In To Kill a Mockingbird, what does Scout learn from Walter's visit in chapter 3?

By eating lunch/supper with Walter, Scout learns about societal differences and acceptance of others. Walter represents the lower class, poverty stricken people of Maycomb. As Aunt Alexandra would have Scout believe, the Cunnigham's are beneath the Finch's; however, through Atticus and Cal, Scout learns that all people are equal regardless of their financial status.

What is the climax in "The Tell-Tale Heart"?

This is one of my favorite stories!

Here are some helpful hints on finding the climax of ANY story. Author's usually write their plots in a typical format. Here it is: 

1. The exposition (the part of the story where you get the background and details about the setting, characters, potential conflicts, etc.).

2. The narrative hook, (where the author grabs your attention).

3. The rising action (this is where the author creates tension and suspense through conflict).

4. The climax (the turning point of the story).

5. The falling action  (where the READER learns about the main character's reaction to the climax.

6. The denouement/wrap-up (the final tying together of the story).

Look at Step 4, the turning point of the story. I think you'll find the the climax is where the main character can no longer tolerate his guilty conscience. That dreadful heart beating in his head, is actually a manifestation of his guilt. He can no longer stand the sound, so he rips open the floor revealing his crime! 

How does one finish off an essay with a personal statement? I'm finding the ending to my essays to be extremely difficult and was hoping that one...

Did you have extreme difficulty in writing the essays?  Is a "personal" statement necessary?  The reader will know it's your work!  Doesn't the work itself stand as your statement?

Ideally, the last statements in an essay should be something that ties the work together.  After introducing the topic of your essay, then expanding the points of your arguments, then drawing your conclusions, the last paragraph could be merely a summary.

In conclusion, using introductory phrases such as "Finally," or "To summarize," or "To conclude" to begin the last paragraph should provide some structure to your thoughts to finish the essay.

Who are some characters that develop througout the story?Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck

In the exposition of John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men, old Candy, the disabled ranch hand meets George and Lennie as he sweeps out the area where the two men will sleep.  When George becomes concerned about the can of lice killer on the box shelf, he asks Candy, "What the hell's this?"  The "old swamper" is hesitant, shifting his broom, and haltingly explains that the man was clean. As George demands to know if the bunk is infested, Candy haltingly tries to explain. 

But, he does strike up a conversation with the two men about the "stable buck" and the boss's being upset that George and Lennie were not ready to work in the morning. When the boss arrives, Candy "shuffled past the boss and out the door."  Clearly, Candy's position is lowly and he is very subservient to the boss as well as anyone in authority because he is worried about what he will do without his job.  His is a life of "quiet desperation" as Thoreau wrote in his Walden.  All alone in the world with only an aged dog that is decrepit, Candy is insecure at the bunk house.  He offers little resistance when the callous Carlson takes his aged and decrepit dog to kill it. 

Bereft after losing his dog, Carlson withdraws until George includes him and his $350 in their "dream" of owning their own ranch.  Given hope for his old age, Candy feels empowered by his new friendships; he tells George he should have had the courage to shoot his dog himself, and he talks back to Crooks one night when Crooks refuses to let Lennie enter his barn. Then, Candy warms a little, although he is rather embarrassed to enter Crooks room when invited. Yet, he compliments the room to Crooks.  During the day, he sits and calculates how the men will buy their ranch.

When Curley's wife enters the barn, Candy boldly scolds her:

He said accusingly, 'You gotta husban'.  You got no call foolin' aroun' with other guys, causin' trouble.'

When she asks about her husband's hand, Candy diplomatically says that he had it caught in a machine.  Undeterred by her laugh, Candy repeats the phrase, " Got it caught in a machine.  As Curley's wife becomes somewhat antagonistic, Candy's face reddens, but before she is finished talking, Candy "had control of himself."  He tells the woman to go, and as she looks from one face to another, "they were all closed against her." 

Candy has gone from being a intimidated broom pusher in the bunk house to a respected member of the small group of men, thus serving to further Steinbeck's theme of the brotherhood of men and it benefits.

In The Chocolate War, why does Goober pull back and not help Jerry during his ordeal with the Vigils?

Roland Goubert (the Goober) is afraid of the Vigils, like many of the kids in the school. He realizes when his chocolates sales are falsely reported what is going on, and he runs to his locker in tears, knowing he's betrayed Jerry. He is so ashamed of his fear and inability to help Jerry that he misses several days of school after that. He returns on the day that Jerry is badly beaten in the boxing ring.

Why couldn't the Confederacy and the Union talk things out instead of going to war?

A really good question.

The failure to compromise is of course an answer and one that was offered by a well-known American historian and author, Shelby Foote. But I believe the answer is because of the law. In fact, legal issues, split into two parts would be the answer.

First, slavery. Allowed since the United States of America was created, slavery was practiced in the Southern states and some border states (such as Missouri) where African Americans known as blacks and worse names were not considered citizens. They could not vote or own property either. This legal status had been affirmed by the US Supreme Court in the famous Dred Scott decision. Though not considered a reason for the war at first, it later became a reason and for Abolitionists and blacks the cause for what President Lincoln said "a new birth of freedom".

Second, state rights. Basically, what was more important: the laws and rules passed by Congress and the President in Washington D.C. or those in the individual states such as Ohio and Alabama? And if a state disapproved of a law did it have to follow it? This legal issue was a big problem throughout the 1850s as new parts (regions or sections) wanted to join the Union as states. It was a reason for the South seceding from the United States in 1861.

Finally, you may find this interesting but shortly before the outbreak of war there was an attempt at talking in the form of a compromise known as the Crittenden Compromise and shortly after the South declared its independence was the Corwin Amendment. Both failed.

The two legal issues I spoke of were solved with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

Hope this helps.

Why were Jonas and his father worried about Gabriel's fretfulness at night? What did Jonas do to solve this problem?

They are living in a perfect community, and if somebody gets it hard to attuned to the order, or just behave against the rules, they are simply excluded from the community, and this action is called “RELEASE”.  They are worried about Gabe because if he keeps having his problems, he wouldn't get placed with a family unit, because he will be ‘incongurious’ and no family will want to put up with that. In that case, Gabe will just get released because he can't be placed with a family. Even though, that Jonas and his father doesn’t have such deep feelings like love, they still care about the baby and know that it would be so unfortunate to be realesed when you’re just a baby and had done nothing wrong.

(You can find how Jonas solve the problems at page 116-117, chap 14)

How did the Muslim rulers of the Delhi Sultanate treat their Hindu subjects?

The Delhi Sultanate ruled varying areas of India for about 300 years starting in about 1206 AD.  The rulers of the Sultanate were Muslim, but most of their subjects were Hindu.

So far as I know, the rulers treated their subjects pretty well.  While some Hindus coverted and became Muslims, there was no policy requiring this.  When subjects did convert to Islam, they brought some of their old beliefs with them and influenced Islam. The Hindu religion continued and was not really molested by the rulers.

As far as government goes, the sultans were somewhat more autocratic than previous rulers had been.  But I have not seen anything that says they abused their subjects more than other rulers of the time.

How does macbeth's character change from valiant soldier to murder and tyrant?Macbeth begins the play as a valiant soldier however as the play goes...

Macbeth, as you said, began as a superb soldier and wonderful warrior, but becomes a bloody tyrant and degenerates with the course of time. And the chief reason behind his degeneration is his ambition.

Once a person becomes a murderer and obsessive to achieve power, then to hold on it, he can do anything for the sake of power. His gluttony makes him paranoid and destroys all his good qualities gradually. it becomes difficult for him to come back from the path of hell he chooses for himself. Macbeth in Shakespeare's Macbeth, faces a very similar situation. He says: "To be thus is nothing, / But to be safely thus.", and in order to secure his kingship, he continues assassinating on and on. Later he utters, "I am in blood/ ... Returning were as tedious as go o'er." (act 3, scene 4). so, a brave warrior and an obedient royal employee becomes a 'butcher' very soon because of his inner devil. Here, we find a similarity between Marlowe's Dr. Faustus and Shakespeare's Macbeth.

Macbeth, as my reading of the play suggests, was already an ambitious man while his wife was greedy. What he needed was just an instigator, a spur. The witches' prophecy or equivocation worked like the spur. It is evident in the fact that, when the witches were uttering their prophetic statements, he had Banquo with him, and it was stated that Banquo's progeny would be successor to the throne. Still, it was only Macbeth, the Thane of Glamis, who took the "weird sisters"'s statements seriously. Banquo, unlike Macbeth, does not believe in the witches' prophecies blindly. Rather, Banquo is shown to say: "The instruments of darkness tell us truths/ Win us with honest trifls, to betray's/ in deepest consequence..." when asked by Macbeth: "Do you not hope your children shall be kings...?" (Act 1, scene 3). It is Macbeth's inner evil which, spurred by the witches, became more gluttonous. Later, his wife helps to the full growth of the ambitious tyrant inside him who could do anything for holding on the power.

So the reply to what you've asked: "did Macbeth already began planning to be king before the witches?" will be that,  Macbeth is not directly shown to be plotting to be the king, but it is clear in Lady Macbeth's utterance to herself in act 1, scene 5, that both were aiming to reach the goal when she says: "Thou wouldst be great, /... / To have thee crowned withal".

In what ways does Hamlet appear to change during act 4?i want to know how does change in this act.

In Shakespeare's Tragedy of Hamlet, Hamlet had been quite indecisive in Acts I and II.  In Act III, he kills for the first time (Polonius).  This is important, even though it is by mistake.  As a result, in Act IV, Hamlet is more focused on his role as avenger: he has killed and can kill again.  Indecision is a memory.

In Acts I-III, Hamlet was unsure of who was who: Was his father's ghost telling the truth?  Did Claudius really kill his father?  Was his mother in on the murder?  Could he really kill his uncle?  Now, in Act IV, Hamlet knows that Claudius is a villain; therefore, Hamlet can anticipate his moves better.

In Act IV, Hamlet willingly goes to England, even though he is meant to be killed there.  Knowing this, Hamlet plays both a verbal and physical game of cat and mouse.  Upon his return,  he will have the upper hand: he will be the cat.  As a result, his use of verbal irony (sarcasm) increases giddily:

My mother: father and mother is man and wife; man and wife is one flesh; and so, my mother.  Come, for England!

