What are some quotes from the novel To Kill a Mockingbird that depict how Scout changes from the beginning to the end of the novel?

Early on in the novel, Scout is terrified of her reclusive neighbor, Arthur "Boo" Radley. She believes all of the false rumors about Boo and refers to him as the "malevolent phantom." In Chapter 5, Jem tells Scout and Dill about the new game that he has created. When Jem explains to them that they will be acting out Boo's life story, Scout refuses to play because she is scared of Boo. Scout says,

"He can get out at night when we're all asleep..." (Lee 25).

As the novel progresses, Scout continues to fear Boo Radley. In Chapter 8, Boo Radley covers Scout with a blanket without her knowing while she is watching Maudie's house fire. The next morning when Atticus tells Scout that Boo put the blanket over her shoulders, Scout says,

"My stomach turned to water and I nearly threw up when Jem held out the blanket and crept toward me" (Lee 45).

Following Bob Ewell's attack towards the end of the novel, Scout meets Boo for the first time and listens as Sheriff Tate explains to Atticus why he refuses to tell the community about Boo's heroics. When Atticus asks Scout if she understands, Scout says,

"Well, it'd be sort of like shootin' a mockingbird, wouldn't it?" (Lee 170).

Scout's ability to perceive Boo Radley as an innocent individual displays her maturation and moral development.

In Chapter 31, Scout walks Boo Radley to his home and looks out at their neighborhood while she is standing on Boo's porch. She comments,

"Boo was our neighbor. He gave us two soap dolls, a broken watch and chain, a pair of good-luck pennies, and our lives" (Lee 172).

At the end of the novel, Scout finally views Boo Radley as a kind, shy, and caring person.

How is Ponyboy different from the rest of the Greasers?

Ponyboy's talents, personality, and perspective on life make him different from the other Greasers. Ponyboy is both athletic and intelligent like his older brother, Darry. However, Ponyboy is younger than Darry and tends to make irrational decisions. Darry also works two jobs and is out of high school, while Ponyboy still has an opportunity to go to college. As the novel progresses, Ponyboy begins to interact with Socs such as Cherry Valance and Randy Adderson who give him an increased perspective on life. Ponyboy realizes that Socs also have issues and are individuals with their own unique sets of problems, which is something that most of the Greasers do not consider. Unlike the other Greasers, Ponyboy has an affinity for literature and excels at school. Throughout the novel, Pony expresses his interest in reading and even reads Gone With the Wind with Johnny while they are hiding out on Jay Mountain. Another unique aspect of Ponyboy's personality is his tolerant, sensitive nature. Ponyboy is not brash or disrespectful like Two-Bit and Dally, and tends to associate more with Johnny Cade. Unlike Johnny and the other Greasers, Ponyboy has a future and the tools it takes to succeed in life. In addition to being a good student, Pony is also a track star. Pony's talents and unique personality make him different from the Greasers. Ponyboy's insight into the lives of Soc members, as well as his intelligence and athletic ability, make him different from the other members of the Greaser gang.

Compare and contrast any two characters of "The Canterville Ghost."

I hope that it is okay to compare and contrast three characters.  I would like compare and contrast Virginia Otis and the Otis twins.  For the sake of simplicity though, I am going to refer to the twins as a single character though.  They do everything together, and there isn't much difference between the two.  

Honestly, the twins are completely different from Virginia Otis, but I can find some surface level similarities.  Both Virginia and the twins are related to Mr. and Mrs. Otis.  Both characters are relatively young.  Virginia is older, but she is only fifteen.  Lastly, Virginia and the twins are also quite interested in the ghost of Sir Simon.  

The interest in the ghost is where all of the differences between those characters begin.  The Otis twins are immediately excited about the prospect of a ghost, and they revel in being as antagonistic as possible to Sir Simon.  At no point do they consider empathizing with Sir Simon.  Virginia, on the other hand, is a perfectly behaved child.  She doesn't participate in her family's schemes to antagonize Sir Simon, and she doesn't automatically assume that Sir Simon deserves their dislike.  Virginia does quite the opposite.  She pities the ghost and offers to help him.  Where the twins are loud, annoying, and able to strike fear in Sir Simon, Virginia is calm, sweet, and able to earn Sir Simon's trust.  

In The Catcher in The Rye by Salinger, how does Holden's ambivalence towards movies relate to his personal development?

The entire novel The Catcher in the Rye is about Holden's search for something genuine. The movies, while entertaining to him, confuse him and anger him because they present the world in a way that is not real at all.

Holden, while saying he hates the movies, finds himself imitating them a lot. In one early chapter, Holden tap-dances like "one of those guys in the movies. In one of those musicals." Later on in the novel, after his violent confrontation with Maurice, Sunny's pimp, Holden pretends he took "a bullet in my guts. Old 'Maurice had plugged me." Finally, when Holden sat in the Wicker Bar waiting for Carl Luce, he "thought about war and all. Those war movies always do that to me." Then he goes on to explain his brother D.B.'s experience in the war.

Despite Holden's seeming familiarity with the movies, as exemplified above, he's always bothered with the idea of movies because of their phoniness. He calls his brother D.B. "a prostitute" when his brother seemingly gave up writing short stories to write movies. When Stradlater punches Holden in the face, he comments that it's "pretty hard to knock a guy out, except in the goddam movies." Later on, after faking that Maurice "plugged" him, Holden says, "The goddam movies. They can ruin you. I'm not kidding."

The thing about movies for Holden is this: they create a confused worldview. They clearly entertain him (the tap-dancing and the "plugged" scenes), but this entertainment is not a reflection of genuine life. This is why he calls his brother D.B. "a prostitute." Holden sees literature as a much more accurate portrayal of the world and calls D.B. his favorite writer and considers his seeming abandonment of the written word as a selling out of his values. However, the scene in which Holden pretends to be "plugged" also ties into his worldview that this is somehow romantic. Immediately following his imaginings of his bloody walk to his room, he thinks about calling up Jane "and have her come over and bandage up my guts. I pictured her holding a cigarette for me to smoke while I was bleeding and all." 

Movies confuse Holden because they present people who are good, romantic and heroic, while these ideas rarely play out in real life.

What character traits do Lord Canterville and Mr. Hiram Otis have in common?

The characters of Hiram Otis and Lord Canterville appear very different in "The Canterville Ghost," but, looking closer, we can see a number of similarities.

First of all, both men are very firm in their beliefs. This is demonstrated in Chapter One when the two men discuss the existence of the Canterville ghost. Though Lord Canterville believes in ghosts and Hiram Otis does not, both men are very opinionated and neither one refuses to back down.

Secondly, both Lord Canterville and Hiram Otis are men of honour. When the Canterville ghost gives Virginia the jewels, for instance, Hiram Otis immediately tries to return them to Lord Canterville. This is because Hiram feels that owning such jewels goes against his cultural background, as he explains:

These gems…would be completely out of place among those who have been brought up on the severe, and I believe immortal, principles of Republican simplicity.

Similarly, for Lord Canterville, he feels that accepting the jewels goes against the final wishes of the ghost. Furthermore, it would also contravene the conditions of the sale of the house and, for this reason, he refuses to go back on his word:

Mr Otis, you took the furniture and the ghost at a valuation, and anything that belonged to the ghost passed at once in to your possession.

Why should the village give up on the tradition of "the lottery"?

The village should give up the tradition of the lottery because it is barbaric. It is wrong to kill people for no reason. The town holds on to the tradition because the townspeople are afraid to change anything, but being afraid of change is ridiculous. Life is about evolving and changing. If you are afraid of change, you will never grow. 

