Blog: March 2016

What is a biography of Raymond Carver?

You will find that the study guide under "Raymond Carver" contains an abundance of information about this popular and important writer of prose and poetry. Carver had a short life because he died of lung cancer when he was only fifty years old. Many people consider him the best American writer in the second half of the twentieth century. His literary career is amazing, because he started off with a limited academic education and...

He also once declared that the most important, although in many ways the most negative, influence on his early hopes to become a writer, was the fact that he married and became a father before he was twenty. The pressures of supporting his young family made it almost impossible to find time to write.

Carver's own works are heavily autobiographical. He was amazingly honest about his life experiences, including his faults, which included heavy alcoholism. One of his best stories, "Where I'm Calling From," is about his stay in a "drying-out facility" where he was trying desperately to break his alcohol addiction. His stories and poems often deal with his unhappy first marriage and his struggles to earn a living. Ironically, it would appear that his success as a creative writer was largely due to his candor about his faults and follies.

Be sure to refer to the reference link below for full details about Carver's biography. You can also find abundant information about Carver's life in his stories and poems.

In The Wednesday Wars by Gary D. Schmidt, to where do Mrs.Baker and Holling go on a "field trip"?

During the middle of yet another tedious bomb drill one Wednesday afternoon, Mrs. Baker decides to take things into her own hands. She tells Holling that they will leave the classroom to survey "points of local architectural interest."

Once permission is granted by Holling's mother and Mrs. Sidman at the Main Administrative Office, Mrs. Baker takes Holling on a field trip. She drives both of them over the Long Island Expressway to a Quaker meetinghouse on the north side of the city; this meetinghouse was a station on the Underground Railroad a hundred and fifty years ago.

Next, Mrs. Baker shows Holling the first jail on Long Island. Holling discovers that the jail only has two cells, one for men and another one for women. The first man to occupy a jail cell there had been found guilty of stealing a horse, while the first woman to be imprisoned there had failed to pay the required church tax.

On the east side of town, Mrs. Baker and Holling visit Hicks Park (formerly known as Hicks Common) where the first settlers grazed their cattle. They also visited Saint Paul's Episcopal School, where British soldiers were quartered during the American Revolution.

On the south side of town, Holling visits a Jewish synagogue, the Temple Emmanuel. It had been rebuilt thrice during its lifetime. The first temple burned down because of lightning. The second building was torched by British soldiers as a punishment to the congregation for supporting the American Revolution, and the third building was destroyed by arsonists. Mrs. Baker maintains that the ark holding the Torah was never damaged in any of the three fires.

On the west side of town, Mrs. Baker points out to Holling the first abolitionist school in North America. The last place Mrs. Baker and Holling visit is the Catholic St. Adelbert's Church. There, Holling prays that a bomb never drops on his high school or on any of the places he has just visited. He prays for Danny Hupfer in his Hebrew class, Lieutenant Baker in the jungles of Vietnam, and his sister in her car, on the way to California.

You are the director of a business development consultancy. Your team is required to represent data in the next board meeting on sale trends in the...

As you work on this assignment, you need to think carefully about how to ensure that:

All relevant data is presented

The elements of the presentation are consistent with each other

There is no repetition or redundancy

This means that your first task is to create a standard format or template to be used by all team members and sent as an attachment. This should specify such things as colors, fonts, and spacing, which will ensure the presentation will have a seamless visual effect rather than look like a random mess.

Next, you should carefully specify in the email which team is responsible for creating which individual slides, handouts, spreadsheets, and graphs. That will ensure all the proper information is represented with minimal overlap.

Finally, as you will need to analyze the data to prepare an executive summary, you should clearly set a deadline several days before the meeting to allow time to work on your own contribution and to request revisions if the materials prepared by one or more teams are not usable.

What are some literary devices used in Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream in Act I, scene i, lines 226-251

In this section, Helena laments that Demetrius's love has turned from her to Hermia and then discusses love's attributes in general. Shakespeare has her use personification: in an extended metaphor, Helena likens love first to a person, and then to a little boy. Helena gives loves human characteristics: it has eyes and a mind, and it sees with its mind (or imagination, a human trait), not its eyes. She then goes on to compare love to Cupid, usually depicted as a young, winged boy, musing that love is indeed like a boy who "forswears" (lies) at his games, perjuring himself "everywhere." Thinking about Demetrius, who one day had nothing but words of love for her, only to turn almost instantly to Hermia, Helena personifies love as a child that can almost immediately be "beguiled" into changing its loyalties.

Shakespeare also uses rich imagery in this passage, meaning he paints a picture with words. First, Helena mentions "wing'd Cupid painted blind." We can see in our imaginations a painting of Cupid, perhaps from a Valentine, depicted with a blindfold so he can't see. Shakespeare also has Helena compare a lover's words to hail, something which might strike us hard but quickly melts.

What is a metaphor in the first paragraph of Atwood's "All Bread"?

One metaphor found in the first stanza of Margaret Atwood's poem "All Bread" is the following, which opens the poem:

All bread is made of wood, Cow dung, packed brown moss, The bodies of dead animals, the teeth And backbones, what is left After the ravens.

The poem in its entirety describes the process of making bread in four stanzas. The first describes the wheat growing in the dirt; the second focuses on the process...

One metaphor found in the first stanza of Margaret Atwood's poem "All Bread" is the following, which opens the poem:

All bread is made of wood,
Cow dung, packed brown moss,
The bodies of dead animals, the teeth
And backbones, what is left
After the ravens.

The poem in its entirety describes the process of making bread in four stanzas. The first describes the wheat growing in the dirt; the second focuses on the process of baking bread; the third imagines someone eating the bread after a long day of physical labor. The poem concludes by claiming that eating bread is eating the earth, and bread is meant to be shared. Overall, the bread could be interpreted as a metaphor for love and family because it is described as mundane and ritualized, yet it is crucially important that it is shared. By this interpretation, the dirt in the first paragraph could be a metaphor for how love is created and sustained by the earth, like the various substances in the dirt like cow dung, moss, and rotting animal remains all work to grow wheat.

What are quotes from Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird that are related to Scout's coming of age?

Coming of age refers to the way the events of the novel affect the character and help her grow up. Scout grows up a lot over the course of the book. In the beginning, like other young children, she is very self-centered. She gets into arguments and fights constantly, and she is afraid of the neighborhood bogeyman Boo Radley. She comes to understand people better over the course of the book.

When Scout tells her teacher at school about the ways of Maycomb, she is surprised that her teacher is not more grateful. Instead, she gets into trouble for being annoying. Her teacher also tells her not to read anymore, because she should not know how to read yet. This really upsets Scout. She takes it personally. Atticus tells her that she needs to learn empathy.

“First of all,” he said, “if you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you’ll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view-”

“Sir?”

“-until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.” (Ch. 3)

Atticus tries to explain the Ewells to Scout. Scout doesn’t want to go to school, and she thinks she should not have to since the Ewells only go once a year for one day. Atticus explains that the Ewells live like animals, and they do not value education.

Scout’s understanding of the trial is fairly comprehensive, but unsophisticated. She is able to follow the testimony and evaluate the evidence, but she does not pick up on many nuances. Still, we can see a real difference in Scout when, during the trial, she is able to put herself in Mayella’s place and understand what her life must be like.

As Tom Robinson gave his testimony, it came to me that Mayella Ewell must have been the loneliest person in the world. She was even lonelier than Boo Radley, who had not been out of the house in twenty-five years. (Ch. 19)

Scout’s comparison of Mayella to Boo Radley is relevant too. As she gets older and more mature, she is no longer afraid of him. She is also able to see things from his perspective. When Scout and Jem are attacked by Bob Ewell after the trial, Scout treats Boo with dignity and patience. She understands that he is sensitive and shy. Atticus asks her if she understands why they are not telling anyone that Boo Radley saved them.

“Scout,” he said, “Mr. Ewell fell on his knife. Can you possibly understand?”

… “Yes sir, I understand,” I reassured him. “Mr. Tate was right.”

Atticus disengaged himself and looked at me. “What do you mean?”

“Well, it’d be sort of like shootin‘ a mockingbird, wouldn’t it?” (Ch. 30)

Scout walks Boo Radley home, calling him “Mr. Arthur,” and looks out from his porch. She demonstrates that she understands that Boo is different, and pictures her childhood from his perspective hiding inside his house.