Hamlet is so giddy, he even plays hide-and-seek with Polonius' body.  He says to Claudius:

Hide fox, and all after.  (an old signal cry for the game of hide-and-seek)

CometsWhy do comets have tails? Why do the tails point away from the Sun?

Comets have tails (two of them, in fact) because of stuff coming off the comet's core.  One of the tails is made of dust.  The other tail is made of gasses.

Both of these tails point more or less away from the sun.  The reason for this has to do with what we typically call the solar wind.  There is all kinds of radiation coming off the sun and heading off into space in all directions.  This radiation "blows" all the dust and gas that make up the tails.  Because of this, the tail points away from the sun just as a flag blows away from the source of the wind here on Earth.

Why was Japan's first step to expanding beyond China was to bomb the U.S Naval Fleet at Pearl Harbor?

Japan was an empire and World War II in the Pacific Theater was essentially imperial competition.  The British and French, as well as the Dutch had colonies and forces in Asia, and represented a threat to Japan's hegemony (dominance) in the region.  As Hitler conquered these places and threatened Britain to within an inch of its life, it became easier for Japan to take their holdings in Asia.

That meant the US was the only remaining unengaged, fully armed empire that could stand in their way.  While we had disagreements with Imperial Japan at the time, and tension was high, the simple and most compelling reason for them to attack us on December 7th was because we were the only ones left in their way.

Was Lady Macbeth to blame for Macbeth's downfall?

Ultimately, I do not think you can give Lady Macbeth all the blame for her husband's downfall.  I think she helped him along, but it is clearly his own responsibility as well.

Macbeth's ambition is not awakened by anything his wife does.  Instead, it is awakened by what the witches tell him.  So he is already ambitious before we even see Lady Macbeth.

In addition, Lady Macbeth does not force Macbeth to do anything.  True, she pushes him towards doing evil, but he is the one who ultimately decides and he does not seem to resist very hard either.

Who reduces Animalism to the phrase "Four legs good, two legs bad"? Also, who teaches the sheep to chant "Four legs good, two legs better"?

The answer to this question can be found very close to the beginning of Chapter 3.  The answer is that it is Snowball who comes up with this way of boiling down the commandments.  He says that if any animal could just remember this idea, they would be safe from being bad like the humans.

This sort of goes along with the idea in the beginning of this chapter that most of the animals were just too dumb to learn much.  Because they were too dumb, Snowball needed to make the commandments simpler so that everyone could understand them.

What do you think Dickens wanted his message to be in Great Expectations?In your response, please indicate your reasoning.

In Charles Dickens's classic, Great Expectations, the character named Mr. Jaggers tells Pip, "Take nothing on appearances."  And, this is a lesson that Pip learns, and one that Dickens wanted his readers to grasp, as well.  For, Dickens was very much an advocate of the lower classes of London, feeling that they were dealt injustices because of their "appearances": their poverty and their lack of education. 

This theme of appearances vs. reality is developed throughout the novel.  As a child, Pip becomes ashamed of being "common" because the young lady, Estella, has ridiculed him.  The reality is that Estella is more common than Pip since she is the child of two convicts.  Pip yearns to become a gentleman, for he believes that by doing so he will be a superior person and Estella will, then, love him; however, the reality is that Pip has become counterfeit and the man that he is ashamed of when he comes to visit Pip in London, Joe, is a far better person. Believing the upperclass Miss Havisham is superior to him because she is wealthy is also a deception.  That she is his benefactor is another since it is Magwitch who is really his benefactor.  Judging Magwitch by his appearances, Pip is repulsed to think that a man of the lowest class is his benefactor, despite Magwitch's great love for him.

However, when Magwitch/Provis lies dying, Pip's kind nature that he demonstrated as a child re-emerges and he cares for the old man. When Miss Havisham's decaying dress catches on fire and Pip saves her, burning his hands, and Joe nurses him back to health, Pip realizes the value of real love and friendship.  At last, he has learned to take nothing on appearances, and to look for what is genuine, instead.

Great Expectations is a bildungsroman, and there are many lessons that younger readers can learn; one of these lessons is to not judge things or people by how they appear to be. In Chapter LVIII as Pip describes his life with Herbert and his wife, he narrates,

We owed so much to Herbert's ever cheerful industry and readiness that I often wondered how I had conceived that old idea of his inaptitude, until I was one day enlightened by the reflection, that perhaps the inaptitude had never been in him at all, but had been in me.

Why is the fact the other countries havenot banned DDT of concern to Canadians? breast milk contains fat. speculate about how breast feeding...

The fact that other countries have not banned DDT could be of concern to Canadians because DDT sprayed in one country will not necessarily stay in that country.  For example, birds that migrate from other countries to Canada could eat the DDT in other countries.  This could affect Canada if those birds are important to it economically or if many Canadians eat those birds.

DDT tends to accumulate in fat cells.  If DDT accumulates within a mother's body, it could be transmitted to the baby through the mother's milk.  This would obviously increase the levels in the child, but might decrease the mother's DDT levels.

What inovations in military warfare occured during World War I?

Innovations in warfare that occurred during World War I:

Submarine warfare: The Germans introduced submarine warfare in 1915.  Germany used submarines both to try to break Britain's blockade of Germany and to blockade Britain.  Germany's submarines nearly won the war for her, but submarine attacks made the American people so mad that they supported President Wilson's desire to enter the war on Britain's side; the American navy became very decisive in the blockade of Germany.  Without the ability to trade, provisions  and raw materials for industry gave out, so that the German people became demoralized and the German army could not be adequately supplied.  Previously, submarines had been very little used in warfare, because they had been too primitive and too few in number.

Gas attack was new: The German's introduced the practice of using artillery shells filled with poison gas to bombard an enemy position before the German infantry attacked that position.  The British did not have so many gas shells as the Germans; one use the British made of their gas shells was to fire against German artillery, because this made the Germans put on their gas masks, and it was hard to work the guns with gas masks on.

By 1918, German infantrymen were trained to probe for and penetrate weak points in the enemy's lines and then to send reserves to exploit those points.  Previously, infantrymen had been trained to try to crush the enemy's strong points, and reserves had been used to reinforce places on the line where they were being beaten back by the enemy.  The new tactic was to follow the line of least resistance in order to penetrate through the enemy's line, to get behind the enemy, and to surround the enemy, and to do this rapidly.  Before this time, the tactic had been to overrun the enemy from the front.  (The Germans employed this new manuever more successfully in World War II than they did in World War I.)

On 15 September 1916, in the Battle of the Somme, the British put the first tanks into action.  Two years later, they organized before Amiens, the first great armored breakthrough of modern warfare.

The use of the machine gun in World War I put into the hands of each small machine gun crew, the firepower of 40 riflemen.  The machine gun had been used in previous wars, but it was too primitive and few in number to be of much significance in those wars.  In World War I, the machine gun changed the nature of warfare, making infantry attacks across open ground very deadly and frequently unsuccessful.  The infantry stayed in trenches most of the time for protection from the machine gun.

Indirect fire of artillery was of great significance in WW I.  At the time of the American War Between The States, artillerymen had to see what they were shooting at.  By the time of WW I, artillerymen could fire upon a target that was far out of their sight; they still required someone who could see the target, but he could now be far away from the guns, on a hill-top or near the front line, because he had a telephone and could tell the gunners how to adujst their sights so that they would hit the target.

The machine gun and the indirect fire of artillery made the battlefield such a deadly place for attacking troops, that trench warfare and stalemate (neither side making any gains) became the normal situation. 

To try to overcome the machine gun and the indirect fire of artillery and the stalemate, both sides drafted men into their armies more than any combating nations had ever done before.  Most of the able bodied, male popluation was drafted into the armies.

To supply these large armies, the whole industrial might of the nations at war was directed towards manufacturing, munitions, equipment, food, and other supplies.

Barbed wire was used to fortify lines against enemy infantry attack; I don't know if this was new in World War I, but it was extensive.

The use of fixed-wing aircraft as a weapon was probably new to World War I.  The air plane was not prominent in WW I as it was in WW II, but it was used.  In WW I, it was used first for reconnisance, then for attacking ground troops, then for bombing railroads and factories, but not in much numbers.

An article that describes a WW I battle, is Chapter 4 "The Somme, July 1st, 1916" in The Face of Battle by John Keegan, (New York: The Viking Press), 1976, pages 204-284.  D25 K43.

Why is the setting important to the story and history?

Setting in this case extends into two areas: the period of time Fredrick Douglass writes about in his story and the period of time in our nation's history when the book was published. 

How is where and when (setting) important in telling the story?  In your opinion, why did Fredrick Douglass choose this particular setting for his book? Find sentences from the text that you feel best describe the setting--then write about why you, as the reader, think these sentences are important in recounting the evils of slavery.

The question then asks for the impact of the novel on society. You will have to do some research on this part of the question.  Search for book reviews, or historical accounts of how people responded to Douglass' book at the time it was published.  I've provided a link which you might find helpful:

Good luck and great writing! 

What is the meaning of the book The Poisonwood Bible?

Personally, what I took from the novel is that the white man is not entitled to everything, that maybe the only thing that the West brings will not result in progress, but destruction of itself.  The Prices came into Africa with their American ways, believing that they can pick up their lives in the States and drop it in the middle of the Congo, expecting the people to agree fully with everything they say.  They went in not understanding that a vibrant community with its own culture was prospering.  They almost had to die to get back out. The Congo was bloody as the white man exploited the black man to get rich.  Yet what we don't realize is that the forest is living.

What's interesting is that in Western literature and Western culture, we expect everything to be linear.  That through cause and effect, there is a beginning and an end. In African literature and culture, everything is cyclic; there is no beginning or an end.  The forest that they entered will continue to eat itself to grow.  

Ruth May said, "If I die I will disappear and I know where I'll come back.  I'll be right up there in the tree, same color, same everything.  I will look down on you.  But you won't see me" (173).   

What are three adjectives to describe Ralph in Lord of the Flies?I have sensible...

Sensible is a good start.

