I have a Seminar and I finished everything in it but I failed to make the introduction and conclusions . " The scarlet Letter"Hello, I...

href="http://thinkexist.com/quotation/adultery-usually-follows-a-law-of-diminishing/762392.html">Adultery
usually follows a law of diminishing returns.”   Quote

Nathaniel Hawthorne is closely
identified with the Puritan era in his fiction, and notably in his novel The Scarlet
Letter. The Puritan era in American history left a rich and complex legacy that
continues to this day. The Puritan ethic included a provision regarding hard work as a
way of life and as proof of dedication to God that has been seen as one of the primary
reasons for American business success, and the term is still used today to refer to the
work ethic which infuses manufacturing, business, and other sectors in the American
economy. The other arm of Puritanism that had great power was a form of asceticism and
prudishness supposedly embodied in the New England idea of "banned in Boston," for
instance. The legacy of Puritanism also created a good deal of guilt over sins real and
imagined, and the excesses of the Puritans, seen in the Salem witch trials, would become
an important literary theme in writers like Nathaniel Hawthorne. Puritanism also
involved a good deal of hypocrisy and self-righteousness against which the new American
society would rebel.

Nathaniel Hawthorne was a product of
a Puritan family and was very familiar with the history of New England and with the
nature of the Puritan era. He was born in Salem, Massachusetts in 1804, and his first
American ancestor, William Hathorne (as it was then spelled) came to Massachusetts Bay
with John Winthrop in 1630. William was a magistrate and ordered the whipping of a
Quakeress in Salem. William's

His book “The scarlet letter”
offers extraordinary insight into the norms and behavior of 17th-century American
Puritan society.

The scarlet letter is famous
for presenting some of the greatest interpretive difficulties in all American
literature. After it was published in 1850, cities hailed it as initiating a distinctive
American literary tradition. The narrative describes the effort to resolve the torment
suffered by Hester and her co-adulterer.

 While reading
Hawthorne’s the scarlet letter the reader will consider the issue of crime and
punishment, morality vs. legality, and personal responsibility. Also the reader will
demonstrate his understanding of the text on four levels: factual, interpretive,
critical and personal. In addition the reader will gain a better understanding of
puritan theocracy and its effects on ordinary
citizens.

Hawthorne was masterful in the use of symbolism,
and the scarlet letter “A” stands as his most potent symbol, around which
interpretations of the novel revolve. At one interpretive pole the “A” stands for
adultery and sin, and the novel is the story of individual punishment and
reconciliation. At another pole it stands for America and allergy, and the story
suggests national sin and its human cost.

 ...............................................................

 please
see this if good as introduction or not
.

thank u so
much.

How does Connie's attitude about her beauty change throughout the story? Does her change in attitude in any way affect the story?

The primary change can be seen by looking at the very start and very end of the story. At the start of the story, Connie knows she is pretty, and she experiences this as validation and power. After all, "she knew she was pretty and that was everything." At the end of the story, her beauty is vulnerability. It is what has drawn Arnold Friend to her, and may kill her and her family. Therefore, her beauty and the change in her relationship to it is very much tied in to the themes of the story.

What are five quotes that tell us something about Piggy's character in Chapters 1-4 of Lord of the Flies.

At the very beginning of the story, Piggy tells Ralph that
he has asthma and that he's "been wearing specs since [he] was three."  His willingness
to reveal this, his weakness, so readily helps us to see right away that he lacks almost
all social skills but is trusting of people, particularly anyone who appears to have
authority.  This is only reinforced when he says "They used to call me
'Piggy'..."

A bit later, while telling the group that they
screwed up and didn't do things in the right order he says "the first time Ralph says
'fire' you goes howling and screaming up this here mountain.  Like a pack of kids."  In
this way he begins to differentiate himself from the boys.  We start to understand as
readers that he is intellectually on a different level than the rest of
them.

Why does the Mariner kill the albatross? What is the symbolic nature of the action?

The killing is definetely no 'impulsive act'.

Look up for cross (mention the symbolysm, by the way...)-bows. At the supposed timeset for the journey (at about 1500) simple shotguns were already invented. Moreover, the act of loading a cross-bow needs strength and time as it never has been carried loaded.

I wouldn't agree with amy-lepore, because the mariner was blessed as well as punished by the other seamen for killing the bird.

So I agree with thedra: killing the bird isn't central; it's what follows (even if birds are creatures who -by nature ;-) - live between earth and heaven).

But what follows isn't a 'godly punishment'. No. Nature is spiritualised before 'God' comes into play.

Does 'nature' punish the mariner? Does 'God' punish him? Does he punish himself?

To answer your question: the symbolic nature of the action is that one could regret what one has done before.

What figure of speech is utilized by Edwards when he says "there are the black clouds of god's wrath now hanging directly over your heads?"

Jonathan Edwards' sermon 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' was first heard in 1741. Known in U.S. history as "The Great Awakening', it was a time when some Calvinist ministers felt that the Calvinist doctrine of predestination was being questioned, challenged, or just plain ignored. It was the lax of religious dedication among Calvinists' that Edwards responded to in his sermon. There is no doubt that his figure of speech utilized the power of imagery. The sermon is full of fire and brimstone directed to everyone as a reminder of the consequences, but especially to those Calvinists' who had 'lost their way'.  The quote you refer to sent a clear message by Edwards to those who sought to look elsewhere for spiritual peace. Look no further, God is just waiting to lash out. Repent your idol ways or else pay the price. Damned to hell for all eternity.

Why does Lady Capulet think that Benvolio is lying to the prince when he tries to explain the fight that happeneded between Romeo and Tybalt?

Since Lady Capulet and Tybalt are blood relatives, she
would obviously, out of loyalty, defend his honour and be less believing about what
Benvolio reports. Although he reports as accurately as he can, it is the terms that
Benvolio uses when referring to Romeo's part in the fracas that makes Lady Capulet
believe him even less.

Benvolio
states:

readability="11">

"Romeo that spoke him
fair, bade him bethink
How nice the quarrel was,
and urged withal
Your high
displeasure: all this
uttered
With gentle breath, calm look, knees
humbly
bow'd,"

He is
saying that Romeo was not aggressive at all and used gentle, conciliatory terms to calm
Tybalt down, even telling him about the Prince's displeasure about fighting in the
streets. Romeo was humble, calm and gentle in his manner. Tybalt was, however, "deaf to
peace" and attacked Mercutio,  stabbing him when Romeo
intervened:

readability="5">

"...underneath whose arm
An
envious thrust from Tybalt hit the
life
Of stout
Mercutio."

Tybalt
then flees but returns later. Romeo knows at this point that Mercutio has died and
he has sworn revenge. He fights with Tybalt, killing him. Romeo then
flees.

Lady Capulet obviously does not believe Benvolio's
version of events, saying:

readability="7">

"He is a kinsman to the
Montague;
Affection makes him
false; he speaks not
true:
Some twenty of them fought in this black
strife,
And all those twenty could but kill one
life."

She
suggests that because Benvolio and Romeo are related he would, of course, lie. She
states that the brawl had been a cowardly act and that Tybalt had been outnumbered
twenty-to-one. It took twenty of them to kill Tybalt, suggesting Tybalt's bravery when
he was grossly outnumbered. It is ironic that she takes this stance even though she had
not even witnessed the encounter.

A further incentive for
Lady Capulet's disbelief could be that, since she knows that the Prince and Tybalt are
also related, that he would take her side, which the Prince does. He queries who should
be punished for Tybalt's death and ignores Lord Montague's suggestion
that:

readability="9">

"Not Romeo, prince,
he was Mercutio's friend;
His fault concludes but what the law
should end,
The life of
Tybalt."

In
other words, "a life for a life" - the score had been settled. The Prince commands
that:

"And for
that offence
Immediately we do exile him
hence:"

and:

readability="9">

"I will be deaf to pleading and
excuses;
Nor tears nor prayers shall purchase out abuses:
Therefore
use none: let Romeo hence in
haste,
Else, when he's found, that hour is his
last."

He
clearly displays favouritism.

Explain Synecdoche and Metonymy ... please give examples

Metonymy is a figure of speech in which a thing or a
concept is called not by its own name but by the name of something that is closely
related to it. For example, we might see the following sentence in a newspaper: "The
White House has decided to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay." We know that the
physical White House did not make this decision but that the President of the United
States did. Because the White House is so closely associated with the president, we
sometimes use the words interchangeably.

Synecdoche, then,
is a specific type of metonymy in which the name for a part of something is used in
place of the name for the whole thing. For example, the common Navy phrase "All hands on
deck." This phrase means that all people (not just their hands) should report to the
deck of the ship. Another example might be "you have hungry mouths to feed." Obviously,
you are feeding more than the mouths, you are feeding the entire
person.

Steinbeck's writing is famous for his description. Cite examples to show his strengths.

Steinbeck, perhaps more than any other author of his time, provided detailed descriptions of the natural world that makes the reader "see" exactly what his characters see or what his omniscient narrator wants them to see.  This is especially true of The Pearl.  Here are three vivid uses of description (Ch I, II, VI):

Near the brush fence two roosters bowed and feinted at each other with squared wings and neck feathers ruffed out.  It would bad clumsy fight.  They were not game chickens.  Kino watched them for a moment, and then his eyes went up to a flight of wild doves twinkling inland to the hills.  The world was awake now, and Kino arose and went into his brush house.

Light filtered down through the water to the bed where the frilly pearl oysters lay fastened to the rubbery bottom, a bottom strewn with shells of broken, opened oysters...The gray oysters with ruffles like skirts on the shells, the barnacle-crusted oysters with little bits of weed clinging to the skirts and small crabs climbing over them. 

