Use the equation 2 ( 60 ) + 2w = 170 with " w " as the width .
2 ( 60 ) + 2w = 170 now multiply 2 with 60 .
By multiplying 2 with 60 , you should get :
120 + 2w = 170 now subtract 120 on both sides
By subtracting 120 on both sides , you should have :
2w = 50 now divide both sides by 2 .
By dividing both sides by 2 , you should get :
w = 25
Since width is 25 and length is 60 , find the area by multiplying 25 with 60
Area = 1500 cm ^2
One can analyze "Sir Patrick Spens" in the terms you ask about because it is a narrative poem--it tells a story. This, of course, means that, rhetorically, it is much like a short story.
I'll guide you in your analysis by asking some questions and making a point or two.
First, to get at the center of the poem, if Spens and his men know about the danger of going on the sea this time of year, wouldn't the elderly advisor to the king also know about that danger? What does this suggest is going on, politically, in the ballad? Who is really responsible, then, for Spens' eventual death? Isn't it implied that this is intentional?
Ballads generally do not deal in character thoughts. They center on dialogue and action. Ballads are usually straightforward in their presentation of what characters say and do. Since the speaker is not a character in the narrative, since the second person you is not used, and since character thoughts are not revealed, what point of view is being used?
Concerning plot, what are the main events in the poem, and how do they allow other elements in the poem to work? For instance, the ship wrecks and Spens and his crew die. This is not directly stated, however--there isn't time or space in a ballad to do justice to the destruction of a ship and crew. Instead, understatement is used--their hats float on the water. The reader gets the understated, yet powerful, message.
What do the actions of the elderly advisor, the king, and Spens reveal about their characters? How does power work in the poem? How are the characters, therefore, characterized?
Finally, in general, the poem is structured as a ballad: four-line stanzas with the lines alternating between eight and six syllables, and a rhyme scheme in each stanza of abcb. It begins in medias res, in the middle of things. The reader doesn't know what the mission is or why it's necessary or what the situation is. The narrative begins as close to the death of Spens as possible--only what is necessary for the reader to understand the political intrigue going on is included.
Incidentally, the poem also uses situational irony. Spens is in a no-win situation that he cannot control. This is his world and his existence, and by extension, our world and our existence. This is what power can do.
Do you mean the poem by Edward Lear? If so, the rhyme scheme fits the following pattern:
Said the Duck to the Kangaroo, A
'Good gracious! how you hop! B
Over the fields and the water too, A
As if you never would stop! B
My life is a bore in this nasty pond, C
And I long to go out in the world beyond! C
I wish I could hop like you!' A
Said the duck to the Kangaroo. A
In the subsequent stanzas, this rhyme scheme is repeated - the first and third lines rhyme, the second and fourth lines rhyme, a different rhyme is introduced in the fifth line and this line rhymes with the sixth. The seventh and eighth lines are a couplet and they each end with the sound of the first line rhyme "A". In every stanza, the couplet is "A". So, you can do the rest yourself:
'Please give me a ride on your back!' D
Said the Duck to the Kangaroo. A
'I would sit quite still, and say nothing but "Quack," D
The whole of the long day through! A
And we'd go to the Dee, and the Jelly Bo Lee, E
Over the land and over the sea;-- E
Please take me a ride! O do!' A
Said the Duck to the Kangaroo. A
See how the "A" rhyme ends each stanza?
I believe this cute little poem has a deeper meaning. It shows how the duck and the kangaroo resolve some very unique differences to get along and accomplish their goals. They work out the obstacles to their trip in unique ways and they are able to hop around the world three times together, having a grand old time.
Wouldn't it be nice if we humans could do the same thing? We would not have wars!
Yes, ice floats on the liquid water because the solid form of water has a lower density than liquid water.
Why? It's simple! Because the geometry of the hydrogen bridges, which are forming only at lower temperatures.
For almost all substances and all other 11 unusual forms of water,except ice-XI, the solid state is denser than the liquid one. Fresh water is most dense at 4 ° C, and it will sink by convection as it will cool to that temperature and if it's cooled further, it will rise.
Because of this property, depth water will be warmer than surface ice water. According to this, the ice will be formed from the surface and it will extend down and most of the water underneath will remain constant at 4 ° C. The survival of animal species is due to the fact that the bottom of a lake, sea or ocean is virtually isolated from the cold.
Almost all other chemicals are denser in solid state and they are freezing from bottom to top.
The climax of the play Ruined occurs
after Fortune comes to Mama's establishment for the first time looking for Salima.
Later, Commander Osembenga storms Mama's place trying to find Kisembe. He comes a second
time still looking for Kisembe and in an impatient rage throws Mama, Josephine, and
Sophie to the floor. The women fall under attack from the men but Salima enters the room
in a terrible condition while screaming for the men to stop the violence, a violence
that ruined her own life.
While Mama is expecting to be
needed in Salima's childbirth, Salima dies, free at last from having her body be the
battleground for the men's violence. This is the climax. Afterward, regular routines
reemerge as Christian again asks Mama to join her life with his. The falling action
occurs in Christian and Mama's dancing and the resolution of the play is
established.
Jonah's world is based on everything being safe and the same. All of the memories and emotions are only carried by The Giver. People have to report their dreams and share their feelings to make sure no one has any negative dreams or feelings and to stop them early if they do. So when Jonah reports the dreams that signify his "stirrings" they can give him medicine right away to take away the stirrings and the emotions they cause.
I would choose the phrase that precedes the "partnership" descriptor. Macbeth says that he wrote of the witches prediction because "This have I thought good to deliver thee."
This small phrase is very illuminating. He is deferring to his wife. He "thinks" he should make her informed of this news and that she'll be happy. He doesn't say: look, I have good news. He doesn't say "this is what we are going to do". He says he thought it "good to deliver thee". Macbeth is subservient in all aspects - to Duncan, to the witches, and to his wife. This describes their marriage because, as later scenes will show, he does what she asks of him. Hence all the trouble!
The revolution was successful because enough of the American public was convinced that it was worth it and they were willing to reach out and make allies and connections in order to get what they needed to defeat the British war machine. For the British it became far too expensive and protracted and the distance from home made it more of a problem.
As a previous post mentioned, there were times where the revolutionaries were willing to fight outside the accepted rules, hit and run, sniping, etc., tactics which the British felt were beneath them. This helped to draw the war out and gave the Americans small successes but enough to keep the hopes alive long enough to wear out the British will to fight.
It depends on the time frame of the changes you are referring to. For more than a century after the beginning of the United States, there was virtually no middle class. A wealthy elite ran the major levers of the economy and most of government with it, while the vast majority of Americans - in excess of 90% - lived in relative poverty. When there is that disparity of wealth, there is class conflict, as evidenced by the organized labor and populist movements of the late 1800s.
Changes beginning in the 1920s to the way we paid our workers, the way work was done and the size of our industries created a mostly permanent middle class that only grew over time. This reduced class conflict, although the relationship between the middle and upper classes is still a bit contentious these days.
It sure seems to me he does take a side. How Sophocles
chooses to characterize each of the principle players tells me he sides with
Antigone.
Ismene is weak and submissive, accepting what is
without question or action.
Antigone is strong and
passionate about doing what's right, whatever the
cost.
Haemon is an obedient son; however, once he
recognizes his father's unwillingness to bend in the least for those who matter most to
him or to see reason, he sides with Antigone.
Creon is
arrogant and prideful--unwilling to bend even for his neice/future daughter-in-law and
his nephew. Ego and being right matter more to him than anything
else.
In the end, all three suffer for their actions;
clearly, though, the root of all these tragedies is Creon's pride. His law (state law)
is unjust in that he decrees it out of pride and personal revenge. That tells me
Antigone is on the side of righteousness, according to Sophocles, because she chooses
moral law over an unjust state law. He clearly outlines the consequence of such
disobedience, but he is most sympathetic, I think, to Antgone's
cause.
Hurricanes and other forms of tropical cyclones are often measured on the Beaufort Wind Force Scale. It was created in 1806 by and named after British hydrographer Admiral Sir Francis Beaufort. The scale evolved from previous theories about wind speed and conditions. The scale of 13 numbered classes (zero to 12) is based on qualitative wind conditions rather than wind speed. (The additional numbered classes 13-17 are sometimes used--primarily in China and Taiwan--for particularly strong cyclones.) It became a standard measurement for the British navy in the 1830s. The Beaufort scale has been upgraded several times; the 1946 scale is based on the empirical formula v=0.836 B 3/2 m/s (v=equivalent wind speed at 10 m above sea surface; B=Beaufort scale number).
The Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale is also used for some hurricanes in the Western Hemisphere, using a five category scale of 1 to 5 distinguished by the intensities of sustained winds. A Category 1 hurricane must have a minimum of 74 mph maximum sustained winds; the strongest, Category 5, must exceed winds of 155 mph. The Saffir-Simpson scale is most often used for Atlantic Ocean storms.
I assume that you have picked this topic because it is one that is ethically ambiguous. If that is the case, then you should structure your essay in a way that will show that it is a complex issue.
If I were writing the essay, I would do it in one of two ways. First, you can give all of your arguements for telling the parents first and then give arguments against telling (or vice versa). I recommend putting the one you agree with second.
The other option is to go point by point and give the pros and cons of telling the parents or not telling the parents. For example, you could say that one reason to tell the parents is because that is what is best for your friend. Then you can talk about both sides -- is that really what is best for your friend. After that, you move on to the next issue.
As other answers have stated, Johnny prefers to be hit by his father than ignored wholesale by his parents, which seems to be the usual state of affairs. His terrible emotional neglect by his family highlights his sense of vulnerability. For him, the Greaser gang really does become a vital substitute for his own cold, uncaring family. He finds the love among the gang which is so markedly lacking for him elsewhere. In fact, he is described as being 'the gang's pet'.
Although the other Greasers might sometimes scrap amongst themselves, they won't ever do anything to Johnny. This is best illustrated in the incident when Dally is annoying Cherry, the pretty Soc girl, at the cinema, and Johnny intervenes and warns him to 'leave her alone'. Dally is thereby thwarted, but he can't retaliate against Johnny - although, as Ponyboy notes, if it had been any other Greaser, Dally wouldn't have hesitated to beat him. However, he can't lay a finger on Johnny, who holds a privileged position in the gang:
But Johnny was the gang's pet, and Dally just couldn't hit him.
Dally, in fact, appears to be closer to Johnny than to anyone else; and when Johnny dies near the end of the story, Dally is completely unable to cope.
The Greaser gang, then, becomes Johnny's substitute family. Ponyboy sometimes feels aggrieved at his own family life - the loss of his parents, his constant run-ins with Darry - but he comes to appreciate that he still does have the love of his brothers, whereas Johnny has absolutely no-one outside of the gang.
You should get many different answers to the questions posed. I think that both of the questions need to be taken separately as separate analysis might be needed for each. I think that the play can be considered a "thinking man's play" because its protagonist is one that is immersed in thought. Hamlet is one of the first major characters that we see who is more animated by thought than anything else. When traditional central figures of dramas are bound by the action they undertake and the feats that they do, Hamlet lives in his own mind, engages in battle with his own demons within his mind. He is in constant struggle with his function being overcome by surmise. His agonizing moments of thought are on the same level with any hero doing battle with the most austere of opponents. In this light, one can see the play as a "thinking man's play."
On the second question, I would say that both Gertrude and Ophelia are challenged by their social conventions. It is not surprising that Gertrude, despite being the Queen of Denmark, has few lines. Her voice is silenced by the men who are around her and the social setting that would not allow her the ability to fully articulate what lies in her heart and psyche. No doubt, she marries Claudius and actively does so. Yet, she is unable to actively exercise her insight and understanding. Socially, she is expected to take a man and not be a ruling queen in her own right, but rather a figure head that is secondary to a male monarch. Ophelia is definitely a victim of her social setting. She is manipulated by two of the most important men in her life: Her father and her love, Hamlet. She is kind to Hamlet, only to be abused verbally and discarded by him in his own agonizingly painful expressions of love. She is loyal to her father, who manipulates her into his own plans and machinations. In the end, she is left with no voice and her drowning at her own hands is more of a statement about the social order in which she is forced to live than anything else.
Kipling's famous poem, 'If', is an expression of Victorian stoicism, illustrating the virtues of exemplary leadership and adorable manhood, righteous behaviour, idealisation of work, stoical detachment and the need to achieve the balanced middle way--'golden mean'.
Looked upon as the 'Prophet of British Imperialism', Kipling wrote on the virtues required for achieving the peak of moderation, virtues like leadership, hard labour, righteousness without self-righteousness, patience, detachment with determination, courage and, over and above, manhood.
Some of the major themes of the poem include value of leadership & attainment of manhood, righteous behaviour without being self-righteous, idealisation of hard work, detachment with determination, and the need to achieve golden mean.
Kipling's poem is primarily addressed to boys who are exhorted in the closing line to attain manhood. True to his strong Victorian mindset, the theme as underlined is characteristically patriarchal.
The poem exhorts the readers to be patient and forthright, but the poet wants this righteousness be shorn of any emulation of self-righteousness.
Ability to act is more important than the ability to philosophise. One should have very strong work-ethic. There is no wrong if one had dreams and thoughts, but such dreams and thoughts must not be masters, diffusing one from the path of pragmatic realisation of dreams.
Kipling advocates detachment from material success. The mind should be indifferent to success and failures of the material world.
The closing note of the poem is the vindication of the Middle Path, the golden mean'--the balance as the desired outcome of contradiction of opposites.
I believe the question relates to the group of animals within the animal kingdom which is labeled as fish.
Fish are back boned animals that live in water. The various kinds of fish differ so much in their shape, colour, and size that they do not seem to have much in common to be classified in a common group of animals.
However, all fish have two main features in common. First hey have a backbone, and so they are vertebrates. Second, they breathe mainly by means of gills. Nearly all fish being cold-blooded animals, cannot regulate their body temperature, which changes with the temperature of their surroundings. Also, almost all fish have fins, which are used for swimming.
Not all animals living in water are classified as fish. They differ from fish in at least one of these ways. For example, Dolphins, look like fish and have a backbone and fins, but they are breathe with lungs rather than gills, and they are warm-blooded. Some water animals such as jellyfish and starfish are called fish, but they do not have a backbone and so are not fish.
In Act 3, Iago and Othello discuss the possibility of Desdemona's unfaithfulness. Othello does not believe Iago's claims at this point; however, he is becoming suspicious and worries that the rumor might in fact be true. Iago tells Othello that Cassio is an honest man:
Men should be what they seem. Or those that be not, would they might seem none. (III.iii.124-125)
This is ironic because Iago does not want Othello to believe that Cassio is an honest man--he is simply planting a seed of doubt in Othello's mind. Further, Iago suggests that a man's true character should be what he shows other people; however, this is certainly not the case for Iago who is scheming under Othello's nose.
Prospero can claim both Ariel and Caliban as his servants, but his attitude toward and treatment of the two are very different. Both became his slaves because of the machinations of the witch Sycorax, who had preceded Prospero on the island and was dead before he arrived. Caliban was her son; Ariel was a spirit whom she trapped inside a tree. Prospero, upon his arrival on the island after being banished from Milan by his own brother, freed Ariel from the tree in exchange for servitude. He also raised Caliban and taught him to speak and to behave in a human manner. However, when Caliban attempted to rape Prospero's daughter Miranda, Prospero spurned him and enslaved him. Prospero has promised to free Ariel from his bondage after Ariel helps Prospero carry out his plot to regain his rightful place in society and marry off his daughter, and he does so. Prospero also pardons Caliban and then breaks his staff and rejects his life as a magician, returning to Milan to live out the remainder of his days.
Caliban and Ariel have completely different views of Prospero. Ariel considers Prospero to be his savior and treats him with respect, carrying out his orders in the knowledge, or at least hope, that Prospero will keep his promise. Caliban hates Prospero for keeping him from Miranda and his plan to populate the island with little Calibans, so he does nothing for Prospero willingly and bears the hatred and scorn of both Prospero and Miranda. It seems as if both Caliban and Ariel are a little afraid of Prospero's powers and do not dare to cross him.
As Renelane suggests, Rose has a perspective that is different from Troy's sense of "fences." At the opening of Act I, Scene II, Rose sings, "Jesus, be a fence around me every day / Jesus, I want you to protect me as I travel on my way." Wilson himself commented, in the Savron interview about this play, that by the conclusion, most of the characters are closely associated with one institution or another--the military, a hospital, prison / workhouse, or (in Rose's case) the church--and the connections with these institutions do not bode well for the possibility of their exercising control over their own lives. Despite her own incredible strength, Rose has retreated into a space she sees as protected by divine power; she relies on the comforts of her religious faith to keep those she loves safe from the forces that threaten her family. At the center of the play is a problem of control for each character over his or her destiny, as well as a problem of control for all of them over the threats to their family unity. Rose represents the desire for a unified, safe family group, but her Jesus-fence is not an effective way of exercising the needed control. (Wilson did not, however, reject the role played by the chuch in African-American history. The African-American church has had obvious liberating and empowering influences.)
