I need to know the meaning of "the visible becomes inevitable."

In Chapter 37, Enzo is diagnosed with 'degenerative arthritis caused by hip dysplasia.' He finds that his movements are no longer smooth and easy, and he surmises that the diagnosis foreshadows the beginning of a journey that will ultimately lead to his demise.

With my diagnosis, I knew, would come my end. Slowly, perhaps. Painfully, without a doubt; marked by the signposts laid out by the veterinarian. The visible becomes inevitable. The car goes where the eyes go.

Enzo is resigned to his fate, but more than anything, his fundamental goal is to be reborn as a man in his next life. In the story, Enzo believes that everyone is the master of his own destiny, and it is his destiny to be reborn as a human being.

...we are the creators of our own destiny. Be it through intention or ignorance, our successes and our failures have been brought on by none other than ourselves.

Enzo's chronic condition worsens as the story concludes, but he is unperturbed because he is more than ready to relinquish his canine existence on earth. Both his mortal and immortal eyes are turned towards his goal. The visible (the long-looked for destiny) becomes inevitable and manifests itself when one's energies are focused on it. Hence, the 'car goes where the eyes go:' where the mind leads, the body will follow. Hope this helps!

Why do Romeo and Juliet both think that Romeo's banishment is worse than death?

Romeo is banished from Verona by the Prince, at the risk of forfeiting his life if he should return. This is punishment for Romeo killing Tybalt, a Capulet, in a duel in vengeance for the death of his friend Mercutio, at Tybalt's hand.

When Juliet's nurse informs her about Romeo's sanction, she cries out in anguish:

That 'banished,' that one word 'banished,'
Hath slain ten thousand Tybalts. Tybalt's death
Was woe enough, if it had ended there:

... But with a rear-ward folloThat 'banished,' that one word 'banished,' Hath slain ten thousand Tybalts. Tybalt's death Was woe enough, if it had ended there:wing Tybalt's death,
'Romeo is banished,' to speak that word,
Is father, mother, Tybalt, Romeo, Juliet,
All slain, all dead. 'Romeo is banished!'
There is no end, no limit, measure, bound,
In that word's death; no words can that woe sound.

Juliet sees her lover's banishement as something worse than all sorrows put together and multiplied. She is overwrought by the thought and cannot contain herself. She feels that she is widowed and will die a maiden.

... die maiden-widowed.
Come, cords, come, nurse; I'll to my wedding-bed;
And death, not Romeo, take my maidenhead!

The cords which Romeo had procured so that he may gain entry to her bedroom have now become worthless, for Romeo will not be able to use them.

Romeo's response is similar to Juliet's. When friar Lawrence informs him of his banishment, he responds:

Ha, banishment! be merciful, say 'death;'
For exile hath more terror in his look,
Much more than death: do not say 'banishment.'

In similar vein he damns the punishement:

There is no world without Verona walls,
But purgatory, torture, hell itself.
Hence-banished is banish'd from the world,
And world's exile is death: then banished,
Is death mis-term'd: calling death banishment,
Thou cutt'st my head off with a golden axe,
And smilest upon the stroke that murders me.

Tis torture, and not mercy: heaven is here,
Where Juliet lives; and every cat and dog
And little mouse, every unworthy thing,
Live here in heaven and may look on her;
But Romeo may not: more validity,
More honourable state, more courtship lives
In carrion-flies than Romeo: they my seize
On the white wonder of dear Juliet's hand
And steal immortal blessing from her lips,
Who even in pure and vestal modesty,
Still blush, as thinking their own kisses sin;
But Romeo may not; he is banished:
Flies may do this, but I from this must fly:
They are free men, but I am banished.
And say'st thou yet that exile is not death?
Hadst thou no poison mix'd, no sharp-ground knife,
No sudden mean of death, though ne'er so mean,
But 'banished' to kill me?--'banished'?
O friar, the damned use that word in hell;
Howlings attend it: how hast thou the heart,
Being a divine, a ghostly confessor,
A sin-absolver, and my friend profess'd,
To mangle me with that word 'banished'?

Romeo is much more vociferous in his response to the word. He feels that it will be torture to be alive and without his love. He cannot bear the thought of not being able to see, touch, hear or kiss her when carrion flies can sit on her hand and 'steal immortal blessings from her lips. ' The thought of such a situation is much too painful for him to bear and he asks the friar not to even mention the word and hearing it will bring him further torment. It is better to be dead than in exile.

The two lovers' responses clearly indicate that they see Romeo's exile as more hurtful and damaging than anything and would rather prefer death. The reason for this is that they cannot bear the thought of knowing and loving one another and not being able to be together. In this regard, death would be a better option for they both would not exist and would thus not have to deal with the second to second torture for the rest of their lives of knowing about each other, but not being able to do anything about it.

How does Fitzgerald present love as a destructive force?

F. Scott Fitzgerald showed how love was destructive primarily through what Jay Gatsby gave up to win the heart of Daisy Buchanan.  Gatsby was so obsessed with Daisy, it was all he was focused on.  His entire existence at the beginning of the novel was to tempt her to one of his lavish parties so he would see her again.  Throughout the novel, everything he did, from planning the perfect lunch to buying the most beautiful pale pink shirts, was to impress her.  The obsession destroyed his life.

He also denied his past and family by changing his name from Gatz to Gatsby.  Gatsby originally came from a poor family and was not part of Daisy’s social class.  At the end of the novel, Gatsby’s father showed up to the funeral, and Nick was amazed to meet him because Gatsby never talked about his family.  Gatsby was ashamed of his family and destroyed that love to achieve Daisy’s affection.

Another thing that his love for Daisy destroyed was his integrity and honesty.  In order to become rich, Gatsby was involved in illegal activities of some sort with Wolfshiem.   Since the novel was set in the 1920s, bootlegging liquor could be the business he was in to make his money. 

Because of his love for Daisy, Gatsby gave up and destroyed his ideals, his family values, and his integrity.  He destroyed his old self to become the new Gatsby in hopes of impressing a love he could never attain.  

How can I compare and contrast the ways in which Earl Lovelace and Marysé Condé explore issues related to the legacy of colonialism in the...

Marysé Condé and Earl Lovelace, both authors whose works deal heavily with the impacts of European colonialism, have written on the interactions between Africans relocated to the New World as slaves and the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean. While these authors have expressed several similarities in their approach to this topic, several important differences can also be seen in the attitudes of their works.

It is important to note that both Condé and Lovelace are in many ways the people whom they write about, Condé a French Guadeloupean and Lovelace a Trinidadian. Both of them explore the interactions between the various Caribbean peoples brought into contact with each other by the forces of colonialism, Condé in her novel Tree of Life and Lovelace in his work The Dragon Can't Dance. While both books are primarily about conflicts of different ethnicities, they both also explore the conflict of rural and urban life and settings.

Much of Lovelace's focus is on the celebration of Carnival Monday, and the degeneration of a once powerful and religiously charged observance into a light and playful display intended only to satisfy the senses. His work, much like his life, is strictly about Trinidad, highlighted by his idiosyncratic use of Trinidadean dialectic patterns with the English language. To Lovelace, this linguistic interplay is intended to be representative of the various paradoxical relationships that colonialism often produces between disparate peoples.

In contrast, Condé writes a tale which is far more worldly. The multi-generational tale of a Guadeloupean family touches on the building of the Panama canal, the roar of cultural growth in San Francisco, and a return to the colonial seat with a journey to Paris. In many ways, Condé weaves a tale of personal tragedy against a backdrop that is the exclusive product of colonialism, while Lovelace presents a story that is of the social impacts of colonialism.

Lovelace once opined that "we should look critically at the process by which cultures are created," while Condé has stated that her writing must ultimately be of a political significance; aside from stylistic preferences, this schism of moralistic cultural review versus political statement is the defining difference between the two authors.

In Chapter 32, what lie does Huck tell to explain his late arrival?

