What kind of poem is "To Marguerite—Continued"?

Matthew Arnold's "To Marguerite--Continued" is a romantic
poem (both literally and figuratively), filled with passionate despair regarding the
sea's isolation, a metaphor for his possible relationship with the woman to whom it is
dedicated.

The poem title looks like a letter, or a
post-script of a former, longer letter.  Indeed, another poem "Isolation: To Marguerite"
precedes it:

readability="11">

[Arnold] travelled to Switzerland in the course
of his duties. There, in 1848-49, he met the "Marguerite" who inspired "Isolation: To
Marguerite" and "To Marguerite--Continued." No one knows Marguerite's real identity,
although there is of course a great deal of speculation; some critics even insist that
Marguerite is an imaginary
figure.

Later, in 1851,
Arnold married someone else, so he did lose Marguerite, if she ever
existed.

The poem is heavy in personification, imagery, and
metaphor, as it likens humans to the seas:

Oh!
then a longing like despair

Is to their
farthest caverns sent;

For surely once,
they feel, we were

Parts of a single
continent!

Arnold says that modern man is like the
current watery world, isolated and disconnected.

What was Hamlet's last name?

If you want to get really technical, the Danish Royal
Family surname is Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. But back in Hamlet's day,
the time of medieval Kings, there was no house name or
surname.

(As you may know, the surname of British Royalty
used to be Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, but, because of World War I, it was changed to Windsor in
a rejection of German associations in 1917.)

So, Hamlet's
father was King Hamlet, and his son, also named Hamlet, was Prince Hamlet or Hamlet,
Prince of Denmark.

The same probably goes for everyone in
the play: Claudius is just Claudius, Gertrude, Gertrude, etc. At best, just to
differentiate individuals with the same name, people may have been named something like
this: if your name was John and you were the son of Eric, you would be John
Ericson.

Hmmm, Hamlet Hamletson? Doesn't sound right
somehow. Let's leave it as Hamlet.

What is the future of the national economy?Are we still in recession and when can we regain the 8 million lost jobs since 2008?

HI!

The problem with our
answers *which will vary* is that yours is a hypothetical question based on trends.
However, this is a trend that is highly debatable:

1.
Liberals say that the huge amount we just spent on the healing package is going to save
families from going bankrupt.

2. Conservatives will say
that it was a waste of money because no new jobs have been created, yet, Liberals will
argue that the unemployment rate has lowered. And, still, Conservatives will
counterargue saying that the numbers are based on different
variables.

3. The Health Care package is no joke-it
requires a LOT of money for millions of uninsured people, many of whom lead quite
unhealthy lifestyles. Any person against the plan will say that this was a massively
unfair kill of money.  Others will say that it is fair that everybody gets coverage.
Now, let's take a sample of population suffering high blood pressure in Mississippi- one
of the US's most obese populations per capita: Would their medications, exercise plans,
surgeries, and check ups hurt anyone's paychecks?- YES. They will *it is not me saying
it. It is the fact that, well, they will*

So: The future of
our national economy is quite uncertain as of today. There have been conversations with
the Chinese government to buy off our debt, but I think that it is dangerous to swim on
that lake being that North Korea is closer to the Chinese than we are. Our intelligence
could be endangered if shared and I think I'd rather have the strangers right in my
backyard and not in the backyard of the neighbor I don't quite
know.

How does Dimmesdale appear as he leaves the church after his triumphant sermon?Chapter 22 or 23

As he leaves the church after his triumphant sermon, the crowd is shocked to note that Dimmesdale looks "feeble and pale...energy...withdrawn...the glow...burning on his cheek...extinguished...it seem(s) hardly the face of a man alive, with such a deathlike hue".  The minister can barely walk as he "totters" from the church, turns toward the scaffold, and beckons to Hester (Chapter 23).

Explain how Shakespeare has struck a balance of romance and comedy in As You Like It.

In As You Like It Shakespeare
balances romance and comedy by wrapping the romance in the comedy through comedic antics
that flow naturally from the character's temperament and personality traits and through
situational irony. For instance, Orlando, distractedly in love with Rosalind, goes (or
as he says, runs) around Arden forest attaching badly written poetry to trees and
carving "Rosalind" in the bark of trees. This is pretty funny, and it flows naturally
from the traits we learn about him earlier: he is exuberant; daring; full of energy; and
poorly educated (which explains the bad poetry).

Another
instance is that Rosalind, who is at first all distraught to think that Orlando might
catch her in her man's clothing, takes advantage of the confessions of love Orlando
makes while she and Celia are eavesdropping and plays a protracted and very silly joke
on Orlando. This flows from what we already know of her traits: she is romantic and can
be silly; she is courageous and assertive; she is playful and enjoys word
play.

The situational irony in which she, of course, knows
her identity while Orlando doesn't, adds to the amusement of Rosalind/Ganymede's teasing
joke played on Orlando while also moving the romance forward. In the joke as she
contrived it, Orlando pretends to be courting Rosalind while he is talking to Ganymede,
so the audience learns his romantic sentiments.

In Act I of Romeo and Juliet, why does Lord Capulet throw a party/feast?

The play itself doesn't have Lord Capulet giving any
reason except that he tells Paris "tonight I hold an old accustomed feast." It seems
like a party just for party's sake.

The event does serve
several purposes though. Capulet further explains to Paris who is wanting to marry
Juliet that this would give Paris an opportunity to woo her or flirt with her as well as
compare her to Verona's other beauties making sure that he indeed likes Juliet above
others.

During the party, it also serves the purpose of
letting Romeo and Juliet meet and building Tybalt's rage over Romeo's presence. These
are very specific inciting incidents that much action later on in the story hinges
on.

What is the dramatic effect of Act 1 in Much Ado About Nothing?

I wonder if you are referring to dramatic elements that are employed by Shakespeare in Act I.  If so, consider these choices of the playwright:

Rather than including the war or any of the battle scenes in the play, Shakespeare uses a messengar to deliver news of the outcome.  Beatrice jokes with the messenger, who announces that the friends of the group have been victorious and are safe.  Shakespeare wants readers to know that the visitors are coming from battle, but doesn't want any of the seriousness of war to affect the mood of the play.

In Act II, Shakespeare has Antonio tells Leonato that his servant has overheard Don Pedro tell Claudio that he loved hero.  Obviously this is wrong, and the servant has given bad information.  But the dramatic technique here is that we do not see the servant telling Antonia this.  We see Antonio tell Leonato this.  This removal from the source of the information is important, because it introduces one of Shakespeare's themes:  "noting".  Noting is the overhearing and passing on of information.  It causes many many problems for the characters. and so Shakespeare uses it as a device to underscore its importance.

Look to stage directions and consider how characters present information to see more examples of "dramatic technique".

What is significant about the fact that Grendel attacks at night, and what descriptions associate him with death or darkness?

It is significant that Grendel attacks at night because he is described as being evil and the darkness symbolizes that evil.  Grendel is described as being the spawn of Cain (the Biblical character who was the first murderer).  Also, Grendel's nighttime attacks make him seem more sinister because he attacks while the warriors are sleeping - they are helpless at the time.  He is called the monster of evil, he leaps and laughs after killing thirty men, and he continues to come back night after night.

The following lines from section II have more language that supports Grendel's link to death and evil.

The monster of evil fiercely did harass,
The ill-planning death-shade, both elder and younger,
Trapping and tricking them. He trod every night then
The mist-covered moor-fens; men do not know where
Witches and wizards wander and ramble.
So the foe of mankind many of evils
Grievous injuries, often accomplished,
Horrible hermit; Heort he frequented,
Gem-bedecked palace, when night-shades had fallen

In Hamlet, how are Gertrude, Laertes, Claudius, and Hamlet killed?