Summer, and he watched his children’s heart break. Autumn again, and Boo’s children needed him.

Atticus was right. One time he said you never really know a man until you stand in his shoes and walk around in them. Just standing on the Radley porch was enough. (Ch. 31)

This perspective allows the reader to see how much Scout has grown and matured. She has empathy for others, and she also knows how to treat people. She is polite and kind, and very grown-up.

In "The Open Window" by Saki, does Vera show hospitality towards Mr. Nuttel? How?

In the story, Vera does indeed show hospitality towards Mr. Nuttel. Her methods are a little unusual, however, and she entertains herself at his expense.

As the story begins, we learn Vera, a young lady of fifteen, has been charged with keeping Mr. Nuttel company until her aunt, Mrs. Sappleton, appears to greet her guest. When she first meets him, Vera tries to put Mr. Nuttel at ease. She graciously assures Mr. Nuttel that Mrs....

In the story, Vera does indeed show hospitality towards Mr. Nuttel. Her methods are a little unusual, however, and she entertains herself at his expense.

Mr. Nuttel appears to ignore Vera after the initial introductions. He seems focused on the reasons he is in Mrs. Sappleton's home. Accordingly, Mr. Nuttel's sister arranged for him to meet some of her friends during his vacation. She has written him "letters of introduction" to present to these friends so Mr. Nuttel can become acquainted with them, too. It seems Mr. Nuttel's sister wants to prevent her brother from shutting himself off from people and succumbing to depression while he is on vacation.

Ironically, despite her good intentions, Mr. Nuttel is ill at ease with Vera. He is so self-absorbed and preoccupied with his own imagined illnesses that he initially neglects to engage Vera in polite conversation. Vera, being the imaginative soul that she is, decides to concoct a story about how Mrs. Sappleton's husband and her two brothers met an untimely death three years ago while out snipe-hunting. Of course, the story is not true, but Vera manages to engage Mr. Nuttel's attention so thoroughly that he has no time to think about himself. This is how Vera extends her hospitality to Mr. Nuttel: she keeps him engaged until Mrs. Sappleton appears.

Why do Christians believe in the Holy Trinity when the concept seems impossible? Why do they believe Jesus is a God? Can a human become a God?

The basic answers to all of these questions are the same. First, Christians believe these things because this is what their scripture says. Second, these things are no more or less impossible than the beliefs of any other religion.

In essence, every religion believes in things that are impossible. If these things were possible, they would be part of the natural world, not part of religion. For example, let us say that you believe that there is one god, who is a being who has always existed and who created the universe. How is this believable and possible? How can a being exist without having been born at some point? How can a being make things (the universe) out of nothing, simply by willing it to be so? From our perspective as humans, these things are impossible. If we believe that they are true, we believe them solely because our faith tells us to believe them, not because our reason tells us that they are clearly true.

If we accept that every religion teaches us to believe in the impossible, then the “impossible” aspects of Christianity are not hard to accept. If Christian beliefs seem impossible and unbelievable to you, it is only because you have not grown up believing they are true. If we can accept that a god could exist without having been created, what is so strange about saying that there is a god who has three parts and yet is still one God? In general, religious belief is not subject to reason. We cannot prove our religious beliefs are true or false and we cannot say that someone else’s beliefs are unbelievable. All religious beliefs are unbelievable and impossible unless you happen to share that particular faith.

In Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, why do Atticus and his children get such different reactions from Mrs. Dubose?

Atticus understands the generation from which Mrs. Dubose has come, and he also understands her underlying problem, whereas the children do not. Cleary, Mrs. Dubose does not approve of some of the things the children do and say, as well as their appearances, especially Scout's.

When the children pass by her house, Mrs. Dubose often sits in her wheelchair on her porch. Scout may say, "Hey, Mrs. Dubose." However, Mrs. Dubose does not return the...

When the children pass by her house, Mrs. Dubose often sits in her wheelchair on her porch. Scout may say, "Hey, Mrs. Dubose." However, Mrs. Dubose does not return the greeting. Instead, she criticizes both her looks and her speech:

"Don't you say hey to me, you ugly girl! You say good afternoon, Mrs. Dubose!" (Ch.11)

When Jem refered to their father as Atticus, "her reaction was apoplectic." She considers Jem and Scout as "the sassiest, most disrespectful mutts who ever passed her way." And, like many "cranky, old people," Mrs. Dubose is suspicious of what Jem and Scout are doing. One Saturday she asks them what they are doing, all the while thinking the worst of them, and believing that the children are impudent.

But, when Atticus walks with the children and they approach Mrs. Dubose's house, Atticus takes his hat off with a grand gesture, and he waves "gallantly."

"Good evening, Mrs. Dubose! You look like a picture this evening." (Ch.11)

Then he replaces his hat and extends wishes that she will have a good day on the following day. It is at this point that Scout believes her father to be the "bravest man on earth."

Is there a sense of justice in Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and which parts of the novel shows justice or injustice?

Toward the end of the third chapter, "Dr. Jekyll Was Quite at Ease," Jekyll is speaking with his lawyer, Mr. Utterson, about his will. Utterson has confronted Jekyll about the will, which concerns him, because, in it, Jekyll has left all his worldly possessions, should he disappear for a minimum of three months, to Mr. Hyde (a man who is completely abhorrent to Utterson in every possible way). Utterson claims that he will abide by Jekyll's wishes but that he can never like Hyde, to which Jekyll responds, "'I don't ask that [...]. I only ask for justice; I only ask you to help him for my sake, when I am no longer here.'" Therefore, it seems that, for Dr. Jekyll, it is just that this terrible little man who we learn later is a murderer, essentially comprised of nothing but the very worst parts of the relatively good doctor, should benefit from Jekyll's demise, should it come. Most would argue that this seems relatively unjust, that Hyde should never benefit from someone else's misfortune, let alone the misfortune of the man whose own downfall permits Hyde to live.

Justice never really seems to be served in this novel. Jekyll should not have attempted to rid himself of his "evil qualities" because the mixture of both good and bad is something that each person needs to work out for him or herself (as Stevenson seems to be suggesting). Jekyll admits to experiencing a "profound duplicity" that resulted in a "morbid sense of shame," in his final letter, but it is not just for him to attempt to rid himself of part of what makes him human so that he can have an easier time of it. One could argue, on the other hand, that it is not just for Jekyll's strict, Victorian society to install such rigid rules regarding conduct that a mostly good man feels the need to go to such lengths to shed any semblance of moral ambiguity he possesses. Further, justice is never really served to Hyde for the wrongdoings that he commits; he does take his own life, but that is his choice, and the capability to choose to avoid punishment by disappearing into Jekyll and, later, death, seems unjust as well.

What is a direct quote from Fahrenheit 451 that shows Montag's most dominant personality trait? How does this quote reveal an important personality...

In Part Two of the novel entitled "The Sieve and the Sand," Montag visits Faber to seek advice about comprehending the various texts that he has begun to read. When Faber asks Montag why he came here, Montag says,

"Nobody listens any more. I can't talk to the walls because they're yelling at me. I can't talk to my wife; she listens to the walls. I just want someone to hear what I have...

"Nobody listens any more. I can't talk to the walls because they're yelling at me. I can't talk to my wife; she listens to the walls. I just want someone to hear what I have to say. And maybe if I talk long enough, it'll make sense. And I want you to teach me to understand what I read" (Bradbury 78).

Montag's quote depicts his most predominant personality trait which his ambitious drive to take control of his own life. Montag is ambitious about changing his present situation and seeks to learn about ways to break free from his meaningless existence. He realizes that what he is doing makes him an enemy of the state, but seeks Faber's literary advice nonetheless. Asking for Faber's help in understanding what he has read and searching for answers also portrays his curiosity. Montag wants to learn how to make sense of literature and the world around him. Montag's ambitious personality is significant to the novel because it is his unending drive to change his present situation that allows him to break from society and become a traveling intellectual. By the end of the novel, Montag gets his wish to be heard as he walks toward the devastated city in hopes of rebuilding a better society.

Why has Eckels come to the Time Safari office? What does he plan to do?