This land was waterless, furred with the cacti which could store water and with the great-rooted brush which could reach deep into the earth for a little moisture...And underfoot was not soil but broken rock, split into small cubes, great slabs, but none of it water-rounded.  Little tufts of sad dry grass grew between the stones...Horned toads watched the family go by and turned their little pivoting dragon heads. 

What is the tone in 1984, and does it add to or detract from the characters' discourse?

The overall tone of 1984 is one of unrelieved darkness, unless one is a very careful reader. Then, one will realize that the Party's rule must have been destroyed soon after the death of Winston Smith.

Throughout, Orwell underlines the hopelessness of Winston's struggle against the Party. Time and time again -- in his keeping a diary, in his prowling, and most notably in his sex with Julia -- Winston takes risks that make no sense if his primary goal is to destroy the rule of Big Brother. In fact, he wilfully blinds himself to the traps he walks into. I suspect, for instance, that many readers realize very early that O'Brien is utterly true to the Party; Winston has trouble recognizing this even when O'Brien is torturing him.

The tone of the main narrative is thus very black. Winston is not a sympathetic protagonist -- he is himself part of the apparatus of oppression, and he promises to ignore moral standards in struggling with the Party -- and the novel ends depressingly with him crushed.

But that is not the end of the story. Orwell always insisted the appendix on Newspeak was critical. Why?

On examination, we discover that the appendix is written in the subjunctive and simple past -- the way we speak about things that did not happen, or that are no longer happening. Orwell's ironic touch of hope, and the book's cleverest feature, is that the Party that placed its faith in language is marked as doomed through the subtle use of language.

A word that describe the mood of the carnival in "The Cask of Amontillado"?

The carnival was a time of drunkenness and masked
identity. It sounded a lot like Mardi Gras to me. In the evening, costumed people took
to the streets for merrymaking. There was much drinking, food, laughter, and music. It
was a noisy, wild scene. If people did not show up the next day, the assumption was they
were sleeping the alcohol off. People did things they wouldn't ordinarily do because
their identity was masked. Since Italy was primarily a Catholic, the carnival probably
took place just before Lent, a time of giving up the pleasures of life to prepare for
Easter.

Explain the boy's seemingly calm acceptance of his hanging.Elie comments that "I never saw a single one of the victims weep" Why do you think this...

There are a lot of things that you must consider when you
look at this piece, not the least of which is the degree of horror that all the Jews
faced who were caught up by the Holocaust. Presumably, this passage is one that is
significant because it asks the question of where God was in all of this tragedy. The
boy is calm because he has accepted his fate. Even at such a young age, he knows that
there is nothing that he can do to change what is going to happen to him. Weeping will
not solve it. On another level, however, if you continue on in the passage, it is the
witnesses who weep and who mist ask the question of where God is and why he has forsaken
his ostensibly chosen people. The answer, then, becomes clear in the shape of a small
boy, too light to die immediately, who instead, like Christ on the cross, lingers on to
die slowly hours later. From the audience, one man answers the question, indicating that
God is right there in front of them on the gallows in the shape of that boy. Just a
Christ calmly accepts his own fate, so does this boy, dying with as much dignity as he
can is the ultimate denial of the torture being perpetuated against the Jews. It is the
understanding that God has some other plan, and that to accept his plan willingly and
without making a scene, is the ultimate in respect for self and
God.

Why does the narrator decide to kill the old man?

The narrator is insane and believes that the old man has an evil force present within him, in his eye. 

"for it was not the old man who vexed me, but his Evil Eye."  

The Evil Eye is a belief that others had the ability to transmit curses with their eyes.  Its purpose was to cast a spell of bad luck, disease or death upon its victim.  

"It was open—wide, wide open—and I grew furious as I gazed upon it. I saw it with perfect distinctness a dull blue, with a hideous veil over it that chilled the very marrow in my bones; but I could see nothing else of the old man's face or person:"   

The narrator may very well have been cursed by the old man's Evil Eye.  After the murder, the narrator, who believes he has gotten away with the murder is haunted with a terrible sensation that he cannot ignore.

"My head ached, and I fancied a ringing in my ears: but still they sat and still chatted. The ringing became more distinct:—It continued and became more distinct:"

The torment that he faces grows and grows within him until he can no longer stand it.

"It grew louder—louder—louder! And still the men chatted pleasantly, and smiled. Was it possible they heard not? Almighty God!—no, no! They heard!—they suspected!—they knew!—they were making a mockery of my horror!"

The old man has beaten the narrator at his own game.  

Find 10 songs that relate to the book 1984 and explain why you chose that song.

What an interesting
assignment!

Since there is an ongoing war among Oceania,
Eurasia and Eastasia, you could use some anti-war
songs:

Eve of
Destruction, by Barry
McGuire

readability="6">

War, What is it Good for? by Edwin
Star

There is a Ministry of
Truth in 1984 that "controls" information and, so it is really a ministry of anti-truth,
so you could use some songs about truth:

readability="9">

Truth, by DC Talk (Christian
Rock)

Brain Washing, by Bob
Marley

David Bowie actually
wrote a song about truth that was about the novel 1984. It depicts the final
brainwashing of Winston.

readability="9">

Big Brother, by David Bowie (from the album
Diamond Dogs)

1984, by David Bowie
(from the album Diamond
Dogs)

Many songs
written by Bob Dylan could work because they apply to what would happen if we ever had a
world like the one depicted in
1984:

readability="9">

Eve of Destruction, by Bob
Dylan

Blowin' in the Wind, by Bob
Dylan

Anything by Rage
Against the Machine - i.e. Township
Rebellion

George Harrison of the Beatles wrote a
song called Brainwashed which would be really
good.

Good luck!

In "Wuthering Heights," do Heathcliff and Catherine believe the only way they can be together is in death?When Heathcliff visits Catherine for the...

While the text of the novel shows that Heathcliff believed that Catherine would be reunited with him in death, Catherine's beliefs are uncertain. As she is close to death, Catherine tells Nelly not to feel sorrow for her impending death, rather to envy her, for she regards death as a release from her earthly prison. After her death it is Heathcliff who prays that Catherine's soul know no rest until his own death. He cries,". “Be with me always—” he begs. “—take any form—drive me mad!… I cannot live without my soul.” By the end of the novel, Heathcliff no longer see any meaning in revenge and decides to focus on the afterlife where he is sure he and Catherine can be reunited. This is reinforced when Nelly tells Lockwood that many, Joseph included, believe Heathcliff haunts the moors. A little shepherd boy has told Nelly of seeing Heathcliff and a woman standing on the road and others sometimes see the ghosts of Heathcliff and Catherine wandering their old playground. Nelly claims not to believe these stories but she is too frightened to go out at night and looks forward to moving back to the Grange. Thus, Emily Bronte, the author, is certainly suggesting some kind of happy ending for this tortured couple.

In "A Rose for Emily," how did Emily's father treat the young men who wanted to date her?

According to the narrator, the Griersons "held themselves a little too high for what they really were." They considered themselves to be a higher class than most of the other people in the town. As a result, there was not a young man in town who was "quite good enough" for Emily. For that reason, we can't say how Mr. Grierson treated the men who wanted to date her, because there weren't any until Homer Barron came to town. We know this because the narrator tells us: "So when she got to be thirty and was still single, we were not pleased exactly, but vindicated; even with insanity in the family she wouldn't have turned down all of her chances if they had really materialized."

What does Twain say about Cooper's depiction of Native Americans in "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses"?

In his critique of Cooper's writings, Twain accuses him of using too many stereotypes and repeating the same plot devices. For instance, he says that whenever Cooper has one character try to track or secretly follow another, he dresses them in moccasins and had the tracker follow in the other man's footsteps. Twain says of this, "Cooper wore out barrels and barrels of moccasins in working that trick." Or whenever a character is in danger and silence is necessary, invariably that character will step on a dry twig. He says that "the Leather Stocking Series ought to have been called the Broken Twig Series."

As for Cooper's depiction of Native Americans, Twain accuses him of giving them almost supernatural powers, as when Chingachook loses the trail of a person he is tracking. Twain notes that Cooper has the indian change the course of a stream to discover the man's footprints, which the water did not wash away: "even the eternal laws of Nature have to vacate when Cooper wants to put up a delicate job of woodcraft on the reader." In another instance, Cooper has a character bend a "sapling" so that 6 indians can hide in its foliage.

Twain concludes that Cooper "was almost always in error about his Indians. There was seldom a sane one among them."

What are the external and internal conflicts in "Where are you going, where have you been"?

The external conflict of the story is the fact that Arnold Friend, who appears to be sexual predator of some sort, seeks out Connie to take her from her parents' home. The reason he succeeds is because of Connie's internal conflict. Her internal conflict stems from the fact that she has no sense of who she is, and only measures herself by gauging other's opinions. She "[checks] other people's faces to make sure her own [is] all right" and has a history of letting boys have their way with her. Because of this deep insecurity, Connie is not able to resist Arnold Friend and leaves with him in his car.

How do the man and dog approach the intense cold differently, and what point is London making with this difference?

The dog is guided by instinct, while the man must rely on human judgement, which is unreliable.

When faced with extreme cold, the dog experiences "a vague but menacing apprehension that subdue(s) it". It wants nothing more than to "burrow under the snow and cuddle its warmth away from the air". When it falls through the ice on the river trail, the dog automatically knows what it must do, and cleans the ice from his feet and legs. It is equipped by nature with a thick coat to protect it, and it can sense what it must do to survive.

