In Lord of the Flies, what are some good examples of figurative language that show themes such as Fear and Good vs Evil?

Golding uses simile, pathetic fallacy, symbolism, and allusion to depict fear and evil among the boys on the island. Near the beginning of the story, the boys inadvertently set fire to a large swath of island when their bonfire gets out of control. As the boys come to the realization that at least one littlun was killed in the fire, Piggy goes into an asthmatic panic attack, and "the crowd was as silent as death."

This simile is followed by a pathetic fallacy and symbolism:

"Tall swathes of creepers rose for a moment into view, agonized, and went down again. The little boys screamed at them. "Snakes! Snakes! Look at the snakes!"

Giving the creepers emotion such as agony is a pathetic fallacy that voices the fear the boys have of the consuming fire. The allusion to snakes recalls the account of the Garden of Eden when the devil appeared in the form of a snake or serpent. This symbol foreshadows that the island is not a paradise; the boys are already beginning to turn it into a hell because of their innate evil.

When the evening meeting after the missed rescue from the passing ship deteriorates into talk of ghosts, Golding uses pathetic fallacy again: "Two grey trunks rubbed each other with an evil squeaking that no one had noticed by day." The fear the boys have is reflected in Golding's description of the sound of the trees. 

The most prominent symbol of evil in the book is the pig's head on a stick, which becomes the Lord of the Flies during Simon's vision. When Simon first sees it, "the half-shut eyes were dim with the infinite cynicism of adult life. They assured Simon that everything was a bad business." The head's mocking tone and threatening manner personify evil.

Another symbol of fear and evil is the dead parachutist. Although, as Simon discovers, "the beast was harmless and horrible," it is the embodiment of the boys' fear and at the same time a representation of man's inhumanity to man, as the parachutist was shot down as part of the war that is engulfing the outside world. Golding has the rotting parachutist, freed from its bondage by Simon, float out to sea over the dead body of the recently murdered Christ-figure, combining allusion and symbolism. What could be more evil than killing an innocent man with their bare hands--a man who was only trying to share the good news? 

Golding uses figurative language--including simile, pathetic fallacy, symbolism, and allusion--to portray fear and evil on the island.

What is the history behind the blood-stain in "The Canterville Ghost" by Oscar Wilde?

In "The Canterville Ghost," the blood-stain in the library has a long history. According to the housekeeper, Mrs Umney, the blood-stain has existed since 1575 when the then-Lord Canterville, Sir Simon, murdered his wife, Lady Eleanore, on that exact spot in the library. In Chapter Five, during a conversation with Virginia Otis, he reveals his reasons for committing this heinous crime:

My wife was very plain, never had my ruffs properly starched, and knew nothing about cookery.

Moreover, it is one of Sir Simon's numerous responsibilities as a ghost to ensure that the blood-stain is always present. When the Otis family move in, this becomes problematic because they are constantly trying to remove it. Washington Otis removes it on several occasions, for example, using Pinkerton's Stain Remover. This forces Sir Simon to steal Virginia's paints so that he can touch up the stain every night. It is only with his death, at the end of Chapter Five, that the stain disappears forever, along with all traces of the Canterville ghost. 

In "All the Years of Her Life" by Morley Callaghan, how does Alfred's behavior reveal that he is immature and irresponsible?

In the story, Alfred has been caught stealing by his employer. Despite his well-developed body, Alfred's behavior reveals that he's still an immature and irresponsible young man.

First, when his employer confronts him, Alfred tries to bluster his way out of admitting his guilt. However, his indignant bravado falls flat when Mr. Carr refuses to back down. In the end, Alfred has to reach into his pocket to produce the items he has stolen: a blue compact, two tubes of toothpaste, and a lipstick. To cover his tracks, Alfred lies to Mr. Carr by telling him that this is the first time he has stolen anything from the store. Of course, Mr. Carr doesn't humor Alfred; he's observed Alfred stealing from him before, and he's furious.