I would also call Ralph genuine. He has a sincere concern for all the boys that Jack would do well to emulate or copy. He previous ability as a leader of the crew demonstrates this concern, however unfortunately the savagery of the island means this civilized approach won't be as effective.

Another adjective that might clearly describe him might be imperfect. Although he might have the intellect to put together a great idea, he struggles to articulate or clearly express his ideas to the group. Thus, he can't really be the leader that he could have been.

What is the summary of Chapter 19 of To Sir With Love?

Mr. Braithwaite is getting to know his students better. He sometimes visits the small shops of Watney Street where many of their parents work, and so is better able to understand their lives.

A new teacher, Mr. Bell, arrives at the school, and is in charge of P.T. class for some of the senior boys. Mr. Bell is impatient and often unkind, berating the boys frequently and telling them they "stink like old garbage." As a result of complaints, Mr. Bell is reprimanded by the headmaster, and emerges more bitter than ever.

In class, Mr. Bell is particularly hard on Buckley, who is heavy and poorly coordinated. One day, he forces Buckley to attempt a difficult jump on the vault, despite the boy's hesitance and the protests of his peers. Buckley crashes clumsily into the apparatus, breaking it, and as he lies on the ground and his friends gather around to help him, Potter explodes in rage, picking up the broken part of the vault as a weapon and going after Mr. Bell. Tich Jackson runs for Mr. Braithwaite, who comes quickly and defuses the situation. Mr. Bell leaves, and the boys express their fury that he should have so cruelly made Buckley perform a maneuver so obviously beyond his capabilities. Fortunately, Buckley, though shaken, is all right.

Back in their regular classroom, Mr. Braithwaite tells Potter that he was out of line in attacking his teacher as he did. Potter and the boys are outraged, as it is clear that Mr. Bell's behavior was untenable. Mr. Braithwaite agrees, but stresses that ultimately, it is their own behavior for which they are responsible, and that, in life, it is of utmost importance that they learn self-control in even the most infuriating situations. Potter admits that he is not "quite pleased and satisfied" with what he did, but the boys persist, telling Mr. Braithwaite that he does not know what it is like to be "pushed around." Their accusation strikes a chord with their teacher, who has been "pushed around" all his life because of his race, and he tells them that it is easy to resort to violence when wronged, but so much harder to "be a bit bigger than the people who hurt (you)." Recognizing his sincerity, the boys are subdued, and Mr. Braithwaite challenges Potter to do the difficult thing and apologize to Mr. Bell, for his own sake. Potter goes to do this immediately, accompanied by Denham and Seales, and they return with Mr. Bell, who offers an uncomfortable apology of his own (Chapter 19).

In "The Story of an Hour," explain the elements you feel the author used that helped shape this story and make it meaningful in any way?

The author used several plays on word that succintly imply the matters at hand.

The first thing we see is her description of the main character's condition as "heart trouble"- what sort of trouble exactly is her heart going through? We later realize it was more than just a muscle not working optimally.

There is also a detachment from points of views in the story. What the reader understands about the main character may not be exactly what is meant to be understood. Only the main character knows, we only get wisps of it through irony such as the release she felt when she heard about the death, when she died of "the joy that kills", and when she allowed us for once to look into her character's inner qualities to realize that she is actually a woman in a personal prison, who feels about to be set free.

There is also symbolism: Nature in the story changes with her emotions: It rains when she is said, it clears up when she is internally rejoicing: Could she also have caused her "heart troubles" herself by staying with a loveless man?

Chopin's maneuver in her narrative is for the main character to tease the reader into wondering what could possibly be happening inside her mind and soul. It is interesting that this story is so short and powerful, and yet still leaves the reader with so many questions on details. That is a way to separate the narrative from the emotional catharsis of the reader, and that shows tremendous skill and talent on Chopin's part.

What are a few facts and things I should know about the Roman God Tiberius?I need it for a essay type thing

What is known of Tiberius Julius Ceasar Augustus is that he was not a God. There is no god Tiberius in Roman mythology. However, there is was a very powerful emperor that, just as his nephew Caligula, declared himself one and almighty.

Tiberius Ceasar (AD 14-37) was one of the worst emperors in the history of Rome. He was a syphillitic, sexually perverted abuser who did his best at doing the worse during his reign.

He set off wars for no reason, and he would keep a harem of children for his disposition. He adopted Germanicus, who was a fantastic soldier who died way too early in life. It was Germanicus son, known as Little Boots (Caligula) who would precede Nero, and eventually the entire bout of Tiberius, altogether, formed the Reign of Terror in Rome until the day it burned.

What conventions of short story telling does Ann Beattie challenge in "Snow"?

The snow seems to mean different things to the man and the woman. For her, snow seems to represent the relationship she had that winter in the country, before the couple separated. When she remembers that time, snow figures prominently. She remembers the man “like a crazy king of snow,” wearing a white turban and shoveling the walk. She remembers looking up at the sky as the snow streamed down: “It seemed that the world had been turned upside down, and we were looking into an enormous field of Queen Anne’s lace.” Because this was a happy and optimistic time for the woman, she views the snow as an integral part of a joyous experience. Her response to the snow is an enthusiastic one, and she doubtless loved being secure in her warm country house while the snow fell all around. For the man, that winter was not such a lark. The woman says of him: “You remember it differently.” He would not look back upon the time with such nostalgia. He views it as cold, moonless, repetitive, and grim. One night he tells her: “Any life will seem dramatic if you omit mention of most of it.” Snow to the man, in ironic and complete contrast to the woman, represents all that was wrong with that winter in the country. While she remembers him as Snow King, does he remember what a tedious chore it was to shovel and re-shovel the walks? The chipmunk, which appears in the opening sentence, leaps into the house as if it belongs there, despite the fact that it obviously does not; one could perhaps say the same thing of the couple. The pool, covered with a black shroud of plastic, under a torrent of rain, may hint at the death of the couple’s relationship. Beattie turns characterization and symbolism on its head.

In To Kill A Mockingbird, in which chapter does Atticus accept the case of Tom Robinson from Judge Taylor?

The trial of Tom Robinson hangs like an enormous weight over the Finch household in the chapters leading up to the actual court proceedings. Atticus, it is made clear in Chapter 9, is representing Tom, who has been unjustly accused of raping a white woman by the town's most virulently racist example of "white trash," Bob Ewell. Scout is troubled by accusations she has heard from others about her father's role in defending Tom, Atticus being an attorney and respected citizen of Maycomb. How and why Atticus came to be in this position, however, is only incrementally revealed. It is in Chapter 9, that Scout challenges her father for the reason he has taken such a highly-divisive case:

“If you shouldn’t be defendin‘ him, then why are you doin’ it?”

“For a number of reasons,” said Atticus. “The main one is, if I didn’t I couldn’t hold up my head in town, I couldn’t represent this county in the legislature, I couldn’t even tell you or Jem not to do something again.”

This sentiment -- and it is repeated in Chapter 11 when Atticus states, "This case, Tom Robinson’s case, is something that goes to the essence of a man’s conscience—Scout, I couldn’t go to church and worship God if I didn’t try to help that man" -- reveals the depth of Atticus' conscience and commitment to do what he believes is the right thing irrespective of its popularity and the ridicule to which it will inevitably expose his family. It is later in the series of exchanges Atticus has with his family, including Atticus' brother Jack, in Chapter 9, that Atticus refers to his appointment to this case by Judge John Taylor:

“Before I’m through, I intend to jar the jury a bit—I think we’ll have a reasonable chance on appeal, though. I really can’t tell at this stage, Jack. You know, I’d hoped to get through life without a case of this kind, but John Taylor pointed at me and said, ‘You’re It.’”

It is in Chapter 9, therefore, that Atticus reveals that he has taken this unpopular case because he was appointed to it by the presiding judge. Atticus could have, conceivably, turned down the judge's request that he defend Tom Robinson, crippled, desperately poor African American. It is emphasized, however, that he accepted the case because of a moral imperative to display for his children and to others his commitment to do what he believes is right.

Isn't Mr Bates the principal character in "Odour of Chrysanthemums?"I see that Mr Bates 's atitude built the whole story

I think you can make a case for Mr. Bates being the main character of the story, but I would still argue that Mrs. Bates is the true principal character.

You say that the story is built around Mr. Bates's attitude but I think that it is built around Mrs. Bates's feelings towards her husband.  We see these feelings revealed through her talking about his absence.

To me, the story is about how dissatisfied Mrs. Bates has been with her husband.  She feels that she has married beneath her and is impatient with him because of that.  At the end of the story, she comes to realize that the problems in their marriage were her fault.

So Mr. Bates is central to the story, but only (in my opinion) as an object for Mrs. Bates's thoughts and feelings.

Compare the love that Romeo feels for Juliet with the love he felt for Rosaline.

Romeo and Juliet is full of little indications about the love and the validity of the love that Romeo and Juliet feels for one another.  The main question really is if this situation was to happen today would what is percieved as love then, be love in the eyes of today's society.  Here are my thoughts from the question you have posed. 

Romeo at the begining of the play is pining for the love of a woman called Rosaline. Or is he? As mentioned above, Shakespeare gives many indications as to what the feelings are between the characters within this play.  I believe that Romeo has more of an infatuation with Rosaline and because of his lack of maturity fails to actually love her but instead insults her by offering to pay her money for sex - this is in actual fact prostitution in a modern day society.  At this stage in the play he is knew to the idea of love and instead of feeling love for Rosaline he feels lust.  Honestly mistaking it for real love-  “won’t ope her lap for saint seducing gold”

The contrast between his feelings is vast - it could be seen that Romeo is still too immature to know the difference between love and lust as he falls in and out of love so easily.  He falls for Juliet so quickly.  In contrast to this he does explain how juliet completes his soul and she is his Sun and  “he hasn’t seen true beauty til this night”.  This appears to be the real deal for him - he is willing to lose everything for juliet as opposed to some gold for Rosaline.

Elizabethan audiences probably would have believed this love between the two.  Today, in my opinion it wouldn't be as believable.  I guess you have to look at the social, cultural, historical and political aspects of the time and ask if this is something that was done then?  Did people fall for each other like that or was it the romantic ideology that we try to hold now within fictional books such as Twilight with Bella and Edward?  Is anything possible and do you believe in Love? 

