We'll write 11pi/12 = 12pi/12 - pi/12 = pi - pi/12
The angle (pi - pi/12) belongs to the second quadrant, so the sine function in the second qudrant, has positive values.
So, sin (pi - pi/12) = sin pi/12
We'll consider sin pi/12 = sin[(pi/6)/2]
But sin x/2 = sqrt[(1-cosx)/2]
sin[(pi/6)/2] = sqrt {[1-(cos pi/6)]/2}
cos pi/6 = sqrt3/2
sin[(pi/6)/2] = sqrt [(1 - sqrt3/2)/2]
sin[(pi/6)/2] = sqrt(2-sqrt3)/2
Coincidence of wants is the reason that money is so
important in an economic system. Or rather, I should say money is important because it
is rare to have a coincidence of wants.
Coincidence of
wants occurs when two people have goods or services that they want to trade with one
another. I have an answer you want, maybe you have a bunch of grapes that I want --
coincidence of needs.
But that makes it hard for an economy
to run. What if I have an answer and you have nothing I want? Or what if you want to
buy rice from someone and you have nothing they want? Then you have to find out what
they want and go try to trade for it.
So, it is hard to get
coincidence of wants for all the things we want to
have.
But when money is invented, we no longer need
coincidence of wants. We can trade money for anything.
Amir disappoints is father because of his lack of courage and his bookish personality. Amir looks for ways to gain his father's approval and attention. He does not argue with his father-he only tries to please him.
Soraya constantly argues with her father. She does not try to hide her differences of opinion from him, and she does not find his disapproval crushing, which is a direct contrast to Amir.
Act 5 sc.3 is laid in a room in the castle of Dunsinane. Macbeth is seen with the Doctor and Attendants. Macbeth sounds quite bold and desperate as he doesn't seem to bother about the reported desertions of his men. He still banks upon the assurances of the apparitions that he must be invincible and proof against all mortal attacks:
.................................let them fly all.
Till Birnam wood remove to Dunsinane
I cannot taint with fear. What's the boy Malcolm?
Was he not born of woman? The spirits that know
All mortal consequences have pronounc'd me thus........
As a servant enters to report that the English force approaches, Macbeth remonstrates him in harsh, abusive terms. But the servant disappearing, Macbeth sounds a different man, full of self-reflexive melancholy:
I have liv'd long enough: my way of life
Is fall'n into the sear, the yellow leaf;
And that which should accompany old age,
As honour, love, obedience, troops of friends,
I must not look to have; but, in their stead,
Curses, not lod but deep, mouth-honour, breath,
Which the poor heart would fain deny, and dare not.
This is another person--regretful, self-crtical, futuristic.
Further on, when Seyton confirms the servant's report, Macbeth again reverts to his hard and bold exterior:
I'll fight, till from my bones my flesh be hack'd.
Give me my armour.
Macbeth then asks the Doctor about Lady Macbeth's state of sickness, and ventilates his desperation in the matter of her treatment:
Cure her of that:
Canst thou not minister to a mind diseas'd,
Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow,
Raze out the written troubles of the brain,
And with some sweet oblivious antidote
Cleanse the stuff'd bosom of that perilous stuff
Which weighs upon the heart?
At the close of the scene, Macbeth sounds rather aggressively cynical, doubting the credentials of the system of medcal cure, and himself suggesting alternative treatment. He goes out for the battle defying the fear and destructiveness of impending death.
To me, there were a couple different kinds of changes that came about after the revolution.
First, there were social changes. Before the revolution, Iran was a very secular and open country. After the revolution, it became much more of a theocracy. Unlike before the revolution, there are now morality police that enforce the religiously based rules imposed by the government. On the other hand, it is generally said that wealth and education and such are spread more evenly than they had been.
Second, there were changes in Iran's international attitudes. Under the Shah, Iran was a US client. Since then, Iran has become more and more set on opposing the US and the West. The current issues over their nuclear program is a clear example of this.
Let's recall the logarithmic properties before:
1 = lg10
The quotient law: lgx - lgy = lg(x/y)
x > 0
Now, let's solve the equation:
lg(x + 1) - lg9 = lg[(x + 1)/9]
1 - lgx = lg10 - lgx = lg(10/x)
lg[(x + 1)/9] = lg(10/x)
From one to one property of logarithmic functions, we'll get:
(x + 1)/9 = 10/x
We'll use the cross multiplying:
x*(x + 1) = 9*10
x^2 + x - 90 = 0
x1 = [-1+ sq root(1 + 4*90)]/2 = (-1 + 19)/2 = 9
x2 = (-1 -19)/2 = -10
From the existence condition of the logarithm, x > 0, so the only accepted solution of the equation is x1 = 9.
Various tasks to be performed in doing a research project
are classified in the following 8 tasks.
I'll center on rights for equality in Fahrenheit
451. If the novel reveals anything about equality that suggests people
should be equal, it may be just that someone who disagrees with the status quo and the
firemen and the government should be treated the same as someone who agrees. Clarisse
and the old woman who dies with her books are not treated as
equals.
For the most part, though, the novel suggests that
the desire to make everyone equal, at least intellectually, is a negative. According to
Beatty, books were originally banned because special interest groups, namely minorities
of all kinds, complained every time something offended them. To make every book
inoffensive is, of course, to make them all equal. And that is a bad
thing.
Equal treatement under the law and the equal right
to free speech are essential, but the watering down of intellectual thought in the
interest of not offending anyone, is undesirable.
The
government in the novel wants everyone to think alike, and wants everyone to be
simplistic. Books that disagree can change this.
You only get to ask one question, so I'll deal with the first one. In a world where connections are everything, the country club was the premier place for the ultra-rich to meet with other ultra-rich people in a more casual yet selective environment. Country clubs were for the more elite sports, such as polo or golf, which weren't as accessible to the average guy.
For men, the club offered opportunities for informal business dealings and networking. In other words, the only other golfers on the course were also the business moguls, the elite, the movers and shakers, those who could make million-dollar deals with a handshake at the 13th hole. The exclusive nature of country clubs (many of which were segregated by more than money) not want to be bothered by inferiors. There was a time when being asked to join a golf foursome at "the club" was a golden ticket--an opportunity to rub shoulders with potential financial backers and investors.
For women, the country club was a place to "see and be seen." Women were not generally there to conduct business; however, they were certainly there to solidify their husbands' social standing. Their part, if you will, was to promote the family business by maintaining an elegant social presence and gathering any helpful information for their husbands. Though they didn't talk business and made no hand-shake deals while at the club, there were undoubtedly many "suggestions" made to their husbands over pillow-talk after a day at the club.
Entrance into such country clubs was outrageously expensive and exclusive. In other words, one not only had to have money but be among the desirables--and "old money" was definitely preferable to "new money." Members were often recommended, but no one got in without a vote. The sport (golf or polo or whatever) was secondary to to the networking. Country clubs were the playgrounds of the elite.
The novel has aspects of all three, but its most dominant themes fall in the tragedy and romance area. There are moments of comedy throughout the novel as Pi deals with his parents, his classmates, his religious muses, and even Richard Parker. However, the seriousness of the story itself lends itself better to romance and tragedy. And, depending on which ending you believe, that will lead you towards which of those two best fits.
If you believe the story that involved humans and not animals, then the story is much more tragic. Pi loses his family in the shipwreck, then his mother to a brutal man on the lifeboat. Then, he has to conquer his weaknesses and fears in order to survive against that very evil force. That has all the aspects of a good tragedy there; a huge loss, a struggle, and a protagonist struggling against the odds.
If you believe the story that involved the animals instead of the humans it is more of a romance. Romantic literature is rather fantastical, has elements of the supernatural about it, and focuses on the dignity of human nature. With Richard Parker, Pi is able to maintain his dignity and be the hero of heroes as he fights to keep them both alive. Also, there is a relationship of love between him and Richard Parker; they are reliant on each other, and when Richard Parker leaves suddenly as they approach land, Pi is heartbroken. The relationships, the heroic journey, the amazing adventure--those are elements of a good romance.
I hope that those thoughts help to lead you in the right direction; good luck!
I hope you have plenty of good ideas and support for your thesis. I applaud you for undertaking this tough assignment, because Atticus is usually considered such a perfect role model as a man and attorney. Taking this approach is kind of like defending a man who has already admitted his crime: Your job has many obstacles. However, Atticus certainly has some deficiencies as a parent. Here are a few examples that come to mind, aside from his absence because of the trial.