It’s the year 2055. Eckels is a hunter. He’s come to the Time Safari office in order to be taken back to prehistoric times and to kill a dinosaur. He’s paying $10,000 for the opportunity to do so. At least, this is his plan. He joins a hunting party led by two guides, Travis and Lesperance; and they use a time machine to go back to the crucial moment. They’re going to kill a Tyrannosaurus rex that would have been killed by a falling tree anyway. But once faced with the tremendous beast, Eckels becomes terrified. He stumbles back to the time machine, not even realizing that he has stepped off the Path that everyone was warned to stay on. The Time Safari people had done their best to make sure that their actions would not impact the future in any way. Of course, once they return to 2055, they see that this is not the case. Eckels’ misstep has evidently set off a series of changes that now make contemporary life quite different than it was before.

What were some of the reasons for Helen Keller's embittered childhood in The Story of My Life, and how were they overcome?

After Keller falls ill as a child, she is no longer able to see or hear. She describes this process as "very unreal, like a nightmare." It is frightening for her, as a baby, to lose her sight and hearing and to be surrounded by silence and darkness.

As a result, she becomes different from other people, and she reacts with frustration. She writes:

"I do not remember when I first realized that I was...

As a result, she becomes different from other people, and she reacts with frustration. She writes:

"I do not remember when I first realized that I was different from other people; but I knew it before my teacher came to me. I had noticed that my mother and my friends did not use signs as I did when they wanted anything done, but talked with their mouths. Sometimes I stood between two persons who were conversing and touched their lips. I could not understand, and was vexed. I moved my lips and gesticulated frantically without result."

She attempts to use signs to communicate with others, but they do not know how to use them and instead try to continue to use speech. As a result, Keller becomes understandably agitated because she so badly wants to express herself. She also is subject to danger, as she nearly sets herself on fire when trying to dry her apron. At this point, Keller has no tools or skills to express herself or communicate with others. She often has tantrums out of a sense of frustration.

She begins to overcome these problems once her teacher, Anne Sullivan, arrives shortly before Keller turns seven. She writes, "I was like that ship before my education began, only I was without compass or sounding-line, and had no way of knowing how near the harbour was." Sullivan is Keller's harbor. Sullivan teaches Keller sign language, and Keller writes that "somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me." Keller begins to feel calmer, as she can communicate with others. In addition, Sullivan teaches Keller how to read and about science and math. She also introduces Keller to other blind children at Perkins Institute for the Blind in Boston, thereby helping Keller to overcome the isolation she felt always being around people who are different from her.

What are the accomplishments of Ulrich von Gradwitz in "The Interlopers"?

The main accomplishment of Ulrich von Gradwitz is that he is able to bring the feud between Georg Znaeym and himself to an end.

Just as the two enemies come face to face in the forest, lightning strikes a huge beech tree that splits and falls, preventing either man from firing his rifle. As "a deed of Nature's own violence overwhelm[s] them," the two enemies are pinioned beneath heavy branches. The two men exchange curses in their enmity.
Then, when Znaeym laughs at the irony of von Gradwitz having been snared in his "stolen" forest, von Gradwitz retorts that while he may be "caught in my own forest land," his men will come to release him and Znaeym will be apprehended as a poacher. But, Znaeym informs his foe that he, too, has men out there. However, no men appear for some time. So, Ulrich von Gradwitz decides to offer his wine flask to Georg Znaeym, but he refuses.

As the night wears on, each man is quiet with his own private thoughts until von Gradwitz finally concludes that there are more important things in life "...than getting the better of a boundary dispute."

Turning to Znaeym he asks,

"Neighbor, if you will help me to bury the old quarrel, I--I will ask you to be my friend."

Silent for a considerable time, Znaeym finally responds slowly,

"How the whole region would stare and gabble if we rode into the market square together. No one living can remember a Znaeym and a von Gradwitz talking to one another in friendship."

The two men talk some more and finally resolve their differences, even to the point of each one hoping his men will be first to arrive so that he can demonstrate "honorable attention to the enemy that had become a friend." But, as fate would have it, neither is able to do so.

Strangely, the person who increases the original five years to fifteen is the (a) lawyer, (b) banker, (c) judge

The correct answer is (a) the lawyer

One evening a wealthy banker hosts a party at which a discussion of capital punishment begins. While most of the guests disapprove of capital punishment, the banker disagrees with them:

Capital punishment kills a man at once, but life-long imprisonment kills him slowly.

While others consider the death penalty immoral and unsuitable for Christian countries, the young lawyer contends that both the death sentence and the life sentence are immoral,

...but if I had to choose between the death penalty and imprisonment for life, I would certainly choose the second. To live anyhow is better than not at all.

Excited by the discussion, the banker challenges the lawyer's opinion,

"It's not true! I'll bet you two million you wouldn't stay in solitary confinement for five years."
"If you mean that in earnest....I'll take the bet, but I would stay not five, but fifteen years."

"Done!" the banker shouts and the young lawyer resounds, "Agreed!" However, his rash addition of ten years to his confinement becomes a tremendous burden to his soul.
In the first five years, the lawyer is allowed to have a musical instrument, books, and paper and pen on which to write letters. He can also have wine and tobacco, but the lawyer refuses to drink or smoke because wine excites the senses and smoke spoils the air. He suffers terribly from loneliness the first year, but he plays the piano and reads. During the second year, he does not touch the piano, nor does he read. Instead, he drinks wine and eats and lies on his bed indolently. At times he speaks angrily to himself aloud, or he writes all night, then tears up what he has written. Sometimes he cries.

At the end of these five years, the lawyer could have redeemed his spirit if he were only to have kept the bet to this length. But, in a display of bravado, he has sentenced himself to a decade longer, a decade of the deprivation of human contact that destroys his spirit. For, in his impulsive gesture, he has discounted the need in all men for others since it is only in sharing one's laughter, love, thoughts, and feelings that man finds meaning in life.

When heavy rain falls, where is flash flooding most likely to occur?

Flash flooding is most common in low lying regions like valleys, river beds, and geographic depressions. The main cause of flash flooding is when there is nowhere for water to go. This is caused when the ground has little to no absorption capability. Where I live, flash flooding is most often caused when there is an extended period of rain to saturate the soil, preventing quick absorption into the soil, or after a long period of drought when the ground acts as a fired clay and causes water to runoff. In other areas, rain falling on stone can cause flooding, and in rivers surrounded by highlands such as in the mountains, even a small rain can raise water levels significantly, resulting in a flash flood.

How does Ophelia change over the course of Shakespeare's Hamlet?

Ophelia is essentially a pure and virtuous character who is driven insane by the conflicting demands of her father and brother on one hand and her former boyfriend, Hamlet, on the other. She changes from a state of innocence to one of disillusionment and despair as the play goes on.

At the beginning of the play, Laertes, her brother, tells Ophelia that Hamlet is not serious about her. He says, "For Hamlet and the trifling of his favor, / Hold it a fashion and a toy in blood, / A violet in the youth of primy nature" (I.3.5-7). In other words, Laertes informs Ophelia that Hamlet's attentions are fleeting, and that they will pass because he is changeable young man. Later, her father, Polonius, tells her, "You do not understand yourself so clearly / As it behooves my daughter and your honor" (I.3.97-98). He accuses her of not acting with the modesty she should, but Ophelia is ultimately an honest and honorable person. While the people around her accuse her, she acts with rectitude and obedience.

In Act III, Scene 1, she obeys Claudius, Hamlet's uncle, and her father when they ask her to spy on Hamlet. Polonius even tells her, "Read on this book / That show of such an exercise may color / Your loneliness.—" (I.3.46-49). He asks his daughter to read from a prayer book when she is trying to deceive Hamlet, an act of hypocrisy, so that she seems innocent when Hamlet comes by. She obediently responds. During the conversation that follows, Hamlet tells her, "Get thee to a nunnery. / Why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?" (I.3.23-24). He says that she should become a nun so that she won't give birth to more sinners like herself. Ophelia responds to Hamlet's hurtful words only by asking God to help him (line 135).

Throughout all of these manipulations by her father, brother, and former boyfriend, Ophelia doesn't change. She only says, "O, how miserable I am to see Hamlet now and know what he was before!" (I.3.161-162). Her essential good nature is intact.