The town’s devotion to tradition is evident from the fact that they will not even change the box or three-legged stool they use in the lottery. Keeping the lottery is one thing, but not replacing obviously broken vestments for it is symbolic of how tradition-crazy this town is. 

The lottery uses an old crumbling black box on a wobbly stool. The stool only has three legs, but they won’t fix it or replace it. The box is falling apart, but they won’t repair it or get another box. Also, the box is made from the pieces of the last box. 

The original paraphernalia for the lottery had been lost long ago, and the black box now resting on the stool had been put into use even before Old Man Warner, the oldest man in town, was born. Mr. Summers spoke frequently to the villagers about making a new box, but no one liked to upset even as much tradition as was represented by the black box. 

The other, more pressing reason not to keep the lottery is that there is no reason to kill one person randomly every year. When a person is killed, there is normally a reason. Even if your town accepted stoning people, which most of us do not, stoning one random person a year is not moral.

What are four examples of inequality existing in a society?

In spite of the Emancipation Proclamation, in spite of a war fought and won, in spite of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, African Americans in the United States continue to suffer from inequality in every measurable dimension. Even if the American people gather up the will to solve this problem, it will take generations to solve it. Four dimensions that stand out in particular are housing, employment, education, and political representation. 

As of 2010, 71% of white people owned their own homes, while only 45% of African-Americans did. There is no reason to think that the subsequent years, in the midst of a recession, have improved this statistic for African Americans. Certainly, the history of this inequality goes all the way back to the Jim Crow laws after the Civil War. Far more recently, though, this is the result of discriminatory lending practices, even by the United States government, which actively sought to limit African-American soldiers returning from World War II from purchasing homes through various government programs, the same loan programs white soldiers used to build the suburbs. African Americans were thus unable to build up any equity in real estate, unable to pass any of that wealth on to their children, and started out behind in the post-war boom.

At the end of last year, unemployment for African Americans was slightly more than twice as high as for white people: 9.5% compared to 4.5%. This substantial difference is the result of discriminatory hiring practices, lower average education levels, and the frequent lack of public transportation to a job. Most states have fair employment statutes, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforces the Civil Rights Act. Still, this inequality persists, even as the economy recovers.

In education, the inputs and outcomes for African Americans are extremely unequal. They receive fewer resources, often have inferior teachers, attend poorly maintained physical plants, and are the victims of low expectations. They are punished more frequently and severely than students of other races, leading to the "pipeline to prison" people are finally starting to notice. They drop out at higher rates. Unsurprisingly, they do not perform as well as white students do. If I were treated this way, I probably would not, either.

In Congress, there are 46 African-American representatives or senators. Since Congress has 535 members, this is less than 10%, while the percentage of African-Americans in the general population is about 14%. This is as close as African-Americans have ever come to having representation in proportion to their numbers in the population, but it still falls short and happens at a time at which African Americans have little political sway because most of them are Democrats. 

There are many other ways African Americans are treated unequally in the United States, including in longevity and in infant mortality. The four forms of inequality discussed above are striking, I think, and in combination, make every aspect of being African American an uphill battle.

Are there any good mothers in the Capulet family?

Not really, no.  Lady Capulet is not what I would call a good mother.  She is eager to force her daughter, Juliet, to marry at thirteen years old and to become a mother, despite the fact that this is what she did and her own marriage seems to have its issues.  This makes her seem more concerned about what is socially appropriate or proper than what is best for her own child.  Later, when Juliet refuses to marry Count Paris, Lady Capulet basically abandons her to Lord Capulet's wrath, saying, "I would the fool were married to her grave."  Basically, then, she says that she wishes Juliet were dead rather than disobedient and ungrateful. 

The nurse, I would argue, is a better mother figure than Lady Capulet is.  She seems to genuinely care about Juliet in a way that her own mother does not.  However, she does give Juliet bad advice, and helping Juliet to form a relationship with a forbidden young man -- especially when she knows that her parents are arranging another match -- is a serious error in judgment.

What are the main themes of the book The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War by Stephen Kinzer?

Kinzer's book is a biography of the brothers John Foster Dulles, who was Secretary of State from 1953-1959, and Allen Dulles, head of the CIA from 1953 to 1961. As Kinzer writes, "These uniquely powerful brothers set in motion many of the processes that shape today's world" (page 3). The theme of this book is that studying these brothers helps us understand the causes of wars and conflicts in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. 

Another of the themes of the book is the examination of the ideas that motivated the Dulles brothers in the actions they took during the Cold War. Kinzer defines these ideas as "American exceptionalism," the idea that the U.S. can act in ways other countries can't because America is more virtuous. Another belief the brothers ascribed to was the idea that America is more powerful than other countries and therefore can decide to overthrow these governments. They also believed that the U.S. had to promote Christianity and capitalism abroad. 

Another theme is that the brothers' tale is also, as Kinzer writes, "the story of America" (page 3). They operated against a backdrop of fear and paranoia during the Cold War. As Kinzer writes, "the nation was gripped by a fear that Soviet Communism was winning victories around the world while the United States was standing still or losing" (page 87). The CIA that Allen Dulles led was formed against this backdrop, and the CIA became "an advocate of covert operations" (page 103) in countries such as Guatemala and Iran. These types of operations would form part of the core of what Allen Dulles supported. He and his brother believed in fighting the specter of communism wherever it appeared, and this hysteria motivated a lot of the actions the CIA took at the time. These beliefs, carried out by the Dulles brothers, led the U.S. into the conflict in Vietnam (page 179), as well into other conflicts. 

The empirical formula of a compound of molecular mass 120 is CH2O. What is the molecular formula of the compound?

The empirical formula of a compound is the lowest whole-number ratio of atoms in the compound. The molecular formula gives the actual number of each type of atom in a molecule. For example, the compound `N_2O_2` has the empirical formula NO.

The molar mass of a compound is a whole-number multiple of its empirical formula mass. 

Let's start by finding the empirical formula mass of this compound:

`CH_2O` = C + (2)H + O = 12.0 + 2(1.0) + 16.0= 30 grams per mole

We can find the factor by which the molecular formula is larger than the empirical formula by comparing the two masses. Divide the actual molar mass of the compound by the empirical formula mass:

120/30 = 4

Since the molar mass of the compound is four times the empirical formula mass, the molecular formula is four times the empirical formula:

`4(CH_2O)` = `C_4H_8O_2`

The linked video provides a detailed explanation and some more examples of this process. 

Do you see any conflict between your desire to be as profitable as possible and your desire to pay employees a living wage?

There is not a conflict between earning potential and paying employees.  When examining the ethical implications of overhead, the moral choice should be determined prior to payment.  The moral choice to pay employees an established salary overrides any contentions of earning potential conflict. 

In simple terms, it would unethical to pay employees less than a "living wage."  Therefore being as profitable as possible includes that wage as standard.  It would not be possible to be more profitable, because it would violate a moral standard already established.  This argument relies on the assumption the organization has established a moral standard of operation.  When such a standard is set, then all decisions must conform to it, which eliminates conflict.

If an organization does not set a moral standard, then there cannot be a conflict because there is no standard for comparison.  An organization that maximizes profit over worker pay has determined the moral implications do not factor into the decision-making process.  Therefore, no conflict exists because the company has made its intentions plain.

Conflict will only arise when there is a disparity between what the organization has stated or agreed to do and its actions.  If the company has made the moral choice to pay workers a "living wage" but is underpaying them to maximize profit, then the company is violating its moral obligation.  Since the organization is in violation of a moral foundation, profits should be reduced to erase the conflict and everyone involved should be in agreement to make that happen.

