover, they no longer had George Washington to lend them his personal prestige and to make them look good to the people.  For these reasons, they lost popularity during John Adams’ presidency.

How does Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck appeal to such a wide audience?

Steinbeck's Of Mice and Menis a universally celebrated story because of its deep ties to the human experience. The relationship between George and Lennie is brotherhood, is human connection, at its most simple and powerful. Remember at the beginning of the story when George and Lennie are talking by the river? They're sitting on the bank, discussing what their perfect future life would look like. Lennie bugs George to tell him about the farm...

Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men is a universally celebrated story because of its deep ties to the human experience. The relationship between George and Lennie is brotherhood, is human connection, at its most simple and powerful. Remember at the beginning of the story when George and Lennie are talking by the river? They're sitting on the bank, discussing what their perfect future life would look like. Lennie bugs George to tell him about the farm they might one day own and operate together. George agrees, and describes how Lennie will be able to care for the animals. 

That relationship is why the story is so popular. George's care for Lennie is total, despite that fact that, without Lennie, George's life could be "so easy."  He's willing to do whatever it takes to take care of his friend--culminating, of course, in that painful climax. 

It is in George and Lennie's friendship that we readers see ourselves, or what we long for. That level of human connection is rare, and we all want it. Maybe reading the story makes you think of your spouse or significant other and how you'd do anything for them. Maybe it makes you think of your best friend or your sibling. Maybe it makes you realize that you don't have that kind of connection with anyone, and sparks a longing in you. 

This is what good literature does, it shows us what we want most deeply.  

What is the materialist conception of history?

Your question may refer to two things: a way of studying history through material goods or a social theory described by Karl Marx.

First, a materialist perspective of history would place emphasis on the material goods created throughout space and across time. Historians, archaeologists, anthropologists and the like may use material goods as a means of determining the values, beliefs, and means of production in a society.

As an example, let's consider pottery in the...

Your question may refer to two things: a way of studying history through material goods or a social theory described by Karl Marx.

First, a materialist perspective of history would place emphasis on the material goods created throughout space and across time. Historians, archaeologists, anthropologists and the like may use material goods as a means of determining the values, beliefs, and means of production in a society.

As an example, let's consider pottery in the Roman Empire. Prior to integration into the Roman Empire, much of Europe had distinctive, local styles of pottery. After integration, both material and social culture were effectively "Romanized." Pottery found in the British Isles and the heart of Rome would look quite similar, because using Roman style pottery was a way that people participated in their Roman identity. After the fall of the Empire in the West, localized styles once again came into fashion. This period of (more) uniform material culture tells us that people in the Roman Empire felt that the everyday objects in their lives were fundamental to the way they manifested their Roman identities. Additionally, it can let us know that there were trade networks which allowed for the spread of Roman styles and material goods.

The other concept your question might refer to is a social theory outlined by Karl Marx. This concept is called "historical materialism" argues that all cultural change or growth is driven by economic and material means. Marx believed that all economic systems (aside from Communism) would eventually be at odds with the ideologies it produced, and the system would collapse and be replaced. Marx's historical materialism draws on the idea I described above, where material goods are a means of expressing beliefs and values. Additionally, Marx felt that the production of material goods is a means of reproducing elements of culture. In other words, the goods we create throughout out lives (directly or indirectly) both are determined by our culture and help to reinforce that culture.

Marx's theory of historical materialism is directly related to many of the European revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Let's use the French Revolution as an example: the labor of the peasant class was exploited for the benefit of the nobility, and this system was reinforced by an ideology which framed this as the God-given order of the world. In reality, this ideology developed as a result of the socioeconomic system, not the other way around. The laboring peasant class revolted against the nobility in favor of a more egalitarian state, replacing the old system of economic (re)production with a new one.

In regards to George Orwell's 'Shooting an Elephant': In this essay the proportion of narrative to analysis is high. Note, in particular, how...

Orwell wants to draw the readers into this essay, and narrative or story telling is the way to do this (we all like a good story), so he begins with his narrator's first-person account. More particularly, his narrator, a police officer for the British Empire, starts with a memorable opening sentence, saying that in Burma "I was hated by large numbers of people--the only time in my life that I have been important enough for...

Orwell wants to draw the readers into this essay, and narrative or story telling is the way to do this (we all like a good story), so he begins with his narrator's first-person account. More particularly, his narrator, a police officer for the British Empire, starts with a memorable opening sentence, saying that in Burma "I was hated by large numbers of people--the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me." We start in the middle of a larger story--the story of an ordinary man hated--and we are curious to hear the rest.

The narrator knows he despises and feels guilty about the abuses of the colonial system he is part of, and he recognizes that it brings out the evil in everyone, including himself, but as he puts it, "I could get nothing into perspective." It takes an event, his encounter with the elephant and the Burmese who expect him to shoot it (they have been disarmed by the empire), for him to finally be able to analyze what the colonial system has done to him and people like him. 

The advantage in putting his analysis towards into the middle of the story is that because we have been drawn into the narrator's world, we know how averse he is to shooting the elephant, and yet how trapped he feels in having to do so, especially after he finds the dead Burmese man. Thus, we better understand his analysis: 

And it was at this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man's dominion in the East. Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd--seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind. I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalized figure of a sahib. For it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life in trying to impress the "natives," and so in every crisis he has got to do what the "natives" expect of him. He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it.

I personally believe this analysis is placed at the right moment in the essay to deliver the most punch, but ending with this could have left the reader with less of a sense of the essay simply petering out than the conclusion we have, though then we would have lost the impact of finishing on the word "fool." I don't think the analysis would have been effective at the beginning of the essay, but I suppose an argument could be made that doing so would have allowed the story to flow uninterrupted. 

In "The Most Dangerous Game" by Richard Connell, what is ironic about Zaroff's statement, "Oh, you can trust me... I will give you my word as a...

It is ironic that Zaroff wants Rainsford to trust him because he has already tricked him.

Zaroff has proven himself to be of a low moral character several times by the time he asks Rainsford to trust him.  After all, he tricked Rainsford into playing the game. He also showed him how he trapped ships for prey.

When Rainsford sits down to dinner with Zaroff, the general treats him like a guest and not at...

It is ironic that Zaroff wants Rainsford to trust him because he has already tricked him.

Zaroff has proven himself to be of a low moral character several times by the time he asks Rainsford to trust him.  After all, he tricked Rainsford into playing the game. He also showed him how he trapped ships for prey.

When Rainsford sits down to dinner with Zaroff, the general treats him like a guest and not at all like a prisoner. They discuss Zaroff’s past, and Zaroff tells Rainsford he knows who he is because he has read his books on hunting. By all accounts, he seems to be treating Rainsford as an equal and showing him great respect.

Even when Rainsford and Zaroff discuss the concept of murder, Rainsford has no idea that he is going to be participating in Zaroff’s game as prey. He assumes that Zaroff is offering to let him hunt with him.

"Why should I not be serious? I am speaking of hunting."

"Hunting? Great Guns, General Zaroff, what you speak of is murder."

The general laughed with entire good nature. He regarded Rainsford quizzically. "I refuse to believe that so modern and civilized a young man as you seem to be harbors romantic ideas about the value of human life.”

This conversation seems to be further proof that Zaroff is tricking Rainsford. He seems good-natured and at ease. He debates philosophy and morality with Rainsford. There is no hint at all that he is going to force Rainsford to let him hunt him.

By the time Rainsford finds out what is really happening, he is shocked.

"And if I win—" began Rainsford huskily.

"I'll cheerfully acknowledge myself defeat if I do not find you by midnight of the third day," said General Zaroff. "My sloop will place you on the mainland near a town." The general read what Rainsford was thinking.

