Does Lady Macbeth have the ability to decide fate?

It's impossible to know whether Shakespeare was himself a Christian—but he was definitely writing in a Christian culture to a Christian audience. Within such a context, fate is something that is predestined in accordance with God's will. It is in the nature of fate that humans cannot decide upon it.

As to whether is is possible for Lady Macbeth to change her fate or that of her husband, that gets into complex notions of predestination,...

It's impossible to know whether Shakespeare was himself a Christian—but he was definitely writing in a Christian culture to a Christian audience. Within such a context, fate is something that is predestined in accordance with God's will. It is in the nature of fate that humans cannot decide upon it.

As to whether is is possible for Lady Macbeth to change her fate or that of her husband, that gets into complex notions of predestination, free will, and future contingency. As humans with free will, we like to think that we are capable of making decisions. Such a belief is also necessary for us to believe in divine justice, as it seem unfair that we be rewarded or punished if we do not have free will to make choices resulting in those rewards or punishments. 

In the play, there seem to be choices, though. First, because witches are evil, Macbeth could have refused to listen to them and Lady Macbeth could have tried to dissuade her husband from heeding their advice. Even if Macbeth was destined to be king, he could have striven to be a loyal subject to King Duncan and perhaps if he had been morally good, he might have been awarded the kingdom after all for his good deeds or military valor.

When Lady Macbeth receives the letter about the witches' prophecies, she reacts by saying that she needs to:

... chastise with the valour of my tongue

All that impedes thee from the golden round,

Which fate and metaphysical aid doth seem

To have thee crown'd withal.

In other words, her mind immediately jumps to a ruthless and unethical conclusion about the best means for achieving kingship. What this suggests is that the couple both had some degree of free will and chose the worst possible means of achieving a fixed goal, and thus that indeed their punishments (insanity, death, and murder) are examples of divine justice. 

How can I argue that Romeo and Juliet were in love and not just infatuated?

It is difficult to prove that Romeo and Juliet were in love and not merely infatuated. Shakespeare's play takes place over the course of 5 days, from Sunday to Thursday, which is indicative of an infatuation rather than a substantive love. Shakespeare most likely used Arthur Brooke's poem The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet, which was written in 1562, as the basis for his play. In that work, the story of Romeo and Juliet takes place over the course of nine months. That very time frame makes it easier to point to love rather than an infatuation. Here is a link to Arthur Brooke's work: Arthur Brooke's Poem.

There are some lines that could be used to argue the point that their romance is rooted in something deeper than just physical attraction. When Romeo confesses his love for Rosaline to Benvolio in Act I scene I, he talks only about Rosaline's physical beauty, and the fact that she has made a vow to remain chaste. He says: 

"She'll not be hit with Cupid's arrow. She hath Dian's wit; And, in strong proof of chastity well armed, from love's weak childish bow she lives unharm'd. She will not stay the siege of loving terms, nor bide the encounter of assailing eyes, nor ope her lap to saint-seducing gold." 

He goes on to lament that Rosaline has chosen a life of chastity, and because of this, her beauty will never be passed on to future generations. Her decision to not have a physical relationship with anyone, Romeo claims, has left him alive, but dead. His feelings certainly carry the intensity of an infatuation, but no substance that could be considered love.   

We don't know how long he knew Rosaline from the text, but it's clear she's rejected his advances. The fact that Romeo meets Juliet while still pining for Rosaline certainly doesn't help further the argument that he feels love rather than infatuation. However, we do see how he treats Juliet, with much respect for her honor and something close to piety, and from the exchange in Act I scene 5, an argument could be made that he felt something stronger than mere infatuation.  

In the prologue to Act II, it says:  

"Now Romeo is beloved and loves again,

Alike bewitchèd by the charm of looks,

But to his foe supposed he must complain,
And she steal love’s sweet bait from fearful hooks.

Being held a foe, he may not have access

To breathe such vows as lovers use to swear.

And she as much in love, her means much less

To meet her new beloved anywhere.

But passion lends them power, time means, to meet,

Tempering extremities with extreme sweet." 

This could be used as evidence of the strength of Romeo's feelings, that he is willing to risk his life to woo the daughter of his sworn enemy. He also agrees to marry Juliet, risking his life and future, which suggests that this feeling might go beyond physical attraction. It could also be argued that his willingness to marry Juliet shows concern for her honor, which is an argument for love rather than infatuation. Infatuation seeks to get something from another. An example of this is when Romeo sought a physical relationship with Rosaline. Love seeks to give to another, and Romeo is giving Juliet her wish, as well as her dignity by agreeing to marry her. 

In Julius Caesar, does Calpurnia's dream about the lioness whelping in the streets and blood drizzling on the capitol have significance?

Julius Caesar’s wife Calpurnia has foreboding dreams about her husband. In her sleep, she cries, “'Help, ho! they murder Caesar!'” She begs him not to go to the capitol that day. The lioness in the streets, the “drizzled blood upon the Capitol,” and ghosts escaping their graves are actually reported phenomenon, not Calpurnia’s dream.

Caesar argues that fate is unavoidable and that these strange sights are general and do not specifically relate to him. Calpurnia...

Julius Caesar’s wife Calpurnia has foreboding dreams about her husband. In her sleep, she cries, “'Help, ho! they murder Caesar!'” She begs him not to go to the capitol that day. The lioness in the streets, the “drizzled blood upon the Capitol,” and ghosts escaping their graves are actually reported phenomenon, not Calpurnia’s dream.

Caesar argues that fate is unavoidable and that these strange sights are general and do not specifically relate to him. Calpurnia notes, “When beggars die, there are no comets seen; / The heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes.” Caesar famously replies, “Cowards die many times before their deaths; / The valiant never taste of death but once.”

Even the prophets find ominous signs and suggest Caesar stay home. Caesar agrees to remain at home for Calpurnia’s sake, until the conspirator Decius Brutus appears and convinces him otherwise. Then Caesar relates Calpurnia’s dream: his statue spouted blood, “and many lusty Romans / Came smiling, and did bathe their hands in it.” This foretells Caesar’s murder at the hands of the senators, who do wash their hands and knives in his blood.

However, Decius gives the nightmare a positive spin: “from you great Rome shall suck / Reviving blood.” It symbolizes Caesar’s greatness. He further tempts him by letting him know that the senate plans to offer Caesar the crown, which might be revoked if they learn that he stayed home due to his wife’s fear. Caesar laughs off Calpurnia’s apprehension and goes to the senate, only to be stabbed by some of his closest friends. It may very well have been avoided if he had heeded her dreams.

How would you compare and contrast Nick Carraway and Jay Gatsby?

To compare is to find similarities; let's start with the ways that Nick Carraway and Jay Gatsby are alike. Both men are from the Midwest, and both have decided to seek their fortunes elsewhere. Both have goals: Nick's is to become a success on Wall Street, and Gatsby's is to win back Daisy's love. Both understand that amassing wealth takes time if you aren't lucky enough to inherit it. Both men served in the Army...

To compare is to find similarities; let's start with the ways that Nick Carraway and Jay Gatsby are alike. Both men are from the Midwest, and both have decided to seek their fortunes elsewhere. Both have goals: Nick's is to become a success on Wall Street, and Gatsby's is to win back Daisy's love. Both understand that amassing wealth takes time if you aren't lucky enough to inherit it. Both men served in the Army during WWI.

The contrasts between Nick and Gatsby begin with their upbringing. Nick has been raised in a stable family with above-average income, a father with a professional career, and a college education in the East. Gatsby, on the other hand, experienced poverty in a family of unsuccessful farmers and did not graduate from college. While Nick is pursuing financial success through legal means, Gatsby has no apparent qualms about attaining money through criminal activity.

Bob Ewell Racist Quotes

The Ewells are white, but very poor.  They live on the fringes of Maycomb society, not literate or employed.  Bob Ewell, the head of the family, is a drunk and an abusive father.

The first evidence that Bob Ewell is racist is that he accuses Tom Robinson of rape.  Although he uses very colorful language when testifying, some of the same racist language is used by Mr. Tate quoting Mr. Ewell.

Mr. Tate said, “It was the night of November twenty-first. I was just leaving my office to go home when B—Mr. Ewell came in, very excited he was, and said get out to his house quick, some nigger’d raped his girl.” (Ch. 17)

It was not uncommon in this time to refer to blacks with that word.  However, the way Bob Ewell used it and meant it was unquestionably racist.  He had no respect for Tom Robinson and thought nothing of accusing him of rape.  He was just another black man.

During the trial, Ewell also makes a derogatory comment about where Tom Robinson lives.

“Why, I run for Tate quick as I could. I knowed who it was, all right, lived down yonder in that nigger-nest, passed the house every day. Jedge, I’ve asked this county for fifteen years to clean out that nest down yonder, they’re dangerous to live around ‘sides devaluin’ my property—” (Ch. 17)

It is clearly racist to say that the blacks living near him should have been cleaned out, and to refer to their homes as a “nest.”  It shows that he is racist, and confirms that he considers himself above them even though he lives in a pigsty.  His children could have the advantages of whites, but he denies them those by choice.

When the jury convicts Robinson, it is not enough for Ewell.  He targets Atticus on the street, angry that he has made a fool of his family and angry at him for taking the case in the first place.

Mr. Ewell was a veteran of an obscure war; that plus Atticus’s peaceful reaction probably prompted him to inquire, “Too proud to fight, you nigger-lovin’ bastard?” (Ch. 23)

Atticus is very polite to Ewell, and does not take it seriously when he is threatened.  He should have.  Bob Ewell is a racist and a coward, and he has nothing else in his life but his pride.  What little he had, Atticus took from him.

Ewell’s reaction to Tom Robinson’s death is not hard to imagine.

