In "Marriage is a Private Affair" by Chinua Achebe, how do we see children raised by extremely strict parents becoming rebellious?

The issue here is complicated by cultural context. The studies of authoritarian parenting done in the United States are situated within a sophisticated modern society, and focus on middle class Caucasians among whom arranged marriages are regarded as very alien and excessively authoritarian. The Ibo society of Nigeria portrayed by Achebe is not the United States in the twenty-first century and different cultural norms apply.

The key distinction Achebe is making is between traditional village life and an urban life that is postcolonial, having adapted many of the values of British society. The young couple in the story is part of a transitional population with ties to both worlds, educated and sophisticated, but still with emotional connections to the traditions of extended family and village culture.

Nnaemeka's father is not portrayed as overly controlling in terms of Nigerian village society, and in fact the reactions of the villagers show his ideas and behaviors to be relatively normal, even if his continued refusal to accept Nene eventually appears overly stubborn. Nnaemeka is not really a rebel or juvenile delinquent, but simply a young man in love who desires his father's approval for his marriage. While he does marry the woman of his choice, and reacts to his father's authority by standing his ground, he is not rebellious in the sense of being driven to anti-social behavior out of resentment of authority. 

The story, in fact, ends with reconciliation due to the loving persistence of Nene. It is the father, not the son, who has maintained the rift, and even the father is eventually reconciled to the marriage by the existence of grandchildren. Overall, the arc of the story suggests that the title is ironic. Although marriage might on the surface appear private, in fact, it does involve the whole village and extended family. The story therefore is not simply, as it would be if set in modern Britain or the United States among middle class families, one of personal choices or rebellions but rather one about a clash of traditional Ibo and modern postcolonial Nigerian culture. 

What are the themes of "A Bird came down the Walk"?

Emily Dickinson's poem focuses on how humans frequently want to ascribe human motivation to animal behavior while downplaying the animal's instinctive understanding of its surroundings.  In doing so, she is able to illustrate both the beauty and brutality of nature.

In the first stanza, the speaker seems to suggest that perhaps the bird would not have been so brutal ("ate the fellow raw") if it had known it was being observed ("He did not know I saw").  By making this observation, the speaker might be suggesting that the bird's instincts are somehow inferior to human interactions.

In the second stanza, "And then hopped sidewise to the Wall/To let a Beetle pass" suggests that the bird makes a conscious decision to share space with the beetle, much like a person might step aside to avoid a confrontation or a traffic jam on a busy city sidewalk.  This anthropomorphism possibly implies that the human response is superior to the more instinctive motivation natural to the bird.

The third, fourth, and fifth stanzas emphasize the dangers as well as the beauty of nature.  These stanzas are the least tied to the speaker's earlier anthropomorphic perspective.  It is true that the description of the eyes of the bird as "beads" and its head as "velvet" does take the emphasis off nature since both of those materials would be man-made, but there does not seem to be a suggestion of the superiority of humans in either of those comparisons. 

In stanza five, the speaker describes the movements of butterflies in terms of swimming. It might be fair to say that the speaker's inability to describe the bird's or butterflies' physical attributes without comparing to common images hints that human language is sometimes more limiting than instinct is in the natural world.

Mercantilism was a major economic tool for England. How did England exploit this commercial policy and how did the North American colonies react to...

The economic doctrine of mercantilism encouraged England to use the American colonies as a source of national wealth. Generally, the way to do this was to maintain a positive trade balance with the colonies. Among such sixteenth-century promoters of empire as the Hakluyts, Humphrey Gilbert, and Walter Raleigh, this was a motive driving the establishment of colonies in the first place. After the establishment of colonies in the Americas, England sought to maintain a general arrangement wherein the colonies produced raw materials and cash crops and served as markets for finished goods from the home country. By the mid-seventeenth century, this arrangement was seriously threatened by the emergence of the Dutch as a powerful merchant nation, and the English attempted to counter their influence by passing what were known as "Navigation Acts." Broadly speaking, these laws forbade colonial merchants from shipping goods on anything by English ships. They proved very difficult to enforce, however, and for decades, the colonists flourished under a policy that Parliamentarian Edmund Burke would later call "salutary neglect." Even though mercantilist laws were largely winked at, the colonies, especially the sugar colonies of the Caribbean, remained very profitable for British merchants. This arrangement began to change in the mid-eighteenth century, especially after the Seven Years War, known as the French and Indian War in the colonies. A series of laws, beginning with the Sugar Act, sought to impose tighter regulations on colonial trade. The imposition of new taxes like the Stamp Act is best understood as part of this process, which was intended in part to recoup some of the expenses of the war. The colonists claimed that these acts were antithetical to their liberties, touching off an imperial crisis that culminated in the Revolutionary War and American independence.

To what extent does Tom Buchanan value power over others, and how does this manifest itself throughout The Great Gatsby?

Tom values power over others to a great extent. At the beginning of the novel, he is unable to fully control his wife. She pokes fun at him and his ideas, calls him a "brute" even though he hates that word, is angry with him for his infidelity, and feels disillusioned about their life together. This may be part of the reason Tom has so many affairs. He likely enjoys his ability to control Myrtle Wilson: when he orders her to "Get on the next train," she does it. The one time Myrtle disobeys him, saying Daisy's name over and over, "Tom broke her nose with his open hand." It seems Tom greatly enjoys the level of control he can typically exercise over his mistress; when he cannot control her, he lashes out. 

Tom also sadistically enjoys exercising control over Myrtle's husband, George, a mechanic who desperately wants to buy Tom's older car so that he can sell it and make some money. When Wilson asks about it, and Tom replies that he's having his man work on it a bit, Wilson says, "Works pretty slow, don't he?" because Tom has delayed this transaction for some time. Tom responds that his man does not work slowly and threatens to sell the car elsewhere. Tom enjoys dangling the car in front of Wilson, watching the poor man who lives a sad, spiritless life in the valley of the ashes and whose wife is Tom's mistress, backpedal and defer to what Tom says. 

After Tom realizes Daisy loves Gatsby and George tells him that he learned Myrtle has been having an affair, Nick sees that Tom is quite concerned: "His wife and his mistress, until an hour ago secure and inviolate, were slipping precipitately from his control." Tom hates being out of control, and so he reveals the illegal means by which Gatsby has made his money (bootlegging), partially bringing Daisy back into his control. When Nick next sees the couple, sitting at their table, Tom's "hand had fallen upon and covered [Daisy's] own," so it seems he regains some semblance of control over his wife, having lost it utterly over his mistress (who is now dead). 

It seems that, in most of Tom's personal relationships, he aims to retain the upper hand.  He orders Nick around, he orders Myrtle around, he manipulates George to feel more powerful, and he even successfully brings Daisy into his control by convincing her to abandon her lover. 

Why is history important?

History is important because it is only in learning about and understanding the past that we can make sense of the present and plan for a successful, peaceful and prosperous future which avoids the perilous mistakes of the past. For example, careful study of the struggles of our forbears to survive, and to acquire new lands and territories, helps us to understand important issues such as the reasons for wars and conflict in various societies.

Looking back at the distribution of wealth and the running of the economy gives insights into the present, and how we can make the future better and more equal for the many not just the few. For example, we can come to understand the thinking behind our welfare system and the way in which the fairer distribution of wealth and earnings can avoid the misery of the poor who may otherwise want to engage in social unrest to draw attention to injustice.

Examining social and cultural attitudes from the past helps us to see how building a multi-cultural society can increase harmony across the globe, making life more peaceful and prosperous for everyone. Reading about events from the past, and about notable individuals who have influenced history, helps us to see how our world got to the point it has reached now and how it will continue to progress in the future. There are some who believe that history is no longer a vibrant subject to study compared to Computer Science or Digital Technologies or Business because history studies concern only the very distant past, but this approach doesn't take into account the considerable body of modern history which is now studied in great depth. For example, studying the Arab–Israeli conflict down through the ages gives insights into the causes and triggers for hatred and terrorism which still exist today. In order to understand current affairs and the sometimes shocking news we see on our screens every day, it is important to study our human history, as all that happens around us has been influenced by, and is a result of, the events that preceded it.

