Where does a flashback take place in the novel The Outsiders?

In Chapter 2, a flashback occurs when Ponyboy recounts the story of when Johnny got beat up by a gang of Socs to Cherry while they are standing in line waiting to get popcorn. Ponyboy says to Cherry that one night he and the some Greasers were walking back from the gas station when Steve picked up Johnny's jean jacket on the road. Steve noticed that the jacket had blood stains on the collar, and the boys began to hear moans coming from across a nearby lot. The gang ran towards the cries and Sodapop was the first to find Johnny laying face down in a pool of blood. When they turned Johnny over, Johnny's face was badly beaten and cut. Ponyboy mentions how he felt sick after seeing Johnny's bruised and bloodied face. Johnny then told the boys how a group of four Socs jumped him and said that one of the Socs was wearing a fistful of rings. Ponyboy then explains to Cherry that ever since Johnny's traumatic beating, he carries a six-inch switchblade with him at all times. Johnny vowed to never let anybody beat him up like that again.

Does Kino choose his destiny or his fate, and how does this fate affect his life in The Pearl?

It would seem that Kino does choose his fate. For, after the pearl dealers offer him far less than the Pearl of the World is worth, he refuses when Juana urges him to crush the pearl between two stones and cast it from his mind. 

When Kino refuses to destroy the pearl, he tells his Juana,

"I will fight this thing. I will win over it. We will have our chance...No one shall take our good fortune from us....I am a man."

This choice changes the lives of Kino and his family as from then on there is a reversal of fortune. On the night after Kino has gone to the pearl dealers, Juana sneaks outside and discovers the great pearl in the brush on the path behind a large rock. Kneeling, Juana ponders whether to take it and throw it into the sea, but as she does so, the moon reappears from behind a cloud, revealing "two dark figures" who are lying on the path just ahead of her. Juana leaps to her feet and discovers Kino over a stranger who is bleeding. Seeing this dead man, Juana knows that "the old life was gone." Kino believes his pearl has been stolen, but Juana returns it to him.

Now, they must flee their home. So, they head to the Sierra de la Giganta, hoping to go to Lorento, a town to the north, but trackers eventually find their trail. Kino and his family hide in a cave; in the night, Kino ventures out and sees a match flare down on the beach. Three men are there; two are asleep while one watches with a rifle. Kino sneaks down the rocks to try to grab the rifle away from the one holding it. But, as fate would have it, his baby cries out just as Kino is in midleap, and the man shoots because he thinks he hears a coyote. Coyotito (whose name is ironically similar) is shot in the head by this random bullet of fate. Kino lands on the man too late as he hears the "cry of death" from Juana.

Defeated by fate, Kino and Juana return to their home; they walk to the beach, and Kino pulls the pearl from his clothes. As he looks down at the pearl, it seems malignant and grey and distorted because in it he sees his dead baby and the tragedy of their lives. Drawing back his arm, he flings the pearl as far as he can into the sea.

  

Is it possible that Gulliver from Gulliver's Travels is Swift's alter ego?

In some ways, this seems like an appealing idea, especially because Gulliver is so terribly flawed and so awfully ignorant at times.  When Gulliver proudly tells the king of Brobdingnag about how wonderful Europe is, horrifying the king with prideful accounts of how quarrelsome, violent, and cruel men could be, we can tell that Swift certainly identifies more with the appalled monarch than the proud traveler.  However, there are other times -- few though they may be -- when it seems as though Swift would actually agree with Gulliver; it's as though such a conclusion is so obvious that even a fool like Gulliver can arrive at it.  For example, when Gulliver discusses the Big Endians and Little Endians who symbolize the Catholics and Protestants, respectively, he concludes that "all true Believers shall break their Eggs at the convenient End: and which is the convenient End, seems, in my humble Opinion, to be left to every Man's Conscience [...]."  In other words, Swift believes that Catholics and Protestants should be free to worship their god as they see fit, as he reduces their difference to such a ridiculous substitute and makes their conflict seem so unnecessary, a view echoed by Gulliver.

What are sociological reasons why men in full-time work are paid more on average than female full-time workers?

Much of this, as stated in Paepin's excellent answer, has to do with historical factors. In patriarchal societies, there was a gender based division of labor, with traditionally male tasks being monetized and the value of female activities in the domestic sphere (child rearing, making and maintaining clothing, housework) not being assigned monetary value. This connection between traditionally female care-giving or domestic labor and a lack of monetary value has led to an ideology that care-giving is a task not associated with money. Thus while one expects people in traditionally male professions such as bankers, engineers, architects, or managers to demand high salaries for their skills, female teachers, nurses, or social workers are often condemned as "greedy" when negotiating for higher pay and are expected to do highly demanding and skilled labor out of an ethos of "caring" rather than demanding equivalent compensation for equivalent work. Even when women are in traditionally male professions, they are often condemned as "greedy" or "ambitious" when they ask for salaries or positions equivalent to those of their male counterparts. An excellent example of this is that Hillary Clinton was pilloried by the press for accepting speaking fees less than those charged by Donald Trump, Rudy Guilani, Tony Blair, or other prominent male speakers who are not normally condemned for high speaking fees. 

Gender segregation accounts for a significant part of the wage gap, with predominantly male semi-skilled labor fields such as construction, plumbing, or manufacturing paying substantially more than equivalent "feminized" jobs such as secretarial work, house cleaning, child care, or food service.

Why does Judge Ford host a party at her apartment in The Westing Game?

The purpose of the party is to spy on the residents of Sunset Towers to see who is suspicious and find clues.

Judge Ford decides to host an “informal party” in her apartment so that she can get to know the heirs.  When people start using the elevator as a bulletin board, she puts a notice up saying everyone is invited.  She makes sure Mr. Hoo stays even after delivering food.

Grace Wexler coos over the idea of having a party, and offers the judge decorating tips.  None of the guests seem to be having much fun though.  Tensions are too high with the murder and the game on everyone’s minds.

The party went on and on. No one dared be first to leave. (Safety in numbers, especially with a judge there.) So the guests ate and drank and jabbered; and they watched the other guests eat and drink and jabber. No one laughed. (Ch. 10) 

Judge Taylor is not the only one who is watching people and trying to learn things from them. They are all participating in the same contest, after all.  Every word seems to be evaluated. 

 “I’m not having any luck at all, Angela,” Sydelle whined. “If only your mother hadn’t made you change clothes someone surely would have mentioned ‘twin.’ It’s much harder to judge reactions when I have to bring up the subject myself. (Ch. 10) 

Sydelle continually says the word “twins” hoping that someone will react to the clue.  Judge Ford wants in particular to talk to James Hoo, because he seems to have a motive.  He claims that Mr. Westing stole his idea for an invention of paper diapers. 

The guests take a poll as to where “May God thy gold refine?” comes from.  No one gets any conclusive information or clues from the party.  No one says or does anything suspicious, and they never figure out what the mysterious phrase is from.

How is the family structured in The Giver? How can I write three paragraphs about it?

This might seem like too narrow a subject to you, but really, there is a great deal to be said about the structure of a family in The Giver.  People clearly do not choose their own partners, which is the basis of the family structure.  They do not bear the children they raise, and they do not even get to select which children they will raise.  The family structure in this community is always a two-generation structure, since grandparents do not exist in any family unit.  Those who might be old enough to be grandparents are either still doing something productive or are in the House of the Old.  Consider the unusual structure of the families in this community. It is without any biological or emotional bonds.  You might ask yourself if that makes for a more successful family or if it fatally damages the concept of a family as we understand it.  No matter which way you consider it, you have at least three possible points to discuss your opinion. 

Why did record companies have white singers re-record rhythm and blues songs?

This question refers to the situation in the United States, mainly in the 1950s, where many songs by black artists were covered by white musicians.  These covers generally sold better than the originals.  This situation occurred because record companies and radio stations that had white audiences generally believed that their customers would not want to listen to music as it was played by the black musicians.  They believed that white customers wanted versions that were somewhat toned down and, importantly, they believed that white customers wanted songs that were sung by white performers.

The 1950s was a time when racism was still very much a part of American society.  White Americans felt superior to blacks and they wanted, for the most part, to keep black culture separate from white culture.  White parents did not want their children to admire black performers.  This was part of the reason why artists like Pat Boone covered many songs by black artists.

A second reason was because of the style of black rhythm and blues music.  Many white parents felt that this music was overly sexualized and therefore immoral.  We can see this very clearly in the reaction to Elvis Presley.  Presley was white but was still vilified by many around the country because they felt that his music was too much like the black music on which it was based.  White parents wanted performers like Pat Boone who would take songs by black artists and water them down, making them seem less edgy and less sexual. 

In the 1950s, many white parents worried about the corrupting influence of new styles of music on their children.  They did not like the style of black rhythm and blues music and they definitely did not want their children to listen to that kind of music being performed by black musicians.  For these two related reasons, many record companies had white artists cover songs by black artists, toning them down and making them more acceptable (both in style and in the race of the performers) to white audiences.

What did the Victorians expect a woman to think about?

Victorians generally did not want women to have lives outside of the home.  A young Victorian woman’s goal was to find a good marriage, at a reasonably young age so she did not seem like a spinster, that would enrich her.  In the upper classes, women married within their ranks and the marriage would support them for life.

Unless a woman was working class, she spent her time with hobbies.  There was often a nanny and a corps of other household servants, leaving the woman free to entertain, supervise, and be there for her husband.  It was the woman’s job to make sure that the household of servants ran smoothly, and that everything was fashionable.

A Victorian woman should be educated, so that she knew French and Latin, and could also play an instrument, sing, and do crafts.  Women did not need to work around the house, so they would do needlepoints and other hand crafts.  Women took walks and visited other women.  Being fashionable and wearing the right dresses, hats, and shawls was very important.  Young ladies attended dances, and everyone vacationed in holiday towns like Bath for weeks at a time.

Victorians believed that novels were inappropriate for women to read, but they were popular nonetheless.  Many were even written by women, including Jane Austen, the Bronte sisters, and Mary Shelley.  Victorians loved Gothic fiction, with stories about big manor houses and spooky visitations.

