An older person or mentor is often very important in shaping the lives of gifted people by providing guidance and encouragement. To what extent was...

Helen Keller's life changed when Miss Sullivan entered her life. Miss Sullivan became her mentor, teacher, friend, and companion. Miss Sullivan had an incredible impact on Helen's life. In her autobiography, Helen described how Miss Sullivan changed her life:

Gradually I got used to the silence and darkness that surrounded me and forgot that it had ever been different, until she came–my teacher–who was to set my spirit free (The Story of My Life...

Helen Keller's life changed when Miss Sullivan entered her life. Miss Sullivan became her mentor, teacher, friend, and companion. Miss Sullivan had an incredible impact on Helen's life. In her autobiography, Helen described how Miss Sullivan changed her life:

Gradually I got used to the silence and darkness that surrounded me and forgot that it had ever been different, until she came–my teacher–who was to set my spirit free (The Story of My Life, Chapter I).

Miss Sullivan taught Helen how to communicate using the manual alphabet. After Helen learned to communicate, her life was transformed. Miss Sullivan continued to help and guide Helen. The teacher assisted Helen when she went to school by reading books and spelling their content into her pupil's palm. Miss Sullivan did the same thing with the lectures given by Helen's teachers and professors. With Miss Sullivan's help, Helen finished school and also went to college. Miss Sullivan helped to guide Helen in making decisions about education.

In addition to this, Miss Sullivan encouraged Helen. She encouraged her to learn all that she could and to experience life. Miss Sullivan traveled to many places with Helen. Together they went on many adventures, such as exploring the World's Fair and sailing in Nova Scotia. Miss Sullivan wished for Helen to live a full life.

What is the difference between the functions of a water pump and the functions of a battery?

I assume you mean besides the obvious point that one involves water and the other involves electricity.

The most fundamental difference between batteries and pumps is their mechanism of moving what they move.

Pumps generally either push the water (an Archimedes screw is an example of this kind of pump) or suck the water by reducing the air pressure in front of it (most real-world pumps use this method).

Batteries move electrons in a fundamentally different way. They are designed so that a chemical reaction draws electrons from the cathode to the anode, so that the cathode contains fewer electrons and the anode contains more. (Usually this results in the cathode being positively charged and the anode being negatively charged, but that actually depends on what sort of battery you're dealing with and how it is being used.)

Then, once the battery is connected to a circuit, the electrons try to restore electrostatic equilibrium, resulting in them being pulled through the circuit from the anode to the cathode. (Confusingly, the "current" is said to be going the opposite direction, from the cathode to the anode, because current is a flow of positive charge, while electrons are negative. Alas, we are stuck with this strange convention.)

A pump that sucks is more similar to a battery than a pump that pushes water directly, because both involve creating an imbalance and then using the equilibration force to our advantage. But even then, a pump creates an imbalance in the air in order to move water, while a battery creates an imbalance in the electrons in order to move charge.

A pump that pushes water is almost nothing like a battery, as such pumps actually use mechanical motion to push and can even be used to carry solid objects in the same fashion. This is why we need to be careful if we try to use analogies like "batteries are electron pumps."

What should I focus on when researching sectarian violence in Northern Ireland during "The Troubles?"

"The Troubles" were a thirty-year period from 1968 to the Peace Accords in 1998 that were marked by sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. In researching this time period, you might want to concentrate on the issues involved, which was mainly the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. The Protestants in Northern Ireland were unionists, meaning that they wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom. The Catholics (who were in the minority) were republicans, meaning that they wanted to join the Republic of Ireland. While "The Troubles" had a religious element, it was not a religious war. Instead, the Catholic minority felt that the Protestant government made them have an inferior position with regard to housing, jobs, and other issues. 

You might also want to concentrate on the unfortunate violence between the two sides. In 1969, the British government sent troops to Northern Ireland in response to riots, and in 1972, they revoked the right of the parliament of Northern Ireland to govern and ruled Northern Ireland directly from London. The Irish Republican Army (IRA), a paramilitary group in Northern Ireland (originally the Provisional Irish Republican Army), tried to use military action to force the British to withdraw from Northern Ireland. The Protestants also had paramilitary organizations, including the Ulster Defense Force (UDF) and Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), also committed to using military force.

There were periods of great violence. For example, in 1972 alone, over 500 people died in the conflict. You might examine claims and counterclaims about the source of this violence. The unionists blamed the IRA, while the nationalists blamed the violence perpetrated by the British Army in events such as the Falls Curfew in 1970, when the British Army tried to sweep Belfast in search of weapons and wound up fighting gun battles with the IRA and imposing a curfew in the area. 

In addition, you should focus on the different accords that were created to try to resolve the crisis. The Sunningdale Agreement in 1974 created a government that had different constituents and power sharing, as well as a role for the government of Ireland, but it failed after a strike by the Ulster Workers' Council. The Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985 allowed the Republic of Ireland to have a role in the government of Northern Ireland, but it was opposed by Sinn Fein, the political organization that was associated with the IRA. Finally, the Good Friday Agreement, the negotiations for which began in 1996, was implemented in 1998 with the return of self-government to Northern Ireland and a situation of power-sharing among different groups. 

What is a comparison between The Great Gatsby and The Cossacks? How are the main characters alike? How are they different?

The Great Gastby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald, follows Nick Caraway, a young bonds salesman who meets the mysterious Jay Gatsby in the summer of 1922. Nick soon becomes entangled in the romantic pursuits of Gatsby, who he learns has come to West Egg in order to woo back his former love (and Nick's cousin), Daisy Buchanan, with lavish parties and an alluring, sumptuous lifestyle. Although Gatsby initially succeeds in attracting Daisy to him, he is ultimately abandoned by the fickle woman after a tragic car accident claims the life of Daisy's husband's mistress. Gatsby dies shortly thereafter... alone, despite his massive fortune. 

The Cossacks, by Leo Tolstoy, explores the pursuits of Olyenin, a Russian aristocrat who has grown tired of his empty, affluent life and who seeks out meaning as a junior officer in the Russian military. After being stationed in the Caucasus, home of the Cossacks, Olyenin finds himself falling in love with a young woman, Maryanka. After a tragic battle against a band of marauders in which Maryanka's fiancé is killed, Maryanka rejects Olyenin, sending him far away from the small village. 

As you can probably already see, there are many similarities between the protagonists in these two novels. Both Gatsby and Olyenin are incredibly wealthy individuals who find that their finances are not enough to provide them with a satisfying life. Both seek meaning in something outside themselves, and both find that "meaning" in the form of a woman.

Gatsby uses his money to throw ridiculous parties in hopes that Daisy will one day show up there; he is driven to accrue wealth due to the fact that he considered himself an unsuitable match for her (at least financially and socially) when they first met. Gatsby wants to win Daisy's love through his wealth.

Olyenin, on the other hand, wants to win Maryanka's love despite his wealth. Olyenin knows that the two are a poor social fit due to the vast disparity between their customs and lifestyles; Olyenin was born in the high society of Moscow, while Maryanka hails from a relatively primitive village. Reasonably speaking, there's not much of a compromise in store for these two. Olyenin knows that he can't bring Maryanka back to Moscow, but also can't envision living in a remote area of the Caucasus. Maryanka grows to understand this truth as well, which is what ultimately leads her to decline his advances. 

Another common element to these characters would be the unavailability of the women they pursue. Daisy is already married to a brutish fellow, Tom Buchanan, and although she may be emotionally ready to be swept off into Gatsby's fantasy land, she is too fearful of instability to take the measures necessary to permanently separate herself from her husband. When Maryanaka and Olyenin meet, Maryanka has long been "spoken for" by the local hero, Lukashka; Olyenin's willingness to commit to Maryanka is really only solidified after Lukasha formally proposes to her. This sentiment is at odds with Olyenin's eschewing of the adulterous habits of the other Russian officers. 

Ultimately, both protagonists wind up alone and with all fantasies of their love affairs being squashed by the women who own their hearts. For these two, it seems that it is not only wealth, but also romance that leads to tremendous disappointment...

What charity was Andrew Carnegie involved in?

Andrew Carnegie, the richest person in the world during 1901, was known for his philanthropy as he supported many charities through financial contributions. Andrew Carnegie believed that wealthy people ought to give their money back to society.  This is known as the "Gospel of Wealth."

Although Carnegie was known to have given various sums of money to charitable causes prior to 1901, after his retirement in 1901 at the age of 66 his charitable contributions...

Andrew Carnegie, the richest person in the world during 1901, was known for his philanthropy as he supported many charities through financial contributions. Andrew Carnegie believed that wealthy people ought to give their money back to society.  This is known as the "Gospel of Wealth."

Although Carnegie was known to have given various sums of money to charitable causes prior to 1901, after his retirement in 1901 at the age of 66 his charitable contributions became much more numerous.  Perhaps his most notable charitable cause was his founding of the Carnegie Institution in 1902. During this time, Carnegie made a ten million dollar donation to fund research that forwarded science as well as created a pension for teachers.  

Throughout his life, Carnegie was an avid reader, and therefore it makes sense that Carnegie made numerous charitable contributions to reading and education.  Carnegie is known to have donated to the worthy cause of building over 2,000 public libraries.  He also founded the Carnegie Corporation to aid colleges and other educational institutions.  

Another belief of Carnegie's was his commitment to advancing world peace initiatives.  Carnegie created the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. By 1911, showing his true belief in the "Gospel of Wealth", Carnegie had parted with 90 percent of his fortune as he donated all of this wealth to charity.   

Is Mr. Cunningham a protagonist or an antagonist in Harperr Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird?

A protagonist is defined as a central character in a story who grows and changes as a result of resolving the conflict. Since a protagonist can only be a central character, we know Mr. Cunningham in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird can never be considered a protagonist.

In contrast, an antagonist is any character or group of characters that opposes the protagonist and fights to prevent him or her from fulfilling goals. Based on that definition, we could make a case that Mr. Cunningham is an antagonist.

