What need is awakened in Mrs. Sommers by the pair of silk stockings? What inner conflict does this reveal in her?

Mrs. Sommers is “one who knew the value of bargains.”  She is a very frugal woman whose family struggles to make ends meet, though we know that in her youth she belonged to a fairly well-off family.  In the beginning of the story we learn that Mrs. Sommers has acquired $150, quite a large sum in the nineteenth century, and as she is thinking of how to spend it we see how selfless and responsible she seems to be: all the expenses are for nice things for her children—hats and quality shoes, new fabrics for new clothes—and the thought of her children looking fine and dapper is a happy one to her.

We can imagine that Mrs. Sommers is a very busy, very tired, woman—she has so many children to take care of!  And she must always be on the lookout for bargains and sales, always looking for ways to save money, always sacrificing her own wants and needs for her children—on the day the story takes place, she has even neglected to eat lunch.  And so it comes as no surprise when, confronted with a cheery saleswoman, a beautiful pair of silk stockings, and plenty of pocket money, she cannot resist the temptation to buy something nice for herself, for once.

And with this purchase the floodgates are opened, and she goes on what we would refer to as a “shopping spree.”  She forgets all her plans for the children and makes selfish purchases—a new pair of gloves for herself, new shoes to match her stockings, a dainty dessert and glass of wine, a play…the stockings, along with a comfortable, carefree pre-marriage life, have awakened a need to care for herself, to pamper herself, to live as she used to in comfort and privilege, unconcerned about price or anyone under her care.

We see here an internal struggle between Mrs. Sommers’s personal needs and those of her children—for so long she has put others before herself, sacrificing any comforts she could have had to keep her children well-clothed and well-fed and without appreciable lack—a tendency that completely silenced her previous habits as a member of a wealthier society.  With the acquisition of so much money, these old habits were awakened and the sacrifice of so many years has led her to perhaps go overboard in her “me-time,” indulging more than she would otherwise.  And this is highlighted by the fact that she feels no remorse.  She is desperate to escape her current life, now that she has tasted what it means to be free from financial constraints.  As the man opposite her on the cable car observes, in her face is “…a poignant wish, a powerful longing that the cable car would never stop anywhere, but go on and on with her forever.”

What four events contribute to the way Squeaky views competition in "Raymond's Run"?

Four events that contribute to the way Squeaky views competition in Toni Cade Bambara's short story "Raymond's Run" are her encounter with Gretchen and her friends on the street, her encounter with Mr. Pearson before the race, when she sees Raymond run for the first time, and her exchange with Gretchen after the race is over.

The first exchange happens when Squeaky, whose real name is Hazel Elizabeth Deborah Parker, is walking down the street with her mentally challenged brother while practicing her breathing exercises for the upcoming race. Squeaky mentions that she is always practicing her running, and doesn't care who knows it. She has embarrassed her mother by high-prancing down the street to strengthen her knees. The exchange between Squeaky and Gretchen, who is her greatest competition, can be likened to the "psyching out" many athletes engage in prior to competition. Rosie, one of Gretchen's friends, tells Squeaky that she doesn't think Squeaky will win this year. Rather than making Squeaky doubtful, this exchange strengthens her resolve to win. 

“You signing up for the May Day races?" smiles Mary Louise, only it’s not a smile at all. A dumb question like that doesn’t deserve an answer. Besides, there’s just me and Gretchen standing there really, so no use wasting my breath talking to shadows. "I don’t think you’re going to win this time," says Rosie, trying to signify with her hands on her hips all salty, completely forgetting that I have whupped her behind many times for less salt than that.

"I always win cause I’m the best," I say straight at Gretchen who is, as far as I’m concerned, the only one talking in this ventrilo-quist-dummy routine. Gretchen smiles, but it’s not a smile, and I’m thinking that girls never really smile at each other because they don’t know how and don’t want to know how and there’s probably no one to teach us how, cause grown-up girls don’t know either.

The day of the race, Mr. Pearson, a race official who pins the numbers on the racers, suggests to Squeaky that maybe she should allow someone else to win the race this year. This angers Squeaky and gives her even more incentive to win. She does not view competition as a time to let others have a fair chance; she sees it as a time to give it everything she has. If she proves she is the best, she and her neighbors can take pride in her victory. 

“Well, Hazel Elizabeth Deborah Parker, going to give someone else a break this year?" I squint at him real hard to see if he is seriously thinking I should lose the race on purpose just to give someone else a break. "Only six girls running this time," he continues, shaking his head sadly like it’s my fault all of New York didn’t turn out in sneakers. "That new girl should give you a run for your money." He looks around the park for Gretchen like a periscope in a submarine movie. "Wouldn’t it be a nice gesture if you were. . . to ahhh. . ." I give him such a look he couldn’t finish putting that idea into words. Grown-ups got a lot of nerve sometimes. I pin number seven to myself and stomp away, I’m so burnt.

During the race, Squeaky sees her brother Raymond run. It's the first time she has seen him do this, and it has a profound effect on her. She thinks about the fact that she has many awards for her running, but Raymond doesn't have anything to be proud of. She thinks about giving up running to coach Raymond. 

And it occurs to me, watching how smoothly he climbs hand over hand and remembering how he looked running with his arms down to his side and with the wind pulling his mouth back and his teeth showing and all, it occurred to me that Raymond would make a very fine runner. Doesn’t he always keep up with me on my trots? And he surely knows how to breathe in counts of seven cause he’s always doing it at the dinner table, which drives my brother George up the wall. And I’m smiling to beat the band cause if I’ve lost this race, or if me and Gretchen tied, or even if I’ve won, I can always retire as a runner and begin a whole new career as a coach with Raymond as my champion.

After the race is over and it is announced that Squeaky won, her perceptions of competition have once again changed. Squeaky learns that she can have respect and possibly even a friendship with someone she views as competition. Prior to the race, Squeaky didn't have anything but confrontation on her mind when it came to Gretchen. After the race, she sees her as a worthy opponent who deserves respect. The girls smile at each other, and Squeaky's perceptions have been changed by the exchange.

And I look over at Gretchen. . . And I smile. Cause she’s good, no doubt about it. Maybe she’d like to help me coach Raymond; she obviously is serious about running, as any fool can see. And she nods to congratulate me and then she smiles. And I smile. We stand there with this big smile of respect between us. It’s about as real a smile as girls can do for each other, considering we don’t practice real smiling every day, you know, cause maybe we too busy being flowers or fairies or strawberries instead of something honest and worthy of respect. . . you know. . . like being people.

How does the ending of the story help to develop Charles's character?

The ending of the story presents a surprise to the reader of "A Visit to Grandmother." Throughout most of his life, Charles has harbored a resentment for his brother GL, who, Charles feels, has received much more maternal love and favored attention than he. But, during his visit to his mother years later, she explains to Charles that she has given GL more attention than she has Charles throughout their lives because she always felt she must focus upon GL in order to prevent him from hanging: "GL could-a ended up swinging if I hadn't." 

At the very end of the story, when GL, the reckless brother of Charles, enters the house, it is with the "innocent smile of a five-year-old" that he calls out that he has heard his brother is in town. The friendly tone of his voice, and his ingenuous smile and genuine affection displayed for his brother underscore what his mother has just said of him to Charles as she defends her having given him more attention. It also contradicts the grievances which Charles holds against GL. Therefore, Charles has lived his life with resentment towards his mother, believing that she has preferred GL because he is very light-skinned. He has also harbored resentment toward his brother that has been completely unfounded.

How depressing is Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man? Could it be an act of transformation from ‘pain’ into ‘art’?

The ideas about art that emerge from A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man are not depressing.  They affirm the power of creation in a world that desperately needs it.

Through Stephen, Joyce makes clear that the artistic identity is one of transformation.  Stephen must experience pain as he comes to understand that he does not "fit" into the socially designed classifications of the world around him.  He experiences alienation from this world. He communicates this to Cranly:  

I will tell you what I will do and what I will not do. I will not serve that in which I no longer believe, whether it calls itself my home, my fatherland, or my church: and I will try to express myself in some mode of life or art as freely as I can and as wholly as I can, using for my defense the only arms I allow myself to use -- silence, exile, and cunning.

It is evident that Stephen has experienced challenge in trying to "fit" into worlds that are not for him.  Socially carved out notions like "Fatherland" or "church" don't work.  He recognizes this as a process of transformation, or change.  When he further tells Cranly that he no longer possesses the fear "to be alone" or "to make a mistake," Stephen speaks as an artist.  This is not depressing.  Rather, it is liberating.  

There is significant difficulty in arriving at such a point.  Stephen experiences pain and frustration in establishing his "non serviam credo" and defining his place in the world as an artist.  However, I don't think that Joyce sees this as depressing.  There is little sadness in Stephen's welcoming affirmation of "O life! I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race.”  Joyce shows that the process of transforming into an artist might involve pain. However, it is not a depressing one because it creates something new and meaningful in the world.

Are George Orwell's essay suitable for college level students to read?

Yes, George Orwell's essays are suitable for college students to read and often assigned in college-level courses. Let's take, for example, the essay in question, "Shooting an Elephant." While written, like almost all of Orwell's work, in accessible prose, the essay does not shy away from dealing with complex problems. What Orwell illustrates through the unnecessary suffering and death of the elephant is the barbarous systemic injustice produced by a brutal colonialism. There are no easy answers, no black and white scenarios, no heroes or villains in this piece: the narrator might roundly condemn European colonial abuses, but he also loathes the colonized people of Burma for the ways they express their hatred for the British regime. Orwell simultaneously shows that the killing of the elephant was defensible within the corrupt logic of the colonial system and completely indefensible in the context of a humane social order. Grappling with issues such as these that offer no easy answers is one of the missions of college courses in the humanities. 

How is society unfair to Crooks, Lennie, Candy and Curley's wife in Of Mice and Men?