When Alfred's mother gets to the store, she tries to reason with Mr. Carr. Alfred is surprised that his mother is so composed and dignified in her address. In fact, her articulate words manage to convince Mr. Carr to refrain from calling the police; Mr. Carr agrees to just fire Alfred from his job at the store. On the way home, Alfred's immaturity manifests itself; because he had expected his mother to become emotional about the theft, Alfred doesn't realize the significance of his mother's calm discourse with Mr. Carr. Essentially, her respectful and rational manner to Mr. Carr had won Alfred a reprieve from a prison sentence.

However, Alfred, in all his "excitement and relief" at having received no punishment for his crime (that he can see), fails to understand the suffering his irresponsible behavior has caused his mother. It is only later, when he observes her secretly in the kitchen, that he comes to understand how much his behavior has grieved her. So, his indignant attitude when he is confronted by Mr. Carr and, later, his thoughtless disregard for his mother's suffering reveal Alfred's immature and irresponsible behavior.

How would "Through the Tunnel" by Doris Lessing be different if Jerry's mother was the narrator?

The story would actually have to be completely different if it were narrated by Jerry's mother because she has no idea what Jerry is doing when he goes to the wild bay on his own.  Instead of being a story about Jerry's coming of age, it would be a story about his mother's anxiety over what he wants, if she's doing anything right, and how much freedom to give him.  She sits on the safe beach, presumably worrying over him, while he goes away and works to be able to swim through the tunnel like the older boys.  Without a narrator who knows Jerry's thoughts and feelings and what he does when he's alone, there would be no older boys, no tunnel, and no evidence of Jerry's major accomplishment in the story.  It couldn't even be called "Through the Tunnel" because the audience would never know about the tunnel.  It would have to be called "The Safe Beach" or "A Mother's Anxiety" or something that focuses on her perspective.

Which of these sentences from The Lady or the Tiger? by Stockton shows a cause and effect relationship?

In order to find the sentence which shows a cause and effect relationship, we must first understand what a cause-and-effect sentence is. A cause-and-effect sentences tells us about an action that occurred and what resulted because of that action. Therefore, in these sentences we are looking first for an action that makes something else happen (the cause) and the result of that action (the effect). Think of it as what happens when you accidentally knock a cup filled with water off a table. The cause is the action of your arm or hand hitting the cup and the effect, or the result of you hitting the cup, is that the cup falls to the ground and spills water onto the floor.

In the examples from your question above, we can go through each sentence one by one and decide if there are any cause-and-effect relationships in them. The first three sentences are explanatory or descriptive sentences that simply describe a situation or explain the abilities and surroundings of a person. In those sentences, there are no actions that take place, just descriptions. There are also no "sentence connectors" which are words such as "because" "since" "if" and "then" that show cause and effect. Those are words to look for when trying to find a cause-and-effect sentence. We cannot ask the question "what happens if ____?" because there is no action to ask that question about. Therefore, there is no cause and effect in any of these sentences.

If we look at the last sentence on your paper, we can immediately see one of those connector words ("if"), so this could very well be our cause-and-effect sentence, but let's read it through and find the cause and effect to confirm that this is the right answer. The cause in this sentence would be the action that makes something happen. The action is the person opening a door. What happens if they open the door? Out would come a hungry tiger that would spring on him and tear him to pieces as a punishment for his guilt. That is the effect. Therefore, this is our cause-and-effect sentence, which details an action and what happens as a result of that action.

What is something that used to be considered socially deviant but is now viewed as a social norm? What do you think accounts for its change in...

In the United States, at least, things that were once deviant but are now norms are not behaviors so much as they are attitudes. That is, I cannot think of anything we used to frown on people for doing but now actually expect them to do. For example, many in the United States used to frown on interracial marriage, but, while most Americans are accepting of interracial couples, they do not expect people to marry exclusively outside their race today. We previously disapproved strongly of homosexuality, but we do not expect all people to be homosexual today. Instead, what has changed is our attitudes about these things.