We most clearly see Mr. Cunningham as an antagonist when he faces Atticus as leader of the lynch mob, attempting to fulfill what the mob sees as justice by taking Tom Robinson's life before he can stand trial. We know Mr. Cunningham and his clan oppose Atticus because Atticus sees Robinson's innocence and is bent on doing his utmost to defend him in trial, whereas Mr. Cunningham and his family see Robinson as guilty due to the color of his skin. We see Mr. Cunningham oppose Atticus when he arrives at the jail with his clan and says to Atticus, "He in there, Mr. Finch?" Another member of the group says, "You know what we want.... Get aside from the door, Mr. Finch" (Ch. 16).

Though the scene turns out all right because Scout brings Mr. Cunningham to his senses by reminding him of his humanity and of how much he values Atticus, Mr. Cunningham and his family members oppose the protagonists in this scene, and so are (at least temporarily) antagonists.

It's important to note, however, that in general To Kill a Mockingbird emphasizes how difficult it is to place labels on anybody—including the designation "antagonist." There are few irredeemable characters in the story. The novel forces readers to confront the idea that even Mr. Cunningham and his family, who are prepared under these circumstances to commit murder in cold blood, are human beings capable of honor and compassion. Despite his poverty, Mr. Cunningham works hard to repay his debts; he brings Atticus produce from his farm in order to repay him for his legal help, and his son Walter is careful never to accept money from anyone if he thinks he might not be able to pay it back (as evidenced by his refusal of Miss Caroline's offer of lunch money). Similarly, a Cunningham is the only juror to consider acquittal after hearing Tom Robinson's testimony—he's the one who keeps the jury out so long.

In short, though we can argue that Mr. Cunningham is sometimes an antagonist, it's important to recognize that he, like many of the characters in To Kill a Mockingbird, has both good and bad qualities; sometimes he fights against the protagonists, but sometimes he fights for them.

How do you create games for Android?

To create Android applications, which include games, it is important to have some computer programming knowledge. The best place to start for beginners is learning Java or Action script. However, computer programming languages are not the only skills required in successful game development. Scripting and graphic design are also necessary skills for successful application development in Android and all other platforms.

Free softwares are available for Android games development. Eclipse is one of the free...

To create Android applications, which include games, it is important to have some computer programming knowledge. The best place to start for beginners is learning Java or Action script. However, computer programming languages are not the only skills required in successful game development. Scripting and graphic design are also necessary skills for successful application development in Android and all other platforms.

Free softwares are available for Android games development. Eclipse is one of the free popular integrated development environments (IDE). The IDE comes prepackaged with the Java software development kit (SDK), which is extended by installing the Eclipse Android Development Tools (ADT). Using the ADT, developers can create Android games by coding the game’s actions and attaching the required graphics. The final project is saved with a .apk file extension, which is compatible with the Android framework. Note: (This is what I have used as a developer. The Eclipse IDE was replaced by Android Studio, which does the same thing).

There are softwares (Gamesalad and Appsgeyser among others) that provide drag and drop (no coding required) capabilities for Android development. However, their capabilities are limited and cannot measure up to hard-coded apps and games.

In the novel Speak, how does Melinda change as a student?

Although Melinda was once a good student, her schooling takes a serious hit after the trauma of being raped at the house party over the summer. In her freshman year, Melinda does not study, participate, or put in any effort to her academics. Simply put, she does not have the emotional energy to do so. 

Rather than acting concerned about her obvious shift in personality (from outgoing and positive to reclusive and moody), Melinda's parents spend a great deal of their time obsessing about her grades and threatening, begging, and bargaining with her to put more effort into her schoolwork. 

Nevertheless, about halfway through the novel, Melinda's grades are still horrible: a "D, C, B-, D, C-, C, A," as Ms. Connors points out to her in their meeting, with a GPA of 1.7. Unfortunately, much like Melinda's parents, Ms. Connors fails to see that Melinda is truly suffering and is only interested in improving her grades so that she may draft Melinda to the school's basketball team (another activity Melinda has no interest in).

Ultimately, the only class that truly engages Melinda is Mr. Freeman's art class (which is also the only class she is doing well in). Through her artwork, Melinda finds a way to express her pain and to finally face what happened to her. 

Why does Mercutio choose to fight Tybalt when Romeo backs down?

I'd like to start this answer by reminding readers that Mercutio is just about as hot tempered as Tybalt.  Tybalt always gets the blame for having a quick temper, but Mercutio is just as bad.  Benvolio even states the fact in Act 3, Scene 1. 

"An I were so apt to quarrel as thou art, any manshould buy the fee-simple of my life for an hour and a quarter."

That is the same scene...

I'd like to start this answer by reminding readers that Mercutio is just about as hot tempered as Tybalt.  Tybalt always gets the blame for having a quick temper, but Mercutio is just as bad.  Benvolio even states the fact in Act 3, Scene 1. 

"An I were so apt to quarrel as thou art, any man
should buy the fee-simple of my life for an hour and a quarter."

That is the same scene where Mercutio and Tybalt fight each other too.

I believe that Mercutio chooses to fight Tybalt for a few reasons.  First, the day is hot.  Benvolio states the fact at the very beginning of the scene, and he says that the hot weather always puts people in hot tempered moods.  Mercutio likes fighting in the first place, and the weather is making him crankier.  

Second, Mercutio is still upset that Tybalt sent a formal challenge to Romeo.  Mercutio knows that Tybalt is dangerous, and as Romeo's friend, Mercutio feels the need to protect his friend.  

Third, when Romeo finally shows up, Romeo essentially just stands there and takes insult after insult from Tybalt.  Mercutio is angered by the insults and angered that Romeo isn't willing to do anything about it.  Mercutio eventually gets to the point where he can't idly stand by and watch anymore.  He feels compelled to jump into the fray and fight Tybalt.  Unfortunately Mercutio's actions get himself killed.  

What is the role of cultural nationalism in the emerging era of globalization?

Cultural nationalism can be defined as nationalism that is based around the idea of a cultural community, not around the idea of creating a nation-state for the people of a given nation.  In other words, we could argue that ISIS is an example of political nationalism because it is ostensibly trying to make a state that will include all Muslims.  Meanwhile, we could say that the Muslim Brotherhood is more of an example of cultural...

Cultural nationalism can be defined as nationalism that is based around the idea of a cultural community, not around the idea of creating a nation-state for the people of a given nation.  In other words, we could argue that ISIS is an example of political nationalism because it is ostensibly trying to make a state that will include all Muslims.  Meanwhile, we could say that the Muslim Brotherhood is more of an example of cultural nationalism since it is trying to revive what it sees as a true Muslim community within a state that already exists.

I would say that one of the main roles of cultural nationalism in our world today is to resist globalization.  Cultural nationalism often works hand in hand with political nationalism to try to fight back against globalization.  We can see this in such phenomena as the recent Brexit vote and in the rise of nationalist thinking in the US and in various European countries.  When people engage in cultural nationalism, they often will at least support political nationalism.  If they feel that their nation is distinct and possibly even superior, they will often want to make sure that it does not have to share its sovereignty in any way.  Therefore, cultural nationalism tends to resist current trends towards more globalization.

The other major role of cultural nationalism is to allow people to feel distinct in some ways while still allowing them to be part of a globalized world.  As our world becomes more globalized, it is easy for us to feel that we are no longer distinct from the other nations of the world.  This can lead to a loss of our identity.  Cultural nationalism can help to prevent this loss.  Think of an American today who mainly buys imported products and who might even work for a foreign-owned company.  That person is part of a globalized economy, but they can help to retain their American identity by, for example, embracing American football and NASCAR racing and paying no attention to soccer.  In this and many other ways, they can retain their cultural identity even as their economy (and to some extent their government) becomes more closely connected to the rest of the world.

These are, in my view, the two main roles of cultural nationalism in the current era of globalization.

What are five cause and effect relationships in the book Gathering Blue?

In Gathering Blue, many effects that at first seem to have one cause end up having a completely different cause. For example, the novel opens with Kira's mother's death after a "brief and unexpected sickness," leading readers to believe her death was unavoidable. Later, when Kira begins to piece together how the Council of Guardians is gathering young artists "for their own needs," she suspects her mother may have been poisoned by the guardians.

...

In Gathering Blue, many effects that at first seem to have one cause end up having a completely different cause. For example, the novel opens with Kira's mother's death after a "brief and unexpected sickness," leading readers to believe her death was unavoidable. Later, when Kira begins to piece together how the Council of Guardians is gathering young artists "for their own needs," she suspects her mother may have been poisoned by the guardians.

Likewise, Kira has always been told that her father was killed by beasts on a hunt. Her mother told her that, and the guardian Jamison says he saw it happen. In chapter 22, we learn that Jamison attacked Christopher so he (Jamison) could be appointed to the Council instead of Christopher.

It is believed that Jo's father stabbed himself through the heart after his wife died. Kira finds it hard to believe a man would commit suicide and leave a "tyke" behind. Later, Kira realizes that all three artists have become orphans. The cause of Jo's mother's death was probably poisoning from the guardians, and they probably murdered Jo's father when no one was there to see it—when he was watching over his wife's dead body at the Field.

The scars on Vandara's face and neck are initially said to have been caused by an attack from beasts. Vandara presents herself as a brave woman who lived through a harrowing attack from wild animals. Christopher eventually explains that the cause of Vandara's scars was slipping on wet rocks when her child grabbed her skirt. 

Annabella's death is another example of an effect being attributed to a false cause. Jamison tells Kira that Annabella died in her sleep. Kira realizes it is odd that anyone would find Annabella so quickly since she lives alone in the woods. Readers can infer that Annabella was killed by the guardians—and probably Jamison specifically—for telling Kira that beasts did not exist. Jamison reveals "astonishment and anger" when Kira tells him of Annabella's remark. He then says, "It's dangerous for her to speak that way." He reminds Kira that he saw her father taken by beasts. Later, readers know that is untrue. Thus, readers may infer that Jamison was behind Annabella's death, but that Kira inadvertently caused it by telling Jamison what Annabella said about beasts. 