What are the drawbacks of Modernism?

Modernism was an important aesthetic and cultural movement that is generally thought to have begun in the late 19th century and to have remained extremely influential at least until the WWII era. Though it is an important historical period, especially in terms of the art it produced, the Modernist era also wrestled with some seriously negative ideas, and these could be seen as potential drawbacks. For instance, Modernist literature often explores the lives of individuals that have been alienated from society, or who feel isolated from the culture they live in. Moreover, many Modernist writers tended to suggest that, since many traditional values were destroyed by advancements in science, philosophy, and more, existence was meaningless and lacked any kind of solid foundation. Now, it's important understand that these were and are important concepts to explore. That said, these ideas could also be seen as the drawbacks of Modernism, as they advance a thoroughly pessimistic and depressing view of life. 

What are a pizza business's marginal costs for an output of 35 pizzas per day if it has the cost structure described below? The firm’s...

In order to answer this question, we first have to understand what marginal cost is. In economics, marginal cost refers to how much a firm’s costs change when its output goes up. In other words, it is the cost of producing the next unit (or, in this case, five units) of output.

Because marginal cost has to do with how much the cost of production changes, we do not need to know how much the fixed costs are and how much the variable costs are. We only need to look at total costs. Your teacher (or book) has told you what the fixed costs are to see whether you know that you should ignore that particular piece of information.

To find the marginal cost, all we have to do is see how much the total costs went up between two levels of output. When the business produced 30 pizzas per day, its total costs were $210. When the business produced 35 pizzas per day, its costs were $230. This means that the business’s total costs went up by $20 when its output rose from 30 to 35 pizzas per day. Therefore, the marginal cost at the output of 35 pizzas is $20 for the last five pizzas. (You could say that it is $4 per pizza, but that assumes each pizza had the same marginal cost, which is not necessarily true.)

If this concept remains unclear, please follow the link below, where you will find an interactive table that shows marginal costs for various levels of output and total costs.

In "Indian Education" by Sherman Alexie, how does the narrator's cousin Steven Ford's experience differ from the narrator's?

Throughout the story "Indian Education," there is only one mention of the narrator's cousin, Steven Ford, but  the idea of this character is present throughout the narrative.

When in fifth grade, the narrator, Victor, "picked up a basketball for the first time" and thought about "all those possibilities and angles. It was mathematics, geometry. It was beautiful." However, he quickly contrasts his decision to dedicate himself to basketball to his cousin, who "sniffed rubber cement from a paper bag and leaned back on the merry-go-round. His ears rang, his mouth was dry and everyone seemed so far away."

Throughout the rest of the story, Victor attempts to make something of himself through basketball. He goes to the white high school and is a star on the basketball team. The reader is left assuming that Steven Ford was still on that symbolic merry-go-round getting high with "that buzz in his head, all those colors and noises."

But Victor seems to not blame Steven Ford, as tragedy follows Indians. He describes how a state trooper is confused as to why another Indian, Wally Jim, killed himself. Victor explains that the Indians "look in the mirror, see the history of [their] tribe in [their] eyes, taste failure in the tap water, and shake with old tears."

While Victor makes it off the reservation, Steven Ford is indicative of the Indians who have "a reunion every weekend at the Powwow Tavern."

Is there a time when Atticus Finch does not express integrity in Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird?

I would argue that Atticus shows integrity throughout the book. 

He does go against his own values, for a few minutes, in Chapter 13.  This is the chapter where Atticus' sister, Alexandra, comes to live with him and the children.  Though we are not told this directly, apparently Atticus has asked her to come and stay because he knows that with the trial of Tom Robinson coming up this summer, there is likely to be trouble, and he wants another adult around the house for those times when he is away.

However, Aunt Alexandra has very different values from Atticus.  She is a snob. She feels proud of being a Finch and looks down on other families, and she wants to pass these values on to the children.  Also, she does not approve of the way Atticus allows Scout, who is a tomboy, to behave.  Aunt Alexandra wants Scout to behave like a little lady.

Atticus, on the other hand, is primarily concerned that the children learn to read well, think for themselves, and treat all people fairly.  

Hence, Aunt Alexandra's arrival ushers in an era of dueling parenting methods.

There is funny scene near the end of the chapter in which Atticus tries to make himself teach his sister's values to the children.  

In his lawyer's voice, without a shade of inflection, he said: "Your aunt has asked me to try and impress upon you ... that you are not from run-of-the-mill people, that you are the product of several generations' gentle breeding--" Atticus paused, watching me locate an elusive redbug on my leg.

After a few minutes of this, Atticus' change of character so frightens the children that Scout begins to cry.   Atticus comforts her, and then when pressed about whether they really have to adopt Aunt Alexandra's values, he gives up:  "I don't want you to try to remember it. Forget it." 

In Disgrace, how is Petrus given power?

Petrus is a neighbor of Lucy's who is already financially successful at the start of Disgrace. This success is indicated by the amount of land he owns, the amount of livestock he owns, and the number of wives he has.

Petrus' power increases significantly after men come and harm David and sexually assault Lucy. After this incident, Lucy is deeply affected by fear, which prevents her from working her land as effectively as she could. Her fear is exacerbated by the fact that she discovers one of Petrus' cousins was involved in her assault.

As Lucy's power diminishes, Petrus' power grows. He uses her fear to start to take control of her and her land. He starts working the land for her and proposes marriage to her in order to gain further control of her land. When we are first introduced to Lucy, it seems her character would not have agreed to such an offer. However, after the assault, Lucy is so affected that she considers the possibility that marrying Petrus and allowing him to take care of the land would benefit her in that it would provide her with protection.

Therefore, Petrus is given power by Lucy because of her fear and the traumatic effects resulting from her assault.

What areas of the US are most prone to tick-borne disease? Why are diseases of the blood more susceptible to transmission by vectors?

There are many different tick-borne diseases in the United States. These diseases' geographical ranges vary based on the ranges of the particular species of tick that carries them.

Lyme disease is carried by blacklegged ticks and is most prevalent in the northeastern United States, but can be found in north-central and mid-Atlantic states. Two other diseases are caused by parasites that prey on blacklegged ticks: human granulocytic anaplasmosis and babesiosis.

The lone star tick, most common in southeastern and south-central states, carries ehrlichiosis.

Three types of tick carry varieties of spotted fever: the American dog tick, Rocky Mountain wood tick, and brown dog tick. These three together affect most states in the US.

Diseases of the blood are transmitted easily by insects because, when the insects feed on human or animal blood, they become infected with the disease and then transmit it to other animals or people they bite. These sorts of vector diseases are easily spread because they can be transmitted rapidly over a wide area and do not require close contact between human hosts. Also, while people can be quarantined for diseases that spread by other methods, insects reproduce quickly and are difficult to eradicate.

Which texts qualify as a "literary tragedy"?

A list of all tragedies in literature is a huge list. I will go ahead and list some of the more famous tragedies in order to keep the list more manageable.  

Shakespeare is a good place to start: 

• Antony and Cleopatra


• Coriolanus


• Hamlet 


• Julius Caesar


• King Lear


• Macbeth


• Othello


• Romeo and Juliet


• Timon of Athens


• Titus Andronicus 

Christopher Marlowe is a contemporary of Shakespeare and has a couple of famous tragedies to his name, including:  

• The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus


• Tamburlaine the Great

John Webster is another good choice for an author of tragedies. He wrote

• The Duchess of Malfi


• The White Devil

More modern literature has plenty of titles available as well:

• 
  The Boy in the Striped Pajamas by John Boyne


• 
  The Crucible by Arthur Miller


• 
  Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller

When does Jem not react to a racial comment in To Kill a Mockingbird?