Gertrude drinks a poisoned cup that Claudius had meant for Hamlet. When Gertrude faints and Claudius excuses this by lying "she swoons to see her son bleed," Hamlet hears Gertrude say it was the cup that killed her.

Laertes is killed dueling with Hamlet. He uses a poisoned foil and cuts Hamlet's flesh, barely, but enough for the poison to do its work to kill Hamlet. Hamlet, continuing the fight, picks up the tainted foil by mistake, so when he wounds Laertes, Laertes is thus poisoned. Hamlet hears a confession from Laertes, then stabs Claudius with the same poisoned sword and pours the rest of the poisoned drink down his throat, thus killing him three ways: sword wound, poisoned sword, poisoned drink.

The notable quality of all these deaths is that they are all wrapped in lies, deceit and treachery. Hamlet finished this tawdry mess by revealing the hidden and by assuring that Horatio would tell his story. There could be no honorable conclusion for these characters. Hamlet is our hero who pursued his quest by using a clever and cruel web of lies. He used lies and pretense to uncover larger lies. In his death, he begs for an honest telling of his life.

In the novel To Kill A Mockingbird, what is the significance of the children's encounter with Mrs Dubose except for 'real courage'?

Since Mrs. Dubose might be considered an "enemy" of the
Finch family, this is a chance to know the enemy and why she/he acts the way they do.
Mrs. Dubose is old and cantankerous, unlike anyone else in Maycomb that the children
know. This is an opportunity to view first hand the ravages of age, and the ravages of
prejudice. Jem lost control when he destroyed the old woman's camillias, just as she
loses control when she shouts the things that are hurtful to the children. Jem must
learn the consequences for losing control by confronting the source of his outburst. He
must "walk around in her skin" to understand what drives her, and learn how to deal with
unpleasant people. The consequence fits the crime, having to spend his free time up
close and personal with his tormentor. Jem had to do something he didn't want to and, in
return, learned from it.

Atticus also had to do something
he didn't want to, use a weapon to kill something. From the hints in the story, I got
the impression Atticus had had to kill someone or something using his deadly aim. He was
touched by this killing and resolved not to have to do such a thing again. When the dog,
Old Tim Johnson, presented signs of rabies, he was a danger not only to Atticus's
children but to the towns' people as well. Despite is distaste for killing, he he forced
himself to do what was right with his children
watching.

Both of these actions took courage. Facing what
is distasteful and dealing with it head on is something many people do not have the
courage to do.

Do you think the compromise of 1850 was a good solution?

I think the previous thoughts were quite accurate.  I am
not sure any of the solutions, including the one of 1850, were feasible.  It seems to me
that the fundamental premise of all of these compromises were that the nature of
individual convictions can be negotiated and bartered away.  On many levels, this might
be true, but the reality is that when two sides fervently and passionately believe in
the sincerity and veracity of their convictions and feel that a conviction, in its most
pure form, must be realized, compromise is futile. One side believed slavery was right. 
Another side believed it to be wrong.  At its core, these were not luke- warm and tepid
responses.  Rather, they were passionate convictions that could not be minimized. 
Compromises like the Missouri and the one of 1850 proved that democracy does not work
well when convictions upon which action is contingent to their fulfillment are such a
present component in the political lexicon.

What is Trancendentalism? Explain it with the reference to Emersons Self Reliance.

Emerging in a time period where America was undergoing a
bevy of calls for social reform from a variety of sources, Transcendentalism argued for
an injection of emotions into consciousness.  In analyzing what was being called for,
there is much in way of British Romanticism as a base.  Transcendentalists believed that
human emotions were worthy of being fully integrated into the lives people led. 
Thinkers like Emerson were animated by the idea of individuals not following social
demands or the "herd" mentality of society at the time, but rather embrace their own
sense of uniqueness and distinction in following this path.  The individual was able,
according to the Transcendentalist, to form their own path, create their own state of
being in the world and did not need to suppress their own individual emotional
expression in order to assimilate or be deemed as socially acceptable.  This becomes the
basic idea of "Self- Reliance," in its assertion that individuals can be their own
barometers for what is good and right, as the need to be dependent on society to
determine can be less.

What does Romeo and Juliet teach us about identity?

In Romeo and Juliet, the characters are judged on account of their names.  The Montagues hate the Capulets, and vice versa.  It doesn't matter what a person is really like, only what their name is.

However, the characters of Romeo and Juliet challenge this.  Their love shows that they do not connect identity with name.  In one of Shakespeare's most famous quotes, Juliet says the following:

"What's in a name?/a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

This demonstrates that identity is a result of define charactersitics about the person himself, and not tied into the name - or even the background - of that person.

Discuss the theme of disguise in the play.Please consider the function of disguise beyond the fact that Portia and Nerissa wear a disguise when...

Disguise has much to do with appearance, and disguise can, by changing the appearance of things, hide the reality of them. Through disguise of Portia and Nerissa, the play makes a point about gender, suggesting gender identity is in part constructed by clothes, meaning that it is surface rather than the real identity of a person. Disguise (the festival) earlier allows Jessica to escape the house of Shylock. The "reality" of Jessica--if she is really a Jew because she is "at heart" a Gentile--(within the value system of the play) is also tied to appearance vs. reality and the issue of disguise.  Does Jewishness disguise a deeper humanity?  Can we not see a person as a human being because he is on the outside a Jew?  Or does Jewishness (again, in the value system of the play) go through and through a person, so that it is his reality, not just something on the surface.  In all of these ways the play uses disguise as a way of considering the difference between who a person appears to be and who she/he really is.

The tragedy of "Othello" lies within the characters themselves. To what extent is this true?

I'd like to comment on at least one character to support
your statement.  Othello's tragedy lies within his own character.  This fact is evident
in Act 3, Scene 3 in which Iago begins his slow manipulation of Othello's perceptions of
Desdemona.  He begins by using one of Othello's strengths to turn him against his wife:
his faith in others.  By hinting that he knows more than he is willing to tell, Iago has
Othello begging him for information about Cassio and Desdemona.  Othello has no reason
not to trust Iago--a man whom he has placed his "absolute trust," a man who has fought
alongside him in battle.

But Othello does not really fall
for Iago's bait completely until Iago makes him question the credibility of Desdemona
falling for someone such as he when Michael Cassio was around.  He calls it "unnatural."
 At this point Othello looks inward,

readability="14">

Haply I am
black

And have not those soft parts of
conversation

That chamberers have, or for I am
declined

Into the vale of years--yet that's not
much-

She's gone, I am abused, and my
relief

Must be to loathe
her.

In this passage, Othello
compares himself to Cassio who has the language of a courtier, is young and white, and
when he does, he finds himself coming out as Cassio's inferior.  So, of course,
Desdemona is in love with Cassio; how could she love him.  It is this conclusion that
makes Othello's fall so heartbreaking and so believable.  Othello falls when he looks at
himself and doubts his own attractiveness to the woman he
loves.

Once Othello decides that he has lost Desdemona, he
moves quickly to have her and Cassio killed.  In his mind, they have committed treason,
and the penalty for such an act is death. He is a soldier, after all, a man of action,
one who must be decisive.  After a brief hearing in Desdemona's bedchambers in which
Othello interrogates Desdemona of her unfaithfulness and further gathering of evidence
that makes the case against her--the ocular proof--Othello moves quickly to execute
her.

Othello's tragedy then stems from his own make-up.  It
is his sense of inferiority when he compares himself to men like Cassio that leads him
to doubt Desdemona's love for him and it's his identity as a soldier that causes him to
trust his ensign over his wife and take decisive action.

In the poem A child said, What is the grass? What are the principal values that may be enhanced?Any help is useful

One principle value that grass seems to have in this poem is that it is democratic and not prejudiced since it grows everywhere between all peoples.  It is also found on graves - indicating it does not matter who the dead were, the grass will grow there. Below is a short analysis of some of the things grass is suggested to be in Section Six of the poem "Leaves of Grass"

One suggestion is that it is, "...the handkerchief of the Lord" meaning that every time you see and ponder grass, it leads you to the question of whose it is?  If you compare finding a dropped handkerchief to grass to the Lord putting grass on the ground you can understand this line.