The man, on the other hand, must struggle against nature in order to make it. He has to make choices, the most critical of which is his decision to set out into the Klondike despite warnings of danger. The man must rely on his own initiative and employ the trappings of civilization, and he is hindered both by his failure to prepare properly for his journey and his proud refusal to listen to the Old-Timer, the voice of experience. His misjudgements are costly, and the man does not make it out of the wilderness alive.

The point London appears to be making is that man is insignificant in the face of nature, his environment. Man approaches nature as an adversary, and his chances of coming out ahead are questionable. In contrast, the dog is one with nature, and nature takes care of its own.

What are the advantages of children's stories being adapted into films, stageplays and other mediums?I would also like to know some...

From an English teacher's point of view, I immediately
think of one good reason for and against adapting children's literature into other
mediums such as plays and movies.  First, let me say that anything that gets kids to
read, I am supportive of it...including the Captain Underpants
series.  Having said that, it brings me to the biggest disadvantage of producing
alternates to the actual books:  If the child can watch it on TV, on stage, or in the
movie theatre instead of reading it, most kids today will opt for that.  It is instant
gratification and doesn't take as much time as the actual reading.  So, they get the
story, but they don't get the discipline, the language, the sentence structure, and the
overall benefits that reading brings.  Research proves that the more you read, the
better you write (hence the exposure to more words and the correct sentence structure on
the page), and the smarter you are in general. 

On the
other hand, seeing the story on film might inspire kids to actually read the book.  Or,
the movie/play could be used as an incentive to get kids to read first then go see the
film, etc. as a reward.  It is always good to compare the two afterward, since kids will
almost always see that the film can never be as good as the book.   Take, for example,
the Harry Potter stories.  The films are excellent in terms of special effects, etc.,
however, you can not effectively mash 300-500 pages of material into a 2-hour film. 
Something pivotal will be left out, rearranged, or otherwise destroyed or altered.  The
book allows time for readers to consider what they would do in the character's shoes,
and it allows for the character's thoughts and motives to be played out in a way the
stage and screen are lacking.  In addition, seeing the film/play through a director's
eyes does take away from the imagination side of it.  I can't tell you how many times I
have been disappointed that the main character on film looks completely different than
how I pictured him or her.

What was the Anoconda Plan during the Civil War?

There were four main parts to the Anaconda Plan, which,
incidentally, was a very sound military strategy by the North to win the war. The
problem was, it would take four years for them to achieve the four parts, when they
should have been able to finish it much earlier.

Part 1
called for blockading the South with the Union navy, preventing them from selling cotton
to England or getting needed war materials from other
countries.

Part 2 called for occupation of the entire
length of the Mississippi River, denying the South its only waterway for transportation
and splitting the South effectively in two.

Part 3 called
for a drive through the Shenandoah Valley into Georgia and to the ocean, splitting the
South yet again.

The final part called for the occupation
of the capital city of Richmond, and with it, the Confederate
government.

What causes the bitterness of Hamlet?

In addition to all of the incidents listed above, there is an intrinsic melancholia in Hamlet as he contemplates suicide in Act I Sc. ii:  "O, that this too too salied flesh would melt...into a dew..."

Further evidence of melancholia is in his meditations upon man in general: "What a piece of work is man...yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust?..."  Later, Hamlet remarks, "There is a doomsday near....A dream itself is a shadow....I have lost all my mirth, forgone exercises...." (Act II, Scene II). 

And, in his bitterness there may also be some misogyny in his attitudes toward Ophelia, and especially his mother:  "Fraility thy name is woman (Act I, Sc. ii), and "O most pernicious woman/O villain, villain, similing damned villain.... "(Act I, Scene v) 

See the second source listed below.

Why did Huck and Tom decide to keep mum about the graveyard incident in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer?

Tom and Huck decide to keep mum about the graveyard incident because they are afraid of the wrath of Injun Joe.  If the boys do tell and things happen as they should, Injun Joe will hang, but if, for some reason, that didn't happen, they are afraid of reprisal.  Tom and Huck figure that since Muff Potter was drunk and had "just got (a) whack when Injun Joe done it", they are actually the only witnesses to the crime.  If they tell, Huck observes that Injun Joe would "kill us some time or other, just as dead sure as we're a-laying here...we got to keep mum...that Injun devil wouldn't make any more of drownding us than a couple of cats, if we was to squeak 'bout this and they didn't hang him". 

Tom and Huck make a pact to keep what they have seen a secret.  They feel that their oath of silence is important enough that it must be sealed with their blood.  Tom writes their declaration on a piece of pine shingle, and the boys prick their thumbs with a sewing needle and squeeze out enough blood to seal it with their initials (Chapter X).

Write an essay on Materialism in the story, "The Rocking-Horse Winner" by D. H. Lawrence?

There are certainly many approaches that could be taken with that as a topic. Discussing the aspects that the mother is dissatisfied with any amount she receives is one such aspect. Instead of finding relief with her monthly windfall, she instead wants it all. Instead of taking care of the debts she already has, she buys new things.

You could also consider that her son is trying to buy his mother's love-but the price is too high. He has never received any gratitude or concern for his efforts and ruins his health trying to please her. His earnings bought him nothing but an early grave. Or look at the ways his mother thinks buying things will make her happy, yet her unhappiness only increases.

Good luck!

Assess the importance of Macbeth's second meeting with the witches.

This second meeting is important for three reasons:

First, the witches herald Macbeth's coming with "By the pricking of my thumb, something wicked this way comes."  For the first time in the play, Macbeth is recognized outwardly as a wicked person.  Before now, suspicions are raised, but no one has outwardly declared him "wicked".  There is a change in his personality and demeanor.

Second, that change in his personality becomes vividly clear when instead of asking the witches for information as in the first meeting, he now demands that they tell him what's up.  He would not have done this earlier, and it shows that he is taking more into his own hands.  Before, if you'll remember, Lady Macbeth did all the planning.

Third, the witches carry out their plan to set Macbeth up in false security.  They show him the apparitions which can be interpreted in more than one way.  They know, however, that he will see them in the way which plays out best for him.  For instance, "No harm will come to Macbeth until Birnam Wood marches up to Dunsinane Castle" is interpreted by Macbeth as the trees will unroot themselves and walk up the hill before you fall.  Impossible, right?  He does not consider the illusion of the forest marching.

In addition, the most important prophesy: "No one born of woman may harm Macbeth" is interpreted as no man can hurt him.  He does not entertain the idea of c-section birth, as Macduff was delivered.

What were the differences between the leaders of Federalists and the leaders of Anti-Federalists?I would also like to know who were the supporters...

I agree mostly with the answer above, except for the
geographic breakdown of who lived where.  The geographic split between federalists and
anti-federalists tended to be living followed a much more east-west line than
north-south one.  Federalists were much more likely to be coastal and urban, while
anti-federalists were much more likely to be from the interior, rural
regions.

A rich merchant from New York or Charleston, then,
was more likely to support the Federalists.  A yeoman farmer from Appalachia or western
Pennsylvania was more likely to support anti-federalists.  Massachusetts was cut in half
by these sentiments, with Boston and the Cape heavily Federalist, and all of the western
farm country on the anti-federalist side.

Federalists also
tended to be wealthier and better educated, more organized and had control over most of
the newspapers of the time.

Well known Federalists included
George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Adams and Alexander
Hamilton.

Famous anti-federalists included Thomas
Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, James Madison and Patrick
Henry.

In "By the Waters of Babylon", what are three things John finds in the "Place of the Gods" and why does he think things are magic.

As John crosses the forbidden river of to "the Place of the Gods, with its “bitter waters,” he is actually crossing the Hudson River (“Oudis-sun”); the “god-roads ”he has followed were originally complex highway systems; “ubtreas” is the “Subtreasury”; the statue of “ashing” is of George Washington, and the other great men are Abraham
Lincoln, Moses, and, Biltmore (referring to the the one magnificent Biltmore Hotel); the “chariots” seem to be cars and trucks; the magic torches are electric lights; the falling fire that causes the “Great
Burning” and the poisonous mist is from a super bomb, and the resultant "mist' killed the inhabitatnts .It is interesting to note that the story was written many years before the invention of the atomic bomb.At first John thinks these things are magic because he has been taught he is in the "Place of the Gods". As he explores further, though, he sees a "dead god" looking out the window at the ruins of the city. He then realizes that these so-called gods were once just humans like himself who "ate knowledge too fast". However, he decides, that he can teach his people this knowledge and control it at the same time. Thus Benet is commenting on the cyclical nature of history. Great civiliations rise and fall, each one thinking they can ignore the lessons from the past and yet falling victim to them the same as their predecessors.

What is the purpose of "How to Become a Writer"?

Francie, the speaker of Moore’s "How to Become a Writer,"
comments a number of times about how she has been told, by teachers and fellow students,
that the plots of her stories are weak. Superficially, the same comment might be made
about "How to Become a Writer." Therefore it is important to note that the story does
indeed have a plot. One may perceive that the time lapse may be as much as seven or
eight or more years, from high school to the period after college graduation. The period
is that of the Vietnam War (1965–1975), for Francie describes a brother who has served
in Vietnam, has been wounded, and has returned home. Despite the episodic nature of "How
to Become a Writer," and despite its lack of direct narrative presentation, the story
also dramatizes a conflict. On the one hand, Francie adheres to the view that writing is
an irresistible outgrowth of either nature or affliction (writing is "a lot like having
polio" [paragraph 41])—the idea being that a writer is born, not made (poeta nascitur,
non fit). On the other hand, the "how to" title seems committed to the opposing view
that writing is a learned skill or science.