Miss Stephanie told Aunt Alexandra ... that Mr. Ewell said it made one down and about two more to go. Jem told me not to be afraid, Mr. Ewell was more hot gas than anything. (Ch. 25)

Ewell attacks Jem and Scout, but Boo Radley rescues them.  Ewell is killed and that's the end of it, but the Robinsons' lives will never be the same.  Tom Robinson is dead, and his family is outcast.  Bob Ewell took everything from them.

Provide character sketches of Helen Keller's parents.

To the information provided by the previous educator, I would add the following to the character sketch of Helen Keller's parents. First of all, her parents were extremely loving towards Helen and doted on her. Helen describes her father, for instance, as being "indulgent" and "devoted to his home." He never left the family, except to hunt. Helen speaks with equal fondness about her mother. In fact, she says that her mother is "so...

To the information provided by the previous educator, I would add the following to the character sketch of Helen Keller's parents. First of all, her parents were extremely loving towards Helen and doted on her. Helen describes her father, for instance, as being "indulgent" and "devoted to his home." He never left the family, except to hunt. Helen speaks with equal fondness about her mother. In fact, she says that her mother is "so dear" to her that it is almost impossible to express it adequately.

In addition, Helen's parents were extremely supportive of her educational pursuits. They were "deeply grieved and perplexed," for example, when they were unable to find a school for deaf-blind children that was close to the family homestead. In response, Helen's parents took her to Baltimore to see an "oculist" in the hope that something might be done for her eyes. But they did not give up hope and continued to fight for Helen's right to be educated. This led them to Anne Sullivan, the woman who would play a pivotal role in Helen's life and development. 

How are Jane, Edward and Bertha all imprisoned in different ways and circumstances? What berates them? How do these different processes indicate...

Jane, Edward and Bertha, though in very different positions in the novel, are all constrained or "imprisoned" by different surmountable and insurmountable factors. 

The beginning of the novel emphasizes Jane's quite literal imprisonment in the Reed's house, where she is once actually locked in a room until she faints. Her parents' early death leaves her an orphan, and she is consequently financially limited and dependent wherever she goes--at the Reed's and then at Lowood. It...

Jane, Edward and Bertha, though in very different positions in the novel, are all constrained or "imprisoned" by different surmountable and insurmountable factors. 

The beginning of the novel emphasizes Jane's quite literal imprisonment in the Reed's house, where she is once actually locked in a room until she faints. Her parents' early death leaves her an orphan, and she is consequently financially limited and dependent wherever she goes--at the Reed's and then at Lowood. It is not until she is at Thornfield Hall that Jane begins to feel liberated from these constraints. She gains some sense of freedom when she decides to leave Lowood, find other work, and even when she leaves Mr. Rochester. Ultimate freedom comes when she becomes truly financially independent, but there is much to be said for Jane's increasing ability to make her own decisions. 

Edward's imprisonment also goes back to his family history. To some extent, he is constrained even before the novel begins by his father's wishes--it is apparently not his own choice to marry Bertha. Later, he is imprisoned by Bertha herself: first because he must deal with her increasing insanity, later because he must take care of her, and finally because he cannot remarry and truly find happiness while she is still alive. Even in the end of the novel, Edward is somewhat imprisoned by his blindness. 

Bertha is perhaps the most literally imprisoned character in Jane Eyre, as she is actually locked in the attic of Thornfield Hall. Also figuratively imprisoned by her own insanity, Bertha's only means of liberation is suicide. 

Does Mark Antony have any internal conflicts in Julius Caesar?

Mark Antony’s internal conflict is his struggle with himself over how to avenge Caesar’s death and work with Octavius.

An internal conflict is a character vs. self struggle.  It is usually a difficult decision or a fear that a character has.  Antony’s struggles were only beginning when Caesar was killed.  He had plenty of external conflicts.  As Caesar’s second in command and cousin, Antony worried that he might be next.  He also had the challenge of some people thinking that he might have been involved.  He had to determine the best way to avenge Caesar’s death, acquire power, and handle Caesar’s heir, Octavius.

Antony's internal conflicts revolved around how he would deal with Caesar's death and his killers.  Caesar and Antony were very close.  Antony was Caesar’s cousin, and one of his military aids.  He might have assumed that he was going to be Caesar’s heir, and that Caesar was going to live long enough to elevate him into a position of great power.  Either way, Antony suffered a great personal loss when Caesar was killed.

Deciding to negotiate with Brutus would have been a tough but necessary decision.  It must have been one of the hardest things he had ever done, to humble himself before the man who killed his benefactor.  To kiss up to Brutus and Cassius would have gone against every fiber of his being, but it was what he needed to do in order to get what he wanted.  He even shook hands with Brutus over Caesar’s corpse—a hand covered in blood.

After the conspirators leave, Shakespeare demonstrates Antony’s internal conflict with a bristling soliloquy in which Antony addresses Caesar’s body, promising to avenge his death and predicting civil war.

O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth,
That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!
Thou art the ruins of the noblest man
That ever lived in the tide of times.
Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood! (Act 3, Scene 1)

Antony has a lot on his plate.  He has to deal with Brutus and his contingent, who are at this point very dangerous.  Not only have they killed Caesar, but they are poised to take over Rome.  Antony also has Octavius to contend with.   Caesar’s will names him heir, and he will want a share of the power.

Antony has to tread carefully.  He has to decide what to do about Octavius.  Although the boy is young, he is the biggest threat to Antony’s power.  He makes another political move, telling Octavius’s servant to keep him away.

Post back with speed, and tell him what hath chanced:
Here is a mourning Rome, a dangerous Rome,
No Rome of safety for Octavius yet;
Hie hence, and tell him so. (Act 3, Scene 1)

He gives a rousing speech to the people in order to eulogize Caesar and position himself as Caesar’s political heir.  Having cemented the people’s support is not enough though.  Antony has to keep it.  Caesar named Octavius as his heir, and this is not something Antony can ignore.  He has to form a triumvirate with Octavius and Lepidus.

Antony must have had a horrible internal conflict in setting aside his pride to share power with Lepidus, a nobody, and Octavius, a kid.  Yet he did what he had to do.  Shakespeare demonstrates Antony’s unhappiness with this deal by the dismissive way he treats Lepidus and the frustration he feels with Octavius not bowing to his wisdom and experience. 

How does the British unitary government compare and contrast with the confederation-based Swiss system?

While both the UK and Switzerland are generally considered "democracies" and they both have stable governments with low corruption and a very high standard of living, there are actually some quite significant differences between their governments in terms of structure. Both countries provide very nice guides on their official websites explaining how their governments function, which are linked below.

The United Kingdom is still technically a monarchy. Specifically, it is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. The Queen of the United Kingdom theoretically still has an enormous amount of power, but she hardly ever exercises it. In practice, most of the decisions made by the UK government are made by Parliament in general or the Prime Minister in particular.

Unlike the US, where the President is directly elected by popular vote, in the UK, the Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen from the members of Parliament. The UK is a (really, the) common law system, so precedent has established that the Queen must appoint whomever Parliament votes for, even though this is not actually written into the Constitution of the UK. Parliament consists of two Houses, the House of Commons, which is directly elected by popular vote, and the House of Lords, which is partially elected, partially appointed by the Queen, and partially made up of hereditary offices still inherited all the way down from the feudal system.

As you can see, democracy in the UK is actually quite indirect; the people elect (most) of the Members of Parliament, who then de facto elect the Prime Minister (who is actually technically appointed).

Switzerland is quite the opposite. They have something very close to a direct democracy, wherein all major decisions are made by popular vote in a referendum. (One thing that may make it easier is that the population of Switzerland is only about 8 million people, about the population of Greater London. The UK as a whole has over 60 million people.) There is no single chief executive in Switzerland, but instead a Federal Council of seven elected officials, each of whom serves as Federal President for one year over their collective seven-year term. Then they also have a Parliament, all of the members of which are elected directly by popular vote. Switzerland is a civil law system, so laws must be written down; they can't be established by precedent as they are in the UK. And in order to write them down, either there must be a vote of Parliament for minor laws, or a direct referendum of the popular vote for major laws (Parliament decides what is "major" and sets up an "optional referendum") and amendments to the Constitution of Switzerland (which are always done by mandatory referendum).

Switzerland's two legislative houses are the National Council of 200 people, which is elected by proportional representation so that each party gets a number of seats proportional to the votes they received; and a Council of States of 46 people, which is elected by a plurality vote in each of the cantons, smaller units comparable to states in the US, such that every canton gets two representatives, except for the very smallest cantons, which only get one. This system is quite similar to the US Congress, where the House of Representatives is proportional to population but the Senate has two representatives elected from each state. The chief difference is that the US does not use true proportional representation, but instead allots districts to states based on population and then elects a representative from each district. As discussed in the Switzerland brochure (much to my delight; how often do government brochures explain political science concepts?), proportional representation favors small political parties, while plurality vote favors large political parties. This is likely why the US has only two major political parties and Switzerland has several.

Thus, democracy in Switzerland is much more direct; while they do elect representatives, there are no appointed or inherited offices at the top (obviously they appoint postal carriers, tax collectors, etc.!) and individual voters directly make most policy decisions.

Cantons in Switzerland also have a great deal of autonomy, making their own local laws and policies under a framework provided by the federal government (this is also much like the US system, where laws vary between states). By default, it is assumed that the cantons will have the right to make policy, unless the Constitution says specifically that a given law is under the authority of the federal government.

In the UK, Parliament (and technically the Queen) have unitary authority, so they can essentially dictate absolutely all law in the United Kingdom. They do grant some powers to local regions (particularly Scotland and Northern Ireland), but this is entirely at their discretion and could be removed at any time. By default, power is vested in the Government of the United Kingdom unless that power is specifically relinquished.

