What is the meaning of the 4th stanza of Eliot's Preludes, especially the lines "I am moved by fancies...Infinitely suffering thing".

A century old this year, T.S. Eliot's
Preludes raises the curtain on his great modernist masterpieces,
The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, The Waste
Land and The Hollow Men. In essence four poems rather
than one, Preludes can be described as vignettes which span a
single day, and which in their differentiated images reveal the contemptible,
soul-stunting conditions of modern life. These four fragments of a (failed) vision,
themselves point to the theme not only of the poem itself, but virtually all of Eliot's
early work: Western culture is a broken thing. Its human survivors live a rootless,
alienated existence in the modern city.  Only in the fourth vignette does the poet
glimpse a meaning beyond the futility and meaninglessness he
experiences:

I am moved by fancies that are
curled
Around these images, and cling:
The notion of some infinitely
gentle
Infinitely suffering thing.

At the close
of the day, as "the skies...fade behind a city block", and the streets darken, filled
with the sound of "tramping feet", the poet is left alone to reflect on another tedious
evening of "fingers stuffing pipes" and small-minded "certainties". Yet in a moment his
ennui is changed; he is moved by the inrushing epiphany of a transcendent perception.
For an instant he sees the 'inscape' behind these dreary images, a Christ-like
"infinitely suffering thing" that can save him.

But such a
'prelude' to a transfigured existence is laughable. With a coarse "wipe across your
mouth" the poet returns to his unbelieving way of life where world both visible and
invisible tediously "revolve like ancient women/Gathering fuel in vacant
lots".

Give examples of when Macbeth equivocates in Shakespeare's play, Macbeth.

An href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equivocator">equivocator is
someone who lies and tells half-truths, or says something ambiguous to mislead another.
In Shakespeare's play, Macbeth, the witches are generally
considered the "great" equivocators in the play in the play. (In the second set of
predictions they deliver in Act Four, they tell half-truths to trick Macbeth.) However,
we can see instances, also where Macbeth is no better than the witches for telling
lies.

The first instance where Macbeth
outright lies is when he says he killed Duncan's guards because he was so upset over
Duncan's murder at their hands. He actually kills them so they cannot raise doubts in
anyone's mind that they were "framed."

readability="9">

MACBETH:

O,
yet I do repent me of my fury,

That I did kill them.
(II.iii.117-118)

He excuses
his behavior, wondering how anyone could be levelheaded in the face
of such horror: seeing his beloved King murdered.

Another
instance is when Macbeth speaks to Banquo, ostensibly to ask him if he will be gone long
when he goes riding—to remind him not to be late for dinner because Macbeth wants to
speak to him. Macbeth is actually making plans to have his friend murdered because
Banquo heard the witches' initial predictions that told Macbeth he would be king, and
Banquo has told Macbeth that he will not be swayed from what he
believes to be morally correct.

readability="12">

MACBETH:

We
should have else desired your good advice,

Which still hath
been both grave and prosperous

In this day's council; but
we'll take tomorrow.

Is't far you ride?
(III.i.23-26)

Later in the
same scene, Macbeth meets with the men he has hired to murder Banquo. They are not
professional killers, but simply common men whose lives have taken a turn for the worse.
Macbeth has told the men that Banquo is to blame for their dire
circumstances—when they had originally thought it was Macbeth. (The truth is that it
was Macbeth who had beggared
them.)

readability="12">

MACBETH:

...Know

That
it was he, in the times past, which held you

So under
fortune, which you thought had been

Our innocent
self?

...“Thus did Banquo.” (81-84;
89)

Macbeth goes on to ask
these men (much like his wife asked him with regard to Duncan) if
they are kind-hearted enough to ignore what Banquo has "done," or if they will
be man enough to do something about it.

Of
course, the men believe Macbeth (as most of his peers do at the beginning), never
expecting that this new King of Scotland is lying to them. He tells them that
he could kill Banquo easily himself, but that he doesn't want to
offend important men who are mutual friends to Macbeth and
Banquo.

Macbeth does all he can not only to take the throne
from Duncan, but to make sure it remains in his possession.

In regard to the following statement, how necessary is bureaucracy?If we can agree that individuals need rules and regulations to live together,...