Lowry maintains interest and suspense in the novel by planting doubts about the supposed causes of certain events. She then resolves those doubts at the end of the book, revealing the true causes of those effects.

In The Crucible, who were the Wabanakis? What did the Puritans think of them?

The Wabanakis were a Native American tribe with whom the English colonists were engaged in war as of August, 1668, some four years before the Salem Witch Trials began.  The colonists had suffered tremendous losses as a result of this war.  In Maine, especially, the colonist population had been so decimated that towns were abandoned and left to the Indian warriors to people.  As a result of all this, the relationship between the Puritans and...

The Wabanakis were a Native American tribe with whom the English colonists were engaged in war as of August, 1668, some four years before the Salem Witch Trials began.  The colonists had suffered tremendous losses as a result of this war.  In Maine, especially, the colonist population had been so decimated that towns were abandoned and left to the Indian warriors to people.  As a result of all this, the relationship between the Puritans and Wabanaki Indians was pretty bad.

The Puritans tended to associate natives with the Devil.  Their skin color, their religion, and their tactics in war made them suspect.  To the colonists, the Indians were heathens who attacked them mercilessly, killing their men and often their wives and children.  Just as the Puritans saw themselves as victims of visible attacks by the Indians, they felt themselves to be constantly under attack by the Devil and his witches as well, and so it didn't take long for the colonists to associate Indians with witches.  

Which of the following solids is the best insulator: magnesium, iron, gold, or magnesium fluoride?

To answer this question, we need to compare the conductivity of each material. It's not clear whether you meant thermal or electrical conductivity, but the two are strongly correlated and the answer is the same either way: Magnesium fluoride.Electrical conductivity of magnesium fluoride is negligible in solid state, while for gold it is` 4.10*10^7 S/m` , for iron it is `1.00*10^7 S/m` , and for pure magnesium it is `2.24*10^7 S/m` . So magnesium...

To answer this question, we need to compare the conductivity of each material.

It's not clear whether you meant thermal or electrical conductivity, but the two are strongly correlated and the answer is the same either way: Magnesium fluoride.

Electrical conductivity of magnesium fluoride is negligible in solid state, while for gold it is` 4.10*10^7 S/m` , for iron it is `1.00*10^7 S/m` , and for pure magnesium it is `2.24*10^7 S/m` . So magnesium fluoride is the best electrical insulator by far.

As for thermal conductivity, magnesium fluoride is `14.5 W/(mK)` , while for gold it is `315 W/(mK)` , iron `73 W/(mK)` , and for pure magnesium it is `159 W/(mK)` . Magnesium fluoride is also the best thermal insulator.

In Shakespeare's Hamlet, did Hamlet's uncle really kill the king? How do you know? Is there evidence for this?

The short answer is yes, Hamlet's uncle really did murder Hamlet's father. The evidence for this is in Act 1, Scene 5.

In this scene, Hamlet's father appears as a ghost to his son. When he speaks to Hamlet, the king pitifully admits that he's doomed, for a time, to walk the earth at night and to suffer the fires of purgatory in the day until his "foul crimes" are "burnt and purged away." He...

The short answer is yes, Hamlet's uncle really did murder Hamlet's father. The evidence for this is in Act 1, Scene 5.

In this scene, Hamlet's father appears as a ghost to his son. When he speaks to Hamlet, the king pitifully admits that he's doomed, for a time, to walk the earth at night and to suffer the fires of purgatory in the day until his "foul crimes" are "burnt and purged away." He then begs Hamlet to avenge his death and proceeds to reveal that he didn't really die from a snake bite, as claimed. In fact, he says that "the whole ear of Denmark / Is by a forgèd process of my death / Rankly abused." Basically, the whole country's been deceived into believing a lie, and the king thinks that the lie is a horrible trick to play on an unsuspecting populace. The words that proclaim the guilt of Hamlet's uncle are below:

Ghost: ...But know, thou noble youth,

The serpent that did sting thy father’s life

Now wears his crown.

Hamlet: O my prophetic soul! My uncle?

Ghost: Ay, that incestuous, that adulterate beast,

With witchcraft of his wit, with traitorous gifts—

O wicked wit and gifts, that have the power

So to seduce!—won to his shameful lust

The will of my most seeming-virtuous queen.

The king relates how he really died: his brother had poured henbane poison into his ear while he (the king) was sleeping in his orchard. The king tells Hamlet that the henbane caused his whole body to be crusted over with a "vile and loathsome" rash, and he reports that he died without receiving absolution for his sins ( "Unhouseled, disappointed, unaneled. / No reckoning made, but sent to my account / With all my imperfections on my head").

Before he leaves, the king begs Hamlet to make sure that "the royal bed of Denmark" doesn't become a "couch for luxury and damnèd incest." As for the queen, the king asks Hamlet to leave her alone; he tells Hamlet that his only aim should be to deal with his uncle. So, there's evidence (from the ghost's testimony) to substantiate the guilt of Hamlet's uncle, but there's no actual murder scene to show that Hamlet's uncle murdered the king.

Hope this helps!

In The Help, what are some of the issues raised by the fact that a white woman is the author and a contributor to a book about the experiences of...

The Helpis set in the early 1960s in Jackson, Mississippi. The Jim Crow laws are still in effect in the Deep South. Black and white people aren’t supposed to socialize or fraternize with one another. Many services are still kept separate. Black people have their own library and doctors. Skeeter, Aibileen, and Minny are risking a lot when Skeeter meets them at Aibileen’s house at night to write down their stories. All of them...

The Help is set in the early 1960s in Jackson, Mississippi. The Jim Crow laws are still in effect in the Deep South. Black and white people aren’t supposed to socialize or fraternize with one another. Many services are still kept separate. Black people have their own library and doctors. Skeeter, Aibileen, and Minny are risking a lot when Skeeter meets them at Aibileen’s house at night to write down their stories. All of them could get into trouble with the authorities, especially the black women. Trust is also an issue. Can the black maids trust Skeeter to report the truth as they tell it to her? Or will she feel free to spin their tales in a way that will always make the white employers look good?

The black maids eventually realize Skeeter is not like the other women in the Jackson Junior League. She is truly interested in reporting fairly on the lifestyle arrangement they have all been sharing together, although it’s one they never talk about. She is giving them an outlet to let the truth come out.

In "Everyday Use," how has Dee changed when she arrives to see her family?

When Dee returns home, she actually seems to be pleased by much of what she finds: a cow, a house quite similar to the old one (that she, apparently, hated passionately), old hand-made family artifacts, etc.  This is a shock to Mama Johnson, the narrator, because of how embarrassed Dee used to be about her home and her family.  Before Dee arrives, Mama says, "No doubt when Dee sees [the house] she will want to...

When Dee returns home, she actually seems to be pleased by much of what she finds: a cow, a house quite similar to the old one (that she, apparently, hated passionately), old hand-made family artifacts, etc.  This is a shock to Mama Johnson, the narrator, because of how embarrassed Dee used to be about her home and her family.  Before Dee arrives, Mama says, "No doubt when Dee sees [the house] she will want to tear it down. She wrote me once that no matter where we 'choose' to live, she will manage to come see us. But she will never bring her friends."  On the contrary, when Dee returns this time, she takes tons of pictures of the house, and she brings a friend, too, or a boyfriend, or a husband -- Mama is never sure.  And Dee seems newy enthusiastic about the family's things, asking if she can take several items home with her so that she can do "something artistic" with them.  She even wants the old family quilts, quilts that she once rejected when she went away to school.  Therefore, Dee's embarrassment about her home and upbringing have given way to something like pride when she returns home in the story.

In Maniac Magee by Jerry Spinelli, what kind of career does Grayson have in the Minor Leagues? How does Grayson appear different when he tells...

Grayson had experienced a fairly long career as a Minor League Baseball player.  He had played as a pitcher on several different baseball teams.  He had once had a chance to impress a scout for a team that was "one short step from the Majors" (Maniac Magee, Chapter 25).  Instead of impressing the scout, Grayson had pitched a horrible game.  His chances of someday playing Major League Baseball were over.  He continued to...

Grayson had experienced a fairly long career as a Minor League Baseball player.  He had played as a pitcher on several different baseball teams.  He had once had a chance to impress a scout for a team that was "one short step from the Majors" (Maniac Magee, Chapter 25).  Instead of impressing the scout, Grayson had pitched a horrible game.  His chances of someday playing Major League Baseball were over.  He continued to play on Minor League teams until he was about forty.  His last team was in Mexico.  The years had left him unable to play with the necessary skill.  He retired from baseball, and became a janitor.

When Grayson told Maniac Magee that he had been a pitcher in his younger years, the boy was shocked.  Maniac had never expected Grayson to reveal such a secret.  Grayson was not a "rickety, whiskered worm chow" (Chapter 25).  Instead, he had been a baseball pitcher for many years.  Maniac was in awe.  He begged Grayson to tell stories from his baseball days.

Describe the early life of Gulliver.

As the third of five sons, Gulliver must forge his own path in the world.  His father helps him to get a good education so that he can become a doctor.  Gulliver apprentices for some four years under a Mr. James Bates, and he uses any extra money his father sends him to learn about navigation and math (both of which are useful to him later when he begins to travel abroad).  He studied these subjects for another two and a half years because he knows that he wants to go to sea, and when he returns to London, Master Bates (ha!) recommends that he serve as the doctor on a voyage.  He does so, returns to London, and attempts to open and run his own practice.  He gets married at the advice of his colleagues, but after Bates dies, Gulliver's practice goes under.  He goes to sea two more times, then tries to open another practice, but it, too, fails.  Finally, he goes back to sea voyages, and the story begins.

How can the statement "A diseased mind is even more harmful that the disease itself" be justified with reference to O. Henry's "The Last Leaf"?

The idea that a "diseased mind" can be more dangerous than the actual disease is exemplified in Johnsy's defeatist attitude that the doctor knows will prevent her from recovering from pneumonia.

