How would you describe the young girl in Oscar Wilde's "The Nightingale and the Rose"?

In "The Nightingale and the Rose," the young girl is the daughter of the Professor and the object of the student's affections. Although Wilde does not describe the girl physically, the story teaches us much about her character. She does not appreciate the true meaning of love, as we see in the opening paragraph when she demands the student bring her a red rose. This shows she has a superficial understanding of love based on...

In "The Nightingale and the Rose," the young girl is the daughter of the Professor and the object of the student's affections. Although Wilde does not describe the girl physically, the story teaches us much about her character. She does not appreciate the true meaning of love, as we see in the opening paragraph when she demands the student bring her a red rose. This shows she has a superficial understanding of love based on appearances and objects. This idea is also echoed at the end of the story when she rejects the student because the color of the rose he brings her clashes with her dress.



But the girl frowned. “I am afraid it will not go with my dress,” she answered.



This quote also demonstrates two more of the girl's character traits: her fickleness and materialism. Her decision to choose the Chamberlain's nephew because he sends her jewels shows how quickly she changes her affections. In her mind, the girl judges the monetary value of the jewels to be much higher than that of the rose and this proves the nephew loves her more than the student. When called "ungrateful" by the student, the girl proves just how materialistic she is when she ridicules his appearance. Tragically, the student is too naïve to realize she does not represent true love and he turns his back (presumably forever) on matters of the heart.

Based on his response to the Cyclops, what can be inferred about Odysseus?

In the ninth book of Homer's Odyssey, Odysseus tells the Cyclops that his name is Noman. 


‘Cyclops, you ask my name and I will tell it you; give me, therefore, the present you promised me; my name is Noman; this is what my father and mother and my friends have always called me.’


This is an example of the keen intelligence for which Odysseus was noted. It was Odysseus who reputedly thought of the...

In the ninth book of Homer's Odyssey, Odysseus tells the Cyclops that his name is Noman. 



‘Cyclops, you ask my name and I will tell it you; give me, therefore, the present you promised me; my name is Noman; this is what my father and mother and my friends have always called me.’



This is an example of the keen intelligence for which Odysseus was noted. It was Odysseus who reputedly thought of the idea of building a wooden horse to enable some Greek soldiers to get inside Troy and open the gates for the entire army. This led to victory in the Trojan War after many years of siege. Odysseus knows he cannot trust Cyclops and that his life as well as the lives of all his followers are in extreme danger. He actually has the foresight to anticipate that Polyphemus will be calling his fellow Cyclopes for help after he had blinded him. This turns out to be the case, but when the other one-eyed giants ask what is troubling him, Cyclops shows he has fallen for Odysseus' trick.



“But Polyphemus shouted to them from inside the cave, ‘Noman is killing me by fraud; no man is killing me by force.’"



Because the blinded Polyphemus is left to deal with Odysseus and his men all by himself, most of them manage to escape from his cave. So Odysseus not only had the intelligence to get Polyphemus drunk and to put out his single eye with a heated stake, but he also had the foresight to realize that Polyphemus would asks the other one-eyed giants to help him and that he would have to find some way to escape from the cave when the only exit was blocked by an huge boulder. Odysseus knows that the giant will have to remove the boulder next morning to let his sheep out. He thinks of the ploy of having his men get out with the sheep by hiding them underneath the enormous sheep.



"There was to be a man under the middle sheep, and the two on either side were to cover him, so that there were three sheep to each man. As for myself there was a ram finer than any of the others, so I caught hold of him by the back, ensconced myself in the thick wool under his belly, and hung on patiently to his fleece, face upwards, keeping a firm hold on it all the time."



The blind giant felt each sheep as it passed outside, but he did not touch any of the men, including Odysseus, who were clinging to the thick wool underneath the animals. In addition to displaying Odysseus' cunning and foresight, the episode exemplifies his great courage.

What is the overall theme of Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 with two quotes with page numbers to support it?

One of the themes from the book is that when a society becomes too restrictive, trading pleasure for intellectual pursuits, it is not worth the tradeoff.  Societies need art, including literature, and intellectualism. 


In Montag’s society, books have been outlawed.  They are so illegal, in fact, that if you are found with them your house will be burned.  The firemen burn the houses, but it is only the books that burn.  The houses are fireproof. 


...

One of the themes from the book is that when a society becomes too restrictive, trading pleasure for intellectual pursuits, it is not worth the tradeoff.  Societies need art, including literature, and intellectualism. 


In Montag’s society, books have been outlawed.  They are so illegal, in fact, that if you are found with them your house will be burned.  The firemen burn the houses, but it is only the books that burn.  The houses are fireproof. 


One explanation for why Montag’s society decided to do away with books is provided by Beatty, who is trying to get a woman who has been hoarding books to give herself up.  He tells her that the books have no point. 



"...Where's your common sense? None of those books agree with each other. You've been locked up here for years with a regular damned Tower of Babel. Snap out of it! The people in those books never lived. Come on now!” (Part I, p. 35) 



Montag does not accept this explanation.  He sees his society as lacking.  This is reinforced for him when he comes home to a wife who is an empty shell, and when his teenage neighbor asks him if he is happy and it never occurred to him to ask himself before. 


Beatty tells Montag that society is better off when no one thinks, and everyone is the same. 



You always dread the unfamiliar. Surely you remember the boy in your own school class who was exceptionally 'bright,' did most of the reciting and answering while the others sat like so many leaden idols, hating him. And wasn't it this bright boy you selected for beatings and tortures after hours? Of course it was. We must all be alike. (Part I, p. 55) 



Beatty easily dismisses the parts of society that Montag’s community eliminated as being unnecessary or detrimental.  However, we are shown a world where people regularly commit suicide, and watch television for hours but do not talk to each other.  They drive too fast in order to fill the emotional void left by their society.  Clearly education, books, and literature are actually important.


Note: Page numbers are from the 60th Anniversary Edition.

What are the striking differences between the personalities of a mother and a friend?

Alhough a mother and a friend may both have love for the individual in consideration, these roles typically have significantly different approaches in how they think of and interact with their child or friend.


Mothers try to have their child's best interests at heart, especially when they consider long-term goals and security. While friendships also involve care and well-wishes, friends may not have as much foresight as parents when it comes to making big decisions....

Alhough a mother and a friend may both have love for the individual in consideration, these roles typically have significantly different approaches in how they think of and interact with their child or friend.


Mothers try to have their child's best interests at heart, especially when they consider long-term goals and security. While friendships also involve care and well-wishes, friends may not have as much foresight as parents when it comes to making big decisions. For example, if a person was really passionate about music, a mother would be more likely to suggest that this person get a degree in music, while a friend might suggest the individual take his or her band on the road. Both are potentially good decisions, but the mother's suggestion, in this case, would offer far more long-term job security.


The differing personalities of mothers and friends can sometimes create conflict in a person's life. Young people are still mentally and emotionally developing and need time and space to figure themselves out and experiment with identities. With that in mind, friends can have positive or negative influences on each other. Social deviation encouraged by friends can be a good learning experience, but also often brings heavy consequences. Mothers are less likely to encourage their children to participate in social deviation, often because they've learned lessons from their own experiments! 


The relationship roles of mother and friend both carry the unfortunate fact that we often think of people as existing only in their relationship to us. It can be hard for a mother to imagine her child as anyone but the specific person she knows, and vice versa. I can certainly say I sometimes have a hard time imagining my mother as anyone but my mom. Friends, too, may be limited in their understanding of a person. I would argue that where mothers and friends differ in their understanding of a person is that a mother is more likely to know her child's fine-tuned emotional nature, while a friend is more likely to know a person's outward, socially-presented, personality.


In general, I think mothers take far more responsibility when it comes to their child's actions and how those actions might reflect upon them. A friend may feel a sense of distance from a person whose actions do not reflect upon them personally. When things are seriously tough, a friend might even have the option to walk away from the friendship, while a mother-child relationship is for life.

Was the suppression of rights during WWI a valid solution to protecting America?

It is ironic that during the "war to protect democracy" America went the other way and stifled freedoms that would be normal in peacetime.  America passed another Sedition Law, making it illegal to speak out against the war.  American postmasters looked in the mail for German words and letters going abroad.  It was even illegal to organize work stoppages in war industries.  Thousands went to jail for their opinions on the Allies or about the...

It is ironic that during the "war to protect democracy" America went the other way and stifled freedoms that would be normal in peacetime.  America passed another Sedition Law, making it illegal to speak out against the war.  American postmasters looked in the mail for German words and letters going abroad.  It was even illegal to organize work stoppages in war industries.  Thousands went to jail for their opinions on the Allies or about the nature of war itself. 


That being said, you cannot take the Sedition Laws and Anti-Espionage Laws out of context.  In the decades leading up to the war, America was the prime location for immigrants from Europe.  Irish immigrants hated Britain and wanted to see a German victory.  Some German immigrants considered themselves German no matter where they went--there was even a small, yet visible German "Fifth Column" in America which succeeded in blowing up factories, most notably the Black Tom Munitions Plant in New Jersey.  There were also socialists who said that this war was a war about greed and capitalism and they tried to organize strikes--this was the view taken by Socialist and presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs.  Of course, there was still the fear of anarchists in the country whose assassination of Francis Ferdinand started the war in the first place.  The American government was scared of all of these potential troublemakers and issued draconian laws to protect itself.  America has done this in times of war such as when Adams drafted the Alien and Sedition Act in 1798 to chase potential French Revolutionaries away from America.  The Wilson administration was able to use this as a precedent.  

Is a mantle plume a result of transform fault boundaries?

A mantle plume is a large column of magma that slowly seeps its way from the mantle up and into the lithosphere. As it rises it melts away at the rock and eventually melts through the crust, creating a "plume" of magma at the site. Magma plumes are unique in that they are normally not found near a boundary.


