In the play The Diary Of Anne Frank, how did Peter have an impact on Anne's life?

In the 1955 dramatic adaptation of The Diary of Anne Frank by Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett, Anne and Peter’s relationship evolves over the course of the play.

Early in the play, Anne and Peter have a relationship like brother and sister, innocently teasing and playing with each other in a comfortable, familiar way. Before moving into the attic hiding space, Peter knew of Anne from school, but he was quiet and reserved, a “lone...

In the 1955 dramatic adaptation of The Diary of Anne Frank by Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett, Anne and Peter’s relationship evolves over the course of the play.

Early in the play, Anne and Peter have a relationship like brother and sister, innocently teasing and playing with each other in a comfortable, familiar way. Before moving into the attic hiding space, Peter knew of Anne from school, but he was quiet and reserved, a “lone wolf,” while Anne was more popular and outgoing. A hint that their relationship may start to change is Anne’s Christmas gift to Peter, a razor. This gift shows she is starting to notice him becoming a man. The gift is also special in that it is one of the only items that she did not make or repurpose, but had Miep buy.

Anne and Peter grow closer in act two when they share more intimate feelings with each other about their frustrations about living in the claustrophobic attic. They become each other’s confidantes. Anne confesses that she used to think Peter was “a nothing,” but now she even wants to share her diary with him because “there are so many things in it that I want to talk over with you.” This shows the growing trust Anne has for Peter.

Peter serves an important role for Anne, as an emerging romantic interest but, more importantly, as a trusted friend.

In Alan Moore's graphic novel Watchmen, what does Dr. Manhattan mean when he tells Adrian Veidt, "In the end? Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever...

Your question is about the meaning of Dr. Manhattan's statement "In the end? Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends" in Watchmen by Alan Moore.

The statement means that what Adrian sees as the end of a problem is actually just an occurrence in time. It's not a grand finale—it's just another event Adrian doesn't yet know the effects of. 

Adrian has faked an alien invasion and killed millions of people to do it, with the...

Your question is about the meaning of Dr. Manhattan's statement "In the end? Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends" in Watchmen by Alan Moore.

The statement means that what Adrian sees as the end of a problem is actually just an occurrence in time. It's not a grand finale—it's just another event Adrian doesn't yet know the effects of. 

Adrian has faked an alien invasion and killed millions of people to do it, with the noble goal of ending the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union. After the plan is successful, he turns to Dr. Manhattan, who has a deep understanding of the universe and a different perception of time than humans. He asks for reassurance that he did the right thing.

It's possible that he did, from a utilitarian point of view. The end of the Cold War in the Watchmen universe signals the end of the upcoming nuclear armageddon. Adrian's plan has the potential to save more lives than it took.

But Dr. Manhattan can see beyond the current situation. He recognizes that time will continue and that Adrian's plan coming to fruition isn't actually the end of anything. It's possible that the plan will come to light and his work will be undone—that the millions of dead people will be for nothing. It's possible that earth will face another nuclear armageddon down the road for other reasons. It's possible the peace between the countries will fail.

Saying "In the end? Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends" is another way of saying that the world is still turning. Time is moving forward for humans. Nothing about the culmination of Adrian's work makes this the end or an end. Nothing is settled. Everything Adrian has done could crumble away to nothing, like the kingdom in the poem "Ozymandias," for which Adrian's hero alter ego is named.

Was Hamlet insane? |

There are lots of opinions on this subject. I don't think Hamlet actually does go mad.  It's true that he does jump into Ophelia's grave, but I think it's perfectly plausible to claim that he does so because his grief is so extreme.  There is some evidence to suggest he truly loved her, and he couldn't be with her; he was forced to push her away in order to protect her.  Then, she dies young...

There are lots of opinions on this subject. I don't think Hamlet actually does go mad.  It's true that he does jump into Ophelia's grave, but I think it's perfectly plausible to claim that he does so because his grief is so extreme.  There is some evidence to suggest he truly loved her, and he couldn't be with her; he was forced to push her away in order to protect her.  Then, she dies young and tragically, and his emotion overwhelms him.  Further, he does have Rosencrantz and Guildenstern killed, but he has already gotten them to confess that they came to Denmark to spy on him and report back to Claudius, and they were carrying a letter that asked for the king of England to have Hamlet killed.  For all he knows, they were in on Claudius's plan to have him murdered.  Seeing his father's ghost in front of his mother was not his choice, but the ghost's, and others have seen the ghost before, so we know it isn't just a figment of Hamlet's crazed mind.  Finally, when he kills Polonius, he thinks he's murdering Claudius.  The best way to get away with such a murder is to continue to act like someone not in his right mind; otherwise, the punishment would be death, so he hides the body and acts crazily in order to continue his ruse. 

When Claudius requests that Hamlet swordfight with Laertes, Hamlet speaks at length to Horatio about whether or not he should do it.  In this scene, he speaks eloquently and thoughtfully, and his apology to Laertes just prior to the duel is likewise sincere and gentlemanly.  He does not speak like a madman.  Therefore, I would argue that Hamlet is not really mad; he may be emotional and very stressed out -- not to mention that he is grieving for his father and angry with his mother -- but this does not make him crazy.

What social commentary could Allende be making in “And of Clay Are We Created”?

In “And of Clay Are We Created” Isabel Allende makes a social commentary about how media creates fascination with human tragedy, regardless of its origin. The human brain has primitive mechanisms that cause people to feel empathy for the suffering of others. It is when these feelings are sensationalized by the media that human obsession occurs. There is a fine line between presenting socially responsible reports, and creating obsessions. At a point, it becomes harmful...

In “And of Clay Are We Created” Isabel Allende makes a social commentary about how media creates fascination with human tragedy, regardless of its origin. The human brain has primitive mechanisms that cause people to feel empathy for the suffering of others. It is when these feelings are sensationalized by the media that human obsession occurs. There is a fine line between presenting socially responsible reports, and creating obsessions. At a point, it becomes harmful to one’s mental health, and to those who are actually suffering in the disaster.

In Allende’s story, the news media quickly moves in to cover the story of the volcanic eruption, but once they find the little girl stuck in the clay, they focus on her for hours on end. Viewers are mesmerized by the situation even though it ultimately leads to her death. The media does not assist in her rescue, instead they report on her demise.

Media representations can prepare people to react to personal situations and to provide support to those affected. On the other hand, this fascination with suffering can cause anxiety created by the unending media coverage of destruction and human suffering.

How can I apply New Historicism to "My son the Fanatic?"

In the broadest terms, New Historicism, often associated with the Shakespearean scholar Stephen Greenblatt, uses literature to try to reconstruct or understand the social or intellectual history or "feel" of a particular period. This can be applied to "My Son the Fanatic," published in the New Yorker in 1994, to understand what it was like to be a Pakistani immigrant or child of immigrants in England in the 1980s and early 1990s. What we learn...

In the broadest terms, New Historicism, often associated with the Shakespearean scholar Stephen Greenblatt, uses literature to try to reconstruct or understand the social or intellectual history or "feel" of a particular period. This can be applied to "My Son the Fanatic," published in the New Yorker in 1994, to understand what it was like to be a Pakistani immigrant or child of immigrants in England in the 1980s and early 1990s. What we learn from this story is that the older generation, the people who actually experienced life in Pakistan, represented by the father, Parvez, exhibit a strong and uncritical appreciation of the freedom and opportunities offered by British culture and show a fervent desire to assimilate into Western life. Parvez very much appreciates England's "good life" as he understands it: the freedom to have a drink, to eat pork, to befriend a prostitute. He works very hard as a cab driver so his son can pursue higher education, have a computer and, Parvez hopes, rise to a higher level in society as an accountant.

His son, Ali, on the other hand, has never witnessed the degradations and humiliations of living in Pakistan. He has, however, felt what it is to be despised in his parents' adopted country and has a strong belief that he will never gain acceptance from the traditional "white" English. He idealizes and embraces a radical form of Islam as purer and more disciplined than the "decadent" way of life his father pursues. 

The story thus captures the particular flavor of a moment of English history in which Pakistani immigrants balance on a knife's edge between embrace and rejection of their new culture. Details such as Pakistanis as London cab drivers, owning a desktop computer and worrying about the younger generation using drugs are the kind of particularities of the historical moment that New Historicism would identify along with the cultural fissure between the generations. 

When Daniel returns to the mountain, why does he feel lonely?

Daniel returns to the mountain after spending nearly a week at Joel's house recovering from an injury inflicted by a Roman soldier. In Chapter 8, Daniel is welcomed back as a hero by Rosh's men when he returns to the cave. Word had spread throughout the camp of Daniel's exploits in the village, and most of the men thought Daniel was surely dead. They admired Daniel's nerve, and some men were just glad he was...

Daniel returns to the mountain after spending nearly a week at Joel's house recovering from an injury inflicted by a Roman soldier. In Chapter 8, Daniel is welcomed back as a hero by Rosh's men when he returns to the cave. Word had spread throughout the camp of Daniel's exploits in the village, and most of the men thought Daniel was surely dead. They admired Daniel's nerve, and some men were just glad he was back because only Daniel could control Samson. After a few days, things go back to normal, and the men continue to ignore Daniel. Daniel begins feeling lonely and misses Joel and Malthace. Daniel had never experienced true friendship before, and he cherished the short time he spent with Joel and Malthace while he was recovering. Daniel misses hearing Joel's stories and continually thinks about the vow that all three of them took. For the first time in his life, Daniel had shared a bond with someone who had similar thoughts. Daniel misses Joel and Thacia's social interaction and longs to see them again.

Write and balance the equation for this organic reaction: propene with water.

Propene reacts with water in the presence of a dilute, strong acid to produce propanol. The dilute, strong acid does not take place in the reaction itself.

`~C_3H_6 + ~H_2O harr~C_3H_7OH`

The reaction is already balanced. 

Propene is an alkene. Alkenes are hydrocarbons which contain double bonds. 