Crooks: Crooks experiences the unfairness of society through the segregation and racism he experiences on the ranch. Crooks works hard, is intelligent, and causes no trouble, yet he is avoided by others and must keep to himself simply because of the color of his skin.

Lennie: Because of Lennie's mental disability, he is considered a burden and a liability. Lennie is only as useful as his strength which reflects Steinbeck's choice to constantly describe him as animal like. 

Candy: Steinbeck uses Candy's dog to symbolize Candy's ultimate fate in the story. Slim describes his dog as old and useless, and Slim kills the dog because of it. Candy is old himself and has a work injury that impedes him from doing hard labor. Society suggests that the elderly or injured are useless giving Candy no place to belong. 

Curly's Wife: According to society, Curly's Wife's sin is being a beautiful, young woman. Curly's wife is the only woman on the ranch is desperately seeking some kind of connection to deal with the loneliness and isolation she experiences. However, Curly's jealousy and the ranch workers' desire to keep their job cause her to be shunned from all those around her. Even more unfair for her is her marriage to Curly. Curly has a beautiful and young wife, but still seeks out women at Suzy's place. With no one willing to connect with her, a husband who doesn't love her, no family or children of her own, Curly's wife is completely and utterly alone. 

How did A Wrinkle in Time end?

As the last chapter of the novel opens, Charles Wallace remains trapped in IT. Mr. Murray and Calvin both offer to go rescue Charles Wallace, but Mrs. Whatsit tells them their plans will not work. Meg realizes that she is the only one who can save her brother, but this makes her angry.

Nevertheless, she tessers to Camazotz and goes to the CENTRAL Central Intelligence Building to find Charles Wallace. Mrs. Which had told her that she will defeat IT because she has something IT does not have, but Meg does not know what that is.

She finds Charles Wallace, but instead of feeling love for her brother, she feels anger; IT has such great control of her brother that she barely even recognizes him. She begins to think that maybe anger is what IT does not have, so she focuses on her anger. However, anger does not free Charles Wallace.

Meg begins to realize that anger is negative, just like IT. Love, on the other hand, is positive; IT does not have and cannot understand love. She tries to love her brother rather than feeling anger toward IT. She thinks about what Charles Wallace was like when they were younger, before IT got a hold of him. She lovingly calls to him, and he responds! Meg's love frees Charles Wallace from IT.

Suddenly, Meg is back home with her family--all of her family.

What are the effects of war on people?

War can affect people in many ways. War may split families or keep them apart. When a soldier goes to a war zone, the family is no longer together. There is the possibility of death or serious injury. These injuries could be life-long, debilitating injuries. In the Civil War, family members took different sides in the war. Some family members fought each other because they were on different sides.

War can lead to a limitation of our freedoms. The Sedition Act in World War I made critical comments about the government or the war effort illegal. The Espionage Act allowed for anti-war activities to be punished. In World War II people were limited in the amount of certain items they can get each month. This system, called rationing, limited how much beef, gasoline, and sugar people could buy each month.

During a war, the government will increase its role in the economy. The government may decide what will be produced, how many will be produced, and who will produce the items. In World War I, the War Industries Board determined what war materials would be made. In World War II, the War Labor Board mediated labor disputes.

People have to make sacrifices during a war. People who might otherwise not be working may have to go to work in the war industries to make sure the military has enough supplies. The people may be strongly encouraged to loan the government money by purchasing war bonds. They may not be able to buy items that they want to buy, but don’t necessarily need to buy.

If a war is unpopular, such as the Vietnam War, it can lead to mass protests and open defiance of government policies. In the Vietnam War, some people refused to serve in the army. There were many protests against the war across the country, especially on college campuses. Violent actions occurred such as the shootings at Kent State University.

When a country goes to war, the people of that country are affected by the conflict in many ways. Sometimes, it can take decades to undo the effects of a war.

How does the motif of the mockingbird imagery show good and bad in To Kill A Mockingbird?

The mockingbird is a songbird that does not hurt anyone or burden anyone's gardens. As Miss Maudie says, "Your father's right. . . Mockingbirds don't do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. . . That's why it's a sin to kill a mockingbird" (90). Hence, mockingbirds bring songs of happiness and joy without harming anyone or anything else—they represent the innocent and good in life. As a result, they are weak and vulnerable to air-rifles and predators, which is bad. Anyone or anything out to kill a mockingbird obviously has the upper hand in the situation and can hurt the bird anyway they choose. By teaching Jem and Scout not to shoot mockingbirds, Atticus also teaches them to respect nature and never hurt anything weaker than they are.

Unfortunately, other people in the community are bad enough to hurt mockingbirds. For example, the symbolism behind this motif can be compared to Mr. Ewell being bad enough to hurt Tom Robinson, Jem and Scout. In this scenario, Mr. Ewell is more powerful against Tom Robinson (who is symbolized by the mockingbird) because he is white, Tom is black, and a white man's word trumps that of a black man's in the segregated South. Also, Jem and Scout are like mockingbirds on the night that Mr. Ewell attacks them after the school festival. He is more powerful than the kids because he is bigger and stronger, and he has both the element of surprise and a knife.

Another way we see bad with the mockingbird imagery is when the Cunningham lynch mob comes for Tom Robinson while he's in jail. Tom, again, is like the innocent mockingbird, caged and vulnerable, and predators come to take him away to hang him. If it weren't for the children and Atticus being there (protectors of mockingbirds) they may have succeeded in "shooting a mockingbird."

Another example of the mockingbird motif, as good faces off with bad, is when Tom tries to flee prison by climbing over a fence. He is shot by the guards and dies. The guards say that he was so fast and strong that he would have made it if his left arm hadn't been crippled. B.B. Underwood writes an editorial about it in his newspaper after the trial of Tom Robinson which Scout summarizes as follows:

"Mr. Underwood didn't talk about miscarriages of justice, he was writing so children could understand. Mr. Underwood simply figured it was a sin to kill cripples, be they standing, sitting, or escaping. He likened Tom's death to the senseless slaughter of songbirds by hunters and children, and Maycomb thought he was trying to write an editorial poetical enough to be reprinted in The Montgomery Advertiser" (241).

Thus, there seem to be three parts to the mockingbird motif: First, the innocent, vulnerable mockingbirds, then the hunters who are bad and kill them, and finally, the good people who don't kill them and try to stand up to protect their lives.

I would like to know a quote that supports how Scrooge has changed in A Christmas Carol.

Although Ebenezer Scrooge begins to show changes as early on as Stave II when the Ghost of Christmas Past shows him Fezziwig's holiday party, the real changes that we see come toward the end of the story in Stave V, after Scrooge has awakened on Christmas Day.

Scrooge spends Christmas essentially making amends. He commits money to the charity he had refused at the beginning of the story. He visits his nephew Fred for Christmas and actually meets his wife. And most significantly, he visits the Cratchits, provides them with a huge turkey for dinner, and raises Bob's salary. Beyond that, we know this:

"Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him" (Stave V).

Clearly Scrooge has changed completely from the miserable man he was at the beginning of the story. He went form being utterly alone and greedy to part of two families and generous. He embraces life in every way. He also went from being a man no one respected (but they did fear) to a man that earned and gave respect to others.

Why does Johnny think Dally is a hero?

In Chapter 5, Johnny and Ponyboy are hiding out in the abandoned church on Jay Mountain and begin to read the novel Gone With the Wind. Johnny finds the story fascinating and is especially interested in how the Southern gentlemen were portrayed. Johnny then tells Ponyboy that he thinks Dally is gallant. Initially, Ponyboy finds Johnny's comment perplexing because Dally lacks manners like the Southern gentlemen in the novel. However, Johnny explains to Ponyboy how he witnessed Dally selflessly take the blame for a crime that Two-Bit committed. Johnny says that when the police arrested Dally, he gallantly remained calm and did not deny anything. In addition to witnessing Dally act courageously during difficult situations, Johnny has a close relationship with him. Dally views Johnny as a younger brother and truly cares about him. When Johnny is trapped inside the burning church, Dally enters the building and rescues him. Johnny not only views Dally as a hero for acting brave under pressure but also because he saved his life.

Why did Della take pride in the beauty of her hair?

O. Henry exaggerates Della's pride in her beautiful long hair for the same reason that he exaggerates Jim's pride in his gold watch.

Now, there were two possessions of the James Dillingham Youngs in which they both took a mighty pride. One was Jim's gold watch that had been his father's and his grandfather's. The other was Della's hair. Had the Queen of Sheba lived in the flat across the airshaft, Della would have let her hair hang out the window some day to dry just to depreciate Her Majesty's jewels and gifts. Had King Solomon been the janitor, with all his treasures piled up in the basement, Jim would have pulled out his watch every time he passed, just to see him pluck at his beard from envy.

The author's purpose is to convey an impression of both Della's and Jim's feelings when they sacrifice their most treasured possessions for each other. But this is mainly Della's story. Readers will always remember "The Gift of the Magi" as a story about a young woman who sold her beautiful hair in order to buy her husband a Christmas present. Her sacrifice seems much greater than Jim's.

Della naturally takes pride in her hair because it is exceptionally beautiful and she has tended to it for so many years. It is her "crowning glory." But she is not as proud of it as O. Henry claims. It turns out to be worth only twenty dollars on the market. We sympathize with her when she goes to the vulgar Madame Sofroni and is shorn of her hair. We sympathize with her again when she gets home and looks at herself in the mirror. We sympathize with her while she is awaiting her husband's return. All of this is because we have been made to believe that her hair was of the greatest importance to her. She is making a supreme sacrifice out of her love for her husband. It is ironic that she has made the sacrifice for nothing, because Jim has sold the watch for which she sacrificed her hair to get the money to buy him the platinum watch-fob.