What are the "walls" in "Bartleby" and what association does Melville want the reader to make with them?

In "Bartleby", Melville practically hits readers over the head with the references to "walls."  The story takes place on Wall Street.  The office is surrounded by walls on all sides.  The office is separated by partition walls.  In the prison at the end, the narrator finds Bartelby sitting with "his face towards a high wall." 

Walls are a symbol of separation, and in this story represent Bartleby's separation from both reality and other people.  He is suffering from psychological walls that keep him isolated, uncomfortable with human contact.  He has removed himself to such a degree that the only thing keeping him tethered to Earth is his work, which he does with maniac precision and efficiency.  Until he loses his taste for that as well, and walls himself off from all human pursuits.  He would "prefer not to" engage in them, and instead sinks into his mind.

In a larger sense, Bartleby's story and the walls that Melville mention are symbolic of the time period and the new industrial environment of the cities.  Walls were being erected everywhere, and business and industry were the main concern.  In this world of walls, how are people to get to know one another, to take comfort in personal relationships?  This is emphasized through the narrator's reflections on his employees.  He knows them only through behaviorally inspired nicknames, and not a real individuals. 

Why do the doctor and the gentlewoman observe Lady Macbeth?

In the last scene in which Lady Macbeth appears in person,
she has seemingly gone mad with guilt. It is a jarring juxtaposition between her
previous state of being--unflinchingly cruel, powerful, ambitious, and ruthless--and her
now vulnerable madness. Her emotions have gotten the better of
her. 

Lady Macbeth's servant, the
gentlewoman/lady-in-waiting, convinces the palace doctor to watch Lady Macbeth as she
sleepwalks. In her sleep, she makes crazed references to the murder of King Duncan. The
gentlewoman does not want to repeat the words she says out loud, because she is afraid
she might be charged with treason if she utters what Lady Macbeth is saying. Thus, she
urges the doctor to hear the words for himself. As he observes her madness, he tells the
gentlewoman that there is nothing he can do for a malady of the mind. He becomes very
worried about her health and safety, but thinks that only God can help her. He instructs
the gentlewoman to watch Lady Macbeth closely. 

This scene
shows the ending of Lady Macbeth. The tragedies that have happened will have preyed on
everyone involved, especially the cunning and conniving Lady Macbeth. Even though she
got angry with Macbeth for showing signs of remorse and weakness, she succumbs to these
things in the end. 

In Frankenstein By Mary Shelley. What French city do the De Laceys live in?

The DeLaceys do not live in a city. As the creature
relates his story about what has happened to him to Victor Frankenstein, he tells
Victor,

 A few months before
my arrival they had lived in a large and luxurious city
called Paris [France], surrounded by friends, and possessed
of every enjoyment ...." (Chapter 14)  But now, they are exiled because Felix was
present at the unjust trial of a Turk, and he became implicated in this man's escape. 
Consequently, the DeLaceys had to flee France. The creature
says,

"They
found a miserable asylum in the cottage in Germany where I
discovered them." (also Chapter
14)

It is while Felix takes
a "long country walk" that the creature enters the cottage and talks to the old
man.  Also, if the DeLaceys were living in Paris, it would be extremely difficult for
the creature to remain hidden or to find the berries and game on which he
survives.

Why does Junior say, "it was like something out of Shakespeare" (142) when he discovers their first game is against Wellinpit?In The Absolutely...

The reason that Junior says this because Shakespeare's
plays are full of surprise twists and conflicts.  You have lots of examples of people in
those plays being put in situations that are very emotionally charged.  Junior is in
such situation when Reardan has to play Wellpinit.

Junior
has left the reservation to attend school Reardan.  This causes conflict between him and
the Indians who think that he has abandoned his people.  Basketball is a huge deal among
Indians today and so playing basketball against the people he has "abandoned" will be an
emotional experience for all involved.

Where do you suppose the gum and the pennies are comming from?

This is really a question that you should answer
yourself.  The reason I say that is because everyone who answers questions on here knows
where the gum and pennies are coming from.  So it's hard for us to wonder where they're
coming from.  From the sound of the question, I think your teacher is more interested in
your thinking than in the actual answer -- who actually puts them
there.

Jem and Scout seem to think that they belong to
someone who rides the bus to school.  That person has stashed them and forgotten them. 
This makes sense because who else would hide stuff like that in a
tree?

I guess you might want to consider that question. 
What kind of person would leave stuff in a tree other than a kid?  I suppose it would
have to be someone a bit strange, right?   And think to yourself where the tree is. 
Maybe between those, you can figure out who it is.

Discuss Twelfth Night as a satire on the idea of love at first sight.ANSWER

Very interesting question. Of course, you need to remember
that this play is all about characters falling strangely, suddenly and inexplicably in
love with other people - often apparently against their better judgement in a way that
drives them to folly or absurdity. Just consider the way that "love at first sight" is
introduced by the love-sick Orsino:

readability="16">

O, when mine eyes did see Olivia
first,

Methought she purged the air of
pestilence.

That instant was I turned into a
hart,

And my desires, like fell and cruel
hounds,

E'er since pursue
me.

Note similarly what
Olivia says when she falls in love with Caesario:

readability="11">

Even so quickly may one catch the
plague?

Methinks I feel this youth's
perfections

With an invisible and subtle
stealth

To creep in at mine
eyes.

What is interesting in
both of these quotes is how love is described. Orsino describes his sudden love for
Olivia in a very violent manner - he becomes subject to his desires, so much that they
constantly haunt and dominate him. The metaphor of the pack of dogs hunting the deer
(the "hart") suggests that there is something out of control in his love - just as a
pack of dogs when they have the scent go crazy and pursue their quarry, so we see a
love-stricken Orsino in Act I scene i, who is mastered by his emotions and out of
control. Similarly Olivia describes her "love" as something insidious, "creeping" and
overpowering. She is not able to control her response but describes what is happening to
her in terms that relate love to a thief or an assassin that creeps up on us with
"invisible and subtle stealth" to overpower us.

Both these
metaphors stress how love comes upon us like a "plague" or a "sickness" as it is
described by other characters. We have no control over it and it just happens to us,
seemingly apart from any conscious choice of our own. Thus love at first sight is a
central theme of the play, but it speaks more of infatuation, of how dangerous it can
be, and how it can rule us, and and how it can cause us to make fools of ourselves in
the name of "love".

Describe the major conflict in the story of Moby Dick. Who is the protagonist? Who is the antagonist?

The major conflict is Ahab's quest to destroy the whale, Moby Dick. This could be considered as man vs. nature or man vs. the unknown. Moby Dick represents evil incarnate to Ahab, the devil. Ahab is obsessed with killing the whale as its punishment for taking his leg. He's willing to risk his life and the lives of his crew to get his revenge. Starbuck, the first mate, tries to discourage Ahab from this suicidal voyage several times, but Ahab cannot be deterred from getting his vengeance.

Some critics disagree regarding which characters are the protagonist and the antagonist. Most see Ahab as the protagonist, and Moby Dick as the non-human antagonist. I tend to agree with this view, as Moby Dick, the symbol of evil in the world to Ahab, is the force that Ahab is fighting against. Other critics say that Starbuck is Ahab's antagonist because he attempts to dissuade Ahab from continuing the voyage to kill Moby Dick.

For a more detailed explanation of this novel and its characters, go to the link below.

What are some rhetorical devices used in "The Myth of Sisyphus"?

Albert Camus' essay "The Myth of Sisyphus" uses
allusion, analogy, ethical appeal (ethos), juxtaposition, and
imagery:

Allusion:
he obviously alludes to the Greek myth of Sisyphus, as well as
Oedipus and Dostoevsky's Kirolv as other absurd
heroes:

Then
a tremendous remark rings out: "Despite so many ordeals, my advanced age and the
nobility of my soul make me conclude that all is well." Sophocles' Edipus, like
Dostoevsky's Kirilov, thus gives the recipe for the absurd victory. Ancient wisdom
confirms modern
heroism.

Analogy:
he compares Sisyphus to the absurd hero, the rock to work, and the gods to deterministic
external forces which limit
freedom.

Ethos: he uses moral
argument and counterargument to show how Sisyphus loves life, hates death, and scorns
the gods, thereby getting victory over his fate and
punishmnet.

Juxtaposition: he
contrasts man vs. god, freedom vs. punishment, life vs. punishment, sun and water vs.
Hades.  All of his juxtaposed imagery supports life over death and freedom over
punishment.

Imagery: he uses
natural, visual imagery to create an emotional response for the reader: "mountain,"
"sun," "water"--all of which affirm life on earth instead of death and
suffering.

Does arrests made on TV, MOVIES, COPS, affect the general public's perception on what constitutes a legal arrest in an investigation?fact

I believe it is true that television somewhat shapes
public opinion of what is legal and what is illegal and how matters are
handled.

Another aspect of this is region. For example, a
television show may display certain events which may be handled in a certain way. How it
is handled legally may be true in one area but not necessarily another. Basically, laws
vary from city to city, state to state, etc.

I do think
that it is important for people to realize that what they see on television is usually
for entertainment purposes only. Unfortunately, people do not always realize
this.

What were the sources of Senator Joseph McCarthy's popularity? What brought about his downfall?

Joseph McCarthy became popular because many Americans
(especially conservatives) were very suspicious of communists and thought that
communists were likely to try to take over the US from within.  Because McCarthy seemed
to be a regular guy who was fighting elites who were probably communists, he was quite
popular.  This was especially true at first when the Korean War and the "fall" of China
were still fresh in people's minds.