Most other sources of magma, like volcanoes, are usually created by some spreading or meeting of...

A mantle plume is a large column of magma that slowly seeps its way from the mantle up and into the lithosphere. As it rises it melts away at the rock and eventually melts through the crust, creating a "plume" of magma at the site. Magma plumes are unique in that they are normally not found near a boundary.


Most other sources of magma, like volcanoes, are usually created by some spreading or meeting of tectonic plates. A divergent or transform boundary may create a gap, leading to a leaking of magma, or a convergent boundary can create volcanoes to build in one of the plates and erupt once pressure becomes too great. Magma plumes are not created by the meeting of plates but instead just by a rising of magma. One great example is the Hawaiian islands. These islands were created as a magma plume seeped upwards through the Pacific oceanic plate and made a spot that leaked magma as the plate moved. Wherever the plate allowed the plume to release the most magma a larger island was formed. 


In conclusion, while magma can be found at some transform boundaries, these sites would normally not be called magma plumes. A magma plume could start somewhere nearby, but a plume is defined as starting somewhere inside a plate rather than at a boundary. I hope this helps! 

In The Merchant of Venice, how does Bassanio describe Portia's portrait in the lead casket?

Bassanio describes Portia's portrait in enraptured tones, although he recognizes it as only a faint imitation of her.


After deliberating between caskets, Bassanio finally opens the one made of lead; as he lifts the lid and sees the portrait of Portia, he exclaims,



                 ...What demigod


Hath come so near creation?


(Act III, Scene 2, line 119)




Overwhelmed by his fortune and Portia's painted beauty, Bassanio describes...

Bassanio describes Portia's portrait in enraptured tones, although he recognizes it as only a faint imitation of her.


After deliberating between caskets, Bassanio finally opens the one made of lead; as he lifts the lid and sees the portrait of Portia, he exclaims,



                 ...What demigod


Hath come so near creation?


(Act III, Scene 2, line 119)




Overwhelmed by his fortune and Portia's painted beauty, Bassanio describes her portrait as "near creation," meaning the portrait seems almost real, real enough that Bassanio wonders aloud if a half-divine painter created it. Portia's eyes appear to be actually moving. Her sweet breath seems to part her lips. So alive does this painting seem that Portia's beautiful golden hair is described as a "golden mesh t'entrap the hearts of men" (Act III, Scene 2, line 122). Again, Bassanio returns to looking at Portia's eyes, which are so mesmerizing that Bassanio wonders how the painter was able to portray them, as he thinks the completion of the first eye would have so enraptured the painter that he would not be able to paint the other. Indeed, it is only Bassanio's discovery of the scroll and realization that this portrait is but an imitation that break him away from his enthrallment.  

In Chapter 33 of Holes by Louis Sachar, does Stanley approach his predicament intelligently?

In Chapter 33, Stanley has left camp and is walking through the desert, looking for Zero. No one follows Stanley, and he debates turning back but decides to keep going in the hopes of finding his friend—dead or alive. In his travels, he passes a lot of previously dug holes, and while looking into one, spots a family of yellow-spotted lizards before running away. He eventually finds a sunflower seed sack and eats it as...

In Chapter 33, Stanley has left camp and is walking through the desert, looking for Zero. No one follows Stanley, and he debates turning back but decides to keep going in the hopes of finding his friend—dead or alive. In his travels, he passes a lot of previously dug holes, and while looking into one, spots a family of yellow-spotted lizards before running away. He eventually finds a sunflower seed sack and eats it as his lunch.


The good news about this question is that it seems to be opinion-based. This means there are probably a wide variety of acceptable answers, as long as you have the logic and the evidence from the novel to support your claims.


"Predicament" is a fancy word used to describe a difficult situation. We know that Stanley has some doubts about what he's doing based on the fact that he considers abandoning his efforts and returning to camp. But there's even more to this situation that we should consider.


Think of the landscape and the weather of Camp Green Lake: it's a very unforgiving desert climate. Do you think that Stanley adequately prepared himself before setting out on his own? Did he bring enough protective clothing to shield his eyes and skin from the intense sunlight? Did he bring some food or water with him to keep his body nourished? What tools might have been useful for him to bring along? By answering these questions you can discuss whether you think Stanley was acting intelligently, and defend your answer as to why or why not. 


It's also to important to remember that in the previous chapter (Ch. 32), Stanley unsuccessfully attempts to steal a vehicle despite not knowing how to drive. He then drives the truck straight into a hole and ditches it, running off into the desert instead of facing the consequences of his actions. 


That puts Stanley in quite a predicament, doesn't it?


If we think about the question from this angle, it's most helpful to consider what might have happened if Stanley hadn't run off into the desert. What kind of punishment would he have faced? Would staying at camp have put him in a safer situation than the one he's in now? Knowing that he'll eventually need to return to camp (for water and food, at least), do you think that he has now made things worse for himself by trying to run away? By thinking on these questions, you can again decide for yourself whether you think Stanley's actions were intelligent.

In The Unfinished World: And Other Stories by Amber Sparks, what is the relationship between beauty and decay in three stories in the collection?

In The Janitor in Space, beauty is synonymous with a redemptive loneliness; it comes from rejecting the decay associated with "the accumulated debris of a lifetime in sin and sacrifice." The story follows a janitor who works on a space station; her daily work is mundane, and she thinks that the astronauts she cleans up after are sloppy and careless in their habits.

She remembers her past life with indifference. In her present circumstance, the weightlessness of space simulates a feeling of freedom. Up in space, she no longer has to contend with the shame of her criminal past. Although she has no friends, she is glad to be "free of the burden of people for the first time in her whole flat life." The janitor rejects death as a sort of redemption; to her, death is the "opposite of wisdom, (and) the opposite of mystery." Instead, loneliness (the only thing she owns) becomes a thing of beauty for her in her new life.


In The Lizzie Borden Jazz Babies, beauty is marred by a moral decay that results from misplaced priorities and flawed judgment. Accordingly, the mother and step-father in the story are concerned that grown men have begun to ogle the mother's teenage daughters. Because they find it difficult to accept the girls' burgeoning sexuality, the mother and step-father decide to curb the girls' extracurricular activities; they are no longer allowed to dance the sensual Lindy Hop. Instead, they must content themselves with ballet if they want to dance at all. The adults' flawed judgment and misplaced priorities lead them to shame the girls rather than to educate them about the pleasures and responsibilities that come with sexual awakening.


The girls rebel and decide to take revenge on their parents. They rename themselves the Lizzie Borden Jazz Babies. In 1892, Lizzie Borden stood trial for the axe-murders of her father and step-mother in Massachusetts; she was acquitted in 1893. Both Cat and Patty scheme to dispatch their parents in the same way. However, Cat eventually becomes infatuated with a young man and loses interest in carrying out the murders. Incensed, Patty schemes on her own, but it isn't the same without her twin. The story ends in a surrealistic dream, where Patty cuts down Cat's boyfriend with an axe. The ambiguous ending is stunning, reinforcing the idea that moral decay often corrupts beauty.


In For These Humans Who Cannot Fly, beauty can be derived from decay and death, if only from a matter of perspective. Accordingly, a widower remembers his dead wife by building death houses (Leichenhaus) for a living. In these houses, he has placed five hundred Temporary Resting Containers, where the deceased can rest until they are awakened from their "sleep." Although the widower knows that no one can come back from the dead, he still believes that "every death is a love story." Although its "the goodbye part," he believes that "the love is still there, wide as the world."


It is this love that sustains those who are left behind. From this perspective, the rituals of death are fraught with hope and beauty, not despair and grief. When his wife dies, the widower lays her in a Temporary Resting Container. He ties a piece of cord (connected to a bell) to one of her broken fingers. In the event she awakes, she will only have to move her finger and the bell will ring. Then, the doctors he has hired to be on call at all times will come to her aid. The widower sees the ritual of burying his wife as a comfort, a thing of beauty that encapsulates the love story of a lifetime.

How can I describe the relationship between Beatrice Hunsdorfer and her daughter Ruth in Paul Zindel's play The Effect of Gamma Rays on...

Beatrice and Ruth have a very problematic relationship. It is easy to see their personalities are similar, and this causes them to clash frequently. They are both outgoing, vain, and very sensitive to what others think about them. Beatrice talks about her younger days and how attractive and popular she was. We learn from Ruth that some people in the community used to refer to her mother as "Betty the loon." When Ruth repeats this...

Beatrice and Ruth have a very problematic relationship. It is easy to see their personalities are similar, and this causes them to clash frequently. They are both outgoing, vain, and very sensitive to what others think about them. Beatrice talks about her younger days and how attractive and popular she was. We learn from Ruth that some people in the community used to refer to her mother as "Betty the loon." When Ruth repeats this in her mother's presence, Beatrice is visibly wounded and upset. It is obvious this gossip causes pain and humiliation for both of them, but Ruth retaliates against her mother's criticism of her by taunting her with this information.


Their relationship is characterized by oversensitivity and hyper-criticism; it is volatile, dysfunctional, and often passionate. Beatrice is protective of Ruth due to her illness, but just as Ruth is ashamed of her mother, there seems to be some embarrassment on the part of Beatrice because of Ruth's ailment. Clearly, the similar personality traits and psychological issues affecting both women are a factor in their relationship. There is also shame connected to Beatrice's husband leaving her years ago, and Ruth's interest in boys is overshadowed by her mother's failed marriage.

When does Lady Macbeth use flattery on Macbeth whilst persuading him to kill Duncan in Act 1, Scene 7?

In this particular scene, Lady Macbeth uses a great deal more insult that she does flattery to sway her husband.  However, after calling him a coward and saying that he's not really acting "like a man" at this point -- now that he's ambivalent about committing the murder of Duncan -- she does say, "When you durst do it, then you were a man; / And to be more than what you were, you would...

