Blog: July 2017

How does the movie Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban present the idea of good vs evil?

In the third installment of Harry Potter, Harry learns that he is being targeted by a murderer named Sirius Black who has escaped from the mysterious Azkaban Prison. Azkaban is guarded by Dementors, ghost-like beings that suck the joy out of you. Since Sirius Black is on the loose, the Dementors are too. They seem to represent evil itself, and Harry is terrified of them. They make him feel like he will never be happy again.

Harry is not that afraid of Sirius Black, but everyone else around him is. They try to protect him, but he makes light of the situation. He runs away from home after blowing up his aunt (like a balloon, not with explosives). He sneaks around the castle with the Marauder’s Map, given to him by Fred and George Weasley, which shows him where everyone is at any given time. He also sneaks into the nearby town of Hogsmead.

For Harry, evil is an abstract concept, even though he has already faced it directly a few times in his life. He doesn’t consider Sirius Black a real threat. His Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher Remus Lupin finds him with the map and takes it.

Lupin also tries to help Harry address his fear. When the class faced a boggart, a creature that turns into what you fear most, Lupin stopped Harry before he faced it, fearing it would turn into Voldemort. Harry said he assumed it would be a Dementor.

"Well, well... I'm impressed. ... That suggests that what you fear most of all is -- fear. Very wise, Harry."

The fact that Harry did not think he would see Sirius Black or Voldemort shows that he does not live his life ruled by fear of evil. He fears the Dementors because they represent what he has lost in his life. He has already faced too much death.

The threat of Sirius Black turns out to be not what it seems. Sirius Black is not evil, proving the theme that good and evil are sometimes in the eye of the beholder. Sirius Black was framed. His reputation came from the fact that he was supposed to have killed Peter Pettigrew, but Pettigrew faked his own death. He was actually an Animagus, and turned himself into a rat (Ron's Scabbers). Sirius Black was also an Animagus, and became a big black dog. They also find out that Remus Lupin is a werewolf.

The real evil in this movie is the same evil as in all of the Harry Potter movies: the dark wizard Voldemort. What changes is who is helping him. In this book, it is assumed that Sirius Black is helping him, but it turns out to be Peter Pettigrew. The movie tells us that the idea of good and evil is more complex than we thought. We assumed that Black was evil, but he was trying to protect Harry and stop Pettigrew, who was actually the threat. People also usually assume that werewolves are evil, but Remus Lupin was a teacher and a mentor. This did not stop him from losing his job when people found out he was a werewolf.

Note: The quote is from Chapter 8 of the book, but appears in the movie.

Compare and contrast any two characters of "The Canterville Ghost."

I hope that it is okay to compare and contrast three characters. I would like compare and contrast Virginia Otis and the Otis twins. For the sake of simplicity though, I am going to refer to the twins as a single character though. They do everything together, and there isn't much difference between the two.

Honestly, the twins are completely different from Virginia Otis, but I can find some surface level similarities. Both Virginia...

Honestly, the twins are completely different from Virginia Otis, but I can find some surface level similarities. Both Virginia and the twins are related to Mr. and Mrs. Otis. Both characters are relatively young. Virginia is older, but she is only fifteen. Lastly, Virginia and the twins are also quite interested in the ghost of Sir Simon.

The interest in the ghost is where all of the differences between those characters begin. The Otis twins are immediately excited about the prospect of a ghost, and they revel in being as antagonistic as possible to Sir Simon. At no point do they consider empathizing with Sir Simon. Virginia, on the other hand, is a perfectly behaved child. She doesn't participate in her family's schemes to antagonize Sir Simon, and she doesn't automatically assume that Sir Simon deserves their dislike. Virginia does quite the opposite. She pities the ghost and offers to help him. Where the twins are loud, annoying, and able to strike fear in Sir Simon, Virginia is calm, sweet, and able to earn Sir Simon's trust.

How have the literary backgrounds of England and America affected their contemporary writing?

Although most people alive today think of the United States as a major world power, historically, both the United States and Canada were colonized by Europeans. Thus, when we think of contemporary literatures in England and the United States, we are considering cultures that were shaped by different experiences, despite their sharing a common language.

English literature is essentially colonial and European, reflecting a long continuous history as an imperial power. England, however, is no...

English literature is essentially colonial and European, reflecting a long continuous history as an imperial power. England, however, is no longer the great imperial power it was in the nineteenth century and much English literary reflection is devoted to the question of whether England should in response to this emphasize her own Englishness, retreating from internationalism, as advocated by Philip Larkin, or whether it should it embrace international postmodernism, either of a European or American flavor.

The literature of the United States, on the other hand, reflects a postcolonial experience. First, it attempted to imitate the European models to avoid being considered a provincial backwater, but slowly began to assert cultural as well as political independence by either embracing regionalism (as is the case with Southern Gothic, prairie, and other regional movements) or arguing for new cultural forms to suit a new continent, as one can see in traditions stemming from Whitman and progressing through the Beats to many forms of contemporary writing. Also, American contemporary literature has begun to embrace cultural diversity, honoring the unique contributions of Native Americans, African Americans, Latino/Latina writers, and Asian Americans.

Why was Rikki-tikki-tavi's fight with Karait important?

Rikki-tikki is a mongoose, an animal similar to a weasel with a reputation for being a particularly effective enemy of snakes. Rikki-tikki is washed out of his home by a flood, and arrives half-drowned in the garden of a British family, who essentially adopt him (although Rikki-tikki, arguably, adopts them as well), particularly their young son, Teddy. Teddy's mother is nervous about allowing Rikki-tikki, a wild animal, into such close confidence with their child, but...

Rikki's primary enemies are Nag and Nagaina, a pair of cobras. Karait is a smaller, but equally deadly snake, and Rikki's fight with Karait allows Rikki to be established as a successful snake-hunter, and therefore a hero, without encountering the main antagonists. From a literary perspective this amplifies the tensions and sets up their rivalry for a greater final conflict. From the perspective of the plot, Rikki's fight with Karait allows him to demonstrate his protective nature, and assure Teddy's mother that he is a benefit rather than a threat.

What is one response to the end of "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut?

On one hand, when Harrison breaks free from his handicaps, it is a liberating moment. When he removes the dancer's handicaps and they embrace in a romantic display of dancing and grace, it is a triumphant moment.

On the other hand, when Harrison breaks free, he names himself emperor and selects his empress. He doesn't speak on behalf of other people who have been handicapped. He doesn't inspire a rebellion or an uprising. He only...

"I am the Emperor!" cried Harrison. "Do you hear? I am the Emperor! Everybody must do what I say at once!" He stamped his foot and the studio shook.

Knowing that Harrison has been fighting the oppression of the Handicapper General, it is disheartening to see him assert himself as a tyrant. He doesn't say anything about changing the way society is governed. He just immediately becomes obsessed with power.

So, when he and his empress are killed, it is tragic. But given the selfish way he deals with his brief freedom, it doesn't seem as though his society has lost a righteous savior. Harrison wastes his opportunity and because of everyone else's handicaps, he is quickly forgotten.

What was the purpose of the Boston Massacre?

The Boston Massacre really did not have a purpose. It was not something that the British set out to do. Instead, it happened spontaneously. To the extent that it had a purpose, its purpose was to prevent a group of British soldiers from being harmed by a crowd of angry colonists.

In the spring of 1770, British soldiers had been posted in Boston for almost two years. They were there to enforce tax and other...

In the spring of 1770, British soldiers had been posted in Boston for almost two years. They were there to enforce tax and other laws that the colonists disliked. The colonists resented the fact that the soldiers were in their city. This led to various incidents between soldiers and colonists.

On March 5th of that year, a lone British sentry was guarding a customs house when he started to be harassed by a crowd. Eight more soldiers came to help him, and the crowd began to threaten them, taunt them, and even throw things at them. The soldiers were under orders not to fire, but one of them did end up firing, presumably because he was hit by a thrown object. This caused other soldiers to fire as well, killing three colonists immediately and wounding others, two of whom later died.

From this account, we can see that there was no real purpose behind the massacre. The soldiers had not been sent out to kill colonists to make a point or anything like that. Instead, the massacre was an accident that came about because of tense relations between American colonists and British soldiers. The only purpose behind it was the soldiers’ desire to keep themselves safe from what they perceived as threats.

What are some similarities and differences between today's society and the society in Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises?

Despite the long span of years that separates contemporary society from the society of Ernest Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, the novel is still relevant and contains many similarities to the current cultural climate. The two similarities that I want to focus on are gender roles and technological advancement.