Switzerland is a democracy in the strongest sense, while the UK is more like a de facto democracy or quasi-democracy, or, like I said, the more formal term is parliamentary constitutional monarchy.

Yet despite all these differences, policies between the two countries are really not all that different. Even their economies are quite similar, being highly focused on financial services. The powers that the Government of the UK has chosen to devolve to lower governments are even quite similar in practice to the powers that the federal government of Switzerland has chosen not to take from the cantons. They have taken very different paths, but ended up in more or less the same place.

How can I compare psychology today with existentialism? What are the strengths and limitations of its approach?

Existentialism is a branch of philosophy that places an emphasis on individual existence, and prioitizes freedom of choice. According to existentialism, people define their meaning in life, and seek to make rational decisions in spite of an irrational universe. This is to say that individual people are to make their own meaning; there is no “true” meaning at the core of human existence. Additionally, existentialism holds that existence itself is the ultimate reality, rather than...

Existentialism is a branch of philosophy that places an emphasis on individual existence, and prioitizes freedom of choice. According to existentialism, people define their meaning in life, and seek to make rational decisions in spite of an irrational universe. This is to say that individual people are to make their own meaning; there is no “true” meaning at the core of human existence. Additionally, existentialism holds that existence itself is the ultimate reality, rather than consciousness.

Existentialism was developed mostly over the course of the late 19th and early 20th centuries by a host of philosophers, but especially Soren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre. The writers Fyodor Dostoevsky, Franz Kafka, and Albert Camus also influenced its development.

As far as the decline of existentialism is concerned, it might be more accurate to say that many of the major tenets of the philosophy have been accepted into mainstream thought, rendering moot the need to label such perspectives as “existentialist” or anything at all.

Existential psychology is an offshoot of the philosophical movement that holds that individual struggle or suffering is the result of a person’s refusal to accept the inherent meaninglessness of existence. Further, existential psychology posits that although every individual is ultimately alone, we desire a connection to other people and to occupy a meaningful place in their lives, which leads to intense anxiety. The solution to this anxiety is personal responsibility and the understanding that validation must come from within.

How reliable is the narrator in MAUS?

There are two narrators in MAUS. Art Spiegelman is the author of this impressive graphic novel, but he is also a co-narrator. He tape-records his father's testimony, takes intricate notes, and researches all he can about his parents' experiences during the Holocaust. These practices help to secure his reliability as an author, and as a narrator, because he also appears in his own book. He describes his own experiences growing up with parents who were Holocaust...

There are two narrators in MAUS. Art Spiegelman is the author of this impressive graphic novel, but he is also a co-narrator. He tape-records his father's testimony, takes intricate notes, and researches all he can about his parents' experiences during the Holocaust. These practices help to secure his reliability as an author, and as a narrator, because he also appears in his own book. He describes his own experiences growing up with parents who were Holocaust survivors as well as his struggles to get the information he needs from his father to write the book. Thus, Artie can be considered a primary source when he narrates his side of the story and dealing with his father. Being his own primary source strengthens his credibility, which also validates his side of the story. In addition, there is no reason for him to fabricate any details because his goal in writing the book is to tell the story truthfully.

Artie's father Vladek narrates his own experiences in the book, so he is also considered a primary source along with any letters or journals that are consulted in the making of MAUS. Vladek has no reason to change or misrepresent the historical facts surrounding his experiences, and because he witnessed and lived through such amazing events, it is likely that he would never forget them. Therefore, the reliability of Vladek as a narrator when it comes to facts, details, and dates associated with historical events is strong, if not unquestionable.

In contrast, the times that Vladek might be considered slightly unreliable are those when he seems to exaggerate about himself. For example, he has a girlfriend before he meets his wife Anja and paints himself as a suave ladies' man. When they break up he says that she stalks him and begs for him not to leave her. This may or may not have been true because he could have been making himself out to be more of a catch than he really was. It may also be what he thought about himself at the time, but there's no way to fact-check personal and private experiences such as this without other witnesses to share what they thought about or experienced with Vladek at the time.

Another time that Vladek's reliability can be called into question would be anything associated with Anja's feelings, how she perceived her experiences during the war, or how she saw Vladek during this time. Also, there's no way of knowing Anja's life story while she is separated from him in the camp because Vladek destroys his wife's diary after she commits suicide. Artie is beside himself with rage when he finds out that his father did that. He could have had his mother's side of the story if it weren't for his father's rash decision; therefore, anything Vladek claims to be true for Anja's life or perspective could be called into question as well. Overall, Art Spiegelman does a wonderful job with all of the information he acquires and creates one of the best tributes to Holocaust survivors by unveiling the truth about what they endured.

What is a good hook for a compare and contrast essay about the religious and economic styles of Ancient Egypt and Ancient China?

First, you will have to look at religion and economics in both ancient Egypt and ancient China.  In Egypt, the religion was a polytheistic one.  Egyptians worshipped many gods for many purposes.  The pharaoh was considered to be a divine figure, who served as an intermediary between the gods and the Egyptian people.  The Egyptians had a much stronger belief in an afterlife than the Chinese did.  In China, the main religion was one that...

First, you will have to look at religion and economics in both ancient Egypt and ancient China.  In Egypt, the religion was a polytheistic one.  Egyptians worshipped many gods for many purposes.  The pharaoh was considered to be a divine figure, who served as an intermediary between the gods and the Egyptian people.  The Egyptians had a much stronger belief in an afterlife than the Chinese did.  In China, the main religion was one that became what is now Taoism.  This was also a polytheistic religion.  It was partially influenced by Chinese dependence on shamans.  The focus is on oneness with nature and on balance.  Both religions shared similar deities, such as gods of Sun and Earth.  

Trade was important in both ancient Egypt and China.  Silk was a major export from China.  Some merchants traveled by water to sell their goods.  Others used the Silk Road as a land route for trade.  In Egypt, merchants sold gold, papyrus, and linen.  Merchants used the Nile River to travel.  Some even visited port cities along the Mediterranean Sea.  Both economies also relied heavily on farming.  In China, salt and iron were mined.  In Egypt, mining was focused on gold and various types of stone.

You can look at this information and what each culture had in common.  You can also see what they did not have in common.  From there, you can decide what your hook will be.  An example might be:

"Though they were thousands of miles apart, Ancient Egypt and Ancient China had much in common.  Their economies relied heavily on trade and their religions were both polytheistic.  They did have some differences, such as the Egyptian reliance on water routes for trade and the Chinese dependence on the Silk Road."

How does Scout react when she meets the man who saved her life?

Bob Ewell attacks Scout and Jem as they walked home one night.  Boo Radley appears and fights Bob off, saving their lives.  He carries Jem home because the boy is injured.  At home, Scout identifies him as the man who had saved their lives.

When Scout meets Boo, she first observes him.  She sees him as a timid, scared man.  Previously, she had viewed him as a sort of monster.  She notes his appearance and...

Bob Ewell attacks Scout and Jem as they walked home one night.  Boo Radley appears and fights Bob off, saving their lives.  He carries Jem home because the boy is injured.  At home, Scout identifies him as the man who had saved their lives.

When Scout meets Boo, she first observes him.  She sees him as a timid, scared man.  Previously, she had viewed him as a sort of monster.  She notes his appearance and demeanor:

He was still leaning against the wall.  He had been leaning against the wall when I came into the room, his arms folded across his chest.  As I pointed he brought his arms down and pressed the palms of his hands against the wall.  They were white hands, sickly white hands that had never seen the sun, so white they stood out garishly against the dull cream wall in the dim light of Jem's room.

Observing Boo, Scout's opinion of him changes.  She finally sees him as a person.  He smiles at her and she begins to cry.  Then Scout greets him, calling him "Boo."  A little later, Scout walks Boo home.  She reflects on how her opinion of him has transformed.  She had stopped fearing him long ago.  Instead, she was mainly curious.  Now, in Boo's presence, she realizes that she has found a friend.

What is "The Eagle" about?

On one level, the poem could just be about the experience of an eagle.  He's up on a mountaintop, by himself, in a clear blue and sunny sky.  The eagle is up so high that the sea looks like wrinkled cloth or paper below him, and he watches over everything before diving down and striking his prey.

On another level, the poem could be interpreted as a symbolic comment on absolute power.  In this case,...

On one level, the poem could just be about the experience of an eagle.  He's up on a mountaintop, by himself, in a clear blue and sunny sky.  The eagle is up so high that the sea looks like wrinkled cloth or paper below him, and he watches over everything before diving down and striking his prey.

On another level, the poem could be interpreted as a symbolic comment on absolute power.  In this case, the eagle represents a supreme ruler with unlimited power.  This ruler holds onto "the crag," his authority, with "crooked" hands that could refer either to bent talons or corrupt practices.  He is alone, in his absolute power because to share that power would mean his is no longer absolute.  Everyone else is below him; "crawl[ing]" is an action associated with the powerless.  He keeps an eye on everything from the seat of his power, perhaps his castle atop a mountain, and when he loses his position or "falls" from power, it is violent and swift, or, perhaps, strikes out swiftly and violently when someone threatens his power or disobeys him.

How does Harper Lee present Atticus and Scout's attitude toward him in the passage in which Scout says, "Atticus was feeble," in Chapter 10 of To...

Author Harper Lee creates irony when, in Chapter 10 of To Kill a Mockingbird, she has Scout describe Atticus as feeble. In Scout's mind, Atticus is feeble because he is older than other fathers of children her and Jem's age and does not do anything interesting. Scout's opinion that Atticus is feeble is ironic because he is actually the exact opposite. In reality, Atticus has extraordinary strength of character and a very unusual ability...

