What are the characteristics of Pi in chapter 1?

In chapter one, Pi is intelligent - he discusses his academic studies and relates profound insight about them to the reader.  He is also reflective - he looks at his present life in light of his past and what happened to him.  He is also intimate with the reader, sharing his thoughts and feelings about his experience, his studies, death, life, religion, his hurts etc.

What did the hens do to rebel against the giving up their eggs.

The hens, rather than allow their eggs to be sold by Napoleon and his henchmen in chapter 7, lay their eggs on the rafters so that the eggs will smash on the floor of the barn.  They consider what Napoleon wants to do to be murder.  Because Napoleon and Whymper have agreed to sell 400 eggs a week, they punish the hens by not giving them any food.  The hens hold out for five days and then they give in, allowing Whymper to collect the 400 eggs a week.

In Katherine Mansfield's "The Garden Party," what would be some examples of the theme of experience versus inexperience?

Laura is very aware of her inexperience and youth and it causes her great discomfort when put in situations of authority.

When Laura was told to supervise the workers putting up the marquee, she is impressed with their natural ease with one another, as well as the task at hand. She feels all the more inadequate by her job of watching over them.

Laura attempts to be cool and calm as she sets about her task, and she decides to channel her mother's posture and attitude in an attempt to appear confident. When she got out the bread and butter, she realized that there was no where to put it down, and she could not even throw it away, so she was stuck holding it and feeling foolish.

Laura's embarrassment led her to appear strict and stare down the workers, while trying to instruct them with an air of competence she did not feel. Nothing worked, and in the end she felt foolish, and knew her mother or sisters would not have acted in such a way.

While at first idealizing the workers experience and ease, she soon learns that their lives are not carefree.

In "A Stench of Kerosene," which character's behavior is the most revealing?

I would have to go with Manak's behavior as the most revealing in Pritam's short story.  I believe that his speech and behavior reflect the oppressive nature of traditional social modes.  Manak is shown as someone who is constantly trying to fight the overarching condition of totality in way of the tradition and social honor that surround him. 

How he pleads with Guleri not to leave, and is then rebuffed by her is one example of this.  Another example is seen when he returns home to his mother. She is more than eager to replace Guleri with a new wife who will be able to bear Manak's children, and she rebukes Manak for his sadness in the process. These are both moments where his impotence against the traditional social structure is evident. 

Manak's emptiness and vacant stares (when Bhavani tells him that Guleri has committed self- immolation upon learning of Manak's second wife) display another element of how Manak is powerless to stop the train and "progress" of modernity.  At the same time, I think that his rejection of the child, in the end, is a small moment where he actually speaks out against tradition, something that will become silenced in due time. 

I don't think that Manak is the saddest character or the one most deserving of empathy or sympathy.  That has to be Guleri, who leaves her husband thinking all is well, but ends up having to set fire to herself out of shame for being unable to bear children. Yet, I think that Pritam constructs the character of Manak in such a way that he is shown to be an individual who detests the social and traditional structure in which he lives, but one who lacks the full throated control to reject it and leave it. 

Perhaps, his actions at the end are the start of a process that already claimed two casualties in Manak's love and Guleri, herself.  It is in this where I think that his characterization is the most revealing in the emptiness of an individual who dislikes tradition, but remains a part of it.

What does Hamlet's fourth soliloquy really mean? Act III scene 1 lines 56–89, "To be, or not to be."

It is still not clear if the Ghost's information is real, is true, much as it fits his own'take' on the situation, just as it is questionable if the Ghost is 'real. He requires more proof, and since the conclusion he believes is true would be treasonous to Claudius, he is very wary of putting it out there, so he decides to test his theory, albeit now that it has been galvanized by the Ghost's coroborration, it is still not clearly, objectively true, and he knows that to pursue the revenge he would like might mean his own death, or further, the death of other innocents (mother, Ophelia, courtiers,unpredictable( as he still cannot tell how complicitous the rest of the court is in the murder of his father. Certainly, Polonius, Ophelia's father seems hand-in-glove with Claudius, and what of Gertrude? Who has benefitted from old Hamlet's death? They are all suspect to young Hamlet.?. He is highly aware that he is the deposed Prince, his safe position has been stolen by Claudus, and he requires a court consensus before he rightfully takes any action against Claudius, happy though it wouldmake him to do so. He is also sorry, angry at his mother's ignorant re-marriage, blithely unconcious of the consequences of what she did.

As he sees Ophelia enter, he hopes she will remember all his sins, and so distance herself emotionally from him, as he knows he must get her to separate, so he can take the dangerous actions which lay somewhere before him.

What lessons does the book teach us about our present and our future?

At the time that Mary Shelley created the book Frankenstein the idea of using body parts to replace other parts of a human was unheard of.  People were mostly speculative about what medical advances the future would hold and in some places the procedure of bleeding was still used to treat infection or misunderstood diseases.

Modern science has been developing better and better skills at harvesting and transplanting organs into human beings.  What had started with putting a baboon heart in infant baby Faye in Loma Linda, California, has now arrived at the ability of mankind to be able to have procedures such as heart, kidney, and lung transplants, and even fingers, toes, and arms  reattached.  Now the possibility of a person being cloned has neared the probability stage.

If the book teaches us anything it is to be careful what actions we take ethically in regards to human beings and their lives.  Science has advanced farther than our legal abilities can solve the conflicts that have arisen from the procedures.  The future may well lead mankind into greater and more challenging ethical issues and the reality that one is dealing with a real human who has feelings, needs, and opinions needs to be taken into careful consideration and be ethically challenged before we go to far.

How does Shakespeare dramatize the conflicting views of nature in King Lear?

To expound on the previous post, for the noble characters in the play, namely Kent, Gloucester, the Fool, Cordelia, and Edgar, the ‘Reason’ of the ‘natural’ world order is to remain loyal to and preserve the orthodox view of ‘nature,’ (which maintains that the established social order should be respected and maintained) regardless of the suffering they must endure. There is a contrasting theory of ‘Reason’ of the ‘natural’ world orderi n the play however. For the evil characters, namely Regan, Goneril, Cornwall, Oswald, and Edmund, the ‘Reason’ is to destroy the ‘natural’ world order. These characters wish to topple the orthodox hierarchy, using whatever means necessary, and place themselves atop a new one.

Of course, the storm that rages during the play, with Lear himself caught in it, is a physical manifestation of nature itself raging against this upheavel.

Discuss the Mongol Conquest. What were the positive and negative effects?

A typical understanding of the Mongols--especially Mongols during the era of Genghis Khan (Ghengis the Chief or Ruler)--stems from reports written by eyewitnesses or contemporaneous historians through whom their advent is portrayed as a bloody "bolt from the blue"--a sudden, swift, unexpected surprise from quarters previously unknown thus unfeared--that left only destruction, death, horror and lasting grief as the sign of its devastation. A medieval Russian chronicle from Novgorod vividly describes Mongol impact on the region:

No one exactly knows who they are, nor whence they came out, nor what their language is, nor of what race they are, nor what their faith is . . . God alone knows (Mitchell and Forbes, p. 64).