The Sun Also Rises chronicles a time of great social change, especially in terms of gender roles. Published in the middle of the 1920s, the...

The Sun Also Rises chronicles a time of great social change, especially in terms of gender roles. Published in the middle of the 1920s, the novel arrived at a time when women were gaining greater independence in many countries and challenging traditional gender roles that subordinated women to men. In the novel, one of Hemingway's primary goals is to find a definition for masculinity within the context of rapidly evolving gender roles. This trend has definite similarities to contemporary society; while the United States has come a long way since the 1920s, society still has much progress to make before true gender equality can be realized. Thus, as in Hemingway's time, many individuals, both men and women, are still trying to redefine masculine and feminine roles in society.

Additionally, the society in The Sun Also Rises experienced rapid technological advancement. Cars were becoming more accessible, economies were adapting to increased manufacturing, and the world had just witnessed the atrocities that advanced weaponry had brought on the battlefield in World War I. Likewise, our own society is seeing a glut of technological evolution, with cell phones, social media, and computers taking on roles of greater and greater importance. Just as individuals struggled to make sense of human life in the midst of the increased technological presence during the '20s, so too are members of our own society trying to define what it means to be human in the age of Facebook and iPhones.

In short, the 1920s were a period of swift advancement in all spheres of life, and society was changing rapidly. As such, it bears many similarities to our own quickly changing society, despite the fact that the book was published nearly 100 years ago.

How much would women and children be paid for the work they did during the Industrial Revolution?

Women and children provided some of the labor in the factories during the Industrial Revolution. Since there were no laws at this time requiring children to attend school, many children worked to help their family make ends meet. There were no minimum wage laws for any workers, so factory owners could pay workers whatever they wanted to pay them. Generally, women and children were paid less than men for the work they did. While some...

Children were paid very little. For example, it was common for children to work about twelve hours a day or more, six days a week, and be paid one dollar. In one factory in Massachusetts, children were paid between 40 cents and $1.10 for one night’s work. Eventually, there were calls to pass laws to regulate child labor and require kids to attend school.

Women were also paid very little. In some of the factories in New England, women were paid between $3.00 and $3.50 per week. They would work twelve-hour days, six days a week.

Women and children were badly paid for the long hours they worked in very poor working conditions.

What is the moral lesson conveyed in "The Little Prince" by Antoine de Saint-Exupery?

The moral lesson conveyed in The Little Prince is that life is only worth living when it is lived for others, not for oneself. The Little Prince lives on his asteroid in peace, taking care of his volcanoes and watching his sunsets. One day a rose appears on his asteroid, and he is intrigued by her, but he soon becomes offended by her conceit and her false words. He leaves her. On his travels, which ultimately lead him to Earth, he has a chance to view and evaluate many types of people. Most of the people he meets live only for themselves and don't invest their lives in anyone else. The king wants only to command. The conceited man lives only to be admired. The tippler only wants to drink so he can forget that he is ashamed of his drinking. The businessman wants to own everything without being of any use to the things he owns. What all these men have in common is that they are completely selfish, living only for themselves.

When he reaches the planet of the lamplighter, he summarizes: "That man ... is the only one of them all who does not seem to me ridiculous. Perhaps that is because he is thinking of something else besides himself."

The farther away he gets from his flower, the more he realizes that it was his job to appreciate and protect her, not to get something from her. But when he comes to the garden of roses, he cries because he thinks his flower is not unique, as she had told him.

The fox is the one who teaches the Little Prince the moral lesson clearly. He teaches him what it means to be tamed by someone--which is basically growing to love that person. After taming the fox, the Little Prince realizes that his rose is unique, because she is his rose, and he cares for her. The fox then shares his secret:

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye. ... You become responsible forever, for what you have tamed. You are responsible for your rose."

This secret sums up the moral lesson of the book: Life is meaningful when it is filled with caring relationships.

What cultural differences and similarities do Miss Daisy and Hoke share?

Daisy and Hoke share not belonging to the most accepted cultural groups in the south at the time the play Driving Miss Daisytakes place (the late 1940s through the early 1970s). Daisy Werthan is a Jewish woman in Atlanta, while Hoke Colburn is an African-American man. They are from different cultural backgrounds, and Daisy is from a far more privileged group than Hoke, who works as her chauffeur. For example, Daisy is a former...

Daisy and Hoke share not belonging to the most accepted cultural groups in the south at the time the play Driving Miss Daisy takes place (the late 1940s through the early 1970s). Daisy Werthan is a Jewish woman in Atlanta, while Hoke Colburn is an African-American man. They are from different cultural backgrounds, and Daisy is from a far more privileged group than Hoke, who works as her chauffeur. For example, Daisy is a former teacher, while Hoke has never learned to read. She eventually teaches him how to read.

They are similar in that both Daisy and Hoke are subject to violence and prejudice because of their religious or racial backgrounds. At the beginning of the play, Hoke says to Daisy's son, Boolie, "I'd druther drive for Jews. People always talkin' about how they stingy and they cheap, but doan' say none of that roun' me." Hoke has an appreciation of the fact that there are Jewish stereotypes in his society that aren't true.

Hoke certainly understands how it feels to be the object of prejudice. When he is taking Daisy on a long road trip, he has to stop the car because he is not allowed, as an African-American man in the south, to use public bathrooms. He says to Daisy, "How you think I feel havin' to ax you when can I make my water like I some damn dog?" (page 32). He is clearly feeling embarrassed and humiliated because his society will not allow him to live with dignity.

Daisy is also subject to violence and prejudice when the temple where she worships is bombed. Hoke says to her:

"You know as good as me who done it. Always the same ones. It done matter to them people what kinda Jew people might be. A Jew is a Jew to them folks. Jes like light or dark we all the same nigger" (page 38).

Hoke tells her that he can identify with the way she feels because when he was ten or eleven, his friend's father was found lynched in a tree. They can both identify with being victims of campaigns of violence from hate groups who target the cultural or racial groups they belong to. Daisy finally sees that they have a common cause when she invites Hoke to a dinner for Martin Luther King later in the play.

What are some examples of social structure?

Social structures are systems or relationships which organize the way individuals and groups of people interact with one another. We consider them to be fairly fixed, if not static, and to be understood by all members of a group.

One example we can consider is the social structure of the family unit. Most people grow up with their families and experience power relations and responsibility in the form of older-younger. We can very easily see this in the relationship between parents and children. At the risk of being reductive, we could say that the social structure of the family unit works because parents provide for their child's wellbeing, and children obey and learn from their parents. Of course, in reality, it is far more complex than this statement captures.

Another example to consider is the concept of a class or caste system. Class and caste systems are a form of macro or societal structures-- rules which govern the functioning of an entire society based on relative access to power, prestige, and privilege. Class systems are often based on economic status but may also take into account racial or ethnic identity, heritage, gender, occupation, or health status. Caste systems are more dependent upon particularities of ethnic identity and a heritage of family members belonging to a particular class. Another difference between class and caste systems is that class offers a sense of mobility-- someone can increase or decrease their class status through particular choices in life. In contrast, caste systems offer no mobility, regardless of life decisions.

The opposite of a stratified or differentiated social structure would be an egalitarian one. In egalitarian societies, all members of a group are valued equally and contribute their efforts and ideas for the benefit of the entire group. Early human groups were egalitarian, and some small still practice this today. Egalitarianism is not only a societal structure and may be practiced in groups of very small size. You may have experienced egalitarianism in your friend group when a decision-making opportunity arose and everyone participated in the process.

What is the process of digestion that occurs in the small intestine, including the name of enzymes involved and the end products formed?

The small intestine can be divided into three sections: the duodenum, jejunum, and ileum. The duodenum forms the first section of the small intestine. Partially digested food moves from the stomach through the pyloric sphincter and into the duodenum. The pancreas and liver are also connected to the region. Those two organs release their juices (digestive enzymes and bile, respectively) to mix with the partially digested food.

Trypsinogen and chymotrypsinogen are digestive enzymes released into...

Trypsinogen and chymotrypsinogen are digestive enzymes released into the duodenum. They are responsible for the digestion of proteins into polypeptides. The polypeptides are further broken down by exopeptidases and dipeptidases into amino acids. Lipase and amylase are additional digestive enzymes released into the duodenum for the digestion of fats and carbohydrates. Bile from the liver and lipase digest fats into glycerol and fatty acids. Amylase helps in the digestion of carbohydrates into glucose.