In the past, it was considered deviant to tolerate and accept various kinds of behaviors. Among these behaviors were such things as

• Racial integration and mixing


• Sex/ childbearing outside of wedlock


• Homosexuality


• Divorce

In the past, people were expected to disapprove strongly of these things. It would have seemed very odd for a person to express their support for any of these ideas in the 1850s.  Today, by contrast, many Americans disapprove of people who do not tolerate these behaviors. This is not to say that we wholeheartedly approve of all of them; many people think it is better for families to stay intact and for people to procreate only while married. It would seem deviant today, however, to shun someone for being divorced or because they had a child without getting married. Thus, tolerance for all of these things was once deviant but is now a norm.

I think that this has come about because our country is much richer than it was in the past. Most people do not have to worry about staving off starvation and homelessness, so they want things higher up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. They want their lives to be happy and fulfilled. They want to be able to do whatever they want. They want to be accepted as they are. In addition, because the United States is (for the most part/ comparatively) so rich, Americans do not need one another as much anymore. Americans can generally get by on their own without needing as much help from society. In addition, Americans have come more and more to live in places where they do not even know, let alone rely on, their neighbors. Because of these and other factors, many Americans have developed the attitude that their rights are the most important thing. Now that Americans believe their own rights are paramount, they think people are deviant if they disapprove of the choices someone makes or who that person is.

When is sarcasm used in Chapter I of The Scarlet Pimpernel?

Sarcasm is employed in the narration of Chapter I with the discussion of the attempted escape from France by the aristocrats. [Examples are italicized.]

The author, Baronness Emmuska Orczy, an aristocrat herself, describes with sarcasm the macabre enjoyment of the people who watch as the aristocrats, who  have been labeled as "traitors to the people" after the Revolution, attempt to flee the country and escape the guillotine. This treatment of the sadistic enjoyment of the peasants is certainly ironic (sarcastic) and intended by Orczy to mock the formerly oppressed peasants, who now themselves become the oppressors.

The "fun" begins when Sergeant Bibot, who has a "wonderful nose for scenting an aristo in the most perfect disguise," does not immediately arrest the aristocrats, but instead toys with them as a cat often plays with a mouse before killing and eating it. This "keen sense of humor" amuses the crowd who stand near the barricades and watch as Bibot often lets his "prey" past the gates in order to make them think they have made their escape. Soon, however, the aristocrat is marched back. To the people this is "extremely funny" because, often as not, the prisoner is a woman, "some proud marchioness, who looked terribly comical" as she has been stripped of her disguise and realizes that she will receive but a summary trial and after this, she will feel "the fond embrace of Madame la Guillotine."

Every day Bibot has the distinct "satisfaction" of apprehending royalists and returning them to the Committee of Public Safety that is presided over by "that good patriot" Citoyen [Citizen] Foucquier-Tinville. But, there is one man who somehow slips past the watchful eyes of the guards. He is an Englishman, the "accursed Scarlet Pimpernel" who cleverly escapes by disguising himself in the most unsuspected personas. Boasting that he would never be so foolish as to let this Englishman go past him, Bibot tells the crowd of one daring escape which cost a guard the punishment of the guillotine. It seems there was a daring escape in which the Scarlet Pimpernel was dressed as a guard and the aristocrats as soldiers while a harmless cart passed out of the city. Hearing this, the crowd becomes silent.

The story savored of the supernatural, and though the Republic had abolished God, it had not quite succeeded in killing the fear of the supernatural in the hearts of the people.

But, further sarcasm comes at the expense of Bibot, who has previously ridiculed the guard deceived by the Scarlet Pimpernel. For, it seems that Bibot has let pass a cart driven by "an old hag" who has told him that her son has had the plague so that he would not wish to be near her or the cart. Ironically, this cart has been allowed by Bibot to pass through with aristocrats hidden in it. And, the "old hag" has been none other than the "accursed Englishman" himself.