What role does pride play in the deaths of Mercutio and Tybalt?

Pride is one of the major reasons for the deaths of Mercutio and Tybalt. In Act I, Scene 5, Tybalt's pride is hurt when Lord Capulet stops him from challenging Romeo at the party. Tybalt overhears Romeo, who is wearing a mask, talking about Juliet, and becomes enraged, calling for his sword. Lord Capulet intercepts him and refuses to allow him to engage Romeo and even says that Verona speaks of Romeo as a "well-governed youth." This obviously does not satisfy Tybalt, who is not a patient man and believes that the "intrusion" will only cause him to become angry again later:

Patience perforce with willful choler meeting
Makes my flesh tremble in their different greeting.
I will withdraw, but this intrusion shall,
Now seeming sweet, convert to bitt’rest gall.

Later in Act II, Benvolio reports that Tybalt has sent a letter to Romeo's house demanding satisfaction and challenging Romeo. Meanwhile, Romeo is preparing to marry Juliet, Tybalt's cousin, setting up the events of Act III, Scene 1.

In this scene it is Mercutio whose pride works against him. Despite Benvolio's warnings, Mercutio remains in the street when the Capulets enter. Tybalt asks about Romeo, which only draws insults from Mercutio as he flourishes his sword. When Romeo shows up, because he has just been married, he immediately backs down to Tybalt and even tells him that he loves him:

I do protest I never injured thee
But love thee better than thou canst devise
Till thou shalt know the reason of my love.
And so, good Capulet, which name I tender
As dearly as mine own, be satisfied.

Mercutio cannot take it. His pride is hurt as he believes that his best friend is backing down to a hated Capulet. He promptly steps into the fray and, noting Romeo's seeming cowardice, challenges Tybalt to a fight:

O calm, dishonorable, vile submission!
Alla stoccato carries it away. [He draws.]
Tybalt, you ratcatcher, will you walk?

As the two fight, Romeo jumps into the middle and Mercutio is fatally wounded. Even the wound, however, does not stop Mercutio from demonstrating his ability with words and his pride as he condemns the Montagues and Capulets:

I am hurt.
A plague o’ both your houses! I am sped.

Following the stabbing, Tybalt flees, but pride seemingly brings him back to the scene and he and Romeo fight, with Tybalt falling. Had Mercutio and Tybalt listened to Benvolio's warning to either withdraw or "reason coldly," they would have survived. Instead, they let their masculine pride overcome common sense.

What was the brief history given by the housekeeper regarding the blood-stain?

In Chapter One of "The Canterville Ghost," Mrs Otis, one of the new tenants of Canterville Chase, spots a "dull red stain" on the floor of the library. This prompts Mrs Umney, the housekeeper, to reveal that the stain is, in fact, human blood and that it was spilt under horrifying circumstances.

According to Mrs Umney, the stain dates back to 1575 when Lady Eleanore was murdered on "that very spot" by Sir Simon de Canterville, her husband. Mrs Umney does not reveal the motive for the murder, but she goes on to say that Sir Simon died nine years after his wife, in 1584, in "very mysterious circumstances" and that his body was never found.

Finally, because the stain cannot be removed, Mrs Umney notes that the blood-stain has become a very popular sight among tourists and visitors to the house and that the "guilty" spirit of Sir Simon still haunts Canterville Chase.

In what ways did Hamlet manage his identity? For what purposes? How did he present both private as well as public identities?

Hamlet manages his public identity by pretending to be mad.  He tells Horatio that he is going to act insane in public so as to deflect any possible suspicion that Claudius might feel as Hamlet goes about his investigations into his father's death.  He then proceeds to act like a mad person in front of Claudius, his uncle and step-father and the man he believes murdered his father, as well as Polonius, Claudius's closest advisor, because he doesn't trust either one. 

He also begins to act crazily in front of Ophelia, his former lover, because she is the daughter of Polonius; she has taken her father's instruction and distanced herself from Hamlet, the man who genuinely loves her.  Hamlet seems to feel somewhat betrayed by her treatment of him, but it is also possible that he wants to protect her from whatever fallout might occur as a result of his investigations into Claudius, and so he keeps the distance between them as a way of keeping her safe from the king. 

Privately, however, with Horatio, Hamlet's best friend and the only person he really trusts anymore, he is the same as he ever was: clever, witty, thoughtful, and so on.  This is one of the ways the reader knows that the persona he presents to the rest of the characters is, in fact, an act.

The base of a triangular prism is a right triangle with hypotenuse 10 m long and one leg 6 m long. If the height of the prism is 12 m, what is the...

Hello!

For a prism its volume `V` is `S*H,` where `S` is the area of a base and `H` is the height of a prism. `H=12 m` is given so it is sufficient to find `S.`

A base is a right triangle, its area may be computed as `1/2 L_1*L_2,` where `L_1` and `L_2` are the lengths of the legs. Also denote the length of the hypotenuse as `G.`

One leg, `L_1=6 m,` is given, and we can find the second by the Pythagorean theorem: `L_2 = sqrt(G^2 - L_1^2) = sqrt(10^2-6^2) = sqrt(64) = 8 (m).`

Thus the formula is `V=1/2 H*L_1*sqrt(G^2 - L_1^2).` In numbers it is `1/2*12*6*8 = 288 (m^3).` This is the answer.

What are the differences between Maniac Magee and Grayson in Jerry Spinelli's Maniac Magee?

The biggest difference between Maniac and Grayson is that Manic is a kid and Grayson is an old man.  Despite this, the two become good friends.  Grayson also does not know how to read, something very important to Maniac, so Maniac teaches him.  Finally, a person’s skin color means nothing to Maniac, but Grayson marvels at Manaic’s staying with the Beales. 

Grayson is an ex-baseball player.  He is now the groundskeeper at the zoo.  Grayson is a kind soul.  He finds Maniac sleeping in the buffalo pen and decides to take care of him.  Although the two are very different, they have in common their love of baseball and that they are good people. 

When Maniac tells Grayson that he does not go to school, Grayson does not object.  He is surprised to learn that Maniac was living with a black family.  He even checks to make sure that Maniac really is white, because he is very dirty when Grayson first sees him. 

Grayson stared out the diner window, as if digesting this information. "How 'bout meatloaf?"

"Huh?"

"They eat that, too?"

"Sure, meatloaf too. And peas. And corn. You name it."

"Cake?"

Maniac beamed. "Oh, man! You kidding! Mrs. Beale makes the best cakes in the world." (Ch. 24) 

Grayson is not a racist, he is just an old man set in his ways.  Things are the way they are, and he never thought to question them.  Unlike Maniac, he does not really associate with people of other races.  Maniac shows him that race really is not a big deal.  The Beales are just like any white family.

Maniac also teaches Grayson to read.  The old man never really got a chance, but Maniac is a patient and gentle teacher and he makes good progress.  In this way, Grayson soon comes to like books as much as Maniac does.

What is the role of music in Steinbeck's novel The Pearl?

Kino imagines the songs of his people in his head.  They are not real songs, but they are the soundtrack that make up the mood of what is happening to him.  He explains that his people used to sing a lot of songs. 

His people had once been great makers of songs so that everything they saw or thought or did or heard became a song. That was very long ago. … In Kino's head there was a song now, clear and soft, and if he had been able to speak of it, he would have called it the Song of the Family. (Ch. 1) 

Kino’s songs fit what is happening to him.  The Song of the Family is the domestic ritual.  He is feeling calm.  Every morning his wife Juana makes breakfast and takes care of their little boy Coyotito, and Kino feels happy.  He hears the “rhythm of the family song” in their everyday activity.

Other songs are not nearly as pleasant.  There is the Song of Evil, which Kino hears when the scorpion threatens his son.

And then the startled look was gone from him and the rigidity from his body. In his mind a new song had come, the Song of Evil, the music of the enemy, of any foe of the family, a savage, secret, dangerous melody, and underneath, the Song of the Family cried plaintively. (Ch. 1) 

The Song of Evil and the Song of the Enemy are based on Kino’s need to protect his family.  He hears the Song of the Enemy when he is feeling angry and helpless, and he smashes the scorpion to bits.  Juana is the one who saved the baby, however. 

Kino says that their people “had sung of everything that happened or existed.”  This is why he hears the Song of the Pearl while looking for a pearl.  The pearls he is looking for are his way of feeding his family.  The one he finds is very large, and he is thrilled.  

In the story "Charles," by Shirley Jackson, what are three character traits that describe Laurie?

Laurie is violent.  Many of the things he is described as doing seem to be incredibly violent for a kindergartener.  Laurie does not seem to care that he is hurting others, but he seems to want to tell his parents about it.  If they realized what he was doing, they would be shocked.

Quote 1

The next day Laurie remarked at lunch, as soon as he sat down, “Well, Charles was bad again today.” He grinned enormously and said, “Today Charles hit the teacher.”

This shows that Laurie is violent because he hit his teacher, and does not seem to care that he got spanked for it.  He says he hit her because “she tried to make him color with red crayons.”

Quote 2

The third day—it was Wednesday of the first week—Charles bounced a see-saw on to the head of a little girl and made her bleed, and the teacher made him stay inside all during recess.

The fact that a little boy would hit a little girl with a see-saw is terrible.  I can’t imagine being Laurie’s teacher!

Laurie is defiant.  A lot of Laurie’s misbehavior is just defiant.  He refuses to do what he has been told do to, and he does things that he knows he should not do.  This is attention-seeking behavior.

Quote 1

“You know what Charles did?” he demanded, following me through the door. “Charles yelled so in school they sent a boy in from first grade to tell the teacher she had to make Charles keep quiet, and so Charles had to stay after school. And so all the children stayed to watch him.”

This quote shows that Laurie is defiant because he yelled and didn’t listen to the teacher.  He also does not seem to care about being held after school.  He probably made up the story of everyone staying to explain why he was late.

Quote 2

Laurie describes his reaction to the teacher’s “friend,” who came to show the class exercises.

“Charles didn’t even do exercises.”

“That’s fine,” I said heartily. “Didn’t Charles want to do exercises?”

“Naaah,” Laurie said. “Charles was so fresh to the teacher’s friend he wasn’t let do exercises.”