The line you ask about in Shakespeare's
Macbeth is from the famous "Tomorrow" speech, spoken by Macbeth.
Here's the line with some context:
She should have died hereafter [at some better
time; later, rather than sooner];
There would have been a
time for such a word [the word he just received that his wife was
dead].
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and
tomorrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to
day
To the last syllable of recorded
time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted
fools
The way to dusty death.... (Act
5.5.17-23)
The repetition of
tomorrow suggests tedium, endless repetition, and tomorrow creeps
in slowly from one day to the next, always, and it is just as useless as all of the
yesterdays.
Macbeth slips into nihilism, here, the belief
that nothing matters, and nothing makes any difference. His wife's death is the trigger
that moves him to hopelessness. All the yesterdays lead one only to the dusty grave.
And between the beginning and the end what happens is
irrelevant.
Interestingly, this scene is one of several
that shows Macbeth figuratively jumping back and forth between emotionally feeling he is
invincible because of the witches' predictions, and rationally knowing the predictions
are too good to be true and that he is doomed.
Your question is a bit vague - but I'll answer it this way. Without conflict, a story does not exist. Consider the four modes of writing: narrative, descriptive, expository and persuasive. The only one of these that tells a story is narrative. The other three are just essays - pontifications if you will - on some subject. And these are not necessarily for the purpose of entertaining. More often than not, they aren't entertaining.
But narrative. Narratives entertain. Why is conflict necessary for a narrative? Well, conflict is interesting period. The entire premisis of what we humans enjoy about stories is the big problem, was it solved, and how? This is likely because we all experience problems on a daily basis. And in our daily lives, aren't these what make existance interesting? Reading about other people's problems is always fun because they aren't ours - and then we make comparisons of ourselves to others and enjoy thinking, "Well, my life could be worse."
Here are a couple of ways to tell the difference:
commercial fiction is often highly used for entertainment value and is sold often by the
millions. These are often block-buster best seller books or books made into movies. I do
not believe Jackson's Lottery fits this criteria of the definition.
The John Grishams, Nicolas Sparks and Stephen Kings of today's era are commercial
fiction.
Literary fiction is often studied in schools for
the abilities to employ literary devices and contribute great purpose by the author.
The Lottery certainly fits this mold. It's gothic horror, imagery,
symbolism and evidence of the author's purpose fits the craftily constructed work that
is classified as literary fiction.
It depends, if you have received a tetanus shot in the last ten years, the answer is no. If however, it has been longer than ten years, or you can't remember when you received the shot, then yes you need one.
Clostridium tetani is an organism that is ubiquitous. It is a gram positive spore forming bacillus and a normal inhabitant of many surroundings. If someone sustains an injury in which the skin is broken, they are susceptible to contracting this organism and should receive the tetanus shot.
Left untreated you may develop paralysis of the masseter muscles, sardonic smile, and "lockjaw". Symptoms may include difficulty swallowing, profuse sweating, and hypotension.
Superior vena cava, inferior vena cava and pulmonary veins are all veins through which blood from the body flows into the heart. Blood from the body, after it has supplied oxygen to the body and collected carbon dioxide in return flows to the hart through superior vena cava and inferior vena cava, which are the body's two largest veins. The superior vena cava brings blood from the head and arms. The inferior vena cava carries blood from the trunk and legs. Pulmonary veins return oxygenated blood from the lungs to the heart.
Professional assistance for web development, design,
hosting, and providing contents is provided by thousands of business enterprises of size
varying from a one person outfit to large corporations with turnover in billions of
dollars. However, there is no national or international system for rating of such web
developers and designers. Also there is no single provider with a market reputation that
it places it much above its competitors at national or international level. Also
different firms do possess strengths in term of variables like size of the website,
nature of contents and functions of the website, and industry.
Lots of people in this novel show courage, though it may
look differently for each one. Let's take a look:
Boo for
attempting a friendship with Jem and Scout despite his reclusiveness; for saving Jem's
life without worrying about his own or the
consequences.
Miss Maudie for calling it like she sees
it--in front of the kids, in front of Miss Stephanie Crawford, and certainly in front of
the "foot washin'" Baptists.
Judge Taylor for assigning
this case to Atticus because he understood Tom was guilty and Atticus would actually
defend him; for keeping order in a courtroom which was so racially
charged.
Tom Robinson for hekping a white woman in a world
where that was not a prudent--or safe--thing to do and for trying valiantly to escape
from prison, though he didn't make it.
Mrs. Henry Lafayette
DuBose for kicking her morphine addiction before she died when she certainly didn't have
to do so.
Mr. Dolphus Raymond for living his own kind of
life despite public scorn and for giving society a lie (that he's a drunkard) to make
them feel better about his presence among them.
Mr. Link
Deas for speaking up in support of Tom's wife in open court and for acting as her
protector when Bob Ewell began tormenting her.
Sheriff Tate
for trying to protect Tom from the prejudices of the day, which might have gotten Tom
killed without someone like Heck Tate watching.
Mr.
Underwood for speaking his mind in a public way (his newspaper) and for helping protect
Tom from any harm before the trial.
Dill for trekking alone
to the Finches' house (though we don't know the full details because he's such a
prolific storyteller).
Aunt Alexandra for coming to help
her brother even though she didn't support what he was doing and then for being willing
to change her mind.
Jem for sneaking out after dark to
retrieve his torn overalls and for confronting the "clan" which had gathered at the
jailhouse where Tom was being held.
Scout for speaking
frankly to her teacher on the first day of class, for speaking up to her cowardly
cousin, and for speaking fearlessly to Mr. Cunningham outside the jail. (In all
fairness, in neither case did Scout really understand the potential consequences of her
actions, but still.)
Calpurnia for teaching her children to
read at a time and place when, clearly, that was not the acceptable or usual practice;
for speaking her mind and being willing to punish Scout for her bad behavior; and for
tolerating Aunt Alexandra when she comes to stay.
And
finally Atticus, for really defending Tom in the face of such prejudice; for facing a
rabid dog in a showdown, of sorts; for teaching his children to look beyond skin color
(to walk in their moccasins); for recognizing his need for help and inviting his
less-than-supportive sister to stay with them; for standing up to Aunt Alexandra; for
sitting outside the jail, unarmed, one night to protect an innocent man; for telling
Helen in person what happened to Tom; for taking the garbage (and spit) which Bob Ewell
dished out; and so many more. For me, he was most heroic when he dared to remind a jury
that all men are created equal, knowing full well those twelve men did not believe
it.
Some of these are major courageous acts or incidents,
while some are much less heroic or even comical. "Courage" is broad enough to encompass
them all.
To me, there is no question as to which power denied to the states is most important (assuming you are talking about the United States). The Constitution says that the states may not regulate interstate commerce. This is hugely important because it helps (and has helped) the US economy.
Before the Constitution, states could and did erect tariffs and other trade barriers against each other. This made it so that various states became like separate countries in terms of trade. It meant that people from one state could not trade easily with one another.
Today, economists believe that free trade is good. We have things like NAFTA to give us access to larger markets. If the states were allowed to have trade barriers, we would not even have free trade within the US. That would weaken our economy because our companies would not be able to have such big markets -- they would only be able to sell easily within their own state.
The Japanese haiku (as distinct from non-Japanese
variations on the Japanese philosophy of haiku) embodies juxtaposition of nature with
human activity with the objective of revealing something about human nature.
Juxtaposition can be defined as the arrangement of two or more concepts next to each
other to produce a strong affect. Revealing something about human nature by arranging
nature and human activity produces just such a strong affect. Sonnets also employ
juxtaposition. For instance, Shakespeare's Sonnet 29 juxtaposes misery and envy with
lark's songs to reveal something about the nature of love.
Maybe these will help:
1. He is intelligent and highly educated. He can use allusions to Greek and Roman mythology as well as to the bible. These allusions are somewhat obscure: Niobe, Hyperion, Mars, Jepthah. He can recite long speeches from plays he has heard.
2. He is well versed in drama. He even gives the actors instructions on how to act.
3. He is idealistic. Because he is idealistic, he is very disappointed when others do not live up to his expectations. We see this especially in his relationship with his mother.
4. He is emotional. He feels deeply. He continues to mourn his father's death long after others have moved on.
5. He is not only tough on others, but he is tough on himself. In the last scene of Act 2, he is furious with himself that he has not acted to avenge his father's death. In Act 4, he feels that Fortinbras is accomplishing more than he is. But he is also tough on others: he lectures his mother in Act 3, for instance.