McCarthy fell largely
because he overreached.  He started to claim that people within the army were
communists.  When he did this, he ran up against a part of the government that most
people respected.  So now, instead of attacking egg headed elites, he was attacking
respected military people.

what purpose do the first paragraphs serve in chapter 1

The opening paragraphs, in addition to being exquisitly
written, help to establish for the reader two main things: Nick's narrative style and an
aura of mystery about Gatsby.  We can learn from Nick's "voice" that he is an educated
person with a solid family background.  His sophisticated vocabulary and his manner of
speech clearly indicate a person of good breeding.  The lengthy description of his
family history gives him a sense of history and authority.  If you read this section
carefully, you will notice that Nick's family history parallels the development of
America.  They came over from Europe, established themselves in the East and than
migrated to the Midwest.  The fact that he uses the word "snobbishly" twice is also a
clue to where his family sees itself.  The point is that we, as readers, clearly
understand Nick's background.  We do not, however, have much to go on when it comes to
Gatsby.

The second major point of these initial paragraphs
is what we learn about Gatsby.  We understand, first and foremost, that Nick is
conflicted about his own judgment of Gatsby (and someone who says he "reserves judgment"
at that).  Gatsby is someone who represents "everything for which [he has] an unaffected
scorn," yet "there was something gorgeous about him."  We also learn that Nick admires
Gatsby's "gift for hope" and "romantic readiness," and that he "turned out all right in
the end."  I urge my students not to forget these main characteristics of Gatsby,
because it is this, plus what Nick says about him in Chapter 8 ("They're a rotten
crowd.  You're worth the whole damn bunch put together) that make Gatsby
great. 

Armed with this knowledge, readers can begin to see
how Nick will become our guide through the sordid events of summer 1922 in New York, and
Jay Gatsby will be our misguided romantic hero. 

What is the "taboo" in Chapter 4 in the "Lord of the Flies"? What do Roger's action have to do with this taboo?

The "taboo of the old life" that Golding refers to here is the taboo against hurting someone unnecessarily; against being savage.  Roger is throwing stones at another of the children, Henry.  Roger intentionally throws the stone to miss Henry. He throws it to land a few feet from him.  His arm, according to the story, is conditioned to avoid hitting the boy because of that taboo against harming another person.  The stone itself, a relic formed in ancient times, is symbolic of those ancient times when savagery was the norm because savagery often meant survival. It is only the remembrance of civilization that keeps Roger at this point from hitting Henry.  Sadly, that civility will leave Roger soon.

Why do some people oppose the influence of American culture on their society?

This is so, primarily because of what is called 'cultural
resistance'. American culture or Americanism is looked upon as heterogeneous, having no
clear unified identity. That's the reason why many tradition-bound societies find
American culture and cultural standards suspect. America has been a land of all nations
and races, highly urbanised and technologised, with supposed moral  libertarianism, an
epitome of socio-cultural amorphisity.

The oldish,
traditional societies, trying to stick on to their nativist/nationalist beliefs and
practices, tend to ward off whatever is American. A bit too frank & open, too
independent American life is not acceptable to many societies.

How do I analyze a text with feminist theory?

Depending on the text, you will want to look at the roles
of females in the novel and compare them with the roles of
males.

In particular, you will look for these main points
of criticism:

1.
 Differences between men and
women: "The basic assumption is that gender determines values and
language."  Notice the differences in topics that men and women talk about and how they
discuss them.  According to Deborah Tannen, for instance, men are "report talkers" (they
announce things for show), while women are "rapport talkers" (they speak to foster
intimacy).  She also says that all women are marked: by appearance (makeup, hair,
clothes, body) and language (topic, tone, cues).  In other words, women must battle
these markings in every day roles and conversations, and it is tough to do
so.

2.  Women in power or power relationships
between men and women: "Note and attack the social, economic, and
political exploitation of women."  Notice the division of labor in marriage, the home,
and work place.  Are men doing men's work only (segregation of gender roles)?  Or, are
men and women sharing the work (integration of gender
roles)?

3.  The female
experience: is the speaker, author, or protagonist female?  If so, how is
her point-of-view determined?  How are her experiences different from other females and
males?  How does she treat others?  Does she celebrate femininity and the roles of
mothers, wives, and independent women?

So says one feminist
author and critic:

readability="25">

So, what has feminism taught me about literary
studies? That it is not "artistic value" or "universal themes" that keeps authors' works
alive. Professors decide which authors and themes are going to "count" by teaching them,
writing scholarly books and articles on them, and by making sure they appear in
dictionaries of literary biography, bibliographies, and in the grand narratives of
literary history. Reviewers decide who gets attention by reviewing them. Editors and
publishers decide who gets read by keeping them in print. And librarians decide what
books to buy and to keep on the shelves. Like the ancient storytellers who passed on the
tribes' history from generation to generation, these groups keep our cultural memory.
Therefore, we gatekeepers, who are biased humans living in and shaped by the
intellectual, cultural, and aesthetic paradigms of an actual historical period must
constantly reassess our methods, theories, and techniques, continually examining how our
own ethnicities, classes, genders, nationalities, and sexualities mold our critical
judgements.

In ways Webster is like Donald, he needs people to help him. What are some other similiarities that makes Webster resemble Donald? i find that...

The similiarity I see would be that they both are dependent on others for their well-being and financial support.  However, Webster appears to be a swindler...is Donald really a swindler purposely?  Perhaps he could be viewed as a "swindler" for spending all of the money his brother gives him over the years, etc.  Another similarity between the two is that Donald and Webster both disappear (Donald ventures off various places and then reappears in his brother's life and Webster takes off with Pete's money).

In the story, Granny said, "What was it? Something not given back...." What wasn't given back?

As Granny is dying, she remembers the time she was jilted by the man she loved, George.  He left her standing at the alter fruitlessly waiting for him to show up.  She was extremely humiliated and hurt.  What George took from her was her pride,  her self-esteem, and her ability to enjoy a completely happy life free from bitterness.  Even though she married another man and had children and had a good, long life, she never got over George's jilting of her and she never was able to forgive him.  Thus, she is left bearing this anger and humiliation as she is dying and therefore cannot die in peace.

Describe as fully as possible the lives of the mother, Dee, and Maggie prior to the events of the story, "Everyday Use." How are the following...

From the very beginning, Maggie and Momma are people who take what life gives them and makes the best of it.  They live simply and happily--they may not have everything they want, but they have everything they need.

Dee, however, is miserable with her life.  She loathes the house, her momma, her sister, her life.  As a result, it is implied that the house burns and Dee may have had something to do with it.  She gets what she wants regardless of the cost to others, and she never truly shows any remorse about the burns Maggie suffers while trying to save items from the house.  What is important to her is that the house she hated is now gone...and she smiles as she watches it burn.

Dee has always been full of herself, loud, spoiled, and self-important.  Her mother and sister are quieter, more reserved, and appreciative. They are not defeated, but they have taken their knocks. Maggie becomes even more reclusive after she is burned, and she seems resentful of Dee whom she describes as someone "the world never says 'No' to". 

Dee leaves as soon as she is able...not looking back, and not taking anything with her...even the quilts and "heritage" that she decides to come back and claim in the story.

Momma finally finds her gusto when she stops giving in to Dee and speaks up for Maggie who never speaks up for herself in more than a slamming door.

Why has the narrator returned to her childhood home in the story "The Leap"?

The only explanation for her return home is in the following sentences:

Since my father's recent death, there is no one to read to her, which is why I returned, in fact, from my failed life where the land is flat. I came home to read to my mother, to read out loud, read long into the dark if I must, to read all night.

Obviously, she has come home in order to care for her mother since her father passed away.  However, there is another reason hidden subtlely in this passage.  The narrator says she is returning from her "failed life."  Some goals of the narrator's  have failed and she has come home as much for her mother's sake as for her own.

For what reasons did the Allied powers finally defeat Nazi Germany in Europe?

There are a number of answers to this and a number of
books written about the subject as you will find huge variances in the arguments of
various historians.

One view, that I tend to agree with, is
that the main reason was the utter destruction of the German army on the Eastern Front
and the willingness of the Russians to sacrifice huge numbers of people and massive
amounts of material to bring about this destruction.

In
many ways the invasion of Normandy and the other campaigns in Western Europe were only
possible because the might of the German Army had been absolutely wrecked on the Eastern
Front.  Had Hitler been able to bring the same forces to bear in the West and not been
so obsessed with trying to take Stalingrad, etc., the war may have gone very
differently.

What does Gatsby mean when he tells Nick, "I can't say anything in his house, old sport," in Chapter Seven of "The Great Gatsby"?

This is Gatsby's admission that he is helpless to press home his temporary emotional advantage over Tom Buchanan. Nick, Gatsby, Tom, Daisy, and others are together in Tom's huge house in brutal heat, and Daisy has just let slip, though an apparently innocent remark, that in fact she is in love with Gatsby:

“Who wants to go to town?” demanded Daisy insistently. Gatsby’s eyes floated toward her. “Ah,” she cried, “you look so cool.”

Their eyes met, and they stared together at each other, alone in space. With an effort she glanced down at the table.

“You always look so cool,” she repeated.

She had told him that she loved him, and Tom Buchanan saw. He was astounded. His mouth opened a little, and he looked at Gatsby, and then back at Daisy as if he had just recognized her....

