How does Washington Irving adapt his story to make it purely American?"The Devil and Tom Walker" by Washington Irving

Reshaping the German folk tale about Faust, a magician and alchemist who sells his soul to the Devil and in exchange received great powers and wealth, Washington Irving has the setting of his story New England in the late 1720s, a time when Puritanism, a belief that a person's life should be devoted to God, was being replaced by commercialism and the desire for personal gain.  Much like the German tale, Irving's story also relates a series of unlikely events, involves stereotyped characters--in this case, Native Americans--, and teaches an important lesson about life.  And, because Irving's story is grounded in a specific time and place, it also reveals a great deal about life in New England in the early 1700s.

One example of Irving's grounding the tale in New England and his utilization of stereotypes is in his dramatization of the colonists' attitudes of colonial Americans.  When Tom sits down in the swamp area, he staff strikes against something hard; he unearths and discovers a "cloven skull, with an Indian tomahawk buried deep in it.  With disgust, Tom Walker gives the skull a kick, showing no concern for the murder victim. 

An example of the cupidity of those who desires personal gain is in the "termagant" (stereotype), Tom's wife who urges him to comply with the black man's terma and "secure what would make them wealthy for life."  After her demise, Tom still agrees to become a usurer for the devil, and becomes a wealthy man.       

What plans do they have for Hamlet? How does this scene establish Laertes as a foil for Hamlet? Look at the scene with Laertes and Claudius...

In this scene, Claudius is trying to calm down Laertes who is angry with Claudius for not having dealt with Hamlet for killing Polonius.  After Claudius makes excuses for his lack of action (note the irony in that), he tells Laertes that he does, indeed, have a plan.  Of course, Claudius has a much different reason for his plan than the one he gives to Laertes.  While he tells Laertes the reason for the plan is because Hamlet killed Polonius and he is just helping Laertes get his revenge, the real reason for the plan to get rid of Hamlet is because Claudius doesn't want him around telling people the real manner of King Hamlet's death.   Claudius then talks to Laertes about his prowess with a sword and builds him up. He convinces Laertes that the thing to do is challenge Hamlet. As the king is talking to Laertes about the plan, he continues to fan the flames of anger Laertes has toward Hamlet.  After Claudius tells Laertes how, in this fight, they will work it out so that Laertes has a pointed sword instead of a blunted one and with that pointed sword, Laertes can kill Hamlet.  Laertes, in his eagerness to accept this plan, adds that he will put poison on the end of the sword so that even a scratch will kill Hamlet.  The king then says he will also have poisoned wine for Hamlet to drink when he gets thirsty just in case Laertes doesn't get the chance to cut Hamlet.  Then Gertrude comes in and announces that Ophelia has drowned.  This just adds to Laertes conviction that he must kill Hamlet.

How did people react to the war in the 60's?

Most people assume that because there were Vietnam War protests, they must have happened immediately and for the whole war, which is inaccurate.  As stated above, public support was strong for the Vietnam War from 1964 - 1968.  During this time, people answered the draft call and some actually volunteered, as their Uncles and Fathers and Brothers had done for earlier wars.  People believed the communists were an actual threat and that if they didn't fight in Vietnam, they'd have to fight closer to home later.

The Tet Offensive of 1968 changed all of that.  We had been told the war was almost over, that "the light was at the end of the tunnel", when in fact, the Vietcong were planning a major attack in early 1968.  Once that attack happened in January and February, Walter Cronkite, the most famous newscaster in America, declared the war unwinnable.  A majority of Americans then turned against the war, and we saw a great increase in protests and anti-war sentiment, and draft resistance.

-3x+2y=8 how do you solve it

To solve -3x+y= 8.

Solution:

This is a single equation  for two variables. So for a given y you can get the x value by:

-3x = 8-2y . Or

x = (8-2y)/(-3) = (2y-8)/3.

So for y = 6, x = (2y-8)/3 = (2*6-8)/3 = 4/3

Similarly, for a given x you can get the value of y from the equation:

2y = 8+3x. Or

y = (8+3x)/2.

If x = 10, y = (8+3x)/2 = (8+2*10)/2 = 14

More over, -3x+2y = 8, or 3x-2y+8 = 0 represents the graph of a sraight line and as such the (x,y) coordinates of every point onthis graph ofstraight line is a solution that satisfies the equation, -3x+2y = 8, or 3x-2y +8 =0. The line passes through the intercept (-8/3, 0) and (0,4). Or intercepts X axis at -8/3 and y axis at 4 units making a slope of 3/2 with x axis.

Contrast short stories "The Cask of Amontillado" and "The Most Dangerous Game." (two contrasts with supporting details not comparisions n read...

To me, the major difference between the two is the nature of the two villains.  In one story, we have Montresor who has an actual reason (although we are not told what it is) to hate his quarry.  He says that Fortunato is his enemy and that is why he must die.  By contrast, Zaroff has nothing against Rainsford.  Rainsford is a random victim and Zaroff even tries to get him to join him in his depraved game.

A second difference is the role of the intended victim.  Fortunato does not fight against his fate.  He has no idea what is going to happen to him until it is too late.  By contrast, Rainsford knows what the "game" is about and he has a chance to fight for his life.  This makes it a more suspenseful story, in my opinion.

So how exactly does Doodle die? Is it from shock?

I hate to be contrary, but I disagree with both answers. If you take the ibis as a symbol for Doodle, which I believe you should based on thier similar appearance at death, then you must take into account that both the bird and the boy were struggling to survive in an environment that is unnatural and unsuitable for them. Doodle's stuggle is not only trying to cope with the physical demands set upon him by the narrator, but also the emotional demands. He loves his brother dearly and would do anything to please him. It is this love that helps him to walk and meet so many other challenges.

When his brother leaves him behind in the storm, he is devistated. He needs his brother's acceptance to help him belong in the world into which he was born--it is that acceptance that ties him to his "environment." When he thinks his brother has left him, he gives up. Though the story doesn't directly say how he dies, I think he was emotionally too weak to live without his brother's acceptance. While he does sustain some injuries during the storm, which are apparent since he was bleeding from the mouth, I think he could have recovered had his brother come for him. He dies of heart trouble, yes, but not a heart attack. He dies of a broken heart.

I don't really have a source to back up this opinion. It's just my gut reaction to the story. But, generally, my gut is pretty good at figuring things out.

Mrs. SO

How does Iago manipulate Othello?

Like a true evil genius, Iago plays upon Othello's own fears and reinforces those fears with lies and innuendo (hints).  Iago manipulates the situation so that Cassio is in a position to ask Desdemona for aid.  He then stands by Othello's side, professing concern for his friend, and questioning Desdemona's fidelity because she spoke for Cassio.  By stealing Desdemona's handkerchief, Iago is able to plant it on Cassio and provide evidence for his lies.  Finally, Iago arranges for Othello to overhear a conversation between himself and Cassio so that Othello believes he is hearing a confession.  It all works.  Othello gives in to his fears and his natural jealousy and he kills the woman he loves. 

Most blame Iago for his duplicitious behavior, but some blame should also be laid upon Othello, who chose not to handle the situation with calm reason.