Explain what happens to Curley's wife in the barn?

Lennie is in the barn, holding his dead puppy. Like the mouse he had at the beginning of the novel, the puppy had been killed by Lennie’s petting it and smacking it when it tried to bite him. He tries to hide it in the straw, but he takes it out again, asking it why it had done that, basically blaming the puppy for being killed. Curley’s wife comes in and finds Lennie with the...

Lennie is in the barn, holding his dead puppy. Like the mouse he had at the beginning of the novel, the puppy had been killed by Lennie’s petting it and smacking it when it tried to bite him. He tries to hide it in the straw, but he takes it out again, asking it why it had done that, basically blaming the puppy for being killed. Curley’s wife comes in and finds Lennie with the puppy. Learning that Lennie liked to pet soft things, she told him that she knows how he feels, because she likes to feel her hair when it is clean. She has Lennie feel her hair to see, but Lennie strokes to hard. She becomes frighten and tells him to stop, but Lennie, whenever he is confronted like this, panics, and grabs hold and won’t let go. She tries to escape, and Lennie tries to stop her. Holding her roughly, Lennie breaks her neck, killing her instantly. He does not know what to do when Candy comes in and finds them. He retrieves George, who tells Lennie to run away to the spot they had agreed on should Lennie cause any trouble. George makes a plan with Candy that will prevent people from thinking that he was in on this with Lennie. The others come in, including Curley, and take off in search of Lennie in order to lynch him.

Other than Ralph, who are two other characters that lose their innocence in the novel Lord of the Flies, and what are some examples to prove it?

Aside from Ralph, the characters of Maurice and Roger also lose their innocence throughout the novel Lord of the Flies. At the beginning of the novel Maurice is portrayed as a funny, helpful boy. In Chapter 2, Maurice helps the boys gather driftwood for the fire, and in Chapter 5 he makes the boys laugh to cheer them up towards the end of a depressing meeting. Roger is also viewed as a helpful, positive character...

Aside from Ralph, the characters of Maurice and Roger also lose their innocence throughout the novel Lord of the Flies. At the beginning of the novel Maurice is portrayed as a funny, helpful boy. In Chapter 2, Maurice helps the boys gather driftwood for the fire, and in Chapter 5 he makes the boys laugh to cheer them up towards the end of a depressing meeting. Roger is also viewed as a helpful, positive character at the beginning of the novel. In Chapter 1, Roger is the first to suggest that the boys choose their leader via a vote, and in Chapter 2 he also partakes in gathering driftwood for the signal fire. The boys' behavior is innocent because they are acting civilly and have not yet partaken in savage acts.

There are several critical moments throughout the novel that depict Maurice and Roger's decent into savagery and loss of innocence. In Chapter 4, Maurice and Roger are walking past the littluns building sandcastles on the beach, when Roger begins destroying the sandcastles. Maurice follows along and begins kicking down the sandcastles. Maurice "felt the unease at his wrongdoing" because in his old life he would have been chastised for ruining the boys' sandcastles. (Golding 60) Later on in Chapter 4, Roger begins to throw stones at Henry, but purposely misses. Roger purposely missing is significant because it depicts the remnants of civility still left in his memory, and his remaining innocence, which is waning.  

After joining Jack's savage group of hunters, Maurice becomes so involved that he suggest the boys use a drum for ceremoniously slaughtering pigs. In Chapter 10, Maurice has completely descended into barbarism, and he accompanies Jack and Roger to steal Piggy's glasses. Roger turns into a sadist by the end of the novel, and there are several scenes that portray his brutal behavior. In Chapter 8, Roger viciously stabs the pig up its rear and laughs about it, and in Chapter 11 Roger rolls a boulder, killing Piggy. Maurice and Roger's participation in savage acts and support for Jack's tyrannical leadership prove they have completely lost their innocence.

Hello, I'm having trouble understanding exactly the meaning of a thesis in this story "shooting an elephant."

