How does the author develop or reveal character? Give three examples from "The Ransom of Red Chief."

Understanding characters' personalities can be achieved through direct or indirect characterization. Direct characterization is when the personality or traits of a character are explicitly expressed by the author, another character, or the character himself. On the other hand, indirect characterization is when the reader must infer what the character is like based on implicit evidence. O. Henry uses both techniques to describe his characters in "The Ransom of Red Chief."

First, Johnny Dorset is the boy that Bill and Sam kidnap for ransom. He puts up a strong physical fight when he is taken away, which indirectly shows that he has a fighting personality rather than a docile one. Johnny does describe himself directly for his captors, as well:

"I like this fine. I never camped out before; but I had a pet 'possum once, and I was nine last birthday. I hate to go to school."

These direct comments explain that Johnny likes camping, hasn't done it before, had a possum, is nine years old, and hates school. No inference is needed to understand these little tidbits about Johnny's character.

O. Henry then gives the reader a little more insight into Johnny as he develops his character over the course of the story. For example, Johnny makes threats as he plays the role of Red Chief. He tells Bill that he will scalp him at daybreak and Sam will burn "at the stake at the rising of the sun." The men first think that these are merely idle threats, but the more they learn about the boy, the more they believe him. This adds suspense to the story because if the little boy really does do these things to these men, does that mean that he is a violent predator rather than the helpless victim?

The reader must read the rest of the story to discover more about the character of Johnny Dorset. When the sun does start to rise the next morning, Bill screams in horror as he finds Red Chief sitting on his chest with a knife in one hand and a handful of hair in the other. This image implies that Johnny really means to scalp this man! If it weren't for Sam stopping the assault, he may have, but that is left up to the reader to ponder. When Sam gets up before his promised burning at the stake, he tells Bill that his shoulder hurts and he's not trying to avoid the boy. Bill says the following that reveals more about Johnny:

"You're afraid. You was to be burned at sunrise, and you was afraid he'd do it. And he would, too, if he could find a match. Ain't it awful, Sam?"

Bill's testimony about Johnny characterizes the little boy as viewed by his kidnappers. He's that scary and threatening, apparently. Whether Johnny would actually hurt them is never revealed, but it's enough to know that he's intimidating enough to shake two adult men.

Finally, things escalate quickly for Bill after another day with Johnny. He explains to Sam the following:

"He put a red-hot boiled potato down my back. . . and then mashed it with his foot; and I boxed his ears. Have you got a gun about you, Sam?"

Some interesting facts are revealed about Bill, too. He finally gets enough of Red Chief's shenanigans to actually punch him a few times to get him to stop. Bill is so scared about being with Johnny that he is willing to use a gun to control him. This pattern of behavior continues and escalates throughout the story until the kidnappers pay Johnny's dad to take him back. The characters of the kidnappers are revealed as those who are not capable of handling a nine year-old boy or a proper kidnapping and ransom.

What two places does the author describe in the Chapter One of Tuck Everlasting?

Two settings described are the road and the house in the Treegap woods.

The author uses personification to describe two settings as if they were people.  One is the road through the woods, and the other is the house near the woods.

The wood at the edge of Treegap is described.  This is where the Tucks’ spring can be found.  The road is described in detail.  The author describes how the road goes from being rural to being domesticated.

On the other side of the wood, the sense of easiness dissolved. The road no longer belonged to the cows. It became, instead, and rather abruptly, the property of people. (Ch. 1)

On one side, everything is peaceful and the cows are slowly eating, and on the other side it is hot and oppressive.  The road turns and goes around the wood.

On the people’s side of the road there is a house.  This is the Foster house.  Technically they own the woods.

On the left stood the first house, a square and solid cottage with a touch-me-not appearance, surrounded by grass cut painfully to the quick and enclosed by a capable iron fence some four feet high which clearly said, "Move on—we don't want you here." (Ch. 1)

The house is right outside the village, but we are told “the village doesn’t matter, except for the jailhouse and the gallows.”  So we know at this point that the significant parts of the story will take place in the woods, or at the house, with the jailhouse and gallows becoming important at some point.

The wood is clearly more than "a slim few acres of trees."  It will become important because it is where the spring is that makes everyone immortal.  The fact that Winnie's house is next to it also matters, because she will try to drink from the spring, be kidnapped by the Tucks, and become the friend that saves Mae Tuck from the gallows.

Where is the story set? What is the atmosphere, or feeling, of the story? How do the setting and the time of day affect the story?

"After Twenty Years" is set in New York City in the early part of the twentieth century. It is a neighborhood of shops and offices. It is dark and the streets are nearly deserted. The area has the cold, lonely "alienated" feeling of a big city's business district when all the stores are closed and the workers have all gone home. The narrator tells us that it is almost ten o'clock at night. The weather is cold, windy, and wet.

There was now a fine, cold drizzle falling, and the wind had risen from its uncertain puffs into a steady blow. The few foot passengers astir in that quarter hurried dismally and silently along with coat collars turned high and pocketed hands. 