The answers you suggested to your own question about the use of contrast in Robert Frost’s poem “There Are Roughly Zones” are very good ones. Here are some additional possibilities to consider.
What comes over a man, is it soul or mind---
That to no limits and bounds he can stay confined?
You would say his ambition was to extend the reach
Clear to the Artic of every living kind.
Ralph calls a meeting because he is trying to reestablish the importance of the fire in everyone's minds. In the previous chapter, a ship had passed the island, but Jack and his hunters had let the fire go out so there was no smoke to signal the ship. In the meeting, Ralph also hits on a number of other issues - he wants the other boys to think seriously about their survival instead of being lazy or getting so caught up in hunting that they neglect other necessary things. Once again, Ralph, Piggy, and Simon are the only ones who see the importance of the things Ralph brings up. The others do not have the maturity of insight or self-control to understand.
Visceral pleura is a covering of the lungs. The word pleura always refers to the lung and visceral means the covering of an organ. If you have pleuritis, for example, you have inflammation of the pleura in the lungs.
If your lungs were lacking visceral pleura, they would not be working very well, if at all. The pleura helps to reduce the friction of breathing, the many inhalations and exhalations, the wear and tear. It makes breathing easier by having this lubricating action. Without this physiological response, the lungs would soon "dry up" and be unable to continue to function as exchange agents for oxygen and carbon dioxide.
The ethical code of journalism basically states that the information a person from the media gets from a primary source is to be kept by the journalist, especially if the person whom is being interviewed tells the journalist ahead of time whether some things are to be edited, cut, or undisclosed. Examples of this are when a journalist is called to cover, for example, a hiding place where a person of interest is located, the journalist has the obligation of maintaining the place undisclosed to anyone because the information that he or she is getting was given to them under those conditions.
The legal and social constraints are that of course the police, nor any government agency can make a journalist break the code, and so the journalist becomes a person of interest in an investigation, though all they were doing was interviewing.
The only time a journalist would be obligated to break the ethical code of journalism would be when a child is in imminent danger, or when a person or persons are about to suffer greatly from crime. And even then it would be an issue of ethics, although it is justified.
Literature is not typically discussed in terms of its "pros and cons," so I'm only guessing at what you might mean here. Perhaps we can examine a few literary elements which might be helpful to you in your assessment of the pros and cons of this story.
Characters--are the characters believable and consistent? Yes, though the single-mindedness and vengefulness of Montressor are relatively foreign concepts to most of us. Fortunado we understand better, as he is easily led to his destruction by his pride.
Setting--is the setting appropriate for this story? No one does setting better than Poe. He creates an atmosphere and environment perfectly suited to his characters and theme.
Theme--does the theme have universal appeal? Perhaps so. If we deal with the idea of excessive pride leading to a fall, yes. If we concentrate on the concept of revenge and retribution, the message is mixed, at best.
Style--does the author's style contribute to the effectiveness of the work? Certainly this must be answered "yes." from the openng lines, we anticipate a dark and chilling story.
Poe is generally recognized as the father--and master--of the American short story. However you decide to define "pros and cons," this is an effective work in the areas listed above, so I guess it has more "pros" than cons." Hope this helps!
We need to determine the biggest value among cos1, cos2, and cos3
Since 1 is in the first quadrant, then the cosine is positive, then cos1? 0
However, 2 belongs to the interval (pi/2, pi) =(3.14/2, 3.14)which is in the 2nd quadrant where the cosine is negative ,
then cos2<0
Also, 3 belongs to the interval (pi/2, pi) where cosine is negative.
Then cos1 is the biggest value.
People are what matter to Johnny the most--the important people in his life, especially Dally and Ponyboy, as well as the children who were trapped in the church; children who needed saving much like Johnny had needed from his abusive parents.
Like most heroic figures, one of the traits that make them heroic is the ability to put others first. He put Ponyboy first in the fight with the Socs, and he put the children first in the fire. The fact that he could do something to save them brought new energy to his life and allowed him to face the danger without fear.
Johnny spent much of his life trying to be invisible, trying to survive. Saving the children from the fire gave him purpose and meaning that helped him transcend his struggles.
Both texts, 1984 and The Crucible, cite a dystopia that places fear above freedom in order to divide society and punish heretics.
In the theocracy of Salem, there is no separation of church and state, so Rev. Parris can abuse his position to acquire land and settle land disputes. He uses fear of the devil as an unchallengeable means of attaining authority and punishing those who question him. He ferrets out those who deny his authority (Proctor) and exiles and punishes them for unrelated crimes.
Similarly, O'Brien (Big Brother) uses nationalism as religious fervor to control the masses. Like Parris, O'Brien is a double-agent: he appears to serve the rebellion, but he really serves the state. O'Brien uses torture in the Ministry of Love (a kind of anti-church) to carry out his dirty work.
In the end, both heroes are destroyed by the state, although Proctor retains some dignity and hope for the future.
COP is an acronym for community-oriented policing. POP is an acronym for problem-oriented policing.
The basic tenet of COP is for the police department to foster a working partnership between themselves and the community which they serve. Goals of this approach are maintaining order, reducing the fear of crime, and improving the quality of life in the local neighborhoods.
In POP strategies include encouraging the use of a broad range of information, encouraging a broad range of solutions, and the system as a whole should require no additional resources or special units.
British Romantic poets and painters saw flashes of
universal insight; they became visionaries who departed from the temporal world in their
works and set upon a sublime, almost "out-of-body" experience, to redefine the
conceptions of beauty in art and nature. Artists believed they could create meaning in
what they saw, that their minds were active agents upon the universe, that their visions
were each unique and yet still connected to nature and their fellow
man's.
Two proponents of this universality in nature and
art were Edmund Burke, an outspoken politician and
theorist, and William Gilpin, a well-traveled artist and
essayist. Each redefined the classical Platonic conceptions of the beautiful, sublime,
and picturesque to fit their Romantic sensibilities. Whereas Burke's theories of the
sublime and beautiful were rooted more in gender politics than strict assessment of art
or nature, Gilpin's essays were grounded in aesthetic judgment, unhindered by as much
psychological subtext
In his seminal work, A
Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and
Beautiful, Edmund Burke equates the sublime with terror;
"that is, it is productive of the strongest emotion which the mind is capable of
feeling". Although it may sound akin to sadistic commentary, "...I am satisfied the
ideas of pain are much more powerful than those which enter on the part of pleasure,"
Burke's equation of the sublime to a deep-rooted pain is
linguistically accurate since pain, by definition, is the body's recognition of sensory
nerve overload. In this way, the sublime is a psycho-biological
reaction to an ideal that transcends merely the
beautiful.
Like Burke, Gilpin comments
upon the visceral, purely emotional reaction to the sublime that
supercedes reason and logic. By example, Gilpin says, "Nothing can be more sublime, than
the ocean" (ibid). The ocean is so sublime that it "has little of the picturesque," or
that which can be painted. This can be interpreted in three ways: (1) the ocean is so
sublime in its natural grandeur that it pauses the intellect and melts the soul; (2) the
ocean is so sublime, so vast in size and scope, that it is "perhaps of an incorrect
composition" and, therefore, unable to be contained on the space of a canvas; (3) the
ocean is so sublime and in such a state of flux with its circulating waves and
undulating currents that it cannot be captured with any discernable "neatness" on the
canvas.
Whereas Burke spoke of the
sublime's powerful and painful incomprehensibility on a
psycho-biological level, Gilpin speaks more of the sublime's
impenetrability from an artistic level, that is, from an artist's inability to translate
its power to the canvas. Obviously, Gilpin prefers to paint the
picturesque, the rough and rugged, the asymmetrical, the
flawed. Granted, Gilpin's artistic object, architecture, is not the small or feminine
objects of which Burke spoke of the beautiful, but the parallel
between Gilpin's picturesque and Burke's
beautiful seems nonetheless noteworthy. In brief, what is pleasing
to the eye is something which the eye is used to seeing, the familiar, but cast in a
slightly different way (Burke) or in a irregular form (Gilpin). But what is pleasing to
the soul, or the visceral, according to both Burke and Gilpin, is the unfamiliar, the
unnatural, the incomprehensible--the
sublime.