6. He is loyal to those who deserve it, and he is a good judge of characters. Look at his relationship with Horatio, for example.
The break up of the totalitarian U.S.S.R. into 15 democratic states is one of the most important events in modern history. By the time Mikhail Gorbachev was appointed Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1985 the U.S.S.R. was already on the verge of breaking up: the economy was in a very bad shape and three senior party leaders had died in three years creating a political vacuum. His three important reforms were, glasnost, perestroika and democratisation.
Glasnost or 'openness' led to the rewriting of Soviet history and the previously great leaders were unmasked for whom they really were.
Perestroika or 'restructuring' refers to Gorbachev's failed attempts to revive the ailing Soviet economy. When he took over, the economy was in serious trouble with shortages of even the most basic items like bread but Gorbachev did not want to radically change the way the Soviet economy worked. His half hearted attempts at economic reform were a failure and he became very unpopular.
His process of Democratization resulted in power being shifted from the Politburo to the people themselves. In March 1989, the first elections since 1917 were held in Russia.
All these reforms resulted in the complete dissolution of the U.S.S.R.
Literally, what this means is that (the speaker says)
nature does not like walls. He is saying that nature does not like to be hemmed
in.
Because nature does not like walls, he says, it tries
to break them down. The frozen ground swell is probably what is called a frost heave.
It's a thing where ground (water in the ground, actually) freezes and thaws and swells
up because of that. If it does that under a fence, it can break the fence. You can see
it happen to roads in places that have the right climate.
As already mentioned, the main literary device used is that of flashback, when the narrator leaves the present moment to relate something that happened in the past. We can also say that Ponyboy, when narrating the story of Johnny's beating, uses a careful build-up technique, revealing what happened in stages. For instance, the first clue that something bad happened to Johnny is when Ponyboy finds his jacket which is described as having a stain 'the colour of rust' on it. The stain of course is blood, but Ponyboy chooses to refer to it obliquely. The badly-beaten Johnny first appears as a 'dark motionless hump' rather than as a person; this is an example of a de-humanizing image. In this way Ponyboy builds up slowly to the terrible revelation of the savage beating Johnny received at the hands of the Socs. The actual beating is never shown at all: we only see the grim results of it in the form of Johnny's battered body and bloodstained jacket. It is obviously a very painful memory for Ponyboy, which is no doubt why he relates it in a somewhat roundabout manner to the sympathetically-listening Cherry.
As already mentioned in another answer, the story of this incident also uses the technique of foreshadowing, which is to say it hints at an event later in the book. This is when Johnny declares that 'he'd kill the next person who jumped him'. He ends up doing just that.
The two short stories have several elements in common. In
Gordimer's story of Dr. von Leinsdorf and the unnamed young female cashier who becomes
intimately involved with von Leinsdorf, the law and the police and a time in jail
separate them as it is against The Immorality Act of 1927 for people to engage in
interracial intimacy. In Chopin's story, the [unknowing] interracial couple is separated
by social constraints, social humiliation, and social pressure caused by the birth of
their non-white infant. Both are similarly separated albeit for different
reasons.
In Gordimer's story of Thebedi, Paulus, and Njabulo, the
interracial couple is separated by Thebedi's required marriage to an African man; her
groom's name is Njabulo, and he has long loved her, even while she loved Paulus. They
are further separated by the birth of Thebedi's child who turns out to be white--an
indication to all that she has had prior illegal relations with Paulus and that the baby
is in fact not Njabulo's offspring but Paulus's. The final separation comes when Paulus
murders the infant rather than have his child of disgraceful mixed races in the
world.
There
was on its head a quantity of straight, fine floss, like that which carries the seeds of
certain weeds in the veld. The unfocused eyes it opened were grey flecked with yellow.
Njabulo was the matte, opaque coffee-grounds colour that has always been called black
.... (Gordimer)
In Chopin's
story, not only the baby of mixed race dies, but Desiree dies as well. In fact, the
infant dies at Desiree's own hands at the same time that she takes her own life. So
while in both stories, a parent takes the life of a mixed race infant, in Gordimer's the
parent is the father and in Chopin's the parent is the mother. Another point in common
is that both Desiree and Thebedi marry into mono-racial marriages (or so Desiree
thought) yet have mixed race babies.
[Desiree] stayed motionless, with gaze riveted
upon her child, and her face the picture of fright. ....
"Armand," she
panted once more, clutching his arm, "look at our child. What does it mean? Tell me."
(Chopin)
A point not in
common between the stories is that in Chopin's, the interracial couple is ignorant of
their backgrounds, while in Gordimer's both interracial couples are well aware of their
backgrounds and their racial identities [and of the laws governing their racial
relations].
Well, there are witches who make prophecies and predictions throughout the play, but it is Macbeth who chooses to act upon these prophecies to force them to come true in his favor. He is also helped by his wife's ambition to become queen...she forces her husband into the pattern which overcomes him and leaves her behind to deal alone with her guilt. His choices are as follows:
So, in Act I scene I, we have the witches stating they will meet with Macbeth. In Act I scene 3 we see them giving Macbeth and Banquo their first taste of prophecies--Macbeth will be Thane of Glamis, Cawdor, and King. Banquo will not be King, but his children will be; he is not as happy or great as Macbeth, but happier and greater than Macbeth. From the very start, the witches hint that Macbeth has both great goodness and great evil inside of him...he has free will to choose which to follow, but his ambition gets in they way. In Act 1 scene 3, the King's men greet Macbeth with "Thane of Glamis and Thane of Cawdor." Making the first prophecy come partly true.
Act 1 scene 5 shows us Lady Macbeth's tendency toward evil and ambition. Macbeth really doesn't have a chance to follow the goodness in him with her as his helpmate. In Act 2 scene 1 Duncan is murdered so that Macbeth may become King.
In Act 3 scene 1 Banquo suspects Macbeth has had something to do with the King's murder to fulfill the witches' prophecy. In Act 3 scene 3 the murderers Macbeth has hired kill Banquo but Fleance gets away and flees to England with Malcolm, Duncan's son and rightful heir to the throne.
In Act 3 scene 4 we know that Macduff has not attended Macbeth's coronation, and now he is not at the banquet to celebrate Macbeth's leadership. In this same scene, Banquo's ghost visits and Macbeth makes the decision to go visit the witches again.
In Act 4 scene 1, the witches and Hecate give him the apparitions which further predict Macbeth's future. An armed head who tells him to beware Macduff. A bloody child who tells him none born of woman can harm Macbeth. A crowned child with a tree who tells him he will not fall until Birnam Wood marches up Dunsinane Hill. The last thing he sees is a long line of Kings who look like Banquo, and the line goes on forever. In Act 4 scene 2, Macbeth sends murderers over to take care of Macduff's entire family and any friends and servants who happen to be at the home at the time. This is what seals his fate with Macduff who wants to save his country and avenge his loved ones.
In Act 5 scene 8, Macbeth and Macduff meet, Macduff tells him that he was born of caesarian section, and he defeats Macbeth, cuts off his head, and takes it to the Malcolm, the new King of Scotland.
I think that you must be talking about what happens when Montag is running away from the Hound. He has left Faber's house and is on his way to the river. While he is doing this, he sees scenes of the Hound pursuing him on the parlour walls of the homes he passes.
When Montag sees this, he thinks a few things. He hopes fervently that the Hound will not stop at Faber's house. He does not want it to pick up his scent there and either follow him or kill Faber because it thinks Faber is actually Montag. He also thinks about how this pursuit is being played out on 20 million screens and how crazy it is. He is drawn to the excitement even though it is his own life that is in the balance. He finally rejects that (and with it the whole society) and runs to the river and dives in.
Shakespeare’s portrayal of the commoners represents a way some people think, which is to be easily persuaded. Not only commoners, but educated people might also be easily persuaded to change their mind from one position to the next. Indeed, the “mob mentality” we see in the commoner’s new alligeance to Caesar is similar to the ease with which Cassius convinces Brutus, with no real evidence, that Caesar aspires to be crowned and should therefore be murdered. The attitude of Marullus and Flavius to the commoners in this scene is very rude: these men are only going about their business, and they want to see “Caesar and to rejoice in his triumph” (1.1 35), which hardly compares to their own evil intentions of murder. So, to answer you question more directly, I think Shakespeare’s portrayal of the commoners serves a dramatic purpose of introducing a theme of how people can be persuaded and of characterizing Caesar’s enemies more than it serves the purpose of realistically portraying an entire group of people. It is a way of thought, not a class of people, that interests Shakespeare here.
