What are two major conflict scenes that, if cut out, would lessen the strong message of the book/movie?

There are several important scenes of conflict that are essential to the message of Lord of the Flies. These scenes strike a contrast between civilization and savagery, often pitting Ralph against Jack, or Ralph's priorities against Jack's. In order of how important they are to the message, here are the essential scenes:

1. Ralph confronts Jack at Castle Rock: In this scene, Ralph and Piggy make one more attempt to reason with Jack and...

There are several important scenes of conflict that are essential to the message of Lord of the Flies. These scenes strike a contrast between civilization and savagery, often pitting Ralph against Jack, or Ralph's priorities against Jack's. In order of how important they are to the message, here are the essential scenes:

1. Ralph confronts Jack at Castle Rock: In this scene, Ralph and Piggy make one more attempt to reason with Jack and show him that he has violated rules of order and decency in stealing Piggy's glasses. Piggy is murdered, Samneric are captured, and Ralph and Jack spar verbally and physically. Jack's response to Piggy's death shows just how far he has fallen into savagery because he shows no regret but uses the murder to further usurp control.

2. The murder of Simon at Jack's feast during the thunder storm: In this conflict, all the boys, even Ralph and Piggy, let themselves fall into savagery. This is a wake-up call for Ralph, who is horrified by what they did. Whether Jack realizes the slain "beast" was Simon is unclear, but he uses the event as a way to bind the boys of his tribe more tightly to him, reminding them of how the "beast" sneaked up on them. Ralph's group and Jack's tribe become fully differentiated after this event.

3. The stealing of Piggy's glasses: This conflict shows that Jack is willing to use violence against the other boys and steal something that will result in extreme hardship for another human. Jack's lack of morals becomes more blatant.

4. Simon vs. the Lord of the Flies: Although this is not a conflict with another person, this scene is essential for Golding's message. The Lord of the Flies explains to Simon that the depravity that is destroying the boys' society is "close" and "part of you." 

There are other important scenes of conflict between Ralph and Jack that lead up to these more serious conflicts, but since these four come closer to the end of the book, they are more important for conveying Golding's message. 

What is a famous idiom from Hamlet by William Shakespeare?

There are several idioms from Shakespeare's Hamlet that have become famous.  One idiom was spoken when Hamlet spoke to the ghost.  The ghost told him,

 "I could a tale unfold whose lightest word 

 Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood, 

 take thy two eyes, like stars, start from their spheres, 

 Thy knotted and combined locks to part 

 And each particular hair to stand on end, 

 Like quills upon the fearful porpentine."

The ghost...

There are several idioms from Shakespeare's Hamlet that have become famous.  One idiom was spoken when Hamlet spoke to the ghost.  The ghost told him,

 "I could a tale unfold whose lightest word 

 Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood, 

 take thy two eyes, like stars, start from their spheres, 

 Thy knotted and combined locks to part 

 And each particular hair to stand on end, 

 Like quills upon the fearful porpentine."

The ghost was referring to a frightening tale.  This tale was so horrifying that it would make someone's "hair to stand on end."  In writing this, Shakespeare was referring to how a person gets goosebumps and how the hair on their skin stands up when they are frightened.  

Another well known idiom is about the "primrose path."  Ophelia spoke to Laertes about her romantic interest in Hamlet.  Laertes thought that she should forget about such an idea.  Ophelia told him,

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do,

Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven,

Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine,

Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads."

The "primrose path" was referring to an easy life, or one of leisure.  Ophelia was accusing Laertes of hypocrisy in telling her what to do about Hamlet while he himself did not exercise such caution in his own life.

In As You Like It, why does Celia want to borrow Gargantua's mouth?

In Act 3, Scene 2 of As You Like It, Celia tells Rosalind that Orlando is in the Forest of Arden and is posting love poems about her on all the trees. The news makes Rosalind overwhelmed with emotions that betray how much she loves Orlando. She wants Celia to tell her everything at once.

Alas the day! what shall I do with my doublet and hose?--What did he when thou saw'st him?...

In Act 3, Scene 2 of As You Like It, Celia tells Rosalind that Orlando is in the Forest of Arden and is posting love poems about her on all the trees. The news makes Rosalind overwhelmed with emotions that betray how much she loves Orlando. She wants Celia to tell her everything at once.

Alas the day! what shall I do with my doublet and hose?--
What did he when thou saw'st him? What said he? How look'd he?
Wherein went he? What makes he here? Did he ask for me? Where
remains he? How parted he with thee? and when shalt thou see
him again? Answer me in one word.

Rosalind does not mean "Answer me in one word" literally. She means that she wants immediate answers to all those questions. But Celia pretends to take her literally and says:

You must borrow me Gargantua's mouth first: 'tis a word too
great for any mouth of this age's size.

Gargantua is a giant who is featured in a series of French novels titled La vie de Gargantua et de Pantagruel (The Life of Gargantua and Pantagruel) by the French writer Francois Rabelais. Pantagruel is Gargantua's son. The five books were published in the sixteenth century between 1532 and 1564. They were popular largely because of their vulgarity, obscenity, and impiety. (See e-notes reference links below.) The year 1564 happens to be the year William Shakespeare was born. 

Celia, of course, is saying, that she would need the mouth of a giant in order to be able to utter a single word that would answer all of Rosalind's questions about Orlando at once.

In Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, are the missionary ladies sincere in worrying about the Mrunas?

A great deal of hypocrisy is exposed during Aunt Alexandra's missionary circle meeting in Chapter 24 of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird. While the ladies of the circle express concern for the Mrunas, in truth, they are only concerned because no white people are able to approach the Mrunas, except for J. Grimes Everett. The ladies of the society feel that only white people are able to set Christianly examples for so-called heathens....

A great deal of hypocrisy is exposed during Aunt Alexandra's missionary circle meeting in Chapter 24 of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird. While the ladies of the circle express concern for the Mrunas, in truth, they are only concerned because no white people are able to approach the Mrunas, except for J. Grimes Everett. The ladies of the society feel that only white people are able to set Christianly examples for so-called heathens. Since their sentiments are riddled with hypocrisy, we can say that the ladies of the missionary circle are not genuinely concerned for the Mrunas; they are only concerned that the Mrunas are not the sort of people the ladies of the missionary circle want them to be.

Scout hears Mrs. Grace Merriweather preach to the missionary group about the conditions of and express sympathy for the Mrunas, as Scout narrates in the following:

[The Mrunas] put the women out in huts when their time came, whatever that was; they had no sense of family--...--they subjected children to terrible ordeals when they were thirteen; they were crawling with yaws and earworms ... . (Ch. 24)

Later, during refreshments, Scout attempts to make polite conversation with Mrs. Merriweather by asking her about the Mrunas. Scout even notes that Mrs. Merriweather grows teary-eyed when she speaks of the Mrunas as "the oppressed"; however, what's particularly interesting is her statement to Scout, "Not a white person'll go near 'em but that saintly J. Grimes Everett." In other words, through her reference to white people, Mrs. Merriweather is exposing her opinion that the Mrunas are in the condition they are in simply because they don't have the influence of Christian white people.

The members of the missionary circle further expose their hypocrisies by referring to the Christian African Americans who live in their own hometown as people who live in darkness and immorality.

Why is it important that the narrator cuts out Pluto's eye?

Removing the cat’s eye is the beginning of the end, so to speak, for the narrator. Until that moment, the cat had thus far escaped his drunken cruelty, so this act signifies that the narrator had reached a certain mental point: there were no longer any limits to his violent behavior. After cutting out the cat’s eye, it starts to avoid him any time he is around, and it is that reaction that angers the...

Removing the cat’s eye is the beginning of the end, so to speak, for the narrator. Until that moment, the cat had thus far escaped his drunken cruelty, so this act signifies that the narrator had reached a certain mental point: there were no longer any limits to his violent behavior. After cutting out the cat’s eye, it starts to avoid him any time he is around, and it is that reaction that angers the narrator enough to hang the cat from the tree outside.

Although the narrator states that he is drawing no causation between what he did to Pluto and what happened to him after, the readers are led to believe that the cat that follows the narrator home from the bar is a form of revenge for what happened to Pluto. After all is said and done, the new cat is why the narrator murders his wife (he does so in rage after she stops him from killing the cat), and then it is the cat’s meowing that alerts the police to where the narrator hid the body.

So the removal of the cat’s eye is so important because, after all is said and done, it leads to a series of events that end with the narrator’s own execution.

How many men are in the faithful party in Treasure Island?

The "faithful party" refers to the members of the crew of the Hispaniola who can be trusted not to side with the pirates. Not counting Jim, since he is a boy, there are six men in the faithful crew, compared to the mutineer's nineteen (as stated on the last page of Chapter 12). 

In Chapter 11, Jim is fortunate enough to overhear Long John Silver, who is ostensibly the ship's cook, conversing with other crewmen...

The "faithful party" refers to the members of the crew of the Hispaniola who can be trusted not to side with the pirates. Not counting Jim, since he is a boy, there are six men in the faithful crew, compared to the mutineer's nineteen (as stated on the last page of Chapter 12). 

In Chapter 11, Jim is fortunate enough to overhear Long John Silver, who is ostensibly the ship's cook, conversing with other crewmen and eliciting their plans for a mutiny at a time of Silver's choosing. Silver would prefer to let Captain Smollett, a capable if annoying seaman, to do most of the work for them, since they lack anyone among their number with skill in navigation. Silver has evidently been able to convince some of the crewmen who were not originally part of Flint's crew, and therefore familiar with Silver and his plan, to join up with them anyway, casting doubt on the reliability of almost everyone on the ship.

When Jim relays this information to Trelawney, Smollett, and Livesey, they determine they can only trust themselves, Jim, and the men they brought on board with them.