Another definition of grass which Whitman gives is to compare it to a child - in that grass is the fruit (or child) of vegetation.  

 He also calls grass a “uniform hieroglyphic” which can be found everywhere in every area of the earth. In the same stanza he indicates that grass is democratic and not prejudiced as it grows everywhere among all peoples.  

He calls grass "the uncut hair of graves" seemingly indicating that grass grows over everyone's grave and the fact that it is uncut might be referring to the fact that grass will grow over anyone - even those for whose family does not care and groom the grave.  

In the novel In the Time of the Butterflies, what do the butteflies represent?Please provide a quote to support your answer.

Butterflies are the beautiful yet remarkably strong, tenacious creatures who, despite their outward fragility, are capable of remarkable feats. Butterflies can travel hundreds of miles, a seemingly impossible ability given their apparent delicateness; likewise, the very feminie Mirabal sisters are able to withstand challenges to their lives few could match.

Not many creatures on earth can maintain such a veneer of fragility but possess such interior strength.  Like butterflies, the accomplishments of these remarkable women seem "impossible for us, ordinary men and women" (from the postcript, page 324).

How does Big Brother maintain his power over the certain social classes (Inner Party, Outer Party, and Proles), also in relation to...

In Orwell's 1984, Big Brother, the
symbolic figure-head for the totalitarian police state regime, holds hypnotic power over
the populace, using abusive tactics of the extreme left (communism) and right
(fascism).

Big Brother's control lies in his four
ministries: Ministry of Love (which tortures), Ministry of Truth (which uses
propaganda), Ministry of Plenty (which controls rations), and Ministry of Peace (which
wages war).  In these four ways does Big Brother and the Inner Party control the masses
(the Proles) and the middle-class (the Outer
Party).

O'Brien divulges the recipe for control in
Goldstein's The Theory of Oligarchic
Collectivism:

readability="8">

[Big Brother's] function is to act as a focusing
point for love, fear and reverence, emotions which are more easily felt toward an
individual than towards an
organization.

Big Brother
maintains power through pervasive surveillance and total control of information, food,
law enforcement, and economics, creating instability and disorganization in the masses.
 No one in the Outer Party knows who for sure is friend or enemy: this is the genius of
the Inner Party.  It can both control using a ubiquitous figure-head (Big Brother)
without really being blamed for abuse (because no one appears to be in
charge).

War is essential to keep the masses poor, hungry,
and humble.  Counterintelligence and propaganda cause a breakdown in family stability
and make relationships nearly impossible.

Finally, fear is
used to intimidate and break the will of the people.  The symbol of the state's boot
heal crushing the skull of a citizen is the dominant image that resonates in the
novel--this is what will be remembered of the 20th century.  The mass genocide caused by
state-waged war against its enemies and its people is the legacy of 1984 and its
era.

Was it a good thing or bad thing that Europe conquered the "New World"?

That is a pretty interesting question.  Do I get to assume
that I would still have been born?   Can I assume I would have been born to the same
family and lived in Sweden where some of my ancestors came from?  I think if that is the
case, I might say unequivocally that it was bad.  But I've had a pretty good time here
in the New World, so it is difficult to say that.

From an
historical perspective, it is also pretty difficult to answer that question.  Obviously
horrible things were done, the spread of disease that killed millions of natives and the
incredibly callous and destructive attitude of the colonists (some of them) towards the
natives and the resources of the New World, the loss of incredibly advanced cultures and
ways of living (The Iriquois and other Native American groups) that likely set us back
quite a ways in terms of the level of civilization...  Anyway, you can certainly make
the argument that it was a very, very bad thing.

But you
might also suggest that it was good because it led to a certain level of religious
freedom, a country where social mobility was far more open (of course only for certain
groups of people and you can make the argument that since then it has decreased) and the
development of the democracy that many folks feel is pretty darn good (even now with its
warts...)

So I would have to say that in my opinion, this
is a question I am not going to be able to come down on one side of, perhaps if you
added a few more limitations to the ways you could interpret it.

Explain: "There the grown serpent lies. The worm that's flead hath nature that in time will venom breed, no teeth for the present".

Macbeth wanted both Banquo and his son, Fleance, dead due to the prophecies of the witches.  They foretold that Macbeth would be king, but not his sons and that Banquo would not be king, but his descendents for many generations will be king.

Macbeth considers them both threats, but Banquo is compared to the "grown serpent" and the "worm" or immature snake, if you will, is Fleance.  Macbeth recognizes that even though Fleance has no power right now, he has the capability of power in the near future, and is still a threat.  "The worm that's flead hath nature that in time will venom breed, no teeth for the present."

Interestingly enough, young snakes have teeth and their venom is more potent than the mature snakes' venom since it is more concentrated.  I don't suppose scientists of the time knew this, but Shakespeare was correct in having Macbeth predict Fleance's future power as he flees to England and allies himself with Malcolm and the English forces.

Can someone help me understand the short story "Sweat" as a whole?

Delia is a woman who must deal with oppression on two fronts. The outside world, the white community, work her so relentlessly that she must work on Sunday just to keep up with the demands.

Delia's husband keeps her cowed in her home. He has spent their marriage beating her, cheating on her, and taking her money to pamper other women. She works so hard to keep her "lovely" house, and yet, it is ironic that she loves the place where she cannot get any piece.

Her husband's favorite past-time is to torture her with snakes, which Delia is terrified of. He brings a rattlesnake in the house just to make her panic, and insists on keeping it in a box to live.

As time goes on, and the heat rises, Delia feels that something must be done. But her choices are limited by both her gender and race. Ironically, her freedom comes courtesy of the rattlesnake, who has gotten out and attacks her husband as Delia hides and watches.

In Look Back in Anger, how do the characters Jimmy, Alison, Cliff, and Helena influence each other?

How the characters in Look Back in
Anger influence each other is a very interesting question. Some critics might
argue that part of the existential dilemma of the play is that they
don't influence each other--they only torment or tolerate each
other. Although it may be said that Jimmy has an influence over Colonel Redfern because
Redfern comes to agree with Jimmy's point of view about the Colonel being
obsolete.

Jimmy's influence over Alison seems to be
restricted to depressing and worrying her. She is upper class and was brought up in the
complacent comfort of assumed and realized privilege. Jimmy married her for the comfort
her composure afforded him--the composure he rails at in their married life. The chief
influence Alison seems to have on Jimmy is to drive him to irritated ire because she
doesn't feel, she doesn't have strong emotions for anything. This is shown in her
complacent action of ironing on Sunday evenings.

Cliff
seems to have somewhat of a calming influence on Jimmy. Who knows what he might do if
Cliff weren't there telling him to be quiet and leave Alison alone. At first Helena has
the same influence on Jimmy that Alison has because they are both upper class and proper
and both have religious church affiliations. After Alison leaves, Helena confesses her
love for Jimmy and they start an affair--which comes to look exactly like the
relationship Jimmy had with Alison.

There is much debate as
to why this is so. Does Helena take quietly to the passive ironing board out of enforced
sexist expectation of the female role? Does she do it because that is the only option
for an upper class woman suffering under the invective of Jimmy's class system hatred--a
silent retreat into passive activity? Is it because of the class system definitions of
roles, which would be ironic because it is the class system that Jimmy hates with such a
passion?

What is organised crime and non-organised crime?explain what is organised crime and non-organised crime? THANKS!