We can even look back into history to gain clues about fighting diseases we have today and this can inform better, more modern sanitation and hygiene initiatives to improve health around the world so that all societies can benefit. The study of history is directly relevant to us as it helps to explain issues around war, politics, health and even business.

What was happening at the time that can provide insight into the motivations and perspective of the Montesquieu when he wrote The Spirit of the...

The Spirit of the Laws (originally De l'esprit des loix) was released in 1748. It is a bit surprising that this was so far before the French Revolution, because many of the ideas in The Spirit of the Laws about liberty, republic, and constitutional government would go on to be vital in influencing the French Revolution. Yet it took over a generation for this revolution to really take hold.

Montesquieu was writing toward the end of what would come to be called the Ancien Regime, where France was governed by a monarchy with essentially absolute power.

The king in 1748 was Louis XV, who had been officially king for decades but only really took the reins of power on his own after the death of his mentor and chief minister in 1744. Louis XV was widely regarded as incompetent and untrustworthy, and became a symbol of all that was wrong with absolute monarchy. This was probably one of the largest influences on Montesquieu, as he tried to envision new forms of government that would be superior to monarchy and turned to what he knew about the republics of Classical Greece and Rome.

1748 was also when the War of the Austrian Secession had just concluded with a result that was not very favorable to France, further discrediting the government.

What is the theme of "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" by Ambrose Bierce?

I think there is a main theme about time and how the perception of its passage is fluid. I'm quite certain most people have experienced how time seems to "fly" at certain times and "crawl" at others. The same occurs in this story. In the moments between the officer stepping aside and Farquhar's death, time slows dramatically. Farquhar experiences hours and hours of time in the fractions of seconds that exist before his neck snaps.  

I think another theme is the theme of imagination/ dreams/ illusion vs. reality. When readers first meet Farquhar, we are told that he longs to fight for the Southern cause. He has dreamed up a romanticized version of what war is.  

Circumstances of an imperious nature, which it is unnecessary to relate here, had prevented him from taking service with that gallant army which had fought the disastrous campaigns ending with the fall of Corinth, and he chafed under the inglorious restraint, longing for the release of his energies, the larger life of the soldier, the opportunity for distinction. 

Unfortunately for Farquhar, the reality of war isn't as glorious as he imagines it is. The reality of the situation is that war is dangerous and brutal. Farquhar longs for distinction, but the reality is that no southerner will know what he tried to do. There will be no glory in his success (because he failed), and no one will celebrate his failed attempt because no one knows he went to try and sabotage the bridge. 

The reality vs. non-reality theme continues in other parts of the story, too. The Union scout (reality) presented himself as a southern soldier (illusion). Farquhar imagines the information obtained is genuine only to discover that in reality it was all a trap. Farquhar also imagines a miraculous escape only to wind up dead in real life from hanging. 

Can The Paper Men by William Golding be considered a campus novel?

The term "campus novel" became common in the 1950s and generally refers to a novel that takes place primarily in university settings. Campus novel's protagonists are part of a university community—usually professors.

The novel The Paper Men by William Golding is a borderline case. The main character, Wilfred Barclay, is a novelist who does not work on a campus and is not by profession an academic. Much of the plot, however, revolves around the conflict between Barclay and his antagonist, an American academic, Rick L. Tucker, who wants to become Barclay's official biographer.

Although the antagonist in the novel is a professor, the protagonist is not and the story is not really set in an academic environment. It is primarily concerned with the life of a writer with only an indirect connection to academic life. Therefore, I would argue it is not a campus novel.

`int (x^2 + 2x + 3)/(x^3 + 3x^2 + 9x) dx` Find the indefinite integral.

 `int (x^2+2x+3)/(x^3+3x^2+9x)dx=`

We will use the following formula: `int (f'(x))/(f(x))dx=ln|f(x)|+C`   

The formula tells us that if we have integral of rational function where the numerator is equal to the derivative of the denominator, then the integral is equal to natural logarithm of the denominator plus some constant. The proof of the formula can be obtained by simply integrating the right-hand side.

Since `(x^3+3x^2+9x)'=3x^2+6x+9=3(x^2+2x+3)`  we will first have to slightly modify the integral in order to apply the formula. We will both multiply and divide the integral by 3.

`1/3int (3x^2+6x+9)/(x^3+3x^2+9x)dx=`

Now we apply the formula to obtain the final result.

`1/3ln|x^3+3x^2+9x|+C`

What is the masterpiece in "The Last Leaf" by O. Henry?

In "the Last Leaf," the masterpiece is essentially Behrman's final, grand artistic endeavor. In the text, we learn the old painter, despite being a failed artist, has always envisioned creating a piece of art that will distinguish him as a noted practitioner of his craft. He never quite succeeds in fulfilling his goal, however, and as time progresses, he becomes a distinctly cantankerous and ill-tempered fellow.

Behrman is not a man without heart, though. When he learns his neighbor, Johnsy, is dying, Behrman sets out to paint his life's masterpiece. Johnsy is depressed and suffers from a deep malaise that is as physical as it is psychological. She believes she won't live out the remainder of her life and is content to die as soon as possible. Johnsy tells her companion, Sue, that when the last leaf on the ivy vine falls off, she'll be ready to die. Sue doesn't want Johnsy to continue in this morbid state of mind. She pulls down the blinds of the window in Johnsy's room, but knows this is only a temporary fix.

When Johnsy demands to have a look at the ivy vine, Sue has to humor her. When Sue pulls up the blinds, both are surprised to see the last leaf still hanging on the vine. In due time, the last leaf inspires Johnsy to snap out of her depression. She decides to live and to live as fully as she can. It is only later when Sue discovers the truth that both women realize what a true masterpiece Behrman had really painted. When the last leaf fell off the ivy vine, Behrman had braved the cold rain and snow to paint a replacement leaf on the vine. Because of his selfless action, Behrman contracts pneumonia, which eventually costs him his life. Yet, his very realistic portrayal of a leaf is responsible for saving a young woman's life.

Essentially, Behrman finally realizes his dream of creating a real masterpiece, and his final work is a testament to the greatness of his artistry.

Who was Robert Frost?

Robert Frost was a poet who is associated with the landscape and vernacular of New England. Born in San Francisco in 1874, he moved to Lawrence, Massachusetts, when he was 11, following the death of his father from tuberculosis. After attending, but not graduating from, Dartmouth and Harvard, he worked as a cobbler and editor before turning his hand to poetry. By the 1920s, he had become a celebrated poet, having published several collections and having won four Pulitzer Prizes. From 1958 to 1959, he was the Poet Laureate of the United States. While his poems, such as "The Road Not Taken," are associated with the landscape of New England, they deal with larger ideas, such as how one decides on a path and recalls the past. Frost read a poem at John F. Kennedy's inauguration in 1961, and he died in Boston in 1963.

Should consumers buy goods from countries or producers that use child labor?

This question is strictly an opinion question. An argument could be made for either side of the issue. Those who would say we should boycott buying products from countries or producers who use child labor are appealing to the moral and emotional side of the issue. Most people believe children should not be working long hours for low pay. They believe children should be in school getting an education in order to help themselves make a better life in the future. Without an education, it is hard to accomplish this. They also may say that child labor may harm the development of the child.

Those who would be opposed to boycotting buying products from these countries or producers would say that using child labor helps to keep the cost of the product lower. This gives these countries or producers an advantage over other countries or producers who have to pay higher wages and then charge higher prices. The goal of a business is to keep expenses low in order to maximize profit. With higher expenses come higher prices, putting that producer at a disadvantage. Some people would also say that any money a child earns may be helpful to a family that is struggling economically.

`lim_(n->oo)` `root(3)((n+1)^2) -root(3)((n-1)^2)`

Hello!