If you were a working-class woman, you had very different things to think about.  Many men and even some women went to work in factories in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.  Young ladies who could not marry into rich families often had to become governesses or other household servants.  If a man owed debts, the entire family could end up in debtor's prison.  Life was not easy if you were poor.

In That Was Then, This Is Now by S. E. Hinton, what stops the boys from beating up the black man?

In Chapter 1, M&M leaves the bowling alley and is confronted by Curly Shepard and two of his friends. Fortunately, Mark and Bryon leave the bowling alley to catch up with M&M and see Shepard cut M&M's medallion off of his neck then knee him in the face. Mark and Bryon attack Curly and his friends and save M&M from further abuse. After M&M's attackers run off, Mark looks at Bryon and says, "You still in the mood for a little action?" (Hinton 8). Bryon says he's up for it, and Mark signals towards a black man standing at the intersection waiting for the light to change. Mark says, "We could jump him." (Hinton 8). M&M then yells, "You make me sick!" and tells Bryon and Mark that he thinks their weird (Hinton 8). M&M says that Bryon and Mark just saved him from getting beaten up by people who thought he was different, and Bryon and Mark were going to beat up an innocent black man for the same reason. Bryon mentions that M&M looked real shook up, and M&M begins to cry before he takes off running. Instead of chasing M&M or beating up the black man, the boys pick up M&M's medallion and head towards Charlie's bar. M&M stopped Mark and Bryon from beating up the innocent black man by intervening and telling them that their actions were senseless.

When and why does Opal throw the party at Gloria Dump's house in Kate DiCamillo's Because of Winn-Dixie?

In Chapter 19 of Kate DiCamillo's Because of Winn-Dixie, Opal learns Otis's greatest sorrow is that he was arrested when he hit a cop trying to prevent Otis from playing his guitar on the street and now can't play his guitar anywhere but in the pet store. Otis is a very lonely man who only wants to play for people. In Chapter 20, Opal tells Gloria Dump the story of Otis's arrest just before continuing to read aloud Gone with the Wind. She and Gloria start talking about people's sorrows and loneliness, and Gloria makes the following comment:

I believe, sometimes, that the whole world has an aching heart. (Ch. 19)

Opal begins reading and relays that "Scarlett was looking forward to going to a big barbecue." It's then that Opal gets the inspiration to throw a party in Gloria's yard to ease everyone's loneliness: her own, her father's, Otis's, Gloria's, Miss Fanny's, and even Sweetie Pie's. Beyond those people, Gloria makes Opal promise to invite two of her antagonists, Dunlap and Stevie Dewberry, and Miss Fanny suggests Opal also invite Amanda, Opal's other antagonist.

The party is held at night soon after Opal delivers all of the invitations by word of mouth. Opal and Gloria spend the whole afternoon making egg-salad sandwiches and punch and decorating Gloria's yard. The party helps develop the climax of the story because everyone arrives dressed in their best and behaves in their best company manners, even those who are antagonists. Even shy Otis arrives, though it takes some convincing to get him to come into the yard. The story reaches its climax when an unexpected thunderstorm strikes, moving the party inside. During the chaos, Winn-Dixie goes missing.

How was Italy involved in WWI?

By the time World War I began, Italy had been secretly in an alliance (called the Triple Alliance) with Germany and Austria-Hungary for over thirty years.  Under the Triple Alliance, Italy was to use their forces to help defend Germany in the event of an attack by the French.

When war began in 1914, Italy did not join its allies in the fight.  Under the agreement of the Triple Alliance, they would only assist Germany and Austria-Hungary if it were in defense.  They publicly remained neutral.  In secret, Italy negotiated with the Allied Powers of Great Britain and France.  Italy agreed to fight on the side of the Allied Powers in exchange for certain territories gained during the war if they won.

During the war, the Italian front was in the Alps, near Bolzano.  It also went to the Adriatic Sea to the east.  The Italians mainly fought against the Austro-Hungarians.  In the end, Italy did gain territories in what is now the northern part of the country.

`(dr)/(ds) = e^(r-2s) , r(0)=0` Find the particular solution that satisfies the given initial condition.

This differential equation can be solved by separating the variables.

`(dr)/(ds) = e^(r - 2s)`

Dividing by e^r and multiplying by ds results in the variables r and s on the different sides of the equation:

`(dr)/e^r = e^(-2s)ds`

This is equivalent to

`e^(-r) dr = e^(-2s)ds`

Now we can take the integral of the both sides of the equation:

`-e^(-r) = 1/(-2)e^(-2s) + C` , where C is an arbitrary constant.

From here, `e^(-r) = 1/2e^(-2s) - C`

and `-r = ln(1/2e^(-2s) - C)`

or `r = -ln(1/2e^(-2s) - C)`

Since the initial condition is r(0) = 0, we can find the constant C:

`r(0) = -ln(1/2e^(-2*0) - C) = -ln(1/2 - C) = 0`

This means `1/2 - C = 1`

and `C = -1/2`

Plugging C in in the equation for r(s) above, we can get the particular solution:

`r = -ln((e^(-2s) + 1)/2)` . This is algebraically equivalent to

`r = ln(2/(e^(-2s) + 1))` . This is the answer.

How can the interests of the individual states be protected?

The only good way to protect the interests of the individual states is by political action.  Those who want to protect the states’ interests have to create interest groups and/or social movements to fight for those interests. They have to vote for politicians who will protect those interests.  There is no other way to make this happen.

In the United States, we have a federal system in which the states are supposed to have extensive rights.  Over time, however, the federal government has taken more and more power for itself.  This has happened even though there have been no constitutional amendments to change the balance of power between the federal government and the state governments.  Instead, the balance has changed simply because political leaders and regular citizens have allowed it to.

If the balance of power in our federal system has changed without any changes to the Constitution, that means that the balance is not determined by the Constitution.  Therefore, we cannot change the balance by changing the Constitution.  If the balance has changed because people wanted it to, we have to create a situation where people want the balance to change back.  That is, we have to get people to want the states to have more power again.  In order to do this, we would need political action.

We have seen that political action can get people to change their minds on various issues.  Perhaps the clearest example of this in recent times is the issue of gay rights.  Without changing the Constitution, we have gone from a time when gay sexual activity could be a crime to a time where gay marriage is protected by the Supreme Court.  This has happened in the space of less than 15 years.  What this tells us is that political action can be relevant.

To protect the interests of individual states, we would have to have a movement similar to the gay rights movement.  We would have to have interest groups pushing for states’ rights.  We would have to have them educating and persuading people that states’ rights are important.  We would have to have them working to elect leaders who would protect states’ rights.  This sort of political action is the only way in which the interests of individual states can be protected.

Who is the scientist who developed a model called the atomic theory of matter?

John Dalton (1766-1844), an English chemist, developed the model called the atomic theory of matter. Although Democritus had earlier suggested the existence of the atom, it was about two millennia later that John Dalton developed the atomic theory of matter.

Dalton's theory of matter still remains essentially relevant today even though the present concept of atomic theory is a little more involved than Dalton's model. For example, we now know that nuclear reactions can destroy atoms as opposed to Dalton's theory which posits that atoms are indivisible and indestructible, even though we still acknowledge that ordinary chemical reactions cannot destroy atoms.

Similarly, atoms of different masses exist within an element as isotopes although isotopes within a given element have the same chemical properties. Dalton's theory had posited that atoms in a given element are all identical in mass and properties.

Not withstanding these later findings, Dalton's theory quickly explained several chemical phenomena that were hitherto unexplained.

Who gave Amir and Soraya their couch in Khaled Hosseini's The Kite Runner?

Soraya's parents, General Taheri and Khala Jamila, gave Amir and Soraya their couch.

After Baba's death in Chapter 13, both Soraya and Amir move into their own one-bedroom apartment in Fremont. The apartment was only a few blocks away from General Taheri and Khala Jamila's home.

Soraya's parents buy a brown, leather couch and some Mikasa dishes as housewarming gifts for the young couple. Additionally, General Taheri gives Amir a new IBM typewriter. Later in the book, we learn the couch is moved to Amir and Soraya's new, two-bedroom Victorian house in Bernal Heights. In Chapter 14, Soraya and the couple's cocker spaniel, Aflatoon, rests on the couch while Soraya corrects essays and watches a PBS documentary about wolves.

When Sohrab moves in with Amir and Soraya, he sometimes sleeps on the couch.

Can you tell me some reasons why Lennie in Of Mice and Men shouldn't be punished?

There are reasons for and against Lennie being punished (and even an argument to be made that Lennie's death is not best seen strictly as a punishment). 

George offers one of the best reasons not to punish Lennie when he, along with the others, comes to the barn where Curley's wife is found dead. 

"The poor bastard's nuts. Don't shoot 'im. He di'n't know what he was doin'."

Here we see a suggestion that Lennie should not be held accountable for his own actions because of his mentality. If Lennie is actually "nuts" or at least mentally incompetent in a legal sense, we can use that as one reason to argue that Lennie should not be punished. (Punishment, after all, is intended to apply to those who willingly do wrong. If Lennie does not know that he is doing wrong or if he is incapable of controlling himself, punishing him does not seem to be the best course of action.)

It is possible that Lennie does not "know his own strength," as the saying goes. We get information about his killing of mice and watch him seriously injure Curley. Lennie's strength is commented on repeatedly in the text. If we feel that Lennie applies his strength without understanding the full ramifications of this application, maybe we have another reason to argue against punishing Lennie. 

Ultimately, Lennie is killed but we might see this as a mercy killing. George saves Lennie from facing Curley's wrath and potentially being put in jail. The punishment of jail or violence might be understood as being far greater than the quiet death Lennie receives from his companion, George. 

Why is drug investigation a specialized police activity?

A large portion of just about every police department and law enforcement agency is spent on the so-called war on drugs. Although the success of this war has been debated for years, it still continues.

The crack cocaine “epidemic” that started in the eighties brought drug use and trafficking to a new level in the United States, resulting in policies that increased the proportion of money spent to fight drug dealing and use. In recent years, the rise in heroin use threatens to do the same thing.