However, by Act IV she is carried away by grief over how the men around her treat her and becomes mad. In some senses, she also seems to be more aware of the way men mistreat her. She is less innocent and more knowing, even as she is insane. She sings in verse (which, as it isn't in iambic pentameter, marks her as insane): "He is dead and gone, lady, /He is dead and gone. / At his head is a patch of green grass, / And at his feet there is a tomb stone." (IV.5.26-29). This verse signifies that she has become obsessed with death and is depressed and deranged after her father's death. When Claudius asks her how she is doing, she answers, "Well, God'ield you," which means may you get what you deserve. She then sings a song about a young man tricking a young woman into sleeping with him and then not marrying her (lines 40-50).

She has changed because she is now more aware of the way in which men mistreat women. Later, she drowns, and she seems to have done nothing to save herself. As Gertrude says, Ophelia is "As one incapable of her own distress" (IV.7.175). In other words, Ophelia shows no sign of saving herself, as she is resigned to the evil in the world but has decided she wants to pass on to another world so she doesn't have to deal with it.

How did the multi-ethnic cultures of Balkan led to the country's demise?

The multi-ethnic cultures of the Balkans led to severe conflicts between polarized groups, culminating in wars in 1912 and 1913. Since then, the division of any country into small, hostile units has been known as "Balkanization." The primary reason this led to the destruction of the original country was the impractical division of power. The new political units were too small to effectively unify the region, destabilizing its populace and throwing off the balance of...

In addition to the fractured government of the Balkans, the cultural divide became too great to overcome. What was once a relatively cohesive culture was fractured into many smaller parts, creating an environment of harshly competing values. This competition led to various conflicts throughout the region and destroyed any existing sense of cohesion. While many multi-ethnic societies around the world thrive through peaceful coexistence, the political tensions between ethnic groups in the Balkans were too severe to overcome. Due to the vast expanse of the Ottoman empire and the diversity of the members of the Balkan League, those differences resulted in total structural collapse.

It is worth noting that in most multi-ethnic countries, the individual groups have shared geographic proximity for far longer than the groups in the Balkan League. Each of these factors contributed heavily to the Balkan Wars and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in Europe.

Who is referred to as 'The Swiss' in Arms and the Man by George Bernard Shaw?

In general therms, "the Swiss" are citizens of Switzerland. Historically, and even through the present day, Switzerland tended to remain neutral in the great wars tearing apart Europe, and thus a meeting ground for diplomats.

Although Switzerland itself was neutral in the Serbo-Bulgarian war, the Swiss preserved their independence by requiring all males to have military training and thus were notable as mercenaries in this period. Many of the Swiss cantons maintained militias that hired...

Captain Bluntschli is the only Swiss character in the play. He is one of a group of Swiss mercenaries who fought for the losing Serbian side in the war. At the start of the play, he climbs through the window of a Bulgarian house. In the context of the play, "the Swiss" refer collectively to the Swiss mercenaries.

How did the Americans win independence in spite of British military advantages?

The Americans were able to win the war for independence for a number of reasons. First, the British found it difficult to destroy the American armies in the field and simultaneously occupy American cities. Second, they grossly overestimated the extent of loyalist support (or at least loyalist military support), particularly in the South. Third, the war was deeply unpopular at home from the outside, and the Americans always had sympathizers in Parliament who placed significant pressure on a series of ministers to win the war. Fourth, British generals, through incompetence, indecisiveness, and lack of strategic vision, often failed to press their advantages, most notably in the New York campaign of 1776, when Washington's entire army was there for the taking. Fifth, Washington's leadership should not be downplayed. As commander of the Continental Army, he managed to hold the force together, keeping it viable and battle-ready as he led the British through what he called a "war of posts." Basically, although he made many mistakes and never really won a major decisive victory, Washington avoided defeat, making the conflict far longer, messier, and more expensive than the British were willing to bear. Finally, French aid, including French military assistance, proved decisive after 1778, and it is very unlikely the Americans would have been able to achieve independence outright without it.

If temperature and pressure are inversely related, how are both high at the plains?

According to the ideal gas law:

PV = nRT

where P is the pressure, V is the volume, n is the number of moles, R is the universal gas constant and T is the temperature. From this equation, we can see that pressure and temperature are directly proportional to each other and not inversely proportional.

According to Gay-Lussac's Law, pressure and temperature are directly proportional, which means P/T = constant, provided that the volume is...

According to the ideal gas law:

PV = nRT

According to Gay-Lussac's Law, pressure and temperature are directly proportional, which means P/T = constant, provided that the volume is held constant.

Thus, it is entirely feasible to have high pressure and temperature at the plains, as long as the gas volume is held constant. At high temperatures, the gas molecules attain higher kinetic energy and thus exert more pressure at the surfaces, as long as the volume is fixed. This causes an increase in the pressure exerted by the gas and hence high pressure and high temperatures exist together.

Hope this helps.

How would you describe the nightingale's selfishness in "The Frog and the Nightingale" by Vikram Seth?

In Seth's "The Frog and the Nightingale," the nightingale's selfishness can be seen in the approach she takes to her gift of song.

The nightingale displays selfishness in how she loves to be adored. For example, she is flattered the frog would tutor her. She sees it as a sign of respect. This is seen in how she calls him "Mozart" and looks at the entire situation as a dream come true. The frog appeals to the nightingale's vanity, an extension of her self-indulgence: "You'll remain a mere beginner/ But with me you'll be a winner." To be a "winner" is what moves the nightingale to accept the frog's tuition. Her desire to be a "winner" shows a type of selfishness. She is not content with singing as its own good; she wants more applause and audience acceptance, qualities reflecting her vanity and selfishness. The nightingale's selfish approach can also be seen in how she refers to "her" song: "I don't think the song's divine./ But—oh, well—at least it's mine." She emphasizes her own condition above all else, even the divine, in the way she sings "her song."

The nightingale loves appreciation from others. She is entranced when others shower her with praise. She is "quite unused to such applause" when she first sings her song. Her selfish desire for more praise leads to her destruction:

. . . she grew more morose—
For her ears were now addicted
To applause quite unrestricted,
And to sing into the night
All alone gave no delight.

The nightingale does not view her gift as something she can do "all alone." She needs an audience and the praise they provide. The only "delight" she has is when she is able to be the center of others' attention. This selfishness causes her to be reckless with her voice and not realize she is a victim of the frog's manipulation. As a result, the nightingale's selfishness is a negative trait that defines her predicament.

Which incident impresses you the most from the play Romeo and Juliet?

Personally, the incident that impresses me the most from this play is when Juliet takes her life into her own hands—literally and figuratively—and decides to fake her own death, deceive her family and her nurse, and make one last-ditch effort to be with her beloved, Romeo. She is so incredibly young, just thirteen, and she has so many reasonable fears about taking this step, but she bravely faces those fears and goes for it. Juliet worries the potion Friar Lawrence gave her might not work at all—then what will she do? She worries she could wake up earlier than planned and find herself trapped in her family's vault. She also has concerns that the mixture might kill her. Juliet must act alone, without anyone's support, taking a really dramatic step, and she does so courageously. I find this extremely impressive.

How do the banker's views on capital punishment differ from the views of most of his guests in "The Bet" by Chekhov?

In Anton Chekhov's "The Bet," the banker contends that capital punishment is more humane than life imprisonment. But, most of the guests at his party disagree.

Among the banker's guests are journalists and intellectuals; they disapprove of the death penalty, finding it immoral and against Christian purposes. Some feel that the death penalty should be done away with altogether. But, the banker disagrees, contending that the death penalty is actually more humane than life imprisonment....

In Anton Chekhov's "The Bet," the banker contends that capital punishment is more humane than life imprisonment. But, most of the guests at his party disagree.

"Capital punishment kills a man at once, but life imprisonment kills him slowly. Which executioner is the more humane, he who kills you in a few minutes or he who drags the life out of you in the course of many years?"

Among the guests is a young lawyer, who is about twenty-five years of age. When he argues that life on any terms is better than death, the banker bangs the table with his fist, and impulsively bets the lawyer two million rubles that he cannot stay in solitary confinement for five years. Equally reckless, the lawyer insists that he can stay confined for not just five, but fifteen years. The banker takes the bet, and the lawyer says,

"Agreed! You stake your millions and I stake my freedom!"