What were the aims of Jefferson's presidency?

When Thomas Jefferson became President, after the House of Representatives broke the tie between Aaron Burr and Jefferson, he had specific goals he wanted to accomplish as President. Jefferson represented the Democratic-Republican Party. Jefferson’s beliefs closely reflected the goals of the Democratic-Republican Party. President Jefferson wanted to reduce the size and the influence of the federal government. He believed the federal government had become too large and too power. To reduce the size of the federal government, President Jefferson wanted to reduce taxes. If the government took in less money through taxes, the size of the government and the spending of the federal government would need to decrease. He also wanted to end unpopular taxes such as the Whiskey Tax.

Another goal of President Jefferson was to end the unreasonable laws that the Federalist Party had passed. He wanted to end the Alien and Sedition Acts. These were laws that reduced the freedom of our people by curtailing their free speech rights. These laws were also aimed at hurting the Democratic-Republican Party by increasing the time it took for immigrants to become citizens. Both of these laws were ended while he was President.

President Jefferson wanted to stand up to countries that were abusing our freedoms. He went to war against the North African countries that supported pirates. These pirates were attacking our shipping unless we paid bribes to them. We stopped paying the bribes, fought the pirates, and won. As a result, we no longer had to pay the bribes. President Jefferson also tried to keep our shipping safe when France and Great Britain were interfering with our trade. However, the Embargo Act and the Non-Intercourse Act were ineffective because we depended on trade with both Great Britain and with France.

President Jefferson understood the desire that many people had for our country to grow and to expand. While he hesitated to make the Louisiana Purchase, which would double the size of the country, he eventually did make the Louisiana Purchase with France.

President Jefferson had many goals for his presidency. He was able to accomplish many of them.

Where is the speaker when he or she hears lake water lapping?

According to the author of this poem, William Butler Yeats, this poem is autobiographical, so we know the speaker is the poet himself. Yeats explained that when he was in his early twenties, he was on a sidewalk in London when he passed by a shop that had a display containing a jet of water that squirted up and balanced a little ball on top of the water stream. The sound of running water reminded...

According to the author of this poem, William Butler Yeats, this poem is autobiographical, so we know the speaker is the poet himself. Yeats explained that when he was in his early twenties, he was on a sidewalk in London when he passed by a shop that had a display containing a jet of water that squirted up and balanced a little ball on top of the water stream. The sound of running water reminded him of time in his childhood that he spent in County Sligo in Ireland by the shores of a beautiful lake there, Lough Gill. That incident was his inspiration for writing the poem.

In the text of the poem, the speaker says that when he is "on the roadway, or on the pavements gray," he hears in his imagination the sound of the waves gently coming in to shore. To most Americans, this sounds like the speaker is on a paved street. However, in British usage, as well as in some Atlantic states in the U.S., "pavement" means "sidewalk." You may be familiar with the idiom "to pound the pavement," which means to walk from business to business searching for sales or employment, usually on a sidewalk. 

The fact that the speaker hears the "lake water lapping" even though he is in the city and far from the lakeside country that he misses emphasizes the speaker's intense longing for his isolated island retreat. The speaker would no doubt be able to hear the "low sounds by the shore" no matter what his location was because the desire to go there was so entrenched within him that he could "hear it in the deep heart's core." 

When analyzing a play, is it important to question whether the exposition was presented in a dramatic fashion?

One of the hallmarks of bad storytelling in any form is the use of turgid, obvious exposition. In other words, when a character or narrator has to explain the plot or the implications of the plot to the audience, because the actions or motivations of the characters are not clear, then the dramatist has not done a good job. Generally speaking, unless a play is trying to break the rules of Aristotelean Poetics (such as...

One of the hallmarks of bad storytelling in any form is the use of turgid, obvious exposition. In other words, when a character or narrator has to explain the plot or the implications of the plot to the audience, because the actions or motivations of the characters are not clear, then the dramatist has not done a good job. Generally speaking, unless a play is trying to break the rules of Aristotelean Poetics (such as with Brecht or Artaud) the plot, or rising action, should seem to flow naturally from the personality of the protagonist in relation to the circumstances he or she finds himself in, and in direct relation to the other characters, particularly the antagonist or antagonists, who stand in the way of the protagonist's goals.

If a playwright clearly defines his or her characters and gives them the appearance of a fully fleshed out inner life, the reader or audience will not require any outside exposition in order to understand what is happening or why. Instead, the behavior of the characters will seem both surprising and inevitable, and the turns of the plot, even when they are shocking, will seem almost fated.

It is important, however, to distinguish between plot and exposition. Plot is the story and exposition is simply when a character tells another character (for the benefit of the audience) what has happened or is happening. Exposition, defined this way, is never good or dramatic. Rather, it takes the audience out of its suspension of disbelief by breaking the dramatic tension. A play whose plot follows an inner logic that seems inextricably bound to the personalities and motives of its characters, will never seem like exposition.

If a play is written well, the reader or audience will be wholly unaware of its mechanics, and will instead be caught up in the drama of the story, wondering what will happen next.

How did the vision of Manifest Destiny relate America's philosophical past with its foreign policy in the 1840s?

The philosophical underpinnings behind the notion of Manifest Destiny date back to the first Puritan settlers, such as John Winthrop, and his group’s explicit desire to build “a new Jerusalem,” or a “Shining City on a Hill.” The notion that America and its Puritan founders had a moral right and obligation to invent a better, purer world informed the notion of what came to be known as “American Exceptionalism,” which is really an extension of...

The philosophical underpinnings behind the notion of Manifest Destiny date back to the first Puritan settlers, such as John Winthrop, and his group’s explicit desire to build “a new Jerusalem,” or a “Shining City on a Hill.” The notion that America and its Puritan founders had a moral right and obligation to invent a better, purer world informed the notion of what came to be known as “American Exceptionalism,” which is really an extension of Manifest Destiny. Both terms imply that by its very nature, and because of its founding and ideals, the United States has a moral destiny to rule the western hemisphere and to project its power and values across the continent, by force if necessary.

Thomas Jefferson expanded on this notion when he envisioned a vast agricultural economy stretching from sea to sea. Jefferson's decision to go ahead with the Lousiana Purchase as president was a big first step in actualizing that dream. Subsequent presidents, particularly Andrew Jackson and James Polk, used the argument of inherent moral superiority and Manifest Destiny to justify their brutal treatment of Native Americans, which included policies of extermination, forced migration and ethnic cleansing. Polk was a major proponent of territorial expansion both as a military leader and as a president.

Although America’s westward expansion was rationalized and cloaked in terms of moral superiority, it was ironically fueled in large part by the rapacious appetite of Southern plantation owners and later, by ruthless industrialists, who believed it was their right and destiny to exploit the land and its untapped resources. By the 1840s, the term “Manifest Destiny” had started to be coopted by mining and railroad companies, which enjoyed the political and financial support of the federal government, and could rely on the United States Army to protect its business interests not only from Native Americans who had lived on the land, but also from laborers who had the temerity to demand better pay or safer conditions.

Finally, in 1846, President Polk led America to war against Mexico, using Manifest Destiny as a rallying cry in a war that netted the United States the territories that would become Arizona, California and New Mexico. 

What is the theme of the poem "Chaucer" by Ted Hughes? What is its historical background? Some have said that Plath recited this poem to a cow. I...

Ted Hughes was a famous modern poet from England. He lived from 1930 to 1998, and he also wrote plays and stories. Hughes was married to Sylvia Plath, an American poet, from 1956 until Plath took her own life in 1963.

"Chaucer" is a short poem. You can check it out here. The poem describes someone who gives a loud, expressive speech about Chaucer (a much older and extremely famous writer who lived from 1343-1400)...

Ted Hughes was a famous modern poet from England. He lived from 1930 to 1998, and he also wrote plays and stories. Hughes was married to Sylvia Plath, an American poet, from 1956 until Plath took her own life in 1963.

"Chaucer" is a short poem. You can check it out here. The poem describes someone who gives a loud, expressive speech about Chaucer (a much older and extremely famous writer who lived from 1343-1400) to a group of cows, which is a pretty funny image. The cows start to act as if they're listening, so the person keeps on talking about Chaucer in a passionate way. Eventually there are twenty cows all staring in rapt attention at this person, and the speaker of the poem thinks the whole experience is so bizarre and interesting that he keeps on remembering it afterward. That's when the poem ends.

So are the events in the poem true, and was Hughes writing about his wife, Sylvia? Was she the one who gave the speech to the cows? Maybe so. The poem in question was published in a book called Birthday Letters, which is interpreted as being largely about Hughes's relationship with Plath. It seems likely enough--she was a poet, too, and appreciated literature--but I haven't yet found a good primary source that attests to this fact. We can make a good guess, then, that the poem is about something that Plath really did, but we can't say for sure. In any event, it's probably not true that this poem was recited to cows by Sylvia Plath--it's this poem that's about someone (maybe her) making a speech about literature to cows.

Anyway, the theme of the poem seems to involve praising the old writing style of Chaucer and praising his influence and abilities as a poet, while at the same time, capturing the humor and poignancy of a woman preaching about literature to cows. Notice how the speaker opens the poem by quoting from Chaucer's most famous piece of literature (The Canterbury Tales) and then goes on to talk about how the cows seemed to pay rapt attention and to show that they appreciated Chaucer. The speaker mentions a particular character from Chaucer's work, named "the Wyf of Bath," the discussion of which "enthralls" the cows.

The story 'Misery' by Anton Chekhov deals with the insensitivity of humans to other people's grief. Comment.