When Huck is mistaken for Tom Sawyer by Aunt Sally, Huck is ready with one of his famous lies. Huck is “quick on his feet” when it comes to being able to adapt to any situation. It is also at the beginning of this episode with the Phelps that we once again see Huck change his identity on shore like he does whenever he is confronted by society along the river. Huck must give up who he really is and become someone else because of his inability to fit in and go along with society’s values and beliefs. Huck is also worried that he and Jim (who is supposedly at the Phelps’ farm) will be caught, so he goes along with Aunt Sally who presumes Huck is her nephew, Tom, who is overdue for a visit. 

When Aunt Sally asks Huck why he is late, Huck tells her that the steamboat he was on ran aground. Aunt Sally asks Huck if anyone was hurt, and Huck says, “No m’am, just a nigger.”

Huck’s response to Aunt Sally’s question is heartbreaking for the reader because it looks like Huck has reverted back to his old ways even after pledging he will go to hell before he turns Jim in to Miss Watson.  However, Huck is pretending to be Tom, and it is probably a typical response Tom would make if asked the same question. 

In Roald Dahl's "Lamb to the Slaughter," how does Patrick treat Mary and what is the bad news that he gives her?

In "Lamb to the Slaughter," we know very little about the dynamics of Patrick and Mary's relationship with the exception of her complete devotion to his needs. She takes care of him, cooks and fetches drinks for him, and appears to love him very deeply. In contrast, in the middle of the story, Patrick returns home from work and delivers some bad news to Mary. Dahl does not reveal the details of this bad news to the reader, but it is clear Patrick wants to end the marriage and seeks a divorce.

The fact that it has played on his mind for some time ("I've thought about it a good deal") and that he intends to provide for her financially suggests Patrick has some consideration for Mary, though not enough to save their marriage. It is also worth noting that Patrick's overriding concern is to protect his professional integrity, as he makes clear to Mary when he says,

But there really shouldn't be any problem. I hope not, in any case. It wouldn't be very good for my job.

This suggests Patrick is less concerned about Mary's feelings than his reputation, and this contributes directly to his murder.  

What is Brutus's major internal conflict in Julius Caesar? What is an internal conflict?

Brutus’s internal conflict is the decision to kill Julius Caesar.

An internal conflict is a conflict a character has with his or her self.  It is a decision, a worry, or a fear.  Internal conflicts are very important because they demonstrate a character’s state of mind and his moral characteristics.

Brutus has to first decide whether or not he wants to join the conspiracy.  He is well aware that the movement needs him to lend legitimacy to it.  Brutus is a true believer.  He wants to do what is best for Rome. However, Julius Caesar is literally like a father to him.  He is a friend and a mentor.  Even though they are on opposite sides of the political fence, deciding to kill him is a major crisis of conscience.

Although Cassius’s conversation with Brutus is the first time when Brutus struggles with this idea, the internal conflict is verbalized by Shakespeare in a powerful soliloquy.  Before the other conspirators arrive, Brutus has to talk himself into believing that killing Caesar is really the only way.

Brutus is explaining to the audience why Caesar has to die, or at least why the conspirators think that he does.  For his character, he is also convincing himself.

It must be by his death: and for my part,
I know no personal cause to spurn at him,
But for the general. He would be crown'd:
How that might change his nature, there's the question.
It is the bright day that brings forth the adder … (Act 2, Scene 1)

The argument that Brutus is making is that Caesar has not done anything yet that deserves death, but that if he gains more power he will become dangerous.  The conspirators are worried that Caesar will be crowned king of Rome, and anathema to all Romans.  They will not tolerate any king.  They fear though that Caesar has too much power already.  He can easily take more.  Caesar will be king, if they do not stop him. 

Brutus compares him to a baby snake still in the shell.  If the snake is never born, it is not dangerous.  That is Caesar now.  However, as soon as the snake comes out of its shell it is a menace to all.  That would be Caesar if he gained more power and became king.

And, since the quarrel
Will bear no colour for the thing he is,
Fashion it thus; that what he is, augmented,
Would run to these and these extremities:
And therefore think him as a serpent's egg
Which, hatch'd, would, as his kind, grow mischievous,
And kill him in the shell. (Act 2, Scene 1)

Brutus argues that Caesar is too ambitious to be left alive.  He will not be content with just being dictator of Rome.  It was a temporary title, and Caesar kept extending it.  The senate was afraid that this would turn into more power.

The decision to kill Caesar would not have been an easy one for Brutus.  Brutus was not a murderer; he was an idealist.  Brutus is insistent that only Caesar be killed, telling the others that they are not murderers.  Decisions like that are the ones that should have been internal conflicts for Brutus, but they really were not. Brutus put a lot of thought into killing Caesar, but the decision not to kill Antony was not a struggle for him.  Caesar alone would die, that was how Brutus wanted it.

Throughout the play, Brutus's confidence in his decisions is his downfall.  He makes all the determinations himself, without consulting anyone.  This results in major errors of judgement.  Brutus lets Antony live, and underestimates him again when he lets him speak at Caesar's funeral.  He makes grievous errors throughout the military campaign, and they eventually lose.  Brutus does not ask others' advice, or does not take it when it is offered.

In To Kill a Mockingbird, is the account the narrator provides believable? Are there incidents or observations in the book that seemed unusually...

In Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, one moment in which Scout as the adult narrator is evident, making Scout look very knowing for a young child, occurs in Chapter 24.

In Chapter 24, Scout has acquiesced to join Aunt Alexandra's missionary circle for refreshments. According to Scout's narration, during refreshments, a couple of the members make very racist remarks. One remark that stands out is made by Mrs. Farrow, who indirectly insults Atticus for having defended Tom Robinson:

I tell you there are some good but misguided people in this town ... Now far be it for me to say who, but some of 'em in this town thought they were doing the right thing a while back, but all they did was stir 'em up. (Ch. 24)

In saying "stir 'em up," Mrs. Farrow is asserting that Atticus incited the African Americans in Maycomb to behave rebelliously.

Scout further narrates that Miss Maudie makes one brief, angry comment that is enough to shut Mrs. Farrow up. However, Scout further notes that she really hadn't been paying attention to anything that had been said:

I had lost the thread of conversation long ago, when they quit talking about Tom Robinson's wife, and had contented myself with thinking of Finch's Landing and the river. (Ch. 24)

If young Scout in actuality had not been paying attention, she would not have been able to dictate Mrs. Farrow's nor Miss Maudie's comments in such a way that that their full meaning is conveyed. Clearly, it is the adult Scout who narrated the conversation, and she did so based either on reminiscences she had about the conversation in later years with those who were present or based on points she wanted to convey about her society.

What are some good results of Liesel stealing books?

Stealing is usually thought of as a bad thing, and it is in most circumstances. But in Nazi Germany during World War II, when book burning is the norm, saving a few couldn't be bad. Liesel doesn't steal books as a political protest, though. Each book she steals is either for a specific reason, or it ends up benefiting people more than hurting those from whom she stole.

The first book that she steals is The Gravedigger's Handbook, as it falls from one of the men who dug her brother's final resting place.

"The Book's Meaning: 1. The last time she saw her brother. 2. The last time she saw her mother" (38).

For poor Liesel, this first book is the only remembrance she has of the two most important people in her life before moving to the Hubermanns'. It seems very dark, then, that this is also the book from which she learns to read. Not only does she benefit from learning to read, but it helps her to bond with her new foster father, Hans Hubermann. Without this first act of thievery, Liesel would have had a more difficult time at school, nothing to read or bond over at the Hubermanns', and nothing to help her remember her mother and brother.

The second book she steals is Shoulder Shrug. It doesn't seem like stealing, though, since someone has just tossed it into the city's celebratory bonfire. In that case, it would probably turn into contraband. Yet, it is actually the act of stealing it that later benefits Liesel because the mayor's wife sees her doing it. Liesel goes to collect washing from Frau Hermann and is invited in and introduced into her library of books. This is a perfect answer to Liesel's problem of not having books at home. She is allowed to read in the mayor's library whenever she wants. Had she not stolen that book that night, Mrs. Hermann would not have invited her into her library.