The jejunum is the middle section of the small intestines. It is responsible for the absorption of nutrients from the digested food. The ileum is the final section of the small intestines and is connected to the large intestines. This section absorbs remaining nutrients that were not absorbed in the jejunum and empties any remaining matter into the large intestine.

Amir and Hassan have a favorite story. Does the story have the same meaning to both men? Why does Hassan name his son after one of the characters...

Amir and Hassan enjoyed readings from the Shahnamah, with special emphasis on the story about Rostam and Sohrab. In the story, Rostam killed Sohrab only to learn Sohrab was his son. The emotions evoked by the story brought tears to Hassan’s eyes, but Amir did not know who the tears were for, Rostam or Sohrab.

The story was interpreted differently by the two boys. Amir saw himself as Sohrab, the young warrior, and his father...

The story was interpreted differently by the two boys. Amir saw himself as Sohrab, the young warrior, and his father as Rostam. The story reflects his relationship with his father. Amir does not comprehend Rostam’s grief or fate.

Personally, I couldn't see the tragedy in Rostam's fate. After all, didn't all fathers in their secret hearts harbor a desire to kill their sons?

Hassan’s interpretation is not explicitly given, but his emotions suggest he understands the situation between the father and his son. He goes on to name his son Sohrab because he was his favorite character in the story.

What is the central theme of the play Arms and the Man?

George Bernard Shaw was a self-effacing man, never concerned with how his comments and outspokenness would affect him. His main aim was always to share his message, and, in doing so, he would point out the shortcomings of any system of governance or unrealistic and over-romanticized views of life, love, and war, among others. In Arms and the Man, Shaw explores various ideas, and his views become apparent in his handling of the main...

In terms of theme, the central or main theme in any work is often universal in nature. It is particularly significant in Arms and the Man because Shaw's main theme of realism versus idealism is as relevant today as it was when the play was first performed in the 1890s. War, even if it appears necessary, is often over-idealized, divisive, and destructive, and yet there is still a romantic vision of a soldier returning from war as a hero, having removed a threat and saved a nation. However, even Sergius, the apparent hero of the day, recognizes the questionable nobility of war and its apparent contradiction when he says, “That is the whole secret of successful fighting. Get your enemy at a disadvantage; and never, on any account, fight him on equal terms.”

The paradox continues when Bluntschli, the man who would have been mercilessly killed had Raina not saved him, turns out to be a man whom Sergius and Paul hold in high esteem after the war; they even ask for his help. Shaw expertly reveals the predisposition of human nature, exposing its tendency toward frivolousness and inconsistency and not necessarily towards war, as some experts believe.

Upon hearing of his father’s death, Bluntschli makes plans to attend to his father’s affairs. His apparent matter-of-fact acceptance of his father’s death challenges the audience’s first impression of him. At first, when Bluntschli meets Raina, he is not a murderous, cruel enemy; he reveals a surprisingly soft side, with Raina even naming him her “chocolate-cream soldier.” Later, Raina makes a noteworthy observation, reinforcing the theme, when she says, “Grief!—a man who has been doing nothing but killing people for years! What does he care? What does any soldier care?” Shaw is defiant in his proposal that all is not what it seems. The concept of appearance versus reality fully supports the main theme of realism versus idealism.

Discuss how Holden Caulfield from The Catcher In the Rye and Ivan Ilyich from The Death of Ivan Ilyich share a similar struggle to face the truth...

Both Holden and Ivan Ilyich must find a way of dealing with the fact that people do not behave as they ought. People are dishonest, and they treat other people poorly. For both of them, it is the presence of death that forces them to look at these things.

Dishonesty. Both characters come up a name for when people do not tell the truth about themselves, life, and death. Holden calls it "phoniness" and reviles it mostly in other people. (Though Holden tells us that he too is a liar, about some things he is more honest than most people.) Ivan Ilyich calls it "not the real thing," and he has to confront it mostly in himself:

It occurred to him that what had seemed utterly inconceivable before—that he had not lived the kind of life he should have—might in fact be true. ... His official duties, his manner of life, his family, the values adhered to by people in society and in his profession—all these might not have been the real thing.

Treating others poorly. One main reason people are dishonest is to cover up their own selfishness and their bad treatment of others.

Holden is very sensitive to anyone being treated in a dehumanizing manner: a principal humiliating a teacher, boys excluding another boy from a fraternity, men objectifying women, bullying. For all his faults, Holden cannot bring himself to dehumanize others.

Ivan Ilyich, on the other hand, has spent his life dehumanizing other people. As a magistrate, he enjoyed knowing that he held absolute power over everyone. He and his wife were social climbers who excluded poorer relatives from their home. Even within his home, he saw as an inconvenience his wife' emotional needs caused by pregnancy and miscarriages, and he dealt with her neediness by spending as much time as possible away from home and by cultivating distance within their marriage. So when Ivan Ilyich finally realizes the problem of man's inhumanity to man, he finds it primarily in himself and the thing he has to do is repent.

Death. For both characters, it is the looming reality of death that makes them aware of the dishonesty and inhumanity in the world. This is easier to see with Ivan Ilyich. He goes through life usually getting his way, untouched by tragedy. (Two of his children die, but to his hard heart, this more irritates than shakes him.) It is not until it becomes obvious that his illness is not going away, and that he is going to die, that Ivan Ilyich begins to think seriously about his life. Before his illness, he did not really believe that he, personally, would ever die. He has to face this first, then he has to face that his life has not been what it should be.

Holden has already been touched by death before his story begins. He lost his beloved brother Allie and was so devastated that he had a breakdown. He has also witnessed the death of James Castle, the boy who was bullied to death in Holden's old school. So Holden steps on stage knowing very well that he will die. For Holden, death is linked to the basic injustice in the world. It is the endpoint of people not treating each other with humanity. Although Holden feels suicidal, he does not commit suicide. His stated reason is that he doesn't want people to see him splattered on the sidewalk (death = indignity), but there are hints that he also refrains because he knows how much his death would hurt the people he loves, especially his sister Phoebe.

The link between death and a serious moral examination of life is much more clear and explicit in The Death of Ivan Ilyich, but it is definitely present in Catcher in the Rye as well.

How did the Slave Revolution in Haiti in 1804 motivate slave rebellions in the United States?

The Haitian slave rebellion in 1804 was part of the Haitian Revolution, which lasted from 1791-1804. This anti-colonial rebellion was successful, and had an impact on the institution of slavery in the Americas, especially the United States. The rebellion resulted in the founding of the free state of Haiti, in what was previously known as the French colony of Saint-Domingue. In 1804, the revolution ended with the massacre of much of the remaining white...

This revolution had a significant impact on the Atlantic world, and as news of it traveled to the United States, many slaves or abolitionists in America were motivated to engage in similar rebellions with the purpose of freeing slaves of the United States. By seeing a successful slave revolt so close to the United States, it was clear that when united, the enslaved population could rise up against those that claimed authority over them.

There are several mass-slave rebellions often referenced in American history that took place in the nineteenth century after the rebellions in Haiti began, but prior to the abolition of slavery:

German Cost Uprising, 1811 – a slave driver named Charles Deslondes and 25 other slaves attacked the family and owner of the plantation they worked on in the Orleans area. The owner escaped, but the slaves used the plantation as a base for further rebellion. The rebels grew to great numbers, and after two days, many were imprisoned, killed, sold, or returned to their masters.

Nat Turner’s Rebellion, 1831 – a slave named Nathaniel Turner and 70 other slaves and free blacks attacked the homes and families of those who had enslaved them in Virginia. It is estimated approximately 60 white people were killed before the rebellion ended and Turner went into hiding. Turner was executed with many followers; many of the rebels were sold into other regions.

To what extent is Victor Frankenstein a victim?

One way in which we could consider Victor a victim occurs after he destroys the female mate which would be a companion for his original creature. When he makes his first creature, his physical neglect of that creature is pretty apparent, as is his failure to properly consider and care for the creature's emotional well-being. However, Victor tries to avoid making similar mistakes in creating a mate. He cannot predict the personality, wants, or capabilities of this second creature any more than he could predict those aspects of the first. He realizes that the female "might refuse to comply" with the agreement made between Victor and her mate, that the monsters "might even hate each other," or that they could procreate and make "a race of devils" who would destroy the earth. His conscience feels burdened, and so he tries to make the right and most responsible decision. After this, the creature kills Victor's best friend, Henry Clerval, and later his new bride, Elizabeth. These tragedies then lead to the death of Victor's father. The monster wounds Victor again and again, attempting to make Victor as miserable as the monster feels himself to be, all because Victor has tried to make the right decision. Even if he did not make the best choice the first time, he's trying to do so now, and he is victimized for it.

In Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift, how do the little people deal with Gulliver's large appetite? What qualities do they reveal?

At first, the Lilliputians consider starving Gulliver because they recognize that it is going to be very costly to feed him; however, they then consider how difficult his carcass will be to get rid of if he dies, and they fear the contagion that could spread around the kingdom as a result. They decide initially to feed him while they figure out what they want to do with him in the long term, bringing him several cows, dozens of sheep, a large quantity of bread and wine, etc., each morning. Eventually, they figure out that Gulliver's body is the equivalent of 1728 of theirs, and so he will require 1728 times more food each day than each of them. Swift, therefore, encourages his audience to consider the Lilliputians' "Ingenuity" in addition to "the prudent and exact Economy of so great a Prince." It is clear that they also have some skill in Mathematics, and they are very practical and unemotional in this sense: they opt to keep Gulliver alive because it is ultimately the lesser of two evils.

In the novel To Kill a Mockingbird, why does Atticus follow his gut?

Throughout the novel, Atticus Finch is a morally upright man who courageously challenges Maycomb's prejudiced views against African Americans by defending Tom Robinson. He understands that he is fighting a losing battle, but accepts the challenge nonetheless. The reason Atticus decides to follow his gut and defend Tom is because he cannot neglect his conscience. Atticus knows that the right thing to do is to stand up for Tom Robinson. Also, Atticus wants to be a good role model for his children and demonstrate the importance of following one's conscience, even when it is unpopular to do so. In Chapter 9, Atticus has a discussion with his brother regarding his decision to defend Tom Robinson. When Atticus' brother suggests that he let the case pass from him, Atticus says,

"Right. But do you think I could face my children otherwise?" (Lee 55).

Another scene throughout the novel that gives insight into why Atticus follows his gut takes place in Chapter 11. When Scout tells her father that most people in Maycomb think that he's wrong for defending a black man, Atticus says,

"They’re certainly entitled to think that, and they’re entitled to full respect for their opinions...but before I can live with other folks I’ve got to live with myself. The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience" (Lee 66).

What factors made the rise of civilization possible in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America? What are the major similarities and...

The "rise of civilization" is not a single event, but a process of technological and cultural development that occurred over centuries. It's impossible to pin down a particular moment when any civilization was founded; they established themselves gradually over time. Often we date the founding of a civilization at the earliest writing; this is as much for convenience as anything else, as written records provide us with much richer details than we would get from studying other artifacts. It does create a substantial bias, however, because, by that definition, cultures such as the Navajo that never had a written language are not "civilized," even though the Navajo have many of the other features (such as agriculture, pottery, labor specialization, and government) we ordinarily associate with civilization.

The most important precursor for civilization is agriculture, which was invented in what is often called the Neolithic Revolution. Agriculture allows humans to maintain a large and steady supply of food in one particular place, and thus to grow much larger populations. Larger populations require more structure — government — and more opportunities for specialization, which creates a virtuous cycle of improved economic efficiency toward further output, more population growth, and still more specialization. In one form or another, this process has continued for thousands of years.

Still, it is notable that writing and other features arose around the same time in many places; it's still unclear how much contact there was between cultures of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, so it is possible that these were in fact all offshoots of one still-more-ancient culture. Most scholars, however, think these civilizations were founded independently when and where conditions were appropriate. What we do know is that Latin American civilization was almost certainly founded independently; there's no plausible way people of different Latin American cultures could have been in contact during that time.

Early civilizations have a lot in common with one another, but also some important differences. Religion was very important and often directly tied to government, but the details of each religion vary tremendously. They tend to be founded along rivers or in river valleys, where fresh water is plentiful. They usually have some sort of founding text — a book or code of laws that sets down their religion and system of government. Literacy was exceedingly rare in this time (writing itself was a very new invention), and those who had it therefore had abilities most people couldn't understand. Thus, books appear to have been believed by many people to hold literal magic powers; we continue to see remnants of this thinking today in all sorts of tropes about "magic books" and "sorcerer's scrolls."

Another interesting similarity between Egyptian and Latin American civilizations that is often commented on is pyramids. Many people imagine some strange, supernatural or extraterrestrial explanation for this similarity, but the truth is much simpler: Pyramids are a basic and very stable geometric shape. They are easier to build than most other shapes, and more likely to remain standing over long periods of time. In fact, most modern skyscrapers are actually very steep, truncated pyramids which are slightly wider at the bottom than the top, rather than actually being true rectangular prisms of constant width.

Civilizations always appear to have been founded in particularly fertile regions (we don't think of the Middle East as very fertile today because its land has been drained over centuries, but thousands of years ago it had some of the most fertile land in the world), and often during times of historically unusual fertility. It may be that the abundance of food in such regions was necessary to take the risk and start the process of establishing permanent agriculture. Metalworking was also important, so accessible bronze (as bronze is the hardest metal that's easy to work) for making tools and weapons was another important factor. A variety of domesticated animals appears in almost every civilization; they perform work and provide food. The ability to find animals to domesticate (a wide variety of animals in the Middle East, llamas and alpacas in Latin America) was therefore an important factor in founding civilizations.

Ultimately, the most important factor may simply have been having someone in the tribe smart enough to think of the idea, and a tribe supportive enough of new ideas to listen. Every technology humans have ever invented ultimately began as somebody's crazy idea, and there's no reason to think bronzeworking, pottery, writing, or even agriculture were any different. It could have been a group who thought of it (simultaneous discovery is common even in science today), but it couldn't have been everyone. We may ultimately owe all of civilization to somebody who just had a spark of genius and realized you could plant seeds from plants and they would grow again, rather than just eating all the plants you have and not doing anything with the seeds.

Why does a balance in power matter in creating dramatic characters?

Balance of power is a very common relationship dynamic that provides many opportunities for emotional tension and plot movement in dramatic literature. When one character is perceived to hold power over another, tension results, because characters try to attain their goals and desires, and these can be at odds because of power dynamics. Holding power is a desirable state of being that builds contentment and satisfaction for some people, as it can allow people to move freely and do what they want. In some cases having power over others feeds the ego of those who hold the greater amount of power. In this way, an imbalance of power can be used to show the relative integrity of characters in relation to one another.

The balance of power is very much a cultural issue, and one that has changed through the course of history. For example, in the Middle Ages, the various hierarchical roles assumed by knights, the monarchy and the peasants all fulfilled different roles within society. In some cultural eras, people born into slavery find it difficult to rise above their station; in some cultures, a class or caste system assumes people are born into a certain social position.

Traditionally, men tend to hold more power in society than women; but sometimes this is inverted, as in the Greek comedy Lysistrata (recently made into a contemporary film by Spike Lee), in which women held the greater power by withholding sexual activity from their husbands and lovers until their demands were fulfilled.

Balance of power can arise because of money and wealth; for example, in The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare, Antonio is left in a vulnerable position when he borrows money from Shylock. Beauty and attractiveness can be perceived as conferring more social power; in Richard III, Lady Anne is convinced by Richard that she holds power over him because of her beauty; but in reality, Richard flatters her and is able to manipulate her.

In other examples, balance of power occurs because one character may be older and hold more authority in a family or social situation, due to the customary respect granted to elders or family matriarchs or patriarchs. This is the case in Uncle Vanya by Anton Chekhov.

In In the Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler's Berlin by Erik Larson, what does the word "Aryan" mean?

The term "Aryan" was widely used--and abused--in the 20th century. Most notably, it was used by the Nazis to refer to what they thought was a master race of Nordic Europeans. The actual word "Aryan" comes from the Sanskrit word "arya," which means "noble" and was used by the Sanskrit-speaking people who invaded India around 1800 BCE.

In the late 18th century, European linguists discovered that the Sanskrit language was related to European languages such as Greek and Latin. This discovery caused them to speculate that there was a primordial people that originated somewhere around the Caucasus Mountains that migrated eastward and westward and were the ancestors of both Europeans and eastern people, such as the Iranians and Indians. These people they called "Aryans," and they termed the languages "Aryan" languages. They also called them Indo-Europeans.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, respectable scholarship about the Indo-European language family fed into some irresponsible theorizing about race. While there is an Indo-European language family, it is not clear whether there is an Indo-European people in racial terms. However, European, especially German, racialists became convinced that there was a so-called Aryan people and that it was a white, northern European people. They thought Aryans were the greatest creator of culture in the history of humanity.