Since drug use and trafficking affect every community, local law enforcement agencies have to address the problem in their precincts. Monetary, manpower, information, and expertise resources are hard to come by. To address these deficiencies, task forces have been created that combine the efforts of local, state, and federal agencies.

For example, the Atlanta Police Department has a page on their website called “Special Enforcement.” This page lists a number of special programs that department is participating in, one of which is called the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program. According to the website, this program, also referred to as HIDTA, “is a task force of local, state, and federal officers charged with investigating drug trafficking.”

HIDTA is also active in many other cities. It is specialized in the sense that it was created for a specific purpose and to accomplish a specific goal. Unlike a lot of other police work, which is conducted in reaction to a one-time crime (such as a murder or robbery) many drug investigations are an ongoing process, not just a solution to one case.

Why does King say that he seldom responds to critics?

In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King Jr. states that he doesn't have time to respond to every piece of criticism that he had received while also continuing his activism. Because of his investment in doing actual "constructive work" for the Civil Rights Movement, King simply lacked the time to read and adequately respond to the many letters of criticism that he received. However, his letter responds to the criticism of other clergymen because he felt that their concerns were sincere and he would be willing to educate them about his reasoning. King argues against the statement by clergymen that his tactics are too impatient by pointing out that African Americans had already been waiting centuries for equality, that he prioritizes justice over order,  and that he does not feel obligated to follow unjust laws.

How is domestic life reflected in Pride and Prejudice?

In many ways, domestic life is at the center of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, as it is a novel concerned with the home and the family. In general, it could be said that domestic life in the novel is reflected as the single most important factor in determining one's station, comfort, and status in life. For instance, the landed gentry (Darcy's social class) enjoy the fat of the land and can move freely about in elite social circles without worrying about needing to work. The Gardiners, however, while not poor by any means, occupy a lower rung in the social ladder simply because their family has made its wealth through trade. As such, the Gardiner family is thought of as lesser than those families, such as Darcy's, who have inherited their wealth through the ownership of land. Here, we can see that domestic life is dominated by the reputation (and usually a monetary reputation) of one's family. 

 Thus, there is understandably a scramble to "marry well," which means marrying into a rich family, as doing so will secure a stable social position for the future. It is this impulse that provokes Mrs. Bennet to tirelessly hunt for husbands for her daughters and Darcy to be initially hesitant and rude in his pursuit of Elizabeth. By focusing the novel so intently on this scramble to secure an eligible family, Austen also illustrates the importance of one's domestic life during the era in which the book takes place.

How are Daisy and Tom careless?

Daisy and Tom are careless because they affect the lives of the other characters without considering the consequences of their actions. For example, Tom engages in an affair with Myrtle, a comparatively lower-class woman, and he allows Myrtle to believe that he would, at some point, leave Daisy for her. In reality, however, Tom never has this intention. We know this because Tom competes with Gatsby later on in the novel, a fact indicating his devotion to Daisy. Tom's careless stringing along of Myrtle ultimately results in Myrtle's death when she tries to escape her husband, Wilson, with the erroneous belief that Tom would take care of her. Similarly, Daisy is careless because she engages in an affair with Gatsby without fully committing to him. Even though Daisy initially gives the impression that she would, in fact, leave Tom for Gatsby, she ultimately chooses Tom, leaving Gatsby to answer for the death of Myrtle even though Daisy was the one driving the car that killed her. Her willingness to allow Gatsby to take the blame for the accident shows the disregard she holds for the consequences of her actions. 

On a more basic level, Tom and Daisy both live a literally carefree lifestyle. They both come from rich families and spend their days in idle relaxation. They don't have to worry about money or jobs, and even though they do have a child, neither of them are shown to be particularly conscientious parents. 

What does the dagger symbolize in Romeo and Juliet?

Due to its phallic shape and size, the dagger in Romeo and Juliet operates as a traditional symbol of masculinity (or more specifically, of male sexuality). Juliet threatens to kill herself with a dagger several times in the play (although she only acts upon this threat only once).

The first time is shortly after learning that she is being forced into a marriage with Paris. Juliet flees to Friar Laurence's cell under the pretense of going to confession; there she tells Friar Laurence that "with this knife" she will kill herself if Laurence does not provide her with a solution to her predicament. This moment foreshadows Juliet's ultimate end.

After creating a plan to fake her own death, Juliet returns to her chambers and lays down her dagger, commanding it to, "lie thou there." This, however, will not be the last time she touches such a weapon. When Juliet awakens from her fake death, she discovers that Romeo has killed himself with poison. Hearing someone approaching in the crypt, Juliet grabs Romeo's dagger and stabs herself:

Yea, noise? then I'll be brief. O happy dagger!

This is thy sheath;

there rust, and let me die.

There is a long connection between death and sex. In fact, the French phrase for an orgasm is "la petite mort," which translates to "the little death." Sex traditionally is used to give life, while death takes it away. Thus, all these instances with the dagger are so symbolic and poignant because it is her love for Romeo and the consummation of their marriage that ultimately leads to Juliet's premature death. In each major crisis, she is near a symbol of his presence in her life--a presence which has largely been sexual. Romeo is the man who takes her virginity... as well as (in an indirect way) her life. It is, thus, tremendously appropriate that she kills herself with his weapon. Just as their marriage and sexual attraction bound them together, so, too, will their deaths.

Who is to blame for the death of Romeo and Juliet in Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet?

On one hand, one might claim that Romeo's and Juliet's parents are to blame for their children's deaths.  After all, these children were raised in a culture of aggression where they have learned that hating their family's enemy is crucial and that violence is often the answer to problems.  Were it not for the families' grudge against one another, Romeo and Juliet might have been free to tell their parents about their feelings or they might not have been so quick to jump to violent action as an answer.

On the other hand, one could blame the Nurse and Friar for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet.  Romeo and Juliet are children, and they are encouraged by these two adults who they trust to go forward with the relationship.  The Nurse serves as a go-between for them, the Friar marries them in secret, and he even comes up with the plan for Juliet to fake her own death.  If the Nurse and the Friar had advised the couple to speak with their parents, it is possible that they would not have ended up dead.  It is even possible that their parents might have been supportive of the match.  The chorus says in the prologue that Romeo and Juliet come from "two households, both alike in dignity," and this statement makes it clear that the families are equal in status.  Further, when Tybalt gets angry that Romeo has attended the Capulets' party uninvited, Lord Capulet says that "Verona brags of [Romeo] / [As] a virtuous and well-governed youth" (1.5.76-77).  In other words, then, he has nothing against Romeo, personally, and has actually heard good things about him.  Further, at the end of the play, when the deaths of these youths have been discovered, Montague vows to erect a golden statue of Juliet to honor her faithfulness, and Capulet makes a similar promise to commission a statue of Romeo to lie by "his lady's" (5.3.314).  Thus, when the families learn how much their children loved each other, they try to honor that love.  Therefore, it seems entirely possible that if the Nurse and Friar had encouraged the lovers to be honest with their families, the play might have turned out very differently.

What was ironic about the Know Nothing Party?

The Know Nothing Party was a political party that was against immigration to the United States. The people in this party were concerned about the increasing number of immigrants coming to the United States. They were very concerned about the number of Catholics coming from Ireland and Germany that were entering the United States. When people asked them for what they stood, they often replied that they knew nothing.

The irony of this political party is that many of the people who supported the party were from families that were immigrants to the United States at some time the past. Their families came to the United States for reasons such as religious, economic, or political freedom. However, when other people wanted to come to the United States for similar reasons, they were opposed to these people having the opportunity to have a better life and to get more freedom. They wanted to deny other people the same opportunity that they were able to have.

Name three conflicts Hamlet faces.

One conflict Hamlet faces is how to deal with his uncle, Claudius, who Hamlet suspects has killed his father to usurp the throne of Denmark. Hamlet is also faced with the apparent treachery of his mother, Gertrude, who married Claudius very shortly after Hamlet's father died. Hamlet becomes disenchanted with women in part because of what he feels is his mother's betrayal of his father. Finally, Hamlet questions whether Ophelia, his former beloved, is loyal to him, given the treachery he sees around him and the machinations of her father, Polonius, to help Claudius. Feeling betrayed, Hamlet loses confidence and he ponders, in the "to be or not to be" soliloquy, whether he should passively react to what has happened to his father or take action, which is bound to be bloody, in retaliation for his father's untimely death. 

What are the exact words which the narrator uses to greet the signalman?

When the narrator arrives in the vicinity of the signal box, he greets the signalman with the following words:

"Halloa! Below there!"

On hearing these words, the signalman does not look up towards the narrator, as expected, but looks down the line. This causes the narrator to repeat the words and, this time, he is acknowledged by the signalman.

While these words may appear ordinary, they are, in fact, significant to the signalman. Later in the story, for instance, he reveals that he heard those exact words on "one moonlight night." The figure, to whom the voice belonged, appeared to be warning him about an impending accident, but it suddenly disappeared.

Six hours later, however, there was indeed an accident on the line in which numerous people were killed or wounded. For the signalman, then, these words are synonymous with that strange warning, and this causes him to be extremely wary of the narrator. 

Does Holling's dad ever get compliments about the "Perfect House" in Gary Schmidt's The Wednesday Wars?

In Gary Schmidt's The Wednesday Wars, Holling's father is the only one who cares about "the Perfect House," and the irony is the house isn't really all that perfect. Therefore, no one ever compliments the house; instead, there is much to complain about.