In the exposition of "The Last Leaf," Johnsy, Sue's friend, has succumbed to pneumonia because she is from California and not acclimated to New York winters. After the busy doctor makes his house call and examines Johnsy, he tells Sue the young woman has

one chance in—let us say, ten. . . And that chance is for her to want to live. . . Your little lady has made up her mind that she's not going to get well.

The doctor then asks Sue if Johnsy has a significant other she loves, but Sue replies, "there is nothing of the kind." The doctor says that when people start to think of dying, he subtracts "50 per cent." He promises to do all he can with medicine, and departs. Sue goes into the room where Johnsy lies and tries to finish her sketching. Then, she hears Johnsy counting. Johnsy tells Sue that she has been counting the ivy leaves on the brick wall outside her window as they fall, and there are only five left. "When the last one goes, I must go, too."

Sue tries to cajole Johnsy out of such thoughts, but Johnsy insists that she must die when the last leaf falls from the vine. So, Sue tells her friend to try to sleep while she goes downstairs to get Mr. Behrman to model for her.

Once there, Sue informs Mr. Behrman of Johnsy's condition and her determination to die when the last leaf falls from the vine. The little curmudgeon becomes irate when he hears what he calls "foolishness," asking Sue,

Vy do you allow dot silly pusiness to come in der brain of her? Ach, dot poor leetle Miss Yonsy.

Sue explains that Johnsy is weak and the fever leaves her mind weak and "full of strange fancies." Despite his grumbling, Mr. Behrman accompanies Sue upstairs. There they see Johnsy sleeping and observe the ivy vine with fear because more leaves have fallen from it.

The next day, Johnsy asks Sue to roll up the shade. Fearfully, Sue obeys; against the brick wall, there is yet one leaf on the vine. Sue begs Johnsy to think of her and live, but Johnsy is "merciless." The next day, however, the ivy leaf somehow has seemed to remain on the vine.

"I've been a bad girl, Sudie," concludes Johnsy, "Something has made that last leaf stay there to show me how wicked I was. It is a sin to want to die. You may bring me a little broth now and some port in it, and. . . I will sit up and watch you cook."

After Sue summons the doctor again, he gives Johnsy "even chances" to become well. He also sadly informs Sue that Mr. Behrman has died of pneumonia after being discovered by the janitor in a state of dampness. Later, Sue learns Behrman went out after posing for her and painted a leaf on the bricks so Johnsy would think it survived the storm and she should get well. Behrman's "masterpiece" gave Johnsy the will to live so that her mind could then triumph over her body's illness.

Shakespeare's Hamlet deals a lot with plotting and scheming. Who sets these plans in motion and to what ends?

Claudius is the plotter and schemer par excellence. He plots and schemes to become king by murdering his brother. Then he manages to marry his brother's widow and to get elected king, thereby cheating young Hamlet out of his rightful inheritance of the crown. When Hamlet returns from Wittenberg, Claudius keeps him a virtual prisoner at Elsinore because he naturally suspects that his nephew might be thinking of plotting to overthrow him. Hamlet is...

Claudius is the plotter and schemer par excellence. He plots and schemes to become king by murdering his brother. Then he manages to marry his brother's widow and to get elected king, thereby cheating young Hamlet out of his rightful inheritance of the crown. When Hamlet returns from Wittenberg, Claudius keeps him a virtual prisoner at Elsinore because he naturally suspects that his nephew might be thinking of plotting to overthrow him. Hamlet is young, melancholy, solitary, introspective. Claudius misinterprets Hamlet's moodiness as dangerous brooding. The King's fears for his safety motivate him to spy on Hamlet by every possible means. He uses Polonius, Ophelia, Gertrude, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern. and no doubt countless courtiers and members of the household staff to try to find out what Hamlet is thinking and planning. Hamlet decides to pretend to be crazy, mainly in order to keep the King from guessing what he knows and what he is planning. So it is Claudius who sets the plans in motion for the purpose of protecting his life and his position as King. It takes Hamlet a long time to grow up, so to speak, and to gather the resolution to take the action he is obliged to take, which is to kill his villainous uncle. Hamlet's procrastination causes tragedy for many besides himself. By the end of the play all the principals are dead except for Horatio.

In "The Possibility of Evil" by Shirley Jackson, is Miss Strangeworth's name ironic?

I don't think Miss Strangeworth's name is intended to be ironic. Rather, it seems intended to characterize her as a strangewoman who has a lot of dignity and high moral standards. I can't help feeling that the author's choice of the name was a mistake. For one thing, it doesn't sound like anybody's real name, does it? Besides that, it forewarns the reader that this old lady is a little bit crazy, doesn't it?...

I don't think Miss Strangeworth's name is intended to be ironic. Rather, it seems intended to characterize her as a strange woman who has a lot of dignity and high moral standards. I can't help feeling that the author's choice of the name was a mistake. For one thing, it doesn't sound like anybody's real name, does it? Besides that, it forewarns the reader that this old lady is a little bit crazy, doesn't it? The reader shouldn't be forewarned but surprised when the nice little old lady sits down and begins writing her poison-pen letters. In my humble opinion, a simple name would have been better because it would not have made Miss Strangeworth stand out among the other townspeople.

William Faulkner chose the fairly simple name of Emily Grierson for the main character in his short story "A Rose for Emily" because he didn't want to dilute the shock that comes at the end when the reader, along with the townspeople, learns that this apparently normal and conservative old woman has been doing something really insane.

In Duong Thu Huong's Novel Without a Name, what happens to the three friends Luong, Quan, and Bien and why? How does the fate of these...

In Novel Without a Name, author Duong Thu Huong characterizes Quan, Bien, and Luong as having been friends since childhood and all joining the war together, feeling proud to fight for the sake of the Communist Party. Yet, despite their unity as childhood friends who share the same Communist ideological beliefs, they have very separate experiences during the war though all three can't bear to let go of their hopes for glory. Duong uses the characters' separate experiences and hopes for glory to show the devastation and futility of the war.

Luong develops into the classic Communist soldier--all he says and does is for the sake of the Party. Due to his continued devotion to the party, Luong was quickly moved up the ranks to the position of deputy to Quan's commander. Similarly, Quan rises to chief and remains dedicated to the war effort throughout the book even though he becomes disillusioned with the war. Bien suffers the worse fate of them all. Plagued with post-traumatic stress disorder, he becomes imprisoned as a lunatic.

Most of the story concerns Quan's journey to free Bien upon Luong's orders. In part, Luong sends Quan to free Bien out of friendship yet out of the desire to do what is best for the war effort. He wants Quan to take time away from the war because he knows the war will continue for many years to come, and the war effort needs Quan's help. Though Luong's orders are a sign he still values his childhood friendship with Quan and Bien, Quan cannot help but recognize and feel the great chasm that has opened between them, since the war has developed them into completely different people.  Quan comments on the chasm between them when he asks Luong if the war will continue for a long time and Luong gives no answer; Luong is not permitted to comment on the predictions of the war effort as a commanding officer:

Time had slipped between us; we were no longer little boys, naked and equal. That time had passed, the time of diving headlong into rivers at dusk, for shouting and swimming, for splashing little girls. (p. 33)

Despite the differences in how the three characters progress, they continue to share two things in common. First, they continue to hold on to the belief that they are fighting in the war for the sake of glory. Even Bien, once released, refuses to accept a discharge from Quan because Bien still holds onto the belief that he will return to their village after the war having earned honor. Quan comments about how he can relate to Bien's feelings in the following:

Bien would rather hide in some godforsaken hole, in this immense battlefield until V-day--until he could march with the rest of us under the triumphal arch. (p. 109)

The second thing they share in common is that they all lose faith in the vision of a Marxist revolution, especially due to the horrors they face as a result of the war.

As a severe critic of the Vietnam War, Duong uses her novel and the characters in it to develop a central theme that paints the war as destructive and absolutely pointless. The chasms created between the characters and their loss in faith in the war's cause helps underscore the central theme concerning the destructiveness and superfluousness of the war. Their inability to let go of the hope for glory further underscores the notion that the war was begun based on superficial reasons.

Which persuasive devices does the inspector use in his final speech?

As the inspector is leaving the Birlings' house, he says that although Eva Smith is dead, "there are millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us, with their lives, with hopes and fears." He reminds the family that members of society are responsible for each other. The persuasive device that the inspector is using is pathos, or appealing to the emotions of the Birling family, to convince them that what...

As the inspector is leaving the Birlings' house, he says that although Eva Smith is dead, "there are millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us, with their lives, with hopes and fears." He reminds the family that members of society are responsible for each other. The persuasive device that the inspector is using is pathos, or appealing to the emotions of the Birling family, to convince them that what they all did to Eva Smith is wrong and that they have a responsibility for people in the working class. He also says that if people don't learn that lesson, they will eventually have to learn it "in fire and blood and anguish." Again using pathos, he reminds the audience of the anguish that they will continue to cause if they don't amend their ways. To reinforce his point, he also uses the device of repetition, as he repeats the words "millions" and "with." His repetition of these words reinforces the idea that the society is made up of countless people like Eva Smith, who upper class people like the Birlings are taking advantage of.

How is the theme of morality present in A Tale of Two Cities?

In A Tale of Two Cities, Dickens presents three very distinct groups of characters: the good, the bad, and the comic. Each is a caricature, rather than real-life characters. As far as the first two groups, the good are almost impossibly good, while the bad are almost impossibly bad.

The bad, such as Madame Defarge, have no evident redeeming qualities. Her heart is black with hate and revenge, due to the murder of her...

In A Tale of Two Cities, Dickens presents three very distinct groups of characters: the good, the bad, and the comic. Each is a caricature, rather than real-life characters. As far as the first two groups, the good are almost impossibly good, while the bad are almost impossibly bad.

The bad, such as Madame Defarge, have no evident redeeming qualities. Her heart is black with hate and revenge, due to the murder of her family. She has given herself completely to the destruction of the nobility, personified by Charles Darnay and his family, since it was Charles’s father and uncle who caused her family members’ death. She shows no mercy to anyone. She joins in the killing spree after the Revolution begins. The notions of “freedom, equality, and fraternity” have no real meaning for her. Her only motto is hate and kill. She has become a caricature of the immoral being. She remains in this static character throughout the story.

