What is the mood of "The Veldt"?

On one level, the mood of "The Veldt" is clearly one of fear and paranoia. We can sense this from the very first lines of the story:

"George, I wish you'd look at the nursery."

"What's wrong with it?"

"I don't know."

"Well, then."

"I just want you to look at it, is all, or call a psychologist in to look at it."

"What would a psychologist want with a nursery?"

"You know very well what he'd want."

Clearly, the mother is upset about something. What we discover is that she is afraid that the technologically advanced house they have bought, and specifically the nursery, a kind of giant three dimensional TV set, has undermined their authority as parents with their two children, Wendy and Peter. There is a sense that the children know something the adults do not. There is something unsettling about the scenes of Africa they find in the nursery. Maybe Peter has tampered with the Nursery, so that the parents cannot control it?

This mood of paranoia is amplified when the parents confront the children about the nursery, and Peter flatly denies that they had anything to do with Africa. It is amplified still more when the father says he is thinking about turning the house off, Peter responds by saying "I don't think you'd better consider it any more, Father." Are the children becoming smarter and more powerful than the parents?

On another level, the story has a darkly comic mood to it. If we think of the story as a satire of the nuclear family, we can see how the efforts of the parents to "provide" for their children actually afford the children the means to supercede parental authority. Since the whole point of raising children is to make their lives better, we can see in the parent's reaction to their kids that 1) they don't understand them very well and 2) maybe their house has more to say about them and their desire to be "babied" than it does about their care for their children. In this case, Bradbury seems to suggest that maybe Wendy and Peter are the real adults in the story. 

What type of thinking spread during the Renaissance and Reformation periods?

During the Renaissance period, thinking shifted from that which closely aligned to the teachings of the Catholic Church to a more humanist perspective.  This was in part because of the invention of Gutenburg's printing press, which allowed different types of literature to be published in large quantities.  Petrarch was an Italian poet whose work helped to spread the ideas of humanism in Italy and the rest of Europe during the Renaissance.

Also during this time,...

During the Renaissance period, thinking shifted from that which closely aligned to the teachings of the Catholic Church to a more humanist perspective.  This was in part because of the invention of Gutenburg's printing press, which allowed different types of literature to be published in large quantities.  Petrarch was an Italian poet whose work helped to spread the ideas of humanism in Italy and the rest of Europe during the Renaissance.

Also during this time, Martin Luther took a stand against the Catholic Church in Germany.  He expressed his concerns with the church, specifically the selling of indulgences.  He also suggested that the mass should be in the language of the country where the church is located, rather than solely in Latin.  These new ideas and others were the beginning of the Protestant Reformation in Europe.  

In both cases, the Renaissance and the Reformation defied the teachings and outlook of the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church lost strength and power in Europe because of these two movements.

Why is Piggy a social outcast in William Golding's Lord Of The Flies, and how do the boys make him feel uneasy?

In his novel Lord of the Flies, William Golding identifies Piggy as a social outcast. Piggy, whose real name is unknown, is fat and unathletic. He is also balding and wears glasses. Piggy's physical inferiority is highlighted by the fact that he has asthma and cannot complete manual laboror any other physically taxing activity. When the boys first meet Piggy they call him "Fatty," and Ralph corrects them by incidentally calling him by...

In his novel Lord of the Flies, William Golding identifies Piggy as a social outcast. Piggy, whose real name is unknown, is fat and unathletic. He is also balding and wears glasses. Piggy's physical inferiority is highlighted by the fact that he has asthma and cannot complete manual labor or any other physically taxing activity. When the boys first meet Piggy they call him "Fatty," and Ralph corrects them by incidentally calling him by the name he hates the most...Piggy. Throughout the novel, Piggy is viewed as a social outcast because he is excluded from physical activities, like exploring the island with Ralph, Simon, and Jack, as well as going on hunting expeditions. Jack antagonizes Piggy throughout the novel by interrupting him while he is trying to speak at the assemblies, calling him names, and even physically assaulting him. Piggy gets made fun of for his glasses, which get broken, stolen, and destroyed by the end of the novel. Roger refers to Piggy as a "bag of fat," which ironically is the same adjective used to describe a group of pigs on the island. Piggy fears that the boys will harm him and looks to Ralph for protection. Their constant antagonism makes Piggy feel uneasy because he is aware that he is not socially accepted by the group of boys. He is also Ralph's biggest supporter, which does not add to his popularity as Ralph quickly loses control over the group. At the end of the novel, Roger rolls a boulder and kills Piggy, effectively destroying the last hope of civilization and humanity on the island.

What are some improvements in acting from the Elizabethan era to today?

The matter of whether or not acting technique is better today than it was in the Elizabethan era is really a matter of artistic preference. One could argue that today, actors have the opportunity to take more time to "get into" character, and potentially work in character detail from a number of previous interpretations.

As for the conditions actors worked in, things are certainly much improved! In the Elizabethan era, theatres were typically cramped courtyards,...

The matter of whether or not acting technique is better today than it was in the Elizabethan era is really a matter of artistic preference. One could argue that today, actors have the opportunity to take more time to "get into" character, and potentially work in character detail from a number of previous interpretations.

As for the conditions actors worked in, things are certainly much improved! In the Elizabethan era, theatres were typically cramped courtyards, though having freestanding theatres (such as the Globe) did become more common. Courtyard and freestanding theatres were often unhygienic as people left food scraps and personal waste on the ground. Gathering lots of people together in close quarters was also an exceptional means of spreading disease, like the plague.