I don't believe that Harper Lee ever addresses a response
from any of Dolphus Raymond's "mixed" children concerning their status. We do know that
Dolphus "shipped two of his up north. They don't mind 'em up north." Jem claims that his
children still living in Maycomb are "real sad," but this is Jem's opinion--not their
own. His children in Maycomb are described as looking
... all Negro to me: He was rich chocolate with
flaring nostrils and beautiful teeth. Sometimes he would skip happily... (Chapter
16)
Since Dolphus is a fairly
wealthy man--"he owns all one side of the riverbank"--his children probably have fewer
needs than other Negro children in the town. The children are, however, looked upon with
curiosity by the white townspeople of Maycomb.
Scout's
closest description of Boo Radley as a heroic character probably comes in the final
chapter.
He
gave us two soap dolls, a broken watch and chain, a pair of good-luck pennies, and
our
lives.
There are some great examples of poetic justice in Biblical stories. One is the story of Joseph. Joseph is a spoiled young man, his father's favorite. His other brothers are jealous of him because he always brags about dreams he has in which his brothers bow down to him. The brothers sell him into slavery in Egypt.
Lots happens in Egypt, but Joseph eventually becomes the number #2 man. He stores grain in warehouses because he knows there is a famine coming. Joseph's brothers run out of food, so they finally have to go to Egypt because their father Jacob has heard there is grain there. They do not recognize Joseph. They thought he was dead. Ultimately, Joseph's dream comes true because his brothers do have to bow down to him. When they realize who Joseph is, they fear for their lives, but Joseph forgives them. It is poetic justice that the young man whom his brothers thought had been killed turns out to save his family. Joseph said to his brothers, "Am I in the place of God? You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." That is a quote you can use.
Also, in the Book of Esther - there is poetic justice because an evil man named Haman is hanged on the same gallows that he has prepared for another man called Mordecai. Haman and his wife Zeresh devise a plot to kill all the Jews in Persia. The plot is foiled by Queen Esther, who is married to Ahasuerus but who is a Jew. Mordecai is her uncle. Haman builds a gallows to hang Mordecai because Mordecai refuses to bow down to Haman. Through a complicated story, his plot is eventually uncovered and the king is so angry, he tells his men to hang Haman from the same gallows he prepared for Mordecai.
Haman thinks the king is going to honor him, but he really intends to honor Mordecai for uncovering a plot to kill the king that happened a year ago. The king tells Haman, "What should be done for the man the king delights to honor?” Thinking it is himself the king is talking about, Haman comes up with a grandiose plan to be seated on a horse and paraded through the town, in honor, but the king turns to him and tells him to do this for Mordecai.
Other examples of poetic justice are in Macbeth - Macbeth winds up being killed himself because he failed to pay attention to the second part of the witches' prophecy. He killed so many to ensure the first part would be fulfilled (that he would be king), and yet in the end, it is all for naught as he is killed. There is also poetic justice in Hamlet when Gertrude drinks the poison intended for Hamlet, and she dies and when Laertes is killed with his own sword, which has been poisoned. Laertes says: “I am justly kill’d with my own treachery." Claudius is also killed by the same poisoned sword that he meant to kill Hamlet, and Hamlet forces hiim to drink the rest of the poisoned wine that he intended for Hamlet.
The money supply multiplier is simply the multiplier that
tells us how much the money supply will go up when a given amount of money is deposited
in a bank.
When the money is deposited in a bank, some
fraction of the money is then lent out. The borrower deposits the money in their own
bank, which lends a fraction of it out in turn. This keeps happening over and over
again.
The formula for this is simply 1/reserve
requirement.
So, if the reserve requirement is .1 (10%),
the money multiplier is 10. If this is the case, $1000 deposited in a bank will
increase the money supply by $10,000.
In order to find out the coefficients a,b,c, we have to
have 3 relationships, which we could write from the data given by the
enunciation.
If f is zero for x=1, we could
write:
f(1)=0
f(1)=a+b+c
So,
a+b+c=0
Another clue given by enunciation is that we have
the coordinates of the minimal point (1/6, -25/12).
But we
know that the coordinates of the minimal point are
V(-b/2a,
-delta/4a)
x=-b/2a, but
x=1/6
So,
-b/2a=1/6
-6b=2a
-3b=a
y=-delta/4a,
but y= -25/12, where
delta=b^2-4ac
(b^2-4ac)/4a=25/12
25*4a=12(b^2-4ac)
25a=3(b^2-4ac)
We'll
substitute -3b=a into the relation
a+b+c=0
-3b+b+c=0
-2b=-c
c=2b
Into
the relation 25a=3(b^2-4ac), we'll substitute -3b=a and c=2b, so that we'll obtain an
equation with the single unknown, which is
b.
25(-3b)=3[b^2-4(-3b)(2b)]
After
reducing similar terms, we'll
have:
-25b=b^2+24b^2
-25b=25b^2
b^2+b=0
b(b+1)=0
b1=0
and b2=-1
We'll choose the value for b, so that the value
of a to be positive, a>o, so that we could have a minimal
point.
For b=0, -3b=a, a=0 and this value is not respecting
the constraint a>0.
For b=-1,
a=3>0 and c=2b, so
c=-2.
So, the triplet which is
respecting all function constraints is:
(3,-1,-2)
The answer is: its cells, which shelter a sulfur-based chemical that irritates both eyes and nose. When you cut onions, the chemical is released and, once it is in contact with air and water produced by the lacrimal glands, it causes a chemical reaction.
What follows from this equation? A sulfuric acid and a lot of pain. As the more we shed tears, the more we hurt, and the more we get hurt, the more we'll shed tears, over and over again. So ... quickly what to do?
There is no a miraculous product. There are however some simple steps that we can take:
- Mouth breathing when cutting onion. In this way, we will relieve the nose and eyes of a large quantity of gas.
- If you like chemistry, you have at your hand a most laborious method: mix onion with parsley to oxidize some sulphates. This combination improves the bad breath after consumption of onions.
- To cut onions in water or under running water, because in this way gaseous substance released will react with water and no with tears
- If onions will be cool down, about an hour before cutting, can be helpful, because sulfates will be more difficult to evaporate.
- Mechanical Method: Put some glasses on, that will act as a shield for your eyes.
The symbols of fate in In another country include;
The medals- Symbols of bravery BUT also symbols of inequality and injustice. The American soldier, as opposed to the Italian soldiers, received his only for being American.
The wounds-Are symbols of bravery and of distancing from soldier to soldier. The American soldier received a smaller wound than the Euro soldiers, and yet he knew inside his heart he was still more scared of death and war than the soldiers who've lost their noses, parts of their body, etc.
The grammar was the Major's symbol of self and outer control. He has lost control of the world as he knew it, and grammar is perhaps an unconscious way for him to keep some form of normalcy and control in his life.
" A man must not marry" was his way of telling the Narrator that one cannot put himself in a situation where one can lose something. He was referring to his wife to whom he married after he thought the war was out of his life, and yet, she died unexpectedly.
In my opinion one simply cannot live like the Major. It would be a never ending chase to try to control what depends on so many other variables. Life is only at the center of a nest that holds many other social, psychological, physical, and behavioral building blocks. One cannot control all of that. He is limiting himself even further by trying to control everything.
Concerning Lady Macbeth and psychiatry, first of all, Lady
Macbeth is not a fiend, we don't know anything about her childhood, and she is not an
actual person. She is a character in a play. Anything other than what we see in the
drama is mere conjecture, and is silly, since she's a character, not a
person.
Second, we don't really even know much about her
sanity or insanity, since she was asleep and sleepwalking when she rubs her hands, etc.
Sleepwalking doesn't make you insane. Certainly, she is suffering from guilt, but that
doesn't mean she's insane, with all the connotations of that word. She commits suicide,
of course, but that makes her a victim of mental illness, not a victim of insanity and,
again, of all that word suggests.
Also, Lady Macbeth isn't
that ruthless, since she can't even kill Duncan herself when she gets the chance. Plus,
she pleads with the spirits to unsex her, showing that she even doubts herself. One
doesn't pray for ruthlessness, if one is sure of how ruthless you
are.
Lady Macbeth should not be described with hyperbole
and should not be demonized. She is wicked and ambitious, etc., but she is not absolute
evil incarnate, or whatever.
Finally, one aspect of what we
do see of her that certainly relates to modern psychiatry is her exhibition of
O.C.D.-like symptoms while she is asleep and walking. It seems to me that Shakespeare
may have been ahead of his time when he added this detail.
