You need to focus on the key words in the problem.
Increased = go up, add.
Twice = two times, double.
A number = an unknown number which can be represented by a variable, usually x.
Now that you know the meaning of the key words you can read the problem differently. "49 add by two times x"
When you change your words into operations (+ - x /) you get 49+2x (Remember that when a known number is right next to a variable it means to multiply, times).
The major reason that many biologists do not consider viruses to be alive is the fact that they can not reproduce on their own.
Instead of reproducing on their own (either sexually or asexually), viruses have to use their hosts' cellular mechanisms to reproduce themselves.
This process of reproduction is how viruses cause their hosts to become sick. Viruses take over the cells and force the hosts to produce more and more copies of the virus. Depending on the characteristics of the virus, this can do anything from making the host very sick to having no effect at all.
The major fear that Parris has is of losing his position in society and having people not respect him anymore.
He is the minister for the town, which was a very important position in Puritan New England. As such, he is in a very visible position.
When his daughter seems to be all paralyzed and people are saying it's witchcraft, he becomes very worried. If the town minister's daughter is involved in witchcraft (or is even possessed by Satan for some other reason) the minister is going to look bad and people are not going to respect him anymore.
We can also see that he's really concerned about his image and reputation because he gets so angry when Proctor and others say anything bad about him.
This is a unique and interesting question because the answer must include historical evidence in order to rationalize the impossibility of physical immortality within the context of your question. Any individual at King Henry's court between 1509 and 1547 would have been witness to the many dynamics and complexities of the king. For example, as a young king he was open to the new Renaissance philosophy of Humanism and contemplated the value in reason and scientific discovery. However, when Henry was denied a divorce from Catherine of Aragon by the Pope, philosophy, reason and the liberities of those who protested against his will paid the ultimate price. It could be argued that Henry's position regarding the progressive attitudes towards humanistic thought shifted from a genuine desire to acquire knowledge to that of a self serving prophecy. I think it is fair to say that to survive in King Henry VIII's court one had to be smart, resourceful and possess to power to adapt to the king's mindset, or at the very least appear to adapt to the king's mindset. If an individual possessed immortality and survived King Henry VIII's court there is a good chance that they would possess qualities of self awareness and adaptability to weather the storms of the last 400 years. Although not an historical statement, the inference is based upon the history of King Henry VIII. Interestingly, 17th century political philosopher John Locke would argue that self awareness was an essential factor in understanding the human experience. A Courtier may or may not have agreed with the changing winds of Henry's reign, but to remain in the king's good graces and in his court the Courtier understood the value there was in observation. If human immortality were plausible from King Henry VIII's reign through the 21st century I would hope 400 years of wisdom would sustain the ebb and flow of the politics of experience.
The major cause of the French Revolution was the system of absolute monarchy that the French monarchy had been a part of.
Unlike the British, the French monarchy was absolute. There were no limits on it, no Parliament, none of the things that made the British monarchy way less oppressive. Because they were kept down so much, the commoners were very frustrated. This was especially true because of the spread of Enlightenment ideas that argued that all people should be free of tyranny.
In addition, the French monarchy spend lavishly on such things as palaces (and wars). Neither seemed to help the commoners. Yet the commoners were the ones who paid the taxes. So that was another major problem.
Well, you should definitely get started then.
What kind of ball is it? Who has been invited, and who is not welcome? Why? Describe some of the people at this ball thrown by the Capulets. Who are the hosts of the ball? Describe Juliet. Who does she come with? What do we know about her already? When does Romeo arrive? What do we know about him already? What happens when he arrives? What happens when Romeo and Juliet meet? Does anyone notice that an outsider has invited himself? Is anyhing done about it?
Do Romeo and Juliet speak to each other? What sort of things do they say? How does the ball scene end?
There, now you certainly have enough information to go on. Good luck.
In the novel, “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas,” by John Boyne, there are a couple of major themes that run throughout the story. Bruno, a lonely little boy is the protagonist in this story. He has an older sister named Gretel, a nanny and house keeper named Maria, a mother and a father. Bruno’s father is a Commandant of a Jewish concentration camp. The major theme is the desire for friendship. Boyne explores the theme of friendship by having Bruno wander to the fence of the camp, and he meets another boy his age. The problem is that this little boy, Shmuel, is a prisoner. He is a Polish Jew who is interned at Auschwitz along with his family. The boys become friends from opposite sides of the fence and the war. The desire in these two boys for a friendship is so strong that they ignore the fence between them. They become very dependent upon one another. This friendship will eventually lead to tragedy.
When Bruno’s father asks him about how he knows about the people in the stripped clothes, Bruno tells him that he has seen them from his window. Bruno's father forbids Bruno to go near the fence, and tells him to play near the house. Bruno doesn’t understand his father’s hatred of these people. We also meet a violent and hateful soldier who comes on to Bruno’s older sister. However, we see his violent hatred of Jews when he beats a prisoner who works in the house. He also threatens and intimidates Bruno. The actions of the Nazi soldiers and Bruno’s father demonstrate the theme of prejudice that runs throughout the novel.
"'The Boy in the Striped Pajamas' explores the beauty of a child's innocence in a time of war, the common desire we all have for friendship, and the fences—both literal and figurative—that we must all navigate and choose whether or not to break down."
In the stanza that contains the line you mention, Thomas Grey mentions three people, all of whom are famous Englishmen. He mentions Oliver Cromwell, John Milton, and John Hampden.
Hampden is less famous than the other two today, but he was an important figure in English politics in his time. He was born in 1595 and died fighting in the English Civil War in 1643. He was fighting on the side of Cromwell against the forces of the king.
Before his death he was famous as a Parliamentary leader who had tried to resist the power of the King and to defend the people from abuse by the King. (Therefore the line about withstanding the tyrant.)
Gray includes these three figures in the poem as a way of saying that maybe the unknown people buried there could have been as great as the three he mentions.
In a rather unexpected move, it is Leper that enlists in the war first. Leper, enchanted by the war films about the "ski rescue troops," enlisted in the army, with hopes and dreams about skiing throughout Europe, enjoying the scenery and slopes, all in the glorious pursuit of rescuing lost souls from the war. Leper, the nerdy kid who loves science and nature, watching beavers and being alone, seems like the last person cut out to fight in a war and fight against other people, but he is the one that is the first to join, enthusiastically.
As time will tell, Leper is indeed not cut out for the rigors of war. His time in the army is not filled with peaceful journeys throughout winter wonderlands; basic training is hard, difficult, frightening and strenuous. As with many young men who join up in the war effort with rather naive ideas about the time they will spend there, Leper realized that reality was much different than his expectations. I hope that those thoughts help a bit; good luck!
Some people believe that wine, when prepared according to the correct formula, can have very specific health benefits. Keep in mind I am not a doctor, so I am neither knocking nor endorsing this belief.
The medical community has known for a while now that red wines can have a benefit in regard to your cardio-vascular health. In short, a glass of red wine a day can be good for your heart. This doesn't work on a greater scale, though...don't think that 5 glasses would be 5 times as effective! It's not an excuse for a college guy to go binge drinking : )
That's about as far as the "traditional" medical community will take the issue.
Others, though, feel that wine can be prepared in such a way as to be able to cure specific types of medical problems. For example, according to the community that believes in medicinal wines, "Pear Wine" is valuable in "treating" cellulite. Here is a recipe for it, but remember, I am not endorsing its creation or its supposed health benefits...I am simply relaying the information you requested.
1. Medicinal wine should not be created in a metal container,
2. All fruits used should be cleaned thoroughly (and ideally be organic)
3. 500 grams of pears are used, cut into round pieces.
4. One liter of red wine is added.
5. Boil the mixture until it is 1/2 gone.
6. Strain the mixture into a container (after it cools.)
7. Take 25ml in the morning before eating.
That's about it. You will have to draw your own conclusions about whether you think this would work or not. There are medicinal wine "formulas" for all sorts of health problems, the most disgusting of which is probably "onion wine."
As an asterisk, though, I don't want to be responsible for anything that you put into your body. If you are considering brewing yourself a batch to test its effectiveness, I would not do so without consulting with a medical professional and not begin unless you can do so in a safe, controlled manner. I can't see anything harmful about this "recipe," but I cannot endorse its use as I am neither a doctor nor "licensed new-age healer" : )
To my mind, the powerful climax of this great novel occurs in Chapter 15 of the novel, after Kenny has fought with the Wool Pooh twice, firstly in the water at Collier's Landing and secondly in the church that suffered the bombing. On his return to home, Kenny is understandably completely traumatised, far more than Byron and Joetta are, and finds that he needs to be silent and withdraw from everyone to deal with what he has observed. His parents and Byron are incredibly concerned for him, and Byron takes it upon himself to get his younger brother better.
One day he insists that Kenny accompanies him to the upstairs bathroom to show him a hair that is growing out of his chin that he is incredibly proud of. Kenny then takes a look at his own face in the mirror, trying to see his own moustache and how long it has grown:
Maybe it was because I hadn't looked in the mirror for a long time, but as soon as I saw myself with my lazy eye still being lazy and my face looking so sad I slammed my eyes shut and started crying. I even fell off the toilet. Byron caught me and set me on the floor.
This then is the climax of the novel, as Kenny is finally able to emotionally express all the terrible experiences that he has been through and finds release through crying and letting out his suppressed emotions.
