In "A Poison Tree," what is the literal meaning of "And into my garden stole"? How did the persona's enemy enter his garden?

In "A Poison Tree," this line literally means that the enemy snuck into the speaker's garden. The word "stole," for example, means to sneak or creep into a place. However, there is also a deeper meaning here: by using the word "stole," a word suggestive of stealing or theft, the speaker implies that the enemy entered without his permission. So, in one respect, the enemy is like a thief or a criminal.

In the next...

In "A Poison Tree," this line literally means that the enemy snuck into the speaker's garden. The word "stole," for example, means to sneak or creep into a place. However, there is also a deeper meaning here: by using the word "stole," a word suggestive of stealing or theft, the speaker implies that the enemy entered without his permission. So, in one respect, the enemy is like a thief or a criminal.

In the next line, the reader learns how the enemy was able to sneak into the speaker's garden:

When the night have veiled the pole.

So, the enemy entered the garden at night, using the cover of darkness as a sort of protection against being detected by the speaker. In fact, it was so dark that night that the "pole," a reference to the North Star, could not be seen. Thus, the night sky helped to camouflage the enemy.

What kind of rulers will Miranda and Ferdinand be? Are Miranda and Ferdinand too weak to rule after we have seen them manipulated by Prospero and...

It is difficult to determine with certainty whether Ferdinand and Miranda will be weak leaders, but they will likely be kind and just rulers. Prospero partially controls Miranda, a teenage girl and his own daughter, by using magic. He also uses sorcery to manipulate Ferdinand. It is unlikely that Ferdinand and Miranda will have to worry about their fathers controlling them when they come into power. They will have gained in wisdom, their parents may...

It is difficult to determine with certainty whether Ferdinand and Miranda will be weak leaders, but they will likely be kind and just rulers. Prospero partially controls Miranda, a teenage girl and his own daughter, by using magic. He also uses sorcery to manipulate Ferdinand. It is unlikely that Ferdinand and Miranda will have to worry about their fathers controlling them when they come into power. They will have gained in wisdom, their parents may very well be gone, and Prospero will have already given up his wizardry.

Miranda and Ferdinand seem to be tender-hearted youths. She cries when she sees the tempest, begging her father to stop: “I have suffered / With those that I saw suffer.” She not only offers compassion to almost anyone, she speaks up about how she feels, even when her father rebukes her. Ferdinand also shows courage by attempting to fight Prospero, who is able to stop him with magic. Also, Ferdinand is so taken with Miranda, he agrees to Prospero’s tests of menial labor because “she is / Ten times more gentle than her father's crabbed, / And he's composed of harshness.”

From what we know, Ferdinand and Miranda are good people, curious, kindly, and brave. They are manipulated only in extreme circumstances and in their youth, and it is very possible that their resolution and strength will grow with age.

How is Barton's internal conflict resolved in Tom Godwin's short story "The Cold Equations"?

In Tom Godwin's short story "The Cold Equations," the pilot Barton resolves his internal conflict by doing all he can to save Marilyn while also accepting the fact that one person must die to save the lives of many.Barton's first step to resolve his internal conflict is contacting Commander Delhart on the Stardust. Commander Delhart gives Barton the answer he was expecting: The Stardustcannot turn around and retrieve Marilyn because doing so is...

In Tom Godwin's short story "The Cold Equations," the pilot Barton resolves his internal conflict by doing all he can to save Marilyn while also accepting the fact that one person must die to save the lives of many.

Barton's first step to resolve his internal conflict is contacting Commander Delhart on the Stardust. Commander Delhart gives Barton the answer he was expecting: The Stardust cannot turn around and retrieve Marilyn because doing so is too costly and will disrupt their scheduled stops, which could cost many colonists' lives and be very expensive. Commander Delhart orders Barton to go through with jettisoning Marilyn from the ship. Barton calculates, based on her weight, that if he reduces his deceleration speed to .10, he can keep her on-board and alive a bit longer. He gets permission from Commander Delhart to do so for 57 minutes. Barton's final step in doing what he can for Marilyn is permitting her to write goodbye letters to her family members and making contact with her brother on Woden to say goodbye. When asked by her brother if Barton did all he could to save her, Barton assures him he did, which shows he has resolved his internal conflict:

Yes—do you think I could ever let it happen if I wasn't sure? I did everything I could do. If there was anything at all I could do now, I would do it.

