Does Stockton treat his characters in a dramatic way?

Stockton does present the characters in "The Lady or the Tiger" in a dramatic way. They are extravagant and even a bit hyperbolic. That is to say, Stockton exaggerates some of the character traits to make his points clear. Of the king, he writes,

"He was a man of exuberant fancy, and, withal, of an authority so irresistible that, at his will, he turned his varied fancies into facts. He was greatly given to self-communing,...

Stockton does present the characters in "The Lady or the Tiger" in a dramatic way. They are extravagant and even a bit hyperbolic. That is to say, Stockton exaggerates some of the character traits to make his points clear. Of the king, he writes,

"He was a man of exuberant fancy, and, withal, of an authority so irresistible that, at his will, he turned his varied fancies into facts. He was greatly given to self-communing, and, when he and himself agreed upon anything, the thing was done."

Also note that Stockton mocks the king's character in this way. The king is "semi-barbaric." This is like saying someone is semi-murderous. It suggests that, if he is occasionally barbaric, then he simply is barbaric. This is one of Stockton's subtle strategies which adds to dramatizing the king's personality. 

The princess is equally extravagant in description.

"This semi-barbaric king had a daughter as blooming as his most florid fancies, and with a soul as fervent and imperious as his own."

She is strikingly beautiful and as barbaric as her father. Her suitor is the ideal underdog/hero.

"Among his courtiers was a young man of that fineness of blood and lowness of station common to the conventional heroes of romance who love royal maidens."

The princess's love for him is also described in hyperbolic terms: 

 . . . he was handsome and brave to a degree unsurpassed in all this kingdom, and she loved him with an ardor that had enough of barbarism in it to make it exceedingly warm and strong. 

Stockton paints these characters in dramatic and well-defined strokes. Thus, it would seem that the characters' actions will be quite predictable. Everything seems dramatically clear. But in the end, Stockton does not say what the princess chooses. He leaves that to the reader. Using a mock fairy tale style, Stockton gives the reader quite overt character types but leaves the ending unknown. This is the dramatic effect in the end. We are given clear characters but an unclear ending. 

What are some themes in Markus Zusak's I Am the Messenger?

Markus Zusak's novel I Am the Messenger presents several themes worth exploring. These themes and others work together to reveal the complex understanding at the novel's end that Ed's is a message worthy to be shared. 

The first theme has to do with the disappointment that occurs when one realizes their dreams may never be obtained. Ed learns over the course of the novel that one may not find true love, that the world can...

Markus Zusak's novel I Am the Messenger presents several themes worth exploring. These themes and others work together to reveal the complex understanding at the novel's end that Ed's is a message worthy to be shared. 

The first theme has to do with the disappointment that occurs when one realizes their dreams may never be obtained. Ed learns over the course of the novel that one may not find true love, that the world can be harsh, and that things may not work out in the end. Disappointment plays out not only through Ed's journey of delivering the messages but through learning the backstory of his family and falling for Audrey.

A second theme of the novel is Ed's identity crisis.  At the start of the novel, Ed has few aspirations and takes little value in his life:

Inside, I laugh. Me? A saint? I list what I am. Taxi driver. Local deadbeat. Cornerstone of mediocrity. Sexual midget. Pathetic card player.

As he works to deliver the messages, Ed struggles to determine whether his identity is changing in a way that is valuable to him, or if he is simply becoming who the cards tell him to be.

Please analyze the coexistence of good and evil in To Kill a Mockingbird.

One of the best scenes that shows good and evil coexisting almost in the same breath is in chapter 26, when Scout is in third grade with Miss Gates as her teacher. Cecil Jacobs brings an article about Hitler's treatment of Jews in Germany to share during the current events segment of class. Miss Gates teaches the kids the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship, then says that the Jews contribute to society, so Hitler must be out to get them because they are religious. Cecil then says the following:

"Well I don't know for certain . . . they're supposed to change money or sometin', but that ain't no cause to persecute 'em. They're white, ain't they?" (245).

Miss Gates does not reprimand Cecil for his racist remarks. She doesn't draw attention to the fact that they have the same type of evil persecution going on right in their own town. Scout catches on to this, though, and asks Jem about it later:

"Well, coming out of the courthouse that night Miss Gates . . . was talking with Miss Stephanie Crawford. I heard her say it's time somebody taught 'em a lesson, they were gettin' way above themselves, an' the next thing they think they can do is marry us. Jem, how can you hate Hitler so bad an' then turn around and be ugly about folks right at home?" (247).

Scout identifies the good and evil in Miss Gates and in her community. Her teacher sticks up for the Jews and feels bad for how much persecution they are experiencing, and then she makes racist remarks about teaching the black community "a lesson." When good and evil coexist, there is usually some hypocrisy in the mix.

Other examples of good and evil coexisting in the story include how good Tom is to Mayella by helping her when she asks him; but as a reward, she gets him into trouble and repays him with evil lies.

Then, in chapter 11, Mrs. Dubose disrespects Atticus's name to his children by calling him evil names, but he tells Jem to be respectful to her. Atticus even praises her for being a courageous lady after she dies because she kicked her morphine habit. Even when Atticus has every reason to hold a grudge, he doesn't.

One more example of good happening alongside evil is when a friendship forms between Boo Radley and the children. They discover gifts in the knothole of the Radley tree and figure that the hole could be a way to communicate with the mystery man. In chapter 7, though, Mr. Nathan Radley fills up the hole with cement and stops the communication, friendship and fun. Just when something good seems to happen, something bad seems to stop it!

What does the following quote fromRay Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 mean?Here we all are, Montag. Aristophanes and Mahatma Gandhi and Gautama...

This quote is Montag's introduction to the network: a group of men outcast from society who have memorised books, or sections of books, for the benefit of future generations. One man, for example, has memorised the works of Gandhi while another has memorised everything written by Confucius. This has happened on a widespread scale, with men across the country memorising books. Granger, the head of this network, tells Montag why the men have adopted this...

This quote is Montag's introduction to the network: a group of men outcast from society who have memorised books, or sections of books, for the benefit of future generations. One man, for example, has memorised the works of Gandhi while another has memorised everything written by Confucius. This has happened on a widespread scale, with men across the country memorising books. Granger, the head of this network, tells Montag why the men have adopted this method:

We read the books and burnt them, afraid they'd be found…Better to keep it in the old heads where no one can see it or suspect it. We are bits and pieces of history and literature.

When the time comes, says Granger, the men of the network will be called forward and, one by one, they will recite what they have memorised. This information can then be written down and books will be reborn. 

Montag can hardly believe that such a network exists and he quickly comes to realise that this method of rebellion is far superior to his and Faber's (which consisted of planting books in firemen's houses). Montag immediately joins this network and prepares for the day in which he will recite his chosen books: the Book of Ecclesiastes and the Book of Revelation.

Do you think modern tools of communication, such as the Internet, have hindered or improved the development of relationships? Does this vary for...

Modern forms of communication, including the Internet, have had a mixed effect on relationships in general. The Internet, including the use of various forms of social media, has allowed people to stay in contact with each other much easier. With various social media sites, such as Facebook, it is very easy to keep track of what your acquaintances are doing. Without the Internet, many of these connections would very likely be lost. The Internet has...

Modern forms of communication, including the Internet, have had a mixed effect on relationships in general. The Internet, including the use of various forms of social media, has allowed people to stay in contact with each other much easier. With various social media sites, such as Facebook, it is very easy to keep track of what your acquaintances are doing. Without the Internet, many of these connections would very likely be lost. The Internet has also made it easier for people to find and to develop intimate relationships with people whom they very likely wouldn’t have ever met. Internet dating sites have become very popular. It allows people to have a greater opportunity to find a lifelong partner. Studies have shown that Internet dating has increased marriage rates. Thus, there is evidence to suggest that the Internet can enhance both casual and intimate relationships.

The Internet also can have a negative impact on relationships. The Internet can be a very impersonal tool. People develop friendships without ever really knowing the people they have met online. People have used the Internet to say harmful things about other people. Some people have used the Internet to avoid confrontations. Some people have used the Internet to end an intimate relationship. There is no substitute for seeing a facial expression, looking at body language, or feeling the gentle touch or a hug from a person. You can’t get these images or feelings from the Internet.

The Internet can also make it hard to get to know a person. I am answering your question, yet I know nothing about you. You know nothing about me. I answer your question, and we both move on with our lives. If we were face to face in the classroom, we would have a better understanding of each other. We often deal with people in a virtual world. This creates a very impersonal environment. People who work online without ever seeing the people with whom they interact, miss out on a dynamic that exists in the workplace. The connections are casual at best. There is a big difference between working directly with people that you see and know compared to working with somebody that you have never met. People may have 1,500 Facebook friends, but how many real friendships do they really have?

The Internet has had both positive and negative impacts on relationships.

What is the meaning of the state to Hitler?

This is a difficult question, because to Hitler, like totalitarian dictators throughout history, the state was really little more than a vehicle for their own ambitions and their will to power. As a result, we have to take much of Nazi ideology with a very large grain of salt. That said, it is also true Hitler and his followers articulated a vision for what the state should look like, and this answer will address a...

This is a difficult question, because to Hitler, like totalitarian dictators throughout history, the state was really little more than a vehicle for their own ambitions and their will to power. As a result, we have to take much of Nazi ideology with a very large grain of salt. That said, it is also true Hitler and his followers articulated a vision for what the state should look like, and this answer will address a few of these elements. 