The addition of a water molecule to another molecule is called an hydration reaction. The hydration of an alkene is an example of an addition reaction....

Propene reacts with water in the presence of a dilute, strong acid to produce propanol. The dilute, strong acid does not take place in the reaction itself.

`~C_3H_6 + ~H_2O harr~C_3H_7OH`

The reaction is already balanced. 

Propene is an alkene. Alkenes are hydrocarbons which contain double bonds. 

The addition of a water molecule to another molecule is called an hydration reaction. The hydration of an alkene is an example of an addition reaction. An addition reaction is an organic reaction in which two molecules combine to form a larger molecule.

In an addition reaction, an alkene is converted to an alcohol by the addition of a water molecule. An alcohol is an organic compound with one or more hydroxyl groups (OH) attached. In the reverse reaction, the alcohol is dehydrated to form an alkene.

In "The Pit and the Pendulum," what does the narrator realize after his dream?

In this story, the narrator quite simply realizes that his dream had not been a dream at all.  He tells of how he “swooned” after receiving his death sentence from the Inquisition, and goes on to discuss the process of awakening from a swoon:  “In the return to life from the swoon there are two stages; first, that of the sense of mental or spiritual; secondly, that of the sense of physical, existence.”

This is...

In this story, the narrator quite simply realizes that his dream had not been a dream at all.  He tells of how he “swooned” after receiving his death sentence from the Inquisition, and goes on to discuss the process of awakening from a swoon:  “In the return to life from the swoon there are two stages; first, that of the sense of mental or spiritual; secondly, that of the sense of physical, existence.”

This is a discussion of his attempts to understand what happened to him as he was semi-unconscious; he states that he can recall tall figures carrying him down, seemingly forever.  And, as he notes above that one first notices one’s mental or emotional state as one is roused from a dream, the narrator first feels “a vague horror at my heart.”  And only after this horror does he notice his physical environment – he is somewhere dark, dank, and flat.  At this point he is absorbed by “the mere consciousness of existence, without thought –” and then all at once his senses return to him, he is able to draw more details from his surroundings, and in this state of full awakening the details of his dream fall away.  As he says, “Arousing from the most profound of slumbers, we break the gossamer web of some dream. Yet in a second afterward…we remember not that we have dreamed.”

So, in the immediate shock of awakening in such a vile, ominous environment, the narrator forgets everything he has experienced after the trial, only able to remember it “vaguely,” after much intense mental labor.  And yet all this time he keeps his eyes closed, afraid of what exists beyond his eyelids, afraid that everything he had dreamed and everything he had felt was true.  And, unfortunately, in this fear he is correct.

What steps did the Western allies (Great Britain, France, and the United States) take to promote economic growth during the early Cold War era?

After World War II, the Western allies consciously chose to rebuild Europe rather than to punish the countries that they had fought against, such as Germany. They realized that punishing Germany after World War I had helped pave the way for Hitler's rise to power, and they were eager to make sure European countries, devastated by the destruction of the war, did not become communist. To this end, the United States instituted the Marshall Plan,...

After World War II, the Western allies consciously chose to rebuild Europe rather than to punish the countries that they had fought against, such as Germany. They realized that punishing Germany after World War I had helped pave the way for Hitler's rise to power, and they were eager to make sure European countries, devastated by the destruction of the war, did not become communist. To this end, the United States instituted the Marshall Plan, which gave $13 billion in aid to rebuild Europe's economy after the war. Great Britain, France, and West Germany received a great deal of the aid. The U.S. offered the Soviet Union aid, but they declined.

In Japan, the United States, led by General Douglas MacArthur, rebuilt the Japanese economy. They redistributed land and broke up large corporations called zaibatsu. The intent was to rebuild Japan along the lines of a Western-style capitalist country, and the U.S. also wrote a new constitution for Japan that included more rights for women and that made the military only serve as defensive if Japan were attacked. The Americans were concerned that if Japan had a weak economy, it would become communist. During the Korean War of 1950-1953, Japan became the staging ground for the American operations in the war (led under the United Nations), which further strengthened the Japanese economy and made the country the recipient of American goods. 

Why did Mrs. Luella Bates Washington Jones act kindly toward Roger even though he tried to steal her purse?

Langston Hughes's short story "Thank You, Ma'am" opens on a dark street around 11:00pm. A young boy sneaks up on an old lady and tries to grab her purse, but he accidentally breaks the strap and falls over on his back.

When the lady orders the boy to pick up the purse and hand it back to her, and especially when she says "Now ain't you ashamed of yourself?", readers might guess that the woman will march the boy straight to his own parents to inform them about what happened and see that the boy is properly punished.

Yet that isn't what happens.

With determination and physical strength, she takes him to her own home--to wash his face, because no one is at the boy's home to do this for him. (We could definitely interpret the face-washing as a powerful symbol: Mrs. Jones is cleansing his soul.)

She learns his name (Roger) and cooks him a meal. (Again, check out that awesome symbolism! Eating together is a powerful symbol of union. It's a hint that the people who are sharing the meal also have something important in common.)

She finds out why he was trying to steal the purse: he needed money for shoes; she gives it to him. Then she sends him on his way.

The question is, why is she so kind to him? 

Let's look at what she says to him before the meal: "I were young once and I wanted things I could not get." Mrs. Jones sympathizes with Roger because she, too, used to be young and in need, and so she shows him kindness.

She also says, "I have done things, too, which I would not tell you, son." She means that she's also done things she's not proud of, but she doesn't say what, whether it was stealing, lying, or something worse. Again, she sees that her past mistakes and Roger's recent one are similar, and that sympathy inspires her to treat Roger with kindness and set him on the path to better behavior.

Here's the clincher! "Everybody's got something in common," Mrs. Jones says. That's the point of the story, and why she shows kindness to a boy who tried to steal from her.

Why does Dee think that Mama and Maggie don't understand their heritage in "Everyday Use"?

When Dee/Wangero tells her mother, "You just don't understand...your heritage," she implies that hand-made artistic items in their family should be put on display instead of being used.

Even before Dee became involved in the Black Nationalist movement, she rejected the conditions under which she was raised. Nevertheless, she promised to visit her mother and sister no matter where they might live. But Mama and Maggie are not prepared for Dee's new name and her boyfriend. Dee has rejected her birth name, which comes from Dicie, a family name traceable to the Civil War, in favor of Wangero. Now, on her visit Dee wants to take back with her the butter churn of her grandmother, benches made by her father, and quilts made by women in the family.

Because the value of the quilts lies in their functionality for Mama and Maggie, Mama snatches the quilts out of Dee's arms when she tries to take them. She then hands them to Maggie. Dee exclaims,

"Maggie can't appreciate these quilts! ... She'd probably be backward enough to put them to everyday use."

Maggie does, indeed, use them. Moreover, she appreciates the quilts for their beauty, which lies in their functionality--something that Dee does not understand.

What is the resolution of the conflict in the story "The Monkey's Paw"?

The principal conflict in W.W. Jacobs short story "The Monkey's Paw" could be described as man vs. fate. Because the Whites accept the monkey's paw from the Sergeant-Major they become entwined in the fateful evil implicit in the paw. It is an Eastern "talisman" which grants wishes, and has been responsible for malevolent occurrences in the past. The Sergeant-Major informs them that one of the men who had wishes, wished for death with his last...

The principal conflict in W.W. Jacobs short story "The Monkey's Paw" could be described as man vs. fate. Because the Whites accept the monkey's paw from the Sergeant-Major they become entwined in the fateful evil implicit in the paw. It is an Eastern "talisman" which grants wishes, and has been responsible for malevolent occurrences in the past. The Sergeant-Major informs them that one of the men who had wishes, wished for death with his last request. When Mr. White wishes for enough money to pay off his house he is awarded that exact sum when Herbert is killed in a work related accident. His second wish, prompted by the insane pleadings of his wife, is for Herbert to be alive again. Unfortunately, Herbert was badly maimed in the accident. Moreover, he had already been buried two miles away so his presence at their doorstep some time after the second wish strikes fear in Mr. White and he abruptly wishes the corpse away in the story's climax. The resolution is that fate has destroyed an otherwise quite happy family. Temptation and evil are responsible for Herbert's death, Mrs. White's madness and Mr. White's grief.

What is the conflict in Chapter 12 in the book The Hound of the Baskervilles?

The conflict is a character vs. character conflict between Holmes and the murderer. 

A character vs. character conflict is a conflict between two characters.  Even before Holmes knows who the murderer is, he had a conflict with him because he was trying to kill his client.  Holmes is trying to prove that Stapleton is the murderer, and in the meantime there is another death. 

This is an interesting chapter, because Holmes arrives.  Watson comes...

The conflict is a character vs. character conflict between Holmes and the murderer. 

A character vs. character conflict is a conflict between two characters.  Even before Holmes knows who the murderer is, he had a conflict with him because he was trying to kill his client.  Holmes is trying to prove that Stapleton is the murderer, and in the meantime there is another death. 

This is an interesting chapter, because Holmes arrives.  Watson comes upon him by accident, having no idea that he has been there all along.  With two ordinary men that might cause a conflict.  Watson is not really that upset though, even when he learns that Holmes has deceived him.  It is more like mild irritation that he wrote a bunch of reports for nothing.  He is thrilled to see Holmes.  He feels in over his head. 

Holmes is getting close to proving who is the murderer.  He is aware that the Stapletons have a secret.  Miss Stapleton is actually Mrs. Stapleton.  This is very suspicious behavior. Holmes knows from what Watson told him and what he discovered that Stapleton and Laura Lyons were involved. 

They hear a dog and see a man on the moor.  At first Holmes thinks it is Sir Henry, since he is the one in danger. 

I saw Holmes put his hand to his forehead like a man distracted. He stamped his feet upon the ground.

"He has beaten us, Watson. We are too late."

"No, no, surely not!"