Holling explains his father declared the house to be the "Perfect House" because the house is "right smack in the middle of town," neither on the north side nor the south side, past the drug store, the bakery, the five-and-dime store, and the public library ("September"). It was a white two-story colonial that Mr. Hoodhood worked hard to keep immaculately white, painting it every other year. Holling even explains the sidewalk cement leading up to the house was kept perfectly white, and there was not a single crack in the sidewalk. The walkway leading up to the house was "bordered by perfectly matching azalea bushes, all the same height, alternating between pink and white blossoms" ("September"). Yet, in November, Mr. Hoodhood struggles to keep the Perfect House looking perfect. Holding explains November is a very rainy month on Long Island. Everything looks "gray and damp'; the perfectly white sidewalk is "always wet"; and the azalea bushes grow naked, so his father covers them up with burlap sacks, "which also [get] wet" ("November"). The house gutters also get clogged up, so the rainwater falls dirty from the gutter upon the house, leaving a stain that makes his "father really mad." What's more, during the month of November, they discover a water stain had grown as big as a "garbage can lid" and moldy on the ceiling of the "Perfect Living Room" that no one ever goes into. The ceiling in the living room comes crashing to the floor just before the family leaves for a reception at which Mr. HoodHood will be formally presented with the Chamber of Commerce Businessman of 1967 Award ("February").

Mr. Hoodhood's meticulous care of the house parallels his obsession with his business and his reputation, such as his desire to be elected the Chamber of Commerce Businessman of 1967. Yet, while he is successful on the outside, he is ironically not successful on the inside. In the final chapter of the book, he argues to Hollings that to "become a man. . . you get a good job and you provide for your family. You hang on, and you play for keeps" ("June"). While Mr. Hoodhood does have a good job and does provide to fulfill his family's material needs, he does not provide to fulfill their emotional needs because he constantly lets his children down and belittles their needs, especially their needs for independence.

How does Shakespeare convey the changes in Macbeth throughout the play?

Macbeth is about a man who changes from hero to villain. In the first act, both the ominous witches and a group of soldiers mention Macbeth. The king refers to him as noble, and the men describe his brave--and bloody--feats on the battlefield. We first meet Macbeth when he and Banquo come across the witches. They tell him he will be thane of Cawdor and king. Banquo marvels at the news, but Macbeth wants to know more. His curiosity is evident and possibly foreshadows his later behavior. Once granted the title thane of Cawdor, he immediately starts pondering the horrible possibilities of how he could become king: “The Prince of Cumberland! that is a step / On which I must fall down, or else o'erleap, / For in my way it lies.”

Lady Macbeth describes Macbeth as being ambitious but “too full o' the milk of human kindness.” He expresses reluctance to assassinate his king, but Lady Macbeth convinces him to proceed. This demonstrates that Macbeth does have a conscience--he struggles with it throughout the play--but his desire for the crown overcomes his compassion and sense of honor. He kills King Duncan and suffers terribly for it, stating, “To know my deed, 'twere best not know myself.”

After Duncan’s murder, Macbeth sinks further into bloodshed and paranoia. He slays the king’s guards, whom he and his wife framed, and proceeds to kill Banquo and attack Fleance, who escapes. The Macbeths are afflicted by “terrible dreams / That shake us nightly.” Macbeth cannot rest in his power for fear of it being taken away. He further consults with the witches. His trust in these forces of fate and darkness reveals how far he has come, from curious skepticism to absolute faith. The witches refer to him not as a hero but as “Something wicked.” After speaking with them, he decides to massacre Macduff’s entire household, including his wife, children, and servants.

By the time Lady Macbeth dies, her husband seems completely numb. He merely remarks, “She should have died hereafter,” before giving a monologue about the pointlessness of life. Still, he believes himself to be invincible. At the end of the play, the once great Macbeth has become an egomaniacal, manipulative, and bloodthirsty man who has lost his love of life.

In The Westing Game, why did James Hoo harbor bad feelings toward Sam Westing?

Mr. Hoo did not like Mr. Westing because he felt that Westing had stolen his idea.

Everyone at Sunset Towers was specifically chosen to be there, and even the businesses were designed for the hand-picked tenants.  This is why the building had a space for a Chinese restaurant, for example.  That was for Mr. Hoo.

Sam Westing was a very rich man.  He had a paper products factory.  He has been missing for years, and even presumed dead.  When his heirs are gathered at Sunset Towers, at first no one knows what is going on.  Even though they all move in, they do not necessarily all have positive opinions of Westing.

Sam Hoo in particular blames Westing for stealing an important idea from him.

“James Hoo. He claimed Westing stole his idea of the disposable paper diaper.” (Ch. 9) 

This is the reason that James Hoo filed a lawsuit against Sam Westing.  Sandy shares his notes about the heirs, including this entry about James Hoo. 

Hoo sued Sam Westing over the invention of the disposable paper diaper. Case never came to court (Westing disappeared). Settled with the company last year for $25,000. Thinks he was cheated. Latest invention: paper innersoles. (Ch. 17) 

Mr. Hoo ends up running a Chinese restaurant with his wife, since he did not make his fortune on the paper diaper.  Otis Amber considers Hoo an “angry man” and a “madman” and suspects him when things go wrong, such as bombs going off (Ch. 16).

In the end, Mr. Hoo was not the bomber.  He does invent paper insoles and makes his fortune from that.  Sandy takes the credit for the paper insoles, but ultimately he seems to have been helping Mr. Hoo out since he supposedly stole the diaper idea. You see, Sandy turned out to be Mr. Westing.  It all worked out in the end.

What else besides the presence of Georg Znaeym may explain the disturbing presence in the forest in "The Interlopers"?

Because of the impending storm, the roebuck are running, whereas they normally would be bedded down. And, since the deer are running, the wolves may be hunting. These wolves may well be "the disturbing element" in the forest.

This suggestion of wolves, therefore, acts as foreshadowing of what will come at the end of the narrative when the two adversaries, Georg Znaeym and Ulrich von Gradwitz, anticipate their respective parties of men to rescue them. After neither party appears, Ulrich suggests that they shout together in the hope that some of the other men will hear them. When Ulrich finally sees figures following the way he himself has come down the hillside, the two men shout together again.

"They hear us! They've stopped. Now they see us. They're running down the hill toward us," cried Ulrich.

Unfortunately, those that they see running are not Ulrich's men, nor are they Georg's. Instead, they are another "disturbing presence." When Georg asks Ulrich if the figures are his men, Ulrich laughs "the idiotic chattering laugh of a man unstrung with hideous fear." George asks, "Who are they?" Ulrich chatters, "Wolves."

What are four instances of irony in "The Tell-tale Heart"?

After the narrator has assured us many times that he is not insane, and he's described his repetition of movements and behaviors over seven nights as well as how he's lied to the old man to prevent him from getting suspicious.  Then he says that he "felt the extent of [his] own powers -- of [his] sagacity."  A person who is sagacious is one who makes good decisions and possesses sound judgment, two qualities the narrator clearly does not have.  This is arguably an example of dramatic irony, when the audience knows more than the character.

Further, the narrator's almost total lack of motive for killing the old man is ironic.  He says, "I loved the old man.  He had never wronged me.  He had never given me insults.  For his gold I had no desire."  Killing a person because one dislikes, even hates, that person's weird eyeball is not really a good reason to kill them.  A crime of passion can be understandable sometimes; we might pardon a murder if the murderer has somehow been terribly wronged by his victim.  However, the fact that the narrator really has no understandable reason to kill the old man is ironic (because our expectations of murder are different from its reality in this story).

After the murder, the narrator says, "If still you think me mad, you will think so no longer when I describe the wise precautions I took for the concealment of the body."  He dismembers the corpse in a tub so that no blood stains would betray him and he hides the pieces beneath the floorboards.  He believes that telling us this will make us think he is less insane when it will actually compel us to believe that he is more insane: this is ironic.

Finally, all along, this narrator has been telling us how reasonable he and his plan are.  We would never expect him to give himself away in the end, and this is exactly what he does.  Although the police seem to suspect nothing, he cries, "'Villains! [...] dissemble no more!  I admit the deed!'"  It is ironic that he confesses without provocation (except for his own terrible heart beat) or coercion because we would not expect most murderers to rat themselves out unless they were already suspected.

What did Peter think when his mom made Fudge lamb chops but didn't make him any in Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing?Why did Peter's mom make him...

Peter thinks it is mean when their mother makes Fudge lamb chops because he isn’t eating and she thinks he’ll eat if she makes him his favorite foods.

When Fudge refuses to eat, the family goes to great lengths to accommodate him.  They even let him eat under the table like a dog.  Fudge’s grandmother tries to trick him into drinking milkshakes by telling him there is a surprise at the bottom.  He drinks the first one and then throws the glass in anger when there is no surprise.

Fudge’s mother even tells Peter to stand on his head to amuse his brother.  Peter learned to stand on his head in gym class, and is proud of it.  Doing it at mealtimes is another story though.

Finally my mother got the brilliant idea of me standing on my head while she fed Fudge. I wasn't very excited about standing on my head in the kitchen. The floor is awfully hard in there. But my mother begged me. She said, "It's very important for Fudge to eat. Please help us, Peter." (Ch. 3) 

It doesn’t work.  Their mother decides to take Fudge to the doctor, but the first one says he will eventually eat.  That was not what she wanted to hear.  Peter says he could have told her that for free.

I guess my mother didn't believe either one of us because she took Fudge to see three more doctors. None of them could find a thing wrong with my brother. One doctor even suggested that my mother cook Fudge his favorite foods. (Ch. 3)

Peter thinks this is mean. The rest of the family has to eat stew, and Fudge was served lamb chops!  He doesn’t eat those either, though.  He says he wants Corn Flakes.  Peter’s mother gives him the chops and gives Fudge cereal.  He doesn’t eat that either, and his father dumps it on his head.  After that, he eats.

Who was the first President of the United States?

The first President of the United States after the Constitution was ratified was George Washington. The Constitution required an election every four years to fill the office of the President and of the Vice President. At that time, there were no limits on the how many terms a president could serve. All presidents, except one, have followed President Washington’s decision to serve only two terms. Franklin D. Roosevelt was the only President to serve more than two terms. He was President during the Great Depression and during World War II. With the passage of the 22nd amendment, a president is now limited to two terms.

In the election of 1788, our people wanted George Washington to run and to be elected as President. The real race was who the Vice President would be. John Adam served as our Vice President during the two terms George Washington was President.

George Washington was our first President to be elected under the Constitution.

What does Macbeth's refusal to return to the room reveal about the conflict?

