What does the new house symbolize? How does that differ from the current Younger apartment?

The small house that the Youngers are able to purchase through Mr. Younger’s life insurance policy symbolizes the American dream and their ability to get up and out of the situation in which they live. The apartment is cramped and small and is shared by five family members. The entire family is on top of each other, and there is very little privacy. These tight quarters have caused a lot of bickering and arguing between...

The small house that the Youngers are able to purchase through Mr. Younger’s life insurance policy symbolizes the American dream and their ability to get up and out of the situation in which they live. The apartment is cramped and small and is shared by five family members. The entire family is on top of each other, and there is very little privacy. These tight quarters have caused a lot of bickering and arguing between the five family members; Walter and Ruth are constantly fighting, and Beneatha and Mama disagree over Beneatha’s attempt to “find herself”.    It is only a two-bedroom apartment where Beneatha and Mama share a bedroom, and Walter and Ruth share the other.  Travis, Walter and Beneatha’s son, must sleep on the couch.  They also share a bathroom that is down the hall from their apartment with other residents of the apartment building.  We also find out that Ruth is pregnant, and Ruth is probably concerned about how they will fit a newborn into the small apartment. 

The apartment is located in the slums of the south side of Chicago.  Mama’s dream to move out of the slums drives her desire to find a small house where the influences of the inner city won’t affect the family.  To Mama, a house symbolizes success and a chance to improve their lives.  The small apartment is oppressive, much like the racist society the family must navigate to succeed.   The apartment traps and confines the family, and it symbolizes their inability to break out and achieve their personal dreams.   Mama just wants what is best for her family, and she feels that moving out of the slums is the first step to their happiness.

In what way or ways does H.H. Munro (Saki) provide examples of irony in his short story The Interlopers?

The main type of irony H.H. Munro, also known by his pseudonym as “Saki,” employed in his short story The Interlopers is situational. In fact, situational irony is present throughout this story of two men, bitter enemies, who find themselves victim of the very natural phenomenon over which they had fought and who ultimately succumb to forces very different from those which they had anticipated. Ulrich von Gradwitz is legal owner to a stretch of forest that his rich in game. Georg Znaeym is now patriarch of a neighboring clan that continues to claim rightful ownership of the land in question despite judicial determinations in Ulrich’s favor. The hatred that these two men have for each is legend, as George will later note when suggesting the irony of these two men walking side-by-side into town following their shared ordeal: “’How the whole region would stare and gabble if we rode into the marketsquare together.”

The first, and main example of situational irony is suggested in the story’s opening passage, in which the reader is introduced to Ulrich, who is patrolling the disputed land in question in search, not of game, but of his human prey, Georg. Munro has emphasized the bountiful animal resources this land possesses, and that hunting game would be the natural order of things. The feud between families, however, has transformed the nature of Ulrich’s hunt from one for food to one for revenge.

Another element of situational irony exists in the fact of these two men’s demise occurring by virtue of the very land that is at the center of their dispute. Both men treasure the stretch of forest. As Munro’s unseen narrator points out early in the story:

“The forest lands of Gradwitz were of wide extent and well stocked with game; the narrow strip of precipitous woodland that lay on its outskirt was not remarkable for the game it harboured or the shooting it afforded, but it was the most jealously guarded of all its owner’s territorial possessions.”

Yet, it would be the natural growth of this forest, and the equally natural phenomenon of a violent storm, that would spell their demise. When fierce winds blow a tree down onto both men, there is an element of God-given justice to go with the situation’s irony. Both men, and their respective families and employees, covet this land, and both act as self-righteous, violent antagonists toward each other. That they should both be felled by the same tree, then, constitutes a sort of irony and a measure of divine intervention.

Another example of situational irony is the evolving relationship between Ulrich and Georg that occurs while both men remain trapped under the aforementioned tree. Two individuals determined, out of a visceral mutual hatred, to murder each other are suddenly reflective of the idiocy of their situation and develop a common rapport that transitions into genuine friendship. When The Interlopers begins, the reader can only presume that the antagonism between the two men will end with one’s murder of the other. As they lay trapped under the tree, both wounded, Georg blinded by the blood caked onto his eyes, first Ulrich and then Georg discover the underlying humanity in each other. As Georg reconsiders his feelings towards Ulrich, spawned initially by the latter’s offer of wine from his flask, he now sees that the feud that has driven their relationship has been misplaced:

“I never thought to have wanted to do other than hate you all my life, but I think I have changed my mind about things too, this last half-hour. And you offered me your wineflask … Ulrich von Gradwitz, I will be your friend.”