The general seems to be indicating that Rainsford should just take him at his word and trust him. This is ironic because nothing General Zaroff has done at this point has been honest. He has been sneaky and dishonest from the beginning, luring Rainsford in to make him let his guard down before springing the surprise on him, which is his role in the game. That does not inspire confidence that he will let Rainsford live if he wins. 

What are the expectations of the Waknuk people and their society in John Wyndham's The Chrysalids?

Simply put, the Waknuk society expects everybody to work toward minimizing genetic variation. Chapter two gives good evidence for that when it tells the reader about some of the decorations hanging up in the Strom household. The family has signs hanging up around the house in much the same way some families like to hang nicely framed pictures with Bible verses. Some of the sayings in the Strom household are as follows:

• KEEP PURE THE...

Simply put, the Waknuk society expects everybody to work toward minimizing genetic variation. Chapter two gives good evidence for that when it tells the reader about some of the decorations hanging up in the Strom household. The family has signs hanging up around the house in much the same way some families like to hang nicely framed pictures with Bible verses. Some of the sayings in the Strom household are as follows:

• KEEP PURE THE STOCK OF THE LORD


• BLESSED IS THE NORM


• IN PURITY OUR SALVATION


• WATCH THOU FOR THE MUTANT


• THE DEVIL IS THE FATHER OF DEVIATION

Why the Waknuk society is so averse to genetic change is beyond me. They obviously didn't pay attention in biology class. The advantage to sexual reproduction is genetic variation. That's why inbreeding usually doesn't work out so well: not enough genetic diversity.

The expectation of the Waknuk society is that people will work toward reducing the "deviant" population. The people are conditioned to watch for deviant genetic traits and report them. That way the deviant can either be killed or banished.

How did the Great Depression challenge political establishments after World War I? What values and assumptions did the Great Depression challenge?

The Great Depression that occurred after World War I had far-reaching political implications in the United States and abroad. The war had disrupted agriculture and manufacturing to an extent that countries were hard pressed to recover. Many nations were steeped in debt from the conflict. The loss of millions of potential laborers on the battlefield also wreaked havoc on industrial potential. In the United States, citizens were unhappy but chose to work within their democracies to fix the economic issues at hand. In other countries around the world, fledgling democracies fell under the weight of unemployment and inflation. While the United States stayed with their system of democracy, major reforms to the system were made to deal with the misery that was the Great Depression.

In many respects, the Depression marked a significant political change in the United States. It marked a shift to an interventionist federal government. The laissez-faire government approach towards the economy was now viewed as ineffective. The American people spoke loud and clear in the election of 1932 as a new political coalition overwhelmingly chose the democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt to the presidency. This coalition, which would endure to the present day, included urban ethnic groups, organized labor, and African-Americans. Roosevelt would transform the federal government to make it more responsive to the economic needs of a struggling nation.

Roosevelt challenged many political norms in instituting his New Deal. For most of America's history, the government felt that the economy should manage itself, with minimal oversight. By allowing big business to prosper unabated, jobs would be created for the masses. The unprecedented growth in the stock market in the 1920's seemed to confirm this on the surface. When the market crashed in 1929, the need for government intervention was made clearer. Roosevelt's first act as president was to fix the banks. He closed all of the banks and set up commissions to review the health of the banks. The ones that could fail were not permitted to re-open. The actions of Franklin D. Roosevelt during this bank holiday indicated a clear shift away from a laissez-faire approach toward American financial institutions.

The federal government during this period took an aggressive approach to fixing unemployment. This was accomplished by creating agencies to hire Americans for massive public works projects. Direct aid was granted through the Social Security Act and unemployment compensation. Many of the safety net programs that exist today to help Americans were instituted during the Great Depression. These concepts included aid for dependent children, minimum wage, and public housing. The political change would inspire further reforms for the poor in the years to follow World War II. The age-old American convention of pulling yourself up "by the bootstraps" seemed quite dated during the Great Depression.

Around the world, the economic depression that followed World War I had a dramatic effect. After the Great War, many countries felt that democracy was a system of government that could ensure peace and prosperity. Because of their inexperience with representative government, these attempts at democracy failed. There were too many political parties in countries like Italy and Germany to solve the issues of inflation and unemployment. Citizens felt that authoritarian rule was more efficient and they turned to radical leaders. In Japan, democracy failed to solve the issue of unemployment and the people turned to an aggressive military structure to govern them. The economy had dictated a change to the far left in these countries, which would eventually plunge the world into another war.

Do the Weird Sisters control the events that happen in Shakespeare's Macbeth?

Most people would answer this question with a negative.  If we assume that the Weird Sisters control Macbeth's fate, then that means that he lacks free will and can do nothing but what fate dictates.  Further, he has no tragic flaw and he cannot, ultimately, be blamed for any of the terrible acts he commits.  If fate rules, then Macbeth is only traveling the path laid out for him.  This is problematic because Shakespeare's audience...

Most people would answer this question with a negative.  If we assume that the Weird Sisters control Macbeth's fate, then that means that he lacks free will and can do nothing but what fate dictates.  Further, he has no tragic flaw and he cannot, ultimately, be blamed for any of the terrible acts he commits.  If fate rules, then Macbeth is only traveling the path laid out for him.  This is problematic because Shakespeare's audience didn't care for the idea that their choices weren't really their own, that fate ruled their lives instead of their own decisions affecting their outcomes.  If free will determines one's future rather than fate, then we can hold Macbeth and Lady Macbeth responsible for the terrible things they do.

On the other hand, the Weird Sisters do seem supernatural (they can vanish and they do seem to know about some things that haven't happened yet).  This is the primary evidence used to support the idea that they control or at least know the future.  However, it seems even more likely that they only told Macbeth that he would become king because they were trying to manipulate him into corrupting himself, a process they would enjoy watching because they are malicious creatures.  In the first scene, they say "fair is foul and foul is fair," implying that what they tell him is going to seem fair (or good) but really be foul (bad).  They mean to deceive him, and even Banquo suspects this.  This evidence coupled with the above is enough for me to believe that the sisters do not control the future and that fate is not in play.

Karl Marx predicted that industrial capitalism’s inherent instability and exploitation would lead to a Communist revolution in industrial Europe....

In Marxism, communism can only develop in a fully capitalist country, and this form of communism involves total worker control (not state control). Marx would be surprised to find out that communism largely spread to impoverished countries such as Cuba and Russia and that the government, not workers, are in control in these countries.

In 1917, the Bolsheviks overthrew the tsar in Russia, and by 1922, the communists gained control of what became the Soviet...

In Marxism, communism can only develop in a fully capitalist country, and this form of communism involves total worker control (not state control). Marx would be surprised to find out that communism largely spread to impoverished countries such as Cuba and Russia and that the government, not workers, are in control in these countries.

In 1917, the Bolsheviks overthrew the tsar in Russia, and by 1922, the communists gained control of what became the Soviet Union. Unlike what Marx had predicted, communism developed in Russia when it was not a fully capitalist system but under the feudal-like regime of the tsar. After Lenin died in 1924, Stalin put into place the system of Marxism-Leninism in which the government, not the workers, controlled all forms of business. Again, this idea was not textbook Marxism but a form of Marxism-Leninism. In 1991, communism collapsed in the Soviet Union, and the Russian Federation today has a system that is largely market-based. This transformation would have surprised Marx, as he thought that capitalism would lead to communism, not the reverse. 

Marxism inspired the ideas of Marxism-Leninism, the philosophy of the former Soviet Union. Many countries around the world adopted forms of Marxism-Leninism and set up similar one-party states in which the government controlled the economy. Marxism-Leninism also involves establishing a social welfare system and opposing capitalism. However, these Marxist-Leninist systems were different than pure Marxism.