We can thing of interest as cost of borrowing money. and Money supply as the money that is available for spending directly or through borrowing. Thus when money supply increases, the money available with banks for lending increases, and in line with the law of demand and supply, the banks need to lower the interest rate to lend the additional money available with them for lending.
Also, the banks also try to reduce the interest paid by them on the money deposited in the banks by people when they have more money than the they need for borrowing at the original interest rates. Thus interest rates paid by the bank as well as that charged by the bank tend to fall when the money supply increases.
I think that the answer you are looking for is found in
Chapter 3. In that chapter, we are told about what the animals did every Sunday after
the Revolution.
We are told that they got to sleep in --
breakfast was an hour later than usual. Then they went out into the farmhouse garden
and had a flag raising ceremony. After that, they all went in to the meeting. At these
meetings, they would discuss issues and make plans for the next
week.
This only lasts until Chapter 5, though. Then
Napoleon announces that there will no longer be any meetings. At that point, though,
there is a new thing which may actually be what you are talking about. They have to
file past the skull of Old Major now before they go to hear their orders for the
week.
The point of view of the short story “The Most Dangerous Game” is third person omniscient. First, it is obvious that the point of view is third person because the narrator is telling the story as an onlooker – one who is not a character in the story’s events – and the main character is referred to as “he”, not “I”. The reason that we know this is an omniscient point of view is also in the way that the narrator tells the story. In an omniscient story, the opinions, beliefs, and personal motivations of all of the main characters are revealed. In this story, the narrator gives us this information about General Zaroff on many occasions. One particular point in which this character’s internal traits are revealed is when the narrator states,
“Nothing escaped those searching eyes … so intent was the Cossack on his stalking that he was upon the thing….”
Additionally, we get this same type of information that is revealed about Rainsford’s person when the narrator says,
“He knew that his pursuer was coming…he was not feeling his way along…he lived a year in a minute…then he felt an impulse to cry aloud with joy.”
Some other possibilities, as the length of time between
the successful testing of the bomb and our actually dropping it was a mere three weeks,
and the decision-making process to do so is a little muddled
historically.
First, the Manhattan Project was designing a
bomb to be dropped on Germany as soon as we developed it. However, we were not able to
test one until July 16, 1945, and Germany surrendered on May 7th. The decision to focus
on Japan then was a quick one, and with a new President, Harry
Truman.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not terribly important
militarily, but they were two of the only cities not yet bombed, and still mostly
intact. We wanted to see the full effect of the atomic bomb on an undamaged city. This
lends strength to the argument the bomb was dropped to scare the Soviets as well as to
convince Japan to surrender.
Another reason, and I think
the most compelling, was out of hatred and revenge. Revenge for the Bataan Death March,
for Pearl Harbor, for how our prisoners were treated, for the Kamikaze attacks, etc.
There was simply no way our government or military were capable of deciding anything
other than using the weapon once we had it.
In Randall's "The Ballad of Birmingham," the obvious social conflict is racial discrimination. In the poem, there is a reference to a freedom march which is an allusion to the freedom marches led by civil rights leaders in the 1960's. The speaker's mother tells the child not to go out because the streets will be dangerous and suggests that the child instead go to the church. Ironically, the church is bombed and a mother looks for her missing child, only finding her shoe.
The poem is a reference to the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963. The church had been used as a meeting point for civil rights activities and a starting point for student marches. That morning, many children were in the basement of the church for prayer; in the bombing four girls were killed. A group of Ku Klux Klan members planted sticks of dynamite in the church; their actions were obviously instigated by racial hatred.
Why the question of quality throws me a bit, after a little thought it began to sink in. In my estimation, death is the consummate revenge, and Montresor has planned his flawlessly. Should there be such a thing as a perfect crime, Montresor planned it, but only because of the time period. He took everything into account from the possibility of being interrupted in the process to being overheard by having the servants away and Fortunato intoxicated. While his sanity is questionable and his motives unclear, his planning of the revenge is flawless and works seemlessly in his story. I guess it could definitely be considered high quality revenge. Hope this helps. Brenda
Animalism is the ideology of animal equality that Old Major comes up with. It is the ideology that the animals are supposed to follow after the Revolution. "Beasts of England" is its anthem. The Seven Commandments are the rules that are made up to summarize the teachings of animalism. Sugarcandy Mountains are the place that Moses the Raven tells the animals that they will go after they die. This is meant to make them not care so much about the Revolution.
The Battle of the Cowshed is fought by the animals against people who come to try to take Animal Farm back from the animals.
Excellent question! To answer it you need to consider the
definition of a tragedy that Artistotle provides us with and try to relate that to the
downfall of the two central characters, Caesar and Brutus, to think about which
character has the more "tragic" downfall.
Aristotle said a
tragedy had to feature a man who would suffer a tragic reversal of fortunes because of a
fault or a series of bad decisions that resulted from a deficiency of character. A
tragedy could not feature a completely evil character, but needs to focus on the life of
a normal human with failings that we can relate
to.
Thinking about the play then, both Caesar and Brutus
can be considered tragic figures in this sense. Caesar seems to be assassinated because
of his desire to gain more power and his ambition. Brutus, on the other hand, suffers
his tragic end partly because of his sense of honour and naivety - he ignores the advice
of the more savvy Cassius and has a mistaken sense of honour that perhaps blinds him to
his own ambition and envy. When considering how the label of "tragedy" applies to both
characters we do need to remember that we know a lot more about Brutus than we do about
Caesar - we need to infer a lot about his character, whereas because Brutus lives until
the end of the play we have far more insights into his
character.
Hepatic portal circulation (hepatic venous system) begins in the capillaries in the digestive system. It ends in the portal vein. Its directs all the blood from the gastrointestinal tract to the liver. Keep in mind that not all parts of the gastrointestinal tract are a part of the hepatic portal system. This blood that is circulated contains materials that the stomach and intestines absorbed. The hepatic lobules absorb, excrete, or convert all of the materials (both good and bad) from the portal blood.
A complication related to hepatic portal circulation is called portal hypertension and is usually caused by cirrhosis.
Proctor is uncomfortable with Abigail's confiding in him on the nights events. He and Abigail had engaged in an illicit affair, and they had been caught by Elizabeth, his wife. This is why she does not trust her husband. Their marriage is in a constant state of turmoil because of it. Proctor does not go to tell what he knows because he feels that he cannot prove that Abigail said it if she decides to deny it. He also does not put a lot of stock into the powers that be.
Furthermore, he does not want to have to discuss why Abigail would be confiding in him in the first place. He is torn up with guilt, and does not wish to cause Elizabeth any more pain or embarrassment.
Elizabeth wants him to go and report what he knows because it is the right thing to do. Elizabeth is a god-fearing woman who believes in telling the truth. The situation is getting completely out of hand, and she feels that this would help.
A romantic comedy about war, this play subverts both romance and war, which the subtitle, "An Anti-romance," indicates. Not only does Shaw make fun of romance between men and women but he also satirizes the so-called noble reasons countries go to war. As he does in other play, Shaw connects social issues, such as war and relationships between men and women, to capitalism, showing how the latter drives the former. At the time he wrote this play people glorified war as something Honorable (with a capital H), but he revealed it to be a rather sleazy enterprise, dependent upon businesses that want to make money.
In modern times, Internationalism most commonly means an appreciation for the diverse cultures in the world, and a desire for world peace. Proponents of Internationalism believe in the interconnectedness of mankind, that man is not only a citizen of his country but of the world. Because of this view, Internationalists desire to help the world through leadership and charity. This leadership and charity can take the form of international organizations such as The World Health Organization, The United Nations, and the European Union, which was formed in order to consolidate economies and help all European nations succeed by cooperating together.
In American history, the United States started out being anti-Internationalist. In the Monroe Doctrine, for example, the Americans basically told the world, "You stay out of our affairs and we will stay out of yours." This worked for awhile. Today, however, the world is shrinking. Countries are so intertwined with other countries due to economies, trade, alliances, etc., that it is really, really hard to maintain neutrality. Very few countries have succeeded - Switzerland, being one of the few. That is why countries put their money in Swiss banks in time of war...........but I digress.
Case studies of where Internationalism has been unsuccessful - this would be a matter of opinion, but some people believe The United Nations has been totally ineffective. They are always issuing decrees and imposing sanctions that have no effect on stopping countries like North Korea for doing whatever they want and sticking their tongues out at the United Nations.