Author Harper Lee creates irony when, in Chapter 10 of To Kill a Mockingbird, she has Scout describe Atticus as feeble. In Scout's mind, Atticus is feeble because he is older than other fathers of children her and Jem's age and does not do anything interesting. Scout's opinion that Atticus is feeble is ironic because he is actually the exact opposite. In reality, Atticus has extraordinary strength of character and a very unusual ability to act bravely, as Scout soon discovers.

Scout sees Atticus as feeble because, due to what she thinks of as his old age, which is only 50, he is unable to do many things such as play tackle football with Jem. She also sees his physique as portraying his feebleness, such as the fact that he wears glasses and is "nearly blind in his left eye." Finally, his job contributes to her view that he is feeble. In Scout's mind, Atticus does not have an interesting job like other fathers; for example, he does not drive a garbage truck, farm, work as a sheriff, nor work in a garage as a mechanic. Instead, all he does is work in an office, which could not "possibly arouse the admiration of anyone" (Ch. 10).

Little does Scout realize that we learned a great deal about Atticus's bravery earlier in Chapter 9. Atticus is brave enough to face the wrath of society by deciding to put his all into defending Tom Robinson, despite the rest of society's racist views that Robinson must be guilty simply because he is African American. In Chapter 10, we further witness Atticus's bravery when he acknowledges the reality that only his sharpshooting skills can save the neighborhood from a rabid dog and submits to taking on the task, even though he hates the idea of killing any living thing. Hence, Scout's opinion at the start of Chapter 10 is ironic and extremely incorrect, as she soon realizes.

In "The Bet" what did each the banker and the lawyer learn about life?

Before the application of the bet, the banker had argued that life in prison was worse than capital punishment (death). The lawyer argued that death was clearly worse. To prove that imprisonment is tolerable, the lawyer agrees to live in the banker's garden house for fifteen years. His reward, if he succeeds, is two million rubles. Upon the final day before the fifteen years is up, the banker knows he will be ruined if he...

Before the application of the bet, the banker had argued that life in prison was worse than capital punishment (death). The lawyer argued that death was clearly worse. To prove that imprisonment is tolerable, the lawyer agrees to live in the banker's garden house for fifteen years. His reward, if he succeeds, is two million rubles. Upon the final day before the fifteen years is up, the banker knows he will be ruined if he pays the two million rubles. So, he schemes to kill his captive (the lawyer) while shifting the blame of the murder on to the watchman. At this point, the banker has learned nothing. His only intention is to kill the lawyer and protect his money.

When he goes to kill him, the lawyer is asleep and there is a note on the table. Here are some excerpts from the lawyer's note to the banker: 

With a clear conscience I tell you, as before God, who beholds me, that I despise freedom and life and health and all that your good books call the good things of the world. 

Your books have given me wisdom. All that the unresting thought of man has created in the ages is compressed into a small compass in my brain. I am wiser than all of you. 

The lawyer also writes that he will leave his cell five minutes early and thus forfeit the bet. He has achieved some kind of wisdom and now he does not want the money. The lawyer seems bitter but enlightened. Of books and blessings of the world, the lawyer writes, "It is all worthless, fleeting, illusory, and deceptive, like a mirage." After living in books and in his imagination for fifteen years, he has come to the conclusion that life is fleeting and an illusion. Perhaps he is saying that the "real" world is as illusory as his imagination. Therefore money is as meaningless in the real world as it is in his mind. 

Upon reading this, the banker kisses the lawyer's head and cries in contempt of himself. He hates himself for valuing his money over the lawyer's life and putting the lawyer through such an ordeal. Here, the banker seems to have learned something about the corruption of greed. 

Why is Zora Neale Hurston famous?

Zora Neale Hurston is an important part of the canon of twentieth-century American literature for several reasons. While one could claim that the most important reason is the quality of her writing, that is a somewhat subjective matter, as people can reasonably disagree over whether they consider books well- or badly written.

The first reason students are asked to read her work is that she represents a women's voice in the Harlem Renaissance, a movement...

Zora Neale Hurston is an important part of the canon of twentieth-century American literature for several reasons. While one could claim that the most important reason is the quality of her writing, that is a somewhat subjective matter, as people can reasonably disagree over whether they consider books well- or badly written.

The first reason students are asked to read her work is that she represents a women's voice in the Harlem Renaissance, a movement of predominantly male African-American writers. Her perspective is therefore unusual. She is a forerunner of the more recent black female writers such as Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, and Alice Walker and important to understanding them. She is also distinctive in being a conservative voice, unlike many of her more liberal peers.

Next, she writes about the early free black cities of Florida, which gives many of her characters roots in an African-American tradition that is not dominated by racism and slavery, but in black success.

Finally, as well as being a creative writer, she studied anthropology and collected, studied, and preserved African-American folklore. Her distinctive use of African-American dialect in part reflects this desire to preserve and make public the unique artifacts of her cultural tradition.

What event triggered Mr. Pignati's death?

The event that triggered Mr. Pignati's death was the discovery that his home had been wrecked by John and Lorraine's irresponsible actions while he was away.

In the story, Mr. Pignati has to stay in the hospital after a heart attack; meanwhile, in his absence, both John and Lorraine step forward to take care of Mr. Pignati's home. However, during Mr. Pignati's absence, the two classmates decide to hold a party. They invite a few...

The event that triggered Mr. Pignati's death was the discovery that his home had been wrecked by John and Lorraine's irresponsible actions while he was away.

In the story, Mr. Pignati has to stay in the hospital after a heart attack; meanwhile, in his absence, both John and Lorraine step forward to take care of Mr. Pignati's home. However, during Mr. Pignati's absence, the two classmates decide to hold a party. They invite a few friends over, but soon, more people show up. The kids play loud music and use the living room for a dance floor. In short, everyone treats Mr. Pignati's house carelessly, wrecking and damaging many of his belongings while they are there.

One of Lorraine and John's friends, Norton, destroys Mr. Pignati's pig collection by throwing the porcelain pigs against the wall or smashing them on the table. Although John beats up Norton for his despicable behavior, it is too late. The pigs have been irreversibly damaged beyond repair. Lorraine's friend, Helen, also manages to rip one of Conchetta's beautiful dresses. Mr. Pignati returns in the midst of all the fracas and is thoroughly grieved and hurt at what he sees. It is quite possibly the immense emotional trauma Mr. Pignati suffers that exacerbates his heart condition and leads to his premature death. The hurt he conceivably experienced when he realized the extent of John and Lorraine's betrayal must have been indescribable.

What is Candy's dog a symbol of in John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men?

The old dog and Candy himself are symbolic of what happens when someone outlives his usefulness. The dog has lived a long life as Candy's companion but no longer serves any purpose. He smells bad, is blind and has a bad coat. Carlson, a static character whose main purpose in the novel is to kill the dog, complains:

“Well, I can’t stand him in here,” said Carlson. “That stink hangs around even after he’s gone.”...

The old dog and Candy himself are symbolic of what happens when someone outlives his usefulness. The dog has lived a long life as Candy's companion but no longer serves any purpose. He smells bad, is blind and has a bad coat. Carlson, a static character whose main purpose in the novel is to kill the dog, complains:

“Well, I can’t stand him in here,” said Carlson. “That stink hangs around even after he’s gone.” He walked over with his heavy-legged stride and looked down at the dog. “Got no teeth,” he said. “He’s all stiff with rheumatism. He ain’t no good to you, Candy. An’ he ain’t no good to himself. Why’n’t you shoot him, Candy?” 

Candy can't bring himself to put the dog down, but Carlson volunteers, and Slim, whose "opinions were law," thinks it's the best thing to do. Slim reiterates Carlson's claim that the dog is no longer useful:

“Carl’s right, Candy. That dog ain’t no good to himself. I wisht somebody’d shoot me if I get old an’ a cripple.” 

Symbolically, the dog is similar to Candy. The old swamper, who lost his hand in a ranch accident, has also outlived his purpose. He fears that he will soon be fired from the ranch since he can no longer work as hard as the other men. He expresses this fear after he offers to contribute his money for the farm that George wants to buy. He says,

Maybe if I give you guys my money, you’ll let me hoe in the garden even after I ain’t no good at it. An’ I’ll wash dishes an’ little chicken stuff like that. But I’ll be on our own place, an’ I’ll be let to work on our own place.” He said miserably, “You seen what they done to my dog tonight? They says he wasn’t no good to himself nor nobody else. When they can me here I wisht somebody’d shoot me. But they won’t do nothing like that. I won’t have no place to go, an’ I can’t get no more jobs. 

Unfortunately for Candy, the dream of the farm is shattered after Lennie accidentally kills Curley's wife. In Chapter Five, George is no longer interested in buying the farm because he knows he will have to kill Lennie. Lennie, too, has outlived his purpose. He can no longer live in society because of his actions. The dog, Candy and Lennie become castaways in a society which cannot be burdened by the old, the crippled or the mentally challenged. 

What image from "The Glory" does Edward Thomas use in "Beauty" to express the resolution of the problem in the latter poem and his release from...

“The Glory” is an exultant and blissful poem in which the poet writes of the glory of the morning; the narrator speaks of “the dove/That tempts me on to something sweeter than love.”  The poem is heavy with imagery, and speaks of Beauty, so easy to perceive in the early hours of the day and yet it wanes as the day wears on.

“Beauty” is more focused on the feelings of the speaker rather than...

“The Glory” is an exultant and blissful poem in which the poet writes of the glory of the morning; the narrator speaks of “the dove/That tempts me on to something sweeter than love.”  The poem is heavy with imagery, and speaks of Beauty, so easy to perceive in the early hours of the day and yet it wanes as the day wears on.