We'll use an identity `a^3 - b^3 = (a - b)(a^2 + ab + b^2)` in the form `a - b = (a^3 - b^3) /(a^2 + ab + b^2)`  for  `a = root(3)((n+1)^2)`  and  `b = root(3)((n-1)^2).`

This way we obtain

`root(3)((n+1)^2) - root(3)((n-1)^2) = ((n+1)^2 - (n-1)^2) / ((n+1)^(4/3) + (n+1)^(2/3)(n-1)^(2/3)+(n-1)^(4/3)) =`

`=(4n) /((n+1)^(4/3) +(n+1)^(2/3)(n-1)^(2/3)+(n-1)^(4/3)).`

All three terms in the denominator are equivalent to `n^(4/3)` as `n->oo.` Therefore the limit is the same as  `lim_(n->oo) (4n) / (3n^(4/3)) = lim_(n->oo) (4) / (3n^(1/3))= 0.`

This is the answer (zero), and it is true for `n->+oo` and `n->-oo.`

To prove that, say,  `(n+1)^(4/3)`  is equivalent to  `n^(4/3),`  consider

`(n+1)^(4/3) / n^(4/3) = ((n+1)/n)^(4/3) = (1+1/n)^(4/3),` which tends to `1` as as `n->oo.`

What is a character sketch of the Anarchist in the story "The Stolen Bacillus" by H. G. Wells?

The Anarchist is one of the main characters in Wells' story "The Stolen Bacillus." From Wells' characterization, we see that the Anarchist is a deceitful person. He uses deception to gain access to the laboratory, for example, by forging a "letter of introduction."

Secondly, the Anarchist is also very proud of himself and his achievements. This is evident after he steals the bacillus and is musing on his plan:

"No Anarchist had ever approached this conception of his."

Finally, the Anarchist is the sort of person who is concerned with his reputation and personal legacy. He compares himself to other anarchists, for instance, like "Ravachol" and "Vaillant," and thinks that this plan will bring him fame, something which he evidently desires:

"The world should hear of him at last."

Moreover, for the Anarchist, the plan to steal the bacillus is also about proving a point to other people who may have doubted him in the past. He alludes to this idea after fleeing the scene of the crime, and this also goes some way in explaining the Anarchist's motivation:

"He would teach them yet what it is to isolate a man."

Is `CH_4 + 2O_2 = CO_2 + 2H_2O` a balanced equation? It seems to have too many oxygen atoms on the right of the equation to me.

This equation seems completely balanced to me. Let's figure out if this is true.

For an equation to be a balanced one, the quantity of atoms of each type must be the same on the left side and on the right side. Do not forget that an index `n` under atom in a formula means that this molecule has `n` atoms of that type.

There are three types of atoms in our reaction: `C,` `H,` and `O.` Let's start from `O.`

There are `0` oxygen atoms in `CH_4,` `2*2` oxygen atoms in two molecules of `O_2,` `2` in `CO_2` and `2` in two molecules of `H_2O.` So, we have `0 + 2*2 = 4` oxygen molecules at the left side and `2 + 2 = 4` at the right one. Balanced.

For `C,` we have `1 + 0 = 1 + 0,` also true. For `H,` `4 + 0 = 0 + 2*2,` true. As a whole, the equation is balanced.

Find the inverse of g(x)=-2x+4

Hello!

The inverse function `g^(-1)(y)` is a function such that `g(g^(-1)(y))` = y and `g^(-1)(g(x)) = x.` To find it, we need to solve for x the equation

`g(x) = y,` in this case it is `-2x+4 = y.`

It is simple: `-2x = y-4,`  `2x = -y+4,`  `x = -1/2 y + 2.` You can check the above equalities from the definition of an inverse function.

The answer: the inverse function is `g^(-1)(y) = -1/2 y + 2.`

How did Adolf Hitler come to power through the Reichstag fire?

The fire at the German Reichstag (parliament) in 1933 was instrumental in helping Hitler to gain power. On February 27, a Dutch immigrant and ardent Socialist, Marinus Van Der Lubbe, set fire to the Reichstag in the hope that it might inspire the German working classes to revolt. Hitler used this idea to his advantage: he claimed that the country was under threat from the Communists and convinced President von Hindenburg to issue an emergency decree. This decree, known as the Decree for the Protection of the People and the State, took away popular constitutional rights, including that of free speech and freedom of the press. It also allowed the arrest of any potential enemies of the state, a right which Hitler exploited to remove the political opponents of the Nazi Party.

More generally, Hitler also exploited the situation to boost his credibility and prestige among the German people. He portrayed himself as a national hero whose actions in the aftermath of the fire had protected the country from the Communists.

For more information, please see the reference links provided. 

What kinds of landscapes do we see in "Crossing Brooklyn Ferry" by Walt Whitman? What roles do the ferry and nature play in the poem?

Walt Whitman's "Crossing Brooklyn Ferry" is a poem that exemplifies Whitman's abilities as a leading proponent of the transcendentalism literary movement. The poem depicts a thoughtful narrator taking the Brooklyn ferry home. He absorbs the entire scene, and early in the poem he has an uncanny sense in his observations of the throng of humanity taking the ferry:

Flood-tide below me! I see you face to face!

Clouds of the west—sun there half an hour high—I see you also face to face.

Crowds of men and women attired in the usual costumes, how curious you are to me! (1057)

In this everyday scene, the narrator has a transcendent moment in which he realizes that this same ferry will host future generations long after its current passengers have died. He pictures the ebb and flow of a constant ocean, the buzzing streets of Manhattan, the hills of Brooklyn, and several other striking images. In the poem, the ferry plays a role as a potent metaphor: it is the bridge between the present and the future.

Fifty years hence, others will see them as they cross, the sun half an hour high,

A hundred years hence, or ever so many hundred years hence, others will see them,

Will enjoy the sunset, the pouring-in of the flood-tide, the falling-back to the sea of the ebb-tide (1058).

Nature plays a similar role as something that remains constant in the face of a changing, evolving mass of humanity:

Flow on, river! flow with the flood-tide, and ebb with the ebb-tide!

Frolic on, crested and scallop-edg'd waves!(1061)

The vivid, grandiose imagery Whitman presents is made more potent because he is focusing on what many would consider to be a mundane scene. He casts the ferry as a bridge between the present and the future, and exalts the natural scenery he depicts as a reminder of the constancy of our world.

All line numbers were retrieved from The Norton Anthology of American Literature, Volume 1 7th Ed

Explain the necessity of a constitution in the newly born democratic country

There are so many reasons a democracy needs a constitution.  A constitution sets up a nation of law, a nation the leaders of which cannot act arbitrarily.  For example, the United States Constitution ensures that American speech and religion will not be repressed by the government.  It ensures due process, for example the right to be informed of the government's charges against you and the right to a public trial. The government cannot act against you, in other words, without following the rules that the constitution guarantees.   A constitution sets up the duties of government and the relationship amongst its branches, so that one branch of government cannot arbitrarily seize power from another branch of government and so that each branch of government knows what its responsibilities and limitations are.  It sets up a means of peaceful succession of leadership, chosen by the people, as opposed to a coup or hereditary succession of power.  Without a constitution, a democracy can easily devolve into a far less desirable form of government, often dictatorship.  If the people elect a leader who is not limited by a written constitution, there is nothing to stop the leader from deciding to no longer hold elections and to stay in office for life.  There is nothing to stop leaders from acting in ways that are inconsistent with democracy in general.  For all of these reasons and many more, a democracy without a constitution cannot be a viable democracy. 

In That Was Then, This is Now by S.E. Hinton, how is Cathy involved in the separation of Bryon's and Mark's relationship?

Cathy is a part of the emotional change that leads Bryon to distance himself from Mark.

Cathy is a significant part of Bryon's emotional maturation.  She enables him to see beyond the things that used to define him.  Cathy allows Bryon to see that his life of hanging and hustling with Mark, living solely in the moment, and engaging in self-destructive behavior are not ways to live. Cathy encourages Bryon to embrace more sensitive and thought-provoking approaches.  For example, he takes an active role in helping Cathy find her brother.  Bryon displays care and warmth in her time of need.  At the same time, Cathy is instrumental in helping Bryon understand his feelings of regret over Charlie's sacrifice.  She allows him to expand his emotional scope.