The irony in these men’s transition from murderous intent to friendship is profound, as is the final element of situational irony present in The Interlopers: the resolution of their ordeal. As noted, the reader can be forgiven for assuming that Munro’s story would end with the murder of one by the other, or, even by a sequence of events that results in their both being shot by each other, or by their respective allies, references to whom are frequent. The story, though, ends with Ulrich’s observation that the beings hurrying in their direction are the allies of neither man, but are wolves, the obvious intent of which would be their slow, painful deaths at the mouths of these ravenous creatures. This outcome represents the ultimate irony in Munro’s narrative. Readers have had no reason to anticipate this development, but there it is—an outcome at variance with that which was anticipated.

What did Martin Luther King mean by the "drum major instinct"? How can this instinct have a negative impact in leadership? How can it have a...

In Martin Luther King Jr.'s final sermon, he talked about the "drum major instinct," which can be defined as a desire to be noticed, to stand out and to be significant or noted by others. To put this idea into context, King tells the Biblical story of the brothers James and John, who asked to be seated at the left and right hand of Jesus. At first glance, says King, their request seems "selfish," but in fact it is symptomatic of the drum major instinct that every human possesses.

In terms of leadership, the drum major instinct was problematic for King. When it is "unharnessed," for example, it can cause leaders to think that they are better than those they lead, to believe that they are more important and that their additional experience or training sets them apart from others. In other words, it creates arrogance and "snobbishism."

In contrast, when the drum major instinct is brought under control and a leader lives in accordance with Christian values, it can bring greatness and benefit everybody. To illustrate this point, King reminds the audience of Jesus's leadership skills and abilities: he fed the hungry, served humanity, and always showed love and kindness to others. 

At the beginning of the story, what does the narrator reveal about her family and her own responsibility in the family? How does she feel about...

The first paragraph of the story introduces readers to the narrator, Squeaky. She quickly introduces readers to her family and the fact that her family has set up a system of labor for each family member. Her mom is a stay at home mother, George runs errands, and her dad takes care of anything that needs taking care of:

George runs errands for the big boys and sells Christmas cards. And anything else that’s got...

The first paragraph of the story introduces readers to the narrator, Squeaky. She quickly introduces readers to her family and the fact that her family has set up a system of labor for each family member. Her mom is a stay at home mother, George runs errands, and her dad takes care of anything that needs taking care of:

George runs errands for the big boys and sells Christmas cards. And anything else that’s got to get done, my father does.

Squeaky's job is to take care of her brother, Raymond. Raymond is her older brother, but it is her job to take care of him due to his mental and physical disability. Squeaky never gives her readers a diagnosis, but she does tell readers that Raymond's head is larger than normal. She hints at some mental handicap when she says that Raymond is not "quite right":  

But a lot of people call him my little brother cause he needs looking after cause he’s not quite right. And a lot of smart mouths got lots to say about that too, especially when George was minding him. But now, if anybody has anything to say to Raymond, anything to say about his big head, they have to come by me.

Squeaky does not seem to resent having to take care of her brother. She does not claim to love it, but she does not claim to dislike it either. What is very clear is that Squeaky takes her job very seriously. It does not matter who Raymond needs protecting from; Squeaky protects him like lion:

“What grade you in now, Raymond?”

“You got anything to say to my brother, you say it to me, Mary Louise Williams of Raggedy Town, Baltimore.”

“What are you, his mother?” sasses Rosie.

“That’s right, Fatso. And the next word out of anybody and I’ll be their mother too.”

What's the best chronological way to answer an exam style poetry question?

If the exam you are taking is asking a specific question about a poem, then yes, moving through the poem chronologically would be the best way to respond. First, for most humanities courses, the citation style is MLA format. Therefore, when you use in text evidence in the form of quoting, remember that line numbers go immediately following the quoted text in a parenthetical: ex: (12-14). Also, use the forward / to indicate line breaks.

...

If the exam you are taking is asking a specific question about a poem, then yes, moving through the poem chronologically would be the best way to respond. First, for most humanities courses, the citation style is MLA format. Therefore, when you use in text evidence in the form of quoting, remember that line numbers go immediately following the quoted text in a parenthetical: ex: (12-14). Also, use the forward / to indicate line breaks.

Now, if the question is asking for you to compare or contrast two different poems, then you might not work chronologically. Instead, you would work with the strongest evidence from both poems and include that evidence (in the form of a quote) to prove your point. 

Don't forget that all quotes need signal phrases, and that MLA asks that writers use present tense verbs. For example, if you are quoting from the poem "The Road Not Taken," you can begin the quote in several different ways:

• Frost writes, "And that has made all the difference" (20).