O. Henry felt he had to exaggerate the importance of Della's hair--to Della--in order to get the effects he wanted. We can identify with her feelings from the moment she rushes out of the flat to sell her hair up to the moment Jim returns from work and sees her looking like "a Coney Island chorus girl." We learn that one of the reasons Della attached such importance to her hair was that she thought it made Jim love her. But it turns out that he loves her just as much with or without her hair.

How does the allusion to Cassius in Fahrenheit 451 add meaning to the plot?

After Montag's house is burned, Montag takes the hose and turns it toward Captain Beatty. With his life in imminent danger, Beatty taunts Montag with an illusion to Cassuis:

There is no terror, Cassius, in your threats, for I am arm'd so strong in honesty that they pass me by as the idle wind, which I respect not.

This reference comes from Act IV, Scene III of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. By taking on the role of Brutus, Beatty is portraying himself as the tragic hero: he has tried to help Montag, tried to persuade him that books are pointless and cannot lead to happiness, and, in return for his advice, Montag now threatens his life.

The threat on his life, however, does not hold any "terror" for Beatty because he believes in the system. Even if Montag kills him, a replacement captain will soon follow. In other words, Beatty is not afraid of dying because he knows that his murder is not enough to overthrow the firemen and revolutionise society.

In this understanding, then, the allusion to Cassius represents Montag's powerlessness and his social isolation. This is, perhaps, why Montag fires the hose at Beatty and kills him: he is demonstrating his commitment to changing society and saying, in a most violent manner, that nothing will stand in his way. He is prepared to do whatever it takes to change society's attitude to books and to remove all traces of censorship.

(For more information on Cassius and Brutus, please see the second reference link provided.)

What message might Saki be sending to the reader about Mother Nature in the short story "The Interlopers" ?

One message that Saki may be sending to the reader about Mother Nature is that she is opportunistic, and she can override any decisions that man can make just on her whims.

When Ulrich Gradwitz goes out to check his forests that are "of wide extent and well stocked with game" he believes that he may catch his enemy Georg Znaeym out on this night. However, as each man "prayed that misfortune might fall on the other" Mother Nature intervenes as they come around a huge beech tree from opposite sides and they come face to face with each other. There is a momentary pause because "the code of a restraining civilization" causes them to hesitate so. It is then that the opportunist Mother Nature intervenes, sending a massive bolt of lightning that splits the huge birch tree, spilling branches that pinion the two foes underneath them.

Made prisoners of Nature, the two men ponder their chances of rescue and which of their parties will arrive first until Ulrich decides to end the feud, and he asks Georg if he wishes to share the warm wine that he has in a flask. At first Georg rejects the kind offer, but then he agrees and they make peace with one another. After this, they graciously offer the services of their men to the other regardless of who arrives first. But it seems that Mother Nature again has the upper hand as she overrides their decisions and sends her own party to the men--a party of devouring wolves.

How are Doodle and his brother similar in "The Scarlet Ibis"?

Doodle and his brother are both determined.

Doodle and his brother are alike in that they do not give up.  When Doodle was born, everyone was sure he would die.  He was so small and sickly that they built a coffin for him.  Yet Doodle made it.  He lived, and everything was a struggle.  Still, he began to do more and more things regular kids could do.

Brother was also very dedicated.  He was bound and determined to teach Doodle to walk, even though everyone was sure that it was not possible.  Brother and Doodle did not give up. Just as Doodle taught himself to crawl, crawling backward but still crawling, Brother taught Doodle to walk. Neither of them gave in, ever.

Doodle is afraid to learn to walk at first.  Everyone has told him he can’t, and he asks his brother not to hurt him.  However, Doodle’s brother is convinced that with enough hard work they can beat the odds again.

It seemed so hopeless from the beginning that it's a miracle I didn't give up. But all of us must have something or someone to be proud of, and Doodle had become mine. I did not know then that pride is a wonderful, terrible thing, a seed that bears two vines, life and death.

Walking is a monumental struggle for Doodle.  At first all he can do is stand, and then he can take a few steps.  The two boys work on it very hard, pushing and pushing past what seems like the limits of endurance.

Doodle does learn to walk, shocking his parents.  The two boys keep Doodle’s walking a surprise, and on his sixth birthday they reveal it to the family members.  

Unfortunately, Doodle’s brother pushes him too far.  He doesn’t just want him to walk.  Doodle wants a brother who can run and jump and do the things normal kids do.  Doodle tries, but he is too weak and he dies.  His brother feels terrible, realizing that he seems to be the reason for his brother’s early death.  Sometimes pushing too hard is not a good thing.

Would saying that "the system of monarchy is inequitable and unfair" be a good rebuttal to someone saying Australia shouldn't become a republic?

Australia, as it now exists, is a "constitutional monarchy". In other words, it possesses a Constitution, but despite have a Prime Minister and Parliament, it retains Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state.

Claiming that monarchy is inequitable and unfair is a good start for an argument in favor of Australia becoming a republic, but to be convincing, you will need to expand on it.

First, you could point out that a monarch is not elected and does not earn a position, but is given it simply by an accident of heredity, something that does, in fact, seem inequitable. According to Forbes, Queen Elizabeth not only has a personal net worth of some $500 million, but also has free use of over $15 billion worth of real estate and an annual allowance of $13 million subsidized by taxpayers. Given the number of Australians living in poverty, having a monarch who plays a purely symbolic role in government so richly funded seems not just inequitable but a wasteful extravagance.

Next, as part of the question of unfairness, one might argue that for indigenous Australians, the British Queen is monarch of an imperial power that mistreated them and stole their land. It seems an extremely unfair relic of imperialism that they must have as a head of state someone who descends from people who treated them so badly.

Finally, it would be more fair for Australians to choose their own head of state rather than to have the head of a former colonial power still be an unelected head of state by an archaic tradition of heredity. 

At what age in The Giver were people sent to the House of the Old?

There does not seem to be a particular age at which people are sent to the House of the Old in 
The Giver. Once people's children have grown and are out of the house, they are moved to the place of Childless Adults, and there they remain, "As long as they're still working and contributing to the community" (124).  The implication is that when people are no longer able to be productive, they are sent to the House of the Old.  The House of the Old resembles what we think of as a nursing home. The residents are physically cared for, for example, bathed by volunteers like Jonas and Fiona, and it seems that each resident has a room to him or herself, but there are common areas where people can socialize or participate in activities such as crafts.  In some ways the Old are treated like children, for example, as the discipline wand is used on them as it is used on children. The Old are cared for in the House of the Old until they are Released. It is not clear that there is a particular age for this. The Elders no doubt are the people who decide at what point people are no longer productive and needed to be moved to the House of the Old, as they probably also decide at what point people must be Released. 

What injuries did the Tuck family have in the book Tuck Everlasting?

Jesse falls out of a tree and eats poisoned toadstools, the horse gets shot, Pa gets a snakebite, and Ma cuts herself.

The Tuck family had no idea what they were in for when they drank from the spring.  When the Tucks stopped at the spring, all they thought they were doing was relieving their thirst.

"It looked just the way it does now. A clearing, lots of sunshine, that big tree with all those knobby roots. We stopped and everyone took a drink, even the horse." (Ch. 7)

This would be the most fateful day of their lives though.  Instead of just getting some water, the Tucks got immortality.  They did not realize it at first, however.  It wasn’t until the first accident that they realized that none of them could die.

First, Jesse fell out of a tree.  They were sure that he would break his neck, but no harm came to him.  If that wasn’t odd enough, the incident with the horse was certainly too unusual to discount.

"Not long after," Miles went on, "some hunters come by one day at sunset. The horse was out grazing by some trees and they shot him. Mistook him for a deer, they said. Can you fancy that? But the thing is, they didn't kill him. The bullet went right on through him, and didn't hardly even leave a mark." (Ch. 7)

The fact that the bullet just went through the horse and the horse not only did not die, but was not even injured, is evidence that everyone is immortal.  Soon Jesse ate poisoned toadstools and Pa got a snakebite.  Both should have died, but neither was affected.  Ma cut herself slicing bread, and nothing happened.

That wasn’t the strangest thing, believe it or not.  The greatest evidence of their immortality was looking them in the mirror.

But it was the passage of time that worried them most. They had worked the farm, settled down, made friends. But after ten years, then twenty, they had to face the fact that there was something terribly wrong. None of them was getting any older. (Ch. 7)

So while the cat dies of old age, none of the Tucks even age.  Miles married, but his wife and children aged and he didn’t.  She accused him of selling his soul to the Devil and left him.

Living forever sounds great, but the Tucks find that they are actually very lonely.  Miles loses his family, Jesse never gets to have one, and Ma and Pa have to live far away from others so no one will notice their secret.

What is the function of the cell membrane ?

The cell membrane is a semipermeable covering of the cytoplasmic contents of a cell. The function of the cell membrane is to protect the cell. The cell membrane protects the cell because it is selectively permeable. This means that the cell membrane allows good things in and out of the cell, but prevents toxins and other harmful substances from entering the cell. The cell membrane is composed of a phospholipid bilayer. Ions and water are small enough to fit through the spaces between the phospholipids of the cell membrane. Proteins can be found within the phospholipid bilayer. These proteins act as channels through which larger substances can pass through the cell. However, the proteins are specific to which substances can enter and exit through their channels. In order to pass through a protein channel, the shape of the passing substance must be complementary to the shape of the protein.

Does "A Rose for Emily" seem to you totally grim, or do you find any humor in it?

Since this question asks for an opinion, the answer can be either "yes" or "no," although you'd have to give evidence for your opinion either way.

For everything that I might find funny in the story, someone else could come in and say, "To me, that's not funny. That's dark, or morbid, or weird."

So, look for things in the tale that are surprising, or ironic, or awkward, and those are the things that some readers might find funny. Let's check out some examples.