Organized crime refer to large-scale crimes committed by
relatively stable groups of professional criminals like gangsters and racketeers. These
type of criminals form what is commonly described as the underworld
or the crime syndicates. Generally such crimes are committed as a
part of business in involving activities like gambling, prostitution, sale of drugs, and
loan-sharking. Organized crime is frequently also involved in activities like extortion,
kidnapping, and contract killing on a regular basis. One famous organization in Sicily
that indulged in large scale organized crime is Mafia. Because of
the notoriety gained by this organisation, the groups indulging in organized crime of
any kind are sometimes called mafias.

There is no specific
definition of non-organized crime. Perhaps any crime that is not organized crime comes
under the category of non-organized crime. These crimes would include a very wide range
from petty thefts and spontaneous acts of violence to big well planned robberies and
murders. It will include many different categories of crime like white collar crimes and
political crimes.

In the play Trifles,what assumptions about women do the male characters make?In what ways do the female characters support and or challenge these...

The men think the women know little about law and even less about evidence. The men are trying to figure out the motivation for the crime, and make fun of the women who sit and talk about silly things like quilting and worrying about the preserved fruit freezing.  It is these details, of course, which provide the motivation for the crime. The play celebrates “women’s ways of knowing”, empathy, and female camaraderie, while it satirizes men’s “ways of knowing” and male condescension toward women.

In the novel "Things Fall Apart," describe the missionaries' way of refuting idolatry.

In chapter 16, the missionaries attempt to explain the Christian message to the men and women of Umofia. Through an interpreter, the missionary explains that all of the gods that the tribe worships are not really gods at all. He tells them that there is only one God. The missionary adds that the tribes gods are merely pieces of wood and stone. The people of Umofia respond with laughter. They think the white man (missionary) is insane. The people become even more confused when the missionary tries to explain Jesus. They can't understand how their is only one God if he had a son who was also God. Most of the tribesmen leave the missionary gathering believing the missionary to be insane, but Nwoye is captured by the message.

Later in the novel, others are converted because the missionaries actions began to prove to some extent that the gods of the tribe are not real.  

What does the ending say concerning Orwell's attitude toward Communism and Capitalism? Do either systems treat its lower classes well in the novel?

At the end of the novel, the animals looking into the window look back and forth between the pigs and the humans, and they can't tell one from the other. By this Orwelll suggests that the system the pigs started and the system the humans have been using, from the point of view of an onlooker, seem identical. The pigs now talk about the animals as "lower classes" just as the humans talk about their own "lower classes." While the animal revolution started with noble ideals, it became corrupted by the greed of its leaders, the pigs, so that it now, by the end of the book, suffers from the same class system that characterizes capitalism and which the animals originally found unfair and cruel.

What is a metaphor or simile that is used in act 4 scenes 2 or 3 of macbeth?

Great literature is replete with metaphors and
similes which, by making unsual comparisons between ideas and things, enable readers
understandings of life.

In Scene 2 of Act IV, when the
murderers enter, they are insulted by Macduff's son, and one stabs the boys saying,
"Young fry of treachery," a metaphor for the boy's being the son of a man who is a
traitor.  In the following scene, Macduff's first words contain two similes [comparisons
of unlike things using the words as or
like]:

readability="21">

Let us rather

Hold
fast the mortal sword, and like good
men

Bestride our down-fall'n
birthdom.

Each new morn New widows howl, new orphans cry,
new sorrows

Strike heaven on the face, that it
resounds

As if it felt with Scotland and yelled
out

Like a syllable of dolor.
(IV,iii,3-9)

Then,
in line 22 of this scene, Malcolm says,

readability="10">

Though all things foul would wear
the brows of
grace,

Yet grace must still
look so. (IV,iii,22)

This
line means that his thoughts cannot change what a person is; things may look good, but
be filthy; nevertheless, good must still resemble them when they are disguised.  "The
brows of grace" is the appearance of seeming good.

Later in
the scene, Malcolm uses a simile as he says,

black
Macbeth

Will seem as pure as
snow, and the poor state

Esteem him
as a lamb, being compared

With
my confineless harms. (IV,iii, 59-61)

Further in this
scene, Malcom employs a metaphor as he says, "Pour the sweet milk of
concord into hell" as he states that he would cause discord in the world,
destroying peace.

How does Huck change when Tom comes?In chapters 32-39

Well at this point in the book, Huck is pretending to be Tom so he is understandably nervous when Tom really does arrive. He explains the situation to Tom and he agrees to the plan to steal Jim.  This leads to feelings of disappointment in Tom that he would agree to such a thing.  

During some of the complicated plans that Tom hatches to free Jim, Huck begins to lose some respect for him.  Huck looks up Tom but is also a very practical person and can see that some of Tom's plans don't make much sense and actually put Jim in danger. 

What is the significance of George and Lennie's dream to the novel as a whole?

George and Lennie's dream of owning their own farm represents the pursuit of the American Dream during the Great Depression. The dream, while inspiring George and Lennie to continue working, is unrealistic and unattainable. In the final scene, George finally realizes that no matter where they go, Lennie will continue to find trouble. Thus, his recitation of the dream to Lennie and then his shooting Lennie symbolizes the death of their personal dream and the impossibility of achieving the American Dream.

What's the point view in "After Twenty Years" by O. Henry?

In the story "After Twenty Years" by O'Henry the view
point is told by an unknown narrator.  This type of narrator is referred to in the
literary world as a third person limited narrator. 

One
never sees the narrator and he is not able to tell us what is going on when the people
think.  He simply tells the reader the events as they are happening and acts like the
one paying witness to the conversation between the two
men.   

The two men in the story have been apart for twenty
years and now they are coming together but only one of them knows who the other one is. 
The man who has returned to town does not know the policeman is his friend from the
past.

What did Scrooge do after his visitor left?

More details, please. Which visitor are you asking about? In addition to the four spirits (Marley and the three ghosts of Christmas) who come to Scrooge, he is also visited by his nephew and by two men seeking a donation for charity. Your question cannot be answered without more details.

Evaluate the indefinite integral Integral [dx/(x^2-x)]

We have to write the function as a sum of simple
quotients:

1/(x^2-x)= 1/x(x-1) = (A/x) +
[B/(x-1)]

Bringing the 2 ratio to the same denominator,
we'll have:

1 = A(x-1) + Bx

1
= Ax - A + Bx

1 = x(A+B) -
A

The corresponding coefficients from the expressions from
both sides of the equality, have to be equal.

So, the
coefficient of x, from the left side expression, is 0, so
that: 

A+B=0

-A=1, so
A=-1

So, -1+B=0, B=1.

1/x(x-1)
= (-1/x) + [1/(x-1)]

Integral [1/x(x-1)]dx=Integral
(-1/x)dx+Integral [1/(x-1)]dx

Integral (-1/x)dx = -ln x +
C

Integral [1/(x-1)]dx = ln(x-1) +
C

Integral [1/x(x-1)]dx = -ln x + ln(x-1) +
C

Integral [1/x(x+1)]dx = ln [(x-1)/x]+
C

In Fahrenheit 451- What three elemnts did Faber feel he was missing from life?

I don't know that Faber feels that these things are
missing from his life specifically, but he feels that the society needs three things if
it is to get back to being a health society.

First, it
needs good books -- books that really look carefully at the world and expose truths
about the world.

Second, people need the time to read these
books and to think about them.  They need leisure
time.

Finally, they need rights.  They need to be allowed
to talk about the books that they have read and act on the ideas that they get from
these books.

If these things happen, society will improve,
Faber says.

Write a short note on Collins' proposal to Elizabeth.

Collins proposes to Elizabeth  on Wednesday  November
27th  at  her own house (Ch.19). Collins is a cousin of Mr.Bennet who will inherit
Mr.Bennet's estate after his death. This is why he is so arrogant and  confident that
Elizabeth will not reject his proposal. Collins takes Elizabeth for granted and
impresses upon her that he is  actually doing her a great favour by marrying her  and
tries to  exploit her financial distress to his advantage. He does not care to find out
leave alone respect  her  feelings with regard to marrying
him.