"Fool that I was to hold my hand. And you, Watson, see what comes of abandoning your charge! But, by Heaven, if the worst has happened we'll avenge him!" (Ch. 12) 

It turns out that the dead man is not Sir Henry.   It is actually the escaped convict, the brother of Mrs. Barrymore, Selden.  He is the Notting Hill murderer.  Watson caught Mr. Barrymore at the window in the middle of the night with a candle, communicating with him.

"And what is your theory of this poor fellow's death?"

"I have no doubt that anxiety and exposure have driven him off his head. He has rushed about the moor in a crazy state and eventually fallen over here and broken his neck."

"That seems the most reasonable theory," said Stapleton, and he gave a sigh which I took to indicate his relief.” (Ch. 12) 

At this point, there is not sufficient proof that Stapleton is the murderer.  Holmes is well on the way though.  In addition, he also has a character vs. nature or character vs. supernatural conflict against the dog.  The hound is supposedly killing people or sending them to their deaths.  If it really was a ghost, it would be supernatural.

Why does Gene say that Finny's funeral felt like it was his own? A. Finny's final forgiveness makes Gene feel unworthy of living....

The relationship between Gene and Finny in A Separate Peaceis rife for metaphorical interpretation. Remember that both boys are studying and living in a relatively safe environment at Devon school, but soon, they'll be departing that safe haven to participate in some capacity in WWII, where boys slightly older than them are fighting and dying in great numbers. So, in the context of the book, the characters are caught between the childhood innocence and relative...

The relationship between Gene and Finny in A Separate Peace is rife for metaphorical interpretation. Remember that both boys are studying and living in a relatively safe environment at Devon school, but soon, they'll be departing that safe haven to participate in some capacity in WWII, where boys slightly older than them are fighting and dying in great numbers. So, in the context of the book, the characters are caught between the childhood innocence and relative safety of the past and the danger, consequence, and responsibility of the future. Like other coming-of-age stories (or "bildungsroman"), A Separate Peace suggests that childhood innocence (and arguably any form of innocence) cannot survive in the face of the kind of knowledge and wisdom gained through adult experience.

If you translate this metaphor into the relationship between Finny and Gene in the novel, Finny represents the carefree, playful, idealistic nature of childhood, while Gene represents the neurotic, guilty, and worrisome qualities of a boy being sent into war to become a man. Some literary critics suggest that, while they are two separate characters in the novel, Finny and Gene represent two metaphorical parts of a whole person. When Finny dies at the end, it's like Gene's last bits of childhood innocence have died away too, leaving him an adult who can no longer ignore the dark, dangerous, and sad parts of human nature.

So, in the specific context of this question, with the choices provided, the answer is likely "B. Finny's death represents Gene's final passage into adulthood."

Why was Edek in the military court in The Silver Sword?

Edek was mistakenly charged for being part of a gang that robbed trains in the American zone. This happened after he followed Jan, who always brought them food in suspicious tins. Jan was involved in stopping the trains by changing the signal. Edek saw Jan tampering with the signal tower at the train tracks and thought he was trying to wreck the train. He went up the signal tower and tried to wave down an...

Edek was mistakenly charged for being part of a gang that robbed trains in the American zone. This happened after he followed Jan, who always brought them food in suspicious tins. Jan was involved in stopping the trains by changing the signal. Edek saw Jan tampering with the signal tower at the train tracks and thought he was trying to wreck the train. He went up the signal tower and tried to wave down an oncoming train, but instead, he was arrested by an American military policeman.

Edek was presented to the American military court and charged. While he pleaded his innocence to the judge, Ruth stepped in and asked Jan to state the truth. Jan admitted to his involvement with the gang, and that he did it only for food. The judge understood his predicament, but also made him aware of his mistake. Jan was presented with the option to either, spend seven days in jail or pay a fine. He agreed to serve his time in jail since they had no money to pay the fine.

In what country does "Rikki-Tikki-Tavi" take place?

The short story by Rudyard Kipling is set in "Segowlee cantonment." A cantonment is a military station where soldiers live and train. In this case, Kipling created a fictitious version of the types of installations where British officials and their families lived in India. During the 1800s and early 1900s, India was part of the British Empire, and many British men worked for the British military and government throughout India. That is why the man,...

The short story by Rudyard Kipling is set in "Segowlee cantonment." A cantonment is a military station where soldiers live and train. In this case, Kipling created a fictitious version of the types of installations where British officials and their families lived in India. During the 1800s and early 1900s, India was part of the British Empire, and many British men worked for the British military and government throughout India. That is why the man, woman, and Teddy speak English and do not seem particularly familiar with the wildlife around their bungalow, including mongooses and snakes. Although the particular region of India Kipling had in mind is unknown, at the link below you can see a mongoose vs. cobra battle that happens on the "dusty plains of southern India." The landscape shown could very well be similar to the area where the bungalow of the story is. The story speaks of a dusty path, and trees, and hot wind. 

Identify and discuss the first person narrative point of view of Nick Caraway and its importance to The Great Gatsby by F.Scott Fitzgerald.

Nick Caraway, Gatsby's next-door neighbor, tells the story of the summer he encountered Gatsby, Jordan, Tom, and Daisy from his own point of view. This enhances the story because Nick is a lyrical writer who pulls us in with his beautiful words. 

On the other hand, because the story is told in an "I" voice from Nick's point of view, it's subjective, and we learn that Nick is an unreliable narrator. We're not getting an...

Nick Caraway, Gatsby's next-door neighbor, tells the story of the summer he encountered Gatsby, Jordan, Tom, and Daisy from his own point of view. This enhances the story because Nick is a lyrical writer who pulls us in with his beautiful words. 

On the other hand, because the story is told in an "I" voice from Nick's point of view, it's subjective, and we learn that Nick is an unreliable narrator. We're not getting an objective story told by a disinterested party, say a newspaper reporter. Nick, as he tells us, is drawn in by Gatsby in spite of himself, and the story conveys his admiration for Gatsby's charm and his single-minded pursuit of his dream:

If personality is an unbroken series of successful gestures, then there was something gorgeous about him, some heightened sensitivity to the promises of life.… [Gatsby had] an extraordinary gift for hope, a romantic readiness such as I have never found in any other person and which it is not likely I shall ever find again.

Nick also hates Tom and seldom misses a chance to take a shot at him for being a rich, racist, and violent man whose glory days were on the college football team. So perhaps we're getting an unfair picture of the characters: is Gatsby worse and Tom better than Nick makes them out to be? Nick also states quite openly that the story he narrates wasn't the central part of his summer: primarily he was at work in Manhattan, not on Long Island. He may have missed important parts of the action. What story might Gatsby, Daisy, Tom, or even Jordan be able to tell that Nick can't?

Finally, Nick is blind to himself in many ways. He says he is honest, that honesty is one of his "cardinal" virtues, but we know he is dishonest about his girlfriend back home. Many people, including Daisy and Tom, have heard the rumor that Nick is engaged to this woman, and Nick himself alludes to stringing her along without being seriously interested in her. He says he doesn't like her so much, remembering the way sweat would form a mustache on her upper lip after a game of tennis. Fitzgerald didn't create this backstory for no reason: he did it to suggest Nick's unreliability as a narrative voice.

In sum, we love the way Nick seduces us with his beautiful words, but we don't always trust what those words say. 

What are three different insults that are found in Romeo and Juliet?

Insults and biting quips are standard fare in many of Shakespeare's plays. There are literally hundreds sprinkled throughout his tragedies, comedies and histories alike. Romeo and Julietis no exception. One of the first insults in the play is a simple gesture, rather than a verbal taunt, when the Capulet servant Sampson "bites his thumb" in the direction of the Montague servants. The biting of one's thumb was apparently considered a severe insult in the...

Insults and biting quips are standard fare in many of Shakespeare's plays. There are literally hundreds sprinkled throughout his tragedies, comedies and histories alike. Romeo and Juliet is no exception. One of the first insults in the play is a simple gesture, rather than a verbal taunt, when the Capulet servant Sampson "bites his thumb" in the direction of the Montague servants. The biting of one's thumb was apparently considered a severe insult in the world of Shakespeare's Renaissance Verona. Verbal insults, however, appear throughout the play. Immediately following the thumb biting incident in Act I, Scene 1, Tybalt insults Benvolio suggesting he is a coward for drawing his sword among the worthless servants ("heartless hinds").

After breaking up the street brawl in that same scene Prince Escalus refers to the Montagues and Capulets as "beasts." Later, Friar Laurence seems to insult Romeo in Act II, Scene 3 by saying "Young men's love then lies/Not truly in their hearts but in their eyes." In Act II, Scene 4, after being obscenely accosted by Mercutio, the Nurse refers to Romeo's friend as a "scurvy knave." In Act III, Scene 1 Tybalt calls Romeo a "villain" and a "wretched boy." Later in that Act, after Romeo learns he has been banished from Verona, the Friar suggests that Romeo's "tears are womanish."

More typical Shakespearean insults appear in Lord Capulet's fit of rage in Act III, Scene 5 after he learns that Juliet has refused to marry Count Paris. He unleashes a barrage of rude remarks, calling Juliet "mistress minion," "green-sickness carrion," "young baggage," "disobedient wretch" and "whining mammet." He also refers to the Nurse as a "mumbling fool."

Who is the protagonist in To Kill a Mockingbird?

"Protagonist" is another word for "main character" or "the good guy." To find the protagonist in any story, look to see who the story is mostly about. Who seems to be the most important character, the one whose experiences and struggles make up the bulk of the story?

In To Kill a Mockingbird, the protagonist is Scout. Her full name is Jean Louise Finch, but everyone calls her by her nickname, Scout. A lot...

"Protagonist" is another word for "main character" or "the good guy." To find the protagonist in any story, look to see who the story is mostly about. Who seems to be the most important character, the one whose experiences and struggles make up the bulk of the story?

In To Kill a Mockingbird, the protagonist is Scout. Her full name is Jean Louise Finch, but everyone calls her by her nickname, Scout. A lot of students get confused about Scout and think that she's a boy, since her name and her behavior are very boyish. But Scout is definitely a girl.