This quote demonstrates that Laurie would not even listen to other people who came into class. He was also violent again, kicking the man who tried to make him exercise.

Laurie is inventive.  After all, Charles is not real.  Laurie made him up to cover up his behavior. He wanted to tell his parents that he was getting in trouble at school, but did not want to own up to it.  He invented Charles so he could talk about what happened in a safe way.

Quote 1

Laurie makes up a description of Charles.

“He’s bigger than me,” Laurie said. “And he doesn’t have any rubbers and he doesn’t ever wear a jacket.”

Charles is even defiant in the description!  He doesn’t have rubbers or a jacket, like Laurie probably does.

Quote 2

Laurie’s mother asks the teacher about Charles.

“Yes,” I said, laughing, “you must have your hands full in that kindergarten, with Charles.” “Charles?” she said.

“We don’t have any Charles in the kindergarten.”

This is where we find out, along with Laurie’s mother, that Charles doesn’t exist.  Laurie made him up.  It is obvious from the teacher’s reaction to Laurie’s mother that the behaviors are real, but it was Laurie and not Charles who was doing them.  Laurie's teacher says he had trouble adjusting to kindergarten.

`log_b(27) = 3` Solve for x or b

`log_b (27) = 3`

To solve, convert this to exponential equation.

Take note that if a logarithmic equation is in the form

`y = log_b (x)`

its equivalent exponential equation is:

`x = b^y`

So converting

`log_b (27) = 3`

to exponential equation, it becomes:

`27 = b^3`

Then, factor the left side.

`3^3 = b^3`

And isolate the b by taking the cube root of both sides.

`root(3)(3^3)=root(3)(b^3)`

`3=b`

Therefore, `b = 3` .

How does Atticus Finch demonstrate courage despite the consequences in the novel To Kill a Mockingbird?

Atticus Finch is the novel's most morally upright individual, and he courageously defends Tom Robinson in front of a prejudiced jury. Atticus knows he has no chance of winning the case because he is facing a racist jury whose members are prejudiced against African Americans. In the 1930s, the black community was discriminated against and segregated from the white community in the Deep South. When Uncle Jack asks Atticus how bad the upcoming trial will be, Atticus says,

It couldn't be worse, Jack. The only thing we've got is a black man's word against the Ewells'. The evidence boils down to you-did—I-didn't. The jury couldn't possibly be expected to take Tom Robinson's word against the Ewells' (Lee 55).

Atticus goes on to say he wouldn't be able to face his children if he did not take the case. Atticus understands the importance of doing the right thing, even if he has no chance of winning the case. When Scout asks her father why he is still going to defend Tom when he has no chance of winning, Atticus says, "Simply because we were licked a hundred years before we started is no reason for us not to try to win" (Lee 48).

Atticus displays courage by valiantly defending Tom Robinson, despite the community's criticism and prejudiced jury.

Can you describe Leafy Crawford from Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston?

In Their Eyes Were Watching God, Leafy Crawford is Janie's mother.  Leafy is mixed race, as Nanny was raped by the slave master in charge of her plantation.  Throughout Leafy's childhood, Nanny tried to protect her and give her a life that was better than the one Nanny had.  So Nanny runs away with Leafy from the plantation and finds a place to live in west Florida.  When Leafy becomes a teenager, Nanny has dreams that Leafy will become a school teacher; however, Leafy is raped by her own teacher and becomes pregnant with Janie.  The man is never charged because he runs away, and once Janie is born, Nanny is left in charge of raising the girl.  Leafy turns to alcohol to deal with her hardships and eventually runs off herself.  Janie knows little about her mother as a person.

What is the plot of "Charles" by Shirley Jackson?

The basic plot of Shirley Jackson's short story, "Charles," is as follows: 

Laurie is a boy who is beginning kindergarten. His mother is the narrator of this story. Laurie comes home with stories about what a boy in his class has done nearly every day. The boy's name is Charles. Charles hits the teacher, bangs the see-saw onto the head of a classmate, and throws chalk, among many other socially unacceptable deeds. 

Laurie's parents begin to wonder about the type of influence Charles is with their son. Laurie's father states that it's better for him to learn now rather than later how to deal with these things, because there are bound to be people like Charles in the world. 

All the while, Laurie is showing behaviors at home that mirror Charles's behavior. He yells loudly more than once, spills his baby sister's milk, and speaks insolently to his father. One example of this is when he says "Hi pop, y'old dust mop." 

For a short time, Laurie reports that Charles's behavior improves, but soon he is back to his old antics. He tells a girl to say an evil word in class, and she does. Then, Charles becomes bold enough to say the word himself. 

Laurie's mother attends the PTA meeting and is desperate to meet Charles's mother. Laurie's father asks his wife to invite Charles's mother over for tea so he can "get a look at her." Laurie's mother scans the faces of all the mothers during the PTA meeting to try to deduce which one is Charles's mother.  

Later, Laurie's mother approaches Laurie's teacher. Laurie's teacher remarks "We're all so interested in Laurie." She shares that Laurie had some trouble adjusting, but that he's a fine little helper now, "With occasional lapses, of course." Laurie's mother asks about Charles. The teacher replies that there is no student in kindergarten named Charles.  

How does startle response work? Why are some people more easily startled than others? What might cause someone to not startle at all?

Startle response, or flinch, is really a deep subject; it's part biology, part psychology. The psychological aspect is easier to understand, so I will begin there.

People startle to things they perceive as a threat. An example would be if you tried to pet a turtle and it were to snap at you; if it bites you, you will have less fingers. In the same way, people flinch at things they do not expect. If you were to go noodling, and feel something hard and turtle-like, you would likely flinch because while you do not know a turtle is there, there is still a perceived threat. People who startle less easily may just perceive no threat, be it by conditioning or a prior experience.

Biologically, the startle reflex is caused by various things. First and foremost, the intensity of the stimulus is responsible for a startle. In auditory startling, for example, hearing a loud sound triggers a reflex in the ear, reducing the decibels heard. This reflex does not begin until the volume approaches 80 decibels. The reflex usually starts in the brainstem and is transmitted down to the limbs where the reflex is acted out. Someone who is not easily startled may have something inhibiting those neurons. It could be genetic or chemical, or possibly both. 

What is the irony in Shirley Jackson's short story "Charles"?

Shirley Jackson uses dramatic irony in her short story "Charles" about a young boy who is in his first year of school. Dramatic irony occurs when there is a contrast between what a reader realizes is true and what characters in the story believe. Throughout the story, young Laurie, who has just started Kindergarten, repeatedly comes home from school with stories about a classmate named Charles, who is continually in trouble and is portrayed by Laurie as being a bully and a brat. Charles torments other children, is disrespectful to the teachers and is often "fresh," as Laurie puts it. It should be apparent to the reader within the first few paragraphs that Laurie is just as disruptive as Charles. He hits his baby sister, is "fresh" to his father, and is all too happy to apply his own misdeeds to the fictional Charles. Thus, the reader already knows what the parents cannot bring themselves to believe: that Laurie is Charles.

Laurie's mother never suspects that her son, even though he is a terror at home, could really be as bad as Charles. She becomes more and more concerned that Charles might possibly be a bad influence, but the father simply believes that it's good for Laurie to meet such children—"Bound to be people like Charles in the world. Might as well meet them now as later." Both parents are in an obvious state of denial over Laurie's behavior. Finally, Laurie's mother attends a parent-teacher gathering and is anxious to find out about Charles. She is promptly informed by the Kindergarten teacher that there is no boy named Charles in the class and that all the teachers are very "interested" in Laurie. 

What was the tragic result of the earlier fire that had left ashes on the mountain in chapter 7 of Lord of the Flies?

The tragic result of the fire was that one of the littluns was killed.

In Chapter 7, the boys are frightened when they explore the area of the island that is still ashes from the fire.  The fire was started when the signal fire got out of control.  One of the littluns was never seen again after this fire.

Three were playing here now. Henry was the biggest of them. He was also a distant relative of that other boy whose mulberry-marked face had not been seen since the evening of the great fire; but he was not old enough to understand this … (Ch. 4) 

After the fire, the boys do seem to show some guilt or at least awareness about the boy’s death.  However, as time goes on they seem to pretty much forget about him and their actions get more and more violent.  Jack desperately wants a pig, and suggests using a littlun in their “kill the pig” game. 

When Jack climbs the mountain near where the fire was, he is frightened by what he describes as a “bulge.”  The others do not think anything could survive the fire, but Jack is convinced that he saw something.  The ashes make this part of the island even creepier. 

“I saw a thing on top.”

They heard him blunder against the trunk which rocked violently. He lay silent for a moment, then muttered.

“Keep a good lookout. It may be following.”

A shower of ash pattered round them. Jack sat up.

“I saw a thing bulge on the mountain.”

“You only imagined it,” said Ralph shakily, “because nothing would bulge. Not any sort of creature.” (Ch. 7) 

The boys’ fears about there being a beastie on the mountain seem to be materializing.  The choices they have made have had consequences.  The boys have already caused the death of one child, and there will be more to come.

Timothy reveals to Phillip that he cannot read or write. How does this make Phillip feel? What do Phillip's feelings reveal about him?

Phillip reacts to Timothy's illiteracy with smugness, which reveals how immature Phillip still is.

This happens in Chapter 8, on page 68, when Timothy and Phillip are using stones to spell the word "help" on the ground in hopes that passing planes will see it and come to their rescue. Phillip realizes that Timothy wants to write this word on the ground but doesn't know how to spell it. Here's how Phillip reacts to this discovery:

I felt good. I knew how to do something that Timothy couldn't do. He couldn't spell. I felt superior to Timothy that day, but I let him play his little game, pretending not to know that he really couldn't spell.

Keep in mind that Phillip has recently lost his self-control and had a loud, babyish crying fit over their situation. He feels like a helpless child (which he is) and is desperate to regain his dignity. Until this point, Timothy has taken care of himself and Phillip with his own superior knowledge of survival skills and a steady, friendly, fatherly manner. Phillip has often felt the burden of his youth and ignorance in Timothy's company, so now that the boy realizes he can do something that the old man cannot, Phillip feels superior and proud, smug in the knowledge that he's better at reading and writing than Timothy is and that Phillip's own spelling skills are actually useful for the task they're working in.