If Gatsby were secure and hard enough to put Tom down decisively, this would be the moment. Tom is stunned, and as vulnerable as he ever will be. But Gatsby cannot do it. At the crisis, he flinches:

Gatsby started to speak, changed his mind, but not before Tom wheeled and faced him expectantly.

“Have you got your stables here?” asked Gatsby with an effort.

“About a quarter of a mile down the road.”

“Oh.”

....

Gatsby turned to me rigidly:

“I can’t say anything in his house, old sport."

Tom, back in command, changes his mind about Daisy's suggestion and insists on making the trip into town that will result in the death of Myrtle and thus in Gatsby's death.

What are the similarities and differences between the relationship of Portia and Nerissa and that of Bassanio and Antonio

First of all, the similarities:

Portia and Nerissa are close friends and confidantes as are their male counterparts. Both Nerissa and Antonio go to extreme lengths to aid their friends. Nerissa is willing to cross-dress and deceive the Courts without knowing the reason. When she questions Portia, she is told: "I'll tell thee all my whole device...When I am in my coach..." (3.5.81-82). Antonio is willing to barter a pound of flesh with the Jew in a loan for Bassanio, so he can attempt to win Portia's hand: "Yes, Shylock, I will seal unto this bond" (1.3.172). One character in each of the couples (Portia and Antonio, respectively) has power and wealth.

However, it is here the similarities appear to end. Nerissa is a friend but also Portia's waiting-gentlewoman, and she becomes more of an equal in the romantic plot as both Nerissa and Portia are involved in the ring exchange. Nerissa is a co-conspirator and friend. On the other hand, Antonio appears to aid Bassanio out of his own self-interest. In fact, his love for Antonio is so great that upon, what he believes are his last moments of life, he proclaims: "Say how I lov'd you...bid her be the judge...Whether Bassanio had not once a love" (4.1.276-278). Bassanio replies,"But life itself,my wife ...Are not with me esteem'd above thy life" (4.1.285-286). Hmmm. I would suggest that Antonio's relationship with Bassanio is much more complicated than the one between Portia and Nerissa.

What are some similarities between Tybalt and Mercutio?

Tybalt and Mercutio are both loyal to their own sides-
Mercutio to the Montagues, and, Tybalt to his family the Capulets. Mercutio and Tybalt
are both a-lot of like, yet, have
differences

Similarities-

Both
fight for their name

Both die because of Romeo, Romeo
doesn’t kill both, only Tybalt, and, Tybalt kills Mercutio because of Romeo’s immature
acts.

Differences-

Mercutio
is all fun and games, Tybalt is not.

Mercutio is a loyal
family friend to the Montagues, Tybalt to his family the
Capulets.

Tybalt is dearly missed by his Aunt, Uncle and
Cousin.

Mercutio only by his friends (that we know
of)

With Love and Care,

Alice.

What do the lions at the end of the story symbolize in The Old Man and the Sea?

The lions symbolize youth, strength, happiness, and hope for the old man.

Santiago's dream about the lions is first described in the opening fifteen pages of the book.  He used to see the lions playing on the beaches of Africa, where he grew up, and he remembers that "they played like young cats in the dusk and he loved them".  In the midst of his epic battle with the big fish, Santiago again dreams about the lions, and "he (is) happy".

The significance of the book ending with a final reference to the dream of lions is that it shows that the old man, although battered and beaten possibly to the point of death by his encounter on the sea, still retains the ability to hope and dream - of returning to the challenges of life, of celebrating once again the vigor of his youth, of living like the "young cats" frolicking on the sand.  The story ends on a positive note, because the old man is happy when he is dreaming of lions, and whether he regains the strength to return to his beloved pursuits or not, his spirit remains indomitable.

How does Septimus' death affect Clarissa and Lucrezia in "Mrs. Dalloway"?

Clarissa Dalloway identifies with Septimus Warren Smith's views on the meaning of life, she questions whether it is ever possible to be truly happy.

When Septimus commits suicide, Clarissa is hosting her party, she feels guilty.

"She understands the choice of suicide. Her busy habits and parties seem like unworthy trifles, while suicide is a statement about life. She senses the great chasm between those who make this statement and herself."

After Septimus throws himself out the window. his wife, Lucrezia understands what he has done. 

"Dr. Holmes sees it, as does Rezia a moment after. Everyone is upset, and they move clumsily in their distress. Big Ben tolls six o’clock. People think to distract themselves, or they retreat into their memories. Mrs. Filmer appreciates the doctor’s ability to take charge of the situation. He says Rezia must sleep."

In The Grapes Of Wrath, what power do the small farmers have against the banks and the tractors?

The small farmers are tenant farmers, they do not own the land where they live and work.  So, technically, they are powerless to fight against the tractors and the banks.

The owners of the land evict, or throw the tenants off the land, in an effort to survive themselves.  The owners must pay their mortgages to the banks, and in the absence of payment the bank takes back the property.

The small farmers have no choice but to leave the land because the tractors, which are driven by neighbors of the farmers desperate for money to support their own families, are determined to clear the land of the run down houses of the tenants.

"When the farmer threatened to shoot him, the boy said it would do no good; another tractor driver would be pushing the house down even before the farmer was surely hanged for shooting him."

Without ownership rights, the small farmers must leave.  The situation that Steinbeck describes is one of total deprivation.  The owners are responsible to the banks for their mortgages, the tenants, who would share in the farm's profits have no money, the owners have no money, so there is nothing that the small farmers can do except leave the barren land.

Where did Whitney dissappear to in "The Most Dangerous Game"? What happened to him?

Whitney is a minor character in “The Most Dangerous Game.” He is only mentioned at the beginning of the story to create the exposition. Whitney is on the yacht with Rainsford, and after Rainsford and Whitney have a discussion on the ethics of hunting, Whitney goes below deck to sleep for the night. When Rainsford falls into the water after hearing the gun shots, the yacht keeps going, taking Whitney with it. Whitney’s role in the story is important, however, because his discussion with Rainsford foreshadows the events to come. He gives the reader important information about Death-Trap Island, telling Rainsford that "The place has a reputation--a bad one."

How does modern art challenge realism and naturalism?

Modern artists challenge realism. I went over to the MoMA and just randomly pulled their current exhibitions, and I came up with Alexander Calder and Sigalit Landau, but I think you could use most any modern artists. Modern art tries to get people to see things out of context or in a new way. They don't hold themselves to representing either the real world (realism) or the pessimistic side of reality (naturalism). In the two examples I've linked to, the human form is shown in a way that you would never see it in real life. In Calder's case, he represents Josephine Baker, a very attractive woman, in wire as a series of three spirals focusing on her breasts and genitals. Certainly, he does have a point because Baker sexual appeal is incredible, even in a day when African American women weren't supposed to be seen as desirable in the mainstream. However, he makes no attempt to show her as she really is. And the second modern artist I randomly pulled from the MoMA, Sigalit Landau, shows the human form floating in a spiral of watermelons. This defies reality. However, most modern artists consider reality to fail at actually revealing anything important. The emphasize and reinterpret to get people to see something in a new way.

Please explain this quote from Chapter 4 of "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer."In chapter 4, when Tom is getting ready for sunday school, I don't...

Tom is a young man, likely to get dirty.  Remember that at this time, indoor plumbing was not used and daily baths not often taken.   Most of the "washing up" on a daily basis was just a cleaning off of exposed skin.  For a young, active boy like Tom, that means getting ready for Sunday church takes a bit of scrubbing.  He tries to get himself ready, but isn't able to get away all the dirt.  His cousin Mary has to step in to help.

The quote refers to how Tom looks when Mary is done.  He is respectable, able to be seen in public - "a man and a brother".  He is so respectable because the dirt has been removed from his exposed areas - "without distinction of color (i.e., the color of dirt)."  Twain is both tossing in some humor about the dirty nature of young boys, as well as commenting on society, which requires "man" to be clean.

What is the tone of the story "The Rocking Horse Winner" ?

Great question! Your answer to this story is going to be
based on what you think the primary point of the story is. Do you think that this is
primarily a ghost story of the supernatural which focuses on the spooky relationship
between Paul and the rocking horse that enables Paul to eerily predict winning horses or
is this primarily a moral tale which borders on the satirical as Lawrence drives home
didactically his message about the dangers of materialism and how it can rip families
apart and even lead to death?

Based on your answer to this
question you can say that the tone of the story is either ominous and mystical, or
satirical. If you go for the former you can focus on passages that describe how Paul
describes the further you get into the story, particularly on his voice, his eyes and
the rocking of the rocking horse. If satirical is your answer then you can talk about
the greed of the mother and the irony at the end when she has gained her dream but lost
her son in the process.

In John Donne's "Batter my Heart" explain the paradoxes in lines 13 and 14.- Explain the paradoxes in lines 13 and 14.- In lines 1-4, what is God...

Lines 13 and 14 read as follows:

Except you'enthrall mee, never shall be free, Nor ever chast, except you ravish mee. 

There are two paradoxes here. The first is the impossible linkage of freedom and slavery ("enthrall"). The second is the linkage of sexual virtue and being ravished (raped, taken). You can't have both together in either case, but Donne is saying that the only way to be free and virtuous is to be enslaved and raped (or seduced) by God. The earlier sections are related here. Lines 5-8 discuss political freedom; lines 9-12 are full of vocabulary about sexual /romantic union.

What is the conflict that the framework narrator faces, and how is this conflict resolved?