Another good end result from stealing the second book is that it gives Papa the idea to send Hitler's book, Mein Kampf, to Max Vandenburg as a way to protect him while he travels to safety at the Hubermanns'. Death explains as follows:

". . . the act of stealing it triggered the crux of what was to come. It would provide her with a venue for continued book thievery. It would inspire Hans Hubermann to come up with a plan to help the Jewish fist fighter. And it would show me, once again, that one opportunity leads directly to another, just as risk leads to more risk, life to more life, and death to more death" (83).

Finally, the third book Liesel steals is The Whistler from the mayor's library. The benefit of this book is that the book thief uses it to calm people down during air raids. This helps to distract people while they wait for the bombs to finish dropping all around them.

"When she turned to page two, it was Rudy who noticed. He paid direct attention to what Liesel was reading, and he tapped his brother and his sisters, telling them to do the same. Hans Hubermann came closer and called out, and soon, a quietness started bleeding through the crowded basement. By page three, everyone was silent but Liesel" (381).

If Liesel had not stolen this book, she would not have had it in the basement with her neighbors. Then she wouldn't have had the idea to read to everyone in order to calm her nerves and theirs during a very stressful time.

How do Mike and Bryon feel about school in That Was Then, This Is Now?

Throughout the novel, Bryon is characterized as intelligent and educated, while Mark is portrayed as being irresponsible. In Chapter 4, Bryon mentions that Mark goes to school simply because it is the only thing to do. Mark doesn't like school the way that Bryon does, and Bryon says that they don't see each other often in school because they aren't in the same classes. There are several moments in the novel that depict Byron's affinity for literature and he is obviously in more challenging classes than Mark. Byron even says, "I'm a smart kid, so I was put in classes with other smart kids" (Hinton 33). Mark doesn't care about succeeding in the classroom and doesn't take school seriously, while Bryon tries his best to earn good grades. Byron even discovers that Mark routinely borrows the principal's car to meet his probation officer during school hours which illustrates his nonchalant attitude towards the public school system. Bryon also mentions that they go to a huge high school and that he really doesn't fit in with the Socs and recognizes their insincerity. Socially, Bryon seeks to be well liked and Mark enjoys the attention he received after the fight at the school dance.

What is an example of logos during Atticus's case in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird?

The rhetorical appeal referred to as logos, derived from the ancient Greek word logos, has come to refer to an appeal to logic, just as we derive the word logic from logos. In other words, a writer or speaker uses logos to convince an audience of the logic and rationality of an argument. Examples of logos are facts, statistics, and references to authorities--all of which can be used to convince an audience of the logic of an argument. In Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, any evidence in Atticus's court case, direct or indirect, counts as logos.

One of the first pieces of evidence that calls into question the validity of charging Tom Robinson with the crime is the very fact that neither the Ewells nor Sheriff Heck Tate called a doctor to the scene of the crime the evening the alleged crime took place. We learn this based on the answer to Atticus's very important opening question addressed to Sheriff Tate during Atticus's cross-examination of Tate as a witness: "Did you call a doctor, Sheriff? Did anybody call a doctor?" Atticus rephrases the question multiple times, and each time Sheriff Tate answered in the negative.

The reason why Sheriff Tate's answer to that question is so critical is because it is illegal within the American court system for a person to be charged with a crime if there is no concrete evidence the crime actually took place. Though it was obvious from Mayella's bruises that she had been physically abused by someone, Mayella wasn't just accusing Robinson of physical abuse; she was accusing him of rape. A doctor's evidence and testimony would have been needed to prove she had actually been raped that night in order for Robinson to be legally indicted. We refer to this legal principle as corpus delicti, which translates from the Latin to mean "the body of the crime." We interpret the principle to mean that physical evidence must exist proving a crime was committed before a person can be charged with a crime (West's Encyclopedia of American Law, ed. 2).

Hence, the very fact that no doctor was called, which means that no physical evidence exists, serves as logos that convinces an audience of Robinson's unlawful criminal charge and his innocence. All other similar evidence in the case also serves as logos.

How much land was added to the US under President James K. Polk?

Under James K. Polk, who ran for office on a platform of national expansion, the United States annexed Texas, settled the border between the Oregon Territory and British Canada, and received the Mexican Cession from Mexico. 

The annexation of Texas was a foregone conclusion by the time Polk entered office--indeed, Congress formalized the measure in the final days of the Tyler administration. The annexation would prove to be highly consequential, as disputes over the border between Mexico and Texas (as well as Polk's desire for Mexican lands in the North American Southwest) led to the Mexican-American War. American victory in this war led to the Mexican Cession, which included modern-day California, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada. 

Polk's settlement with Mexico, while falling far short of his demands for the border to be drawn at the 54'40 line, significantly expanded American territory. The lands formally recognized as belonging to the United States included modern-day Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.

In short, under James K. Polk, the United States witnessed unprecedented expansion, almost (with the small exception of the Gadsden Purchase from Mexico in the Southwest) filling out its current borders.

In “Old Ironsides,” Oliver Wendell Holmes conveys that he believes the ship deserves a better ending than it is getting. What does he mean when...

The lines you quote here are the final lines of the poem, and provide an example for exactly that which you are suggesting:  that the ship deserves a more noble death.  The poem was written after a proposition to break down the old, ailing frigate Constitution.  Old Ironsides, as the Constitution was affectionately known, was a warship; “her deck” was “once red with heroes’ blood,” yet now “The harpies of the shore shall pluck/The eagle of the sea!”  The ship has a reputation, and is glorious as an eagle, yet those men who decide her fate are beasts who care not for her history or her status.  It is a battle-scarred veteran, this ship, and Holmes is arguing in the poem that it deserves a dignified death – not just to be dismantled unceremoniously.  He laments that the heroic ship could not die in battle, proud and patriotic – she lived by the sword, and it is only right that she should die by the sword:

Oh, better that her shattered bulk
Should sink beneath the wave;
Her thunders shook the might deep,
And there should be her grave;

So, when he says “And give her to the god of storms/The lightning and the gale!” he is wishing that the ship could be sunk at sea in a storm, and could be buried there where she was of most use – away from the calm, well-attended waters of the harbor.  She should die an honorable death, ravaged yet preserved beneath the surface of the sea.  A death worthy of her reputation and honor.

How can I discuss the use of language in "The Cask of Amontillado"?

You could begin by discussing the literary device that Montresor uses to emphasize his feelings as well as his high level of diction and its implications.  Montresor begins with a hyperbole (or overstatement), that he had borne the "thousand injuries of Fortunato" as well as possible.  It is unlikely that Fortunato actually wounded him so often, but Montresor feels as though he has.  It is almost a way to begin to justify what he's done, by insisting that he had patiently endured injuries time after time until, finally, he could bear it no more. 

Further, his very high level of diction indicates his education and intelligence, and his cleverness is certainly needed in order to plan and execute a crime for which he can never be suspected.  He feels that he must punish Montresor with "impunity," meaning that he will not be punished for it.  He desires Montresor's "immolation," his total destruction.  We likely have less trouble believing that this person could get away with such a crime because of his intelligence; in fact, it might even be that his intelligence is the source of his pride and thus the reason that he feels he must take down his foe.  Moreover, it might even be his intelligence, indicated by his diction, that would lead him to believe that he would feel no grief for what he deems to be the much-deserved revenge he exacts on Fortunato.

There is a saying about World War I: "War ends all wars." Do you agree or disagree with it?

This question refers to a saying that the First World War was the "war to end all wars." It is difficult to agree with the saying, because World War I was not really anything of the sort. During the war, some idealists hoped that the sheer horror and the devastation in human life wrought by the war were so traumatic that they would create a new world order in which wars would no longer be fought--people would finally realize that war was not really in their interests. This hope lay behind Woodrow Wilson's "Fourteen Points," which were an attempt to create postwar international institutions that would forestall future conflicts. But this was not to be. The League of Nations and other safeguards proved ineffective in the aftermath of the war, the Treaty of Versailles that ended it was harshly punitive, creating resentment in Germany, and ultimately warlike dictators were able to rise to power in Italy and Germany by exploiting the same spirit of nationalism that had helped bring about World War I. Today, calling the war the "war to end all wars" is an ironic statement, because we know that the most tragic aspect of the war was the fact that it paved the way for an even more tragic and destructive global conflict just two decades later.