What we can understand from this revelation about Timothy and its effect on Phillip is that the boy lacks maturity. Someone older and more mature than Phillip would understand that their situation isn't a contest of who's better at what. It's a situation that calls for teamwork, for reliance on each other, and for sensitivity. Timothy is probably self-conscious about his illiteracy, since he certainly doesn't admit it openly--and a mature friend would be sensitive to that issue, careful not to offend the old man. Instead, Phillip keeps his observations secret not out of tact but out of smugness: he seems to snatch onto this deficiency of Timothy's as if it's a good card in a game to play later to his own advantage. And in fact, if you read a bit further, you'll see Phillip losing his temper and yelling at Timothy about how the old man can't even read. Phillip has a lot of growing to do, socially and emotionally.

How would you describe the encounter with the little man and the game of nine pins? Why do you think Irving spends so much time describing them?...

In this scene, Rip has made it to one of the highest and loneliest parts of the Catskills. It is close to evening and as Rip looks down into the mountain glen, he hears a voice calling his name. Thinking someone is in trouble, he descends into the glen. Rip is surprised by the appearance of the bearded man he sees, who is short and dressed in old-fashioned ("antique") Dutch clothing. He carries a keg of beer. Rip follows him and sees more people in old-fashioned clothes: doublets and enormous breeches, along with beards and odd faces:

They were dressed in a quaint, outlandish fashion; some wore short doublets, others jerkins, with long knives in their belts, and most of them had enormous breeches, of similar style with that of the guide’s. Their visages, too, were peculiar: one had a large head, broad face, and small, piggish eyes; the face of another seemed to consist entirely of nose, and was surmounted by a white sugar-loaf hat, set off with a little red cock’s tail. They all had beards, of various shapes and colors.

Their party of "pleasure" strikes Rip as "melancholy" because, although they are playing nine-pins, these people are completely solemn and silent. They stare at him as if they are statues, and the only noise he hears is the thundering sound of the bowling balls.

Irving spends so much time describing this scene because he wants to make clear that Rip has entered a liminal or magical space, where the ordinary aspects of life have changed. He wants the reader to know this is a strange or unusual area and that Rip has entered some sort of alternative reality where the everyday rules no longer apply. This raises in the reader the possibility that something unusual will happen and helps the reader accept that in this strange, enchanted place, Rip really could fall asleep for twenty years.

How can I write a new ending for Liam O'Flaherty's short story "The Sniper"?

“The Sniper” is a short story set in Ireland early in the early twentieth century. At that time there was a civil war raging among rival Irish factions. One side wanted independence from England, while the other, fearing religious persecution, did not.

The story is set up to shock the reader with a late twist of situational irony. After describing an encounter between two soldiers, which ends when one soldier shoots the other, the story ends with the line:

Then the sniper turned over the dead body and looked into his brother's face.

This is a classic example of situational irony. The last thing we were expecting actually happened: one soldier unknowingly killed his own brother.

If I were going to write a new ending to this I might go at it in several ways.

1. Once the surviving soldier soldier realized that he had killed his own brother, he would have a moment of realization that persuaded him to put down his gun. Perhaps he would carry his brother's body back through the streets to his home and the battle would cease for a moment while he did so.

2. Or, I might have the soldiers realize that they were brothers and leave them in the stand-off thinking about the situation they were in. The reader would have to think about what might happen next. 

How does Shakespeare introduce Antonio and Bassanio in the first act of The Merchant of Venice?

Act 1, scene 1 of The Merchant of Venice starts by showing Antonio talking to friends about how sad and depressed he is. He claims not to know why he is sad because he has wealth enough to satisfy his needs. However, once Bassanio enters and asks for another loan on top of a previous loan, Antonio confesses that all of his revenue is invested in merchant ships at sea on which he waits to bring him profits. Antonio therefore tells Bassanio to use his credit with someone in town to acquire the money he needs to court a wealthy maid by the name of Portia. Therefore, through direct characterization, the audience learns that Antonio is a sad and depressed fellow; and, Bassanio is irresponsible with his money due to living a high lifestyle and not being able to pay back his debts. Both characters are revealed through direct characterization because they both explicitly admit to their own follies.

Then, in Act 1, scene 3, Shylock accepts Bassanio's request for a loan on his friend's credit after he reveals his perspective on Antonio's character. According to Shylock, Antonio is a heartless and prejudiced man who treats Jews with contempt. This is a drastic difference from the caring, forgiving, and depressed man from the first scene. Once Antonio enters the scene, he freely admits to the insults that he has publicly spoken against Shylock in the past. For example, when Shylock tells Antonio, "You called me dog," (I.iii.123) Antonio responds by saying, "I am as like to call thee so again" (I.iii.125). Clearly, there is a rivalry here between Jew and Christian, seemingly so because Antonio started it.

Bassanio, on the other hand, keeps a humble spirit about him because he needs the money to land himself a rich wife to pay off his other debts. He also seems to be a fair person and not as prejudiced as Antonio. He's just a high-living young man who foolishly got himself into debt.

What is the symbolism behind the Beastie in Lord of the Flies?

The Beastie represents the boys’ fears of the unknown. 

When the little boys first discuss the Beastie, no one wants to take it seriously.  It is just a joke, something that the small boys are afraid of.  It comes up at an assembly meeting. 

“He wants to know what you’re going to do about the snake-thing.”

Ralph laughed, and the other boys laughed with him. The small boy twisted further into himself.

“Tell us about the snake-thing.”

“Now he says it was a beastie.” (Ch. 2)

Ralph tries to explain to the boys that a snake thing could not exist on an island of that size.  The older boys try to dismiss the littleuns’ fears as a bad dream or the fears of young children away from home.  They do not want to admit any fears themselves.

Jack uses this as yet another opportunity to undermine Ralph.  As Ralph tries to assure the little boys that there is no Beastie, Jack takes the conch and tells them that if there is one he would take care of it for them.

Jack seized the conch.

“Ralph’s right of course. There isn’t a snake-thing. But if there was a snake we’d hunt it and kill it. We’re going to hunt pigs to get meat for everybody. And we’ll look for the snake too–” (Ch. 2) 

Ralph is annoyed because Jack contradicted him and also implied that he could take care of something that Ralph could not.  It is another example of the difference between the two of them and the constant struggle for leadership.  Their styles are different, and Jack is always trying to be theatrical while Ralph is always trying to be practical. 

The Beastie comes to represent the fear of the unknown, not just for the littleuns, but for all of the boys.  Jack meets the unknown head-on, while Ralph makes plans.  The Beastie never goes away.  It is always in the back of everyone's minds.

“They talk and scream. The littluns. Even some of the others. As if—”

“As if it wasn’t a good island.”

Astonished at the interruption, they looked up at Simon’s serious face.

“As if,” said Simon, “the beastie, the beastie or the snake-thing, was real. Remember?”

The two older boys flinched when they heard the shameful syllable. Snakes were not mentioned now, were not mentionable. (Ch. 3)

When the children attack the Beastie, it turns out not to be the beast after all.  It is Simon, coming to warn them about the parachutist he saw that frightened him.  Beasts are everywhere, but they are all manifestations of the boys' fear.  

what were the foreign policies of Mussolini?

Mussolini sought to re-create the Roman Empire and make Italy the major power on the Mediterranean Sea--he called it by its Roman name, "Mare Nostrum" which means "our sea."  Mussolini invaded Corfu, which was Greek, in 1923 and the League of Nations made him withdraw, but his action made the Italian people admire his brashness.  He then installed a puppet regime in the Yugoslavian city of Fiume and another puppet regime in Albania--this time the League of Nations did nothing.  Mussolini invaded Ethiopia in 1935 and conquered the entire nation quickly.   Britain and the League of Nations stood by while all of this happened. Mussolini also sent aid to the rightist general Franco during the Spanish Civil War, thus becoming an ally of Hitler in the conflict.  Mussolini became a partner with Hitler in the "Pact of Steel."  When Hitler annexed Austria, Mussolini did not object.  In 1940, Italian forces launched offensives in Greece and North Africa but lost considerably and required German support.  Mussolini sought to make Italy self-sufficient by re-creating the Roman Empire, but he only served to ruin the country.  

How do the themes of courage compare and contrast in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird and John Grisham's A Time to Kill? How do the themes of...

In Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird and John Grisham's A Time to Kill, both protagonists behave equally courageously by taking on defense cases they know are doomed to failure due to racism.

In To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus behaves courageously by undertaking the defense of Tom Robinson. He knows doing so is dangerous because he and his children will be subjected to ridicule due to the townspeople's racism. He also knows doing so is futile because, while no concrete evidence exists to legitimately convict Robinson, he also knows acquitting Robinson is dependent on a racist jury, as we see when he explains the following to his brother in Chapter 9:

It couldn't be worse, Jack. The only thing we've got is a black man's word against the Ewells'. The evidence boils down to you-did—I-didn't. The jury couldn't possibly be expected to take Tom Robinson's word against the Ewells'—. (Ch. 9)

Yet, despite the poor chances of success, Atticus persists in his defense of and protection of Robinson because he knows it is the morally right thing to do. Through his defense in the courtroom, he succeeds in discrediting the Ewells as reliable witnesses. Atticus's bravery in discrediting the Ewells, especially Bob Ewell, leads to consequences Atticus never foresaw: Bob Ewell attacks and nearly kills Atticus's children out of revenge.

Similarly, in Grisham's first novel A Time to Kill, attorney Jake Brigance defends African-American Carl Lee, who has been charged with capital murder. Unlike Robinson, Lee is actually guilty of his crime but not to the degree he is being charged with. Lee made a decision to pursue vigilante justice by murdering the white rapists of his 10-year-old daughter after other white men were released unpunished for a similar crime in a neighboring town. Both Lee and Brigance know that, due to racism, Lee was unlikely to witness his daughter's rapists receive full prosecution of the law. Knowing that blacks and whites never receive equal shares of justice or the full force of the law due to racism, Brigance agrees to defend Lee and pursue having him acquitted based on reasons of temporary insanity.