A thirteenth-century Persian eyewitness in Iran summarized the initial impact of their attack in Iran: "They came, they sapped, they burnt, they slew, they plundered and they departed" (Juwayni, 1916/1997, p. 107). The Arab chronicler ibn al-Athir, although not an eyewitness, chronicled his reaction to the stories that reached him and his fellow Arab countrymen about Genghis Khan's attacks and rise to power. His emotion-filled, half hysterical words have set the tone and perception throughout the ages of history and throughout the peoples of the world of the Eurasian Mongol attacks on the world from the Red Sea to the China Sea and from the steppes to the desserts:

O would that my mother had never borne me, that I had died before and that I were forgotten [so] tremendous disaster such as had never happened before, and which struck all the world, though the Muslims above all . . . Dadjdjal [Muslim Anti-Christ] will at least spare those who adhere to him, and will only destroy his adversaries. These [Mongols], however, spared none. They killed women, men, children, ripped open the bodies of the pregnant and slaughtered the unborn (Spuler, 1972, pp. 290).

Once Genghis Khan had begun attacking surrounding peoples, he described himself as "the punishment of God"--implying the demon of hell being released upon Muslims and Christians who were ready to believe the appellation--and was pleased that others perceived him in fiendish, destructive this role. The religion of the Mongols--a congregate of nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes with groups and subgroups loosely united under a "khan" who could bring goods and security to the group through raids and defenses--was shamanic. This means they worshiped spirits whom they perceived to be indwelling in elements of nature and that allowed interaction and channeling through a chosen religious shaman who had the authority, right and responsibility of entering an altered state to correspond with the spirits for guidance, help, healing and protection. Knowing the clash of religious systems--monotheism of Muslim and Christian versus pan-spirit shamanism--makes the appellation of "punishment of god" more easily understood.

Besides brutal barbarity, the Mongol conquests gave birth to a plethora of historians and chronicles reporting eyewitness or hearsay accounts. These many historical scribe chroniclers, both within the Mongol nation and without, were happy to accommodate the Mongols' desire for notoriety and a rising reputation for barbarism and cruelty. Primary sources in a wealth of languages allow for critical analysis and comparison between these various sources that yields a more balanced account of what actually occurred during the Mongol conquest of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Since Bernard Lewis questioned the basis of the Mongols' tainted reputation in 1995, scholarly opinion has grown more sympathetic toward the legacy of Genghis Khan.

Genghis Khan, the leader of the "people of the felt-walled tents" and the "the peoples of the Nine Tongues" (Onon, 1993, p. 102), was born Temüjin and endured a brutal and merciless childhood. His father was murdered when he was young, and his mother and her offspring were abandoned by their clan to survive in a very harsh and unforgiving environment. later, as a young man, Temüjin's wife Borte was kidnapped by a raiding tribe; woman kidnapping was a common part of tribal raids. The virtue of compassion was expressed in non-Western modes on the harsh steppes. Temüjin became the khan of his family, then rose as khan over a small alliance of other family tribes. In a culture that gave power to men who could promise prosperity through successful raids, during hard times, on neighboring tribes to gain goods and land, not to kill opponents (this cultural distinction is important to remember when considering how Genghis later spread his power through Eurasia), Temüjin came to the notice of the overlord of khans, Ong Khan, who made Temüjin his successor--leading to the anger of Ong's son, Senggum, who expected to be successor and who gathered forces to try to assassinate Temüjin--and the future Genghis Khan. Ghengis's first acts were to unify the families and tribes around him with a strengthened military operation and to make kidnapping of women in raids illegal. In an act of steppe compassion, he also legitimized all children so none were born illegitimate and he made it illegal to sell women as brides. The stage was set on all levels--military, tolerance, reward and punishment--for conquering the world, which Genghis began to do in response to drought, to restrictions from China imposed on trade with the Mongols and, possibly, in response to a shamanic call to conquer the world under one ruler.

Turco-Mongol Unity

Mongol tribal khans maintained power, thus unity, only by delivering on promises of wealth and plenty. If the promise was not met, then the khan fell or was forced to join an alliance with another khan who could meet the promises required by the tribe. By 1206 the Turco-Mongol clans of the steppe, which were originally brought together by Ong Khan, were united under the charismatic rule of Genghis Khan who had a size, unity and dedication of military force and endurance that distinguished it from past steppe armies. Prior to Genghis the tribes had often been manipulated by the Chinese and other settled agrarian peoples that had often commanded the Mongol nomads' predatory raids. According to Mongol cultural ideology as described above, Genghis first raided for the booty (the goods and land or "turf") with which to satisfy his followers and placate his rivals, because a ruler who could not bring the goods promised would soon be removed from power, and with which he amassed prestige and power that supported him against challengers to his rule, such as the defeated Senggum. The initial raids into northern China for goods during the early decades of the thirteenth century were thereafter followed by attacks, with killings, that were the first actions to be characterized by the barbarity with which Genghis Khan of the Mongols has become identified. Once Mongol power was established, Mongol rule during the reigns of Genghis Khan's grandsons, Hülegü in Iran (ruled 1256265) and Qubilai Qa'an in China (ruled 1260294), represented scholarship, art, culture and the rule of fair law with rewards being distributed for merit regardless of ethnicity, religion or nation.

The Mongols themselves were few in number, but from the outset Genghis absorbed other Turkish tribes and conquered troops into his armies. He used traditional steppe military tactics, with light cavalry, feigned retreats, and skillful archery, to conduct what were initially raids to plunder from bases in the steppes into the agriculturally developed and settled lands as opposed to into the steppe grasslands that were home to neighboring tribal nomads. In the phase following raids for plunder, raids that were without the objective of killing (Columbia University), in 1211 the Mongols invaded the independent Chin of northern China, helped by renegade semi-nomadic Khitans, in a mighty struggle for supremacy that continued after Genghis's death finally ending in 1234. It was the defeat of the Chin capital, Zhangdu, (the site of modern Beijing) that gave rise to one of the most notorious stories of Mongol atrocities:

[An envoy from the Khwarazmshah] saw a white hill and in answer to his query was told by the guide that it consisted of bones of the massacred inhabitants. At another place the earth was, for a long stretch of the road, greasy from human fat and the air was so polluted that several members of the mission became ill and some died. This was the place, they were told, where on the day that the city was stormed 60,000 virgins threw themselves to death from the fortifications in order to escape capture by the Mongols (Raverty, 1995, p. 965).

The World-Conqueror

Genghis then turned his attention westward in campaigns against the ethnically Chinese Qara Khitai, whose Muslim merchants and administrators came to form the backbone of his emerging empire. Following a failed trade envoy mission, Genghis then reluctantly attacked Khwarazm (corresponding to present-day Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan), which was the first Muslim state to experience the full fury of the Mongol onslaught. This devastating invasion occurred in retaliation for the murder of a commercial and political trade delegation composed of Mongols, Chinese, and Muslims, who had sought to gain peaceful relations between the two peoples. As proof of his appellation "punishment of God," Genghis Khan unleashed the bloody attacks and merciless devastation on the Islamic West that has made his name synonymous with barbaric mass slaughter.