“Beauty” is more focused on the feelings of the speaker rather than his surroundings. This poem has an overall very different tone from the former, going from despair to relief and hope.  At first the speaker is “tired, angry, and ill at ease,” and feels alone and unloved in the world.  But after spending awhile in this depressed, quiet contemplation, his heart “Floats through a window even now to a tree…like a dove that slants unanswering to its home and love.” 

Here we have a very similar image to that which we find in “The Glory” – a dove, free in nature and recalling in its very essence a feeling of love, or indeed something greater.  In “Beauty,” the speaker’s heart flies free, as a dove, and thus the image first evoked in “The Glory” is the product of the active discarding of the speaker’s bad mood in the second poem.  In the final line of “Beauty,” the speaker notes that “Beauty is there.”  This thing that exists within him and that prevents him from falling utterly into despair is beauty, pure and abstract.  We could identify this beauty with that thing that is “sweeter than love,” also evoked by the image of a dove, in the first poem.  So while “The Glory” spoke of the natural beauty of the morning, what went undefined inside the speaker in “The Glory” is finally given a name in “Beauty.”  And, as it turns out, they are one and the same.

What is the plot of "A Sound of Thunder?"

The story starts off by introducing readers to a man named Eckels.  He has signed up to go back in time to hunt, and the company taking him is Time Safari Inc. Eckels is a bit of an overconfident, pompous, rich blowhard.  Travis and the other Time Safari guides try to dispel some of Eckels' overconfidence.  They tell him that nothing is guaranteed about the expedition and that he might not come back alive.  

...

The story starts off by introducing readers to a man named Eckels.  He has signed up to go back in time to hunt, and the company taking him is Time Safari Inc. Eckels is a bit of an overconfident, pompous, rich blowhard.  Travis and the other Time Safari guides try to dispel some of Eckels' overconfidence.  They tell him that nothing is guaranteed about the expedition and that he might not come back alive.  

Eckels and the other time traveling clients will be going back in time to the age of dinosaurs.  The goal is to shoot and kill a Tyrannosaurus rex.   Time Safari Inc. has everything in place.  They have correctly identified which dinosaur to kill in order to not mess up a future timeline.  They have put in place a floating sidewalk so that no safari member steps on and destroys anything in the past that might in turn affect the future.  Everything seems to be perfect.  That is until Eckels sees the T. rex.  Eckels loses his cool completely and enters a full panic mode.  He's terrified.  Travis orders him back to the time machine, but along the way Eckels steps off of the path.  

The rest of the safari members return to the time machine and head back to the present.  Once back in the present though, it is clear that not everything is the same as they had left it.  The language written on signs is different and the government leader is somebody different.  The reader then finds out that Eckels stepped on a butterfly in the past, and its death had vast repercussions throughout the rest of history.  The last thing that the reader and Eckels hear is Travis firing a gun. 

Is self-reliance possible in contemporary America? If so or if not, what does this say about America and/or a credo of self-reliance? Discuss with...

I think that living a life of "self- reliance" as Emerson defines it is entirely possible in contemporary America.

Emerson's overriding idea in "Self-Reliance" is for individuals to remain true to their own identity. Emerson writes this directly with phrases such as, ‘‘Insist on yourself," ‘‘Never imitate," and "Trust thyself." These ideas are applicable to contemporary America. There is a profound sense that institutions have broken trust with the public. This disillusion exists in the way that...

I think that living a life of "self- reliance" as Emerson defines it is entirely possible in contemporary America.

Emerson's overriding idea in "Self-Reliance" is for individuals to remain true to their own identity. Emerson writes this directly with phrases such as, ‘‘Insist on yourself," ‘‘Never imitate," and "Trust thyself." These ideas are applicable to contemporary America. There is a profound sense that institutions have broken trust with the public. This disillusion exists in the way that contemporary Americans view business leaders, political figures, religious systems, and even in popular culture. There is no trusted "establishment." Emerson himself identifies this reality as a critical component in his construction of self-reliance: "No government or church can explain a man’s heart to him, and so each individual must resist institutional authority.” Contemporary America is filled with this resistance today. This state of affairs might have created an opportunity for Emerson's definition of self-reliance to emerge. Emerson believes that genius and enlightenment can only be understood when one is willing to be seen as different: "To be great is to be misunderstood."

Given how contemporary Americans might no longer view the wave of institutions as definitive, people might be willing to be viewed as "misunderstood." In order for Emerson's self-reliance to take place, individuals must fervently embrace it. It's not easy. However, with the social fragmentation and questioning that has taken place in contemporary American institutions that used to define identity and the way people act, it might be where Emerson's ideas can be embraced. In order for this to happen, individuals must be willing to strike out on their own. They have to move away from expecting conformist notions of the good to play a role in their own identities. Given where contemporary America is right now, this might be where the possibility of Emerson's self-reliance might exist.

Symbolically connect Waverly to the fish the family eats for dinner in the final scene.

“On a platter were the remains of a large fish, its fleshy head still connected to bones swimming upstream in vain escape.”

Waverly, the narrator and young chess champion who keeps struggling with her mother, describes the family’s dinner this way. She’s just shown up at home after being out by herself for a few hours, having run away from her mother in the market. Waverly is very frustrated and embarrassed by the way her...

“On a platter were the remains of a large fish, its fleshy head still connected to bones swimming upstream in vain escape.”

Waverly, the narrator and young chess champion who keeps struggling with her mother, describes the family’s dinner this way. She’s just shown up at home after being out by herself for a few hours, having run away from her mother in the market. Waverly is very frustrated and embarrassed by the way her mother introduces her to strangers in the market; the girl seems to think her mother is taking credit for Waverly’s success as a chess prodigy.

But while Waverly is sitting alone, angry and cold and tired from running, she realizes that she has nowhere to go. There isn’t any escape from her mother or from her situation. This realization leads Waverly reluctantly back home to sit down to dinner with the family.

So, you can understand why Waverly would describe the fish on the dinner platter as a creature “swimming upstream in vain escape.” She identifies symbolically with the fish; both the creature and the young girl are trying desperately to find freedom and escape from the forces that are directing their lives.

With “its fleshy head still connected to bones,” the fish can also be symbolic of Waverly’s family unit. Waverly is the head; her mother is the bones. (Or vice versa, depending on your interpretation—I see Waverly as the head, since she’s the one facing a certain direction, trying to nudge away from her mother.) The mother and child, like the head and the bones, are connected to each other deeply. No matter how Waverly struggles to separate herself from her mother, she’s still a child under her mother’s care, and she’s still strongly influenced by her mother’s ideas and perspectives.

Describe the first person Daniel recruits for his band of Zealots. Why is this person eager to join Daniel?

Daniel and Joel start recruiting new members to help them fight the Romans. Daniel’s first recruit is Nathan, who is about the same age as Daniel and Joel. Nathan’s family has gone through a terrible ordeal that forced his father into making hard choices.

Nathan’s family was unable to raise the mandatory tax imposed by the Romans after their crops were destroyed. This forced his father to accept a job as a tax collector for...

Daniel and Joel start recruiting new members to help them fight the Romans. Daniel’s first recruit is Nathan, who is about the same age as Daniel and Joel. Nathan’s family has gone through a terrible ordeal that forced his father into making hard choices.

Nathan’s family was unable to raise the mandatory tax imposed by the Romans after their crops were destroyed. This forced his father to accept a job as a tax collector for the Romans, a position viewed with the utmost contempt by the Jewish community. The only other choice he had was to sell his daughter into slavery, which he couldn’t do. The negative sentiments culminated in violence against his son.

Nathan was violently attacked by a group of Jewish boys as a result. Daniel offered to help Nathan settle scores with the boys and later asks him to join his group of Zealots. Nathan joins the cause for his family and, in extension, for the Jewish community, because he traces his predicament to the Romans.

What are some literary devices found in Lord Capulet's lines of Act IV, Scene 5 of Romeo and Juliet? What significance do these devices have?

The short answer is that nearly every word that Capulet utters here is filled with literary devices that propel the tension and mood, build the dramatic irony, and develop the audience's sense of who Capulet is. Let's look at the details.

In Act 4, Scene 5, the Nurse and Juliet's mom, Lady Capulet, find Juliet's body and believe her to be dead.

When Juliet's dad, Capulet, walks in and doesn't know what's going on yet, he says:

"For shame, bring Juliet forth. Her lord is come."

What he means is, "Get Juliet. Her soon-to-be husband is here." But because the word "lord" can mean different things, it kind of sounds like he's saying that God has come to get her. It's kind of a dark and funny play on words. When words can mean two or more different things and they're used ambiguously in this way, it's a literary device called double entendre. In this case, its significance is creating a darkly humorous scene.

When he realizes what's going on, Capulet is understandably distraught, and he says:

"Death lies on her like an untimely frost

Upon the sweetest flower of all the field."

Here, Capulet uses a simile (comparing death to a frost) and a metaphor (comparing his daughter to a flower--which he's actually done before, implying that she's precious, beautiful, delicate, innocent, and so on). The effect of these figurative comparisons is that they establish a mood of dramatic grief, they build up the dramatic irony because the audience knows Juliet isn't really dead, and they further develop Capulet's character by showing his soft side.

Here's the next thing he says:

"Death, that hath ta'en her hence to make me wail,

Ties up my tongue and will not let me speak."

Here Capulet means, "Death, you've taken her away from me to make me cry, but now you've tied up my tongue so I can't speak."

A couple of devices are in play right here. First, when you dramatically address someone or something that isn't actually there, like Death, it's called apostrophe. It's a literary device that can express heights of sadness and frustration, which is what's going on here.