Ironically, at the end of the fifteen years, the lawyer has suffered from isolation. He has had no direction to his learning because reading and writing about the potential of the human mind and soul is incomplete without sharing these ideas with others of his own ilk. Without companionship, he has despaired of life, writing in a letter to those who come after him:

I despise freedom and life and health and all that in your books is called the good things of the world.

The lawyer decides to leave before the appointed time, thus forfeiting the prize. But, he lays down his head and falls asleep. The banker, who has been watching to see if it is the end of the bet, discovers a

...skeleton with the skin drawn tight over his bones with long curls like a woman's, and a shaggy beard...his cheeks were hollow, his back long and narrow, and the hand...was so thin and delicate that it was dreadful to look at it.

The lawyer appears as though the life has, indeed, been dragged out of him, just as the banker has predicted.

Can you explain each of the five features Lenin believed characterized the latest stage of capitalist development? Why was he convinced this latest...

Lenin believed the last stage of capitalism had the following five features:

the concentration of capital into monopolies that exert a powerful control over economic life

the combination of bank and industrial capital into what he called "finance capital"

a large importance placed on exporting capital as opposed to commodities

the formation of monopolies that have international reach

the division of the world into colonies controlled by imperialist powers

Lenin felt this late stage of capitalism would lead to wars, depressions, and revolutions because the inherent boom and bust cycle of capitalism would result in economic recessions and depressions. In addition, he believed the desire of capitalist powers to control other less-developed nations would result in wars caused by imperialism. This was indeed the case when Lenin wrote this book in 1916, during World War I. These imperialist wars would result in revolution among the members of the countries that capitalist countries attempted to control, and people in the capitalist countries who were subject to the economic depressions inherent in the capitalist cycle would also be prone to revolution. John Maynard Keynes would reject the idea that capitalism necessarily leads to boom and bust cycles, as he believed the government should intervene in the economy to prevent economic depressions and protect people from the parts of the capitalist cycle that Lenin thought would result in revolution.

Where did the earliest forms of life come from?

The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin one a landmark work in what became the science of evolutionary biology. In this work, Darwin noticed the correspondences among various species. He also was aware of how selective breeding worked. Farmers had for millennia been breeding animals for desired traits to develop horses that ran faster or could haul heavier weights, dogs that were efficient hunting partners, or food animals that were hardy, placid, and able to...

The key mechanisms he used to explain evolution were random mutation and natural selection. Random mutation is something we can all observe when we see, for example, polydactyl cats or other such minor variations in species. Natural selection ensures that if a mutation helps the species survive, it will propagate through the species, eventually creating a distinct subspecies or even a new species. Thus Darwin argues that humans evolved from non-human primates through precisely this mechanism of random mutation and natural selection.

The very earliest forms of life, of course, were not human but were unicellular organisms that formed nearly four billion years ago, probably from chemical reactions.

What are differences between Anna Sewell's Black Beauty and the movie?

Films always need much more visual and emotional drama to be appealing to viewers than books need to be appealing to readers. As such, while director Caroline Thompson's 1994 film is the most accurate adaptation of Anna Sewell's Black Beauty available, there are some differences.In films, conflicts and love intrigues must be established early on. For this reason, in the film, Black Beauty falls in lovewith Ginger early in the story, but...

In films, conflicts and love intrigues must be established early on. For this reason, in the film, Black Beauty falls in love with Ginger early in the story, but Ginger refuses to be friendly. In contrast, in the book, though Ginger is hostile towards Beauty upon his arrival because she accuses him of usurping her of ownership rights to the lose box, they warm up to each other fairly quickly. When first partnered with Ginger in the carriage, Beauty notes that Ginger "behaved very well," and he developed an admiration for her to the extent that he declares, "I never wish to have a better partner in double harness" (Ch. 5). And by the seventh chapter, Beauty and Ginger are friendly enough that she shares with him her life story. However, though they are friendly, they don't develop what can be considered a romance until they are both ruined by foolish drivers at Earlshall Park. Both are put in a meadow on Earlshall Park to regain their strength and greatly enjoy each other's company. Beauty describes what can be interpreted as spending romantic time with each other in the following:

We both felt in ourselves that we were not what we had been. However, that did not spoil the pleasure we had in each other's company; we did not gallop about as we once did, but we used to feed, and lie down together, and stand for hours under one of the shady lime-trees with our heads close to each other. (Ch.27)

To add more action, director Thompson created another difference by slightly changing the scene in which Beauty is being driven in a storm. In chapter 12, Beauty is out with Squire Gordon and John Manley on a business trip during a stormy day. By the end of the day, the storm is much worse. After being nearly struck and blocked by a falling branch, John turns the dog-cart around to take the other route across the bridge. But, Beauty refuses to cross the bridge because he senses it has been damaged by the storm. Soon enough, the man at the toll-gate informs them the bridge is broken in the middle. Prior to learning the bridge is broken, John jumps out of the dog-cart and goes to Beauty's head to see what is the matter. Upon learning the bridge is broken, John thanks God and praises Beauty then turns him around to pursue a different path. In contrast, in the film, John jumps out to try to pull Beauty across the bridge. Then, the bridge actually collapses, making John lose his footing. John saves himself by holding on to Beauty's bridle and is pulled to safety by Squire Gordon. In the book, John is much smarter than in the film because he knows to trust the instincts of a horse for sensing danger.

How does Holden feel about his brother D.B.’s having become a screenwriter in The Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger?

Holden Caulfield is repulsed by his brother's profession as a screenwriter.

In the opening chapter, Holden explains that his brother D. B. lives in Hollywood, not far from the hospital where he is. Holden relates that D.B. was a "regular writer" when he lived at home, and he wrote a "terrific book of short stories, The Secret Goldfish." But, Holden remarks, "Now that he's out in Hollywood, D. B. [is] being a prostitute." He adds,...

Holden Caulfield is repulsed by his brother's profession as a screenwriter.

What Holden probably means is that when he was a freelance writer, D. B. expressed his own ideas and exercised his own creativity, so there was a genuine quality to his writing; however, now, as a screenwriter, D.B. writes what is demanded by other people, such as directors and producers. Thus, he has "prostituted" himself.

When Holden mentions his hatred for movies along with his disgust for his brother's being a screenwriter, these remarks seem to foreshadow his repulsion for phoniness as well as his cynicism that is expressed later in the narrative.

In "Harrison Bergeron," what was Vonnegut saying about improving society by making everyone average?

Kurt Vonnegut's story "Harrison Bergeron" explores an interesting premise: What would happen in a society where everyone was truly equal? At face value, it seems consistent with American ideals to create a culture where all people are equal; after all, the Declaration of Independence claims, "All men are created equal." In Vonnegut's story, set in 2081, the U. S. Constitution has been amended 213 times in order to achieve that ideal originally expressed in 1776....

As the story progresses, readers see what such a society would be like. Since it is impossible to give people innate talents and abilities that they don't already possess, a culture bent on equality has no way to raise its citizens to the level of its most highly gifted members. It can only create equality by limiting the abilities of those with superior mental or physical functioning, bringing them down to the "average" level, which, in practice, would need to be the lowest level. Anyone who was superior in any way to anyone else would have to be "handicapped" so he or she could not take advantage of higher intelligence, greater strength or endurance, or any other unique talent he or she possessed.

Obviously, smoothing out the peaks of performance results in lower achievements in the entire society. As a result, dancers are clumsy and TV announcers have horrible voices and can barely read. Vonnegut conveys the idea that others' superior talents make a society interesting and fulfilling. Those who don't have talents in one area can be amazed by and/ or work toward the feats others are capable of and can put their own talents to use in the areas in which they excel. A society cannot be improved nor can people find fulfillment by dragging down people with superior abilities to an average level. Conversely, only when people are encouraged to pursue the highest levels of which they are capable, and when they can appreciate rather than envy others' successes, can a society thrive and fully benefit its members.

How does that jibe with the Declaration of Independence? Quite well, actually, for the founders' point was that all people "are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Government's job is to secure equal rights for all, not to make sure all people are literally equal.

What is prosodic analysis of comic speech? What are the controlling ideas and the conclusion of "Humor: Prosody Analysis and Automatic Recognition...

The key to understanding the main ideas of this article is knowing its purpose. The article is written by two researchers at the Intelligent Systems Program of the University of Pittsburgh. This means that the main point of the research is to help develop artificial intelligence systems that can understand natural human speech.