The first fare Iona Potapov picks up that night wants to go to Vyborgskaya. That name identifies the city as St. Petersburg, to be called Leningrad after the Russian Revolution and then changed back to St. Petersburg around the time the Cold War ended. It was the second biggest city in Russia after Moscow. As in any other big city, people become alienated and indifferent to one another. There seems to be a rule that the bigger the city, the more insensitive the inhabitants will be to other people, and especially to strangers. It is not surprising that Iona should find it impossible to get anyone to listen to his tale of grief. Besides that, he is no good at expressing himself. For example, he says to his first passenger, a military officer:

"My son . . . er . . . my son died this week, sir."

He lacks the vocabulary to express his thoughts and feelings. He probably would like to be able to talk to somebody about his son because it would help him to sort out his thoughts and feelings. The passengers Iona picks up all illustrate the shells of indifference big-city people develop everywhere. The officer is in a big hurry to get to Vyborgskaya.

"Drive on! drive on! . . . "says the officer. "We shan't get there till to-morrow going on like this. Hurry up!"

There is something about a big city that makes people want to move faster. It seems natural that people in Manhattan walk at a faster pace than people in small towns. What's the hurry? It's the pressure of competition. The fear of being left behind, or left out. The struggle for survival. The jostling for living space. Perhaps also the fear of missing out on something.

Iona's next passengers are three young men. They are out on the town, having a good time. All of them are drunk. How should such young men take an interest in an old man's grief? They won't listen and couldn't understand if they did listen. The one who is a hunchback is especially cruel to Iona. The reader must understand that this particular individual is bitter about his deformity and this makes him mean-spirited, inclined to hurt others. 

"Tfoo!" the devil take you!" cries the hunchback indignantly. "Will you get on, you old plague, or won't you? Is that the way to drive? Give her one with the whip. Hang it all, give it her well."

He cares nothing about the old driver, and even less about the little horse. Even so, Iona tries to talk to these young revelers, whose high spirits create a sharp contrast with his sorrow. 

"This week . . . er . . . my . . . er . . . son died!"

Cold and discouraged, Iona returns to the yard. There he makes an attempt to talk to a young cabman who had been asleep and only gets up for a drink of water. 

". . . But my son is dead, mate. . . . Do you hear? This week in the hospital. . . . It's a queer business."

But the young man has already covered his head and gone back to sleep.

This is not a mere vignette or slice-of-life because Iona resolves his conflict when he goes out to talk to his little mare, who is munching hay because Iona had not earned enough to afford oats. The horse understands misery. She appears to listen and understand Iona's words. So he goes on "and tells her all about it." It is a pathetic ending with the old man talking to his horse because no one in the big city would listen.

Rather paradoxically, the author Anton Chekhov succeeds in making this humble character's grief felt by the reader. We understand the implicit message of this famous short-story. We ourselves are too preoccupied with our own affairs, our own pleasures and selfish interests. We should pay more attention to other people's feelings and not shut ourselves off and become increasingly hard and cold with the passing years.

In Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift, what are some of the comic obsessions of the people of Laputa?

Gulliver says, "the Minds of these People are so taken up with intense Speculations, that they neither can speak, nor attend to the Discourses of others, without being roused by some external Taction upon the Organs of Speech and Hearing [...]."  He means that the Laputians are so math-obsessed that they cannot even maintain a conversation without being reminded to listen or speak when appropriate.  They are reminded by the presence of a "Flapper," whose...

Gulliver says, "the Minds of these People are so taken up with intense Speculations, that they neither can speak, nor attend to the Discourses of others, without being roused by some external Taction upon the Organs of Speech and Hearing [...]."  He means that the Laputians are so math-obsessed that they cannot even maintain a conversation without being reminded to listen or speak when appropriate.  They are reminded by the presence of a "Flapper," whose job it is to strike them gently on the ear or mouth with a small bladder filled with air to alert the conversant to either listen or speak, respectively.

In fact, they are so obsessed with math that they cut all their food into geometric shapes and use mathematical tools to measure Gulliver for cloths (which does not work at all as nothing fits properly).  They are great at drawing homes, for example, on paper, but they have no interest in "practical Geometry" and thus they are a "clumsy, awkward, and unhandy People."  They totally lack imagination or innovation because it is perceived as having no value or intellectual merit.  

They are likewise obsessed with the celestial bodies and can "never [enjoy] a Minute's Peace of Mind" because they "dread" changes  in the positions of objects in the heavens.  Women are forced to remain on the island unless they obtain a special license from the king, and then none of them ever want to return to such confinement.  Gender oppression is thus another ridiculous obsession of theirs.  

Why is Gatsby's love for Daisy described in religious terms?

Jay Gatsby's love for Daisy Buchanan could certainly be considered religious when we examine some of the parallels between their relationship and the themes of Christianity. I do not mean to imply that Christianity is the only religion or that all religions are like Christianity, but Fitzgerald was raised in a Catholic home and this ideology would have permeated his life.

Consider how devoted Gatsby is to Daisy. After so many years, he thinks only...

Jay Gatsby's love for Daisy Buchanan could certainly be considered religious when we examine some of the parallels between their relationship and the themes of Christianity. I do not mean to imply that Christianity is the only religion or that all religions are like Christianity, but Fitzgerald was raised in a Catholic home and this ideology would have permeated his life.

Consider how devoted Gatsby is to Daisy. After so many years, he thinks only of her, and spends (even wastes) all of his riches in a display for Daisy. In Christianity, especially Catholicism, devotion is highly valued. Someone who puts their faith in God and gives their time, talents, and/ or material wealth to God and the Church is likely to be admired in their religious community. The perceived benefit of devoting one's life on Earth to God is the promise of a spot in Heaven after death. Similarly, Gatsby devotes his life's work, his time, his wealth, his entire being to Daisy with the hope that they may someday be together again.

From the same perspective, Gatsby could be regarded as a sort of ascetic or martyr. He abstains from anything which he does not believe will get him closer to Daisy. Isn't it a little strange he hasn't moved on and married a different woman? Such is his devotion to her. He is willing to suffer in his longing for Daisy, alone in that big house, because he believes it is "for the cause" of being near to her again. Daisy also has the power to "redeem" Gatsby with her presence and love. If she will come and be with him, Gatsby can, spiritually speaking, be absolved of his prior sins of leaving with the army and not being wealthy enough to provide her a secure marriage.

In his closing argument, Atticus says that Mayella Ewell feels guilty. What does she feel guilty about?

In Chapter 20, Atticus addresses the jury and gives his closing argument. Atticus mentions that the case is as "simple as black and white" as he discusses the lack of evidence and conflicting testimonies from the Ewells. Atticus comments that Mayella Ewell has accused Tom Robinson of assault and rape in order to get rid of her own guilt. He says that guilt motivated her because she broke a "time-honored code" of society. The code...

In Chapter 20, Atticus addresses the jury and gives his closing argument. Atticus mentions that the case is as "simple as black and white" as he discusses the lack of evidence and conflicting testimonies from the Ewells. Atticus comments that Mayella Ewell has accused Tom Robinson of assault and rape in order to get rid of her own guilt. He says that guilt motivated her because she broke a "time-honored code" of society. The code that Atticus is referring to deals with interracial relations. In 1930s Alabama, it was socially unacceptable for a white person to have relations with a black person. Atticus says, "She did something that in our society is unspeakable: she kissed a black man" (Lee 272). Mayella's father caught her kissing Tom Robinson and proceeded to beat his daughter severely. According to Atticus, Mayella's shame and guilt motivated her to "destroy the evidence," which happened to be Tom Robinson. Atticus tells the jury that Tom Robinson was a daily reminder to Mayella of what she did. Instead of enduring the shame of her community, she decided to accuse Tom Robinson of raping her to save face.

In Macbeth, why does Macbeth want to kill Macduff and when does he decide to?

In Macbeth, Macbeth acquires enemies as the play moves forward. The more he lies and kills, the more enemies he creates for himself. In Act IV Scene 1, Macbeth has had enough. He is so tired of living in constant fear that one of his enemies will overtake him and kill him. Therefore, in Act IV Scene 1 Macbeth goes to the witches and demands that they tell him his future. He wants to...

In Macbeth, Macbeth acquires enemies as the play moves forward. The more he lies and kills, the more enemies he creates for himself. In Act IV Scene 1, Macbeth has had enough. He is so tired of living in constant fear that one of his enemies will overtake him and kill him. Therefore, in Act IV Scene 1 Macbeth goes to the witches and demands that they tell him his future. He wants to know what is going to happen to him. In this prophecy, the witches tell Macbeth to beware Macduff. Macbeth is so paranoid at this point in the play that he is willing to do anything to keep his kingship safe. Therefore, after the witches give this prophecy, Macbeth says,

From this moment
The very firstlings of my heart shall be
The firstlings of my hand. And even now,
To crown my thoughts with acts, be it thought and done:
The castle of Macduff I will surprise,
Seize upon Fife, give to th' edge o' th' sword
His wife, his babes, and all unfortunate souls
That trace him in his line. (Act IV Scene 1)

In this quotation, Macbeth is saying that he is going to act on what he heard from the witches right away. Since the witches said to beware Macduff, he decides to raid Macduff's castle and kill him and his family. He decides this huge decision in a matter of seconds because of his paranoia and the witches' prophecy.

Some foreign countries censor or ban the television show, Game of Thrones, because of the intense violence and sex and they fear it will incite...

First, we have to realize that we do not have any facts that directly support the idea that countries should not ban or censor Game of Thrones.  There are no studies that look at whether viewing violence and/or sex on TV makes people more likely to rebel against their government.  Therefore, we will have to try to approach this question in a more roundabout way.