Second, look at how Capulet is saying "I'm so upset that I can't even talk," and yet he's talking a lot! On the surface, this is understandable. He thinks his daughter is dead, so he's not talking sense. But also, it's pretty funny. When there's a striking or funny contrast between what's being said and what's actually true, you can call it verbal irony. Here, its effect seems to simply be humor.

After that, Capulet says this to Paris, the guy who's supposed to be marrying Juliet that day:

"The night before thy wedding day

Hath death lain with thy wife. There she lies,

Flower as she was, deflowered by him."

Yikes! He means "Right before you were supposed to get married, Death slept with your intended wife. And there she is. She was a flower, but Death deflowered her."

He's saying that death has "deflowered" Juliet, or taken her virginity. It's another play on words (specifically another double entendre) that builds the tension at the same time that it adds humor.

After that, he does a lot of (understandable) wailing and moaning, followed by some intense repetition in the syntax which keeps on expressing the extent of his grief:

"Our instruments to melancholy bells,

Our wedding cheer to a sad burial feast.

Our solemn hymns to sullen dirges change,

Our bridal flowers serve for a buried corse."

How does a minor character in 1984 show the theme of the novel?

In 1984, Orwell uses minor characters to demonstrate the extent of the Party's control and to warn against the dangers of totalitarian regimes.

Take the character of Syme, for example, who appears in Part One, Chapter Five. Syme is a colleague of Winston's and works on the development of Newspeak, the official language of Oceania. During conversation, Syme explains the purpose of Newspeak:

We're destroying words - scores of them, hundreds of them, everyday....

In 1984, Orwell uses minor characters to demonstrate the extent of the Party's control and to warn against the dangers of totalitarian regimes.

Take the character of Syme, for example, who appears in Part One, Chapter Five. Syme is a colleague of Winston's and works on the development of Newspeak, the official language of Oceania. During conversation, Syme explains the purpose of Newspeak:

We're destroying words - scores of them, hundreds of them, everyday. We're cutting the language down to the bone. 

More importantly, the purpose of this cutting-down is to control people's ability to express their thoughts. As Syme comments:

In the end, we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.

Syme, therefore, symbolizes the Party's domination of independent thought. What is, perhaps, more concerning is Syme's pride in such a task: he is lively and animated when describing his work to Winston and believes that the destruction of language is beautiful. In this respect, Orwell uses Syme to demonstrate the dangers of a dominated mind: Syme cannot see the inherent problems in thought control because he has been brainwashed by the Party.

We can contrast Syme with another minor character, to further understand the themes of 1984. Take, for example, the Prole woman who sings in the courtyard in Part Two, Chapter Ten. As she hangs her washing in the courtyard, Winston speculates on her life. Her appearance suggests that she has birthed many children and she, perhaps, lives in a degree of poverty in the Prole district but she represents hope and freedom. Her carefree demeanour suggests to Winston that the Proles offer the only hope of revolution against the Party. The Prole woman thus becomes an impetus for Winston's rebellion and a symbol of optimism for the future of Oceania.  

In To Kill a Mockingbird, what's the quote Atticus makes about Thomas Jefferson?

In Chapter 20, Atticus is making his closing remarks of the trial. Atticus mentions that the prosecution has not produced any medical evidence to convict Tom Robinson, and the Ewells' contradicting testimonies prove that Tom is not guilty. Atticus urges the jury to look past their prejudiced assumptions that all black men are immoral human beings. Atticus then goes on to quote Thomas Jefferson by saying, "all men are created equal" (Lee 273)....

In Chapter 20, Atticus is making his closing remarks of the trial. Atticus mentions that the prosecution has not produced any medical evidence to convict Tom Robinson, and the Ewells' contradicting testimonies prove that Tom is not guilty. Atticus urges the jury to look past their prejudiced assumptions that all black men are immoral human beings. Atticus then goes on to quote Thomas Jefferson by saying, "all men are created equal" (Lee 273). Atticus elaborates and says that Thomas Jefferson's statement is false because people are born with different talents, abilities, and opportunities. He then tells the jury that there is one place in America where all men are considered equal, and that institution is the Supreme Court of the United States. Although each person, regardless of wealth, ability, or talent is considered equal in a court of law, the court is only as sound as the men sitting on the jury. Atticus then pleads with the jury to review Tom's case based solely on the evidence and testimonies provided, without passion or prejudice. Unfortunately, Tom Robinson becomes a victim of racial injustice after he is found guilty by the prejudiced jury.

I need to write an essay about Mexican culture without sounding like a research paper. I'm not sure how far in depth I should go. I'm Mexican...

Depending on the course you are writing this essay for, you may have to do a little research. Sharing your own experiences as a Mexican-American can really give this paper a personal tone and prevent it from sounding like a research paper.

My first suggestion is to begin making some notes- either on paper or in a word document which you could later use to help write the drafts of your paper. Consider the following questions:

• How do you experience Mexican culture? What traditions does your family have to re-affirm your culture? 


• What lessons or histories have your family shared with you about being Mexican-American?


• What do you already know about Mexican and Mexican-American culture?


• What would you like to know about Mexican and Mexican-American culture?


• How does your experience as a Mexican-American fit into the narrative of Mexican identity? 

Answering these questions can get you started in the right direction. You have the potential to craft an interesting and honest essay, here. When you do some research to find out what you want to know about Mexican (American) culture, try to relate it to what you already know or experience as a Mexican-American person.

You may also find it helpful to create a timeline, detailing your family's history. You should include points like your birth, the birth of your parents, and any dates relevant to when your family's identity as Mexican-Americans was established. Many Mexican-American people have difficulty finding continuity in their family's ethnic identity, as the border for Mexico (and the United States) has moved around throughout history. Did your family become American when they crossed the border, or did the border move to integrate them as Americans? When did this happen?

While some writers find it more natural to develop a thesis for their paper after writing the body, perhaps you have already thought of a thesis or theme. If so, what is it? Try to make the body of your paper relate to your thesis. If you haven't thought of one yet, no worries! Developing the body of your essay will help to create a comprehensive theme for your paper. Remember to introduce your thesis in the introduction, and recall it in your conclusion.

I hope that these questions help you to begin building some content for your essay. Good luck!

How does being an outsider or outcast affect a person's ability to change society, as seen in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird?

In Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, we see that being an outsider does not significantly impact one's ability to change society; however, it can create a tiny bit of change.

Atticus Finch is one example of an outsider in the novel. He is considered an outsider because he goes against the grain of society by deciding to put his all into defending Tom Robinson. Atticus lives in a very racist, segregated society, whose white members automatically believe that the African American members of society are born morally and intellectually inferior. We see Maycomb society's belief in African American moral inferiority expressed in every racist remark all throughout the book. We particularly see the idea of moral inferiority expressed by Mrs. Farrow at Aunt Alexandra's Missionary Society meeting held just after Tom Robinson's trial. During a conversation about how much the African Americans have been grumbling since Robinson was found guilty, Mrs. Farrow recites the following comment she made to Brother Hutson earlier:

Looks like we're fighting a losing battle, a losing battle. . . . it doesn't matter to 'em one bit. We can educate 'em till we're blue in the face, we can try till we drop to make Christians out of 'em, but there's no lady safe in her bed these nights. (Ch. 24)

However, despite such racist beliefs as those expressed by Mrs Farrow, Atticus is able to put himself inside the shoes of all his fellow human beings and see that most people are genuinely good human beings. Because of his compassion for humanity, he is able to see that not enough evidence exists in Robinson's case to legitimately convict him beyond a reasonable doubt; Atticus is also able to see that all circumstantial evidence points to Robinson's innocence, not his guilt. Since Atticus is open-minded and compassionate, not racist, he is able to see it is his moral duty to put his all into defending Robinson, despite what the rest of Maycomb's society thinks.

However, sadly, Atticus's defense does not yield much success. Robinson is still declared guilty by the racist all-white jury, despite all evidence to the contrary. Regardless of the ultimately disappointing outcome, Miss Maudie is one to note the impact Atticus was able to have on the jury, stating that "he's the only man in these parts who can keep a jury out so long in a case like that" (Ch. 22). Miss Maudie further notes the impact Atticus had by stating, "[W]e're making a step—it's just a baby-step, but it's a step" (Ch. 22). In other words, though Atticus's actions as an outsider did not have a significant impact, his actions at least had a tiny impact, and that tiny impact is enough to serve as a catalyst for greater changes to come.

How do you verify the identity `tanx csc^2x-tanx=cotx` ?

Hello!

Recall the definitions of tan, csc and cot:

`tan(x)=sin(x)/cos(x),`  `csc(x)=1/sin(x), cot(x)=cos(x)/sin(x).`

Therefore the left part is equal to

`sin(x)/cos(x) * 1/(sin^2(x))-sin(x)/cos(x) =sin(x)/cos(x) (1/(sin^2(x))-1)=`

`=sin(x)/cos(x) * (1-sin^2(x))/(sin^2(x)) =sin(x)/cos(x) * (cos^2(x))/(sin^2(x))=cos(x)/sin(x),`

which is really equal to the right part, Q.E.D.

Hello!

Recall the definitions of tan, csc and cot:

`tan(x)=sin(x)/cos(x),`  `csc(x)=1/sin(x), cot(x)=cos(x)/sin(x).`

Therefore the left part is equal to

`sin(x)/cos(x) * 1/(sin^2(x))-sin(x)/cos(x) =sin(x)/cos(x) (1/(sin^2(x))-1)=`

`=sin(x)/cos(x) * (1-sin^2(x))/(sin^2(x)) =sin(x)/cos(x) * (cos^2(x))/(sin^2(x))=cos(x)/sin(x),`

which is really equal to the right part, Q.E.D.

How does the quote, "as I made my way home, I felt very old, but when I looked at the tip of my nose I could see fine misty beads, but looking...