First, the state was a means of establishing racial "purity" within the nation. By establishing laws like the Nuremberg Acts of 1935 that legally discriminated against people of Jewish ancestry, the state promoted a vision of Germany that excluded all people they deemed racially unfit. This policy reached its horrible conclusion with the Holocaust. Second, the state was geared around war. Nazism was an unapologetically warlike ideology, and part of its success in the 1930s revolved around the restoration of German pride, which had long been identified with military power. Finally, the state was to serve as the center of every aspect of German life. From education to family life, the Nazi Party sought to influence people at the most fundamental level. It sought, in short, to be the only source of truth and reality. This concept, known as Gleichschaltung to Nazi leaders, emphasized absolute uniformity and conformity to the ideals promoted by the state.

Hydraulic engineers in the United States often use, as a units of volume of water, the acre-foot, defined as the volume of water that will cover 1...

The acre-foot is defined as the volume of water that will cover one acre of land to a depth of one foot.

One acre is equal to 43650 square feet. One foot is equal to 12 inches. The thunderstorm caused 2 inches of rain to fall on a town with area 45 square kilometer.

One square kilometer is equal to `1*10^6` square meter. One square meter is equal to `3.28084^2` square feet = 10.7639 square...

The acre-foot is defined as the volume of water that will cover one acre of land to a depth of one foot.

One acre is equal to 43650 square feet. One foot is equal to 12 inches. The thunderstorm caused 2 inches of rain to fall on a town with area 45 square kilometer.

One square kilometer is equal to `1*10^6` square meter. One square meter is equal to `3.28084^2` square feet = 10.7639 square feet.

45 square kilometer is equal to 45*10^6*10.7639 or 484.376*10^6 square feet.

The volume of water that fell on the town is equal to 484.376*10^6/43560*(2/12) = 1853.29 acre feet.

The volume of water that fell during the thunderstorm in acre-feet is 1853.29.

Who are the main characters of the story "If I Forget Thee, O Earth..." by Arthur C. Clarke?

The main characters of Arthur C. Clarke's story "If I Forget Thee, O Earth..." are Marvin and his father. In the story, Marvin and his father are revealed to be living on the moon. When Marvin sees an "earthrise" for the first time, he can see the glow from the radioactivity on the side of the earth that would normally be in the shadows. His father explains to him that earth had been destroyed...

The main characters of Arthur C. Clarke's story "If I Forget Thee, O Earth..." are Marvin and his father. In the story, Marvin and his father are revealed to be living on the moon. When Marvin sees an "earthrise" for the first time, he can see the glow from the radioactivity on the side of the earth that would normally be in the shadows. His father explains to him that earth had been destroyed by nuclear war and that, aside from the colony of people living on the moon, there are no humans left.

While he has heard much of this before, for Martin, viewing the earthrise makes all of this information hit home. He is saddened by the fact that he will never be able to walk on or experience the earth again and makes the realization that the earth will not be able to be visited, let alone inhabited, for many generations. He now understands that the struggle for the survival of the human race rests on the lunar colony.

Who raped Mayella Ewell? |

During Atticus's cross-examination of Bob and Mayella Ewell and Tom Robinson in chapters 17 to 19, it becomes apparent that Mayella had not been raped. Both Mayella and her father provide inconsistent testimony and repeatedly change their versions of events on that fateful day, November 21. Mayella, for example, cannot initially remember if Tom hit her or not, and when she is pressed by Atticus to recall what happened, she changes her story. Her testimony is, therefore, unreliable....

During Atticus's cross-examination of Bob and Mayella Ewell and Tom Robinson in chapters 17 to 19, it becomes apparent that Mayella had not been raped. Both Mayella and her father provide inconsistent testimony and repeatedly change their versions of events on that fateful day, November 21. Mayella, for example, cannot initially remember if Tom hit her or not, and when she is pressed by Atticus to recall what happened, she changes her story. Her testimony is, therefore, unreliable. Tom Robinson, on the other hand, provides a precisely detailed and more authentic account of events. 

The physical evidence presented by Mr. Tate makes it apparent that Mayella had been beaten and choked on that particular day. Tom Robinson also testifies that when Mr. Ewell saw his daughter embracing him, Mr. Ewell shouted that she was a "goddamn whore" and that he was going to kill her. Mr. Ewell was, therefore, more interested in punishing Mayella than apprehending Tom. This response suggests, furthermore, that Mr. Ewell did not see anything wrong with what Tom did. His outrage was directed at his daughter and not at Tom. Mr. Ewell, more than likely, physically assaulted his daughter on this particular occasion and later blamed Tom for her bruises. 

There are further suggestions that Mr. Ewell not only physically and verbally abused his child but that he may also have sexually mishandled her. Mayella, according to Tom, told him that she had never kissed a grown man and that "what her papa do to her don’t count." It is also apparent that she had carefully planned to lure Tom into the house and attempt to seduce him. She had saved up money to send her brothers off for ice cream so that they would not be around at the time. Tom, ironically, innocently complimented her for having saved up the money and giving her siblings a treat.  

Many of Maycomb's residents hold deep racist beliefs and think it an abomination that a white person can have any relations with someone of a different race. The sad truth is that Mayella Ewell sought closer contact with another human being and she tried to create such an engagement by carefully planning a liaison with Tom. Tom's reticence and her father's intervention put paid to her plan, and she turned against Tom and accused him of rape instead of admitting the truth. Mayella's thinking was informed not only by racial prejudice but also by her father's abuse. She most probably feared not only being rejected by her family and the community but also feared for her life. Also, her prejudice was a product of the beliefs that had been inculcated into her since birth.

In Hamlet's first soliloquy in Act 1 scene 2, what is being revealed to the reader about Hamlet's character in terms of a social context?

In this soliloquy, Hamlet brings up the idea of suicide and then expresses his disgust that his mother, who loved his father greatly, married his father's uncle just over a month after burying Hamlet's father.

In terms of social context, this reveals that Hamlet follows the social rules imposed by the church. He will not commit suicide because the church forbids it: "Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd / His canon 'gainst self-slaughter!" By...

In this soliloquy, Hamlet brings up the idea of suicide and then expresses his disgust that his mother, who loved his father greatly, married his father's uncle just over a month after burying Hamlet's father.

In terms of social context, this reveals that Hamlet follows the social rules imposed by the church. He will not commit suicide because the church forbids it: "Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd / His canon 'gainst self-slaughter!" By "the Everlasting," Hamlet means God. "His canon" refers to the rules that God set forth, according to the church, and "self-slaughter" means suicide. We know that it is a sin to take one's own life according to the Catholic religion. Hamlet seems to say that he does not wish to live in a world that is so disgusting, but he will not take his own life because the church forbids it. Therefore he feels that if he were to commit suicide, all his friends and family members, and everyone in his community would be angry or upset with him for breaking canonical law, a social construct.

The majority of this soliloquy is about Hamlet's disgust with his mother's decision to marry Hamlet's uncle Claudius so soon after her beloved husband, Hamlet's father, was buried. At the end of the soliloquy, Hamlet says although his heart is breaking, he must keep quiet: "But break, my heart, for I must hold my tongue!" By "hold my tongue," Hamlet means keep quiet. This idea is also connected to social context, and reveals that Hamlet follows social expectations about his relationship to his mother. It would be inappropriate for a son to question his mother's choices. If Hamlet were to talk about his mother, the community would be angry at him, because he is supposed to be a respectful son. If he were to confront his mother, she would be hurt and offended, again because he should respect her and trust her decisions. The way a son is supposed to behave towards his mother is another social construct. Hamlet's and Shakespeare's societies expected people to be respectful towards their parents.

You can read Hamlet's soliloquy , with a modern English translation and annotations to help you understand it clearly.

How does Fitzgerald use the heat of the summer to create the mood in Chapter 7?

In Chapter 7, on the hottest day of the summer, Nick, Gatsby, Daisy, Jordan, and Tom all go to New York City and rent the parlor of a suite at the Plaza. The oppressive heat of the day helps enhance the mood of tension that exists among the characters. Even opening the window "admitted only a gust of hot shrubbery from the park" (page 126). In this stifling environment, Tom attacks Gatsby, accusing him of...

In Chapter 7, on the hottest day of the summer, Nick, Gatsby, Daisy, Jordan, and Tom all go to New York City and rent the parlor of a suite at the Plaza. The oppressive heat of the day helps enhance the mood of tension that exists among the characters. Even opening the window "admitted only a gust of hot shrubbery from the park" (page 126). In this stifling environment, Tom attacks Gatsby, accusing him of lying about having attended Oxford. Gatsby retorts with a plausible explanation that he went to Oxford on a short program for former servicemen, but then Tom accuses Gatsby of being a bootlegger. Daisy's love towards Gatsby starts to cool just as the heat of the afternoon is oppressively high. When the party breaks up and they drive home (with Gatsby and Daisy in the same car), they hear that Myrtle has been killed. The heat of the afternoon is symbolic of the anger that exists among the characters in this chapter.

Why, according to Ponyboy, do people usually think that any trouble is the fault of the Greasers and not the Socs?

Here's something that Ponyboy tells us in Chapter 9:

"They [the Socs] looked like they were all cut from the same piece of cloth: clean shaven with semi-Beatle haircuts, wearing striped or checkered shirts with light red or tan-colored jackets or madras ski jackets. They could just as easily have been going to the movies as to a rumble. That's why people don't ever think to blame the Socs and are always ready to jump on us. We look hoody and they look decent. It could be just the other way around--- half of the hoods I know are pretty decent guys underneath all that grease, and from what I've heard, a lot of Socs are just cold-blooded mean--- but people usually go by looks."

What Ponyboy means is that the Socs wear nice clothes and they have normal, socially acceptable haircuts, so they look like they're boys who behave well. But then the Greasers dress differently and wear their hair differently, and then just because of how they look, other people assume that the Greasers are up to no good.