For example, after Fidel Castro took over Cuba in 1959, the island became Communist and followed a form of Marxism-Leninism. Their system had strong ties to the Soviet Union (until its collapse in 1991). Like the Soviet Union, Cuba was not a fully developed capitalist economy when it turned to communism. Instead, it was an impoverished agricultural society that was largely controlled by the U.S. Also like the Soviet Union, the government controls all business and means of production. This system is slowing starting to change, as American investment expands in Cuba. Like the former Soviet Union, Cuba's communism may slowly turn to a more market-based economy, which is also different from what Marx predicted. 

In what way did Chicago's music scene in the early to mid-20th century contribute to popular music such as jazz, R&B and rock'n'roll?

Like Detroit, Chicago benefitted immensely from the so-called Great Migration of African Americans in the early to mid-20th century from the South to the North, and particularly, the industrial mid-west. Jobs in manufacturing were plentiful in cities like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Philadelphia, so African Americans looking for better jobs with better pay moved to those cities in the hundreds of thousands, from the start of the 20th century up until the 1950s. Those African Americans brought with them the so-called "Negro Spirituals," Afro-Caribbean-influenced spirituals hymns that slaves had sung for generations, whose rhythms and reliance on improvisation, as well as call and response, served as a backbone for Jazz, Rhythm & Blues and Rock. 

By the late 1890s and early 1900s, Chicago's South Side had become a culturally rich neighborhood compromised almost entirely of African Americans, and many who had migrated from the South, particularly New Orleans, brought their musical talents with them. Some played ragtime, which was a precursor to jazz. On the South Side, from 1910 and later, increasingly so during Prohibition, black cabaret musicians dominated the night club scene, providing musical entertainment to night clubs that served alcohol. Many black musicians from New Orleans came to Chicago in the 1920s because Chicago had plenty of recording studios, whereas New Orleans did not. Louis Armstrong came to Chicago to play, as did Miles Davis later on.

But even earlier, in 1906, some of the earliest jazz pianists such as Tony Jackson and "Jelly Roll" Morton came to play in Chicago. By the late 1920s, the large African American audience for jazz in Chicago had resulted in black music entrepreneurs opening specialty recording labels such as Okey, Paramount, and later, Chess Records. These labels came to be known as "race records," and were consumed primarily by African American audiences, before later coming to the attention of white musicians and music producers, who later "mainstreamed" these musical traditions. A great example of this is band leader Benny Goodman, who was white, and later became the "King of Swing."

Like Detroit and New York, Chicago was a major musical venue and cultural melting pot for jazz and blues musicians from around the country, who borrowed from and copied each other, inspiring some of the greatest innovations in popular music of the 20th century. The urbanization and commercialism of jazz music in post World War Two Chicago helped give rise to the genesis of Rock & Roll, and allowed African American recording artists to become mainstream musical superstars, whose fans were both black and white. 

Imagine that, after the story's end, Holden has moved to a new boarding school and finds himself in detention. Why would Holden Caulfield from The...

What a fun assignment! Let's look at the various things Holden does that wouldn't be appreciated by his teachers, and then you can come up with a new transgression from there.

1. He curses a lot and is sarcastic. In fact, he likes to insult his school's ideals while cursing and being sarcastic.

Here he is in Chapter 1: "'Since 1888 we have been molding boys into splendid, clear-thinking young men.' Strictly for the birds....

What a fun assignment! Let's look at the various things Holden does that wouldn't be appreciated by his teachers, and then you can come up with a new transgression from there.

1. He curses a lot and is sarcastic. In fact, he likes to insult his school's ideals while cursing and being sarcastic.

Here he is in Chapter 1: "'Since 1888 we have been molding boys into splendid, clear-thinking young men.' Strictly for the birds. They don't do any damn more molding at Pencey than they do at any other school."

So, you could invent an episode that would prompt Holden to curse sarcastically while he insults his school. That would certainly earn him a detention in an interesting way.

2. He loves to call people phonies. In fact, he refers to his school principal as a phony: "For instance, they had this headmaster, Mr. Haas, that was the phoniest bastard I ever met in my life." Holden holds such a low opinion of others that he mentally calls them bastards and phonies; he also has actual outbursts where he hurls insults at people.

Playing off that bad habit, then, you could write a scene in which Holden gets angry at one of his new teachers and starts calling him or her names. It'd certainly be in character for Holden, and he'd definitely get a detention for it!

3. Holden is girl-crazy. He's obsessed with girls, pays very close attention to them, and is always trying to get with them. That's most certainly something that could get in the way of his participating in class meaningfully and in a focused way! You could invent a scene where he tries to impress a female classmate or attract her attention instead of completing his work. That'd merit a detention. Here are some musings from Holden to get you thinking about how his girl-craziness might show itself in class:

"I like to be somewhere at least where you can see a few girls once in a while, even if they're only scratching their arms or blowing their noses or even just giggling or something."

The bottom line here is that Holden is his own person. He doesn't like to play games or go along with "phony" activities. Imagine something boring or meaningless that you have to do in school, and imagine how Holden would react to it. (You know: something like a pointless worksheet or a group activity during which nothing is really getting done.) Holden would probably refuse to participate, and he'd insult the teacher who assigned the work, too.

What are examples of imagery in the poem "Equality" by Maya Angelou?

In the first stanza, the speaker notes that "you" (the listener or auditor) does not see her clearly. The speaker stands "boldly" and clearly ("trim") in her particular place in society ("rank") and in a more general way, in space and time. However, the she notes that the listener looks at her as if through a foggy or opaque glass. 

In the second stanza, she notes that the listener does admit (here, "own" means to...

In the first stanza, the speaker notes that "you" (the listener or auditor) does not see her clearly. The speaker stands "boldly" and clearly ("trim") in her particular place in society ("rank") and in a more general way, in space and time. However, the she notes that the listener looks at her as if through a foggy or opaque glass. 

In the second stanza, she notes that the listener does admit (here, "own" means to admit) to hear her faintly. We have the image of the speaker beating out the rhythms of her message and it never changes. She wants to be heard. She wants to be equal in the mind of the listener. The listener admits to hearing her but ignores the message. 

In the fourth stanza, the image is the shadow. The speaker is trying to convince the listener to treat all people equally. This can not happen if the listener refuses to see her, hear her, and acknowledge her as an equal. If she is nothing more than a shadow, the listener will never understand. 

In the seventh stanza, the speaker repeats images of the visual and auditory senses. 

Take the blinders from your vision, 
take the padding from your ears, 
and confess you've heard me crying, 
and admit you've seen my tears. 

These images are all in efforts to convince the listener to open his/her mind. Opening the senses is a way to illustrate this idea. In order to be considered as an equal, other people (the listener) must validate the speaker's existence: to look at her clearly and to hear what she has to say. 

Why has the king thrown the suitor of the princess into prison in "The Lady or the Tiger?"

The king has the suitor of the princess thrown into prison because he feels it is his duty to do so. The courtier is from a "lowness of station," and he has dared to love the daughter of the king.

The narrator of Stockton's allegory of human emotions describes the daughter of the semi-barbaric king as of "as fervent and imperious" nature as his own. She loves this young man with great ardor, and she...

The king has the suitor of the princess thrown into prison because he feels it is his duty to do so. The courtier is from a "lowness of station," and he has dared to love the daughter of the king.

The narrator of Stockton's allegory of human emotions describes the daughter of the semi-barbaric king as of "as fervent and imperious" nature as his own. She loves this young man with great ardor, and she is very happy with him. But, for a young man of his station to have dared to love the princess is offensive to the king, and he puts an end to the relationship by immediately throwing the courtier into prison.

Since the king is semi-barbaric, he does not concern himself with the feelings of his daughter when committing this action of having the young man put into prison. That the young man loves the princess is a fact that the king simply will not entertain.