What is interesting about your question is the use of the word "conflict."  I can tell by the way you are asking the question that you mean conflict as the "inciting incident" of the story, the one that needs a "resolution."  This shows that you are referring to plot, ... and not a conflict that sets one person vs. another, or a frog vs. a person, etc.  So let's discuss conflict as the inciting incident of the plot with regard to the full plot.  (Disclaimer: Please realize that I will be discussing the plot IN THE CONTEXT that this is a frame story!  The frame of the story is simple exposition and denouement.)

The exposition of the story includes the frame and learning about the gambling issues of Jim Smiley.  The inciting incident, the conflict, in the plot is Jim Smiley making a bet with his "celebrated jumping frog."  The rising action creates suspense for the reader when the challenger fills the frog with buckshot (little metal balls) in order to keep the frog from jumping.  This is done without Jim Smiley's noticing.  As a result, the climax of the story is that the frog doesn't jump.  Here is the climax:

Then he says, “One, two, three, jump!” and him and the feller touched up the frogs from behind, and the new frog hopped off, but Dan'l give a heave, and hysted up his shoulders so like a Frenchman, but it warn't no use he couldn't budge; he was planted as solid as an anvil, and he couldn't no more stir than if he was anchored out. Smiley was a good deal surprised, and he was disgusted too, but he didn't have no idea what the matter was, of course.

If this is the climax, then the resolution is that Jim Smiley, the famous gambler, loses the bet.  (The denouement, then would be the end of the frame story.)

In conclusion, it's important to note that this is a frame story (in that the narrator was sent to learn something and does, but it is only in this regard that we learn about the frog).  The frame really has nothing to do with the inciting incident of the plot.  In this regard, and as you can see, I disagree with the first two responses.

How does Shakespeare use soliloquy to inform us about Richard's plots, as well as to reveal his character in Act 1 scenes 1, 2 and 3?

Soliloquy is used to keep the audience informed as to what particular characters are thinking and, in this case, plotting.

In all three scenes, Richard is shown to be 'mis'hapen' but very articulate. In scene 1 Richard tells the audience that he is more suited to war than peace because of his deformity and in times of 'romance' is 'determined to prove a villain'. So here the audience's introduction to Richard's cruel, almost abhorrent, personality is formed.

In scene 2 he carries this further by convincing Anne, whose husband and father in law he has had a hand in killing, to accept a ring from him. His soliloquy here reveals his gloating nature. He is very sure of himself and makes sure the audience hears about his plans and schemes as well as how clever he is in achieving them.

By scene 3, not only has has he proven himself to be articulate and scheming, but also murderous as he plots to have Clarence killed. These traits are taken to the ultimate degree throughout the rest of the play.

In "King Lear," what do the motif of eyes symbolize?

Good question. Eyes and all variations on this—physical sight, literal sight, vision, etc.—symbolize clear understanding. In other words, physical vision stands in for spiritual and emotional vision. Lear's great failing early on in the play is that he cannot "see" that Cordelia's love is the truest of all his daughters. The evil characters permanently blind good men, while good characters like Kent briefly take on disguises in order to do good works. But in general, eyes are true vision, and so intensely important and intensely vulnerable.

What steps were taken by Macbeth to remove Banquo and Fleance?

Macbeth ordered them murdered! He hired two men, who were frustrated with their lot in life, convinced them that Banquo was to blame for their terrible circumstances, saying,

"this I made good to you
In our last conference, pass'd in probation with you
How you were borne in hand, how cross'd, the instruments,
Who wrought with them, and all things else that might
To half a soul and to a notion craz'd
Say, 'Thus did Banquo.'"

The murderers waited for Banquo and Fleance in the woods, where they were traveling by horse. They successfully murdered Banquo, but Fleance escaped.

Why does the Host in the Prologue to The Canterbury Tales suggest a prize for the pilgrims at the end if they win the challenge?

I assume that the host does that because he wants the best
chance of having a bunch of really good stories.

The way I
see it, the host was going to be hanging out with these people for quite a long time on
the way to Canterbury for the pilgrimage and on the way back.  Imagine how boring that
would have been back in the days of now portable DVD players or iPods or
anything.

So the host wants to be entertained.  I think he
figures that he'll get better stories and be more entertained if he offers a
prize.

How does Shakespeare contrast joy vs. sorrow in Romeo and Juliet?

Your question is quite large in potential scope, so I will
focus on the use of comic relief in the play.  Shakespeare actually used comedy quite a
bit (and quite effectively) in his tragedies.  If you think about it, there's quite a
bit of tension that develops when an audience is on pins and needles waiting to see what
will unfold as the drama builds.  Shakespeare understood this and often inserted comic
moments (even in highly dramatic scenes) to help relieve the tension for the audience. 
So, in this answer, I'll be using the terms joy and sorrow to relate to the audience's
experience of the events rather than the characters'.

Two
major characters in Romeo and Juliet that can be noted as central
to the dramatic plot, but also providers of comic relief, are the Friar and the Nurse. 
And both provide comic relief for the audience in highly sorrowful/tragic
moments.

Once the Nurse discovers Juliet's cold, seemingly
dead body and calls the Capulets in to see their daughter, Shakespeare gives her some
rather awkward lines:

readability="21">

O woe!  O woeful, woeful, woeful
day.

Most lamentable day.  Most woeful
day

That ever, ever I did yet
behold.

O day, O day, O day, O hateful
day.

...O day, O day, O woeful
day.

Compared to the speeches
of Lord and Lady Capulet that speak eloquently of their love for Juliet, this text seems
to be more an echo of Bottom's silly send-up of Tragedy as Pyramus in the mechanicals
play in A Midsummer Night's
Dream.

However, what if Shakespeare was using
the Nurse to show how sometimes in the most tragic circumstances, people behave in
humorous ways?  If the actor playing the Nurse puts everything they have into these
lines, it seems that the audience will potentially find it funny.  And at that moment,
Shakespeare has shown, in his genius, the comic in the
tragic.

A smaller, but equally telling use of a comic
moment smack dab in the middle of a tragic event is at the end of the play when the 
Friar is hurrying to get to Juliet's tomb ahead of Romeo.  The Friar's
text:

Saint
Francis be my speed.  How oft tonight

Have my old feet
stumbled at graves.  Who's
there?

This text indicates
some very old and basic comic devices:  one -- that he stumbles (a character tripping
onstage is always funny) and two that he is immediately jumpy, wondering what bogey man
is there in the darkness of the tomb.  The moment is creepy and tense for the audience,
and it seems just right, dramatically, for Shakespeare to have intended this small
moment with the Friar to provide some comic relief.

What are the themes of Macbeth?

There are many, but I would say that the two most
important are ambition and fate or destiny.

The theme of
ambition plays out through more or less the whole play.  It is Macbeth's ambitions
(added to those of his wife) that (you can argue) make him do all the things that he
does in this play.

The second theme is brought up by the
witches.  This theme explores how much people's lives are defined by fate and how much
is within people's own control.  Do the witches' prophecies cause Macbeth to do what he
does or does he choose to do these things on his own?

Why are Emilia and Bianca so important in Othello?

Thematically, Emilia and Bianca are important to the play
because they act as foils for Desdemona and her relationship with Othello.  Emilia
is the worldly, cynical wife of Iago who thinks "Men are stomachs" who belch women when
they are through with them.  Her ethics are relative, and she would cheat on her husband
if the price were right.  Desdemona, however, is unconditional in her love for Othello;
and quickly excuses his bad temper as a result of his work. She would not cheat on her
husband "for the whole world."   

Bianca is Cassio's
courtesan.  Even though Bianca and Cassio are obviously fond of each other, their
relationship will never lead to marriage.  They are of two different classes.  Cassio's
laughter at Iago's teasing him about Bianca does much to show the disrespect that
courtiers can have for women of that type. 

Men's views of
women form the heart of the play.  Cassio uses Bianca for sex and jokes about their
relationship.  Iago uses his wife as a subserviant who should obey him when he tells her
to be quiet or to steal a handkerchief.  Othello tends to put Desdemona on a pedestal.
But when he thinks she is unfaithful, he treats her like a whore, with contempt and
rage. 

In exploring these relationships, Shakespeare shows
how fragile and complicated the ties are between men and women. 

What in your opinion is Chaucers view point regarding the social,economic and religious institutions of which his characters in the...

The social classes represented in the General Prologue
are, for the most part, the aristocracy (the Knight and his son, the Squire), the clergy
(Prioress, Monk, Friar, Parson, and a few nuns and others), the tradesmen (Merchant,
Yeoman, Franklin, Skipper, etc. -there are several), and a few who almost fall between
classes such as the Pardoner and the Summoner who work for the church but are not
ordained.  Finally, there are pilgrims such as the Wife of Bath who don't fall into any
clear category.  Based on his descriptions of characters, either in the General
Prologue, or in the prologues to the individual tales, it's is usually easy to determine
how Chaucer felt about his pilgrims.  He liked the Knight. He admired him and his
description is filled with positive words.  Even though he talks about the Squire's
youthful dalliances with women, the impression is that Chaucer liked the Squire, too. 
Therefore, it seems Chaucer was favorable toward the aristocracy.  With with the
exception of the Parson and a few bland references to minor nuns and priests in the
tales, Chaucer is very unfavorable in his descriptions of members of the clergy.  The
Prioress is overly concerned with appearances, manners, her dogs, and what she ate.  She
was not described as being concerned for the poor or needy.  The Monk and the Friar,
too, had displaced concerns.  The Friar is downright loose in his morality.  Even the
Summoner and Pardoner, who aren't clergy but work for the church, are described very
negatively. Chaucer liked the Parson because the Parson concerned himself with people's
needs and not his own.  It's safe to conclude that Chaucer did not care for the clergy
in general.  Chaucer seems a bit mixed in his opinion of the tradesmen.  He isn't too
negative with them, but they all have their faults that he identifies.  The Merchant,
for example, hides the fact that he is in debt, the Lawyer acted like he was busier than
he truly was, and so on.  The Wife of Bath, while possessing some negative
characteristics such as not liking it if someone got ahead of her in church, was such a
strong woman that it's clear Chaucer admired that quality.