Right now, for example, my son is on a Navy ship monitoring the situation in the South China Sea because in spite of warnings by the United Nations FOR YEARS AND YEARS, the North Koreans recently blew up a South Korean submarine, then lied about it and said they did not do it, and if South Korea takes any retaliatory action, it will mean war. The United Nations is having a conference about this, while the U.S. Navy is actually doing something. I know, I'm biased.
If you do some research, you can find other examples of what similar International organizations have accomplished and then make up your own mind.
Internationalism is defined more or less (there are different definitions, with different nuances) as the idea that countries should work together to solve and prevent problems that arise in the world. This idea holds that countries should not be allowed to just do whatever they want and to act on their own when their actions will impact the whole world.
This idea is important because it leads to a different type of world order. It leads to one in which there are many international organizations like the ones we have today. These reduce the freedom of countries to do what they want. But, hopefully, they also improve the general state of the world.
There is no way to know where the idea originated. In the modern world, the first major attempt to bring it about came with the creation of the League of Nations after WWI. The idea has taken hold better after WWII and has led to the creation of things like the UN, the IMF, the WTO and the World Bank, among many others.
For the beginning, we'll calculate the second derivative of the function and, after that, we'll determine the roots of the second derivative, in order to find out the inflexion points of the function.
f'(x) = 3*5*x^4 + 15*4*x^3 - 10*3*x^2 - 90*2*x + m
f"(x) = 3*5*4*x^3 + 15*4*3*x^2 - 10*3*2*x - 90*2
We'll factorize:
3*5*4*(x^3 + 3*x^2 - x - 3) = 0
We'll divide the expression by the product 3*5*4:
x^3 + 3*x^2 - x - 3 = 0
We'll group the first and the second term together, and the last 2 terms together.
x^2*(x + 3) - (x + 3) = 0
(x + 3)*(x^2 - 1) = 0
(x + 3)*(x - 1)*(x + 1) = 0
(x + 3) = 0 for x = - 3
x - 1 = 0 for x = 1
x + 1 = 0 for x = - 1
So, x = - 3, x = - 1, x = 1 are inflexion points for the function given.
To prove that these inflexion points are on the same line, we have to build the determinative, formed by the inflexion points.
-3 f(-3) 1
-1 f(-1) 1
1 f(1) 1
We have to calculate it and if it's cancelling, then the inflexion points belong to the same line.
We'll calculate it using the "triangle" rule.
-3*f(-1)*1 + -1*f(1)*1 + 1*f(-3)*1 - 1*1*f(-1) + f(-3) + 3*f(1)
f(-1) = -3 + 15 + 10 - 90 - m + n = -68 - m + n
-3*f(-1) = -3*(- 68 - m + n) = 204 + 3m - 3n
f(1) = 3 + 15 - 10 - 90 + m + n = - 82 + m + n
3*f(1) = - 246 + 3m + 3n
f(-3) = - 729 + 1215 + 270 - 810 - 3m + n = - 54 - 3m + n
204 + 3m - 3n + 82 - m - n - 54 - 3m + n + 68 + m - n - 54 -3m + n - 246 + 3m + 3n = 0 q.e.d.
The inflexion points belong to the same line!
I just posted a true/false, matching, and short answer
test over Touching Spirit Bear to the documents tab.
It's a
"quick" test that I used primarily to test comprehension for independent reading. It may
need adapting if you desire to use it for other purposes.
In Shakespearean drama a foil is a character who is used as a contrast to another character. This contrast makes the particular qualities of each character stand out. In Romeo and Juliet Shakespeare uses the Nurse as a foil to Juliet and Mercutio as a foil to Romeo.
In Act I, Scene 3, we first meet Juliet and the Nurse. Juliet is a thirteen-year old girl who knows little of the world. In the preceding scene, her father, Lord Capulet says,
My child is yet a stranger in the world.
She hath not seen the change of fourteen years.
She's very innocent as opposed to the Nurse, who is much older and experienced. The Nurse is lower class as opposed to Juliet, whose family is very wealthy. One technical difference in the play is that, since she is a commoner, the Nurse rarely speaks in iambic pentameter (ten stressed and unstressed syllables per line) and she never uses couplets (two consecutive rhyming lines). Here she talks about Juliet's age:
I’ll lay fourteen of my teeth (and yet, to my teen
be it spoken, I have but four) she’s not fourteen.
How long is it now to Lammastide?
This contrasts with Juliet, who always speaks in iambic pentameter and often uses couplets. For example, Juliet explains how she will look at Count Paris:
I’ll look to like, if looking liking move.
But no more deep will I endart mine eye
Than your consent gives strength to make it fly.
The biggest contrast between the two is how they think of love. The Nurse defines love with its physical and sexual connotation. She uses sexual innuendo and the physical aspects of marriage when she's talking to Juliet about Count Paris. When Lady Capulet and the Nurse try to convince Juliet she should be interested in Paris, the Nurse describes Paris physically:
A man, young lady—lady, such a man
As all the world—why, he’s a man of wax.
And a little later she says,
No less? Nay, bigger. Women grow by men.
referring to pregnancy. Later, in Act II, Scene 5, she speaks of Romeo, not as the ideal love, but as a physical specimen. The Nurse says,
Though his face be better than any man’s, yet his leg
excels all men’s, and for a hand and a foot and a
body, though they be not to be talked on, yet they
are past compare.
Rather than discussing Romeo as a spiritual match for Juliet she dwells on the physical and sexual. She tells Juliet she must find a rope ladder so that after the couple is married Romeo can crawl into Juliet's room for the honeymoon. In a reference to the actual sexual act, she says,
I must another way,
To fetch a ladder by the which your love
Must climb a bird’s nest soon when it is dark.
I am the drudge and toil in your delight,
But you shall bear the burden soon at night.
Juliet, on the other hand, is more interested in ideal love and the beauty of mutual devotion between a man and a woman. Romeo is perfect for her. In his first words to her he compares himself to a pilgrim worshipping at the altar of her beauty. These words hook Juliet into love at first sight, or first sonnet, as the opening fourteen lines between the two youngsters in Act I, Scene 5, is a Shakespearean sonnet. Juliet is immediately attracted as Romeo holds her hand, and calls it divine:
Romeo:
If I profane with my unworthiest hand
This holy shrine, the gentle sin is this:
My lips, two blushing pilgrims, ready stand
To smooth that rough touch with a tender kiss.
Juliet:
Good pilgrim, you do wrong your hand too much,
Which mannerly devotion shows in this;
For saints have hands that pilgrims’ hands do touch,
And palm to palm is holy palmers’ kiss.
This devotional language continues in Act II, Scene 2, as Romeo and Juliet declare their love for each other and decide, despite the bitterness of the feud between their families, that they will get married.
The final contrast between the Nurse and Juliet comes in Act III, Scene 5, when the Nurse advises Juliet to forget Romeo and heed the wishes of her father by marrying Count Paris. The Nurse cannot fathom the depth of feeling Juliet has for Romeo and sees him as just another man. She makes the point that Paris is a better match physically:
O, he’s a lovely gentleman!
Romeo’s a dishclout to him. An eagle, madam,
Hath not so green, so quick, so fair an eye
As Paris hath.
This alienates Juliet from the Nurse as she is shocked by he confidante's words. When the Nurse leaves, she symbolically breaks her bond with the woman. She says,
Ancient damnation, O most wicked fiend!
Is it more sin to wish me thus forsworn
Or to dispraise my lord with that same tongue
Which she hath praised him with above compare
So many thousand times? Go, counselor.
Thou and my bosom henceforth shall be twain.
Nuclear plants are built on the shores of lakes, rivers, and oceans because these bodies provide the large quantities of cooling water needed to handle the heat discharge. As energy is created in power plants, a significant amount of heat is produced. Water is utilized throughout the day to absorb this heat. Water is also utilized to cool down the equipment used in creating electricity. In the event of an accident, nuclear power plants need water to help remove the decay heat produced by the reactor core.
Coal burning power plants are located near water because the water is used to create energy. In these plants coal is burned in a boiler which heats water and produces steam. The steam flows into a turbine which spins, and produces electricity.
Shakespeare's historical source of the play
Macbeth was Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles of England
Scotland, and Ireland which was written in 1587. The book refers to Banquo as
an acquaintance of Macbeth's. According to the history, Macbeth, with the help of
others, conspired with Banquo to kill the weak and ineffectual King Duncan.
Now, as Macbeth was dedicated to King
James and Duncan and Banquo were, as legend had it, both in the royal line of King
James, Shakespeare changed the history and made the men sympathetic
characters.