The trail of blood and massacre that followed the crumbling of the Khwarazm empire in 1220 led westward from Central Asia through Iran to the Caucasus then north into the plains of Russia. The chronicles have told us that 1,600,000 or possibly as many as 2,400,000 were put to the sword in Herat (a city in present-day western Afghanistan), while in Nishapur, the city of Omar Khayyám, 1,747,000 were slaughtered. The two Mongol noyans (generals) Jebe and Sübedei led an expedition in pursuit of the fleeing Khwarazmshah (died 1221), demanding submission to, assistance with and human shields from all they encountered for the resolutely and ruthlessly advancing Mongol armies that brought slavery, destruction and death. Outside every town they reached, the Mongols would deliver a chilling message: "Submit! And if ye do otherwise, what know we? God knoweth" (Juwayni, 1916, p. 26).

This epic Mongol cavalry mission--the Mongols were excellent horsemen bred from childhood to ride and hunt on the small, light, fast horses of the steppes--was perhaps the greatest reconnaissance effort to gather strategic information of all time. It included intelligence gathering about the region, the enemy and the local geographical features, which led to the informed conquest, defeat and massacre of all lands neighboring the Caspian Sea and beyond. Noyans Jebe and Sübedei's expedition of pursuit, terror, and reconnaissance represents the Mongols at their destructive peak; thereafter their armies were both the invincible wrath of God and the emissaries of the biblical Gog and Magog (Revelations 20), a notoriety the Mongols wore like a khil Eat (a robe of honor).

Khorasan in particular suffered grievously for the sins of its deluded leader, the Khwarazmshah. Although the massacres and ensuing destruction were widespread, there was compassion and method in the Mongols' march to power. Artisans and craftsmen, with their families, were often spared the Great Khan's fury. Separated from their less fortunate fellow citizens, they were transported east to practice their crafts in other parts of the empire. While it is said that in Khwarazm (Kiva) in 1221, each of the 50,000 Mongol troops was assigned the task of slaughtering 24 Muslims before being able to loot and pillage, it is reported that Genghis Khan personally implored the famed Sufi master and founder of the Kubrawiya order, Najm al-Din Kubra, to accept safe passage out of the condemned city of Khorasan. The master refused to flee, but allowed his disciples to go. Even at this early stage, the "barbarian" Tatars demonstrated a respect for and knowledge of scholars and learning (although previously they had been a Turco-Mongol tribe rivaling Genghis, the Tatars came to be a generic term for the Genghisids in Europe and western Asia; Tartarus in Greek mythology was Hades or Hell).

The World Ruler

Although Genghis died in 1227, unlike other steppe empires, his survived through his progeny who succeeded in maintaining and extending his power and territories. Genghis Khan rode out of the steppe as a nomadic ruler intent on expanding his power by keeping his cultural promises to his followers and, combining traditional steppe practices with dexterous political and military skill, he became unstoppable. Cities were razed, walls were demolished, the qanat system of underground irrigation was damaged physically and, perhaps more serious, allowed to fall into disrepair through neglect. Nonetheless, Genghis was astute enough to recognize that continued destruction would be counterproductive and eventually destructive to the source of the Mongol wealth. He had wreaked havoc and horror on an unprecedented scale, but it was only as long as he could deliver the prosperity to his followers that he and his progeny would reign unchallenged.

Genghis was a man of vision. The spread of terror had been in the tradition of the conflict between the nomadic steppe and the settled agrarian towns. Although the steppe had won, Genghis knew that its future depended on the sown (the agrarian). The portable felt tents of his childhood had been transformed into the lavish silk and pavilions of his kingdom. The ragged nomadic tribal camps of old had been replaced by mobile cities of wealth, splendor, and sophistication. The infamy he now enjoyed served as his security. In fact, the death tolls recorded and descriptions of the desolation his armies had caused are now considered to be beyond credibility. The province of Herat, neither the city, could not have sustained a population of two million, and the logistics involved in actually murdering this number of people within a matter of days are inconceivable. The already mentioned chronicler ibn al-Athir did much to perpetuate the mythology of the Mongol rule of terror. He recounts that so great was people's fear that a single Mongol could leisurely slaughter a whole queue of quaking villagers too afraid to resist, or that a docile victim would quietly wait, head outstretched, while his executioner fetched a forgotten sword (Browne, 1997, p. 430).

Successors

Before his death Genghis Khan had appointed his second son ödei as his successor and divided his empire among the others. By 1241 Batu, his grandson, had overrun the principalities of Russia, subdued eastern Europe, and reached the coastline of Croatia. The year 1258 witnessed the fall of Baghdad and another grandson, Hülegü, was firmly established in western Asia. Qubilai QaDan was able to proclaim himself not only Great Khan (QaDan means "Khan of Khans"), but also in 1279 the emperor of a united China. War and conquest had continued, but the nature of the conquerors and rulers had changed.

Qubilai QaDan is quoted in contemporary Chinese sources as declaring that "having seized the body, hold the soul, if you hold the soul, where could the body go?" to explain his support and cultivation of Tibetan Buddhism (Bira, 1999, p. 242). The new generation of Mongols were essentially settled nomads, living in semipermanent urban camps, educated, sophisticated, and appreciative of life's fineries and luxuries. Qubilai QaDan has been described as "the greatest cosmopolitan ruler that has ever been known in history" (Bira, 1999, p. 241). His brother Hülegü and the Ilkhans in Iran received other praises for their rule: justice, farsightedness, and statesmanship.

Once in power, the Mongol princes sought to rule their subjects with justice and tolerance, and for the prosperity of all. Their contemporaries differentiated between the "barbarian" nomads of the past and their ruling masters now residing in fabulous imperial courts. The remains of the ragged Khwarazmshah's army, led by the bandit king Jalal al-Din Mangkaburti, now inspired far more fear and loathing than the disciplined Mongol troops. The Mongols had never targeted specific groups for persecution on religious, nationalistic, or ethnic grounds. When Baghdad was attacked, it was with the advice of Muslim advisers such as Nasir al-Din Tusi while supporting Muslim armies were led by Muslim rulers. Co-option was the desired result of the threat of attack or of conquest. Top administrators in all parts of the empire were Mongol, Chinese, Persian, Uighur, Armenian, European, or Turkish. Loyalty and ability were prized above ethnicity or religion. A center of learning was established around 1260 in Iran's first Mongol capital, Maragheh. It attracted scholars from around the world who flocked, in particular, to see the observatory built for the court favorite, Tusi. The Syriac cleric Bar Hebraeus used the libraries, stocked from the ruins of Baghdad, Alamut, and other conquered cultural centers, to research his own acclaimed studies and historical accounts.