1. Some of the images and bits of information are bizarre and ridiculous. They make you stop and go “Um, what?” Miss Emily’s house is described as “lifting its stubborn and coquettish decay above the cotton wagons and the gasoline pumps--an eyesore among eyesores.” To me, it’s funny that one house would stick out from the others like a flirtatious old hag.

2. Look at Miss Emily’s haughty and crazy old-lady behaviors. She won’t pay her taxes, and the mayor himself contacts her about it. She writes back to him “a note on paper of an archaic shape, in a thin, flowing calligraphy in faded ink.” Can you imagine a fancy, fussy little note that puts a mayor in his place? That strikes me as hilarious.

3. Notice how Miss Emily gets away with things because people are intimidated by her. Yet we know she’s just a little old lady. Here’s what happens when she went to buy some poison from the pharmacist and he wants to make sure she's going to just use it on rats...not people:

“The druggist looked down at her. She looked back at him, erect, her face like a strained flag. ‘Why, of course,’ the druggist said. ‘If that's what you want. But the law requires you to tell what you are going to use it for.’

Miss Emily just stared at him, her head tilted back in order to look him eye for eye, until he looked away and went and got the arsenic and wrapped it up.”

Whether or not you think the more morbid plot points are funny, you could make a good argument for much of the story having a kind of twisted, subtle humor.

What purpose is the "family" supposed to serve in Montag's society?

In Montag's society, people become invested in the lives of fictitious "families" that appear in interactive, continuously running, soap opera-like television shows they watch on their parlor walls. Like everything generated by Montag's society, these shows are supposed to distract people from their real lives so that literacy and free thought will seem needless. Mildred, Montag's wife, is completely enthralled by these shows and watches them on their three parlor walls all day long. She is especially excited about the recently created technology that allows the audience to respond to and interact with the people on the shows. Mildred is so completely swept up in the ways of her world that when she does start reading books, not only does she not understand what she's reading, but she says the following:

"Books aren't people. You read and I look all around, but there isn't anybody! . . . Now, my 'family' is people. They tell me things: I laugh, they laugh! And the colors! . . . And besides, if Captain Beatty knew about those books. . . He might come and burn the house and the 'family.' That's awful! Think of our investment" (73).

Mildred has been so completely sucked in by her "family" that she has bonded with a TV show more than she has with her own husband. She values the TV technology because that is what brings her the show and the brilliant colors and music that distract her from establishing a strong bond with her own family. It is probably the reason why she and Montag don't have any children—because she's always watching someone else's family. This is exactly what society accepts in Montag's culture. In their society, it is more important to seek one's own pleasure rather than to sacrifice one's life for others. The "family" creates a bond with viewers in a way that keeps them from forming their own families. It perpetuates a selfish society that values hedonism rather than family.

In what ways was the Weeksboro whirligig different?

The Weeksboro whirligig was different in the sense that it was built without reference to Brent's whirligig book. Because he had misplaced his book, Brent decided to build his last whirligig using his own imagination and his own creative endeavors. To that end, he combined scraps of his leftover wood with material he scavenged from around the camp. Brent also visited the town dump to appropriate more materials for his whirligig.

In the end, the whirligig was three times the size of the others. From the materials he found, Brent fashioned the pinwheels from soda cans and the propellers from 'golf-motif coasters, linoleum scraps, license plates, and lobster-trap slats.' Also, the plywood rendition of Lea Zamora's face was the most accurate of the four whirligigs Brent had fashioned.

Brent had also given the wood a coat of varnish to protect it against the harsh Maine weather. He drilled holes in seashells to make a necklace; this he hung over the head of Lea's figurine, along with a set of wind chimes he found at the town dump. Brent glued sea glass and red reflectors into the figurine's hair. In all, the Weeksboro whirligig was the most colorful and kinetic of the four whirligigs.

What is the ultimate source of energy that powers wind?

The ultimate source of wind energy is the sun. 

The sun's rays heat the earth and its atmosphere. However, this heating effect is not uniformly distributed. The uneven heating of our atmosphere by the Sun causes the winds. An easy way to understand this is by thinking about what happens when the air is heated. Hot air rises up in the atmosphere, while the colder air settles down to take the place vacated by the hot winds. This motion of hot and cold air is what we experience as wind. The motion of air from hotter to colder regions can also take place along the earth's surface. 

Depending on the temperature variation, topography, and a number of other factors, winds can be weak or very strong. These days, special emphasis is being placed on the utilization of wind energy for electricity generation and thereby using it as a source of renewable energy.

Hope this helps. 

Is a simile closely related to an allusion?

A simile is not closely related to an allusion.  A simile is a comparison of one thing with another, linked with the words like or as.  For example, my love is like a red, red rose compares the speaker’s love to a rose, and uses the word like to facilitate the comparison.  Calling someone slippery as an eel is also an example of a simile, comparing someone to an eel using the word as.

An allusion, however, is simply an indirect reference to something or someone.  Mentioning fire and brimstone or the walls of Jericho in a story, for example, would be making Biblical allusions.  So, while a simile is a direct comparison of one thing to another, an allusion is simply a passing reference or mention.  An allusion could be a part of a simile, as in The underdog won the match like David against Goliath, but in such an instance we would have two completely separate devices at play – one a comparison, the other a reference.

Early in Goethe’s Faust, Faust tells Mephistopheles that he desires “to expand my single self titanically and, in the end, go down with all the...

Faust by Johann Goethe is a play that resists easy and simplistic analysis. It was written over a period of half a century, begun in 1772 and not completed until 1831. It is not a simple tale of good versus evil or God versus Devil, but almost a dualistic argument that both good and evil are necessary for the world and function in a complementary fashion, with evil a force that subverts complacency and good provides ultimate goals.

Faust himself is also a study in contrasts. He starts of the play as a scholar and generally good man who finds his life hollow and in some ways routine. This makes him vulnerable to temptation by Mephistopheles, who rather than appearing evil incarnate at times seems almost more of a prankster. Faust's quest for ecstasy in the company of the Devil figure in Part 1 at times seems almost parodic, with the pleasures offered seeming trivial and evil mundane. His seduction of Gretchen and her death, though, begin to make him understand that thoughtless seeking of pleasure can cause serious harm. It is with this death that we begin to see both the acts of Faust and Mephistopheles as almost a reductio ad absurdum of Romanticism, with the grand seductions and efforts to "burn with a hard, gem-like flame" (as Pater would later phrase it) seeming more a midlife crisis than an example to emulate.

In old age, though, Faust begins to eschew both his earlier pleasure-seeking and his original restless curiosity, and instead immerses himself in the desire to do good works. The end of Part II seems to suggest that in his own old age, Goethe realized that the good life, eudaimonia in classical Greek philosophy, is achieved neither by an unthinking rut of bourgeois conformity nor an equal mindless restless seeking after sensual pleasure, but in finding a place in the human world in which one`s acts gain meaning from the way they give back to the community. Faust really only finds a moment of pure happiness when he begins to help others rather than focus simply on his own pleasure.

The term bourgeois mediocrity is made problematic by the way it itself expresses a certain rather narrow-minded snobbery. Describing a traditional family, in which parents work hard to provide a safe and nurturing environment for their children, contribute to their local communities, and generally live a peaceful and untroubled life as mediocre, seems almost immature. Even recent scientific studies on happiness show that people who are fully embedded in their communities and who give back to their communities in the form of charitable activities, as Faust does in his old age, are actually happier than people living freer and less charitable lives.

While it is not a bad thing for young people to travel, explore different cultures and lifestyles, and experiment to discover their true passions, over the full human lifespan, as Faust discovers, a deeper form of happiness is found not in momentary sensual pleasure, but in a form of selflessness, and giving back to society. In the play, after all, God wins the bet.

What is a man vs. technology conflict in Lois Lowry's The Giver?

One type of technology that proves to be quite a conflict in Lois Lowry's The Giver is medical technology. Normally, when we think of technology, computers and TVs come to mind. We sometimes forget that medical advances are also a type of technology. There are two major types of medical technology that influence the plot and conflict for Jonas: the pill that suppresses the Stirrings and the injection used to Release (or kill) people. 

First, Jonas is introduced to the medicine (or pill) that suppresses the Stirrings after he has a vivid dream about his friend Fiona. Everyone must tell what they dreamed at breakfast time; so after Jonas tells his dream one morning, his mother knows that he has hit puberty and is ready for the pill. This pill not only suppresses sensual feelings, but it also takes away the desire for preference. For example, Jonas might want to date Fiona after having such a dream. He may even want to marry her one day; but in a world of Sameness, the community can't have preferential treatment towards any other person. That would upset the family units and the fact that free choice is undesirable. Thus, the Stirrings pill does much more than simply suppress sensual feelings.

Next, the injection that the community uses to Release people is deadly. Modern science does this with animals when it is time to "put them down," but we don't use it on people. For example, a veterinarian uses a sleeping aide first, then injects the animal with the deadly serum. Jonas's father, on the other hand, does not use a sleeping serum first, he simply injects the deadly medicine as follows:

"He took out a syringe and a small bottle. Very carefully he inserted the needle into the bottle and began to fill the syringe with a clear liquid. . . his father began very carefully to direct the needle into the top of a new child's forehead, puncturing the place where the fragile skin pulsed. The newborn squirmed, and wailed faintly" (149).

This is the most significant use of medical technology in the book because it is the turning point for Jonas. It is Jonas vs. the community and their deadly medical technology after this. He can't bear the fact that killing babies is an approved practice! After seeing his father kill a baby, he plots to overthrow the community with the Giver's help.

The Scarlet Letter: In accepting Hester, what may the puritans be really accepting?