The man standing in the doorway of the hardware store looks somewhat sinister. Pedestrians might cross the street to avoid having to pass in front of him. It is not surprising that the uniformed beat cop should stop to talk to him, although we learn late in the story that the cop is the man's old friend and is keeping an appointment they made twenty years ago.

Anyone who is acquainted with the paintings of Edward Hopper, the American realist, would recognize this scene as one that Hopper himself would appreciate for the feeling of loneliness it evokes. It is reminiscent of Hopper's famous painting "Nighthawks," in which three people are sitting around a counter late at night as seen from the outside through the big plate-glass window. This is a big, cold, tough American city which has a strange charm of its own as a result of all aesthetic considerations having been ignored in favor of maximizing profit from each square foot of space. It is a city where friendship is rare, which makes the relationship between the man in the doorway and the man he expects to meet seem that much more important to each of them. We learn later that the man in the doorway has come a thousand miles to meet his old friend, which suggests how rare it is to find friendship in an towering metropolis where friendship is forgotten in the struggle for existence.

The place where the waiting man is standing used to be a restaurant called "Big Joe" Brady's. We can imagine that such a brightly lighted place was loud and noisy. The patrons were mostly men. They were all talking and laughing, having a good time, even singing. Now it has been turned into a store that sells the hardest kinds of merchandise--and there is no light, no sound of talking, or laughter or music. The policeman's job is to see that all the doors in the neighborhood are locked shut because big cities are always preyed on by the criminal element at night.

Trying doors as he went, twirling his club with many intricate and artful movements, turning now and then to cast his watchful eye adown the pacific thoroughfare, the officer, with his stalwart form and slight swagger, made a fine picture of a guardian of the peace.

There is a sharp contrast between the man in the doorway and uniformed cop when they meet. The civilian looks suspicious. The cop is, as O. Henry states, "a fine picture of a guardian of the peace," a symbol of law and order. These two men were friends twenty years ago when they both were young--but they could not be friends now. They have gone down two separate roads in all that time, and the passage of years has changed them. 

The man called Bob is standing inside the entrance to the hardware store because of the bad weather. This makes him look is hiding and might have some criminal intention. Why would a man be standing in a doorway in a dark, cold, nearly deserted neighborhood? The bad weather enables the plainclothes detective to keep his face nearly concealed so that Bob won't realize he isn't Jimmy Wells.

About twenty minutes he waited, and then a tall man in a long overcoat, with collar turned up to his ears, hurried across from the opposite side of the street. He went directly to the waiting man.

The reader is also fooled into believing that this newcomer must be Jimmy Wells because he had no idea that the uniformed cop had been the man Bob was waiting to meet. Who else would it be arriving almost on time and seeming to know a lot about Bob from the old days?

“Bless my heart!” exclaimed the new arrival, grasping both the other's hands with his own. “It's Bob, sure as fate. I was certain I'd find you here if you were still in existence. Well, well, well!—twenty years is a long time. The old restaurant's gone, Bob; I wish it had lasted, so we could have had another dinner there. How has the West treated you, old man?”

Bob and the reader both receive the same shock when the two men reach the brightly lighted corner drugstore and Bob learns that his best friend has turned him in. It was too much to expect a friendship to last for twenty years.

What does Emerson suggest regarding nonconformity? How does this view conflict with Romans 12:2?

Ralph Waldo Emerson was a transcendentalist meaning that he believed humans were inherently good, and that society and its institutions corrupted this purity. By nonconformity, Emerson meant to encourage others to rely only on themselves and to trust their instincts and embrace their own ideas. Romans 12:2 reads: “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve...

Ralph Waldo Emerson was a transcendentalist meaning that he believed humans were inherently good, and that society and its institutions corrupted this purity. By nonconformity, Emerson meant to encourage others to rely only on themselves and to trust their instincts and embrace their own ideas. Romans 12:2 reads: “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” Before looking directly at this Bible verse, it is helpful to consider the underlying tenets of Christianity.  Ultimately, the Bible states that man is not perfect and every person is born in sin. Conversely, the underlying tenet of transcendentalism states that every person is born pure and good, only being corrupted by society, and not corrupted by the sins of the world as it exists.

Now, to directly address how Emerson’s ideas of nonconformity conflict with Romans 12:2. Besides what I have already mentioned, this Bible verse is essentially calling humans to God to be transformed by His ways, not the world’s way, and not your own. Emerson believed that he could only rely on himself when God, as evidenced by this passage, calls people to rely on Him. Technically, transcendentalism was a philosophy born of this world, established by man, and exerted by such people as Emerson. By upholding this philosophy, Emerson is in direct conflict with the Bible verse which states to “not conform to the pattern of this world.”

What is the implied meaning of "his bars of rage" in the poem "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" by Maya Angelou?

In order to determine the meaning of the line “his bars of rage” in Maya Angelou’s poem “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” it may be helpful to look at the whole stanza of the poem.