Bureaucracy is the method of creating and insuring the
application of those rules and regulations that are needed in order for individuals to
live together. Bureaucrats are the writers, administrators, evaluators, and enforcers of
the policies and procedures established by society.

In an
ideal world, I suppose bureaucracy would not be needed because people wouldn't need
rules and regulations. If all people were willing to cooperate and share and respect
each other all the time, we could dispense with the need for creating and enforcing
expectations regarding how people should treat one another in all the situations that
arise in communities. Since we don't live in a utopian setting, we need the bureaucracy
that provides a framework of guidelines for coexistence.

In examining the film version of Hamlet by Branagh, what are some of the comparisions and contrasts between the film and the text?A...

This is rather a difficult question to answer, because you
need to remember that any production of a Shakespeare text involves a creative
interpretation of what at the end of the day is just a set of lines on the page. You
would do better to compare two different versions of this
play.

Having said this, you might want to think about what
Brannagh adds to this excellent tragedy and why he does this. One of the most notable
things that he adds which is clearly not in the original text is a sex scene between
Hamlet and Ophelia, which is used as a flashback at various points during the play to
highlight the tragedy of what happens to Ophelia (and to Hamlet) and also to indicate
that they were both very much in love with each other. In the text, it is never clear if
Hamlet ever truly loved Ophelia, and we are left to decide this for ourselves. The film
makes it clear that, were it not for events beyond his control, Hamlet would have
married Ophelia and they would have been happy
together.

Secondly, another aspect that is different is the
way that Brannagh chose to stage the famous "To be or not to be" soliloquy in Act III
scene 1. The cunning use of two-way mirrors means that Hamlet can deliver this intensely
introspective soliloquy to himself whilst being watched from the other side of the
mirror by an eavesdropping Claudius and Polonius. This helps present Elsinore as a place
where you are never sure who is listening in on you.

How to simplify sqrt(2 + sqrt 3) + sqrt(2 - sqrt 3)?

To calculate this expression, we'll have to use the
identities:

sqrt[a+(sqrtb)] = sqrt{[a+sqrt(a^2 - b)]/2} +
sqrt{[a-sqrt(a^2 - b)]/2}

sqrt[a-(sqrtb)] =
sqrt{[a+sqrt(a^2 - b)]/2} - sqrt{[a-sqrt(a^2 - b)]/2}

Let a
= 2 and b = 3

sqrt[2+(sqrt3)] = sqrt{[2+sqrt(2^2 - 3)]/2} +
sqrt{[2-sqrt(2^2 - 3)]/2}

sqrt[2+(sqrt3)] = sqrt(3/2) +
sqrt(1/2) (1)

sqrt[2-(sqrt3)] = sqrt{[2+sqrt(2^2 - 3)]/2} -
sqrt{[2-sqrt(2^2 - 3)]/2}

sqrt[2+(sqrt3)] = sqrt(3/2) -
sqrt(1/2) (2)

We'll add (1) and (2) and we'll
get:

sqrt[2+(sqrt3)] + sqrt[2-(sqrt3)] = sqrt(3/2) +
sqrt(1/2) + sqrt(3/2) - sqrt(1/2)

We'll eliminate like
terms:

sqrt[2+(sqrt3)] + sqrt[2-(sqrt3)] =
2*sqrt(3/2)

The requested result of the
expression is sqrt[2+(sqrt3)] + sqrt[2-(sqrt3)] =
2*sqrt(3/2).

Why might privatization of jails be a good idea?

If privatization is done correctly, it can be a good
thing.  However, it can potentially be dangerous as
well.

Private companies are, of course, looking to make as
much profit as possible.  This will mean that they will look for ways to cut costs when
they run prisons.  This could be a good thing if their cost-cutting is limited to areas
where it is safe to cut costs.  If this happens, they will still deliver vital services
while saving the government money by cutting back on
extras.

However, it could be that prison companies will cut
costs in areas that are inappropriate.  They might be less worried about providing a
safe environment for prisoners.  They might be less worried about doing anything to
rehabilitate the prisoners.  These are things that might be important but might also be
ignored by a for-profit company.