The other answers given are great. The last time I read a Christmas Carol was in the summer of 1968 -- I was in seventh grade and really couldn't make heads or tails of much of Dickens, but have the story engaged me so that I have never let a Season pass without watching productions of the novel and its five staves. Somehow over the years, the copy I read disapparated between colleges, wives, and travels.
Then this year, a friend gave me her old paperback copy of Carol for Christmas. Now, some 42 years later, I began reading it as a cross reference for all the different movie versions of the Dickens original. I made time to read the entire novel, and as you might expect, was rewarded many times over by Dickens' insight and foresight of a world of Ignorance and Wont.
Fascinating as this Christmas pasttime was I kept coming back to the turn of phrase that has raised the question and answers about apoplectic chestnuts. So today I found my way to this site!
I found the posted answers to be very insightful and they lead me to another observation -- the genius of Dickens and his command of the language. For not only does he conjugate stroke (apoplexy) with visible wealth (opulence) in what seems to be a paradox, but he engages onomatopoeia by emulating the sound of chestnuts as they roast and pop on the fire!
So to you all, great and small, God Bless Us Down to Our Chestnuts!
To Jonathan Edwards, all people deserve to be damned. They are so evil that all are abhorrent to God. However, he believes that people can do something to save themselves from eternal damnation.
What he says is that Jesus is calling out to all people, inviting them to the Kingdom of God. All they really have to do is accept his invitation and embrace him. They are to renounce their sinful ways and come to God.
If they will accept this invitation, then they will have a chance to be saved.
To find quotes, follow the link, go all the way to the bottom of the page, then go up 4 paragraphs to "And now you have..."
After Prior accompanies Louis to his grandmother's funeral, both sit on a bench. At this time, Prior discloses to Louis that he has a leision on his arm, what he calls the "wine dark kiss of the angel of death." This mark is Kaposi's sarcoma, an indication of the onset of AIDS. At the time, a mark like this was literally seen as an infection akin to the plague, and this is the first indication that Prior has been infected with the virus that causes AIDS. At this point in the play, we only now grasp that Prior has had it for some time, and his concealment from Louis is from the fear that he will leave. As it turns out, it is quite a valid concern, as Louis reacts angrily to the concealment, but might be masking the theme of abandonment which will be developed more in the characters of Louis and Joe.
Medea is humiliated by Jason's new marriage and her pride will not quietly suffer this situation -- she is determined to seek revenge. While it would be easy for her to kill Jason, she actually makes some sense when she decides to let Jason live the misery she can invoke! She kills his new bride. But she knows that that action is not going to go unpunished and that both she and the children are now going to be treatened by those loyal to Creon. In Episode 5 she is vacillilating about the decision to kill the children, but part of her decision to do so is, in her mind, to protect them. She says, "This shall never be, that I should suffer my children to be the prey of my enemies insolence." After knowing that the princess and Creon are dead she says, "as quickly as I may to kill my children, and start away from this land, And not, by wasting time, to suffer my children to be slain by another hand less kindly to them." She is suggesting that it would be better to kill her children herself than to have them killed by her enemies. While this does speak to her own pride, she is trying to justify her actions. I don't think this makes the action defensible, but it makes some sense to Medea. She does kill them to punish Jason, but it was not that simple for her.
When authors capitalize a word or name, they usually do it to emphasize the importance of that word. They want to make it stand out from the others, or attach some sort of significance to the title.
In "The Listeners," Traveller is probably capitalized for a couple different reasons, all of them pointing to a greater emphasis on the importance of this man in the story's telling. First of all, he is the only "real" character in the tale; the only other presence in the story is that of his horse, and of the "host of phantom listeners" that receive his knock in silence. Because he is the only tangible character, the author might have capitalized the T in order to emphasize that he is the one and only person in the poem.
A more likely reason is to emphasize how important the Traveller was to the listeners within the house. From reading the poem, one can infer that he has come a very long way, and has been very anxious about delivering his message. He also has a very important message to deliver, because he does it so anxiously, and to a house that is most likely empty of living occupants. There is hinted at some secret, vital mission, and that delivering his message is something that these "phantom listeners" have been waiting for for a long time. That makes this man, and his message and visit, very important. Hence, he is the Traveller, the one they've been waiting for, the man with the message. Not just any traveller on the road, stopping by the house, but the Traveller that is fulfilling whatever mission has been given to him. The author emphasizes his importance, and the importance of his message, through that capital T.
I hope that those thoughts helped; good luck!
For example, the response of the bean to an attack is a smell which attracts plant's defenders.If the plant aggressor is the spider mite, then the plant's smell is alluring the predatory mites which are wipping out the spider mites. This smell is the indirect way of defence of the bean plant.
There is a problem though, when the plant suffers the simultaneous attack of the spider mites and the whiteflies, also. In this case, one of the important component of the smell, meaning betaocimene, is still produced, but in lower amounts, this fact leading to the plant inability of attracting predatory mites. In this case of dual attack, the plant is practically defenseless, the exposure to the spider mites and their progenies being totally and complete.
Once being revelated, this aspect led to the idea of a new method of fighting pests which are infecting the crops, the method being called "Integrated crop protection" and representing more methods combined in order to vanquish the various possible enemies.
At the end of Chapter 15, Jem, Scout and Dill come to the rescue of Atticus outside the jail when a group of men gather to break Tom out and lynch him. Although Atticus was willing to stand alone against the lynch mob, there was little chance that he could have stopped the men until the arrival of the three children. While it was Scout's innocent words that brought shame to the men and turned them away, Atticus showed deep affection for Jem's courage in leading the young rescue party. As Dill and Scout followed behind, they watched Atticus and Jem far ahead under a streetlight. At first they assumed that Atticus "was giving him hell for not going home," but as they watched, "Atticus reached out and massaged Jem's hair, his one gesture of affection."
Tolerance and resistance to ethanol is individual, private. There are people that alcohol, even in very small amounts, exercises it's toxicity, and people who "resist" long time to large quantities of alcohol.
It can not be determined, despite of all attempts of this kind, how much alcohol is beneficial or neutral to the body. Moreover, resistance to alcohol is not necessarily directly connected with toxic action which it may exercise. Ethanol, "working quietly", can wreak havoc in the body and when symptoms begin to appear, sometimes it can not be done anything. Many scientists consider that the great resistance of people to alcohol , it is a disadvantage, for this very reason.
For everyone is important to take into account the body's response to alcohol, although as noted, there are people who at moderate or large amounts of ethanol do not feel in any way. Even minor amounts of ethanol in the body can react. If events as nausea, drowsiness, headache or dizziness occur, consumption should be immediately abolished.
Alcohol, consumed sparingly, if natural, can make some services to the body, but abstinent should know that they lose nothing.
Do not consume a drop of alcohol in the following situations:
-working, driving, activities that require concentration
-pregnancy, lactation
-any exogenous weaknesses
-childhood, adolescence
-whenever body reacts
Alcohol consumption, in order not to become harmful, it is better to follow some general rules:
-to be nor frequent or systematic
-not to be consumed on an empty stomach
-not to exaggerate (in general, you should not pass the threshold of 40 ml of ethanol)
-to resort to drink quality, natural, weaker, wine being the healthiest.
Athena has always been a partisan of the Greeks in the Trojan War (described mostly in the Iliad), and especially Odysseus. Therefore she is interested in Odysseus' son Telemachus, and she does everything she can to help the young man find his father. Athena, the patron goddess of, among other things, wisdom, is thought to be partial to Odysseus because of his wiliness and craftiness. Also, Odysseus, though mortal, was thought to be a hero particularly beloved of the gods. All this filters down to his son Telemachus, who was certainly in dire straits and in need of the help of a powerful goddess.
Athena was also the goddess of civilized things like handicrafts (such as weaving, which figures so prominently in regard to Telemachus' mother, Penelope). In a way, Athena can be regarded as a force for home, towns, government, and civilization in general, whereas Odysseus' major godly foe, Poseidon the god of the sea, can be seen as a force of elemental chaos, or perhaps of male wanderlust. While Poseidon works hard to keep Odysseus away from home, Athena is focused on preserving Odysseus' home (and family, such as Telemachus in this instance) and bringing him back to it. To put a psychological spin on thing, these gods could be seen to represent the two warring natures within each man; the force which desires home, hearth, and family, and the other wilder side which represents wandering, violence, and freedom. Athena, who is significantly female, and was one of the greatest of all the gods revered in Odysseus' part of Greece (Athens is named for her) definitely represents the civilized side of life which, after the long Trojan War, Odysseus is longing to return to.
Athena (also spelled Athene) makes Telemachus brave and confident to go to Pylos, though the people and the suitors are against him.
As he thus prayed, Athena came close up to him in the likeness and with the voice of Mentor. “Telemachus,” said she, “if you are made of the same stuff as your father you will be neither fool nor coward henceforward, for Odysseus never broke his word nor left his work half done. If, then, you take after him, your voyage will not be fruitless, but unless you have the blood of Odysseus and of Penelope in your veins I see no likelihood of your succeeding. Sons are seldom as good men as their fathers; they are generally worse, not better; still, as you are not going to be either fool or coward henceforward, and are not entirely without some share of your father's wise discernment, I look with hope upon your undertaking. But mind you never make common cause with any of those foolish suitors, for they have neither sense nor virtue, and give no thought to death and to the doom that will shortly fall on one and all of them, so that they shall perish on the same day. As for your voyage, it shall not be long delayed; your father was such an old friend of mine that I will find you a ship, and will come with you myself. (Odyssey Book II)
Athena, disguised as Mentor, obtains the ship and crew for Telemachus, gives him confidence and the glamor of beauty and strength, throws the suitors into slumber so that Telemachus can escape, and accompanies him on his voyage. Direct divine help, indeed, and much needed by the young Telemachus.