The fact that Macbeth does not want to go back into the room where he murdered Duncan shows that he is feeling an internal conflict about killing the king.                                                                      

An internal conflict is a conflict a character has within him or herself.  In this case, Macbeth is feeling guilt over having killed the king.  He did not really want to do it, but his wife talked him into it.  Now that it is done, he is especially upset. 

When Macbeth returns with the daggers after killing Duncan, Lady Macbeth tells him to wash his hands because they are all bloody.  Then Lady Macbeth scolds her husband for not leaving the daggers in the chamber with Duncan.  

LADY MACBETH

…

Why did you bring these daggers from the place?
They must lie there: go carry them; and smear
The sleepy grooms with blood.

MACBETH

I'll go no more:
I am afraid to think what I have done;
Look on't again I dare not. (Act 2, Scene 2)

Macbeth refuses to go back because he does not want to look at what he has done.  He is already feeling guilty.  He tells her that he thought he heard one of them call him a murderer.  Never gung-ho about the plan to begin with, Macbeth is really feeling the effects of his actions. 

Although he is able to pull it together and convince everyone that the servants killed Duncan, and the king's sons Malcolm and Donalbain are complicit, things do not get easier for Macbeth.  He has another crisis of conscience when he kills Banquo.  He had Banquo killed because he thought he was suspicious of Macbeth's actions with King Duncan's death, but then at the banquet Banquo was supposed to have attended, he thought he saw his ghost.  It was a manifestation of his guilty conscience.

Macbeth's internal conflict, his guilt and lack of self-confidence, will follow him throughout the play.  It will eventually be his downfall.  First Lady Macbeth, ironically, succumbs to her guilt. She loses her mind.  Macbeth is not far behind.  By the time he is defending his castle against Malcolm, his heart is no longer in it.

What are the themes in Waiting for Godot?

Waiting for Godot, a play written by Samuel Beckett in 1953, finds two characters, Vladimir and Estragon, endlessly waiting for the appearance of Godot, an unseen character who never actually makes an appearance. The English-language version of the play is a translation by Beckett of his French-language play En attendant Godot, which he wrote in 1948.

There are many themes explored throughout Beckett's Waiting for Godot. Here are a few:

Choices: Waiting for Godot portrays two men who find themselves indecisive and unable to make any real choices. Rather than giving up on their wait for Godot, they simply do nothing, unable to decide if they should stop or leave or wait or stay. Consequently, they end up staying and waiting, though it is more a consequence of not choosing than choosing.

The Absurd: Waiting for Godot portrays two men unable to communicate effectively with each other as they attempt to utilize the same language. In many instances, neither one seems able to fully understand the other though they both are speaking English. Many of their actions are also confusing and limited.

Time: For the characters of Waiting for Godot time is irrelevant; it’s not linear. They have difficulties remembering what day it is, what hour it is, how long they’ve been waiting, and how much longer they must continue to wait. They cannot remember events from the previous day, or even days, and continue to pass the time exactly, or nearly exactly, as they did before. For Didi and Gogo, time is inconsequential.

In Chains by Laurie Halse Anderson, what do bees symbolize?

The bees symbolize Isabel's racing and cloudy thoughts.  

When Anderson writes about Isabel and bees in this book, it is always referencing Isabel's state of mind.  Additionally, the bees become a prevalent symbol after Madam Lockton sells Ruth.  

Melancholy held me hostage, and the bees built a hive of sadness in my soul.

Whenever Isabel mentions the bees and their effects, it is always to illustrate how unclearly she is thinking.  The bee symbolism might be because the "bee" activity of her brain is so hectic that she can't think straight.  The bee activity also fills so much of her head that Isabel's thoughts are slowed down.  Anderson also allows the bee activity to be so noisy that Isabel couldn't process any other information coming in.  The bees are simply too noisy and bothersome to Isabel.  

The bees threatened to overtake my mind again, their wings beating quickly. 

When Isabel begins thinking clearly again, Anderson makes a point of telling readers that the bees also fall silent.  This doesn't happen until chapter 26.  Isabel subconsciously hears somebody say that the British can give slaves freedom.  Isabel's brain focuses on that singular thought, and the bees fall silent momentarily, because Isabel does not have a head full of beehive activity.  

"If the British win, we'll all be free."

"Shhh!" several people scolded.

I blinked. The bees in my head fell silent and hugged their wings tight to their bodies.  The British would free us? All of us? 

Why are the details about the way Odysseus's men were lost included in the beginning of The Odyssey? What do readers learn?

In the first few lines of this epic poem, readers learn that Odysseus could not save his men, and they perished through their own fault and not because of him.  Most of them died as a result of eating the sacred cattle of the sun god, Helios, despite the fact that they were warned, many times, to leave the cows alone, no matter what.  One reason I think this information comes up at the very beginning of the text is that one of the poem's most important thematic subjects is humility and showing honor to the gods.  When Odysseus's men fail to obey the warnings about Helios and his cattle, they break a cardinal rule of ancient Greece: always respect to the gods above all else.  This is a theme that runs through the poem from start to finish. 

Who was to blame for Romeo's and Juliet's deaths?

I would argue that their deaths are the fault of their parents.  After all, it is the feud between their parents that initially makes Romeo and Juliet off limits to one another.  If the Capulets and Montagues weren't fighting, their children would likely have been able to be honest about their mutual love.  However, that is not possible because, as they are aware, their families would never accept the relationship. 

Further, Juliet is driven to desperate means due to her parents' threats and demands.  If they were not attempting to force her to marry the County Paris against her will, she would not go to Friar Lawrence's cell begging for his assistance, he would never concoct his plan, and she would never fake her own death, an action that leads to a miscommunication of epic proportion that results in Romeo's suicide by poison, an event that leads to Juliet's suicide by dagger.  Lord Capulet is brutal to his daughter, insisting that he would let her die in the streets before he would ever help her again if she disobeys him.  If he and his wife didn't push Juliet, she would not have taken the drastic measures that resulted in her own and her husband's deaths.

What are the stages of human evolution throughout history?

The history of human evolution is a really complex subject, but I will do my best to answer your question. I encourage you to  have a look at the full scientific classification of humans, beginning with the kingdom Animalia at the most general, and ending with our species, Homo sapiens, at the most specific.

Without going too far, back, let's consider the ways in which Primates (the order we belong to) are different from other mammals. All mammals are warm-blooded (or endothermic) animals which have hair and produce young for their milk. In addition to these features, Primates have some skeletal structures which are well adapted to life spent in the trees. Even our species, which live on the ground, retain some of these features in our forelimbs and cranial morphology because our ancestors were arboreal. In fact, our stereoscopic vision developed as a beneficial adaptation to life in the trees. Stereoscopic vision allows for better depth perception-- in other words, our ancestor species were better able to see and grasp branches in the trees. 

The diversion of Primates from other mammals occurred about 63 to 74 million years ago. Fast forward several million years to about 15 to 20 million years ago, with the emergence of the Hominids. The Hominids, or great apes, are tailless primates, with forward-facing eyes, and downward-facing nostrils. Our "cousins" in the Hominid family are gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and bonobos. Around 8 million years ago, the ancestors of modern humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos diverged from the gorillas. We call this group of chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans the tribe Hominini.

Here's where "we" start to take shape! Around 7 million years ago, humans and chimpanzees started to evolve in their separate directions. Around this time, species like Sahelanthropus tchadensis emerged as the earliest non-Pan (chimpanzee) ancestors of modern humans. Some important changes took place between then and now. First, hominins started leaving the trees! Not altogether, but around 4 or 5 million years ago, our ancestors started spending a lot more time on the ground. We know this from changes in the structure of the skeleton which enabled semi-upright walking, at least for a little while. Changes in diet were happening, too, which we know from the structure of the jaw and teeth. In addition to bugs and fruit from the trees, our ancestors started eating some nuts and grasses. 

Around 3 million years ago, Australopithecines like Australopithecus afarensis began spending more time walking upright on the ground than in the trees. Not much later, our ancestors learned how to control fire and create stone tools. Both of these skills allowed them to begin processing and cooking foods, which offered a higher nutritional reward for their efforts. There emerged a reflexive relationship between stone tool creation and use, brain size, and the development of culture-- when we got better at one, we got better at the others! Some anthropologists believe that it was our new-found ability to process and cook the meat of other animals which really drove the emergence of our own genus, Homo. 

The first of the Homo genus was Homo habilis-- tool-users who lived from about 2.8 to 1.5 million years ago. Later, about 2 million years ago, Homo erectus emerged and began migrating out of Africa, into Europe and Asia. H. erectus is one of our most likely direct ancestors, though there is a lot of variation to take into consideration! Our own species, Homo sapiens, emerged about 200 thousand years ago and co-existed for some time with Homo erectus! However, "modern humans," in the way that we think of ourselves, did not migrate out of Africa until about 60 thousand years ago. 

Since Homo sapiens has been around, we've been pretty busy. For about 50 thousand years, we've been creating art and musical instruments. Around 12 thousand years ago, we began practicing agricultural and developing settlements. Around 5 thousand years ago, we started writing things down, and the rest-- as they say-- is history! 

If you want to learn more about human evolution, check out the Smithsonian's website on Human Origins. They have a lot of great diagrams, timelines, and interactive material to cover our very long story!

How does Catch-22 satirize the absurdity of war and the perspective of justice?

Heller exaggerates the absurdity of his characters' actions, presents war as a battle against one's own side rather than a foreign enemy, and subverts the principles of justice to satirize the nature of war.

The absurdity of war is a major theme throughout Catch-22. While the story takes place during World War II, the real battle of the novel is not between the Allies and the Axis powers but rather with the individual men and their superiors. Throughout the story, the number of flights that the men must fly in order to leave is continually raised, and within that dilemma lies the central paradox:

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to.

The quiet, illogical brilliance of this theme is highlighted throughout in characters such as Aarfy, who leaves his position in the middle of an attack to taunt Yossarian and nearly gets them all killed; and McWatt, who flies too close to the ground for fun and accidentally kills Kid Samson in doing so, only to commit suicide by flying his plane into the side of a mountain. These characters show the dubiously "sane" nature of those who don't mind flying missions. 