I guess it really depends on what you think a strength and
a weakness are.
Myrtle is rude and a terrible mate because
she is a cheater, but Myrtle is very discreet and keeps her secret
well:
Mrs.
Wilson sat discreetly in another
car.
A definite weakness is
that when she is with Tom she grows very arrogant:
Mrs. Wilson gathered up her dog and her other
purchases, and went haughtily
in.
She likes to
think she's all that when she's with Tom. I do think it is somewhat respectful not to
rub Wilson's nose in the fact that she's having an extramarital affair, but absolutely
immoral too.
Wilson's strengths include being hard-working,
honest and protective.
A weakness is his stupidity. Tom
says of him:
He's so dumb he doesn't know he's
alive.
You could
argue Wilson's weakness is also a strength. Being unaware is sometimes an advantage in
life because you don't have to stress about the problems you just don't know
about.
Beneatha experiments with different identities as all young people do. At this point in the novel, she is interested in her African identity, something which she thinks George, as an "assimilationist," eshews (which he does). This is why Asagai has so much appeal to her for he represents that new (or original) identity in that he is an educated man from Nigeria, having a tribe to claim as part of who he is. The contrast between George and Asagai represents a theme in the novel concerning what direction the Younger family should go as they move toward the future. Indeed, Walter Lee's chief dilemma is discovering who he is, finding an identity as a black man in a society that denigrates that identity. Langston Hughes' poem, which the title of the play alludes to, engages this topic through the metaphor of a dream.
Depending on which country you mean, the answer could vary a bit, but the theme is the same. Cricket, polo, tennis and golf are commonly played sports among the elite in English speaking countries, and among the Ivy League universities in the United States. Golf in the US in particular was played at clubs that, since they were private, could exclude people on the basis of race, religion or class.
For people in poverty, Football (soccer) is still very common in the greater Colonial World in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. Baseball in the US was often stickball, because all you needed was a stick and a ball of twine, with coats or shirts for bases. You could play it in the streets of major cities or in the rural countryside of Kansas or Texas. This is how it became the national pastime in America.
Womens' sports in the US came much later on an organized level, really only coming into their own in the 1970s and 80s, after Supreme Court rulings and government regulations opened up women's sports at the public school and university levels.
The best tag-lines are corny or ironic: they reveal a situation or language that is not expected. They are puns or parodies of others: they make fun of or honor earlier ones but with a twist.
Take, for example, the U.S. Forestry Service's "Only you can prevent forest fires." Here's a spoof: "Only you can prevent book burning."
I also like the corny one on the movie poster: "Aflame with the excitement and emotions of tomorrow!" What cheese!
Here's some more:
You can find the answer to this right at the beginning of
Chapter 23. Holden has called Mr. Antolini from his parents house. He's there visiting
Phoebe. He doesn't say so right out, but he seems to be calling to ask if he can stay
at the Antolinis'.
The first thing Mr. Antolini asks him is
if anything is wrong. He doesn't seem too worried when Holden says he has been kicked
out of Pencey. Then Mr. Antolini tells Holden he can come over and stay if he needs
to.
Of course, Holden will go over and stay at the
Antolinis' in Chapter 24.
I always tell my students that when they have to read a
novel or story for a literature class, always have a pack of sticky notes on hand. Every
time you come to something you think is profound, mark it with a sticky note because it
may have something to do with the theme. Every time you tend to see
objects or dialogue or events that seem to occur over and over again, mark those -- they
are probably motifs, symbols and/or theme markers. For example, if you are
reading Moby Dick and you keep seeing the color white appear over
and over, ask yourself what the author might be trying to say. White usually means
purity, but not in this novel. Also notice the characters - how are
they described? Mark significant comments about them or significant things they say with
a sticky note. Make sure you write on the sticky note why you
marked a particular section, though, because when you get done, you don't want just a
bunch of sticky notes with nothing on them -- you won't remember why you put the note
there.
Don't worry so much about figuring out the theme
while you are reading because it may not come together for you until the end -- but do
be aware of things to mark.
Another good thing about sticky
notes is that teachers usually give writing assignments on novels or short stories and
they almost always ask the usual things about character development, writing style,
dialogue, plot, setting, etc. So if you mark these things as you go along, it is MUCH
easier to find them when you get done with the reading.
I
am sure some other teachers will have other methods - you should use the one that you
think will work best for you! Good luck.
It does depend on the drug you are referring to, which agency arrested them, and what state the person was charged in. Possession means simply that: you possessed some illegal drug on your person or property. It could be as small as a few marijuana leaves and still be possession. They likely wouldn't charge you for such a small amount, but they legally can. The larger the amount, the more likely a person would be charged with trafficking, or possession with intent to deliver. It's the difference, legally, between drug users and drugs dealers, and the state treats drug dealers much more harshly.
How much is defined as trafficking depends on the drug in question. With cocaine I believe it's anything over 19 grams, for example, whereas with marijuana it would be a larger amount.
Well, if the setting were changed, then the title would have to go. It couldn't be called Fences without a fence.
It's got to be in the back yard, where fences go. Troy and his people have been in the back of things their whole lives. Troy has worked the back of the garbage truck: he picks up garbage from the back of white people's houses. Blacks had to sit in the back of restaurants and ride in the backs of buses.
You can't very well call the play anything else. It can't be staged on a front porch. That's not where people drink on Friday nights. That's not where you swing a bat or where you saw wood. The front yard or porch has no such connotations. It has no fences, secrets, or social barriers. It doesn't keep people in or out.
Fences is built around fences--literally. The fence is always on stage. Remove it and you have no play.
In my opinion, it was not the fault of the government. Instead, it was the fault of society.
Government can generally not force people to hold a given set of beliefs against their will. In fact, it is very hard for them to force people to even act as if they held those beliefs. So what I am saying is that it would have been very hard for the government to force people to treat women badly. This is something that people did due to prejudices that they already held.
When a group is denied its rights, it is generally because the population in general does not want that group to have those rights. It is not because the government wants to oppress those people against the will of the general population.
So I would argue that women were treated badly because people generally thought that women were inferior, not because of anything the government did.
Ichabod Crane is the tall, gangly schoolteacher in Sleepy Hollow, a town north of New York City, on the Hudson River. The author develops his character into a geeky-type of country school teacher, not very manly, who is prone to a wild imagination. His name, "crane", describes his physical characteristics because he is talk and gawky and has a neck like a crane (a bird). He has long arms and legs, and a pin head. His ears are big and stick out.
He was tall, but exceedingly lank, with narrow shoulders, long arms and legs, hands that dangled a mile out of his sleeves, feet that might have served for shovels, and his whole frame most loosely hung together. His head was small, and flat at top, with huge ears, large green glassy eyes, and a long snipe nose, so that it looked like a weather-cock perched upon his spindle neck to tell which way the wind blew.
He looks like a scarecrow coming from a distance, the author tells us. He was a strict teacher who did not "spare the rod and spoil the child." However, he was not very fair. Since he himself was wimpy, whenever he had to discipline a wimpy child and the child cried, he let up on that child and instead took out his discipline and anger on the stronger, Dutch children. He was a man with issues.
He played with the older children, and took some of the younger ones home, especially if they had pretty sisters. He was looking for a woman. He was also the singing master for the community. He was poor, having to live with the families of his students, and although skinny, he had a huge appetite:
had the dilating powers of an anaconda
Since he was a schoolteacher, he had some degree of respect in the community and liked to impress the young ladies with his knowledge while the other country bumpkins, uneducated, would stand around jealously. It is this show-off, prideful type of attitude that got him in trouble with people like Brom Bones.
Crane liked to read, and one of his favorite works was Cotton Mather's "History of New England Witchcraft." The region in which he lived, and which Washington Irving wrote about, was the Hudson Valley, settled by the Dutch. The region was awash with all sorts of myths and superstitions, and Crane was a fan. So it was easy to manipulate him into thinking that the Headless Horseman was real.
For this reason, we'll use the Increasing/Decreasing Test.
Of course, to use this test, we have to differentiate the function first:
f'(x)=(3x^4-4x^3-12x^2+5)
We know that the derivative of the sum is the sum of derivatives:
f'(x)=12x^3-12x^2-12x
We'll factorize:
f'(x)=12x(x^2-x-1)
We'll factorize again, writing the expression
x^2-x-1=(x-2)(x+1)
f'(x)=12x(x-2)(x+1)
Now, we'll find the critical points:
12x(x-2)(x+1)=0
12x=0
x=0
x-2=0
x=2
x+1=0
x=-1
And now, we'll begin to analyze the behaviour of the derivative, around these critical points:
For x<-1:
12x<0
(x-2)<0
(x+1)<0
Multiplying 12x(x-2)(x+1)=(-)*(-)*(-)<0
f'(x)<0, so f is decreasing over (-inf, -1).