In this particular scene, Lady Macbeth uses a great deal more insult that she does flattery to sway her husband.  However, after calling him a coward and saying that he's not really acting "like a man" at this point -- now that he's ambivalent about committing the murder of Duncan -- she does say, "When you durst do it, then you were a man; / And to be more than what you were, you would / Be so much more the man.  Nor time nor place / Did then adhere, and yet you would make both" (1.7.56-59).  In other words, she says that the decision Macbeth had made earlier, to kill the king, was a really manly decision, and he will be even more manly if he goes through with that decision now.  At the time, when he'd initially conceived of the plot to murder Duncan, nothing was ready -- it wasn't the time or the place -- and yet he still thought of and determined to enact this plan.  She seems to admire this and think it courageous and masculine.


Further, Lady Macbeth claims that if Macbeth can just pluck up the courage to move forward, there is no way that they will fail to succeed.  She says, "screw your courage to the sticking place / And we'll not fail" (1.7.70-71).  She makes it sound as though the whole plan hinges on him: if he can muster his courage then there is no possible way for things to go wrong.  This is relatively complimentary.

What are all of the Harry Potter spells and their meanings?

The Harry Potter books are full of spells that are learned and used by the various characters. The spells were all invented by J.K Rowling, though many of their roots are related to Latin and English. Here are five of the most important spells used in the series with their meanings and some context for when they were used:

Alohamora-this spell is used to unlock doors. Hermione was the first to use it in the first book of the series when she, Ron, and Harry were sneaking around Hogwarts.


Wingardium leviosa-this is a levitation spell, to make things float and fly. Professor Flitwick teaches it to the class, which includes Hermione, Ron, Harry, Neville, and the other Gryffindors. Their first task is to make a feather levitate. Hermione is the only successful one at first; she says it's because the others are pronouncing it incorrectly.


Expelliarmus-this spell is used to disarm one's opponent and take away their wand. It is a fairly simple spell, but it gains fame because Harry uses it on multiple occasions, most famously to defeat Voldemort.


Lumos-this spell causes the end of one's wand to light up. It is a spell they learn early on and then use throughout the books to light their way in the dark.


Accio-when a witch or wizard says "Accio" followed by the thing they want, that thing comes to them. For example, Harry says "Accio broom" to summon his broom from another location in the fourth book.


By just skimming through the books you could find countless more, but these five are very important.

What does "swelling act" mean in the line, "As happy prologues to the swelling act of the imperial theme" in the play Macbeth ?

The "swelling act" is the act of Macbeth's becoming king.



After Macbeth is rewarded by King Duncan and given the title of Thane of Cawdor, he realizes that the first two predictions of the witches have come true. He has been Thane of Glamis, then is made Thane of Cawdor. Now, he is tempted by the idea that the third prediction, this "swelling act" of being "King hereafter":



Two truths are told,


As happy...


The "swelling act" is the act of Macbeth's becoming king.



After Macbeth is rewarded by King Duncan and given the title of Thane of Cawdor, he realizes that the first two predictions of the witches have come true. He has been Thane of Glamis, then is made Thane of Cawdor. Now, he is tempted by the idea that the third prediction, this "swelling act" of being "King hereafter":



Two truths are told,


As happy prologues to the swelling act


Of the imperial theme. (1.3.130-133)




As he imagines himself becoming King of Scotland, Macbeth starts to have murderous thoughts about King Duncan, ideas about the "swelling act" of being king himself. Further, Macbeth considers how his thoughts disturb him so much that he begins to wonder who he really is now. Macbeth worries that he is consumed by his speculations because he finds himself thinking about things that do not yet exist and how he can contribute to bringing them about. A man of action, Macbeth marvels at how he now is consumed by matters that are not real, but only speculative: "And nothing is but what is not" (1.3.145). Here again, appearance and reality are confused.




 





What are the dilemmas in "The Sniper" by Liam O'Flaherty?

A dilemma could be defined as a situation which demands a difficult choice. Often, the choice is between two things that are equally undesirable. There are at least three dilemmas in Liam O'Flaherty's short story "The Sniper." The first dilemma leads directly to the second. After spending a long day on a Dublin rooftop watching the streets below, the Republican sniper contemplates the risks of smoking a cigarette. He knows lighting a match may reveal...

A dilemma could be defined as a situation which demands a difficult choice. Often, the choice is between two things that are equally undesirable. There are at least three dilemmas in Liam O'Flaherty's short story "The Sniper." The first dilemma leads directly to the second. After spending a long day on a Dublin rooftop watching the streets below, the Republican sniper contemplates the risks of smoking a cigarette. He knows lighting a match may reveal his position to his enemies, but he cannot resist.



Placing a cigarette between his lips he struck a match, inhaled the smoke hurriedly and put out the light. Almost immediately, a bullet flattened itself against the parapet of the roof. The sniper took another whiff and put out the cigarette. Then he swore softly and crawled away to the left.



Having revealed his whereabouts, the sniper's second dilemma involves a plan to kill the enemy sniper who wounds him in the arm. He cannot reveal himself and will not be able to leave the roof until he eliminates the Free State sniper. He devises a "ruse" to draw his opponent into the open by raising his rifle covered with his cap and actually dropping the rifle to the ground. The falling rifle causes the enemy to believe he has been victorious, but, when he shows himself, the Republican sniper kills him with his pistol. The final dilemma occurs when the sniper becomes curious over the identity of his fallen enemy. He thinks he may know the man and is willing to risk his life to find out. Despite being fired at by a hidden machine gun, he safely crawls to the corpse to discover the dead man is his brother.

According to Utnapishtim, why did the gods decide to destroy humanity?

The answer to this question partially depends on what translation a student is reading.  One of the problems with understanding Gilgameshis that the tablets on which it was originally inscribed were already damaged and very hard to decipher when that modern translation process began.  Thus, various translators have drawn from other flood narratives to elaborate on the story.  What has been translated, though, leads to the understanding that the gods were dissatisfied by and...

The answer to this question partially depends on what translation a student is reading.  One of the problems with understanding Gilgamesh is that the tablets on which it was originally inscribed were already damaged and very hard to decipher when that modern translation process began.  Thus, various translators have drawn from other flood narratives to elaborate on the story.  What has been translated, though, leads to the understanding that the gods were dissatisfied by and angry with the humans--much like in other flood narratives.   In various translations, the god that is portrayed as most angry and the leader in this plan of destruction is Enlil.


In addition to the gods' motivation of anger and dissatisfaction, Utnapishtim lets Gilgamesh know that there is not supposed to be permanence in the mortal world; thus, destroying mankind is actually part of the greater plan.  He also suggests that the gods are capricious and do not always act in ways that mortals can understand. 


The civilization represented in the story is polytheistic, and several of the gods are sworn to secrecy about their plan to destroy mankind.  For whatever reason, though, the god Ea relents slightly and communicates to Utnapishtim that he needs to build a boat so that he can save his family.  After the flood waters recede, Enlil is angry that Utnapishtim and his family have survived, but after being chastised for not seeking the help and counsel of the god Ea (the god of earth and water), Enlil eventually sees the error of his earlier thinking.


Overall, Utnapishtim communicates to Gilgamesh that the gods do what the gods want to do.  Whether it is anger or capriciousness that is the primary motivation depends more on the translation being used.

Describe the major elements in the Compromise of 1850.

There were four main components to the Compromise of 1850. California wanted to join the Union as a free state and would be allowed to do so. Secondly, the Utah and the New Mexico territories were created. The people living in these territories would determine if there would or wouldn’t be slavery in them.


There were two other parts to the Compromise of 1850. The trading of slaves in Washington, DC would end. Finally, the Fugitive Slave...

There were four main components to the Compromise of 1850. California wanted to join the Union as a free state and would be allowed to do so. Secondly, the Utah and the New Mexico territories were created. The people living in these territories would determine if there would or wouldn’t be slavery in them.


There were two other parts to the Compromise of 1850. The trading of slaves in Washington, DC would end. Finally, the Fugitive Slave Law was passed. This law required northerners to help capture runaway slaves and return them to the South. This meant that a runaway slave could no longer be confident that escaping to the North would mean he or she would be free. The Compromise of 1850 gave both the North and the South some things that they wanted. However, each side didn’t get everything that it wanted.

Why is the demand curve perfectly elastic in perfect competition?

The question considers why in perfect competition the demand curve is assumed to be perfectly elastic. More specifically, this assumption refers to the firm’s demand curve in a perfectly competitive market, rather than the overall demand curve for the market as a whole. 


The first step is to define the term elasticity. This is a mathematical concept relating quantity demanded to price. Specifically, it is defined as the percent change in quantity (demanded) divided by...

The question considers why in perfect competition the demand curve is assumed to be perfectly elastic. More specifically, this assumption refers to the firm’s demand curve in a perfectly competitive market, rather than the overall demand curve for the market as a whole. 


The first step is to define the term elasticity. This is a mathematical concept relating quantity demanded to price. Specifically, it is defined as the percent change in quantity (demanded) divided by the percent change in price. As such it is mathematically related to slope, but is not equivalent. “Perfect” elasticity is applied to the situation in which the demand curve is horizontal, i.e. slope = 0. Mathematically, this would imply that the amount of output which the firm may sell at the given market price is effectively infinite. More accurately, the firm may sell all of the output of which it is currently capable at the given market price. 


The key feature of this situation is that the firm is a perfect price taker, rather than price maker. That is, offering output at a price lower than “market” would not result in additional sales, and offering it at a price higher than market would result in no sales whatsoever (i.e. all buyers would simply go elsewhere rather than pay the higher price). In a perfectly competitive market, ALL firms are in this same situation. The market price is established, at equilibrium, by the cumulative interaction of all buyers and all sellers in some type of auction/open market process. This requires that the good or service in question is perfectly homogeneous between producers (e.g. wheat of a certain grade) such that one supplier’s output is literally indistinguishable from any others. Other assumptions include that switching from one supplier to another is completely costless for any and all buyers. 