First, in Inchcape Rock by Robert Southey, the story of the Inchcape Bell is told. It was anchored by the Abbot of Aberbrothok to a buoy atop Inchcape Rock. On mild days, like the one on which the poetic story begins, the waves might wash over the Inchcape Rock but they would not stir the buoy nor the Inchcape Bell. Therefore, the seas were calm and the ship captains, sailors and townspeople needed no warnings of rough seas, which was the function of the Inchcape bell--to give warning of rough and dangerous seas.
Anchored offshore was the plundering ship of Captain Sir Ralph the Rover who was in a boisterous, springlike mood and conceived a mischievous and wicked plan. His sailors rowed him to Inchcape Rock and he cut the Inchcape Bell from its fastening to the buoy (which he called a Float). Sir Ralph watched the bell sink amidst bubbles while thinking of the wicked jest he had played against the memory of the Abbot of Aberbrothok.
Sir Ralph went to sea to plunder merchant ships. When he had gained a full cargo of riches, he returned to Scotland's shores and Inchcape Rock. The skies on that day were dark and overspread with storm threatening clouds. The gale force wind of the daylight hours had died away at night and no sight was to be seen in the black stillness.
The rising moon gave Sir Ralph the Rover occasion to say that there would soon be light enough to see the land by. But the sailors replied that they wished they knew how near to the rocks they were because they could hear the breakers crashing on the rocks--and they sorely wished they could also hear the Inchcape Bell.
A jolt rocked the ship. They had struck the Inchcape Rock. As the ship is torn apart by the storming waves, Captain Ralph the Rover curses his wickedness and, as he faces his dying breaths, hears the Inchcape Bell rung from beneath the waves by the Devil's hand to toll Ralph the Rover's death knell.
I think that the main conflict in this story, in relation to Edna, is external rather than internal. The whole point of the story is that she has begun to 'awaken', to become dissatisfied with her life so that she starts taking steps to remedy the situation, as she sees it. She is not really in conflict with herself but with others, with society at large. She may often feel and act vaguely, she may not have a clear view of what exactly she should be doing, but this does not spring from internal conflict or confusion. From early in the novel she has decided she doesn't want to fit in with society's expectations of her as a wife and mother any more. Therefore, her external conflict with the societal roles thrust upon her becomes the most important.To sum up, she wants to be her own person entirely and this, in the end, leads to her committing suicide, because she finds it is impossible to live the life of pure independence that she craves.
Another conflict in the novel is embodied in Mme Reisz: the conflict between art and convention. Mme Reisz, who appears as a rather lonely, embittered, and unglamorous figure, disdains society, ordinary life, and love as she pursues her artistic ideals of self-expression to the utmost. Edna is beguiled by her example for a time, but ultimately finds this path unsatisfying also. Edna does not want to dedicate herself exclusively to art any more than she wants to lavish her entire being on her husband and children (as Adele Ratignolle does). She wants to commit only to herself.
The concept of theory X and theory Y was first proposed by Douglas McGregor in his book Human Side of Enterprise as a alternative sets assumptions about behavior and nature of people at work. McGregor stated that way many managers deal with their subordinates suggests a set of underlying assumptions. He labeled these assumptions, which he believed to be incorrect assumptions as "Theory X'. IN place of these assumptions he proposes an alternate correct set of assumptions which he called 'Theory Y'.
Using the terminology of McGregor, William Ouchi suggested another set of assumptions called 'Theory Z' which he believed to be more appropriate for applying Japanese style of management.
The assumptions of these theories are described below.
Theory X
Theory Y
Theory Z
In Anton Chekhov's "The Bet," the exposition is the first paragraph, a frame, that sets the background for the conflict, which is suggested at the end of the paragraph and introduced in a flashback in the second paragraph. The set up of the conflict is a long one within the flashback that culminates in the young man's voluntary imprisonment on November 14, 1870.
The rising action follows, actually having been initiated in the first paragraph frame, in the section in which the narrator reflects on the banker's memories of the past fifteen years of the young man's imprisonment. The narrative leads to the most intense rising action in Part II when the flashback ends and the narrator tells how the banker went in present time to the lodge to take the young man's life.
A complication arises in the story when the banker reads the young man's letter renouncing the two million--other complicating actions are the banker's loss of money and his fear of being bankrupt if the young man wins the bet. The visit to the lodge is followed by a brief anti-climax in which the suspense is broken by the banker quietly leaving the lodge in tears of reflection.
The climax follows. The climax is the point at which the resolution is determined. The climax of "The Bet" is when the watchmen run in to the banker's house with the news that the young man has escaped "out of the window" and disappeared beyond the garden gate. The climax certainly has an element of irony because the thought arises that he might have escaped "out of the window" fifteen years before.
The falling action occurs in the last two sentences when the banker goes out to check on the escape and claim the letter. The final resolution is that the banker puts the letter in which the young man renounces the two million in a fireproof safe--the banker has technically won the bet, and he will be prepared should the young man ever have a change of heart about the money.
I'm assuming that your assignment is to write some sort of compare and contrast essay. Without seeing the actual prompt, I can't give you many hints for your thesis, but make sure it directly addresses the question asked in the prompt. Then, use the rest of your introduction to set up what you'll talk about in each of your body paragraphs. Your organization is up to you; however, you may want to focus on one trait in each paragraph and explain how it's different in each of the characters. Or, you may want to use 2 body paragraphs describing Jane, then 2 body paragraphs describing Blanche. Yet if you focus on a trait in each paragraph, you'll have the advantage of contrasting them side-by-side, which may have more impact on your reader.
You've pointed out many characteristics of Blanche, but keep in mind that she is intended to be a foil to Jane: Her emptiness makes Jane's true depths all the more evident and attractive. Blanche is also the physical opposite of Jane. she is very tall but has a proud, arrogant manner, a "mocking air," and a "satirical laugh." She tends to pretend expertise in subjects about which she actually knows nothing, especially when she speaks to her snobbish mother, Lady Ingram. She treats Jane with extreme condescension and exhibits a "spiteful antipathy" toward Adele. Despite all these obvious faults, Jane thinks that Blanche will marry Rochester. Ironically, this apparent certainty makes Jane more passionate toward Rochester, who in turn reveals that he had no intention of marrying Blanche.
Jane, on the other hand, is genuine, thoughtful, and in control of her own life whenever she can be. Physically plain and slight, Jane is acutely intelligent and fiercely independent. She is also a shrewd judge of character. Throughout the novel, she relies on her intelligence and determination to achieve self-fulfillment. Yet her strength of character does not make her immune to suffering; on the contrary, she suffers because she is so keenly aware of the difference between how things are and how they might be. Although she is rebellious when rebellion is called for, she is inherently conscious that actions must be tempered by reason. When she refuses to become Rochester's mistress, she cites a higher moral law as her justification: "Laws and principles are not for the time when there is no temptation; they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise against their rigor. . . ." In this action, as well as in refusing to marry St. John Rivers, she proves her unwillingness to compromise her principles. Utterly opposed to hypocrisy, she nonetheless is capable of recognizing that goodness exists within flawed human beings. It is this sense which allows her to marry Rochester when they are both morally ready.
The windmill would appear to be Snowball's pet project; he argues eloquently in favour of it, declaring that if it were established on the farm, it would bring great benefits. Napoleon however insists that the animals should concentrate on food production. This clash between the two reaches a head during a heated meeting which ends with Napoleon calling upon his great guard dogs to chase Snowball from the farm.
This occasion sees the first major use of brute force by Napoleon: something that will become a characteristic of his rule. The dogs had been nurtured by Napoleon in secret, and now he unleashes them against Snowball, his chief rival. He does this because there was a real chance of the animals voting in favour of the windmill, thus undermining his own position. This incident shows, for the first time, that Napoleon is more than willing to resort to force to get his own way, contravening the principles of an open and democratic society upon which Animal Farm was initially founded. The alarming spectacle of Snowball being chased off the farm sets the temper for Napoleon's increasingly brutal and perverted rule.
However, this is not all. Only days after this meeting, Napoleon decrees that the windmill will be built after all. Insidiously, he gets his chief propagandist Squealer to declare that the plans for the windmill were really Napoleon's and that Snowball had stolen them. The reverse is true, but this is the beginning of the falsification of history that will also be a major feature of Napoleon's rule. He has no qualms about using force and also about lying to discredit his rivals.
The windmill incident and the elimination of Snowball recall the true-life events of Soviet history when Josef Stalin and Leon Trotsky were engaged in a bitter power-struggle. Trotsky, like Snowball, was inventive, a brilliant speaker and enjoyed mass popular appeal. Stalin, like Napoleon, was more of a ruthless schemer and got rid of Trotsky by use of lies, tricks, and force. Having defeated his great rival, Stalin went on to portray him as the enemy of the Soviet Union, as Napoleon later made Snowball out to be the enemy of Animal Farm. Stalin, indeed, did not stop there, but had Trotsky assassinated in exile in distant Mexico.