Barton knows the right thing to do and does it, showing he has resolved his internal conflict by the end of the story. That doesn't mean he does not still grieve for Marilyn. The final paragraph of the story depicts his grief by describing Marilyn's continued presence as her words echo through Barton's head: "I didn't do anything to die for. . . I didn't do anything."

Is Ambrose Bierce biased toward one side of the Civil War? Does the narrator describe the Union soldiers more positively than Farquhar or vice...

Since Ambrose Bierce fought on the Union side in the Civil War and was involved in several important battles, he was undoubtedly sympathetic to the Union cause. However, he does not show any such sympathy in "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge." We are naturally sympathetic with Peyton Farquhar because we are held firmly in his point of view and he is being hanged. The Union soldiers who are performing the hanging and those who...

Since Ambrose Bierce fought on the Union side in the Civil War and was involved in several important battles, he was undoubtedly sympathetic to the Union cause. However, he does not show any such sympathy in "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge." We are naturally sympathetic with Peyton Farquhar because we are held firmly in his point of view and he is being hanged. The Union soldiers who are performing the hanging and those who are watching it happen are not portrayed unsympathetically. They all seem like faceless automatons. If Bierce had wanted to create sympathy or antipathy he could easily have created a Union officer who would have had some conversation with the condemned man. But Bierce chose to keep the Union soldiers anonymous. They are all military men holding rigid postures and dressed in identical blue uniforms. There is no animosity; they are just obeying orders. Our sympathy is entirely with Peyton Farquhar. It is quite possible to feel sympathy with an enemy after he has been defeated. He is, after all, a fellow human being. Perhaps it was Bierce's intention to emphasize that Farquhar is a fellow human being and that it is tragic that men have to be so cruel to one another. This feeling was particularly common during the Civil War, when men who had nothing against each other found themselves enemies without quite understanding why or how it had happened.

We do not feel sympathy for Peyton Farquhar because of the cause he represents but in spite of it. We feel sympathy for the man because we can easily understand his feelings. He wants to live and to return to his wife and his home. We cannot even condemn his intention to burn down the Owl Creek bridge because it shows his remarkable courage to attack the Union army single-handedly. It is natural to feel sympathy for the underdog, and Farquhar is certainly the underdog in this story. The narrator describes the large assemblage of Union soldiers who are all involved in the execution of a single man. They include the following formidable group: 

Midway up the slope between the bridge and fort were the spectators--a single company of infantry in line, at "parade rest," the butts of their rifles on the ground, the barrels inclining slightly backward against the right shoulder, the hands crossed upon the stock. 

What is Huck Finn's middle name?

Throughout both The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain never mentions a full or middle name for Huck Finn. However, in Chapter 11 of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck pretends to be a girl and talks to a woman in town about the recent murder of Huck Finn. The woman from town tells Huck that she thinks that Huck's father committed the murder and that there is a...

Throughout both The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain never mentions a full or middle name for Huck Finn. However, in Chapter 11 of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck pretends to be a girl and talks to a woman in town about the recent murder of Huck Finn. The woman from town tells Huck that she thinks that Huck's father committed the murder and that there is a reward for both Pap Finn and Jim, another character in the story. Huck tells the woman her (his) name is Sarah Williams, but later slips up. When the woman from town asks the girl's name again, Huck replies, "Mary Williams." He covers by saying that Mary is her (his) middle name, which she sometimes goes by. This is the only middle name mentioned for Huck Finn, even though it is a fake middle name for the fake Sarah Williams.

Discuss the king's judging system in "The Lady or The Tiger."