How does Rappaccini treat his art with more importance than his daughter and her lover?

Rappaccini seems to attribute greater importance to his art than to his daughter because he has condemned her to a life of solitude in a poisonous Eden for the sake of his experimentation. He raised her to be as deadly as the beautiful purple-flowered shrub by the broken fountain, and she must live with the knowledge that though her heart is loving and kind, her breath and her touch are unwholesome and damaging.

Further, Rappaccini never consults Giovanni or his daughter when he decides to convert the normal youth into a poisonous being like his daughter. For the sake of science, he has raised a poisonous girl from her infancy, and now he seeks to transform a grown adult into her poisonous match.  He never took his daughter's feelings or future into consideration when he experimented on her; neither does he take Giovanni's feelings or future plans into consideration before experimenting on him. He gives them no choice. In this way, Rappaccini has placed his science (or his art, as Baglioni refers to it) ahead of Beatrice and Giovanni.

What information is revealed about the speaker in the opening of Walt Whitman's "The Artilleryman's Vision"?

War, a part of human history since its inception, has left indelible scars on the psyches of millions of soldiers and affected civilians alike. It has been called by various labels over the centuries: “combat fatigue", “shell shock", and presently, “post-traumatic stress disorder” (PTSD). The mental wounds suffered by those exposed to horrific events, especially to the protracted series of violent, physically and emotionally draining events that comprise war, remain a part of the war experience long after the shooting has stopped. The American Civil War was no exception. The seemingly endless sight of young men violently torn apart by musket or rifle rounds, by shrapnel or from bayonets used in hand-to-hand fighting, was not something that could be easily processed. Just as soldiers from World Wars I and II, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other conflicts have returned home mentally, if not always physically, wounded, such was the case with the predominant conflict of Walt Whitman’s time, the Civil War. His poem, "The Artilleryman’s Vision", depicts the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder on a single veteran of the Civil War. Related in the first-person, Whitman’s narrator is reliving the horrors he witnessed and survived in that traumatic conflict. What we learn about him, then, is presented in the opening stanzas and throughout the text.

As the poem opens, the narrator is lying awake next to his wife, his child, and infant, sleeping close-by. The peacefulness of the night, however, is disturbed in his mind by memories of the war:

WHILE my wife at my side lies slumbering, and the wars are over 
long,

And my head on the pillow rests at home, and the vacant mid-
night passes,

And through the stillness, through the dark, I hear, just hear, the 
breath of my infant,

There in the room as I wake from sleep this vision presses upon me;

The engagement opens there and then in fantasy unreal,

The skirmishers begin, they crawl cautiously ahead, I hear the 
irregular snap! snap!

I hear the sounds of the different missiles, the short t-h-t! t-h-t!
of the rifle-balls,

I see the shells exploding leaving small white clouds, I hear the 
great shells shrieking as they pass . . .

There exists among veterans suffering from PTSD what is known as “the thousand-yard stare", the blankness in the soldier’s eyes as he seemingly stares off into the distance, mentally exhausted from the rigors of combat. It is at night, however, when all is quiet and the room is dark that the visions of the horrors observed become most prominent. And that is what Whitman’s narrator is experiencing. We can surmise from the reference to the infant that he and his wife are young, perhaps newly married following his return from the war. His mind, however, is filled with those images in which bullets pass by his head, men scream in pain, projectiles explode, and smoke from explosions and gunpowder fills the air. That he has grown immune to the suffering around him is suggested in the following passage:

 “The falling, dying, I heed not—the wounded, dripping and red,
   I heed not—some to the rear are hobbling”

What we learn about the narrator of "The Artilleryman’s Vision" is that he is a young combat veteran who has been unable to leave the war behind him. There is a universal sensibility about the images Whitman depicts, and no more needs to be said regarding his narrator’s personal biography. This young veteran of the Civil War has seen too much and he can’t let it go.

In "The Most Dangerous Game", how many days does Rainsford survive the hunt on the island before he wins the game?

The text does not tell us clearly how many days Rainsford was out in the island. However, if we follow the storyline and make an educated guess, he spent two nights on the island.  The first night he spent on a tree, after concealing his tracks.  It seems that Rainsford's first plan was to hide.  When Rainsford realized that Zaroff easily found him, he decided to make traps, which killed Ivan and even wounded Zaroff.  

When this happened, Zaroff went back home.  The next day Zaroff was back.  We do not know where Rainsford slept that night, perhaps he did not.  In any case, it was another night. 

This is when Rainsford had an idea.  Instead of trying to hold out for three days, he needed to go on the offensive.  So, he swam to Zaroff's house and waited for him there.  Here is what Rainsford said to himself:

Rainsford knew he could do one of two things. He could stay where he was and wait. That was suicide. He could flee. That was postponing the inevitable. For a moment he stood there, thinking. An idea that held a wild chance came to him, and, tightening his belt, he headed away from the swamp.

What crime is Crispin falsely accused of committing?

In the novel, Crispin has been falsely accused of breaking into John Aycliffe's manor home and stealing money from his treasure chest. Unbeknown to Crispin, the Lord Furnival is dying, and the family must make sure that no one with even a possible claim to the Furnival fortune and name can come forth to plead his case. Unfortunately for Crispin, the young boy is the illegitimate son of Lord Furnival and is therefore viewed as a threat to the Furnival empire.

The accusation by the steward is merely a pretense to cover up any culpability for Crispin's death. Meanwhile Crispin must run for his life, as John Aycliffe has declared him a wolf's head, a criminal who can be hunted down and killed by anyone. Moved by pity for Crispin's difficult situation, Father Quinel advises Crispin to find a city with 'its own liberties' where he can be free from the likes of John Aycliffe. All Crispin will have to do is to stay in a city like Great Wexly or London for a year and a day. If the time passes without incident, Crispin will have earned his freedom.

How does Shakespeare make Act 3, Scene 2 in The Merchant of Venice particularly dramatic and full of emotion?

This is the scene where Bassanio wants to take his chances with the caskets to win Portia's hand in marriage. Portia begs him to wait a month or so because she's having a great time with Bassanio as it is, and if he fails by choosing the wrong casket, they must say good-bye. However, Bassanio argues that he feels as if he is being tortured by not being able to marry her. Portia relents and allows him to take his chance. This creates dramatic and emotional tension because Bassanio and Portia truly love each other, but if Bassanio chooses the wrong one, he must leave immediately, never see Portia again, and never ask any other woman to marry him as long as he lives.

In order to suspend the tension, Bassanio analyzes each of the caskets, the riddle, the metal, and the philosophy behind each one. He doesn't choose the gold box because gold brings trouble, just as it did for Midas. He doesn't choose silver because it is too commonly used and praised. Therefore, he chooses the lead box because it doesn't make any lofty claims or promises, its looks are not deceiving, and "Thy paleness moves me more than eloquence" (III.ii.106). It is within the lead box that Bassanio finds Portia's picture, which proves he has won her hand in marriage.

The scene then becomes even happier, because just as everyone is rejoicing for Bassanio and Portia, Graziano steps up and tells them that he loves Portia's lady-in-waiting, Nerissa, and wants to marry her. Just as everyone is feeling joyful about two happy couples and future weddings, Salerio shows up with a letter from Antonio informing him that all of his ships have been lost at sea. This is bad news because that means he will lose a pound of his flesh to Shylock, to whom he owes three thousand ducats. Bassanio must flee from Portia's side just as they are experiencing happiness and run to help Antonio.

The characters and the audience experience a rollercoaster of drama and emotions during this scene. The whole scene is intense because Bassanio risks losing his Portia, but just as he wins her, he must also leave to save Antonio. The plot with Shylock thickens as Antonio's ships are all lost and he cannot repay his creditors. Fortunately, Bassanio now has Portia's wealth to draw from in order to try to save Antonio. Portia offers double the amount to pay for Antonio's life and Bassanio leaves, with her permission, to offer six thousand ducats to Shylock.