In other words, the Socs don't dress like punks, so people give them the benefit of the doubt; the Greasers do dress like punks, so people treat them as if they really are punks and blame them first for any trouble.

As you can see, the answer to this question leads you to one of the themes of the book: how unfair it is to judge others by how they appear.

What is the role of music in dance?

This is a complicated question because music means something different to dance depending on the genre, movement or period that contextualizes the dance. However, to answer the question simply, it might be helpful to look at the differences between classical and postmodern dance. These two dance forms represent two very different ways that music influences dance. 

In classical dance forms, such as Indian classical dance and ballet, the music acts as the primary instigator for...

This is a complicated question because music means something different to dance depending on the genre, movement or period that contextualizes the dance. However, to answer the question simply, it might be helpful to look at the differences between classical and postmodern dance. These two dance forms represent two very different ways that music influences dance. 

In classical dance forms, such as Indian classical dance and ballet, the music acts as the primary instigator for the dancer's movement. The dance is directly commenting on the music. A complete ballet cannot occur without music, and certain musical styles will suggest certain movement styles. For instance, a score that is somber and adagio will inspire a dance that has similar qualities.

Postmodern dance attacks the assumption that music has to be the primary instigator for dance. Triumphed by choreographers like Merce Cunningham and Trisha Brown, postmodern dance triumphs the use of everyday movement as performance art. Oftentimes the music is a tangential aesthetic choice to the dancer's movement. The two (music and movement) are not necessarily in direct relationship to each other. They may even intentionally clash with one another to create a new meaning. Postmodern dance values parody, irony and hyperreality over a music's intention. 

What odd things does Percy hear from Mr. Brunner and Grover when he eavesdrops on them in the second chapter?

Percy is attempting to study for his exam with Mr. Brunner when he decides to go and ask for some help with the material.  As he approaches Mr. Brunner's office door, he hears Grover mention that he is concerned about Percy.  He's worried that Percy is going to be alone this summer because there was a "'Kindly One'" in the school.  He's talking about Mrs. Dodds, the math teacher who attacked Percy in the museum. ...

Percy is attempting to study for his exam with Mr. Brunner when he decides to go and ask for some help with the material.  As he approaches Mr. Brunner's office door, he hears Grover mention that he is concerned about Percy.  He's worried that Percy is going to be alone this summer because there was a "'Kindly One'" in the school.  He's talking about Mrs. Dodds, the math teacher who attacked Percy in the museum.  He hears Mr. Brunner say that Percy needs to "'mature more,'" and Grover mentions something about a deadline at the summer solstice.  However, Mr. Brunner wants Percy to be able to "'enjoy his ignorance'" for as long as he possibly can.  Grover worries that Percy saw Mrs. Dodds in her real form, and Mr. Brunner says that "'the mist'" over the other faculty and students will help to convince Percy that what he saw was only in his imagination.  Finally, Grover worries about what will happen if he "'fail[s] in [his] duties'" again, and Mr. Brunner tells him that they should just focus on "'keeping Percy alive until next fall.'"  Obviously, there are a number of statements made by both Grover and Mr. Brunner that are cause for concern, and Percy later confronts Grover on the bus about these issues.

What are some important quotes Mildred Montag says in Fahrenheit 451?

Mildred is the epitome of the perfect citizen according to Captain Beatty's description and the society at large. She is completely distracted by entertainment such as TV, radio, and fast-moving cars. She would never do anything to change her environment and she blindly plays the role that the government expects. The idea is to keep citizens distracted with mindless activities so they won't want to ask the bigger, deeper, or more involved questions such as, "Am I happy?" Thus, the major quotes that Mildred is given are the ones that exemplify her character as a good citizen of the state. 

First, good citizens like Mildred are completely attached to their TV shows. Mildred is so attached that she must have four TVs in order to have as many on her walls as everyone else does. Mildred pleads to her husband as follows:

"It's really fun. It'll be even more fun when we can afford to have the fourth wall installed. How long you figure before we save up and get the fourth wall torn out and the fourth wall-TV put in? It's only two thousand dollars" (20).

The popular thing to do is to spend money on TVs and other distractions to keep life superficially "happy."

Another thing that the government does is to get rid of people who behave contrary to the rules and status quo. For example, Clarisse and her family seem to disappear one day and Montag asks his wife if she knows where they have gone. Because she is so wrapped up in her distracted lifestyle, she doesn't get to know her neighbors well enough to notice when they leave. When Montag triggers her memory by asking about them, she says the following:

"Oh, I know the one you mean. . . I meant to tell you. Forgot. Forgot. . . I think she's gone. . . Whole family moved out somewhere. But she's gone for good. I think she's dead. . . McClellan. McClellan. Run over by a car. Four days ago. I'm not sure. But I think she's dead. The family moved out anyway. I don't know. But I think she's dead. . . No, not sure. Pretty sure" (47).

Her absent-mindedness and unclear memory are the results of distracted living. The government wants citizens like Mildred so that no one will know when their neighbors are killed for behaving differently than desired.

Next, Mildred demonstrates the ignorance of society towards books when she compares books to her soap operas, as follows:

"Books aren't people. You read and I look all around, but there isn't anybody! . . . Now, . . . My 'family' is people. They tell me things: I laugh, they laugh! And the colors!"

The irony of what Mildred says here is that she thinks that her TV program is real. She has an emotional connection to those characters and doesn't understand that books can be that way, too. Unfortunately, the 'family' doesn't discuss intellectual issues that jeopardize the society's way of life. When Montag questions her about the people in her show she doesn't know what's going on to really articulate its meaning or purpose in her life. In the end, Mildred is simply too conditioned to the society's popular lifestyle to want anything more; whereas, her husband Montag does want more. 

How can polar and nonpolar substances be identified by their external appearance?

There are a few ways of determining the degree of polarity from an external view; for example, you could see if the molecule's orientation changes in the presence of polar molecules, or in an induced magnetic field, or you could take a diagrammatical approach and draw Lewis structures. However, speaking strictly in terms of the molecule's outward appearance, with no other information, the best indication is the size of its component atoms, and to a...

There are a few ways of determining the degree of polarity from an external view; for example, you could see if the molecule's orientation changes in the presence of polar molecules, or in an induced magnetic field, or you could take a diagrammatical approach and draw Lewis structures. However, speaking strictly in terms of the molecule's outward appearance, with no other information, the best indication is the size of its component atoms, and to a lesser extent, its bond angles.

We can be sure of a few general rules; primarily, that when two identical atoms are bonded to each other, there will be no polarity in that bond. This changes the moment we add different substituents to each molecule, or if we get fancy and start considering things like London dispersion forces, but in general this rule should hold. Second, we know that polarity will increase proportionally to the electronegativity difference between two atoms in a bond. We also know that atoms are more electronegative the further to the right and the higher up the periodic table they are, and that this same trend also corresponds to the atom's radius. We also know that almost all atoms have different sizes from any other atom.

Therefore, we can conclude that, as viewed from the outside, any constituent atom that is different in diameter from the others will probably be the site of a polar bond.

We can also assume that any molecule with a bent linear configuration stands a good chance of being polar, because this is one of the few configurations in which it is impossible for the electrical charges to be evenly distributed over the surface of the molecule.

Compare the Parliamentary And Presidential forms of government with reference with U.K. and U.S.A.

The parliamentary system of government is the system of government in the United Kingdom whereas the presidential system is the style of government in the United States.  In the presidential system, the president of the United States is elected by the people through the electoral college every four years.  In the parliamentary system, the prime minister is selected from the House of Commons and is normally the leader of the party that has the most...

The parliamentary system of government is the system of government in the United Kingdom whereas the presidential system is the style of government in the United States.  In the presidential system, the president of the United States is elected by the people through the electoral college every four years.  In the parliamentary system, the prime minister is selected from the House of Commons and is normally the leader of the party that has the most seats in this house.  The manner in which the president is elected is established by the U.S. Constitution whereas the manner in which the prime minister is selected is established by tradition not through a written constitution or law.  

Because the prime minister is selected from the House of Commons and answers to that house, there is no separation of powers in the parliamentary system as there is in the presidential system.  Thus, the prime minister must maintain the confidence of the parliament which he represents and can be removed at any time with a vote of no confidence; a president, however, must be impeached in order to be removed from office.  In addition, the prime minister has the power to dissolve parliament, unlike the president of the United States who cannot dissolve Congress.  Furthermore, it is easier to have legislation passed in the parliamentary system than in the presidential system due to the fact that the prime minister is part of parliament and from the controlling party.  The U.S. president, on the other hand, can be from a party other than the one with the most congressional seats; this may result in the president being in opposition to many bills that are proposed in or passed in Congress.  Thus, many people consider the parliamentary system to be more efficient.

What are the similarities between Orsino and Malvolio in Twelfth Night?

Firstly, Orsino and Malviolio are linked in their mutual pursuit of Olivia's love. While their social statuses are very different, they both exhibit pride, self-importance, and inconstancy of character.

Beginning with pride and self-importance, Orsinio is a Duke. He is wealthy, well-situated in society, and a bit full of himself. In the opening scene of the play, we see Orsino respond to the news that Olivia will not see him because she is in mourning...

Firstly, Orsino and Malviolio are linked in their mutual pursuit of Olivia's love. While their social statuses are very different, they both exhibit pride, self-importance, and inconstancy of character.

Beginning with pride and self-importance, Orsinio is a Duke. He is wealthy, well-situated in society, and a bit full of himself. In the opening scene of the play, we see Orsino respond to the news that Olivia will not see him because she is in mourning for her dead brother. Rather than being sympathetic to Olivia's suffering, Orsinio makes this about himself.