Doctor Manette and Lucie, as well as Charles, are seemingly without major flaws. They love each other and do not seem to be able to have the kind of hate that Madame Defarge has. While Doctor Manette had felt this hate while confined in the Bastille, he has renounced it. He lives only to love Lucie and Charles. This group represents the moral individual, who return hate with love.

It is Sydney Carton that is the most realistic character, showing a moral battle in his heart throughout the novel. At the beginning, he is lazy and dissipated, of very little worth to anyone. He is not evil, however, just deeply flawed. Once he falls in love with Lucie, even if it is unrequited, he begins to turn his life around to a limited extent. He promises to do anything to save her or anyone she loves. He chooses in the end to sacrifice himself, which can be described as the highest moral good that anyone can do. It is through Sydney Carton that the theme of morality comes forth as a living struggle. 

Oedipus Rex is considered the most perfect of Greek tragedies and Sophocles the definitive Greek tragic playwright. How could I prove this is a...

First, there is an issue here with the passive voice. While you might claim that certain people have considered Oedipus Rex the most perfect of Greek tragedies and Sophocles the definitive Greek playwright, you could not prove that everyone who has ever written about the topic considers this to be the case, as it is not true. As is clearly shown by the evidence of Aristophanes' Frogs, opinions about the relative merits of different playwrights differed even in antiquity, and the Alexandrian canon includes three tragic playwrights.

The argument you can make is that Aristotle, in his Poetics, frequently mentions Oedipus Rex as a positive example, but he also mentions other tragedies, as in the statement: 

Now, the best tragedies are founded on the story of a few houses, on the fortunes of Alcmaeon, Oedipus, Orestes, Meleager, Thyestes, Telephus, and those others who have done or suffered something terrible.

You can certainly argue that Oedipus Rex has all the elements of a great tragedy outlined by Aristotle, including a noble hero who undergoes a reversal of fortune, an action of a certain magnitude, and the ability to evoke fear and pity. Thus it is easy to show that Oedipus Rex contains all the elements Aristotle considers essential to a great tragedy. However, not only did Sophocles himself write other plays containing these elements, but so did other playwrights. Thus "most perfect" would probably be an overstatement.

Oedipus Rex was considered a very important example of Greek drama in the Renaissance, but neoclassical critics felt that its construction was flawed. Among speakers of English, Richard Claverhouse Jebb, a nineteenth-century classicist was important in elevating the reputation of Sophocles in general and Oedipus Rex in particular. 

What's the theme of "The Gift of the Magi" by O. Henri?

"The Gift of the Magi" is a Christmas story evidently intended to be published in the Christmas issue of a New York newspaper. As such, the story has a Christmas theme related to the spirit of giving. The theme hearkens back to one of the stories in the New Testament which is to be found in the King James Version of the Bible in Mark 12:41-44.

41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and...

"The Gift of the Magi" is a Christmas story evidently intended to be published in the Christmas issue of a New York newspaper. As such, the story has a Christmas theme related to the spirit of giving. The theme hearkens back to one of the stories in the New Testament which is to be found in the King James Version of the Bible in Mark 12:41-44.

41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.

42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.

43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:

44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

The story of "The Widow's Two Mites" is also told in Luke 21:1-4.

In other words, it is the spirit behind the gift and not the gift itself that is important. Della and Jim Young illustrate this moral when they express their love for each other by giving everything they have at Christmas time. Della sacrifices her long, beautiful hair, and Jim sells his treasured pocket-watch in order to get enough money to buy each other Christmas presents. It is ironic that Jim no longer has a watch for the platinum fob Della gives him and Della no longer has the long hair to be held in place by the ornate tortoise-shell combs he buys for her. But what is important is that they love each other, and their gifts really only serve as symbols and proofs of their love, which is far more precious than any material objects.

In Siddhartha, what is a scene in which Hesse utilizes Buddhism? How is this scene used to direct the novel?

The novel's opening scene depicts Siddhartha's dukkha, one of the most essential components of the Buddhist religion.  

In Buddhism, "dukkha" takes place when a person has become aware of the transitory nature of existence. It dawns when a person realizes that what they thought was meaningful and lasting is actually illusory. The individual recognizes their attachment to reality is not real because reality, itself, is false. This awareness compels a person to change their view...

The novel's opening scene depicts Siddhartha's dukkha, one of the most essential components of the Buddhist religion.  

In Buddhism, "dukkha" takes place when a person has become aware of the transitory nature of existence. It dawns when a person realizes that what they thought was meaningful and lasting is actually illusory. The individual recognizes their attachment to reality is not real because reality, itself, is false. This awareness compels a person to change their view of the world and their place in it. It is essential to Buddhism, as it triggers the need for transformation. Dukkha causes a person to believe there is something more than what is around us.

Dukkha defines the opening scene in Siddhartha. It is seen when the "handsome prince" realizes everything around him is not fulfilling. He understands there must be more than what exists in his world. He realizes the "rosy paths of the fig tree garden" will give way to time. Additionally, despite "everyone's love and joy," Siddhartha still "lacked all joy in his heart." The recitation of the "verses of the Rig-Veda, being infused into him, drop by drop from the teachings of the old Brahmans" was merely ceremonial. They lacked any real and sustainable meaning for Siddhartha. There was noticeable "discontent in himself" as Siddhartha realizes that "the love of his father and the love of his mother, and also the love of his friend, Govinda, would not bring him joy for ever and ever, would not nurse him, feed him, satisfy him." Siddhartha experiences the dukkha of being in the world. He is unsatisfied with the impermanence that surrounds him, causing him to embrace one of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism.

Siddhartha's understanding of dukkha drives the novel's opening scene. This religious conception enables us to see how Siddhartha is going to change. He fully understands the Buddhist idea that what is around us is not reality. It is simply illusion. To strive past it becomes the goal of every being.  Siddhartha displays this in the novel's opening scene and throughout the novel.

What type of characters are George Wilson and Mr. Gatz in the novel The Great Gatsby? (Stock, Dynamic..etc)

In The Great Gatsby, George Wilson is a minor character who acts as a foil--a character who has character traits that are the opposite of another character. Mr. Gatz is a flat character, a personage who has only one or two personality traits and does not change throughout the narrative.

George Wilson is a product of the wasteland of the Valley of Ashes, just as Tom Buchanan is a product of the rich world of East Egg and New York City. George is a man that Nick describes as

...a blonde, spiritless man, anemic, and faintly handsome. When he saw us … hope sprang into his light blue eyes” (Ch.2)

and he describes Tom Buchanan in a different manner:

...a sturdy, straw-haired man of thirty with a rather hard mouth and a supercilious manner. Two shining, arrogant eyes had...dominance over his face....His speaking voice, a gruff husky tenor...[has] a touch of paternal contempt in it. (Ch.1)

George loves his wife Myrtle deeply; when she is killed, he is deeply changed emotionally--"deranged by grief." In fact, George grows deeply depressed. Reacting differently, Tom is angry that someone could run Myrtle down in such a cruel manner. But, while George tries to avenge Myrtle's death, Tom easily discards the memory of Myrtle and, instead, helps Daisy escape her culpability for her crime by giving Wilson Gatsby's name so he thinks that Jay Gatsby ran over his wife. Certainly, Tom and Daisy are rightfully called "careless people" by Nick. 

As a foil to Tom Buchanan, George Wilson represents the lower classes trapped in their poverty, while Tom represents the amoral upper class, concerned only with their own pleasure.
______________________________________________________

Mr. Gatz, Jay Gatsby's father, is a flat character, a personage who remains the same throughout the narrative, but he does serve a purpose. He arrives at Gatsby's house in order to bury his son. Mr. Gatz is extremely proud of his son, Jimmy Gatz, as he calls Gatsby. He walks proudly up and down the hallways, impressed with the size and opulence of the house. He pulls out pictures, proudly displaying them, saying,

"He knew he had a big future in front of him. And ever since he made a success he was very generous with me."

Mr. Gatz also displays schedules that Jimmy wrote out years ago as a demonstration of how his son was destined to succeed. Both he and Nick attend Gatsby's funeral. There Nick looks anxiously for other cars, as does Mr. Gatz, whose appearance in the narrative reveals the falseness of Gatsby's life.

In A Christmas Carol, what is the meaning of the quote, "Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die?"

This quotation comes in the middle of a rebuke Scrooge receives from the Ghost of Christmas Present. Scrooge, moved with pity toward Tiny Tim, asks the Spirit if the child will live. The Ghost replies that within the year, Tiny Tim will die if the "shadows remain unaltered by the Future." After pronouncing that fact, the Spirit casts Scrooge's words of the previous day in his face: that if Tiny Tim is going to die,...

This quotation comes in the middle of a rebuke Scrooge receives from the Ghost of Christmas Present. Scrooge, moved with pity toward Tiny Tim, asks the Spirit if the child will live. The Ghost replies that within the year, Tiny Tim will die if the "shadows remain unaltered by the Future." After pronouncing that fact, the Spirit casts Scrooge's words of the previous day in his face: that if Tiny Tim is going to die, he should do so "and decrease the surplus population." Those are the words Scrooge used when asked to donate to the poor and destitute. Scrooge pointed out that the poor could go to debtor's prison and the workhouse. The charity men replied that some would rather die than go there, to which Scrooge replied, "If they would rather die . . . they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

The Spirit, after repeating Scrooge's words, challenges Scrooge to find out "What the surplus is, and Where it is." By this he means that Scrooge is in no position to determine what part of humanity constitutes the "surplus population." The Spirit compares Scrooge to a bug dining on a leaf and despising the other bugs who survive, though hungry, in the dust. To an omniscient being like God, all humans could appear as mere bugs. Humans, whether they are wealthy or poor, are as consequential or inconsequential as their brothers in such cosmic terms. The Spirit uses this speech to burst Scrooge's pride in his station in life and to help him realize that his wealth doesn't make him worthier than his brothers, and it certainly doesn't give him the right to determine who should live and who should die. 