We also have to admit that psychological research shows that there is some reason to think that it is bad for people to watch violent acts in the media.  While there is no reason to think that every person who watches a violent show will go out and engage in violence, there seems to be a clear connection between viewing fictional violence and actually being violent in the real world.  Studies have found that people who watch more violent TV are more likely to act aggressively in real life and they are less likely to be concerned and disturbed when they see violence.  From that perspective, then, it may be that countries like China are justified in censoring the show.

So how can we argue that countries should not censor this show?  The easiest way is by saying that freedom of speech and expression are very important things.  We can say that all human beings have the right to say what they want to say (“saying” things can include making TV shows as both are types of communication).  We can say that the corollary of this is that people also have the right to listen/watch whatever they want to watch.  The idea of freedom of expression is important enough that it is enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.   If a country takes this right away from its people, it is denying them one of their basic human rights.

This is, in my mind, a very important argument.  However, it is not one that can be backed up by actual facts.  There is no way to factually prove that all human beings have the right to freedom of speech and expression.  We can assert that this is so and we can point to philosophers like John Locke who have said that it is so, but this does not constitute factual proof.

The strongest factual argument I can think of for this is that countries actually make rebellion more likely if they infringe upon things like their citizens’ rights to freedom of speech.  In recent history, we can see that countries with oppressive regimes are much more likely to suffer from rebellions than open, democratic countries.  We can see, for instance, rebellions like those of the “Arab Spring” that targeted autocratic and undemocratic rulers.  We saw rebellions of sorts against communist governments at the end of the Cold War.  We do not, by contrast, see rebellions in places like the United States or France where governments guarantee their citizens’ personal rights. 

This is a strong argument because it appeals to the self-interest of the governments of the countries you mention.  This argument does not rely on their sense of morality.  Instead, it relies on their desire to avoid trouble. 

So, I would answer this question by saying that censoring violent shows like Game of Thrones might decrease the likelihood of individual acts of violence.  However, it will also increase the likelihood of outright rebellion against the government because oppressive governments are much more likely to face rebellion than open, democratic governments are.

How did the US establish a military presence in the Philippines?

The United States first established its military presence in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War in 1898. 1898 turned out to be a watershed year in American Foreign Policy. 

The United States first entered into the Spanish-American war hoping to extend its reach beyond the concept of Manifest Destiny, or owning land from sea to shining sea. Once Manifest Destiny was reached, the nation wanted to spread its wings and become a colonial power, like...

The United States first established its military presence in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War in 1898. 1898 turned out to be a watershed year in American Foreign Policy. 

The United States first entered into the Spanish-American war hoping to extend its reach beyond the concept of Manifest Destiny, or owning land from sea to shining sea. Once Manifest Destiny was reached, the nation wanted to spread its wings and become a colonial power, like England and Spain. The U.S. turned its sights on Cuba to try and free the nation from Spain. 

The Spanish also occupied the Philippines. General Dewey was sent there to destroy the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay before it reached Cuba. In the Phillipines, insurgents were also attempting to drive out the Spanish. Through Aguinaldo, the U.S. and the Philippines became allies, and they were able to defeat the Spanish forces. The U.S. was able to capture the city of Manila in August 1898. The U.S. maintained occupation of the Philippines throughout the remainder of the Spanish-American War. However, when signing the Treaty of Paris in 1898, the United States gave Cuba its dependence and decided to continue to occupy the Philippines. 

in "An Astrologer's Day" by R. K. Narayan, what happens that evening as the astrologer is preparing to leave?

The astrologer's day begins at approximately noon and does not end until he gets home at nearly midnight. He has a hard time earning a living because so many of the people who spend their time walking around in the park have no money. If they did have money they wouldn't be walking around in the park. The astrologer is forced to quit for the night because he doesn't possess lighting of his own. After dark he depends on the light of a nearby vendor of groundnuts. The smell of the roasting nuts must be a torment to the astrologer because it would appear that he doesn't have anything to eat all day.

When the groundnuts vendor closes up for the night and puts out the crackling and smoking flare by which he does business, it is time for the astrologer to follow suit. The author makes it clear that the night lighting is poor at best, but when the flare goes out it is really dark. This is a blessing on this particular night, because Guru Nayak appears at the last moment and wants a reading that will help him find a man who tried to kill him years ago. The astrologer's angry and suspicious customer does not recognize him as the very man he has been seeking. And the astrologer does not recognize Guru Nayak as the man he tried to kill back in their native village until his customer lights a cheroot.

The astrologer sent a prayer to heaven as the other lit a cheroot. The astrologer caught a glimpse of his face by the matchlight.

Once the astrologer recognizes Guru Nayak without being recognized himself, he is in a superior position. He can dazzle his dangerous customer with what appears to be supernatural knowledge. He knows his name and what happened to him back in the village they both come from. He is able to convince Guru Nayak that the man he has been seeking is dead, having been run over by a lorry. The astrologer not only saves his own life but persuades his nemesis to return to his village and never venture out of it. Furthermore, the street-smart astrologer manages to extract enough money from Guru Nayak to delight his wife when he brings the handful of coins home. 

The reader is in for a surprise ending because, until the astrologer gets home that midnight, the reader does not understand how the astrologer could have known his customer's name and could have told him so much about his background. Before going to sleep for the night, the astrologer tells his wife:

"Do you know a great load is gone from me today? I thought I had the blood of a man on my hands all these years. That was the reason why I ran away from home, settled here, and married you. He is alive."

How is the creature in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein morally ambiguous? What are some examples of that?

The creature that Victor Frankenstein creates in Shelley's Frankenstein is morally ambiguous because his narrative in the middle of the novel makes him sympathetic, but he is guilty of several violent acts. 

First, let's recall some of the creature's violent actions. The creature kills Victor's younger brother, William, who is only a child. He then frames the Frankenstein's maid, Justine Moritz, who is caring and innocent. He threatens Victor's life as well as that of...

The creature that Victor Frankenstein creates in Shelley's Frankenstein is morally ambiguous because his narrative in the middle of the novel makes him sympathetic, but he is guilty of several violent acts. 

First, let's recall some of the creature's violent actions. The creature kills Victor's younger brother, William, who is only a child. He then frames the Frankenstein's maid, Justine Moritz, who is caring and innocent. He threatens Victor's life as well as that of his soon-to-be-wife, if Victor does not promise to make the creature a female companion. The creature does eventually kill Victor's wife, Elizabeth, on their wedding night. He also kills Victor's best friend, Clerval, and it could be said that Victor's beloved father dies of the grief caused by all of the other losses, an indirect result of the creature's actions (and Victor's actions, of course). From Victor's perspective, the creature terrorizes him and is an evil abomination. 

On the other hand, the creature's narrative, delivered to Victor (and the reader) at the center of the novel, makes him sympathetic. In the narrative, we learn about how Victor's actions have affected the creature, who is likened to an abandoned child. Victor, the father/creator, cast out his offspring/creation, and left him to fend for himself. The creature describes the agony of realizing that he is hideous and threatening to other people. He starts out with basically a good heart; he even tries to help save a drowning child. However, because of his ghastly appearance, people fear him and expect him to do evil. The creature maintains hope, though, and goes on to idolize and learn from the DeLacey family. He learns language and is able to communicate his own story articulately in the novel as a result of his observation of the family; this allows him to make a case to the reader and Victor that could create sympathy for his plight. The creature believes that he can approach the father of the DeLacey family and ask for help or companionship because the father is blind and so does not judge him by his appearance. Unfortunately, other members of the family come in during the creature's encounter with the DeLacey father and are deathly afraid of the creature. This serves as a sort of last straw for the creature. He now must appeal to his creator for help. 

Further, the creature appears sympathetic through contrast with Victor, who is also morally ambiguous. Victor abandons the creature and refuses to perform any sort of parental duty toward him. Victor allows Justine to take the fall for William's murder even though he knows the creature committed the crime (he tries to protect himself, as he does not want to be exposed as having made this monster). When we see Victor's behavior, we understand how the creature feels as a result of Victor's cruel and irresponsible treatment. At the same time, both Victor and the creature take actions that are morally wrong (Victor in making the creature and the creature in murdering others to take revenge on Victor). This makes both characters morally ambiguous.  

What did Brian finally do to get food in Hatchet?

When Brian grows desperate for food, he thinks of his teacher who used to tell him that he was his biggest asset in any situation. Then he began to consider that there had to be berries somewhere. He eventually found some and even though they were bitter, he ate enough of them to fill his belly. Later that night, they made him terribly sick and he began to call them "gut cherries" from then on.

...

When Brian grows desperate for food, he thinks of his teacher who used to tell him that he was his biggest asset in any situation. Then he began to consider that there had to be berries somewhere. He eventually found some and even though they were bitter, he ate enough of them to fill his belly. Later that night, they made him terribly sick and he began to call them "gut cherries" from then on.

Later he found other, sweeter berries and these didn't make him so sick. The next thing he found to eat was turtle eggs, which he ate raw. These were significantly more nourishing and helped him gain some more energy.

The great discovery he makes several days later is that of remembering that water refracts light so once he leaves the tip of his arrow in the water, he finds himself able to get fish with it and he finally sates his hunger with all the fish he can cook on the fire.

He also goes on to figure out how to kill birds and he takes great pride in that kill, the day of first meat. The last thing he finds is of course the survival pack in the plane and he has all kinds of food ready to eat when the bush pilot lands on the lake to rescue him.

What is Ophelia's interaction with Polonius in Act 1, Scene 3 of Hamlet?

Polonius advises Ophelia against a relationship with Hamlet.

Laertes, Ophelia’s brother, counsels her to avoid Hamlet’s advances. He tells her that royalty is fickle and she will just get hurt.  He is her brother, and he is looking out for her.  Then her father enters, and asks what Laertes advised.

Ophelia tells him they were talking about Hamlet, and Polonius adds his caution to Laertes’s.  He tells Ophelia that he is aware that she has...