It is all questionable - but Shakespeare does give a lot away as to whether is it supposed to be believed as genuine or not.  Maybe have a closer look into the symbolism of his language with Juliet compared to Rosaline.  Do you forget someone you love so easily for another?

The love that Romeo feels is not comparable as in my opinion he does not love Rosaline.

What does Granger mean when he says "Everyone must leave something behind when he dies"?

As Ray Bradbury's science fiction classic Fahrenheit 451 nears its conclusion, Montag has found a new home, so to speak, with the groups of wandering exiles who have committed to remembering the literary works of the past -- the sources of knowledge and inspiration deemed threatening by the government they have all fled -- he engages in conversation with Granger, one of the unofficial leaders of this particular group. During that conversation, Montag laments his inability to remember anything substantial about his wife, Mildred:

"I can't remember anything. I think of her hands but I don't see them doing anything at all. They just hang there at her sides or they lie there on her lap or there's a cigarette in them, but that's all."

This uncomfortable admission by the former fireman sets the context for the comment by Granger:

"Everyone must leave something behind when he dies, my grandfather said. A child or a book or a painting or a house or a wall built or a pair of shoes made. Or a garden planted. Something your hand touched some way so your soul has somewhere to go when you die, and when people look at that tree or that flower you planted, you're there."

What Granger means by these comments is that the life lived well is the life that leaves behind something tangible and positive, such as some concrete indicators that the deceased had once lived, and that he or she left the world a better place than he or she found it. Mildred had lived an intellectually and emotionally empty existence, the perfect citizen of the dysfunctional authoritarian society from which Montag broke. She existed, but she never lived; she never created something to prove that she had once lived a meaningful life.  Many people hope that, when they will have passed from this earth, that they will leave behind some measure of their significance as human beings, whether it is productive, well-raised children, trees planted in barren land, art that will adorn a wall somewhere, or any other tangible proof of a worthwhile life. Mildred left nothing behind to remind others that she had once existed. Montag regrets that, and Granger's words provide the emotional sustenance he needs to ensure that he does not repeat that mistake.

How is the movie V for Vendetta related to the book 1984 ?What shows the movie is related to the book, specific quotes or events ?

Yes, the graphic novel series V for Vendetta by Alan Moore is very much like the novel 1984 by George Orwell.

• Both works are Juvenalian satires against totalitarian governments, namely the controlling parties (the Norsefire party vs. the Inner Party).


• Both works focus on the cruelties perpetrated by the secret police.


• Both works focus on the fear spread by a leader's intimidating, ubiquitous face: (Adam Susan vs. Big Brother)


• Both works focus on the spread of state terrorism against the common public.


• Both works focus on Great Britain as a country in the crossfire of terrorism from within and outside.


• Both works focus on a common man (Winston) and woman (Evey) who become victims of the state's cruelties.


• Both works focus on the invasion of privacy by the state against the individual ("Eye" — the agency that controls the country's CCTV system in V; the telescreens in 1984.)


• Both works focus on rhymes as links to the past:

In V, it's: "Remember, remember / The fifth of November / The gunpowder treason and plot. / I know of no reason / Why the gunpowder treason / Should ever be forgot."

In 1984, it's: "Oranges and lemons, say the bells of St Clement's, You owe me three farthings, say the bells of St Martin's."

• Both works focus on the torture of their protagonists by an experienced terrorist (V, O'Brien).


• The main difference is that in V for Vendetta is revenge fantasy.  In it, we have a hero, V, who guides Evey to defeat the state.


• V tortures Evey as an initiation into the underground, and it makes her stronger.  O'Brien uses the imaginary underground (Goldstein) as a lure to torture Winston, and it defeats him.


• 1984 ends with Winston becoming an unperson: he has no mentor or guide.  In fact, who he thinks is his guide, O'Brien, turns out to be his torturer.

What are the three main conflicts in the novel, 1984? How are they resolved?i really need an answer for this question so can someone PLEASE help me...

The three main conflicts in George Orwell's 1984 are:

1.  Individual (freedom) vs. the state: Winston is limited by the state in terms of every right and freedom imaginable, namely free speech and privacy.  He is constantly surveilled, and all attempts to record thoughts are prohibited.  The main symbol in the novel is the boot crushing the face of its citizens.  Torture is the only real memory that should remain:

He felt the smash of truncheons on his elbows and iron-shod boots on his shins; he saw himself grovelling on the floor, screaming for mercy through broken teeth. He hardly thought of Julia. He could not fix his mind on her. He loved her and would not betray her; but that was only a fact, known as he knew the rules of arithmetic. He felt no love for her, and he hardly even wondered what was happening to her. He thought oftener of O'Brien, with a flickering hope. O'Brien might know that he had been arrested. The Brotherhood, he had said, never tried to save its members.

2.  The state vs. language: the Ministry of Truth is a propaganda machine that attacks the English language, whittling it down to the bare minimum, a kind of technical, utilitarian language that replaces personal words in order to prevent rebellion.

Whenever he began to talk of the principles of Ingsoc, doublethink, the mutability of the past, and the denial of objective reality, and to use Newspeak words, she became bored and confused and said that she never paid any attention to that kind of thing. One knew that it was all rubbish, so why let oneself be worried by it? ...In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird.

3.  The past vs. the present vs. the future: the state cuts off history from its citizens in order to create a vacuum of control.  In this way, the citizens of Oceania are cut off from each other and the outside world: they do not know who they are fighting.   They do not take pride in their families' histories, only the state's history, which is all propaganda.

Even at that time Winston had not imagined that the people who were wiped out in the purges had actually committed the crimes that they were accused of. But this was concrete evidence; it was a fragment of the abolished past, like a fossil bone which turns up in the wrong stratum and destroys a geological theory. It was enough to blow the Party to atoms, if in some way it could have been published to the world and its significance made known.

What are some quotes people say about the Radley house in To Kill a Mockingbird?

About the Radley house, Scout, as the narrator of the story, says,

"The Radley Place was inhabited by an unknown entity the mere description of whom was enough to make us behave for days on end."

Her observation is based on local lore, what unnamed "people" say about it -

"Inside the house lived a malevolent phantom. People said he existed, but Jem and I had never seen him. People said he went out at night when the moon was down, and peeped in windows. When people's azaleas froze in a cold snap, it was because he had breathed on them. Any stealthy small crimes committed in Maycomb were his work."

When Scout questions her brother Jem about how old Mr. Radley, the owner of the house, makes a living, her brother provides some information of his own -

"Jem said he "bought cotton," a polite term for doing nothing."

Atticus is less forthcoming than Jem as concerns the Radley House, providing only information that he has come by through observation. Scout says,

"The Radley house had no screen doors. I once asked Atticus if it ever had any; Atticus said ys, but before I was born."

According to "neighborhood legend,"

"...when the younger Radley boy was in his teens he became acquainted with some of the Cunninghams from Old Sarum...Once night, in an excessive spurt of high spirits, the boys backed around the square in a borrowed flivver, resisted arrest...and (were) locked...in the courthouse outhouse...the judge released Arthur...the doors of the Radley house were closed...and Mr., Radley's boy was not seen again for fifteen years."

Miss Stephanie Crawford, who always has plenty of gossip to spread around, tells Jem about an incident that purportedly occurred at the Radley house when Jem was very little. According to her account,

"Boo was sitting in the livingroom cutting some items from The Maycomb Tribune...(when) his father entered the room. As Mr. Radley passed by, Boo drove the scissors into his parent's leg" (Chapter 1).

How does Gregor respond to his sister's violin playing and what might this reaction imply about him?

Gregor reacted strongly to Grete's violin playing. When Grete was playing the violin the boarders came to listen, as did Gregor. This did not end well, as the boarders were shocked to say the least and stated that they would not pay. Eventually Gregor's father kicks them out. This section tells us three things about Gregor. 

First, Gregor wonders whether his reaction to the music was the result of his humanity or his bestiality. In this sense, Gregor is confused.

Second, he still loves Grete and his family. In fact, he imagines in his mind how he will tell Grete about his love of her playing, and how he wants to send her to a conservatory to hone her skills further. He cannot, of course, as he is a bug. 

Third, there is still enough of his humanity left for him to desire to take care of his family. 

All of this shows that Gregor is not completely an insect. He still has traces of his humanity. 

Finally, this occurs ironically when his family cannot take him any more. They plan their lives without him. 

What is Gandhi's influence on modern education?

Mahatma Gandhi learned from his education experiences in other cultures (English, South Africa and India) and developed a distinct viewpoint on the modern educational system. The ideas he proposed have influenced the aims, methods, curriculum and discipline of modern education.

Gandhi believed that only through education could a society excel and improve. He thought that a poor education would lead to the downfall of people.

Gandhi believed that a country demonstrates what it values by what is selected to be educated. He said the fact that South Africa does not educate females implies that South Africa does not value females.

He also was against schools’ devaluing his native tongue. He disliked forcing the people of India to learn and communicate only in English, instead of their native language. He was a firm believer that one of the aims of education was to pass a cultural heritage down to other generations.

Mahatma Gandhi did not like machines; he believed that each task could be completed by hand. He did not view vocational training as dreaded, menial labor. According to him, skilled labor would lead to a job for the graduate. Any handmade crafts produced as part of the curriculum brought in needed funds to the school.

Gandhi believed in co-operation between student and teacher. He felt that the teacher should learn alongside the student and continue learning from the student.

Portions of Gandhi’s beliefs have been incorporated into modern curriculum and education. Now, efforts are being made to provide free, universal education for every child, regardless of gender. Many schools also include some type of specialized training.

The specialized training could provide alternate income. Because of a continuous government shortfall on financing education, many schools have embraced corporate sponsorship and sought other funding sources.

Traditional teacher-led student learning has taken a back seat in teacher education courses. Modern teacher training courses include a section that encourages students to learn from someone other than the teacher.

VAT (Value Added Tax)....Manufacturer A sells a washing machine to a trader B for Rs 12,500. Trader B sells it to a trader C at a profit of Rs 800...

The manufacturer sells the washing machine at Rs 12500 to B. So Rs 12500 is incusive of 8% Vat.