Among his other positive traits, Atticus Finch is a loving and concerned father. Following the death of his wife, Atticus is left a single parent; he never remarries, but he shows his love for his children in many ways. When Boo saves his children from the clutches of Bob Ewell, Atticus is grateful. He is quite aware that they owe Boo their lives.
"Thank you for my children, Arthur" he said.
He is also willing to allow Jem to face the circumstances of Bob's death if he is responsible.
"If this thing's hushed up it'll be a simple denial to Jem of the way I've tried to raise him. Sometimes I think I'm a total failure as a parent, but I'm all they've got... if I've connived at something like this, frankly, I couldn't meet his eye, and the day I can't do that I'll know I've lost him. I don't want to lose him and Scout, because they're all I've got."
Even after Sheriff Tate repeats to Atticus that Jem did not kill Bob, Atticus is unsure.
"If they hear me saying downtown something different happened--Heck, I won't have them anymore. I can't live one way in town and another way in my home."
There is also the emphasis required by the rhythm of
iambic pentameter (stressed syllables emphasized in
bold):
Fath-er, and
wife, and gentle-men,
a-dieu
I
will to Ve-nice;
Sun-day comes
a-pace.
We will
have rings, and
things, and fine
a-rray
And
kiss me, Kate, we
will be married
o'Sun-day.
Except
for the first line, which has a feminine ending (on an unstressed syllable), all lines
have their necessary stressed and unstressed syllables -- five
each.
Understanding the iambic rhythm really points out,
for example, the stress on the word "will" as mentioned in other responses to this
question. You also notice that Shakespeare almost always stresses the action or verb
("will", "married", etc). in a line and never the pronoun ("I," "We,"
"me").
As with many other professional groups, the ethics for journalists include the "first do no harm" provision (this is the oath that doctors take). In journalism, this means that the reporters must decide whether reporting certain information might cause more harm than good. For example, journalists and the media often withhold the names of people that are crime victims, or they might withhold the names of children. They might withhold information that would hurt a person's reputation. This is a limitation that journalists voluntarily enforce upon themselves.
Journalists are supposed to be objective. They are supposed to report the news minus any personal interpretation or bias. This is harder to do because we all have our personal biases. If a person has a bias for or against something, it is hard to be objective. For example, if you are reporting about a brutal murder of a child, it is hard to keep your emotions out of it and only report the information. Or, if you are a political reporter, you must be objective and report the news regarding politics even if you do not agree with a particular politician. I remember in a recent presidential election seeing a very famous anchorman practically CRYING on TV when his candidate lost the election. That is NOT being objective.
Accuracy means that the facts reported must be true. It is the journalist's responsibility to check for accuracy to make sure what he/she is reporting is valid and checks out. Sometimes journalists are lazy and do not devote enough diligence to this. Also, not everything that is on the Internet IS true, so if a journalist does not recheck his/her facts, he could be using faulty information. This is a biggie these days. Just because something gets on the web does not mean it is true. A journalist must be able to back up his information with facts. Sometimes journalists rely on informants who insist on remaining anonymous. In this case, some journalists have gone to jail rather than break confidence and reveal their sources. This, too, is part of their ethics.
The immediate impact of the French Revolution was the death of thousands of aristocrats on the guillotine, the desecration of many Catholic cathedrals and churches and the abolishment of religion, and the establishment of a republic in 1792 after the arrest of the King at the Royal Palais. Then, the legislative power of the republic fell to the National Convention. But, in 1793, the Jacobins seized power and unleashed the Reign of Terror (1793-1794) with nearly 1200 people meeting death on the guillotine.
In 1794 the French people revolted against the excesses of the Reign of Terror. After this a plebiscite ratified a constitution and took effect in 1795, installing what is known as the Directory. Because this group met with opposition from the remaining Jacobins, Napoleon Bonaparte was able to gain power and organize the coup which installed the Consulate. In 1804, Bonaparte established himself as Emperor, a position which effectively did away with the specifically republican phase of the French Revolution.
With the monarchy restored after Bonaparte's exile in 1814, albeit only 100 days, France was still not a democracy. But by the revolution of 1848, and the establishment of the Second Republic whose motto was Liberte, Equalite, Fraternite, there began a more democratic trend in government with the promulgation of universal suffrage. However, there was yet support for the monarchists, with Napoleon III eventually being made monarch in 1852. Conflict between the two ideologies existed until 1879.
With the establishment of democratic and socialist ideas in France, old ideas gave way as in the Haitain revolution of the slaves, who obtained liberty. The New Enlightenment, and secularism, separation of church and state, came into being. These were both movements toward modernization. Thus, the modern era came in the shadow of the French Revolution.
Horatio is Hamlet's best friend and the most reliable character in the play. Everyone who knows him trusts him. In terms of what a good friend should be, Horatio is the epitome of a good friend. He even wants to kill himself when Hamlet is killed, but Hamlet begs him not to.
Laertes is different from Horatio in some regards. He is protective of Ophelia, his sister, and swears vengeance for his father's death. He may be jealous of Hamlet and certainly does not trust his honor with Ophelia since he warns her against him. He is too quick to believe Claudius when questioning him. He betrays Hamlet and conspires with Claudius against Hamlet. He is a character who has weaknesses amidst strengths, just like Hamlet. Both he and Hamlet show trustworthy traits at the end.
Fortinbras is very much like Hamlet in terms of his life his situation. His own father has died, and he wants to avenge his father's death also. His father's brother, his own uncle, is ruling Norway just like Hamlet's uncle is ruling Denmark. He speaks well of Hamlet in the end and grants him a noble soldier's burial; Hamlet has named him as the rightful successor to Denmark's throne. His role is to provide a contrast between Hamlet's questioning of the tradition of revenge killing and ready acceptance of it. The ironic unanswered question posed by Fortinbras' triumph in the end is whether rejecting the revenge tradition or accepting it is the right and noble course. Hamlet's death doesn't provide an answer for him or for us.
While caring for a sick child at the child's home William
Carlos Williams (1883-1963), a paedtrician by profession, looked outside the window
and saw the wet red wheelbarrow. He wrote this poem quickly in less than five
minutes just like an impressionist painter would paint quickly in order to capture the
precise quality of light of a particular moment: "glazed with rain/water" - if he had
delayed writing the poem the wetness would have dried up and the glaze would have
disappeared.
"The Red Wheelbarrow" (1923) is one of
Willaims' early poems and is influenced
by 'Precisionism' an artistic movement
in America which peaked during the interwar period. 'Precision' artists shunned European
influences, and as the term itself suggests their paintings were very objective and
clearly defined almost like the 'photorealists' of the next generation. Just before
Williams wrote this poem Williams had met Charles Sheeler the photographer journalist
and a self-proclaimed 'precisionist.'
The poem expresses in
the starkest and simplest manner possible the practical usefulness of a wheelbarrow on a
farm. There is a sharp ironic contrast-almost haiku like- between the sick room 'inside'
and the daily routine of the practical affairs of the farmhouse
'outside.'
E.E.Cummings (1894-1962) a contemporary of
William Carlos Williams and like him who was influenced by Ezra Pound and the Imagists
wrote this poem as a tribute to the legend 'Buffalo Bill.' Buffalo Bill is none other
than William Frederick Cody who earned the nickname 'Buffalo Bill' after having killed
4860 bison to supply meat to the Kansas Pacific Railroad
workers.
Both the poems are short and have been influenced
by avant garde twentieth century poetic techniques. Of the two poets Cummings is more
innovative as can be seen by the
line,
and break onetwothreefourfive
pigeonsjustlikethat
which captures
very vividly the image of Buffalo Bill shooting at the clay pigeons in rapid
succession.
William Carlos Williams poem is about a real
life incident whereas Cummings' poem is about a legendary figure, nevertheless the
subject of both these poem is human mortality.
William
Carlos Williams poem deals with the ironic contrast between the world of the sick room
and the life outside and the apparent indifference to the death of the small child by
the outside world. Cummings' poem treats the passing away of the legend and he questions
death as to its reason for taking away Buffalo Bill from this world and whether it is
pleased to do so.
Lenny's puppy is a symbol of weakness. The strong Lenny accidentally kills the puppy, showing that he is stronger than the puppy. In the end, though, Lenny himself ironically meets a similar fate because he is weak in another way - mentally. The mice that Lenny kills accidentally are also symbols of weakness, and the triumph of the strong over the weak. This is reflected in the title as well - "men" over "mice" - Of Mice and Men (which is taken from a poem by Robert Burns).
