What are the similarities and differences the Salem witchcraft trials and U.S. communist trials?

The primary resemblance between the two is the irrational,
paranoid fear that each caused. The mere suggestion that one was a witch at Salem was
enough to arouse suspicions, in fact it was the accusations of a few girls who hoped to
avoid punishment for their own misdeeds that led to to the entire witch hysteria. In the
U.S., particularly during the Red Scare, anyone whose ideas were not mainstream was
subject to suspicion, and accusations alone were sufficient to condemn one. In both
instances, many innocent lives were destroyed; and in both instances the paranoia ended
with the discrediting of the accusers. In Salem. the girls who started the hysteria
later began writhing and accused a woman in Ipswich, a nearby village of being a witch.
They were ignored. Senator Joseph McCarthy, who was widely responsible for the Red
Scare, was censured by the Senate and died from alcoholism as a broken man. Finally, it
should be noted that both were considered an assault on Christianity. Those accused of
witchcraft were believed to have had "carnal relations" with the devil. Since Communism
was atheistic, those who were accused were considered
"godless."

The primary difference is that the Salem trials
were at least partially based on religious principles, even though the trials were
conducted by civil authorities. Salem was an intensely religious community; in fact the
name itself is derived from "Jerusalem." Those accused were offered pardons if they
would recant and publicly confess and renounce their misdeeds before the congregation.
Those accused of communist affiliation were persecuted in a purely political environment
and were not given any opportunity for recantation. A very small percentage of those
accused of communist affiliation may very well have truly been communists, at least
nominally; although many innocent people were implicated. No one in Salem was truly a
witch. Finally, no one was put to death simply for being a communist. (Julius and Ethyl
Rosenberg were put to death, but for espionage, not communist affiliation, although this
may have been a factor in determining their guilt.) A number of people were hanged in
Salem for no other offense than that of being a witch, and one man was crushed to death
because he refused to condemn his wife.

How does New Criticism theory differ from that of Reader Response theory, and is emasculation a part of the Reader Response theory?

New Criticism is based on the notion that a poem has an
inherent organic unity and can be read independent of context, as in I. A. Richards'
experiments in practical criticism. Meaning is made in poetry, according to new critics,
by the ways in which the linguistic texture of the poetic object interacts with the
generic functioning of the poetic medium. The poet, to a great degree, acts as a conduit
for the tradition of poetry to the present age in a process that is almost impersonal,
as T. S. Eliot pointed out in his seminal essay, "Tradition and the Individual Talent," 
that acted to a great degree as a manifesto for the New Critical movement. The intention
of the author has no bearing on the interpretation of the poem, according to Wimsatt and
Beardsley's important New Critical essay, "The Intentional Fallacy." Wimsatt and
Beardsley also criticise the "affective fallacy," which interprets poems by their effect
on the reader.

What Wimsatt and Beardsley term the
"affective fallacy" is actually the centre of reader response criticism, which centres
the meaning of the poem on the way the reader responds to it. There are several
different strands of reader response, a European one, emphasizing a cultural horizon of
expectations, pioneered by Hans-Robert Jauss and Wolfgang Iser, one involving
interpretive communities as constructed by intellectual disciplines, associated with
Stanley Fish, and a popular psychological approach emphasizing student reading
practices.

Emasculation is a topic discussed in gender
theory, a third school of literary criticism unrelated to the other
two.

Affective
fallacy link: href="http://www.rlwclarke.net/courses/lits2306/2010-2011/07CWimsattandBeardsley,TheAffectiveFallacy.pdf">http://www.rlwclarke.net/courses/lits2306/2010-2011/07CWimsattandBeardsley,TheAffectiveFallacy.pdf

In the essay "Go North, Young Man," explain the writers position by commenting upon the specific points he provides that expand on this idea.The...

I had to pare the original question.  Each of the four
questions originally asked would occupy one entire answer.  I hope you can repost them
at a later time because each of them are
compelling.

Rodriguez's essay claims many elements.  It's a
complex essay because immigration is a complex topic and he knows it.  I think that it's
important to understand that I don't think Rodriguez is capitulating into a prepared
soundbite that traditionally extols the virtues of the immigrant.  He does point to
their immense energy and how they transformed the landscape of
California:

readability="16">

Suddenly, foreign immigrants were
everywhere--Iranians were buying into Beverly Hills; the Vietnamese were moving into San
Jose; the Chinese were taking all the spaces in the biochemistry courses at UCLA. And
Mexicans, poor Mexicans, were making hotel beds, picking peaches in the Central Valley,
changing diapers, even impersonating Italian chefs at Santa Monica restaurants... But
immigrants are most disconcerting to California because they are everywhere working,
transforming the ethos of the state from leisure to labor. Los Angeles is becoming a
vast working city, on the order of Hong Kong or Mexico
City.

Consider the
implications of this particular set of quotes.  On one hand, the openness of the
California vision helped to construct a reality that was open to everyone.  Contrary to
the idea of immigration to California moving in a linear pattern from East to West, it
really became impacted from the immigration South to North, West to East, and West to
more West.  The openness of Calfornia's vision helped attract immigrants that helped to
make California vastly different from what it was originally seen.  Rodriguez makes the
point that the idea of energy of immigrants was one that helped to make California
different in both composition and mere look.  When the Greeley comment of "Go West,
Young Man" took hold in America, it was not seen to mean that everyone immerse
themselves in California and make a life for themselves there that permanently alters
how the state looks and acts.  Yet, in fact, this is what
happened.