B should get  a profit of  Rs 800 and sell at a price which includes that vat also . So he sells the WM at Rs [12500+800(1+8/100)]

Similarly C should sell for price with profit Rs 1300 means his selling price  including a Vat of Rs1300*8/108 should be

Rs[12500+800(1+8/100)+1300(1+8/100)] = Rs(12500 +2100*108/100)= Rs(12500+2468) = Rs14768 which is inclusive of 8%

Therefore the 8% included VAT paid is 14768*8/108 = Rs 1093.93 of which

12500*8/108 =  925.93 is paid by manufacture,

(800+8%800)*8/108  = Rs 64 Paid by B  and

(1300+8%of1300)*8/108 = Rs 104 is paid by C.

And the consumer pays 925.93+64+104 = Rs1093.93 VAT (through the sellers to the the government)  which is included in the price Rs14768.

Here, selers pay the VAT to government, but they recover it from the consumer.

What is the significance of Amir's visit to Farid's family? Why did he give them money?

In the book "The Kite Runner" Farid has risk his own safety by going into a dangerous zone with Amir. He even waits for him risking his life to help him.  He is a good man who has two wives and five children.  He had lost two toes and three fingers due to a land mine blast that had killed two of his daughters. Farid had helped to prepare Amir for the journey and dangers involved and instructed him on how to act.  He tells him always to keep his eyes on his feet whenever Talibs are around.  Farid is also the voice of the changes that have occurred in Amir's homeland.  He generates this information as he transports Amir around the places.

Initially there was a division between Farid and Amir.  When the journey to rescue Hassan's son began they did not talk.  Farid had resentment against Amir until he learned that Amir was not in Afghanistan to just sell his father's property and return to America.  He learned that he was there to rescue his illegitimate half brother’s son, a Hazara.  His mood and relationship changed from that point on.

The significance of the family visit was that it enabled Farid to have a better understanding of Amir and it also serves to remind Amir of the importance of his life in Afghanistan.  It is during his visit that it is suggested that he write about his homeland.

Farid had become a good friend to Amir in a short time.  He had risked everything he had and only to help him with little expectations in return.  Amir has no real way that he could ever pay him back for the risks he has taken.  He is aware that having money will enable him to do more for his children.  He gives him $2,000 dollars.  It is also a symbol for the idea that Amir had only come to gain money when he arrived in Afghanistan.  Instead, Amir has given it away.

What is Henry VIII's relationship to Sir Thomas More? "Because you are honest... Follows anything that moves- and then there is you."

At the beginning of the story, Sir Thomas More has an excellent relationship with Henry VIII. Henry has appointed him Lord Chancellor, a position which made More the second most powerful man in England. As the play continues, a rift occurs between Henry and More because More cannot support Henry's divorce from Queen Katherine. At first, More tries to simply remain silent on the issue, but, eventually, he must take a stand. More refuses to swear to support the "Act of Succession" and the "Oath of Supremacy",both of which made Henry head of the Church of England.  As a devout Catholic, More cannot support the divorce and the relationship between Henry and More is broken. Eventually, More is executed.

What elements in it make "The Signalman" a good Gothic story?What are elements in it that are gothic in nature?

This "ghost story" of Charles Dickens has many of the elements of the Gothic tale:

1. An atmosphere of mystery and suspense


2. Fear and panic, enhanced by an unknown feeling of threats 


3. Ominous happenings, visions, portentous events


4. Inexplicable or supernatural events,


5. High emotion; characters overcome by terror; a feeling of impending doom

1. (Atmosphere)The isolated locations of the train tunnel, a "lonesome place," with its "crooked prolongation" and "dripping-wet wall of jagged stone" and the unnamed protagonist and narrator create mystery. In addition, there is the signalman's strange and mysterious apparition that he has seen, and the narrator's first impression that the signalman himself is "an apparition."

2. (Fear) The signalman is initially fearful of the narrator because his greeting reminds him of a disturbing apparition that he has seen and the oddly similar words spoken by this apparition at the mouth of the train tunnel. Later, as he becomes acquainted with the narrator, he recounts his bizarre visions and fear of some calamity.

3. (Vision) The signalman tells the narrator of a vision which he has seen a strange man with his left arm across his face, and the right arm is being waved violently. "The ghost's ring is a strange vibration in the bell that it derives from nothing else..." Clearly, he is greatly disturbed by what the movements must mean, and he wonders why the narrator has oddly repeated the same calls and movements. 

4. (Inexplicable and supernatural events) One day the signalman sees a mysterious person wave, then he hears terrible screams, and later a pretty young woman dies mysteriously. Also, he hears his bell ring for no explainable reason.

5. (high emotion; terror; fear of impending doom) The signalman fears his vision:

"Where is the danger? ...Some dreadful calamity will happen. It is not to be doubted this third time, after what has gone before. But surely this is a cruel haunting of me. What can I do?"

What are Sartre's definitions of these three term "anguish," "forlornness," and "despair"? How does he distinguish among them?

The terms identified helps to articulate how Sartre views human consciousness.  The sense of "forlornness" results from the rejection of all transcendental and totalizing ideas. When Sartre argues that human beings are "forlorn," he is stressing the idea that they are without any sort of guidance from transcendent ends.  They are trapped with only their sense of freedom present, which brings about a natural condition of "anguish," in that nothing nor anyone can help to alleviate the pain of isolation and loneliness, the condition of individual freedom, and more importantly, having to choose.  It is this choice that causes "despair" for nothing can lighten the burden of the agony of choice.  Take, for example, the student to whom Sartre alludes.  Loyal to his country, the student enlists in the French Resistance to the Nazis, but ever loyal to his mother, he realizes that if he leaves to fight for nation, his mother will die alone of a broken heart.  The student is poised between equally desirable, but ultimately incompatible courses of action, and represents the essence of human consciousness.  He is forlorn, for both loyalty to nation and to mother helps to cancel one another out.  One cannot overwhelm the other, making totality a moot point.  Additionally, the student is forlorn for nothing can decide for him, only he can, and because of this, anguish and agony results.  Freedom becomes brutal, as human beings become actors who are thrust onto a stage to perform without scripts or the aid of a director.  Only the glare of a spotlight and the obscure faces in the dark remain.

Do all the children understand what Ms. Moore is trying to teach?

I have always remained unsure about how much Sylvia learns because she refuses to admit to anything to Miss Moore.  She is angry, to be sure, and Miss Moore observes this of her, and she says "I"m mad, but I won't give her that satisfaction." And she later says about Miss Moore, who is teaching the kids about money and disparity, "But she ain't so smart cause I still got her four dollars from the taxi and she sure ain't gettin it." This does not seem to be a very productive lesson that she is learning from the situation.  She says at the end when she is racing down the street with her friend to spend the little money they have at Hascombs that "ain't nobody gonna beat me at nothin," which has some ambiguity concerning what she is going to do with what she has learned:  will this turn her into a productive citizen so that she makes more of her life (the point of the lesson, Miss Moore must hope) or will she act out resentment and anger in less productive ways such as by trying to trick people (as she does in being less than honest about Miss Moore's money). The girl has an attitude that is very much a product of the economic inequality, and that she will have to deal with if she wants to overcome that.

A retail chain offers online shopping. Is this good or bad?

Can you clarify the question for us?  I'm just guessing this is what you're looking for.

One negative aspect of online shopping is that it removes the personal contact a customer is used to, which often influences their shopping habits.  It reduces the tendency to impulse buy, to grab something near the register, or see something on sale that you hadn't planned on buying, or in a clothing store, to accessorize.  When people physically come to a retail store, they are already looking, whereas you have to lure people to an online site.

Much lower percentages of African-Americans and Latinos have regular internet access, so you narrow your target demographic.

On the plus side, if online shopping is in addition to the retail outlet, you can offer extra specials online, attract housebound customers, and the system is nearly weatherproof, and available 24 hours per day, with virtually no labor overhead costs.

What is a summary for Chapter 10 in the book The Man Who Was Poe by Avi?I need a summary that explains the chapter.

Reunited with Dupin, Edmund tries to get the irrascible gentleman to tell him what he has discovered about Sis, but Dupin wants only to talk about Mrs. Whitman. Edmund relays a message to Dupin from Mrs. Whitman, instructing him to meet her at three-thirty in the cemetery behind the house, in private. Dupin offhandedly mentions that he has indeed found out something about Sis, but refuses to divulge any more information to Edmund, preferring to talk about Mrs. Whitman instead. In a desperate attempt to keep Dupin's attention, Edmund tells him that Mrs. Whitman was surprised that Dupin is in the area, and Edmund asks if he is here on business. Dupin confides in Edmund "a great truth." He says he is "a creator of the future." When Edmund asks what Sis's future will be, Dupin speaks cryptically and gloomily of death.

Dupin then asks Edmund to fetch some water to his room so that Dupin can ready himself to meet Mrs. Whitman. Edmund tells Dupin that in his absence, the room has been ransacked, his Aunty's trunk broken into, and a picture stolen. Back in the room, Dupin examines the trunk and notes that "the person who opened it had a key," and concludes that the one who murdered her is also the thief. Dupin then rudely dismisses Edmund and prepares to go to see Mrs. Whitman. As he leaves, Edmund blurts out the information that although it is true that his father was lost at sea, he has a stepfather as well. His stepfather had deceived his mother and stolen her money, and his mother had come to America to retrieve her money and divorce the evil man, whose name is Ratchett. Dupin is stunned, and tells Edmund that Ratchett is the man who fled so precipitously earlier that day when Edmund had gone to a clothing store to inquire about a coat. Dupin's demeanor becomes tormented, and he mutters that his and Edmund's lives are eerily similar except for "the death...of Sis." Edmund is overcome with despair, and as Dupin leaves the apartment, he instructs the overwrought boy to go to the docks and get information about a ship called The Lady Liberty; Dupin believes its watchman, Mr. Fortnoy, murdered Edmund's Aunty (Chapter 10).

How did the Treaty of Versailles punish Germany?WWI

It did this in a lot of ways.  Generally speaking, it took away territory and goods from Germany and it made them pay what were called reparations for the war.  It reduced the size of their military,  Finally, it made them admit that the war was all their fault, even though you could really argue that it was not.