Candy's dog is another symbol of weakness. The dog has outlived its purpose as a sheep dog. The strong Carlson promises to kill the dog humanely because it has outlived its purpose and this symbolizes that Candy fears that some day soon, he, too, will no longer be needed on the ranch.
George and Lenny's dream "farm" is a symbol of delusion. The two men dream of a place that does not exist and never will exist for them. They delude themselves into thinking that they will have a farm some day, a place where they can live freely, but that place cannot exist for them in their world. On some level, George knows this, but he keeps pursuing the dream anyway, hence he is deluded.
If you are curious about stories in which there are men and women on islands, I recommend that you take a look at a very good novel by Joseph Conrad titled Victory. There is also Pitcairn's Island by Nordhoff and Hall, a part of their Bounty Trilogy. If a man were marooned on an island with an attractive woman, it wouldn't be an adventure story but more of a fantasy. He might never want to leave the island. Then, of course, they would probably be producing babies, and you would have a Swiss Family Robinson type of story. If a man were marooned on an island in the South Pacific and managed to acquire a female companion, she would probably be of a different race, and this would perhaps lead to a plot dominated by the theme of interracial marriage.
It seems to me that Robinson Crusoe is mainly a survival story. He really lucks out by having access to a shipload of supplies before his wrecked ship finally sinks. He has all sorts of tools, plus muskets and pistols and plenty of ammunition. He also has some animals which he can breed for an unlimited amount of meat, milk, cheese, eggs, etc. And furthermore the island is a tropical paradise with lots of fruits and game. So he can not only survive but survive comfortably. Providing him with a girlfriend would be stretching credibility too far, and I think Defoe knew it. We enjoy reading Robinson Crusoe because he has a pretty good life as king of his island--but he has to have some hardships, some problems, or it would be too much like a pure fantasy.
Retrenchment is the practice of terminating the employment of a large number of employees in a company or other organization, generally done with the specific objective of reducing total number of employees in a company. It is not quite right to describe retrenchment as a corporate strategy. It is more of one of the means of achieving specific corporate objectives such as cost cutting, out sourcing of some of the operations, or major automation, reduction in total business activities or any other objectives which require substantial reduction in manpower requirements.
Retrenchment can benefit company only when the company is overstaffed, or when it is implementing any other program, which involves substantial reduction in manpower requirement. Of course it is assumed the the basic strategy or objective that give rise to need of retrenchment must also be right for the retrenchment to benefit the company.
About a decade back, the practice of retrenchment, also described as "downsizing" had become kind of fashionable in business and industry across the world. However indiscriminate retrenchment led to problems for many companies. As a result the slick salesmen of "easy to use", "ready-made" management practiced developed the term downsizing with a new one - right sizing. But the fact remains that downsizing or rightsizing, these are only means to an end and not worthwhile objective in themselves.
In Stage Two, Chapter XXVII, Pip receives a tardy message
from Joe, who asks to visit Pip. And, even though the message, written by Biddy,
expresses Joe's wish that Pip "excuse it [the visit] for the love of poor old days," Pip
has these feelings about Joe's visit:
Not with pleasure, though I was
bound to him by so many ties; no, with considerable disturbance and some mortification,
and a keen sense of incongruity If I could have kept him
away by paying money, I certainly would have paid money. I had little
objection to his being seen by Herbert or his father, for both of whom I had respect;
but I had the sharpest sensitivenss as to his being seen by Drummle, whom I held in
contempt. So throughout life, our worst weaknesses and meannesses are usually committed
for the sake of the people whom we most
despise.
When Joe arrives,
Pip confesses that he wants to run away as he recognizes Joe by "his clumsy maner of
coming upstairs." After Pip greets Joe, the man who has been both a father and a friend
to him, is askward and clumsy in the London lodging. He places his hat on the
mantelpiece only to have it fall. As he tries to converse with Herbert, Joe fixes his
attention on the recalcitrant hat that topples again, making a comedy of Joe's efforts
to appear polished. He becomes so nervous that he his eyes "attracted in such strange
directions," he coughs, and sits so far from the table that he drops much of his food.
Pip remarks,
I
had neither the good sense nor the good feling to know that this was all my fault, and
that if I had been easier with Joe, Joe would have been easier with me. I
felt impatient of him and out of temper with
him.
After the
meal as Joe takes his leave, he tells Pip that he will not return to London as he is
"wrong out of the forge." Realizing the simple dignity in Joe, Pip hurries
ashamedly out after him after he recovers himself, but Joe is
gone.
To my knowledge she has not openly refused him and how could she, she is the queen but he is the king and her husband, and in their culture she was not going to be standing up to him regularly.
The one instance that comes to mind of refusal or disobedience is more in Hamlet's conversation with his mother when he urges her to go not to Claudius' bed any longer and to not allow him to get from her the gist of their conversation, no matter how much he is affectionate with her or flatters her.
Perhaps it was this conversation and the resolve she has to move forward thanks to the deep guilt that she felt that would allow her to refuse his order.
Of course it could also be simply that Shakespeare decided she ought to die and this was a ironic a way to do it as any!
In writing The Rape of the Lock, Alexander Pope is critiquing the social mores of the Augustan Age by utilizing the mock epic genre of writing. It is important to look at Pope's treatment of the women characters in the light of his own personal (often problematic) relationship with women.
He was painfully shy around women, apparently due to a bodily deformity that occurred to him due to disease, but he bragged to his friends and acquaintances in his correspondence with them that he bedded many prostitutes. However, it is also known that he sympathized with the hardships that women had to face during his time, and is known to have supported financially a female friend of his who had been abandoned by her spouse. This sympathy did not extend, however, to female authors. Disdaining female authors was of course the social norm of the time, and Pope was no different in this regard.
One may argue that while Belinda is shown as a flat figure who doesn't evolve at all, Clarissa's role is very ambiguous. Ultimately, whether Pope is seen as a misogynist or not depends on your analysis of him in his own social context. Living in a society of misogynists, can he be really any different unless he is radically so? At the end of the day, you must also remember that Pope is hoping to address a larger and new female readership with his work, and in doing so is talking directly to a lot of women through his work. In his work, he embeds the moral compass of his day, which necessitated its women to be sexually "chaste". This chastity is Belinda's crowning virtue, but there are times where Pope reveals that there is more to the story, ie in the line, "hairs less in sight, or any hairs but these...
Essentially, you are trying to persuade your friend that roller skating is a great diversion, an enjoyable activity. So, look at reasons why going together to roller skate would be fun after writing a topic sentence that declares that roller skating is an activity that is exhilarating and beneficial.
Then, develop the two ideas [exhilirating and beneficial] with reasons why this is the case. Use transitions such as the ones of order: first, second, then, finally or words such as one reason why, another reason that
e.g. One reason that roller skating is fun is the exhilaration that a person feels when he/she speeds across the rink on wheels, extending his life past the limitations of just being a pedestrian who must place feet on the floor or pavement. Now, he/she is a "human moped." [Always use figurative language in your descriptions as they give life to what you write.]
After you have supported with reasons your topic sentence, conclude by summarizing: There is no doubt that roller skating is a pleasurable experience because whisking around on wheels is exhilarating, and doing this with friends who will race with others is not only fun, but good exercise.
See the site below for even more help.
Are you trying to persuade someone to take one of the
alternatives, or are you just saying what the alternatives are? Depending on which one
you are doing, your paragraph will need to be different. There are, as far as I can
tell, only three alternatives to abortion.
First, don't get
pregnant in the first place. This could be accomplished either by abstinence or by
contraceptives.
Second, carry the baby to term and keep it
and raise it yourself (or with help from family
members).
Third, carry the baby to term and then put it up
for adoption. As I understand it, potential adoptive parents will often help pay for
the birth mother's expenses.
A rather impossible question to answer. It is like asking
why the nature is the way it is. This nature is full of variety in its every aspect.
Like there are not only so many different kinds of flowers, but there are so many
different kinds of so many things like leaves, roots, fruits, animals, fishes, birds,
insects, and so on. If we look at just the human body we find such wide variety of
organs, cells, chemicals and processes in it. I believe there can be no single correct
answer to the given question. Variability is kind of a rule of nature , and the variety
of flowers is just an instance of the nature's rule of
variability.