For -1<x<0:
12x<0
(x-2)<0
(x+1)>0
Multiplying 12x(x-2)(x+1)=(-)*(-)*(+)>0
f'(x)>0, so f is increasing over (-1, 0).
For 0<x<2:
12x>0
(x-2)<0
(x+1)>0
Multiplying 12x(x-2)(x+1)=(+)*(-)*(+)<0
f'(x)<0, so f is decreasing over (0, 2).
For x>2:
12x>0
(x-2)>0
(x+1)>0
Multiplying 12x(x-2)(x+1)=(+)*(+)*(+)>0
f'(x)>0, so f is increasing over (2, inf).
Mr. Beach "like(s) peace". He tells Sam, "God meant man to obey. He meant children to obey their fathers, he meant men to obey their kings". He espouses loyalty and thinks young men shouldn't question the King. Mr. Beach thinks that agitators "can always manage to stir up the passions of the people for a week or so, but it never lasts". He is against the young men fighting against England, and believes that cooler heads will prevail (Chapter 1).
The question is confusing and not well stated
(soluability? in what?)but I will try to answer part of it. In general as one goes
across the periodic table in a row one is adding electrons to an exisiting orbital or
shell structure. At the same time the charge in the nucleus is building up. This tends
to increase the force on the outer electrons which affects
the size of the atom. In moving down a column one is adding electrons to a new shell.
The new electrons are added further out from the nucleus while the nuclear charge is
screened somewhat by the electrons in the lower shells. This tends to
decrease the force on the outer
electrons.
Electronegativity is the tendency to attract new
electrons to form ions. As we move along a row the charge in the nucleus builds up, so
electrons are attracted by a stronger and stronger force leading to increase in EN. As
we go down a column we add electrons further and further from the nucleus so the EN
decreases because they are held by a weaker force than the atom above
it.
The ionization energy is the energy it takes to pull
off an electron. As we can guess from above, it the nuclear charge is greater across a
row it takes more and more energy to pull an electron off an atom. IE increase across a
row. It decreases down a column because the force is
weaker.
The electron affinity shows the same tendencies as
the IE above.
When we get to the last colum there is an
abrupt change in EN and EA. These elements, the noble gases, have completely filled
shells. The EA and EN not only decreases, it drops to zero because it is partically
impossible to add an additional electron. There are a few compounds formed of those
lower on the column such as Xe with highly reactive elements such as O2 and F2. XeF4
was the first artifically produced noble gas compound.
Throughout the very artisitic work of F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby, many literary devices are employed especially metaphor, simile, and symbols. Then, to convey the illusion of the the American Dream, and the duality of some of the characters, Fitzgerald makes splendid use of paradoxes, or apparent contradictions that actually convey truth.
1. For instance, Jay Gatsby is described both as "wealthy" as though he is similar to the Buchanans, while also being called "an elegant young roughneck."
2. The narrator, Nick Carraway, tells the reader that
on a warm windy evening I drove over to East Egg to see two old friends whom I scarcely knew at all.
3. Later, he remarks after leaving Tom and Daisy's:
Their interest rather touched me and made them less remotely rich--nevertheless, I was confused and a little disgusted as I drove away.
4. At the hotel with the Tom Buchanan and Mrytle Wilson. Nick remarks that to the casual watcher on the street below, the
yellow windows must have contributed their share of human secrecy to the casual watcher in the darkening streets, and I was him, too, looking up and wondering. I was within and without, simultaneously enchanted and repelled by the inexhaustible variety of life.
5. A rather delightful one is the observation of Jordan Baker:
I like large parties. They're so intimate. At small parties there isn't any intimacy.
At Gatsby's party, a girl named Lucille declares, "I never care what I do, so I always have a good time."
The very oddness of the league is a clue in itself. Who would pay people to do this sort of tedious copying--and who would limit their request to those with red hair?
After that, Mr. Wilson's helper's habit of disappearing into the cellar, and the fact that he brought the league up, signal more generally that something is up. Combine that with the fact that Wilson had not heard of the league before, and you've got some oddity. The biggest clue, though, is that Wilson cannot leave during the period: they want him anchored in place.
Later, there are others--the shop's location, the assistant's knees--but early on, those are the main clues.
I think that the premise of Bruno accompanying Shmuel hand in hand to the gas chamber is one that illustrates the horror of the Final Solution. The idea that two children would have to meet their fate of the gash chamber is horrific enough. The experience of Bruno's father having to find his clothes and then search for his son only adds to it. Yet, I think that the ultimate horror that is brought out is the idea of what must have been transpiring in the boys' minds on their way to the gas chamber. Certainly, to obtain a glimpse of this through the narrative structure reveals much in the way of the horror of the gas chamber. Compounding this would be that the boys go off to die in the name of friendship and loyalty. Bruno nor Shmuel ditch one another to save themselves. Rather, they go together to meet their fate. Friendship has transcended the fear of death. Yet, when one has to see a noble instinct subjected to the sheer brutality of the gas chamber, I think that this does much to convey the horror involved.
This is tricky, because sometimes you will have a purpose before you create your characters, but sometimes, your characters will dictate your purpose. One helpful technique that I have used and teach my students to use, is creating a specific character and giving that character some concrete objects as part of his or her essence. For instance, say you are really not sure how to approach a new story, but you want to play around with different characters and see what comes up. You can create two characters that have specific identities and have them converse and see where it takes you.
Say you choose to create a male and a female. Give them names, height, weight, age, professions, likes, dislikes, and a few objects that are specific to each of them. Maybe one has a pet. Maybe one wears bifocals. Maybe one smokes cigars. You can have fun playing around with this, and it will loosen you up to be open to new ideas.
There's no "right" way to approach writing fiction. You can even use your technical writing skills to help you be more precise or explain details. Sometimes, when you create a character, he/she takes on a life of his/her own and, before you are aware of it, you are in his/her story.
In fact, it may happen that what you begin with turns into something entirely different than what you had originally planned to write. Don't get too attached to it, and let if proceed for a while, and remember, we often have to write a lot of words to get to where we are going.
War is Peace is true. The three governments are equally matched, so they would never hope to conquer the other two. The real war is keeping the people working so that society runs smoothly. However, with all this production, there is not an scarcity, and then everyone would be equally wealthy and find no need to continue doing his or her job effectively. War solves the problem by creating the necessary destruction and a general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges and magnifies the distinction between one group and another.
Whether you view Hamlet as procrastinating or not in Shakespeare's Hamlet is a matter of interpretation. Why Hamlet waits is an issue that has been thoroughly treated by scholars and critics.
Hamlet finds out in Act I that Claudius murdered King Hamlet, and the Ghost orders Hamlet to avenge his father and kill Claudius. This doesn't happen until Act 5. On the surface, at least, Hamlet procrastinates. This may be a simplistic interpretation, but it certainly can be argued.
Numerous reasons exist, however, for Hamlet to wait: he is unsure of the identity of the Ghost (it could be a devil in disguise), he suffers from melancholy (depression), Claudius is well-guarded, Hamlet is too moral to do something so drastic as kill a king in an age that believes in the divine right of kings, Hamlet believes that Claudius must be exposed so that all know his guilt before he kills him, Hamlet is a thinker rather than a doer, Hamlet must thoroughly think out every possible angle before deciding any action, Hamlet doesn't want to kill Claudius while he is confessing and thereby send him to heaven, etc.
And the above is only the beginning. The issue really becomes complicated when you try to determine when Hamlet is speaking with total honesty and when he is playing a role, or posing an argument. Hamlet's mind is so fertile that this isn't easy to do. Also, some of the specific reasons Hamlet takes so long to avenge his father that I've mentioned above, may be procrastination. Plus, though some of the reasons may not be directly related to procrastination, it is possible that they are excuses, because Hamlet is procrastinating. For example, some have suggested that the reason Hamlet doesn't kill Claudius at prayer isn't really because he doesn't want to send Claudius to heaven. That's what he tells himself and that's what the audience hears, but that may be just an excuse for him not to do it when the opportunity is there.
In other words, there's no clear answer for you. There is only interpretation.