O, she that hath a heart of that fine frame
To pay this debt of love but to a brother,
How will she love, when the rich golden shaft
Hath kill'd the flock of all affections else
That live in her;

Orsino's thought is not to Olivia's grief, but to how much she would grieve over his death if her grief is this great over a loss as insignificant as that of a brother. Furthermore, despite his apparent love for Olivia, he considers his own understanding and experience of love to be greater than that of any woman, as seen in his conversation with Viola (Cesario) in Act 2, scene 4.

Malvolio is aptly characterized for his sense of self importance by Maria in Act 2, scene 3.

The devil a puritan that he is, or any thing
constantly, but a time-pleaser; an affectioned ass,
that cons state without book and utters it by great
swarths: the best persuaded of himself, so
crammed, as he thinks, with excellencies, that it is
his grounds of faith that all that look on him love
him; and on that vice in him will my revenge find
notable cause to work.

Maria's opinion of Malvolio is shared by Toby, Andrew, Fabian, Feste, and even Olivia. It is because of Malvolio's self-importance that he is subject to the cruel pranks set upon him by Toby and company. We see in Malvolio's own demeanor and speech that he considers himself to be superior to the other characters in the play, including those of higher status than he, such as Toby and Andrew. Despite the fact that he is a steward, he does not even question the probability that Olivia could be in love with him. He thinks of himself that highly.

This pride connects to both characters' changeability. We have two men in love with the same woman, but as the play unfolds, we find that love to be inconstant or untrue. Orsino's affections shift from Olivia to Viola (though he is confused because he believes Viola is a boy) pretty easily. His love for Olivia is not substantial - he does not even go in person to speak to her. He sends other people and pines. Orsinio seems to be in love with the idea of being in love more than he is actually in love with Olivia.

Malvolio's love seems to be grounded in a desire for advancement more than in any actual romantic feeling. He never describes Olivia's beauty or his feelings toward her. All of his thoughts are focusing on achieving higher status. The best way to achieve this, in his mind, would be through a marriage to Olivia.

What is the best synonym for the word "incredulous" as it is used in Doris Lessing’s short story “Through the Tunnel"?

Lessing uses the word "incredulous" just once in her story. Let's look at it in context:

"He sat by the clock in the villa, when his mother was not near, and checked his time. He was incredulous and then proud to find he could hold his breath without strain for two minutes. The words 'two minutes,' authorized by the clock, brought close the adventure that was so necessary to him."

We can tell that, at first, the narrator can't even believe how long he'd held his breath. And then when he realized that his timing was correct--when he did believe his results, since the clock "authorized" them--then he was proud of what he'd accomplished. This is how we can tell from the context that "incredulous" means "unbelieving" or "not believing."

Even outside of this context, the best, simplest synonym for "incredulous" is "disbelieving," "unbelieving," "doubtful," or "skeptical."

By definition, people who are incredulous, or people who show an incredulous reaction or speak incredulously, cannot believe what they are seeing or being told. For example, if you read the first Harry Potter book, Harry is constantly incredulous when he sees magical items for the first time. He can't believe what he's seeing. And if your friend told you that she just won a billion dollars in the lottery, you'd be incredulous: you'd have an incredulous look on your face, or you'd shout "No way!" incredulously.

Here are a couple of good ways to remember the meaning of "incredulous."

First, look at how the roots ("in" + "cred") mean "not" + "believing." This "cred" is the same one you see in "credo," "credit," "credibility," "credential," "street cred," and so on. Any time you see "cred," you know it has to do with belief or trust.

Second, compare and contrast "incredulous" with the much more familiar "incredible." This will help you anchor the word "incredulous" in your mind to something that you already know. What does "incredible" literally mean, besides "amazing"? It means "unbelievable." Incredible things are so awesome or so wacky or so terrible that you can't believe them. So, while "incredible" means "unbelievable," "incredulous" means "unbelieving." Notice how "incredible" usually describes things and events, while "incredulous" usually describes people and their reactions. In other words, you talk about incredible accomplishments, incredible deeds, and incredible facts, but in contrast, you talk about incredulous speakers, incredulous stares, and incredulous silence.

Discuss the significance of the title "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" in the context of the entire poem.

Maya Angelou wrote an autobiographical book entitled I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. The title of the poem you are referring to is “Caged Bird.”

The title of the poem, “Caged Bird” is significant because the poem compares the lives of the bird who lives freely, and the one who is confined to a cage. Both birds are symbolic of the groups of people they represent.

The free bird is able to make choices...

Maya Angelou wrote an autobiographical book entitled I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. The title of the poem you are referring to is “Caged Bird.”

The title of the poem, “Caged Bird” is significant because the poem compares the lives of the bird who lives freely, and the one who is confined to a cage. Both birds are symbolic of the groups of people they represent.

The free bird is able to make choices based on a whim while the caged bird has to eke out an existence. The free bird represents those people and races who are free to live life unencumbered by the chains of racism and oppression. The caged bird is shackled and imprisoned by society, but it chooses to overcome those obstacles by singing. In choosing the title, “Caged Bird,” Angelou puts the focus on the tenacity and perseverance of those who are victims of bias and racism. Instead of allowing the “cage” to break their spirit, they chose to rise above their obstacles.

What terrible surprise does the creature spring on Frankenstein? What is Frankenstein's response?

The creature surprises his maker by requesting a mate.  He very much longs for a companion who will not be shocked by his ugly appearance and who will not shun him for it.  He has tried to reach out to humankind many times, and it has become clear to him that human beings will never accept him.  The creature feels that it is Victor's duty to give him a friend with whom he can spend...

The creature surprises his maker by requesting a mate.  He very much longs for a companion who will not be shocked by his ugly appearance and who will not shun him for it.  He has tried to reach out to humankind many times, and it has become clear to him that human beings will never accept him.  The creature feels that it is Victor's duty to give him a friend with whom he can spend his life, and he promises that they will go away to the jungles of South America and never bother humankind again.

At first, Victor is horrified at the idea of creating another monster, and he has a great number of concerns and objections to the idea.  But, as he listens to his creature's story, he begins to feel some sense of obligation toward this person that he made, and so he agrees.  He promises his creature that he will make him a female companion. However, later, when Victor actually goes to construct this creature, he changes his mind and tears it up, throwing away all his scientific paraphernalia.  This is what prompts the creature to kill Elizabeth on the day she marries Victor.

If the banishment decree imposed on Publius Cimber was the only reason to kill Caesar, then what happened there in Julius Caesar?

The suit of the Cimber brothers was only an excuse to surround Caesar, not the reason they killed him.

The assassins had been planning to kill Caesar for some time, since he returned victorious from the civil war with Pompey.  They fear that he is taking too much power to himself, and they resent him for it.  They do not want Caesar the dictator to become Caesar the king.

The assassin senators use the Cimber...

The suit of the Cimber brothers was only an excuse to surround Caesar, not the reason they killed him.

The assassins had been planning to kill Caesar for some time, since he returned victorious from the civil war with Pompey.  They fear that he is taking too much power to himself, and they resent him for it.  They do not want Caesar the dictator to become Caesar the king.

The assassin senators use the Cimber brothers’ suit to prove that Caesar is arrogant.  He will not listen to the suit no matter how much they plead.  Caesar has banished Publius Cimber, and he will not change his mind.  He ignores Metellus Cimber’s plea, telling them that he never changes his mind.

I could be well moved, if I were as you:
If I could pray to move, prayers would move me:
But I am constant as the northern star,
Of whose true-fix'd and resting quality
There is no fellow in the firmament. (Act 3, Scene 1)

The suit to pardon Publius Cimber is just an excuse to surround Caesar.  Brutus, Cassius, and the others all beg Caesar to listen, and Caesar is surprised.  He does not understand why everyone is making such a big deal of this when he has already told them he has made up his mind.

CINNA

O Caesar,--

CAESAR

Hence! wilt thou lift up Olympus?

DECIUS BRUTUS

Great Caesar,--

CAESAR

Doth not Brutus bootless kneel?(Act 3, Scene 1)

To Caesar, it seems odd that they are all pleading.  He is especially surprised that Brutus, who should know better, would kneel before him and try to intercede for Publius Cimber.  At this point, Casca stabs Caesar, calling all of the others to him.  They then all stab him, ending with Brutus.  Caesar is shocked that he has been so betrayed, even by Brutus.

At this point it would be obvious to anyone watching that the whole Cimber incident was only designed to get allow the senators to surround Caesar without causing anyone to be suspicious.  Since they were all pleading with him, they had an excuse to be there.  It has the added benefit of making Caesar look arrogant, because he makes comments about being as constant as the Norther Star and as immovable as Olympus.

Briefly compare and contrast the positions of William Graham Sumner (social Darwinism) and Herbert Croly (active liberalism).

Despite living in the United States around the same time (Croly was about a generation younger than Sumner), these two men had vastly different views on politics, economics, and society in general.

William Graham Sumner was educated as an economist (at Yale, no less), but branched out into topics that were previously outside the realm of what economists normally study; today we would call him a sociologist, and in fact he is often considered one of the founders of modern sociology. (He actually preferred the term "societologist".) He made a number of important advances in understanding human behavior, such as the realization that humans form "in-groups" and "out-groups". (He actually coined the word "ethnocentrism".)

Herbert Croly studied at Harvard for a few years, but dropped out to help his father, who was dying of a chronic illness. He went back for awhile later, but never did finish his degree. Little is known about his life after that, up until the point where he published his magnum opus, a political treatise called The Promise of American Life.

Both Sumner and Croly shared the basic American values of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"; but they interpreted the application of these values quite differently.

