What do you consider the major moral lesson in Hard Times by Charles Dickens?

For me, the major moral lesson that Charles Dickens hopes readers take away from Hard Times is that Utilitarian values are not only impractical, but are also immoral and calloused. Utilitarianism is a philosophy that was especially prominent at the time Dickens wrote the tale, and it is centered on practically and methodically calculating what does the most people the most good, while disregarding the human component of their felicitous calculus. Dickens exaggerates the tenets of Utilitarianism through iconic characters such as Mr. Gradgrind and the loathsome Bounderby.

Gradgrind specifically best represents the moral lesson that Utilitarianism is a narrow, restrictive philosophy after he grows to appreciate the human condition. Initially, Gradgrind harps on about facts and statistics, and ignores others’ thoughts and emotions. He finds his children's use of imagination to be a sign of weakness and mental deficiency. One striking instance is when his daughter Louisa asks if she should marry Bounderby, another Utilitarian caricature:

“I would advise you (since you ask me) to consider this question, as you have been accustomed to consider every other question, simply as one of tangible Fact.... You are, we will say in round numbers, twenty years of age; Mr. Bounderby is, we will say in round numbers, fifty.... In considering this question, it is not unimportant to take into account the statistics of marriage, so far as they have yet been obtained in England and Wales. I find, on reference to the figures, that a large proportion of these marriages are contracted between parties of very unequal ages, and that the elder of these contracting parties is, in rather more than three-fourths of these instances, the bridegroom.... The disparity I have mentioned, therefore, almost ceases to be disparity, and (virtually) all but disappears” (77).

Gradgrind emphasizes the facts of the potential relationship, but overlooks how his daughter actually feels toward Bounderby. He treats the marriage as a business transaction. The marriage is a bitter affair for Louisa, and she eventually leaves him a broken woman. It is only after Mr. Gradgrind witnesses the depth of his daughter’s agony that he understands that his Utilitarian values have failed. This experience changes his perspective:

“Aged and bent he looked, and quite bowed down; and yet he looked a wiser man, and a better man, than in the days when in this life he wanted nothing but Facts” (205).

Thus, through the character of Mr. Gradgrind, Dickens shows the ineffectiveness of Utilitarian values, and provides readers with a blunt moral lesson on treating others as humans rather than numbers or statistics.

All textual evidence is pulled from the Norton Critical Edition of Hard Times, 3rd Ed.

What is the problem identified in the octave? What is the solution given in the sestet?

John Milton was born in 1608 and went blind in 1654. Milton probably wrote "On his Blindness" in 1655. It is an autobiographical poem reflecting on Milton's blindness. The octave poses the immediate problem Milton encountered of how to deal with his blindness on an emotional and religious level. Milton, at this point in his life, had a long and successful career as a writer of poems and prose pamphlets. He was also deeply pious,...

John Milton was born in 1608 and went blind in 1654. Milton probably wrote "On his Blindness" in 1655. It is an autobiographical poem reflecting on Milton's blindness. The octave poses the immediate problem Milton encountered of how to deal with his blindness on an emotional and religious level. Milton, at this point in his life, had a long and successful career as a writer of poems and prose pamphlets. He was also deeply pious, considering his work a form of service to God. In the octave, he wonders why God would take away his sight, as that renders him incapable of the work he had been doing in God's service, and how he can continue to serve God, being blind.

The sestet resolves these problems by accepting God's will. First, Milton acknowledges that since God is omnipotent, God actually does not need human help, saying:

... God doth not need

Either man's work or his own gifts;

Instead, Milton concludes that people best serve God by accepting God's will with faith and devotion. Thus rather than treat his blindness as something leading him to question God, he should strive to submit to God with patience and humility. 

In the book "The Once and Future King," what was the lesson the Wart learned as a fish?

When Wart is transformed into a fish, he is taught most immediately what it is to learn for the first time the basic rules of locomotion, and must discover by observation how to propel himself through the water.  He must know to heed even the slightest detail in his own movement and that of Merlin, and he learns that all creatures are constructed differently and adapted to their own environment.

Wart learns about this new...

When Wart is transformed into a fish, he is taught most immediately what it is to learn for the first time the basic rules of locomotion, and must discover by observation how to propel himself through the water.  He must know to heed even the slightest detail in his own movement and that of Merlin, and he learns that all creatures are constructed differently and adapted to their own environment.

Wart learns about this new environment, and the dangers and secrets of the natural world surrounding him; he is given a new perspective on all the things he thinks he understands innately as a human boy, but which he in truth has only an incomplete comprehension of.  By seeing the moat in microcosm, in absolute detail as one of its own inhabitants, his understanding of the universal system in which he, as a boy, exists, is expanded.

At the end of his foray into the underwater realm, he meets with the King of the Moat, a giant four-foot pike with tyrannical tendencies, who introduces to the Wart the concept of Might is Right, which is an integral theme that King Arthur must contend with throughout the book.  The pike contests that this philosophy is absolute, and that there is nothing greater than bodily power: “…power to grind and power to digest, power to seek and power to find, power to await and power to claim, all power and pitilessness….”  At last, in a very symbolic gesture, the “disillusioned” pike attempts to eat the Wart, who must save himself by using his newfound skills as a fish to swim away as quickly as he can.  This is a representation of the struggles Arthur must face in his own rule as he strives to reign justly and weigh against his actions again and again the idea of Might is Right.

Who seems more determined to kill King Duncan, Lady Macbeth or Macbeth? Why? Give evidence.

I believe Lady Macbeth is more determined to have King Duncan killed. From the very first moment that she learns of the prophecy, she is plotting to get Macbeth on the throne.  