One of the major problems faced by researchers working on speech recognition is that the meaning of a phrase may vary with the...

One of the major problems faced by researchers working on speech recognition is that the meaning of a phrase may vary with the tone. For example, imagine the phrase, "Yeah, right" in two different contexts.

1. "Let's go to Luigi's for lunch. They have an all-you-can eat pizza deal." "Yeah, right."

2. "So your next car will be a Ferrari?" "Yeah, right. When I win the lottery."

In the first case the phrase signals assent and in the second case incredulity. While humans can distinguish easily between the two, machines cannot.

This paper is suggesting that there is a way to use prosodic clues to distinguish between humorous and serious uses of the same phrase. The authors argue that rather than using the lexical clues favored by other researchers, they think a better method is to use prosodic elements such as pitch, intensity, and tempo. They use the comedy "Friends" as a test case because it has laugh tracks following comments intended to be funny, and thus it is easy to distinguish humorous from serious comments.

The paper analyzes acoustic data from the show and concludes that:

[W]e found that humorous turns tend to have higher tempo, smaller internal silence, and higher peak, range and standard deviation for pitch and energy, compared to non-humorous turns.

What was the first work of art?

There are two challenges in answering your question. First, art is subjective, so there is much disagreement over what may be considered artistic. Second, preservation is both nature's blessing and curse to archaeologists. Much of the intentionally created work people have produced throughout history has been destroyed by moisture, light, bacteria, and aging. The best-preserved examples of ancient art that we have are either entirely or partially made of stone. We have certainly lost much more wood, fiber, and plant material art that can never be accounted for in the archaeological record. There may even have been works of art much older than the ones I am about to describe that simply did not survive to be known to our time.

Anthropologists, including archaeologists, generally define art as something not solely useful (though useful items may be made beautiful with art) that has been created or transformed with human intention. After that, beliefs about beauty, design, and form really complicate things. For our purposes, let's work with the understanding that a piece of art is anything that has been made more attractive or interesting to humans for the sake of enjoyment.

The earliest stone tools date to around 2.6 million years ago, and after a while, our ancestors realized that, in addition to helping them prepare food, tools could also make beautiful things. Several species who lived before us (Homo sapiens) created art, including Homo erectus. The absolutely oldest evidence of intentionally-altered material are the cupules carved into cave walls in places like Bhimbetka, India. These round, pock-like marks in cave walls would have been created by Homo erectus who spent time sheltering in such caves as early as 700,000 years ago. Of course, we don't know if they considered these anything spectacular or artistic — they might have just been bored and had a rock on hand.

Much later, around 100,000 years ago, the first beads (which remain preserved to this day) were created. At Skhul cave in Israel, perforated shells have been found alongside human remains. By this time, our own species was on the scene and getting creative, but members of the species Homo sapiens did not begin to migrate out of Africa until at least 70,000 years ago. For that reason, these shells were most likely poked and strung by Homo neandertalensis. Similar beads have been found in Morocco, dating to around 82,000 years ago, and may have been made by members of our own species.

The oldest examples of intentional artwork made by Homo sapiens, our own species, come from Blombos Cave in South Africa. Here, around 100,000 years ago, humans were making decorative stone and bone tools and paints. Pieces of carved ochre, a rich red or yellow pigment, have been here and date to around 76,000 years ago. It has been suggested that this means of carving regular patterns into the ochre was for keeping track of information rather than decoration. If we accept this hypothesis, we can move on to the next oldest example of intentional manipulation of materials. At Diepkloof, also in South Africa, engraved ostrich eggshells have been found dating to around 60,000 years ago.

What appeals to you about Shylock's speech in The Merchant of Venice? How might it be performed?

By "Shylock's speech," I'm assuming that you are referring to Shylock's "Hath not a Jew eyes?" speech in Act 3, Scene 1, which is probably the moneylender's most famous speech (and perhaps the most famous speech in the whole play). If you're unfamiliar with this speech, here is the most important part of it:

... He hath

disgrac'd me and hind'red me half a million;

laugh'd at my losses, mock'd at my gains,

scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains,

cooled my friends, heated mine enemies. And

what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew

eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions,

senses, affections, passions, fed with the same

food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to

the same diseases, healed by the same means,

warmed and cooled by the same winter and

summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we

not bleed? (46-58)

In this speech, Shylock describes the abuse he's suffered at the hands of Antonio, and points out that this oppression is a result of the fact that he's a Jew. More importantly, Shylock questions why he should receive such ill-treatment, as a Jew is a human being just as a Christian is. This speech is important because it uncovers the anti-Semitism at the heart of the play and points out its hypocrisy. More to the point, it reveals that Antonio is not as virtuous as he seems, but is actually something of a racist. As such, this speech is appealing because Shylock is proving that he is not just a "villain"; instead, he is an oppressed individual who suffers greatly at the hands of his Christian oppressors. In that case, even if Shylock can play the villain, this role is complicated, as the Christian community in the play has driven Shylock to evil by subjugating him to cruel treatment and prejudice.

Determining how this speech might be performed is somewhat subjective. That said, I believe that it would have to be performed with a complex mixture of hatred, outrage, and sadness, as Shylock is essentially conveying that he is tired of being treated as sub-human just because he is Jewish, as he is exactly the same as his Christian tormentors. Therefore, any performance of this speech would have to effectively convey the complex and subtle layers of emotion displayed here.

In what sense are “memories forever” in Lois Lowry's The Giver?

In Lois Lowry's The Giver, memories are "forever" in the sense that they must be held by at least one person. They will not cease to exist. Released by one person, they inevitably will attach themselves to others. The community has found some means to place all memories in the Giver, where they stay until the Giver passes them on to the Receiver, who becomes the new Giver. Whoever is holding the memories must remain in the community. If the person who holds the memories goes Elsewhere, the memories return to the community. The Giver explains to Jonas that this "would mean that the community has to bear the burden themselves, of the memories you had been holding for them" (155). As Jonas begins to understand the horror of this community, he wants to leave, but there is no one ready to replace him as a new Receiver and the Giver cannot take back the memories he gave to Jonas. As a result, the permanence of memory creates a situation in which Jonas's leaving is likely to overwhelm the community with all the memories he already holds.

This idea, the permanence of memory, seems fanciful, but Jung thought that humanity had a "collective unconscious," and people who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), suffer from the problem of traumatic memories they cannot make go away. For Lowry, this story is an exploration of how we might be mere automatons without memory, unable to properly feel, reason, or have control over ourselves.

How do the actions of Tybalt impact the eventual tragic ending of Romeo and Juliet?

Tybalt's execution of Mercutio is pivotal to the tragic ending of Romeo and Juliet.

In Act III, Scene 1, a fiery Mercutio meets and argues with an equally explosive Tybalt, who encounters hostility from Mercutio immediately. For, when Tybalt says he will have a word with him, Mercutio provokes him by replying, "make it a word and a blow." The ensuing argument then becomes further inflamed by the arrival of Romeo, who in his euphoric happiness seeks to ameliorate things. He declares to Tybalt that he now loves him, but without providing a reason for this change of heart first. When an already riled Mercutio hears Romeo, he accuses his friend of "vile submission" and draws his sword.

Tempers flare and aggressive action escalates. Still, Romeo tries to stop the others by reminding them of the Prince's having forbidden "bandying in Verona streets./Hold, Tybalt, good Mercutio!" But, Tybalt reaches with his sword under Romeo's arm and stabs Mercutio.

This murderous act against Mercutio by Tybalt enrages Romeo so much that he then slays Tybalt in retaliation. This sets in motion the circumstances and actions of both Romeo and Juliet that bring about their tragic ends:

Because he has killed Tybalt, Romeo is banished.

Believing that Juliet grieves so much over Tybalt's death, her parents decide that she should marry Paris. This decision leads Juliet to seek help from Friar Laurence, who gives her a potion which makes her seem dead in order to stall any actions by the Capulets, so that Romeo can come and "bear thee [her] hence to Mantua" (4.2.).

Away from Verona in Mantua, Romeo is told mistakenly that Juliet has died; desperate, he purchases poison and rushes to the Capulet tomb. There he encounters Paris and slays him.

Romeo finds Juliet, who he believes is dead.

Romeo drinks the poison.