The energy and transformation that Rodriguez
articulates comes out of a fundamental belief, though, that the immigrant is a renegade
from all and to all.  This is where he pivots in terms of the traditional immigrant
debate.  He argues that the energy that the immigrant brings to an area, in particular
California, is because they have nowhere else to go.  Immigration, he argues, offends
everyone.  It is "offensive" to the "Native" voice because of the perceived fear of
invasion, something that Rodriguez himself critiques as the openness of "California,"
and by extension, America, reveals that there is "no native voice."  The only possible
exception would be the Native American, whose voice is silenced in Rodriguez's mind. 
The immigrant "offends" their own sensibility because no one leaves their home
willingly.  For Rodriguez, the immigrant leaves their home and their village in order to
pursue another end.  Financial, escape, better life for those at home are all reasons. 
The energy they bring to this new world is a reflection of the fact that they have
nowhere else to go.  Sent out by home and by receivers, their energy is all they have,
their only release.

What are three reasons why the animals listen to Old Major in Orwell's Animal Farm?

I am sorry that I had to pare down your question.  I would
advise you to repost them so that you can get guidance for your
exam.

The animals listen to Old Major's speech for a
variety of reasons.  The most fundamental of which is that Old Major's vision is a way
for the animals to reconfigure the role they play in their world.  Old Major is very
pointed in how the animals are exploited by the humans such as Mr. Jones.  For example,
Old Major makes a pointed case that Boxer will be sent to the knacker when he is no
longer of use. Old Major's vision is one where the animals are able to make sense of
their suffering and be able to understand why they are in the position in which they are
immersed.  Another reason why the animals listen to Old Major is that he is seen as a
figure of respect.  Old Major's age and stature is one whereby he is perceived as one
who has seen a great deal of life on the farm, so that his insights are meaningful to
the animals. Another reason why the animals listen to Old Major is because he gives them
not only the cause of why they are suffering, but a solution to their problems.  His
solution is that if the animals assert control of their own lives and of their own
existence in owning the means of production on the farm, they will no longer be
enslaved.  This is a hopeful vision of the future, one in which the animals feel a
certain level of redemption out of their present predicament of suffering.  It is for
these reasons that the animals listen to Old Major in the henhouse.  He introduces the
vocabulary of revolution to the animals, the catalyst for
change.

What is the application of postcolonialism criticism to "Games at Twilight"?

Given the very wide ranging import of postcolonial
criticism, this question could be answered in a number of different ways. In one sense
postcolonialism is about celebrating voices from the formerly colonised nations and the
bringing to light of situations and issues that are relevant to such unique
environments. In this sense, Anita Desai is a famous postcolonial author, emerging as
she does from India, which was a colony of Britain for so
long.

However, we might want to extend this basic analysis
by refering to the way in which the story's theme establishes the alienation of the
individual and the way that this could be argued to present the situation of so many
postcolonial subjects who struggle to find their identity and meaning in life. The
epiphany that Ravi experiences at the end of the story, when his dreams of victory and
glory are cruelly squashed by the contempt with which he is treated by other children,
focuses on his own inner insignificance, as the final paragraph makes
clear:

He
would not follow them, he would not be included in this funereal game. He had wanted
victory and triumph--not a funeral. But he had been forgotten, left out, and he would
not join them now. The ignominy of being forgotten--how could he face it? He felt his
heart go heavy and ache inside him unbearably. He lay down full length on the damp
grass, crushing his face into it, no longer crying, silenced by a terrible sense of his
insignificance.

The irony of
this passage, and the way that Ravi has technically won the game but it was abandoned
long before he emerged, meaning that he is ignored instead of being feted for his
victory is keen and biting. Likewise, there is irony in the way that he refuses to play
the funereal game with the other children, but presides over his own death of his
innocence and hopes. Some critics would argue that this epiphany and the situation of
Ravi explicitly relates to the postcolonial subject, who finds himself cast adrift in a
sea of meaninglessless and insignificance, with the firm ground of identity provided by
colonialism swept away.

In Song of Myself, where is Whitman in regards to the reader?

I don't think that Whitman makes any qualms about where he
is in relation to the reader.  Whitman's "I" is a universal one that is borne out of his
own subjective experience.  From this, he hopes to broaden his experience to that of the
reader:

Apart
from the pulling and hauling stands what I am, . . . Both in and out of the game and
watching and wondering at
it.

This position of Whitman
standing outside of "the game" allows him to funnel his own experience to that of the
reader.  Whitman links his own experience to that of the reader.  He does not see his
position as any different as the reader, except that his job is to forge a connection to
the reader.  The universality that is such a part of Whitman's experience is one that he
brings to the reader, in the hope of a shared union between his voice and what the
reader internalizes.  I think that this is where Whitman is in relation to the reader. 
He sees himself as a part of what the reader undergoes in trying to understand this
universality, an experience where the reader and poet both submerge their own individual
and distinct reality into a universal conception of both self and
others.

Who is the protagonist in And Then There Were None??Everywhere i look gives a different answer! plz help!!

A protagonist is not always the hero of the story. He is a
central figure of a story.  It is common for the story to be ABOUT the protagonist.  In
this case.  It was about Lawrence Wargrave, who if far from being a hero.  He loves to
kill. He has always felt a "strong sense of justice" (pg 286).  In the style of "The
Tell Tale Heart", Wargrave has convinced himself that he is justified in the deaths he
has caused, although he has had a sadistic delight in causing death since he was a
child. However, he did not want the innocent to suffer.  He carefully researched each of
his victims.  Each of them was responsible for the death of another person.  He decided
to invite them all to the island because he has been told that he is dying. (pg 291) He
doesn't want to die a slow and painful death.  He wants to go out in a "blaze of
excitement.  I would live before I died" (pg 292).  The whole story is his story.  He
planned it and systematically caused the death of the other nine people. Without
Wargrave, there would be no story.