Therefore, privatization
could be good so long as the government makes very clear what services must be provided
and at what level of quality.  If that is done, private companies can probably save the
taxpayers money.

What are some of the most significant settings in Elizabeth Geogre Speare's novel The Bronze Bow?

Elizabeth George Spear’s novel The Bronze
Bow features a number of significant settings. In general terms, the novel is
set in Roman-occupied Judaea during the time of Jesus (first century C.E.). The youthful
protagonist, Daniel Bar Jamin, is specifically described in the book’s opening
paragraphs as a Galilean:

readability="10">

A proud race, the Galileans, violent and
restless, unreconciled that Palestine was a conquered nation, refus[ed] to acknowledge
as their lord the Emperor Tiberius in far-off
Rome.

This very early
sentence already implies the crucial role that setting will play in this novel. The book
is set during a time and place of great cultural and religious conflict, and so the
stage is already set in the very first paragraph for descriptions of such conflict in
this book.

Other paragraphs early in the book refer not
simply to Palestine in general but to specific places in Palestine and to specific
geographical features, including a “valley,” “terraces of olive trees,” “thickets of
oleander,” and a “brown, mud-roofed town.”  Spear thus goes out of her way, in the early
pages of the book, to suggest that setting will be important in this book and also to
create a vivid sense of setting by using highly precise imagery.  She describes a kind
of landscape that will seem unusual and even somewhat exotic to many of her young
readers, a great many of whom are residents of modern cities and
suburbs.

Various significant places mentioned in the book
include Ketzah, the village of Daniel’s youth; Capernaum, where Joel’s family plan to
move; Nazareth, the home of Jesus; a mountain; a watchtower; a shop; a synagogue;
Jerusalem; a temple; the Lake of Merom; and numerous other places. By emphasizing and
describing such places, Spear makes her book historically credible while not neglecting
to emphasize the trans-historical significance of the events and characters (especially
Jesus) she depicts.

In From the Mixed-up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler, why does Claudia enjoy planning?

One of Claudia's character traits is her ability to plan. 
To a great extent, her need to plan is to compensate for a certain amount of emptiness
that she perceives in her own life.  Her need to plan is a measure to demonstrate to her
parents and others that she is capable of assuming greater responsibility and
understanding the implications of it.  What planning gives Claudia is a voice and power,
elements that she feels is missing from her parents when they perceive her.  At the same
time, planning is the critical element that will help define her.  Claudia understands
that if she does not plan properly and fail in her running away, her parents will
continue to see her in what she perceives to be a devalued light.  It is for this reason
that planning is so important to her.  It is also for this reason that she enjoys
planning, as it serves to validate her own opinion of herself as being precociously
mature.  Planning gives her this conception of self that is otherwise not apparent
around her in the world.  It is for the reason of voice and power that she becomes an
character who enjoys planning and sees the value in it.

What is the main event in Chapter Six of The Bronze Bow?

Given that this chapter begins as Daniel starts his return
to the mountain after his failure to enlist Joel to support and work for Josh's rebel
group of men, I would argue that the main event of this chapter is Daniel's
confrontation with two Roman soldiers, and how his act of impertinence by splashing
water into one of the soldiers' faces when asked to water their horses leads to Daniel
being wounded. This then necessitates his return to Joel's house to receive aid and care
to heal him, which of course gives him another opportunity to spend time with Joel and
to talk to him about joining the rebel movement and it also gives him more time to spend
with Malthace, which is of course an important relationship in the context of the novel
overall.

Please give an explanation of the following quote from "A Refusal To Mourn the Death, by Fire, of a Child in London."And I must enter again the...

This excellent poem by Thomas represents his defiance of
the traditional means of accepting death, and is notable for the way that it reveals
more about the speaker and his own beliefs than we are ever told about the child whose
death triggers off this rumination about mortality.

The
second stanza, which you have quoted, refers to the speaker's belief in the way that,
when we die, our life diffuses into a kind of universal life. Thus it is that when we
die we must "enter again" the "Zion of the water bead" and the "synagogue of the ear of
corn." Note the way that Thomas infuses these examples of nature with religion, using a
metaphor to compare them to places of worship of of religious significance. Death,
therefore, is no more than a return to nature, a means of transforming our selves into
becoming incorporated with nature and life in a different
way.

