What are some arguments supporting the idea that the boys should be punished for killing Simon and Piggy in Lord of the Flies?

One argument that supports the idea that the boys should be punished for the deaths of Simon and Piggy is that certain boys were fully aware that their actions and involvement in the deaths of the two characters. Every boy on the island participated in the murder of Simon, and Piggy was fully aware of his participation. Ralph and Samneric try to justify their actions and deny responsibility, but they are conscious of what they've...

One argument that supports the idea that the boys should be punished for the deaths of Simon and Piggy is that certain boys were fully aware that their actions and involvement in the deaths of the two characters. Every boy on the island participated in the murder of Simon, and Piggy was fully aware of his participation. Ralph and Samneric try to justify their actions and deny responsibility, but they are conscious of what they've done to Simon. Although the boys did not intentionally kill Simon, they are still guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter consists of intentionally killing someone, but the killing is accompanied by additional circumstances. The most common type of voluntary manslaughter involves extreme provocation that induces rage or terror and is sometimes described as a "heat of passion" killing. Simon's murder would fall under this category. The boys were engaged in a ceremonial "war dance" and were in an uncontrollable frenzy. Their skewed perception and group-mindstate resulted in extreme violence. Each child on the island is liable for Simon's murder.

Roger is solely responsible for Piggy's murder. Roger is guilty of first-degree murder because his actions were pre-meditated. Roger had surveyed Castle Rock and knew the location of certain rocks that could be hurled at intruders. He thought about how he would commit the crime, and when the opportunity presented itself, he took action. The other boys on the island did not participate in Piggy's murder and were not liable. Roger acted alone, and would be guilty of committing first-degree murder. Hypothetically speaking, every child is guilty of manslaughter, and Roger is guilty of first-degree murder. They are all minors, and their sentencing would be difficult to determine.

Compare and contrast the film adaptation of The Importance of Being Earnest with the play.

The Miramax Films movie adaptation of The Importance of Being Ernest, directed by Oliver Parker, follows Oscar Wilde's original script quite well. Most of Wilde's hilarious dialogue is preserved word for word in the movie. The characterization of the rakish Algernon, the ostensibly more respectable Jack, the fearsome Aunt Augusta, and the naive Cecily is delivered brilliantly by Rupert Everett, Colin Firth, Judi Dench, and Reese Witherspoon, respectively. One can hardly imagine the characters...

The Miramax Films movie adaptation of The Importance of Being Ernest, directed by Oliver Parker, follows Oscar Wilde's original script quite well. Most of Wilde's hilarious dialogue is preserved word for word in the movie. The characterization of the rakish Algernon, the ostensibly more respectable Jack, the fearsome Aunt Augusta, and the naive Cecily is delivered brilliantly by Rupert Everett, Colin Firth, Judi Dench, and Reese Witherspoon, respectively. One can hardly imagine the characters being brought to life more skillfully. The movie starts and ends basically the same way, and the action proceeds without much modification.

The movie version takes advantage of its medium when it can, however, to add a little more to the play than a stage production allows. Thus there are more and briefer scene changes, with readers being treated to a big party scene in London at the beginning of the play where Algy reveals he has Jack's cigarette case, a hot air balloon ride, a tattoo parlor, Gwendolyn's painful car trip, and Dr. Chasuble's inner sanctum. The added subplot of Gwendolyn's tattoo, which is followed up in the closing credits with Jack's corresponding ceremony, provides extra humor. Several cutaway scenes depicting Cecily's romantic fantasies create a visual feast and more hilarity. Greater suspense is added by Miss Prism's flight through the cemetery and hazy memory-like scenes of baby Jack in the capacious handbag. 

The ending of the movie varies slightly from the play. In the play, Jack is the older brother, but in the movie, Algy is older. Aunt Augusta confirms at the end of the movie that Jack's name is indeed John, but she declines to divulge her findings. In the play, it is clear that Jack's given name really is Ernest. The movie ends with a vignette of Bunbury's funeral that is not shown in the play. 

Finally, the serenade Jack and Algy perform for Gwendolyn and Cecily is an unforgettable addition which, when reprised at the end, makes movie viewers keep watching to the very last second. 

Although it might seem impossible to improve upon Oscar Wilde's original play, Oliver Parker succeeds in that unlikely effort with his 2002 movie.