I would argue that by accepting Hester the Puritans are actually moving beyond their own judgments to live in better concert with their professed values. Hester's crime is adultery. They judge her very severely for this crime. As devout Christians, this draws similarity to the adulteress that Christ saves from stoning. He claims that only "he without say may cast the first stone." As imperfect people themselves, the Puritans are not living up to this teaching. By seeking atonement through good works, Hester challenges the community to test its own values and accept human imperfection. 

This is especially true, since, as Puritans, they do not believe it is human sins or good works that causes salvation; it is the grace of god. Hester represents not only this struggle between justice and mercy within the theology of Puritanism but also within our human values as a whole. How willing are we to accept our own imperfections in others?

What are some examples of caring in the book The Outsiders?

One major example of caring is Darry's willingness to work two jobs and give up all the things he wants to do in order to keep the boys together. He is awfully young to have assumed the responsibility to take care of the family but he does it quickly and is willing to do whatever it takes to keep them together.

Another example is Ponyboy's willingness to run off with Johnny so that he won't be alone. He is also willing to read to Johnny from the book and is totally destroyed when Johnny dies from the wounds he sustained while rescuing the boys in the church.

Which is of course another example of caring. When Johnny and Dally and Ponyboy get back to the church, Johnny and Pony assume it might be their fault that the fire started. So they rush in to save the kids that are trapped in the back without a second thought. They obviously care about other people and are willing to risk their own lives to save them.

Examine how Shakespeare presents the way people show commitment in Romeo and Juliet. Focus on one or two characters in your response.

Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet is one of his most famous tragedies. Although it is a tragedy it is populated by people who are mostly likable. Only Tyblat comes across as villainous, and even he is loved by his family, especially the Nurse. Therefore, the characters in the play show various forms of commitment to each other. The most obvious example is Juliet's commitment to Romeo.

Although she is only 13 years old, Juliet shows a fierce loyalty to Romeo. She risks everything by falling in love and secretly marrying him. Shortly after meeting Romeo she learns his true identity, but this does not deter her love which she expresses immediately in Act I, Scene 5:

My only love sprung from my only hate!
Too early seen unknown, and known too late!
Prodigious birth of love it is to me
That I must love a loathèd enemy.

She basically lies to her parents by not revealing her plans and faces a very difficult dilemma when she learns that Romeo has killed Tybalt. She chooses to stick with Romeo and sends the Nurse to find him so they can consummate the marriage. Later, when her father presses her to marry Count Paris she again demonstrates her love for Romeo by agreeing to the Friar's very frightening plan. She decides to fake her own death and be placed in a tomb so that she can be reunited with her husband. Not many teen girls would choose such a path. Before drinking the potion she expresses her fears in the best soliloquy of the play in Act IV, Scene 3:

How if, when I am laid into the tomb,
I wake before the time that Romeo
Come to redeem me? There’s a fearful point.
Shall I not then be stifled in the vault,
To whose foul mouth no healthsome air breathes in,
And there die strangled ere my Romeo comes?

Finally, Juliet shows the ultimate commitment when, after discovering Romeo dead in the tomb of poisoning, she uses a dagger to kill herself so she can join her love in the hereafter.

Another character who shows loyalty is the Friar. He's loyal not only to Romeo and Juliet but also to the city of Verona. Unfortunately, his plans fall apart and he shares responsibility for the final tragedy in the play. Nevertheless he does what he thinks is right for everyone concerned.

The Friar agrees to marry Romeo, partly out of his loyalty to the son of Montague, but also because he thinks marrying a Montague to a Capulet will end the feud between the two families which has ravaged Verona. He says, in Act II, Scene 3:

But come, young waverer, come, go with me.
In one respect I’ll thy assistant be,
For this alliance may so happy prove
To turn your households’ rancor to pure love.

The reader also should consider the Friar's words of wisdom to Romeo about taking love slowly and not rushing into things as an example of his love and  commitment. Likewise, he shows loyalty to Juliet by devising the plan which will allow her to avoid marrying Paris and be reunited with Romeo. That the Friar's plans go astray does not change the fact that he was truly loyal to the couple and was doing his best to bring them together and end the terrible feud.

True or false: The nervous system provides a slow action control system.

Actually, that is a false statement. The nervous system is a very fast acting control system. 

In mammals, including humans, the nervous system is comprised of the brain, spinal cord, and nerves. The nerves consist of neurons, or nerve cells. Its purpose is the coordination and control of the body. It functions by reacting to stimuli inside and outside of the body. Stimuli are any changes that occur which the body needs to respond to in order to maintain homeostasis.

The central nervous system performs the function of relaying nerve messages, analyzing information and processing information so that a response can occur. The peripheral nervous system transmits impulses between the surroundings and the central nervous system. 

If an organism is unable to respond to changes, whether inside its body or outside in its surroundings, it can lead to death. A response needs to be very rapid in order to be effective.

For instance, if an automobile is speeding towards a person, their sense organs will see and hear the oncoming auto, send an impulse to the spinal cord, which will send another impulse to nerves in the legs to stimulate muscles which will allow the person to jump out of the way. All of this is done extremely fast and is called a reflex. Reflexes allow the body to quickly respond to dangerous situations without having to waste precious time to think them through. Later, another message to the brain will let someone realize what just happened. 

To summarize, the action of the nervous system is very rapid in order to maintain homeostasis within the organism's body and to keep an organism safe in its environment.

In "The Bet," the banker believes “on my part it was the caprice of a pampered man" that he took the bet with the lawyer. Why does he think so at...

The impending danger of getting bankrupt by losing two million rubles to the lawyer makes the banker curse himself for his present predicament. The story begins in retrospection when the banker recalls how he got into this big trouble.

Contrary to his expectation, the lawyer has been able to stay in solitary confinement for fifteen years. Now, it’s only one night to go and he will have to part with his two million rubles.

For the banker had "millions beyond his reckoning," he had never valued money. In the past fifteen years, "desperate gambling on the Stock Exchange, wild speculation" and self-indulgence have "led to the decline of his fortune and the proud, fearless, self-confident millionaire had become a banker of middling rank, trembling at every rise and fall in his investments."

If he loses his two millions to the lawyer, he would be deprived of the "last penny" he has got. 

Finding himself trapped and helpless, the banker has nobody else to accuse but himself. He laments the moment when he had staked his millions for a "nonsensical and meaningless" bet.

Now, when he has to part with his millions of rubles, he realizes that it was solely “the caprice of a pampered man” that has put him into such a difficult situation. He realizes the futility of the bet, which has brought him no good.

He laments his decision for he fears he'll "be utterly ruined."

Chekov might be suggesting to his readers that quite often we act or make decisions impulsively, without considering the outcome of such actions. Acting this way often gets us into big trouble. We ought to be doing things in a careful and thoughtful manner.

What is each of the four sections of In Cold Blood by Truman Capote about?

In Cold Blood by Truman Capote is a narrative history about the murder of the Clutter family in Holcomb, Kansas in 1959. In the first part, "The Last to See them Alive," Capote describes the members of the Clutter family, a prosperous and devout farm family. Herb, the father; Kenyon, the son; Nancy, the daughter; and Bonnie, the mother (who is confined to her bed with a nervous disorder). Two older daughters are married and live away from home. The section also contains a description of the murderers, Perry Smith and Richard "Dick" Hickock. They were recently released from jail in Kansas, and one of Dick's cellmates had told him about Herb Clutter and had misinformed him that Herb kept a great deal of money in his house. At the end of the section, the killers arrive at the Clutter's house, and the bodies are discovered in the morning. Capote does not describe the murders in the first section.

In the second section, "Persons Unknown," the chief inspector involved in the murder, Alvin Dewey, tries to put together the confusing clues. While the murders seem to have been motivated by robbery, less than $50, a pair of binoculars, and a portable radio were taken. Bonnie and Nancy Clutter were tied up and tucked into their beds, and the son, Kenyon, rested on a pillow before being shot in the face. The father, Herb, had his throat slit, and his body rests on a mattress box. The community presses Dewey to arrest a suspect, but the crime continues to confound the authorities. Perry Smith and Dick Hickock have now escaped to Mexico, and Capote describes Smith's childhood in graphic detail using letters and articles from his childhood that Smith is deciding whether to keep or jettison. Smith had a horrendous childhood, as his mother was an alcoholic, his brother and sister killed themselves, and his father roamed around and prevented Smith from getting much of an education. He was raised partly in orphanages, where he was routinely abused.

In the third section, "The Answer," Hickock's former cellmate, Floyd Wells, tells authorities that he suspects Smith and Hickock of the murders. Wells had told Hickock that Clutter was a prosperous farmer with a safe in his house. Smith and Hickock have run out of money and return to Kansas to pass bad checks. They are picked up in Las Vegas, and Hickock immediately confesses to the crime (and Smith follows suit). They explain that they murdered the family intending to get money and killed them to avoid having any witnesses left alive. Hickock had planned to rape Nancy, but Smith had prevented him. Smith, incensed and in a rage after seeing Hickock's intention to rape the girl, slit Herb Clutter's throat. It is Clutter's success and sanity that enrage Smith. 

In the fourth section, "The Corner," the two killers are taken to separate prison cells, where they fight about the confession. Smith wants to confess to all four murders to soothe Herb's mother, whom he likes. Dr. Jones, a court psychiatrist, evaluates them to assess their sanity, and they describe their childhood to him in writing. Smith's childhood is retold in detail, but they are declared sane enough to have known right from wrong. They are found guilty and are given the death penalty. After being transferred to death row, "the Corner," Hickock mounts a successful attempt to get an appeal. Capote describes the other inmates on death row. Eventually, their appeal exhausted, they are executed in 1965.

List three warnings that you think Stephen Vincent Benet is giving his reader in the story. Of all the warnings, which, if any, do you think is...

Warning number one could be a warning against losing knowledge.  The story takes place in the future, but all of society's current learning and technology has been lost; therefore, John and his people are essentially living in the 1600's.  