The absurdity of war is highlighted further in the command structure of the base itself. The officers constantly angle for promotions by ridiculous and sometimes lethal means: Whitcomb, the chaplain's supposed aide, is so proud of his condolence letters that he hopes men will die to make them more prevalent, and the colonel raises the number of missions in the hope of impressing those above them. The enemy is feared, but the immediate danger is within their midst. 

Justice is mocked frequently. In the course of an unsuccessful bombing run, Yossarian repeats the route to drop the bombs; unable to decide if his actions warrant punishment, he is instead promoted. Similarly, the chaplain is accused of being Washington Irving because he didn't have the same handwriting as the letters. Questioned in a room full of instruments of torture and summarily pronounced guilty (because if he was innocent he wouldn't have ever been thought guilty), the chaplain finds himself let free. These actions so obviously lack any sort of reason that they mock the very notion of justice.

All of these actions work well on their own to satirize the absurdity of war, but Heller heightens the effect by exaggerating the characters' actions to the breaking point. Milo does not merely siphon resources away from the battlefield but begins his own corporation with them and feeds the men like royalty on damask tablecloths with kidnapped skilled Italian waiters; he does not merely make a bad investment but buys the entire crop of Egyptian cotton to no avail. Orr does not merely ask someone to injure him to avoid battle, but convinces a whore to beat him over the top of his head with a heeled shoe until his skull fractured. The characters are caricatures, and as such the absurdity of the novel is heightened.

In The Grapes of Wrath, how can one discuss Jim Casy as a socialist messiah or Christ figure?

Casy's beliefs and actions paint him as Christ-like socialist messiah.

Casy embraces tenets of socialism in how he speaks for those who are economically challenged.  Through his teachings, he represents the socialist idea of power coming from the bottom up. He poses a significant threat to those in the position of economic power. Casy articulates a socialist vision when he speaks of inclusivity, moving away from an economically stratified reality: "’maybe it’s all men an’ all women… all men got one big soul and ever’body a part of. Now I sat there thinkin’ it, and all of a suddent- I knew it. I knew it so deep down it was true, and I still know it.” Casy's socialism is evident in his emphasis of a social order devoid of economic class interests. As he dies, he is labeled a "Red," reflecting how Casy is seen by those in the position of economic power.

Casy understands his role as a leader of people. In doing so, he demonstrates the qualities of a messiah. Casy knows that he has "the call to lead people" and does not forsake his responsibilities of leadership. His final actions, taken in the name of starving children, underscore a messiah-like commitment to his followers.

With the initials of "J.C.," Steinbeck is deliberate in making Casy a messianic, Christ-like figure. When Casy is about to be killed, his words are Christ-like in nature:  "Listen," he said. "You fellas don' know what you're doin'. You're helpin' to starve kids."  ]This is very similar to Jesus's call on the cross that the people who crucified him "know not what they do." Like Jesus, Casy decries material possessions. He is direct in saying that he "never took no collections" when he preached "in barns an' in the open." Casy follows Jesus's example in not valorizing a traditional approach to spiritual identity. In these ways, Steinbeck makes Casy a socialist messiah who is very similar to Jesus Christ.

What are the advantages of release in "The Giver"?

In the novel, there appear to be several advantages to release. However, remember that these so-called advantages can only be viewed through the lens of the novel's dystopian world. In reality, since release constitutes state-sponsored violence against individuals, the advantages of release can be said to be ambivalent at best.

Having said that, I would like to highlight the advantages of release, as portrayed by the novel:

a) The old and the infirm need no longer burden society with their needs. Release will effectively liberate citizens from the responsibility of ensuring the welfare of a large segment of society. As such, the release of an elderly person is considered "a time of celebration for a life well and fully lived."

b) Anyone who breaks the rules three times will be summarily released; this means that there will be virtually no crime to tarnish the peace in this dystopian world.

c) Identical twins can be released without question; usually, the smaller and weaker twin is chosen for release. In this way, society will not need to be burdened with overpopulation.

d) Any "newchild" who does not gain the required weight and who fails to sleep soundly through the night (well enough to be placed with a family unit) can be released. This again means that society will not need to be burdened with the care of children who fail to thrive.

e) Anyone who feels that he/she does not fit in can obtain permission to be released. Those who suffer from extreme  debility can also apply for release. The right to be released allows citizens to decide their fate in the midst of suffering and affliction.

In the short story "The Bet," how does the banker feel about himself at the end of the fifteen years?

In Chekhov's story "The Bet," the banker ends up feeling ashamed of himself. 

At no other time, even when he had lost heavily on the Stock Exchange, had he felt so great a contempt for himself.

The banker has a number of reasons for feeling this way.

• Probably most importantly, he is ashamed of the fact that he had been considering murdering his prisoner in order to get out of paying him the two million roubles he had won and richly deserved. "Poor creature!" thought the banker, "he is asleep and most likely dreaming of the millions. And I have only to take this half-dead man, throw him on the bed, stifle him a little with the pillow, and the most conscientious expert would find no sign of a violent death." The banker had even been planning to allow one of his servants to be blamed for the lawyer's death and most likely sent to Siberia. "If I had the pluck to carry out my intention," thought the old man, "Suspicion would fall first upon the watchman."


• The banker is also ashamed of the fact that money has become such an obsession with him that he can hardly think of anything else. The lawyer's letter in which he renounces the two million roubles serves to make the banker aware of the vast spiritual difference between them. 


• The banker feels responsible for the emaciated condition of his prisoner. After all, it was the banker who initiated the bet fifteen years ago at his big bachelor party. He started the whole thing when he said: "It's not true! I'll bet you two million you wouldn't stay in solitary confinement for five years."


• The banker feels ashamed of being the de facto jailer of a man for fifteen long years in solitary confinement for no real purpose. "And now the banker, walking to and fro, remembered all this, and asked himself: 'What was the object of that bet? What is the good of that man's losing fifteen years of his life and my throwing away two million? Can it prove that the death penalty is better or worse than imprisonment for life? No, no. It was all nonsensical and meaningless. On my part it was the caprice of a pampered man, and on his part simple greed for money ...'"


• No doubt the banker is ashamed of the fact that his prisoner was, in effect, making him a gift of two million roubles when he should have been giving the two million roubles to the prisoner.


• The banker must realize that he was only showing off before his important assembled guests when he offered to bet two million roubles without the prospect of winning anything tangible in return. He is not only ashamed of himself for his present weak and treacherous character, but he is ashamed of the ignorant, vainglorious, materialistic man he was fifteen years before. The lawyer may have lost his youth and health, but the banker has lost his soul. 

The speech “Communists in the State Department,” by Sen. Joseph McCarthy, was delivered _____. after the fall of the Soviet Union at a...

Let me finish the question:  The speech "Communists in the State Department" by Senator Joe McCarthy was delivered at a time when the Soviet Union was America's main rival in the world; you want the second choice out of your answers.  Joe McCarthy was a grandstanding politician who claimed that the State Department was rife with Communist infiltrators and he led a Red Scare in America during the early 1950s.  Remember, America had already had one Red Scare in the early 1920s, and it resulted in trials and deportations of people suspected to be Communists.  After the Soviet Union developed the atomic bomb in 1949, America suspected that the Soviet Union had some spies here.  Communism was also gaining ground in China, North Korea, North Vietnam, and Central America.  There were even rumored Communist takeovers in Greece and France.  McCarthy claimed to have a dossier on several hundred Communists throughout the government and in the media.  He led the investigation on "un-American" activities in Congress, but he was later discredited by president Dwight D. Eisenhower who saw through McCarthy's incendiary tactics.  Eisenhower would never be accused of being a Communist, as he was the general associated with the victory in Europe against the Nazis and had many conservative policies as president.  

`dy/dx = 5 - 8x` Solve the differential equation

`(dy)/dx=5-8x`

This differential equation is separable since it has a form

• 
  `N(y) (dy)/dx=M(x)`

And, it can be re-written as

• 
  `N(y) dy = M(x) dx`

So separating the variables, the equation becomes

`dy=(5-8x)dx`

Integrating both sides, it result to

`int dy = int (5-8x)dx`

`y + C_1 = 5x - (8x^2)/2 + C_2`

`y+ C_1 = 5x - 4x^2 + C_2`

Isolating the y, it becomes

`y = 5x - 4x^2 + C_2 -C_1`

Since C2 and C1 are constants, it can be expressed as a single constant C.

`y=5x-4x^2+C`

`y=-4x^2 + 5x + C`

Therefore, the general solution of the given differential equation is `y=-4x^2 + 5x + C` .

In the book Riding Freedom by Pam Munoz Ryan, how would you describe Charlotte's character traits?

Pam Muñoz Ryan’s young adult novel Riding Freedom, illustrated by Brian Selznick, tells the story of Charlotte Parkhurst, growing up in a New Hampshire boys’ orphanage in the mid-1800s. Charlotte rebels against her society’s traditional gender roles. When she is told she can’t ride horses because she is a girl, she runs away to Worcester, Massachusetts where she takes a job as a stable hand under the pseudonym Charley.

Charlotte’s character development begins with her infancy. She proves herself to be resilient, recovering from illness and surviving the wagon accident that claimed her parents’ lives. Even Charlotte’s doctor comments that she is as "determined as a mule and tough as a rawhide bone." This strength and rugged individuality persist as Charlotte gets older, exemplified by her bold choice to run away from the security of the orphanage and on her own face a world she has learned limits choices for women. Charlotte lives as “Charley” in order to fulfill her dreams. She becomes a skilled stagecoach driver. Charlotte shows perseverance, continuing to pursue her goals by taking an opportunity to work in the California gold fields and not giving up even after a serious injury leaves her blind in one eye. When Charlotte grows up, she fulfills her dream of becoming a land owner and becomes the first woman to cast a vote in a presidential election, 52 years prior to women gaining the legal right to vote.