Since Mark does not possess such a perspective, Cathy's influence over Bryon facilitates the brothers' separation. Cathy does not intentionally drive a wedge between them. She is not jealous or possessive.  Rather, her goodness is contagious.  It rubs off on Bryon and causes him to ask questions about the person he is and the one he is going to become.  Cathy's effect on Bryon is evident in his betrayal of Mark as he can no longer passively watch what Mark does.  He must take action against it.  Cathy awakens a sense of duty and responsibility in Bryon that Mark lacks.

How and why is Animal Farm an unrealistic story?

Animal Farm is an unrealistic story because it is about animals that plan and execute a revolutionary rebellion against their human owners/rulers.  

It is also unrealistic because it has animals forming a governing ideology called "Animalism."  It's a lot like communism, which is real, but animals forming a society based on an ideology and drafting commandments to live by is definitely what I would call unrealistic.  

The story continues its unrealistic characteristics by having the animals talk to each other, gesture, and express human emotions.  They plan to build windmills and other forms of infrastructure too.  

It's also unrealistic for pigs to begin walking on two feet and wearing clothes like humans.  

The story is not meant to be taken at a literal level though.  Animal Farm is an allegorical commentary on the communism that was happening in Russia.  One thing that an allegory will do is take specific characters or situations and have them stand in for other characters or situations in order to make a point about them.  That's what Animal Farm is doing, and the point it's making about communism is not a glowing endorsement of that system of government.   

In Silas Mariner by George Eliot, how many sons does Squire Cass have?

Squire Cass has four sons. 

Although the sons are mentioned here and there in the text as "the second son" and "the third son" and so on, if you turn to Chapter 9 in your book, you'll see where the Squire refers to all four of them together:

"Fooleries! Pshaw! it's time you'd done with fooleries. And I'd have you know, sir, you must ha' done with 'em," said the Squire, frowning and casting an angry glance at his son. "Your goings-on are not what I shall find money for any longer. There's my grandfather had his stables full o' horses, and kept a good house, too, and in worse times, by what I can make out; and so might I, if I hadn't four good-for-nothing fellows to hang on me like horse-leeches. I've been too good a father to you all—that's what it is. But I shall pull up, sir."

Only two of the Squire's sons are truly important in the story:

1. Godfrey, the oldest, who spends much of the story feeling guilty over not being a proper father to Eppie.

2. Dunstan, the second oldest, whose nickname is Dunsey and who is basically a villain in the story.

We know very little about the other sons:

3. Bob is the third oldest. All we really know about him is that he has long legs and is described as "lithe," and his brothers assume he is the favorite of his father.

4. As for the fourth son, we know nothing about him, not even his name.

What are Hamlet's inner struggles and how are they significant?

Hamlet’s inner struggles revolve around whether or not he should kill the king to avenge his father.  He is told by the ghost of his father that he needs to kill his uncle.  He is not happy with his uncle to begin with, because he did not feel that it was appropriate for him to marry his mother.   Hamlet feels conflicted about the process of murdering his uncle.  His struggles bring chaos to Denmark.

The approach that Hamlet takes is a little meandering.  He decides to pretend to be crazy so that he has free reign.  In the process, he really hurts Ophelia, who thought he loved her.  His crude behavior toward her saddens and confuses her.  His mother and uncle are also confused.  They even ask his friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern what is going on with Hamlet, and his uncle finally sends him away while giving them instructions to kill him.

It is not that Hamlet never has any chances to kill his uncle.  Hamlet has a chance to kill Claudius when he sees him kneeling and he is vulnerable.  He thinks that his uncle is praying, and doesn’t want to kill him then because he feels that he will go to Heaven instead of Hell.  It turns out that he is not praying, because he found himself unable to do so, but Hamlet didn’t know that.

KING CLAUDIUS

[Rising] My words fly up, my thoughts remain below:
Words without thoughts never to heaven go. (Act 3, Scene 3) 

Hamlet's idea to have a play with a plot that is similar to the murder doesn't work out either.  He seems to have thought that his uncle would just confess and that would be that.  He doesn't.

Hamlet’s frustration with his mother leads to inner conflict as well. He is angry at her for marrying his uncle so soon after his father’s death.  He is a frustrated, confused, and angry young man.  This is why he accidentally killed Polonius.  He didn’t mean to, because Polonius had not wronged him.  However, that did not stop him from using Polonius’s body to continue his madness act.

Express sin32+sin54 as sum or difference.

Hello!

This expression is already a sum of two numbers, `sin(32)` and `sin(54).` Probably you want or express it as a product, or as an expression involving trigonometric functions of sum or difference of the arguments, `32` and `54.`

For this, we need the well-known formula

`sin(x) + sin(y) = 2sin((x+y)/2)cos((x-y)/2),`

which is true for any real `x` and `y.`

For the given numbers it gives us

`sin(32) + sin(54) = 2sin((32+54)/2)cos((32-54)/2) =`

`= 2sin(43)cos(-11) = 2sin(43)cos(11).`

If you misspelled the expression, and it is actually `sin(32)*sin(54),` then we really can express it as a sum with the help of the formula

`sin(x)sin(y) = 1/2(cos(x-y)-cos(x+y)),`

for the given numbers it is

`sin(32)sin(54) = 1/2(cos(-22)-cos(86)) = 1/2(cos(22)-cos(86)).`

In "To Build a Fire," how does the man in the story allow his pride to interfere with his survival?

In "To Build a Fire," the primary reason for the man's death is not the cold itself or the lack of a fire, although these are the most direct and empirical reasons. The real reason is his pride, in that he never should have been out alone in the first place. 

We can immediately see elements of pride—or at least naive confidence—in the man's character. He is mentioned as being new to this country, and so to him, 50 degrees below zero is just a number; he fails to understand the way in which this mere number will affect the nature of life itself. 

As the man reflects on his journey, he frequently thinks back to "the old man from Sulphur Creek," who we may assume from context clues was a wise and helpful person who learned the practical rules of life in the Yukon. One such memory implicates pride as the primary character's weakness.

The man had been very serious when he said that no man should travel alone in that country after 50 below zero. Well, here he was; he had had the accident; he was alone; and he had saved himself. Those old men were rather womanish, he thought.

Following his turn of bad luck, the primary character begins to think on how the old man might have actually been right, and indeed, his last words are "you were right, old fellow, you were right." In retrospect, it seems like a ridiculous thing to have taken pride in, when the presence of another person probably would have saved the man's life. Furthermore, there was never any real reason given for the character to have been traveling alone; it seems as though he may have simply done it to prove that he could. 

In Julius Caesar, was Brutus responsible for his own downfall?

Brutus was responsible for his own downfall because he was naïve and did not listen to advice. 

The main reason that Brutus was responsible for his own downfall was that he did not listen to Cassius.  He never took anyone else’s advice on issues such as how best to assassinate Caesar or how to run the military campaign against Antony and Octavius.  Instead, he wanted to remain optimistic.  Since he did not, they failed.  He was naïve, and he paid the price. 

An example of this is when Brutus explains to Cassius that they should not kill Antony, because it will hurt their reputation with the Roman people. 

BRUTUS

Our course will seem too bloody, Caius Cassius,
To cut the head off and then hack the limbs,
Like wrath in death and envy afterwards;
For Antony is but a limb of Caesar:
Let us be sacrificers, but not butchers, Caius. (Act 2, Scene 1) 

Brutus believed that Antony’s only power was in his relationship to Caesar.  He underestimated Antony, but Cassius was concerned that Antony might cause trouble.  Cassius turned out to be right. 

To Brutus, image was more important than practicality.  Even though Cassius had been involved in the conspiracy longer than he had, he did not allow Cassius to have any sway over him and continually overruled his decisions in front of the other members of the group.  In addition to this decision, his decision to allow Antony to speak at Caesar’s funeral was especially disastrous, resulting in an uprising of public sentiment against the conspirators. 