Note that this condition is largely hypothetical. Truly perfect competitive price equilibrium rarely occurs. Most markets are typically in motion, always searching for new equilibrium in reaction to the latest change in conditions. Also, only certain commodities meet the requirement of homogeneity, and suppliers are constantly trying to create the perception if not the reality of product differentiation so that they can, in fact, exercise some control over price.

What proved to be the weak point in the young man's story?

The young man who sits down beside Norman Gortsby tells him a complicated hard-luck story with the intention of asking him for a "loan" to enable him to rent a hotel room overnight. According to the story, the young man was a complete stranger in London. He went out to buy a cake of good soap at a chemist's and then got turned around an couldn't find his hotel. He had only taken a shilling and had left all the rest of his money in his room. He used most of the shilling to buy the soap and a drink at a pub. Now he was nearly broke and might have to spend the night sleeping on the grass by the Thames if he couldn't find "a decent chap" to lend him enough to rent a room somewhere. His "people" in the country have the address of his hotel, but he can't get his hotel address by wire until tomorrow. Then he can gladly pay back the borrowed money.

Gortsby is accustomed to sitting on this bench at dusk, and he has heard many hard-luck stories. He has become very skeptical, as well as a sort of connoisseur of hard-luck stories. He listens patiently and attentively. Then he tells the young man:



"Of course," said Gortsby slowly, "the weak point of your story is that you can't produce the soap."



The young man is flustered and embarrassed. He can only say, "I must have lost it."



"To lose an hotel and a cake of soap on one afternoon suggests wilful carelessness," said Gortsby, but the young man scarcely waited to hear the end of the remark. He flitted away down the path, his head held high, with an air of somewhat jaded jauntiness.



There can be no doubt that the young man was a confidence trickster--and not a very experienced one. He should have kept a cake of soap in his overcoat pocket just in case someone would ask to see it. No doubt this was a learning experience for him and he would be sure to have a cake of soap available in the future. He wouldn't even have to buy one, because Gortsby made him a present of the wrapped soap he had found on the ground by the bench after the young man had left in chagrin.


The young con artist turned out to be successful beyond his hopes. He not only got a sovereign from Gortsby but a bonus of a cake of high-quality soap. 

Why do we use glycerol bath, instead of water bath in melting point determination? If glycerol were not available, what can we use instead? Suggest...

Glycerol, a common coolant fluid, is used to determine melting point because unlike water, glycerol has a very high boiling point. Water will boil off at 100 degrees Celsius in standard pressure, whereas glycerol stays liquid up until 290 degrees Celsius.


Other liquids you could use would be best with similar properties. This means liquids like oils, which can stay liquid at high temperatures, will be great for melting point determination. Motor oils, which function...

Glycerol, a common coolant fluid, is used to determine melting point because unlike water, glycerol has a very high boiling point. Water will boil off at 100 degrees Celsius in standard pressure, whereas glycerol stays liquid up until 290 degrees Celsius.


Other liquids you could use would be best with similar properties. This means liquids like oils, which can stay liquid at high temperatures, will be great for melting point determination. Motor oils, which function around the intense heat of an engine, or cooking oils, which far surpass the boiling point of water, would work well here.


For things that need to be even hotter, liquid mercury could be used, as it has a boiling point at 355 degrees Celsius.


If you find yourself needing just a bit more heat than your liquid accommodates, you could add a salt to raise the boiling point slightly.

Was the Louisiana Purchase a moral dilemma for President Jefferson?

The issue of whether to purchase Louisiana from France was something of a moral issue for President Thomas Jefferson. It was a moral issue because it challenged his beliefs about the Constitution. In the end, Jefferson put aside his moral qualms and completed the purchase.


Thomas Jefferson believed in what is called “strict construction” of the Constitution. That is, he believed the United States government could only do things the Constitution specifically said it could...

The issue of whether to purchase Louisiana from France was something of a moral issue for President Thomas Jefferson. It was a moral issue because it challenged his beliefs about the Constitution. In the end, Jefferson put aside his moral qualms and completed the purchase.


Thomas Jefferson believed in what is called “strict construction” of the Constitution. That is, he believed the United States government could only do things the Constitution specifically said it could do. Jefferson believed this because he believed it was dangerous for the national government to have a lot of power. Because the government was dangerous, it was necessary to limit its powers to those explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. 


This was a problem for Jefferson when he had the opportunity to buy Louisiana from France. Buying this huge mass of land would clearly help the United States greatly, but there was nothing in the Constitution that said the president could buy land from a foreign country. That meant making the purchase would be, in Jefferson’s eyes, unconstitutional. Because of this, Jefferson had a moral dilemma. Did he stick with his beliefs, or did he make this purchase that would clearly benefit his country? 


In the end, Jefferson went ahead and bought Louisiana. He had to confront a moral dilemma when deciding whether to do so, though.

What is the distance between the sun and the moon during a solar eclipse?

During a solar eclipse, the Moon is in between the Earth and the Sun, but much, much closer to the Earth than the Sun.

The precise distance would depend upon where the Earth is in its orbit; at perihelion the Earth is about 146 million kilometers from the Sun, while at aphelion the Earth is about 152 million kilometers from the Sun. The average is precisely one AU, or about 149.6 million kilometers.

Then, it depends where the Moon is in its orbit around the Earth. At perigee the Moon is about 363,000 kilometers from the Earth; at apogee it is about 407,000 kilometers from the Earth. On average, it is about 384,000 kilometers away.

As you can see, the distance from the Moon to the Sun really doesn't depend all that much on where the Moon is relative to the Earth; it depends almost entirely on where the Earth is relative to the Sun. In this sense, the "during a solar eclipse" part is kind of redundant; even during a lunar eclipse the Moon would only be about 800,000 kilometers further away from the Sun, while the Earth's orbit can shift the distance by some 6,000,000 kilometers.

The minimum possible distance between the Moon and the Sun during a solar eclipse would be when the Moon is at apogee but the Earth is at perihelion; this would be 146,000,000 - 363,000 = 145.7 million km

The maximum possible distance would be when the Moon is at perigee but the Earth is at aphelion; this would be 152,000,000 - 407,000 = 151.6 million km

And the average distance between the Moon and the Sun would be 149,600,000 - 384,000 = 149.2 million km

Did Columbus believe that he had reached Asia up until his death?

Throughout his lifetime, and despite some disagreement from his contemporaries, Christopher Columbus never abandoned the belief that his voyages had reached Asia. He believed that East Asia, the region then called "the Indies," was much closer to Western Europe than it was, and that this region was more easily reached by traveling westward than eastward. Prior to his travels, Columbus read extensively about the Indies, particularly Marco Polo's account of the indigenous people, which were...

Throughout his lifetime, and despite some disagreement from his contemporaries, Christopher Columbus never abandoned the belief that his voyages had reached Asia. He believed that East Asia, the region then called "the Indies," was much closer to Western Europe than it was, and that this region was more easily reached by traveling westward than eastward. Prior to his travels, Columbus read extensively about the Indies, particularly Marco Polo's account of the indigenous people, which were sometimes untrue or exaggerated. When he reached the Canary Islands in 1492 and discovered that the people there were naked and wore gold jewelry in their noses, just as Marco Polo described Asian people, he concluded that he must have reached the Indies, and there is no record of him giving up on this conviction at any point before his death.

Describe Tom's progress on the first part of his journey in "Contents of a Dead Man's Pocket."

Tom Benecke makes an impulse decision to retrieve his yellow paper from the ledge in Jack Finney’s short story “The Contents of the Dead Man’s Pockets.” He takes a few minutes to examine the circumstances, noting the ledge is as wide as the length of his shoe, before his grabs his coat and climbs out the window.


The ledge is perched eleven stories above busy Lexington Avenue in New York City, but Tom is undaunted...

Tom Benecke makes an impulse decision to retrieve his yellow paper from the ledge in Jack Finney’s short story “The Contents of the Dead Man’s Pockets.” He takes a few minutes to examine the circumstances, noting the ledge is as wide as the length of his shoe, before his grabs his coat and climbs out the window.


The ledge is perched eleven stories above busy Lexington Avenue in New York City, but Tom is undaunted as he leaves his apartment. Without analyzing the situation for too long, he begins to move along the ledge sliding one foot after the other with his face up against the building. Although he miscalculated the width of the ledge a bit, he moved along confidently, turning off his thoughts and acting on instinct. As he moved, he balanced on the balls of his feet in a similar fashion to a tightrope walker. It was not until he reached the paper and knew he had to bend over to retrieve it, that self-doubt arose.



Without pause he continued--right foot, left foot, right foot, left--his shoe soles shuffling and scraping along the rough stone, never lifting from it, fingers sliding along the exposed edging of brick.


How can I write an essay on "Mending Wall" by Robert Frost?

In order to write an essay about "Mending Wall," you need to ask yourself what it is that you would like the reader to take away about this poem after reading your essay.  This poem has a great deal to say about friendship and walls, doesn't it?  One question to explore is why the narrator does not like walls. Another is why his neighbor does like the wall. You might write an essay contrasting the two neighbors in the poem, who clearly see life very differently.  

Whatever it is that you want your reader to take away is your thesis, your main idea, and that thesis must be supported by the text of the poem.  So, for example, if you were to write an essay on why the narrator doesn't like the wall, you might use the very first verse of the poem,



Something there is that doesn't love a wall,


That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it, 


And spills the upper boulders in the sun;


And makes gaps even two can pass abreast (Frost lines 1-4)



You could argue that the narrator does not like the wall because nature is against it, always trying to tear it down.  That is using the text to support your thesis.