That said, if you need something concrete, a short answer might be:
No, Hamlet does not procrastinate. He has good reasons for waiting as long as he does to kill Claudius. He follows the following steps:
Thus, there is no procrastination, only an intelligent human making sure of the facts before he does something drastic. But you could argue a dozen other interpretations, as well.
Atticus shows optimism in a few parts of the story.
The most obvious of course is the way in which he defends Tom Robinson. He puts everything he has into it - perhaps not assuming he will win, but trying nonetheless. His entire closing in the courtroom in Chapter 20 could be categorized as optimistic.
He shows other signs of optimism though. In the lessons he teaches Scout about reading in school (chapter 3) - he comes across as optimistic that not only will everything be okay at school - but it has been okay forever.
Later, in chapter 15, Atticus is debriefing the incident of the gathering of men outside the Finch home (presumably "friend" warning Atticus to be careful about going through with the case) with Jem. He makes this statement: "The Ku Klux's gone... it'll never come back." Historically we know the Ku Klux was neither gone at this time nor that it stayed in hiding for long. I think here Atticus is mixing optimism with reassurance for his children.
By the time Emily returned from the convalescent home, she had been traumatized by years of instability and insufficient nurturing. Her mother had had her as a teenager, and although she had tried her best, had not been able to give her the continuity and love that she needed. Abandoned by her husband when Emily was only eight months old, Emily's mother had had to leave her baby with a series of caretakers in order to go to work to support herself and her child. Emily had not been happy in the care of these strange people, and Emily's mother remembers with a sense of sadness and guilt that the child would break into "a clogged weeping that could not be comforted, a weeping I can hear yet," everyday when she returned to pick her up.
When Emily was older, her mother found it necessary to send her to a nursery school, which she hated, so she could continue working. Her mother then remarried, and Emily had to adjust to life with a "new daddy."
When Emily came down with a severe case of the red measles, her illness coincided with the birth of a new baby. Because of the fear of contagion, she was not allowed near her mother or the infant for a week when her mother came home, and "she did not get well...she stayed skeleton thin, not wanting to eat, and night after night she had nightmares." Her mother was too exhausted, tending to the new baby, to meet Emily's needs, and there is no doubt the child felt bewildered and displaced. When she was sent to a convalescent home, the only contact she was allowed with her mother was through letters and twice-a-month visits from afar, and when she came home, she was distant and subdued. Her mother recalls that she
"used to try to hold and love her after she came back, but her body would stay stiff, and after a while she'd push away."
After eight months at the convalescent home and years of instability and lack of love, Emily has learned not to depend on her mother or others. Although her mother has tried her best, her own situation was difficult, and she has not been able to love Emily enough. Emily is a lonely, unhappy child who has learned that to reach out for love is to risk rejection, and so she can no longer accept her mother's attempts to connect with her.
By nature, humankind wants to avoid death's call, and everyman (we) spend most of our energy absorbed in activities that help us avoid thinking about what happens when we die. However, according to Everyman, there is no escaping death, and there is no escaping being called into account for what we've done while we've been alive. When death comes, Everyman is unprepared: he thinks he has more time, and tells Death he is not ready to accompany him: none of us are. Certainly, none of Everyman's earthly companions are either. Each, in turn, agrees to be with Everyman until he finds out where Everyman has to go; then each, in turn, refuses to accompany him. Just like Everyman, humankind must all face Death alone. There is no avoiding the final call, either, and no postponing it until a more convenient time. When Death comes, everyman even tries to offer him money to come back later, but no earthly goods have any effect on Death. It is our destiny to die, and we will all die when God sends Death to collect us. We should, therefore, be prepared, for the only thing we can bring with us when we meet our reckoner is the accumulation of good works that we have accrued in our lifetimes (according to Everyman).
Because Candy has money saved up (he received money when he lost his hand), it makes the dream of the farm seem possible to George. Between George and Lennie, they never have more than $50 at any given time, so George never really believed that they would have enough money to buy land, but when Candy says that he will give them his money, George begins to believe they could actually do it.
Women in ancient Greece were not considered to be equal to men. In Athens, for instance, women and slaves could not vote - much like the situation in early American history for women and slaves. Women were expected to remain at home, handle the children and the household, and stay out of the affairs of men. This is what Odysseus's wife Peneiope did while her husband went off to fight the Trojan war. After Odysseus was assumed to be dead, Penelope was beset with suitors. She was desirable because she came with all of Odysseus' property. She, however, representing the faithful wife, held off her suitors by telling them she had to finish a tapestry. Every night she would unweave what she had finished, because she felt in her heart that no one could replace her husband, and she did not want to remarry.
The other women in The Odyssey were goddesses or possessed of some supernatural qualities, with the exception of the clever princess Nausicaa, who aided Odysseus in his time of need. Indeed, the mortal women of the story were clever and capable, but, as women, they were peripheral to the more important ideas of honor and glory in battle. The only woman who was a warrior was the goddess Athena, and she was different from other women, since she had sprung from Zeus's head already fully-formed and dressed for battle. She was the patron of soldiers, perhaps representing the anima, or female spirit, as a stand-in for real women.
Even the other goddesses in the story were pictured as petty, vain, and seductive, trying to trap men with their scheming. The Greek society was andro-centric, meaning that it revolved around men. Women were necessary for reproduction and little else. Still, Penelope and Nausicaa were portrayed as sympathetic characters, perhaps the ideal for Greek women to aspire to be.
Word War I started in June-July 1914, and USA directly
entered the war nearly three years later by declaring war on Germany on on April 6,
1917. However even before U.S. help could reach the war fronts, the Allies had managed
to overcome the U-boat threat in the Atlantic. In May 1917, Britain began to use a
convoy system, by which cargo ships went to sea in large groups escorted by warships
which was able to effectively neutralise effect of German U-boats. This improved their
position substantially.
The troops sent by the US to Europe
arrived in France in June 1917, and over a period about 2 million Americans served in
Europe. Thus manpower was the chief contribution of the United States to World War I.
This helped the allies to halt the string of successes of Germany on the western front
and then defeat them on all the fronts, forcing them to accept an armistice on November
11, 1918.
This is the only time in the novel that Orwell gives the reader a glimpse inside the head of one of the characters. For a brief instance, we are able to read Clover's feelings and understand her opinions. She doesn't trust Napoleon. She sees that things are not going well on the farm. But she doesn't know how to change things. She is scared and confused, and does not have the skill that Squealer does to rally the other animals around her and convince them with speech. Orwell lets us know that the animals of the farm are to be pitied; they are not allowing themselves to be controlled because they lack independent thought, they are simply too afraid to challenge their leader.
You can find this answer in the second letter of the
book. This is a letter that is dated 28th March and is written from Arkangel, a port in
Russia.
The letter is written to his sister, Margaret, who
is living in England. In part of this letter, he talks about how sad he is that he
wasted his younger days. He says he wishes that he would have gotten better educated
instead of pretty much just teaching himself.
While he is
saying that stuff, he tells us that he is 28 years old.
Much Ado About Nothing is set in an aristocratic, hierarchical, and patriarchal society. So what do these words mean?
An aristocratic society is one in which both the majority of the wealth (and most of the means of generating that wealth, which in this case was land) and almost all of the political power was concentrated in the hands of a group of people who inherited their power, land, and wealth purely by virtue of their birth. These aristocrats (of which the king, prince, or ruling duke, such as Don Pedro of the play, were merely the highest level of aristocrat,) did not gain their wealth or power by their own merits (such as in a meritocracy), although men of ability were valued and could rise on their merits in certain situation, but rather they got their money and governing status simply by right of birth. This seems strange to most of us today, considering that there was very little provision if the person who inherited the title, lands, and government power were not suited to that position (or was evil, such as in the case of Don John!), but that was the world of the late Middle Ages and Renaissance Europe, of which Shakespeare wrote. Consequently, the people who belonged to the aristocratic class (and even sometimes those in the classes below them) began to believe there was something intrinsically better about them than the middle class (which was tiny by comparison to now at this time) or the peasants. This is reflected in some of the things the characters in the play say, such as when Claudio is horrified that Hero may have been unfaithful to him. Claudio is not only shocked by her lack of virtue, but that it would have been with Borachio, a mere follower of Don John and not a lord like himself, made it doubly bad in his eyes. There is definitely class snobbery in this play.