The Treaty took a lot of land away from Germany.  This included land in Europe as well as colonies (including the tiny island in Micronesia where I grew up).

It also reduced the size of their armed forces and told them they were only supposed to be defensive.

It made Germany pay huge sums of money to the other countries to make up for allegedly causing the war.

Can someone compare and contrast Dr. Nemur and Dr. Strauss in Flowers for Algernon?

Nemur is a psychologist who develops the idea of raising a person's intelligence through surgery. Although he's intelligent, his ambitions to be recognized for his work get in the way of his humanity. The other scientists want to keep the experiment a secret, but Nemur can't wait to make it public and claim himself as the discoverer of the process of raising Charlie's intelligence. When Charlie becomes smarter than Nemur, he resents Charlie because of it and accuses Charlie of being egotistical and selfish. This is ironic since Nemur is the one who displays these characteristics. Nemur doesn't care about Charlie, only about his reputation and fame.

Dr. Strauss is a caring man who performs the surgery on Charlie. He remains concerned about Charlie throughout the experiment, even taking care of Charlie when he is no longer intelligent.

What is the problem or the conflict in each chapter of That Was Then, This Is Now?

The conflicts in each chapter relate directly to the themes of the cycle of gang violence, loss of innocence, and growing up in the real world.  By chapter, they are as follows:

1. M&M is beaten up, and the gang's blithe attitude toward violence is questioned.

2. Bryon can understand how Mike can NOT hate the woman who caused his beating, but Mark cannot.

3. Mark is beat up, and Bryon wants revenge.

4. Mark gets away with everything because of his devil-may-care personality, but there are signs he won't be able to much longer.

5. Bryon feels guilty about Charlie's death.

6. Bryan tries to change his image and leave the gang life, and M&M runs away.

7. In an act of gang retaliation, Mark gets Angela drunk and cuts off her hair.

8. Mark is beat up again, but Bryon wants to end the cycle of violence and retaliation.

9. M&M has a deadly reaction to LSD.

10. Bryon finds out Mark has been dealing drugs and turns him in.

11. Mark has completely lost his innocence and hates Bryon for putting him in prison. Bryon, numb and confused by the pressures and uncertainties of being an adult, will question the rightness of his decision probably for the rest of his life.

What are Reverend Parris' complaints against the community in Act One of The Crucible?

Reverend Parris is a man who thinks people are always plotting against him. For a man of God, he worries quite a bit about money and public opinion.

In Act I, with his daughter Betty stricken with an unknown illness, he is more concerned about whether rumors will start and how this will affect his reputation. He tries to keep people from finding out what is wrong so that he does not look bad.

When he confronts Abigail with his discovery of the girls in the woods, he lectures her on how this will look for him. He also gets on her about her reputation, and how people are talking about her dismissal from the Proctor house. Again, he is not concerned for Abigail's own well-being, but for his own.

Parris and John Proctor are antagonistic towards each other. Proctor hates that Parris is always trying to negotiate a higher compensation, and arguing about his having to pay for his own firewood. Parris is more interested in money than in ministering to the people. It angers him that they do not reward his supposed worth.

Can you please summarize the story of Oedipus the King, by Sophocles?

Oedipus the King, or Oedipus Rex (Rex meaning king in Latin) is a famous tragedy written by Sophocles around 430 B.C.  It concerns the attempt and failure to escape one's own fate.  Years after Oedipus becomes the crowned king of Thebes through marrying the widowed queen Jocasta, his city starts being destroyed by fires and other plagues.  He sends his wife’s brother, Creon, to the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi to find a cure for their plagues.  From the oracle, Creon learns that the gods are punishing the city because the city still harbors the murderer of the previous king, Laius, and the gods want the people of the city to find and exile the murderer.  Throughout the rest of the play, Oedipus learns from the soothsayer Teiresias that it was Oedipus, himself, who attacked and killed Laius.  Oedipus also learns that King Laius was his own father.  Laius had had Oedipus exiled as a baby because it was prophesied that one day Laius’s child would kill Laius.  Thus, Oeidpus learns that he had not escaped his own fate—he has murdered his own father, married his own mother, and had children with Jocasta out in incest, all which are terrible sins against the gods.  Jocasta upon learning this commits hangs herself, Oedipus scratches out his own eyes and allows himself to be exiled.

What is the original text for the excerpted quote: "There is no vocabulary / For love within a family..."?

For love within a family, love that's lived in
But not looked at, love within the light of which
All else is seen, the love within which
All other love finds speech.
This love is silent.

T.S. Eliot penned the above lines as part of a play in verse titled The Elder Statesman, which was first performed in 1958 and published a year later (1959). The play was Eliot's last, his first having been Sweeney Agonistes, which was published in 1926 then performed for the first time in 1934.

The Elder Statesman is about an aging statesman in poor health, Claverton, who is haunted by ghosts of past errors, particularly so when the two "ghosts" materialize once again and wish to spend time with Claverton. He treated both Gomez and Mrs. Carghill badly in their youth, but they have risen above the past and now only wish to see Claverton once again as they are all in the lengthening shadows of their years. Gomez and Mrs. Carghill embody Eliot's message that life is to lead toward spirituality and illumination, not materialism and dissembling deceit.

What is the narrator's attitude towards Wheeler? Support your answer with details from the story.

The narrator finds Wheeler to be annoying and amusing all at the same time, but is in reality a bit irritated with Wheeler's ramblings, and anxious to escape them.  You can find evidence of this attitude at the beginning of the story, when the narrator is introducing to us just exactly how he heard the story of the jumping frog in the first place.  He had a friend tell him to ask Wheeler about Smiley, and concludes that he suspects his friend set him up, in order to trap him into a long conversation with Wheeler.  He states that his friend must have known that Wheeler would

"would go to work and bore me nearly to death with some infernal reminiscence of him as long and tedious as it should be useless to me."

So, he tells us that Wheeler was incredibly boring and told stories that no one cared about.  He goes on to describe him in very unflattering terms as "fat and bald-headed" and "simple."  He indicates that Wheeler "blockaded" him in the room so he couldn't escape and forced the story down him.  The narrator finds this "exquisitely absurd."  At the end of the narration, the narrator is so irritated and anxious to leave that he snaps at Wheeler and leaves him right in the middle of another story.

From all of this, we can conclude that the narrator, on the surface, found Wheeler to be incredibly annoying and dull.  However, the fact that he even told the story of Wheeler and his tales later on indicates that irritation was not necessarily all there was to it.  He found his stories entertaining enough, and the man himself amusing enough to write down a story about it, so, he had to have some merit.  I hope that those thoughts helped; good luck1

What kind of reputation did Hooper have as a preacher?

I assume you are referring to Hooper's reputation prior to wearing the veil. His parishioners are shocked when Hooper puts on the veil because up to that point, he has been a conservative, ordinary minister, one that the congregation could respect. He behaved the way he was supposed to as a minister, concerned with the welfare of his parishioners and open to their advice. It's ironic that after donning the veil, Hooper seems to become a better minister, delivering more intense sermons.

What are the different approaches used to interpret a literary work, and which approach is the most successful?

This topic is huge, of course, I encourage you to review any number of textbooks and other introductions in print or on the web, looking especially for the terms "literary theory," "critical theory," and "critical approaches to literature." I have included a couple of internet links below.

Most of the approaches are from the twentieth-century, so I'll concentrate on a few of these modern approaches:

New Criticism (c. 1920s+) seeks to understand how the text is structured as a self-standing artifact and how it develops its own meaning (through symbols, themes, etc.). This approach emerged as a challenge to biographical approaches to literature, in which the life and statements of an author were used to interpret the literary text.

Psychoanalytic criticism (c. 1900+) seeks to understand how the text can represent the individual's mind (illustrating concepts such as repression, sublimation, etc.). Archetypal criticism, which is often viewed as an offshoot of psychoanalytic criticism, seeks to uncover supposedly universal symbols of the collective mind (or "collective unconscious") of humanity.

Structuralism (c. 1960s+, but prefigured in the Russian Formalism of earlier decades) seeks to uncover the large patterns in a text and the connections between that text and some larger system. Deconstruction is a reaction to structuralism, pursuing the goal of uncovering large patterns and connections only to undermine the very concept of stable patterns and connections.

Feminism (c. 1960s+, but prefigured as well in earlier decades, especially from the later 1800s onward) seeks to uncover the ways in which literature represents (explicitly and implicitly) what it means to be a woman. Feminism is really a grouping of multiple approaches and philosophies, including radical feminism, social constructivist feminism, third-world feminism, eco-feminism, and others. Lesban and gay approaches (as well as the more recent developments in queer theory) are in many ways an offshoot of this branch of critical approaches to literature.

In this post, of course, I've hardly provided an extensive listing of even the recent developments in critical approaches to literature. I can say with assurance, though, that no one approach is "the most successful" of them all. Each approach has its particular strengths and limitations. Pychoanalytic approaches tend to work very well with text from the era of Romanticism, for example, but have more limited application to many more recent literary works.

The best practice in literary theory, I believe, involves understanding the strengths and limitations of the various approaches, selecting approaches that work well with the particular works that you are reading, and even combining approaches in new and meaningful ways.

What is the character flaw that is the cause of Macbeth's downfall?

Shakespeare's plays are usually put into one of several categories: Tragedy (such as "Macbeth"), Comedy (such as "All's Well That Ends Well"), History (Such as "Richard III'), Pastoral (such as "As You Like It"), or Romance (such as "The Tempest").

In each of these genres, Shakespeare observes and comments on the human condition. In essence, nothing much has changed about human beings AS human beings from the Elizabethan era, during which he lived and worked, to our own.

The category, "Tragedy", contains Shakespeare's "Macbeth", "King Lear", "Antony and Cleopatra", et al.  In each of these, the true "tragedy" can be said to be a human flaw which sets into motion and/or keeps in motion the events which result in disaster. These character flaws have existed since time immemorial, exist in each of us today, and will likely continue to exist as long as the human race endures.

Human flaws might also be called tragic flaws, character flaws, human inadequacies, or a host of other names. By examining ourselves and those around us, we will surely observe such factors in our lives as greed, hubris, dishonesty, untrustworthiness, etc.  We can also readily understand that such flaws within us contribute mightily to the state of war, the economic state, the moral state, and the state of humanity which plague us in our own time and place.