Even when they have their own armies and are fighting the triumvirate, Brutus makes the same mistakes.  He argues with Cassius about going to Philippi, and overrules Cassius when he doesn’t want to go.  Philippi turns out to be a nightmare for them, and they both end up committing suicide there.  Antony and Octavius win and go on to rule Rome.

I need some traits on a character that I am doing a report on. My character is Hippolyta from Midsummer Night's Dream. I could use some help.

Hippolyta is the queen of the Amazons, and she is about to marry Theseus as the play opens. Though the Amazons were a race of warrior women, Hippolyta seems boringly tame. In the first scene of the play, she speaks excitedly about marrying Theseus, who is the Duke of Athens. Theseus says he "won thy love doing thee injuries" (I.1.18), meaning that Hippolyta has become the type of person who marries a man who has fought her and harmed her. She has clearly lost some of the power she had when she was an Amazon.

When Hippolyta is about to see the Mechanicals performing, she says, "I love not to see wretchedness overcharged,/And duty in his service perishing" (V.I.79-80). This means that she dislikes seeing poor people working too hard and doing badly in what they're trying to do. This could be seen as a cutting remark, as Hippolyta has no patience for people who are poor or bumbling. She later grows tired of the play and says, "This is the silliest stuff that ever I heard" (V.I.203). Therefore, she does not come across as very kind or patient.

In Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, how does Scout help Boo Radley?

In the novel, Boo Radley saves Scout and Jem from Mr. Ewell, and he earns the gratitude of both Atticus and the children.

When Sheriff Tate and Atticus discuss the aftermath of Mr. Ewell's attack and Jem's possible culpability for Mr. Ewell's death, Boo Radley is present. However, because of his shy ways, Boo doesn't join in the conversation. Scout instinctively knows the reason for his reticence, and she's respectful of Boo's quiet ways. With a compassion and sensitivity beyond her years, Scout quietly leads Boo to the farthest corner of the porch, where he will feel more comfortable in the shadows. Scout doesn't judge Boo; she helps him by extending him the gentlest of courtesies, but she doesn't make any effort to change who he is or to cause him discomfort.

After Sheriff Tate and Atticus decide on the best course of action regarding Mr. Ewell's death, Boo gets ready to leave. Before he leaves, however, he nods towards the front door. Instinctively, Scout pipes up, "You’d like to say good night to Jem, wouldn’t you, Mr. Arthur? Come right in." Scout readily anticipates Boo's desires; quietly, she takes Boo by the hand to Jem's bed.

For her part, Scout is able to see Boo for who he is: though a socially-awkward individual, Boo is a man of courage. He put his life on the line to save Jem and Scout from certain death. It was Boo who stabbed Mr. Ewell, an action at once incongruent with his outward demeanor as well as characteristic of his deeper personality. Recall Miss Stephanie's anecdote about Boo, who, when he was thirty-three years old, drove a pair of scissors into his father's leg and then comfortably resumed his scrapbook activities after retrieving the scissors.

Scout realizes that Boo is more complex than most of the adults make him out to be. She definitely understands his tendency to withdraw into himself and makes allowances for it. Yet, she also understands his ability to react in unexpected ways. Her receptivity to Boo can be seen at the moment Boo stands over Jem's bed. Almost imperceptibly, Boo lifts his hand, only to drop it again. Scout instinctively knows what he needs and wants to do, and she gently gives Boo permission to touch Jem.

After touching Jem lightly on the hair, Boo quietly asks Scout to take him home. With great kindness and tact, Scout asks Boo to bend his arm a little so that she can put her hand into the crook of his arm. Scout does this because she wants anyone who's watching to think that Boo is the one escorting her, "as any gentleman would do." Scout essentially protects Boo's dignity and image in the eyes of the community.

So, throughout their interactions, Scout helps Boo by treating him with sensitivity, kindness, and compassion. In Scout's eyes, this is the only way she can repay a man who's done so much for her and Jem.

Can you please give me an example of two quotes and techniques from Macbeth and Schindler's List which link to the theme of power?

Shakespeare’s Macbeth is a play that explores the tragic consequences of greed and the lust for power.  The Scottish general Macbeth is told by a trio of witches that he will become the Thane of Cawdor and then the King of Scotland.  In an effort to expedite and fulfill this prophecy, Macbeth embarks on a murderous tirade with the encouragement of his wife, Lady Macbeth, and the two attempt to kill anyone who sits between Macbeth and the crown.  However, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth’s insatiable ambition leads to their own demise, as Lady Macbeth kills herself and Macbeth is killed by Macduff.  Thus, the theme of power is integral to the plot and characterizations of this play. 

A quote that captures Macbeth’s hunger for power arrives in Act One, Scene Seven when Macbeth delivers a monologue that contemplates the murder of King Duncan.  He states the following lines:

I have no spur

To prick the sides of my intent, but only

Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself

And falls on th' other. (I. vii. 25-28)

In the above quote, Macbeth reveals that he is motivated by “vaulting ambition,” which is the metaphoric spur that pricks his side and urges him to act.  The diction of “vaulting” further establishes this desire as disastrous because it will lead to a chain reaction of murderous events.  Also, “vaulting,” seems to suggest that Macbeth’s ambition will never be satisfied, which conveys his lust for power as urgent and ravenous.    

A quote that epitomizes this “vaulting ambition” and lust for power is in Act Four, Scene One when Macbeth plans to kill Macduff’s wife and children to ensure his ascent of power.    He gives the following lines:

Time, thou anticipat’st my dread exploits.

The flighty purpose never is o'ertook

Unless the deed go with it. From this moment

The very firstlings of my heart shall be

The firstlings of my hand. And even now,

To crown my thoughts with acts, be it thought and done:

That trace him in his line. (V. i. 150-156)

The above quote opens with an apostrophe because Macbeth addresses the inanimate Time, begging it to anticipate his ill-conceived acts, for only Time knows the bad things that he will eventually perform.  By stating, “The very firstlings of my heart shall be / The firstlings of my hand,” Macbeth reveals that the desires of his heart will be the actions of his hands.  This quote is only an example of parallelism because the sentence uses successive verbal constructions.  Finally, Macbeth concludes with the metaphor of “To crown my thoughts with acts,” which figuratively says he will act out all of his thoughts, but the word “crown” can also act as a double entendre because Macbeth is not just talking about following his thoughts with actions, but revealing how these actions will help him assume and maintain the royal crown.   Therefore, Macbeth is a tragic play that explores the connections of power and corruption.

While Schindler’s List is a 1993 film that chronicles the atrocities of the Holocaust, it comments on the consequences of unchecked power.  The film follows Oskar Schindler, a German entrepreneur who works to save imprisoned Jews during World War II.  In the beginning of the film, a Jewish woman speaks with the Judenrat, which was the Jewish council, and states, “They come into our house and tell us we don't live there anymore. It now belongs to a certain SS officer … aren't you supposed to be able to help?”  In this quote, the Jewish woman explains how the Jews are being run out of their homes and defenseless against the more powerful SS officers.  This quote is significant because it shows how the Jews are legally relocated to vulnerable positions—they have no voice against the German authorities. 

In perhaps the most explicit discussion of power in the film, Schindler and Goeth, the Commandant of the Plaszow concentration camp who would heartlessly murder Jews and shoot prisoners from his balcony, talk about the fear, control and power—three themes that echo the tenets of Shakespeare’s Macbeth. The dialogue is as follows:

Goeth: Control is power. That's power.

Schindler: Is that why they fear us?

Goeth: We have the power to kill, that's why they fear us.

Schindler: They fear us because we have the power to kill arbitrarily. A man commits a crime, he should know better. We have him killed and we feel pretty good about it. Or we kill him ourselves and we feel even better. That's not power, though, that's justice. That's different than power. Power is when we have every justification to kill... and we don't.

Goeth: You think that's power.

Schindler: That's what the emperors had. A man stole something, he's brought in before the emperor, he throws himself down on the ground, he begs for mercy, he knows he's going to die. And the emperor pardons him. This worthless man, he lets him go.