She's the one who features all throughout the story: we follow her adventures, stay focused on her experiences, and even listen in on her thinking.

So, you can call Scout the "protagonist." You can call her the main character. You can even call her the narrator for this story, since she's the one who tells it.

Here's a fun fact and a way to remember what "protagonist" means. We got this word from Greek; it meant "first actor." ("Proto-" means "first," like in the word "prototype," and "-agonist" means "actor.") So if you were going to make a movie about your story, who would be the first actor you'd need to hire? That would be the person playing the main role, the most important one. 

In 1984, what does the Chestnut Tree symbolize? Why did Orwell choose that specific tree as a name for the cafe?

The chestnut tree is often understood as a symbol of justice and honesty. We also hear the phrase "an old chestnut" to describe a story that has been repeated many times.

More specifically, Orwell connects The Chestnut Tree cafe to a song Winston hears twice on the telescreen during the course of the novel:

Under the spreading chestnut tree/I sold you and you sold me/There lie they and here lie we/Under the spreading chestnut tree.

Winston hears it the first time when he happens into The Chestnut Tree cafe before his arrest, when:

He [Syme] said things that would have been better unsaid, he had read too many books, he frequented the Chestnut Tree Cafe, haunt of painters and musicians. There was no law, not even an unwritten law, against frequenting the Chestnut Tree Cafe, yet the place was somehow ill-omened.

Winston hears the song again when The Chestnut Tree has become his home away from home after his arrest and release from prison, but this time only the first two lines: "under the spreading chestnut tree/I sold you and you sold me." These lyrics bring tears to his eyes.

Clearly, the song and the cafe represent Winston's betrayal of Julia and hers of him, and through it, everything they loved: "I sold you and you sold me."

Further, Orwell uses the line "They lie there and here we lie" to pun on the meaning of lie: in the song, it means lying down, but in the world of Oceania it means telling lies. 

If Orwell is thinking of "old chestnut" as a story repeated many times, then we have to believe that what Julia and Winston have undergone is an old story: they are not the first nor the last to be broken by the regime. The name also evokes the "old England" Winston longs for, but ironically the cafe represents the new world of the regime.

My sense of the novel is that Orwell was specifically referring to the song in naming the cafe, and not looking to the deeper symbolism of the tree as representing truth and justice, but certainly that deeper symbolism lurks ironically in the background, for in Oceania, the chestnut tree, once the symbol of truth and justice, is twisted into the symbol of lies and injustice. 

Why does every criticism I read of John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men include a character named Michelle and how she plays a huge part?! I cannot...

That's very odd! Would you be able to post an example quote from these criticisms to show what you mean? (Could it be possible that the materials you're viewing are actually referencing a different piece of literature, perhaps with a similar title?)

The story references Lennie's Aunt Clara a few times, a now-deceased lady who used to take care of Lennie before George did.

But the only female character who plays an important role in...

That's very odd! Would you be able to post an example quote from these criticisms to show what you mean? (Could it be possible that the materials you're viewing are actually referencing a different piece of literature, perhaps with a similar title?)

The story references Lennie's Aunt Clara a few times, a now-deceased lady who used to take care of Lennie before George did.

But the only female character who plays an important role in Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men is Curley's wife, whose own name we never learn. She's desperate for attention, probably because her life is so isolated and lonely, and she constantly flirts with other men.

Here's when we first hear about Curley's wife, when the men are discussing her habit of checking out other guys:

George cut the cards again and put out a solitaire lay, slowly and deliberately. "Purty?" he asked casually.

"Yeah. Purty... but-" George studied his cards.

"But what?"

"Well- she got the eye."

"Yeah? Married two weeks and got the eye? Maybe that's why Curley's pants is full of ants."

 And here's an example of her behavior:

"Any you boys seen Curley?" They swung their heads toward the door. Looking in was Curley's wife. Her face was heavily made up. Her lips were slightly parted. She breathed strongly, as though she had been running.

The other men sense that Curley's wife is trouble. Toward the end of the story, Lennie accidentally kills her, which causes a mob of men to come looking for him for revenge--and that's how Lennie himself dies, put to death out of mercy by his friend George, who wants to ease Lennie into his inevitable death rather than suffer at the hands of the mob.

So, as you can see, Curley's wife is very important to the plot, but there are no other female characters in the story. The only other solution I could suggest for the issue in this question is that perhaps some people prefer to invent a name for Curley's wife while discussing her, uncomfortable with the continual references to her as belonging to someone else.

What lessons does "The Possibility of Evil" teach about human nature?

One lesson the story teaches is that (some) people are duplicitous. In other words, they are "two-faced." Miss Strangeworth is kind to everyone's face but as soon as they are out of earshot, she is critical and judgmental. She plays the role of the amiable neighbor in public. But in private, she is condescending and, at times, even spiteful and hateful towards others. 

This duplicity shows Miss Strangeworth's feelings of superiority. She feels that it...

One lesson the story teaches is that (some) people are duplicitous. In other words, they are "two-faced." Miss Strangeworth is kind to everyone's face but as soon as they are out of earshot, she is critical and judgmental. She plays the role of the amiable neighbor in public. But in private, she is condescending and, at times, even spiteful and hateful towards others. 

This duplicity shows Miss Strangeworth's feelings of superiority. She feels that it is her duty to send these anonymous letters. She thinks that she is somehow more righteous, ethical, and logical and therefore in a position to judge other people. She has a warped Messianic complex. The fact that she does this anonymously shows cowardice, but Miss Strangeworth is so conceited that she probably doesn't even consider this to be a cowardly practice. 

So, even someone like Miss Strangeworth, who seems like a good person on the surface, is capable of evil. The title suggests the possibility of evil in anyone and particularly, in people like Miss Strangeworth. She is not really helping these people because she is not giving constructive criticism. She is simply being insulting and condescending. 

Her use of anonymous criticism is somewhat similar to the hate speech and ugly comments we see on the internet today. Going under an anonymous screen name gives some people the notion that they can say anything, with no consequences. It is easier to be self-righteous and judgmental when one is removed from those whom she/he is criticizing. 

This story shows negative aspects of human nature: duplicity, self-righteousness, and cowardice. 

Hello, I was reviewing U.S. history material and came upon the Yalta Conference. Could you simplify this conference into a mathematical or...

I'm not sure you realize how much you're asking for here---simplifying a pivotal historical event into a single mathematical formula would be a major achievement in political science, if it is even possible at all. (I was tempted to respond, "No, because I'm not Hari Seldon.") If I could really do what you're asking I should be publishing it in a journal, not here .

But I can at least give you something to work with here, an equation that will give you some sense of the significance of the Yalta Conference in historical affairs. Here's my equation:

Y = 20 e^{-0.05 (t - 1945)}

This equation represents at year t the number of war deaths Y, worldwide per 100,000 population. This is a first approximation; you could add some sine wave harmonics to make it better fit the surges of violence in the 1960s and 1980s. Even then, it's obviously an empirically-derived formula with no theoretical basis; there's no particular theoretical reason for war deaths to drop off exponentially, let alone sinusoidally.

But what we do know is that war deaths dropped off. Indeed, they dropped off extremely fast; as you'll see if you plug in today's date in that formula, the chance of any given person dying in war has fallen by a factor of more than 20 since the end of WW2.

This isn't just a result of the huge scale of WW2 either; you can extend the analysis further back to past wars, and while WW2 shows up as a spike (one of those higher sinusoidal harmonics, I suppose), overall there is a clear and approximately exponential trend of declining violence worldwide, and that trend accelerates rapidly after 1945.

Why? The leading theory is called the Pax Americana, a reference to the Pax Romana when the Roman Imperium held near-absolute military hegemony over most of Europe and the Middle East, and as a result wars were quite rare. Along a similar vein, and especially since 1990, the United States now holds near-absolute military hegemony over the entire world, and thus can prevent any major wars from starting. That hegemony was established at the end of WW2; personally I credit our aircraft carriers, overwhelming economic superiority, and nuclear weapons---but one thing that may have helped is the Yalta Conference, which established the US as a global superpower and restructured Western Europe to be democratic, and ultimately, prosperous.

In "There Will Come Soft Rains," what conclusion can you draw from the text about what happened to the rest of the houses in the town?

The main house in "There Will Come Soft Rains" is the last functioning home in the city after a nuclear war.  This is evidenced both by the absence of people and by the revelation, at ten-fifteen, of silhouettes left in the charcoal dust on the side of the house.  At last, due to a storm, fire breaks out and consumes the house as there is no one left to fight the blaze.

Based on this...

The main house in "There Will Come Soft Rains" is the last functioning home in the city after a nuclear war.  This is evidenced both by the absence of people and by the revelation, at ten-fifteen, of silhouettes left in the charcoal dust on the side of the house.  At last, due to a storm, fire breaks out and consumes the house as there is no one left to fight the blaze.

Based on this example, it is reasonable to assume that other houses continued to function well, until some event that required human intervention occurred.

Also, though there is nothing left of the house save one wall and a lone voice, there are hints that the fire may have spread before dying down.  Towards the beginning of the scene, Bradbury writes, “It had sent flames outside the house” and, then, at the end, “A great quantity of smoke,” as though the fire still burned somewhere and would make its way to the other houses of the town.

We can conclude that without humans to stop, or repair damage from storms, fires, and malfunctions, the other houses will die, too.

What is an example of a person vs. supernatural conflict from Julius Caesar?

The play contains many examples of superstitions and warnings of doom. 

A person vs. supernatural conflict is a conflict between a character and something that is not normal in some way.  Supernatural elements include ghosts, omens, and superstitions.  Romans were very superstitious, and there are many examples of superstitions in the play.

First of all, the soothsayer’s warning to Caesar is an example of a character vs. supernatural conflict because the soothsayer warns Caesar...