Similarly to Atticus, Brigance succeeds in bravely discrediting the prosecution's witnesses, particularly the psychiatrist, Dr. Rodeheaver, put on the stand to testify Lee was not insane. During Brigance's cross-examination, Brigance shows the court that Dr. Rodeheaver made the same false testimony of defendants in other criminal cases, even when other doctors contrarily asserted the defendants were insane. Unlike Atticus, Brigance succeeds in convincing the jury to acquit Lee based on reasons of temporary insanity.

Also, similarly to Atticus, Brigance's courage in pursuing justice in the face of racism puts the lives of himself and his family in danger, as he and his family immediately begin being terrorized by the Klu Klux Klan.

Hence, while the outcomes of the trials are different, we can see that both Atticus and Brigance acted very courageously by following their moral compasses to pursue legal justice, despite the tribulations they faced due to racism.

What tools does the Party use to maintain control in 1984? How effective are these tools?

In 1984, the Party uses a number of techniques to maintain control. Telescreens and hidden microphones, for example, monitor every conversation and movement of Party members, ensuring any hint of rebellion is detected by the Thought Police as soon as it occurs. In addition, the telescreens act a visual deterrent and a reminder that Big Brother is, quite literally, always watching.

The Party also uses violence and torture to maintain its grip on power. Fear of being taken to the Ministry of Love (Winston calls it being "vaporized") keeps Party members in a permanent state of fear. Winston's reluctance to write in his diary in the opening chapter is a good example of this fear.

These techniques, then, are extremely effective in maintaining the Party's control, as shown most clearly through the failure of Winston and Julia's rebellion, which ended before it really began. Moreover, the Party's ability to "re-educate" Winston and Julia demonstrates just how adept the Party is at controlling the minds of its members.

Who was Saddam Hussein?

Saddam Hussein was a former dictator in the Middle Eastern country of Iraq. Born to a poor family, he joined the Ba’ath Party at a young age after failing to finish high school. Hussein went on to later become the ruler of Iraq in 1979, and upon taking control had many of Iraq’s top soldiers executed to protect his position. Hussein famously tried to invade Kuwait in 1990, however his soldiers were forced to retread by US-led forces in what came to be known as Desert Storm. As leader of Iraq, the country faced a number of United Nations sanctions forcing the country to destroy and abandon working on the development of chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons. Hussein largely ignored these sanctions, leading to a US led campaign against Iraq, which destroyed the Ba’athist regime and ultimately lead to Hussein’s capture. Following his capture, Hussein was tried and found guilty of committing crimes against humanity on November 5, 2006.  For his conviction he was sentenced to death by hanging, leading to his death on December 30, 2006.

Hope this helps!

What is the significance of the book Romiette and Julio?

Romiette and Julio, by Sharon Draper, follows the star-crossed love of two modern teenagers--Julio Montague and Romiette Cappelle--who meet in an online chat room and discover that they attend the same high school. In the same fashion of the Shakespearean tragedy that this book parallels, Julio and Romiette come from two different worlds; Romiette is an African-American girl living in Cincinnati, while Julio is a Hispanic boy from Corpus Christi. The two face huge obstacles in their relationship, from the disapproval of Julio's father to the violent threats of the local "Devil Dog" gang. Race--rather than a feud between two families--plays a huge role in the young lovers' troubles. The text chooses to examine the role that destiny plays in our lives while considering how prejudice negatively impacts young people. 

This Young Adult novel is widely taught in middle school English classes, as it is considered more approachable for young readers than Romeo and Juliet (particularly in terms of language). The text introduces students to concepts of race and conflict (as well as providing an understanding of the basic narrative of Romeo and Juliet) while allowing them to get comfortable with the tools of literature (POV, character development, metaphor, mood, dialect, hyperbolic language, etc.). 

When was the Civil War?

The American Civil War occurred in the mid-19th century.  It was a war fought between the northern Union states and the southern Confederate states.  The war was fought over a period of four years.

The Civil War began on April 12th, 1861 with the Battle of Fort Sumter.  Leading up to this battle, many southern states had succeeded from the Union.  Others followed after the battle and the start of the war.  Many people on both the Union and Confederate sides thought that the war would be a short one.  The Union had a stronger and more established army and more resources, but the Confederates fought with determination.

The Civil War raged on for years.  On April 9th, 1865, General Robert E. Lee found his army surrounded by Union troops.  He was forced to surrender at Appomattox Court House in Virginia.  News of General Lee's surrender took weeks and even months to reach other Confederate military leaders.  This was due to fragmented networks of communication.  President Johnson declared the official end of the war on May 9th, 1865.  The last Confederate general to surrender did so on June 23rd of that same year.

In the Broadway musical The Phantom Of The Opera, why does Christine die? Why does the Phantom let Christine and Raoul go in his lair? Does Meg...

That's a lot of questions--I'll try my best to help!

First of all, Christine doesn't die in either the musical or the book.  (She does meet her end in Love Never Dies, Andrew Lloyd Webber's sequel to Phantom that has no basis in Leroux's original work, but that musical was widely panned.)  I don't believe the musical explains what happens to Christine and Raoul after they leave the Phantom's lair, but in the book, they leave Paris.  Leroux presumes they've stolen away and gotten married.

The Phantom ultimately lets Christine and Raoul leave his lair because Christine shows him compassion, the first time he's been on the receiving end of any kindness at all.  She also kisses him, which almost certainly contributes to his more charitable mood, but in the end it's Christine's kindness that enables him to find that scrap of kindness in himself.

As for the question of the Giry women and the Phantom... given that Meg leads the angry mob to search for the Phantom after Christine's kidnapping, I find it a little hard to believe she would have secretly fallen in love with him, though it's worth mentioning that the comic strip Little Meg envisions a world in which a considerably younger Meg has an almost Calvin-and-Hobbes-like rapport with the Phantom.  You raise a good point regarding Mme. Giry; her history with the Phantom is an invention of the musical and wasn't in the original book, so that would seem to lay some groundwork for future romance.  Ultimately, though, this story is very much in the Gothic tradition, and one hallmark of Gothic stories is the innocent, virtuous heroine to whom many unimaginable, horrible things happen.  Christine fits that mold to a T--she's naïve enough to believe in the Angel of Music, she's very young, and she's presented as the virginal counterpart to Carlotta,  to say nothing of her manipulation and kidnapping at the hands of the Phantom.  Mme. Giry, on the other hand, is considerably older and also a mother.  In many ways, the Phantom is preying on Christine, and she's simply far more attractive prey than Mme. Giry.

What are some oxymora and paradoxes in Act 1, scene V, of Romeo and Juliet?

Juliet speaks a few paradoxes at the very end of the scene.  A paradox is a statement or situation that seems impossibly contradictory, and yet is nevertheless true.  In order to find out what Romeo's name is, she sends her Nurse to ask him, saying, "If he be married, / My grave is like to be my wedding bed" (1.5.148-149).  It seems like a contradiction to claim that the place where one is buried could double as one's wedding bed; however, Juliet means that if she learns that this young man is already taken, she will die before she ever gets married because he is the only one she would want to marry.

Then, right after Juliet learns from her Nurse that the name of the young man with whom she fell in love at first sight is Montague, she says, "My only love sprung from my only hate!" (1.5.153).  It does not seem possible that the one thing a person loves could come form the one thing that person hates, and yet, because the reader knows about the feud between their families, it makes sense why Juliet would say this.  She has fallen in love with Romeo, and yet he is a member of the family that her family hates, who she is likewise supposed to hate.  It's really a terribly difficult position for her.

In the short story "The Three Day Blow" by Ernest Hemingway, Nick goes into the kitchen to get more water to dilute the whiskey and as he returns...

Good question! In a story like this one, where there's barely any action at all, it's a good idea to pay special attention to passages in which a character notices something unusual about himself. It will reveal the heart of the story—the theme, or the central message.

Whenever a character looks in a mirror or looks at a photo and realizes that he is somehow not himself, you want to try to understand how that character has recently changed, or how he has an appearance that doesn't match up with his real self, or how that character is somehow two people at once.

Nick glances into the mirror about halfway through the story, as he's swept up in his evening of talking and drinking with his friend:

His face looked strange. He smiled at the face in the mirror and it grinned back at him. He winked at it and went on. It was not his face but it didn't make any difference.

What does it mean that he's not himself, and that it doesn't even matter? We want to take a close look at recent changes or struggles within the character: here, how Nick nearly got married to Marjorie, but it didn't work out. That is, he nearly became a different person, or a different version of himself, by becoming a married man. But he didn't. And at this point, he's not sure if he wants to try to get Marjorie back, or if he should just let it go and become a kind of permanent bachelor, which would involve lots more evenings like this one—drinking and talking with his guy friends, being kind of macho but lonely and unfulfilled. But he doesn't want to become a drunkard.

When Nick looks in the mirror, then, and sees himself as a sort of grinning, winking, odd stranger, we understand that he's a man in a state of flux. He's not the person he was before meeting Marjorie, but he's not a married man, either; he doesn't recognize himself as even having a solid, single identity.

Importantly, though, Nick asserts that the fact that he's not himself makes no difference. It doesn't matter, he thinks, that he hasn't yet become whoever he's going to be. There's time, he's young, and he's got plenty of options in life. Check out some of the last lines from the story:

Outside now the Marge business was no longer so tragic. It was not even very important. The wind blew everything like that away.

You can interpret Nick's lack of a cohesive identity and his subsequent dismissal of its importance as evidence of Hemingway's tendency to portray the inconstant nature of everything in human life—even the pessimistic idea that because nothing lasts, nothing matters.

In Saki's "The Open Window," at what point in the story was Vera not telling the truth?

In Saki's "The Open Window," Framton Nuttel is a stranger to the Sappleton house. Before he is able to speak directly with Mrs. Sappleton, Vera, her niece, asks about him. She wonders if he knows anyone in the area, whereupon Nuttel admits that he knows no one. He tells the girl that his sister used to live around those parts and has sent him with letters of introduction. Once Vera understands Mr. Nuttel's situation, and that he would not know the truth from a lie about anyone from the area, she starts lying about her aunt having suffered a tragedy. Vera opens her lie, or her imaginative story, as follows:

"Her great tragedy happened just three years ago . . . that would be since your sister's time."