...the king would not think of allowing any fact of this kind to interfere with the workings of the court of judgment.

Instead, he employs his own inimitable form of justice. The young man will have his trial in the king's arena where Chance is the judge. Behind one door is a ravenous tiger who will devour him; the other door houses a maiden of beauty that the young man can marry if he chooses the door that holds her.

How does Scout describe Atticus during the trial?

The trial in To Kill A Mockingbird lasts a long time, and so Scout has multiple opportunities to describe Atticus. However, one of my favorite descriptions comes toward the end of the trial in Chapter 20, when Atticus is preparing to deliver his closing remarks:

...then Atticus did something I never saw him do before or since, in public or in private: he unbuttoned his vest, unbuttoned his collar, loosened his tie, and took off...

The trial in To Kill A Mockingbird lasts a long time, and so Scout has multiple opportunities to describe Atticus. However, one of my favorite descriptions comes toward the end of the trial in Chapter 20, when Atticus is preparing to deliver his closing remarks:

...then Atticus did something I never saw him do before or since, in public or in private: he unbuttoned his vest, unbuttoned his collar, loosened his tie, and took off his coat. He never loosened a scrap of his clothing until he undressed at bedtime, and to Jem and me, this was the equivalent of him standing before us stark naked. We exchanged horrified glances. (205)

In this excerpt, Scout describes Atticus doing something he never does: making his normally formal attitude casual. Her (fairly hilarious) surprise indicates that Atticus never allows himself to act so casually at home, let alone in public. 

This passage is important because it not only gives us an insight into Atticus' extremely formal character, but it also show us an important tactic in the trial. Atticus has already faced significant backlash for his decision to defend Tom Robinson, and several members of the community have turned against him. By making himself appear more casual, Atticus reminds everyone in the court room that he is actually just like them. By doing so, Atticus subtly makes his closing statement more sympathetic, as he endears himself to everyone listening. In this way, Scout's description points to one of Atticus' important strategic tactics during the trial. 

What is the standard measurement system used by scientists around the world?

Measurements in science are made in Système International (SI) units. The use of SI units was agreed upon by an international association of scientists in 1960.

The SI system is a base 10 system. This means that units in the SI system vary by multiples of ten. Base units are established and prefixes are used to indicate smaller and larger units. 

Base Units:

length: meter (m)

volume: cubic meter (`~m^3` )

mass: kilogram (kg)

temperature: Kelvin (K)

energy: Joule (J)

Prefixes:

mega (M) - multiply base unit by `~10^6`

kilo (k) - multiply base unit by `~10^3`

deci (d) - multiply base unit by `~10^-^1`

centi (c) - multiply base unit by `~10^-^2`

milli (m) - multiply base unit by `~10^-^3`

micro (`mu` ) - multiply base unit by `~10^-^6` ` `

nano (n) - multiply base unit by `~10^-^9`

pico (p) - multiply base unit by `~10^-^12`

Why does Sophocles open Antigone with a dialogue between sisters?

Antigone opens with a dialogue between Antigone and Ismene, the daughters of Oedipus. In their dialogue, the two sisters discuss the death of their brothers, Eteocles and Polynices, as well as the decree of Creon, their uncle, that makes burying Polynices a crime punishable by death, since Polynices had led hostilities against Thebes. The dialogue serves not only as exposition, but also to highlight the difference between the two sisters, and thus the remarkability of...

Antigone opens with a dialogue between Antigone and Ismene, the daughters of Oedipus. In their dialogue, the two sisters discuss the death of their brothers, Eteocles and Polynices, as well as the decree of Creon, their uncle, that makes burying Polynices a crime punishable by death, since Polynices had led hostilities against Thebes. The dialogue serves not only as exposition, but also to highlight the difference between the two sisters, and thus the remarkability of Antigone's stated intentions to defy the law and bury their brother.

The opening dialogue between Antigone and Ismene serves as exposition for the play. Through the dialogue, we learn the basis for the important familial relationships, as well as the political ones, in the play. From the sisters’ discussion, we know what law Creon has declared and why he has declared it. We are also able to see the reactions from his nieces to help us understand the emotional state of not just the characters, but Thebes as well.

In addition to exposition, the dialogue gives us insight into the major conflict of the play—Antigone's desire to bury Polynices even in the face of Creon's proclamation and the announced punishment. Through the discussion between the sisters, we come to see the depth of Antigone’s conviction. We also see the contrast between the sisters.

Antigone is moved to do what she believes to be right, whereas Ismene admits that she does not have the strength to break the law. Interestingly, they both seem to be trying to overcome the stigma on their family, but they are doing so in different ways. Ismene is trying to break away from the actions of the past by following the law rather than flouting it, whereas Antigone is following in her father's and brothers' footsteps in putting her own ideas of what needs to be done over the good of the state.

Antigone’s conviction is remarkable as it stands in the face of not only the law, but the perception of the law as being for the public good, a sentiment voiced by Ismene during their conversation. We see through this that what Antigone is planning goes not just against the law, but against the perceptions of the other citizens as well. Thus, the dialogue between the sisters serves to show Antigone’s uniqueness as well as providing exposition and setting the context for the rest of the play.

What is the poetic device used in the line "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings"?

Interestingly, this single line uses at least four poetic devices. The two sound devices that are most prominent in the line are alliteration and consonance. In the phrase "King of Kings," the initial consonant /k/ sound is repeated, which is alliteration. The words "Ozymandias" and "name" both contain the /n/ and /m/ consonant sounds, but not at the beginning of both words. Repeating internal or end consonant sounds between words is called consonance.

The other...

Interestingly, this single line uses at least four poetic devices. The two sound devices that are most prominent in the line are alliteration and consonance. In the phrase "King of Kings," the initial consonant /k/ sound is repeated, which is alliteration. The words "Ozymandias" and "name" both contain the /n/ and /m/ consonant sounds, but not at the beginning of both words. Repeating internal or end consonant sounds between words is called consonance.

The other two poetic devices relate to "King of Kings." First, this term is an epithet. An epithet is a descriptive term used in place of or alongside of a person's name to characterize the person, often in a positive or negative way. Here the great king chose this epithet as a way to describe his prominence among rulers of his day.

"King of Kings," besides being an epithet, is also hyperbole. Hyperbole is an exaggeration for effect. Although the king claims to be the the king of [all] kings, that was certainly not literally true, or he would have been ruler of the entire world. He chooses to exaggerate his role among other nations as a way to establish his greatness.

Lastly, one could consider whether personification is used here because the statue is speaking. However, because the king had his own words inscribed on the pedestal, this does not really count as giving human qualities to an inanimate object. 

What were the motives behind American overseas imperialism?

There were many motives for overseas imperialism by the United States in the late nineteenth century. Let us look at a few of them.

• The desire for overseas markets: Many American economists feared the effects of "overproduction." They thought that the domestic market was not big enough to sustain continued industrial growth. So they advocated different methods to secure overseas markets. This was especially important in China, where Secretary of State John Hay encouraged an "Open Door" policy that would allow American exports to that country's vast markets.


• Demand for cheap labor and natural resources: American investors sought to extend the nation's influence into places like Hawaii and Cuba, where sugar planters could produce their crop cheaper. American corporations like Standard Oil also sought influence around the world, including in Asia and Africa. 


• Naval bases: The United States sought to gain naval bases and coaling stations around the world, especially in the Pacific, to expand its strategic reach. This was also a major motive in gaining Hawaii as well as other Pacific islands like Guam.


• Ideological motives: These ranged from a sincere desire to spread Christianity on the part of Protestant ministers to a belief in the racial and cultural superiority of Americans. Either way, many imperialists believed that they had a natural or God-given right to exercise dominion over peoples around the world. 

What is one good characteristic of Lieutenant Kotler from the novel The Boy in the Striped Pajamas?