The play contains many examples of superstitions and warnings of doom. 

A person vs. supernatural conflict is a conflict between a character and something that is not normal in some way.  Supernatural elements include ghosts, omens, and superstitions.  Romans were very superstitious, and there are many examples of superstitions in the play.

First of all, the soothsayer’s warning to Caesar is an example of a character vs. supernatural conflict because the soothsayer warns Caesar that he is doomed.  Caesar does not pay attention, even though someone is telling him a specific day when he should beware. 

CAESAR

What say'st thou to me now? speak once again.

Soothsayer

Beware the ides of March.

CAESAR

He is a dreamer; let us leave him: pass. (Act 1, Scene 2) 

This is not the only bad omen mentioned in the play.  The conspirators mention all kinds of spooky signs that they say they saw, such as tempests, flaming slaves, and owls during the day.  Calpurnia has a dream where she imagines Caesar’s blood running like a fountain, and she does not want him to go to the capital on the Ides of March.  Caesar almost listens to her, until Decius Brutus convinces him to reinterpret the dream as a positive sign.  Of course, it wasn't.  Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March.

Another example of a character vs. supernatural conflict is Cassius’s birthday omens.  Cassius gets very superstitious on his birthday, deciding that the bad omens he is seeing mean that his battle is doomed and he is about to die.  Although Cassius says he does not normally pay attention to omens, the combination of the fact that it’s his birthday and he is about to go into a battle he does not think will go well makes him morbid.

Coming from Sardis, on our former ensign
Two mighty eagles fell, and there they perch'd,
Gorging and feeding from our soldiers' hands;
Who to Philippi here consorted us:
This morning are they fled away and gone;
And in their steads do ravens, crows and kites,
Fly o'er our heads and downward look on us,
As we were sickly prey … (Act 5, Scene 1)

Cassius was right to be worried.  Brutus and Cassius were apparently outmatched at Philippi.  Cassius’s interpretation of the omens led him to misread what happened in the battle and commit suicide prematurely.  Brutus’s suicide came not much later.

To what effect are sentence structure and punctuation used in the second paragraph of "The Tell-Tale Heart"?

This is a great question. Here is the passage in question:

It is impossible to say how first the idea entered my brain; but once conceived, it haunted me day and night. Object there was none. Passion there was none. I loved the old man. He had never wronged me. He had never given me insult. For his gold I had no desire. I think it was his eye! yes, it was this! He had the eye of a vulture -- a pale blue eye, with a film over it. Whenever it fell upon me, my blood ran cold; and so by degrees -- very gradually -- I made up my mind to take the life of the old man, and thus rid myself of the eye forever.  

The person speaking is the murderer, someone obviously insane. So, the problem for Poe is, how does an insane person write? Or, more precisely, how does an insane person who is trying to rationalize his actions write? If we look at the sentence structure, and the rhythm of this paragraph, we can learn a thing or two. 

Take the first sentence, which joins two ideas: the "impossibility" of how the idea of killing the old man came to him, and the consuming passion the idea exerted over him. Neither statement makes any rational sense, but the construction of the sentence, which joins two independent clauses with the phrase "but once concieved" suggests a kind of rational cause and effect which belies the actual content.

Or take the next six sentences, each very short. In this passage, Poe is building a rhythm similar to the ravings we might expect from a deranged killer. Note that each sentence is an argument against killing the man -- he is testifying to the irrationality of his act. When he finally breaks that rhythm -- "I think it was his eye!" -- his statement makes no sense at all, but the way he says it -- the exclamation mark, the tacked on "yes, it was this!" (suggesting the speaker has fixed on the reason only at that moment) -- has a kind of authenticity to it. The speaker might be lying or mentally unstable, but the manner of his delivery has the ring of truth. In other words, he sounds crazy.

There is nothing about the eye that would drive most people to murder; the speaker describes it as "the eye of a vulture -- pale blue, with a film over it" -- as if this would explain his reaction. The dash suggests equivalence: "vulture eyes" equal "pale blue with a film" -- but this itself makes no sense. What vulture has blue eyes?

Whatever the reason, the sight of the eye made his "blood run cold." In a construction that mirrors the beginning sentence of the passage, the speaker uses another phrase -- "and so by degrees -- very gradually" -- to connect the cause (his blood running cold) with the effect ("I made up my mind to take the life of the old man"). As with the first sentence, the logic suggested by the syntax is completely at odds with the content. The sentence structure suggests a cause and effect relationship that simply does not exist in any real way.

Why does George tell Lennie not to drink so much water in Of Mice and Men?

George tells Lennie not to drink too much water because it is scummy and he is afraid it will make him sick. The men have not yet reached the ranch, and it is standing water. You should not drink water unless it is flowing, as standing water is likely to make you ill. George is aware of this, but Lennie just sees water. He is thirsty, so he drinks. 

Lennie dipped his whole head under....

George tells Lennie not to drink too much water because it is scummy and he is afraid it will make him sick. The men have not yet reached the ranch, and it is standing water. You should not drink water unless it is flowing, as standing water is likely to make you ill. George is aware of this, but Lennie just sees water. He is thirsty, so he drinks. 

Lennie dipped his whole head under. . . "That's good," he said. "You drink some, George. You take a good big drink." He smiled happily.

George unslung his bindle and dropped it gently on the bank. "I ain't sure it's good water," he said. "Looks kinda scummy" (Chapter 1). 

The incident demonstrates Lennie’s lack of inhibitions and his childlike nature. It also shows how George looks out for and protects him, in ways big and small. If George wasn’t around to protect Lennie, who knows what would happen? George sometimes gets frustrated at having to look after Lennie so much, but he also enjoys his company.

Compare And Contrast Lithosphere And Asthenosphere

Both the lithosphere and asthenosphere are part of Earth and are made of similar material. Lithosphere is made up of Earth's outermost layer, the crust, and the uppermost portion of the mantle. In comparison, the asthenosphere is the upper portion of Earth's mantle (which is also the middle layer of Earth). The lithosphere lies over the asthenosphere. In fact, if any material from the asthenosphere were to solidify, it would become part of the lithosphere.

...

Both the lithosphere and asthenosphere are part of Earth and are made of similar material. Lithosphere is made up of Earth's outermost layer, the crust, and the uppermost portion of the mantle. In comparison, the asthenosphere is the upper portion of Earth's mantle (which is also the middle layer of Earth). The lithosphere lies over the asthenosphere. In fact, if any material from the asthenosphere were to solidify, it would become part of the lithosphere.

Being closer to the Earth's core, the asthenosphere is a higher temperature as compared to the lithosphere and hence its rocks are plastic and can flow. In comparison, the lithosphere's rocks are more rigid. The asthenosphere is more dense and viscous in comparison to the lithosphere. The lithosphere is comprised of a large number of fragments, each of which is known as the tectonic plate. These tectonic plates are in constant motion and are floating over the plastic material underneath.

Hope this helps. 

What states appear to have an affinity for democratic mechanisms such as the referendum and the initiative?

The development of the initiative and the referendum were ideas that began during the Progressive Era. There was significant concern that the average American was being shut out of the political process. As a result, the initiative and the referendum were developed to encourage the average American to become more involved in the political process.

The initiative allows people to get legislation or proposed constitutional amendments onto the ballot. The referendum allows people to vote on a proposed idea. The binding referendum means that whatever the voters decide will take place. The lawmaking body must follow the wishes of the voters. The advisory referendum gives advice to a lawmaking body but doesn’t bind them to follow the wishes of the voters.

There are many states that allow for both the referendum and the initiative. These states include Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The U.S. Virgin Islands also allows for the initiative and the referendum.

Where and why do Calvin, Charles Wallace, and Meg go with Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who, and Mrs. Which in the book A Wrinkle in Time?

Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who and Mrs. Which first take the three young people to the planet Uriel, described as the third planet of the star Malak. They go there "to catch our breaths," as Mrs. Whatsit puts it, because it's a safe planet, but also so that the children can be shown the "Dark Thing," evil itself, that partially shadows some planets and has completely taken over other planets. The six companions then travel to...

Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who and Mrs. Which first take the three young people to the planet Uriel, described as the third planet of the star Malak. They go there "to catch our breaths," as Mrs. Whatsit puts it, because it's a safe planet, but also so that the children can be shown the "Dark Thing," evil itself, that partially shadows some planets and has completely taken over other planets. The six companions then travel to a planet in Orion's belt, so that Calvin, Meg and Charles Wallace can meet the Happy Medium and see the earth in her crystal ball. They see that the earth is partially covered in darkness and yet still has goodness and light in it, brought by religious figures such as Jesus and St. Francis, and by artists and visionaries who keep hope alive. They also see that darkness can be eradicated on a planet:

Suddenly there was a great burst of light through the Darkness. The light spread out and where it touched the Darkness the Darkness disappeared. 

This happens often, the children are assured. All of this prepares them for their journey to Camazotz, a planet completely taken over by evil, to save their father.

To what extent did the American Civil Rights movement influence Australia's Freedom Rides and how are they similar and different?

The US Civil Rights movement had a very large influence on the Freedom Rides program in Australia, and it's quite possible that Freedom Rides would not have existed otherwise.

In 1964, a protest at the University in Sydney against racial discrimination in the US was held in solidarity with similar protests going on in the US. But one of the most common critical responses to that protest was that Australian protesters should "look to their own backyard"---that is, that racial discrimination in Australia against Aborigine people was just as bad as racial discrimination against African-American people in the US.

A group of University of Sydney students who were at that protest took it upon themselves to determine whether this was really true, and if so, what could be done about it; so they went on a fact-finding mission across New South Wales, documenting the treatment of Aborigine people in several cities both in writing, in photographs, and on video. This ultimately became the Freedom Rides.

The Freedom Rises raised a great deal of awareness of discrimination against Aborigines and helped expand a new civil rights movement in Australia, which modeled itself quite explicitly after the civil rights movement in the US.