The context of this quote is important in understanding how it shows that Scout has matured during the course of To Kill a Mockingbird. While she was once unthinkingly afraid of Boo Radley, she now understands that he is harmless and, in fact, a kind-hearted man who saved her life and that of her brother, Jem. 

Scout feels old, in part because she now understands that the reality of life is different from the...

The context of this quote is important in understanding how it shows that Scout has matured during the course of To Kill a Mockingbird. While she was once unthinkingly afraid of Boo Radley, she now understands that he is harmless and, in fact, a kind-hearted man who saved her life and that of her brother, Jem. 

Scout feels old, in part because she now understands that the reality of life is different from the way it first seems. Boo, for example, appeared scary to her, but he is in fact a savior. She also feels sad because, as she explains earlier, while Boo has given her and Jem so much, "We never put back into the tree what we took out of it: we had given him nothing, and it made me sad." In order to rectify this situation, she has walked Boo home and stood on his porch without being afraid. Perhaps some of the "misty beads" she sees on her nose are not from the rain but are tears because she realizes that she has been cruel and misunderstanding of Boo when all he deserved was kindness. 

A horizontal disk is rotating counter-clockwise about its axis of symmetry at `14 rps` . Its moment of inertia with respect to its axis of symmetry...

The system has some angular momentum `L_0` at its initial state. To calculate its value, we first calculate the angular momentum of each disk and then we add them together. The formula for calculating the angular momentum of a rotating body is given by (1):

`(1) L = Iw `

Where `I` is the moment of the inertia with respect to the axis of rotation, and `w` is the angular frequency of the rotation. Note that the angular momentum is a vector, pointing in the direction given by the vector cross product `v^^ r` , where `v` is the velocity of the mass element located at position `r` relative to the axis of rotation. For our disks, this direction is orthogonal to the disk. We will adopt the following: for counter-clockwise rotation this vector points "up" and for clockwise rotation the vector points "down".

Let's calculate the angular momentum `L_a` of the first disk.

`L_a = (8 kg.m^2)(14 rps) = 112 kg.m^2/s`

And `L_b` for the second disk:

`L_b = (2 kg.m^2)(-7 rps) = -14 kg.m^2/s`

Note the minus sign, since the disk is rotating in the opposite direction relative to the first disk.

Now, the initial angular momentum of the system is simply:

`L_0 = L_a + L_b = (112 - 14) kg.m^2/s = 98 kg.m^2/s`

After we drop the second disk over the first, they stick together with final angular velocity `w_f`  and moment of inertia `I_a + I_b`  (the moment of inertia of a body is the sum of the moment of inertia of its parts - relative to the correct axis of rotation). Since no external torque is being applied to the system, the total angular momentum is conserved, so:

`L_f = (I_a + I_b)w_f = L_0`

Rearranging for `w_f` :

`w_f = L_0/(I_a + I_b) = (98/10) s^(-1) = 9.8 rps`

Since this value is positive, the system is rotating counter-clockwise about its axis of symmetry.

What is the significance of the main characters in the book So Long a Letter?

I argue that the main characters of Mariama Bâ’s So Long a Letter are significant largely because they represent a marginalized population to Western readers. Indeed, the novella foregrounds the struggles of Senegalese women addressing customs such as polygamy in an Islamic culture. For the majority of Western readers, this voice is incredibly rare to find in literature. Here, Bâ confronts the issues that women face in Senegal through her frank characterization of Ramatoulaye Fall...

I argue that the main characters of Mariama Bâ’s So Long a Letter are significant largely because they represent a marginalized population to Western readers. Indeed, the novella foregrounds the struggles of Senegalese women addressing customs such as polygamy in an Islamic culture. For the majority of Western readers, this voice is incredibly rare to find in literature. Here, Bâ confronts the issues that women face in Senegal through her frank characterization of Ramatoulaye Fall and her uncensored letter to her best friend, Aissatou Bâ. Ramatoulaye often questions the conventions in her culture that marginalize women, especially polygamy:

“I have heard of too many misfortunes not to understand my own. There was your own case, Aissatou, the cases of many other women, despised, relegated or exchanged, who were abandoned like a worn-out or out-dated boubou” (41).

Later in the novel, Bâ is startlingly direct in her call for women to become politically active. The fact that this is coming from a Senegalese woman writing from the perspective of another disenfranchised Senegalese woman is especially potent:

“Women must be encouraged to take a keener interest in the destiny of the country…. If men alone are active in the parties, why should they think of the women?” (62).

Thus, the main characters are significant because they perfectly capture the issues women in Senegal face, and they are direct in their critique of their conditions.

What are some important scenes from Speak about which to write a paragraph?

The opening scene and the scene in which Melinda confronts Andy would be two moments in Speak that can be explored through written analysis.

In the book's opening scene, Melinda challenges the traditional depiction of high school life.  She shows a very harsh reality to  Merryweather High School. Melinda talks about social alienation, a conflicted view of self, and a world where there is little in way of empathy.  The opening scene of Anderson's book...

The opening scene and the scene in which Melinda confronts Andy would be two moments in Speak that can be explored through written analysis.

In the book's opening scene, Melinda challenges the traditional depiction of high school life.  She shows a very harsh reality to  Merryweather High School. Melinda talks about social alienation, a conflicted view of self, and a world where there is little in way of empathy.  The opening scene of Anderson's book can be analyzed on many different levels.  In terms of narrative point of view, Melinda's voice guides the reader.  The opening sentence gives much insight into her narrative voice.  "It is my first morning of high school. I have seven new note- books, a skirt I hate, and a stomachache."  When she deconstructs the hypocrisy of high school with lines such as "Better the Devil you know than the Trojan you don't," it is clear that Melinda is able to parse through the inauthentic community that defines the high school environment.  Finally, the opening scene of the novel presents a social arrangement defined by exclusive cliques:

We fall into clans: Jocks, Country Clubbers, Idiot Savants, Cheerleaders, Human Waste, Eurotrash, Future Fascists of America, Big Hair Chix, the Marthas, Suffering Artists, Thespians, Goths, Shredders. I am clanless...

I am Outcast. 

The fierce social division that Melinda defines as "clans" repudiates the belief that high school is diverse and welcoming.  The opening scene can be analyzed on literary and social levels in its honest portrayal of high school.

Another powerful scene in Speak is when Melinda confronts Andy Evans. When Melinda is face to face with her rapist, the novel's emotional tension reaches its maximum point.  At this moment, all of Melinda's growth and evolution throughout her freshman year faces its ultimate test.  There is a directness in language that Anderson uses to capture the pain of this moment.  Andy is villainous in how he corners Melinda and in the way he threatens her.  The scene is particularly effective in Melinda's perception.   An example of this is how she describes the way "Maya Angelou looks at me. She tells me to make some noise. I open my mouth and take a deep breath."  The details of the confrontation are also a part of Melinda's voice when she describes the wetness of "IT's" lips and how his teeth are against her cheekbone.  When she raises her voice and learns to "speak," it is the most important moment of the novel.  Analyzing this particular scene can display how Melinda has become like the trees she draws.  She has grown, and writing about this scene could explore it in great detail.

Why is Faber an outcast in Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury?

In Fahrenheit 451, Faber is portrayed as an outcast in a number of ways.

First of all, Faber is an outcast because he has not embraced the new regime of his society in which books are forbidden. As a former professor, Faber cannot let go of his love of books and learning. This makes Faber suspicious of others. We see this when Montag calls him to ask about the Bible:

This is some sort of trap! I can't talk to just anyone on the phone.

Secondly, Faber is an outcast because he does not have the television broadcast directly onto his parlour walls. As he tells Montag:

As you see, my parlour is nothing but four plaster walls.

Moreover, Faber is completely opposed to all types of entertainment which are glorified by his society. He believes that entertainment, like television and fast driving, are just designed to distract people's attention and force them to absorb society's messages:

The televisor is 'real.' It is immediate, it has dimension. It tells you what to think and blasts it in.

Finally, Faber is an outcast because he wants to rebel. Despite his initial cowardice, Faber finds an ally in Montag and helps him where he can. Faber offers to make contact with a printer, for example, and gives Montag an earpiece to wear so he can talk to Montag when he goes to face Beatty.  Faber also helps Montag toward the end of the novel, arranging to meet with him in St. Louis after he has fled the society.

Meeting Montag, then, transforms Faber from an outcast into a rebel, ready to contribute to the destruction of the old society and the creation of a new, liberated world.

How does the poem "Caged Bird" by Maya Angelou relate to journeys?

We'd be reading into the poem too much if we said it's definitely about journeys. It's about freedom and captivity, the longing for freedom, the nature and effect of expressing an outcry, the irrepressible nature of the spirit, and the abject unfairness of inequality. But journeys? Well, kind of. Let's try.

Other works by Angelou do deal explicitly and figuratively with journeys, which is why I agree that it's worthwhile to ask whether this poem...

We'd be reading into the poem too much if we said it's definitely about journeys. It's about freedom and captivity, the longing for freedom, the nature and effect of expressing an outcry, the irrepressible nature of the spirit, and the abject unfairness of inequality. But journeys? Well, kind of. Let's try.

Other works by Angelou do deal explicitly and figuratively with journeys, which is why I agree that it's worthwhile to ask whether this poem in particular also has some undercurrent of the idea.

But when we read the poem, we see the two birds (the happy free one and the unhappy caged one) and we understand the outcry of the unhappy one, who stays in his cage. (We can interpret that as a soul "caged" by slavery that longs for freedom.) So even though the free bird is flying around and enjoying plump worms and having a great time, he's not really on a journey, and neither is the caged bird.