I think you are on the right track in identifying how both sisters represent polarities of experience. I am a bit leery of labeling them in the "realism" vs. "idealism" mode because I think it implies more than what is being targeted. Perhaps, we can reconfigure the sisters' relationship as Ismene being one who sees consciousness as it is and Antigone, who sees it as it should be or ought to be. The difference between them becomes how one perceives reality. Should reality be lived as what it presents itself or is consciousness one where transformation of status quo defines its essence? This might be where both sisters are. Ismene is the sister who believes in the rule of both legal and social conceptions of the good. She is lucid in her belief that Antigone neednt challenge Creon's law because A) it is codified law according to the Status Quo power structure and B) it is not in the nature of women to question authority. Antigone, naturally, is the opposite, appealing to the idea of a "higher" sense of law and justice. In the interplay between them, one sees how what is collides with what should be. This is not to say that Ismene is placid and an automaton to reality and not to place Antigone on a pedestal of virtue. I don't think it's an accident that when Antigone is punished, Ismene is willing to share in the punishment. Antigone denies this as she denies any notion of bond between the sisters as a result of her own belief system. Bearing this in mind, one sees that the supposed "apologist" for the status quo might actually bear more loyalty to her kin that the supposed "crusader," who repudiates the bond between them. I think it's important, when analyzing both, to stress that it might not be accidental that Sophocles designs both characters in such a manner.
The film version of Dracula had just been released in 1931 when Dill bragged about having seen it to Jem and Scout in the opening chapter of Harper Lee's novel To Kill a Mockingbird. It made an immediate impression on the Finch siblings. Sound motion pictures were still relatively new, and Maycomb had no theatre, so Dill was truly a special case to Jem and Scout, neither of whom had probably ever seen a real movie before.
"Don't have any picture shows here, except Jesus ones at the courthouse sometimes," said Jem.
Dill's review of Dracula exhibited his storytelling skills admirably, since Jem claimed the "show sounded better than the book."
No doubt Harper Lee alluded to Dracula because of its recent popularity (since the novel was set in the early 1930s), but also because of Jem and Scout's undying curiosity about Boo Radley, who was said to enjoy the blood of small animals occasionally. Comparisons between Boo and the Count were inevitable, and Dracula was a sure-fire story to further fire the kids' interest in Boo.
In Rappaccini's Daughter, Nathaniel Hawthorne has created very complex characters in what is a study in motive along with a study in good and evil, as well as in science and nature. Giovanni is the young protagonist; Beatrice the beautiful heroine; Rappaccini the exalted but delusional and deranged antagonist.
Giovanni is seeking greater truth but cannot prevent himself from becoming obsessed with an alluring beauty who appears to be the opposite of the lasting truth of knowledge because time and nature continually change and degrade beauty. Along with being obsessed by strange versions of familiar beauty, he also has a bit of a gullible nature that is easily influenced. As a result, he doesn't know "his own mind." These weaknesses in him, especially the weakness of not knowing his own mind, become the catalysts by which he is corrupted and by which evil actions assert themselves as he unintentionally takes a life that is beauty enmeshed in an evil shroud.
Beatrice, the embodiment of this beauty enmeshed in an evil shroud, is all goodness and, without the poisons that reared her, might be prey to the manipulating, harming forces in the world that like to prey upon the beauty, charm, innocence and openness of vulnerable women. Her father, the scientist Rappaccini, has sought to make her a bastion of strength against the dangers of life that may bring harm to defenseless women.
Rappaccini is a credible holder of a doctoral degree and a well respected scientist who has taken a strange and unnatural turn in his scientific work. He devotes himself to creating and growing beautiful flowers that are the possessors or strong poisons. To do his work, he enlisted the help of Beatrice by raising her on the same poisons that created and raised the flowers. He created her to be their caretaker.
Hawthorne explores the ideas of what motives propel each character in addition to discussing the definition of good and evil along with the question of compatibility between Nature and science. Hawthorne underscores his discussions when Giovanni, the good young student with human weakness, becomes the slayer of the evil and poison-wrapped Beatrice who, while living, was ironically the embodiment of goodness. Giovanni and Rappaccini become more alike than they are different with the help of the jealous and envious services of the good professor from whom Giovanni seeks aid and comfort.
One technique that Poe uses is letting the reader know right off the bat, that Montresor was out for revenge, and that he would punish with "impunity". This bit of foreshadowing is ominous, and immediately sets up a sense of suspense; we are left wondering, the entire time, just exactly if and how he is going to get that revenge. So, the use of allusion and foreshadowing right of the bat sets up the suspense.
Another way that the suspense is heightened is through the setting and environment. Montresor leads Fortunado down through the winding catacombs; this maze-like configuration only serves to confuse us, to heighten our apprehension and to set us on edge. We wonder when it will end. If he was just in the city, on a walk, going to a room or an alley, it would not be as suspenseful. These are normal environments that we are familiar with, that aren't underground, cold, damp, and filled with the bones of dead people. The catacombs are also winding like a maze or labyrinth, which are created to disorientate people. So, the setting itself is like a horror film, winding through endless, dark, corpse-filled mazes with no end in sight. That environment serves to increase the suspense.
One other way the suspense is heightened is Montresor's obvious mocking and manipulation of Fortunado. He "insists" that they turn back at several occasions, feigning concern for Fortunado's cough. He plays the role of caring and loving friend, all in an attempt to oust Fortunado's ride and sense of manliness. We know that the man is merely egging him on, which makes it all the more infuriating. The character of Montresor himself--his malice, his sarcasm, his manipulation of the weaker Fortunado--all lends itself to the creation of a pretty creepy villian, which increases the suspense.
Then, once Montresor's plan becomes obvious, that he is indeed going to wall Fortunado in and leave him there to die, the suspense is at its height, and Poe uses Fortunado's naive misunderstanding of what is going on, then his dawning terror, and eventual silence to create concern and kinship with the unfortunate Fortunado. We long for his escape, we rally to his cause, and that creates more tension because we are relating to the character, and hoping that Montresor won't succeed.
These techniques, in addition to a simply good storyline and plot, all add heightened suspense throughout the story. I hope that those thoughts help a bit; good luck!
Since Jane Austen takes a minimalistic approach to description (before minimalism was a genre technique), the description of characters is provided indirectly through their speech and in their dialogue with other characters. There is a fine distinction between the two as one (speech) reveals the inner workings of the character's mind and personality while the other (dialogue) reveals interactions and other characters' opinions of each other, thus a three dimensional characterization is developed.
One example of how dialogue reveals characterization is the conversation between Charlotte and Elizabeth where Charlotte discusses her ideas on love and marriage. Through this discourse (conversation) we learn Charlotte's motivations and reliance upon reason (rational thought). We learn as much what she is not as we learn what she is: she is not irresponsible nor greedy nor callous nor irresolute. She is realistic, sensible, and rational, and she has a very clear perception of the reality of her attributes and options. She chooses the most realistic option that has the most realistic possibility of giving her a life independent of her father's protection and income.
I am not romantic, you know; I never was. I ask only a comfortable home; and considering Mr. Collins's character, connection, and situation in life, I am convinced that my chance of happiness with him is as fair as most people can boast
An example of how speech--be it spoken or written--develops character independently is Darcy's letter. In this letter, he is free to say things that he would not say in conversation to others, for, as he says, he always believed his actions would attest to his noble and upright inner character, thus explanations would be unnecessary.
He generously imputed the whole to his mistaken pride, and confessed that he had before thought it beneath him to lay his private actions open to the world. His character was to speak for itself.
From this epistolary speech (letter) we learn that he has been generous and obliging to Wickham--until--Wickham goes one step too far and tries to seduce and run away with Georgianna and her fortune and to retaliate against Darcy (and have him in his manipulative power as Darcy would deny nothing that might affect Georgianna).
Mr. Wickham's chief object was unquestionably my sister's fortune, which is thirty thousand pounds; but I cannot help supposing that the hope of revenging himself on me was a strong inducement.
We learn other such things about Darcy including that he feels remorseful and continues to hold Elizabeth in esteem. All these things would be very difficult to reveal in dialogue.
I am under the necessity of relating feelings which may be offensive to yours, I can only say that I am sorry. The necessity must be obeyed, and further apology would be absurd.
In relating Paul's experience with the French girl, the author is tying to show the romance and innocence that is still a part of Paul's nature. In contrast to Leer, who is "an old hand at the game", passion is new to Paul, something beautiful to which he "yield(s) himself trustingly...his desires are strangely compounded of yearning and misery". Paul looks for his fleeting relationship with the French girl to be something pure and meaningful, and as he "press(es) ever deeper into the arms that embrace (him)...(he hopes) a miracle may happen". In the midst of the horror of war, he longs for the experience of young love in all its freshness, but soon finds that "a man dreams of a miracle and wakes up to loaves of bread". The French girl has no real feelings of tenderness for him; she is just using him for the gifts of food that he brings.
When Paul goes home on a six week leave from the front, he discovers just how much he has changed. He has been "crushed without knowing it...he (does) not belong (at home) any more, it is a foreign world". He longs for the happiness and peace of his old life, but his experiences on the battlefield have made it impossible for him to fit back into things the way they were. He is engulfed with "a terrible feeling of foreignness", and "cannot find (his) way back, (he is) shut out". Paul finds that coming home on leave only makes him yearn for what he can no longer have, and makes going back to the front that much more heart-wrenching. While he was on the battlefield, he was "indifferent and often hopeless", but now, having come home on leave, he is "nothing but an agony for (himself), for (his) mother, for everything that is so comfortless and without end" (Chapter 7).