He is completely unromantic. His  arrogance prevents
him from praising her beauty or her intelligence or flattering her before seeking her
consent. Collins gives three general reasons why he wants to marry without specifying
why he wants to  marry Elizabeth in particular.

When he is
straightaway rejected by Elizabeth, he thinks that she is only acting coy. Collins
assumes wrongly that Elizabeth is only pretending that she does not like him and he
tells Elizabeth,

readability="5">

"however your natural delicacy may lead you to
dissemble"

Its a classic
example of a situation of comical dramatic irony: the completely unromantic lout that
Collins is he thinks that Elizabeth is pretending to be coy and hard to
get!

A little later, after he has formally proposed to her
and has been firmly rejected by Elizabeth he replies to her arrogantly and complacently
in the following words:

readability="11.971223021583">

``I am not now to learn,''
repliedMr.Collins with a formal wave of the hand, ``that it is usual with young ladies
to reject the addresses of the man whom they secretly mean to accept, when he first
applies for their favour; and that sometimes the refusal is repeated a second or even a
third time. I am therefore by no means discouraged by what you have
just said, and shall hope to lead you to the altar ere
long.''

Once again, Collins
assumes that Elizabeth is really attracted to him and wants to get married to him but
that she is only playing hard to get and teasing him in the conventional manner of all
young women.

However, Elizabeth firmly rejects him saying
that she is not the conventional young lady who likes to be proposed to twice and that
her rejection of him is final:

readability="6.9750889679715">

``your hope is rather an
extraordinary one after my declaration. I do assure you that I am not
one of those young ladies (if such young ladies there are) who are so daring as to risk
their happiness on the chance of being asked a second time. I am
perfectly serious in my
refusal.

Even
then Collins doesn't give up and remarks that when he next proposes to her she will
accept him:

readability="6">

``When I do myself the honour of speaking to you
next on this subject I shall hope to receive a more favourable answer than you have now
given me;

To which Elizabet
exasperatedly replies:

readability="6.8939393939394">

Do not
consider
me
now as an elegant female intending to plague you, but as a rational creature
speaking the truth from her
heart.''

Finally
the truth of the matter sinks into the thick headed Collins and he quits the place in
deep embarrassment.

Elizabeth's refusal of Collins'
proposal speaks volumes about her strength of character.

What are the ways in which KH presents the experience of childhood and growing up in The Kite Runner?This is for a compare and contrast essay I am...

I have not read The King of the
Castle, but I have read The Kite Runner. Therefore, I
shall address the second one.

The Kite Runner
addresses the issues of growing up by looking at the father/son relationship
between Amir and Baba.  Amir looks up to his father and sees a powerful man.  He wants
to please his father, but knows that he is not able to live up to his father's
expectations.  He runs to read him his stories, but his father merely nods and does not
get excited about them.

Amir is also jealous that his
father shares his attention with Hassan.  He wants his father's praise and attention and
does not want it going towards Hassan.

The kite is a symbol
of many things in the novel but it is also a symbol of the childhood days shared in play
between Hassan and Amir.  They spent hours working on making their own kites and getting
ready for spring when they would fly and run the
kites.

Childhood for the boys means climbing the
pomegranate tree and reading.  Hassan and Amr played in the streets and went to the
cinema.  Their life was relatively carefree until Assef raped
Hassan.

How does Montressor persuade Fortunato to follow him to the catacomb in "The Cask of Amontillado"?

He had a weak point -- this Fortunato -- although in other regards he was a man to be respected and even feared. He prided himself on his connoisseurship in wine. Few Italians have the true virtuoso spirit. For the most part their enthusiasm is adopted to suit the time and opportunity to practise imposture upon the British and Austrian MILLIONAIRES. In painting and gemmary, Fortunato, like his countrymen , was a quack, but in the matter of old wines he was sincere. In this respect I did not differ from him materially; I was skilful in the Italian vintages myself, and bought largely whenever I could.

This is the third paragraph of "The Cask of Amontillado" quoted in full. It conveys two main ideas. One is that Montresor is not an Italian but a Frenchman. He distances himself from the Italians by his disparagement of their judgment of "painting and gemmary." His family may have lived in Venice for several centuries, but he is still an outsider as far as the upper-class Italians are concerned. His catacombs may be full of human bones--but these are not necessarily all bones of his ancestors. He may not have cleared out the bones that did not belong to his family because there was no place to put them; or there may be some law against such removal. In fact, it is quite possible that Montresor doesn't even own his palazzo but is renting it. He is obviously not affluent. He says that he bought largely (of Italian wines) "whenever I could." That should be interpreted to mean whenever he could affordto. There would always be plenty of Italian wines available.

The other main idea conveyed in Poe's third paragraph is that both Montresor and Fortunato are specialists in luxury goods and must both be earning their livings through buying and selling expensive merchandise to wealthy people. They are in the same line of business, but they are also competitors. While Montresor is poor, Fortunato is rich. It is very likely that the "thousand injuries" which Montresor does not explain are injuries suffered in business deals. Fortunato can outbid him. Fortunato can afford to buy in larger quantities. And Fortunato has family connections going back for over a thousand years. Italians would favor him because of his family status. If there is something good to be bought at a bargain price, Fortunato is more likely to hear about it before Montresor.

When Montresor tells Fortunato that he has bought a cask of Amontillado, Fortunato says, "Impossible!" What he really means is that it would be impossible for Montresor to learn about such a cargo of valluable wine before he did. But this is carnival season and Fortunato has been drinking and not attending to business. He thinks this is why Montresor has gotten ahead of him. However, Montresor has only bought one "pipe" (126 gallons) because, as he says, "I have my doubts" (about the genuineness of the wine). Fortunato is highly motivated to taste it--not because he needs any more wine, not because he is anxious to show off his connoisseurship, not to accommodate a friend--but because he wants to buy some of the Amontillado himself for resale. But he himself must taste it to make sure it is genuine, since Montresor has repeatedly expressed his doubts. Fortunato can afford to buy the whole cargo and make a big profit--and Montresor knows that is exactly what Fortunato is planning to do because that is exactly the sort of injurious thing Fortunato has done in the past.

Who is the “wanderer, harried for years on end" in the Land of the Lotus Eaters?

The wanderer is Odysseus himself.  He has been trying to get home to Ithaca since the Trojan War ended, but he has been "harried for years on end".  This means that he has had troubles for many years.  He was stuck on Calypso's Island, and has faced many obstacles to his journey.  The Lotus-Eaters are one of the obstacles, as the Cyclops and others will be.

In Act 3, scene 1: Please explain: "I do protest I never injured thee,"... until: "which name I tender As dearly as mine own, be satisfied".

What is going on here is that Romeo is trying to calm
Tybalt down.  Tybalt wants to fight him but he does not want to fight Tybalt.  This is
because he is now married to Juliet and so he sees Tybalt as a
relative.

What he is saying here is essentially
this:

I'm telling you, I never did anything bad to
you.

I love you more than you will understand until you
find out why I love you.  So, Mr. Capulet (I love that name as much as my own), do not
be angry.

How did the village of Ketzah get its name?

Ketzah is the Hebrew name for black cumin, which was thought to have medicinal properties to detoxify the body of various ailments, as well as cosmetic properties to smooth and beautify the skin and complexion of women.  In addition, as the novel indicates, the seeds of the ketzah (cumin seeds) are “hot to the tongue.” These details, as well as the fact that it grows in a fertile valley, carry thematic significance. Ketzah as a place is fertile while the caves and rocks of the mountains, where Daniel lives with Rosh, are not. It is in this site of fertility that Daniel matures by working and caring for his sister, acts of nurturance, which correspond to fertility.  He, like the plant, has medicinal properties in that through love he helps to cure Leah of her “demons.”  That “ketzah” as a plant produces a spicy seed speaks to Daniel’s character, for his tongue is as hot as the seed. He often speaks and acts out of anger—he has a fiery temper that he must learn to subdue over the course of the novel.