As you decide upon a thesis, you will need to incorporate it into a thesis statement, one sentence that states your main idea and the points you will discuss to support that idea.  So, for example, if I were writing an essay about why the narrator does not like the wall, I could have this as a thesis statement:



The narrator in "Mending Wall" shows that he does not appreciate his wall because it is against nature, it serves no purpose, and it does not make him and his fellow wall-mender good neighbors. 



That states a thesis, the narrator's attitude toward the wall and three aspects of the poem that provide the reasons.  Your thesis statement should be the very last sentence in your introduction.


For an essay in which you have three supporting points in your thesis statement, assuming that you do have three points, you will write a five-paragraph essay. The first paragraph will introduce the essay, including the name of the poem and its author, as well as your thesis statement.  The next three paragraphs will be body paragraphs, each one discussing a point from the thesis statement, in the same order in which you "list" those points in the thesis statement. Give each of these a good topic sentence to let the reader know which point you are developing. Finally, you will have a fifth paragraph that will be your conclusion. In a conclusion, we remind the reader what the main idea is and review the points made in the body paragraphs. 

In the poem "The Listeners," why has Walter de la Mere set the action in the poem during a moonlit night and not in the day?

The poem has an overall eerie feel to it, and placing the poem at night only increases the eerie and creepy feeling of the poem.  


It's not uncommon for people to be afraid of the dark. My own kids refuse to sleep without a nightlight. Friends of mine like to watch scary movies in the dark because they say it makes them scarier. Scary parts of movies often happen at night because the lack...

The poem has an overall eerie feel to it, and placing the poem at night only increases the eerie and creepy feeling of the poem.  


It's not uncommon for people to be afraid of the dark. My own kids refuse to sleep without a nightlight. Friends of mine like to watch scary movies in the dark because they say it makes them scarier. Scary parts of movies often happen at night because the lack of natural light disturbs people. By placing this poem at night, Walter de la Mare enhances the disturbing and ominous feel of his poem. Additionally, placing the poem at night reinforces the logical concept that somebody should be at the house where the traveler is knocking. If the poem happened during the day, it makes sense the occupants of the house might not be home. At night, the occupants should be there. If they are not there, why aren't they there? If they are there, why are they not opening the door to the man who promised to be there?



‘Tell them I came, and no one answered,   


   That I kept my word,’ he said. 



Are they not answering because they are in a deep sleep? Are they dead? There are so many questions that a reader begins asking because the poem is taking place at night. For the mood of the poem, it simply works better at night. 

How does the setting in "The Necklace" by Guy de Maupassant influence the story, characters and events?

The setting of Maupassant's "The Necklace" is crucial to understanding the author's themes and characterization.  Written and set in the the latter part of the 19th Century, Maupassant satirizes the materialism and desires of the French bourgeoisie.  Maupassant does not provide us with descriptive images of the story's setting--Paris.  We have very few details about place except for mention of the Champs Elysses.  However, we do have quite a few details about material objects, and these are important in establishing Mathilde Loisel's motivation.  Mathilde longs for the "delicacies and all the luxuries" of the upper class: Oriental tapestries, candelabras, "footmen in knee-breeches," "the warmth of the hot-air stove," "delicate furniture," "perfumed boudoirs."  Her own surroundings seem dull and mundane in contrast.  As she uncovers the soup-tureen for dinner with her husband, she longs for so much more. 

The discrepancy between what she has and what she desires provides the conflict in this story.  It is important to see, however, that Mathilde is not destitute.  In fact, she seems comfortably middle class, with a servant to do housework and a husband who clerks in the Ministry of Public Instruction.   Mathilde has more than necessary to make her comfortable.  But what she has does not satisfy her.  She overlooks the fact that her husband is kind and concerned about her, willing to sacrifice his own desires for a gun to make his wife happy. When they are invited to a ball, her husband gives her money to buy a "pretty dress,"  but even that is not enough.  Mathilde needs a jewel to go with the dress.  In this way, Maupassant mocks the consumerist society of the 19th Century.  The fact that Mathilde cannot distinguish between a real jewel and a fake one shows her superficiality and concern with appearances.  


Yet, we have to look a little more closely at the way Maupassant portrays the French in this time period.  When Mme. Loisel discovers that she lost the necklace that she borrowed from a wealthy friend, she finds out what she thinks is the cost, and she and her husband work ten years to pay off the debt incurred in replacing it.  Even though we don't like Mme. Loisel, we have to admire the fact that she takes responsibility for her negligence and is willing to do menial work to pay the debt. Here Maupassant uses quite a few details to describe the work that Mme. Loisel does--washing clothes, carrying slop, carrying water, bargaining with grocers and merchants.  These details provide us with a clear idea of what a debtor's life was like, and it is far from easy.  In this way, we have to have some respect for Mme. Loisel.  She does not go to her friend and apologize and beg for forgiveness.  Instead she and her husband sacrifice their health, youth, and well-being to fulfill their perceived obligation.  I wonder if people in today's society would be so honorable.  


So in looking at setting, look closely at the way the three distinct lifestyles are portrayed in the story--the middle class, the wealthy, and those in poverty.  

Which one of the following is an example of a balanced chemical reaction? A) `HCl + KMnO_4 = Cl_2 + MnO_2 + H_2O + KCl` B) `HCl + KMnO_4 = Cl_2 +...

Hello!


This is actually a math question.


For a chemical equation to be balanced, there must be an equal quantity of atoms of each type on both sides of an equation. Let's start from the first type of atoms involved here, `H` (hydrogen). It appears only in `H Cl` at the left (one atom for each molecule) and in `H_2O` at the right (two atoms for each molecule). Check:


A) `1*1 = 1*2` (false)B) `1*1...

Hello!


This is actually a math question.


For a chemical equation to be balanced, there must be an equal quantity of atoms of each type on both sides of an equation. Let's start from the first type of atoms involved here, `H` (hydrogen). It appears only in `H Cl` at the left (one atom for each molecule) and in `H_2O` at the right (two atoms for each molecule). Check:


A) `1*1 = 1*2` (false)
B) `1*1 = 2*2` (false)
C) `2*1 = 2*2` (false)
D) `6*1 = 4*2` (false)
E) `8*1 = 4*2` (true).


So the only equation which might be balanced is E. Check the remaining types of atoms: `Cl,` `K,` `Mn,` `O.`


`Cl:`  `8*1 = 3*2 + 2*1` (true),
`K:`    `2*1 = 2*1` (true),
`Mn:` `2*1 = 2*1` (true),
`O:`     `2*4 = 2*2 + 4*1` (true).


Great, E is a balanced equation and the only such. The answer is E.

Are there any similarities between William Shakespeare, Queen Elizabeth I, and Mary Queen of Scots?

All three lived during roughly the same period in Britain, although Shakespeare was born more than two decades after the birth of the two queens and survived into the rule of James I. All were influential, although Shakespeare was known primarily for his writing and the two queens for their actions as rulers. Elizabeth I was highly educated and wrote a small number of preserved poems as well as letters and speeches. All three were...

All three lived during roughly the same period in Britain, although Shakespeare was born more than two decades after the birth of the two queens and survived into the rule of James I. All were influential, although Shakespeare was known primarily for his writing and the two queens for their actions as rulers. Elizabeth I was highly educated and wrote a small number of preserved poems as well as letters and speeches. All three were literate and Christian and would have known Latin as well as English.


Mary, Queen of Scots, or Mary Stuart, was born on 8 December 1542 and was executed on 8 February 1587. She reigned in Scotland from 14 December 1542 to 24 July 1567. She was a Roman Catholic and eventually executed by Elizabeth I for treason.


Elizabeth I was born on 7 September 1533 and died on 24 March 1603. She was a Protestant and reigned from 17 November 1558 until her natural death in 1603, a long and prosperous reign. 


William Shakespeare lived from 1564 to 23 April 1616. The evidence concerning his religion is limited, with some scholars arguing that he was Protestant and others for Catholicism. Unlike the two queens, he was not royal or even an aristocrat, but the son of a moderately prosperous middle class family.

How does a nucleus function like a mayor?

If we were to think of a cell as a city, we can think of various organelles as components of the city. In such a scenario, we can think of the cell's nucleus as the mayor of the city. A nucleus controls all the activities of the cell and can be thought of as the boss of the cell (since it regulates all the activities). Similarly, a mayor of a city controls all the activities...

If we were to think of a cell as a city, we can think of various organelles as components of the city. In such a scenario, we can think of the cell's nucleus as the mayor of the city. A nucleus controls all the activities of the cell and can be thought of as the boss of the cell (since it regulates all the activities). Similarly, a mayor of a city controls all the activities of the city and regulates them, as and when needed. The nucleus uses DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), which houses genetic information, to direct the protein synthesis and thus control cell's activities. Similarly, the mayor uses the city's blueprint to help him decide on what needs to be done.  


We can also think of other roles for cell's organelle; cell membrane can be thought of as the city limits or borders, ribosomes can be thought of as workers, DNA can be thought of as the city's blueprints, etc.


Hope this helps. 

Compare and contrast Portia of The Merchant of Venice with Viola of Twelfth Night.

One of the main similarities between Portia of The Merchant of Venice and Viola of Twelfth Night is that both characters disguise themselves as men to gain access to spheres in society formerly forbidden to women. For instance, Portia disguises herself as a male lawyer in order to gain admittance to the court, successfully argue in defense of Antonio, and save the day. Along the same lines, Viola disguises herself as a boy in order...

One of the main similarities between Portia of The Merchant of Venice and Viola of Twelfth Night is that both characters disguise themselves as men to gain access to spheres in society formerly forbidden to women. For instance, Portia disguises herself as a male lawyer in order to gain admittance to the court, successfully argue in defense of Antonio, and save the day. Along the same lines, Viola disguises herself as a boy in order to gain employment with Orsino, Duke of Illyria. As such, both women use male disguises to their own advantage.