According to Hawthorne's narrator, Roger Chillingworth had all his life been kind, though not warmly affectionate, and calm in temperament. He had spent his life as a scholar in solitary pursuit of knowledge, which is what led him to desire Hester's warming companionship to begin with, as he still cherished the hope of discovering the joys of love and affection, even though his scholarly pursuits still occupied him. The narrator clearly states that Chillingworth had always been "pure and upright" in his interactions with others.
However, as a direct result of the consequences of the Minister's and Hester's impropriety and indiscretion, Chillingworth underwent a great change of nature. He was "seized" by a "fierce" and terrible "fascination" that propelled him down a new path on which he was not free to follow anything but the fascination that gripped him. He fell from his pure and upright standing because of bitter disquietude over the wrongs inflicted on him that robbed him of what he believed was his one chance at the attainment of love and a warm affectionate heart.
After this fall, after having his worth chilled by the icy grip that seized him, Chillingworth became a "leech" of others' worth drained from their souls just like he would leech the goodness from the herbs in his medicinal studies. Those herbals were meant to be used for good, but the leeching of others' souls was meant for harm. Though his interactions with others were pure and upright at the start, even if preoccupied and cool, his interactions at the end were devious, manipulative, insinuating and harmful.
In "A Tale of Two Cities," the Cock-Lane ghost is an allusion by Charles Dickens to the haunting in the 1760s of an apartment on Cock Lane, an alleyway adjacent to Smithfield's market near St. Paul's Cathedral.
As the story goes, a William Kent from Norfolk became romantically involved with two daughters from the same family; in 1756 he married Elizabeth Lynes, but she died in childbirth and the baby died a few minutes later. When Elizabeth's sister, Fanny, moved to London she settled with Kent in an apartment on Cock Lane, but they could not marry according to the Canon law of the Anglican church. This apartment was owned by a Mr. Parsons. When Kent went to the country, he asked Parsons's daughter, Elizabeth, to keep Fanny company. On the first night together with Fanny, the two women complained of hearing scratching noises, and Fanny interpreted them as an omen of her approaching death. Later, other witnesses attributed this scatching to Fanny's sister Elizabeth who was upset over Fanny's living with her husband in an illicit relationship.
After William and Fanny moved away, the scratchings continued; Parsons torn out the wainscotting in an attempt to discover the cause, but nothing was found. However, after the death of Fanny, the mysterious scratchings continued and the legend began that "Scratching Fanny" had not died of smallpox, but had been murdered by William Kent. The story became infamous while William Kent remained under suspicion. Even Parsons and his daughter were under judicial after an experiment was conducted with Elizabeth in the bed at the apartment. Witnesses claimed that Elizabeth had made the scratchings herself. After two nights of listening, the authorities told Elizabeth that if no more noises were heard, she and her father would be put in Newgate Prison. When Parsons was put in the pillory, he nearly lost his mind, and was released. Meanwhile the Protestant churches and Anglican Church engaged in controversy over the question of the ghost.
In Chapter 1 when Dickens writes that "Spiritual revelations were conceded to England at that favored period" of 1775, he alludes to all the interest and sensationalism followed the Cock Lane haunting; yet, the messages of the forthcoming American Revolution were ignored as well as the increasing violence in the country. Drawing a parallel to France, Dickens describes it as "less favoured on the whole as to matters spiritual than her sister of the shield and trident." (the shield and the three-pronged weapon spear were used in gladitorial combats in Rome, which, of course, lost its empire.) France, too, has its cruelty in its repressive social system in which inflation was rampant and in which a man could be tortured and put to death for not bowing to a procession of monks. Likewise, France is to be affected by a revolution.
I suppose I have to disagree with the previous post. Indeed, while I feel she is a minor character, I think that Ismene operates on several essential levels in the play. One reason why I think she is important is that she displays another side to the predicament of being a woman in Greek times. While Antigone is quite committed to breaking Creon's unjust laws, Ismene reminds her sister of what the expectations are for a woman and the importance in following this convention. It is essential that Ismene voices this point of view, as women did have to deal with a different reality (and still do, to a large extent) than the men did. Antigone's dilemma is enhanced because of being a woman, and having to wrestle with the cultural reality that frowns upon independent thought of a woman countering patriarchal laws. Ismene also operates on the level of what happens when passivity and defeatism takes over an individual. She sees herself as powerless to impact change, and her presence reminds the reader of the pain and agony inherent in such a position. If nothing else, the reader is reminded that while challenging situations may plague individuals, there is always action that can be taken and helpless passivity should never be accepted as a state of being in the world.
In the opening act of "Macbeth," Macbeth's indecision and internal conflict are introduced in Scene 3 in which the elements suggest conflict as thunder roars over a heath in which Macbeth comments, "So foul and fair a day I have not seen" (i,iii,37). Then, after he hears the prediction of the witches, Macbeth thinks,
...Present fears/Are less than horrible imaginings./My thought, whose murder yet is but fantastical/Shakes so my single state of man that function/Is smothered in surmise, and nothing is/But what is not.../If chance will have me King, why, chance may crown me,/Without my stir. (I,iii,137-143)
Macbeth's conflicting thoughts continue through this act as he considers his appointment as Thane of Cawdor as a possible stepping stone:
...That is a step/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 (I,iv,48-51)
But when he ponders the next "stepping stone," Macbeth is conflicted in his intent to kill Duncan:
If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well/It were done quickly. If th' assassination/Could trammel up the consequence, and catch,/With his surcease, success; that but this blow /Might be the be-all and the end-all--(I,vii,1-5)
The conflict between Macbeth's "vaulting ambition" and his conscience continues throughout the rest of Shakespeare's play as, in guilt, Macbeth sees Banquo's ghost, expressing further his internal conflict:
Had I but died an hour before this chance,/I had lived a blessed time; for from this instant/There's nothing serious in mortality:/All is but toys. Renown and grace is dead,/The wine of life is drawn, and the mere lees/I s left this vault to brag of. (II,iii,97)
To determine the number of bacteria in the lab could be done in several methods, but the most common used are: spectrophotometric analysis and viable plate.
The spectrophotometric analysis is not a proper determination of the bacterial numbers but measuring the amount of cells, dead and living ones, could estimate the growth of bacterial population by the fact that the more increase the number of bacteria the less transmitted light will be.
The O.D.(optical density) method has several advantages, one of them being that this method is involving less technique and time.
But there are some disadvantages as the impossibility of separating between live and dead cells and the measurement at limit concentration are conflicting.
Oedipus' hubris and insatiable quest for the truth paradoxically lead him to blind himself for having known the truth all along.
Oedipus is one of those plays, like the great Shakespeare tragedies, where the audience knows what's going to happen to Oedipus before the play starts. The story was well-known then, as it is today. Yet, it still elicits catharsis (pity and fear) from us all because we identify with his quest for the truth and we dread digging up skeletons in our own family closets.
Yes, it could be fate or free will that leads him to his blinding, but that's a blanket statement that covers every possible outcome in between. Regardless of what happened to Oedipus when he was a child (his crippling), regardless of the Oracles, regardless of the Riddle of the Sphinx and the plague that besets the city, Oedipus can still choose not to know. Tieresius warns him not to pursue his questioning of the shepherd. Oedipus has been so smart and wise, so he thinks, in securing the crown that he arrogantly thinks he can ferret any truth left unknown.
Fate and free will aside, Oedipus had an "out:" he could have lived the rest of his life, albeit plagued, but humbly not knowing his family's gruesome past. He chose to know, and though other, weaker men (or women like Jocasta) might have killed themselves knowing such atrocities, Oedipus went on to have a sacred, blessed death.
The beginning of chapter ten is a great place to find both quotes for his innocence and for his guilt. For example, he is talking to Piggy and Piggy is trying to convince him of his innocence saying that 'It was dark. There was that - that bloody dance. There was lightning and thunder and rain. We was scared!"
But Ralph replies "I wasn't scared, I was - I don't know what I was." As though he is trying to say that he knew better, he should have done something because he was still in possession of his wits.
Piggy goes on and says it was an accident that Simon "hadn't no business crawling like that out of the dark." And goes on to excuse them from the dance and the murder.
But Ralph replies again that they were all involved, that of course they were involved in the dance and by extension the murder.
“I have survived many wars in my youth, and now I, the old defender of the people, will once again seek battle and accomplish mighty deeds, if that fell destroyer will come forth from his cavern to fight me!”
Beowulf fought against a dragon in his last encounter. He defeated the creature, but he also succumbed to wounds sustained during the battle.
Beowulf requested his men to cremate him and bury his ashes under a rock mound (cairn). The cairn was to be built along the shores where it would serve as a monument in remembrance of the great King. Wiglaf together with the bravest Geatish warriors built a funeral pyre and mounted on it various battle equipment. After the pyre burnt to ashes, they built the barrow tall enough to be visible to sailors voyaging in the sea. They buried some precious ornaments and the gold retrieved from the dragon’s lair. Twelve warriors then rode around the monument to mourn Beowulf. They rode around the barrow hailing the great King for his courageous and glorious feats in battle.
Then twelve sons of princes, warriors skilled in battle, rode around the barrow to make a lament, mourn their king, chant their dirge, and honor his name.