But a bird that stalks

down his narrow cage

can seldom see through

his bars of rage

his wings are clipped and  

his feet are tied

so he opens his throat to sing.

The poet is creating the...

In order to determine the meaning of the line “his bars of rage” in Maya Angelou’s poem “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” it may be helpful to look at the whole stanza of the poem.

But a bird that stalks

down his narrow cage

can seldom see through

his bars of rage

his wings are clipped and  

his feet are tied

so he opens his throat to sing.

The poet is creating the image of a bird held in a barred cage which is in opposition to a bird flying free that she describes in the first stanza. The bird is “stalking” around in that cage which connotes anger and frustration. It is blinded by that “rage” and understands that there is no escape from its bars of incarceration. The bird cannot visualize what the free bird can because it is caged with pent up anger. The “bars of rage” are a metaphor for the feelings of people who are bound by slavery, ignorance, and prejudice. Ms. Angelou goes on to explain that the bird cannot obtain its freedom but it chooses to express itself joyously implying that although it maybe be angry and unable to break those bonds, it will not be silenced.

What is the theme of "Minority Report" by Philip K. Dick?

“Minority Report” explains the need for those in authority to maintain the status quo, especially when they believe in it. Anderton is the police commissioner in charge of Precrime, a unit that makes use of prelaw methodology to nab criminals before they can break the law. The Precrime system makes use of three precog mutants, called Donna, Jerry, and Mike, who predict the names of would-be criminals. These “criminals” are then apprehended and confined in...

“Minority Report” explains the need for those in authority to maintain the status quo, especially when they believe in it. Anderton is the police commissioner in charge of Precrime, a unit that makes use of prelaw methodology to nab criminals before they can break the law. The Precrime system makes use of three precog mutants, called Donna, Jerry, and Mike, who predict the names of would-be criminals. These “criminals” are then apprehended and confined in the detention camp before they have the opportunity to carry out the crimes. It is touted that the system has managed to cut down felonies by about 99.8%. When the majority of the precogs predict that Anderton intends to kill General Leopold Kaplan, of the Federated Westbloc Alliance, two forces emerge: the Army, led by General Kaplan, who want to use the minority report to discredit Precrime’s system so that they can get back to the good old days when they would do their own police work, and Precrime, who would like to maintain the status quo. Anderton thus decides to kill General Kaplan, so as to maintain Precrime’s status as the chief criminal investigation unit of the state. The question of choice also arises, as one wonders whether Anderton would have made the choice to kill the General all other factors constant.

The story also explores the concept of individual freedom. When people are detained for their intentions to commit crimes, even when these intentions may not come to life in the long run, individual freedom is curtailed to a large extent.

What might be three major perspectives that sociology takes toward the war on terrorism?

There are three main theoretical perspectives in sociology.  Let us examine what each might say about the war on terrorism.

Functionalism holds that all aspects of a society exist because they help the society to maintain cohesion and stability.  They are like organs in a body, all helping the overall organism to prosper.  There are at least two ways in which we can say that the war on terror helps keep our society cohesive and...

There are three main theoretical perspectives in sociology.  Let us examine what each might say about the war on terrorism.

Functionalism holds that all aspects of a society exist because they help the society to maintain cohesion and stability.  They are like organs in a body, all helping the overall organism to prosper.  There are at least two ways in which we can say that the war on terror helps keep our society cohesive and stable.  First, we can say that it protects the physical safety of members of our society. We have it for the same reason we have police—to stay safe. Second, we can say that the war on terror exists to help us feel more solidarity towards the people in our own society.  One way we can define who “we” are is by focusing on who “we” are not.  The war on terror clearly establishes Islamic radicals as a threatening “other.”  By focusing on them, we Americans can feel more like we all have something in common, thus making our society more cohesive and stable.  Both of these are potential views of functionalists.

The conflict perspective argues that all aspects of our society come about through conflict between groups.  In every aspect of our lives, some group is in conflict with another.  Things happen because these conflicts are ongoing or because one group has won the conflict.  Using this perspective, you might argue that we have a war on terror because the group of Americans who are in favor of using our military might have defeated those Americans who favor a less aggressive foreign policy.  Aggressive, nationalistic Americans have been in conflict with more pacifistic Americans who think that our country often makes mistakes in foreign policy at least since the Vietnam War.  The existence of the war on terrorism shows that, at the present, the aggressive nationalists have won.

Symbolic interactionism is a very different kind of a perspective.  It emphasizes that the world is full of objects, people, and behaviors and that each individual must create meanings for each of those things that they observe.  Our society and its institutions are built up through the ways in which people interpret their world.  From this perspective, you might argue that we have the war on terror because people perceive radical Islam as a serious threat to our existence.  People look at things like car crashes and regular murders and do not call for “wars” on these things because these are just seen as normal parts of everyday life even if they do kill more Americans than terrorism.  For whatever reason, Americans have come to interpret radical Islam as a major threat, one which requires us to have a war against it.

These are ways in which the war on terrorism might be perceived from each of the three sociological perspectives.