One major difference between the two women is the manner in which they find love. While Portia enjoys the direct attention of Bassanio (not to mention several other suitors, who aren't so lucky), Viola spends most of the play ignored by Orsino, who is in love with Olivia and doesn't notice Viola until the end of the play. As such, Portia is able to find love relatively early in the play, while Viola must wait much longer to win Orsino's love. 

To what extent do you feel that human beings need rules in order to be moral?

This question is closely related to the age-old “nature v. nurture” debate. Do people behave the way they do because of rules imposed on them by society, or are they obeying innate (from the inside) laws instilled in them from some other source? If there is a god who instills a sense of morality into our beings, then we are not wholly dependent on rules.

Since your question asks for an opinion, I'll tell you what I think, and why.


I believe that our moral sense comes from a combination of society's rules and something that is imprinted in our minds or hearts by God. If we did not have an innate sense of right and wrong, we would live in a society in which life was much more of a survival-of-the-fittest affair. Granted, the fittest certainly do fair better than the weakest members of society, but for the most part everyone is cared for to some degree. Social programs that feed and house the poor may be controversial, but they do point to our desire to at least do something for them.


Imagine a world in which no one had a pre-programmed sense of right and wrong. Why would anyone do anything for anybody else unless it was in their own best interest? Instead, we live in a world where we feel compelled to make the rules that protect the rights of others, even sometimes at our own expense.


We also live in a world in which nearly every parent willingly sacrifices their own gain for their children's benefit, without hope of a material reward. People may scoff at that and say, sure, that's because we instinctually love our offspring. But why do we possess that instinct? It must have been put there for a reason.


Likewise, why do we have a conscience? We know when we have done something morally wrong. Our conscience won't let loose of us—even if we try to deny it ourselves.


But there is another side to this issue. As a teacher I see all kinds of kids every year. A few come from unfortunate home situations in which they don't learn as much about the rules of moral behavior as others. Sometimes these kids seem more likely to violate moral standards than others. This suggests that it is still important to create and use rules to build on the morality naturally occurring within us.


Finally, I don't think we could even create rules if we didn't have a sense of morality to start with. Why would we want to? Why would we care? But it's also true that if we suddenly lifted all of our laws and rules, we would undoubtedly have many immoral things happen—like the looting we see when a government falls apart.


So the argument goes around and around, and that's probably because, to finally answer your question directly, we need rules to behave morally, but we also need a sense of morality with which to craft our rules.

In The Boy in the Striped Pajamas by John Boyne, how many children live in the hut with Shmuel?

In Chapter 12, Shmuel tells Bruno about his experience leaving his home in Poland. Shmuel explains to Bruno that the first hut his family was forced to stay in was only one room. He goes on to tell Bruno that he lived there with his mother, father, brother, as well as another family that had "sons." Shmuel then tells Bruno that one of the sons was named Luka, and he used to beat him up....

In Chapter 12, Shmuel tells Bruno about his experience leaving his home in Poland. Shmuel explains to Bruno that the first hut his family was forced to stay in was only one room. He goes on to tell Bruno that he lived there with his mother, father, brother, as well as another family that had "sons." Shmuel then tells Bruno that one of the sons was named Luka, and he used to beat him up. Bruno shakes his head to contradict Shmuel because he doesn't believe that two families could live in one hut, but Shmuel insists that he is being honest. Shmuel then says that there were eleven people living in the hut together. Using this information one can figure out that Shmuel was living with six other children in one hut before they were sent away to live in Auschwitz. Shmuel does not give any information regarding how many children he lives with in Auschwitz, but the reader does learn that Shmuel's mother was taken away from them. Shmuel currently lives with his brother, Josef, and his Papa in a hut at Auschwitz.

What are some ideas for an essay on 'The Age of Chaucer?'

The 'Age of Chaucer' (1340s - 1400) was a time of great social and political upheaval, therefore providing lots of topics and ideas for an essay.


Politically, for example, this period was dominated by the Hundred Years' War, a series of territorial conflicts between England and France. This war produced some of the era's most infamous battles, including Crecy (1346) and Agincourt (1415). Chaucer himself worked briefly as a soldier, though he was captured by...

The 'Age of Chaucer' (1340s - 1400) was a time of great social and political upheaval, therefore providing lots of topics and ideas for an essay.


Politically, for example, this period was dominated by the Hundred Years' War, a series of territorial conflicts between England and France. This war produced some of the era's most infamous battles, including Crecy (1346) and Agincourt (1415). Chaucer himself worked briefly as a soldier, though he was captured by the enemy and returned to England one year after his arrival, in 1360.


Socially, this era is also notable for the Black Death, a plague which spread across Europe and arrived in England in 1348, decimating between one-third and one-half of the population. In the aftermath of the plague, society was changed considerably: surviving peasants, for instance, demanded better wages and working conditions while the clergy suffered from a national shortage of trained priests.


This era also witnessed the Great Schism, a split in the papacy in which three different men claimed to be pope. The papacy not only lost authority and prestige during this time: the Schism also caused instability across Europe as governments were forced to back one of the claimants. This situation was not resolved until 1417, almost two decades after Chaucer's death.


For more information, please see the reference links provided.

How was Britain different after World War II?

Though Britain emerged as one of the victors of World War II, the nation faced many hardships in the years that followed.  Years of military attacks, such as the German Blitzkreig, had left many cities and towns in ruins.  After six years of war, Britain was stretched thin.  They still had colonies around the world and they also occupied a sector of Germany.  The country faced the possibility of bankruptcy.  Rationing continued even after the...

Though Britain emerged as one of the victors of World War II, the nation faced many hardships in the years that followed.  Years of military attacks, such as the German Blitzkreig, had left many cities and towns in ruins.  After six years of war, Britain was stretched thin.  They still had colonies around the world and they also occupied a sector of Germany.  The country faced the possibility of bankruptcy.  Rationing continued even after the war ended.  Even bread was rationed due to the need to feed those in British occupied Germany.  The country faced a difficult winter in the late 1940s.


Political changes also occurred.  The Labour Party came back into power following the end of the war.  This lasted until the early 1950s.


Despite the hardship, Britain did see some positive events in the five years following the end of the war.  Queen Elizabeth's celebrated wedding occurred in 1947, and the following year London hosted the Summer Olympic Games.  By the 1950s, prosperity returned to the country.

What is the difference between natural breeding and selective breeding?

Natural breeding refers to the random mating that occurs between two individuals of the same species. 


Conversely, selective breeding has been performed for centuries by humans hoping to produce offspring with desirable traits. Farmers have selectively bred their livestock in the hopes of producing healthier, larger specimens. For example, they might hope to produce a cow that gives a lot of milk or a horse that runs well.


Modern breeds of dogs came into existence...

Natural breeding refers to the random mating that occurs between two individuals of the same species. 


Conversely, selective breeding has been performed for centuries by humans hoping to produce offspring with desirable traits. Farmers have selectively bred their livestock in the hopes of producing healthier, larger specimens. For example, they might hope to produce a cow that gives a lot of milk or a horse that runs well.


Modern breeds of dogs came into existence by careful selection and breeding. All modern dogs can be traced to a wolf-like ancestor. Selections were made for traits like hunting ability, fighting ability, being a tame companion, and appearance. 


Many crops that nourish the planet are the results of selectively breeding plants with traits like resistance to insects or an ability to grow in a drier climate. Larger varieties of fruit have been selected for to provide more food for people. These crops are different than their "wild" cousins that grow in nature.


In selective breeding, there is no guarantee the desired traits will be inherited by the offspring. Due to the processes of crossing over and independent assortment (which occurs during meiosis), unique gametes are produced. These gametes may not have the characteristics desired by the person performing the selective breeding. 


I have included a link with details of various types of artificial selection (selective breeding) performed by people to try to "improve" the resulting offspring.

How have low oil prices affected the Malaysian economy?

Not well. Unlike most other countries in Asia, Malaysia has for a long time been a net oil exporter. Actually, it very recently became a net oil importer like most countries, and if that persists it will help Malaysia bear the shock.

Oil is a relatively inelastic good in the short run, which means that a 1% drop in oil prices leads to less than a 1% increase in demand, and so as prices fall, total revenues from oil fall. (This is not true of all goods; apples are relatively elastic, for example, so a fall in apple prices could actually bring more revenue to apple producers.)

Thus, when the price of oil drops, Malaysia's export revenues fall. With lower export revenues comes a higher trade deficit and a weaker currency. Unless the weaker currency brings in enough more export revenue to compensate, this will mean a lower standard of living for people in Malaysia, as their imported goods are now more expensive. (Imported oil will also be cheaper, however, which could offset this effect.)

Malaysia's government also directly uses oil revenue as part of its funding (a policy that is very much a mixed bag; it works well in Norway but not so much in Venezuela), so the loss in oil revenue means a loss in government revenue and therefore a higher budget deficit. Malaysia is a medium-sized country, so they are not so small that they have no power to control the value of their own currency; but they don't have nearly as much as a very large country like the US or China. While for the US a high budget deficit is practically just an accounting mechanism (nobody is worried about the stability of the US dollar; indeed, people are accepting negative interest rates to use it), in Malaysia it could become a real problem, and they might be forced to raise taxes or cut spending.

Yet, as we know from macroeconomics, such a policy would be contractionary---it would hurt the rest of the economy, and could push Malaysia into recession. Their best bet is to find ways of reducing the budget deficit that don't involve cutting useful spending or raising taxes; one thing that might help would be to cut subsidies to oil companies, which would raise the price of oil for Malaysian customers, but not any higher than it was before the global price plummet. Expansionary monetary policy is also a good idea; inflation shouldn't be a big problem since oil is such a big part of most prices (actually deflation might be, and printing money would fix that), and the potential for weakening the currency would hopefully be offset by the restored economic stability.