This is the beginning of Vera's fictional story and pratical joke. Everything after this point is an act on Vera's part as she draws the poor stranger into her game.

Why might two countries become enemies?

Sadly, there are so many reasons for two countries to become enemies.  They can disagree about a territory, for example, as China asserts that it "owns" some areas of the South China Sea.  Similarly, they can disagree about where a border lies between the two countries.  They can become enemies because of some other enmity one engages in, for example, as a country might become our enemy if it attacks a nation we are sworn to protect under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a kind of "the enemy of a friend is our enemy" situation. Russia could become our enemy quite easily like this.  They can become enemies over trade policy, if one country imposes tariffs on or an embargo against goods from the other country.  They can become enemies over other kinds of policies, as we consider North Korea to be an enemy because of its repressive Communist regime and its pursuit of nuclear advancement in weaponry.  Countries can become enemies over natural resources, if one country seeks to use the natural resources of another country without its agreement.  The only saving grace in today's world is that because of nuclear proliferation and a modern tendency, at least in the western world, to try to rely more on diplomacy, being enemies does not always lead inevitably to war. 

What are the main ideas in "A Christmas Memory" by Truman Capote?

One of the main ideas in "A Christmas Memory" is that true goodness and kindness are often practiced by people who society deems as lesser or unfit. Buddy's "friend," as he calls her (and who is his older cousin), is poor and an alcoholic, but she makes fruitcakes for people she has never met. Sacrificing what little she has and showing Buddy the wonderful gift of giving to others, she spends much of the Christmas season making cakes for President Roosevelt and other people to whom she wants to show kindness. The presents they make for each other, such as kites, are simple but inspired by love. In the end, the relatives who feel that they know better decide that Buddy has to be taken away from his elderly cousin and sent to military school, as they don't really understand the kindness and love that she has shown him and the valuable lessons about love that she has taught him. 

Why does Bryon value reading so much in the novel That Was Then, This Is Now?

There are several scenes throughout the novel that depict Bryon reading and commenting about literature. In Chapter 2, Mike asks Bryon if he has some time to hear the story about why he got beat up. Bryon mentions that he enjoys hearing about things that have happened to other people which is why he likes to read. Bryon enjoys a good story because it allows him the opportunity to explore other people's experiences. Bryon also has many good memories attached to reading which is another reason he values it. In Chapter 4, Mark asks Bryon if he'll read to him. Bryon mentions that they not longer have a TV and reminisces about their childhood when they used to read cowboy books as little kids. When they were children, Bryon and Mark used to climb up trees and Bryon would read aloud to Mark.  Reading also allows Bryon to escape from his everyday life and serves as a constant source of entertainment. Bryon also mentions that he would rather read Hemmingway than a newspaper any day. Judging from Bryon's depressing environment, he views literature as an outlet for his imagination. He does not want to be reminded of the multitude of social ills surrounding him, let alone read boring political jargon in newspapers. His affinity for learning is another reason why he values reading. Byron is also a bit of a "wise-guy" and reading introduces him to new, useful information.

`f(t) = 3^(2t)/t` Find the derivative of the function

`f(t) = 3^(2t)/t`

To take the derivative of this function, use the quotient rule `(u/v)'= (v*u' - u*v')/v^2`.

Applying that, f'(t) will be:

`f'(t) = (t * (3^(2t))' - 3^(2t)*(t)')/t^2`

`f'(t) = (t*(3^(2t))' - 3^(2t) * 1)/t^2`

Take note that the derivative formula of an exponential function is `(a^u)' = ln(a) * a^u * u'` . 

So the derivative of `3^(2t)` is:

`f'(t) = (t*ln(3)*3^(2t) * (2t)' - 3^(2t) * 1)/t^2`

`f'(t)= (t*ln(3)*3^(2t) * 2 - 3^(2t) * 1)/t^2`

`f'(t)= (2t ln(3)*3^(2t) - 3^(2t))/t^2`

`f'(t) = (3^(2t)(2tln(3)-1))/t^2`

Therefore, the derivative of the function is `f'(t) = (3^(2t)(2tln(3)-1))/t^2` .

What is the paradox in "A Sound of Thunder"?

The time travel paradox is that you might go back in time and meet yourself. 

A paradox is a contradiction.  The problem with time travel is that if it were really possible, nothing could change.  You could always go back in time and reverse whatever happened.  It creates a big mess that gets very confusing and frustrating if you think about it.  That’s why Lesperance tells Eckels that the time machine prevents the paradox, and “When such occasions threaten, Time steps aside.” 

“But if you came back this morning in Time,” said Eckels eagerly, “you must’ve bumped into us, our Safari! How did it turn out? Was it successful? Did all of us get through—alive?”

Travis and Lesperance gave each other a look.

“That’d be a paradox,” said the latter. “Time doesn’t permit that sort of mess—a man meeting himself …” 

That is a handy way to avoid the real problem.  Bradbury is trying to explain that small instances can have huge, life-altering consequences.  When Eckels wants to know how the expedition turned out before it even starts, Lesperance dismisses the idea. 

However, we are also told that even the smallest change in the past affects the future in a big way.  Travis tells Eckels to stay on the path, because the Time Safari only kills animals that are about to die very soon.  That way, there is no alteration. 

“All right,” Travis continued, “say we accidentally kill one mouse here. That means all the future families of this one particular mouse are destroyed, right? 

So, if you step on an insect, you could wipe out a species.  I wonder why the time paradox doesn’t prevent that?  Apparently, it only prevents catastrophic occurrences of a person being in two time periods at once.  The inevitable happens, paradox or not.  Eckels steps on a butterfly and completely changes the future.

How did the Terror start? Why did it happen ?

How the Terror started is a question we can definitely answer. Why it happened is a lot more difficult, and we may never quite know for sure; but we can at least make some educated guesses.

In 1793, France was in a state of chaos--a bitter and bloody civil war after the start of the French Revolution that had splintered into multiple revolutionary and counter-revolutionary factions. On August 6, the Comite de Salut Public (Committee for Public Safety), led by Maximilien Robespierre, took control and became the de facto government of France (though they never officially considered themselves a government).

Robespierre had two primary goals, which seemed reasonable enough: Restore order, and establish a free Republic of France. But in order to achieve those goals, he was prepared to use any means necessary--and that's where the Terror comes in.

Initially, the Terror was just the executions of King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette, along with a few dozen leaders of the Girondists, a rival revolutionary faction that was more friendly to the monarchy and supported war with other countries in Europe. These weren't exactly fair trials, but had they been fair trials, most of those leaders probably would have been legitimately convicted of treason and executed.

But this was not enough to restore order, and the Comite escalated from there. They began executing people for even minor involvement in counter-revolutionary activities, and then for simply expressing counter-revolutionary opinions, and ultimately for petty crimes or no apparent reason at all. In all some 30,000 people were killed. Robespierre believed that the power of government came from its ability to terrify people, and so he actively sought to inspire fear in the population by ruling with an iron fist.

Why did all this happen? I attribute it mainly to two factors:

First, Robespierre's very all-in, no-holds-barred, "the ends justify the means" approach, where he was willing to do just about anything as long as he thought it would help establish the Republic of France. He thought that killing thousands and terrorizing millions would help, so he ordered it done.

Second, the extreme anger felt by the revolutionaries against the monarchy and all who had supported it. Much of this anger was quite justified---the monarchy in France had been quite oppressive at times, and wealth inequality in France before the Revolution was astonishingly, horrifically huge. But anger is one of the strongest, most basic emotions, and it has a way of getting out of control very easily. The legitimate executions of a few actual monarchist leaders spiraled out into beheading of anyone who seemed to vaguely resemble an enemy of the Republic.

Are there any poems written by famous authors that match the theme of "The Veldt" by Ray Bradbury?

Check out another of Bradbury's short stories called "There Will Come Soft Rains." In that story, a nuclear war has occurred. The family is dead but the automated house continues to operate for a time. One of the house's features is that it recites poetry at a certain time each day. The poem recited on that particular day is a poem by Sara Teasdale which has the same title as the story: "There Will Come Soft Rains." The speaker of this poem suggests that following a war, no one will care that humanity has wiped itself out. In other words, nature and the animals will not care. Humanity can only destroy itself. The common theme in "The Veldt" and "There Will Come Soft Rains" (Bradbury's story and Teasdale's poem) is the danger of a dependence upon and an obsession with technology. But this goes with the idea of greed as well. People too greedy for convenience and all that technology can give them will lose some sense of humanity. The parents in "The Veldt" allow the nursery (technology) to become the children's parent. They shirk that responsibility. The children become addicted to this technology and with no real parental guidance, they crave it more and more. Their greed becomes insatiable. The idea of greed and an insatiable reliance upon technology are supplemental themes in "The Veldt." 

In The Crucible did Putnam ACTUALLY kill anybody for land?

Thomas Putnam did not literally kill anyone for their land in The Crucible, but it could be said that he influenced events that led to the deaths of George Jacobs and Giles Corey.  It is not made explicit that Putnam was able to buy Jacobs's forfeited land after Jacobs was sentenced to hang as a result of Ruth Putnam's witchcraft accusation.

In Act III, Giles Corey tells the court "I have it from an honest man who heard Putnam say it! The day his daughter cried out on Jacobs, he said she‘d given him a fair gift of land."  But when Judge Hathorne asks Giles for the name, Giles will not provide it because he believes that the court will then target this new witness.  

Readers understand that Putnam did not acquire Giles Corey's land following his execution because Giles maintained his silence; this meant that his land would pass to his sons.

Miller, Arthur.  The Crucible.  Viking, 1953. 

What does "charity" mean in Chapter 18 of I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings?

In Chapter 18, the minister speaks about the meaning of "charity" from the book of First Corinthians in the Bible.