In the poem "Siren Song," how does Margaret Atwood make use of mythology?

The ancient Greeks believed that sirens were creatures who lived on an island (and are often depicted as having bird bodies with female heads). These sirens would sing as sailors passed by on their ships, and, unable to resist the sound of their song, the sailors would steer into the rocks around the island, wrecking their ships and drowning.

Atwood's title, "Siren Song," is an allusion to these mythical creatures. In fact, the speaker of the poem is a siren herself. In the first lines, she says, 

This is the one song everyone
would like to learn: the song
that is irresistible:   (lines 1-3)

What makes this poem so compelling is that the reader does not realize that the "song" begins long before we think it does or expect it to. It begins with this first stanza, and we are roped in, hooked as the sailors would have been, because we do not think we are being manipulated. When she finally says, "I will tell the secret to you, / to you, only to you. / Come closer," we realize that we've been listening to the song all along and that she has us in her power (19-21). The last few lines make it clear that we've succumbed to her song, just like all who came before us. She says,

at last. Alas
it is a boring song
but it works every time. (25-27)

Cunningly, the song works on us because of the deep-seated human need to believe that we are special. We are unique. When she tells us these things, she gratifies our desire to think of ourselves in this way, and we are hers to command. It's really a fascinating take on the sirens themselves, but even more importantly, it reveals something crucial about the human condition: that we all want to feel special, and that this need is what makes us so easy to manipulate.

Why do the kids decide to go to the Radley place in To Kill a Mockingbird?

The kids went to the Radley Place to try to get Boo Radley to come out.

Scout and Jem had always been interested in Boo Radley, but Dill was obsessed.  He seemed to believe that Boo Radley was just misunderstood, and if they sat down and talked to him everything would be all right.

Dill said, “We’re askin‘ him real politely to come out sometimes, and tell us what he does in there—we said we wouldn’t hurt him and we’d buy him an ice cream.”

…“It’s my idea. I figure if he’d come out and sit a spell with us he might feel better.” (Ch. 5)

Scout thinks Dill is crazy.  She has bought into the idea that Boo Radley is a monster.  Dill has a more sophisticated view of him.  He still has childish ideas, but he seems to want to see Boo Radley and help him, rather than being afraid of him.

Jem and Dill’s plan is to use a fishing pole to get a note to Boo Radley.

“I’m goin‘ around to the side of the house,” said Jem. “We looked yesterday from across the street, and there’s a shutter loose. Think maybe I can make it stick on the window sill, at least.” (Ch. 5)

The trick doesn’t exactly work.  Jem thinks that because it is dark no one will be able to see them.  Atticus walks up in the middle of it, and Jem has to stop. They hear someone laughing as Jem runs off, and he loses his pants.  The children tell the adults that they were playing strip poker with matches, and Atticus tells Jem to get his pants.

Jem does not want Atticus to find out that he was at the Radley place, because Atticus has repeatedly told them to leave Boo Radley alone.  He sneaks back later to get his pants, and finds them removed from the fence and sewn up.  Jem realizes that Boo was reaching out to him, trying to help him.

What are the connections between Invisible Man and The Wretched of the Earth?

Both Franz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth and Ralph Ellison's The Invisible Man have themes suggesting that the most powerful limits in one's world are attributed to what race one belongs to. 

In The Wretched of the Earth Fanon states that “what divides the world is first and foremost what species, what race one belongs to," and Ralph Ellison finds that limits of social forces, especially racism, place limits upon his future. For the narrator, his attempts at defining himself through reaching goals or rising to the expectations of others are limited by the outside forces that cause him to play inauthentic roles. He concludes that he is really "invisible" to others as an individual as they perceive him only as they desire, making him part of violent actions much of the time. Similarly in Fanon's narrative, within the colonial system, the division of the population creates a tension that affects all action. And, the only action that is effective, Fanon concludes, is violence: "...colonization and decolonization is simply a question of relative strength."

Finally, after Ellison's narrator has been through various experiences and different movements in Harlem, and after Fanon's examination of colonialism, they both conclude what Fanon says, "...change does not mean reform...change does not mean improvement."

In the novel Monster, what did Mr. Sawicki say about the film being shown in class?

At the beginning of the novel, there is a flashback to a film workshop at Stuyvesant High School. As the film ends, Mr. Sawicki, the film club mentor, comments that in a juried competition, the ending of the film would have hurt this piece. After he asks the class for any comments, Steve raises his hand and says that he liked the ending. Mr. Sawicki responds by asking if the ending was predictable. He then comments that while making a film, you need to "predict without predicting" (Myers 24). He also says that when you make a film, you must leave an impression on the viewers who act as a kind of jury to your film. Mr. Sawicki then comments that if a film is predictable, the audience will make up their minds about it long before it's over. His comments are significant to the overall context of the novel which is told as a screenplay. Throughout the novel, Myers does not explicitly state whether Steve Harmon is guilty in the crime and leaves the ending open for interpretation. The reader judges for themselves whether or not they believe that Steve was guilty of participating in the crime, which relates to Mr. Sawicki's comments about unpredictable film endings. 

When asked about her daughter in Fitzgerald's novel The Great Gatsby, what does Daisy say?

Often considered the great American novel, and widely taught in high school classrooms, The Great Gatsby is a story about a few very wealthy and privileged Americans living in New York on the mythical East Egg and West Egg. East Egg is the home of the old wealth of Tom and Daisy Buchanan who have grown up rich. West Egg houses the "nouveau riche" as represented by Jay Gatsby, who has gained his fortune through bootlegging and other illegal activities.

Daisy Buchanan may be one of the most self-centered characters in all of American literature, and her treatment of her two-year old daughter Pammy is ample evidence of the woman's narcissism. Pammy is mentioned twice in the novel. In chapter one Daisy admits that she knows little of the girl who is presumably raised mainly by her nurse, not unlike many wealthy girls throughout history (think of Juliet). Daisy says, "I suppose she talks, and-eats, and everything" when Nick Caraway, the narrator of the novel, asks after the little girl. 

In talking about the child Daisy goes on to explain her attitude toward life. She says, "'I'm glad it's a girl. And I hope she'll be a fool-that's the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool." She believes that women can essentially get nowhere without beauty and that it's best for a woman to simply smile and look good. 

In chapter seven we actually meet Pammy. She is portrayed as basically shy, but is already exhibiting the superficial characteristics her mother exemplifies, concerned with her dress and what "Aunt Jordan" is wearing. The little girl makes a brief appearance and then is whisked off by the nurse. Daisy simply wants to show off the little girl to Nick and Gatsby.

The fact that Daisy basically ignores the child is discussed in an interesting article in the Village Voice (see link below) about the latest filming of the novel by Baz Luhrmann. Amanda Lewis argues that the reason Daisy pays little attention to Pammy is because, as Lewis puts it, "Pammy...represents all of Daisy's obligations to Tom and the years they've spent building a life together." Because Tom is cheating on her and they seem to have a basically loveless marriage she resents the little girl and what she symbolizes.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff are in charge of A. the day-to-day running of the military B. advising Congress on military matters C. the White...

None of these answers is really a good fit with what the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) actually do.  Let us look at what the JCS’s website says about their mission.  According to the site (in the link below),

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal military adviser to the President, Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council (NSC), however, all JCS members are by law military advisers, and they may respond to a request or voluntarily submit, through the Chairman, advice or opinions to the President, the Secretary of Defense, or NSC.

You will notice that this description of their mission does not really match any of the options in this question.  I would say that Option B is the best answer, except that it mentions Congress rather than the President and other parts of the executive branch.

Option A is clearly not correct because the JCS are not part of the command structure.  They no longer have a role in ordering overall military operations, let alone day-to-day operations.  Option C is not right because White House security is a very narrow duty compared to what the JCS actually does.  Option D is wrong because the JCS have nothing to do with espionage. Option E is wrong because the JCS is an advisory body, not a coordinating body.

Therefore, if I had to pick one of these, I would pick Option B because it is closest to being correct.

Explain the themes and theology in the Book of Exodus.