Juliet comes out of her drug-induced state and asks Friar Laurence where Romeo is because she remembers their plan. But Friar Laurence, who has just discovered Paris's and Romeo's bodies, becomes frightened as he hears the approach of the guards. He tells her that Romeo "there lies dead,/And Paris, too" (5.3). He offers to put her safely in a convent, but first "go, good Juliet, I dare no longer stay" (5.3). The nervous Friar Laurence flees.

Left alone, Juliet goes over to Romeo's dead body. She hears the watchman. In despair, she snatches Romeo's dagger and kills herself.

Can the velocity of a body ever be greater than its speed?

Speed is the ratio of distance traveled and the time it takes to complete the motion. In other words,

speed = distance / time

Velocity is the ratio of displacement and the time it takes to complete the motion. In other words,

velocity = displacement / time

When we compare the magnitudes of speed and velocity, we are actually comparing the distance traveled by a body to its displacement. Distance traveled is the measure of...

Speed is the ratio of distance traveled and the time it takes to complete the motion. In other words,

speed = distance / time

Velocity is the ratio of displacement and the time it takes to complete the motion. In other words,

velocity = displacement / time

When we compare the magnitudes of speed and velocity, we are actually comparing the distance traveled by a body to its displacement. Distance traveled is the measure of the path traveled by the body, while displacement is the difference between the initial and final positions (and is independent of the path taken by the body).

The displacement of a body is always less than or equal to the distance traveled by it. This means that the velocity of a body can be either equal to or less than the speed of the body for a given motion.

In other words, velocity `<=` speed and hence can never be more than the speed.

Hope this helps.

Is Heather Hoodhood in The Wednesday Wars by Gary Schmidt a dynamic or static character?

I'm going to go with Heather Hoodhood being a static character. She and Holling do manage to emotionally connect at the end of the novel, and the reader sees perhaps a glimmer of change in her; however, I think that possiblechange is more of a reflection of Holling's attitude toward his sister. The entire novel is told in the first person perspective. I think the emotional connection shared between Heather and Holling at the...

I'm going to go with Heather Hoodhood being a static character. She and Holling do manage to emotionally connect at the end of the novel, and the reader sees perhaps a glimmer of change in her; however, I think that possible change is more of a reflection of Holling's attitude toward his sister. The entire novel is told in the first person perspective. I think the emotional connection shared between Heather and Holling at the end of the novel results from Holling's dynamic change and not necessarily Heather's change.

Throughout the rest of the novel, readers see Heather as a very time period specific, cliche character. She is a stereotypical, angst filled teenager that is in constant conflict with her parents. Heather always has some snarky remark ready for Holling, and whenever something doesn't go her way, she locks herself into her room and loudly blasts The Monkees. There are moments when she does show kindness to Holling. For example, she helps Holling pull down the embarrassing posters of him in his Ariel costume. But those moments are exceptions to her normal behavior. They are not symbolic of some kind of overall, dynamic attitude shift in Heather. In fact, I believe that Holling sees Heather as static as well. I believe that is why Holling doesn't even feel the need to call her by name until the very end of the novel.

What is the conflict that is driving the protagonist, Katniss, to act in The Hunger Games?

The conflict that drives Katniss to act changes as the story progresses. I hesitate to try and name a single conflict that is able to encompass all of her actions.

I think an ever present conflict for Katniss is an external conflict. At times it is man vs. man, and at other times it is man vs. nature. Her conflict is even man vs. society at other times. All of those conflict types though...

The conflict that drives Katniss to act changes as the story progresses. I hesitate to try and name a single conflict that is able to encompass all of her actions.

When the book opens up, Katniss's conflict is with being able to obtain enough food for herself and her family. It's a basic conflict against starvation and malnutrition. In the arena, the conflict is still focused on her survival. She still must obtain food and water for herself, but now she has to worry about other teenagers trying to kill her. Keeping Peeta alive is a part of that conflict. As the "game" progresses, the creators increase the difficulty by introducing additional dangers into the arena. Katniss's central goal of surviving is still number one though.

Cinna is the character that helps Katniss understand that her survival is also dependent on the people of the Capitol. Once Katniss understands this, her actions change as well. She learns to play to the crowd, which in turn helps her secure sponsors. Sponsors help keep her alive.

I can't make the claim that Katniss does everything for her own survival though. Prim is the person that was chosen for The Hunger Games. Katniss could have guaranteed her own survival for one more year, if she had let Prim go to the Games. Protecting Prim motivated Katniss to volunteer as tribute. This is a case where Katniss's internal conflict motivated her to do something that put herself at great risk.

In Chapters 5–6 of John Steinbeck's novel Of Mice and Men, what was Lennie and George's dream? Did they achieve it? Did the dream change as a...

George and Lennie’s dream was to have land of their own, but they were not able to achieve it because of their circumstances.

George keeps Lennie and himself motivated with dreams of having a ranch of their own one day. It is like a bedtime story for the childlike Lennie: land of their own where they can settle down, and Lennie can tend the rabbits. For George, it means an end to the migrant lifestyle. For Lennie, it means no more judgement, and rabbits to pet.

Although Lennie’s understanding of the world is limited, he does realize that he is judged by others. He knows, for example, that when he kills the puppy accidentally it will upset George. In Lennie’s mind, it will interfere with the dream of land and the rabbits that go with it. That is a cause and effect that Lennie understands.

"Why do you got to get killed? You ain't so little as mice." He picked up the pup and hurled it from him. He turned his back on it. He sat bent over his knees and he whispered, "Now I won't get to tend the rabbits. Now he won't let me." (Ch. 5)

When Curley’s wife enters, he tells her that he is not going to talk to her. Again, he won’t be able to tend the rabbits if he does. She tells him she is lonely and George won't let him talk to her because he doesn’t want Curley to be mad. George told Lennie to avoid Curley because he was the boss’s son. He didn’t want them to lose their jobs, and was afraid that Curley would pick a fight because he was small and small men liked to pick fights with Lennie.

Curley’s wife visits Lennie because she is lonely. She tells him that she could have had a different life. She could have been in movies and had nice clothes, and instead she is reduced to visiting Lennie in the barn because he is the only one who will even talk to her. Lennie shares his dream with Curley’s wife, just as she shares hers with him.

"We gonna have a little place," Lennie explained patiently. "We gonna have a house an' a garden and a place for alfalfa, an' that alfalfa is for the rabbits, an' I take a sack and get it all fulla alfalfa and then I take it to the rabbits." (Ch. 5)

She tells him he is “nuts,” but unfortunately offers to let him stroke her hair since he is so infatuated with soft things. She is desperate for attention. He is lonely too. In that moment, both of their dreams are quashed. He strokes her hair—and breaks her neck.

Thus the real obstacle to George and Lennie’s dream was that it was an impossible dream. It was a fantasy with no basis in reality. As much as George tried to protect Lennie from himself, it was not possible. Lennie’s childlike innocence was a contrast to his strength. He never realized what he was doing, and when George was not there to stop him, he was a danger to society.

When Candy and George find the body, George’s reaction is resignation, and not resentment or sadness.

George said softly, "-I think I knowed from the very first. I think I know'd we'd never do her. He usta like to hear about it so much I got to thinking maybe we would."

"Then- it's all off?" Candy asked sulkily. (Ch. 5)

George’s acknowledgement that the dream was never possible comes from a long line of disappointments. He has spent his life taking care of Lennie. Lennie was his bastion against loneliness, as well as a constant frustration. He was also his responsibility. George realized that he had to protect Lennie in the only way had left.

Even before he shot Lennie, George called upon the vision of their dream to calm him.

George had been listening to the distant sounds. For a moment he was businesslike. "Look acrost the river, Lennie, an' I'll tell you so you can almost see it." (Ch. 6)

Of course, George knew at this point that the dream was not to be. It was a bittersweet illusion to carry Lennie into the afterlife. George was putting Lennie out of his misery, like Candy allowing his old dog to be shot. He didn't want to do it, but he had to. It was better than the alternative.

For men who have nothing, sometimes a dream is all it takes to keep going. The American Dream is to have land of one's own. During the Great Depression, it was even more out of reach. George and Lennie, as migrant farm workers, drew upon that dream for motivation. It held them together. It bonded them with others, such as Candy and Crooks. Ultimately, it slipped through their fingers, because it was never real at all.