What did Winston mean by this in 1984? What lead him to this realization? Quote below. "The Proles had stayed human."

The proles maintained a humanity much like our very own.
However, it was a humanity that experienced emotion without thinking too deeply. The
proles were allow to act much differently than Party members and kept more of the
rituals that we keep today (sex was for pleasure and in relationship, not like within
the Party as a duty to the Party).

The Party was ever
watched and guarded. The proles were more able to roam the streets. But, all the same,
the proles were controlled. This seems a little ironic to me to even call them human.
They were manipulated in their thought and allowed to commit greater moral sin than
Party members, so it would seem they were more free. But they weren't. They were removed
from thinking about the Party and were well unaware of what it was doing. I'm not sure
if that really can be called human. One of the great advantages I find in this life is
the ability to think and analyze this world around me. That was taken from them. I think
Winston says this quote to make us think about what it does indeed mean to be
human.

How do you get a vector from the magnitude? My teacher said that you should know how to change a magnitude to a vector, but I have no idea how to...

I do not know in what context your teacher was talking
about changing magnitude to a vector. So I will describe here some fundamental concepts
associated with vectors.

All quantities are classified in
two groups - scalars and vectors. Scalar quantities have only magnitude, for example,
mass, length, time, volume, and speed.

Vector quantities
have magnitude as well as direction. Some example of vector quantities are force,
velocity and acceleration.

Perhaps the best way to
understand the difference between scalar and vector quantities is to understand the
difference between speed and velocity. When we are talking about the fastest ever train,
it is enough to say that the speed of the train is 500 kilometer per hour. It is not
necessary for us to know the direction of train's movement. However if we wanted to
study the path taken by a cannon ball launched fired from a gun, it becomes important to
know the angle and direction in which the cannon was
fired.

When we want to add or subtract scalars quantity
there is no concept of direction. If weight of a truck is 1 ton and it is carrying a
consignment of 10 tons. the combined weight of the truck and the consignment is the
addition of the two weights. This comes to 11 tons. But if we we were to calculate the
rate of movement of an ant moving within the truck. We will need to know the direction
of the ant's movement in relation to the direction of movement of the truck. If both are
moving in the same direction, the net rate of movement or the magnitude of velocity will
be addition of the two velocities of the truck and the ant. If they are moving in
opposite direction the net velocity will be obtained by subtraction. If their movements
are in some other directions then the net velocity cannot be obtained by simple addition
or subtraction. We will need to use the method of vector
addition.

A vector is often represented by a straight line.
The length of the line represents the magnitude of the vector, and and the direction of
line, marked by an arrow represents the direction of the vector.

In chapter 8, why does Daisy always seem mysterious to Gatsby?

Gatsby doesn't know the real Daisy. Gatsby constructs his own idea of Daisy, and it is false because in reality, he has not had the opportunity to know who Daisy has become. Gatsby last encounter with Daisy occurred when they were both young. He has built Daisy up over the years, fantasizing about what would happen when they finally come together again. Eventually, the fantasy becomes real to him. Gatsby believes every giggle, comment, or action by Daisy, as mysterious and appealing. This is most likely a defense mechanism, because he does not want to face the reality of the situation. By giving Daisy a mysterious air, this helps him continue his romantic notions.

What role does feminist criticism play in fight club? How do you analyze it?essay

I've seen the movie Fight Club, but I
haven't read the book.  I can help you analyze any work of fiction from a feminist point
of view, though. 

First, feminist criticism isn't something
that is in a work of fiction.  It doesn't play a role in a normal work of fiction. 
Feminist criticism is a way of looking at or analyzing a work of
fiction. 

When you analyze the novel from feminist critical
perspective you will look for several things:

• Is
  the writer male or female, and how does his/her gender determine what he/she
  writes?


• What roles do women have in the work?  Are they
  more than just decoration?  Do the roles have substance? 
  


• How are women portrayed?  Are they independent?  Do they
  have value in themselves, or are they dependent on males?  Are they put on a pedestal,
  abused, or self-determined?


• What does the presentation of
  women in the work reveal about the societal views of women, in the society the work
  originates from?   

This is not a complete
list, and of course studying any work of fiction doesn't really come down to a list. 
But I hope this will help. 

Why does James Joyce use the technique of epiphany in The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man?

An epiphany is a sudden, unpremeditated insight into the
essential meaning of an object. The observer perceives in a whole new way extraordinary
beauty and unity in an otherwise ordinary thing. When such an experience appears in a
work of literature, the artist presents it in a symbolic
way.

It is his aesthetic belief which prompts Joyce to
use the technique of epiphany in his written work, particularly in The
Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Joyce believed that it was the
obligation of an author to record these fleeting moments of metaphysical beauty. In
Stephen Hero, the first draft of the novel, Stephen explains the
occurence of it thus: Its soul, its whatness, leaps to us from the vestment of its
appearance. The soul of the commonest object...seems to us radiant. The object achieves
its epiphany."

Epiphanies in the novel include Stephen's
otherworldly perception of the young girl wading "in midstream, alone and still, gazing
out to sea...like one whom magic had changed into the likeness of a strange and
beautiful sea creature," and the swallows seen from the steps of the
library.

How might the story And of Clay Are We Created change if it were narrated by Rolfe Carle or Azucena?

Whenever you get a question like this, stop and think about the characteristics of the people. If Azucena told the story, what things could she tell us that the narrator can't? From Azucena's point of view, we could know how Azucena feels being stuck and the pain she feels. We would know how she feels about Rolfe and what they say to each other for the three days. Rolfe Carle changes in this story. For the first time, he's unable to remain objective about the story he's reporting because he becomes involved personally in what Azucena is going through. He grieves for her at the end and through this experience, Rolfe confronts his own pain from the past and begins his healing. Rolfe would fill us in on his past from his perspective, how he feels about Azucena, and how he feels when she dies. We would also know how Rolfe feels after Azucena dies and how he's trying to cope with what happened.

How does the narrator turn the tables on the friend who sends him to Simon Wheeler in "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County"?The short...

It is actually the FRIEND who turns the tables on the
NARRATOR in Mark Twain's short story, "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County."
In the opening paragraph, the narrator tells the reader that his friend has asked him
"to call on garrulous old Simon Wheeler and inquire(d) after my friend's friend,
Leonidas W. Smiley, as requested to do..." The narrator speculates that his friend knew
that by asking about the aforementioned Leonidas
Smiley, 

it
would remind him of his infamous Jim Smiley, and he would go to work and bore me nearly
to death with some infernal reminiscence of him as long and tedious as it should be
useless to me. If that was the design, it certainly
succeeded.

So, apparently
there was no Leonidas W. Smiley--only a Jim Smiley. The narrator's friend turned the
tables on the narrator by setting into motion the process by which the narrator would
learn of the extremely long-winded tale that climaxed with the humorous story about the
jumping frog.

What are the stereotypes of Portia in The Merchant of Venice?

Here are a few ways in which I think that Portia fits into
various stereotypes that we have today.  I hope this is what you are
asking.

First, one stereotype we have is that women try to
maneuver the men they want into marrying them.  We can see Portia doing this when she
sees Bassanio.  She helps him to figure out the casket
riddle.

Second, people say women try to make men jealous of
other men.  Portia does this in the ring subplot.

Third, we
think of lawyers as being people who will take an agreement and find loopholes in it to
give it a meaning it never had before.  We see Portia do this when she says Shylock's
agreement entitles him to a pound of Antonio's flesh, but none of his blood.  This means
that the agreement actually prevents Shylock from taking the flesh instead of allowing
him to do it.