Polonius advises Ophelia against a relationship with Hamlet.

Laertes, Ophelia’s brother, counsels her to avoid Hamlet’s advances. He tells her that royalty is fickle and she will just get hurt.  He is her brother, and he is looking out for her.  Then her father enters, and asks what Laertes advised.

Ophelia tells him they were talking about Hamlet, and Polonius adds his caution to Laertes’s.  He tells Ophelia that he is aware that she has been thinking about Hamlet, and that she should be careful.  Like Laertes, he does not believe that Hamlet’s intentions are pure.

OPHELIA

He hath, my lord, of late made many tenders
Of his affection to me.

LORD POLONIUS

Affection! pooh! you speak like a green girl,
Unsifted in such perilous circumstance.
Do you believe his tenders, as you call them? (Act 1, Scene 3)

Poor Ophelia is getting it from all sides!  She is a sensitive girl, and she does not want to question Hamlet’s integrity.  However, her brother and father see her as a vulnerable damsel and feel the need to intervene before Hamlet takes her honor. Ophelia assures him that Hamlet’s intentions are good, but he tells her it is all an act.

For Lord Hamlet,
Believe so much in him, that he is young
And with a larger tether may he walk
Than may be given you: in few, Ophelia,
Do not believe his vows; for they are brokers,
Not of that dye which their investments show,
But mere implorators of unholy suits,
Breathing like sanctified and pious bawds,
The better to beguile. (Act 1, Scene 3)

In a way, the two men are right.  Hamlet is not to be trusted.  He may have feelings for Ophelia, but he manipulates her and uses her very badly.  He must see how fragile she is, but he continues to mess with her head.  He has bigger problems than her.  He wants to make everyone believe he is crazy because he needs to avenge his father, and she is just the tool to do it.

What are the similarities between Moshe Flinker and Elie Wiesel, as reflected in their diaries/books?

There are several similarities between the two authors. Let's examine just a few based on what we know from their books/diaries.

They were roughly the same age. Moshe Flinker was born in 1926 and Elie Wiesel was born in 1928. Sadly, Flinker would die in 1944 in Auschwitz, while just one year later Wiesel would be liberated.

Both were sent to concentration camps with their families. Flinker was sent to Auschwitz, where he perished. Wiesel...

There are several similarities between the two authors. Let's examine just a few based on what we know from their books/diaries.

They were roughly the same age. Moshe Flinker was born in 1926 and Elie Wiesel was born in 1928. Sadly, Flinker would die in 1944 in Auschwitz, while just one year later Wiesel would be liberated.

Both were sent to concentration camps with their families. Flinker was sent to Auschwitz, where he perished. Wiesel was sent to Auschwitz also, but was later transferred to Buchenwald, where he was liberated by Allied forces in 1945.

Both writers wrote about the significant pain they felt for their fellow Jews and questioned their plight, both before and during the Holocaust. They struggled to make sense of the rampant racism and persecution of the Jews, recognizing that the Holocaust was not the first time the Jewish people had been persecuted and often comparing this persecution to others from history.

“In his many lectures, Wiesel has concerned himself with the situation of the Jews and other groups who have suffered persecution and death because of their religion, race or national origin” (nobelprize.org).

“This second question is whether our distress is part of the anguish which has afflicted the Jewish people since the exile, or whether this is different from all that has occurred in the past” (Flinker).

Both Flinker and Wiesel write about turning to their religion for answers and were not entirely satisfied. We see in both of their writing that they constantly question the purpose of the Jewish suffering and where God must be to allow this to happen. Where Flinker became more devout, we see Wiesel’s doubts about his faith growing over time. Just as with so many who endured the Holocaust, their faith was shaken because it caused people to feel forsaken and in the process search for a reason as to why.

Each of these writers, along with Anne Frank, offer powerful insight into what life was like during the Holocaust. It is unfortunate that of the three, Wiesel was the only one to survive, but through his numerous works over the years, we have gained a greater insight and understanding into what many Jews felt during this time frame.

I'm writing a argumentative paper on eating disorders but not really sure what my position should be. All of the topics about eating disorders I...

That is such an interesting problem!  I have a few ideas.  You could perhaps make an argument over what causes these.  Or you could make an argument over the best mode of treatment.

I am not sure what causes eating disorders, but there are bound to be at least a few schools of thought on this.  Perhaps it is one's upbringing. Perhaps it is the media, which many people tend to blame. Eating disorders...

That is such an interesting problem!  I have a few ideas.  You could perhaps make an argument over what causes these.  Or you could make an argument over the best mode of treatment.

I am not sure what causes eating disorders, but there are bound to be at least a few schools of thought on this.  Perhaps it is one's upbringing. Perhaps it is the media, which many people tend to blame. Eating disorders might even have a genetic component. I don't know if any twin studies have been done on this issue. In any case, there may be one cause that you find more compelling, and you could argue that as the cause, taking care to let the reader know what the other theories are and why they are not correct.

In terms of treatment, I have read of many different kinds of treatment. People are sometimes sent away for treatment, isolated completely from their families.  Some people just get talk therapy. I am guessing there might be medications used, too, for eating disorders. There may be an argument to be made that one of these methods of treatment is better than the others.  Since eating disorders have become frighteningly common, there is a good chance there have been studies done on modes of treatment. Find one mode of treatment that you think is successful, or, alternatively, you could make an argument that only a combination of treatments, for example, medication and talk therapy, is the way to solve the problem.  I am aware that many insurers will cover only medication and not talk therapy, since medication is usually far less costly, and there is likely to be a good argument made about that.  

No matter what the subject, I guess the moral of the story is that we can always find something to argue about!  I have included a link to get you started on your research. 

At first, what does Juliet believe is the only solution to her problem?

Juliet's biggest problem arrives when Romeo is banished for killing her cousin Tybalt, and her marriage to Paris is moved up by her family. Her father has refused to delay the marriage and even threatened to disown her if she refuses to marry Paris. Even the Nurse, her strongest confidant, has counseled that she should wed Paris. Juliet seeks solace from the Friar, and runs into Paris at the church, reinforcing her conflict. Once Paris...

Juliet's biggest problem arrives when Romeo is banished for killing her cousin Tybalt, and her marriage to Paris is moved up by her family. Her father has refused to delay the marriage and even threatened to disown her if she refuses to marry Paris. Even the Nurse, her strongest confidant, has counseled that she should wed Paris. Juliet seeks solace from the Friar, and runs into Paris at the church, reinforcing her conflict. Once Paris leaves, Juliet confronts the Friar demanding a solution, and if one is not presented to her, she says she will take her own life that very instant. Suicide seems to be the only answer to her in that moment. It's not until the Friar concocts a complicated plan faking Juliet's death so she can be reunited with Romeo that she abandons the thought of killing herself.

Was Odysseus's choice regarding the monster the best decision? Use textual evidence to support your opinion.

Odysseus chooses not to kill the Cyclops, Polyphemus, because to do so would spell certain death for himself and his crew. When he came to the cave, Polyphemus had "swung high overhead a slab of solid rock to close the cave," and if Odysseus kills him, there will be no way to move the stone and they will all eventually die inside. Therefore, he decides to wound the monster in such a way that he...

Odysseus chooses not to kill the Cyclops, Polyphemus, because to do so would spell certain death for himself and his crew. When he came to the cave, Polyphemus had "swung high overhead a slab of solid rock to close the cave," and if Odysseus kills him, there will be no way to move the stone and they will all eventually die inside. Therefore, he decides to wound the monster in such a way that he will still be physically capable of moving the stone, but will be less able to catch them. In the meantime, the monster does eat a few more of Odysseus's crew, but he is able to save the vast majority of them with his new plan.  He determines to get the monster drunk and blind him while he sleeps, but Odysseus first tells him that his name is "Nobody" so that when other Cyclopes come to his aid, Polyphemus will tell them that "Nobody" is hurting him. This plan succeeds very well, and because he is able to save so many more men than he loses, it seems to me to be a very sound plan.

In Zitkala-Sa's autobiographical story "The School Days of an Indian Girl," why does she feel like an outcast among the whites as well as among her...

The insensitivity and contemptuous attitude of the whites towards the author caused her to feel herself as an outcast among the whites.

She begins her autobiographical story "The School Days of an Indian Girl" by narrating her painful experience in her train journey to the missionary school. She was travelling from her native village in Yankton Indian Reservation to the school in Wabash, Indiana.

Many passengers from the white community “stopped their haste” to scornfully scrutinize her.  Then, few children began to point fingers at her “moccasined feet” derisively. All these embarrassed her tremendously. She was aghast to find their mothers joining them, instead of rebuking them. She says, 

“I sank deep into the corner of my seat, for I resented being watched… Their mothers, instead of reproving such rude curiosity, looked closely at me, and attracted their children's further notice to my blanket.”

In the boarding school, she had hardly made any new friends. Instead, she had plenty of harrowing experiences. Her repeated experiences of indifference and “extreme indignities” by the “paleface” women of the school deepened her sense of being an outcast.

The author found the culture of the white people to be strange and disgusting. In her native culture, long hair had had a special significance. She says, “Among our people, short hair was worn by mourners, and shingled hair by cowards!”  Despite her protest, she was tied to a chair and her “long hair was shingled like a coward's.”

The author felt as if she was being robbed of her Native American traditions when she was forced to eat, dress and behave like a white person. Away from her mother and own people, she began to feel more and more marginalized in the cold and alien world of the residential school.

In another displeasing incident, she experienced white people’s “strong prejudice against my (her) people.” It happened during an inter-college oratorical contest. Some “rowdies” (college students who were whites) “threw out a large white flag, with a drawing of a most forlorn Indian girl on it.” They had printed in “bold black letters” words that were used derogatorily for Native Americans. She, however, won the contest, along with another student.