A hierarcical society is related to an aristocratic one, but there is a subtle difference. Not only is governmental power and societal precedence determined by one's position as part of the aristocracy or not, but there are levels of rank within that aristocracy that make a very big difference. For example, in the play, the Duke (Don Pedro) is a ruling prince (a sovereign of a state) -- he is referred to as the "prince" quite often, even though his rank is Duke. "Prince" was, at this time and as now, both a specific term (for the son of a sovereign, or, in some cases, a hereditary prince such as in Russia) and also a generic term for any sovereign ruler. Don Pedro (the term "Don" is sort of a generic Italian term for "lord") is at the apex of the aristocratic hierarchy. Below him is is bastard brother Don John (meaning John is the son of Don Pedro's father, but by a woman not his wife). This mean Don John inherited some aristocratic status from his father, but was not so elevated as Don Pedro, and could not inherit the sovreignty. There are further distinctions among the aristocracy, and a good clue is the order in which Shakespeare puts them in the Dramatis Personae. The highest is almost always listed first.
A paternalistic society is one that is ruled, governmentally and socially, by men. There is no doubt as to who holds governmental power and wealth in this play. Specifically, a woman's father decides who she should marry --- as Leonato and Antonio do for their daughters Hero and Beatrice, to some extent.
The given arithmetic sequence is:
65, 59, 53 ...
This can be expressed as:
(6*11 -1), (6*10 -1), (6*9 -1), ... (6*5 -1),(6*4 -1), (6*3 -1)
Pleas not that in the above series the last number is 17 which is assume to be the number of bricks in last row in pile of bricks. This give total of 9 term or rows in the series.
The above series can be further rewritten as:
(6*8) + (6*3 -1), (6*8) + (6*3 -1), (6*7) + (6*3 -1), ... (6*2) + (6*3 -1), (6) + (6*3 -1), (0) + (6*3 -1)
= (6*8) + 17, (6*7) + 17, (6*6) + 17, ... (6*2) + 17, 6 + 17, 17
Thus addition of all the eleven terms in the series is equal given by:
= (6*8) + (6*7) + (6*6), ... + (6*2), 6, + 0
+ 17 + 17 + 17 + 17 + 17 + 17
= [6 (8 +7 + 6 + ... + 3 +2 + 1] + (9*17)
= 6*36 + 153 = 216 + 153 = 369
Answer:
When the last row contains 17 bricks, there will be 9 rows.
Total number of bricks = 369
First, we'll write:
f(x)=(2x+1)/(2x-1) as y=(2x+1)/(2x-1)
Now, we'll solve this equation for x, multiplying both sides by (2x-1):
2xy-y = (2x+1)
We'll move all terms containing x, to the left side and all terms in y, to the right side:
2xy-2x = 1-2y
We'll factorize:
x(2y-2) = 1-2y
x=(1-2y)/(2y-2)
Now, we'll interchange x and y:
y=(1-2x)/(2x-2)
So, the inverse function is:
[f(x)]^(-1) = (1-2x)/(2x-2)
Djibouti is a mostly Muslim country on the horn of Africa. It does not produce much of its own food (less than 5% by some statistics), so they are a major importer of food products. That said, dairy products and meat from their cattle are the traditional foods, along with grain dishes. In the cities, the diet is influenced by Italian and other European foods.
A notable feature of the diet, that is eaten like food, is a narcotic called qat. Qat is a leaf which is imported from Ethiopia. Qat is consumed recreationally by virtually all men, preferably after lunch, when government offices and work come to a standstill in the midday heat. Qat is supposed to enhance concentration -- yeah, right! -- and kills the appetite, so poor people even consume it to keep from being hungry.
When my son was deployed in Djibouti with the Navy, they had to have special training to warn them against consuming qat because it is widespread and the unsuspecting U.S. military may consume it by mistake, thinking it is what we think of as "food."
In addition to the chronological structure of his narration, George Orwell employs several patterns of development to explain his purpose for writing along with his writing process to "make political writing into an art." The strength and clarity of his ideas are due to his strategic use of so many variances of development.
Within the opening paragraph, Orwell uses vivid language to recreate his childlike experience as a young writer, an organizational pattern known as description.
I wrote my first poem at the age of four or five, my mother taking it down to dictation. I cannot remember anything about it except that it was about a tiger and the tiger had ‘chair-like teeth’
Explaining to the reader his writing process and how it was formed, Orwell relies on detailed examples, exemplification, of works which inspired and influenced his writing: Blake's ‘Tiger, Tiger’ , Aristophanes , Paradise Lost.
Orwell explains that there are four reasons for writing, and through classification and division, he explains his reasoning.
Putting aside the need to earn a living, I think there are four great motives for writing, at any rate for writing prose. They exist in different degrees in every writer, and in any one writer the proportions will vary from time to time, according to the atmosphere in which he is living.
At the conclusion of his essay, Orwell brings the art of comparison and contrast into his writing, as he discusses the pain and struggles of writing and his desire to use his art in a political realm. He writes, "
Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness...
and artfully comparing "good writing" to a "windowpane."
In Shakespeare's Macbeth, the meeting between Macbeth and the three witches serves as the catalyst for the drama. The witches introduce the idea of his being king to Macbeth, or at least make the idea concrete for him. They put fate or destiny on his side.
In other words, it is possible that Macbeth had entertained thoughts of being king before he meets the witches. It may even be likely, though there is no concrete or absolute evidence of this. But the witches give him corroboration for his thoughts, if he was having them, and, more importantly, tell him that it is his destiny to be king. That's all Macbeth, and his wife, for that matter, need to begin devising a plan and putting it into action. And this plan, of course, involves killing the present king.
The meeting, in foul weather and filled with mysteries (the weird sisters seem to vanish, for example), also furthers the themes of appearance and reality and fair and foul. Throughout the play, people and circumstances are often not as they seem. The theme of the supernatural is also furthered.
The problem Macbeth has throughout the play with Banquo is developed here, too--since Banquo is present, he knows the predictions made by the witches, and will therefore naturally suspect Macbeth of treachery when Duncan is killed. And Macbeth knows it. This makes Banquo a threat to him, which will lead Macbeth to order his killing, which leads more and more people to suspect Macbeth.
Written in the wake of the Emmett Till trial, which involved two white men's killing of Till, a fourteen-year-old black male accused of harrassing a white woman, Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird creates significant parallels between this real-life trial with a jury of twelve white men who acquit the accused and that of Tom Robinson who also becomes a sacrificial victim to racism. In addition, her novel's manuscript was approved in 1957, the same year that Congress passed The Civil Rights Act, so the fact that Tom is found guilty is especially pronounced as an act of racial prejudice on the part of Maycomb's jury.
Other examples of the poor treatment of the blacks:
In the book Night there is a time
when everyone arrives at the camps and are set up to be assorted. The first thing that
the Nazi party did was to split families apart and to make the men appear small and take
their control away. The women were sent to the left to either be sent away to another
cap, or they were sent to the gas chambers with their
young.
The men were often used for hard labor and general
labor. They would send them in a different direction. In Elie's case, he and his
father were sent to the left meaning they would be in a labor camp. His mother and
sister were sent to the right and on to their deaths.
Malcolm was in the castle when his father King Duncan was
killed. His brother Donalbain was also there, but Malcolm is the older brother. In
fact, since Malcolm is next in line to be king, he would be the number one suspect.
Unfortunately, Malcolm and Donalbain flee before anyone can ask them anything, making
them look guiltier than ever.
An investigator looking into
Duncan’s murder would naturally start with Malcolm. The first question should be: Are
you next in line to be king? The answer is yes!
The
investigator would likely remind Malcolm what Duncan
said.
Sons,
kinsmen, thanes,And you whose places are the nearest,
knowWe will establish our estate
uponOur eldest, Malcolm, whom we name
hereafterThe Prince of Cumberland;
(1:4)
Yet a good investigator
would also ask who was present at this announcement, and how they reacted. A person
might have noticed that Macbeth seemed disturbed. He even mumbled to
himself.
[Aside.] The Prince of
Cumberland! That is a step(55)
On which I must fall down,
or else o'erleap,
For in my way it lies. Stars, hide your
fires;
Let not light see my black and deep
desires(1:4)
So asking the
right question makes all the difference. The investigator that asked this question
would know to look at Macbeth as a suspect.
Another
important question might be who else is in line for the throne after Malcolm. The
answer seems more likely to be his brother Donalbain, because Donalbain also
flees.
Clearly, the civil rights movement won their battle to end
segregation. However, I would not say that the movement really undermined the culture
of Jim Crow.
Instead, I would say that the movement got
enough support outside the South to push through laws that ended segregation even though
the South still wanted it.
There were lots of outside
elements that contributed. The two main ones I would mention
are