The Book of Exodus follows a sustained narrative beginning first with the life of Moses, a Hebrew raised among Egyptian royalty, before showing how God used Moses to deliver the Hebrews from Egyptian bondage and lead them towards the country promised to Abraham, the ancient patriarch of the Hebrew people. At the end of the story, God delivers his Law to the Israelites.

Themes

• 
  Covenant and Promises – A covenant is a relationship between two parties that may be conditional or unconditional. This idea of a covenant between God and humanity has precedence in the Book of Genesis, where many times God establishes a sequence of covenants with characters like Adam, Noah, and Abraham. In Exodus, the covenant specifically between God and the Israelites comes into fruition with the coming of the Law, and is distinct from the covenants in Genesis in that it is conditional on the Hebrews keeping the Law. The Law and the Covenant form the basis for the Hebrew understanding of the rest of the events in the Hebrew Bible – God will bless his chosen people, and his chosen people will keep the Law. When Israel is blessed, it is because the people have been faithful to the Law, and when Israel is punished, it is because the people have been unfaithful to the Law. This dynamic is demonstrated in Exodus, as the entire act of God delivering the Hebrews from Egypt is representative of a fulfillment of his promises to the Israelites.


• 
  Redemption and Punishment – The Jewish holiday of Passover has its roots in the narrative of Exodus as a remembrance of how God spared the Israelites from the punishments of the plagues, specifically the last plague (the death of all firstborn sons). The plagues were sent to the Egyptians to punish them (and especially Pharaoh) for their enslavement of the Israelites. God also redeemed the Israelites physically from their bondage in Egypt, an act that is seen by Christians as foreshadowing for the redemption of all humanity through Jesus.

Theology

Theology is the formal study of the nature of God. In Exodus, God is shown to be both merciful and just, dealing out blessings and punishment. Although in the context of the written work the name “Yahweh” had been used frequently prior to Exodus, in the context of the narrative itself God first reveals his personal name as Yahweh in Exodus while speaking with Moses. In this conversation, God identifies himself as the same God who spoke to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and then tells Moses his true name. Though the etymology of the name Yahweh is uncertain, it has been traditionally associated with the Hebrew word for “to be”, signifying the Hebrew God’s character as “living” and “present.” Through this act of personal revelation and through the further development of the Covenant, God’s character as loving and merciful is show, and through his punishment of the Egyptians, his character as just is shown. 

`3x - 3y + 6z = 6, x + 2y - z = 5, 5x - 8y + 13z = 7` Solve the system of linear equations and check any solutions algebraically.

First, divide the first equation by 3 and obtain x-y+2z=2. Then express x=y-2z+2 and substitute it into the second and third equations:

y-2z+2+2y-z=5, or 3y-3z=3, or y-z=1,

and

5y-10z+10-8y+13z=7, or -3y+3z=-3, or y-z=1.

Thus there are only two independent equations and infinitely many solutions. They have a form z=z (any), y=z+1 and x=y-2z+2=z+1-2z+2=3-z. This is the answer.

Check the answer:

x-y+2z=3-z-z-1+2z=2 (true),

x+2y-z=3-z+2z+2-z=5 (true),

5x-8y+13z=15-5z-8z-8+13z=7(true).

How can I write three arguments for my Romeo and Juliet thesis statement? My thesis statement is: In the play Romeo and Juliet, William...

As the play's opening proclaims, "civil blood makes civil hands unclean." Over and over, we see the damage the feud between the Montagues and the Capulets causes. Three examples follow:

Juliet's cousin Tybalt kills Romeo's friend Mercutio in a duel. Romeo kills Tybalt and is banished from Verona. Romeo kills himself when he thinks Juliet is dead and Juliet kills herself when she finds Romeo dead.

Romeo and Juliet can't marry openly.

Romeo and Juliet are led into lies and deceit. 

Although the stage becomes littered with dead bodies, Shakespeare demonstrates that none of the characters who are killed deserve to die. They are simply ordinary young people caught in a feud that grinds people up. So first, Shakespeare argues that the family feud damages people by causing death. Second, he shows that two people in love are damaged by the feud because they are not allowed to marry (though they do in secret). Finally, the feud causes damage because it drives Romeo and Juliet into lies and tricks that ultimately backfire. 

What are impacts of modernization on our life?

Modernization has a number of effects on culture and society. The answer really depends on what category you are looking to examine. Modernization tends to have a big effect on economics as economies move to the use of more technology in the factors of production. This can have positive effects like lower prices and a greater variety of goods. At the same time, modernizing the economy can result in lower wages, unequal distribution of wealth, and environmental pollution. This is especially true of companies that modernize to the extent of becoming global entities.

Modernization also has a cultural or social impact. Countries that modernize generally rely on science more. This allows for greater research in the area of health that can improve the health of people and extend the lifespans of members within the culture. Science and modernization can make living more efficient and people more connected through better transportation and communication. Modernization can have a great impact on many areas of a culture, from religion to language to customs and traditions. As an example, modernized cultures tend to be more secular and less religious than cultures that have not modernized. They look for science to explain the unknown rather than faith. In general, modernized civilizations move at a much quicker pace than those that are not.

The site that is referenced below discusses more of the cultural impacts of modernization and discusses gender and family dynamics of modernization. The site discusses these issues in the context of Pacific cultures.

What does Brian's fish spear look like in Hatchet?

Brian makes a two-pronged spear for fishing by whittling it out of willow wood.

When the small plane Brian is flying in crashes into the Canadian wilderness, Brian is on his own.  He realizes that one of the first things he is going to need to do is find some food.  He has nothing with him and almost no survival tools, except for a hatchet.

Brian decides to make himself a spear for fishing.  He has “no hooks or string” so a spear is the best he can do.

He would have to find the right kind of wood, slim and straight—he had seen some willows up along the lake that might work—and he could use the hatchet to sharpen it and shape it while he was sitting by the fire tonight. (Ch. 11)

Brian makes a staff out of the willow wood by peeling the bark off.  The result is a “straight staff about six feet long and just under an inch thick at the base, the thickest end.”  He uses the hatchet and a rock wall to refine the end of the spear “until the thick end tapered down to a needle point.”  He then refines the spear to be two-pronged, because he thinks it will be easier to catch a fish.

Unfortunately, the fish spear does not work as well as he thought.  Brian jabs at the water but he is always too slow.  He decides a bow and arrow will work better.  After much trial and error, Brian learns to aim low and is able to catch fish.

Brian's making of the tools recalls early man's attempts to solve problems.  He understands that if he does not succeed at something at first, he has to keep trying something new until he is successful.  Brian is persistent, but his survival depends on it.

What is the rule for chapter 11 in Bud, Not Buddy?

The rule that Bud tells the reader about in chapter eleven is rule number 29.  The rule is as follows:

When You Wake Up and Don't Know for Sure Where You're At and There's a Bunch of People Standing Around You. It's Best to Pretend You're Still Asleep, Until You Can Figure Out What's Going On and What You Should Do.

The reason that Bud has to apply the rule in his present situation is because he is riding in a car with his new acquaintance Lefty Lewis.  During the ride, Lewis announces that he knows that Calloway is a famous man.  Lewis also feeds Bud during the car trip.  But after such a long day, being fed, and riding in a car, Bud eventually falls asleep.  He is woken by Lewis's daughter trying to wake Bud up.  Bud is groggy.  He can't quite remember where he is or why he's with the people he is with, so he fakes being asleep until his mind clears up a bit.  Bud eventually wakes himself up when he hears the mention of more food.  

How does Rikki-Tikki come to live in the bungalow?

The reason that Rikki-Tikki-Tavi is living with humans in a bungalow instead of with the rest of his mongoose family is narrated in paragraph three of Kipling's enjoyable story.  A summer monsoon and following flood washed Rikki out of his burrow and carried him away.  He was soaking wet and rather dead looking when the young boy in the story found him.  

One day, a high summer flood washed him out of the burrow where he lived with his father and mother, and carried him, kicking and clucking, down a roadside ditch. He found a little wisp of grass floating there, and clung to it till he lost his senses.

The mother of the family decided to dry him off and nurse him back to health.  