Lieutenant Kotler is an antagonist throughout the novel The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. Kotler is an overconfident, shallow nineteen-year-old Lieutenant in the Third Reich. Bruno absolutely despises Kotler throughout the novel and watches with indignance as Gretel flirts with him. Kotler is known for his violent temper, and there are several scenes which portray Kotler's rage. Kotler lacks sympathy and ruthlessly beats weak prisoners, such as Pavel and Shmuel. Despite Kotler's numerous...

Lieutenant Kotler is an antagonist throughout the novel The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. Kotler is an overconfident, shallow nineteen-year-old Lieutenant in the Third Reich. Bruno absolutely despises Kotler throughout the novel and watches with indignance as Gretel flirts with him. Kotler is known for his violent temper, and there are several scenes which portray Kotler's rage. Kotler lacks sympathy and ruthlessly beats weak prisoners, such as Pavel and Shmuel. Despite Kotler's numerous negative character traits, he is a very ambitious individual who is rather charming. Bruno mentions that Kotler is continually at his home, trying to impress his father. Kotler hopes to become close with the Commandant in order to climb the ranks in the Nazi Regime. The Commandant initially likes Lieutenant Kotler because of his willingness to follow through with directives and his desire to participate in Germany's war effort. Bruno's mother is attracted to Kotler's charm and begins to have an affair with him, while Gretel also shares an affinity for the young Lieutenant. Despite Kotler's charm and desire to impress the Commandant, his ambitious attitude and disregard for authority result in his dismissal from Auschwitz.

How did the conclusion of World War II lead to the events of the Cold War?

The Soviets fought in World War II as allies of the British and Americans (after the Soviets' Non-Aggression Pact with Nazi Germany collapsed in 1941), but there was growing mistrust between the Soviets and the western allies during the war. During the war, the Soviet leader, Stalin, had annexed several countries bordering the Soviet Union, including Estonia, Latvia, eastern Poland, Romania, and Lithuania, according to the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with the Nazis. After...

The Soviets fought in World War II as allies of the British and Americans (after the Soviets' Non-Aggression Pact with Nazi Germany collapsed in 1941), but there was growing mistrust between the Soviets and the western allies during the war. During the war, the Soviet leader, Stalin, had annexed several countries bordering the Soviet Union, including Estonia, Latvia, eastern Poland, Romania, and Lithuania, according to the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with the Nazis. After the allies defeated the Nazis in May of 1945, the Soviets effectively occupied many countries in Eastern and Central Europe, including the Baltic states, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and others. Stalin maintained that occupation of these areas was necessary for the defense of his country. 

While the allied leaders, Stalin of the Soviet Union, Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) of the United States, and Churchill of Great Britain, met several times, they failed to reach a consensus. At the Yalta conference in February of 1945, Stalin, Churchill, and FDR failed to reach an agreement about the division of post-war Europe, and the distrust grew. At the Potsdam Conference in July of 1945, tensions ran high. After FDR's death, Truman, who had largely been kept out of foreign affairs as FDR's Vice President, had become President, and he was planning to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. He shared this news with Stalin, who was apparently not surprised (as he may have been informed of the American nuclear plan through spies). The detonation of the bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945 further worsened the Soviet distrust of Americans. In addition, the allies decided to divide Germany into four zones: one French, one British, one American, and one Soviet. However, over time, disagreement about the payment of German reparations and other issues led the allied sector to break off from the Soviet sector. Over time, the allied sector became West Germany in 1949, followed by the creation of East Germany the same year. The Cold War accelerated at the end of the 1940s and into the 1950s and beyond. 

How did Reconstruction affect people's lives?

Reconstruction, which was the period in which the former Confederate states were readmitted to the union (1865-1877), affected people differently. For former slaves, it was a time of some promise, though many promises went unfulfilled. For example, the country, including the former Confederate states, passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which ended slavery, granted basic civil rights to all people, and granted the vote to all American-born men (including African-Americans), respectively. However, these Amendments...

Reconstruction, which was the period in which the former Confederate states were readmitted to the union (1865-1877), affected people differently. For former slaves, it was a time of some promise, though many promises went unfulfilled. For example, the country, including the former Confederate states, passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which ended slavery, granted basic civil rights to all people, and granted the vote to all American-born men (including African-Americans), respectively. However, these Amendments were often not heeded, and, even before Reconstruction had ended, the south had instituted a Jim Crow policy by which states did not grant basic civil rights, including the right to vote, to African-Americans. On the positive side, several schools, including colleges and industrial schools, were established in the south for African-Americans. However, freed slaves were largely not able to gain access to land ownership, though there was the promise of land redistribution after the Civil War (referred to as the promise of "40 acres and a mule"). Many former slaves became sharecroppers after the Civil War. 

White southerners largely experienced Reconstruction as a time of reversals in their traditional way of life. Though some white people in north and south were in favor of granting African-Americans civil rights, the south for the most part remained committed to denying African-Americans their rights, particularly their right to vote, in a society that practiced segregation until well into the 20th century. 

Can "Kubla Khan" be described as an incoherent poem? Why?

No, "Kubla Khan" is not an incoherent poem; it is a fragment. According to Samuel Taylor Coleridge, he experienced the poem in a vision while he was in an opium-induced sleep. The poem composed itself in his mind, complete with visuals, and was from 200 to 300 lines long, but when he woke up, he only had time to write down the first 36 lines before he was interrupted. Later, he couldn't recall the rest. Lines 37 - 54 seem to be of a different character and were probably not part of the words he dreamed. 

Although the poem was composed in an unusual manner, it is completely coherent. The sentences are all syntactically correct, the poem is full of imagery, and an obvious rhythm and rhyme scheme are maintained. To compare, one could consider E. E. Cummings' poem "My Father Moved through Dooms of Love" (link below) to see how Cummings distorts language and syntax. Even in Cummings' poem, however, the praise of his father is the clear message, so it is not exactly incoherent. But Kubla Khan, in contrast, presents no such challenge to a normal reading of the text. The words and sentence structure are easily understood.

In fact, the imagery Coleridge uses is lovely. First the "pleasure-dome" is described with its walls, towers, and gardens surrounded by fertile fields and forests. Next the chasm, the river, and the fountain are described, and then the river that ran "five miles meandering with a mazy motion." The only human action in the scene is in line 29 where Kubla Khan hears the war chant. The final section seems to be an epilogue where the poet imagines himself in that place and wishes he could gain back his lost vision. The entire poem uses iambic rhythm and rhymes, sometimes in couplets, and sometimes in other patterns, that unify the poem.  

Far from being incoherent, "Kubla Khan" is an intriguing fragment of a poem that the writer wished he could have completed--a sentiment with which generations of readers concur.

In Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, why was everything depicted as green in Montag's flashback/memory of the moment he met Faber?

The color green plays an interesting role in Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, a science fiction novel about a futuristic dystopian society in which books are burned because of the knowledge they contain. Much has been made about the use of the color white in this and in other novels, such as F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. White is associated with purity and innocence, so it is often used to convey or emphasize those character traits in literature. Such is the case with Bradbury’s story, in which two of the more virtuous characters, Clarisse and Faber, are associated with the color white. Green, however, is a little trickier. It is used to represent both good and evil. The Mechanical Hound, for instance, has “eyes all green flame,” and its appearance is foreshadowed by “a faint drift of greenish luminescent smoke.” Yet, green is also associated in Fahrenheit 451 with nature—hardly a novel idea, but one put to good effect in the scenario depicted in Bradbury’s novel.  In the section of the novel when Montag recalls his first encounter with the former professor Faber, the color green is an integral component of his memory:

“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 . ... The old man leapt up as if to run. And Montag said, "Wait ! " "I haven't done anything! " cried the old man trembling. "No one said you did." They had sat in the green soft light without saying a word for a moment, and then Montag talked about the weather, and then the old man responded with a pale voice. It was a strange quiet meeting. The old man admitted to being a retired English professor who had been thrown out upon the world forty years ago when the last liberal arts college shut for lack of students and patronage.”