Most of what is now known of the Mongols comes from non-Mongol sources, among them Persian, Arabic, Armenian, European, and Chinese observers and commentators, who betrayed a degree of anti-Mongol bias, even from loyal proponents and servants, such as the Persian Muslim Juvaini (died 1282), who expresses a sense of disdain and condescension for these new rulers, the Mongols. It thus seems that the Mongols may have become victims of their own propaganda. The impact of their conquest was of such might that their achievements have been drowned till now in a sea of blood.

Sources: "Mongol Conquests." Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. Ed. Dinah L. Shelton. Vol. 2. Gale Cengage, 2005.

Images:

Image (1 of 1)

How are Hareton and Heathcliff alike and different?

Heathcliff and Hareton are alike in many ways both in characteristics and circumstances.  Heathcliff had been a poor orphan brought into the Earnshaw household and at first treated like a son.  After the death of the father, Hindley began to treat Heathcliff as a servant, almost a slave.  In a similar manner, Hareton began life as the son and heir of the house, but when Heathcliff managed to basically steal the estate from Hindley, and Hindley died, Hareton became the servant, and almost slave.  Both Heathcliff and Hareton were raised with little or no education or training in social graces.  The difference between them is that Heathcliff allowed his circumstances to warp him, and grew up desiring little more than revenge.  Even his love for Catharine was somehow swathed in darkness and contributed to her death.  Hareton, although quick tempered, really has a good heart and a desire to improve himself.  He is able to rise above his circumstances and the marriage between him and Catherine closes the deadly cycle of revenge and brings healing to the families involved.  There love can be lived and enjoyed in a way that the tortured love of Heathcliff and Catherine could not be.

How does Shakespeare present Juliet and her realtionship with Lord Capulet in Act 3 scene 5 of 'Romeo & Juliet' ?For this question we are only...

In addition to the above answers I want to add that the whole Capulet family is very dysfunctional.  The Nurse has raised Juliet from day one to the point of being breast-fed by the Nurse.  Lady Capulet tries to talk to Juliet in Act One, Scene Three about how she feels about getting married and when she dismisses the Nurse, Juliet looks to her for guidance and not her mother and the Nurse is then asked to stay.

In Act Three, Scene Five, Lord Capulet says, "Wife, we scarce thought us blest that God had lent us but this only child; But now I see this one is one too much, And we have a curse in having her."  What kind of father calls his daughter, a curse, a good-for nothing person, and an anemic piece of dead flesh?  Lady Capulet goes along with whatever Lord Capulet says and does what she is told.  Back in this time all women married early and were expected to be at their husband's beck and call with no questioins asked.  Women were to feel privileged to have an arranged marriage in a noble family, love didn't really enter the picture.

Source:  The Language and Literature Book by McDougal Littell

In "The Cask of Amontillado," who might Montresor be confessing what he did to? This is an inference question.

 "The Cask of Amontillado" begins with Montresor addressing someone familiar, someone who knows the "nature of his soul."  Now, as to who that might be is anyone's guess.  My thought would be that after fifty years, the only person I would trust enough to tell a secret like this would be my husband or wife and/or possibly my children.  The only reason I would do it then would be to clear my conscience.  Another case scenario could be a direct descendant of Fortunato, which sort of invalidates the whole "nature of his soul" thing, but hey, we are inferring, right.  Suppose a direct descendant of Fortunato's visted upon Montresor's death bed, and in an attempt to gain a little further revenge, he spills this whole story to them.  That makes for an interesting spin on the story if you are guessing to whom the narrator is making his confession.  Hope this helps.  Brenda

Why does Vonnegut use an objective narrator who offers no interpretation of judgements about the story he tells?

The narrative point of view is a splendid example of form contributing to meaning.  By withholding judgment, the narrator participates in the plot of the story concerning people programmed not to think for themselves.  In this way, the author behind that narrative device, Vonnegut, encourages us the readers to make judgments, to participate in shaping the meaning of the story.

In the novel Crime and Punishment, how is the pawnbroker's room similar to and different from Rodya's room?

Located upstairs in poor tenement buildings, both rooms are tiny,  have yellow wallpaper, and are furnished similarly, with a sofa and small table in front and a few chairs.  Rodya's room is arguably somewhat smaller.

There is a great difference between the ways the rooms present and are cared for.  The pawnbroker's exudes cleanliness, "both furniture and floors had been rubbed until they shone"    (Chapter 1).  When Rodya visits, the room is "brightly illuminated by the setting sun" (Chapter 1), and someone has attempted to make the room comfortable and inviting, adding geraniums, muslin curtains, and framed prints on the walls.

Rodya's room is discribed as being claustrophobic and dirty, with the "grimy...wallpaper everywhere coming off the walls" (Chapter 3).  The furniture is not in good condition, the sofa in rags, and the books on the table are covered in dust.

What does Proctor tell Danforth about his doubts?

Here are some of the direct quotes:

Excellency, does it not strike upon you that so many of these women have lived so long with such upright reputation, and -

It's interesting the way he puts this because he shows respect, but frames it in a question so that the almighty judge must think about it. Proctor gets cut off by Parris who questions his faith.

In reference specifically to Rebecca Nurse he claims this about who is speaking:

It is children only, and this one [referring to Mary Warren] will swear she lied to you.

Proctor doesn't have doubts about what is going on. He does know truth, but he is trying to present Danforth with reasonable evidence to give Danforth doubt with what the girls are saying.

He further tries to give Danforth reason to doubt by providing a list of names who support and claim the women accused are of good virtue.

What was Tom Robinson's Life like? How old was he, how many kids did he have? Just stuff like that. Was it even mentioned in the book?

There is not much told to us in To Kill a Mockingbird about Tom Robinson's life. We know that he is a black man accused of raping a white woman, and that Atticus takes his case. We know that Helen Robinson is Tom's wife. The Robinsons seem to be upstanding citizens in their community in Maycomb. When the trial comes, we finally learn a little more about Tom Robinson. In chapter 19, Atticus brings to light more facts about Tom's life.

     Tom took the oath and stepped into the witness chair. Atticus very quickly induced to tell us (sitting in the courtroom):
     Tom was twenty-five years of age, he was married with three children; he had been in trouble with the law before; he once received thirty days for disorderly conduct.

Atticus goes on to tell us that Tom had severely damaged his left arm in a cotton gin as a child, and has no use of his arm to this day. This is a very important piece of information for the jury. 

What is Frank's horoscope in All My Sons?

Frank dabbles in astrology. He agrees to concoct a horoscope for Larry. He announces that the day Larry disappeared was one of his favorable days-meaning days when success and luck are highest. He determines that it would be unlikely for Larry to have died on this day.

Is Simon really "batty"?

Golding makes it clear that Simon has been known to suffer fainting spells.  This helps to encourage the other boys to question his mental alertness.  Some critics have argued that Simon is an epileptic, and that he experiences seizures, which lead to his hallucination in the woods with the pig's head.  Although Golding gives no evidence to this, it is certainly one way to connect his "visions" and his fainting spells. 

In scene 6 Lennox and a lord discuss the events in Scotland. What do we learn about Malcolm and Macduff?