These theories, among other pseudo-scientific theories, were adopted by the Nazis and fueled their propaganda, which asserted that Germans were the master race and that it was appropriate to dominate all others. Finally, under the Nazi regime, the term "Aryan" became the standard term for racially acceptable people. The category excluded Jews, who were believed to be Semitic, and Slavs, though they spoke an Indo-European language. Jews were thought to be unable to exist within German society and a destabilizing influence on that society. To implement their idea of creating a master race, the Nazis instituted a policy of extermination of Jews and other people, including people with disabilities and mental illness.

While the Dodd family, the subject of In the Garden of Beasts, was in Berlin, the Nuremberg Laws were put into effect in Nazi Germany. These laws, announced in 1935, put Germans' ideas about the master race into effect. The laws prohibited Jews from marrying or having sexual relationships with people with German ancestry. They also took away Jews' citizenship in Germany. In the early 1940s, the Nazis began to kill Jews on a mass scale, and they slaughtered 6 million Jews, according to historians, before their brutality was over.

Does UNICEF have any issues? If so, what are they?

UNICEF focuses on several key global issues, as outlined by the "What We Do" page on their website: intervention for child survival and development, advocacy for basic education and gender equality, prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS in children, protection of children from exploitation and violence, and policy advocacy for all of the above.

Despite these good intentions, UNICEF has been the subject of much criticism and controversy, including:

1987: the production of child pornography in...

Despite these good intentions, UNICEF has been the subject of much criticism and controversy, including:

1987: the production of child pornography in a secret photographic studio in the basement of the UNICEF offices in Brussels and the charges of inciting minors to debauchery brought up against Jos Verbeek, the director of UNICEF's Belgian committee

1993/1994: revelations that the UNICEF office in Kenya lost $10 million due to fraud and mismanagement

2008: the German committee's loss of approval as a recommended charity by the German Central Institute for Social Issues due to mismanagement of donations

2011: the suspiciously rapid departure of recently hired chief information officer Paul van Essche after an inquiry by Fox News

As you can see, the organization seems to be riddled with issues, from criminal behavior on the part of its key members to enormous financial scandal. What I have outlined above is just the tip of the iceberg. More information about the various UNICEF-related allegations--including issues of inflated staff salaries, fraudulent use of donations, and supposed "mass sterilization"--can be found through a simple Internet search.

Who says this in The Outsiders? "Sixteen years on the streets and you can learn a lot. But all the wrong things, not the things you want to learn....

Although no one says these lines out loud, Ponyboysays them to himself, in his mind. It's something he's thinking while talking with Johnny, right after Johnny had said that sixteen years isn't long enough to live, and that Johnny wishes he could see and do more things, especially travel beyond their neighborhood more, before dying. Ponyboy silently agrees, and even though he's also thinking that sixteen years as a gang member means that...

Although no one says these lines out loud, Ponyboy says them to himself, in his mind. It's something he's thinking while talking with Johnny, right after Johnny had said that sixteen years isn't long enough to live, and that Johnny wishes he could see and do more things, especially travel beyond their neighborhood more, before dying. Ponyboy silently agrees, and even though he's also thinking that sixteen years as a gang member means that you see things you shouldn't see, he doesn't voice these thoughts out loud: he doesn't share them with Johnny. It's important for Ponyboy not to upset Johnny, and not to get too emotional.

You can find this discussion a little less than halfway through Chapter 8, as Johnny is lying in critical condition in the hospital after saving the kids from the fire. The exact page number will be different depending on which version of the text you have, but if you open to Chapter 8 and scoot past the conversation that includes Two-Bit, then you've found the conversation that Johnny and Ponyboy have alone. And if you scan for the beginning of a paragraph that starts with the words "Sixteen years," then you've found it. If you've reached some longer paragraphs that mention Two-Bit again, plus Johnny's mother, then you've gone too far--scoot back to where the paragraphs are short and contain a lot of quotation marks to indicate the conversation.

`f(x) = sec(x), [0, pi/2)` Show that f is strictly monotonic on the given interval and therefore has an inverse function on that interval.

`f(x)=sec(x)`

Take note that a function is strictly monotonic on a given interval if it is entirely increasing on that interval or entirely decreasing on that interval.

To determine if f(x) is strictly monotonic on the interval `[0, pi/2)` , let's take its derivative.

`f(x)=sec(x)`

`f'(x) =sec(x)tan(x)`

Then, determine the critical numbers. To do so, set f'(x) equal to zero.

`0=sec(x)tan(x)`

Then, set each factor equal to zero

`secx=0`

`x= {O/ }`

(There are...

`f(x)=sec(x)`

Take note that a function is strictly monotonic on a given interval if it is entirely increasing on that interval or entirely decreasing on that interval.

To determine if f(x) is strictly monotonic on the interval `[0, pi/2)` , let's take its derivative.

`f(x)=sec(x)`

`f'(x) =sec(x)tan(x)`

Then, determine the critical numbers. To do so, set f'(x) equal to zero.

`0=sec(x)tan(x)`

Then, set each factor equal to zero

`secx=0`

`x= {O/ }`

(There are no angles in which the value of secant will be zero.)

`tanx=0`

`x={0,pi,2pi,...pik}`

So on the interval `[0,pi/2)` , the only critical number that belongs to it is x=0. Since the critical number is the boundary of the given interval, it indicates that the there is no sign change in the value of f'(x) on [0, pi/2). To verify, let's assign values to x which falls on that interval and plug-in them to f'(x).

`f'(x) = sec(x)tan(x)`

`x=pi/6`

`f'(x)=sec(pi/6)tan(pi/6)=(2sqrt3)/3*sqrt3/3=(2*3)/3=2/3`

`x=pi/4`

`f'(x)=sec(pi/4)tan(pi/4)=sqrt2*1=sqrt2`

`x=pi/3`

`f'(x)=sec(pi/3)tan(pi/3)=2*sqrt3=2sqrt3`

Notice that on the interval `[0, pi/2)` , the values of f'(x) are all positive. There is no sign change. So the function is entirely increasing on this interval.

Therefore, the function `f(x)=sec(x)` is strictly monotonic on the interval `[0,pi/2)` .

Why is Jimmy Valentine pardoned?

Jimmy Valentine is pardoned because he has many important friends and connections on the outside. The last sentence of the first paragraph of the story indicates this important fact.

When a man with as many friends on the outside as Jimmy Valentine had is received in the “stir” it is hardly worth while to cut his hair.

Jimmy is characterized throughout "A Retrieved Reformation" as young, intelligent, good-looking, well-dressed, and popular. Everybody, including the Warden, likes him. The name Jimmy, rather than Jim or James, is intended to suggest likeability and popularity. The last name of Valentine suggests affection. Jimmy has "many friends on the outside" because of his winning personality. Since he is very successful in his profession as a safecracker, he is generous with his money. No doubt he contributes handsomely to the right politicians in the days when graft and corruption were so commonplace.

At the same time that Jimmy is portrayed as successful, there are some indications that he may be too successful. Too many people know about him and talk about him. He seems to be in danger of becoming a hardened criminal who keeps getting arrested and spending more and more time behind bars. One indication is contained in the first words Mike Dolan, an apparent cog in a big politician machine, says to him.

“Sorry we couldn't make it sooner, Jimmy, me boy,” said Mike. “But we had that protest from Springfield to buck against, and the governor nearly balked. Feeling all right?”

Jimmy has been incarcerated much longer than he had expected. This must have given him time to think about his future.

He had served nearly ten months of a four year sentence. He had expected to stay only about three months, at the longest.

Jimmy knows he is in danger of losing all his "friends on the outside" if he keeps getting busted for bank jobs. They will want to forget they ever knew him. He has become too successful, too notorious. When he commits three safecracking jobs right after being released from state prison:

Ben Price investigated the scenes of the robberies, and was heard to remark:

“That's Dandy Jim Valentine's autograph. He's resumed business. Look at that combination knob—jerked out as easy as pulling up a radish in wet weather. He's got the only clamps that can do it. And look how clean those tumblers were punched out! Jimmy never has to drill but one hole. Yes, I guess I want Mr. Valentine. He'll do his bit next time without any short-time or clemency foolishness.”