Besides these distressing incidents, there were many other instances that intensified her sense of isolation. In one such episode, her friend was brutally thrashed for lying down on the snow to make an impression on the snow floor. In fact, they were three students in all, including the author, who had fallen themselves on the snow to see their impressions.  

The author narrates another painful incident when she had lost one of her close friends because of the neglect of the school authorities. The school staff’s insensitive treatment of her friend, when she was lying on her deathbed, filled the author with extreme anger and disgust. She says,

At her deathbed I stood weeping, as the paleface woman sat near her moistening the dry lips… I grew bitter... I despised the pencils that moved automatically, and the one teaspoon which dealt out, from a large bottle, healing to a row of variously ailing Indian children.

So, we see that innumerable instances of neglect, indifference and disdain for three years had caused her to feel like an outcast among the whites.

Not only this, she began to feel herself as an outcast among her own people. When she came back home after successfully completing her diploma, she began to find it uncomfortable to adjust herself with his family members and community people. She says, 

“I was neither a wee girl nor a tall one; neither a wild Indian nor a tame one. This deplorable situation was the effect of my brief course in the East, and the unsatisfactory "teenth" in a girl's years.”

She wasn't able to express her feelings to her brother or mother. Her brother, who was almost ten years older to her, “did not quite understand my (the author’s) feelings.” Moreover, that she was educated now, her mother didn't know how to comfort her daughter convincingly. This lack of communication and understanding created a rift between the author and her family members.

Besides, she was appalled to find out how drastically the people of her Yankton Dakota tribe had changed under the influence of the white culture. She says,

“They were no more young braves in blankets and eagle plumes, nor Indian maids with prettily painted cheeks. They had gone three years to school in the East, and had become civilized. The young men wore the white man's coat and trousers, with bright neckties. The girls wore tight muslin dresses, with ribbons at neck and waist. At these gatherings they talked English.”

All these reasons made her increasingly uneasy in the company of her own people.

Why does Lyddie return to the tavern?

I believe that you are asking about the end of chapter 6.  

In chapter 5, Mrs. Cutler decided to take a trip to Boston in order to sell some of the maple sugar and visit her sister.  Triphena announces to Lyddie that if Mrs. Cutler can have some time away from the tavern, then Lyddie should too.  Lyddie decides to go home.  

Once she arrives at home, Lyddie discovers that a runaway slave...

I believe that you are asking about the end of chapter 6.  

In chapter 5, Mrs. Cutler decided to take a trip to Boston in order to sell some of the maple sugar and visit her sister.  Triphena announces to Lyddie that if Mrs. Cutler can have some time away from the tavern, then Lyddie should too.  Lyddie decides to go home.  

Once she arrives at home, Lyddie discovers that a runaway slave named Ezekial is hiding out in her farm house.  The two of them talk, and Lyddie realizes that her life at the tavern is similar to slavery. Nonetheless, it is her job.  Lyddie returns to the tavern, because it is what she needs to do to pay off her family's debts.  

Unfortunately, Mrs. Cutler is already back at the tavern.  She fires Lyddie immediately.  Lyddie is not heartbroken, because now she is able to go to Lowell and become a factory girl.  

She felt more lighthearted than she had since the day Mrs. Peck brought the letter. . . "I'm going to be a factory girl, Triphena. . . I'm free.  She's set me free.  I can do anything I want. I can go to Lowell and make real money to pay off the debt so I can go home." 

What does Santiago dream about in The Old Man and the Sea?What does Santiago dream about in The Old Man and the Sea by Hemingway?

Santiago dreams of the lions that played on the beaches of Africa, where he once visited after going on a sailing ship years ago.

When he was much younger and saw the lions cavorting and wrestling in the sand with each other on the African coast, Santiago found them very vital and full of youthful energy. In fact, he admired their exuberance and strength. Now, he does not dream of his deceased wife or anyone...

Santiago dreams of the lions that played on the beaches of Africa, where he once visited after going on a sailing ship years ago.

When he was much younger and saw the lions cavorting and wrestling in the sand with each other on the African coast, Santiago found them very vital and full of youthful energy. In fact, he admired their exuberance and strength. Now, he does not dream of his deceased wife or anyone else; instead, he only dreams of the young cats that once played on the beaches because he has always admired their youth, energy, and strength.

He only dreamed of places now and of the lions on the beach. They played like young cats in the dusk and he loved them as he loved the boy.

Just as he talks of the great players Joe DiMaggio and Dick Sisler and great managers John McGraw and Leo Durocher, Santiago finds a focus for his thoughts so that he, too, can persevere and endure. Now, after eighty-four days, the old man knows that he must prove his strength and abilities when he goes out. So, he sleeps and dreams of the young, vital lions before he goes out in search of fish as he bolsters his strength.

After his battle with the marlin, it is a discouraged and exhausted Santiago who returns with only the bones of the great fish. But, he has certainly fought hard, and brought the marlin next to his boat only to have it devoured by sharks. Nevertheless, in an act of renewal of his spirit, Santiago, who is exhausted, beaten, and battered, retains his ability to dream and his indomitable spirit. He lies down and dreams again of the lions, undefeated. 

In "The doctor who treated the raped baby and who felt such despair" the poem seems to move between contrasting settings. Quote and discuss...

In Finuala Dowling’s poem “To the doctor who treated the raped baby and who felt such despair” she compares a horrific situation with examples of normality. The doctor faces the task of dealing with the raped baby’s injuries while around the world, other children experience the care they deserve.

that on the night in question

there was a light on in the hall

for a nervous little sleeper

and when the bleeding baby was admitted...

In Finuala Dowling’s poem “To the doctor who treated the raped baby and who felt such despair” she compares a horrific situation with examples of normality. The doctor faces the task of dealing with the raped baby’s injuries while around the world, other children experience the care they deserve.

that on the night in question

there was a light on in the hall

for a nervous little sleeper

and when the bleeding baby was admitted to your care

faraway a Karoo shepherd crooned a ramkietjie lullaby in the veld

and while you staunched

there was space on a mother-warmed sheet

for a night walker

Her poem is formatted so each of the doctor’s actions while treating the baby is aligned with the action of a family member caring for another child. Lights are left on for children who are afraid of the dark, a shepard sings a calming song, and a mother makes room in her bed for a child seeking comfort in the night.

The author does this to emphasize the gravity of the crime against the child, and the toll it takes on the physician. In addition, the format explains how society can ignore this type of problem because we do not have deal with it. The doctor questions the existence of God.

And for the rest of us, we all slept in trust

that you would do what you did,

that you could do what you did.

We slept in trust that you lived.

Please explain what themes are evident in chapters 7 and 8 of To Kill A Mockingbird.

Chapters 7 and 8 of Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird are filled with coming-of-age experiences for Jem and Scout. The story is called a bildungsroman, which means the development and education of the protagonists are part of the central theme. Jem and Scout are still learning about Boo Radley and Jem seems to know more than his sister. He's learning that Boo might be more of a friend than a ghost because they've been finding gifts in the Radley's tree (knothole); and Jem found his pants mended after getting them caught and forsaken on the Radley's fence. Jem therefore decides to write a thank you letter to whomever has been leaving them gifts in the tree, but he suspects that it is Boo and really wants to show his appreciation. However, just before they want to give him the letter, Mr. Nathan Radley fills the hole up with cement claiming that the tree is dying. This is a life lesson to the children that sometimes, just when we are about to achieve a goal or get what we want, it is stripped away from us and we are left with disappointment. Scout cries and Jem tells her not to worry, but their friendship and communication with Boo has been stopped.

Next, in chapter 8, the children are enjoying their friendship with Miss Maudie and their first experience with snow falling in Maycomb. Unfortunately, Miss Maudie's house is claimed by a house fire during the night. While the kids are watching the fire in front of the Radley house, Boo wraps a blanket around Scout. They discover it later and Jem says to her, "Boo Radley. You were so busy looking at the fire you didn't know it when he put the blanket around you" (72). Ironically, the kids lose a second chance to communicate with Boo. They were so close, yet so far away! But they experience another minor disappointment. In each case, too, there is an element of irony that keeps them from achieving their goals. 

Even though there are unexpected outcomes (irony) and disappointment in these two chapters, there are other themes of hope and love that can be sensed. For instance, when Scout cries about the knothole being filled with cement, her brother sweetly comforts her with love and hope by saying, "Don't you cry, now, Scout. . . don't cry now, don't you worry" (62).

Then, when Scout talks to Miss Maudie after the fire, Maudie says the following:

"Don't you worry about me, Jean Louise Finch. There are ways of doing things you don't know about. Why, I'll build me a little house and take me a couple of roomers and--gracious, I'll have the finest yard in Alabama" (73).

It's interesting to note that both Maudie and Jem tell Scout not to worry, which can be a theme as well. When times get tough, difficult, or disappointing, don't worry. 

In O'Connor's "Guests of the Nation" what is the significance of varying between characters' perspectives?

"Guests of the Nation" varies between characters because each one represents a different perspective on the war. A major theme in the story is the political division between men and women who come from very similar backgrounds. As the narrator, Bonaparte has a unique perspective in his power over Belcher and Hawkins. Belcher and Hawkins have unique perspectives as Bonaparte's prisoners and as Englishmen being imprisoned in a foreign land.

The book's style of varying...

"Guests of the Nation" varies between characters because each one represents a different perspective on the war. A major theme in the story is the political division between men and women who come from very similar backgrounds. As the narrator, Bonaparte has a unique perspective in his power over Belcher and Hawkins. Belcher and Hawkins have unique perspectives as Bonaparte's prisoners and as Englishmen being imprisoned in a foreign land.