A good thesis statement would be "Man will go to extremes to get revenge." The whole short story is about revenge, and the easiest thing to write about, therefore, is revenge and how Montresor gets it. Your body paragraphs could discuss Montresor's steps to lead Fortunato to his death. In the conclusion, list the three steps you found to be most important in Fortunato's path to death, and explain how those steps allowed Montresor to get his revenge (in a few words each). Do not use, "In conclusion" to start your conclusion.
Baba is the true father of Hassan in the story "The Kite Runner." He does not tell the child nor does he tell his son Amir. Instead the boy lives with his father, Baba's servant whose wife Baba had laid with, and also works as a servant for the family. Hassan and his father leave following Hassan's rape and Amir's setting him up by hiding his watch in Hassan's bed.
The first act of redemention is that Baba's friend seeks out the child Hassan. He finds Hassan who now is married and has a son. He has him brought him back to his home his homeland into work. The second act of redemption occurs when Amir's father, Baba, friend and confident contact Amir following his death. He lets him know that Hassan's son is in great danger.
The redemption occurs when Amir steps into courage and rescues the son of his brother Hassan. Through his acts of courage it is Amir who has helped his father's redemption. He has saved the son of Hassan and will raise the boy.
In Scene 5 of Act IV of Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet," Friar Laurence arrives to marry Juliet, but he is told by Lord Capulet,
Death is my son-in-law,/Death is my heir;/My daughter he hath wedded: I will die....my joys are buried. (IV,v, 41-67)
Knowing that Juliet is not truly dead, Friar Laurence nevertheless chides Lord Capulet by telling him that he and heaven both had a part in creating Juliet, and now heaven is claiming her:
...now heaven hath all,/And all the better is it for the maid:/Your part in her you could not keep from death,/But heaven keeps his part in eternal life./The most you sought was her promotion;/For 'twas your heaven she should be advanced:/And weep ye now, seeing she is advanced/Above the clouds, as high as heaven itself?....She's not well married that lives married long;/But she's best married that dies married young. (IV,v,73-81)
Friar Laurence's motif seems to be that when one dies in beauty and at the time of one's marriage, the consummation of love, this time is far better than one's having died after long years of marriage--years of struggle, sorrow, etc. that deprive the person of her beauty and youth. Here the motif is much like A. E. Housman's speaker who extols the advantages of dying young in his poem, "To an Athlete Dying Young." In this poem, the speaker in apostrophe tells the youth that he is a "smart lad" to "slip betimes away" before the glory no longer remains and the "laurel...withers quicker than the rose." In short, the athlete will be remembered when he was great.
Likewise, Juliet can be remembered as the beautiful rose that she has been as a young girl. Friar Laurence continues to say that Juliet's death has been brought on by fate:
The heavens do pour upon you for some ill;/Move them no more by crossing their high will. (V,v, 97-98)
Of course, with the situational irony of Friar Laurence's and the audience's knowledge over the others', the wisest words to the Capulets are the appeal to no longer tempt the fates by continuing the feud; the Capulets should not let Juliet's death be in vain. Rather, they should open some dialog with the Montagues and seek to end their feuds. At least, then, Juliet's seemingly senseless death will effect positive, loving results. And, if the Capulets bury their feud, Romeo can return and claim his bride.
As a persuasive technique in politics, propaganda is the transmission of information that is specifically geared towards convincing people to believe in one doctrine, belief system, religion, political party, and any other philosophy that requires convincing a big population.
In Animal Farm, the animals use the propaganda in many ways to persuade all the other animals that they should harbor hatred against humans. One of the ways is by memorizing the motto: "Four legs good, two legs bad"
Another instance of propaganda that is clear is the support of the theory of "Animalism". As a philosophy, the leader animals created this doctrine to convince the other animals of the importance of putting themselves first, and the humans later.
There are many more instances of propaganda in the story that could fill up a dissertation, but keep in mind that every time the animals, Old Major, Napoleon or any other of the big guys throw information towards the lesser animals against the humans, or against something else, that would be an instance of propaganda in the story.
You're asking a lot in this question, and I'm not sure if I'm clear what you're asking. I'll do my best to get your started with your answer.
I'm not sure which characters you need to compare and contrast, but I would choose the main character, Holden, and his roommate, Stradlater. Both are young men at prepatory schools, possibly from well-to-do families. This is most likely where their similarities end. Stralater is good-looking, athletically inclined and seems popular with women. He's what we would call today a "player" or a "jock." He seems to think he can take advantage of people because people like him. For instance, he almost assumes Holden will write his essay and let him borrow the coat.
In contrast, Holden is not as good-looking (gray hair, skinny, tall), is not athletic (as we can see when he attempts to beat up Stradlater) and is rather cynical and anti social. He prefers to spend time away from people--everyone is at the football game, but him, and he doesn't apply himself at school. He is what would we stereotypically call a "loner" or a "nerd."
The reader receives characterization about Holden through Holden's perspective. Holden admits that he is a liar, so the reader must read between the lines to figure out what Holden is telling the truth about, and what he is lying about. While Holden may rave about his looks and how popular he is and how other people don't "get him," an astute reader will see right through this.
The reader receives characterization about Stradlater through Holden, and because Holden dislikes guys like Stradlater (possibly out of jealousy) many of the characteristics Holden lists are negative--especially his obsession with Stralater being a secret snob and giving girls the time. However, being able to look beyond what Holden say, the reader is presented with a more accurate picture of Stradlater.
The poem "The General" is from Siegfried Sassoon's second collection of war poems which was published in the year 1918 and entitled "Counter Attack and Other Poems."
This very short poem bitterly satirizes the incompetence of the general who commanded his soldiers during the first world war. The general must have been a blue blooded aristocrat who would address his soldiers, who were mostly ordinary men, with the right upper class accent. The general being a staff officer would himself not go into the battlefield. He would merely politely and cheerfully address his soldiers "as they slogged up to Arras with rifle and pack" to meet their cruel and untimely deaths.
In this poem Sassoon directs his anger on those most directly responsible for the soldiers’ fate. The germ of this brief but highly effective satire seems to have come from an incident in Sassoon’s journey to Arras in Northern France when his regiment, the 2nd Royal Welch Fusiliers, had passed their Corps Commander, Lt.-Gen. Maxse. In the poem the unsuspecting soldiers’ praise of their General’s bluff heartiness - 'He’s a cheery old card,’ grunted Harry to Jack - is contrasted starkly with the results of his incompetence, just as his speech is contrasted with the soldiers’ cheerful slang. The use of generic names – ‘Harry’ and ‘Jack’ – which both personalizes and depersonalizes them, and the General’s breezily repeated greeting 'good morning, good morning' together with Harry’s ironic comment and the brutal ending, convey the situation far more vividly than a more elaborate and discursive piece. The colloquial ‘did for them both’ - which implies that the general actually murdered them both - which follows unexpectedly on what appears to be the concluding rhyming couplet, is all the more shocking for its euphemism.
Literary devices are the collected elements and techniques with which an author communicates meaning through the written word. One category of literary devices is literary elements. These are components that are universal to all literary fiction and narrative and include things like theme, conflict, point of view, etc. the other category of literary device is literary techniques. Though literary techniques are universally used, they are not universally present in each and every work of fiction or narrative. This is because the author carefully chooses which literary techniques to utilize in order to create the most effective communication of meaning for any specific work. Literary techniques relate to single words, phrases, groups of words or groups of phrases. Some examples of literary techniques are allegory, metaphor, alliteration, onomatopoeia, etc.
In Canto VIII of Dante's Inferno, some literary devices that are present are: the literary element conflict ("These our adversaries closed the gates on the breast of my Lord...I shall win the strife, whoever circle round within..."); symbolism ("So sweet the Father..."); allegory ("comfort thy dejected spirit and feed on good hope, for I will not leave thee in the nether world."); visual imagery ("clasped my neck, kissed my face,..."); word plays ("running through the dead channel..."); and alliteration ("deep ditches that encompass that disconsolate...").
It is said that this second traveler, which is mentioned only briefly in the story, has very similar physical characteristics as YGM, but it is a man of around 50 years of age, and with a strange countenance that leads us to believe that he may be YGM himself, but the reflection of his darker, more mysterious self. In other words, this second traveler is a form of alter ego that represents the inner and darker thoughts of YGM and the ethereal self who is much malicious and has the capacity to break away from a life of purity.
The owl-eyed man is an observer, someone whose clear-sightedness allows him to see Gatsby for who he really is. We first meet him in chapter three: He claims to have been drunk "for about a week," and he looks at Gatsby's library in astonishment:
“Absolutely real — have pages and everything. I thought they’d be a nice durable cardboard. Matter of fact, they’re absolutely real. Pages and — Here! Lemme show you.”
Taking our scepticism for granted, he rushed to the bookcases and returned with Volume One of the “Stoddard Lectures.”
“See!” he cried triumphantly. “It’s a bona-fide piece of printed matter. It fooled me. This fella’s a regular Belasco. It’s a triumph. What thoroughness! What realism! Knew when to stop, too — didn't cut the pages."
David Belasco was a famous Broadway producer, known for the realism of his stage sets. The owl-eyed man correctly sees Gatsby's house, and his party, and possibly his guests (Nick included?) as stage props.
When he comes to Gatsby's funeral, he says a few words to Nick:
We straggled down quickly through the rain to the cars. Owl-eyes spoke to me by the gate.