Why doesnt Whickham have warm feelings for Darcy?

Probably the better question is why doesn't Mr. Darcy have
warm feelings towards Mr. Wickham!  That's a whole seperate kettle of fish
however.

Mr. Wickham claims to Lizzy to not have warm
feelings towards Mr. Darcy because after Mr. Darcy's father died, Mr. Darcy threw him
out penniless.  Mr. Darcy's father had been fond of Mr. Wickham (according to Mr.
Wickham) and had planned to provide for Mr. Wickham so that he may join the ministry. 
Instead, penniless, he was forced to seek his fortune in the
militia. 

Mr. Wickham is also known to be a charming man,
unlike Mr. Darcy, but does charming mean that he is a better man than Mr. Darcy?  Keep
reading!  You'll find out!

In The Yearling, why does Grandma Hutto tell Oliver a lie about how the fire started in the house.

Grandma Hutto doesn't want Oliver going after the Forresters and probably getting himself killed. The Forresters don't always fight fairly, and Grandma knows Oliver wouldn't stop until he had tried to kill every one of them. There are more Forresters, and one of them would most likely kill Oliver before he could kill them. She wants to move to Boston the next day because she knows if she stays, Oliver will find out that the Forresters did start the fire, and she would rather have him alive than live where she has all of her life. Plus, she will get to see more of Oliver since Boston is usually where he ships out of.

Describe the "apparition" Abigail and the other girls see in the courtroom.the question is in act 3 of the book

John Proctor forces Mary Warren to go to the court and confess that she and the other girls have been lying about being possessed by witches. He also insists that she tell them that it has been Abigail that has been the ringleader of the court circus.

After Mary Warren has giving her testimony, Abigail is questioned about the allegations and she starts to scream and writhe, she asserts that she is being attacked by Mary Warren. She mimics the things Mary says.The other girl's follow suit and the courtroom is in bedlam. Abigail swears she saw a bird that Mary Warren sent out.

Proctor attempts to get Abigail under control, but he is not successful in this. In the end, Mary Warren is worn down into recanting her previous recantation. She swears that Proctor is doing work for the devil, and she did not want to do this.

What is Mayella's testimony?

In addition, Mayella's testimony draws the reader to
seriously question her credibility as a witness.

First,
Mayella approaches her testimony afraid of Atticus, a most gentle attorney who never
raises his voice, but searches for truth and will do so in a way that challenges a
witness, like he did with Bob Ewell.

Atticus uses her
testimony to build the argument that she is a victim of her circumstances, and that
there is potential that she has been neglected and abused. This is something that Tom
Robinson has no responsibility for. She has no friends, and is therefore lonely. She
performs the functions of a parent for 7 other children and has been robbed of an
education. She is a likely candidate to give lies in her
testimony.

What is the Wife of Bath's opinion of marriage (including her five) and how does she control her husbands?

The Wife of Bath feels that all control in a marriage should be given to the woman, both financially and sexually speaking. Her constant accusations of unfaithfulness and lying as well as ceaseless criticism of their every action kept the husbands of her first three marriages very busy trying to please her with attention and material wealth. While she does not give up her love for other men, they do not have the time for it. Her practice of obtaining all their worldly possessions before marriage has worked well for her.

The fourth husband does not comply as meekly as the other three before him.He has a wandering eye, and does not easily give over control to her. Therefore, they enter into a mutual game of causing the other jealousy. She enrages him with her taunting of Jenkin's desire for her.

When she marries Jenkin, she makes a mistake. She gives up her practice of maintaining control, and he has all her wealth from her previous husbands, as well as her emotional assets. She is constantly berated for her actions, just as she used to use this ploy on her previous husbands. She, to this point, has been unable to gain back the control in her marriage.

Finally, after a physical fight in which Jenkin thought he killed her, she regains the control and they live very happily until his death.

How did the Vietnam War play a part in turning the united states in a more conservative political direction

Although the Vietnam and Korean Wars were extremely
different in most aspects they both led to a turning away from progressive American
values to an attempt to install the sort of narrowly controlled country that caused most
American families to immigrate from Europe.  The anti-war movement during the 1960s was
right in the general idea that we had no real national interests in Vietnam, and that
the "Domino Theory" was inapplicable.  However, the movement was top-heavy with
extremely left-wing groups and political coalitions with no grounding in reality. 
Theatrical displays such as the exorcism of the Pentagon were ridiculous, trivialized
the real issues involved and offended people.  It is important to understand, though,
that Richard Nixon was not elected in 1968 because he was so conservative, but because
he claimed to have a "secret plan" to end the war.  Nixon was the peace candidate among
the two major parties (at least after the assassination of Robert
Kennedy).

It was the failure of Nixon to deliver that led
to the later excesses of the peace movement, that and his administration's disregard for
the laws they claimed to respect.  Unfortunately, the reaction of the anti-war movement
on the surface was so offensive that it frightened people into allowing the swing to the
right, although at the same time the majority of Americans did come to believe that the
war was wrong.  The real problem was that the reaction of the right-wing and the
administration came so close to actually fomenting a civil war here in America (combined
with the Black Panthers, Yippie, Kent State, the "Silent Majority", etc.) that the war
had to be ended.  Still, the realization that our country had become so polarized
instead of leading to more open public discourse led the administration farther to the
right and the average voter allowed it, not knowing how else to deal with what really
looked like looming anarchy.  Much like the 1968 Tet offensive, it looked worse on TV
than it actually was.

The normal economic drop at the end
of a war naturally followed, and this plus Watergate led to massive disillusionment. 
Carter succeeded in restoring a certain amount of respect and confidence in the
government, but the economy and the military had been ravaged by the Nixon and Ford
years.  Since Nixon's misuse of the CIA had caused loss of trust in them, also, that
agency had to be restructured.  Carter's administration succeeded at setting in place a
large number of programs which did fix these things, but they took time to work.  The
fear Americans had about the world caused them to take shelter in the soothing rhetoric
of Reagan, who of course took credit for all the programs Carter initiated (Strategic
Defense Initiative, Unified Special Operations Command, restructuring the CIA, and a
slew of economic programs).  Carter's support for the Afghans fighting the USSR (and the
eventual success of Truman's Containment Policy) led to the collapse of the Soviet
Union, which Reagan also took credit for.  All these things together have been the
public face of a swing to the right in the decades since Vietnam.  Unfortunately, below
the surface is a much uglier face, the rise of the corporate state supported by
government propaganda.  Unlike Nazi Germany, however, we do not have a fascist
government controlling the corporations, we have corporations controlling the
government.  That is an improvement.

Difference between civil service and public service.it an assignment, need urgent answer.

Civil service means two things, either a job or work force
which one enters through an examination process which is relatively
competitive.

The second definition is any group of workers
which are in any government agency that is not the
military.

So the main difference my lie in that first
definition, since the second definition and that of "Public Service" are basically
identical and refer to the same thing.

The examination
process for the Civil Service is intense, take a look at the process for entering the
Foreign Service (a branch of the Civil Service) which involves exams, interviews, group
interviews and of course a very thorough vetting process where the FBI basically asks
everyone you know if you ever did anything bad.

How does Montano react to the news that Othello is about to take his place as governor of Cyprus in Othello?

In Othello, Act II, scene ii, Montano
welcomes Othello as his replacement:

readability="5">

I am glad on't; 'tis [he is] a worthy
governor.

He has had good
news on this day of his retirement: the Turkish fleet, enemies to the city-state of
Venice, is sunk and defeated.  The island Cyprus is in the good hands of the Venitian
army.  He had no doubt been nervous of the threat of an impending invasion from the
Turks.

Contrary to Iago, Montano is not jealous of the
Moor.  He even hangs around and drinks with some of his men.  He does take exception to
getting stabbed by the drunk Cassio, but other than that, he welcomes his civilian
life.