Frank Stockton's much anthologized short story "The Lady or the Tiger" is about a "semi-barbaric" king who has devised a very unique system of justice. He feels this system to be beyond reproach and perfectly fair. If a man is accused of a crime he determines his guilt or innocence in a public arena built just for that purpose. It is a popular institution in the kingdom and the trials are well attended by the...

Frank Stockton's much anthologized short story "The Lady or the Tiger" is about a "semi-barbaric" king who has devised a very unique system of justice. He feels this system to be beyond reproach and perfectly fair. If a man is accused of a crime he determines his guilt or innocence in a public arena built just for that purpose. It is a popular institution in the kingdom and the trials are well attended by the public.

Once the accused enters the arena he has the choice of two doors, behind one is a tiger, who kills him, and behind the other a lady, who is promptly married to him. Therefore, fate rules the day in this kingdom. Stockton says,

This vast amphitheater, with its encircling galleries, its mysterious vaults, and its unseen passages, was an agent of poetic justice, in which crime was punished, or virtue rewarded, by the decrees of an impartial and incorruptible chance. 

The justice in this system is simple. If the tiger is chosen, the accused must have been guilty, but if the lady comes out of the door, his innocence is proven. The simplicity of this system was quite in line with the king's thinking. The king liked the world to be black and white. In the opening paragraph Stockton explains the king's philosophy of governance:

When every member of his domestic and political systems moved smoothly in its appointed course, his nature was bland and genial; but, whenever there was a little hitch, and some of his orbs got out of their orbits, he was blander and more genial still, for nothing pleased him so much as to make the crooked straight and crush down uneven places. 

Either an accused man was guilty or not. The king obviously disapproved of regular courts with lawyers and juries, because shades of gray might enter into proceedings. Appeals, hung juries, clever defense attorneys and other complications with justice as we know it did not interest the king. He wanted demonstrable proof of the accused's guilt or innocence.

Even the king's subjects could not dispute the complete simplicity and fairness of this system. Stockton says,

The institution was a very popular one. When the people gathered together on one of the great trial days, they never knew whether they were to witness a bloody slaughter or a hilarious wedding. This element of uncertainty lent an interest to the occasion which it could not otherwise have attained. Thus, the masses were entertained and pleased, and the thinking part of the community could bring no charge of unfairness against this plan, for did not the accused person have the whole matter in his own hands? 

Of course, the accused who knew himself to be innocent yet chose poorly may not have agreed with the king's point of view.  

Why do you think "The Sniper" is so universal and is admired?

One of the reasons why "The Sniper" is universally admired is because of its statement on war.

The main character is focused on his wartime mission.  Nothing gets in the way of his purpose.  He is described as "thin" and "ascetic" as a consequence of his war training, a training that dehumanizes sniper and enemy.  The sniper fails to find happiness:

The sniper looked at his enemy falling and he shuddered. The lust of battle...

One of the reasons why "The Sniper" is universally admired is because of its statement on war.

The main character is focused on his wartime mission.  Nothing gets in the way of his purpose.  He is described as "thin" and "ascetic" as a consequence of his war training, a training that dehumanizes sniper and enemy.  The sniper fails to find happiness:

The sniper looked at his enemy falling and he shuddered. The lust of battle died in him. He became bitten by remorse. The sweat stood out in beads on his forehead..... His teeth chattered, he began to gibber to himself, cursing the war, cursing himself, cursing everybody.

He looked at the smoking revolver in his hand, and with an oath he hurled it to the roof at his feet. 

In the middle of the story, after being wounded, the sniper experiences a short-lived moment of revelation about war and his role in it.

"The Sniper" speaks to the idea that no war is ever "civil."  When the sniper comes to see that he has killed his brother, he is left in silence.  

The machine gun stopped.
Then the sniper turned over the dead body and looked into his brother's face.

The sniper is face-to-face with the reality that he is his brother's murderer. This is the story's ultimate statement. Even though it is set amidst the Irish Civil War, it has universal applications because war makes either the sniper who kills or the brother who is killed.