Theatres built of wood frequently caught fire, which posed a big risk to the actors and patrons. Costuming had its dangers, as makeup contained hazardous materials like lead (as for white face paint) and mercury.

Actors were historically one of the lowest classes, along with sex workers and other people who "danced for their dinner." Being low-class in any society and time comes with its own stresses of health, safety, and survival. Women were not allowed to act, though today there is much more gender equality in acting and it is a desirable profession for many people of all genders.

How were Americans justified in their fear of immigrants after WWI?

First of all, we have to realize that not everyone would say that Americans were justified in their fear of immigrants after World War I.  There are many people who would argue that American nativism during this time period was misguided.  However, if we have to argue that fear of immigrants was justified, we can do so by pointing to the fact that some immigrants were politically radical during this time, which was also the...

First of all, we have to realize that not everyone would say that Americans were justified in their fear of immigrants after World War I.  There are many people who would argue that American nativism during this time period was misguided.  However, if we have to argue that fear of immigrants was justified, we can do so by pointing to the fact that some immigrants were politically radical during this time, which was also the time right after Russia’s Tsar had been overthrown and the communists had come to power.

At this point in world history, there was a fair amount of worry about communism and anarchism.  Communists had, of course, just overthrown the Russian monarchy and set up a country that they controlled.  The communists were explicitly trying to spread their system, making it logical for people in other countries to worry about them.  At the same time, anarchist thinking was somewhat prevalent in many European countries, particularly those whose economies were less strong.  Anarchists were detonating bombs and assassinating political leaders, trying to destabilize countries’ political systems.

In the United States, there was reason to fear that immigrants would be politically radical.  Many of the “new immigrants” were from countries where communism and/or anarchism were strong.  Some of the immigrants were certainly politically radical.  An anarchist immigrant had assassinated President McKinley in 1901.  Radical immigrants were largely behind the attempted bombings of public figures’ homes that led to the Palmer Raids of late 1919.  Because there were immigrants who were likely to be sympathetic to the radical political factions of this time, and because those radical factions seemed like a threat to commit violent acts, we can argue that Americans were justified in their fear of immigrants after WWI.

What did Elie think of the advice given to him by the head of the block in Night?

Elie is not sure whether to listen to his block captains' advice.

Elie and his father arrive at a new block.  After they are forced to take showers and run, they encounter the head of the block, “a young Pole” who gives them a speech about being in a concentration camp.  He tells them they have “already eluded the worst danger” and he then goes on to explain the importance of faith.

Therefore, muster your strength and keep your faith. We shall all see the day of liberation. Have faith in life, a thousand times faith.  By driving out despair, you will move away from death. (Ch. 3)

Elie says that these were “the first human words.”  The Pole is responsible for “keeping order” on the block and tells them to come to him with complaints.  For the first time in the process, Elie seems to feel like he is being treated like an individual and not a number or one of the mass of victims.

Throughout the book, Elie will face a crisis of faith.  Not everyone seems to still have his faith and believe in its importance, as the Polish block captain did.  Elie is not sure what to believe.

Things are not easy in the concentration camps.  Elie finds himself the recipient of a lot of advice.  Since I am not sure which one you mean, here is another example.  When Elie’s father gets very ill, he is told by the Blockälteste not to share his bread with his father.

Don't forget that you are in a concentration camp. In this place, it is every man for himself, and you cannot think of others. Not even your father. In this place, there is no such thing as father, brother, friend. (Ch. 8)

Elie feels “deep down” that the man is right.  His father is in bad shape, and not likely to live.  However, Elie also wants to help him as much as he can while his father is still alive.  He only thinks about it for “a fraction of a second” and still feels guilty.  He does not know what to do to help his father or himself.

In the concentration camps, Elie gets advice from many quarters.  Some of this advice is very helpful, but these two examples show how the advice gave Elie pause.  He tried to listen to others that meant well, but sometimes he wasn’t sure about whether to take their advice.

How are children changed by the differences between today and the past? How are they different?

In my opinion, the largest difference the current generation of children has as compared to past generations is the influence of the internet.  No generation has ever before been bombarded with information and social pressures as they are today.  No generation of children has ever before carried phones in their pockets, constantly attached to the world at all times. 

In the past, children would come home from school and visit with friends, do homework, do chores, and then possibly...

In my opinion, the largest difference the current generation of children has as compared to past generations is the influence of the internet.  No generation has ever before been bombarded with information and social pressures as they are today.  No generation of children has ever before carried phones in their pockets, constantly attached to the world at all times. 

In the past, children would come home from school and visit with friends, do homework, do chores, and then possibly spend the rest of the evening with their families.  Today, they might still be busy chatting with friends online until late hours, even robbing themselves of needed sleep.

In the past, children could be protected to some extent from the negative influences of the adult world.  Today, not only is porn and violence available on every phone, tablet, and pc, but it does not wait to be found by a child.  It is there, ready to be seen by any surfing eye.

In the past, it was enough of a challenge for kids to concentrate on school work.  Now, however, there are the constant distractions of text messages, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, entertainment updates, news headlines, and many other interruptions.  Children were not meant to multitask constantly.

Finally, with all of the TV, video games, and internet usage available to children, there is very little incentive to go outside and be active.  Because of this, today's youth are facing more obesity and internal health problems than ever before.  In the past, children became victims to external health threats such as viruses.  Today, kids tend to unknowingly cause their own health problems.