The Ghost also says that Heaven may decide that Scrooge is "more worthless and less fit to live" than the surplus population Scrooge scorned. This foreshadows the next stave, where Scrooge views his own death and comes to terms with his mortality.

The Spirit's rebuke is effective. At his words, Scrooge is "overcome with penitence and grief." At this point Scrooge begins to change.

What setbacks does Helen face in the early part of her life?

Helen Keller faced many setbacks.  In the first year and a half of her life, she showed developmental progress and intelligence.  She began to speak at six months old.  She also imitated the actions of the adults around her.  A few months before Helen's second birthday, she became seriously ill.  It was uncertain whether or not her small body would be able to survive the illness.  She did live, but the sickness had taken away...

Helen Keller faced many setbacks.  In the first year and a half of her life, she showed developmental progress and intelligence.  She began to speak at six months old.  She also imitated the actions of the adults around her.  A few months before Helen's second birthday, she became seriously ill.  It was uncertain whether or not her small body would be able to survive the illness.  She did live, but the sickness had taken away her sight and hearing.  This was a setback for a young child who had been eager to communicate with others.

After Miss Sullivan arrived, Helen made rapid progress.  She learned how to communicate and to read.  She then decided that she wished to learn how to speak.  Helen worked very hard, but she was never satisfied with her level of ability in this area.  She saw this as a setback to her overall progress.

Helen dabbled in creative writing.  She came to enjoy this type of writing.  She wrote a whimsical story and was happy to present it to Mr. Anagnos.  Helen was devastated when she found out that she was being accused of plagiarism because of the content in her story.  Her story was very similar to another one.  After the ordeal, Helen became a more hesitant writer.

What is the motive of the protagonist in the book Night by Elie Wiesel?

Eliezer, the protagonist who is based on Wiesel himself, faces many struggles throughout Night.  The most obvious struggle is external: the need to survive.  However, the struggle that is first set up by Wiesel is a spiritual one (internal).  As events progress, gradually leading Eliezer from uncomfortable situations to perilous ones, the spiritual struggle does not motivate or hinder Eliezer's physical response to his external obstacles.  Each situation is physically immediate, requiring abrupt decisions...

Eliezer, the protagonist who is based on Wiesel himself, faces many struggles throughout Night.  The most obvious struggle is external: the need to survive.  However, the struggle that is first set up by Wiesel is a spiritual one (internal).  As events progress, gradually leading Eliezer from uncomfortable situations to perilous ones, the spiritual struggle does not motivate or hinder Eliezer's physical response to his external obstacles.  Each situation is physically immediate, requiring abrupt decisions that will determine whether Eliezer survives. 

Eliezer's primary motive is to survive, a universal human instinct.  His secondary motive is to stay with his father.  Both goals are difficult to achieve and it might be argued that Eliezer's secondary motive may either hinder or support the accomplishment of his primary motive. Eliezer's spiritual struggles take on an overlying, background theme throughout the novel rather than dictating Eliezer's response to physical situations. 

Which two characters are vividly described through their physical appearances in Geoffrey Chaucer's "The General Prologue"?

In many ways, Chaucer was a master of description, and he brought many of his characters to life in "The General Prologue." Chaucer described two characters who deserve special attention: the Wife of Bath and the Miller.

The Wife of Bath is one of Chaucer's most memorable characters, if only because the prologue to her tale delves into a remarkable feminist discourse, but we also get a picture of her early on in "The General...

In many ways, Chaucer was a master of description, and he brought many of his characters to life in "The General Prologue." Chaucer described two characters who deserve special attention: the Wife of Bath and the Miller.

The Wife of Bath is one of Chaucer's most memorable characters, if only because the prologue to her tale delves into a remarkable feminist discourse, but we also get a picture of her early on in "The General Prologue." Chaucer describes her in vivid fashion, noting she is "gap-toothed" (20), full-figured (24), and that her face is "bold," "fair, and red of hue (10). All in all, Chaucer describes a physical appearance that matches the Wife's vivacious, unapologetic personality, and it's easy to envision her based on his description. 

The Miller is a similarly memorable character, and his tale is one of the bawdiest in The Canterbury Tales. Chaucer describes the Miller as "a chunky fellow, broad of build" (5) with a red beard (8) and a hairy wart on his nose (10-12). Based on this description, readers picture a coarse, tough fellow with something of a rude streak.

In considering these descriptions, it's important to recognize Chaucer is describing his characters in strikingly realistic tones. Rather than idealizing his characters, he makes them look and act like real, normal people. This sense of realism is one of the reasons Chaucer's work has remained influential for hundreds of years.

What is the World State's response to overpopulation in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley?

The World State's response to overpopulation is to regulate the type and number of the population on a global scale.

According to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, the World State is the entity responsible for keeping the population at an optimum number for each succeeding generation. By its calculation, a population of under two billion is the ideal population number to support global welfare. To ensure the realization of its population goals, the World State relies on eugenics and dysgenics.

Eugenics basically refers to the breeding of superior human beings for the welfare of global societies. Conversely, in Brave New World, dysgenics refers to the breeding of inferior human beings for the purposes of supporting the higher-skilled populations of the earth.

In his novel, Huxley introduces the idea the population of the earth must not only be maintained at a certain number, but also that the number of that optimum population must be carefully apportioned among the genetically superior and the genetically inferior. This ensures the majority of the population is composed of genetically superior humans.

In the novel, biologically superior ova and sperm are fertilized and decanted as superior species of Alphas, Betas, and Alpha Pluses. To ensure a class of almost sub-human beings are able to support the genetically superior beings, inferior ova is combined with inferior sperm to produce Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons. As an additional step, the Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons are exposed to what is called Bokanovsky's Process. The novel describes the process:

One egg, one embryo, one adult-normality. But a bokanovskified egg will bud, will proliferate, will divide. From eight to ninety-six buds, and every bud will grow into a perfectly formed embryo, and every embryo into a full-sized adult. Making ninety-six human beings grow where only one grew before. Progress.

In the novel, Bokanovsky's Process is combined with Podsnap's Technique, which speeds up the maturation of unfertilized eggs to produce a vast number of these genetically inferior beings. The Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons are used to perform unskilled, menial labor; the World State keeps this group content in its servile condition by providing the members of this subhuman group easy and plentiful access to gratuitous entertainment, sexual fulfillment, and daily doses of soma (a pleasure drug). Since drugs like cocaine and heroin aren't legally available in the dystopian world of the novel, soma is the only available means by which the World State can protect itself from rebellion within its borders; it's an insurance policy against uprisings and societal unrest.

To prevent over-producing humans of either genetically superior or inferior stock, the World State only allows 30% of female embryos to develop normally. The others develop into what are called freemartins: sterile women developed from female embryos that were periodically injected with male sex hormones.

Since the World State makes all decisions for citizens, they also decide when human beings die. Those who are too sick and old are not allowed to burden society with their infirmities. Death conditioning begins at the age of eighteen months; every toddler spends at least two mornings a week at the Hospital for the Dying.

So, to recap, the World State's response to overpopulation is to control the number and type of citizenry as well as to utilize euthanasia to dispose of what the state considers useless citizens.

How does Pip attempt to change his life in Great Expectations by Charles Dickens?

After going to Satis House as a young boy and being ridiculed and called "common" by Estella, Pip feels the sting of being from the lower class and desires from then on to better himself.

Pip feels that good fortune comes to him when Mr. Jagger arrives at the forge and brings Pip the "astonishing news" that he has "Great Expectations." Pip is elated,

My dream was out; my wild fancy was surpassed by sober reality; Miss Havisham was going to make my fortune on a grand scale. (Ch. 18)

Pip then leaves the forge after having been released from his apprenticeship to Joe, and he arrives in London with the promise of becoming a gentleman. There he rooms with the former "pale young gentleman" whom Pip fought as a boy on his initial visit to Miss Havisham's, Herbert Pocket. From Herbert, Pip learns proper table manners, and Herbert's father, Matthew Pocket, acts as Pip's tutor.

In his efforts to become a gentleman, however, Pip seeks to elevate himself by rejecting all that is associated with his lowly childhood. Sadly, he rejects Joe because of his crude manners and discomfort when he comes to London to visit. Further, Pip is critical of his childhood friend Biddy; in short, Pip changes into a snob, rather than a true gentleman, who appreciates quality in anyone who has it. Pip also seeks to ingratiate himself with Miss Havisham and Estella in his desperate love for her, perceiving her as having "indescribable majesty....and charm." He has confessed earlier to Biddy, "I admire her dreadfully and want to be a gentleman on her account." (Ch.17)

Of course, Pip makes the grave mistake of placing material values above spiritual, as he rejects the genuineness and love of Joe, he is repulsed that his benefactor is the grateful, but criminal Magwitch rather than the dysfunctional, but aristocratic Miss Havisham, and he finds Estella rather than the sweet and kind Biddy admirable. Nevertheless, he does change his life, as he learns important lessons in London from Herbert and Wemmick and even Magwitch, lessons that bring him back to the forge to renew his relationship with Joe and revive his love for the kind and worthy man along with the genuine and good Biddy.

What are the main themes in the book: "The Magician's Nephew" by C.S. Lewis?

"The Magician's Nephew" is a book in the series "The Chronicles of Narnia" by C.S. Lewis. While it occurs chronologically first in the series some people prefer to read it sixth as a prequel to the first five books.

"The Magician's Nephew" centers around the story of the creation of the world of Narnia and sets the stage for the events that occur in "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe". The book "The Magician's...

"The Magician's Nephew" is a book in the series "The Chronicles of Narnia" by C.S. Lewis. While it occurs chronologically first in the series some people prefer to read it sixth as a prequel to the first five books.

"The Magician's Nephew" centers around the story of the creation of the world of Narnia and sets the stage for the events that occur in "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe". The book "The Magician's Nephew" has often been cited as a parallel story-line to the beginning of the book of Genesis, in which a perfect world is created and then altered by the entrance of temptation and evil.