The book's style of varying between characters reaches climactic significance during the execution of Belcher and Hawkins. Without the continual change in perspective throughout the book, the reader might have a different impression of this crucial event. Because the story is told through different perspectives, the reader is able to see how deeply the execution affects Bonaparte and realize that even the most villainous role is taken by a human being with thoughts and emotions.

What is the meaning of lines 122-127 of Act 1, Scene 3 of Macbeth?

To put these lines into context, Macbeth has just been named the Thane of Cawdor by King Duncan, just as the witches prophesied. In lines 122-123, he speaks privately to Banquo and asks what he thinks about the other prophecy, the one that says Banquo's children will be kings.

Banquo's response is one of caution:

That, trusted home,

Might yet enkindle you unto the crown,

Besides the thane of Cawdor. But ’tis strange.

And oftentimes, to...

To put these lines into context, Macbeth has just been named the Thane of Cawdor by King Duncan, just as the witches prophesied. In lines 122-123, he speaks privately to Banquo and asks what he thinks about the other prophecy, the one that says Banquo's children will be kings.

Banquo's response is one of caution:

That, trusted home,

Might yet enkindle you unto the crown,

Besides the thane of Cawdor. But ’tis strange.

And oftentimes, to win us to our harm,

The instruments of darkness tell us truths,

Win us with honest trifles, to betray's

In deepest consequence.

In other words, Banquo thinks it is possible that Macbeth will next become king, as the witches told him. But Banquo cannot shake the feeling that this whole experience is "strange." He is worried that the witches are, in fact, trying to lull Macbeth into a false sense of security: by telling him a small truth, they may actually be leading him to his own destruction ("to win us to our harm"). Banquo therefore acts as the voice of reason in this part of the scene. He wants Macbeth to realize that there may be more to these prophecies than first meets the eye. This also creates a contrast between the two men: Macbeth is happy to believe the witches because it compliments his sense of ambition. Banquo, however, questions their intentions. 

On the whole, these lines are also significant because they foreshadow Macbeth's destruction later in the play. 

What meaning beyond the literal does this line from The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde suggest? "He gave an impression of deformity."

The most important word in this quote is "impression." In this passage, Utterson has just met Mr. Hyde for the first time, and he is trying to understand the "impression" the man has left him with. In fact, Utterson cannot name an actual "deformity" that the strange man has, although he appears "pale and dwarfish." Utterson first considers whether it is merely the odd man's bearing, his attitude of fear mixed with boldness, that caused...

The most important word in this quote is "impression." In this passage, Utterson has just met Mr. Hyde for the first time, and he is trying to understand the "impression" the man has left him with. In fact, Utterson cannot name an actual "deformity" that the strange man has, although he appears "pale and dwarfish." Utterson first considers whether it is merely the odd man's bearing, his attitude of fear mixed with boldness, that caused Utterson to feel repulsed by him. He quickly realizes that the man's demeanor alone cannot explain the deep repulsion that welled up in Utterson when he met him. Utterson then brushes away the idea that his reaction could be a simple dislike akin to that described in the old nursery rhyme about Dr. Fell: "I do not like thee, Dr. Fell. The reason why, I cannot tell, but this I know, and know full well: I do not like thee, Dr. Fell." Mr. Utterson then comes to the conclusion that the "deformity" he has perceived in Mr. Hyde is a spiritual and moral deformity, the "radiance of a foul soul that thus transpires through, and transfigures." This description is key to Stevenson's theme in the novella. It is not the outward appearance of someone that matters. If Hyde's deformity had been physical, it would not have made him a menace; it is the deformity of his inner being that produces an unshakable "impression" on Utterson and that causes such harm to others in the story.

What is the relevance of A Mercy for a student today?

Morrison's A Mercy can teach modern students that America is comprised of "outsiders."

American students currently experience a great deal of social and political chatter about being "American." Presidential candidates talk about making America "great" again. Given the global threat of terrorism, many leaders have no problem saying that there are those who are "like us" and those who are "different."  Morrison's work is relevant because it shows that Americans are essentially orphans.  People who...

Morrison's A Mercy can teach modern students that America is comprised of "outsiders."

American students currently experience a great deal of social and political chatter about being "American." Presidential candidates talk about making America "great" again. Given the global threat of terrorism, many leaders have no problem saying that there are those who are "like us" and those who are "different."  Morrison's work is relevant because it shows that Americans are essentially orphans.  People who settled America into what it is today came from other nations.  Their backgrounds are not the simplistic notion of "America" that modern students hear of in today's political and social settings.

The characters in A Mercy show the divergent definition in America's past.  Florens is the product of rape, while Vaark has experienced the very worst in human treatment.  Rebekka is transplanted from England, and represents the essence of a stranger in a strange land. Lina is a slave who has seen everyone near her die of disease, while Sorrow is a "mongrel." Each of them must work to make a life in America.  They represent how there is no such thing as a pure "American."  The country is formed by people who are hybrids from other countries and settings.  They apply their past experience to the New World.  

Modern students could find this discussion quite meaningful.  It allows them to parse through the discourse that suggests that being "American" is simple and easy to understand.  Morrison instructs readers that to be an American means to embrace a very complex past.  Nuance replaces simplicity. a lesson that could be quite relevant to modern students.

Discuss the juxtaposition of light and dark imagery in "Araby." What is the significance of the contrast?

In "Araby," light seems to symbolize innocence and the hopefulness that attends it, while dark stands for the state of having lost one's innocence and the cynicism that such a state breeds.  When the narrator describes his boyhood, playing outside at night, he describes the darkness of the city streets about him but focuses on the way their "bodies glowed" as well as how Mangan's sister's "figure [was] defined by the light" from the door....

In "Araby," light seems to symbolize innocence and the hopefulness that attends it, while dark stands for the state of having lost one's innocence and the cynicism that such a state breeds.  When the narrator describes his boyhood, playing outside at night, he describes the darkness of the city streets about him but focuses on the way their "bodies glowed" as well as how Mangan's sister's "figure [was] defined by the light" from the door.  Though they are surrounded by darkness, the children are still innocent and therefore they are characterized by light.  Further, Mangan's sister, the subject of the narrator's young love, is also characterized by light because of his intense hope surrounding his feelings for her and the happy possibilities he associates with those feelings, especially after she speaks with him about Araby.

Though it is late and dark when the narrator finally leaves for the Araby bazaar, and though he is frustrated by his uncle's tardiness and the slowness of the train, he notices the streetlights "glaring with gas," the "twinkling river," and the "lighted dial of a clock."  Again, he is surrounded by darkness but only seems to notice the light because he is so wrapped up in his hopefulness about finding a gift for his love. However, when he gets inside the bazaar, most of the hall is "in darkness" and he goes through the one open stall's "dark entrance," looking at the disappointing wares before moving on.  The bazaar was really only full of English teacups and vases, staffed by a young English woman who seemed more interested in flirting than paying attention to her young customer.  Finally, the "upper part of the hall [became] completely dark," and standing in the darkness, the narrator has an epiphany: that the world doesn't care about him and his love, that love is not what makes the world turn.  Up until now, he was mostly aware of the light, he now becomes very aware of the dark, and he cries to think of his "vanity," that the dark world would make room for his feelings.  Therefore, the contrast between light and dark, and especially how much of each the boy seemed to notice at various moments, helps to develop the theme of the story.  

An object has moved through a distance. Can it have zero displacement? Support your answer with an example.

Distance may be defined as the ground covered by an object, regardless of where it started from and where it ended. Thus, the route taken by the object gains significance. In comparison, displacement is the difference between the initial and the final position of the object. Here the route taken by the object to reach the final position does not matter. Also, distance is a scalar quantity, while displacement is a vector quantity. 

It is...

Distance may be defined as the ground covered by an object, regardless of where it started from and where it ended. Thus, the route taken by the object gains significance. In comparison, displacement is the difference between the initial and the final position of the object. Here the route taken by the object to reach the final position does not matter. Also, distance is a scalar quantity, while displacement is a vector quantity. 

It is possible for an object to have finite distance traveled and zero displacement. The condition to be met is that initial and final positions of the object should be the same. An example is traveling along a circular path. If an object goes around in a circular path (radius = r) for one completed circle, the distance traveled is `2pir` , whereas the displacement is zero since the initial and final positions are the same. 

Similarly, when we throw a ball upwards, it falls down after traveling some distance. In this case as well, the distance traveled is finite, but the displacement is 0.

Hope this helps. 

Assume exports increase by $500 million and imports decrease by $300 million and that the MPC is 0.75. What's the effect on GDP?

There are a couple ways to approach this question. Here's one way to think about it. 

GDP can be calculated with this formula: Y = C + I + G + (X-IM), where Y = GDP, C = consumption (goods purchased by consumers), I = investment, G = government spending, X = exports and IM = imports. For the purposes of your question, C (consumption), I (investment) and G (government spending) are all staying the...

There are a couple ways to approach this question. Here's one way to think about it. 

GDP can be calculated with this formula: Y = C + I + G + (X-IM), where Y = GDP, C = consumption (goods purchased by consumers), I = investment, G = government spending, X = exports and IM = imports. For the purposes of your question, C (consumption), I (investment) and G (government spending) are all staying the same, so our simplified formula looks like this: Y = (X-IM).

Change in GDP = change in (X-IM) = 500 million export increase minus a 300 million import decrease = 500-(-300) = $800 million change in GDP

But that's not the whole effect on GDP, because you've also been given the MPC (marginal propensity to consume). The MPC can be used to calculate the multiplier, which is a measure of amplification. Put simply, it's a measure of the ripple effect of a change in GDP. Any change in GDP is amplified by consumer patterns, since income for one person is an expenditure for another person. 