In the long run, Malaysia should diversify; it's never a good idea for a country to base its whole economy around a single commodity. They should invest in new industries so that in the future, bad news for one industry doesn't mean bad news for the country as a whole.

Can you help me write a thesis about why Brutus would fit Aristotle's description of the tragic hero in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar?

Aristotle said "A man doesn't become a hero until he can see the root of his own downfall." A tragic hero exercises flawed judgment (hamartia), caused by excessive pride or hubris, which causes his own downfall. The hero also realizes his downfall was his own doing.


In Julius Caesar, Brutus is a tragic hero. His decision to kill Caesar is flawed and caused by excessive pride because he believes he knows...

Aristotle said "A man doesn't become a hero until he can see the root of his own downfall." A tragic hero exercises flawed judgment (hamartia), caused by excessive pride or hubris, which causes his own downfall. The hero also realizes his downfall was his own doing.


In Julius Caesar, Brutus is a tragic hero. His decision to kill Caesar is flawed and caused by excessive pride because he believes he knows what is best for Rome. Brutus loves Caesar, but when Cassius asks him if he feels content with Caesar's growing acclaim in Act I, Scene 2, Brutus answers, "I would not, Cassius; yet I love him well." Brutus loves Caesar and would rather not kill him, but he allows Cassius to manipulate him into killing Caesar. In Act V, Scene 5, just before he kills himself by running through his sword, Brutus says, "Caesar, now be still: I kill'd not thee with half so good a will." His words show an awareness of the flawed judgement that led to his own downfall, and this awareness is another feature of a tragic hero. In the end, Brutus feels remorseful about having thought, with excessive pride, that his actions could save Rome. 

How does the abridged version of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet differ from the unabridged version?

An abridged version of any text is a shortened version of the original. The differences between the abridged version and the original always depends on exactly how much of the original text was cut out, and that will always vary per the decisions of the editors. Some abridged versions of texts maintain 70% of the original, whereas others only maintain 25%. Looking at some of the abridged versions of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, many editors have chosen to cut performance time of the play down from about 2 hours to about 30 to 45 minutes, which would roughly maintain between 28% to 37% of the original text, which is definitely very little of the original text.

Looking at one version edited by Shawn Peters, we see that he maintained the original Shakespearean language and expressed the main points of all scenes. However, a lot of the dialogue has been cut out, and many of those lines reveal essential character traits that serve to help develop Shakespeare's themes; lines cut out also serve to develop the philosophical views Shakespeare expresses in the play.

One example of what seems to be a simple line of dialogue cut out of the original but actually reveals a great deal about Tybalt's character can be seen the opening scene of the abridged version. The abridged version immediately starts with the servants of the Capulets and Montagues beginning a fight and Benvolio trying to bring peace by beating down their swords. Tybalt immediately joins the fray, saying, "Turn thee, Benvolio, look upon they death." Yet, in the original, Tybalt's opening line is, "What, art thou drawn among these heartless hinds?" (1.1.52). While it seems like such a small change, Tybalt's real opening line reveals just how quick Tybalt is to misjudge a situation and to react violently, two critical character traits that lead to his downfall.

In addition, critical opening lines spoken by the prince are cut out from the original in the abridged version. The prince's opening speech reads as follows in the original:
Rebellious subjects, enemies to peace,
Profaners of this neighbour-stained steel,--
Will they not hear? (1.168-70)
The phrase "neighbour-stained steel" is especially key to expressing one of Shakespeare's central points: these are neighbors, not enemies from distant shores, that are causing so much death and destruction due to persistence in acting upon their irrational emotions rather than their sound reasoning.

What is an example of foreshadowing in The Shakespeare Stealer?

One interesting example of foreshadowing is when Widge is leaving the Globe after his second attempt to copy out a verbatim record of Hamlet. He is trying to catch up with Falconer but is distracted by the fire and jostled by a scraggly "fellow" who smiles and politely apologizes. When Widge catches sight of Falconer, waiting for Widge to hand over to him the table-book with the charactery writing transcription of Hamlet, Widge...

One interesting example of foreshadowing is when Widge is leaving the Globe after his second attempt to copy out a verbatim record of Hamlet. He is trying to catch up with Falconer but is distracted by the fire and jostled by a scraggly "fellow" who smiles and politely apologizes. When Widge catches sight of Falconer, waiting for Widge to hand over to him the table-book with the charactery writing transcription of Hamlet, Widge finds that his leather wallet is empty. He has his wallet, but the table-book is missing from it: "The pouch seemed flat and empty. My heart suddenly felt the same."


Because of the foreshadowing effect of a sudden mystery, we suspect that the scraggly-bearded man had something to do with the loss, but Widge does not; he instinctively blames himself. Since we don't know for sure if the man acted as a pickpocket (or if he knew Widge had written down a transcript of Hamlet), Widge's encounter with the man foreshadows Widge's future understanding of that event (will Widge make the connection and was the table-book lifted by the man?) and foreshadows the resolution of the deeper mystery contained in the encounter: Who was that bearded man?



Then someone jostled me from behind, bringing me to my senses. ... [It] was only a thin fellow with a red nose and a scraggly beard, smiling apologetically. "Begging your pardon, my young friend," he said and moved off through the crowd.



We might suspect it was Shakespeare in disguise (like Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, Shakespeare would have been an expert at disguises), but was it perhaps Burbage in disguise? Was it merely a street pickpocket who got lucky (or unlucky, depending upon his perspective)? Who was it? The event foreshadows the answers to these questions and the solutions to their mysterious hints. (Another instance of foreshadowing occurs just before this one when Widge narrates seeing Julian present in the fire bucket line.)

The story "The Most Dangerous Game" opens off the coast of what island?

The story opens off the coast of Ship-Trap Island. 


This is one of those stories that really illustrates the importance of setting, because it couldn’t really take place anywhere else.  Ship-Trap Island is an isolated Caribbean island that gets plenty of traffic passing by, but none that stops.  General Zaroff chooses it because he can create a trap there to stop the ships which provide easy prey for him. 


After Rainsford falls off of...

The story opens off the coast of Ship-Trap Island. 


This is one of those stories that really illustrates the importance of setting, because it couldn’t really take place anywhere else.  Ship-Trap Island is an isolated Caribbean island that gets plenty of traffic passing by, but none that stops.  General Zaroff chooses it because he can create a trap there to stop the ships which provide easy prey for him. 


After Rainsford falls off of his ship and swims to the island, he meets its eccentric inhabitant.  Zaroff explains to him how he traps the ships, after telling him that he started hunting human beings when animals got boring for him.  They are his new "game."



"Watch! Out there!" exclaimed the general, pointing into the night.  Rainsford's eyes saw only blackness, and then, as the general pressed a button, far out to sea Rainsford saw the flash of lights.


The general chuckled. "They indicate a channel," he said, "where there's none; giant rocks with razor edges crouch like a sea monster with wide-open jaws ...



The ships get trapped because they think it is safe, and then it turns out that there are actually very sharp rocks there.  Zaroff has turned the lights that are supposed to guide ships into a system to trap them.  There should be something warning them away.


Since he is on an island, no one knows what Zaroff is doing.  Rainsford realizes that his host has been hunting people for a long time, and doesn't see anything wrong in what he is doing.  He has fully embraced Ship-Trap Island's image and reputation.  It makes the sailors nervous because sailors are superstitious, not because they know the truth about what happens there, but in this case they have a need to be nervous.  You do not want to get your ship trapped on that island.



Are Framton Nuttel and Vera likable characters in "The Open Window" by Saki?

Certainly, the weak and timorous hypochondriac, Framton Nuttel, has few, if any positive character traits; on the other hand, while Vera takes advantage of Nuttel, she does have some engaging qualities.


As the tool for Saki's satire, Vera issues a clever version of shock therapy for the shrinking, whimpering Nuttel, who represents the effete society of the Edwardian period. In her fabrications, Vera points to the truth that Nuttel is a coward who contrasts greatly...

Certainly, the weak and timorous hypochondriac, Framton Nuttel, has few, if any positive character traits; on the other hand, while Vera takes advantage of Nuttel, she does have some engaging qualities.


As the tool for Saki's satire, Vera issues a clever version of shock therapy for the shrinking, whimpering Nuttel, who represents the effete society of the Edwardian period. In her fabrications, Vera points to the truth that Nuttel is a coward who contrasts greatly with Vera's uncle and cousin, who are hunters.


In addition, Vera is creative and clever and amusing, although at the expense of the weaker Nuttel. Her ingenuity in contriving a story that is cloaked in the truth is impressive as well. Her acting abilities are strong also, as Mrs. Sappleton announces the arrival of her husband and son:



The child was staring out through the open window with dazed horror in her eyes.



Given only the choice between the weak and hysterical Framton Nuttel and the mischievous, though rather vicious, Vera, whose specialty is "[R]omance at short notice," the reader may find her the more likable. 

What happens to Pip's sister in Great Expectations, and what is the result? How might we understand what's wrong with her in modern terms?

To be clear, a lot of things happen to Pip's sister, Mrs. Joe, in the book Great Expectations. First, she becomes the sole caretaker of her baby brother at age twenty, after burying two parents and five brothers. That alone would make anyone a little stressed out, and she is no exception. In fact, the most contentious part of her relationship with Pip stems from her having "brought him up by hand"—beating him—and she is very proud of that fact, as were many parents during this time period who brought their children up this way. Pip may find it hard to understand at first, being on the receiving end of those beatings, but her entire life up until that point had been filled with heartache and being young and unmarried; she had absolutely no help or experience in raising Pip at first. When she married Joe, that was arguably the best thing that had ever happened to her. He was nice, funny, kind, and a good father for Pip to have, although he could not stand up to his wife and he seemed incapable of softening her already hardened heart.