I am assuming from the question that you want to come up with a thesis for Orwell's essay. You can do so by isolating one theme, such as the narrator's conflict between being true to himself and doing his job as colonial policeman in Burma. Burma at this time was a British colony and the Burmese people lived under the thumb of the English who had to constantly demonstrate they were in charge. One thesis statement might be: In a world where appearances are more important than reality, people and animals suffer. 

An elephant has gone on a temporary rampage and killed a Burmese man. As the local policeman, the narrator, who is an Englishman, is expected to kill the elephant. He goes to do so with the villagers following behind him. By this time, the elephant has calmed down and is not threatening anyone. The narrator really does not want to kill the animal. It is pointless. But he knows the villagers expect it and will consider him cowardly and weak if he walks away. To keep up appearances, to show the Burmese that the British are courageous and in control, he shoots the beast. It is not easy to kill an elephant, so the animal dies slowly and painfully. The narrator feels terrible about what he has done to keep up appearances. ""I often wondered," he says at the end, "whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool." 

Orwell leaves the reader wondering what the narrator should have done. In a better world, the narrator could have followed his own heart and spared the elephant. But Orwell makes the point that in a world where the British must at all costs keep up appearances, individuals end up violating their consciences. Nobody wins. Ultimately, he is saying that we need to build social systems that give people the freedom to act humanely. 

In Ender's Game, in what categories is Ender's army ranked first after their first battle?

Ender’s Gameis the first book in Orson Scott Card’s Ender Wiggins series. The story follows Ender, a pre-teen boy who has been tapped as a future commander for Earth’s space army fighting against alien invaders. Early in the book he is sent to a space training academy where he and other children are trained to fight in “battles” – physical tactical games that take place in zero-gravity. Right before the battle your question references,...

Ender’s Game is the first book in Orson Scott Card’s Ender Wiggins series. The story follows Ender, a pre-teen boy who has been tapped as a future commander for Earth’s space army fighting against alien invaders. Early in the book he is sent to a space training academy where he and other children are trained to fight in “battles” – physical tactical games that take place in zero-gravity. Right before the battle your question references, Ender has been promoted to Commander of a newly formed Dragon Army, with untrained members who have little to no skill in the battle room.

The teams that win battles are ranked on a board in the lunchroom, but Orson Scott Card doesn’t make a note of the team’s ranking, but rather of Ender’s. During Dragon team’s first battle with Rabbit Army (a much better army), Ender uses his tactical skills and unconventional tactics to win the battle, surpassing expectations. At the end of battle, Ender has the best Commander Ranking in the school. He has a perfect win-loss record and he/the team is ranked first in average soldiers-disabled, average enemy-disabled, and average time-elapsed-before-victory. There may be other categories, but those are the ones Orson Scott Card mentions by name.

For more information or other questions on the book, check out the study guide, linked below.

What are two important characteristics the United States adopted from Ancient Greece?

The most notable characteristic the United States has adopted from Ancient Greece is the idea of a democracy. Democracy, or the Ancient Greek demokratia, literally means "people's power," and refers to a system of government where the people are in charge of the decisions. There is some ambiguity to the actual meaning of democracy- who really has the power? Who is part of the "people?" Everyone, or only the wealthy elite? It is difficult to say who actually had voting or decision making power in Ancient Greece as there is no regular census data, and most of the contemporary first-person accounts of Ancient Greek politics are from the perspective of a wealthy, educated, elite person.

In the United States we experience some degree of ambiguity in our practice of democracy, too. While every American citizen has the right to vote, many do not, and their voices go unheard in the decision-making process. There are also criticisms of the democratic republic system, whereby populations elect a representative to vote or act on their behalf in the government. People may be unhappy with their chosen representative if their ideals differ from the elected official's, and there are criticisms of how easily some politicians may be swain by bribery.