To calculate the real change in GDP, we need to multiply our $800 million by the multiplier. The multiplier is 1/(1-MPC) = 1/(1-0.75) = 1/0.25 = 4. 

Effect on GDP = 4*$800 million = $3.2 billion increase

What is the deal with the devil in Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe?

The deal made by Doctor John Faustus with the devil in Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe is that Dr. Faustus would attain twenty-four years of power in exchange for his soul. The deals begins when Faustus starts to learn and practice magic (forbidden by the Christian culture of that time) and believes that he has conjured four devils and Lucifer, when in fact, they came of their own volition. In his pride, arrogance, and lust...

The deal made by Doctor John Faustus with the devil in Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe is that Dr. Faustus would attain twenty-four years of power in exchange for his soul. The deals begins when Faustus starts to learn and practice magic (forbidden by the Christian culture of that time) and believes that he has conjured four devils and Lucifer, when in fact, they came of their own volition. In his pride, arrogance, and lust for power, he ignores warnings about the nature of hell and the consequences of his choice to make the deal.

While it appears that there are many opportunities out of this deal for Dr. Faustus, he does not take them. Mephistophilis, the devil with whom Dr. Faustus makes the deal, resorts to different tricks, imagery and even threats to keep Dr. Faustus to the deal whenever he begins to doubt that it was the right course of action or repent in any form. Dr. Faustus also causes the torture of an old man who desires to save his soul. In the end, he does not repent, but wishes to be free of the consequences of his deal with the devil.

What's the main idea of "The Third and Final Continent"?

In general, if you need to express the main idea of a story, you can do it in this template: "Somebody wants _____, but _____, and the end result is _____."

Put another way, you could explain the main idea of the story by telling who the main character is, what that person is trying to do, and how it all ends up.

This method works because, at its core, every story is about a...

In general, if you need to express the main idea of a story, you can do it in this template: "Somebody wants _____, but _____, and the end result is _____."

Put another way, you could explain the main idea of the story by telling who the main character is, what that person is trying to do, and how it all ends up.

This method works because, at its core, every story is about a struggle or a conflict.

So for "The Third and Final Continent," let's say that the main idea is this: The narrator wants to have a happy marriage with his new wife, Mala, and make a smooth transition from life in India to life in the US. But he worries that his arranged marriage will make things awkward and difficult, plus he feels isolated in his new social environment. The end result is that his landlady provides him with the friendship he needs and the inspiration to see Mala as someone worth falling in love with.

I should also mention that when some instructors say "main idea of the story," they don't mean "what happens." Instead, they mean "what we learn from the story" or "what the story illustrates about life."

If that's the case, then we can find that main bigger idea, or theme, by considering what the author was trying to express by writing the story. What does it reveal that's true about life, or love, or society?

For "The Third and Final Continent," let's say that the main bigger idea is that friendship and understanding can ease a difficult transition. More discussion of the themes of the story can be found .

In the book, Call It Courage, what island did Mafatu and his mother arrive at when the storm came and she gave the coconut to him? What island did...

The answer to the first part of this question can be found on p. 9 of Call It Courage.  The island on which Mafatu and his mother washed up was called Tekoto.  This happened when he was only three years old.  He and his mother were swept out to sea in their canoe during a storm.  Their canoe was wrecked and the two of them were floating in the ocean, holding on to a piece of the canoe, hoping for some way to survive.  On p. 9, we are told that

Off the tip of Hikueru, the uninhabited islet of Tekoto lay shrouded in the darkness.

Mafatu and his mother made it to the shore, where his mother died.  This is the answer to your first question.

As for the second part of your question, there is no name given for the island that Mafatu reaches when he leaves Hikueru on his own to try to prove himself.  On p. 37, for example, Mafatu thinks

…this silent island was not Tahiti.  What island was it then?

Later, he finds out that it is a forbidden island belonging to cannibals.  They come there to perform human sacrifices at their sacred spot.  However, we never learn a name for the island.  Mafatu never speaks to anyone who could tell him the name of the island, so he never finds out what it is called.  He does, on p. 40, come to realize that it might be one of the “Smoking Islands” of which his grandfather had once told him, but he never learns the name of this specific island.

If the Central Bank lowers the nominal interest rate how this would create a self-reinforcing dynamic between the money market and the product market?

There are a lot of complex dynamic relationships between the monetary economy and the real economy, but since this question focused on interest rates I think that's a good place to start.

Lowering the nominal interest rate will, ceteris paribus, lower the real interest rate. This will increase the money supply, because people will be more willing to take out loans if the real interest rate is lower, and loans are the primary mechanism for the expansion of the money supply.
An expanded money supply will, again ceteris paribus, raise prices; how much it raises them depends on how "sticky" prices are compared with production quantities---that is, how much easier or harder it is to change prices as opposed to changing the amount of goods produced. If prices are very "flexible", they will respond immediately and the monetary expansion will simply cause inflation and not affect real output. But if prices are "sticky", they will be harder to adjust than quantity produced, and real output will expand.

Assuming that prices do go up (in the real world, monetary expansion is usually accompanied by some combination of inflation and expanded output), this will put further downward pressure on the real interest rate, even if the nominal interest rate remains the same. For example, a nominal interest rate of 3% is a real interest rate of 1% if you have 2% inflation; but if you have 4% inflation then that same 3% nominal rate is a -1% real interest rate.

Thus, there is a self-reinforcing feedback loop: Lower interest rates in the money market cause inflation in the product market, which causes lower interest rates, which cause more inflation.

This higher inflation may also trigger higher expected inflation, which can be self-fulfilling---if people expect prices to rise, consumers will stock up on products and businesses raise their prices in anticipation, which can create the very inflation that people fear.

Fortunately, none of these feedback loops actually lead to an explosive outcome where they are completely out of control. We have quite good models now for how much inflation and change in output will come from a given interest rate change.

What idea does Shakespeare develop regarding the positive forces of life throughout Hamlet?

Throughout the play, Hamlet has considered the benefits of death, contemplated suicide, insisted that he should be buried with Ophelia in her grave, and realized death is the great equalizer.  Hamlet never actually attempts to take his own life, however; something always stops him whenever he ponders it.  Nearing the end of the play, Claudius has bet on Hamlet in a duel with Laertes, and Hamlet has a kind of premonition that his involvement could...

Throughout the play, Hamlet has considered the benefits of death, contemplated suicide, insisted that he should be buried with Ophelia in her grave, and realized death is the great equalizer.  Hamlet never actually attempts to take his own life, however; something always stops him whenever he ponders it.  Nearing the end of the play, Claudius has bet on Hamlet in a duel with Laertes, and Hamlet has a kind of premonition that his involvement could be tragic.  He says, "It is but foolery, but it is such a kind of gain-giving / as would perhaps trouble a woman" (5.2.202-203).  He means that he has this foreboding, intuitive feeling, and his best friend, Laertes, suggests he trust it and call off the duel.  However, Hamlet has developed a new, somewhat healthier perspective on death (and life) than any he's had before.  He says,

There’s a special
providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ’tis
not to come. If it be not to come, it will be now. If it
be not now, yet it will come—the readiness is all.
Since no man of aught he leaves knows, what is ’t
to leave betimes? Let be. (5.2.205-210)

In other words, Hamlet has developed a kind of faith (with this passage, he alludes to a passage from the Bible) that death comes when it is supposed to.  He feels confident that if he is supposed to die now, then he will; if he's supposed to die later, then he will not die now.  He believes there is no reason to try to leave life early, and all we can do is be ready for death.  The implication is that we ought to develop a perspective that allows us to live fully, knowing we will eventually die whenever we are supposed to.  This is certainly a more life-affirming perspective than Hamlet had at the beginning of the play.

Refer to the book called A Dialogue On Personal Identity and Immortality by John Perry. Why does Weirob think that on the view of a person that...

The dialog occurs over three nights between Miller and his friend, Weirob. Weirob is dying, and Miller is trying to convince her that her identity can endure after death. Weirob is skeptical.

Miller suggests at the beginning of the second night that the key to Weirob's survival after death lies in memory: identity should be understood as a set of psychological connections -- moments, or experiences, that form a coherent pattern. One example used to...

The dialog occurs over three nights between Miller and his friend, Weirob. Weirob is dying, and Miller is trying to convince her that her identity can endure after death. Weirob is skeptical.

Miller suggests at the beginning of the second night that the key to Weirob's survival after death lies in memory: identity should be understood as a set of psychological connections -- moments, or experiences, that form a coherent pattern. One example used to explain this concept is the idea of seeing different stretches of the same river: specific places on the river may be different, we are able to mentally connect these experiences and realize that despite their differences they are actually the same river. This is possible through memory. Miller suggests that the possibility of identity (e.g., a whole person made up of individual experiences, bound together into a "pattern" of a human being through memory) existing after death only requires imagining a being in heaven who can "remember" your memories.

Weirob tries to show that this argument is circular, since memories can be false; we can really remember something that we actually experienced in the real world, but we can also think we remembered the experience, or remember it in a different and inaccurate way. How can we be sure the being in heaven with Weirob's memories is remembering them in the right way, e.g., that the memories are true? Miller responds that all we need do is imagine that God can create a being with true memories. But if that is the case, Weirob counters, isn't it possible for God to create many of these beings? Which, in that case, would be the real Weirob? Weirob argues that now the preconditions for identity surviving death involve both the existence of a being in heaven with her true memories, and that God somehow has chosen not to create more than one of these beings. 

I find it difficult to not see these arguments as circular. Identity is based on the principles of truth and uniqueness; that is, the accuracy of our memory of real events, and the singular nature of these memories, here or in heaven. It's not clear what test one could use to determine if either of these conditions can be true.