Only when this process occurs to the speaker will he
then feel free to mourn, as only then will he be able to write about or express the
experience of the child in death and how this child came to become more a part of nature
in his death than he ever did in its life. Thus this stanza refers to the belief of the
poet with regard to what happens with us when we die, and how we become more alive in
our deaths than we do in our life.

How is the Rime of the Ancient Mariner a strange tale?Use examples from the poem to explain the answer

“The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” by Samuel Coleridge is
“strange” in at least two respects.

Primarily,
there is something unusual in the way in which the Mariner gets the attention of the man
listening to the story.  The listener is on his way to a wedding, to which he has been
invited as a guest.  At first he tries to get away from the Mariner, but he becomes
“hypnotized” by the glittering in the eye of the latter. So he stays and listens,
mesmerized almost against his will.

In another
respect, the tale itself is strange. The Albatross represents the start of the
supernatural events occurring on the Mariner’s ship.  First, it brings good fortune,
even after it is shot.  Subsequently, it is strange when all the crew except the Mariner
himself die.  They then supernaturally return to the ship, after which it sails so fast
that the Mariner goes into a trance.  The culmination of all this is that the Mariner
seeks someone to hear his confession.

The
central strangeness of the poem is therefore the supernatural element, both in the way
the narrator tells his story, and in the story itself.

Make the paragraph below focus on comparison and contrast. Write about the similarities between the two things. Go on to write about the...

From your question, what I think you are after is a list
of ways that you can extend the introduction you have given to construct a comparison
and contrast essay. I have included a link below that should help you with this
question, as it will give you further guidance on how to write such an essay. However,
here are some ideas that you might like to develop in your
response.

Firstly, focusing on the similarities, you might
want to focus on the way that, whether live or watched on TV, baseball is a sport that
has a fixed system of rules and conduct. Secondly, you are able to watch the game and
see the result either way.

However, there are also plenty
of differences. Some would argue that it is much more convenient to watch a game from
the comfort of your own house. You don't need to travel to the stadium or worry about
the whether. You also don't need to buy expensive refershments or pay a lot of money for
a seat. However, others would argue that part of watching a game of baseball is being
part of the excitement of the match, and the way that being part of the crowd adds
another dimension to the enjoyment.

I hope this gives you a
few ideas of how to start. Good luck!

Describe three ways the quote "A person evolves, thus survives, or does not evolve and thus dies" applies to Piggy in The Lord of the Flies.

To evolve means to change or adapt according to the
circumstances.

A first way this quote applies to Piggy is
that for the duration of his life on the island, he does find ways to adapt. He had been
used to the modern conveniences of the society in which he lived, but he learned to do
things differently on the island. No longer did he live with his aunt who owned a candy
store. He had to eat native food from the island. He had to learn to live without an
inhaler for his asthma and eventually one of the lenses from his glasses. Finally, he
had to learn to live without his glasses completely, but this is where we see other
applications of the quote.

A second way this quote applies
to Piggy is through the skills necessary on an island like this one. Piggy was an
intelligent boy with a weak stature. In modern society, he could have been respected for
his mind, but here, he needed to have physical strength. Because he failed to have that,
he lost respect from the other boys that eventually led to his death. Because he did not
evolve from intelligence to strength, he did indeed
die.

A final way this quote applies has to do with social
norms. Piggy refused to jump on the bandwagon when all the other boys began gravitating
towards Jack's tribe. After having been the butt of many jokes before, this further
separated him from the boys making his value even less. Killing him was a simple task
for them because they could have cared less about him.

In Guns, Germs and Steel what is the biggest factor that caused the Maori and the Moriori to evolve differently?

One of the refreshing aspects about Diamond's ambitious
study of world history is the way that he constantly affirms the way that differences in
the level of technology and sophistication in societies are the result not of genetic or
racial differences but a result of differing environments. In Chapter 2, Diamond uses
the case of the Maori and the Moriori as an excellent example of how our natural
environment impacts our level of technological sophistication. Even though the two
societies had only been separated for 500 years, the radically different environment of
the Chatham islands clearly displays the role that environment plays in placing one
nation above another.