For Sumner, liberty was a negative concept---freedom from interference. Likely in part due to his training as a classical laissez-faire economist (as well as his interpretation of Darwin's recently published theory of evolution), he viewed human beings as atomistic self-interested individuals who would best achieve their goals if they were left alone to pursue them without restraint. It is in some ways ironic that he spent so much time studying society, because he didn't really believe in society as a meaningful concept; he saw human beings as isolated individuals who simply happen to interact when it serves their self-interest---he called this "antagonistic cooperation".

As a result, Sumber advocated for a very minimalistic government, one which would protect basic property rights and maintain national defense but do little else, not intervening to provide public goods such as infrastructure or education and certainly not making any attempt to transfer or redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor---he viewed the latter especially as dangerous, seeing it as undermining the freedom and efficiency of the free market system. He was also influenced by Herbert Spencer, the founder of Social Darwinism, who believed that policies which supported the less-fortunate would only serve to undermine the process of natural selection and send human evolution toward inferiority and decay. Graham believed that the best course of action was to avoid intervention and let human societies evolve in their "natural progression", which he believed would ultimately lead to the best outcome for all.

For Croly, liberty was a positive concept---freedom to achieve your potential. He viewed human beings as parts of a greater whole, working together to achieve what we could not on our own. For him, the greatest threat to liberty was not others actively preventing actions, but a lack of resources necessary to act---particularly poverty. He argued that the Jeffersonian vision of rugged individualism was simply not viable anymore in an industrialized economy, and a new system was needed where the government would support and stabilize the system and ensure everyone got their fair share. He was openly in favor of "big government"; he argued that government should not only provide basic functions such as national defense, but take on a much broader role in human life, building infrastructure, providing education, and redistributing wealth. He even argued that many corporations should be nationalized and turned into public utilities.

Overall, Croly largely won the argument, especially in the short run; the role of government in public life greatly expanded in the 1930s and 1940s and remained very large until at least the 1980s when a new current of laissez-faire ideas returned under Ronald Reagan. Even today very large government programs such as Social Security and Medicare are largely uncontroversial, and the debate over other programs such as income taxes and infrastructure construction is largely one of degree rather than kind.

I'm looking to enter into a lease to purchase option on a home. Plan to give the seller 10% consideration fee with a 12-month timeline to purchase....

We can't actually give you legal advice, so it would be best if you consult an attorney on this matter. That said, the way mortgage contracts usually work is that a certain amount (10% is high, but not unheard of) is paid in earnest, as a kind of security deposit that the buyer pays to show that they are serious about pursuing the contract and reduce the risk to the seller if they back out....

We can't actually give you legal advice, so it would be best if you consult an attorney on this matter.

That said, the way mortgage contracts usually work is that a certain amount (10% is high, but not unheard of) is paid in earnest, as a kind of security deposit that the buyer pays to show that they are serious about pursuing the contract and reduce the risk to the seller if they back out. This money is generally put in escrow, and then if the mortgage is closed it will be applied to the down payment.

If you back out of the purchase, this money is usually forfeited to the seller. This depends on two factors however: (1) why you backed out---if you have a compelling reason or the seller breached the contract some other way, you will likely be able to recover the earnest payment. (2) what state you live in---different states have different laws regarding what happens to earnest payments if the contract is cancelled.

In general, you may want to try to find a seller who does not require an earnest payment, agrees to forfeit it at cancellation, or at least asks for one that is smaller than 10% (a more typical amount is 1% to 3%). But like I said, you should probably consult an attorney.

8585 is the sum of two prime numbers. What is the product of these two prime numbers?

Let's consider which two prime numbers could possibly have the sum of 8585.

Notice that the last digit of the number 8585 is 5. There are various ways to get the last digit of 5 when adding two numbers. The sum of the two numbers will have the last digit of 5 when these two numbers end in

0 and 5

1 and 4

2 and 3

6 and 9

7 and 8.

Notice that in all these possibilities, one of the two numbers has to end in either 0, or 2, or 4, or 6, or 9. This means that one of the two numbers has to be even.

An even number is always divisible by two, so it cannot be prime - with the exception of the ONLY even prime number, which is 2.

Therefore, if 8585 is the sum of two prime numbers, one of these numbers has to be 2. The other number is then 8585 - 2 = 8583. This problem is flawed though, because 8583 is not a prime number. So really there are no solutions.

Regardless, the product of these numbers is 2*8583 = 17,166.

What kind of school is Devon School in A Separate Peace?

Based upon Phillips Exeter School in New Hampshire, which the author himself attended, Devon School is what was known as an elite boys' preparatory school, a private school that stresses athletics and has a stringent educational program that prepares high school students for college.

Interestingly, the author John Knowles includes several characteristics of the school he attended in Devon School: the white marble flight of stairs on which Finny falls and a tree that is...

Based upon Phillips Exeter School in New Hampshire, which the author himself attended, Devon School is what was known as an elite boys' preparatory school, a private school that stresses athletics and has a stringent educational program that prepares high school students for college.

Interestingly, the author John Knowles includes several characteristics of the school he attended in Devon School: the white marble flight of stairs on which Finny falls and a tree that is similar to the one from which many boys at Exeter jumped (the jumping was something that was done at Exeter, too). In the 1942 setting of Devon School, the enrollment is homogeneous, which is what Exeter was in Knowles's time. The school has an aura of privilege about it which is based upon social class and affluence. Over the doorway of the First Academy Building, engraved in Latin is "Here Boys Come to Be Made Men."

Gene Forrester returns to Devon in order to learn how far his “convalescence has gone”; that is, to discover if he possesses a realistic assessment of his behavior while he was living there, and learn if he has made some self-improvement since then. Almost eerily, Gene finds the school much the same as when he was a student. It is a beautiful school:

It is the beauty of small areas of order--a large yard, a group of trees, three similar dormitories, a circle of old houses--living together in contentious harmony.....Everything at Devon slowly changed and slowly harmonized with what had gone before.

Like Exeter, Devon is both scholarly and athletic with playing fields that are constantly in use, except in the winter. The tree is still there: "tremendous, an irate steely black steeple beside the river." 

How does King Hamlet's death affect Hamlet as a character and his actions? How does this affect his relationships and behavior?

King Hamlet's death, especially after he appears to Hamlet as a ghost and tells him he was murdered by Claudius, weighs heavily on Hamlet, leading him into a spiral of depression in which he contemplates suicide. As Hamlet puts it

O, that this too too sullied flesh would melt,Thaw and resolve itself into a dew,Or that the Everlasting had not fix'dHis canon 'gainst self-slaughter!  

Much has been written about why Hamlet...

King Hamlet's death, especially after he appears to Hamlet as a ghost and tells him he was murdered by Claudius, weighs heavily on Hamlet, leading him into a spiral of depression in which he contemplates suicide. As Hamlet puts it

O, that this too too sullied flesh would melt,
Thaw and resolve itself into a dew,
Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd
His canon 'gainst self-slaughter!  

Much has been written about why Hamlet is so depressed: is it because, in the Freudian/Oedipal reading, he is gripped with guilt that he unconsciously wanted to do just what Claudius has done: kill his father and marry his mother? Or is his grief over his father's death simply magnified into depression because of his inability to act? Or is he, as Rene Girard contends, caught between an honor code that insists on revenge killing and a Christian code of forgiveness? 

Whatever the reason, throughout the play, Hamlet behaves erratically and expresses his anguish in soliloquies, displaying his groping for answers and understanding. His depression and the questions it raises about the meaning of life in a corrupt world affect his relationships as he pushes away Ophelia, whom he loves, and becomes alienated from his mother, his uncle and most of the courtiers that surround him. His behavior becomes so erratic that it calls into question his sanity.

How would you describe Irene from F. Scott Fitzgerald's "Winter Dreams"?

In the story "Winter Dreams," Irene is a minor character; you might even say that her existence is more of a plot device than anything else. We know that she was engaged to Dexter briefly, before he slipped back into his obsession with pursuing Judy. But what do we really know about Irene besides this role that she plays in the plot? 

Irene was light-haired and sweet and honorable, and a little stout, and she had two suitors whom she pleasantly relinquished when Dexter formally asked her to marry him.

So as the narrator tells us, Irene has a good moral character, is kind, and is perhaps not unattractive but a little on the heavy side. I mention that because it contrasts so starkly with Judy's character; we're told over and over about Judy's startling beauty. Here's something else we know, but it's not much:

[Dexter] stayed late at the dance. He sat for an hour with Irene Scheerer and talked about books and about music. He knew very little about either.

Apparently, then, Irene is probably a good conversationalist and knowledgeable about literature and music. The narration tells us that Dexter and Irene are engaged a few months later, but there's certainly no description of a romance between them that would even slightly compare to Dexter's romance with Judy in terms of passion and excitement.

Here's one more definite thing we're told about Irene:

It gave him a sense of solidity to go with her [to the dance at the University Club]--she was so sturdily popular, so intensely "great."

Those details make Irene seem a bit more interesting than before. Readers at this point may wonder if it's Dexter's indifference to Irene that makes her seem dull; perhaps her personality really is just as sparkling as Judy's, but it's unappreciated by Dexter.

Finally, the story is distinctly lacking in detail about what happens to Irene after Dexter abruptly breaks off their engagement in order to chase Judy some more. We could infer that Irene took the news well, without making a scene or seeking revenge on either Dexter or Judy, evincing again her own good social skills and classy personality.

How does Oscar Wilde present the characters of Jack and Algernon in The Importance of Being Earnest?

Wilde presents these characters via indirect characterization.  No one directly describes Jack or Algernon; readers (or viewers) must mine their conversations for clues about their characters and motivations.  It is not difficult, given the nature of their first conversation with one another in the play.  For example, Jack insists that, "When one is in town one amuses oneself.  When one is in the country one amuses other people.  It is excessively boring."  Then, a few...