Montag associates in his mind the color green with his meeting Faber for the first time because the encounter occurred in a park, with green grass and trees. The logical association of green with nature is no accident, and Bradbury returns to that theme later, when Montag meets Granger and the other defectors from this dystopian society who have committed themselves to memorizing the contents of books. Describing the manner with which each of these individuals has dedicated himself to memorizing books so that the knowledge they contained can be reapplied in whatever new society replaces the one being destroyed by war, Granger states that “[s]ome of us live in small towns. Chapter One of Thoreau's Walden in Green River, Chapter Two in Willow Farm, Maine.” Granger’s point is that each of these individuals has not only memorized the contents of the books, but has immersed himself psychologically into the essence of the books, and few authors personified man’s relationship to his surroundings as eloquently as Henry David Thoreau. It is, similarly, Granger who expresses the hope for a post-war world in which nature can once again be permitted to blossom, noting how his grandfather had hoped that, in the aftermath of World War II, “that some day our cities would open up and let the green and the land and the wilderness in more, to remind people that we're allotted a little space on earth and that we survive in that wilderness that can take back what it has given, as easily as blowing its breath on us or sending the sea to tell us we are not so big.”

Montag associates the color green with his initial encounter with Faber because that encounter occurred in a green park, and because green represents the hope for a better future—one in which technology is contained and nature is not.

What effect does Scout have on events at the jail in To Kill a Mockingbird?

Tom Robinson is sent to Maycomb's jail prior to his trial. Atticus is worried about him, so he keeps watch one night outside of the jail. Scout, Jem, and Dill sneak out to spy on Atticus. They want to know what he is doing. They see him waiting outside of the jail, reading a book. Shortly after the children spot Atticus, several cars drive into town and stop nearby. Men get out of the cars...

Tom Robinson is sent to Maycomb's jail prior to his trial. Atticus is worried about him, so he keeps watch one night outside of the jail. Scout, Jem, and Dill sneak out to spy on Atticus. They want to know what he is doing. They see him waiting outside of the jail, reading a book. Shortly after the children spot Atticus, several cars drive into town and stop nearby. Men get out of the cars and gather near Atticus. An angry mob forms of men who wish to harm Tom Robinson.

Atticus stands his ground. Scout, watching at a distance, becomes concerned. She leaps from her hiding place and goes to her father. Atticus orders Scout and the boys to go home, but they refuse.

Tensions rise with the mob. Suddenly, Scout recognizes a familiar face among the strangers: Mr. Cunningham, the father of her classmate, Walter. Scout tells Mr. Cunningham to pass along her greetings to Walter. He does not respond at first, but then he bends down to speak to Scout. Something softens in him:

Then he straightened up and waved a big paw.  "Let's clear out," he called. "Let's get going, boys" (Chapter, 15).

The men leave. Scout's friendly words to Mr. Cunningham cause something to change in him. He seems to reevaluate his role in the mob.

What is the reason that the kids in The Giver get gifts and/or changes each year?

In Jonas's community in The Giver,each year is marked as a special celebration of growth and maturity for the children. This is a way for the community to honor their accomplishments over the past year, as well as encourage children to take on more responsibilty in the next. For example, when Jonas's little sister Lily turned seven, she received pockets in her jacket. This shows her that the community believes that she can keep...

In Jonas's community in The Giver, each year is marked as a special celebration of growth and maturity for the children. This is a way for the community to honor their accomplishments over the past year, as well as encourage children to take on more responsibilty in the next. For example, when Jonas's little sister Lily turned seven, she received pockets in her jacket. This shows her that the community believes that she can keep track of small personal items. This year, as she turns eight, she is also allowed some freedom of choice because she can choose where she wants to work when doing service hours. Lily is more excited to turn nine, though, as shown in the following passage:

"I don't like hair ribbons. I'm glad I only have to wear them one more year. . . Next year I get my bicycle, too" (40).

Children who turn nine receive their bikes, which give them more fun and independence as well as responsibility. For example, the nines feel more independent as they are free to travel where they want to with the bikes, but they are also held responsible to take care of them, store them correctly, and not injure themselves in the process. 

Each year builds upon another until the age of twelve when children receive their assignments for the careers that they will train for and then have for the rest of their lives. The assignment is the ultimate change and responsibility that may define who they are and who they will become as adults.

In To Kill a Mockingbird, what conflicts might involve man vs the supernatural?

Jem, Dill and Scout create their own conflict with the supernatural by believing the gossip and superstitions handed down to them from people in the community--mostly from Stephanie Crawford. At first Jem was only trying to make the newcomer, Dill, nervous by telling him about their neighborhood phantom, Boo Radley. Little did they know that the following would happen:

"The Radley Place fascinated Dill. In spite of our warnings and explanations it drew him as the moon draws water, but drew him no nearer than the light-pole on the corner, a safe distance from the Radley gate" (8).

The above passage seems to draw upon the supernatural to describe Dill's fascination. Eventually he draws Jem and Scout into adventures centered around enticing Boo to come out of the house, sending him a letter by way of fishing pole, and sneaking into his yard to get a view of him through a broken shutter. There really was nothing supernatural about it except in the children's imaginations, though. Nevertheless, conflicts do arise as they go on these adventures.

One adventure surrounding Boo Radley is when Scout finds gum in an oak tree's knothole in the Radley's yard. Kids in the schoolyard would never eat nuts that fall from Radley trees; so, for Scout to eat something from that tree is unthinkable based on deadly and supernatural beliefs. When Jem finds out that Scout found the gum where she did, he comes apart and tells her to spit it out immediately:

"I spat it out. The tang was fading, anyway. . . Jem stamped his foot. 'Don't you know you're not supposed to even touch the trees over there? You'll get killed if you do!'" (33).

These supernatural superstitions create tension with the children that also drive their behavior. If Jem didn't believe in the supernatural, he wouldn't have panicked when he discovered Scout eating gum from the Radley tree. 

Another supernatural-type conflict centers around another superstition. In chapter four, during the second summer with Dill, Jem tells him about Hot Steams, as follows:

"A Hot Steam's somebody who can't get to heaven, just wallows around on lonesome roads an' if you walk through him, when you die you'll go around at night suckin' people's breath" (37).

Fortunately for Dill, there is a remedy that can be applied if he ever finds himself in a Hot Steam. All he has to say is the following:

"Angel-bright, line-in-death; get off the road, don't suck my breath" (37).

Belief in supernatural superstitions like these is normal for children. It's interesting, though, that when it comes to Boo Radley, the adults in the community believe them as well. For example, Calpurnia spit to the side of the road when Mr. Radley's dead body was carried out of his home. Also, people in the community get involved in this conflict because they blamed random acts of nature on Boo Radley, such as an unexpected cold snap or other odd mysteries. For the children, though, they eventually grow out of it until one dreadful Halloween night a couple of years later.

On the night that Bob Ewell attacks the children, there is a supernatural sense of conflict. First, they laugh about believing in Hot Steams on the way to the Halloween festival. They also notice a mockingbird singing as they walk. Next, Cecil Jacobs scares the kids before they get to the school. Then, on the way home after the festival, they hear someone following them and get very scared. This is a very spooky scene, which the children might have thought would be supernatural. Unfortunately, they are faced with someone worse than a Hot Steam. Ironically, the phantom of Maycomb, Boo Radley saves their lives. The one man who seems like a supernatural antagonist for the children at the beginning of the book now becomes their savior. 