What was the situation when the U.S came into WWII, and how did the Allies win?

World War II was a long drawn out war, fought between
countries coalition of more than 50 countries including the most powerful countries of
that time, and extending over three major continents. In a war like this it is not
possible to speak of just one unchanging foreign policy. In a dynamic situation like a
world war is necessary to have a flexible foreign policy in line with changing
situation.

For example, initially the policy of USA was to
not to participate in the war only selling war material for cash to allied country. This
was changed to the policy of supply on lend-lease basis. Subsequently USA decided to to
participate in the war directly.

Similarly take the case of
Russia. Initially it did not oppose the actions of Germany, but was forced in to the war
nearly one and half year after the start of war. In situation like this foreign policy
of any country toward Russia could not have remained same throughout the
war.

Similarly, Bombing of Pearl Harbour by Japan in
December 1941, made a shift in foreign policies of all the countries, towards Japan in
particular and towards the war in general, absolutely
essential.

Coming to the question of how Allies won the
war, to me the most important factor appears to be the greater combined military and
economic strength of the allied countries.

Why does Atticus tell Jem and Scout they have to change their snowman?

Atticus thinks Jem should change the snowman because it too closely resembles their neighbor, Mr. Avery, and not in a very complimentary way either. "Using bits of wood for eyes, nose, mouth, and buttons, Jem succeeded in making Mr. Avery look cross" is the way Scout describes Jem's creation.  Even Miss Maudie is a bit appalled, encouraging Jem and Scout to modify the snowman so as not to hurt anyone's feelings. Because Mr. Avery "is sort of shaped like a snowman," his feelings would be hurt with this caricature.

In "A Rose for Emily," why does the negro servant answer the door and then leave out the back door when the women arrive?I find this confusing...

It is important to remember that this story takes place in the South, post-Civil War. A very simplistic answer could be that Miss Emily kept Toby as her servant, even after the Civil War. Her death may have been his only way of escaping into freedom.

Another (debated) idea is that although Toby remained a faithful servant to Miss Emily all those years, he would be the only living soul to have witnessed the remaining years of Miss Emily's life and be able to answer many of the questions posed by the townsfolk: What happened to Homer? Did Miss Emily in fact poison him? Was she sleeping with his body? What else happened in this house?

We as the readers are well aware of how nosey the townsfolk are, especially the women; therefore, they would have pestered him for a response. His means of escaping with Miss Emily's secrets intact came when and only when she passed away.

Why does Shakespeare have Juliet use natural/earth imagery when talking about and to Romeo in the balcony scene?

Honestly to know his real purpose, you would have to ask
him. So as readers trying to interpret, there could be several reasons for the
natural/earth imagery he employs in this scene.

I think
love is one of the most basic functions of life for humanity. During this scene, these
two characters attempt to escape from the complication that is their families' feud. Man
has done much to try and improve his life here on this earth by building dwellings to
live in, organizing societies and trying to govern those societies. All of this things
distract from the beauty that is the simplicity of nature. After finding each other, I
think they long for the perfection that can be found within
nature.

Likewise, in the natural universe, light and
darkness have come to symbolize characters, situations, and attitudes. The moon is a
light but night will come to represent trouble, and Juliet notes this inconsistency of
the moon's orbit. The sun is a beacon of light casting warmth on that which it touches.
For Romeo, Juliet performs this fuction.

If charges travel very slowly through a metal, why doesn't it take several hours for a light to come on after you flip a switch?

I am not sure if you have stated your question
correctly.

Fact is that electric charge travels through the
metal at same speed as thought any other conductor. This is same as the speed of light -
about 300,000 kilometers per second. And it is because of this that a lamp lights on
almost as soon as the switch is flipped on.

In some other
appliance the action may not be as quick. For example, the coil of an electric heater
may take a few seconds start glowing at its maximum intensity. This is because the
energy generated by the passage of current through the coil is does not generate enough
heat energy to heat the coil to its maximum temperature
instantly.

What do you think of Shakespeare's opinion of courtship and marriage, as expressed in The Merchant of Venice?

We do not know much about Shakespeare for certain, so we
need to tread lightly when we consider his "opinions". However, we can consider the
ideas that are expressed within the play; just be careful not to attribute them to
Shakespeare himself.

The Merchant of Venice
explores the trials and tribulations of courtship. Bassanio must initially
prove he is a worthy suitor for Portia through material means, Portia and Nerissa toy
with and manipulate their men in order to test their love, Bassanio publicly announces
he would give up his wife if it would save Antonio, and Jessica must reject her religion
for love. While Shakespeare does add twists of humor to each of these circumstances, his
focus appears to be on the difficulties and obstacles one must face for the sake of
romance.

However, given that the play appears to end
happily (in terms of the marriage/courtship plots) Shakespeare may be suggesting that
all of these obstacles are worth it in the name of love.

In Frankenstein, why did Victor not create the mate he promised?

In chapter IX, the "monster" and Frankenstein discuss this. When the creature presses Frankenstein for an answer, he says, "You may render me the most miserable of men, but you shall never make me base in my own eyes.  Shall I create another like yourself, whose joint wickedness might desolate the world...you may torture me, but I will never consent." Victor does vacillate, however, thinking he owes the creature, and that a mate will enable him to be moral, for he will have someone like himself and in that way be less of an outsider. Then, in Chapter III of the next book, after he is almost finished creating the mate, he destroys it because he sees the monster looking at him, and he sees on his face "the utmost extent of malice and treachery."  He cannot create another, no matter what the consequences.

What is the main lesson to be learned from The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time?Mark Haddon's novel about an adolescent suffering from...

There are several lessons or morals to be learned, as
indirectly "stated" as they may be. One is that acceptance of
others helps one find self-acceptance as well. For example,
when Christopher forgives his father for having killed the neighbour's dog and simulated
his mother's death for the simple reason of convenience, he does not bear a grudge but
accepts his father's confession of fault. Father and son start sharing activites
together which they had not done before, and Christopher learns to be more optimistic
about his future, now that the shadows of an uncertain past have been
dissipated.

Another lesson is that
problems can be an opportunity to learn and
grow. Christopher would have never ventured beyond the
perimeter of his own neighbourhood had he not discovered letters from his mother and
gone to London in search of her. He learns how to cope with new and unfamiliar
experiences, such as riding on a train and not getting lost and finding his mother alive
and well after having thought she had died at
hospital.

Another theme which is an offshoot of the
previously mentioned one is that a person can turn a weakness
into a strength. Christopher's autism makes him
uncompromizingly blunt, but it his his straightforward nature which helps his father
escape the snare of lies and dissimulation. Mr Boone learns to be an honest person again
after a "snowball effect" of pretention.

According to the
author, the purpose of this book was not to moralize but to expose the personality of a
marginal type fragilized by both his handicap and his life experience. Christopher is
not an endearing character, he is not loveable or even that likable, but the reader
becomes "engaged" just the same. The reader lets himself, much as Alice, plunge into a
world where the rules and usual code of behaviour no longer apply. He learns to "think
different" and see the world from a perspective other than his own, and this is a lesson
in itself.

[Act 5] What is the significance of Malcolm's ascension?

Finally, the mirror carried by the last king in the Show of Kings during the witches' Show of Kings in Act 4 Scene 1 represented the Stuart posterity stretching out "to th' crack of doom" (4.1.117); the the overthrow of Macbeth and the Malcolm, the rightful heir, meant not only a general purgation of the country's evil, but the establishment of a line of kings, one of whom sat in Shakespeare's audience hundreds of years later and was almost morbidly aware that the same evils continued to beset great men. The Show of Kings confirms the words of King James himself, who expressed the hope that he and his descendants would "rule over [Britain] to the end of the world," almost exactly matching the prediction of the witches.