Wilde presents these characters via indirect characterization.  No one directly describes Jack or Algernon; readers (or viewers) must mine their conversations for clues about their characters and motivations.  It is not difficult, given the nature of their first conversation with one another in the play.  For example, Jack insists that, "When one is in town one amuses oneself.  When one is in the country one amuses other people.  It is excessively boring."  Then, a few lines later he declares that all his neighbors are "Perfectly horrid!" and that he never speaks to any of them.  Contradictory statements like these help us to understand that Jack is a somewhat ridiculous character.  He doesn't seem to really mean anything he says because he is just as liable to contradict it in the next breath.  Likewise, he admits (after the debacle with the cigarette case) that his name is actually Jack when Algernon has only ever known him as "Ernest," because he has invented a younger brother by this name so that he has an excuse to come to town and do all the things Jack cannot do (i.e. gamble, drink, and so forth).  Jack feels obligated to maintain a high moral tone because he is the guardian of a young woman named Cecily, but -- via Ernest -- he can get up to all the somewhat less moral behaviors in which he longs to indulge in the city.  Thus, we learn that he is quite dishonest and has a bit of a dark side that he hopes to conceal forever from his family and friends in the country.

We learn about Algernon's character in a similar manner.  We know that there are cucumber sandwiches at the beginning of Act 1, and he will not allow Jack/Ernest to eat them because they have been specially prepared for Algernon's Aunt Augusta.  However, Algernon eats them all himself throughout the course of the scene!  Then, when Aunt August arrives for tea, Algernon seems seriously displeased and surprised that there are no cucumber sandwiches when he has actually eaten them all himself.  We learn, then, that he is likewise ridiculous and dishonest.  He has also invented an friend, named Mr. Bunbury, so that he can escape Aunt August as often as he wishes, saying that he must attend his poor invalid friend.  He and Jack are very similar in these ways.

It is through listening in to their conversations and the utterly ridiculous statements they make about social convention, love, marriage, and the like that reveal to us who they are.

What kind of relationship does Montresor have with the people who take care of his home? What does this reveal about him?

In Poe's "The Cask of Amontillado,” the narrator, Montresor, is a shrewd and calculating man. An example of this can be seen in his manipulation of his servants on the night he is putting into action his plan to gain revenge against his perceived enemy.

Montresor seems to be a person of some wealth and standing. And even though he alludes to his family perhaps not being as great or having the same standing it...

In Poe's "The Cask of Amontillado,” the narrator, Montresor, is a shrewd and calculating man. An example of this can be seen in his manipulation of his servants on the night he is putting into action his plan to gain revenge against his perceived enemy.

Montresor seems to be a person of some wealth and standing. And even though he alludes to his family perhaps not being as great or having the same standing it once did, he still appears to have servants who work for him. In order to make sure that his attendants will not spoil his plot for revenge against Fortunato, Montresor manipulates them into being absent from his house:

There were no attendants at home; they had absconded to make merry in honour of the time. I had told them that I should not return until the morning, and had given them explicit orders not to stir from the house. These orders were sufficient, I well knew, to insure their immediate disappearance, one and all, as soon as my back was turned.

In telling them he will be gone and ordering them to remain in the house, despite the ongoing carnival, he knows that they will all disobey him and leave. He understands that they will believe that, in his absence, they can get away with not following his directions. He views them as pieces to be played in his game, and he uses what he knows about their nature to further his plan.

This is an example of the essence of Montresor. He sees his attendants as people whom he can manipulate and control, and he does so to his benefit. He also sees them as a kind of minor antagonist to his plans, a problem to be eliminated.

What are some significant actions made by the characters in A Raisin in the Sun?

This is a big question, but I'll try to give a few of the major actions that characters take in the story. Many of the family's actions are taken as an attempt to better their lives, so I'll start there. Lena, the matriarch of the family, makes the choice to use at least part of her $10,000 insurance check from her husband's death to put a down payment on a nice house in a white...

This is a big question, but I'll try to give a few of the major actions that characters take in the story. Many of the family's actions are taken as an attempt to better their lives, so I'll start there. Lena, the matriarch of the family, makes the choice to use at least part of her $10,000 insurance check from her husband's death to put a down payment on a nice house in a white neighborhood, fulfilling the dream of upward mobility that she and her husband had for their family. Walter takes another significant action by disobeying his mother; instead of splitting the rest of her check between himself and his sister Beneatha, he spends it all on a business plan he has been working on with two other men. While Lena sees success for the family through a nice new house, Walter sees it through going into business for himself and making money for the family. The different characters' views of success and happiness cause most of the conflict in the plan, especially when it comes to the fate of the $10,000 (and when Walter's partner runs off with the rest of the money).

Another important action is taken for the opposite reason: because the family doesn't have enough money to support another child, Ruth decides to get an abortion when she finds out she is pregnant again. Though her intentions are good, Lena is horrified by the decision and Walter's feelings of being an inadequate husband and provider are exacerbated. 

Finally, Walter makes two more major decisions and actions in the play that drive the plot. First, he accepts the offer of Karl Linder, who wants to buy the house Lena just put a down payment on in order to keep the neighborhood white only. Again, Walter is choosing money over his mother's measure of success and happiness. In the end though, Walter rejects the offer and the play ends with the family leaving their little apartment for the final time. 

What is Eveline's responsibility in the Hill household?

Eveline is a young woman torn between staying at her stifling Dublin home and escaping with her lover, Frank, to the unknown. Her life at home is hard; she has many obligations to fulfill on a daily basis, like cooking and managing money, and two children were left to her to be looked after:

She had hard work to keep the house together and to see that the two young children who had been left...

Eveline is a young woman torn between staying at her stifling Dublin home and escaping with her lover, Frank, to the unknown. Her life at home is hard; she has many obligations to fulfill on a daily basis, like cooking and managing money, and two children were left to her to be looked after:

She had hard work to keep the house together and to see that the two young children who had been left to her charge went to school regularly and got their meals regularly. It was hard work -- a hard life...

In addition to taking care of the household duties, she has to deal with her often drunk and abusive father who she is scared of. Not only does she have to attempt to prevent him from squandering all the money he earns, but she also has to worry about whether he would physically hurt her:

She sometimes felt herself in danger of her father's violence. She knew it was that that had given her the palpitations.

Eveline needs comfort and safety, and she feels she is unable to find this at her home.

Also, one of the things that Eveline feels paralyzed by is the promise that she made to her mother while she was still alive. She promised her that she would "keep the home together as long as she could."

All these responsibilities seem to prevent Eveline from thinking that it is possible to escape and embrace a more fulfilling life. The possibility of a new life becomes, after much deliberation on Eveline's part, a goal not achievable.

What is the color of the precipitate formed when CaSO4 reacts with HCl?

Calcium sulfate is a solid that is not readily soluble in water, but may dissolve in the presence of hydrochloric acid (depending on the concentration of the acid) to form sulfuric acid and calcium chloride:

CaSO4 + 2HCl --> H2SO4 + CaCl2

if you assume that the calcium sulfate does react with hydrochloric acid, the calcium chloride that is formed will be very soluble in water and if produced in an aqueous environment, may dissolve....

Calcium sulfate is a solid that is not readily soluble in water, but may dissolve in the presence of hydrochloric acid (depending on the concentration of the acid) to form sulfuric acid and calcium chloride:

CaSO4 + 2HCl --> H2SO4 + CaCl2

if you assume that the calcium sulfate does react with hydrochloric acid, the calcium chloride that is formed will be very soluble in water and if produced in an aqueous environment, may dissolve. This would cause a shift in the reaction to favor the production of less soluble CaSO4. If the acid used is relatively concentrated and there isn't much water, the calcium chloride is less likely to dissolve. In either case, the solid that may be formed is a white powder.   

In "Night" when is Eliezer first confronted with death?

Throughout Elie Wiesel’s biographical account, Night, Eliezer is confronted with death in many forms. His first recollection of such in the text occurs when he and his family are moved with other Jews from the first ghetto to a smaller one. Elie recognizes this event and the interactions with the Hungarian police as the beginning of his suffering and hatred. “They were the first faces of hell and death,” Elie explains (19). Although there...

Throughout Elie Wiesel’s biographical account, Night, Eliezer is confronted with death in many forms. His first recollection of such in the text occurs when he and his family are moved with other Jews from the first ghetto to a smaller one. Elie recognizes this event and the interactions with the Hungarian police as the beginning of his suffering and hatred. “They were the first faces of hell and death,” Elie explains (19). Although there is no literal dead body in front of him, Elie uses death as a descriptor, effectively marking all events within the Holocaust-–the deaths of freedom, humanity, religion, etc. Later on, when he arrives at the first camp of his incarceration, Elie encounters literal death. He sees a truck unloading and is given a horrific introduction to human death: “Yes, I did see this with my own eyes . . . children thrown into the flames” (32). As the text continues, he sees and hears of many other deaths, but the symbolic one in the faces of the Hungarian police and the bodies of children at the camp are the initial encounters.

Wiesel, Elie. 'Night.' Trans. Marion Wiesel. New York: Hill and Wang, 2006. Book. 

Can I trust people? |

Psychologists have studied many ways to approach the "whys" and "hows" of trust. And the short answer to the question of "can you trust people?" is yes.

You can trust people to act according to patterns of behavior that become recognizable over time. And you can trust people to participate in the simple economics of relationships for the most part.

Trust your ride to be late the twentieth time if she was late on the first nineteen times. Trust the person who you helped to pass math to help you learn to cook. We are a species driven by habit and by a social sensibility that makes us want relationships to be equitable. 