Another aspect of culture the United States has acquired from Ancient Greece is architectural style. Many government or public buildings and monuments are built in a style called Neoclassical architecture, meaning it incorporates new symbolism and motifs but is heavily based on Classical (Ancient Greek) architecture. If you look at Ancient Greek structures, you will likely see lots of columns, domes, and decorative carvings. These, too, are evident in the architectural styles popular in the United States during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.

The fact that Neoclassical architecture is employed in the style of many public buildings like courthouses, banks, and government offices serves as a visual reminder to where much of the United States' sociopolitical ideology comes from.

Does Abraham Lincoln deserve credit as "the Great Emancipator"? Why or why not?

Lincoln deserves the title "the Great Emancipator" to some degree. He always disliked the institution of slavery and felt that it undermined American democracy. He was not, however, convinced of the ability of African-American people to participate in an integrated society, and he considered the idea of founding a colony for former slaves in Central America. At first, he was not in favor of abolitionism but only wanted to end slavery where it already existed,...

Lincoln deserves the title "the Great Emancipator" to some degree. He always disliked the institution of slavery and felt that it undermined American democracy. He was not, however, convinced of the ability of African-American people to participate in an integrated society, and he considered the idea of founding a colony for former slaves in Central America. At first, he was not in favor of abolitionism but only wanted to end slavery where it already existed, believing it would eventually die out—a position referred to as "Free Soil."

When Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, it was a politically expedient move. He had to pacify the Radical Republicans in Congress who were eager to emancipate the slaves, but he also had to mollify the border states who were ready to secede. In addition, the New York City Draft Riots of 1863 (which took place after the Emancipation Proclamation was passed) proved that many Northerners, including Irish workingmen, were worried that the emancipation of the slaves would hurt them economically. Lincoln was a political realist and knew that he could only pass a measure that was largely symbolic in nature, as the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the south (and they were not actually freed until the 13th Amendment was passed after the Civil War). 

In reality, the true emancipators were the members of the abolitionist movement, black and white, who worked to end slavery. For example, the African-American abolitionist, writer, and orator Frederick Douglass was tireless in pushing Lincoln to move towards emancipation. The leaders of abolitionism were the true figures of emancipation, though Lincoln eventually came to agree with their viewpoints and helped them pursue emancipation on a national scale.

How are the two poems "Because I could mot stop for death" and "I heard a fly buzz - when I died" similar?

Emily Dickinson wrote many poems about death. Two of the most unusual of them are "Because I could not stop for Death" (479) and "I heard a Fly buzz - when I died" (591). Both of these poems relate the death of the speaker in the first person, meaning that the speaker is describing her own death after she has already died. In this each poem violates the adage, "Dead men tell no tales." One of the most mysterious things about death is that no one has lived through it to tell us about it. This accounts for, in our day, public fascination with near death experience accounts like Heaven Is for Real and others.

Both poems personify death, giving it human characteristics. In the former, Death is driving a carriage that brings the speaker to the graveyard. In the latter, death is described as "the King" in line 7. Both poems reveal a resignation toward death; the speaker knew she had to go. In Poem 479, she states, "I had put away / My labor and my leisure too, / For His Civility." Poem 591 mentions the speaker having made her last will and testament. Both poems have a calm, quiet tone. "We slowly drove - He knew no haste" describes the mood in the first poem, and the second refers to "the Stillness in the Room."

Both poems use understatement to great effect. The first describes Immortality, an overwhelming concept, as something that is able to ride as an extra passenger in the carriage. The second focuses on the sound of a fly buzzing--something very mundane and insignificant when compared to the immensity of death.

Both poems use the "fourteener" structure that Dickinson favored: Each stanza consists of fourteen iambic feet arranged in alternating lines of four and three. Of course, both poems also display Dickinson's unique capitalization and punctuation quirks, especially the dash.

Both poems demonstrate Dickinson's unparalleled poetic genius in that they capture a perspective on death that challenges the reader to consider the topic in new and surprising ways.