With the above as introduction and background, one can understand that Macbeth's greatest human frailty, his vaulted flaw, the tragic fiber within him which drove him to his horrible deeds, was greatly excessive ambition.

Ambition can be a desirable characteristic in any of us.  Without ambition, we would remain complacent in such mundane activities as cleaning house, bathing, preparing healthful meals, etc.  A lack of ambition would have an even greater effect on our going beyond the most basic requirements in our studies, or being willing to remain the person lowest in rank and most poorly paid in our careers.  At the highest levels, no ambition would lead us not to have sufficient desire and drive to work for peace, or strive to cure disease, or to show compassion to our fellow man.

But ambition can also be a dangerous thing.  It was ambition which caused the break in at the Watergate Hotel and brought an American president to the shame of resignation.  It was religious ambition which brought about the horrifying events of "9/11". Political and military ambition has most often been the defining factor in bringing nations into war.

It was this same kind of "ambition on steroids", one might say, which caused Macbeth to hasten events which would have likely happened anyway, had he had the patience to await them. But, without patience, and with an ambition that was clearly out of control, he brought about horrendous evil, including the most dreadful crime of murder.

Shakespeare understood the human condition, in my opinion, better than any other writer of his or any other time.  His studies and observations in the same have resulted in plays of great power and insight.

What force is in conflict with the speaker?(antagonist)Story: To The Residents of A.D. 2029 my teacher said the antagonist is NOT the future but...

In some ways, this is an opinion, so I'm not 100% sure I will agree with your teacher.  But in my opinion, the conflict is between the speaker and himself.  I think it's an internal conflict between the parts of him that are optimistic and pessimistic.

I think you can see this in the way the essay unfolds.  He talks first about all the problems there are.  He talks about the pollution, and he talks about the idea that there will always be a need for prisons.  And even when he starts talking more optimistically, he still keeps saying "if."

So I think that different parts of him are disagreeing.  One part wants to think things will be okay, but the other part sees problems.

What words or phrases would you choose to describe the character of The Giver?

The Giver is firm and focused.

He has a job to do, and does it, even though it is painful.  In the first paragraph of Chapter 14's second section, it says, "The Giver led Jonah firmly...into the deep and terrible suffering of the past."  In the middle of Chapter 18, in talking about Rosemary, he says, "...it broke my heart...to transfer pain to her.  But it was my job."

He is also kind and compassionate. 

With Rosemary and Jonah he always tries to soften the harsh memories with happy ones.  In Chapter 14, Jonah says, "Each time, in his kindness, The Giver ended the afternoon with a...memory of pleasure."

The Giver is terribly lonely.

As he explains in Chapter 20, the "worst part of holding the memories is...the loneliness of it."

The Giver is courageous and unselfish.

He wants to escape with Jonah in Chapter 20, but will stay because he knows if he goes, "...the community will be left with no one to help them..." through the troubles ahead.

Does Grete Change in the course of The Metamorphosis? If so how does she change?

Grete Samsa, Gregor's sister, most definitely goes through a "metamorphosis" as does every member of the family.  Before Gregor's change, Grete is described as a "useless" daughter. She has taken violin lessons, but she isn't very good.  She doesn't leave the house often.  She is timid and seemingly afraid of the world.  She "whispers" and "wimpers" at Gregor's door to get him to get up and come out to breakfast.  The entire family depends on Gregor for their well-being and existence.

She is a good soul, however, as she is the one who takes care of Gregor when his secret is discovered.  She is afraid of him in his new state, but she attempts to be caring and kind.

After Gregor's change, Grete also gets a job outside of the house.  She is stepping into Gregor's role of caretaker of the family.  However, because of her new duties, she also begins to neglect Gregor and her caretaking duties of him.  Even so, she displays an uncharacteristic anger when their mother cleans Gregor's room while Grete is away from the house.

Although at the beginning of the story Grete seems to have the closest and most loving relationship with Gregor, she is the one who argues most vigorously for getting rid of him. 

So, change is not always a good thing.  In Grete, she has discovered independence, but she has become colder and less loving as a result.  Oddly enough, her parents see her as growing into her womanhood and declare she is ready for a husband.

What are the similarities between Jackson and Jefferson?

Jefferson's and Jackson's ideas of who should participate in governance:

A point of clarification:

In Jefferson's time, there was a political party which believed that only wealthy men should govern.  Wealthy menwere best qualified by theexperience of making andmanaging their wealth,to know how government could help and how it could hurt.  Therefore, theoretically they could avoid bad government, unless they decided to use government to help just themselves, and not the whole country.

Jefferson believed that anyone who had a sufficient means of supporting himself so that he was not dependent upon any other man for a living, should be allowed to vote and govern.  He believed that people who were not self employed would be controlled, in how they voted, by their boss or by the richest candidate.  He believed these people should not be allowed to vote.

ByJackson's time, Jefferson's idea of who should be allowed to vote was pretty much accepted, so that small farmers and small business men could vote.  Jackson believed that every, free, adult, white male should be allowed to vote, irrespective and regardless of how he made his living.  (In Jackson's day and in Jefferson's day, almost no one believed women would ever vote, nor slaves, and most Indians were not citizens and did not want to be citizens of the U.S.)  Jackson believed that if all free, adult, white males voted, the will of the majority would thus be expressed and he thought that the majority could never be wrong (which I don't agree with).

So, Jefferson's idea of the common man, did not include as many people as Jackson's idea of the common man.

What similarities/differences are there between what Polonius asked Reynaldo to do and what Claudius asks Rosen. and Guilden. to do?

Concerning spying in Shakespeare's Hamlet, I'll focus on a different angle than the answer above.  Both Polonius and Claudius are characterized by their actions. 

Polonius is revealed as hypocritical and petty and as an interfering parent.  He has barely finished preaching to Laertes and telling him to be true to himself, when he arranges to send someone to spy on him.  Based on everything we see of him in the play, Laertes is a model son.  He is even respectful to an elder that is extremely hard to be respectful to--his father, Polonius.  Gertrude isn't.  She loses patience with his hyperbole.  The act of spying on his son is hypocritical and petty, and Polonius has no business doing it.

Claudius is revealed to be insidious and underhanded.  When he orders the interchangeable Ros. and Guil. to spy on Hamlet he may remind one of Macbeth in the tragedy named after him, when Macbeth says that he has spies in the houses of all of his thanes.  He may be wondering if Hamlet is "mad," but this is secondary to his wanting to keep an eye on Hamlet in order to protect himself. 

Claudius, though highly intelligent and capable, also makes a mistake here by underestimating Hamlet.  Hamlet sees through his plan, humiliates the two spies, and reveals to Claudius only what he wants to reveal to Claudius.

What are the 3 major objectives of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points?

Agreed in that Wilson was trying to achieve a permanent peace, hence the nickname for World War I: "The War to End All Wars".  The conflict was essentially so horrifyingly murderous, that there was a serious postwar movement to avoid such conflicts in the future at all costs.  Wilson simply looked at the most common causes of conflict and tried to remove them with the Fourteen Points.

Another of the causes, in addition to those listed above, that Wilson was concerned with, were the secret alliances countries made.  This gave them confidence that, with their allies, they could prevail in a war, and they tended to act more aggressively.  This was true right before World War I in Europe.  Wilson called for "Open covenants, openly arrived at".  It was pretty idealistic that all countries would disclose any and all treaties they made with other countries, but the world was pretty idealistic at that time.

Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Poland were all countries resurrected/born out of the Fourteen Points and his call for self-determination.  It is important to note that only four of the Fourteen Points was actually in the Treaty of Versailles, and then the United States Senate never ratified that treaty, so we were never a part of the League of Nations.  It was doomed to failure.

What is the main conflict in "Everyday Use" by Alice Walker?

In the short story "Everyday Use" the main conflict appears to be over which daughter will get the quilt.  However, the underlying conflict is the two daughter’s competition for their mother's love.  The quilt is a symbol of the mother's love and acceptance of her child and of the value that is placed on the relationship. 

The story is about two daughters.   One daughter is intelligent, went off to college and has become successful.  Her mother is very proud of her and often brags about the daughter's accomplishments.  She lives in a distant city.  The daughter comes home for a visit.  The mother gets excited.

The second daughter is shy and simple.  She was badly burned as a child and has scars over her arms and legs.  She lives with her mother and is very timid around her older sister.  The girl does not have much of a sense of self worth and is like a dot on the rug when compared to her sister.  She is nervous about her sister's visit because it reflects who she isn't. 

The sister visits and sees the quilt.  It is old but beautiful.  It is a symbol of the family heritage in her eyes, but it is also a symbol of materialism.  She asks her mother for the quilt so that she can hang it in her home as a decoration.  Quilts have become popular things to exhibit in one's home. Her mother hesitates as she is uncertain which daughter should have the quilt.

Her shy child wants the quilt but would not ever imagine that she would have it given to her.  Her sister, Dee seems to always attain what she inspires to get.  The mother looks at her girls and decides to give the quilt to her daughter that lives with her.  Dee argues that it will just get used and she would provide it with protection as it hangs on the wall. 

Dee's mother wants the quilt to be used as a cover by her child.  She identifies the quilt as having been meant to be used as an everyday thing.  By giving it to her shy daughter she increases the daughter’s sense of self-worth.  She has been given her mother's love through her mother's decision to give her the quilt.  She has chosen her over Dee.

Why does Gene hit Leper in A Separate Peace? What terms are Leper and Gene on when Gene leaves?

Gene does not exactly hit Leper; he "shove(s) (his) foot against the rung of his chair and kick(s)," sending Leper onto the floor. He does this when Leper, who is bitter and unflinchingly honest, even about the most sensitive issues, since his return from the military, flat out accuses Gene of being "a savage underneath", and "knock(ing) Finny out of the tree." Gene reacts violently because this is something about which he has been agonizing, the question of whether Finny's fall was an accident, or whether he, in a moment of pique, had purposefully caused it. To hear the words come so directly from Leper - the hidden accusation which is so likely true - is too much for him to handle.