Usually, Jem reacts in anger when someone refers to his father defending Tom Robinson in a negative connotation.  These comments usually include racist phrases directed toward Tom Robinson.  Atticus experiences widespread disapproval from many people in Maycomb because of his defense of Tom Robinson.  Tom Robinson is a black man who is accused of raping a white woman.  When Mrs. Dubose speaks negatively about Atticus defending Tom Robinson, Jem becomes enraged and tears up her camellias.  He cuts off the top portion of the camellia bush with Scout's baton.

One day, Scout talks to Jem about something Cecil Jacobs had said to her.  Cecil had made a racial comment about their father defending Tom Robinson.  Instead of his typical reaction, Jem simply tells Scout to ask their father.  He is passively dismissive about the comments when Scout asks him what Cecil meant:

"Nothing," Jem said.  "Ask Atticus, he'll tell you." (To Kill a Mockingbird, Chapter 11).

What do you think is meant by the last line of the story? How does it relate to one of the themes in “Games at Twilight”?

The final sentence of "Games at Twilight" is the following line.  

He lay down full length on the damp grass, crushing his face into it, no longer crying, silenced by a terrible sense of his insignificance.

Ravi has just attempted to claim victory in the game, and all of the other children merely cast him aside. They do not believe that he has earned victory, because they have all moved on to different games. In fact, all of the other children completely forgot about Ravi and the fact that he was still playing the game.

A theme of "Games at Twilight" is the interplay between fantasy and reality. When the reader first meets Ravi, it is fairly clear that he is not happy about his location in the hierarchy of children. He's cowering in fear by himself with his finger in his nose and swallowing snot balls. That is not the image of a strong leader type. Once Ravi has found a good hiding place, though, his thoughts wander into the realm of fantasy. He begins to envision what it will be like to win the game. He imagines that all of the other kids will praise his efforts, and he will be crowned a champion of sorts.

What fun if they were all found and caught—he alone left unconquered! He had never known that sensation. . . He hugged his knees together and smiled to himself almost shyly at the thought of so much victory, such laurels. 

Ravi convinces himself that his fantasy will become his reality when he reaches the "den." Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is the complete opposite of his fantasy. Ravi is not praised at all. Instead, Ravi is ridiculed by the other children.

"Stop it, stop it, Ravi. Don’t be a baby. Have you hurt yourself?''

The reality of the situation is that Ravi is just as insignificant to the other children as he always was, and that is what the final line of the story is pointing out to readers.

When do children begin dream telling in The Giver?

Dream-telling begins with Threes. 

Dream-telling is a morning ritual used by Jonas’s community.  Like the feeling-telling in the evening, dream-telling is designed to identify, label, and dismiss feelings in the pursuit of Sameness.  The community’s goal is to eliminate all feelings in order to make sure that the citizens are happy, or at least numb. 

The age of Three is actually an important one in Jonas’s world because it is the beginning of maturity.  Jonas says that by age Three, all children are pretty much alike.  The Instructor of Threes is “in charge of the acquisition of correct language” (Ch. 7).  Precise use of language is very crucial to Jonas’s community.  It is part of Sameness, which means that everyone talks alike and thinks alike.  It helps maintain conformity.

Jonas’s father jokingly asks Gabe if he dreams. 

"Gabe?" Father asked, looking down at the basket where the newchild lay gurgling after his feeding, ready to be taken back to the Nurturing Center for the day.

They all laughed. Dream-telling began with Threes. If newchildren dreamed, no one knew. (Ch. 5) 

Everyone dismisses Gabe because he is just a baby that Jonas’s father brings home.  However, Gabe’s very presence in Jonas’s home is an anomaly.  He isn’t supposed to be there.  Every household is assigned and allowed two children and no more.  Jonas’s father gets a special dispensation to bring Gabe home for extra nurturing.  At the time that Jonas’s father asks him if he dreams, Jonas has no idea of the significance of Gabe. 

Jonas doesn’t dream initially.  The first time he has a dream, his parents give him a pill to prevent it (because the dream, sexual in nature, is an indication of puberty).  When he begins his training as Receiver of Memory, he has access to what might be interpreted as a special sort of dream—the community’s collective memories.  He also passes these on to Gabe, accidentally at first and then purposefully.  Jonas and Gabe are both unique.  Jonas is able to envision a world in which feelings are not so easily dismissed.  He learns to accept dreaming and embrace it, along with feeling.

What does Whitman mean when he says "What is more subtle than this which ties me to the man or woman that looks in my face? Which fuses me into...

Looking at this passage, it's hard to decide where to start. What direction should we approach it from to best lead us to understanding?

Literature in general, but poetry especially, can be intimidating to analyze. It seems so elevated and intricate that we think we're going to need super-deep analytical ability to get anywhere near understanding.

I don't think that's true. I think that, almost always, it's best to trust your instincts. You read something, and maybe a word or two sticks out. Hold onto that. Maybe you don't understand a phrase, but you get the general sense what it's talking about. Hold onto that. Those are the ways you're going to approach your analysis: build on what you understand most.

My favorite English teacher once told me that analysis comes down to two things: finding patterns and finding anomalies. Why is the author repeating something, why is the author changing things up? Once you take the things you do understand and look for where they are involved in patterns and anomalies, you'll find connections to the parts you don't understand. Slowly, things start to come into focus. Trust me on this.

I'll show you the way I apply that strategy to this passage. I hope it's helpful, but remember—no two minds work alike. This is far from the only way to analyze poetry.

These were my first three questions: Why did the speaker use the word "subtle"? What is it that ties people together? What is the speaker's "meaning"?

My next question was: Why is the speaker being so vague? It's okay to not worship every word a poet writes. At first glance, this passage seems kind of New Age-y and obtuse, at least to me. But for whatever reason—because it's an assignment in school, because you're genuinely curious, whatever—you've got to analyze it. So keep that thought in your mind—this seems like a silly line—but do the work to see if there's anything more to it.

Of those three questions, "subtle" seems like the easiest one to answer, so I'll hit it first. As I look for definitions of "subtle," I see words like "delicate," "precise," "difficult to describe," "understated," "complex."

Well, those make some sense. "This which ties me" to other people is invisible, so it's definitely understated. It also seems pretty hard to describe. In fact, that's what leads me to my first realization: the speaker agrees with me. He thinks the bond is hard to describe too. That's why he needs a whole 146 lines to do it.

That leads me to look for other places in the poem where the speaker seems to be defining the bond. Line 7 stands out: "The simple, compact, well-join’d scheme—myself disintegrated, every one disintegrated, yet part of the scheme." So there's a large scheme that consists of disintegrated people. I imagine all the people on the ferry melting and running together in a big puddle. The speaker thinks that, on some level, everyone is part of one big thing, the way there are separate water molecules that are all part of one puddle.

Looking for more of the speaker's definitions, I find this: "It avails not, neither time or place—distance avails not; I am with you" (lines 20–21). So the bond is also across time and space. That seems to reinforce our idea that everyone is part of one big thing.

Paydirt! Check this out:

Each came, or comes, or shall come, from its due emission,

From the general centre of all, and forming a part of all;

Everything indicates—the smallest does, and the largest does;

A necessary film envelopes all, and envelopes the Soul for a proper time. (97–100)

This seems like as good a definition as we're going to get. The speaker says each human is emitted from something that forms "a part of all." Maybe the whole world was originally some undifferentiated ball of goo, and everything got shaped out of it, like a bit of clay taken off the pile and sculpted into something.