How does Tom Robinson's testimony both help and hurt his case? Why does one thing Tom says, hurt his case? To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

In addition to what has been stated, when Tom Robinson
takes the stand in Chapter 18 of To Kill a Mockingbird, he has to
guide his useless left arm onto the Bible in order to be sworn in.  However, his hand
slips off and when he tries to put it back, it slips again.  Judge Taylor growls,
"That'll do , Tom."

It becomes obvious, then, that Tom
Robinson could not have struck Mayella, whose injuries are on the right side of her
face, even before Atticus questions him.  As he responds to the questions of Atticus,
Tom is direct and polite.  When Atticus asks him if he has ever entered the Ewell
property without express permission, Tom replies three times without taking a second
breath, "No, suh, Mr. Finch."  Scout observes that he is a "respectable Negro."  And, he
is kind.  But, this kindness is what damages his chances of an acquittal.  For, he says
what is not politically correct for the 1930s:  He says, "I felt right sorry for her,
she seemed to try more'n the rest of 'em."  Expressing pity for Mayella is construed in
a segregated Southern town to mean that Tom puts himself above Mayella.  And, of course,
even though Mayella is "white trash," she is still white and not socially beneath Tom. 
This statement of Tom Robinson's underscores the theme of racial
prejudice.

Where does Nathan Radley, Boo's brother in "To Kill a Mockingbird," demonstrate anti-social behavior?

None of the Radleys, except Arthur of course, show any indication of wanting to be social. Nathan merely continues this trend. The history of the Radleys, played out by the kids on Atticus's front porch, is testimony to the family's isolation from the rest of the town.

The great travesty, however, is not his own reluctance to socialize with his fellow townspeople, but his destroying his brother's small attempt at connecting to the outside world. By cementing up the knot-hole, Nathan shows his awareness of Arthur's leaving gifts for the Finch kids. Sadly, he also shows that he disapproves of even this small attempt by his brother to reach out to others.

If the amino acid sequences in the proteins of two organisms are similar, why will their DNA also be similar?

Amino acid sequences are determined by nucleotide
sequences in DNA, through their transcribed expression in mRNA and its subsequent
translation, codon after codon, determined by what is called the Genetic Code. In the
examples that follow, similar will be understood as having a
certain degree of colinearity. To understand this,
compare:

PRINCECHARLES

PRINCESSDIANA

You
will promptly recognise colinearity of the first 6 characters. Comparisons between
sequences (be it of amino acids or nucleotides) can only be made if they are aligned
together. Identity can be continuous or not. In this case, you might ask also whether
the first A in each sequence is "conserved" or a coincidence. Any biologist would tend
to argue for coincidence, but this is not always the case. It's a tough decision (see
final part of this answer).

So, at least the first 6 "amino
acids" are "similar" because they can be aligned. Let us now use the one-letter code for
each amino acid (clarifying that PRINCE = Pro-Arg-Ile-Asn-Cys-Glu). Reverse-translating
this, using the standard genetic code, will give
you

CCNCGNAUHAAYUGYGAR (or
CCNAGRAUHAAYUGYGAR)

(in RNA
sequences,

N = A/G/C/U, H = A/C/U, Y = C/U, R =
A/G)

thus realizing that, to produce PRINCE, some positions
in the mRNA (CC..G.AU.AA.UG.GA.) are invariable, and others variable. The code is said
to be degenerate, in the sense that most amino acids are specified
by more than one codon (only two exceptions in the standard code: methionine and
tryptophan). But for a given amino acid all codons are related to some
point. This is why the DNA would have to conserve at least those positions
unchanged in order to specify the conserved tract.

Now
consider another
sequence

TRENCHCHARTLESS

(=
Thr-Arg-Glu-Asn-Cys-His-Cys-His-Ala-Arg-Thr-Leu-Glu-Ser-Ser)

Quite
easily you will recognise that some degree of colinearity remains with PRINCECHARLES,
and note that .R.NC.CHAR-LES- are shared between the two. It would be a good exercise to
verify, considering only the CGN for Arg, CTN for Leu and TCN for Ser, that the mRNA
sequences are,
respectively,

CCNCGNAUHAAYUGYGARTGYCAYGCNCGNCTNGARTCN
and

ACNCGNGARAAYUGYCAYTGYCAYGCNCGNACNCTNGARTCNTCN

The
characters in bold represent nucleotides that must be
identical between both DNAs because they code for an identical amino acid (others are
not emphasised, because they are identical for other
reasons).

These examples should answer the
question.

Now for just a final point: why did I choose
"readable" amino acid sequences for this example? It can be a fun game to play, but the
real reason is that, in all this comparison work, sequences are
information. Bioinformatics is a discipline that struggles to "make
sense" of amino acid sequences by defining what are called protein
domains, that is, segments of the polypeptides to which a function can be
assigned. So, in the first pair of examples, PRINCE and PRINCESS are obviously related,
not only in structure but semantically. Indeed two different proteins can share a
related domain and be otherwise unrelated. If one has reason to decide that the common A
between CHARLES and DIANA is a remnant of shared function, then its DNA sequence
counterpart is said to be conserved phylogenetically (at least the
constant GC in the codons that specify alanine). Of course this decision is not
arbitrary and relies on many comparisons and consensual evolutionary
interpretations.

Why is Thomas Putnam such a bitter man in The Crucible?

Thomas Putnam is bitter for two reasons that come together in the accusations surrounding the trial. First, he feels he's been done wrong—that neighbors and community members have taken advantage of him over the years. This makes him ready to lash out. Second, he's ambitious, specifically materially ambitious. He wants to be a rich landowner. Well, both the way people have done him wrong and the general focus of the community get in the way of this. So, both his nature and his context contribute.

Why is Reverend Hale in Salem in Act 1 of The Crucible?

Reverend Hale is a minister from Boston who has been called to Salem to ascertain whether witchcraft is involved with the strange events happening there.  He has spent "a good deal of his time pondering the invisible world, especially since he had himself encountered a witch in his (own) parish not long before".  Even though the accusations of witchcraft had been found to be questionable in that case, Reverend Hale is looked upon as a sort of expert in matters concerning the supernatural, and as he arrives in Salem, feels "the pride of the specialist whose unique knowledge has at last been publicly called for".  Reverend Hale "conceives of himself much as a young doctor on his first call...he feels himself allied with the best minds of Europe - kings, philosophers, scientists, and ecclesiasts of all churches".  He believes that he is finally being "called upon to face what may be a bloody fight with the Fiend himself" (Act I).

What is the meaning of Hamlet's soliloquy in Act 1, scene 2, and what dramatic purpose does it serve?

Hamlet's soliloquy in Act I, scene 2 is about how much he wants to die. He's crying out with the pain of his existence and wishes he could kill himself. Hamlet also describes the reasons he feels this way. These provide much of the dramatic purpose of the speech.

He feels this way because of the sight before him. He sees his mother married to his uncle, the brother of his father, when his father and King had died only recently. He sees Claudius as inferior in all ways to his dead father and is doubly sickened because his mother hangs her affection on Claudius so strongly.

How did the French and Indian War change the ideological relations between Britain and its American colonies?

The French and Indian War set the stage for future events that no one could ever have imagined.The economic practice of mercantilism, which insured profit only to the mother country was the accepted practice between England and her colonies. As long as these economic policies were met, England left much of the day to day governing of the colonies up to the colonies. It was this "salutory neglect" that ultimately led to the ideological differences between England and the colonies. England won the war, but it paid a great price for that victory. England was bankrupted, and as a result had no choice but to look to her colonies to regain financial stability. The pressures of taxation and naval restrictions imposed by the crown and Parliament, were viewed by the colonists as tyrannical acts. Although the colonies were on a path to becoming "Americanized" they held the lessons of Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89 close to their heart. In their eyes, "Englishmen had rights" under the laws of the mother country. It was only when these laws were usurpted by the crown that the colonies had no choice but to protest their discontent. The political authority that England executed over the colonies after so many years of neglect led to the ideological differences that would ultimately result in the American Revolution. 

What does the phrase "mankind's essential illness" mean to Simon in "Lord of the Flies"? Give reasons for your thinking.

Something "essential" is something pertaining to the essence of a thing, and so what Simon imagines is an illness (not necessarily a sickness, the state of being ill, but perhaps a badness, an evil, a nastiness) which is at the very heart of all humans. What Golding's narrator describes Ralph, in the final page of the book, weeping for is "the darkness of man's heart".

The natural evil of humans, then, is something inexpressible: and indeed, the quote above comes from the sentence "Simon became inarticulate in his efforts to express mankind's essential illness". This darkness, this evil, is something difficult to pin down in words: it is the invisible moral weakness in humans that allow the events of the novel, and its descent into savagery, to occur.

So "mankind's essential illness" is not actually Simon's phrase, but Golding's. What Simon is trying to express is that there is a beast (or something, if you like, beastly, on the island) and that, as he says, "maybe it's only us". Simon's meaning is that the beast - the destructive force which scares the boys - is perhaps not an external force, but something dark within the boys themselves: not in a supernatural way, but something fundamentally bad present in human beings.