How reliable or unreliable do you consider the narrator? And why?

Montresor appears to have written a letter to a close friend whom he addresses as "You, who so well know the nature of my soul." In other words, he is not addressing a general audience. The story seems to be a letter found among some papers after the death of the recipient and translated into English by an editor named Edgar Allan Poe. Or it might be a letter written by Montresor one night when he was drunk and never posted because he thought better of it next morning. So there is no reason to think Montresor, the narrator, might be intentionally deceiving "You, who so well know the nature of my soul." It is possible, however, that he could be deceiving himself a little--but just a little. There is one point at which he seems to be denying that he has any feelings of guilt or pity for the terrible murder he is committing.

My heart grew sick; it was the dampness of the catacombs that made it so.

This we do not believe. We think his heart grew sick because he had accomplished the perfect murder he had been envisioning for so long, and now he realized he was doing an unpardonable thing. He might have thought about how he would have to be punished for this sin in the afterlife.He might have thought about how he would have to keep this secret to himself for the rest of his life. He might have thought about how he would have to pretend to be just as concerned about Fortunato's disappearance as everybody else. But he suppresses such feelings and thoughts and deceives himself by attributing his sick heart to the dampness of the catacombs.  

Otherwise, it is not easy to detect any clues that show Montresor is an unreliable narrator. He is certainly unreliable in everything he tells his victim Fortunato, but he is not telling the story to his victim. As a matter of fact, he never makes the slightest attempt to tell Fortunato why he is doing what he is doing to him. Fortunato should have plenty of time to speculate about that before he dies of madness and starvation.

What would be a good way to write a thesis statement discussing Harper Lee and why her writing is famous?

I assume you have read, To Kill a Mockingbird. In that case, let's focus on To Kill a Mockingbird to explore why Harper Lee is such a renowned author. The novel has sold millions of copies; it is taught in school districts all over the country; and it usually ends up on a lot of readers' lists of "Top Ten Favorite Books." There are a lot of reasons why it is famous. 

What did you like about the book?  Here are some things to think about as you decide why the book is so popular, thus making Harper Lee famous.

• The characters—The development of interesting, credible characters is one thing that makes the book popular.  People identify with Scout, Jem, and Atticus, and enjoy trying to figure out everything they can about Boo Radley.  They are honest and real characters.  Readers also enjoy trying to figure out what motivates characters like Mayella Ewell, Bob Ewell, and even Mrs. Dubose.


• Plot—From the childhood play to the seriousness of the Tom Robinson trial, the novel is exciting and suspenseful.


• Themes—To Kill a Mockingbird has many universal themes—racism, honor, pride, growing up, innocence, sacrifice, to name a few.  Readers, again, can identity with these themes and learn from the ideas developed throughout the novel.


• Writing style—The narrator is a young girl looking back on her childhood.  The writing is fresh, entertaining, and, most of all, beautifully descriptive. 

Once you decide what you think makes the book a universally popular choice, you are ready to write your thesis.  Follow the formula:  topic + claim (why) = thesis.

For example, Harper Lee is a famous writer because . . . .   or, Readers buy and enjoy Harper Lee’s novel, To Kill a Mockingbird and other books because . . .

In A Christmas Carol, why does Scrooge like the darkness?

In the first stave of A Christmas Carol, Scrooge leaves his counting-house and returns to his dark and dismal home. In describing this scene, Dickens suggests Scrooge prefers the darkness to the light for a very specific reason:

Up Scrooge went, not caring a button for that: darkness is cheap, and Scrooge liked it.

In other words, Scrooge likes the darkness because it means he does not have to buy candles. This reflects Scrooge's miserliness, one of his most potent character traits. For Scrooge, accumulating money is the most important aspect of his life and he will do anything to protect his fortune, even if that means living in the dark. Over time, Scrooge has come to accept this darkness as a way of life, but his impending meeting with the ghosts will change this attitude and show him the metaphorical light.

How does Macbeth demonstrate inner conflict in Act V, Scene 5?

In Act V, Scene 5, Macbeth learns of his wife's suicide and is perturbed by the news. The news forces him to focus his attention on the meaning of life:

Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth embraces nihilistic ideas and is utterly disillusioned by the life he has been leading. He proclaims that life is fleeting and that man is nothing but a bad actor who is quickly forgotten when he dies. According to Macbeth, life is meaningless. And people are fools (this could be a reference to himself, as he is fooled and manipulated by the witches and his wife into murdering Duncan) whose lives turn out to be futile. We are all quickly forgotten as if we never existed.