But there's also the film that envelopes the Soul. That comes up elsewhere, which means we need to pay attention to it. It takes us to line 131: "You necessary film, continue to envelop the soul." This comes in a stanza where the speaker is using the imperative voice (ordering things to do what he says). So let's look around 131 to gather some clues about why the speaker mentions the film here. He's talking about individualization. Line 135: "Keep your places, objects." So we're not all part of one big mush anymore. We each have a film that encloses the stuff that gives us our particular attributes—that makes us different from the world around us.

BUT, that means we were all at some point united completely. In the mush.

The word "film" trips a trigger in my brain. A film is flimsy, thin, light, easily broken. In fact, you might say it's "delicate" and "understated." Subtle!

So there's an anomaly. The lines we're analyzing say the bond tying us together is subtle, but these lines suggest that the film separating us is subtle.

What gives? Then I remember part of an earlier line that didn't really click. Line 100: "A necessary film envelopes all, and envelopes the Soul for a proper time."

Aha! So the film wraps around each of us to make us individuals, but it's also what wraps around the big mush of everything. In other words, we're all using part of the same film. Maybe that's how we're tied together?

But we need to back up for a moment. What on Earth is this guy talking about? The films and the general center of everything and whatnot are not scientific concepts; he must be using them metaphorically. So what represents what? The bits of mush are our metaphorical selves, surely—our souls, maybe. The film is the outside. Maybe he's talking about our exteriors—our bodies, the things that other people can see and touch? The vessels that hold our souls?

Looking back at the lines about films (100 and 131), I notice an interesting pattern. They are surrounded by physical descriptions. After line 100 comes this: "Now I am curious what sight can ever be more stately and admirable to me than my mast-hemm’d Manhattan." Line 130 says, "Appearances, now or henceforth, indicate what you are," and line 132 says, "About my body for me, and your body for you, be hung our divinest aromas." Sight and smell—external things. I think we're onto something here. The films might be our outside selves.

That leads us nicely into the third question. What is the speaker's "meaning"? My first guess is that it is his identity. And scanning the poem, I see he's dedicated a lot of time to describing what exactly makes him who he is. Take this, for example: "I was Manhattanese" (81). Straightforward, sure, but it's part of the way he defines himself—his identity is, in part, the place that he lives. And he spends so much time describing the sights and sounds and smells of Manhattan, I think it's fair to generalize and say that he feels defined by the things around him that he sees and hears and smells and touches.

Something he says early seems to support that: "The impalpable sustenance of me from all things, at all hours of the day" (6). He is sustained by things, always. And something he says at the end all but confirms it:

We realize the soul only by you, you faithful solids and fluids;

Through you color, form, location, sublimity, ideality;

Through you every proof, comparison, and all the suggestions and determinations of ourselves. (137–139)

There we go. The physical has a profound role in shaping the soul.

So where does that leave us? Let's see ... we think the speaker is saying that all human souls come from the same place (the mush). They are made into individuals because there's a film wrapped around them. We think the film represents the outside parts of a human—face and skin and organs and whatnot. Every individual's film is part of the big film that wraps around the mush. That means all of our films (all of our exteriors) are all small parts of the same thing, the way each slice of bread was once part of a loaf.

We know the speaker says that both the film and the soul are shaped by the world around them. Since the speaker focuses so much on what he's seeing and hearing from the ferry, it's fair to assume that he's thinking that these things define him (at least in part).

And from there, we realize that everyone on the ferry is seeing and hearing the exact same things—they share the same environment. It's just one more factor that makes humans similar. We all live in the same world.

Perhaps it's time for the final step: to actually answer the question about what these lines mean. Just for a refresher, here they are:

What is more subtle than this which ties me to the woman or man that looks in my face,

Which fuses me into you now, and pours my meaning into you. (105–106)

The whole stanza is a set of rhetorical questions; the answer seems to be "nothing." Nothing is more stately and admirable, no Gods can exceed these (101, 104). Nothing, therefore, is more subtle than that which ties me and fuses me and pours me.

We have a good idea what it is that ties the speaker to the woman or man, what fuses him into other people—he and they are all made of the same stuff, and even the things that differentiate them slightly (their exteriors) are united by living in the same environment. The unity between people enables them to understand each other on a deep level, if only they realized it.

That's where the subtle part comes in. It has taken the speaker a long time to figure this out, and he has trouble putting it into words. The bond is subtle indeed—hard to pin down, hard to see, hard to articulate. Complex.

In fact, perhaps that subtlety is exactly why the speaker is saying all this. He wants to make it less subtle. He wants everyone to know what he has figured out. He wants to pour his meaning into them.

What does Antony say that anticipates the crowd's hostile reaction to Caesar?

Antony anticipates the crowd’s hostility when he tells the crowd that he did not come there to praise Caesar.

Mark Antony speaks at Caesar’s funeral after Brutus. He has made the arrangement because he knows he can use the speech to sway the people, but Brutus believes he will be persuasive enough that it will not matter what Antony says.

When Antony has the chance to speak, he immediately disarms the hostile crowd by telling them he is not interested in making excuses for Caesar.

I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it (Act III, Scene 2).

Antony tells the crowd that he is not there to praise Caesar because they know how close Antony was to Caesar. The crowd also knows Antony is there to serve as the opposing viewpoint to Brutus, who represents the conspirators who killed Caesar. Antony meticulously paints Brutus and the others as murderers without seeming to do so. In fact, he calls them honorable men. 

Antony also points out to the crowd that Caesar did a lot for Rome, carefully contradicting Brutus’s claim that Caesar was ambitious.

Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man (Act III, Scene 2).

When Antony starts speaking, the crowd doesn’t even want to listen. By the time he finishes, though, the crowd is ready to burn down the houses of the conspirators. Antony is able to sway the people to his side and against the conspirators by reminding the crowd that Caesar loved them and they loved Caesar.

What characteristics does Walter Mitty wish he had in "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty"?

Walter Mitty would like to be assertive, commanding, courageous, brave, fearless, heroic, and unwavering.

"The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" is a darkly humorous tale of a man who is defeated by authority and audacity, and emasculated by an insensitive wife. Apparently consigned to conducting his domineering wife to town and running silly errands for her, Walter drives along pretending that he is the courageous Commander of a Navy hydroplane until reality interrupts. Then, he is reduced to what has been called the "hen-pecked" husband as his wife scolds the meek Walter and reminds him to buy overshoes and wear his gloves.

Shortly after dropping off his wife at the salon, Mitty drifts into another wishful daydream in which he is again a leader. This time he is a famous surgeon, who assertively fixes a faulty piston so that an operation can continue. In sharp contrast to this heroism and commanding persona, Mitty is reduced again by reality as a lowly parking-lot attendant shouts at him, "Back it up, Mac!" Then, Mitty becomes so nervous that he cannot maneuver the car correctly. Embarrassed, Mitty almost forgets to hand the youth the key; then, the attendant backs up the car with insolent skill that demeans poor Mitty.

"They're so cocky," thought Walter Mitty, walking along Main Street; "they think they know everything."

Mitty recalls how he was mocked by a garage-man who had to come out to take off the winter chains from the car because in his attempts to do so, Mitty had the chains wound around the axle. "...next time...I'll wear my right arm in a sling...." This compensatory plan leads to another daydream in Mitty: This time he is himself and he is on trial for murder. However, his shooting arm was in a sling on the night of the murder. Boldly, nevertheless, Mitty asserts, "I could have killed Gregory Fitzhurst at three hundred feet with my left hand." Chaos breaks out in the courtroom and a beautiful girl hugs Mitty. When the District Attorney strikes her "savagely," the fearless Mitty punches him on the chin, saying, "You miserable cur!"