One difference between the two is that it took Australia longer to make major headway in their civil rights movement; while the Civil Rights Act was passed in the US in 1964, the Racial Discrimination Act was not passed in Australia until 1975, over a decade later.

There is another major difference that I think is worth pointing out: Aborigine people are indigenous to Australia. In this respect they are more like Native Americans in the US, who to this day are treated a good deal worse than other racial minorities. While the US civil rights movement did include them in theory, in practice this was not always the case, and the focus was often quite strongly on rights for African-Americans as opposed to other racial minorities such as Asians and Native Americans. Conversely, African-Americans were brought to the US from Africa by the Atlantic slave trade. While slavery did exist in Australia, there was never a very large slave population in Australia the way there was in the US. These different historical causes of racial injustice led to different kinds of oppression and different responses to that oppression.

What is the background of Oedipus the king?

Oedipus, the king of Thebes at the beginning of the play, believes that he hails from Corinth and is the son of King Polybus and Queen Merope.  However, he is really the son of King Laius and Queen Jocasta from Thebes.  His birth parents heard a prophecy that their son would kill his father and marry his mother, and so they sent the baby Oedipus away with a servant to be killed in the woods. ...

Oedipus, the king of Thebes at the beginning of the play, believes that he hails from Corinth and is the son of King Polybus and Queen Merope.  However, he is really the son of King Laius and Queen Jocasta from Thebes.  His birth parents heard a prophecy that their son would kill his father and marry his mother, and so they sent the baby Oedipus away with a servant to be killed in the woods.  This servant instead gave him to another servant from house of Polybus.  Thus, Polybus and Merope raised Oedipus as their own. 

One day, when he's grown up, a drunken man tells him that he's been adopted, and so he goes to the oracle of Delphi to learn the truth.  Instead of answering his questions, the oracle tells him the same prophecy Laius had heard: that he would kill his father and marry his mother.  Oedipus decides, then, not to return home to Corinth so that he cannot fulfill the prophecy.  On the road, he gets into an altercation and kills all but one man in the party, and it turns out that one of the men he killed was Laius, his birth father.  Then, after he frees Thebes from the dreadful sphinx by answering her riddle, the Thebans make him the king and he marries the old king's wife, Jocasta, who is actually his mother.  In this way, he has fulfilled the prophecy before the play has even begun.

Is there an element of subjectivity in the play Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett?

Subjectivity implies personal reaction and opinion rather than rational, logical conclusion based on research or other evidence from outside one’s personal experience. With this definition in mind, it can be said that Beckett’s personal, subjective opinion of the meaning or non-meaning of life is reflected in Waiting for Godot.

However, Beckett was also a scholar, a well-traveled and experienced thinker, and a keen observer of the human condition around him, so his view of the...

Subjectivity implies personal reaction and opinion rather than rational, logical conclusion based on research or other evidence from outside one’s personal experience. With this definition in mind, it can be said that Beckett’s personal, subjective opinion of the meaning or non-meaning of life is reflected in Waiting for Godot.

However, Beckett was also a scholar, a well-traveled and experienced thinker, and a keen observer of the human condition around him, so his view of the world extended far beyond his immediate biographical experiences. Once, while walking with a friend on a sunny Paris day, the friend remarked casually “A day like this makes you happy to be alive.” Beckett responded “Oh, I wouldn’t go that far.” This anecdote demonstrates how Beckett’s worldview was not merely subjective but based on his lifelong observations and the experiences of other people.

As for the play itself, the characters are far from subjective – they are broad representatives of everyman, split into mental (Didi) and physical (Gogo) manifestations. Pozzo and Lucky, as well, are broad symbolic representations of human conditions – freedom of choice and slavery.

How does Orwell portray women in 1984?

While 1984 is primarily a male-dominated novel, Orwell's portrayal of women makes some important statements about gender and its role in society.

With the exception of Julia, Winston's girlfriend, the women of 1984 are depicted in traditional roles where they espouse traditional norms and values. At the beginning of Part One, Chapter Three, for example, the reader meets Winston's mother who Winston remembers "with his young sister in her arms." Later in the chapter, his...

While 1984 is primarily a male-dominated novel, Orwell's portrayal of women makes some important statements about gender and its role in society.

With the exception of Julia, Winston's girlfriend, the women of 1984 are depicted in traditional roles where they espouse traditional norms and values. At the beginning of Part One, Chapter Three, for example, the reader meets Winston's mother who Winston remembers "with his young sister in her arms." Later in the chapter, his mother is portrayed as the protector of her children during an air raid which Winston is reminded of. 

Similarly, the prole women who Winston observes in Part Two, Chapter Ten, is depicted in a traditional setting: she is hanging out some washing in a courtyard. Surrounded by the "cries of the children in the street," Orwell, once again, reinforces the traditional role of women as mothers.

Though she is not a mother, the character of Katharine, Winston's estranged wife, reinforces Orwell's emphasis on traditional and domestic models of femininity. The first memory of Katharine, for instance, comes to Winston in Part One, Chapter Six, while he is standing in the kitchen, the 'traditional' bastion of women. Katharine's characterisation is also reminiscent of domestic female values: she is submissive, readily accepts party propaganda and is consumed by the desire to have a child and become a mother. Orwell's strong association between his female characters and motherhood is, thus, suggestive of his view on what constitutes a socially-acceptable role for women.

In contrast, however, is the character of Julia. She is a confident, rebellious and sexual woman who is complete opposite to all the other female characters in 1984. She represents a more modern view of femininity and openly rejects society's views on women and sexuality. In Part Two, Chapter Two, for example, Winston and Julia meet in the woods to avoid detection by the party. There, Julia confesses that she has had sex "hundreds of times" with other party members, despite being an active member of the Junior Anti-Sex League. 

Orwell, therefore, presents women in extremes of character. On one side, they are submissive mothers and, on the other, highly-sexualised rebels. This is, perhaps, more indicative of Orwell's own experiences with women than a true representation of femininity at the time of writing.  

In George Bernard Shaw's play Arms and the Man, why is Sergius compared to Don Quixote?

To appreciate the significance of the comparison made in George Bernard Shaw’s antiwar play Arms and the Man of Major Sergius Saranoff to Miguel de Cervantes’ antihero from his classic of literature, Don Quixote, it helps to appreciate the personality of the Irish playwright. The protagonist of Cervantes’ work, of course, is the titular character, a deeply-troubled man whose pronounced tendencies towards chivalry invariably run up against the realities of a violent, cynical world. Don Quixote is delusional, and attempts repeatedly to attack, or tilt, at windmills, imagining them as fearsome giants against which he will prove his worth as a man. The phrase “tilting at windmills,” in fact, derives from this character’s unusual practice, and the word “quixotic,” which became a part of the English-language lexicon, similarly refers to the act of bravery against imaginary or, conversely, too-powerful adversaries.

That understood, what is the association of Cervantes’ work with Shaw’s play? Major Saranoff, Sergius, is off at war as Arms and the Man begins. He is not only a soldier, but an idolized figure in the Bulgarian army. Early in Shaw’s play, two of the main characters, Raina and her mother Catherine, are discussing the major’s military exploits during the ongoing war between Bulgaria and Serbia. Raina, in love with Sergius, ruminates on his bravery to the point of sheer idolatry:

RAINA. Our ideas of what Sergius would do—our patriotism—our heroic ideals. . .When I buckled on Sergius's sword he looked so noble: it was treason to think of disillusion or humiliation or failure.

Raina’s exuberant praise of her boyfriend and intended husband continues when the stranger, Captain Bluntschli, appears in the family’s home. This interloper is no mere deserter; he is a thoughtful cynic whose experiences in war have jaded him and left him a spokesman for Shaw’s antiwar point of view. Note, in the following exchange, how Raina reacts to this stranger’s description of the folly of leading the charge in battle:

MAN. . . .Well, it's a funny sight. It's like slinging a handful of peas against a window pane: first one comes; then two or three close behind him; and then all the rest in a lump.

RAINA Yes, first One!—the bravest of the brave!

MAN (prosaically). Hm! you should see the poor devil pulling at his horse.

RAINA. Why should he pull at his horse?

MAN (impatient of so stupid a question). It's running away with him, of course: do you suppose the fellow wants to get there before the others and be killed? . . .

RAINA. Ugh! But I don't believe the first man is a coward. I believe he is a hero!

MAN (goodhumoredly). That's what you'd have said if you'd seen the first man in the charge to-day.

RAINA (breathless). Ah, I knew it! Tell me—tell me about him.

MAN. He did it like an operatic tenor—a regular handsome fellow, with flashing eyes and lovely moustache, shouting a war-cry and charging like Don Quixote at the windmills. We nearly burst with laughter at him; but when the sergeant ran up as white as a sheet, and told us they'd sent us the wrong cartridges, and that we couldn't fire a shot for the next ten minutes . . . Of course, they just cut us to bits. And there was Don Quixote flourishing like a drum major, thinking he'd done the cleverest thing ever known, whereas he ought to be courtmartialled for it. Of all the fools ever let loose on a field of battle, that man must be the very maddest. He and his regiment simply committed suicide—only the pistol missed fire, that's all.

The “brave” soldier to whom Bluntschli is referring, of course, is Major Saranoff.  Bluntschli is comparing Sergius to Don Quixote, ascribing to this Bulgarian war hero the same absurdity with which one views Cervantes’ “hero.” Bluntschli, representing Shaw’s perspective, is subsumed with the folly of war. He has seen men die under ridiculous circumstances, and he has questioned the reasons for which he and other young men are sent to fight and die. The charge led by Sergius is militarily successful; it is highly questionable, the playwright suggests, as to whether the objective of the charge was worth the effort. Just as Don Quixote’s delusional attempts at chivalry and courage are all for not, so, Shaw would argue, was the efforts of Sergius.

What are the modern elements in Eliot's "The Hollow Men"?