In Act 3.6 of Shakespeare's Macbeth, when Lennox and the Lord talk, we learn that Malcolm is in England attempting to secure help to overthrow Macbeth, and Macduff has joined him.  They hope to convince lords from Northern England to take an interest in what is occurring north of the English border.

The scene is important more for what it reveals about others than what it reveals about Malcolm and Macduff:  it reveals that others in Scotland are unhappy with Macbeth's rule, and that others strongly suspect Macbeth of treachery.  The Lord and Lennox speak ironically, indicating that they do not believe the coincidences that have supposedly led to so many deaths.  The indication is that they believe Macbeth is to blame.

But, concerning Macduff, particularly, this scene reveals the fruition of Macduff's suspicions.  He first reveals that he suspects Macbeth when he is the one to question Macbeth's killing of the two grooms--the only possible witnesses to Duncan's assassination.  Then Macduff does not attend Macbeth's coronation.  He is also notably absent from Macbeth's castle. 

Macduff has, then, by the time of this conversation between the Lord and Lennox, acted on his suspicions and, apparently, decided his suspicions are accurate.

How do we compare the actions of Beowulf’s followers when he fights Grendel’s mother and when he fights the dragon in Beowulf?

Beowulf brings fourteen of his best Geats with him to fight Grendel. One is sacrificed before the battle of Grendel. The thirteen who remain are loyal and eager to help their lord. When he descends into the lake where Gredel's mother resides, they ring the perimeter of the lake, along with Hrothgar and his men, and wait for their lord to return triumphant. After killing Grendel's mother and removing the head of Grendel, for a trophy, the lake's surface becomes clotted with blood. The men who await Beowulf fear he is dead and will not return. Hrothgar and his men leave the scene and return to Herot for a meal. Beowulf's men remain out of loyalty and have only a semblance of hope that their leader will return. When Beowulf fights the dragon, he is a much older man, and has ruled Geatland for fifty years. He is determined to rid his land of the dragon and still seeks fame and glory. Beowulf again selects the bravest of his warriors and tells them to wait for him, in case they are needed. He will fight the dragon alone, if possible. The dragon is a fearsome adversary. Its flames melt Beowulf's shield, and its hard skin is responsible for his sword breaking. Fire engulfs Beowulf, and his men, rather than help their leader, run into the forest and are afraid. The difference one sees when comparing the two battles is the reaction of the men. In the fight with Grendel's mother, Beowulf's men do not leave. In neither instance do they fight, but in the battle with the dragon they let down their leader and appear cowardly.

Proper role of the government in the provision and funding of education, heath care, housing, job security, care of the elderly and public...

Education:  Arguments that were formerly made against state sponsored religion can be made against state sponsored education; just substitute the word education for the word religion in those arguments.  Today, government uses education and schools for all of the purposes that government formerly used religion and churches.  If government has no business in religion, then government has no business in education.

Health Care, Housing, Care of the Elderly:  When private enterprise provides these services, private enterprise must provide them at a level and of a quality that consumers want, or too few people will purchase the services for the private enterprise to stay in business.  When government agencies provide these services, the agencies do not go out of business if their product is used by few people; they just dig deeper into the taxpayers' pockets and stay the course.  Government has no money of its own; in order for government to give these services to one set of people, it must first take money from another set of people.

Public Safety:  That is what government has always been about.  Some argue that private enterprise could provide it more efficiently than government, but there have been governments as long as we know anything about people, so I think if there was a better way, someone would have come up with it by now.

Job Security:  South Korea had it for a while.  It was provided by big corporations because the law mandated that they do so.  If a large corporation hired a worker, it had to keep that worker employed for life.  It could move the worker to another job within the corporation, but it could not fire the worker.  The World Bank, or International Monetay Fund, I forget which, was proping up the Korean currency and gave it to the Korean government as a condition of continuing to receive that prop, that it must repeal that law.  Evidently the law was costing more than it was giving in benefit.  The United States had it for a while.  It was called slavery.  Industrialists did not want slavery but more to the point, neither did the slaves.  So that system must have been costing the slaves more than it was giving in benefit.  If the government should provide job security, the provision should be by another means than I have described.  Maybe it shouldn't.  I think as long as government leaves entrepreneurs free to run their business in response to market incentives, and as long as workers are free to move to employers who are offering jobs, there is no need for the government to provide job security.

Where did the "doctor" learn his skill?from The Scarlet Letter, chapter 3

I assume you're referring to Dr. Chillingworth (Dr. Prynne). He's Hester's husband who was to join her after taking care of some business. We must assume he was educated in Europe since that is where they came from. I'm curious as to why you put the word "doctor" in quotation marks, however. Is there a question here that I'm missing? Please let me know if I haven't answered your question, and I'll try to help you.

Determine the formula of the substance which has: 43.39%Na, 11.32%C, 45.28%O.

First of all, let's establish the formula for the substance as being:NaxCyOz, where

x=the number of Na atoms;

y= the number of C atoms;

z= the number of O atoms; 

Then, we'll establish the atomic mass for each element, the notation used for the atomic mass being A:

A(Na)=23

A(C)=12

A(O)=16

Now, we'll calculate the number of gram-atoms of each element from molecule, by dividing the quantitative percentage to the atomic mass of the element. So:

x=43.39/23=1.89 gram-atoms of Na

y=11.32/12=0.94 gram-atoms of C

z=45.28/16=2.83 gram-atoms of O

The mixing up proportion of atoms:

x:y:z=1.89:0.94:2.83

We'll divide all obtained numbers to the smaller obtained, which is 0.94.

x:y:z=1.89/0.94:0.94/0.94:2.83/0.94

x:y:z= 2:1:3

The chemical formula of the substance is: Na2CO3

The odds are against Beowulf in his final battle.Why does he keep fighting?

It is also part of the heroic code - loyalty, bravery, and generosity.  He is just fulfilling this.  He is remaining loyal to his people by battling on despite knowing he will lose.  Beowulf is obviously being brave by fighting the dragon too.  And he is being generous because when he kills the dragon, the cold and spoils will be sent back to his people.  His death fulfills the heroic code and cements his reputation as a great warrior.  Also, as a warrior, what better way to do?  Facing great odds and almost single-handedly vanquishing such a great enemy as the dragon?

What type of relationship do Atticus and Scout have?Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird

As a father/daughter relationship of the 1930s, the relatioship of Atticus and Scout is very unconventional.  First of all, Jean-Louise is called "Scout" and is allowed to wear overalls at a time when little girls wore dresses almost all of the time. Then, too, Scout addresses her father by his first name, an action that in the 1930s would have been considered the height of disrespect.  Another unconventional aspect to the relatioship is that Scout does not feel that any topic is taboo; she unabashedly asks her father about rape or being a "nigger-lover," etc.  Thus, the father/daughter relationship of Atticus and Scout is truly avant-garde, just as avant-garde as Atticus's views on black people and poor people and other social pariahs in the town.