Temptation is a key theme in the book, as the main characters, Digory and Polly, face temptation in various situations and succeed and fail in overcoming it. This theme of temptation is based on an underlying theme of definitive good and evil, which in the book "The Magician's Nephew" is understood within the simplicity of the newly created realm of Narnia. Good and evil are separate and well-defined.

Another theme found in the book is the importance and impact of every individual's choices. Digory learns in the book that his choice to do good or to do evil impacts not only himself but the very world he lives in.

"The Magician's Nephew" is a tale that seems sweetly simplistic at first but upon deeper consideration contains profound truths about humanity illustrated through the fantastical world of Narnia.

What does Billy dream of when he is on morphine?

In Chapter Five of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five, Billy has a very strange morphine dream in which he sees a garden with giraffes wandering around on gravel paths in it. In this dream, Billy is also a giraffe, and he is accepted by the other giraffes as one of their kind. Two of the female giraffes approach Billy and then kiss him on the lips.

This dream seems to play off of the theme of...

In Chapter Five of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five, Billy has a very strange morphine dream in which he sees a garden with giraffes wandering around on gravel paths in it. In this dream, Billy is also a giraffe, and he is accepted by the other giraffes as one of their kind. Two of the female giraffes approach Billy and then kiss him on the lips.

This dream seems to play off of the theme of alienation that is present within the novel. Due to his time-traveling tendencies, Billy is constantly out of sync with the rest of the world and is, thus, a bit of an outcast. However, in this dream, Billy is able to find a group of his own, albeit one consisting of very strange, odd-looking creatures! He may never be accepted by normal society, but in his dream he finds there is a "tribe" for him out there somewhere.

From The House on Mango Street, please provide three examples of imagery with page numbers.

Imagery has to do with phrases, references, or figurative language that uses one or more of the fives senses. The creation of imagery happens when an author uses the senses of sight, smell, taste, touch, or sound to describe something. The following example from the first vignette mentions at least two of these senses:

"It's small and red with tight steps in front and windows so small you'd think they were holding their breath. Bricks are crumbling in places, and the front door is so swollen you have to push hard to get in" (4).

Notice that this passage has visual images: small, red, tight steps, bricks crumbling, and a swollen door. Next, it shows the sense of touch with words such as "push hard," and "holding their breath." One might identify with how it feels to push hard to open an old door, or to hold one's breath, for example. 

Another example of the use of imagery can bee seen in the following passage:

". . . and nobody looked up not once the day Angel Vargas learned to fly and dropped from the sky like a sugar donut, just like a falling star, and exploded down to earth without even an 'Oh'" (30).

The senses of sight, sound, and taste can be found in this quote. Words such as "sugar donut" and "falling star" can both be visualized. The sugar donut can be tasted; however, since a donut is also easily broken, the image shows that it is fragile to the touch. Then because the falling star "exploded," the sense of hearing can be employed. 

One final example of a passage that uses imagery is one that focuses on Esperanza's blind aunt.

"My aunt was blind by then. She never saw the dirty dishes in the sink. She couldn't see the ceilings dusty with flies, the ugly maroon walls, the bottles and sticky spoons. I can't forget the smell. Like sticky capsules filled with jelly. My aunt, a little oyster, a little piece of meat on an open shell for us to look at" (60).

Many people can identify with having dirty dishes in a sink. Readers can also visualize what flies on ceilings might look like, so visual images are strong in this passage. It might also be easy to imagine what maroon walls, bottles, and sticky spoons lying around the house look and smell like. Esperanza describes the smell of the apartment like "capsules filled with jelly," which smell may or may not be easy to imagine based on one's personal experience. However, the rest of the description of her aunt describes her as little as an oyster, and maybe only as significant as a tiny "piece of meat." Readers can visualize what an oyster in its shell looks like and apply it to how Esperanza's aunt appears to be and act like. Anyone who has eaten oysters might also apply the sense of taste when reading this description, too. Therefore, there are many visual images to ponder in this passage. The senses of smell and taste coincide with the descriptions of the objects in the apartment as well.

How can you frame Jem Finch for the murder of Bob Ewell in To Kill a Mockingbird?

It probably would have been easy for Atticus and Heck Tate to say that Jem killed Bob Ewell, rather than tell everyone he fell on his knife.  They did not want to tell people that it was Boo Radley that killed him, because they did not want Boo to be in the public eye.

If you wanted to frame Jem for Ewell’s death, it would be pretty easy.  When Bob Ewell is killed, Atticus first...

It probably would have been easy for Atticus and Heck Tate to say that Jem killed Bob Ewell, rather than tell everyone he fell on his knife.  They did not want to tell people that it was Boo Radley that killed him, because they did not want Boo to be in the public eye.

If you wanted to frame Jem for Ewell’s death, it would be pretty easy.  When Bob Ewell is killed, Atticus first assumes that Jem is the one who killed him.  He is so upset by the events that he can’t even remember how old Jem is.  He tells Sheriff Tate that it was self-defense, and Jem would be tried in a county court.

Sheriff Tate does not think that Jem killed Bob Ewell.

“Mr. Finch, do you think Jem killed Bob Ewell? Do you think that?”

“You heard what Scout said, there’s no doubt about it. She said Jem got up and yanked him off her—he probably got hold of Ewell’s knife somehow in the dark… we’ll find out tomorrow.” (Ch. 30) 

There is limited evidence, but Atticus seems to think that the evidence that Jem pulled Bob Ewell off of Scout is enough to convict him.  If you were framing Jem for the killing, you would focus on that fact.  Also, since Atticus and Heck Tate told no one about Boo Radley, no one would know who actually did it. 

Atticus was concerned that people would assume that Jem got away with murder. 

“… I don’t want him growing up with a whisper about him, I don’t want anybody saying, ‘Jem Finch… his daddy paid a mint to get him out of that.’ Sooner we get this over with the better.” (Ch. 30) 

The story that they settle on is that Bob Ewell fell on his knife.  They seem to assume no one will question them.  Bob Ewell was drunk and he did attack two kids.  Who cares what really happened to him?  People would not ask many questions.  If someone did decide to question the story, Jem would be the logical target.

Why is evolution a hard topic to cover?

Evolution is a difficult concept to cover because it is contrary to popular religious teachings.

Evolution itself is a rather simple thing to teach. All living things have a common ancestor. Adaptation occurs over time as natural pressures make certain genes advantageous; this is natural selection. Speciation is when a line from one species has adapted to the point of being different from its parent species. Teaching evolution itself, even in depth, can be done...

Evolution is a difficult concept to cover because it is contrary to popular religious teachings.

Evolution itself is a rather simple thing to teach. All living things have a common ancestor. Adaptation occurs over time as natural pressures make certain genes advantageous; this is natural selection. Speciation is when a line from one species has adapted to the point of being different from its parent species. Teaching evolution itself, even in depth, can be done very efficiently.

People might resist evolution because they believe a real divine power makes more sense. For example, in the American South, many fundamental Christians believe in Genesis theory, where God created the world over seven days, the Earth is only 6000 years old, and God once sent a massive flood to destroy the world. These Christians will lobby their state and city governments to ensure that what they believe is taught instead of or alongside what they think is a lie. Because they have lobbying power in these places, these individuals can be very successful.

Most schools are nervous about teaching evolution, as it can be a touchy subject. This means that they will either simply not cover it or present a religious view on the subject at the same time, implying both are credible theories.

What is the Duke's motive to speak this monologue in "My Last Duchess" by Robert Browning?

The Duke's motive for speaking the monologue titled "My Last Duchess" is ostensibly to show his visitor part of his art collection, but it is actually to negotiate the dowry he can expect to receive when he marries "his next duchess." We do not find out the identity of his visitor or the Duke's true motive until the very end of the monologue, when the visitor has heard enough of the Duke's egotism, selfishness, greediness,...

The Duke's motive for speaking the monologue titled "My Last Duchess" is ostensibly to show his visitor part of his art collection, but it is actually to negotiate the dowry he can expect to receive when he marries "his next duchess." We do not find out the identity of his visitor or the Duke's true motive until the very end of the monologue, when the visitor has heard enough of the Duke's egotism, selfishness, greediness, and cruelty and jumps up to flee down the stairs without a word of thank-you or apology. The Duke hurries after him and tries to detain him. He says,

Will't please you rise? We'll meet
The company below, then. I repeat,
The Count your master's known munificence
Is ample warrant that no just pretence
Of mine for dowry will be disallowed;
Though his fair daughter's self, as I avowed
At starting, is my object.

The visitor is a servant of a Count and the Duke is engaged to marry that Count's daughter. The Duke brought the other man, who must be in the Count's service, upstairs to talk about money. We are only reading a part of their conversation. The Duke "avowed at starting" that he was only interested in the girl and not in money; nevertheless, he would like to have a clear understanding with the Count's representative about how much money he will receive. It looks as if he won't be getting the girl or the money, as the other man seems to intend to warn the Count against letting his daughter marry this monster at all.

That explains the Duke's motive in inviting the representative upstairs to see his art collection and talk about the dowry. It does not explain why the Duke shows his visitor the painting of his "last duchess" and spends so much time talking about that one object in his collection—especially when it sounds as if he had his young wife killed! The best explanation for this other motive is the Duke became carried away when he saw his dead wife in the portrait

Looking as if she were alive.

He sounds as if, while under the spell of his "last duchess's" beauty and the artistry of Fra Pandolf, he forgets his visitor and inadvertently confesses all his mixed feelings about the beautiful young woman in the painting. In doing this, he reveals his ugly, hateful character. All of Robert Browning's monologues are intended to reveal the character of the speaker. These include "Andrea del Sarto," "Fra Lippo Lippi," and "The Bishop Orders His Tomb at Saint Praxed's Church," which are all among Browning's most famous poems.

In a fatal car accident where the driver's blood is drawn to test for alcohol consumption or BAC level, should the blood evidence be thrown out if...