In the above exchange, Schindler and Goeth discuss the meaning of power.  While Goeth asserts that control is power, Schindler claims power is self-control and discipline.  This is significant to the film because Schindler suggests the German imprisonment and murder of Jews is actually an act of weakness.  Further, it challenges the grounds of the Nazi Party because it ties in the concept of justice and justification.  In comparison to Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Schindler’s List explores the nature and actions of humans with unchecked and insatiable power, but it is here in this quote that power is

How would you describe Eddie's neighborhood in Buried Onions by Gary Soto?

In the novel, Eddie lives in a poor Mexican-American neighborhood in Southeast Fresno, California.

The neighborhood is surrounded by sagging fences and poorly painted houses. The general atmosphere is one of poverty, neglect, and privation. Eddie relates that the "poor, ignorant, unemployable people" hang their laundry out in the open. Meanwhile, old men sit on porches fanning themselves, young Mexican men with no jobs work on their cars, and young mothers carry on conversations as they rock their babies' strollers back and forth. The babies are always fussy, and their mothers never seem to be able to sooth them.

Eddie contends that there's very little to live for in his impoverished neighborhood. His own apartment is sparsely furnished and cheaply decorated. Even his mail slot is rusty and leaves reddish stains on his fingers when he checks for mail.

Eddie maintains that he must be careful as he goes about his way in his neighborhood. Ferocity is a celebrated trait on the streets of his neighborhood, and many young men like himself live under the shadows of gang-inspired violence. The local playground itself is a haunt for various gangster groups. So, in all, Eddie's neighborhood is an impoverished one; many get by with subsistence-level income, and there is little hope for advancement.

Eric throws a basketball straight up into the air. As it rises, which form of energy is increasing?

A ball has two forms of mechanical energy: kinetic and potential. Kinetic energy is the energy of movement, and it increases as the magnitude of the speed increases. Potential energy is the energy of interaction with Earth's gravitational field and it increases as the height over Earth's surface increases.

The formulas are `E_k = (m V^2)/2` and `E_p = mgH,` where `E_k` is the kinetic energy, `E_p` is the potential energy, `m` is the mass of a ball, `V` is the speed and `H` is the height.

Consider how the speed and the height of a ball change as it rises. The height obviously increases, so potential energy increases. But the magnitude of a speed decreases uniformly (a ball possesses uniform downward acceleration `g` due to gravity). So the kinetic energy decreases.

The answer: the potential energy of the ball is increasing as the ball rises.

What are some characteristics of Imagist poetry? In what way is Williams' "This is just to say" an Imagist poem?

The Imagist poets were a group of early twentieth century writers, primarily from the United States and Britain. A defining publication of the movement was the anthology Des Imagistes, published in 1914 and including the work of William Carlos Williams, Amy Lowell, and Ezra Pound, inter alia. The movement's tenets were that one should treat objects directly, avoid excess verbiage, and follow a musical pattern rather than excessively regular meter.

Williams' poem "This is just to say" is one of the most frequently anthologized and taught Imagist works. It follows the conventions of using extremely simple, conversational language and is written in free verse. The plums of the poem are mentioned directly. Although Williams' act of eating them can evoke elements of human relationships, they are real rather than symbolic plums, presented directly rather than symbolically or allusively.

So what is the theme of the poem? What is the main message that the poem is trying to convey to the reader?

One of the messages the poet is trying to convey is the omnipresence of violence. Each stanza contains a simple image that becomes the springboard to the narrator's development of that image into something metaphorical. For example, when the narrator walks by a butcher's shop and sees a single light, the narrator thinks it's like the light with which a convict digs a tunnel to escape. In the second stanza, the narrator sees an apron smeared with blood, which is compared to "great continents of blood." In this image, blood is smeared across the world, implying that the entire world is stained with blood and marred by violence. Other images include a wooden block on which bones are smashed. These images of the butcher shop support the theme of the poem--that violence lurks everywhere, even beneath everyday objects. 

What are the three major areas of cost associated with white-collar crime? How does that apply to healthcare fraud and computer crime?

The term “white-collar” refers to the professional working class. The implication is that they can wear white-collared shirts because their jobs do not involve manual labor and will not get dirty at work.

“White-collar crime” refers to nonviolent crime committed by such professionals.

There are many types of white-collar healthcare crimes. They can involve doctors, patients, and frauds who present themselves as doctors. In one type of fraud, a criminal organization will steal a medical provider's ID number and set up a fake practice of their own. They then bill Medicaid for phony services and receive payments. There are several victims in this type of crime: the doctor being impersonated, as he still has to pay taxes on all the income he did not really receive as well as the entire Medicaid program, because money is disbursed for no reason, no one is treated. This is a significant loss of the funds meant to help the less fortunate receive care.

In another type of healthcare fraud, some licensed doctors commit the crime of prescribing pain medications (which are often addictive and have a high street-sale value) to patients who don't need them. We have seen this practice explode in the past several decades. It was so prevalent at one time that such doctors, who ran practices called “pill mills,” would place small roadside signs (akin to garage-sale signs) advertising their services as simply “pain management,” with a phone number.

Computer crime, more often now referred to as “cyber crime,” is relatively new, for obvious reasons. It encompasses many possible criminal activities. We hear a lot about identity fraud, which occurs when a criminal assumes the identity of someone else and then uses that identity to make fraudulent purchases. Usually, the criminal manages to do this by stealing an important piece of identification—most often a social security number, and then applying for loans or credit while pretending to be that person. The victim then faces a long, difficult process of proving that he or she was not the one who authorized the transactions. A whole industry of identity protection has sprung up to help deal with this problem.

Another type of computer/ cyber crime we hear a lot about is cyber-bullying. This is a particularly hateful crime in which a person is attacked on social networks and made to feel embarrassed or shamed in some way. It is far too easy for people to attack others, especially others with some sort of vulnerability, while hiding behind the cloak of anonymity afforded by the internet. It is a lot easier to do something unkind to someone when you don't actually have to face them or reveal your identity.

I would break down the areas of cost associated with white-collar crime this way:

1) Public cost: As in the Medicaid example above, public funds are siphoned from the programs and people who need it.

2) Private cost: As in the identity fraud example above, private citizens lose money when they are victims of computer/ cyber crime. (I didn't mention “phishing,” which occurs when criminals send a message or an email that attempts to trick the receiver into clicking on a link that will lead to a fraudulent attempt to separate them from their money.)

3) Personal cost: Victims of cyber-bullying pay a cost in self-esteem and emotional turmoil.

4) Security cost: We know that we have had military and government secrets stolen via internet hacking. We have also heard our power grid is vulnerable to cyber-attack. Perhaps most noteworthy are the (sometimes successful) attempts by terrorist organizations to recruit fledgling terrorists from other countries.

Is "The False Gems" a story that reveals much about human behavior?

The story is told entirely from the point of view of Monsieur Lantin and seems intended to reveal something about human nature as represented by this character. He is astonished when he finds out that the heavy necklace which he thought was only junk jewelry is worth as much as eighteen thousand francs. He had only hoped to raise six or seven francs for it. Maupassant gives modern readers a good way of conceptualizing the buying power of Lantin's horde of jewelry with a brief paragraph early in the story.

Monsieur Lantin, then chief clerk in the Department of the Interior, enjoyed a snug little salary of three thousand five hundred francs, and he proposed to this model young girl, and was accepted.

Lantin was earning three thousand five hundred francs a year, and he was not a mere clerk but a chief clerk. It would take him at least four years to earn the price of that one necklace. Maupassant had a cynical view of human nature. In some stories the reader might expect to see Monsieur Lantin take the entire collection of jewelry down to a bridge and throw them into the Seine--perhaps even throw himself into the river too. Not only that, but he might be expected to find out who had been buying all these presents for his wife and challenge him to a duel.

Instead, Lantin accepts eighteen thousand francs for the necklace and sells the rest of his trove to the same jeweler for an additional one hundred and forty-three thousand francs. All of a sudden his salary of thirty-five hundred francs per year seems ridiculously petty. He could easily find out the name of the man who had given the jewelry to his deceased wife. It was obvious that they had all been bought at the same store by the same man. But Lantin doesn't want to know and makes no effort to find out.