Transcending all these uncoventionalisms of their relatioship, is the deep love and respect that Atticus and Scout have for each other. For, Atticus always listens to his daughter and teaches her in a kind manner, never derogating her.  For example, when she asks about his being a "nigger-lover," he simply answers, "Don't say that.  It's common" [common meaning lower-class] When Scout recounts the proceedings of the trial, she proudly relates the acute insight of Atticus:

Atticus sometimes said that one way to tell whether a witness was lying or telling the truth was to listen rather than watch:  I applied his test....

Loving child and loving father, Scout and Atticus are also good friends who can talk freely to one another.

In your opinion, who is responsible for the murder of King Duncan?justify in your opinion

Interesting question: "Who is responsible for the murder of King Duncan?" Of course Macbeth wields the murder weapon and does the deed, so he is ultimately responsible for the crime. There is no question, however, that Lady Macbeth, in at least a legal sense, is also responsible. This may be of interest to you:

At law, an accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual criminal offense. For example, in a bank robbery, the person who points the gun at the teller and asks for the money is guilty of armed robbery. However, anyone else directly involved in the commission of the crime, such as the lookout or the getaway car driver, is an accomplice, even though in the absence of an underlying offense keeping a lookout or driving a car would not be an offense.

An accomplice differs from an accessory in that an accomplice is present at the actual crime, and could be prosecuted even if the main criminal (the principal) is not charged or convicted. An accessory is generally not present at the actual crime, and may be subject to lesser penalties than an accomplice or principal.

If a court of law were involved in the case of the murder of King Duncan, Macbeth would be found guilty of murder. Whether Lady Macbeth is found to be an accomplish or an accessory depends on how good her lawyer is :-)

Why does Ralph agree to search the island?

In chapter one Ralph agrees to a search to find out if they are truly on an island, to find out if any one else was on the island, and to see the island and what is on it.  Later in chapter seven and eight, they go ans search the island again, this time for the "beast".

Act v. How did Hamlet escape being killed in England?How does he feel about having Rosencrantz and Guildenstern killed in his stead?

Hamlet informs Horatio how he outwitted Claudius, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in their plot to have him executed by the king of England as soon as their ship anchored.

He tells Horatio that he had been restless during their journey and could not sleep. He then, during the night, put on his gown and went to seek out Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Once he got into their cabin, he rifled through their belongings and fortunately came upon Claudius' commission, which the two were very proud to have been entrusted with.

Hamlet then went back to his room and, driven by fear, ignored any qualms about breaking the seal on Claudius' letter. The contents of the commission shocked him and he decided to write a new instruction. He used flattering language and words alluding to the amity and alliance between the two countries to sound convincing. In the letter, he instructs that the two bearers of the commission (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) be executed immediately after presenting the letter. They should not even be allowed opportunity to defend themselves or pray for penance.

Hamlet then forged Claudius' signature, folded the letter in the official style and then used his father's signet ring (that was a copy of the Danish seal and which he carried in his purse) to imprint on the wax used to seal the rewritten commission. He then placed the new commission in Rosencrantz' and Guildenstern's possessions. The switch was never discovered.

The next day their ship was accosted by pirates and Hamlet jumped ship during the altercation. He was on board the pirate ship and became their only prisoner. The pirates stopped pursuing their ship since it was too fast. Hamlet made a deal with the pirates who would then later return him to Denmark.

Hamlet tells Horatio that he felt no guilt for sending Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their doom for:

" ... their defeat
Does by their own insinuation grow:
'Tis dangerous when the baser nature comes
Between the pass and fell incensed points
Of mighty opposites."

They had themselves to blame for getting involved in the dastardly plot to have him killed. Hamlet says that they had to face the consequences of their cowardly actions - for getting involved in a dispute between two such fierce and powerful rivals (he and Claudius). 

Which is the best innovation made in business in the year 2009?I wanted to know the innovation the business has carried out to sustain in the...

I must disagree with the previous answer posted by Mstultz on several counts. First the green innovations and initiatives are not rally innovations at all. Then the efforts listed under this head concern more with technology rather than business. Finally, all these developments began much before the year 2009, and therefore do not qualify as innovations in the year 2009.

Frankly, speaking there i no mechanism to identify and evaluate business innovations so that the innovations taking place in a year can be listed and evaluated in less than just three months before the year is ought. It takes a few years for a good business innovation to prove its worth.

So I will not identify the best business innovation of the year 200. But I can say one thing that most of the innovations are taking place in business processes that make heavy use of information technology for functions such as buying and selling through the Internet. In recent years many new models of buying and selling have been developed using the Information technology, and many new models continue to be developed by thousands of company. It is most likely that some of these new models of business processes will, in due course of time, emerge as the some greatest innovations in business.

Analyze the nature of a villainous character in Wuthering Heights and show how it enhances meaning in the work.

While Heathecliff is the main villianous character in Wuthering Heights, as stated above,  Cathy is a villianous character herself at times.  She spurns Heathcliff whom she loves for Linton because he is wealthy. Later she hurts Linton by displaying her love for Heathcliff openly.  She suffers because she feels that she cannot marry Heathcliff because of his lower social position, yet when he returns, she finds that she cannot live without him.  Although she dies in childbirth, she really dies of a broken heart telling Heathcliff:  "You and Edgar have broken my heart." 

Although several of the characters have some villianous characteristics, none of them is completely evil and each has extenuating circumstances in that lead them to be what they are.  Even Hindley has a weakness for drink that he cannot control.  I think this enhances Bronte's work because she is showing us a side of human nature that we cannot control.  Heathcliff, Catherine, and even Hindly are like the wild moors on which they live; full of uncontrollable storms, passions, and addictions.  These larger than life passions may be uncontrollable but it makes their lives larger than other live's: lives that may just continue on after death in the storms of the moors where they lived.

What is Ralph's attitude towards Jack throughout the story?An Examination of Motivation

Ralph realizes that Jack has more appealing leadership qualities, yet he also realizes that Jack's lust for hunting is a problem. He finds his inattention to the  details for getting rescued and safety inexcusable.

Ralph can see Jack's gradual lust for savagery increase, and knows this will not bode well for the group.

How does Gandalf get Beorn to welcome the dwarves and Bilbo into his home?

Beorn the "bear man" in J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit does not like a lot of company, and he would certainly not willingly accept 13 dwarves, a hobbit and a wizard into his home in one big group.  In order to introduce the party bit by bit so that Beorn will allow them to stay, Gandalf and Bilbo first begin to talk with him about the adventures they have been having with the dwarves.  Beorn becomes so engrossed in the tale that he barely notices when the dwarves begin to arrive two at a time.

Beorn learns about the war from the captured Warg and Goblin, and he rushes to help the dwarves.

While walking through Mirkwood, the dwarves run out of food.  Seeing the twinkling lights and hearing laughter, the dwarves leave the path in the hope of finding friendly folks who will feed them.

Thorin managed to escape the spiders only to be captured by the Wood Elves and put in the Elvenking's dungeon.  Even though Bilbo manages to rescue the remaining dwarves who were ensnared in the spiders' webbing, they, too, get captured by the Wood Elves, and Bilbo is forced to find a way to rescue the whole party.