Leper's mother comes in when she hears the commotion, and Gene voices regret. "Too ashamed to leave" when she accepts his apology, he goes for a walk with Leper at her request, and the two continue to engage in strained and awkward conversation. When, trying to find something to talk about, Gene brings up Brinker, Leper explodes in anger, and begins to rant about the hallucinations which haunt him, visions of dismembered and juxtaposed body parts morphing before his eyes. When Leper begins to rave about "a man's leg which had been cut off," the reference in Gene's mind is again too close to the thoughts that torment him, reminding him of Finny's shattered and ruined leg. This time it is Gene who explodes in anger, and he runs away back towards town, leaving Leper alone in the field across which they had been walking, "telling his story into the wind" (Chapter 10).

What are some Neo- Classical and Romantic Philosophies? what are some Neo- Classical and Romantic cause and effects?theirs a powerpoint i have to...

Sounds like you're in the process of making a great Powerpoint.  Concerning your question about the neoclassical and the romantic, I'm not completely sure what you mean by causes and effects.  The question is also really at least four questions in one.  You might want to place it on the discussion board to get everything you're asking answered.

That said, I'll answer what I can to get you started.  The neoclassical period is somewhat synonymous with the Age of Enlightenment.  Quoting from The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms, the philosophy involved consists of:

...a preference for rationality, clarity, restraint, order, and decorum, and for general truths rather than particular insights.

The preference for general truths mentioned above led to an interest in "the big picture," just to elaborate on one of the preferences mentioned.  Think Rousseau or Swift. 

Romanticism reacted against most of this (is this what you mean by causes and effects?).  Think transcendentalism (in the U.S., Emerson and Thoreau).  The romantics emphasized the personal, self-expression, imagination, creativity.  Instead of imitating the classics as neoclassicism sought to do, Romanticism sought the revolutionary.

Finally, this is not my area but romanticism is considered to be a forerunner of surrealism and expressionism, if that helps.

What are the differences and similarities between thermohaline and surface currents?

There are a number of differences between these two types of currents.

First, surface currents affect much less water than thermohaline currents do.  Surface currents can only affect about the top 400 meters of water in the ocean.  By contrast, thermohaline currents move huge amounts of water -- more than 100 times the flow of the Amazon at any given time.

Second, surface currents are caused by winds and by the Coriolis Effect (having to do with the Earth's rotation).  Thermohaline currents are caused by differences in the temperature and salinity of water in various areas of the oceans.

What is Beowulf's attitude toward his possible death?

You don't indicate which part of Beowulf you are looking at. 

Beowulf believes he will be successful against Grendel because the omen for his success have been good.  Nevertheless, Beowulf believes in Wyrd - Fate - that will have decided the outcome of his battle before he even fights.  In the Burton Raffel translation, Beowulf says, "Fate will unwind as it must."  He also recognizes going against Grendel that there may not even be enough of him to bury (or burn).

Going against the dragon in the third section he is less optimistic.  He recognizes that he is not as young or strong as he once was.  Even so, he is the good leader to the end and will fight the dragon. 

In Ben Jonson's play Bartholomew Fair, what kind of a man is Zeal-of-the-Land Busy?How is he treated and what happens to him - what interpretation...

Zeal-of-the-land Busy, a character in Ben Jonson’s play Bartholomew Fair, is one of the typically hypocritical Puritans whom Jonson so often satirizes in his works.  Jonson disrespected the Puritans for criticizing the alledged sins of others while being so full of flaws themselves. Thus, the first extended description of Busy suggests that although he is ostensibly opposed to gluttony, he is himself a glutton. Another character reports that he is cleaning his beard (which is presumably dirtied with food droppings) and says,

I found him, fast by the teeth, i’ the cold Turkey-pie, i’ the cupboard, with a great white loaf on his left hand, and a glass of Malmsey [that is, wine] on his right. (29; citations are to pages of the early Yale edition [see link], which does not provide continuous line numbers. Quotations are modernized.)

Nevertheless, Busy is regarded, at least by the other Puritans, as a particularly pure man and as a kind of prophet. Jonson therefore mocks not only Busy but also his gullible admirers. In his first major speech, Busy speaks with the kind of pompous rhetoric that Jonson found so laughable in so many Puritans (29), whom he considered not only hypocritical but pretentious and self-important. In presenting the same speech, Jonson also mocks the theological nit-picking and unthinking anti-Catholicism that helped make the Puritans such a source of controversy in the commonwealth (29). Thus, Busy proclaims that although eating pig is permissible, eating pig at the fair is not, since the fair is traditionally associated with Catholic "idolatry"

Busy soon decides, however, that eating pig at the fair is indeed permissible if the pig is eaten “with a reformed mouth” (29). Jonson thus mocks not only Puritan hypocrisy but their self-serving adaptability as well.  They pretend to be principled, but their principles can easily be adjusted in their own. Later, Jonson once again mocks Busy’s over-blown rhetoric when the latter warns, concerning the fair, that

. . . the place is Smithfield, or the field of smiths, the grove of hobbyhorses and trinkets, the wares are the wares of devils. And the whole Fair is the shop of Satan! They are hooks, and baits, very baits, that are hung out on every side, to catch you, and to hold you as it were, by the gills; and by the nostrils, as the fisher doth . . . . (54-55)

Jonson believed that such rhetoric debased not only language but Christianity as well. He regarded such self-conscious, hyperbolic religious enthusiasm with extreme suspicion. Thus, Jonson later mocks Busy by making him behave like a sniffing dog (56) as he scents out the smell of roasted pig.  Busy can always find ways to justify his own behavior and make it seem religious; he can split any theological hair to achieve his own goals (56). He is quick to condemn the alleged sins of others but just as quick to excuse his own (75). Little wonder, then, than another character condemns him as “An excellent right Hypocrite” and notes that “He eats with his eyes, as well as his teeth” (76). Jonson presents Busy as guilty of the central sin of pride. Busy presumes to speak for God, when actually his main objective is to satisfy his own desires. He is irrational both in his speech and in his actions (77) and is a threat to civil order. Appropriately, then, he is imprisoned in the stocks (77), although when he later manages to escape them by accident, he typically feels that he has been “delivered by miracle” (105).

Can Gothic be seen as a conservative form which while it can seem subversive, ultimately seeks to contain disorder, discontent, rebellion?The...

Since Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey is a parody of the gothic novel, it does not seem just to define it as gothic and evaluate as part of the gothic genre.  However, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is clearly of the gothic genre, mirroring many of the characteristics of the novels of Anne Radcliffe, novels that in parody Jane Austen's heroine Catherine reads voraciously.

In his book, Anne Radcliffe and the Conservative Gothic, David Durant points to characteristics of Radcliffe's conservatism that can certainly be applied to Shelley's Frankenstein.  For instance, there is the sentimental pattern in which the life of the heroine/hero follows the archetype of the fall from innocence. Having left the safe, hierarchical, reasonable, loving world of the family, the hero of Shelley's novel falls into a chaotic and irrational world of the isolated.  Thus, Frankenstein follow the philophically tradition thought in which Victor's romantic ideals disintegrate into the perverse and irrational.  And, the irrational is monstrous, not romantically beautiful.  Clearly, it is because of his romanticized imagination and emotion, that the villain-hero Victor Frankenstein becomes, himself, the monster rather than his creature.

The terros of Frankenstein are not the spooky passageways and ghosts, but as Durant states, "the winds of change, dissolution, and chaos":  ideas as conservative as the "fall from innocence." 

What are maidenheads in Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet?It was in the conversation between Sampson and Gregory in Act 1 scene 1.

sam. 'tis all one I will show myself a tyrant: when I have fought with the men, I will be cruel with the maids; I will caught off their heads.

gre. The heads of the maids?

sam. Ay, the heads of the maids, or their maidenheads; take it in what sense tou whilt.

gre. They must take it in sense that feel it.

In this scene the humor is derived from the wordplay of a maiden's head (literally the heads of Montague women) and the maidenheads of the Montague girls (ie their hymens). This might seem gruesome but whole scene is humorous banter.

gre. To move is to stir, and to be valiant is to stand; therefore, if thou art moved thou runnest away.

sam. A dog of that house shall move me to stand: and I will take the wall of any man or maid of Montague's.

gre.That show's thee a weak slave for the weakest goes to the wall.

The scene even begins with a hotheaded Sampson stating he and Gregory will not be insulted  as low or base "we'll not carry coals". Gregory who seems calmer and good humored responds jokingly, taking Sampson's comment literally. Sampson then explains he means if they are insulted (an we be in choler=angry), they will fight (we'll draw...our swords). Gregory replies with the advice "ay while you live, draw (wordplay on drawing out a sword) your neck out o' the collar (hangman's noose), insinuating that if they fight, they could be hanged. Sampson says then, he'll strike quickly, being moved (being provoked). Gregory suggests that Sampson is a coward "thou art not quickly moved to strike" which is prooved in the next scene

sam. My naked weapon is out. Quarrel, I will back thee. (I've my sword out. You go fight, I'm right behind you)

The wall which they talk about is the highroad. Back in the day, the streets were really nasty so the nobility and women were give the part of the walk closer to the houses (the wall) whereas the servants or men took the side closer to the road. Therefore "I will take the wall of any man or maid of Montague's " means I am better than anyone in Montague's household.  Gregory retorts that the weakest go to the wall because women, old people, ect. are offered the wall.  To end an explanation of the scene:

sam. they shall feel while I (my penis) is able to stand; and 'tis known I am a pretty piece of flesh( well hung)  Gregory responds it is good that you are not a fish, for if you were you would be the shriveled poor John fish (you are not well-hung). Hey get your sword out the Montagues are coming.

The whole scene is just a comedic way to open the play. It is really just a fancy locker-room conversation between the 2 servants . hope this helped clear it up.

What causes Grendel to attack the mead-hall in Beowulf?

Grendel is the spawn of Cain, purely wretched by nature. His entire being is devoid of joy. Some think that when he hears the jubilant parties that take place at Herot he is filled with intense jealousy because he has never experienced anything happy. This jealousy may also be interpreted as hatred, which seems to present Grendel as pure evil, a rather one-sided view of the story. Some scholars prefer to present Grendel as a creature filled with bloodlust, but presenting him as a sad being without love experiencing envy seems to present a more complex story with more realistic emotions.