They took him into the house, and a big man picked him up between his finger and thumb and said he was not dead but half choked. So they wrapped him in cotton wool, and warmed him over a little fire, and he opened his eyes and sneezed.

The narrator of the story then proceeds to tell the reader that a mongoose is a naturally super curious animal.  With that in mind, alongside the natural kindness that the family has already shown Rikki, he decides to stay at the bungalow for awhile.  It's a funny bit of narration to think that a mongoose chooses to stay somewhere, because he thinks it is "cool."  

"There are more things to find out about in this house," he said to himself, "than all my family could find out in all their lives. I shall certainly stay and find out."

Why does Walter Cunningham leave Tom Robinson at the jail?

In Chapter 15, the Old Sarum bunch travels to the Maycomb jailhouse to lynch Tom Robinson. However, Atticus is waiting outside of his cell when they arrive. The Old Sarum bunch encircles Atticus, and they try to convince him to leave. Suddenly, Scout runs into the middle of the group out of nowhere. She does not realize the dangerous situation she has just entered and recognizes Walter Cunningham. After Jem and Dill follow Scout out of their hiding place, Atticus tries to get Jem to take the children home. Scout then attempts to get Walter Cunningham's attention by asking about his son and commenting on his entailment. Walter initially ignores Scout, but then acknowledges her after realizing the difficult situation Atticus is in. Walter has empathy for Atticus and views the situation from his perspective. Walter then speaks to Scout and tells his men to go home. The reason he decided to call off the lynch mob was because he understood the difficult position that he had put Atticus in. 

What are some similarities between The Boy in the Striped Pajamas and The Diary of Anne Frank?

The Diary of Anne Frank and John Boyne's The Boy in the Striped Pajamas are both powerful glimpses into life under the Nazi regime. Both works explore life during wartime, lived under the government of a fascist dictatorship, in a light previously given so little attention. Have you ever heard the phrase, "History is written by the victors?" While this may be true, I think that history has more specifically been written by those at the top of society. The narrative of history that we read--World War Two included--has mostly been written by adults. Specifically, adult men. When Anne Frank's diary was published by her father after the war, it had a significant impact on the way we, as a culture, think about history. It is easy to get caught up in the "major plots" of history, especially when discussing war. We can conjure images of troops of soldiers, all men dressed in neat uniforms marching against each other. The truth is that many more people than adult, male military members were impacted by the events of the Second World War. Anne Frank's diary is one such account of the very real circumstances people found themselves in.

The Boy in the Striped Pajamas also takes place in Nazi Germany, but it is different in that it is a work of historical fiction. Bruno's circumstances speak to the reality of childhood and relationships under the Nazi regime, but it is a fictional piece of writing. The "truth" of The Boy in the Striped Pajamas lies in the possibility that the son of a Nazi commandant could very well have befriended a Jewish boy, especially if both were ignorant of what was really going on. Children are somewhat blessed during times of war because adults around them may try to shelter them from the evils of reality. Bruno was blessed in this way because he did not know what was going on inside Shmuel's camp or that his father was responsible for it. 

Both works impress upon us that children are not merely passive parties in history-- young people are still people with thoughts, feelings, and actions of their own. 

In The Crucible, does Mary Warren deny that she made poppets?

No, she does not. When Ezekiel Cheever and Marshall Herrick come to the Proctor's house to arrest Elizabeth, they specifically come to find a poppet. Abigail Williams had accused her of witchcraft and had that evening cried out in pain whilst at dinner in Reverend Parris' residence. On investigation, a needle was found stuck in her stomach. Abigail claimed that Elizabeth had sent out her spirit to harm her and had stabbed her with the needle.

Cheever has been sent to find this evidence. When he sees the doll Mary has given Elizabeth as a gift, she tells him about its origin and that she 'kept no poppets.' Mary is summoned to verify what Elizabeth said and the following extract is the gist of her testimony:

Proctor: Here now! Mary, how did this poppet come into my house?
Mary Warren, frightened for herself, her voice very small: What poppet is that, sir?
Proctor, impatiently, pointing at the doll in Cheever's hand: This poppet, this poppet.
Mary Warren, evasively, looking at it: Why, I - I think it is mine.
Proctor: It is your poppet, is it not?
Mary Warren, not understanding the direction of this: It - is, sir. Proctor: And how did it come into this house?
Mary Warren, glancing about at the avid faces: Why - I made it in the court, sir, and - give it to Goody Proctor tonight.
Proctor, to Hale: Now, sir - do you have it?
Hale: Mary Warren, a needle have been found inside this poppet. Mary Warren, bewildered: Why, I meant no harm by it, sir. Proctor, quickly: You stuck that needle in yourself?
Mary Warren: I - I believe I did, sir, I - 

Mary goes on to explain that she has not been conjured into saying what she does, on a question from Reverend Hale. She says that Mary Walcott and Abigail Williams saw her sewing the doll and that Abigail was sitting right next to her at the time.

At this point, John Proctor demands that the Reverend Hale ask Cheever to leave for there is no justification to arrest Elizabeth. Hale then accuses Mary that she has just condemned Abigail on a charge of murder, which Mary denies. It is at this point that Elizabeth is told by the reverend that she has been charged by Abigail for having harmed her with the needle.

Elizabeth's passionate response that Abigail is a murderer and that she should be ripped out of the world is what spurs Cheever to continue with the arrest. The outcome is that John Proctor tears up the arrest warrant but Elizabeth beseeches him to be calm and allow her incarceration. She then leaves with the two arresting officers, who put her in chains, much against her husband's will.

Describe how the meeting ends?

This is a rather vague question because there are numerous assemblies throughout the novel Lord of the Flies. I will choose to elaborate on the assembly that takes place at the beginning of Chapter 8 because its ending is significant to the advancement of the plot of the story. After Ralph calls Jack's band of hunters "boys with sticks," Jack gets offended and calls an assembly by blowing the conch. Jack says he's called the meeting to tell the group the news that they have finally witnessed the "beast." Jack claims that they cannot kill the beast and tells the boys that Ralph said his hunters were no good. Jack attempts to usurp power by claiming that Ralph is like Piggy, an unpopular character, and is a weak leader. Jack calls Ralph a coward and brings up the fact that Ralph has never killed a pig. At the end of Jack's speech he raises the conch and asks the boys, "Who thinks Ralph oughtn't to be chief?" (Golding 127) When nobody raises their hand, Jack tears up and says, "I'm not going to be a part of Ralph's lot---" (Golding 127) Jack invites anyone who wants to hunt with him to come along and runs onto the beach, then into the forest. This is a significant ending to the assembly because it marks the beginning of Jack's totalitarian tribe. Jack's failed attempt at usurping power from Ralph creates a schism amongst the boys. Running away from Ralph's group physically represents the path toward savagery. Gradually, Jack's hunters and several other boys leave Ralph's tribe to join Jack's group. Jack's tribe represents primitive human instincts and total loss of civility, which is a major theme throughout the novel. 

What is human geography?

Human geography is the study of how people interact with their environments. In other words, it is the study of how people are affected by, and how they affect, their surroundings. This is a very broad field involving cultural, economic, environmental, and ideological factors. Human geographers are interested in such topics as:

• cultural characteristics that affect a people's use of the environment


• how geographic factors influence culture


• interactions among various peoples around the globe (especially the historically recent phenomenon of globalization)


• demographic patterns


• regional economic inequalities


• usage of natural resources

In short, as one writer puts it, "Human geography is concerned with all aspects of life on Earth, but in particular adopts a spatial approach." This means that human geographers interpret politics, economics, culture, and other aspects of human life as inextricably connected to spaces--cities, physical environments, and so on. The characteristics of a particular region shape the human institutions that develop there, and of course these characteristics--in particular natural resources like forests--are shaped by human activity as well.

In the nineteenth century, what profound change(s) did Japan, Africa, India, and the Middle East experience?

Most of these regions shared a more or less common experience: they each became the subjects of attempted European or American domination with varying results. Let us look at each region.