Also it is not possible to compare one flower
with others in terms of being better or worse. This is because, we have no objective
criteria of what makes a flower good or bad. Flower of each plant is best suited to
serve the needs of that kind of plant. Even if we thing of flowers as good or bad in
terms of beauty and fragrance, it is not possible to make objective comparisons, because
these things are very much a matter of individual subjective
preferences.
The answer to your question depends on who the
consequence is "unforeseen" by: Macbeth, other characters, or the audience. I'll just
give you an example or two and let you apply them to whatever you
need.
The first scene in Act 3 involves Banquo revealing
that he suspects Macbeth of treachery. This may have been unforseen by Macbeth,
although he certainly knows Banquo has the potential do to him great harm, since Banquo
knows about the witches' predictions. Also, Macbeth's treachery was certainly unforseen
earlier in the play by Banquo.
Thou hast it now--King, Cawdor, Glamis,
all
As the Weird Women promised, and I
fear
Thou played'st most foully for't.
(3.1.1-3)
Another example of
an unforeseen consequence in Act 3 is in the same scene, only a few minutes later.
Macbeth uses irony to deceive Banquo, to protect himself from accusation, and to gain
information from Banquo so he can set a trap to murder him. This is unforeseen, not
because Macbeth plans to kill Banquo, but because he does it so matter-of-factly, and
seemingly without any guilt. He suffers great guilt before and immediately after
killing King Duncan, but he seems to no longer possess any scruples
whatsoever.
We should have else desired your good
advice,
Which still hath been both grave and
prosperous,
In this day's council [Macbeth would have liked
to have had time to talk to Banquo today]; but we'll take tomorrow [Macbeth will settle
for talking to him tomorrow--verbal irony because he knows Banquo will be dead tomorrow,
since he has arranged for killers to murder him
tonight].
Is't far you ride? (Act
3.1.21-24)
When Macbeth talks
about seeing Banquo tomorrow, he is providing evidence, for later, that he did not know
Banquo was going to be murdered, since others are present during this
conversation.
When Macbeth asks how far Banquo is riding,
he is seeking the necessary information to set up a time line for when he can set the
trap.
Good question. Certain elements help create memorable characters; an examination of them will help determine whether or not Louise can be classified as a memorable literary character.
Physical characteristics - we know very little about what Louise looks like. We do know she has a weak heart, which is important to the ending of the story. The fact that we know so little about her physical features tells us it's not the outside that matters.
Interaction with other characters - She doesn't interact much with anyone else in the story; in fact, she withdraws to her room for the majority of the time we know her. Her sister and a family friend try to console her, without success. The only real interaction takes place in a matter of seconds, as she sees her husband walk in the door. Again, this lack of social interaction suggests what matters is what's in her mind.
Interaction with environment - As with several other elements here, Louise experiences little of this. That probably means her literal environment doesn't matter. In the truest sense of the word, this is accurate--though she feels like a prisoner, she is perfectly free in terms of her environment.
Internal thoughts or philosophy - This is the core of who Louise is, why readers sympathize or empathize with her, and why she dies at the end of this very short story. She understands that, without the figurative shackles of her marriage, she can finally be "free. Body and soul free!" Her husband is not cruel, and "she had loved him--sometimes"; but she will never be free to choose for herself or speak her own mind as long as she is married to him.
"There would be no powerful will bending hers in that blind persistence with which men and women believe they have a right to impose a private will upon a fellow-creature."
Louise Mallard is lost in the reverie of being someone new, someone she has not been allowed to be, now that her husband is gone. "There would be no one to live for during those coming years; she would live for herself."
Revelations about the past - Again, the readers are allowed to catch a glimpse of life as Louise must have lived it. No particular specifics are given, but we certainly get the flavor of her life before the train wreck.
Way of speaking - There is nothing distinctive about her words or sentence structure; however, the narrator's description of Mrs. Mallard's inner thoughts are quite unique. She is expressive and intriguing and honest.
Considering those elements, Louise Mallard is a memorable character in a very, very short and potentially forgettable story.
The advantage of this change is that it allows the red blood cells to pass through the capillaries that are very tiny blood vessels. Normally blood cells are disc -shaped (like a Frisbee) and are about 8 microns in diameter. Capillaries have a diameter as small as 2 microns. The blood cells stretch from a disc shape into a bullet shape and become almost fluid like. This happens over and over during the life of a blood cell as it is circulated through the human body traveling from large blood vessels to small vessels (capillaries). The disease sickle cell anemia occurs because some of the red blood cells are not able to change shape and they, therefore, become stuck in the capillaries. This causes the blood flow to stop or slow down in the capillaries and means that the capillaries cannot deliver enough oxygen to the tissues they serve.
I'm not sure there is an explicit moral to Gordimer's "Six
Feet of the Country." More likely is the fact that her intention is to make readers come
to an emotional realization similar to that of her
characters.
From one perspective, we see the young man who
dies struggling to make a life for himself, risking everything for a better life, all to
no avail. In the end, neither he or his family are even capable of purchasing a small
parcel of land for a grave.
From another perspective, we
see the white employer struggling to make sense of the confusion and tension created by
the policies of a bureaucratic government that make such simple tasks so exceedingly
difficult simply because of the color of one's skin.
It is a privileged life that Prince Prospero and his
kinghts and dames of his court live. The prince and his guests at the masked ball are
wealthy, and, as such, are used to having their desires satisfied. Obviously, they are
arrogant as they seclude themselves in one of the prince's "castellated abbeys,"
believing that they can, thus, fortify themselves from the Red Death that has devastated
the country.
In their arrogance, too, they are a "whole
gay company" who pause when the chimes of the clock ring. Then, they pale and the older
and "sedate" wipe their brows "as if in confused reverie or meditation." So, in spite
of their wealth and their being fortressed against the Red Death, the revelers are yet
the subjects of Time; they have fear grip their hearts with the passage of Time as, in
their anxiety, they fear the appearance of an unwanted guest. With each chiming of the
clock, the guests' "dreams are stiff-frozen as they
stand,"
Nevertheless, when the music swells the dreams
again live, and so the revelers keep reality at bay. At least, until midnight. For, at
midnight, the guests become aware of a masked figure which "arrests their attention."
At the appearance of this uninvited guest, the Prince seems to convulse. But, after his
shuddering, his brow reddens with rage and terror:
'Who dares?' he demanded hoarsely of the
courtiers who stand near
him.
The "intruder" passes
the guests and comes closer to Prospero, who raises his dagger. However, social rank,
wealth, and fortifications hold no power against the Red Death.
Another fact that would probably be included in the news article, which would most likely be on the Society Page, is the secretive appearance of the uninvited Montagues, a family at enmity with the prestigious Capulets. For Italian families, especially, this offense is a grave incident to Tybalt. With this sense of umbrage in mind, then, of note, is the action of the Nurse who is seen talking with Romeo. And, of course, the audacity of Romeo himself who dares to approach the innocent Juliet, the guest of honor, and his speaking to her and having the effrontery to touch her hand would be viewed as an outrageous affront to the Capulet family. A good reporter would also observe that after the revelers depart, Juliet is observed conferring with her nurse, who quickly escorts her away.
In your review/article, you may wish to include quotes from observers of these affronts by the Montague. Certainly Tybalt, who says,
...What dares the slave
Come hither, covered with an antic face,
To fleer and scorn at our solemnity?
Now by the stock and honor of my kin,
To strike him dead I hold it not a sin.....
It fits when such a villain is a guest (1.5.57-78)
would most likely be quoted. Perhaps one of the guests would be questioned, as well.
It can be noted, too, that Lord Capulet, when interviewed, said that he endured the Montagues so as not to cause "a mutiny among my guests" (1.5.84)
I think perhaps Danforth is a coward. If you were to ask him, he would say his job is upholding the law despite any objections and pressures. He is in this position of power and it's clear he doesn't like to be questioned or doubted. When he does have a doubt, he's unwilling (afraid) to pursue it.
The judges and the girls ate and socialized with each other, to at least a small degree, outside of the courtroom. A man of discernement should have been more alert to the duplicity and dissembling of the ringleader, Abigail. The moment I think he shows at least one cowardly bone is when Abigail delivers a veiled threat to him, letting him know his may be the next name she calls out. That should have been a clue--if she would make up a lie about him, she was capable of doing so about others. Instead, he carries on blindly and persistently because he wants to and he can.
While it's true he's stubborn and arrogant (as we see in all his dealings with Proctor and especially when he's eliciting Proctor's confession), he's also rather cowardly. He's afraid to find out the truth--that his lofty and important work on this court was all for naught. Even worse, it was all a lie.
