The most
important theme is that of forgiveness and love. Daniel is entirely ruled by his emotions and
his need for revenge; he is driven by anger and not thinking about the larger consequences of
his actions. For example, when he and Rosh's bandits attack Roman forces, the Romans take it out
on the villagers because they cannot find Rosh and his people. Over the course of the novel,
both through his friendship with Joel and Thacia and through the teachings of the...
Thursday, 5 November 2015
What are some major themes of The Bronze Bow?
What does the young hunter imply when he says to Phoenix Jackson: "I know you old colored people! wouldnt miss goin to town to see Santa Claus!" How...
This is a
contemptuous dismissal of Phoenix and of all African-Americans. It suggests that they wouldn't
miss a spectacle, and/ora chance to see something impressive...
Wednesday, 4 November 2015
Contrast the claims of Big Brother concerning the standard of living in Oceania with Winston Smith's actual observations in 1984.
's world
is aof the abundance and prosperity trumpeted daily, hourly from every telescreen. Under Big
Brother's beneficent rule, so the Party proclaims, all comrades each year have more and
better. But, in reality, it is less and worse, a fact Winston knows but cannot prove. London,
his home and the capital of Airstrip One, is a vast crumbling ruin, daily pummeled by
rocket...
In the Broadway musical The Phantom Of The Opera, why does Christine die? Why does the Phantom let Christine and Raoul go in his lair? Does Meg Giry...
That's a lot of
questions--I'll try my best to help!
First of all, Christine doesn't die in
either the musical or the book. (She does meet her end in Love Never Dies, Andrew Lloyd
Webber's sequel to Phantom that has no basis in Leroux's original work, but that musical was
widely panned.) I don't believe the musical explains what happens to Christine and Raoul after
they leave the Phantom's lair, but in the book, they leave Paris. Leroux presumes they've
stolen away and gotten married.
The Phantom ultimately lets Christine and
Raoul leave his lair because Christine shows him compassion, the first time he's been on the
receiving end of any kindness at all. She also kisses him, which almost certainly contributes
to his more charitable mood, but in the end it's Christine's kindness that enables him to find
that scrap of kindness in himself.
As for the question of the Giry women and
the Phantom... given that Meg leads the angry mob to search for the Phantom after Christine's
kidnapping, I find it a little hard to believe she would have secretly fallen in love with him,
though it's worth mentioning that the comic strip Little Meg envisions a world in which a
considerably younger Meg has an almost Calvin-and-Hobbes-like rapport with the Phantom. You
raise a good point regarding Mme. Giry; her history with the Phantom is an invention of the
musical and wasn't in the original book, so that would seem to lay some groundwork for future
romance. Ultimately, though, this story is very much in the Gothic tradition, and one hallmark
of Gothic stories is the innocent, virtuous heroine to whom many unimaginable, horrible things
happen. Christine fits that mold to a T--she's na¯ve enough to believe in the Angel of Music,
she's very young, and she's presented as the virginal counterpart to Carlotta, to say nothing
of her manipulation and kidnapping at the hands of the Phantom. Mme. Giry, on the other hand,
is considerably older and also a mother. In many ways, the Phantom is preying on Christine, and
she's simply far more attractive prey than Mme. Giry.
Monday, 2 November 2015
"""Time is important in roundabout production but not in direct production." Is this statement true or false? Explain. Why does the demand curve for...""
The supply
and demand curves for loanable funds slope in the way that they do for the same reason that all
supply and demand curves slope in those ways. This is because the people who are buying and
selling loanable funds want to make the best possible deal for themselves.
To understand why these curves are sloped as they are, simply look at the labels for the axes.
The x-axis is the quantity of loanable funds while the...
How did Europeans change the Americas?
The Americas
have been drastically changed through colonization and conquest by European peoples, but I will
do my best to address this widespread and complex transformation.
Before the
arrival of Europeans in the 15th and 16th centuries, First Nations peoples throughout the
Americas had a subsistence lifestyle primarily composed of hunting, gathering, and small-scale
farming. They practiced their indigenous faiths, experienced a diversity of linguistic and
material culture, and while most were rather egalitarian, some were heavily stratified and were
lead by god-kings. Though sometimes at the whim of nature, they had successful economies and
produced rich material culture, some of which survives today.
When European
explorers and colonialists journeyed to the Americas, they captured many slaves, forced
conversions, and killed First Nations people through violence and disease. Indigenous life-ways
were almost entirely eradicated. The land which First Nations people lived on was taken as
property by Europeans and cultivated for the purpose of exporting resources. The Europeans
believed that it was their duty to "civilize" and shepherd the indigenous populations
of the New World so that they could be saved in heaven after death. This religious ideology was
used to promote the economic exploitation of land and people in the Americas, including people
captured in Africa and transported as a source of labor.
The colonization of
the Americas has almost entirely eliminated the culture, language, and people who are native to
these places. European culture and people were transplanted to effectively replace the
indigenous cultures. A great diversity of blended cultures exist today, many with influence from
the First Nations populations who once lived on the same land. Though the Americas have been
developed into many beautiful and thriving societies, it cannot make up for the genocide which
began over five hundred years ago. The diversity which once existed was quickly replaced by a
rather small selection of European (primarily Italian, Iberian, and English) culture, language,
religion, and industry.
What arguments can be raised regarding whether Abraham Lincoln should have been impeached for his actions during the Civil War?
Basically,
the issue here concerns whether the things that Lincoln did were justified by the fact that
there was a war going on. There were a number of things that Lincoln did that would surely have
been impeachable offenses if there had not been a war but which were arguably permissible and
justifiable because of the emergency.
Lincoln did many things that were
either clearly outside of his legal powers or at least possibly outside of those powers. He
arrested pro-slavery leaders in Maryland to prevent the state from joining the Confederacy. He
suspended the writ of habeas corpus and persisted in that action even after the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court had ruled that this was illegal. He unilaterally took various actions
regarding the military, such as instituting a naval blockade and enlarging the army, that were
not supposed to be done without Congressional approval. It is certainly possible to argue that
Lincoln could have been impeached for any of these actions.
On the other
hand, Lincoln was governing in the middle of a war. Furthermore, it was a civil war where many
in his own country might be more likely to side with the enemy than would be the case in a war
like WWII. You can argue that such extreme circumstances make it permissible for a president to
take extreme actions than at other times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)