“I couldn’t get to the house,” he remarked.
“Neither could anybody else.”
“Go on!” He started. “Why, my God! they used to go there by the hundreds.”
The owl-eyed man's sympathetic feelings for Gatsby are a little confusing if we think of him as impartial. I think far from being impartial, the owl-eyed man is maybe the only character in the book who is able to fully empathize with Gatsby. His appearance at the funeral allows Fitzgerald to give his pithiest assessment of Gatsby's career ever:
He took off his glasses and wiped them again, outside and in. “The poor son-of-a-bitch,” he said.”
As you indicate, the last line of the play/poem is meant to emphasize the feeling of catharsis that should be felt by the audience or reader by the end of the work.
In the play/poem, we have seen the building emotion that has led to the catharsis. Samson has gone through an incredible series of emotions, meeting with his father, having to endure Dalila's temptations (and the terrible memories it must have brought), and being subjected to the taunts of Harapha.
After going through all this, he finally feels himself at peace when he decides that he must go to the temple. His destruction of the temple restores his honor and gives him his revenge. This is surely cathartic to him because it allows him to be purged of all the negative emotions he'd had.
The ending line, then, reminds us that our minds (like Samson's, at the end) can now be calm because the emotions that rose throughout the work have been released.
The Seamus Heaney translation says Grendel "nursed a hard grudge." When I see that, I understand a couple of things about Grendel's heart. First, he's bitter, and bitterness is something which hardens the heart. Second, he's nursing whatever unspecified grudge he's got. Nursing implies he's figuratively feeding it, keeping it healthy and growing and alive. Finally, it's a hard grudge. This is not something which will go away on its own over time--especially since he's nursing it.
Given that, Grendel can laugh all he wants and it will never be a joyful laugh. He is likely laughing at the fear and despair and grief of those whom he's terrorizing. This seems similar to so many of the classic movie villains who laugh (or chortle or snicker or roar) when they have their prey in their grasp. It's an evil, joyless laugh, and it must be the same for Grendel.
What a great question. Medea is a terrifying figure and the very fact that the ancient Greeks portrayed her as a witch tells us something. In short, the Greeks slant her in a negative way right from the beginning. A more interesting perspective is the view of Ovid, the Roman poet. He knows the ancient tradition and stories of Medea, but he portrays her in a much more sympathetic light. I highly suggest you read the section on Medea in Ovid's Metamorphoses - book 7. These lines show the agony of Medea. She actually has a voice and we can see that she is gripped with love, longing guilt, loyalties, etc. Also when we realizes that Jason later scorns and betrays her love, she acts in a certain way. Is this right or wrong? Whatever the answer is, there is always a context. And this context will give you enough information to form a sophisticated argument.
Let's expand this question and ask, did anyone who died in the Salem witch trials deserve to die? The people that died were innocent of the charge that they were murdered for--they were not witches, and even though I'm sure all of them had their faults, none of those faults warranted a cruel and painful death at the end of a noose. John had more faults than many others--he had committed what was considered to be an awful sin in the Puritan community, adultery. However, confession and excommunication would have been the worst that he would have had to suffer if he was punished for that crime. So, what did John do that warranted his death? Nothing. In fact, the people that did die could be said to be even more honest and god-fearing people than those that confessed to witchcraft to save their necks. The people that confessed betrayed their integrity by lying, while those that died did not lie.
John's death was not deserved, nor were the deaths of the other 18 people that ended up getting hanged. Eventually, all of the people of Salem realized that these were unjust killings, and did what they could to care for the impoverished families. Descendents of the victims were even compensated by the state many years later in an attempt to recompense them for the damage that was done. To say that John's death was deserved is to say that anyone who has ever done anything wrong should be killed, and at the hands of an unfair and suspicious court, at that. John died as an unusual hero, who cared more about living honestly and maintaining his reputation than giving in to lies and a deceitful court. I hope that helps--good luck!
Hamlet originally thinks that putting on "an antic disposition" and acting mad will avert suspicion from his investigations in his father's murder. He figures that if he starts snooping around, Claudius will take notice and be alarmed, and possibly cause Hamlet harm. But, if he's acting mad, people will just dismiss any unusual inquiries or behavior, because it's just the nutty Hamlet being kooky again. Unfortunately, this plan doesn't work out too well. Hamlet's strange behavior concerns Ophelia and Polonius, and the Queen, and as a result, they all watch Hamlet even more closely. The Queen is so concerned that she has Polonius hide in her bedroom during Hamlet's visit, which leads to Polonius's death, which leads in part to Ophelia's madness, which in part leads to Laertes's challenge of Hamlet to a duel, which in part leads to Hamlet's death. Did you catch the chain reaction there? Hamlet severely mistreats Ophelia because he knows he's being watched; he's being watched because he's been acting strangely. His mistreatment of Ophelia in that scene is also part of what leads to her insanity and death, which prompts Laertes to murder also. So, Hamlet's deceptive behavior leads to people's deaths, which leads to his own.
As far as Claudius goes, if he hadn't murdered his brother, Hamlet would have never sworn revenge against him. If he hadn't hidden the murder and taken up with King Hamlet's wife, Hamlet Jr. wouldn't have been so vilely angry at him either, and desired to kill him. Claudius's deception prompts his secretive death warrant on Hamlet given to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and it is that action that finally pushes Hamlet over the edge into full-blown revenge mode. Claudius's deceptive reasons for Laertes challenging Hamlet also indirectly leads to his death. Claudius's deception about the poisoned wine leads to his wife's death, and alerts Hamlet to his insidious intentions, which then prompts Hamlet to make the final move and kill him.
I hope that all of those connections made sense and helped; good luck!
The supreme irony of Guy de Maupassan'ts short story, "The Piece of String," is that the protagonist, Maitre Hauchecorne, though innocent of the crime of which he is accused, is believed by all to be guilty. Due to his "crafty" nature, he has always been regarded as suspicious to the townspeople--a man not to be wholly trusted. By persistently declaring his innocence, he merely fuels speculation of his guilt. It is also ironic that such a simple act--the retrieval of a discarded piece of string--could result in such tragic circumstances. In the end, Hauchecorne realizes another irony of his situation:
Ironically, when Hauchecorne goes home after being mocked out of town, he arrives at the same conclusion that Maupassant had held for years. That is, Hauchecorne's Norman simplicity readily understands that there is considerable justice in the peasants’ disbelief of his story. The peasants’ ingrained suspiciousness has singled out this old man as a thief, even disregarding the fact that the pocketbook had been recovered a day later; this, too, is how Maupassant treats his peasant: as a man not to be trusted.
Andover, a nearby town to Salem, has also been undergoing some witch trials. A lot of innocent people were in jail, and the townspeople were fed up with it. The townspeople in Andover were a step ahead of Salem in realizing that these people weren't witches, and that the courts were corrupted with power, illogical superstitions, and hysteria. So, in Andover, the people united and "overthrew the courts." They went to the courts and basically said, no more--you guys are wrong, and we won't listen to your authority any more. You have no power in our town. The people rebelled against the concept that the courts were always right, and had their best interest in mind, so they stepped up and kicked them out of town.
Parris, hearing these rumors, coupled with the fact that Abigail bailed town and that the people of Salem are growing discontent, is afraid that there will be rebellion in Salem too. Whereas he, the judges, Abigail and the other girls used to be revered in the town for their role in the accusations, the townspeople are angry now; in fact, he found a knife stuck in his door, a direct sign that the opinion of the town is turning against him and the courts. He is worried that the people of Salem, upset that their loved ones are in jail and that farms are going to waste, will hear the new that Andover rebelled against the courts, and get ideas into their heads that they should do the same. This would be disastrous for Parris--he has played such a huge role in the courts, that his job in the town, along with his reputation, would be ruined. He would be run out of town and have to start all over, with no money (since Abby stole his).
I hope that helps to clarify things a bit; good luck!
This is of course the closet scene in which Hamlet has killed Polonius and is arguing with his mother over the fact that she married Claudius. Things are getting 'heated' between the two when the ghost arrives.
Strangely (and unlike the opening scene where it is seen by the soldiers on watch & Horatio) the ghost can only on this occasion be seen or heard by Hamlet, leading Gertrude to conclude that her son was mad, indeed without the 'evidence' of the earlier scene we too may have thought that he was mad.
The ghost actually says very little on this meeting with Hamlet,
Do not forget: this visitation
Is but to whet thy almost blunted purpose.
But, look, amazement on thy mother sits:
O, step between her and her fighting soul:
Conceit in weakest bodies strongest works:
Speak to her, Hamlet.
He has arrived as he says to turn Hamlet once again toward the killing of Claudius. I would argue anyway that the Ghost is NOT Hamlets father, but a 'goblin damned' that leads all the characters to their doom. If he is in purgatory for his sins, then why is he allowed back to earth to tell his son to go and kill someone? Surely he should be trying to save his son from harm? And if the act of killing Claudius is good, why does the playt end up with all the protagonists dead? Not enough space here, but the ghost is definately suspicious!!
Hamlet considers that the ghost has come to 'tell him off'
Do you not come your tardy son to chide,
That, lapsed in time and passion, lets go by
The important acting of your dread command? O, say!
He has moved from being suspicious of the ghost to believing it, he is concerned that he has been too slow to act upon its advice.
Hope this helps!