In reality, the submissive Walter Mitty walks down the street and he remembers the second errand, "Puppy biscuit." A woman laughs as she passes him, saying to her companion, "He said 'puppy biscuit' to himself. Later, Walter Mitty walks to the hotel where is supposed to wait for his wife. In the lobby he sits in a large leather chair that faces the window. After having picked up a copy of a political and general interest magazine of the time named Liberty, a new daydream comes to him. This time he is a captain in World War I and heroically he is going to blow up the ammunition dump of the Germans. Pouring another brandy and "tossing it off" with much machismo, Captain Mitty straps on his huge Webley-Vickers automatic and sets out to destroy the enemy's ammunition. "Cheerio," the heroic Mitty shouts bravely.

This dream is interrupted by his returning wife, who immediately scolds him for sitting where she cannot see him. When she asks him why he hides, Walter Mitty tells her, "I was thinking....Does it ever occur to you that I am sometimes thinking?"

She looked at him. "I'm going to take your temperature when I get you home," she said.

Mitty makes no comment to her demeaning response to him. But, the doors seem to make a derisive sound as they depart the hotel. "Wait a minute," his wife commands him. "She was more than a minute." Walter Mitty lights a cigarette as it begins to rain. He leans against a wall with his shoulders back. "'To hell with the handkerchief,' said Walter Mitty scornfully" as he imagines himself facing a firing squad. All his hope for bravery and assertiveness dashed, Mitty is yet unwavering in his escape.

In "Mending Wall" by Robert Frost, why do you think the speaker agrees to rebuild the wall every time it falls down?

The speaker's land and his neighbor's land are separated by the differences in the trees: "He is all pine and I am apple orchard." If their lands are marked by this difference, the wall seems to be merely symbolic and perhaps even unnecessary. 

The speaker suggests that the rebuilding is "just another kind of outdoor game." This could mean the rebuilding itself is playful. Given that the speaker summons his neighbor and they both take part in rebuilding, there is something communal about it. As they go about rebuilding the wall, the speaker wonders why his neighbor says "Good fences make good neighbors." So, perhaps the speaker continues to rebuild the wall because it affords him an opportunity to try and decipher what his neighbor actually means by this phrase. Does each man continue to rebuild the wall to acknowledge their separation? Or does the rebuilding give the two men a chance to meet in a peaceful way? 

The ending is ambiguous. But since this is a "mending" wall, there is a strong suggestion that the rebuilding is a way for the two men to keep their distant relationship stable (like the wall) and this ritual is a peaceful (and maybe even playful) way to do it. 

What did the poet wish to do in the future in "The Road Not Taken"?

This reference comes in the third stanza, with the lines:

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

The narrator had already chosen one of the two paths, “the one less traveled by.” Now he says at first that he could always come back and follow the other path on some other day in the future. But just as quickly, he understands how life works. He knows that even though he can have the best of intentions to someday return to the point where the two routes divide, the reality is that he probably won’t come back. Another “future” scene appears in the final stanza, when the narrator says that from this moment on, he will be explaining to people how and why he made the decision he did. Will he then be happy about his past choice? This is the question we debate.

What is the effect of the parallelism in Act 3 Scene 2 (Line 96-97) of Romeo and Juliet?

This scene takes place just after Juliet's nurse has informed her that Romeo has killed her cousin, Tybalt.  The nurse asks Juliet, "Will you speak well of him that killed your cousin?"  And Juliet's response, "Shall I speak ill of him that is my husband?" echoes the structure of the nurse's initial question.  The effect of this parallelism is that it bluntly exposes the paradox within which Juliet is trapped: how can she feel love for the man who killed her kinsman?  Yet how can she hate the husband that she loves?  Obviously, anyone who murders her beloved cousin in the streets should be her enemy as well, but she is duty-bound to honor and love her husband as she has taken an oath before him, the friar, and God.  How can she do both?  The parallelism, besides emphasizing her impossible position, also shows Juliet's intelligence in that she understands the position she's in. 

In Freak the Mighty by Rodman Philbrick, are the main characters trying to achieve something or overcome a particular problem?

The main character of Rodman Philbrick's Freak the Mighty is Maxwell Kane, the son of Kenneth "Killer" Kane, who was convicted for murdering Maxwell's mother via strangulation. Maxwell's struggle throughout the book is to overcome his low self-esteem (he frequently refers to himself as a "butthead") and his reputation as a frightening presence in the community due to his resemblance to his father. 

Maxwell finds a friend in the form of another major character, Kevin, the titular "freak." Kevin's struggle throughout the book is to cope with the birth defect (Morquio syndrome) which has left him dramatically smaller than other children his age and which requires him to use leg braces and crutches to walk. 

Together, Max and Freak go on many adventures, including evading bullies, visiting the "Bionics Department" of a hospital, returning the lost purse of the wife of a motorcycle gang leader, and turning over Max's murderous father to the police after he is released from prison on parole. 

What is the difference in the behavior of Lord Canterville and Mr. Otis?

A main difference between Lord Canterville and Mr. Otis is that Lord Canterville, who is English, takes tradition very seriously, while Mr. Otis, an American, does not. For example, Lord Canterville takes seriously the ghost who haunts Canterville Hall. Mr. Otis, who could care less about ancestral ghosts, is utterly unimpressed when the ghost leaves bloodstains on the library floor or dons costumes to roam the home at night trying to frighten the family. Rather than react in terror, he applies good old American know how to try to solve the problem. Likewise, he is uninterested in his daughter getting a gift of ancestral jewels, thinking the whole idea unAmerican and is unimpressed at the idea of his daughter marrying a duke and becoming part of the British aristocracy. The story satirizes the situation in England in the late 19th century, as wealthy Americans with a different and more forward looking set of ideas increasingly descended on Great Britain. 

What is the most important choice a character makes in Mark Twain's The Prince and the Pauper? Why does the character make that choice?

There's a mutual choice that's the most important for the story to happen at all, and that is that the two boys change clothes and positions.

If you really want the most important choice by a single character, it would be the choice to read, which is Tom's choice. This is described in Chapter 2, where Twain writes, "He often read the priest's old books and got him to explain and enlarge upon them. His dreamings and readings worked certain changes in him, by-and-by."

As far as why he did this, there are several reasons. The first is, of course, that he was a poor beggar boy. His actual day-to-day life has little going for it, so he reads to escape his reality. He is open to reading because Father Andrew tells him stories to make him feel better and entertain him—and he did this because Tom was a poor beggar.

This was the most important choice because it starts the change in Tom. He moves from being passive to being active, and he reshapes the beggar world around him into a royal court.

This sets up the later plot in which the boys change places.

What does Clarisse's uncle's arrest for being a pedestrian indicate about the society in Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury?

During Clarisse's conversation with Montag, she mentions her uncle was once arrested for driving too slowly on the highway. He was driving at forty miles per hour (presumably to observe his surroundings) and ended up being jailed for two days.

Clarisse thinks this is funny and sad at the same time, but Montag is clearly uncomfortable about discussing such matters with her. Clarisse obviously disagrees with the rationale for why her uncle was arrested. She maintains that most drivers drive too quickly to appreciate specific details in their surroundings. Because they are not allowed to slow down to take in the scenery, these drivers can only guess at what they are passing on the highway.