Jimmy is smart enough to move to an entirely new territory of operations. In Elmore, Arkansas, he falls in love at first sight with Annabel Adams and decides to reform. But she is only the catalyst. He had been sensing the need for a change since spending ten sobering months in prison. He seemed indifferent to the Warden's lecture at the time of his release, but he was really thinking along the same lines as the Warden, who liked him and gave him this sincere parting advice:

“Now, Valentine,” said the warden, “you'll go out in the morning. Brace up, and make a man of yourself. You're not a bad fellow at heart. Stop cracking safes, and live straight.”

Jimmy was beginning to realize that honesty is the best policy, that crime does not pay. A man with all his superior assets--intelligence, skills, good looks, winning personality--can do better by going straight than by following the downward path of a recidivist. His success in Elmore proves it. He is soon engaged to the most beautiful girl in town and has become a prosperous leading citizen.

You look at a photo on your phone and suddenly the bottom of the yellow image becomes green. Explain what is missing and why it went from yellow to...

The most likely explanation is that your phone has a low enough resolution that individual subpixels are important, and the bottom of the image ended at a green or blue subpixel and therefore didn't have enough red. The red subpixels could also be damaged, but that sort of specific, precise damage is less likely.Every pixel on an LCD screen is actually three subpixels, one red, one blue, and one green. Each of these...

Every pixel on an LCD screen is actually three subpixels, one red, one blue, and one green. Each of these is calibrated to stimulate a specific set of vision cells in the human retina called cone cells, which come in three corresponding types, one that primarily senses red, another that primarily senses green, and a third that primarily senses blue. (Colorblind people are usually missing one type of cone cell, most frequently the red-sensing one.) In this way, the image appears to have the color it would have in the real world, at least to our eyes. To the eyes of a species such as bees that have ultraviolet-sensing cells, the colors on a screen would look wrong.

Rendering methods for low-resolution screens actually take advantage of this, by turning on some subpixels and not others to smooth lines and edges. This adds a bit of color even to black-and-white images, but usually that is less of a problem than the hard, jagged edges that would otherwise result. Often, the color is imperceptible anyway.

Yellow is shown on an LCD as a roughly equal combination of red and green, but if a yellow object covers the whole screen, it may hit the edge in such a way that the last green subpixel is triggered but not the corresponding red subpixel. Thus, the very edge of the object may appear green.

In the story "Lamb To The Slaughter" by Roald Dahl, is Mary Maloney more of a hero or a villain?

This is a solid question, and one that I like to ask my students about. I would like to point out that it is an opinion question, and either answer is correct. The important part of the response will be to defend your opinion about Mary Maloney.

I don't like thinking of Mary as a hero or a villain. She is probably better described as a victim of circumstance. I can defend the notion...

I don't like thinking of Mary as a hero or a villain. She is probably better described as a victim of circumstance. I can defend the notion of her being a hero because she does protect her unborn child. That's what heroes do. They protect innocent people, and nothing is more innocent than an unborn child. I also can think of Mary as a hero if I compare her to Patrick. He's a character that is easy to think of as a villain. He completely blindsides Mary with the news that he is leaving her, and it devastates Mary because he is the central force around which her life revolves. If Patrick is the villain, and Mary fights against Patrick, then she is the hero.

On the other hand, I can see Mary as a villain, too. She kills an unsuspecting, unarmed human being and then lies to law enforcement in order to get away with it. Additionally, she has the investigating detectives eat the murder weapon while she laughs about it. In my head I keep picturing an evil genius doing his/her sinister laugh right before the credits roll. That's what villains do.

“Personally, I think it’s right here on the premises.”

“Probably right under our very noses. What you think, Jack?”

And in the other room, Mary Maloney began to giggle.

What problems did Helen have at the Cambridge School for Young Ladies, with her tutor, and at Radcliff in The Story of My Life?

Since Helen Keller was blind and deaf, a regular formal education was a challenge. She had been taught from a young age by Anne Sullivan, one on one and usually in the garden. This education included sign language and Braille. She even learned how to speak, but she could not hear.

Helen’s problems with preparing for and going to college were that most books were not available in Braille, and she had trouble during lectures because Anne Sullivan had to spell the lecture into her hand.

Miss Sullivan could not spell out in my hand all that the books required, and it was very difficult to have textbooks embossed in time to be of use to me, although my friends in London and Philadelphia were willing to hasten the work. For a while, indeed, I had to copy my Latin in braille, so that I could recite with the other girls. (Ch. 28)

Helen Keller says that Anne Sullivan had “infinite patience” in providing accommodations for all of her lessons, and she prepared for college. Some of her teachers even tried to learn the finger spelling so they could teach Helen directly, although Helen described them as “slow and inadequate.” Nonetheless, Helen learned, and enjoyed being around girls her own age for the first time.

Although Helen makes progress, it is slower than expected. Her teachers feel she is pushing too hard, and she is also getting sick. As a result, her parents withdraw her and her sister from the school and hire a tutor, Mr. Keith.

Helen found working with a tutor much easier and less stressful.

I found it much easier and pleasanter to be taught by myself than to receive instruction in class. There was no hurry, no confusion. My tutor had plenty of time to explain what I did not understand, so I got on faster and did better work than I ever did in school. (Ch. 29)

During the examination for Radcliffe College, they ran into a difficulty because the college examiners would not allow Anne Sullivan to read the questions to Helen. The Perkins Institution for the Blind copied them into Braille for her. This caused some problems, especially when it came to the differences between English Braille and American Braille.

At Radcliffe, Helen Keller had many of the same issues. Textbooks were not available in Braille for the subjects she needed, and lectures and books had to be spelled to her. She also felt that some of the joy of learning was sapped out. Still, she perservered.

Which senses does the author appeal to with the description of the kitchen?

In his short story “A Christmas Memory,” Truman Capote appeals to the senses with his vivid, heartfelt descriptions. When Buddy and his cousin are in the kitchen shucking walnuts, Capote starts off by addressing the auditory sense, and progresses to addressing the sense of sight. We hear the sounds associated walnuts cracking, and see how the day is moving toward night as the pair works in the firelight.

The author uses onomatopoeia to appeal to...

The author uses onomatopoeia to appeal to the sense of sound with the word “Caarackle!” The reader can immediately hear the sound of the nuts cracking under pressure. As the pair works, the kitchen is filled with sounds of the nuts breaking open and the dog begging for a tasty morsel. While Buddy describes the scene, the reader can hear the crunching sound and feel the contentment the characters are experiencing.

A cheery crunch, scraps of miniature thunder sound as the shells collapse and the golden mound of sweet oily ivory meat mounts in the milk-glass bowl. Queenie begs to taste, and now and again my friend sneaks her a mite, though insisting we deprive ourselves.

As the paragraph progresses, Capote switches his emphasis from the sense of sound to the sense of sight. He describes how the kitchen looks as evening descends upon it. Outside the moon rises, while inside Buddy and his cousin can be seen in the reflections in the window. The pair continue their work by the glow of the fire until they finish shelling the final nut.

The kitchen is growing dark. Dusk turns the window into a mirror: our reflections mingle with the rising moon as we work by the fireside in the firelight. At last, when the moon is quite high, we toss the final hull into the fire and, with joined sighs, watch it catch flame.

Why does the average total cost slope upward at the end?

The average total cost (ATC) curve slopes upwards at the end because of the law of diminishing marginal returns. At first, as production increases, a firm will become more efficient at producing a given good. This will cause its ATC to drop. However, at some point, the law of diminishing marginal returns comes into play and the ATC starts to increase once again.

In the short run, this happens because, at some point, a firm...

In the short run, this happens because, at some point, a firm cannot work as efficiently when it tries to produce a larger quantity. Let us imagine that I own a restaurant with a fixed kitchen size and fixed appliances. I start out small, with only one or two people working in my kitchen. Those two are trying to do all the work in my whole kitchen. As business gets better, I hire more people. The first few that I hire can really help me. Each time I hire a new person, they fill in another empty spot in the kitchen. They make it so each cook can specialize in one thing and can work exclusively in one area of my kitchen. In essence, I create an assembly line.

However, at some point, I have hired one cook for each space/task in my kitchen. What happens if I try to produce still more food each day? This is where the law of diminishing returns comes in. I hire another worker for the kitchen, but my kitchen is not really big enough to give them a place to work. They do not have an empty spot that they can fill. They help as much as possible, but they do not add as much to our output as previous cooks did. Because I tried to increase my output, I ended up lowering my marginal returns.

When marginal returns drop, ATC starts to rise. I increase my costs by hiring more workers, but they do not create enough extra output to offset the wages I pay them. Therefore, my average cost per unit of output (which is my ATC) rises. This causes my ATC curve to slope upwards as output rises.