We have to deal with the additional vectorial structure called an inner product. In this type of additional structure each pair of vectors in the space is associated with a scalar quantity, called the inner product of the vectors.
In this case, the 2 forces are the 2 vectors above and if the 2 vectors are on the same dirrection and the same sense, the angle between 2 forces will be 0, so the maximum force will be reached at 0 degrees.
Explanation:
The inner product of the resultant force is
F1*F2=IF1I*IF2I*cos (F1,F2)
Wr know that the maximum value of the
IF1I*IF2I*cos (F1,F2) is given by the maximum value of the cos (F1,F2)=1 when the angle between F1 and F2 is 0.
So the right answer is a) 0 degrees
In my opinion, it is ambition rather than pride which is responsible for the undoing of such a brave and admired general as Macbeth. A secret ambition, exteriorised by the witches' prophecies and further enhanced by Lady Macbeth, (mis)guides Macbeth to the killing of king Duncan. At no point before the murder of Duncan, Macbeth displays any sign of pride. On the contrary, he betrays doubt, hesitation & moral scruples, his imaginative conscience holding him back from the murderous deed. Ambition for power, fears with regard to the means of attaining power, increasing fears as to how the power attained could be retained, the constant conflict between forces of 'fair' and those of 'foul', lead Macbeth on to the murders of Banquo and Fleance, of the family of Macduff, to his own death and destruction. At no stage of his career in Shakespeare's play, does he show pride in his evil and tyranny as a usurper king. Macbeth therefore shows the fatal dangers of 'vaulting ambition', rather than of pride.
One element not mentioned in the examination of Washington Irving's story, "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" is point of view. This story and "Rip van Winkle" are both from Irving's The Sketch Book. Both tale are supposedly handed down from
the papers of the late Diedrich Knickerbocker, an old gentleman of New York, who was very curous in the Dutch history of the province and the maners of the decendants from its primitive settlers. His historical researches, however, did not lie so much among books, as among men...
Thus, the tales of Knickerbocker are handed down, and Irving presents himself as the narrator of one of his tales. So, he is narrating a story that has told to Knickerbocker. Then, within the tale told thrice, the characters in "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" tell stories themselves, with all the narrators being unreliable. Without any reliable narrator, Irving has fun having Ichabod Crane frightened by the story of the Headless Horseman, a story within a story.
Clearly, the emotional distance that all these unreliable narrators create keeps the reader from empathizing with any character. In this manner the humorous tone prevails as the reader, then, focuses more upon it. And, it is this humor as Irving describes the unlikely figure of Crane who supposes himself a courter of Katrina van Tassel and who ingratiates himself to the old wives of the community that has made this story distinctively American and a favorite for many generations.
Two characteristics of The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie as a postmodern novel are how the characters, especially Miss Brodie, are constructed and the author's moral concern with how much any one person can be known by another and, by extension, how much an author can truly know his/er characters. Postmodernism in literature embraces fragmentation and discontinuity and rejects modernism's belief that art can fill the void created by what became fragmented in the modern world. Postmodernism relishes that void and claims that the truth is that art cannot fill it.
Therefore, characters in postmodern literature are constructed in accord with fragmentation and discontinuity. Specifically, Muriel Spark never lets the reader into the inner life of Miss Jean Brodie. For Miss Brodie's pupils and for the reader, Miss Brodie is always the public Miss Jean Brodie, never the private woman. This is why a major portion of description of Miss Brodie comes through her mottoes, such as, "I am in my prime." Miss Brodie's life has discontinuity--there is no continuous flow from the public school teacher to the private individual with dreams and leisure and upsets of life--and it is fragmented; she is represented as a collection of random sayings that imply a unified person rather than reveal a unified person.
A more complex question is Muriel Spark's concern with the moral question about the relationship between knowing an individual or character and controlling the individual or character. The assumption is that if I know you fully--or the archetype that you (or a character) represent--then I can control your destiny because I know what will be best for you. The situation that Spark's wraps this question in is the school room, where we all follow a regime that is based on the assumption of full knowledge and appropriate control of our futures. But what if full knowledge is not possible? What if knowledge of anyone or any character is only fragmentary, like our knowledge of Miss Jean Brodie? Then what? How can attempts at control be justified? How can any voids of modern life be filled with something external like rules for order or art?
For more information on postmodern novels, see Mary Klages document, The University of Colorado, Boulder. For more about Muriel Spark's postmodern writing, see How Fiction Works by James Wood.
Given:
Initial velocity = u = 14 m/s
Final velocity = v = -32 m/s
Time taken for change in velocity = t = 0.0028 s
Mass of ball = m = 0.15 kg
We know:
Force exerted = acceleration*mass = a*m, and
Acceleration = a = (v - u)/t
Substituting given value of u,v and t we get
a = (-32 - 14)*0.0028 = -46*0.0028 = 0.1288 m/s^2
Substituting this value of acceleration in equation for force
Force exerted = 0.1288*0.15 = 0.01932 N
Answer: Average force exerted by the bat on ball is 0.01932 N
A specific example of warning is Horatio's attempt to stop Hamlet from following the Ghost. In Act I, scene 4, Hamlet is on the platform with the other men when the Ghost appears yet again. It is his first time seeing it, & Horatio tries to stop him from going with the spectre. After all, none of them know what it truly is, and they have no way of knowing whether it intends to harm them or help them. Horatio relates these fears to Hamlet:
What if it tempt you toward the flood, my lord,
Or to the dreadful summit of the cliff
That beetles o'er his base into the sea,
And there assume some other horrible form,
Which might deprive your sovereignty of reason
And draw you into madness? Think of it.
The very place puts toys of desperation,
Without more motive, into every brain
That looks so many fathoms to the sea
And hears it roar beneath.
Thus Horatio essentially begs Hamlet to think before he acts. He offers a warning against the possibly malevolent spirit, but Hamlet is determined to hear what it has to say. One can argue whether that was the best choice of Hamlet's life.
A specific example of madness would be Ophelia's last moments on stage. She sings several songs, all connected with the loss of virginity. She is clearly distraught over the death of Polonius (some productions have her enter wearing her father's clothes). She gives flowers to everyone, each symbolizing a different emotion, command, or action. she has become the extreme for women living in an oppressive, male-dominated society, and her madness is a result of those around her consistently trying to manipulate and use her.Her last words are those of hope however.
I hope all will be well. We must be patient. But I can- not choose but weep, to think they would lay him i' the cold ground. My brother shall know of it. And so I thank you for your good counsel. Come, my coach! Good night, ladies. Good night, sweet ladies. Good night, good night.
She speaks coherently of her father's grave, but offers a final farewell to all.
Finally, a specific example of death is Polonius' accidental murder at the hands of Hamlet. Some may say Polonius was asking for it, that his web of lies and spying would come crashing down around him at some point. Others argue that Hamlet is rash and frustrated at his inability to kill Claudius, so he lashes out at whomever is handy. In this case, it's Polonius. Hamlet kills him in Gertrude's chambers, seeming to hope it was Claudius. Afterward, Gertrude is almost in shock at her son's action, but Hamlet feels no remorse.
Thou wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell!
I took thee for thy better. Take thy fortune.
Thou find'st to be too busy is some danger.
So he tells Polonius that he should have considered the danger before he went digging where he didn't belong.
Loretta, despite her alcoholism and subservience to Iggy, a gang boss, is sympathetic towards Max because of his low station in life. At first, she is only concerned with keeping herself safe first from Iggy's anger and then from Kenny Kane, Max's father, who is violent and bad-tempered. When Loretta discovers that Kenny is keeping Max tied up, she tries to help him escape:
"Keeping your own kid tied up, it ain't right. He ain't the man I thought I remembered, that's for sure."
(Philbrick, Freak the Mighty, Google Books)
Loretta thought that she remembered Kenny being a better man, but is shocked out of her obedience by this cruel act. She still has some humanity, despite the abuse she suffers from Iggy and Kenny, and so she tries to redeem herself in a small way by helping Max. Her actions are selfless and she almost dies for standing up to Kenny.
This idea that one needs "disciplined techniques" to arouse emotions seems to be to be a curious combination of the Neo-Classical and the Romantic ideology. While the Romantic idea of the emotive purpose of literature is kept intact, the stipulation of orderly methods adds to a Neo-Classical prescriptiveness. But, in the 20th century, with the Russian formalists, we have seen further insistence on technique, form and form--the dynamics of the devising of a literary text and it seems to continue even in Postmodernist literature.
The stress is on precision, order, synchronization. As Aristotle implied in Poetics, there is indeed, a relation between order and beauty. Order and discipline always evoke beauty. The Romantics and the Sur-realists who believe in automatic writing might think otherwise. To them, the imposition of an order on the chaotic flow of human experience is problematic and escapist.
To allow everything in name of science or in name of anything else will be to allow everything without any examination or logic. This is clearly against the methods and principles of science. Scientific progress is based on questioning and defying existing beliefs and conclusions, including the theories and views of imminent scientists of past. By refusing to question the and validity of existing scientific knowledge and beliefs, and with that the need for specific actions and programs to promote progress of science, we will be converting science in to something very much like a religious cult, that accepts blindly, without questioning, anything claimed to be a scientific fact and in the interest of scientific progress.
Also, there is no justification in treating science an end in it self. Science and scientific progress needs to be justified in terms of the benefits it gives to people - including protection of the environment and the natural resources available to people.