Warning number two could be a warning against gaining too much knowledge.  This warning runs counter to the first warning, which is why this story is so interesting.  The people of the past gained so much knowledge that it destroyed them.  Their knowledge, technology, weapons, etc. led to their annihilation.  

Warning number three could be a general "beware of weapons of mass destruction."  "The Great Burning" in the story is likely a nuclear holocaust.  It killed most of the people on the planet.  With great, powerful weapons comes great responsibility. 

I believe that warning number two is most relevant today.  We have amazing knowledge and technology, and it seems that the rate of gained knowledge is increasing exponentially.  But I do at times think that scientists and engineers are more concerned with whether or not they can do something instead of asking whether or not they should do something. 

What is Rozencrantz and Guildenstern's role in the play Hamlet?

The play "Hamlet" draws heavily on the themes of betrayal and revenge. Hamlet, after encountering the ghost of his father, the former king, becomes entangled in seeking revenge against his uncle, the current king, both for having supposedly murdered his father and then married his former sister-in-law. In the midst of his struggles with grief, revenge, and possible insanity, Hamlet becomes noticeably troubled, leading the king and queen to send for Rosencratz and Guildenstern, two courtiers and childhood friends of Hamlet. They are called upon by the royal couple to unearth what is causing Hamlet's distress. Initially, Hamlet receives them fondly, referring to them as "My excellent good friends" in line 227. However, he quickly sees past their claims of visiting for the sake of their old friendship and discerns their true connections to the king. While it could be argued that their intentions were based on their continued love for Hamlet, Rosencratz and Guildenstern's involvement with Claudius poisons Hamlet's opinions of them. In this, they add another layer of betrayal by Claudius to Hamlet's perspective. Arguably, this additional deception, and by such close friends, solidifies Hamlet's commitment to seeking revenge against Claudius. In switching the letter to the King of England to incite the execution of his former friends, Hamlet expresses no remorse or sympathy, blaming their fate on their foolish involvement with Claudius. 

I need help with the book Fierce Attachments by Vivian Gornick.

This book is a memoir written by Vivian Gornick about her own life when she was young. In short, Gornick always struggled with her mother in order to gain independence from her. The book is haunting due to Gornick’s mother’s attachment to her daughter which is definitely “fierce.”

Gornick presents a taboo subject by naming Freud as the creator of the “oedipal complex,” but furthers the idea by saying that there is an underlying sexual nature in the mother and daughter bond. Gornick is born in the Bronx NY as a child of what she calls “urban peasants.” Gornick’s mom is continually upset (borderline clinical depression) about the untimely death of her husband. As a result, she is always interested in the romantic exploits of her next door neighbor, Nettie. Gornick grows up looking at these two different feminine identities as she tries to find love. As Gornick describes it, there would be “years of calm” followed by years of “wildness.” Further, Gornick says she absorbed these memories “as I would chloroform on a cloth laid against my face.”

We walk with the two main characters (Gornick and her mother) through the streets of the Bronx as they reminisce and, as readers, we learn to like them both. Gornick is brave in bringing these subjects up with her mother while Vivian is also still powerful and wise (and still trying to exert control).

In Henry's "Speech in the Virginia Convention," what is an example of inductive argument?

Let's begin with a definition and example of induction from a peer-reviewed academic resource, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

An inductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer merely to establish or increase the probability of its conclusion. Here is a mildly strong inductive argument: Every time I've walked by that dog, he hasn't tried to bite me. So, the next time I walk by that dog he won't try to bite me.

In Henry's "Speech to the Virginia Convention," he uses induction when he observes that with regard to the colonies' relationship with Britain, he can only predict what Britain will do in the future by remembering what it has done in the past. Here are Henry's own words:

"I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?"

Henry reiterates the point that the colonies have tried negotiation for a decade but nothing substantive has resulted. Using induction once again, he describes how the colonies have sent petitions, "remonstrated" (protested reproachfully), and asked Britain for change most humbly. He reminds his audience that Britain's response was to ignore their petitions, to answer their protests with violence, and to "disregard" their humble requests.  

Just like the example above with the dog, Henry believes there is nothing to indicate that Britain will behave any differently henceforward.

At what type of event did Patrick Henry deliver his "Liberty or Death" speech? Was it a political event, a celebration, an observation, a critique,...

On March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry delivered his famous “Liberty or Death” speech at the Second Virginia Convention, which was held at Richmond, Virginia. Although he was speaking to the delegation, he personally addressed the president of the Convention, Peyton Randolph of Williamsburg. This would be considered to be a political event.

Although Henry was known for his spontaneous oratorical skills this speech is considered to be his most enduring. While most of the delegates believed that peace with England could be maintained and wanted to wait patiently for the British Crown to answer their concerns, Patrick Henry urged the delegates to put forth a call to arms by establishing a militia in Virginia. He felt the British were already establishing their military strength in the colonies and he wanted Virginia to be prepared as he understood that the Revolutionary War was inevitable.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace - but there is no peace. The war is actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

In "The Adventure of the Speckled Band," what does the evidence Holmes has discovered suggest?

At the end of the story, after Helen Stoner has been saved from death and Dr. Grimesby Roylott has been killed by his own snake, Holmes tells Watson all about his deductions from the evidence found at Stoke Moran.

My attention was speedily drawn, as I have already remarked to you, to this ventilator, and to the bell-rope which hung down to the bed. The discovery that this was a dummy, and that the bed was clamped to the floor, instantly gave rise to the suspicion that the rope was there as a bridge for something passing through the hole and coming to the bed. The idea of a snake instantly occurred to me, and when I coupled it with my knowledge that the doctor was furnished with a supply of creatures from India, I felt that I was probably on the right track.

So Holmes was expecting a snake when he and Watson were sitting in silence in the former bedroom of Julia Stoner which had recently been assigned to her sister Helen. What the two men do not realize is that the snake is actually there on the bed for several hours. Holmes doesn't see it until, at around three-thirty in the morning, he hears the low whistle his client Helen had told him about. That means Dr. Roylott is summoning it back up the bell-pull, through the ventilator, and into his adjoining room. Holmes strikes a match and lashes at the speckled band climbing back to the ventilator. Since Holmes had been sitting on the side of the bed, he must have been sitting very close to the coiled snake for several hours without knowing it.

Holmes sees other evidence when he examines the bedrooms earlier in the day. Dr. Roylott has a dog-leash with a noose fashioned at the end of it. He has a saucer containing some milk on top of a steel safe. Holmes deduces that Roylott has trained a snake to return through the ventilator at the sound of a low whistle by rewarding it with the milk and then locking it in the safe. Holmes examines the plain wooden chair in Roylott's room and sees evidence that he must have been standing on it in order to put his poisonous snake through the ventilator. No doubt he would also have been standing on that chair to recapture the snake when it returned, but when Holmes lashed it with his cane the snake returned before the doctor was prepared to slip the noose around it. That was how he came to be fatally bitten. When Holmes and Watson see him:

Beside this table, on the wooden chair, sat Dr. Grimesby Roylott clad in a long grey dressing-gown, his bare ankles protruding beneath, and his feet thrust into red heelless Turkish slippers. Across his lap lay the short stock with the long lash which we had noticed during the day. His chin was cocked upward and his eyes were fixed in a dreadful, rigid stare at the corner of the ceiling. Round his brow he had a peculiar yellow band, with brownish speckles, which seemed to be bound tightly round his head. 

There is also evidence that Helen was moved into Julia's former bedroom in order to be in the bed under the ventilator and beside the dummy bell-pull.

"By the way, there does not seem to be any very pressing need for repairs at that end wall.”

“There were none. I believe that it was an excuse to move me from my room.”

Arthur Conan Doyle titled his story "The Adventure of the Speckled Band" and never mentions the word "snake" until the very end. He did not want his readers to get the idea of a snake being used for murder because that would spoil the ending. Helen only uses the words "speckled band" when telling about Julia'a death, and even when Holmes and Watson see it wrapped around Dr. Roylott's head, 

“The band! the speckled band!” whispered Holmes.

In Macbeth Act 1, Scene 3, what is an example of dramatic irony?

The reader knows that the witches are going to mess with Macbeth, but Macbeth does not.

Dramatic irony occurs when the reader or audience knows something that the characters do not.  In this case, the witches are discussing how they will mess with Macbeth.  The audience or reader knows what will happen, but Macbeth does not.

In the beginning of the scene, the Weird Sisters describe their actions as witches and how they are going to mess with Macbeth.

I will drain him dry as hay:
Sleep shall neither night nor day
Hang upon his pent-house lid;
He shall live a man forbid:
Weary se'nnights nine times nine
Shall he dwindle, peak and pine:
Though his bark cannot be lost,
Yet it shall be tempest-tost. (Act 1, Scene 3)

Macbeth has no idea what is going to happen.  He encounters the witches and takes their prophecies very seriously, although Banquo is skeptical.  He also worries about Macbeth’s reaction.  While Banquo is inclined to think the whole thing silly, Macbeth seems highly affected by the witches and their predictions.

Good sir, why do you start; and seem to fear
Things that do sound so fair? I' the name of truth,
Are ye fantastical, or that indeed
Which outwardly ye show? My noble partner
You greet with present grace and great prediction
Of noble having and of royal hope … (Act 1, Scene 3)

The witches make three predictions.  They predict that Macbeth will be Thane of Cawdor and that he will be king.  They also predict that Banquo’s sons will be king.  These predictions have a great effect on Macbeth.  When he finds out that he is not named King Duncan’s heir, Macbeth has a strong reaction.

 The Prince of Cumberland! that is a step
On which I must fall down, or else o'erleap,
For in my way it lies. Stars, hide your fires;
Let not light see my black and deep desires ... (Act 1, Scene 4)

In this aside, he comments that he is ambitious and desires to be king.  This is both foreshadowing and another example of dramatic irony, because the reader knows that Macbeth is going to kill to get what he wants, but Duncan has no idea. He willingly goes to Macbeth’s castle.