Note how Diamond comments on the
context of the Chatham Islands:

readability="17">

It is easy to trace how the differing
environments of the Chatham Islands and of New Zealand moulded the Moriori and the Maori
differently. While those ancestral Maori who frist colonised the Chathams may have been
farmers, Maori tropical crops could not grow in the Chathams' cold climate, and the
colonists had no alternative except to revert to being hunter-gatherers. Since as
hunter-gatherers they did not produce crop surpluses available for redistribution or
storage, they could not support and feed nonhunting craft specialists, armies,
bureaucrats, and chiefs. Their prey were seals, shellfish, nesting seabirds, and fish
that could be captured by hand or with clubs and required no more elaborate
technology.

Thus is is that
we can see the biggest, overwhelming factor that predicated the difference in the
evolution between these two societies, that formerly were part of the same society, was
environment.

An object is located to the left of a convex mirror whose focal length is -31 . The magnification produced by the mirror is = 0.35.To decrease...

The relation between the distance of the object do,
distance of the image di and the focal length is 1/do + 1/di = 1/f. The magnification is
given by m = -di/do.

Here, the magnification of the object
when it is placed in front of the mirror is 0.35. If the object distance is denoted by
do, we have 1/do + 1/di = -1/31.

0.35 =
-di/do

=> di =
-0.35*do

1/do - 1/0.35*do =
-1/31

=> do =
13*31/7

Using the procedure used above, if the
magnification has to be made 0.26 we have 1/do - 1/0.26*do =
-1/31

=> do =
37*31/13

Therefore the object has to be moved a distance
37*31/13 - 13*31/7 = 2790/91

The distance that the object
has to be moved away from the mirror is approximately 30.65

In "The Devil and Daniel Webster," how was the trial rigged against Jabez Stone?

There are certainly a number of different elements you
could look to in the story to support this statement. The most important, though, is the
way that after Daniel Webster has cogently argued that Jabez Stone is constitutionally
entitled to a trial with a judge and a jury, the Devil selects a variety of pirates and
other n'er-do-wells to form the jury, and Judge Hawthorne, the infamous judge of the
Salem witch trials to judge the case. Note how they are
introduced:

readability="10">

One and all, they came into the room with the
fires of hell still upon them, and the stranger named their names and their deeds as
they came, till the tale of twelve was told. Yet the stranger had told the truth--they
had all played a part in
America.

The way in which the
judge enters muttering "Hang them all!" in relation to the witch trials likewise strikes
"ice into the soul of Jabez Stone." To what extent can he expect to have a "fair" trial
with such a jury and with such an unyielding and definant judge, who is famed for
hanging so many innocents? Clearly, the notion of Jabez Stone receiving a "fair" trial
at this stage is clearly laughable.

Is there a resolution in "The Most Dangerous Game," or does Rainsford experience an epiphany with no real end to the conflict?Support the answer...

I believe there is a definite resolution to Richard
Connell's short story, "The Most Dangerous Game." It comes when Rainsford returns to
Zaroff's bedroom and begins a new hunt--one that will fulfill the revenge that Rainsford
has apparently decided to seek. The denouement is described in the final
sentence:

readability="5.7777777777778">

He had never
slept in a better bed, Rainsford
decided.

Whether Rainsford
has an epiphany about Zaroff's style of hunt is another story. Rainsford's decision to
hunt and kill Zaroff is nothing short of murder, since Zaroff had already declared
Rainsford the winner of the hunt. Although Zaroff was himself a murderer, he was also an
honorable man, and there is no reason to believe that he would not have lived up to his
promises. Rainsford would have been safe to remain in Zaroff's home, but he chose to
continue playing Zaroff's game--this time eliminating his foe. Rainsford's contentment
at the end appears to come from more than just the comfortable bed; he seems satisfied
with Zaroff's death and, perhaps, even with being the hunter of human
prey.

What is the cause of Creon's change of heart in Antigone?