Social exchange theory: Some theories suggest that we learn to trust as the result of social exchanges that take place over time wherein we literally see reciprocity in a relationship. Thus social exchange theory gives a positive answer to this question, indicating that you can trust people who have already shown that they will act equitably and reciprocally. If you act honestly, the other person will act honestly too.

The idea of reciprocity seems key here. You will find that you can trust people when you also act in ways that will develop trust in others. Any relationship or system of give-and-take will rely heavily on the input from both sides. 

We should note here that the question of trust is not necessarily the same as a question of reliance. Asking if we should rely on another person entails more expectations than simple trust.

For example, if a person is in your house and you have your wallet on the table and then leave the room, you might trust that this person will not take money from your wallet. In another scenario, if there are two people in the room and one of them is a friend and the other a stranger, you might rely on the friend to keep your money safe from the stranger.

In the second scenario, we are looking at the friend as a stand-in for yourself. Thus questions of trust imply an understanding of separation and distance so that when we consider questions of trust we take into account the idea that there is a distance between ourselves and the person we may or may not trust.

Questions of reliance and reliability have to take into account important questions of identification. (To what extent am I bonded to the person in question? To what extent can I expect this person to act on my behalf?)

So, in asking if you can trust people we should be clear that you are asking an question of reciprocity and exchange, not a question of how much you can count on someone to come through for you in a time of need. 

If we take a step back and look at how trust in the big picture, we can see that we trust people to a significant extent simply in order to navigate the world. We trust people to stay on their side of the road while driving. We trust people to pay for the things they leave the store with. We trust people not to attack us on the street. Imagine a world where these scenarios were not imbued with a social trust. 

On a more intimate level, however, we have to examine the nature of the relationships we are in and ask questions about how much give-and-take is going on. In what ways in a relationship successfully reciprocal? As long as both parties are giving something (and not always the same thing), each party can trust in the other to hold up his or her end of the bargain.

Social Constructionism: If you want to take this inquiry into the realm of the theory of psychology, you might consider looking at the ways social construction theory suggests that are very sense of reality is an outgrowth of the social. We are inherently cooperative in the construction of meaning and so live in a world of mind where trust is one factor among many in an interplay that defines our experience.   

In this light, asking if we can trust people is a complex question that opens doors to further questions about creating meaning in isolation and defining identity in meaningful ways vis a vis a weak or strong social contract.

How does your ability to trust affect your position within a social network functions as the basis of your world-view? How does your ability to participate in an exchange of ideas, values, etc. determine not only who you are as an individual but what your reality becomes?

How does Wilfred Owen use imagery to make his poem appealing?

Owen does not use imagery (description using the five senses) to make his poem "Dulce et Decorum Est" appealing but to convey as powerfully as possible the horror of waras he has experienced it. Although the classical phrase "dulce et decorum est," meaning "it is sweet and fitting" (to fight and die for one's country), was used to glorify war and to encourage soldiers to see themselves as heroes, Owen employs the phrase ironically,...

Owen does not use imagery (description using the five senses) to make his poem "Dulce et Decorum Est" appealing but to convey as powerfully as possible the horror of war as he has experienced it. Although the classical phrase "dulce et decorum est," meaning "it is sweet and fitting" (to fight and die for one's country), was used to glorify war and to encourage soldiers to see themselves as heroes, Owen employs the phrase ironically, showing through his imagery that warfare is neither sweet nor fitting.

Owen uses the least heroic images possible to describe the soldiers fighting in World War I. He refers to them as "beggars" and "hags" rather than brave fighters. He shows them "bent double ... coughing." Some have lost their boots and "tramp" on bloody feet. They are a pathetic rabble rather than a glorious battle force. 

Owen graphically describes the victim of a mustard gas attack: "white eyes writhing in his face ...the blood gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs." He wants readers to see in these images how horrible modern warfare is. While I would not call his imagery "appealing," I would, instead, call it powerful and effective.

On which page of Theodore Taylor's novel The Cay does the word "destroyer" appear?

The word "destroyer" occurs multiple times in Theodore Taylor’s 1969 novel The Cay. A story that takes place on a Caribbean island during the early years of the Second World War, ships, both commercial and military, play a prominent role. On page 24, there is a reference to “two American destroyers” that, along with a Dutch cruiser, a larger surface combatant, have arrived at the island for the purpose of protecting merchant ships from...

The word "destroyer" occurs multiple times in Theodore Taylor’s 1969 novel The Cay. A story that takes place on a Caribbean island during the early years of the Second World War, ships, both commercial and military, play a prominent role. On page 24, there is a reference to “two American destroyers” that, along with a Dutch cruiser, a larger surface combatant, have arrived at the island for the purpose of protecting merchant ships from the German submarines prowling the ocean’s depths. Much later in the novel, on page 129, Phillip awakens to the sound of loud explosions that the sight-impaired boy at first considers to be thunder. Upon discovering that there is no storm raging, however, he suggests to his cat the sounds might be explosions coming from naval vessels, “maybe destroyers,” he ponders, “fighting it out with enemy submarines.”

Phillip is correct, it turns out, that the sounds her hears emanate from navy destroyers, one of which arrives to rescue him. On page 134, he notes, “I was helped up the gangway of a destroyer,” manned by the American sailors who are, indeed, his rescuers. Finally, on page 135, Phillip describes being told by the ship’s captain that the crew of the destroyer had been hunting German submarines when they saw the smoke from the boy’s fire and diverted from their operation to investigate its source.

These are the instances in The Cay in which the author’s young narrator mentions destroyers.

If you have 66.6 g NH3, how many grams of F2 are needed to consume all the NH3?

The balanced equation for this reaction is:

  `~2NH_3 ` + `~5F_2` -> `~N_2F_4 ` + `~6HF`

Step 1: Determine the molar mass of `~NH_3` and `~F_2` .

Since "grams" are involved in this calculation, we will need to use the following mole conversion factors: 1 mole = molar mass `~NH_3` AND 1 mole = molar mass `~F_2` . So, before we start the main calculation, let's go ahead and determine the molar mass...

The balanced equation for this reaction is:

  `~2NH_3 ` + `~5F_2` -> `~N_2F_4 ` + `~6HF`

Step 1: Determine the molar mass of `~NH_3` and `~F_2` .

Since "grams" are involved in this calculation, we will need to use the following mole conversion factors: 1 mole = molar mass `~NH_3` AND 1 mole = molar mass `~F_2` . So, before we start the main calculation, let's go ahead and determine the molar mass of `~NH_3` and `~F_2` .

The molar mass of a substance is determined by multiplying the atomic mass of each atom in the substance times its subscript and adding the resulting answers.

   Molar mass of `~NH_3` = (1)(14.007) + 3(1.008) = 17.031 g/mol

   Molar mass of `~F_2` = (2)(18.998) = 37.996 g/mol

Therefore,

   1 mole `~NH_3` = 17.031 grams

   1 mole `~F_2` = 37.996 grams

Step 2: Determine the mole ratio between `~NH_3` and `~F_2` .

The mole ratio between two substances is equal to the ratio between the coefficients of the substances. According the reaction above, the coefficient for `~NH_3 ` is 2 and the coefficient for `~F_2` is 5. 

Therefore, the mole ratio between `~NH_3` and `~F_2` is:

   2 moles `~NH_3 ` = 5 moles `~F_2`

Step 3: Perform the stoichiometry calculation.

The stoichiometry calculation will take the general form of:

  given amount  x  `~NH_3` mole conversion factor  x  mole ratio  x  `~F_2` mole conversion factor

Therefore, 

   66.6 g `~NH_3` x (1 mol/17.031) x (5 mol `~F_2` /2 mol `~NH_3` ) x (37.996 g/1mol) = 371 g `~F_2`

*Notice that the conversion factors and mole ratio are oriented such that all units and substances cancel out except grams of `~F_2`.

What moral guide should American society use for making moral decisions, moral absolutism, moral relativism, or something in between?

This is, of course, a matter of opinion.  My own view is that the US should use something in between as our moral standard.  Perhaps we should use moral absolutism on “big issues” and moral relativism on little ones.  Of course, that is still very difficult as we still have to define which issues are big or little.

Moral absolutism is not a good basis on which to make our moral decisions.  There is too...

This is, of course, a matter of opinion.  My own view is that the US should use something in between as our moral standard.  Perhaps we should use moral absolutism on “big issues” and moral relativism on little ones.  Of course, that is still very difficult as we still have to define which issues are big or little.

Moral absolutism is not a good basis on which to make our moral decisions.  There is too much danger that we will be prejudiced in favor of our own values and will not realize that other people’s ways are just different, not evil.  For example, should we ban arranged marriages because they go against our ideals of personal freedom?  You could clearly argue that we should.  However, I do not see where it is morally worse than, for example, people who rush into spontaneous marriages and then get divorced 3 months later, which is something we accept.  Arranged marriages seem antiquated and wrong to us, but I do not see where they are necessarily worse than what we have now.

On the other hand, moral relativism is a terrible basis on which to make moral decisions.  Do we want to allow a minority within our country to kill members of their religion who convert to another religion?  Do we want them to be able to kill their daughters when they bring dishonor on the family?  Do we want other groups to be able to practice religions that call for the use of illegal drugs?  (To many people, this last one will be an example of how it is hard to differentiate between big issues and little ones.)  Clearly, there are things that we would never want to allow or condone, even if other people think that they are just fine, morally speaking.

From this, it seems clear that we have to use something in between moral absolutism and moral relativism.  My own preference is that we should use moral absolutism for big issues and relativism for less important issues, but I fully understand that this does not make things easy for us as there is no clear line as to which moral issues are trivial and which are important.

Name three things that we know about Rikki-Tikki-Tavi from the outset of the story.