What makes Boxer seem particularly human and loveable?

Boxer has a good soul. He works hard, complains little, has empathy for others, and is incredibly loyal(much to his detriment). He is like the average hard-working family man in our society, believing in a good work ethic and belief in the good of others.

What type of character assessments can you make about Amir and Hassan from The Kite Runner?

I disagree with sullymonster's assesment of Hassan as a gullible character. He is extremely loyal to Amir, but there are instances in the novel where Amir admits that Hassan has an uncanny ability for illuminating Amir's unfair treatment of him. There is a passage in chapters 5-6 where Amir states that when he tests Hassan's loyalty, Hassan tests his integrity. As Amir's servant, Hassan cannot express fully his displeasure about the way Amir treats him, but he makes his point clear in subtle enough ways where Amir feels regretful for his behavior.

Although Hassan is illiterate, he is also very clever and intelligent. This is evident especially in the first four chapters when Hassan listens to stories that Amir reads to him. He analyzes the narratives, asks questions about what he doesn't understand, and is sincerely interested in the educational benefit of learning from Amir. If there is an instant where something Amir tells him doesn't make sense, Hassan questions the ambiguity. So, gullible is not the word I'd use to describe Hassan. Hope this helps.

Why does she want to believe in the beast in the woods?,what sound does kira hear in the night, When they investigated the noise what did they...

mkcapen1
|

Middle School Teacher

|
(Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted on March 8, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Is there another theme in Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde that goes beyond good and evil? If so, what is it? How can Jekyll be compared to people of his...

Freedom is a theme in this story. Jekyll experiences a level of freedom by turning into Hyde. He is able to indulge his inner passions and desires that go against Victorian society and expectations.

Supernaturalism is another theme in this work. Jekyll goes against the natural law to create Hyde. Jekyll is in effect "playing god" by creating an alter-ego that reveals his dark side. This goes against the laws of God.

Jekyll goes against the typical Victorian expectation of gentlemanly behavior. One is expected to be reserved, scholarly, and religious. Jekyll realizes he has dark desires and great intellect, and with a certain element of smugness, creates a potion that will allow him to be someone else. While rationalizing that his experiment is in the name of learning, he recognizes that he wants to experience life outside of what he is expected to be. Most in this society would never take so much pride or hubris to experience this.

What poetic devices are used by Dickinson in her poem My Life Closed Twice Before Its Close?

When I teach this poem I call attention the rhythm, rhyme scheme, punctuation, and figures of speech, and of course meaning. It consists of two quatrains, abcb and defe. Rhyming words attract each other, connecting their meanings, which here make “see” resonate with “me,” and “befell” resonate with “hell.” (“conceive,” provides a partial rhyme with “me.”) The first and third lines, which don’t rhyme, are iambic tetrameter, and the lines that do rhyme are in iambic trimester, linking them together even more closely in sound and meaning. The sound results in an easy rhythm that carries the easy language of the poem. The personification of “immortality” results from its doing an action—unveiling—which connotes surprise and disguise, but is also a distinctly female event, suggesting secrets hidden and enclosure. “Immortality” is the only word with more than two syllables, increasing its importance in meaning, and the many two-syllable words reinforce the event that occurred “twice” to the speaker already. The period that separates the last two lines, which could otherwise be connected with a comma, suggests the distinctness of each thought, and also tends to make the second thought and the last line a very final after-thought.  The poem is about loss and sorrow.

How do you compare and contrast expressionism, futurism, dada, and surrealism?

All these movements--expressionism, futurism, dada, and surrealism are integrally related to the growth and development of European Modernism in the early 20th century.

Expressionism happened in art in general, especially in painting. In literature, theatre to be specific, August Strindberg was one of the greatest exponents. His Dream Play had a truly expressionist decor. Expressionism gave great importance to the mode, clarity and exuberance of expression.

Futurism was a way of writing poetry in a contemporaneous way, enriching it with the modern values of scientific development, industrialization, machine-age and so on.

The most intimately interlinked were Dada and Surrealism; the former championed by Tristan Tzara and the latter by Breton in poetry and Salvador Dali in painting. Both the art-groups were chiefly experimentalist and avant-garde. They emphasised nonsense over sense, gave predominance to the Unconscious, used a lot of structurally chaotic methods like collaging with newspaper cuttings to create poetry.

How does his point of view influence the way the story is told?

Using the lawyer to tell the story makes it more difficult so that the story can be interpreted in a number of ways. The lawyer admits he is a man of "assumptions" and that he's prejudiced, not always allowing him to give an accurate view of the situation. When the lawyer tells us about Bartleby, we have to decide for ourselves whether what the narrator says is true or colored by his own prejudices. Because the lawyer is unreliable, it's more difficult for the reader to unlock the mystery of Bartleby's behavior.

How is the theme of sisterhood depicted in Susan Glaspell's play Trifles?

By showing the basic differences in how men and women think, act, and relate to others, Glaspell gives the reader a picture of sisterhood. The women are there to get things for the woman accused of killing her husband. As their husbands come in and out of the scene, the differences between the two genders are made obvious.

Overall, Glaspell shows us that men are aggressive, self-centered, and rough. Women are more sensitive, circumspect, and intuitive. These differences enable Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale to know exactly what happened in the home of the accused. Their husbands, however, leave the scene feeling there are no clues to be found.

The men look for obvious clues, while the women notice the little things, the "trifles". The women are able to find the dead bird and the damaged birdcage and piece together the events leading to the death of the husband. The men patronizingly dismiss their wives' ideas. The women are sensitive to the isolation and loneliness Mrs. Wright felt because they've been there before themselves. They understand why she would have been driven to murder when John Wright took away the only thing Mrs. Wright had to keep her company. As a gesture of their sisterhood, the two women hide the bird and the birdcage, knowing they would help convict Mrs. Wright. Because of this, she will most likely be found innocent of her husband's murder.

How old was Lady Capulet when Juliet was born?

It appears that Lady Capulet was quite young when Juliet was born.  When she is introducing the idea of marriage to Juliet before the masque in Act I Scene 3, she mentions that she was already a mother by Juliet's age, which is not quite 14:

[quote]

Lady Capulet.
Well, think of marriage now: younger than you,
Here in Verona, ladies of esteem,
Are made already mothers: by my count
I was your mother much upon these years
That you are now a maid. Thus, then, in brief;--
The valiant Paris seeks you for his love.

What is ideal about Gatsby's dream? What is corrupt?

In The Great Gatsby, Gatsby's view of and love for Daisy is idealistic from the beginning. 

Nick, recalling Gatsby's courtship from five years before the novel's present, says that Daisy was the first "nice" girl Gatsby had ever known; Gatsby "had never been in such a beautiful house [Daisy's] before"; there was a hint in her house of "romances that were not musty and laid away already in lavender but fresh and breathing and redolent of this year's shining motor cars and of dances whose flowers were scarcely withered"; she was highly sought after, so Gatsby "took what he could get, ravenously and unscrupulously--eventually he took Daisy one still October night, took her because he had no real right to touch her hand."