In fact, the lack of a journey (the unmet need for a journey) from captivity to freedom may be the most important feature of this poem.

To explore this question further, please read through the poem itself (it's short and easy to understand) and refer to  of what's happening in the poem and what it means.

What passages develop irony surrounding Boo Radley in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird?

In To Kill a Mockingbird, author Harper Lee frequently uses dramatic irony to develop the plot and themes concerning Arthur (Boo) Radley. Dramatic irony is a contrast between a character's limited understanding of a situation and the audience's greater understanding. It is developed when a character has a much lesser understanding of a situation than the audience does.

Examples of dramatic irony being created to develop plot and themes concerning Arthur Radley are seen in the small things he does for the children to show he cares. Due to these expressions of care, the reader knows Arthur is not the dangerous monster the children believe him to be but rather a very kind and caring person. The reader is especially faster to understand Arthur's real nature than Scout is due to her age.

One specific example is the moment she discovers she is wearing a woolen blanket wrapped around herself the night Miss Maudie's house catches fire. Jem is very quick to reach the conclusion that it must have been Arthur who covered Scout up and to understand it was an act of kindness; however, Scout, being young, is very slow to realize who covered her up, and her emotional response is nothing but sheer terror. We see the slowness in her realization when she responds, "Thank who?," to her father's comment that she may someday be able to "thank him for covering her up" (Ch. 8). We further see Scout's current inability to see Arthur as a benevolent person when she responds in terror to Jem's teasing, as we see in the following narration:

My stomach turned to water and I nearly threw up when Jem held out the blanket and crept toward me. "He sneaked out of the house--turn 'round--sneaked up, an' went like this!" (Ch. 8)

Since the passage above shows that Scout clearly has a far lesser understanding of what kind of person Arthur Radley is than the reader has at this point in the story, we can see that author Lee is using this incident and passage to develop dramatic irony.

What are the chief features of Etruscan culture and religion?

The Etruscans are one of three cultural groups that would influence Roman culture (Greek and Latin being the other two.) The Etruscan religion was polytheistic with dozens of gods being worshiped. They believed that the gods played an important role in their lives and could shape the present and the future. The Etruscans believed that only trained priests could interpret nature and its connections to the gods. Every little detail about nature could be interpreted...

The Etruscans are one of three cultural groups that would influence Roman culture (Greek and Latin being the other two.) The Etruscan religion was polytheistic with dozens of gods being worshiped. They believed that the gods played an important role in their lives and could shape the present and the future. The Etruscans believed that only trained priests could interpret nature and its connections to the gods. Every little detail about nature could be interpreted as some sort of message from the gods. For this reason, it was important to interpret acts of nature in order to placate the gods. The Etruscans were well respected for their superstitions and ritualistic belief system and many elements of their faith found a home in the Roman religious system.

The Etruscans seemed to be heavily influenced by the Ancient Greeks. They adopted a city-state model like Ancient Greece and the political alignment can best be described as aristocratic. The Etruscans were viewed as more sophisticated than the Latins and had a strong economic and artistic tradition. They were known for their successful mining of copper and iron and were keen practitioners of metallurgy as a result. Due to their sophistication and economic success, the Etruscans were important contributors to the early cultural development of Rome.

What are the three choices that Odysseus makes in Books 13-19 of Homer's Odyssey? How else could they have been made?

Odysseus makes a few important choices in these books. Let us look at a few of them.

Book 13 marks his return to Ithaca. Here, he encounters Athena in the disguise of a shepherd's boy. Together, they devise a plan for his return to his court. He decides to disguise himself in order to test his wife, Penelope, as well as his subjects. He could, of course, have returned and declared himself without any disguise. 

...

Odysseus makes a few important choices in these books. Let us look at a few of them.

Book 13 marks his return to Ithaca. Here, he encounters Athena in the disguise of a shepherd's boy. Together, they devise a plan for his return to his court. He decides to disguise himself in order to test his wife, Penelope, as well as his subjects. He could, of course, have returned and declared himself without any disguise. 

In Book 16, Odysseus (whose identity is by now known only to the swineherd Eumaeus) cannot stop himself from rebuking his son, Telemachus (who doesn't not recognize his father) when Telemachus expresses doubts about his mother's fidelity. In so doing, he nearly makes his identity known to Telemachus. He could have restrained himself. Eventually, because of Athena's intervention, he decides to make his true identity known to Telemachus.

Books 17-20 form the climax of the epic. In Book 18 he decides to return to court in the disguise of a hapless old beggar. He begs from Penelope's suitors, thereby exposing their characters. Again, he could have decided otherwise. He has good reasons, however, for making himself known only gradually. He then decides to challenge the real beggar, and chooses only to break his jaw instead of killing him.

In Book 19, he decides to remind Penelope of shared memories while at the same time keeping up his disguise. He need not have tested her in this way, but he seems to deem it necessary.  

Describe the signal man and the signal box.

In Dickens' story, the signalman is described from the perspective of his male visitor. Physically, he is a "dark, sallow" man, with a "saturnine" (gloomy) face, a dark beard and full eyebrows. He is a relatively well-educated person, having been a student of natural philosophy in this youth. But, he had wasted this opportunity and "run wild," and thus ended up working on the railway. The narrator makes it clear that he does not hate his...

In Dickens' story, the signalman is described from the perspective of his male visitor. Physically, he is a "dark, sallow" man, with a "saturnine" (gloomy) face, a dark beard and full eyebrows. He is a relatively well-educated person, having been a student of natural philosophy in this youth. But, he had wasted this opportunity and "run wild," and thus ended up working on the railway. The narrator makes it clear that he does not hate his work: on the contrary, he has developed his own routine and appears to be satisfied with his life, despite the long hours and solitude. 

The signalman's place of work is his signal box. The descent to this box and its surroundings are described in very dark and gloomy terms by the narrator:

His post was in as solitary and dismal a place as ever I saw. ...there was a barbarous, depressing, and forbidding air. So little sunlight ever found its way to this spot, that it had an earthy, dead smell. 

But, inside, the box is not as dark as its surrounding. It contains the equipment necessary for the fulfillment of the signalman's duties: a fire, a desk and official book for making entries, telegraph machine, and a bell. 

But, when the signalman first encounters the ghost, his life undergoes profound changes. He is deeply affected by the rail disasters on the line and mentally tortured by the ghost who warns him of another incident to follow. Little does he realise, he is being forewarned of his own impending death. 

Why does Tom insist that Daisy go home with Gatsby?

In Chapter Seven, Tom tells Daisy to go home with Gatsby. To put this comment into context, it comes as a result of an argument in which Gatsby revealed that he and Daisy have been having an affair. Despite Daisy's love for Gatsby, she chooses to stay with Tom, much to Gatsby's dismay and grief.

This comment, then, is Tom's way of asserting his dominance. By telling Daisy to leave with Gatsby, Tom shows that he has nothing to fear. He knows that Daisy's affair with Gatsby is over and that she will not disobey him by rekindling their romance.

Secondly, Tom also does this because he wants Gatsby to feel humiliated. After all, Gatsby has just openly admitted his love for Daisy. By having Gatsby escort Daisy back to the Buchanan home, Tom makes it very clear that he is the real winner and that Daisy's true place is with him, not with Gatsby.

What are the similarities and differences between Walter Cunningham and Burris Ewell? Please provide quotes as evidence.

The main character description for Walter Cunningham is in chapter two and the description for Burris Ewell is in chapter three. These chapters portray Scout's first day of first grade and center around two boys who represent two major families in Maycomb county. First, Walter Cunningham comes from a very honorable family of farmers, but they are very poor, so their children go to school hungry. Burris Ewell is also poor and hungry but he comes from a dishonorable family whose father drinks away their money while the kids scavenge for food in the county dump. Both boys don't attend school as much as they should; however, Walter misses school to work on the farm while Burris misses simply because his father won't make him go. 

Another similarity between the boys is that they are both prone to diseases because they don't take baths, nor do they have the clothing they need to keep away disease, such as shoes. For example, Walter doesn't have the money for a pair of shoes; as a result, he shows up to school with hookworms:

"Walter Cunningham's face told everybody in the first grade he had hookworms. His absence of shoes told us how he got them. People caught hookworms going barefooted in barnyards and hog wallows. If Walter had owned any shoes he would have worn them the first day of school and then discarded them until mid-winter. He did have on a clean shirt and neatly mended overalls" (19).

Burris also comes to school with an issue due to the lack of washing--cooties, or lice. 

"The cootie's host showed not the faintest interest in the furor he had wrought. He searched the scalp above his forehead, located his guest and pinched it between his thumb and forefinger" (26).

Burris Ewell is then asked to go home to wash when he disrespectfully yells at his teacher, Miss Caroline, "I done done my time for this year" (27). Miss Caroline then attempts to keep Burris in school when Chuck Little explains Burris further as follows:

"Let him go, ma'am. . . He's a mean one, a hard-down mean one. He's liable to start somethin', and there's some little folks here" (27).

This short testimonial shows how disrespectful, mean, and dishonorable the Ewells can get. It also shows how the community just lets them go on their way to avoid a conflict. Walter Cunningham, on the other hand, is a respectful boy who wouldn't backtalk a teacher for anything in the world. He has been taught respect and honor, even if he is hungry. He doesn't say it for himself, but Scout explains as follows:

"The Cunninghams never took anything they can't pay back--no church baskets and no scrip stamps. They  never took anything off of anybody, they get along on what they have. They don't have much, but they get along on it" (20).

Therefore, the Cunninghams have a sense of honor even though they have a difficult time feeding themselves; but the Ewells aren't taught to be respectful or honorable. It all comes down to how a child is taught to behave at home. Both boys are poor and hungry, but one is taught respect while the other is allowed to run wild.