1. Japan: Japan had long sought to bar outside influence before 1853, when American naval Commodore Matthew Perry entered Tokyo Bay with a squadron of warships seeking to establish trade and diplomatic relations with Japan. This event helped trigger more contact with the West, and a dispute broke out in Japan between the old, traditional shoguns, who exercised essentially feudal control over the countryside, and those who urged modernization. Perhaps the most important change that occurred in Japanese society, then, was the Meiji Restoration of 1868, which gave power to the Emperor, whose reform-minded advisors helped to implement a plan of modernization. 


2. Africa: Probably the most significant change that occurred in Africa happened over the second half of the nineteenth century, as the continent was carved up into colonies by the European powers. Great Britain, Belgium, Portugal, France, and finally Germany all had significant holdings on the continent, and they essentially agreed upon the terms of the colonization of the continent at a conference in Berlin in 1884. Almost all African nations would remain colonies until after World War II.


3. India: India, too, was a European colony. Most of the colony was controlled from the early eighteenth century onward by Great Britain. For much of the eighteenth century, it had been under the rule of the East India Company, a firm that delegated much of the business of ruling to local leaders. But in the nineteenth century, the British solidified their hold on India. A series of rebellions (known as "mutinies" due to their origins among Indian soldiers) rocked the subcontinent at midcentury, and after they were brutally crushed, the British placed India under direct rule, known as "raj" in India.


4. The Middle East: The Middle East is, of course, a very diverse region, making it difficult to generalize about important changes. Much of the region was controlled by the Ottoman Empire during the nineteenth century, and as the power of this empire, based in Turkey, began to fade, European powers moved in. England and France in particular began to gain interests in the region, though they would not really become major players there until after World War I and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. During the late nineteenth century, nationalist movements began to emerge in the region, some of which have ramifications today. 

So all in all, perhaps the most significant changes that occurred in these regions had to do with Western imperialism and its effects. 

What is the theme of the poem Dolce et Decorum Est by Wilfred Owen?

The main theme of this harrowing poem is the dehumanizing influence or destructiveness of war. Other themes include death and man's utter impotence in the face of relentless physical assault.

The poet highlights his themes through visual, tactile, and auditory imagery which culminates in the proclamation of what he calls the 'old Lie Dulce et Decorum est Pro patria mori.' Translated, this literally means ' It is sweet and seemly to die for one's fatherland.'

In the poem, the soldiers are 'bent double, like old beggars under sacks,/Knock-kneed, coughing like hags...' Here, we have the visual imagery of soldiers who have been reduced to pitiful caricatures of manhood; under relentless physical assault, they can only hope to 'trudge' back to their 'distant rest' or camp in a stupor of sorts. Fatigued beyond belief, they march as if asleep. The poet tells us that 'all went lame, all blind.' The word 'all' is significant. Aside from the obvious physical implications of blindness and physical impotence, a metaphorical blindness can allude to how all the soldiers are blinded or rendered defenseless by the overwhelming forces against them. In the face of relentless pressure, the morale of the whole troop has been crippled; the mental and physical paralysis are evident in the phrase 'Drunk with fatigue.'

Even though the soldiers present a demoralized formation marching back to camp, they soon find themselves scrambling to fit on their 'helmets' or gas masks when shells explode in their vicinity. Some versions of the poem describe 'Five-Nines' exploding near the soldiers. In World War One, these 'Five-Nine' shells came from German field howitzers, 15 cm schwere Feldhaubitze 13s, which decimated whole Allied platoons mercilessly and systematically during the beginning of the war. The 'Five-Nine' reference comes from the internal measurement of the barrel which is 5.9 inches.

Take a look at the German howitzer here and here.

The poet continues the poem by describing what happens to anyone who suffers a chemical gas attack from these shells.

And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud 
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,

During World War One, the Germans filled artillery shells with various deadly chemicals. These deadly chemicals caused acute and terrible physical suffering and/or death on Allied troops; they included mustard gas, chlorine gas, and diphosgene gas. All these were toxic, and many caused burning in the eyes, throats, and lungs. Compare the passage above about the physical suffering of the soldier with what happened to any soldier unfortunate enough to be caught without his gas mask when one of these shells exploded near him during the war.

"I wish those people who write so glibly about this being a holy war and the orators who talk so much about going on no matter how long the war lasts and what it may mean, could see a case - to say nothing of ten cases - of mustard gas in its early stages - could see the poor things burnt and blistered all over with great mustard-colored suppurating blisters, with blind eyes . . .all sticky and stuck together, always fighting for breath, with voices a mere whisper, saying that their throats are closing and they know they will choke."

Source: Chemical Warfare During the First World War

So, you can see that the horrific visual imagery of 'vile incurable sores' and 'froth-corrupted lungs' reinforces the themes of death and the destructiveness of war. The poet thus contends that 'Dulce et Decorum est Pro patria mori' is cold comfort in the face of agony and torture; he wishes the ugliness of war to be made known to all those who would sacrifice for freedom's sake. The battlefield is not a place to secure some 'desperate glory;' rather, it is a place of suffering and death.

What is the clinical application of the concept behind creatine phosphate?

Creatine phosphate is a biological organic molecule that can be found in skeletal muscle and brain tissues.  It is somewhat of an amalgamation of two different amino acids (argenine and glycine) with a phosphate group attached as well.  The molecule is synthesized in the liver where the bloodstream transports it to other parts of the body.  Creatine phosphate can serve as a fast source of a phosphate group to quickly convert ADP to ATP under low oxygen conditions for extra energy during high exertion type situations.  Conversely, during periods of rest ATP can convert to ADP and phosphorylate a creatine molecule to produce a supply of creatine phosphate.  The reversibility of the phosphorylation of creatine makes creatine phosphate a convenient source of quick energy in tissues like muscle and brain that have highly fluctuating energy demands.

Where would you have Walter Mitty live and why?

In "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" the main character, Mitty, must have lived near a fairly urban, metropolitan area considering that the entire story is framed by Mitty and his wife driving and running errands in a populated, bustling city. There is some belief that Mitty lived near Waterbury, Connecticut as Waterbury is mentioned several times throughout the story; geographically, Waterbury, CT is near the tri-state area (New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut) and was the only true metropolitan Waterbury of that time. However, we cannot know this for certainty as the author, James Thurber, does not give us any further information. Regardless, it seems likely that Mitty and his wife lived outside of this Waterbury as the narrator says that they "[drove] on toward Waterbury in silence" at the start of the story. They were driving there to do relatively mundane activities--visiting the hairdresser, going to the convenience store, etc.--so it seems likely that their hometown was very small and rural as they did not have access to these things there.

Although it is pure speculation, I could see the Mittys living on a rural, isolated home site without a lot of visual interest. His visions are sparked by sites that he would not see at home (speeding on a trafficked road, a hospital, a newsboy, and so on), which would be exciting to Mitty. The exciting, not-seen-every-day scenery could explain both why these places/sites trigger Mitty and why his visions are so grandiose and magical; they are mimicking his own experience of urban newness and the daily adventures of city-folk.

How can hubris lead to a character's downfall?

The term "hubris" in most literature classes refers to a particular element of the analysis of Greek tragedy in Aristotle's Poetics. According to this account, the typical protagonist or tragic hero is a noble character, greater and more powerful than the average person, whose downfall is occasioned by hubris. For us to feel "fear and pity" at this downfall, the reversal of fortune must be caused by a combination of external events and the character's own weaknesses or "tragic flaws."

Hubris, in this context, means overbearing arrogance. Often it is framed as a challenge to the authority of the gods, in which a mortal forgets that no matter how powerful or wise he may be, he can never triumph against fate or the will of the gods. Often the protagonist is portrayed as receiving warnings from prophets or natural signs that the gods disapprove of his actions, and nevertheless persists in those actions, and then is punished by the gods.

For example, in Sophocles' Antigone, Creon decides to punish Antigone and leave the corpse of Polynices unburied, despite evidence of divine preference and the warnings of Tiresias. As a consequence, Creon's wife and son commit suicide.

The mechanism by which hubris leads to downfall is usually fate or divine intervention, but sometimes can be the inherent logic of the protagonist's actions.