I have written two thesis statements for my English teacher, but neither one is good enough. The first one was "Sonny's Blues deals with the...

Although both of your sentences are excellent descriptions of the plot, your English teacher probably wants you to go beyond a description: to make your thesis statement arguable. (It will help if you can provide your teacher's instructions or feedback.)

What I mean is that thesis statements usually say something that requires support. They are more than just factual. Your teacher probably wants you to use your statement to build an interesting argument, not to write a book report or a summary.

If I say, "The story is about two brothers trying to escape their past," then it's not an arguable statement. It's obviously true, and simple. Nobody sane could read "Sonny's Blues" and disagree with me. So, it's not a very good thesis statement.

But if I say, "Baldwin masterfully portrays inner turmoil in 'Sonny's Blues,'" then I'd have to prove it. I'd have to show places in the story where the narrator's intense negative emotions are expressed to the reader in clear, cogent, original, startling terms, with powerful and fresh metaphors. That kind of thesis statement would help me build an interesting argument that proves an idea (instead of describing the plot).

To make your thesis statement, try saying why the story is valuable, or what it reveals about humans or society. Or, point out something incredibly skillful that you notice the author is doing.

You can find some great information about "Sonny's Blues" that will help you think bigger, beyond describing the plot.

is an excellent discussion to keep you thinking about the themes of the story and how you might turn them into thesis statements.

Lastly, here are some templates for thesis statements that you can use:

A. "(Title) illustrates why people must (do or not do something)."

B. "By (doing something,) (Character) reveals (a particular problem in society)."

C. "(Author) uses (Title) to explore (idea) and ultimately reveals (something that's surprising and true)."

D. "By contrasting (one thing) and (another different thing,) (Author) expresses the value of (something)."

What happened to Johnny in The Outsiders?

There are several significant events that take place in Johnny's life throughout the novel The Outsiders. Johnny is a rather timid, sympathetic character. Early in the novel, Ponyboy tells Cherry that Johnny was beaten badly by a gang of Socs. Pony says that Johnny looked unrecognizable and was beaten within an inch of his life. Johnny vows that he will never be jumped like that again and carries a blade with him everywhere...

There are several significant events that take place in Johnny's life throughout the novel The Outsiders. Johnny is a rather timid, sympathetic character. Early in the novel, Ponyboy tells Cherry that Johnny was beaten badly by a gang of Socs. Pony says that Johnny looked unrecognizable and was beaten within an inch of his life. Johnny vows that he will never be jumped like that again and carries a blade with him everywhere he goes. One night, Ponyboy and Johnny are hanging out at a local park when a group of Socs approaches them. The Socs attempt to drown Ponyboy and Johnny stabs one of the Socs. Johnny ends up killing Bob Sheldon and decides to run away with Ponyboy. Johnny and Ponyboy hide out in an abandoned church in the town of Windrixville. One day, Dally comes to visit them and takes the boys out to eat. When they are returning from their meal, they see that the abandoned church is on fire. Johnny and Ponyboy enter the church after hearing that there are several children trapped inside. Johnny and Ponyboy enter the burning building and beginning throwing children out of the church. After all the children are saved, Johnny attempts to escape the burning church, and a flaming ceiling beam falls on him. The beam ends up breaking Johnny's back. The doctors tell Johnny that he is paralyzed from the waist down, and Johnny fears for his life. After Johnny says some encouraging last words to Ponyboy, he dies as a result of his extensive injuries.

What is the tone and mood in The Swiss Family Robinson?

The tone of a novel represents the author’s attitude toward the subject. In The Swiss Family Robinson, Johann Wyss presents a family who bravely and cheerfully accepts the adventures (and dangers) that are thrust upon them. Despair is no place to be seen as the family accepts their shipwrecked situation and sets out to survive and even thrive on the island. Their ingenuity portrays them as intelligent and creative in making their new home...

The tone of a novel represents the author’s attitude toward the subject. In The Swiss Family Robinson, Johann Wyss presents a family who bravely and cheerfully accepts the adventures (and dangers) that are thrust upon them. Despair is no place to be seen as the family accepts their shipwrecked situation and sets out to survive and even thrive on the island. Their ingenuity portrays them as intelligent and creative in making their new home (with little thought of an attempted rescue) into a comfortable place, with a series of abodes around the island. The religious faith of the family provides a didactic opportunity for the author to instill lessons in faith in the midst of hard times, especially in dealing with others and kindness to animals.

The mood (which is what the author wants the reader to feel during the reading) is thus hopeful and cheerful. Danger does not seem to be a serious threat in the eyes of the family. The excitement is limited to how each family member diligently works to meet their needs and desires. There is no serious conflict among the people on the island, so the presentation of a “realistic” experience is not the purpose.

What were the two most significant issues and compromises at the Constitutional Convention? Why were they necessary?

There were many issues at the Constitutional Convention that led to many compromises in the document itself. Perhaps the two most famous were the so-called "Great Compromise" and the notorious "Three-fifths" compromise. 

The Great Compromise resulted from a debate about whether states would receive a number of representatives in Congress that was proportional to their population (favored by states with larger populations) or equal representation (favored by small states and unchanged from the Congress under...

There were many issues at the Constitutional Convention that led to many compromises in the document itself. Perhaps the two most famous were the so-called "Great Compromise" and the notorious "Three-fifths" compromise. 

The Great Compromise resulted from a debate about whether states would receive a number of representatives in Congress that was proportional to their population (favored by states with larger populations) or equal representation (favored by small states and unchanged from the Congress under the old Articles of Confederation.) The compromise, proposed by Roger Sherman of Connecticut, set up a Congress in which states would be represented equally in an upper house (the Senate) and proportional to their population in a lower house (the House of Representatives.)

Once it was determined that one of the houses would apportion representation based on states' populations, another question arose. Would the enslaved people who made up a significant portion of the populations of many states be counted for purposes of apportionment? Delegates from states with large enslaved populations, like South Carolina, thought so. Others disagreed. The compromise reached on this issue was that three-fifths of the number "all other persons," i.e. slaves, would be counted for purposes of apportionment and taxation. While the delegates did not suggest that an individual slave was three-fifths of a person, the compromise, by giving tacit endorsement and approval to the institution of slavery, has been viewed as a blot on the Constitution. It also gave states with large enslaved populations a degree of political clout they would not have otherwise had if they had not been permitted to count their "property" as people for the purposes of apportionment.

These compromises, and many others, were necessary to craft a document that was acceptable to the delegates from each region. The Constitution was a political document, the product of a lot of political wrangling and deal-making, and at key points, compromises were necessary to move the process forward.

How would you manage the costs associated with a value-creation activity? How do costs of operations relate to the strategy of the organization?

"Value creation activities" is a fancy way of saying "operating a business." It is the process of running a business for the benefit of the business owner, the customers, and, in the case of publicly-traded companies, the stockholders. Managing the costs associated with a value-creation activity, therefore, requires the same basic, common-sense approach to operating a for-profit enterprise as one might logically assume.

Managing the costs associated with a value-creation activity entails the application of...

"Value creation activities" is a fancy way of saying "operating a business." It is the process of running a business for the benefit of the business owner, the customers, and, in the case of publicly-traded companies, the stockholders. Managing the costs associated with a value-creation activity, therefore, requires the same basic, common-sense approach to operating a for-profit enterprise as one might logically assume.

Managing the costs associated with a value-creation activity entails the application of fundamental business principles. That means, first and foremost, controlling the costs associated with operating a business while providing the customer the maximum value for his or her dollar. Again, in the case of a publicly-traded enterprise, the issuance of dividends to stockholders must also be calculated as part of the formula for operating the business. In order to calculate the costs associated with operating a business, then, one must determine the optimal number of employees required, the costs associated with those employees (i.e., salaries and benefits, as well as any relevant training costs), the costs of ordering and receiving materials required to produce a good or service; the costs of performing follow-on, post-sale maintenance or repair activities; and the cost of marketing to potential consumers. Against these anticipated expenditures, the business owner or manager must impose a cost for his or her products or services that guarantees, at a minimum, a full recoupment of expenditures, including for his or her own salary. 