Who are Ponyboy's brothers?

Sodapop and Darry are Ponyboy's brothers in The Outsiders. Sixteen-year-old Sodapop Curtis is a happy-go-lucky kid who works at a gas station. Sodapop is known for his good looks and positive personality. He gets along with Ponyboy and acts as a buffer between their older brother Darry. Behind Sodapop's cheerful character is a young man who has endured difficulties throughout life. Sodapop dropped out of school to help support the family and is going through a rough break up with the love of his life, Sandy. Soda's complex character is examined throughout the novel.

Darry is Ponyboy's oldest brother who is twenty years old. Darry is extremely rough on Ponyboy because he is Pony's primary caretaker. Darry was forced to decline an athletic scholarship in order to work two jobs to support the family. Ponyboy views him with contempt for the majority of the novel because he feels Darry is too hard on him. At first, Ponyboy misinterprets Darry's good intentions, but realizes that his brother loves him by the end of the novel. Darry is a buff, smart, hard-working kid, who is loyal to his friends. Ponyboy mentions that Darry is nothing like a Greaser and should be a Soc, but Darry loves his friends, so he stays faithful to the Greasers.

How does Elie Wiesel's faith change in the book Night?

In Elie Wiesel's Night, the narrator, Elie, goes through a significant transformation in regards to faith. At the beginning of the memoir he is a very religious young man, studying the Kabbalah and other esoteric parts of the Jewish faith.

The horrific events throughout the novel cause Elie to lose his faith bit by bit. The last of his faith in God is lost when an "angel eyed" little boy is executed by hanging. Elie and the other prisoners in the concentration camp watch the noose slowly suffocate the boy rather than break his neck. As Elie walks past the not yet dead child, a voice inside his head tells him, "Where is he (God)? This is where...hanging here from this gallows..."

Later on, as the other prisoners offer prayers during the Jewish New Year, Elie decides that he can no longer pray to a God who would allow such cruelty to exist. At no point later on in the book does he regain his faith.

What factors led to the growth of imperialism in the late 1800's and early 1900's

There was a wide range of factors that motivated Europeans to colonize Africa in the late 1800's. The most important purpose of the colonies was an economic one. European countries needed resources to drive the industrial growth that was occurring across the continent. Africa had vast resources that could be acquired to make the European powers wealthier. These resources included gold, diamonds, rubber, petroleum, copper, and iron ore. Africa was also attractive because nations could establish exclusive markets for manufactured goods in the colonies. Success in capitalism depends on resources and markets, and the establishment of colonies provided both.

There was a component of racial superiority that drove the quest for colonial dominance in Africa. Europeans felt that they were a superior group and even suggested that colonizing Africa would be a benefit to its inhabitants. The idea of modernizing and converting them to Christianity was somehow believed to be beneficial to Africans. You only need to consider the history of the Atlantic Slave Trade to understand the racism that existed in Europe during the period.

The acquisition of colonies was also a consequence of fierce national rivalries that existed in Europe at the time. Britain, France, Germany, and other powers on the continent did everything they could to get a leg up on the competition. Acquiring land in Africa could give them a strategic advantage over their rivals that would reveal itself if a military conflict were to occur. Often times colonies were acquired because of their strategic location for trade and military expansion. As the decades after the slave trade went by, nationalism increasingly became a factor in the acquisition of colonies in Africa.

How does Shakespeare present the theme of guilt in Macbeth act 2 scene 2?

In Act II, Scene 2, the magnitude of Macbeth's crime of regicide has awakened in him a tremendous feeling of guilt that manifests itself as blood.

That Macbeth has had misgivings about murdering Duncan is indicated by Macbeth's imagining that a dagger hangs in the air before him. On the blade of this dagger there are "dudgeon gouts of blood" (2.1.47).
Then, in Scene 2 after he sees his wife following his wicked deed of killing King Duncan, Macbeth looks at his bloody hands and says, "This is a sorry sight"(2.2.20). Lady Macbeth tells her husband not to dwell on his foolish thought. Nevertheless, blood serves as a symbol for Macbeth's guilt because he feels that "all great Neptune's ocean" (2.2.61) cannot wash away this blood from his hands. 

Lady Macbeth scolds her husband, saying that a little water will wash the blood from his hands, and that it is merely his firmness of purpose that has left him. Further, Lady Macbeth urges her husband to not dwell on his thoughts of guilt and just dismiss them. Ironically, however, she later imagines that she herself sees blood and cannot wash it away. 

What does Ismene mean when she says, "We are only women, we can't fight with men"?

When Ismene speaks of women's weaknesses and how this makes them incapable of fighting with men, she communicates a traditional view of women in society.

Antigone has asked Ismene to help her break the law in giving a proper burial for their brother.  Ismene knows that doing so means breaking the law that Creon has established.  When she tells Antigone that "We are only women, we can't fight with men," it conveys Ismene's view of women in society. Ismene believes that women are not in the position to question the laws that men have made.  She does not think that women have the strength to challenge the patriarchal authoritarian structure.  Ismene believes that it is not their place as sisters to "go against the king's decree and strength outside the law." She believes that the lack of power women hold in society would make it pointless for them to challenge this structure.  Ismene hopes to dissuade Antigone from proceeding with her plans. She seeks to do so by reminding Antigone of the place that women occupy in Greek society.  

In suggesting that they are "only women," Ismene embraces a traditional view of women in society.  This is in stark contrast to Antigone, who has no problem in breaking what she sees as an unjust law.  Ismene's appeal to her sister is based on the idea that women are better off not questioning a system that does not treat them well.  

What are some specific life values and perspectives that connect Meursault to his mother? How can Meursaults private thoughts and memories of his...

This is a difficult point to argue for, because Meursault himself struggles to articulate it in a satisfactory manner both to himself and to others. 

As with nearly all elements of the narrative of "The Stranger", absurdism and its nihilistic perspectives rule over many decisions. While Meursault says he loved his mother "as anyone would", he seems to think this way more out of social obligation than any true emotion. Further, his "practical" approach to rationalizing the way in which he put her in the elder care facility in Marengo is driven purely by a pragmatical perspective; that she made him uncomfortable, that she had no friends, that he didn't have the time or money to care for her. This is further compounded by the fact that he hadn't visited her, largely because of the inconvenience of the trip.

The specific life value, if it can be called that, which is illustrated by his mother is his principle of thinking only of his immediate physical needs. If his mother makes him uncomfortable, he seeks to remove the discomfort by removing her, rather than taking a more humane approach. This is pointed out by the overzealous prosecutor at his trial, in large and small forms, such as his acceptance of a cup of coffee while sitting in vigil by his mother's body; according to the prosecutor, a good son might be offered a cup of coffee, but he should refuse it as a means of observing respect for the person that brought him into this world. The minor pleasure of a cup of coffee ought to pale in comparison to the social duty one is obliged to observe.

As far as having a deep connection with his mother, Meursault simply didn't. Meursault clearly struggles to find any meaning in emotional gestures; with both his mother and his girlfriend, he offers negative or tepid responses to emotional prompts, and says they don't really matter anyway. When he learns that others think badly of him for putting his mother in a home, and that his mother herself was angry with him for it, he seems surprised.

What might indicate a deeper "connection" is the fact that his mother's death is the first of numerous deviations from a normal pattern, which is intended by Camus as a catalyst for absurdist analysis. This is probably the first time that Meursault has been faced with a situation where he knows emotion is expected of him, and is being displayed in generous amounts by others around him, and yet his apparently inability or unwillingness to feel anything becomes his primary identifier. 

What would be a critical appreciation of William Blake's poem "On Another's Sorrow"?

A critical appreciation of this poem by Blake would address both form and content. It would identify what the poet does, and explain how those things relate to what he says.

Formally, then, this is a 36 line lyric poem made up of 9 quatrains. There is a strict rhyme scheme: AABB CCDD, etc. The first two lines of each stanza rhyme, as do the next two. The lines are brief, and have only seven syllables per line. Taken in combination, this gives an energetic, youthful feel to this poem, and pulls readers along briskly. There is considerable repetition, especially of rhetorical questions ("Can I..." "Can I...) and evocations or calls to action (the repeated calls to hear things). There are numerous images, but they are simple and familiar. This too makes the poem accessible. You don't have to fight the technique to get the message.

All of this aligns well with the profound message: the narrator cannot bear to see people or beings in pain, and neither can God, who is always there in times of sorrow.

`u = , v = ` Find the angle theta between the vectors.

You need to use the formula of dot product to find the angle between two vectors, `u = u_x*i + u_y*j, v = v_x*i + v_y*j` , such that:

`u*v = |u|*|v|*cos(theta)`

The angle between the vectors u and v is theta.

`cos theta = (u*v)/(|u|*|v|)`

First, you need to evaluate the product of the vectors u and v, such that:

`u*v = u_x*v_x + u_y*v_y`

`u*v = 1*0 + 0*(-2)`

`u*v = 0`

Hence, since `u*v = 0` , it does not matter what are the values of the magnitudes |u| and |v| since `cos theta = 0` .

`cos theta = 0 => theta = pi/2`

Hence, the angle between the vectors u and v is `pi/2` , so, the vector u is perpendicular to the vector v.

How many isotopes does hydrogen have? How do they differ?

Hydrogen is the lightest, simplest element on the whole periodic table of elements.  It has one proton in its nucleus, with one electron in the first energy level.  Hydrogen has three known isotopes, or variations.  The thing that makes the different forms of hydrogen different is the number of neutrons in the nucleus, which have no charge.  Simple hydrogen has no neutron, while deuterium has one neutron.  Tritium has two neutrons.  All these different forms of hydrogen are still hydrogen, because they each contain only one proton, which has a positive charge.  The number of protons is what ultimately establishes the identity of the element.  So, even though hydrogen has a mass number of 1, deuterium has a mass number of 2, and tritium has a mass number of 3, they all have an atomic number of 1, which means they are all different varieties of the same thing, hydrogen

How was trade viewed through mercantilist eyes?