The characterization of Charlotte contributes to this book’s themes of determination and independence. Ryan’s novel encourages young readers to pursue their dreams, regardless of their gender or others’ expectations.

In Tangerine by Edward Bloor, what is Paul's reaction to Mike Costello's death?

You can review this scene if you open the book to about 1/6 of the way in, then look for the chapter titled "Tuesday, September 5." You can see there how Paul's reaction to Mike's sudden death is very normal, involving shock, disbelief, and caring concern for Mike's family. Understanding Paul's reaction, and contrasting it with Erik's reaction, is a good way to understand how Erik's is vicious and inappropriate. Let's consider the details:

Paul's very first reaction to Mike's death, when he hears about it, is a motionless state of shock. Paul stands perfectly still, staring at his brother Erik who'd just revealed the news; even though Paul is holding heavy grocery bags, he doesn't set them down or move to carry them into the house. Instead, he remains speechless and motionless while his mom struggles to speak to Erik; she's trying to wrap her mind around the concept that a boy who had just visited the Fisher home had been suddenly killed by a lightning strike on the football field.

When Paul gets over his initial shock, his next reaction to Mike's death is to ask his mother if she thinks it would be a good idea to call Joey. Joey is Mike's brother, and a close friend of Paul's. But at his mother's suggestion, Paul waits. It's better to not disturb that family while they're probably in a state of severe shock themselves, she implies, and Paul silently agrees.

After a few more minutes pass, Paul's reaction to Mike's death starts to focus on Erik and Arthur. How could they possibly be laughing about how Mike died, and about how Mike's little brother lost control of himself as a result? Paul's emotional state now is disgust and anger.

Why did the Vikings settle in Britain? Is it because they had travelled such a long way?

To answer this question, we need to look at the situation in the Vikings' homelands. According to the historian, Dr Anna Ritchie, fertile land was in short supply across Scandinavia, especially in Norway, thanks to the cold and harsh climate as well as a growing population. In contrast, Britain had a warmer, more favourable climate for farming, coupled with a wealth of fertile land. This prompted many Vikings to travel across the sea. Being established in Britain also made raiding easier: a Viking raider could support himself through farming and trade and then raid towns whenever the need arose. (See the first reference link provided).

This idea is also supported by the actions of Halfdan Ragnarsson, one of the commanders of the Great Heathen Army which conquered much of England in the ninth century. In 876, Halfdan became the ruler of a vast area in Northumbria and rewarded his men by granting them parcels of land to farm. (See the second reference link provided).

Is the McCulloch v. Maryland case still revelant?

The McCulloch v Maryland case is still relevant today. This case, decided by the Supreme Court in 1819, said that it was legal for the national bank to exist. The Supreme Court also ruled that the states couldn’t tax the national bank. It also said that a loose view of the Constitution was legal.

This case is relevant for several reasons. The federal government does many things that aren’t expressly mentioned in the Constitution. For example, the Social Security program and the Medicare program are government programs that aren’t mentioned in the Constitution. During the Great Depression, there were several government programs that created jobs. The Constitution doesn’t specifically mention that the federal government can create programs that employ people. A loose view of the Constitution means a person or the government can do anything unless the Constitution specifically prevents that action from happening. The actions of the government would be significantly restricted if a loose view of the Constitution wasn’t allowed.

The Federal Reserve Act passed by Congress created the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve System deals closely with our nation’s banks. If the McCulloch v Maryland decision went the other way, we possibly would not have a national banking system. The Federal Reserve might not exist today.

This decision is still very relevant today.

Why is Jordan Baker from The Great Gatsby considered a strong woman in literature?

Jordan Baker is considered a strong woman in part because she earns her living independently as a professional golf player. This type of independence was rare in the 1920s. Jordan looks very much like an athlete, and is described as having a "slender golden arm" (48). She spends most of her time outside playing golf, and she doesn't have the soft or pampered look of women who aren't as physical. Nick describes her as having a "bored haughty face," and he realizes that, much like a stereotypical male, she is not above lying to get what she wants (63). She lies about leaving the top of a borrowed car open in the rain, and Nick then remembers he heard a rumor that she moved a ball during a golf tournament. Unlike most women in literature, Jordan is portrayed as emotionally hard and unsentimental, and it's clear she does not need a man around to be happy. Many women in literature are identified by their romantic or maternal connections to others, but not Jordan. In this sense, she is stronger than many other female literary figures. 

What were the consequences of the Indian wars for American power and for the Native Americans?

The United States and the Native Americans had many conflicts. Going back to the early days of our new country, the Native Americans and our government fought each other. In the Battle of Fallen Timbers, Anthony Wayne defeated the Native Americans, causing the Native Americans to give up land and move westward. This would become a common theme for the Native Americans.

In the 1830s, the Native Americans were forced from many of their lands east of the Mississippi River. In what has become known as the Trail of Tears, many Native Americans were relocated to lands west of the Mississippi River.

In the time period from 1860-1890, the United States Army fought many battles with the Native Americans. While the Native Americans won some of these battles, with the Battle of Little Bighorn being one of them, more often than not the Native Americans were defeated and were then forced onto reservations. The Native Americans had their way of life disrupted yet again.

For the most part, the United States grew stronger as a result of fighting the Native Americans. On the other hand, the Native Americans suffered many casualties, lost power, and were forced to live on reservations as a result of the battles with our military in the 1800s.

How are women in The Odyssey and Romeo and Juliet similar?

Some parallels can be drawn between Anticlea, Odysseus's mother in The Odyssey, and Juliet, Romeo's wife in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet.  Each of these women has to deal with the men they love being forced to leave home.  Anticlea understands the sacrifice her son must make when he is told that he must leave to fight the Trojans.  When he doesn't return for over a decade, she believes that he must be dead, and, the grief too much to bear, she takes her own life.  Similarly, Juliet has to deal with the heartbreak of Romeo's banishment from Verona.  And of course, in the end, when she realizes Romeo is dead, she, like Anticlea, takes her own life.  Each of these women commit suicide because they cannot deal with the idea of a life without their loved one. 

Two other women who share similar traits are the Nurse from The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, and Eurycleia, the loyal servant in The Odyssey.  These elderly women act as nurturers, advisers, and loyal confidantes.  Eurycleia is a female servant who nursed both Odysseus and his son, Telemachus, when they were babies.  Faithfully, she keeps Telemachus's journey secret from Penelope.  When Odysseus finally returns home in disguise, Eurycleia recognizes the scar on his leg, but she doesn't give him away.  The Nurse in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet plays a very similar role.  She acts as the trusted adviser to Juliet.  When Juliet meets, falls in the love with, and secretly marries Romeo, a boy whose last name is supposed to make him her mortal enemy, the Nurse keeps Juliet's secrets from Lord and Lady Capulet.  She even assists the two lovers in their secret conversations and meetups.  It is clear that Eurycleia and the Nurse both play an important supportive role to the main characters. 

What is the meadow behind Scout's house called in To Kill a Mockingbird?

The meadow is called Deer’s Pasture. 

The meadow called Deer’s Pasture is significant for its proximity to the Radley house.  Obviously any kind of meadow would be fun to play in generally, but since Dill, Scout, and Jem spend summers trying to get Boo Radley to come out, it is important.  They do not ever mention any actual deer, but the pasture is probably named after earlier days when there were some. 

We ran across the schoolyard, crawled under the fence to Deer’s Pasture behind our house, climbed our back fence and were at the back steps before Jem would let us pause to rest. (Ch. 6) 

The children spend a lot of time on Sundays “creeping around” in Deer’s Pasture.  It is significant because of its location near the Radley’s house.  The children have to cross through it.  The school’s playground adjoins the meadow, and the Radley’s house. 

The meadow is mentioned when Jem loses his pants.  Over Scout's objections, he goes back to get them at night.  Scout is afraid that he is going to be shot prowling around the Radley house, because Nathan Radley would think it was an intruder.

He went the back way, through Deer’s Pasture, across the schoolyard and around to the fence, I thought—at least that was the way he was headed. It would take longer, so it was not time to worry yet. I waited until it was time to worry and listened for Mr. Radley’s shotgun. (Ch. 6)

It turns out that Boo Radley stitched up the pants, which was unexpected.  It is one of the many times Boo Radley tries to look out for the children there.  Of course it is really a very good thing that he does, because when Scout and Jem are coming home at night after the pageant, Boo is able to rescue them from Bob Ewell.

What is the meaning of Harrison and the ballerina being shot down by Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General?

The meaning of Diana Moon Glampers' cold-blooded action is that insubordination will not be tolerated. Everyone is required to be equal, whether it is desired or not, and all infractions will be severely punished. The cold-blooded murder of Harrison and the ballerina represents the dangers of allowing a government to force equality on an unsuspecting and defenseless populace.

In Harrison Bergeron's world, no one is allowed to be "smarter than anybody else" or "better-looking than anybody else." Thus, Harrison's attempt to exert his individuality is summarily punished. As an enemy of the state, Harrison is in a dangerous position. He rejects the wearing of handicaps that are a requirement for someone as good-looking and physically gifted as he is. In the story, he is described as a "genius and an athlete."

Towards the end of the story, Harrison relinquishes the thick glasses, massive earphones, and the scrap metal he has always been required to wear. As he dances and swirls about the floor with the ballerina, Harrison revels in his freedom. Alas, his happiness is short-lived. Both Harrison and his dancing partner are fatally shot by Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper-General. Diana's brutal action represents the danger of allowing a government to enforce its own vision of equality on its defenseless citizens.

What does Mae Tuck mean when she says, "Well, boys, here it is. The worst is happening at last"?

The quote in question appears at the very end of chapter five. A lot happens during this chapter. It starts with Winnie Foster testing out her idea of running away. She goes off to explore the woods near her house, and she is startled to see a boy drinking from a small spring. The boy is Jesse Tuck. Jesse and Winnie engage in some small talk, and Winnie eventually asks Jesse if the spring water is good to drink. Jesse is immediately on guard and tries to explain that Winnie should not drink from the spring. 

"Believe me, Winnie Foster," said Jesse, "it would be terrible for you if you drank any of this water. Just terrible. I can't let you."