• The speaker concludes, "And that has made all the difference" (20).

Both of the above examples show a signal phrase, a quote, and a parenthetical. 

What part of "The Pit and the Pendulum" did you find most suspenseful? Why?

The part of The Pit and the Pendulumthat I always find the most suspenseful is the part about the pendulum. It starts with the narrator noticing that the painting of Time on the ceiling had a pendulum instead of scythe, and then, although he is not sure, he thinks he sees the pendulum moving. At that point, the pendulum is barely moving, which makes the narrator lose interest and start to look around. Later,...

The part of The Pit and the Pendulum that I always find the most suspenseful is the part about the pendulum. It starts with the narrator noticing that the painting of Time on the ceiling had a pendulum instead of scythe, and then, although he is not sure, he thinks he sees the pendulum moving. At that point, the pendulum is barely moving, which makes the narrator lose interest and start to look around. Later, the narrator returns his gaze to the pendulum to see that the swing of the pendulum had increased in speed and width, and that the entire thing had descended a noticeable amount. He spends what he thinks could be days just watching the pendulum coming closer and closer to him, but all he can do is wait until it reaches him.

Thanks to the way Poe writes the narrator's internal reactions, the readers also feel the tension as we wait for the pendulum to finally reach the narrator. Poe drags out the experience, spending one-third of the short story describing how the pendulum brings slowly impending doom for the narrator, which is more than he spends on any other one thing. The episode with the pendulum is slow and long (in relation to the rest of the story), just as the narrator experiences the slow and long process of the pendulum gaining speed and descending toward him.

Compare and contrast the two main characters of "The Most Dangerous Game".

Richard Connel's short story "The Most Dangerous Game" features a protagonist, Sanger Rainsford, a big game hunter from New York City, and an antagonist, General Zaroff, a Cossack military man who has fled Russia after the revolution. They share a similar passion. Each is adept at big game hunting. When Rainsford accidentally falls off his yacht on the way to South America to hunt jaguars he comes ashore at Zaroff's island. The general lives with...

Richard Connel's short story "The Most Dangerous Game" features a protagonist, Sanger Rainsford, a big game hunter from New York City, and an antagonist, General Zaroff, a Cossack military man who has fled Russia after the revolution. They share a similar passion. Each is adept at big game hunting. When Rainsford accidentally falls off his yacht on the way to South America to hunt jaguars he comes ashore at Zaroff's island. The general lives with his servant, Ivan, in a large palatial chateau with all the "amenities of civilization." The men are similar in their affinity for hunting, yet are very different in their assessments of the value of human life. 

When Rainsford first meets Zaroff the general recognizes his guest because he has read Rainsford's book on "hunting snow leopards in Tibet." While Rainsford is a celebrated hunter, the general is a total fanatic for the hunt. Each of the men has pursued big game throughout the world, and they share their stories. In the beginning they also share the opinion that the game they hunt have no feelings and simply exist to bring pleasure to the hunter.

In the opening of the story, Rainsford explains his theory about the animals he hunts. When his friend Whitney suggests that their prey actually have feelings and suffer, Rainsford scoffs at the idea. He says,

"You're a big-game hunter, not a philosopher. Who cares how a jaguar feels?...This hot weather is making you soft, Whitney. Be a realist. The world is made up of two classes--the hunters and the huntees. Luckily, you and I are hunters."

Zaroff has much the same opinion, yet with an insane twist. Because Zaroff has become bored with hunting animals, he hunts men who have been shipwrecked on his island. He rationalizes his murderous pursuit to Rainsford:

"Life is for the strong, to be lived by the strong, and, if needs be, taken by the strong. The weak of the world were put here to give the strong pleasure. I am strong. Why should I not use my gift? If I wish to hunt, why should I not? I hunt the scum of the earth: sailors from tramp ships--lassars, blacks, Chinese, whites, mongrels--a thoroughbred horse or hound is worth more than a score of them."

When Zaroff suggests Rainsford hunt with him, the American refuses and the contrast between the characters becomes clear. Rainsford expresses his differences to the general:

"Hunting? Great Guns, General Zaroff, what you speak of is murder....Thank you, I'm a hunter, not a murderer."

In the last part of the story the tables are turned on Rainsford as he is hunted by the general, and the reader may assume that Rainsford eventually regrets his earlier observations about the hunted. He realizes what it is like to be a "beast at bay." 

The reader can label Rainsford as dynamic character because his ordeal has changed him and we feel relatively certain he will never hunt again after the episode on Zaroff's island. Zaroff, on the other hand, is static because he doesn't change. He feels no remorse in his sociopathic practice.