Where calculations of value-creation activities becomes more complicated is in the need to recapitalize manufacturing plants and/ or investing in innovations required to remain competitive. Again, in the case of publicly-traded companies, a balance must be determined between reinvesting in capital and issuing dividends to stockholders. If 100 percent of profits is distributed to stockholders, then nothing is left to ensure the business remains viable for the future. Recapitalization and expansion of the industrial base, or the simple hiring of additional personnel to maintain a growing customer base, such as in repair and maintenance employees (those who travel to the customer to service equipment) and the addition of sales or marketing personnel needed to keep pace with a growing market, constitute costs associated with "value creation," and need to be part of the calculations for amount of revenue required to sustain operations. Running a business, in other words, often entails the creation of a cycle of activity that can be difficult to sustain, but that is the fundamental purpose of most business activities.

Determining the costs of operations involves calculating the cost of doing business. How much can a business owner afford to pay employees? How much of a benefits package can the business owner afford to provide employees as part of a salary package? Are the returns on investments in marketing paying dividends (i.e., is marketing determined to be successful in attracting new customers)? Are expenditures associated with post-sales maintenance activities appropriate to the scale of operations? All of these, plus the need to issue dividends, are costs that are associated with "value creation activities." Basically, a company's balance sheet is what we are talking about here. All of this relates to the strategy of the organization with respect to its survival and prosperity.

In what ways did Native Americans resist the Indian Removal Act?

In the early 19th century, many settlers in North America thought the Native Americans, especially the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole, were standing in the way of western expansion. When the Supreme Court held, in Johnson v. M’Intosh(1823), that indians could occupy, but not own, land within the United States, and by aboriginal right, the Indians could only transfer land to the U.S. government, the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and...

In the early 19th century, many settlers in North America thought the Native Americans, especially the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole, were standing in the way of western expansion. When the Supreme Court held, in Johnson v. M’Intosh (1823), that indians could occupy, but not own, land within the United States, and by aboriginal right, the Indians could only transfer land to the U.S. government, the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Creek nations tried to protect what land they had left by restricting sales to the United States Government. Not withstanding those actions, removal was inescapable due to the westward onslaught of white settlement.

Andrew Jackson was instrumental in Indian removal early as early as 1814 when he defeated the Creek nation, taking about 22 million acres of their land in Georgia and Alabama. Jackson continued his quest for Indian removal until 1824 when he ran for President of the United States. He lost to John Q. Adams, but won the 1828 Election.  Almost immediately after taking office President Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act of 1830. The new law gave

the president power to negotiate removal treaties with Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi…Indians were to give up their lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for lands to the west. Those wishing to remain in the east would become citizens of their home state.  “Indian Removal,” PBS.org

Even though the president had the power to “remove” Indigenous tribes, removal was supposed to be voluntary, but when “southeastern nations resisted, Jackson forced them to leave.” Previous peaceful attempts at resistance failed, so Native Americans used new methods after 1830. The Choctaw were the first to accept a treaty of removal, however, many of the tribal members resisted removal. They stayed behind under the provisions of the treaty but were mistreated by white settlers. Most finally gave up their land and moved west. 

The Cherokee nation had written and adopted a Constitution in 1827, and later sued the State of Georgia for restricting their freedoms on tribal lands. In 1830, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in favor of the State of Georgia, but when the Cherokee returned to the Supreme Court in 1831, the Court reversed the earlier decision, ruling that the “Indian tribes were sovereign and immune from Georgia laws.” Although the ruling favored the Native American tribes, Alabama and Andrew Jackson chose to ignore the Court and pushed for removal. By trickery in 1833, a group who claimed to be Cherokee leaders (they were not the recognized leaders of the Cherokee nation) signed a removal treaty. Cherokee Chief John Ross and 15,000 others signed a petition in protest, but the Supreme Court refused the petition, ratified the treaty, and gave the nation two years to move west or face forced migration. The result, in 1838, was the infamous “Trail of Tears” that led to the loss of 4,000 Cherokee lives. 

In 1833, some members of the Seminole nation accepted a treaty of removal. The majority of the tribe’s members considered the treaty illegitimate and resisted removal. The resistance resulted in the Second Seminole War (1835-1842) which cost thousands of Seminole lives. Most of the Seminole moved west after that war, but a few stayed behind. The remaining tribal members were forced to defend themselves again in the Third Seminole War (1855-58), but they too moved west after the United States government paid them to do so. 

The Creeks refused to leave Alabama, but in an 1832 treaty, they gave up a large portion of their land with a guarantee of “protected ownership of the remaining portion.” Unfortunately, the protection didn’t materialize, and by 1832, the Creeks were left destitute by speculators who cheated them out of their land. The destitute Creeks turned violent against the white settlers. Their theft of livestock and crops, arson, and murder led to a forced removal in 1837 as a military necessity. No treaty of removal was ever signed.

Of the “Five Nations,” only the Chickasaw did not resist. They had signed a treaty of removal in 1832 with a guarantee of U.S. government protection until they could emigrate. Again, the guaranteed protection did not materialize due to the onslaught of white settlers. Under duress, the Chickasaw were forced to pay the Choctaw to occupy a portion of the Choctaw's western allotment. The Chickasaw emigration commenced in 1837. 

In a nutshell: the Choctaw were the first to sign a treaty of removal but some tribal members resisted by staying behind under treaty provisions; the Cherokee used legal means to resist removal; the Seminole who considered the treaty of removal illegitimate fought two wars of resistance; the Creek refused to leave Alabama but compromised with the white settlers until they were left destitute and turned to violence against the settlers; and the Chickasaw did not resist.

How would you compare Ekwefi's behavior when Ezinma is ill with Okonkwo's when Ikemefuna goes on his final journey?

In Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart, Achebe portrays the disparate ways that Ekwefi and Okonkwo suffer in an interesting way that illustrates their singular personalities. Ekwefi is openly distressed when Ezinma falls ill and is on the verge of death. Out of ten pregnancies, Ezinma is Ekwefi’s only surviving child. Thus, she cherishes her child, and is terrified to find Ezinma violently ill:

“'Ezinma is dying,' came her voice, and all the tragedy and...

In Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart, Achebe portrays the disparate ways that Ekwefi and Okonkwo suffer in an interesting way that illustrates their singular personalities. Ekwefi is openly distressed when Ezinma falls ill and is on the verge of death. Out of ten pregnancies, Ezinma is Ekwefi’s only surviving child. Thus, she cherishes her child, and is terrified to find Ezinma violently ill:

“'Ezinma is dying,' came her voice, and all the tragedy and sorrow of her life were packed in those words” (76).

Similarly, Okonkwo suffers a great deal when he discovers that his adoptive son Ikemefuna has been condemned to die. However, he pushes aside these feelings, fearing that they are feminine and weak, and actually takes part in murdering the young man. Indeed, it is Okonkwo who lands the blow that kills Ikemefuna. After he has murdered Ikemefuna, Okonkwo falls into a deep depression. He questions why he feels this way:

“When did you become a shivering old woman... you, who are known in all the nine villages for your valor in war? How can a man who has killed five men in battle fall to pieces because he has added a boy to their number? Okonkwo, you have become a woman indeed” (65).

Thus, Achebe shows that Ekwefi is more willing to embrace her feelings than Okonkwo. Okonkwo is agonized by Ikemefuna’s death, but he believes that any emotion other than anger is a sign of weakness, so he pushes his feelings aside.