Winnie is persistent, though, and she keeps trying to take a drink. Jesse knows he's in real trouble in the current situation. He simply doesn't know what else to do.

It's at this moment that Mae and Miles Tuck show up at the spring. Jesse is relieved they are there because they can help deter Winnie. Mae quickly takes in the situation and realizes what has happened.

And at once, when she saw the two of them, Jesse with his foot on the pile of pebbles and Winnie on her knees beside him, she seemed to understand. Her hand flew to her bosom, grasping at the old brooch that fastened her shawl, and her face went bleak. "Well, boys," she said, "here it is. The worst is happening at last."

What Mae Tuck means is that her family's worst fear has just happened. Somebody else has discovered the spring. If it were a normal spring, that wouldn't be a big deal, but the spring grants the person who drinks from it immortality. The Tucks know the spring is both a blessing and a curse, and they do not want knowledge of it spreading around.

Where was Oliver taken in Oliver Twist?

Oliver was taken to Fagin’s den in London.

Oliver actually gets taken a lot of places throughout the book.  He is taken from the workhouse to the undertaker, where he is supposed to be apprenticed.  When he runs away, he is taken by Dodger to Fagin.  He is taken home by Brownlow, then taken back to Fagin, and then taken to Brownlow’s house to rob it by Sikes.

The most significant taking of Oliver is when Dodger takes him to London.  Oliver has no idea what he is in for.  Dodger tells him that he has a friend who can take him in.

This unexpected offer of shelter was too tempting to be resisted; especially as it was immediately followed up, by the assurance that the old gentleman referred to, would doubtless provide Oliver with a comfortable place, without loss of time. (Ch. 8)

Fagin is not what Oliver expected.  It turns out he is not just a man who looks kindly after little boys.  He has plenty of little boys in his employ, but he uses them as pickpockets.  Oliver has no idea at first.   He thinks that the boys make their own handkerchiefs and pocketbooks.  The first time he is used to steal something, he gets caught.  Fortunately, Brownlow feels sorry for him and takes him home.

Oliver would have been in a great situation with Brownlow, but Fagin had other ideas.  Oliver’s half-brother Monks had asked Fagin to make a thief of Oliver.   This would make him unrespectable.  Monks is not thrilled that Fagin does not succeed.

"I tell you again, it was badly planned. Why not have kept him here among the rest, and made a sneaking, snivelling pickpocket of him at once?" (Ch. 26)

Oliver is innately good, and it seems that no matter what circumstances he ends up in, this will not change.  Fagin is unable to corrupt him.  Eventually, he goes back to Brownlow and the secret of his parentage, which Monks did not want anyone to know, is revealed.

`sinh^2(x) = (-1+cosh(2x))/2` Verify the identity.

`sinh^2(x) = (-1+cosh(2x))/2`

proof:

LHS=>

`sinh^2(x) =(( e^x - e^(-x))/2)^2 `

= `((e^x - e^(-x))^2)/4`

= `((e^x)^2 - 2e^x e^(-x) + (e^-x)^2)/4`

= `(e^(2x) + e^(-2x )- 2)/4`

 =` (-2 + e^(2x) + e^(-2x))/4 `

 = `((-2 + e^(2x) + e^(-2x))/2)/2`

= `(-1 + (e^(2x) + e^(-2x))/2)/2 `

= `(-1 + cosh 2x)/2 `

= RHS

as LHS=RHS

so,

`sinh^2(x) = (-1+cosh(2x))/2`

In The Great Gatsby, how would the novel be different through Tom or Daisy’s eyes? How do you think their view of America would differ from...

If the novel were told from Tom or Daisy's perspective, it would certainly lack the sense of disillusionment that Nick's narration possesses.  Tom and Daisy are so entitled, so self-centered that they would certainly fail to represent anyone other than themselves as sympathetic.  Nick feels tremendous sympathy for Gatsby and recognizes that Gatsby possessed an innocence that no one else in the novel does.  Further, Nick also sympathizes, to a differing degree, with Myrtle Wilson, the woman who'd been having an affair with Tom before Daisy accidentally killed her with Gatsby's car (and then let Gatsby take the blame for it), as well as George Wilson, a hard-working man who is just trying to make enough money so that he and his wife can go west and be happy.  He ends up dead as well.  If the novel were narrated by either Tom or Daisy, it would present these three people in a much less sympathetic light and focus, instead, on how Daisy and Tom feel victimized.

Gatsby, George, and Myrtle are all, in some ways, victims of the Buchanans' carelessness.  As Nick says,

"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness [...]." 

Nick recognizes that they are incredibly entitled, even though Daisy and Tom think of themselves as victims.  Tom is worried about the "white race" being "utterly submerged" and Daisy is too busy feeling sorry for herself and her "cynic[ism] about everything" to even think about others' feelings. They lack Gatsby's innocence, George Wilson's determination, and Myrtle Wilson's hope. These are not perfect people, but they do not possess the Buchanans' sense of entitlement and recklessness concerning human life and dreams. 

Tom and Daisy's view of America would be much more positive than Nick's. They would have no sense of how hard some people have to work for so little, no idea that it is possible for hard work not to be linked to prosperity. Nick's disillusionment with post-war America would be lost.

In "The Red-Headed League" by Arthur Conan Doyle, what complaint does Jabez Wilson make about his assistant Vincent Spaulding?

Jabez Wilson seems generally pleased with his new assistant, but he has one complaint.

“Oh, he has his faults, too,” said Mr. Wilson. “Never was such a fellow for photography. Snapping away with a camera when he ought to be improving his mind, and then diving down into the cellar like a rabbit into its hole to develop his pictures. That is his main fault, but on the whole he's a good worker. There's no vice in him.”

It is ironic that Wilson says "There's no vice in him," when it turns out that his assistant is just about the most dangerous criminal in all of Britain. Wilson does not realize that he has inadvertently given Sherlock Holmes a clue which would seem to explain a good deal about the Red-Headed League and the assistant's willingness to come to work in Wilson's pawn shop for half wages. This man who calls himself Vincent Spaulding likes this location because he is digging a tunnel. Before Holmes and Watson ever go to inspect the area around Wilson's place of business in Saxe Coburg Square, the detective has decided that Vincent Spaulding is really the notorious criminal John Clay and that he must be planning to tunnel into some nearby building to commit a burglary. When Holmes sees the local branch of the City and Suburban Bank, he is sure that must be Clay's objective. Holmes has also decided, as he later tells Watson, that Clay must have invented the Red-Headed League in order to get his employer out of the way for four hours a day, six days a week, so that he and his accomplice could devote all that time to digging their tunnel.

Arthur Conan Doyle designs his character Jabez Wilson in such a way that there should be no probability of his ever deciding to venture down into his own cellar out of curiosity to see what his assistant is up to. When Watson first sees him he describes him as follows:

I HAD CALLED upon my friend, Mr. Sherlock Holmes, one day in the autumn of last year and found him in deep conversation with a very stout, florid-faced elderly gentleman with fiery red hair.

Wilson is both elderly and very stout. His physical condition would prevent him from venturing down a steep set of wooden steps into a dark cellar and having to climb back up again. The fact that he is "florid-faced" suggests that he has high blood pressure and could risk having a stroke. Furthermore, he is shown to be a heavy snuff-user. At one point Conan Doyle shows Wilson engaged in his bad habit.

“Your experience has been a most entertaining one,” remarked Holmes as his client paused and refreshed his memory with a huge pinch of snuff. “Pray continue your very interesting statement.”

Snuff is a finely ground tobacco which is inhaled rather than smoked. Like all tobacco, it ought to have a debilitating effect on the user's heart and lungs. It is a good thing for Wilson that he never did go down into his cellar while his assistant was "developing his photographs." Wilson would have found a tunnel in progress and mounds of dirt all over the floor, and John Clay would not have hesitated to murder his employer with a shovel and bury him in his own cellar.

Jabez Wilson is an excellent example of how a good fiction writer can fashion a character to suit the needs of his plot.

What are the elements of Wayang Kulit?

Wayang kulit refers to the art of Indonesian puppet theater, which originated on Java but spread to every other Indonesian island. The term wayang kulit can also refer to puppets that are made of flat leather and illuminated from behind, in contrast to the three-dimensional, wooden puppets called wayang klitik or golek. The puppets have costumes, facial features, and body parts controlled by thin wooden sticks. Wayang kulit can be used as social commentary through criticism of the archetypal "ordinary person," a common character in puppet shows. Other common themes include retelling indigenous Indonesian myths, or borrowing characters from Indian and Persian epics. Traditional wayang kulit utilized complex music, but in order to compete with modern art forms and media, many modern puppet shows include popular music instead, as well as incorporating more comedy and less social critique.

What is the conflict between the mother and narrator in "Two Kinds" by Amy Tan?

The conflict between Jing Mei and her mother stems from the latter's need to turn her daughter into a prodigy of sorts.

As the text tells us, Jing Mei's mother is focused on her mission to make Jing Mei a piano prodigy. This becomes a point of conflict between the two. While Jing Mei's mother thinks making her daughter into a star (on par with Shirley Temple) is the right thing to do, Jing Mei isn't so sure. She feels pressured by her mother and resents the need to put on an obedient front before relatives and the larger Chinese-American community.

Jing Mei just wants to be herself and be allowed to choose her own path in life. Thus, her mother's simultaneous need to keep up the family's reputation and to compel unquestioning obedience is seen as oppressing to her. In the end, Jing Mei rebels by playing horribly in a piano recital; in the aftermath of the disastrous performance, Jing Mei engages in an emotionally charged argument with her mother. She accuses her mother of not accepting her and expecting her to be something she's not.

Jing Mei's final words during the argument decide the result of the conflict, but it proves to be an unsatisfying victory. By cruelly referencing her mother's dead babies from her first marriage, Jing Mei manages to hurt her mother as well as to dispirit her. She reports the piano lessons stopped soon after, and she stopped playing the piano entirely. It is years before Jing Mei realizes the faith her mother had in her in that conflict-ridden period of her youth.