The point of the story seems to be that most men would behave like Monsieur Lantin under the same circumstances. Money talks! Lantin undergoes a dramatic change of character when he recovers from his shock and sorrow at the discovery that his wife had been unfaithful. The transition is suggested in the following brief lines:

Men of leisure were strolling about with their hands in their pockets. Monsieur Lantin, observing them, said to himself: “The rich, indeed, are happy. With money it is possible to forget even the deepest sorrow. One can go where one pleases, and in travel find that distraction which is the surest cure for grief. Oh if I were only rich!”

He really is rich but hasn't yet accepted the rike. All he has to do is to go back to that jewelry store with the "false" gems he inherited. It will entail a certain amount of embarrassment, but he adapts to the role of a rich man very quickly. How many other rich men have secrets like his--or worse?

Why do Jem and Scout make a snowman of Mr. Avery in To Kill a Mockingbird?

In Chapter 8, it snows in Maycomb County, which is an unusual, rare event. Jem and Scout are excited at their first opportunity to create a snowman. Despite the lack of snow, Jem and Scout begin to gather snow from Miss Maudie's yard and mix it with dirt in order to build a snowman. As they are building their snowman, Scout comments that the snowman looks a little like Miss Crawford. Jem senses an opportunity to create a snowman that resembles one of their neighbors and gathers more snow to make its stomach fatter. Jem says to Scout, "Mr. Avery's sort of shaped like a snow man, ain't he?" (Lee 42). After successfully creating a snowman that resembles Mr. Avery, Atticus tells Jem to add an apron to disguise it. One reason why Jem decided to make the snowman resemble Mr. Avery is because Mr. Avery has a rather humorous appearance which is easy to replicate in a snowman.

What is a thesis statement about the theme of jealousy in Othello?

As it was in the ancient biblical story of Cain, the "worm of jealousy" moves into Othello's heart and causes him to commit his heinous act of killing Desdemona. Iago is the one who places this worm into Othello.

With the idea of the worm of jealousy, then, the student can write a persuasive essay designed to convince readers that Othello's jealousy is like a worm that burrows its way until it has destroyed the organ(s) it has attacked. 

Thus, there will be a need to write a thesis containing a blueprint of the three main points. This thesis will develop how this "worm" of jealousy makes its way through the heart of Othello and torments him to the point of suspicion and, later, madness. This thesis can state that the "worm" of jealousy is planted into Othello's mind by ideas suggested by others, and by two other situations or conditions such as false appearances (i.e. the handkerchief).

Here are some points to consider in formulating the thesis statement:

• The seeds of jealousy are planted early in Act I even before Iago's worm has started to grow. When Brabantio accuses Othello of seducing Desdemona by witchcraft, he is defeated by Othello's testimony before the senate. Afterwards, Brabantio tells Othello:

Look to her, Moor, if thou hast eyes to see:
She has deceived her father, and may thee (Act I, Scene 3, lines 288-289).

• In Act II, Iago schemes to have Cassio drawn into a fight. Because of the disturbance, Iago strips Cassio of his rank, blaming him for the mayhem. Then, Iago moves in and convinces Cassio to beseech Desdemona to convince her husband to reinstate him as an officer.


• Iago then goes to Othello and insinuates that Cassio and Desdemona are possibly lovers, making Othello suspicious. At the end of Act II, Iago tells Roderigo his plan:

Myself the while to draw the Moor apart
And bring him jump when he may Cassio find
Soliciting his wife, Aye, that's the way.
Dull not device by coldness and delay (Act II, Scene 3, lines 348-351).

• In Act III, Iago sees Cassio speaking with Desdemona as he pleads with her to ask Othello to reinstate him. Later, however, Iago tells Othello that he has seen Cassio "steal away so guilty-like" (Act III, Scene 3, line 40). Iago's insinuations heighten Othello's jealousy.


• Othello demands “ocular proof” (Act III, Scene 3, line 365) of his wife's unfaithfulness, so Iago tells Othello he has seen Cassio “wipe his beard with” (Act III, Scene 3, line 439) the handkerchief Othello gave his wife. Hearing this, Othello vows to take vengeance on his wife and Cassio.


• Iago's next act of treachery is to get his wife Emilia to give him the handkerchief Desdemona dropped. He later plants this handkerchief in Cassio's lodgings; then, he suggests that Othello listen as Iago questions Cassio. While he talks to Cassio, Iago tricks the former officer into speaking of his affair with a courtesan named Bianca. Iago whispers Bianca's name so softly that Othello cannot hear, causing Othello to assume the conversation is about Desdemona. Later, Bianca finds a duplicate handkerchief and accuses Cassio of giving her a second-hand gift; consequently, Othello believes Cassio originally received the handkerchief from Desdemona.


• Finally, Othello makes Iago his lieutenant and asks Iago to accompany him and furnish him "with some swift means of death/ For the fair devil" (Act III, Scene 4, lines 479-480).


• Enraged, Othello confronts Desdemona and strangles her to death.

How has the constitution helped promote political parties in the United States?

The Electoral College comprising of elected and appointed members from different States voted for aspirants with the leading aspirant and the first runners-up becoming the president and vice president respectively. However, ratification of the 12th Amendment changed the operations of the Electoral College by requiring separate elections for both the president and the vice president. This provided parties with an opportunity to select the candidates to run for the two positions effectively recognizing the role of political parties in the American electoral process and governance.

The right to vote through constitutional amendments expanded in most states by extending the right to include all adult white males. This was later expanded to include all citizens above 18 regardless of their previous state of servitude, race, gender and color. Further, changes to the voting rights such as poll tax led to changes in the electoral system which brought wider public participation in the electoral process. The size of the electorate forced the political parties to become more aggressive in their campaigns and aspirant selection. The parties had to increase their influence among the public to garner support for their candidates as is the case currently.

Which gaps between seeing certain secondary characters in Hamlet lend themselves to the play?

For the most exciting stories, we want the juiciest material—gaps where the character is in a really different place before and after. What comes to mind for you?

Here's what my mind jumped to: when Ophelia goes crazy (maybe), when Ophelia drowns, when Laertes comes back from France, and when Horatio leaves Hamlet alone after the ghost.

Once you choose your gap, the way to fill it in is to ask a lot of questions. What would the character have been thinking right after the events of the first scene? What happened to them to prompt their behavior in the next scene?

Let's dig into each of these in a little more detail.

Ophelia devolves

Before her breakdown, we see Ophelia having a tough time of things. In Act III, Scene 1, she has that bizarre argument with Hamlet, who she thought loved her. He gets quite nasty. During the play in Act III, Scene 2, Hamlet crudely flirts with Ophelia before insulting her and laying his head in her lap. Talk about mixed signals.

Then Hamlet stabs Ophelia's father to death.

So what happens to Ophelia between Act III, Scene 2 and Act IV, Scene 5 when she enters acting like a madwoman? Her feelings about Hamlet and her father must have been rushing around her mind, changing constantly, tormenting her. Where does she go after the play ends? Does she talk to anyone? What were the exact circumstances of her "break"—when she started behaving irrationally?

Dig into Ophelia's specific actions. Why were folk songs on her mind? Do the lyrics she sings reflect some message she's trying to send, or some thought(s) she's been dwelling on? Do they reflect motifs you see elsewhere in the play—unfaithfulness, the difficulty of distinguishing true from false, the real nature of death? What motivated her to pass out the flowers? Who did she give them to, and why? (Some editions tell you whom Ophelia gives each flower to, but there is no definitive answer—in other words, you're free to make it up yourself.)

Think about this passage, spoken by the gentleman to Gertrude at the beginning of Act IV, Scene 5, explaining Ophelia's current state:

She says she hears
There's tricks i' the world; and hems, and beats her heart;
Spurns enviously at straws; speaks things in doubt,
That carry but half sense: her speech is nothing,
Yet the unshaped use of it doth move
The hearers to collection; they aim at it,
And botch the words up fit to their own thoughts;
Which, as her winks, and nods, and gestures
yield them,
Indeed would make one think there might be thought,
Though nothing sure, yet much unhappily.