"Glamis thou art, and Cawdor, and shalt be / What thou art promised"

The line doesn't guarantee that she is plotting murder, but the hint is fairly obvious.  She's not willing to wait for Duncan to die of natural causes, so from...

I believe Lady Macbeth is more determined to have King Duncan killed. From the very first moment that she learns of the prophecy, she is plotting to get Macbeth on the throne.  

"Glamis thou art, and Cawdor, and shalt be / What thou art promised"

The line doesn't guarantee that she is plotting murder, but the hint is fairly obvious.  She's not willing to wait for Duncan to die of natural causes, so from that moment Lady Macbeth is plotting to kill Duncan.  She comes up with the entire plan without any input from Macbeth.  Lady Macbeth even tells her husband this fact at the end of Act I, Scene 5.  

Only look up clear;
To alter favour ever is to fear:
Leave all the rest to me.

Probably the best evidence that I have for her determination to have Duncan killed is Act I, Scene 7.  After the banquet, Macbeth tells his wife that he can't go through with the murder any more.  Lady Macbeth won't have any of it, and she berates Macbeth and calls into question his honor and manhood.  

Wherein you dress'd yourself? hath it slept since?
And wakes it now, to look so green and pale
At what it did so freely? From this time
Such I account thy love. Art thou afeard
To be the same in thine own act and valour
As thou art in desire? Wouldst thou have that
Which thou esteem'st the ornament of life,
And live a coward in thine own esteem,
Letting 'I dare not' wait upon 'I would,'
Like the poor cat i' the adage?

Her "pep talk" works, and Macbeth resolves to kill Duncan.  

I would like to play the devil's advocate for a moment to my own statement above.  While I do think that Lady Macbeth is more determined to kill Duncan, I have always found it interesting that she doesn't ever actually screw up the courage to do any of the murderous acts.  When Macbeth said that he wouldn't go through with the murder, Lady Macbeth could have walked into Duncan's room and killed him.  But she didn't.  She wants him dead, but she isn't resolved enough to do it herself.  It reminds me of kids in school.  One kid wants something done, but he is too scared to do it.  So what does he do?  He convinces somebody else to do it in order to avoid any possible repercussions.  I see Lady Macbeth like that a lot of the time.  She wants it, but isn't willing to actually take action. 

Why did Malcolm X resort to violence?

Malcolm X is often associated with violence. However, that view is not entirely accurate. Malcolm X certainly had a more aggressive view regarding African-American civil rights than Martin Luther King, Jr. had. However, he wasn’t calling for a race war like the Black Panthers were suggesting.

Malcolm X was not pleased with white society. He was very critical of it. Malcolm X called for African-Americans to use self-defense when needed. He also believed African-Americans should...

Malcolm X is often associated with violence. However, that view is not entirely accurate. Malcolm X certainly had a more aggressive view regarding African-American civil rights than Martin Luther King, Jr. had. However, he wasn’t calling for a race war like the Black Panthers were suggesting.

Malcolm X was not pleased with white society. He was very critical of it. Malcolm X called for African-Americans to use self-defense when needed. He also believed African-Americans should live separately from whites. It is important to note that self-defense is not the same thing as using violence to achieve one’s goals. There could be violence associated with the use of self-defense, but that is different than using violence for the sake of using violence. Because Malcolm X criticized white society and called for racial separation, many white people viewed him as a troublemaker.

The interesting point about Malcolm X is that after taking a religious pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, Malcolm X changed his views to some degree. He began to realize that African-Americans and whites could live and could work together based on how he saw different Muslim groups working together in Saudi Arabia. He stopped calling for racial separation. He also broke away from the Nation of Islam, something that eventually led to his assassination.

Malcolm X believed in self-defense and racial segregation. He changed his view later in his life and began to believe that the different races could work and could live together.

What does a tick living on a dog represent?

Tick and dog share a symbiotic relationship that can be described as parasitic. Symbiosis is the relationship between two organisms, where either one or both the organisms get the benefit. In mutualism, both the organisms benefit from the relationship, while in parasitism, only one organism gets the benefit, while the other gets adversely affected. In case of tick living on a dog, tick is a parasite. It is an invertebrate that bites the animal skin...

Tick and dog share a symbiotic relationship that can be described as parasitic. Symbiosis is the relationship between two organisms, where either one or both the organisms get the benefit. In mutualism, both the organisms benefit from the relationship, while in parasitism, only one organism gets the benefit, while the other gets adversely affected. In case of tick living on a dog, tick is a parasite. It is an invertebrate that bites the animal skin and buries its head into the animal skin and then it sucks their blood. Here, the tick is living off the dog by consuming its blood. The dog, on the other hand, loses blood and may also be infected by other diseases and hence gets adversely affected. Thus, tick living on a dog represents parasitic symbiosis.

hope this helps. 

In Frankenstein, how does Victor become lost at sea?

In Chapter 20 of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Victor creates a second female monster; the original monster tracks Victor down at his workshop in Scotland in order to see the woman that has been shaped for him. Victor responds by destroying the unfinished female in front of the monster, destroying the workshop, and rowing a small boat out to sea in the wee hours of the morning to dispose of the female's remains.

Unfortunately, Victor...

In Chapter 20 of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Victor creates a second female monster; the original monster tracks Victor down at his workshop in Scotland in order to see the woman that has been shaped for him. Victor responds by destroying the unfinished female in front of the monster, destroying the workshop, and rowing a small boat out to sea in the wee hours of the morning to dispose of the female's remains.

Unfortunately, Victor makes a poor choice and decides to rest in the boat after his dirty task is done rather than row back to shore. He consequently gets pushed out to sea by a storm and is forced to make his clothing into a sail so that he can make his way back to land. When he does get back, he is accused of murder.