At first glance, she may just seem like an abusive, self-important, evil person. Because of her earlier struggles, however, Mrs. Joe fears abandonment and believes that her only recourse in life is to become wealthy and powerful. She exerts this power over others to stem the very real fear that she has of being abandoned by those she cares for. We can see this in how she treats Joe; she does whatever she can to keep him from bettering himself. Her main focus is on survival and bettering herself through wealth, and we see her pass these values on to Pip, which ends up causing him great tumult and confusion as he tries to sort out his own values. He, like many others during this time, thinks that the greatest achievement that he could possibly strive for would be to acquire wealth and the status of a "gentleman." This is what his sister wished for him, and this is what he learns to value as a small child. The outcome of this is that he does everything that he can in order to be this person and ends up becoming someone that he doesn't recognize or even like very much. The wealth that he'd always desired and that his sister had always desired has proven to be both a blessing and a curse in his life.


If we want to understand why people valued wealth so much, and why times were very difficult for young people, especially young women and children, during the nineteenth century in England, we need to look to history to show us. In hindsight, we can see how child labor and extreme poverty during the Industrial Revolution bred desperation during this time. In the book, we observe how Mrs. Joe and Pip both acted out of desperation and a desire to improve their lives. Mrs. Joe thought that she was doing the best thing, but she had no experience raising children and had never learned kindness because of her harsh upbringing and the way the role of motherhood was thrust upon her.


When she is attacked suddenly and seemingly without reason by an unknown assailant, everyone is confused and suspects Joe. Pip knows, however, that it was his convict's leg cuff that produced her injuries. He does not feel that telling anyone would help or lead to a conviction, so he does not tell. Eventually, his sister heals from her injuries, though her vision, hearing, memory, and speech are affected. She communicates through drawings and Pip finds that her temper and patience have improved after the attack. Today, we would say that she likely suffered from brain damage, which made her incapable of understanding and remembering details from her previous life, such as her anger towards certain people.


Later, we find out through Mrs. Joe's strange obsession with Orlick that he was the true attacker, who hit her with his hammer in a fit of rage. He did this in reaction to the anger she inspired in people through her yelling and berating and always having to be right. Still, Orlick is the type of person who would hurt someone just to hurt them. In many ways, he is the antithesis of Joe's character.


It turns out that this attack was actually for the best for everyone in Mrs. Joe's life. It gives Mrs. Joe some perspective on her life, her values, and how she was treating others. Certainly, it makes her more grateful for the care and love that she has in her life instead of leaving her wondering what her life could be like if she were wealthier. Another strange outcome is that she forges better relationships with others, including Orlick, who spends time with her, though he is confused by her desire to see him after his attack on her.

Order the following from smallest to largest: nucleotide, DNA strand, gene, protein, cell, sugar molecule.

The cell is the largest in this group, as a single cell is able to hold many, many times what the other items on the list contain. Cells can be seen even without a microscope at times, like some nerve and muscle cells.


From there, the DNA strand is the next biggest. These strands are often thousands of molecules long, and are considered macromolecules for this reason.


Next is the gene. A gene is just...

The cell is the largest in this group, as a single cell is able to hold many, many times what the other items on the list contain. Cells can be seen even without a microscope at times, like some nerve and muscle cells.


From there, the DNA strand is the next biggest. These strands are often thousands of molecules long, and are considered macromolecules for this reason.


Next is the gene. A gene is just a single section of a DNA strand, and is therefore smaller. There are many genes on each strand of DNA.


Protein molecules are next. These massive molecules are often very specific in function, and under poor conditions can rearrange themselves in such a way that they no longer work.


Then we come to the nucleotide. The nucleotide is a large molecule, with several different varieties, but will always contain more atoms than glucose, a simple sugar.


So, from smallest to largest, the list would be arranged sugar molecule, nucleotide, protein, gene, DNA strand, and cell.

Who is Hermione in The Winter's Tale?

Hermione is Queen of Sicily, wife to Leontes, and mother to Mamillius and Perdita. She is a gracious and friendly host who tries to convince Polixenes, Leontes’s best friend, to extend his stay in Sicily. In fact, she does not easily take no for an answer. Hermione declares, “Verily, / You shall not go: a lady's 'Verily' 's / As potent as a lord's,” and says she will be forced to keep Polixenes “as a...

Hermione is Queen of Sicily, wife to Leontes, and mother to Mamillius and Perdita. She is a gracious and friendly host who tries to convince Polixenes, Leontes’s best friend, to extend his stay in Sicily. In fact, she does not easily take no for an answer. Hermione declares, “Verily, / You shall not go: a lady's 'Verily' 's / As potent as a lord's,” and says she will be forced to keep Polixenes “as a prisoner.” Hermione and Polixenes enjoy this banter, and, while Leontes also seems to, his thoughts quickly turn to jealousy.


Almost immediately, Leontes plots the demise of his closest friend and the arrest of his wife. Polixenes escapes, but Hermione, pregnant with the unborn Perdita, is thrown in prison. Leontes is convinced Polixenes is the baby’s father, and he refuses to let their son Mamillius see Hermione.


The queen’s reputation for virtue is widely known, and everyone in the king’s circle attempts to convince him of her innocence. Paulina is especially outspoken, calling Hermione “a gracious innocent soul, / More free than he [Leontes] is jealous,” and hurling numerous insults at the king, on pain of death. Hermione has the child, whom Leontes exiles to the wilderness of Bohemia. Mamillius dies, Hermione collapses and is reported to die, and Leontes, all too late, comes to his senses.


Leontes grieves for over a decade. Unbeknownst to him, Hermione lives in hiding and Perdita was discovered and raised by two farmers. Eventually, Perdita and Polixenes reunite with Leontes, and Paulina reveals a “statue” of Hermione that turns out to be Hermione herself. It is a poignant ending and a marvelous reconciliation, although it cannot fully erase the lost years and lives of the past.

Is comedy a criticism of life?

I think comedy can be a criticism of life, certainly, although there is comedy that is not. Very "broad" comedy appeals to our funny bones in a different kind of way, much like the difference between our appreciation of witty repartee in a film as opposed to our laughter at the very physical comedy of something like the Three Stooges.  Some comedy is meant simply to entertain us and nothing more. There are many examples in literature, though, of comedy that is meant to critique or comment on some aspect of life.

I just finished reading Bill Bryson's latest book, The Road to Little Dribbling. Like most of his books, this one is filled with humorous criticism—in this case, of his adopted country, the United Kingdom. He pokes fun at British things in a very entertaining way, but the reader can see these are aspects of British life of which he is genuinely critical. What keeps Bryson from being just a grumpy old man is that he never hesitates to make fun of himself, too, which is, I suppose, a criticism of life. 


In a far older example, Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales uses humor to comment on and criticize the society of his time and place, particularly the Church. The hypocrisies of the day are exposed, as these travelers on their spiritual quest are far more concerned with matters such as lust and wealth.  


Catch-22 by Joseph Heller is a comedic critique of society, in particular military bureaucracy. The term "catch-22" did not take very long to catch on in its day, since the pointed humor of the novel resonated with anyone who had any experience of bureaucracy.


There is no question that there is comedy in literature that is meant to just entertain, but much comedy in literature is meant to make a point that critiques some aspect of life.   

How can I better understand McCullough's book "1776"?

History books often portray the American Revolution as a simple fight between right and wrong. Colonists were "right," and the British were "wrong." Setting up the war in this way makes it easy to glorify the colonists and vilify the British. George Washington becomes a hero, almost god-like, and the colonial army a group of dedicated and honorable young men.

McCullough's book presents an image of the war and the war's principal players in a more open view. In reading this book, understand that he wants to show the most accurate picture of the first year of the war that he can—flaws and all. He sets out to show that war and independence was not a universal goal of all colonists. He paints George Washington as a snob and a dilettante who, although talented, often missteps in his military planning.


McCullough does not paint over the truths of the time period and writes about the slovenly and often drunken nature of the soldiers. He casts a shadow on the belief that all men were diligently fighting for their right to freedom—many deserted not believing in the cause or not eager to be soldiers.


This book should be read as one version of "truth" surrounding the start of the American Revolution and look for areas in each chapter where McCullough challenges the pretty picture painted by history books.

How is the quote “ Instead he began thinking of the things that would happen to him after the thought Police took him away. ” an example of...

The passage cited from Part I, Chapter VIII, is an example of foreshadowing because it is in the room of the pawn shop owner, Mr. Charrington which Winston Smith has just seen that he is later arrested along with Julia from the Fiction Department. They are interrogated and tortured in Room 101 until their minds are brainwashed.


In Chapter VIII, Winston starts to write in his diary after returning from the area where the proles live...

The passage cited from Part I, Chapter VIII, is an example of foreshadowing because it is in the room of the pawn shop owner, Mr. Charrington which Winston Smith has just seen that he is later arrested along with Julia from the Fiction Department. They are interrogated and tortured in Room 101 until their minds are brainwashed.


In Chapter VIII, Winston starts to write in his diary after returning from the area where the proles live and the pawn shop is located. But, instead his thoughts wander to the Thought Police and what will happen to him because he feels the inevitability of being arrested for his crime of having a diary.


Winston has gone where the proles live in an effort to learn what things were like in the past, a crime in itself. When he drinks beer with an old man, Winston asks him about what things were like before the Revolution, but the old man will not really answer his questions. Instead, he rambles incoherently about "top hats" and some other things that certain classes wore or did, and he speaks of drinking "a pint" of beer, not a half-liter, as now. "The beer was better," he says, and when Winston asks about the war, the old man replies, "It's all wars." Clearly, the old man is fearful of Winston because of so many questions about the past.

What are the problems with Uganda's government?

Youth unemployment and corruption are two problems that face the Ugandan government. Modern governments all over the world face many problem...