The exchange between Creon and Tiresias is compelling
enough for Creon to change over the course of the drama.  Tiresias enters the court and
tells Creon of all that has happened in response to him not honoring the dead son of
Oedipus.  Tiresias enters to help the king, as he has done in the past.  Yet, Creon's
arrogance gets the best of him and he hurls insults to the blind seer, prompting lines
like this to be uttered before he leaves:

readability="15">

And you—know well that before the sun
has
run a few laps more, you will give one from
your loins, a corpse
for corpses, in exchange
for those you have sent from above the
earth(1075)
to below it, the living soul you have
lodged
dishonorably in a tomb, and the
unhappy, unburied, unholy
corpse
you hold back from the gods below.

The idea of Creon having to
"exchange" a "corpse for corpses" is fairly telling.  The fact that Creon's refusal to
honor one dead will result in multiple is something that dislodges him.  The stunning
rebuke of "you will give one from your loins" points to Haemon, and helps to cause a
change in Creon.  Yet, Tiresias continues:

readability="11.770700636943">

....this violence comes from you.
For these things,
however, the destroying avengers
of Hell and the
Furies of
the gods are
lying wait for you, that you may be taken
in these same
evils. Consider also(1085)
if I say these things as a hired
accuser,
for a short time will reveal the wailing
of men and women
in your house.

It is
interesting to note that while Creon has acted in the name of the public, as the king,
Tiresias predicts doom on the personal level.  It is not as king where he strikes, but
rather in the idea of the "wailing of men and women in your house" and that the powers
of the divine have aligned against him, Creon, as a person and not as a king. 
Sophocles' inclusions on this point help to bring out that while the Greek rulers were
seen as kings and political heads of city- states, they broke and feared as human beings
would.  Tiresias' prophecies on this level is what haunts Creon and terrifies
him.

Upon such doomsday predictions, the Chorus, assuming a
fairly active role throughout the drama, but really so here, is alarmed at what Tiresias
has said.  Creon's response demonstrates the first moment of his change and why it has
happened:

I
know, and I, too, am shaking in my
heart,(1105)

This is the
moment when the reader understands that Creon has changed.  The prophecies of doom on a
personal level have caused a shift in Creon's perception of himself and his actions.  He
no longer is willing to identify his own belief system as absolute.  Whether he changes
out of a sense of the sincere and genuine, or if he has changed out of fear in the
predictions of Tiresias, Creon has changed in that he is "shaking in" his "heart."  Here
is where transformation has happened in him, but several moments too
late.

In As You Like It, where and how does Jaques shows his conservative idea about marriage in spite of being a cynic by nature?

I think Act III scene 3 is the scene that you should be
focusing on. In this scene, Jacques overhears the courting of Audrey by Touchstone,
which clearly exposes his own lustful intent and the way he wants to marry Audrey so
that he can possess her sexually. Note how the relationship between Audrey and
Touchstone makes a mockery of the institution of marriage. Touchstone insults Audrey,
calling her a "slut" and predicts she will not remain faithful to him, but yet insists
on carrying on with the marriage. Jacques, after making his disdain clear to the
audience in a series of asides, emerges from his hiding place and shares his distaste
for Touchstone's beliefs about marriage by indicating his own traditional sense of what
marriage is. Note what he says:

readability="14">

And will you, being a man of your breeding, be
married under a bush like a beggar? Get you to church, and have a good priest that will
tell you what marriage is. This fellow will but join you together as they join wainscot;
then one of you will prove a shrunk panel and, like green timber, warp,
warp.

Jacques therefore
clearly shows his belief in the institution of marriage by insulting Touchstone and
urging him to go to a "good priest" that can help him understand the true meaning of
marriage, instead of going through the sham of the wedding that Touchstone intends to
have.

Does "Precious Words" by Emily Dickinson suggest that a special set of circumstances is required to evoke delight? "Precious Words" by Emily...

One could certainly suggest that Emily Dickinson is
suggesting "that a special set of circumstances is required to evoke delight" in the
poem "Precious Words."

That being said, one could also
justify that the special circumstances, as stated in the poem, are only relevant if the
person is facing similar circumstances as the man depicted in the
poem.

While one would like to see the first being more true
than the second, one must first be willing to admit to the power of religion and
God/god. Without this, one could not read the poem and universalize the specific set of
circumstances, as noted in the poem, as being circumstances which work for
them.