Gatsby puts Daisy on a pedestal from which he never removes her.  Even after she allows him to take the blame for Myrtle's death and chooses to stay with Tom, he spends the next morning waiting for a phone call from her.

And his ideal is corrupt as all ideals are corrupt:  they are unrealistic; too good to be true, as the cliche goes.

Explain each two line stanza in sonnet 18? please

Concerning your question about Shakespeare's "Sonnet 18," just so you don't leave the answers to your question with a misunderstanding, the sonnet isn't arranged in two-line stanzas.

A Shakespearean sonnet is usually organized in three quatrains (four-line stanzas), followed by a couplet (a pair of rhyming lines).  You can see this in the rhyme scheme of this sonnet:

a b a b c d c d e f e f g g

The rhymes form the stanzas with the combinations of a and b, c and d, e and f, and g and g.

Just to explain, in the first stanza, day and May rhyme, and temperate and date form a sight rhyme.

What was the sonnet (young man) and the (dark lady) about? What exactly was the description of the sonnets?

"Out of the 154 sonnets that Shakespeare wrote, 126 seem to be written to the same person."  He was a rich nobleman and the first twelve sonnets urge him to marry and have children.  After the first twelve Shakespeare changes his tone to one of devotion to the young gentleman.  There has been rumors as to whether his devotion was one of a physical, homosexual nature, but Shakespeare's Sonnet 20 dispels these suppositions. It emphasizes that there existed a loving relationship, but not in the physical sense.

The "dark lady" appears in the last twenty-eight sonnets.  They don't follow any specific order and they address more than one subject and more than one woman.  "One was written to his wife Anne Hathaway, another is about his own soul, "the center of my sinful earth", and the final two are thought to be a pun on the Elizabethan cure for sexually-transmitted disease, sweating in hot tubs."  The Victorians named the mysterious woman, "the dark lady," because he described her hair and coloring as black, which was the total opposite of the woman of Shakespeare's time.  The title of beauty in his day was "fair."  As Shakespeare describes her, she is not fair in any way, "colour, beauty, or morality, and Shakespeare has the intense emotional pain of knowing that she becomes the young man's mistress of the young man he so admires." 

What are some images of Ophelia?How do this images represten Ophelia?

Assuming that you are asking about the "imagery" that the character Ophelia represents, I hope this analysis helps: Of all the pivotal characters in Hamlet, Ophelia is the most static and one-dimensional. She has the potential to become a tragic heroine -- to overcome the adversities inflicted upon her -- but she instead crumbles into insanity, becoming merely tragic. This is because Ophelia herself is not as important as her representation of the dual nature of women in the play. Ophelia's distinct purpose is to show at once Hamlet's warped view of women as callous sexual predators, and the innocence and virtue of women.

The extent to which Hamlet feels betrayed by Gertrude is far more apparent with the addition of Ophelia to the play. Hamlet's feelings of rage against his mother can be directed toward Ophelia, who is, in his estimation, hiding her base nature behind a guise of impeccability.

Through Ophelia we witness Hamlet's evolution, or de-evolution into a man convinced that all women are whores; that the women who seem most pure are inside black with corruption and sexual desire. And if women are harlots, then they must have their procurers. Gertrude has been made a whore by Claudius, and Ophelia has been made a whore by her father. In Act II, Polonius makes arrangements to use the alluring Ophelia to discover why Hamlet is behaving so curiously. Hamlet is not in the room but it seems obvious from the following lines that he has overheard Polonius trying to use his daughter's charms to suit his underhanded purposes. In Hamlet's distraught mind, there is no gray area: Polonius prostitutes his daughter. And Hamlet tells Polonius so to his face, labeling him a "fishmonger" (despite the fact that Polonius cannot decipher the meaning behind Hamlet's words.)

But, to the rest of us, Ophelia represents something very different. To those who are not blinded by hurt and rage, Ophelia is the epitome of goodness. Very much like Gertrude, young Ophelia is childlike and naive. Unlike Queen Gertrude, Ophelia has good reason to be unaware of the harsh realities of life. She is very young, and has lost her mother, possibly at birth. Her father, Polonius, and brother, Laertes, love Ophelia tremendously, and have taken great pains to shelter her. She is not involved with matters of state; she spends her days no doubt engaged in needlepoint and flower gathering.

She returns the love shown to her by Polonius and Laertes tenfold, and couples it with complete and unwavering loyalty. Her frailty and innocence work against her as she cannot cope with the unfolding of one traumatic event after another. Ophelia's darling Hamlet causes all her emotional pain throughout the play, and when his hate is responsible for her father's death, she has endured all that she is capable of enduring and goes insane. But even in her insanity she symbolizes, to everyone but Hamlet, incorruption and virtue. 

The movie "Sleepers" can one experience change a child so much that he /she becomes a delinquent or an adult criminal?be specific

The answer is absolutely it can.  In fact, a traumatic experience such as sexual and physical abuse for anyone, regardless of age, can change a person for life, and often can lead to very negative, self-destructive behavior on the part of the victim.  What many psychologists and psychiatrists will tell you is that such crimes against children magnify the effects in adulthood.  It changes them during a mentally, physically and emotionally developmental stage in their lives that can change them drastically as adults.  It can also lead to bitterness and anger, unresolved rage, all sorts of issues that could possibly lead to delinquency.

There are also a number of studies suggesting that victims of sexual abuse as children are more likely to become abusers themselves, although this idea is still controversial and certainly not proven beyond doubt.

What influence on events do the occurrences at Andover bear?

Basically, the events in Andover are making the people in authority in Salem worried.  They have heard that the people in Andover have rebelled against the court there.  They are worried that something similar might happen in Salem.

In particular, Rev. Parris is worried about this.  He thinks that the next group of people scheduled to hang will cause problems.  These include Rebecca Nurse and John Proctor.  Unlike other people who have been killed, these two are respected by everyone in the community.  Parris is afraid that if they are killed, the people will rise up against the court like they did in Andover.

What defeats General Zaroff in "The Most Dangerous Game"?

General Zaroff is defeated by the cunning prowess of Rainsford.  General Zaroff wanted to hunt his ideal quarry which possess the attributes of: "courage, cunning, and above all the ability to reason."  General Zaroff believed that life is for the strong, to be lived by the strong.  The weak of the world were put here to give the strong pleasure."  Obviously  Rainsford possessed all of the above attributes and showed that he was the strong one and Zaroff was the weak one.

Reference:  The Language and Literature Book by McDougal Littell

In Chapter 2 of "1984," what is the bad news delivered through the tele-screen?

Chapter 2 opens with Winston discovering that he did not put away his new diary after having written in it Down With Big Brother, which presages many problems that follow later in the book.  The party, meanwhile, announces that "the chocolate ration would be reduced from thirty grams to twenty." Such "bad news" always follows "good news," Winston recognizes, this time the "good news" being that Oceana's forces had a "glorious victory" against their Eurasian enemy.  The bad news is ususally true, while the good news fictitious, making a pretense for the bad.