Trade was viewed through mercantilist eyes as something that was a zero-sum game.  In this game, those who exported more than they imported won while those who imported more than they exported lost.  Trade was only good for a country if it could export more than it imported.

In mercantilist times, people believed that a country could only benefit from trade if it exported more than it imported.  If it did so, it would gain more precious metals.  If, for example, Britain sold goods to France, the French would have to give the British gold or silver in payment for the goods.  This would increase the British stocks of those metals, making Britain richer. 

In these times, people also believed (much as some people believe today) that a favorable trade balance would keep domestic employment high.  If a country exported a lot of goods, domestic workers would have jobs making those goods.  If a country imported goods, it would lose employment because it would be buying the goods from abroad instead of having them made at home.

For these reasons, trade was not seen as a good thing in all circumstances.  Instead, it was only good if you could manage to export more than you imported.

How does Scout mature throughout the novel To Kill a Mockingbird?

Scout matures throughout the novel To Kill a Mockingbird and becomes a morally upright individual like her father, Atticus. At the beginning of the novel, Scout is a hot-headed, naive little girl who lacks perspective on the world around her. Her quick temper is continually getting her into trouble, and she struggles to view situations from other people's perspective. Scout fears her neighbor, Boo Radley, and is unaware of the meaning of several explicit terms that she hears from Maycomb's community members. As the novel progresses, Atticus teaches his daughter numerous life lessons dealing with topics such as perspective, courage, tolerance, respect, and integrity. Scout takes heed to her father's lessons and develops into a morally upright individual. Several significant events shape Scout's perspective which includes Tom Robinson's trial and Bob Ewell's attack. After Scout loses her childhood innocence, she is not jaded about the world around her and is tolerant of Maycomb's prejudiced community members. She realizes that Boo Radley is a compassionate, shy person, and learns the importance of treating innocent humans with decency and respect.

An adult sized ambo bag has a total volume of 1600.0 mL. A one-handed squeeze reduces that volume to 1100.0 mL, delivering 500.0 mL per...

You are trying to find the number of moles (n) of air that occupy a volume of 500.0 ml at a temperature of 25ºC and pressure of 102.0 kPa. This can be solved using the ideal gas law:

PV = nRT

P = pressure = 102.0 kPa

V = volume = 500.0 ml = X (1 L/1000 ml) = 0.5000 L

T = (25ºC + 273) = 298 K

R = 8.3145 L-kPa/mol-K

n =PV/RT=(102.0 kPa)(0.5000L)/(8.3145 L-kPa/mol-K)(298 K)=0.02058 moles

As you can see from the units of the ideal gas constant, it was necessary to convert volume to liters and temperature to Kelvins. Temperature must always be in Kelvins for gas law calculations because the Kelvin temperature scale is a proportional scale with a true zero point and no negative values. In addition, a value of R must be used that's consistent with the pressure units given in the problem.

What are the two similes Bradbury uses to describe Peter's and Wendy's physical traits? What is ironic about these choices of similes?

Here are the two similes that Ray Bradbury uses to describe Peter and Wendy:

1. They have "cheeks like peppermint candy."


2. They also have "eyes like bright blue agate marbles."

What is ironic about these similes is that they are in sharp contrast to the reality of the children's natures. These descriptions connote innocent cherub-like children with wide eyes and rosy cheeks--the children out of fairy tales, as their names also suggest. But, in the story the natures of Peter and Wendy are much more ominous than they are innocent. For, when George tells the children that he and Lydia are considering shutting off the nursery, Peter threatens, "I don't think you'd better consider it any more, Father." And, when George replies angrily, "I won't have any threats from my son," Peter simply says, "Very well," and he walks away to the nursery.

Further, when David McClean, a friend and psychologist, and George throw the switch in the fuse box that connects to the nursery, the two children become hysterical: "They screamed and pranced and threw things." Then they fling themselves onto the couch, crying. When their mother hears them, she begs George to let the children back in because she succumbs to their supplication, "...just one moment, just another moment of nursery." 

As George and Lydia descend the stairs after returning to their bedroom, they hear the children calling them, so they rush into the nursery, but the veldt is empty except for lions, who watch them. They call to Peter and Wendy the only sound is that of a door slam. George realizes that they are locked in and calls to the children; then he hears Peter's voice: "Don't let them switch off the nursery and the house." He and his wife beat at the door, insisting that it is time for them to go. Instead, they hear the lions; they scream, and they recognize those screams they had heard earlier. Their boy and girl--sinister children that they really are--have no rosy cheeks or eyes clear like blue marbles.

Discuss one flashback from "The Last Leaf" by O. Henry.

This is an interesting question dealing with O. Henry's technique, and one that has not been asked before. O. Henry handles his flashbacks adroitly and unobtrusively. One flashback explains the relationship between the two main characters, Susie and Johnsy. Another flashback seems necessary to explain when and how Johnsy caught pneumonia. The next is used to suggest Johnsy's fatalistic state of mind, which is essentially what the whole story is about. The next introduces Old Behrman, who will be very important to the story, although the reader does not realize this at the time. The final flashback will clarify the mystery of why that last leaf so steadfastly refuses to be dislodged by the storm, as if it is clinging to the vine in order to set an example of courage for the sick, languid girl who keeps watching it.

There is a flashback to May in the following exposition:

They had met at the table d'hote of an Eighth street “Delmonico's,” and found their tastes in art, chicory salad and bishop sleeves so congenial that the joint studio resulted.

That was in May. 

The narrative continues as a flashback, telling how Johnsy caught pneumonia in November.Then it resumes in the present when the text reads:

But Johnsy he smote; and she lay, scarcely moving, on her painted iron bedstead, looking through the small Dutch window-panes at the blank side of the next brick house.

There is a flashback in the form of dialogue when Johnsy tells Sue:

“They're falling faster now. Three days ago there were almost a hundred. It made my head ache to count them." 

There is another flashback when the narrator introduces Old Behrman.

For several years he had painted nothing except now and then a daub in the line of commerce or advertising.

And finally there is a flashback in the last paragraph of the story when Susie, having waited until Johnsy is stronger, tells her about what happened to Old Behrman. The entire paragraph is not a flashback but mainly the following sentences.

The janitor found him on the morning of the first day in his room downstairs helpless with pain. His shoes and clothing were wet through and icy cold.

Evidently this is a flashback to an incident that occurred two days ago. Behrman was an old man and did not last long. He had caught pneumonia when he went outside in the bitter cold to paint his masterpiece, a perfect ivy leaf that could not be blown away by the strongest wind.

In the story "The Last Leaf," is there any evidence in the story that Sue and Johnsy are gay?

A comment by Sue might be taken, or mistaken, as an indication that she and Johnsy are gay and are living together as lovers. When the doctor tells Sue that Johnsy needs something to live for and asks,

"Has she anything on her mind worth thinking about twice—a man, for instance?”

Sue makes it clear that this is out of the question.

“A man?” said Sue, with a jew's-harp twang in her voice. “Is a man worth—but, no, doctor; there is nothing of the kind.”

But O. Henry is not suggesting that these young women are gay. He wants to introduce a painter in the story who will save Johnsy's life by painting a fake ivy leaf on the wall of the adjacent building. If he introduced a young painter who was in love with Johnsy, this would raise some readers' suspicions that the payoff in the story would be precisely that this young lover would get the idea of painting a fake ivy leaf on the brick wall, either sacrificing his own life in doing so or saving Johnsy so that they could both be happily married. O. Henry wanted and needed a male painter but he didn't want to risk his surprise ending. So he has Sue sharply deny the existence of any man who might be a lover, and instead he creates an alternative in Old Behrman who is a painter but could not possibly be a romantic lover.

Old Behrman deceives the reader by making it seem physically and psychologically impossible that he would consider painting a fake leaf to fool Johnsy into wanting to recover from pneumonia. Behrman is too old to be considered a lover, and he is too old to go out in the middle of the blustery night, climb a twenty-foot ladder, and paint an ivy leaf on the building next door. Besides that, he tells Sue specifically that he considers Johnsy's fantasy about dying when the last leaf falls to be nothing but a lot of nonsense.

“Vass!” he cried. “Is dere people in de world mit der foolishness to die because leafs dey drop off from a confounded vine? I haf not heard of such a thing. No, I will not bose as a model for your fool hermit-dunderhead. Vy do you allow dot silly pusiness to come in der prain of her? Ach, dot poor leetle Miss Yohnsy.”

This dialogue is inserted specifically to obviate the possibility that Behrman would think of doing what he actually ends up doing. The fact that he speaks in such broken English adds to the confusion. He may be saying exactly the opposite of what he means. And furthermore, O. Henry makes it clear that Old Behrman is a heavy gin drinker, so he is obviously not even sure of what he thinks, feels, and means to say himself.  O. Henry is successful in deceiving the reader. The surprise ending is successful because no one would think that an old man who was heavily intoxicated and who had no faith in girlish fantasies could or would drag a twenty-foot ladder over to another building, climb to the top with brushes and paints in the middle of a freezing, tempestuous night, and paint a single ivy leaf on the wall.

There had to be a character who would do it. O. Henry couldn't just introduce some stranger at the last moment who decided to do Johnsy a favor. That might be a surprise but not an artistic surprise, not a legitimate surprise. O. Henry was good at introducing characters without really introducing them in toto. In "After Twenty Years," as another example, he introduces Jimmy Wells and records a long conversation between him and his old friend Bob without the reader ever realizing that the cop Bob was talking to was really Jimmy Wells.