Rikki-Tikki-Tavi, a young mongoose, is the hero of the story. From the first part of the story, we learn that he is a fearless fighter, that he is curious, and that he is friendly towards people. The first paragraph gives an overview of the story, telling us that "he fought single-handed" in a war, although we don't know who the war was against. Although the big man tells his wife and son not to frighten...

Rikki-Tikki-Tavi, a young mongoose, is the hero of the story. From the first part of the story, we learn that he is a fearless fighter, that he is curious, and that he is friendly towards people. The first paragraph gives an overview of the story, telling us that "he fought single-handed" in a war, although we don't know who the war was against. Although the big man tells his wife and son not to frighten Rikki, the narrator tells us that it is almost impossible to frighten a mongoose. A mongoose is a creature full of natural curiosity, and the first impulse of this particular mongoose once he is revived is to fulfill his kind's need to "run and find out," so he explores the bungalow. Not only that, however; he explores the people, climbing on Teddy's neck and tickling him. The mother is surprised that Rikki is acting so tame, but the father says that "all mongooses are like that." So in the first part of the story, readers learn that Rikki is a mongoose who is fearlessly curious, friendly, and a courageous fighter.

List some important facts about the Monroe Doctrine.

President James Monroe, in an effort to stop the interference of European powers in the affairs of the Americas, proclaimed that any further incursion by those countries would be considered aggression against the United States.

‘The American continents … are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.’ --Monroe Doctrine, 1823

Here are some important facts about the Monroe Doctrine.

• Monroe first presented the doctrine to Congress in his...

President James Monroe, in an effort to stop the interference of European powers in the affairs of the Americas, proclaimed that any further incursion by those countries would be considered aggression against the United States.

‘The American continents … are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.’ --Monroe Doctrine, 1823

Here are some important facts about the Monroe Doctrine.

• Monroe first presented the doctrine to Congress in his yearly address to Congress in 1823.


• The policy was not necessarily meant to endure, but was rather something that Monroe thought needed to be addressed during his presidency.


• John Tyler was the first to invoke the Monroe Doctrine in the annexation of Texas.


• The Monroe Doctrine was used in 1865 when the United States interfered in Mexico by supporting Benito Juárez.


• Not surprisingly, Teddy Roosevelt was a fierce advocate of the Monroe Doctrine.  He sent troops to a variety of Caribbean countries to stop European countries from using force to collect debts.


• Latin American countries view the use of the Monroe Doctrine by the United States as imperialism and a significant threat to their sovereignty.


• John Quincy Adams, serving as the Secretary of State, was instrumental in the language of the declaration.


• The British wanted to be partners with the United States as spheres of influence in the Americas.  Monroe's cabinet convinced him that the United States should go at it alone or risk being seen as Britain's little brother.  


• Since World War II, the United States, when interfering in the affairs of sovereign Latin American nations has attempted to make it appear that it is acting in the best interests of all of the countries in the region.  


• In the 1980's, over a century and a half after the doctrine was delivered, President Ronald Reagan invoked it in an effort to stop communist influences in Latin America.

That should provide you with a good understanding of what the Monroe Doctrine is and how it has been used by generations of foreign policy makers in the United States.  Further information can be found in the links that I have provided.

Explain the purpose and results of the Berlin Conference.

The Berlin Conference of 1884-85 was held to ease tensions in Europe over colonial claims in Africa. The conference was chaired by the first chancellor of Germany, Otto Von Bismark. The conference opened the door for the full-scale colonization of Africa by European countries. A major issue between European countries, the navigation of the Niger and Congo Rivers, was resolved by the meeting. The meeting also established rules for claiming lands in Africa, namely the...

The Berlin Conference of 1884-85 was held to ease tensions in Europe over colonial claims in Africa. The conference was chaired by the first chancellor of Germany, Otto Von Bismark. The conference opened the door for the full-scale colonization of Africa by European countries. A major issue between European countries, the navigation of the Niger and Congo Rivers, was resolved by the meeting. The meeting also established rules for claiming lands in Africa, namely the presence of military and bureaucratic personnel in the areas that were claimed. A startling development of the conference was that King Leopold of Belgium had his personal claim over the Congo Free State recognized. His territory would evolve into a very large plantation in which he utilized the natives of the area as his personal slaves to enrich himself through the extraction of rubber.

Leopold's example in Congo is probably the most blatant example of abuse that resulted from the Berlin Conference. It was not an experience that was unique to Congo, however. Throughout the continent, Africans lost their ability to develop their own resources and forge their own destinies. National boundaries were arbitrarily drawn that did not respect tribal and ethnic differences. This would lead to political instability that still endures today. In fact, the exploitation of Africa's resources and labor that resulted from the Berlin Conference are legacies that have hampered the development of Africa in the 21st Century.

After reading "The Black Man's Burden," do you agree that colonialism "kills the soul of a people?"

I would have to agree with Edward D. Morel in that the effects of colonialism go far beyond the loss of life. Your question centers around Morel's essay that is titled "The Black Man's Burden," specifically this quote:

Its destructive effects are not spasmodic: they are permanent. In its permanence resides its fatal consequences. It kills not the body merely, but the soul. It breaks the spirit.

Colonialism breaks the spirit and kills the soul...

I would have to agree with Edward D. Morel in that the effects of colonialism go far beyond the loss of life. Your question centers around Morel's essay that is titled "The Black Man's Burden," specifically this quote:

Its destructive effects are not spasmodic: they are permanent. In its permanence resides its fatal consequences. It kills not the body merely, but the soul. It breaks the spirit.

Colonialism breaks the spirit and kills the soul because it strips the African of every freedom. He is no longer the master of his own domain. His future has been predetermined for him. The African can no longer look at his children and say "I did this." The African is exploited at every turn for the advantage of others a world away. The African is faced with the loss of culture and identity. The bounty and resources of their land are no longer theirs, offers them no benefit. When you consider all of these things taken together, the Europeans have stripped the Africans of everything that it means to be human. In a way, this is as corrupt as physically taking their lives.

How are Crooks, Curley's wife and Candy lonely and isolated characters?

Almost all of the characters deal with loneliness and isolation to some degree in Steinbeck's novella. The two characters who could be considered the loneliest, however, are Crooks and Curley's wife. For a brief time Candy is also quite lonely.

Crooks is the black stable buck on the ranch. He is also partly crippled after being kicked by a horse. Because he's a black man on a ranch dominated by white men he is the...

Almost all of the characters deal with loneliness and isolation to some degree in Steinbeck's novella. The two characters who could be considered the loneliest, however, are Crooks and Curley's wife. For a brief time Candy is also quite lonely.

Crooks is the black stable buck on the ranch. He is also partly crippled after being kicked by a horse. Because he's a black man on a ranch dominated by white men he is the victim of both racism and segregation. He is usually not allowed in the white bunkhouse and the one time he is welcome he is involved in a fight, presumably over race. Candy describes the scene:

"They let the nigger come in that night. Little skinner name of Smitty took after the nigger. Done pretty good, too. The guys wouldn’t let him use his feet, so the nigger got him. If he coulda used his feet, Smitty says he woulda killed the nigger. The guys said on account of the nigger’s got a crooked back, Smitty can’t use his feet.” 

In chapter four Crooks explicitly expresses both the racism he is victimized by and his sense of loneliness and isolation. Crooks explains to Lennie why he's not allowed in the bunkhouse:

“’Cause I’m black. They play cards in there, but I can’t play because I’m black. They say I stink. Well, I tell you, you all of you stink to me.” 

Later while talking to Lennie, Crooks pours his heart out about his sense of loneliness. He tells Lennie how lucky he and George are to have each other to talk to. He says it doesn't even matter what they talk about, it's just the talking that's important. He says,

“A guy goes nuts if he ain’t got nobody. Don’t make no difference who the guy is, long’s he’s with you. I tell ya,” he cried, “I tell ya a guy gets too lonely an’ he gets sick.” 

For a brief time, Crooks's loneliness is assuaged as both Lennie and Candy come into his room. Crooks even offers to lend a hand on the ranch the men are planning on buying. His dream, however, is abruptly put to an end when Curley's wife comes into the barn and begins talking to the men gathered in Crooks's room.

Curley's wife is possibly the loneliest and most isolated character. She is a woman on a ranch full of men. Her husband is often belligerent and treats her poorly. It is even suggested that he cheats on her by going to the whorehouses in Soledad. Thus, she seeks companionship with the other men on the ranch who are generally suspicious of her and use derisive terms such as tramp, tart and floozy to describe her. In both chapter four and five she reveals the level of her loneliness. While talking to Crooks, Lennie and Candy she says,

"Think I don’t like to talk to somebody ever’ once in a while? Think I like to stick in that house alla time?”

As with Crooks, Curley's wife really pours her heart out to Lennie. In chapter five she describes her dreams and how she wound up marrying Curley. She claims she could have been in the movies had it not been for her mother. She even tells Lennie her true feelings about Curley:

"I don’ like Curley. He ain’t a nice fella.” 

Because she feels comfortable with Lennie she allows him to stroke her hair, which, of course, is a terrible idea and it costs her life as Lennie accidentally breaks her neck. Her struggle to seek companionship is fatal. Steinbeck describes her in death:

And the meanness and the plannings and the discontent and the ache for attention were all gone from her face. She was very pretty and simple, and her face was sweet and young. 

Candy is often referred to as being lonely, yet this is only true for a very short time the book. He is old and crippled but at the beginning he has the companionship of his old dog. Unfortunately, the dog is euthanized by Carlson in chapter three. For a brief time Candy feels the misery of loneliness until he hears George talking about the dream of owning his own farm. Candy is immediately interested and offers to put in money to make the dream a reality. The dream ultimately fails and the reader must assume that Candy lived out his days lonely and isolated on the ranch.