This is an indictment of the society Clarisse and Montag live in. Clarisse and Montag live under an oppressive, totalitarian system which allows for very little personal agency and autonomy in daily living. Every citizen is expected to conform and adhere to strict, often arbitrary rules aimed at discouraging dissent or debate. As such, no one is allowed to drive slowly enough to observe the intricate details in their surroundings; little personal freedom is allowed in the society in which Montag and Clarisse live.

The government fears that, as citizens grow in awareness, they may begin to notice discrepancies between their lifestyles and those of the ruling elite's. Essentially, what these leaders fear is a populist uprising that may threaten their hold on absolute power.

Why does Oedipus believe that Teiresias can provide him information on the death of Laius?

The play Oedipus Rex was written by the Greek playwright Sophocles, who appears, from the limited available biographical evidence, to have been a conventionally pious man of his period. Both Sophocles and his audience would have believed in divination, the possibility of certain expert seers or oracles knowing the will of the gods and being able to interpret various signs to learn of things normally outside human knowledge.

Teiresias is a seer, dedicated to the service of Apollo, the god of prophecy. The gods have granted him the gift of prophecy, including a limited ability to see both past and future. Thus Oedipus asks him about the death of Laius because of his skill at prophecy. As Tiresias does, in fact, correctly identify the murderer, Oedipus was correct in asking him but misguided in not immediately believing his answer. In all of the plays in which he appears, Tiresias' answers to questions are always correct, although sometimes difficult to interpret at first. 

How does "The Raven" by Edgar Allen Poe relate to Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and what are the similarities in their tragic events?

There are common themes of deep, obsessive love and unimaginable loss in the poem “The Raven” and the play Romeo and Juliet. They are both dark, brooding pieces.

The speaker in "the Raven" is a student who is visited by a talking raven one night. The bird reminds him of his sadness and isolation. He recently lost his great love, Lenore. He tries to get his mind off of it, but it is pointless.

Eagerly I wished the morrow;—vainly I had sought to borrow 

From my books surcease of sorrow—sorrow for the lost Lenore— 

For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore— 

Nameless here for evermore.

It is not entirely clear what happened to Lenore, but given the speaker’s misery and Poe’s past, it is likely she died.  She is lost to the speaker, causing him to be severely depressed. Losing Lenore might not be as dramatic as Romeo and Juliet’s demise, but I would argue the love story behind “The Raven” is every bit as meaningful as the one in the play. 

Romeo and Juliet’s deaths were caused by a family feud. They fell madly in love, but had to keep their love and marriage a secret. Then Romeo was banished because of a fight that occurred because of the feud. Juliet faked her death to avoid being forced to marry another man. Romeo does not know Juliet is not actually dead, and life without her seems so miserable that he takes poison and kills himself.

… O, here
Will I set up my everlasting rest,
And shake the yoke of inauspicious stars
From this world-wearied flesh. Eyes, look your last!
Arms, take your last embrace! and, lips, O you
The doors of breath, seal with a righteous kiss
A dateless bargain to engrossing death! (Act V, Scene 3)

Juliet awakens to find Romeo has committed suicide. She then takes her dagger and kills herself. The two are so deeply in love that they cannot bear the thought of being apart. Like the speaker in "The Raven," love is everything to Romeo and Juliet. Its absence is unbearable. The difference is in the degree of their reactions; Romeo and Juliet kill themselves.

How does Shakespeare make Macbeth's "Is this a dagger which I see before me / The handle toward my hand?" soliloquy a dramatically effective...

The "Is this a dagger which I see before me" soliloquy in Shakespeare's Macbeth is dramatically effective for many reasons, but I'd like to focus on Shakespeare's use of apostrophe. As a recap, an apostrophe (not to be confused with the punctuation point) is an address, either to a character who isn't present, or to an abstract idea or personified object. Shakespeare uses apostrophe to great effect in many of his plays, and his use of it in Macbeth's soliloquy in Act 2, Scene 1 is one of the best examples of the literary device (and also my personal favorite).

Macbeth uses an apostrophe to address the hallucination of a dagger. Since this soliloquy occurs directly before he murders King Duncan, it's a very dramatically effective moment. For example, the hallucination of a knife comes to personify Macbeth's murderous ambition. Moreover, it proves that Macbeth is beginning to become unhinged and is preparing to slide into insanity. As such, the apostrophe in this soliloquy creates ominous foreshadowing that hints at the violent deeds to happen off-stage, and it also gives us an insight into Macbeth's personal degeneration. As such, the soliloquy as a whole becomes a tense moment upheld by robust poetry. 

Because the soliloquy is a long one, there are many other ways that it is dramatically effective, and I'd encourage you to explore those different possible ways for yourself. However, for me, the soliloquy's apostrophe to the imagined dagger is its most dramatically effective moment. 

What are five cause and effect relationships in the book Gathering Blue?

In Gathering Blue, many effects that at first seem to have one cause end up having a completely different cause. For example, the novel opens with Kira's mother's death after a "brief and unexpected sickness," leading readers to believe her death was unavoidable. Later, when Kira begins to piece together how the Council of Guardians is gathering young artists "for their own needs," she suspects her mother may have been poisoned by the guardians.

Likewise, Kira has always been told that her father was killed by beasts on a hunt. Her mother told her that, and the guardian Jamison says he saw it happen. In chapter 22, we learn that Jamison attacked Christopher so he (Jamison) could be appointed to the Council instead of Christopher.

It is believed that Jo's father stabbed himself through the heart after his wife died. Kira finds it hard to believe a man would commit suicide and leave a "tyke" behind. Later, Kira realizes that all three artists have become orphans. The cause of Jo's mother's death was probably poisoning from the guardians, and they probably murdered Jo's father when no one was there to see it—when he was watching over his wife's dead body at the Field.

The scars on Vandara's face and neck are initially said to have been caused by an attack from beasts. Vandara presents herself as a brave woman who lived through a harrowing attack from wild animals. Christopher eventually explains that the cause of Vandara's scars was slipping on wet rocks when her child grabbed her skirt. 

Annabella's death is another example of an effect being attributed to a false cause. Jamison tells Kira that Annabella died in her sleep. Kira realizes it is odd that anyone would find Annabella so quickly since she lives alone in the woods. Readers can infer that Annabella was killed by the guardians—and probably Jamison specifically—for telling Kira that beasts did not exist. Jamison reveals "astonishment and anger" when Kira tells him of Annabella's remark. He then says, "It's dangerous for her to speak that way." He reminds Kira that he saw her father taken by beasts. Later, readers know that is untrue. Thus, readers may infer that Jamison was behind Annabella's death, but that Kira inadvertently caused it by telling Jamison what Annabella said about beasts. 

Lowry maintains interest and suspense in the novel by planting doubts about the supposed causes of certain events. She then resolves those doubts at the end of the book, revealing the true causes of those effects.

What do the butter churn and dasher symbolize for the narrator in "Everyday Use" by Alice Walker?

To the mother, who is the narrator of Walker's story, the butter churn and the dasher are useful items made by her relatives that are part of their everyday use. They are symbolic reminders of the family members who made them.

Not long after her arrival, Wangero walks around the house, viewing the various items, deciding what she can select for her collection of "heritage" items. Moreover, she feels that she has the right to take whatever she wishes. She looks at the benches that have become worn where family members have sat. Finding them quaint, Wangero says to Hakim-a-barber,

"I never knew how lovely these benches are. You can feel the rump prints."