Please follow the links below for further discussion of this topic.

What would happen in a perfectly competitive market for apples in the short-run to the market and to individual producers if the price for pears...

If the price of pears goes up, the demand for apples will rise. This will mean that the market for apples will see an increase in price and an increase in quantity demanded. The individual farmer will see an increase in price.

This answer assumes that many people will see pears and apples as substitute goods. That is, people are more or less willing to buy either pears or apples, depending on the price. If...

This answer assumes that many people will see pears and apples as substitute goods. That is, people are more or less willing to buy either pears or apples, depending on the price. If the price of pears goes up, people will, ceteris paribus, buy more apples. They will buy fewer pears because of the price increase and will go buy apples instead.

In perfect competition, the entire market faces a demand curve that has a negative slope. When the price of pears goes up, the demand for apples rises. The market demand curve retains its negative slope, but moves to the right. This means that, ceteris paribus, the price of apples rises as does the quantity demanded.

In perfect competition, the individual producer does not face a sloped demand curve. Instead, the individual producer’s demand curve is perfectly horizontal. The producer can sell as much as they can produce at the market price. When the market price changes, the individual producer can sell at the new, higher market price. However, because their demand curve is flat, they do not get to sell any more than they could before. Even before, they could sell as much as they wanted. This has not changed.

Thus, an increase in the price of pears will lead to an increase in the market price and market quantity demanded of apples. Individual producers will see an increase in price but not in quantity demanded. Please follow the link below and scroll down to “Section 02: Pure Competition in the Short Run” to find graphs that show these changes.

In F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, how have Jay Gatsby and George Wilson been affected by other characters' selfishness and greed?

Both Jay Gatsby and George Wilson were chasing the American Dream, and both were somewhat out of touch with reality in their inability to realize that the American Dream is really a fiction. Gatsby felt certain that he could repeat the past, if only he could acquire the money to keep Daisy in the life to which she's accustomed. He doesn't realize that being a bootlegger will tarnish both him and his fortune in her eyes, and that a criminal could never please her or achieve the American Dream. Wilson, likewise, thinks that if he can just get a hold of Tom Buchanan's car, he can turn it for profit, enough to improve his situation and, eventually, to pave the way for him and his wife, Myrtle, to leave the valley of ashes. Hard and honest work does not help him to achieve the American Dream, either. The only way to get rich, then, is to engage in illegal activity (which shuts one out from the dream), and if one engages in actual, legitimate hard work, one can never earn enough to achieve the dream. There is, simply, no path to it. Gatsby doesn't understand that he can't reach the dream, and neither does Wilson, but they both continue to believe they can for the majority of the novel. It is not until they are affected in a significant way by others' selfishness that they become disillusioned, and even Gatsby never really does. After Daisy kills Myrtle and allows Gatsby to take the blame for it, when Wilson realizes that his wife's been cheating on him with Tom, Wilson finally realizes the hopelessness of his endeavors and takes his own life. If Gatsby realizes anything, it's that Daisy is not going to call, that she has slipped from his fingers again.

Is there any connection between British/Celtic mythology and each of the Horcruxes?

Many readers have noted similarities between Celtic and British mythology and J.K. Rowling's fantastical magical world. When talking about this connection in terms of the Horcuxes, I'd like to focus on British mythology, specifically the myths and legends of King Arthur.

One of the most obvious connections between Arthurian myth and Horcruxes does not actually involve a specific Horcrux, but a method of destroying Horcruxes. Gryffindor's sword has the power to destroy Horcruxes, and this magical weapon parallels Arthur's famous weapon, Excalibur, which is drawn from a stone in the same way Gryffindor's sword can be drawn out of the Sorting Hat. Similarly, Hufflepuff's Cup, an actual Horcrux, can be seen as analogous to the Holy Grail, an important object in Arthurian myth. Finally, just as Dumbledore's destruction of the ring Horcrux ultimately leads to his death, in Arthurian myth Merlin receives a ring which later leads to his imprisonment (sometimes in a tomb, according to some versions of the legend).

As you can see, there are many parallels between British mythology and the Horcruxes. However, these connections don't even begin to cover the extensive allusions to myth and legend that can be found in Rowling's work. This is one of the many qualities that makes the original Harry Potter novels so enduring.

I'm currently writing a master's thesis on the representation of the "Southern belle" onscreen. Now, I would like to hear some thoughts about this...

I don't necessarily find the Southern Belle trope to be racist; but it does depend upon what era of Southern Belle you're discussing. This cultural stereotype is found in history but also within contemporary culture. Cinematic depictions abound; perhaps one of the most famous is Scarlett O'Hara from Gone with the Wind. I am more inclined to call the Southern Belle something of a sexist stereotype, as opposed to misogynistic. Of course, all American culture was sexist during the Civil War area depicted in this film; but the Southern Belle attitude and demeanor found in contemporary cinema holds onto this dynamic of women being feminine and somewhat submissive to men (even if they are bold and strong-willed like Scarlett). The Southern Belle is not meant to depict women as weak or subservient, because these characters are usually shown to be enjoying their particular expression of gender roles.

There is often a tendency for these characters to be portrayed as extremely flirtatious and sexually manipulative, as well as ultra-feminine (what we sometimes call in more modern parlance "high maintenance" which refers to high standards of grooming and dress that take great effort to maintain). We see this in Scarlett, particularly in her earlier scenes, when she refuses to eat before a picnic so she'll fit into her dress, when she pinches her cheeks to look as though she's applied rouge, and when she goes out of her way to dress in finery so she can impress Rhett Butler.

Try using the Drake equation with values that you find reasonable. How many civilizations do you estimate there are in our Galaxy?

Briefly, the Drake equation is used to arrive at a rough, probabilistic estimate of the number of intelligent, technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilizations within the Milky Way galaxy whose electromagnetic emissions are detectable.

The many variables include:

i. The average rate of star formation in our galaxy

ii. The fraction of those stars with planets

iii. The number of habitable planets per star

iv. The fraction of habitable planets on which life actually appears

v. The...

The many variables include:

i. The average rate of star formation in our galaxy

ii. The fraction of those stars with planets

iii. The number of habitable planets per star

iv. The fraction of habitable planets on which life actually appears

v. The fraction of life-bearing planets on which intelligent life emerges

vi. The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space

vii. The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space

The estimations on these variables can range from reasonable to speculative given the lack of data sets to draw upon when it comes to the existence of life on other planets. Choosing what estimates feel right to you will depend in large part to your own inclinations. However, there are generally agreed upon ranges for each variable that can help guide your own calculation.

Given the most up-to-date research, the rate of star formation (i) is estimated to be about 1.5-3 stars per year. The fraction of stars with planets (ii) is estimated to be about 1 - meaning stars with planets are the rule as opposed to the exception. Based on data obtained from the Kepler space mission, it is estimated that the number of habitable planets (iii) in the galaxy is around 40 billion out of a total of about 100 billion, or 0.4. Trying to determine the fraction of habitable planets that actually develop life (iv) is where it starts to get speculative. Since we only have one sample, Earth, to draw from and life seemed to develop relatively quickly once conditions were right, this variable is usually set at 1. The fraction of life-bearing planets which develop intelligent life (v) is even more difficult to gauge. Scientists dispute to what degree our solar system's location is uniquely free of destructive forces and how inevitable intelligence is in evolution. Determining this value will depend a lot on your own inclinations. Those who feel it is inevitable, generally put the value at 1. The fraction of civilizations which develop the ability to send communication signals into space (vi) would depend on the likelihood that a intelligent life form discovers radio technology and intentionally - or even unintentionally - transmits them into space. Drake himself estimated this variable at 10%-20% or 0.1 - 0.2. Finally, one estimation for the overall lifetime of such a civilization (vii) has been developed by Michael Shermer. Shermer arrived at his estimation by calculating the lifespan of sixty historic Earthly civilizations. After doing so, his estimate settled at 420 years.

If using some of these estimates you could arrive at a formula that looks like this:

N = 1.5 x 1 x 0.4 x 1 x 1 x 0.1 x 420

N = 25 communicating civilization in the Milky Way

In Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, would it be right to condemn Umuofia for the killing of Ikemefuna ?

An interesting question! According to the text, Okonkwo was the one who struck the killing blow during Ikemefuna's execution. Prior to Ikemefuna's death, Ogbuefi Ezeudu, a village elder and former warrior of Umuofia, had warned Okonkwo against participating in the boy's execution.