Is "Out Of Bounds At All Times And No Exceptions" an allegory to talk about the father's absolute power in The Boy in the Striped Pajamas by John...

No, "Out Of Bounds At All Times And No Exceptions" is not an allegory to talk about the father's absolute power. However, I find your question to be quite ironic because I think you used the word "father's" instead of "Führer's." In fact, both Bruno's father and the Führer have "absolute power": Bruno's father has power in the home and the Führer (Hitler) has power in Germany and Europe.

The problem with your question is about...

The problem with your question is about the word "allegory." An allegory is a story that has a hidden meaning. A phrase would never be described as a full allegory; however, "Out Of Bounds At All Times And No Exceptions" is the title of Chapter Five and the evidence that the Nazi commandant wants his son to have nothing to do with the prisoners at Auschwitz.

Originally, "Out Of Bounds At All Times And No Exceptions" really has to do with Bruno's father's office:

Father returned to his office which was Out Of Bounds At All Times And No Exceptions.

But instead of an allegory, I would say this phrase is a description (or even a euphemism) of Auschwitz for a "superior" German boy. A euphemism is a mild expression meant to replace a harsh one. Bruno's dad's office is the place where many executions are planned mercilessly. Auschwitz is the place where may executions are carried out. This place of horror is most certainly off limits to a German boy who needs to be protected.

In what ways is Rama different from Gilgamesh? Think about this in terms of a hero. Do you think of him as a hero?

The nature of their heroic quests is a point of differentiation between Gilgamesh and Lord Rama.

The heroic quest for Gilgamesh takes on different forms. Gilgamesh is searching for self-discovery. He is "a man of many moods'' as both person and political leader. He shows restlessness through his self-indulgence as a king. His own people pray to alleviate them of the pain from his rule: "You made him, O Aruru, now create his equal; let it be as like him as his own reflection, his second self, stormy heart for stormy heart. Let them content together and leave Uruk in quiet." Upon leaving Uruk, Gilgamesh changes as a result of friendship with his kindred spirit, Enkidu. With Enkidu's assistance and encouragement, Gilgamesh kills Humbaba. Slaying this adversary is more for his own legend than anything related to his people. Gilgamesh's heroic quest takes on a different form when Enkidu dies. Gilgamesh strives to find answers to issues of human existence such as life, death, and the desire to achieve immortality. While Gilgamesh grasps how "there is no permanence," most of his heroic voyage is done to find some level of immortality. In his return as a wiser and more thoughtful king, the belief is that Gilgamesh has found immortality in his journey and its implications. His heroic journey is steeped in gaining insight for himself. He voyages to find truths to questions that plague him and, while he does return as a better ruler, the heroic quest was mostly for his benefit and understanding.

Lord Rama's heroic journey is constructed in a much different way. Whereas Gilgamesh searched for understanding and meaning, Lord Rama clearly understood his purpose. An an avatar of Vishnu, Lord Rama wedded himself to dharma, or maintaining the cosmic order of the universe through rightful actions. While Lord Rama never carried himself as divine, being an avatar of Vishnu makes him different than Gilgamesh's two thirds divine, one third human. Lord Rama's embodiment of duty based on dharma endeared himself to the subjects of his kingdom, Ayodhya. They loved Rama and valued him as their prospective king.

Lord Rama is exiled because of his adherence to dharma. Unlike Gilgamesh who chooses to go outside of his kingdom, Lord Rama is banished from his. When Kaikeyi insists that King Dasaratha exile his beloved son, Rama does not object because he sees his dharma as adhering to his parents' wishes. Unlike Gilgamesh's subjects who yearn for their leader to leave, the citizens of Ayodhya weep when Rama, Sita, and Lakshmana leave, following them into the forest to sleep at their beloved prince's feet.

At no point in his heroic journey does Lord Rama question his purpose. He knows that his entire being is dedicated to dharma. He commits himself to representing it in his actions and thoughts. When Lord Rama slays demons, he does not do so to add to his personal legend. He does it because of his obligation to help those in need. When he kills Ravana, he does so because of the existential threat posed to justice. He knows that Ravana threatened the order of the universe. Evidence of this lies in how Rama did penance for killing Ravana, something that Gilgamesh would have never done.

One final difference between both heroes is in the truth that Gilgamesh discovers. The reality of impermanence haunts Gilgamesh. What he does both before and after this realization is meant to offset the crushing inevitability of time. He wishes to establish permanence in an impermanent world. In contrast, Lord Rama is not really concerned with impermanence. One reason might be because he knows that dharma is a part of universal reality. By wedding himself to duty, Lord Rama knows that he is permanent because duty, itself, is permanent. Lord Rama's heroic voyage is thus taken for the benefit of others and not for himself.

Both Lord Rama and Gilgamesh can be seen as heroes. They are heroic in what they did and heroes in the truths they represented. If there is a differentiation between them, it might lie in the realization of purpose. I think that Lord Rama's heroic journey is more focused and purpose-driven, something that Gilgamesh's journey lacked at different points. The reader has to develop their own metrics in determining heroic value as there is ample evidence to suggest that each is a hero.

What is the difference between sterile and aseptic techniques?

"Sterile" and "aseptic" are synonymous terms in the sense that they both describe environments, objects, or practices which are free of microorganisms. That being said, there is some difference to their precise meanings and practice. Sterilization seeks to totally cleanse an object or space of any contaminants in preparation for medical procedures. For example, surgical tools like clamps and scalpels are sterilized in order to decrease the risk of infection in a patient. The aseptic technique, on the other hand, is intended to maintain the sterile quality of an object or space. Many medical implements, such as needles, are sterilized by the manufacturer and then packaged in special aseptic plastic to prevent any contamination until the time of use.

In short, sterile techniques are used to make objects or spaces clean, while aseptic techniques are used to prevent future contamination.

How does the scene in the red room exemplify the theme of the loss of innocence in Jane Eyre?

After Jane is confined in the red room of the Reed house, she senses the recurring memory of the trauma she experienced whenever her individual self-expression or independence is challenged or threatened.

When Jane is unjustly treated and thrown into this room where her uncle died, she is certainly traumatized. After she spends a terrifying night, Miss Abbot draws Jane's attention to her lowly status, informing her that her cousins will inherit money, so her...

"...is to be humble, and to try to make yourself agreeable to them [or] Missus will send you away."(Ch. 2)

This declaration of her inferiority profoundly affects Jane. While she is at Lowood School, Jane finds herself singled out and humiliated in a similar fashion. This experience triggers the memory of the red room as, again, Jane suffers from lack of self-worth and loss. Further, on the night that she wonders if she must leave Thornfield because she cannot bring herself to live with him as a mistress, Jane dreams of Gateshead and the red room:

I was transported in thought to the scenes of childhood: I dreamed I lay in the red room at Gateshead; that the night was dark, and my mind impressed with strange fears....(Ch. 27)

At the end of this dream, Jane sees her mother, who urges her to leave Thornfield. She departs early that morning.

In Jane Eyre dreams are a recurring motif. Certainly, Jane's dreams of the red room have a profound affect upon her decision-making as they forewarn her of troubles.

During the trial, what are at least five things that Heck Tate testifies happened in the case against Tom Robinson?

In Chapter 17, Sheriff Tate takes the witness stand to testify in the Tom Robinson trial. Mr. Gilmer questions Tate as to what happened on the night of November 21st. Sheriff Tate testifies that Bob Ewell called him and said that Mayella was assaulted and raped by a black man. Tate goes on to say that when he arrived, he found Mayella lying on the floor with bruises covering her face. Mayella then told Tate that Tom Robinson beat and raped her, and Sheriff Tate drove to Tom's house to arrest him. When Atticus cross-examines Tate, he asks why the Sheriff did not call a doctor. Tate testifies that there was no need to call a doctor even though she was "mighty banged up." A doctor would have determined that Mayella Ewell was not raped after examining her, which would have proved that the Ewells were lying. When Atticus asks Tate to describe Mayella's injuries, he mentions that she had bruises on her arms as well as a swollen black eye. Atticus then asks Sheriff Tate which eye was bruised, and he says it was her left eye. Tate then retracts his statement after realizing that it was Mayella's right eye that was bruised. Tate also comments that Mayella had more bruises to the right side of her body and testifies that she had finger marks around her entire throat.