In a case such as this, it is likely that the evidence of the blood will be thrown out of court.  However, you can argue the issue of whether it should be.

In general, the prosecution has to be able to prove every link in the chain of custody in order to have something accepted as evidence.  In the case of a blood sample, this would mean that the prosecution would have to prove who...

In a case such as this, it is likely that the evidence of the blood will be thrown out of court.  However, you can argue the issue of whether it should be.

In general, the prosecution has to be able to prove every link in the chain of custody in order to have something accepted as evidence.  In the case of a blood sample, this would mean that the prosecution would have to prove who had the blood sample at every step in the process.  The drawing of the blood is the first step in that process. Therefore, if the prosecution cannot show who drew the blood, they have not proven each link in the chain of custody.  This means that the evidence will probably be thrown out.

This leaves us with the question of whether the evidence should be thrown out.  This is more of a matter of opinion.  My own view is that the evidence should be thrown out if it casts real doubt on the validity of the sample.  Let us imagine a scenario in which Officer X can testify, saying that she saw another officer (whose name she cannot remember) draw the blood and then immediately took possession of the sample.  In such a case, I do not think the evidence should be thrown out.  The officer saw the blood being drawn and there is no question of the chain of custody after that.  In my mind, there is not a serious doubt about the validity of this evidence. On the other hand, imagine a scenario in which no one knows who drew the blood.  All they can testify to is that the blood sample was in the evidence kit after the accident.  In such a case, we have no way of knowing what happened to the sample between the time it was drawn and the time it ended up in the evidence.  There is too much chance that it could have been tampered with. In such a case, I would say the evidence should be thrown out.

How does Wordsworth use imagery to bring out the main idea in the poem "The Solitary Reaper"?

It's often argued that the main idea of William Wordsworth's "The Solitary Reaper" is the representation/examination of how even the most ordinary people, things, or occurrences can access a more significant reality. This idea can be clearly seen within the poem, as the narrator uses precise and carefully constructed imagery to transform a simple event (the observation of a young woman singing in a field) into a representation of an important, endless source of meaning....

It's often argued that the main idea of William Wordsworth's "The Solitary Reaper" is the representation/examination of how even the most ordinary people, things, or occurrences can access a more significant reality. This idea can be clearly seen within the poem, as the narrator uses precise and carefully constructed imagery to transform a simple event (the observation of a young woman singing in a field) into a representation of an important, endless source of meaning. Wordsworth creates this effect by connecting the image of the singing woman to images of exotic locales. Consider, for instance, the following lines from the second stanza:

No Nightingale did ever chaunt 

More welcome notes to weary bands 

Of travellers in some shady haunt, 

Among Arabian sands... (9-12)

In these lines, Wordsworth whisks us away from the highlands and takes us to the Middle East, using the image of the distant "Arabian sands" to expand the reality represented by the solitary reaper. Suddenly, she's not just a normal woman singing while she works; rather, she is connected to a vast source of significance and meaning. All in all, Wordsworth uses vibrant imagery to signify that even someone as common as a field worker has access to a deeper and more meaningful reality. 

What do you think of teenagers (or their parents) who spend inordinate amounts of money for designer bags, jeans, sneakers or coats?

The word “inordinate” already means something like “excessive.”  When we say that people are spending an “excessive” amount of money on something, we are already saying that we disapprove.  We make a value judgement simply by saying the word “inordinate.”  Of course we would disapprove of people who spend “too much” on these things, but what about people who spend “a lot” of money?  When you phrase it that way, it’s a much different question.

I have very little problem with people who spend a lot of money on these things, as long as they can afford it.  There are two main reasons why I feel this way.

First, when people spend money, they help our economy.  When people buy these goods, they support the people who were paid to make the goods.  They also support the people who work in the stores that sell the goods.  If people stopped buying these things, those people could be harmed.

Second, and more importantly, who gets to decide which things people should spend their money on?  Is it morally bad to spend on a pair of jeans but fine to spend on an iPhone?  What about buying a cable TV subscription or going to a movie?  Are those things okay?  Then think about food.  Should we say that it is only okay to buy, for example, hamburger and chicken because those are relatively cheap? 

It is very problematic, in my mind, to say that people should not spend their money on certain items.  The fact that they value something more than we do does not mean that the thing that they value is bad while the thing that I value is good.

Of course, if you spend your money on something that you do not need and neglect to buy things that you really do need, I would have a problem with you.  For example, if you buy designer jeans but don’t buy diapers for your baby, I would disapprove.  However, I think it is not right to criticize people for spending their money simply because we would have used the money differently if it were ours.  Therefore, I am fine with people who spend a lot of money on designer jeans or bags, just as I am fine with people who spend their money on an expensive vacation in Hawaii or on a really nice car.

In Farewell to Manzanar by Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston and James D. Houston, what is the most humiliating thing in the camps for the Japanese people...

In Farewell to Manzanar, the conditions that the Japanese had to experience in the camps were humiliating.

Forced relocation was very humiliating. Once Japanese-Americans were relocated, their humiliation at places like Manzanar continued. Basic services were not even basic. Food was improperly prepared. This contributed to spells of diarrhea which became known as "Manzanar runs.”  To have to endure improperly prepared and spoiled food is an indignity.  It is humiliating for both child and adult...

In Farewell to Manzanar, the conditions that the Japanese had to experience in the camps were humiliating.

Forced relocation was very humiliating. Once Japanese-Americans were relocated, their humiliation at places like Manzanar continued. Basic services were not even basic. Food was improperly prepared. This contributed to spells of diarrhea which became known as "Manzanar runs.”  To have to endure improperly prepared and spoiled food is an indignity.  It is humiliating for both child and adult alike. In intense detail, Farewell to Manzanar depicts this reality.

The presence of diarrhea highlights another aspect of humiliation that Japanese people had to experience. Using the bathroom at Manzanar was humiliating.  Toilets were backed up.  Jeanne and her mother had to use a bathroom where the floor was covered with human waste.  They had to walk a considerable distance to find a bathroom that did work.  The use of a bathroom is one of the most basic experiences.  Human beings should be able to have a functional bathroom that reflects their dignity. Standing in human waste is humiliating.  It is the type of moment where people have to wonder at what point their lives turned into such a sad and pathetic condition. When the Japanese who were forced to stay at internment camps cannot even experience a working toilet, it is a reminder of the humiliation that many endured in American internment camps.

What does the speaker in "Dover Beach" by Matthew Arnold say about history?

In "Dover Beach," the speaker tells us that history often repeats itself and that all human beings share a universal human experience. Additionally, the language of sadness is recognizable no matter what era one lives in.

The second stanza underlines the "eternal note of sadness" in the first stanza. The speaker tells us that this despondency is universal throughout time. Even Sophocles experienced this same feeling of sadness when he once listened to the waves...

In "Dover Beach," the speaker tells us that history often repeats itself and that all human beings share a universal human experience. Additionally, the language of sadness is recognizable no matter what era one lives in.

The second stanza underlines the "eternal note of sadness" in the first stanza. The speaker tells us that this despondency is universal throughout time. Even Sophocles experienced this same feeling of sadness when he once listened to the waves of the Aegean Sea. The ebb and flow of the waves bring to "mind the turbid ebb and flow / Of human misery." Misery is not only universal in the human experience, but it also never ceases to torment each succeeding generation. So, misery is like the ebb and flow of the waves; it never stops plaguing mankind.

Indeed, the speaker contends that the world has "really neither joy, nor love, nor light, / Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain." He argues that the world is a dark place, where "ignorant armies clash by night" and life consists of a never-ending "struggle and flight" in the quest for survival.

What came first: the chicken or the egg?

The classic question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, can be answered in a variety of ways.  Perhaps the more troubling part is that each answer is correct!  Depending no how the question is approached will dictate which correct answer most directly applies.  This forum is not suitable for addressing every situation or approach, but a few of the more prominent ones are discussed. 

The easiest approach is via creationism.  Creationism refers to any religion which is based on the belief God(s) spontaneously created the world and all living animals.  In this scenario, the chicken would logically come first as the spontaneous result of a divine command. (Chicken 1, Egg 0)

Quantum theory might suggest they co-occurred.  In theory neither the chicken nor the egg existed until observed as a phenomenon in nature.  When the chicken was created, the ability to lay eggs, a natural process for chickens, was created inherently as part of the whole. (Chicken 2, Egg 1)

Philosophical examinations of the question might lead down several winding paths.  One path would argue neither the chicken nor the egg must come first.  The chicken must be alive to lay an egg.  The egg the chicken hatched from is not its egg but rather the egg of the mother hen.  Therefore, if the chicken and the egg in question are bound by ownership, then the only egg the chicken owns is one it lays.  Existentially, whatever attributes are attributed to it, it is not a chicken until it hatches, despite the possibility it could be a chicken.  For example, we eat scrambled eggs, which are the yolks from the eggs.  We don't say we eat scrambled chicken. (Chicken 3, Egg 1)

Evolution points to the egg being first.  Archeologists have uncovered evidence of egg nests dating to about 77 million years ago.  These egg laying dinosaurs far pre-date chickens.  This indicates the egg came first and was later part of the chicken's evolution.  The problem again revolves around the definition and general use of the word chicken.  The domestic chicken evolved from a variety of jungle fowl, most commonly the red and gray jungle fowl.  Cross-breeding throughout generations led to the domestic chicken stock.  Following the scientific logic, the egg was essential in creating the domestic chicken breed and therefore came first. (Chicken 3, Egg 2)

In a general approach, the basic matters of life suggest the egg came first.  Two birds, not chickens, provided the genetic material for the egg.  Once the egg was hatched and the animal deemed a chicken, then the egg from whence it emerged would be the first chicken egg, supposing egg ownership is attributed to the emergent chicken and not the parents. (Chicken 3, Egg 3)

In reality, there is no one way to answer this question.  The answer depends on the scientific or philosophical approach to the question.  Even then, both sides of the argument make valid points.  It is a good thought exercise, but ultimately it is only that and not a reasonable question with a single answer.