It is Macbeth's fault that his life has become so futile. He allowed himself to embrace corruption and evil, and, as a result, he has lost his inner peace, stability, and support.

What was Russia called between 1922 and 1991?

Russia was known as the Soviet Union during that time. After the Revolution in 1917, soviets (workers' councils) were to be the basis for a post-capitalist Russia. As many critical intellectuals (e.g. Noam Chomsky, Murray Bookchin, Hannah Arendt before in her book, "On Revolution") have pointed out, the Bolsheviks, who assumed the role of vanguard during the revolution, soon stripped the soviets of power, consolidating it in the Bolshevik Party and the state.

Under popular pressure, the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991.

Although the Soviet Union had supposedly been socialist/communist, it really functioned like a state capitalist society with centralized planning instead of using market distribution of goods and services common in capitalist societies. After 1991, there was a mad rush to introduce markets into the former Soviet society and to privatize goods and services (converting them from public or state property into commodities that could be bought and sold on the market). This empowered an oligarchic class similar to the way the previous so-called socialist/communist arrangements of the Soviet Union had empowered Party leaders and bureaucrats over workers and the rest of the population.

For a philosophically-oriented critique of the Soviet Union from a Marxian perspective equally critical of capitalism, see:

Marcuse, Herbert. (1958). Soviet Marxism: A Critical Analysis. New York: Random House. 

What are some character traits of Aunt Alexandra in To Kill A Mockingbird ?

Aunt Alexandra is quite different from Atticus; she is an adherent of traditional upper class Southern values and mores.

In Chapter 13 when Aunt Alexandra arrives at the Finch home, she enters as though she is Scarlett O'Hara, speaking peremptorily to the Finch maid: "Put my bag in the front bedroom, Calpurnia. As Scout notes, her aunt's visits are rare, but when she does come she "traveled in state."  She announces the purpose of her visit, informing Scout that it is time she have some proper feminine influence. Scout does not question her as it is Sunday, and on the Lord's Day, her aunt is "formidable" since she has her figure held captive in a corset.

Her presence is recognized by the neighborhood: Miss Maudie bakes an elaborate cake, Miss Stephanie visits for extended periods, Miss Rachel invites her next door for coffee in the afternoons, and even Mr. Nathan Radley comes to the end of his yard to tell her he is glad to see her. After she has "settled in" with Atticus's family, Aunt Alexandra becomes an integral part of Maycomb high society. She joins various social clubs and religious organizations; in short, she demonstrates that she is "one of the last of her kind" with her boarding-school manners. She upholds "any moral that comes along," and she speaks in the objective case. She is "an incurable gossip" as are all the ladies of her ilk. 
Further, Aunt Alexandra passes judgment upon everyone, it seems, and categorizes them into a "type." She speaks of certain families having "streaks." For instance, she stereotypes Penfield women as "flighty," and she upholds a caste system in Maycomb, assuming certain attitudes and behaviors for different families that carry through the generations.

But, despite all her prejudices, Aunt Alexandra loves her own family. Also, despite her disagreements with Atticus on his child-rearing practices and his being the defending attorney in the trial of Tom Robinson, she sympathizes with him and is outraged by the cruel insults hurled against him by some townspeople. In Chapter 24, at the Missionary Tea for instance, she emotionally asks Miss Maudie "...what else do they want from him, Maudie, what else?" Then, her emotional outburst notwithstanding, Aunt Alexandra smooths her whalebone corset, pats her hair, and resumes her position as hostess and re-enters the room, ever the lady.  

In Atwood's "Happy Endings," what is Atwood saying concerning how and why? What does it mean to her/speaker? What does it mean to other writers?...

In her story, "Happy Endings," Margaret Atwood explains to writers that there aren't many different plots--most of them end up the same way (people die). She shows through her different stories that beginnings are more interested than endings, and says after that, writers have to deal with the how and why. This means that once writers have the beginning and end of a story, they need to figure out the middle--the motivation, the details, dialogue, etc.

She also makes commentary for the readers and their expectations. Readers must parse meaning from these plots. In this story, Atwood explains the responsibilities of writers to create stories and how they must understand what readers expect. By giving multiple plot lines and then saying that there is the matter of the how and the why, it puts the responsibility on both the writer (to expand the plot) and the reader (to make meaning of the details the writer gives).