He tells his congregation that charity never allows the wealthy and privileged to oppress the poor. Essentially, the wealthy here are presumably the white plantation owners or any white person who aims to oppress the black community. The minister maintains that "charity" is not patronizing or abusive:

"Charity don't go around saying 'I give you food and I give you clothes and by rights, you ought to thank me.'... Charity don't say, ' Because I give you a job, you got to bend your knee to me.'...It don't say, ' Because I pays you what you due, you got to call me master.' It don't ask me to humble myself and belittle myself. That ain't what Charity is."

The minister and his congregation believe that charity is "simple," "poor," and "plain." Basically, in this chapter, "charity" is interpreted to mean the long-suffering patience and love of the black community in the face of persecution and oppression. The minister assures his black congregation that they will be "the only inhabitants of that land of milk and honey." (essentially, Heaven). The only white inhabitants would consist of the likes of "John Brown who history books said was crazy anyway." Essentially, the charitable are those who will endure suffering with great forbearance, in exchange for the ultimate reward at the end of their lives.

They basked in the righteousness of the poor and the exclusiveness of the downtrodden. Let the whitefolks have their money and power and segregation and sarcasm and big houses and schools and lawns like carpets, and books, and mostly – mostly – let them have their whiteness.  It was better to be meek and lowly, spat upon and abused for this little time than to spend eternity frying in the fires of Hell.

What did the Civil War accomplish?

The Civil War accomplished a few things. There was a great deal of discussion about slavery in our country prior to the Civil War. Some people wanted to keep slavery in existence. Other people want to prevent slavery from spreading but to allow it to remain where it already existed. Other people wanted to ban slavery completely. This Civil War resolved the slavery question. Slavery was abolished after the Civil War ended.

Another question resolved by the Civil War was the issue of states’ rights. The South believed the states should have the power to nullify federal laws if those laws hurt a state. The North believed that federal laws should take priority over state laws. The Civil War made it clear that federal laws take priority over state laws.

The Civil War also helped Americans to realize there was a better way to resolve their differences. With over 600,000 dead and over one million casualties, Americans realized that fighting each other was not a good way to resolve the differences that existed in our country.

Compare and contrast the actions of hormones with those of neurons.

Hormones and neurons are both signaling molecules. They are chemical messengers released from a given cell, carrying a signal to the target cell in the body to trigger a response. However, the major differences are in the methods and systems in which they work. The action of hormones relies on chemical impulses; it is transmitted by the bloodstream at a slow speed and causes an involuntary type of response. On the other hand, the action of neurons relies on electrochemical impulses with voluntary type of action. The action of neurons is unique to the next neuron; therefore, it covers a shorter distance than the hormones, whose target cells are located farther away within the body. The action of neurons is characterized by a short length of impact while the hormonal action produces longer effects. 

Should the boys in Lord of the Flies be held accountable for their actions in the context of the situation on the island?

At the end of Lord of the Flies, the boys are rescued just as Jack's tribe is hunting Ralph with the intent to kill him, having set the island on fire to smoke Ralph out of the forest. The naval officer is greatly surprised to learn that "only two" dead bodies have resulted from their stay on the island. Readers might wonder if the boys will be held accountable for those deaths when they return to civilization. At least three considerations are in play here: the types of crimes, the ages of the perpetrators, and what a jury might conclude.(For purposes of discussion, the following presumes working within the American, not British, legal system.)

First, although Jack only mentions two deaths to the officer, three boys were killed on the island. The first, the littlun with the mulberry birthmark, was killed in the first runaway blaze. While his death could be considered "involuntary manslaughter," a death caused by negligence, it would more likely be considered an accidental death. Simon's death, on the other hand, would fall under the category of "voluntary manslaughter," a death caused by someone who is in a fit of passion. The wild frenzy of the mob that kills Simon seems to fit this category. Piggy's death was in a different category: "second degree murder"--murder that is not premeditated but with "malice aforethought," in other words, intent to do harm. Finally, the boys' action of hunting Ralph is attempted murder.  

These are serious crimes, but when such crimes are committed by minors--those under age 18--lesser penalties apply. Juveniles are often only kept in juvenile prison until they turn 18, and the goal is not just punishment, but rehabilitation. The young age of the boys, who are not even close to 18, would likely result in their being held in juvenile prison, if anything.

Lastly, if the boys' crimes were to be tried before a jury, the defense attorney might seek to gain the sympathy of the jurors for the difficult situation the boys were put in. Because the boys had no adults to provide direction, many jurors would probably want to give the minimum sentence available or find a way to release them from all charges. 

Indeed, the children might never be brought to any kind of trial for the simple fact that they are children. According to Piaget's theory of cognitive development, children do not develop the ability to think abstractly until age 11 at the earliest, but many don't enter this final stage of development until age 15. The oldest boys are only about 12--their brains are not yet developed to the point where they can accurately understand concepts like justice. Golding portrays some of the boys as having a better ability to reason abstractly than others. Simon is the one who understands the abstract concept that the "beast" is within the boys themselves. Piggy and Ralph also seem to have more mature reasoning abilities, but Ralph often struggles to interpret events. Jack and Roger may behave the way they do in part because their abstract reasoning powers have not yet developed. 

Although it might be tempting to say that the boys knew what they were doing and so should be held responsible for their heinous crimes, the fact that they are children whose brains are not yet fully developed and were put into a traumatic situation with no adult guidance argues against punishing them for what happened on the island.

In chapter one of Lord of the Flies, how does Golding's diction reveal a theme of contrasting civilization with savagery?

There are various ways that Golding establishes a dichotomy between civilization and savagery since, indeed, that is one of the novel’s major themes. That theme becomes apparent from the very outset, as chapter one immediately describes how the boys are stranded on the island. To clearly identify this theme, we must examine the specific language Golding uses to describe the behavior of Ralph and Piggy as they become aware of their circumstances.

In the novel’s opening lines, Golding places special emphasis on clothing and dress to establish the difference between proper and improper behavior. Ralph has “taken off his school sweater and trailed it now from one hand, his grey shirt stuck to him and his hair was plastered to his forehead.” Ralph has removed his school uniform, effectively casting off the proper dress of a student, so that it “trailed” behind him. Thus, school -- with all its rules and boundaries -- is now in his past, a part of a civilized society that Ralph discards so that he might live like a person with uncombed hair “plastered to his forehead.” Yet the habits of proper dress and behavior are not so easily forgotten, as a few lines later we are told that Ralph “jerked his stockings with an automatic gesture that made the jungle seem for a moment like the Home Counties.” By describing this mannerism as an “automatic gesture,” Golding shows that dressing is a conditioned behavior that is out of place in the jungle, emphasizing the difference between the wilderness and the “Home Counties.”

This is not the only time when clothing reveals the difference between wild and civilized behavior. Later in the chapter, Ralph becomes “conscious of the weight of clothes …” and the accompanying social obligations with being dressed. Thus, he removes all his clothing in a wild manner: he “kicked his shoes off fiercely and ripped off each stocking with its elastic garter in a single movement.” Ralph does not just willingly remove his clothes, he “ripped” them off, “fiercely.” Thus, Ralph undresses with savage-like behavior and excitement; however, after swimming, his dressing is described as follows: “to put on a grey shirt once more was strangely pleasing.” The pleasure of putting his clothes back on indicates that Ralph’s savage behavior, though temporarily enjoyable, cannot completely remove his desire for civilization, a desire that has been instilled in him and that continues to affect him as the novel proceeds.

The mixed benefits of being removed from civilization are further reflected in Ralph and Piggy’s conversations during the first chapter. When Ralph tells Piggy that he does not believe there are any adults, he “said this solemnly; but then the delight of a realized ambition overcame him.” Without any adults, Ralph realizes with “delight” that he is free to do as he pleases since no one can enforce rules or social obligations upon him, which includes not bothering to learn Piggy’s name. Piggy is bothered that Ralph does not do the socially polite thing and ask for his name, which forces Piggy into admitting to Ralph that the kids at school made fun of him. When learning this, “Ralph shrieked with laughter.” The fact that Ralph “shrieked” is a very wild way of laughing, one that would hardly be acceptable in polite society; however, at this point Golding very cleverly inverts our definition of what is civilized: he points out that taunting and name-calling are often common practices at schools. Thus, we are forced to admit that children often indulge in savage behavior and that our very nature is one of cruelty. The reader is forced to consider that we might all behave like savage children if there were no social institutions.

Thus, the difference between civilization and savagery may actually be only a very slight difference, one that does not even exist in a natural state. By looking at specific descriptions of such behavior in the first chapter, we can see how Golding immediately challenges the concept of civilization, which assists him in establishing his major theme of social breakdown throughout the rest of the novel.

In the novel Lord of the Flies, what is the significance that Piggy is strongly tied to the world of adults? What message is Golding trying to...

William Golding creates a microcosm of civilization on the abandoned island, and each of the characters in the novel represents various types of individuals found in society. Ralph represents a conscientious leader struggling to maintain control; Jack represents barbarism and is a bloodthirsty leader who rises to power by manipulating his followers; the littluns represent the mindless masses of society; Piggy is an intellectual individual who represents civility and structure.

Piggy plays a significant role in the novel because he openly supports structure, democracy, and morality. Piggy is connected to the "adult world" because he blatantly opposes savagery and is an outspoken proponent of civilization. Golding uses Piggy's character to suggests that less physically gifted and fit members of society rely on laws, regulations, and authority figures to protect them. Without restrictions and rules, Piggy is subjected to the violent capabilities of the more physically fit members of society. Unfortunately, Roger brutally murders Piggy by crushing him with a massive boulder that he rolls down a hill. Piggy's death represents and signifies the final attempt to create a civilized society on the island. Golding also suggests that individuals with "adult" mindsets do not have the ability to persuade others to follow their directives without the physical threat of punishment.

Golding's predominant message throughout the novel is that the inherent evil found within every person will conquer morality and rational thought processes associated with the "adult world," effectively destroying any attempt to create a civil society when given the opportunity.

What is a simple way to paraphrase The Merchant's Tale by Geoffrey Chaucer?

The Merchant's Tale is about marriage. January, an old man, loves a woman named May who is much younger than he and also very beautiful. Though he is warned that old men should never marry young wives, January goes ahead and marries May. On their wedding night, January's sexual prowess fails to impress May. When January sends a young man named Damian to comfort May, she falls in love with him instead. 