At last, she sees what she wants. Running over to the corner where the churn stands with the milk already in its clabber, Wangero studies the churn and the clabber. Having told her mother that she needs the churn and its top, she asks if their uncle Billie had whittled it from a tree that used to be in the yard. The mother replies with a taciturn "Yes."
As explanation for her wanting these items, Wangero informs her mother that she can use the churn top as a centerpiece for her alcove table; later, she will think of something "artistic" to do with the dasher. Then, she goes to the trunk that sits at the foot of her mother's bed and rifles through it for more "artistic" items; she pulls out two quilts. But, the mother refuses to let these items become mere "artistic" touches. She grabs them from her daughter and gives them to Maggie, who will put them to everyday use, instead.

Which factors may affect the growth of an Elodea plant?

Elodea is a water plant--the entire plant, including its leaves, grows under water. It is easy to maintain and is grown in many home aquariums. Even though it is under water, Elodea performs photosynthesis. Because it does, it has some of the same needs as other green plants--sunlight, carbon dioxide and water. Anything that affects the plant's access to these necessities will affect the growth of Elodea. This includes:

Murkiness of water, whether in a pond or an aquarium, will reduce the amount of sunlight available for photosynthesis and reduce the plant's growth.

Eutrophication--over-growth of algae and plant life such as Elodea due to excess fertilizer runoff--can cause first an increase (from increased nutrient levels), then a decrease in Elodea growth due to the competition for space and necessary chemicals.

Elodea is generally anchored to the soil under the water. The soil type is another factor that can affect the growth of Elodea; it grows best in a mix of sand and clay.

Elodea grows best at moderate temperatures, about 50 to 77 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures that are either too high or too low will inhibit growth.

How could I write an essay about teen pregnancy?

The main difficulty with writing an essay about teen pregnancy is avoiding generalizations and cliches. There are several ways to do this. The first is to narrow your focus to some specific aspect of teen pregnancy. Some possible ways to narrow your topic would include:

• Focus on teen pregnancy in one specific city or town.


• Look at the relationship between teen pregnancy and poverty.


• Consider differences in rates of teen pregnancies among ethnic groups. 


• Examine the varying success rates of different programs aimed at reducing teen pregnancy.


• Investigate how some politicians' efforts to defund Planned Parenthood and remove or alter the sex education offered in schools affect efforts to reduce teen pregnancy.


• Look at the simultaneous popularity and ineffectiveness of abstinence-only programs.


• Examine the health or economic impacts of pregnancy at specific ages.

Next, the more research you do, the easier it will be to write your paper. The key is finding reliable sources of information. If you are located in the United States, a good starting point is the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, a government agency that, among other things, collects statistics on public health issues.

Why doesn't Macbeth kill Macduff? How is this significant to the play?

In Act IV, Scene 1, the apparitions warn Macbeth to be careful of Macduff, but also maintain that "none of woman born/ Shall harm Macbeth."

Macbeth is happy to hear this, but soon decides he will rid himself of Macduff anyway, just to ensure his chances of maintaining his hold on power. He soon discovers Macduff has fled England, and is miffed he didn't act sooner. To ensure no heirs follow Macduff, he orders Macduff's wife and children to be killed.

The castle of Macduff I will surprise,

Seize upon Fife, give to th' edge o' th' sword

His wife, his babes, and all unfortunate souls

That trace him in his line.

In Act V, Scene 7, Macbeth kills young Siward and proclaims he wasn't afraid to face the warrior because Siward was born of a woman. In Act V, Scene 8, Macbeth initially refuses to fight Macduff; he claims he's killed enough of Macduff's family members and wants to refrain from killing Macduff, too. Furthermore, Macbeth argues that he leads "a charmèd life, which must not yield/ To one of woman born."

At this point, Macbeth doesn't make any moves to kill Macduff because he thinks Macduff is no threat to him. It is only after Macduff asserts that he was "untimely ripped" from his mother's womb that Macbeth begins to take his challenger seriously.

So, it's significant that Macbeth doesn't initially manage to kill Macduff. Earlier in the play, Macduff escaped Macbeth's clutches when he fled England. Later, on the battlefield, Macbeth initially refuses to engage Macduff. He's only forced to fight Macduff when Macduff corners him. In the end, Macduff beheads Macbeth and proclaims Malcolm king of Scotland. In the play, Macduff fills his role as the one man who can kill Macbeth; his character fulfills the earlier prophecy that Macbeth should both beware of Macduff and be wary of the man who is not "born from a woman."

What are some comparisons between Shakespeare's Macbeth and Miller's The Crucible?

On the surface, the plays seem to have nothing in common but witches.  However, Macbeth and The Crucible are both about the perils of ambition.  In Macbeth, the witches are (probably) real, but the ambition is the problem.  The witches make a prophecy to Macbeth that he is going to be king, and he takes it and runs with it.  Then, his desire to stay in control slowly destroys him and his kingdom.  In The Crucible, there are no witches except the ones in Abigail’s head, and her ambition also slowly destroys Salem. 

After hearing the witches make the prophecies, which are probably just to have a little fun with him, Macbeth decides that even though he is not named king, he is going to become king anyway.  Then, after killing the former king Duncan, he is not done.  He is worried that he can’t hold onto his ill-gotten gains without getting rid of other possible obstacles to his success, such as his supposed former friend Banquo, who also heard the prophecies. 

To be thus is nothing;

But to be safely thus.--Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; and in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety. … (Act 3, Scene 1)

Macbeth sends murderers to kill Banquo, his son Fleance, and Macduff’s entire family.  They fail to kill Macduff, who joins the heir to the throne, Malcolm, and comes for Macbeth with an army.  The kingdom is torn by war for no reason, just because of Macbeth’s ambition and because some witches wanted to have some fun. 

In some ways, Salem goes through similar chaos in The Crucible.  It is also torn apart for no reason.  Abigail Williams tries to make herself seem important and distract from her bad behavior.   She also uses the witch trials as a way to get back at people she does not like, especially John Proctor for spurning her. 

Most people seem to just go along with the witch trials, just as no one seems to have publicly questioned Macbeth.  Hysteria gets the best of them.  Proctor seems to be one of only a few who speaks against the witch trials. 

PROCTOR: What work you do! It‘s strange work for a Christian girl to hang old women!

MARY: But, Mister Proctor, they will not hang them if they confess. Sarah Good will only sit in jail some time… and here‘s a wonder for you, think on this. Goody Good is pregnant! (Act II) 

Although he spoke against them in his home, he was public too. When accused, Proctor also faced a choice.  He could confess when he did nothing or be honest and go to his grave honest.  For Proctor, doing the right thing in a sea of chaos was of the utmost importance.

What gender issues mark societies all over the world?

The most general gender issue, which is addressed in "A Doll's House," is that of the right of women to determine their own lives.

At the end of the play, Nora leaves Torvald. She does not leave him because he is a poor, inattentive husband or because he is unfaithful or abusive. She leaves him because she married him, less out of her own desire, and more out of a sense of obligation. She married him before becoming clear about her own needs and her own sense of identity.

Henrik Ibsen's play is feminist in that it gives Nora agency and control over her own fate. It also criticizes marriage and the limitations that the institution imposes on women.

In most Western societies, contemporary marriages are more egalitarian than they were in Ibsen's time. However, Western women continue to fight for self-determination, whether it be for reproductive rights, equal pay, paid family leave, or the insistence that husbands take equal responsibility for household maintenance and child care.

There is softer pressure in these societies for women to adhere to traditional roles. On the other hand, in developing countries, the pressure is more palpable. In those societies, women do not have bodily autonomy and are often forced to perform painful rituals (e.g., female genital mutilation). Some are forced into marriages, sometimes to much older men. Some Middle Eastern societies, even those that are more prosperous, limit the physical movement of women and force them to live under the rule of the men in their lives. Women who assert themselves publicly may risk ostracism or even death.