The emphasis is mine. There's some interesting stuff in there, no? You almost come away thinking she's not crazy—she's crazy like a fox. On the other hand. . . She hears that there are tricks in the world? Hears from whom? (For the record, she's also completely right.) Her unshaped words and gestures move listeners—if she's not shaping them, who is? Is she in touch with something deeper, some deeper truth, maybe, or some preternatural entity? Don't forget, there are ghosts in Hamlet's world.

As I watch Ophelia fly around the stage, yelling, insulting people, and otherwise behaving without the decorum required of a noblewoman, here's what I can't help wondering: Is she finally free?

Ophelia dies

One of the most provocative unanswered questions about Hamlet is about the nature of Ophelia's death. Was it suicide? The nature of her burial in Act V, Scene 1 suggests so, but Gertrude's description in Act IV, Scene 8 paints a more ambiguous picture. She kind of makes Ophelia seem like a girl playing in a stream who became overwhelmed.

Regardless of your opinion, though, there's more to this story. For one thing, how did Ophelia, who might not be in her right mind, manage to slip out of the castle alone? Were there no doctors or attendants around taking care of her? Was she abandoned? What drew her to the stream and the flowers? Do you think it might have something to do with beauty, or the difference between complex court life and simple nature? If so, how do those ideas form in her mind?

What does death mean to Ophelia? Does she seek it? Does she even understand the concept?

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but there's one more question that has always bothered me: why did Gertrude watch Ophelia drown without trying to help her? If you look, Gertrude has the same character gap Ophelia does—after Act IV, Scene 5, we don't see her until she comes to report Ophelia's death.

Laertes revolts

When this play was new to me, I thought this scene was nuts. It came totally out of left field. The last time we saw Laertes, he was receiving advice from his dad before his trip to France (Act I, Scene 3). Soon afterward, we saw his dad asking Reynaldo to spy on him (Act II, Scene 1). Polonius thinks Laertes will be doing what many young men suddenyl given a lot of freedom do—drink, gamble, have sex, play tennis, get into sword fights. The next time we see Laertes is in Act IV, Scene 5, the same scene as Ophelia's breakdown. He's busting through the door to the throne room, roaring that he will have revenge, followed by an army shouting "Laertes shall be king!"

Well, okay. Maybe it's not quite an army, but Laertes definitely has a mob of commoners behind him. What happened? Laertes went from being a rich kid without a care in the world, off for a vacation full of debauchery, to a populist rabble-rouser brave and powerful enough to draw his sword on the king. What went through his head when he learned Polonius had been murdered? Was he scared to come back? What thoughts or feelings finally pushed him into coming back? How much grief was he actually feeling? How was he able to rally the commoners against Claudius? What was going through his head as he entered Elsinore castle, technically committing treason? Did he really think he would be king? Does he want to be king? If so, how long has he wanted to be king? Is he just using Polonius's death as a pretense to wage a rebellion he was already planning?

Horatio ponders

This is a more subtle story because the conflict is mostly in Horatio's head. Think about the state he must be in at the end of Act I, Scene 5. He sees a ghost, feels the earth quake beneath him, and sees his best friend act like a maniac. Hamlet asks Horatio and Marcellus multiple times to swear they will keep the ghost's secret, as if he's not really processing that they already have. Horatio says he's speaking "wild and whirling words," and that the night's events are "wondrous strange." Now, remember Horatio is one of the most easy-going, tolerant best friends ever. If even he is freaked out by Hamlet, things must be really intense.

We don't see Horatio again until he's spying on Claudius for Hamlet during the play (Act III, Scene 2). From this point on, Horatio is unfailingly faithful to his friend. Don't you think it would have taken a lot of soul-searching for Horatio to have decided to back Hamlet up? He's a scholar and rational thinker who is told, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Wouldn't he be incredibly disoriented, maybe even suspicious or resentful of Hamlet?

Admittedly, there's a lot less to go on with Horatio because we rarely see him doing anything but agree with Hamlet. You'd have a lot of liberty to decide what he does between Act I, Scene 5 and Act III, Scene 2. Where does he go? Does anyone notice his inner conflict? Does he at any point make up his mind not to help Hamlet, only to change it later? Whom does he spend time with? What are the conversations like? Remember that in Act IV, Scene 5 Claudius asks Horatio to go with Ophelia as she exits, which suggests the two might have some sort of friendship. Wouldn't that make for an interesting conversation—Horatio and (maybe crazy) Ophelia about the behavior of the man they both love?

What is the message of "All Summer in a Day"?

The message, to me, is about how someone who is "different" will always be singled out. Margot is different than the other children -- she's smarter, and more creative, but beyond that, she can actually remember living on Earth. She has memories of the sun, something the other children lack. In a sense, she is more authentically human than the others. This makes the other children jealous, and causes them to act out against her. When Margot is locked in a closet and forgotten about for the short time when the sun comes out, I think we have to consider this as more than simply a prank that has gone too far. The children are, in effect, appropriating (or even stealing) Margot's experience -- now everybody has the same memory of the sun as Margot. It's an attempt to erase what made her special. Kids will be kids, even on Venus.

In Bud, Not Buddy by Christopher Paul Curtis, does Bud use Rule Number 16 to survive or thrive？

In Chapter 7, Bud is in the library and asks the librarian for Miss Hill. The librarian responds by saying, "Miss Hill? My goodness, hadn't you heard?" (Curtis 55). Bud instantly remembers one of his rules. According to Rule Number 16,

"If a Grown-up Ever Starts a Sentence by Saying "Haven't You Heard," Get Ready, 'Cause What's About to Come Out of Their Mouth Is Gonna Drop You Head first into a Boiling Tragedy" (Curtis 56).

Bud braces himself for some bad news because he associates the statement "haven't you heard" with finding out that somebody has just passed away. He elaborates by saying that not only does the statement imply that someone is dead, but also that the person they are referring to typically died in a tragic, grotesque manner. Bud then tries to prepare himself to receive the tragic news about Miss Hill. Fortunately, the librarian informs Bud that Miss Hill moved to Chicago with her new husband. Rule Number 16 would be classified as a "survival" rule because Bud uses the rule to remind himself to be prepared to receive bad news. Bud realizes that if he can prepare himself to hear tragic news, then he will be able to maintain his composure and protect himself emotionally.

Name synonyms and antonyms in the poem "The Solitary Reaper."

In the first two lines of the poem, Wordsworth calls the Highland Lass both "single" and "solitary," which reinforces how alone the woman is as she reaps and binds. Wordsworth also uses the synonyms "motionless" and "still" to describe the narrator as he listens to the reaper singing her solitary song. Such repetition, in the same line no less, emphasizes how spellbound the narrator is made by the singing. It is as if he had been turned into a statue. Her song itself is called both "plaintive" and "melancholy," both words carrying the connotation of sadness and lament.

I don't find any antonyms per se, but there is a juxtaposition of opposites in stanza three. Here, the poet speculates on what the subject of the reaper's song might be: she might be singing about the olden days and faraway places or she might be warbling a tune about present sorrows: "familiar matter of today."

Who said these words: "Give me blood and I will give you freedom"?

Subhas Chandra Bose said the words "Give me blood and I will give you freedom."  Bose was a leader in the Indian Independence movement.  He also created the Indian National Army.  The Indian Independence movement was against British colonial rule in India.  Bose believed in using force against the British in order to gain independence for India.  He saw violence as a necessity in the fight for India's independence.  In 1944, he gave a speech, which included the following words:

It is blood alone that can pay the price of freedom.  Give me blood and I will give you freedom!

By using these words, Bose promoted his idea of violence to obtain freedom from Britain.  He believed that bloodshed was a necessary sacrifice in the fight for Indian freedom.  He told his listeners that if they would sacrifice and fight for the cause of freedom, it could be obtained.  Bose died due to injuries from a plane crash two years before India gained independence, which occurred in 1947.