January goes physically blind, but he is also metaphorically blind to the unfaithfulness of his wife. When he finally regains his sight, it is to catch May in the act of adultery! She provides him with a witty explanation that pacifies him. He believes that she is pregnant with his child, and the story ends with no serious consequences for any of the characters. The theme or moral provided at the end of the tale suggests that happiness in marriage only comes with ignorance, or that happiness in marriage is unattainable entirely. 

In Monster by Walter Dean Myers, how does Steve represent his innocence in his notes?

Following an emotional visit from his father, Steve Harmon writes in his notes that he has never seen his father cry like that before. He begins to question himself by saying, "What did I do? What did I do?" (Myers 118). Steve then writes that anyone could simply walk around a drugstore, implying that he had no intention of checking to see if there were any police officers in the store. Steve then comments that he didn't do anything. He believes that everyone is confused because of the tragedy and emotional pain involved in the trial. Steve also mentions that he didn't kill Mr. Nesbitt or take any money from him. Steve's statements represent his innocence in the robbery and murder of Mr. Nesbitt. Steve admits to being in the store, but not to purposefully participating in the robbery and murder. Steve is even confused as to why he is on trial because he maintains that he did nothing wrong.

Identify Archie. What is his relationship to Stargirl?

Archie is a retired college professor of paleontology.  Despite being retired, he believes that teaching and learning never stop.  He has an open door policy with kids in the neighborhood, and kids are always coming over to learn more about bones and fossils.  He must be a really good teacher, because kids even go to his house on weekends.  In addition to teaching kids about old bones, Archie is a deep reservoir of wisdom.  Leo, for example, seeks out life and love advice from Archie.  

As for Archie's relationship to Stargirl, he is her former teacher.  Before attending Mica High School, Stargirl was a homeschool student.  Stargirl's mother wanted Stargirl to have another teacher other than mom, so she would bring Stargirl over to Archie's house for further education.  To some extent, Archie knows Stargirl better than most characters, because he has known her for many years, but even wise Archie doesn't have Stargirl completely figured out. 

How does bias limit our understanding of the world? What kind of experiences can widen our perspective?

Bias limits our understanding of the world because it presents a fixed framework for experiencing certain people, places, things, or ideas. Bias does not always necessitate prejudice, as some people may have only had a pattern of experience which developed and reinforced the bias. For example, if someone felt that broccoli was a disgusting vegetable, but they had only ever had it cooked in such a way that it tasted bad, they would be said to have developed a bias against eating broccoli. This wasn't the person's fault, though! They've never had any experiences which open them to the possibility that broccoli can taste good when cooked well.

With that, it is primarily the responsibility of the individual to challenge his or her own biases. It takes some amount of bravery, sympathy, and willingness to consider new information to confront the biases we hold. Let's return to the example of a person who has only ever had poorly-cooked broccoli. They might be shutting themselves off from hundreds of broccoli dishes which taste great! If this person feels especially brave (or has the support of others), they may be willing to try something new, even if they haven't eaten broccoli in years.

I think that sympathy comes more in to play when we must confront biases we hold about other people or ideas. For example, I personally felt for a long time that people who played sports were rude, because I had many experiences where people who played sports happened to be rude to me. When I opened myself up to thinking sympathetically, I realized they were probably not wishing to attack me personally, and were more likely trying to distance themselves from something I represented to them. 

We often hold biases without realizing it or fully comprehending the ways they limit our lives. Through consistent self-examination, we can open ourselves up to challenging and removing bias. By challenging our biases and having positive experiences which outweigh any negative reinforcing ones, we can have a more objective perspective in life. Similarly, having a number of negative experiences with something to which we were positively biased can help to ground us in reality.

In Animal Farm, what are some similarities between Napoleon and Snowball?

Napoleon and Snowball play an important role in Jones's overthrow.  They are similar in how they sit in the front row when Old Major delivers his address on Animalism. Both pigs are similar in the way they absorb these lessons. They are also similar in how they share these ideas with the other animals on the farm.  

When Old Major dies, both pigs are active in disseminating the message of Animalism.  Additionally, they both occupy similar leadership roles on the farm when the humans leave.  In this regard, both Snowball and Napoleon are elevated to similar leadership positions on the new farm.

Another similarity between Napoleon and Snowball is that they possess a vision for the farm.  Snowball and Napoleon understand that a necessary part of leadership is having a vision. They are similar in the way they place importance on communicating this vision to the animals. This is seen when both present their plans regarding the building of the windmill.  

Their visions are different from one another.  Snowball sees leadership as cooperative.  He strives to forge relationships with the other animals.  Napoleon sees leadership as power that has to be consolidated in his own hands.  Despite this difference, they are similar in how they believe that vision is an essential component of leadership. 

When did FDR say the quote "Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds?"

On April 14th, 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave an address to a group of men at a meeting of the Pan American Union.  The Pan American Union was an organization that was made up of the United States and Latin American countries.  The goal was for the various countries to cooperate and communicate.  The Pan American Union was founded in the late 1800s.  In his 1939 speech, Roosevelt called the Pan American Union "the oldest and most successful association of sovereign governments which exists in all the world."  Roosevelt hoped that the long success of the organization would be "a symbol of great hope" in a world full of challenges.  At this time, the world was seeing the rise of Nazism.  The speech took place only a few months before the start of World War II.  The United States and other nations had also suffered for many years from the Great Depression.  

FDR praised the peaceful nature of the meetings of the Pan American Union.  He noted that other nations would have to wage war before holding such a meeting.  With turmoil in Europe and the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia having only been a month before, Roosevelt's words were very relevant in April of 1939.  He hoped that Europe would follow the example of the Pan American Union.  It was then that he spoke the lines of his famous quote:

Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds. They have within themselves the power to become free at any moment.

He wished for the European nations to choose peaceful meetings and negotiations over invasions and wars.  He did not want them to accept the those tactics as the only option.  He also reaffirmed his support of Allied nations.

What did the civil rights legislation of the 1960s do?

There were several pieces of legislation in the 1960s that dealt with the topic of civil rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended segregation in public accommodations. This included places like theaters, restaurants, and sports arenas.

In 1965, the Voting Rights Act was passed. This law made it illegal to deny anybody the right to vote if they couldn’t pass a literacy test. Federal workers also helped register voters. The Justice Department also began to investigate the use of poll taxes in state elections.

In 1968, another major civil rights law was passed. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 made it illegal to discriminate in the selling of houses or the renting of apartments based on the race, religion, national origin, or sex of a person. African-Americans, Hispanics, and people of various religious groups often weren’t allowed to buy a home or rent an apartment wherever they wanted before this law was passed.

These three laws were major laws that dealt with civil rights in the 1960s.

Explain the importance of the setting in The Crucible. Could this story have been set in a different time and place and still have the same effect?

The Salem Witch Trials are such a well-known and disastrous chapter of American history that using Salem during the 1690s as the setting for this story enriches its mood and meaning.  Such a setting works almost like an allusion, adding layers of meaning and symbolism to the story, enhancing what is written on the page due to the emotional connotation most Americans associate with Salem, Massachusetts, during this era.  Almost immediately after the trials, people came to understand that innocents had been murdered as a result of the terrible fear and hysteria caused by a handful of little girls.  The story could not have been set in a different time and place and still have had the same effect because there is no other era in American history where hysteria was permitted to run so wild that people are systematically murdered as a result.

How does Tom try to attract attention? Why is he unsuccessful?

In “Contents of a Dead Man’s Pocket” by Jack Finney, Tom Benecke makes a number of attempts to garner attention to his situation on the ledge of his apartment building.

At first, as Tom is perched on the ledge high above Lexington Avenue, he attempts to cry out for help. He waits for a lull in the traffic noise of the busy thoroughfare below him before he calls for help. Unfortunately, his attempt is futile as the wind carries his calls away.

In his next attempt, he reaches into his pocket and pulls out an envelope and a book of matches. Working carefully, he finagles a way to light the envelope on fire, hoping to attract the attention of a man reading a paper in a window across the way. The wind blows the small flame out, and Tom realizes no one would notice such a small flare. He tries three more times with pieces of paper from his pocket.

Finally, Tom takes coins out of his pocket and drops them to the ground, hoping to attract the attention someone on the sidewalk below him. Again, he is unsuccessful, because no one notices the coins.

There were a dozen coins in Tom Benecke's pocket and he dropped them, three or four at a time. But if they struck anyone, or if anyone noticed their falling, no one connected them with their source.

A cricketer can throw a ball to a maximum horizontal distance of 100m. To what height above the ground can the cricketer throw the same ball with...

It is well known that a maximum distance for a given initial speed is reached if the angle is `45` degrees above horizontal. Denote the initial speed as `V_0` and the corresponding horizontal distance as `D_(max).` Let's find `V_0.`

If thrown `45` degrees above horizontal, the horizontal distance is `D(t)=(V_0 t)/sqrt(2)` and the height is `H(t) = (V_0 t)/sqrt(2) - (g t^2)/2` (`1/sqrt(2)` is `cos(45)` and `sin(45)`).

A ball falls at `t_1gt0` when `H(t_1)=0,` i.e. `t_1 = 2/g*V_0/sqrt(2),` so `D(t_1)=V_0^2/(g)=D_(max).` Thus `V_0=sqrt(D_1 g).`

Great, now if a cricketer throws a ball vertically upward with the same initial speed, the maximum height of a ball would be `V_0^2/(2 g)=D_(max)/2.` The simplest way to obtain this formula is to consider the energy conservation law, `mgH=(m V_0^2)/2.`

So the maximum height is twice less than the maximum horizontal distance, i.e. it is 50 m.

In The Crucible by Arthur Miller, why is it surprising that Rebecca Nurse is charged with witchcraft?

It is absolutely surprising that Rebecca Nurse is charged with witchcraft because, as Miller writes when he introduces her and her husband, "the general opinion of her character was so high [...]."  She is widely known to be pious and humble and godly.  Her mere presence is enough to quiet Betty Parris who is strangely sick in bed.  She insists that if there is some problem in Salem then the townspeople should examine themselves to learn its cause; she wishes to avoid any hysteria caused by a fear of witches. 