Ogbuefi's reason for discouraging Okonkwo from slaying Ikemefuna was that the young boy looked to Okonkwo as a father figure. In Ogbuefi's eyes, Okonkwo's participation would be dishonorable. Even Obierika later proclaimed that what Okonkwo had done would not "please the Earth. It is the kind of action for which the goddess wipes out whole families."

Yet, despite the fact that two clansmen disapproved of Okonkwo's participation in Ikemefuna's death, the tribal leaders still subscribed to the Oracle's authority in the matter. Ikemefuna was slated to die, regardless of anyone's wishes in the matter. Despite the judgment, there were those who disagreed with the execution of the innocent boy. It appears, though, that the larger community had no choice but to submit to the authority of the Oracle and its tribal leaders.

The text tells us that Nwoye was especially traumatized by Ikemefuna's death, a death he had been powerless to prevent. Additionally, while Nwoye's mother sympathized with Ikemefuna's predicament, she too was powerless to affect a rescue on his behalf. It can be seen from the text that Umuofian society places a great premium on the authority and wisdom of the Oracle and its leaders. As to whether it is right to condemn Umuofia for Ikemefuna's death, we must ask ourselves whether we agree with the Umuofian concept of justice.

In the beginning of the story, a woman from Umuofia was murdered by someone from the Mbaino clan. In response, Umuofia offered two alternatives to Mbaino: either both tribes went to war or a Mbaino young man and virgin girl were given to Umuofia as compensation for the woman's death. Mbaino, anxious to avoid war with the powerful Umuofia, had agreed to the second alternative. The text tells us that this was the "normal course of action," which leads us to conclude that Umuofian society thrived on strict interpretations of entrenched Igbo ethics.

To change the culture, dissent must be allowed. If we disagree with the concept of justice in Umuofia, we may well condemn all of Umuofia for Ikemefuna's death. If, however, we see some value in Umuofian justice, we may interpret Ikemefuna's death as the necessary sacrifice in response to an Umuofian woman's senseless murder. Regardless of our choice, it is plain from the text that there are those in Umuofia who have begun to question the traditions of the clan.

What happens after the sniper puts his cap on his rifle in "The Sniper" by Liam O'Flaherty?

"The Sniper," a short story, describes a conflict between two unnamed snipers during the Irish Civil War in 1922. The main character is the Republican sniper, who has been camped out on a rooftop for hours, covering the street below him. He takes the risk of lighting a cigarette, knowing this will give away his position to anyone watching. The fire from the match is seen by another sniper, who manages to hit the Republican sniper in the arm, pinning him down behind cover on the rooftop. He is faced with a few choices. If he waits for daylight, he may succumb to his injury, or lose the advantage of darkness to cover his position. If he attempts to escape, he will be seen immediately, and probably killed. His injury also renders him unable to use his rifle. He still has a revolver with him, so he decides (unannounced to the reader) to trick the enemy sniper into revealing himself, so the Republican sniper can kill his enemy with the revolver.

To do this, the Republican sniper places his hat on top of his rifle, and raises the cap into view, so it will look as if he is attempting to peer out from behind cover. The enemy sniper takes the bait and shoots at the cap, hitting it, and the Republican sniper pretends to die, even dropping his (useless) rifle off the roof, in order to mislead his opponent. The trick works; the enemy sniper believes the Republican is dead, and stands up, revealing himself. The Republican sniper then kills him with the revolver, leading to the story's tragic ending; on inspecting the dead sniper's body, the Republican discovers the sniper was his own brother.

What was Mussolini's role in the outbreak of World War 2?

Benito Mussolini did not play a very direct role in the outbreak of WWII. Italy did not start the war. In fact, it did not even enter the war until Germany had already defeated France. Therefore, we cannot say that Mussolini played a very large role in starting the war.

While Mussolini did not play a direct role in starting the war, he contributed to it in three indirect ways. First, Mussolini was an inspiration...

While Mussolini did not play a direct role in starting the war, he contributed to it in three indirect ways. First, Mussolini was an inspiration for Hitler and the Nazis. Mussolini and his fascist movement took power in Italy more than a decade before the Nazis came to power in Germany. The Nazis shared many beliefs with the Italian fascists and the rise of fascism in Italy helped inspire Hitler and the Nazis to believe that they could take power in Germany. By helping Hitler come to power, Mussolini helped start WWII.

Second, Mussolini helped bring about WWII by allying Italy with Germany. With Italy as an ally, Germany did not have to worry about having to fight a war in the south when it started WWII. This allowed Hitler to be more confident about invading Poland and then France. He knew that he would not have to fight two enemies at once. By giving Hitler this security, Mussolini helped start WWII.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Mussolini helped to discredit the League of Nations, which was supposed to help keep the peace after WWI. One of the things the League was supposed to do was to prevent countries from fighting wars of aggression against one another. However, when Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935, the League did nothing. This helped show that the League was really powerless and that there was nothing to stop an aggressive country from taking what it wanted by military force. By helping to expose the weakness of the League of Nations, Mussolini helped to convince Hitler that he could take what he wanted through the use of military force. This, too, helped to start WWII.

What was the condition of women during the British rule in India?

Better than it had been before, but still not all that great. When they established the Raj, the British introduced a lot of Western ideas and institutions into India, some good, some bad. One of the good ones was women's rights, and the British quickly moved to end a number of cultural practices in various regions of India that were particularly oppressive to women.A famous example was the burning of widows; this was never...

Better than it had been before, but still not all that great.

When they established the Raj, the British introduced a lot of Western ideas and institutions into India, some good, some bad. One of the good ones was women's rights, and the British quickly moved to end a number of cultural practices in various regions of India that were particularly oppressive to women.

A famous example was the burning of widows; this was never all that common, but it was something certain Hindu sects did. The British banned it.

They also instituted age minimums for marriage; previously, girls who hadn't even entered puberty could be pressed into marriage with adult men. In 1891, the British raised the minimum age to 12, so that girls would at least be pubescent before they could be married.

The British instituted some reforms in the property and inheritance system, so that women could own and inherit property in some circumstances---but there was still a substantial bias toward men.

The Raj also established a public education system, and worked to improve literacy, especially for women; literacy had previously been essentially zero in most villages, and many male Hindu nationalists considered educating women to be a threat to their masculinity and their way of life.

Many of these reforms had quite positive effects, but they had a darker side; they were frequently used as an excuse for maintaining oppressive rule over India, because the people of India were seen as "too primitive" to be entrusted with their own rule. The very real oppression of women in many parts of India was used as an excuse by the British to justify a different form of oppression.

What are the gang's feelings about the destruction of the house in "The Destructors" by Graham Greene?

The gang feels that the destruction of the house is creative. They disregard the historic nature of the house. Blackie says at the beginning of the story, "Wren built that house, father says.” They talk about how Wren also designed St. Peter's, but Blackie says he doesn't care. Later, T. visits the house, which they call "Old Misery's," and describes it as "beautiful." The rest of the gang regard his use of the word "beautiful" with disdain, but when T. tells them they will take the house apart, he wins them over and becomes leader of the gang. The gang take apart the house with a kind of organization they've never had before. In destroying the house, they feel that they have created something:

"Streaks of light came in through the closed shutters where they worked with the seriousness of creators—and destruction after all is a form of creation. A kind of imagination had seen this house as it had now become!"

The gang regards the beauty of the house in its capacity for complete destruction. Once the house collapses, their work is complete. The house that once stood with what Greene describes as "dignity...like a man in a top hat" has been leveled entirely. This is the potential the gang sees in the house--its complete disintegration.

What can cause an increase in equilibrium price and an increase in equilibrium supply?

It seems to me that there must be some mistake in this question. The reason for this is that there is no such thing as “equilibrium supply.” Supply is a curve, as is demand. At the point where the supply and demand curves intersect, we have equilibrium. At that point, there is an equilibrium price and an equilibrium quantity that is both supplied and demanded. However, there is no equilibrium supply. So, I believe that this question must actually be concerning what could cause both the equilibrium price and the equilibrium quantity to rise. In that case, the answer would be that only an increase in demand can cause such a combination of effects.

When supply rises, the equilibrium quantity rises, but the equilibrium price drops. When supply declines, the equilibrium price rises, but the equilibrium quantity drops. When demand declines, both equilibrium price and equilibrium quantity drop as well. However, when demand rises, equilibrium quantity goes up (because people are willing and able to buy more things) and equilibrium prices rise (because it costs more to make more things and because people who demand more are willing to pay more).

In order to have both price and quantity rise, we need to have an increase in demand.