"The Hollow Men" by T. S. Eliot is representative of Modernist poetry in several ways. First, Modernist poetry tends to be shorter, more self-contained, and more open to interpretation than poetry from previous eras. "The Hollow Men" uses very short lines and breaks itself into relatively short sections. Because many elements in the poem are not clearly defined, it leaves room for interpretation about who "we" are, who "I" is, and what "this ... land"...

"The Hollow Men" by T. S. Eliot is representative of Modernist poetry in several ways. First, Modernist poetry tends to be shorter, more self-contained, and more open to interpretation than poetry from previous eras. "The Hollow Men" uses very short lines and breaks itself into relatively short sections. Because many elements in the poem are not clearly defined, it leaves room for interpretation about who "we" are, who "I" is, and what "this ... land" is. The last section especially could be interpreted many ways.

Second, Modernist poems often seem fragmentary or disjointed since they may not have a recognizable patterns or story progression. This is certainly the case with "The Hollow Men." Each section does not seem particularly related to the next, and in the last stanza, the fragments of a nursery rhyme mingle with fragments of the Lord's prayer which are interspersed with cryptic philosophical declarations.

Third, Modernist poems almost always prefer to leave a question rather than provide an answer. Although "The Hollow Men" ends with a firm declaration about how the world will end, what form that "whimper" will take is debatable. The question whether it is "like this in Death's other kingdom" is never answered, nor is any solution given for how to overcome the problems with modern life that "the hollow men" face.

Finally, Modernist poems reject traditional verse forms even as they reject objective truth--except as exhibited in concrete, definable objects from real life. Thus the Lord's prayer, formerly espoused by the majority of the population, now appears broken and impotent. Instead of men being made in the image of God with a stated purpose, men are empty yet stuffed.

"The Hollow Men," written in 1925, displays many characteristics of the Modernist movement, helping to define a new way of writing for the 20th century. 

From where did Waverly’s chess playing originate?

In "Two Kinds," which is written from Jing-mei's point of view, Waverly Jong is mentioned as a childhood rival. As Jing-mei is learning to play the piano--badly, as it turns out--her mother and Waverly's mother have a conversation after church that intensifies Jing-mei's mother's desires to turn Jing-mei into a prodigy. Waverly is a true prodigy. She has won multiple chess championships and is known as "Chinatown's Littlest Chinese Chess Champion." Auntie Lindo flaunts Waverly's...

In "Two Kinds," which is written from Jing-mei's point of view, Waverly Jong is mentioned as a childhood rival. As Jing-mei is learning to play the piano--badly, as it turns out--her mother and Waverly's mother have a conversation after church that intensifies Jing-mei's mother's desires to turn Jing-mei into a prodigy. Waverly is a true prodigy. She has won multiple chess championships and is known as "Chinatown's Littlest Chinese Chess Champion." Auntie Lindo flaunts Waverly's success, making Jing-mei and especially her mother feel inadequate. 

This story doesn't give the background of how Waverly became a chess champion. That tale is told in "Rules of the Game," another story in the Joy Luck Club collection. The Jong children received a used chess set at a church Christmas party. Waverly's mother doesn't appreciate the gift, but the boys begin to play. Waverly learns the rules not from her brothers but by researching them in the library. She then is able to beat her brothers at chess. She finds an old Chinese man playing chess in the park and asks him to play with her. He teaches her more advanced strategies. Waverly begins to win some neighborhood games, and then she enters some contests. At only nine years old, she becomes a national chess champion.

What were the roles of Helen's parents in The Story of My Life by Helen Keller?

Helen Keller's parents were extremely supportive of their daughter.  As a toddler, an illness left Helen deaf and blind.  Her parents did not know what to do, but they sought help.  They contacted Alexander Graham Bell, who advised that they contact "Mr. Anagnos, director of the Perkins Institution in Boston."  It was through Mr. Anagnos that they found Annie Sullivan, the woman who would become Helen's lifelong teacher and companion.  

Helen's parents hired Ms....

Helen Keller's parents were extremely supportive of their daughter.  As a toddler, an illness left Helen deaf and blind.  Her parents did not know what to do, but they sought help.  They contacted Alexander Graham Bell, who advised that they contact "Mr. Anagnos, director of the Perkins Institution in Boston."  It was through Mr. Anagnos that they found Annie Sullivan, the woman who would become Helen's lifelong teacher and companion.  

Helen's parents hired Ms. Sullivan and had her come live in their home. While sometimes hesitant, they usually supported Ms. Sullivan in her attempts to educate Helen.  When Helen was able to communicate, they continued to support her.  After her father's death, Helen's mother sent her to the Cambridge School for Young Ladies to prepare for Radcliffe College.  Her mother stayed involved in Helen's life, and she withdrew her from the school when she felt that a private tutor would be a better option.

Though Helen's parents were supportive and involved in her life, it was Ms. Sullivan that supported her on a day-to-day basis.  This was especially the case after Helen moved away from the family home.

What is Gatsby doing at the end of Chapter VII and why?

In Chapter VII, Daisy, confronted with the choice between Tom and Gatsby, chooses Tom and accidentally kills Myrtle, Tom's mistress. Later that night, Nick and Gatsby find themselves outside the Buchanan's house.  Nick encourages Gatsby to go home, but Gatsby wants to stay until Daisy goes to bed. He is worried about the earlier scene with Tom, since Tom is a brute and could harm Daisy. Nick is not concerned, as he is able to...

In Chapter VII, Daisy, confronted with the choice between Tom and Gatsby, chooses Tom and accidentally kills Myrtle, Tom's mistress. Later that night, Nick and Gatsby find themselves outside the Buchanan's house.  Nick encourages Gatsby to go home, but Gatsby wants to stay until Daisy goes to bed. He is worried about the earlier scene with Tom, since Tom is a brute and could harm Daisy. Nick is not concerned, as he is able to see Tom and Daisy through the window. He observes these two careless people go about their lives, happily eating dinner, with Tom covering Daisy's hand with his own at one point. Clearly they have have retreated into their insulated and irresponsible existence.  Nick leaves Gatsby there, on this moonlit night by the house, "watching over nothing" (Fitzgerald 153). This is an echo of the opening of the book, in which Nick observes Gatsby gazing longingly at the green light on another moonlit night. 

Describe some things the colonists did to rebel against the King of England.

There were several things the colonists did to rebel against the King of England. When the Proclamation of 1763 was passed, preventing the colonists from moving west of the Appalachian Mountains, some colonists defied this law and went to this region.

The colonists refused to follow some of the British trade policies. For example, the colonists smuggled products from other countries into the colonies.

Another act of defiance was the protests that occurred when the...

There were several things the colonists did to rebel against the King of England. When the Proclamation of 1763 was passed, preventing the colonists from moving west of the Appalachian Mountains, some colonists defied this law and went to this region.

The colonists refused to follow some of the British trade policies. For example, the colonists smuggled products from other countries into the colonies.

Another act of defiance was the protests that occurred when the Stamp Act and the Townshend Acts were passed. The colonists said the British were violating their rights because the colonists didn’t have representatives in Parliament that could speak about and vote on the proposed taxes. Thus, the colonists agreed to boycott British products. They also agreed, after the Townshend Acts were passed, to make their own products.

The colonists were upset with the Tea Act. They organized the Boston Tea Party to destroy some of the tea that was shipped into Boston Harbor. They also refused to obey the Intolerable Acts that were passed after the Boston Tea Party. The Intolerable Acts were passed to punish the colonists, especially those in Massachusetts, for the Boston Tea Party. The colonists began to form their own militias after the Intolerable Acts were passed.

The colonists used many actions to rebel against the rule of the British.

In Tuck Everlasting what are some important objects from the Foster's home?

This is a really tough question.  The reason for that is because not much happens at the Foster household, so there isn't much narrative detail about important items at the house.  I also am not sure if I had to pick items that were contained within the house itself, or if I could use objects that are on the Foster property (contained within their yard).  I'll start wide and work my way in.  

The first object that came to my mind is the toad.  Winnie uses the toad as her confessional early in the book.  She tells the toad her frustrations with her parents and how they micromanage every little detail within her life.  She tells the toad how she longs for freedom, so she tells the toad how she plans to run away.  The toad is also important late in the story, because Winnie pours the bottle of spring water over the toad in order to save its life . . . forever.  

The bottle of spring water does happen to be in the Foster home at one point in the story.  Winnie hides it in her room inside of a drawer, so I think that the bottle counts as an important item in the Foster home.  The bottle, more than any other object in the story, is highly symbolic.  It represents the possiblity of life without death.  It represents a life crossroads for Winnie.  It represents choice.  It's also representative of consequences, because whether Winnie drinks from it or not, there will be a consquence to that choice.  

One more object.  This object is in the Foster home, and it is in the Foster home the entire story.  The object is the rocking chair in Winnie's room.  Many kids, my own included, have a "blankie."  It is their comfort item.  They use it when they are sad, or scared, or even happy.  It's security, safety, and comfort.  Winnie doesn't have a blankie.  She has her rocking chair, and she uses it after the constable brings her back home.  

Winnie pulled her little rocking chair up to her bedroom window and sat down. The rocking chair had been given to her when she was very small, but she still squeezed into it sometimes, when no one was looking, because the rocking made her almost remember something pleasant, something soothing, that would never quite come up to the surface of her mind.

Should society attempt to restore law violators to the community, or should violators merely be punished for their misdeeds?

The justifications for imprisonment falls into four categories. First, it is a punishment. (Whether fear of that punishment in itself will prevent some crime is debatable.) Second, it is a preventative, in that the violator cannot commit any more crimes while imprisoned; this is particularly relevant in cases involving drug, alcohol, and/or sexual addiction. Third, it is considered a relief or closure for the victim of the crime; often in parole hearings the main opposing voice is that of the still suffering or angry victim, who thinks that the prisoner has not suffered enough yet.   Lastly, imprisonment is seen as an opportunity for rehabilitation, by tangible programs such as AA, education classes, and peer counseling, and psychologically, by self-examination and personal repentance.