When Mr. Hale arrives, never having met Rebecca before, he recognizes her because, as he says, "I supposed you look as such a good soul should."  He claims that everyone in Beverly, a town or two over, has heard of Rebecca's good works.  Her reputation is so sterling that people even know her in another town and that this man of God can recognize her simply because she seems so holy.  In Act Two, he insists that "if Rebecca Nurse be tainted, then nothing's left to stop the whole green world from burning."  She is everything that is charitable and good, and so the idea of her being accused seems ludicrous to anyone who is likewise honest.

What is the message of the poem "Hawk Roosting" by Ted Hughes?

On a literal level, this poem is about a hawk roosting in a tree and reflecting on its body, its predatory powers, and its superiority to other creatures ("I kill where I please because it is all mine").

On a metaphorical level, there are several "messages" or themes that one could take away from this poem. Arguably, the main message here is that we can view the hawk as a symbol for humanity's arrogance, tyranny, and obsession with power and destruction. Thus, the hawk in this poem is like a mirror, reflecting back some of our own less-than-desirable human traits. 

The hawk is rather conceited and believes nature has been designed solely for him. Hughes writes, "The air's buoyancy and the sun's ray / Are of advantage to me; / And the earth's face upward for my inspection." According to the hawk, everything in nature was designed to serve him, and this sentiment speaks to humanity's beliefs regarding its superiority to nature and to other beings.

The poem's final stanza reads, "Nothing has changed since I began. / My eye has permitted no change. I am going to keep things like this." The hawk believes he will always be superior and powerful, that he is in control of whether or not things change, and even perhaps that he is capable of living forever. This speaks to humanity's obsession with cheating both death and the natural cycles of the earth. Just as humans are arrogant and believe themselves to be indestructible and immune to nature and its changes, the hawk also believes itself to be all-powerful.

What historical events occurred in 1914?

There were many historical events that took place in 1914. In June 1914, Franz Ferdinand was shot and killed in Sarajevo. A group of Serbian nationals developed a plan to kill Franz Ferdinand, the next King of Austria-Hungary. They hoped his assassination would encourage Austria-Hungary to give an area of land in Austria-Hungary in which many Serbians lived to Serbia.

This assassination set in motion a series of events that led to the start of World War I. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Russia, an ally of Serbia, then declared war on Austria-Hungary. This led to many other nations joining the war.

After years of construction, the Panama Canal opened in 1914. This shortened the time it took to travel from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and vice versa.

The Progressive Era continued in 1914. The Clayton Antitrust Act was passed. This law prevented businesses from charging different prices to different customers. It also gave unions the right to exist by exempting them from antitrust laws.

There were several historical events that occurred in 1914.

What is a literary device in Act 4, Scene 4 of Romeo and Juliet?

There are a couple literary devices in the short Act 4, Scene 4 of Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet." The scene centers on the Capulets who prepare for Juliet's wedding to Paris. Juliet's nurse prepares food, and her parents must make orders and also get some rest before the big day. 

When the Nurse jokingly remarks to Sir Capulet, "Ay, you have been a mouse-hunt in your time," in line 11, it is an example of a euphemism. A euphemism is a milder word or phrase which is substituted when the truth may be inappropriate or harsh. In this case, "mouse-hunter" is a more appropriate term for "ladies' man" or "lady chaser," with women being the mice that the man hunts as prey. 

There is also a play on words in lines 19-22. The servant says he has a head that will "find out logs," meaning that he is smart enough to find logs without asking help from another. However, Sir Capulet responds by calling him a "loggerhead," meaning that his head is full of logs rather than smarts. "Romeo and Juliet" contains many plays on words, which is a primary source of humour in the play. 

How is Panem a dystopian society?

Panem is a dystopian society because everyone in the capital lives a wonderful life but the rest of the country suffers. 

A dystopia is a type of science fiction in which people have tried to create a perfect world, and in doing so have created a nightmare.  These dystopias usually restrict people’s rights and use science and technology to terrorize and control their citizens. 

The country of Panem is carefully constructed into thirteen districts in order to keep the population in line.  There are actually only supposedly twelve, because the thirteenth is said to not exist.  Each district produces critical foodstuffs or goods for the capital, and the districts recede into poverty the farther they get from the Capitol. 

Participation in these programs is not optional.  Katniss’s district, District 12, produces coal.  There are other elements of dystopian disharmony in Panem that are exemplified in District 12.  Residents are not allowed to have weapons, even a bow and arrow to hunt their own food.  In fact, hunting is illegal.  There is an electrified fence Katniss has to pass in order to get to her hunting grounds, but Katniss is usually able to do so easily because electricity is so spotty in her impoverished district. 

Speech is severely restricted, especially in the districts far from the Capitol.  Katniss explains this to us in the beginning.  People who badmouth the government get into trouble. 

When I was younger, I scared my mother to death, the things I would blurt out about District 12, about the people who rule our country, Panem, from the far-off city called the Capitol. Eventually I understood this would only lead us to more trouble. (Ch. 1) 

In another feature typical of dystopias, Panem has a spectacle known as The Hunger Games.  In order to punish the districts for rebelling, the Capitol forces each of them to have a drawing of all children over the age of twelve.  The two who are chosen are sent to the capital for a reality show where they have to fight to the death with the children from the other eleven districts in a live reality TV show.

What are your feelings about Shylock at the end of the trial scene in The Merchant of Venice?

After learning that Antonio's merchant ships have been lost at sea, Shylock excitedly anticipates the payment on his contract with Antonio. It appears as if Shylock's wish for the demise of Antonio will be realized.

Shylock makes his formal appeal to the Duke of Venice for fulfillment on the bond he has made with the Christian merchant. When the Duke sees Shylock, he tells him that he fully expects that Shylock, out of humanity and love, will not demand payment of Antonio's flesh, and that he will also forgive some portion of the debt. However, Shylock replies,

I have possessed your grace of what I purpose,
And by our holy Sabbath have I sworn
To have the due and forfeit of my bond.
If you deny it, let the danger light
Upon your charter and your city’s freedom. (4.1.35-39)

Even when Bassanio tries to offer Shylock twice the amount of the loan, the usurer refuses. He justifies his demands, saying that the Christians refuse to release those that they use "in slavish parts/Because you bought them." The angered Duke replies to Shylock by saying that he would dismiss the court were it not for a learned doctor of law's expected arrival.

Soon, Portia, disguised as a lawyer, appears with a letter from Dr. Bellario, stating that "he" is to represent the learned Bellario. Approaching Shylock, Portia offers him triple the amount of the debt, but Shylock insists upon the strict interpretation of the agreement. So, Portia agrees, cleverly noting that the "strict" interpretation allows no spillage of blood.

Also, Portia cleverly informs Shylock that there is another legal hold on Shylock: Since he is an alien in Venice, who seeks the life of a citizen, Shylock has broken Venetian law and his wealth can now be divided between the public treasury and the injured citizen, Antonio. Moreover, Shylock's own life is in jeopardy because of what he has attempted.

Falling upon the mercy of the court, Shylock is forced to convert to Christianity and loses half of his possessions.

Here are some points to consider in forming an opinion about this scene:

While there are different reactions by readers to this scene, even though Shylock has made terrible demands upon Antonio, Antonio did agree to them. But, when the Duke urges him to be merciful and offers him twice the monetary amount, Shylock has the opportunity to save himself the misery which he is finally dealt.

Shylock is blind-sided by the legal punishments dealt him by Portia. Nevertheless, when he makes a logical point about the Venetians' treatment of their "slavish" workers as not much better than his demands upon Antonio, his punishment does appear to be very harsh. Certainly, forcing him to convert to Christianity is extreme, and does not seem to serve any practical purpose. Still, Shylock has had the opportunity to accept three times the debt, so he has only his own greed to blame for his fate. 

How did the Black Death bring about a crisis and recovery in Europe?

The Black Death brought about a crisis in Europe because it killed such a huge number of people.  Because records for the time are so sketchy, we do not have an accurate figure for the number or percent of people who were killed.  However, if we say that around 50% of the population of Europe died because of the Black Death, we are probably not far off.

Imagine what a crisis this would be if it happened today.  If that many people died, our society would be devastated.  We would lose many of our leaders and teachers.  We would lose many people who own companies and create jobs.  We might lose large numbers of police and firefighters.  When half your population dies suddenly, all sorts of important people die and society is thrown into an uproar.  Now add to that the fact that Europeans of the time had no idea what was happening.  They did not understand why diseases happen or how they are spread.  From their point of view, people were dying terrible deaths at random with no discernable reason.  This eroded faith in the Church, which was a major institution in those times.  It also just caused people to be frightened, perhaps more than we can even comprehend.  In these ways, the Black Death caused a major crisis in Europe as it weakened society in many ways.

However, by killing so many people the Black Death brought about economic opportunity and economic change for those who survived.  Excess crops and food stores meant that food prices dropped and people could afford more food than they previously could.  Because so many workers of all sorts died, those who remained were much more valuable.  They could command higher wages.  They could force their employers to treat them better in order to keep them on as workers.  Many people who had been serfs and peasants left the countryside and moved to cities where they helped to drive economic growth.  In short, the Black Death created a situation where the workers had more power and could build better lives for themselves.  This helped drive an economic recovery in Europe and may have helped pave the way for modernization and further increases in prosperity.  In this way, the Black Death may have caused a crisis at first, but it (at least arguably) was good for society as a whole in the long run.

Why does Harper Lee have Tom Robinson die? What does his death do for the plot?

In Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, Tom Robinson's death comes as a bit of a shock. Immediately after the trial, there is the (slim) possibility of getting an appeal, but then Atticus abruptly announces Tom Robinson was shot and killed while trying to escape prison. Though there are many valid opinions regarding why Lee had Tom Robinson die, I believe she included this plot point to illustrate the hopelessness and despair of the black community in racist Maycomb. Tom Robinson tried to escape because he knew he was never going to get a fair trial; his attempt was an example of extreme desperation. By including this moment in the plot, Lee illustrates the hopelessness a black individual feels in a white, racist community, and she further emphasizes the extent of the obstacles facing those trying to fight racial prejudice.