Of these possibilities, common sense tells us that restoring a wrong-doer to a productive place in society would be the most valuable result, but the stigma of having been in prison prevents much re-absorbing into society, because the average citizen thinks only that the psychological/ethical/moral conditions that prevailed for the first offense are still present in the offender – once a theft is exposed, the offender will always be a thief, not to be trusted in any business venture.  (A very recent development here is to omit the box marked "Do you have a prison record?" on job applications.)

The main sociological problem with incarceration is that there is little or no room in the system for individualization – the prisoners are given numbers, the uniforms and rules for dress are strictly enforced, the diets are uniform, the ability to maintain one’s individuality is circumscribed by both the limiting of objects allowed (no paints, brushes, etc.) and by the automatic condensation into a gang or group of “like” prisoners. As a consequence, individual prisoners cannot be treated differently, depending on their motives, personal characteristics, etc. (The whole story of Les Miserables winds around this flaw in the Justice system.)

Society has never clearly stated the function of incarceration, except that it is the only “accepted” form of punishment -- no “cruel or unusual punishment” is allowed, according to the Constitution. If some lawmaker would spell out the need for rehabilitation as part of one’s punishment, much good would come of restoring law violators to the community. So from the standpoint of Society’s best interests, rehabilitation is by far the noblest and most humane motive. But unfortunately, human nature (the desire for revenge, fear of harm, and illusions of moral superiority) prevents much positive growth in this direction.

Describe Hellen Keller's experiences at the Cambridge School.

In the autumn of the year 1896, Helen "entered the Cambridge School for Young Ladies, to be prepared for Radcliffe [College]."  She quickly discovered that school was quite an adjustment.  The teachers there were not used to teaching blind or deaf students.  Helen needed many accommodations to complete her coursework.  Her teacher, Annie Sullivan, assisted Helen by fingerspelling the lectures and readings into her hand.  The only other way that Helen could communicate with her...

In the autumn of the year 1896, Helen "entered the Cambridge School for Young Ladies, to be prepared for Radcliffe [College]."  She quickly discovered that school was quite an adjustment.  The teachers there were not used to teaching blind or deaf students.  Helen needed many accommodations to complete her coursework.  Her teacher, Annie Sullivan, assisted Helen by fingerspelling the lectures and readings into her hand.  The only other way that Helen could communicate with her instructors was to press her fingers against their mouths as they spoke.

Helen studied many subjects at school.  These subjects ranged from literature to history.  There was a great amount of work required for her classes.  Helen was assigned large sections of reading.  It was too much for Ms. Sullivan to spell into Helen's hand, and there were not many books with raised print at that time.

Cambridge was full of new adventures.  Helen made friends, some of whom learned to communicate with her.  Eventually, her sister Mildred joined her at school.  Helen took exams for entrance into Radcliffe, which she passed.

What do Thornton and his partners find after a long search? Why does this cause Buck to move toward the call of the wild?

Thorton and his partners finally find gold. Their discovery certainly occupies much of their time; as a result, Buck has little to do and lies around in this primordial wilderness with dreams of the "ape-like" man who first subdued him. After a while, he hears the sounds of an atavistic call in the forest, sensing an instinctual pull from this wilderness. 

After the massively strong Buck wins a huge bet for Thorton, the man is able to pay off his debts and follow his dream of going with his partners to the East country in search of a fabled lost mine. They trek through wild country, hunting for their food on the way.

To Buck it was boundless delight, this hunting, fishing, and indefinite wandering through strange places.

The men travel for over a year and still do not find the Lost Cabin of legend. However, in the Spring, they find a marker and look out at the valley "where gold shone like yellow butter." As the men toil assiduously each day, stacking bags of gold by trees, Buck lies dreaming as there is little for the dogs to do except haul meat for the men. So, as he muses by the fire, Buck recalls the memory of the ape-like figure of Perrault, who seemed more at home in trees than on the ground as he swung effortlessly from branch to branch. This memory of his introduction to the life of the wild, triggers "the call still sounding in the depths of the forest."

Further, Buck begins to have a sense of unrest, and he experiences new desires as he lies idle. 

It caused him to feel a vague, sweet gladness, and he was aware of wild yearnings and stirrings for he knew not what.

This is the "call of the wild." It awakens him sometimes in the night as he sleeps. On one occasion Buck decides to follow the sound and happens upon a lone wolf howling; he chases the wolf into "one blind channel" after another, although he intends the wolf no harm, only hedging him in with friendly advances. After some time, the wolf approaches in a submissive pose and they sniff noses, becoming friends. Then the wolf lopes off and Buck follows.

Buck was wildly glad. He knew he was at last answering the call, running by the side of his wood brother toward the place from where the call surely came.

Though Buck returns to camp and Thorton, he begins to spend more and more time in the woods, where his atavistic nature begins to dominate him. When he returns to camp one day, he finds his beloved master and the others slain by the Yee-hats. Buck ferociously attacks these cruel foes of his beloved master, and after fighting them for some time in which he kills some, the others flee in the belief that they have witnessed the Evil Spirit. As he stands in the middle of the ruined camp, Buck realizes that all ties to civilization are broken in him, and he responds now only to "the many-noted call of the wild."

What poetic device is used in Act 1, Scene 1 of Macbeth and what effect does it have?

There are several poetic devices used in this short scene. You can .

The first is pathetic fallacy. Pathetic fallacy is a literary device where the environment, such as the weather, reflects the feelings of the characters, adding to the atmosphere or mood. In Act I scene I, the stage directions call for "thunder and lightning," and the witches mention terrible weather...

There are several poetic devices used in this short scene. You can .

The first is pathetic fallacy. Pathetic fallacy is a literary device where the environment, such as the weather, reflects the feelings of the characters, adding to the atmosphere or mood. In Act I scene I, the stage directions call for "thunder and lightning," and the witches mention terrible weather patterns including thunder, lightning, rain, fog, and filthy air. The sound of thunder, flash of lightning, and references to bad weather in the first act and scene of the play establish a scary, foreboding atmosphere.

Another literary device that is used in this scene is foreshadowing. Foreshadowing occurs when a character or event hints at an event that will happen later in the work. In this case, the Three Witches foreshadow the battle: "When the battle's lost and won," and then they foreshadow their meeting with Macbeth: "There to meet with Macbeth." This lets the audience know that the Three Witches have the power of precognition and that they will influence Macbeth in the course of the story.

Thirdly, the device of paradox is used in Act I scene I, and continuously throughout the play. Paradox is a literary device where opposites are contrasted. The witches agree to meet after "the battle's lost and won." Here the paradoxes "lost" and "won" are contrasted to show that the witches don't care who wins or loses the battle. This indicates that they don't care about politics; they just want to stir up trouble. Then the Three Witches recite the famous line, "Fair is foul, and foul is fair," which paradoxes all that is "fair" (good, right) against all that is "foul" (evil, bad.) This shows the audience that the play is going to be filled with good against evil, right against wrong. Indeed, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth both experience inner conflict: good vs. evil. 

What is your opinion on the way children are educated in Houyhnhnmland, in nurseries away from the jurisdiction of their parents? Do you think...

Since all education in Houyhnhnmland has the goal of cultivating reason above everything else, I can understand the removal of foals from their parents.  However, I disagree that the basis of all education should be to cultivate reason to the exclusion of emotion, and so I cannot agree with this method of education.  It seems impossible to me to think that human beings might be persuaded to act in this way because we are...

Since all education in Houyhnhnmland has the goal of cultivating reason above everything else, I can understand the removal of foals from their parents.  However, I disagree that the basis of all education should be to cultivate reason to the exclusion of emotion, and so I cannot agree with this method of education.  It seems impossible to me to think that human beings might be persuaded to act in this way because we are so emotional, and because one of the greatest loves is the love of a parent for their child.  The loss of this relationship would be a terrible one indeed. 

This method does not seem like a better way to educate the young.  Although "Friendship and Benevolence are [their] two principal Virtues" and "Nature teaches them to love the whole Species," it doesn't seem necessary to separate foals from their parents in order to learn these virtues.  So, in being separated from their parents, children can learn the same lessons as they would from their parents -- if all parents were raised to believe this by their parents, which it seems like they would be -- but they live life without the benefit of feeling loved for themselves, not just because they are a member of the Houyhnhnms race.  They never feel the warm and unconditional acceptance of a parent and they never feel something that isn't rational: to me, then, they seem to lose a great deal more than they gain.

How does a person's personality, attitude, and values influence behavior in the workplace and how do they impact organizational success?

Our individual personalities, values, and attitudes are all important parts of our identities that play a big role in how we interact with others. For example, if someone were to believe they're better or more valuable than someone from another race or ethnicity, they would have a very hard time communicating with others that are different from themselves, which would lead to conflict.

Considering this in the context of the workplace, the first things you...

Our individual personalities, values, and attitudes are all important parts of our identities that play a big role in how we interact with others. For example, if someone were to believe they're better or more valuable than someone from another race or ethnicity, they would have a very hard time communicating with others that are different from themselves, which would lead to conflict.

Considering this in the context of the workplace, the first things you want to think about are communication and productivity. At a large company, for example, there is likely going to be racial, ethnic, or other types of diversity that will influence the ways in which people cooperate or work as a team. If one person was raised to value the input of others, regardless of how different they are, this value will likely be a positive contribution to overall productivity and the group's ability to work as a team. If, on the other hand, someone has a combative personality and believes that they are smarter or more qualified than others, this will dramatically influence the team's ability to work together and could negatively impact productivity and morale.

When it comes to thinking about long-term organizational success, managers would be wise to take diversity and personality into consideration. For instance, if a manger knows that one employee doesn't work well with negative or aggressive people, they could find an environment or circumstance in which that person has little contact with negative or aggressive team members.

Having a good sense of each employee's values, attitudes, and personalities allows the manager to coordinate and organize groups in a way that is positive, minimizes conflict, and generally contributes to the overall productivity of the organization.