According to Gandalf, what lay hidden somewhere not too far ahead of the travelers in The Hobbit?

Gandalf is going to Rivendell, the home of the elves.

Bilbo and company are on a journey to take back the dwarves treasure from the dragon.  When the travelers are done fighting the trolls, they continue on their journey.  Gandalf has not told them exactly where they are going, so they ask him.

"You are come to the very edge of the Wild, as some of you may know. Hidden somewhere ahead of us is...

Gandalf is going to Rivendell, the home of the elves.

Bilbo and company are on a journey to take back the dwarves treasure from the dragon.  When the travelers are done fighting the trolls, they continue on their journey.  Gandalf has not told them exactly where they are going, so they ask him.

"You are come to the very edge of the Wild, as some of you may know. Hidden somewhere ahead of us is the fair valley of Rivendell where Elrond lives in the Last Homely House. I sent a message by my friends, and we are expected.” (Ch. 3)

Rivendell is the home of the elves.  It is a very special place, and well hidden.  There they can take shelter, be protected, and get some food and rest.  They also need advice from Elrond, the king of the elves.

Bilbo has never been to Rivendell and has never seen elves, although he has long wanted to.  He finds Rivendell a literally enchanting place.

Bilbo never forgot the way they slithered and slipped in the dusk down the steep zig-zag path into the secret valley of Rivendell. The air grew warmer as they got lower, and the smell of the pine-trees made him drowsy… (Ch. 3)

Once there, they can get advice on how to get inside the Lonely Mountain.  Elrond helps them interpret the runes on the map.  It turns out they say that they can get into the mountain when the thrush knocks and “the last light of Durin's Day will shine upon the key-hole.”

This turns out to be the key to getting into the mountain, but the travelers still have trouble getting in.  They are about to give up when the moonlight shines on the keyhole and they are able to enter.

What are some examples of the supernatural in "The Minister's Black Veil"?

In order to address this question, I want to clarify that "supernatural" does not simply refer to ghosts and goblins and vampires, as we common think of it today.  "Supernatural" actually has a much broader definition as anything that is outside of natural laws (so things that we cannot experience directly) and anything related to God or a god.

So, thought of in this way, there is much about this story that qualifies as supernatural. ...

In order to address this question, I want to clarify that "supernatural" does not simply refer to ghosts and goblins and vampires, as we common think of it today.  "Supernatural" actually has a much broader definition as anything that is outside of natural laws (so things that we cannot experience directly) and anything related to God or a god.

So, thought of in this way, there is much about this story that qualifies as supernatural.  First, the veil itself is a literal symbol of a supernatural state; it is a tangible object that represents something intangible: the truth that humans are not only inherently sinful beings but that we all seek to hide the existence of our secret sins from one another.  Second, the minister's belief that, after his death, it will no longer be necessary for him to wear the veil is a supernatural belief.  We have no way to prove the existence of a life after death in the natural world; there is nothing that we can examine or point to as evidence of this eternal spiritual life.  Thus, it too is supernatural.  Third, Mr. Hooper's belief that God can see even our most secret sins, though we'd prefer to "[forget] that the Omniscient can detect them" is a supernatural belief as well because, again, there is no objective evidence in the natural world that can prove the existence of God. 

In the end, the story doesn't offer us ghosts and werewolves but rather secret sins and spiritual life and God.  Perhaps it is not quite as titillating, or -- for some -- perhaps it is more so.

Why is Don Quixote always belittling Sancho and calling him derogatory names? The true measure of a noble man was not in how he treated his equals,...

There are several reasons why Don Quixote abuses Sancho the way he does.

The first two are related to each other: humor and entertainment. It is funny, in a broad, slapstick fashion, for Don Quixote to abuse Sancho this way. In his study of Don Quixote, Daniel Eisenberg suggests in these two characters Cervantes gives us the two sides of humor: the ridiculous and the ugly, and does so in ridiculous deeds (like attacking windmills)...

There are several reasons why Don Quixote abuses Sancho the way he does.

The first two are related to each other: humor and entertainment. It is funny, in a broad, slapstick fashion, for Don Quixote to abuse Sancho this way. In his study of Don Quixote, Daniel Eisenberg suggests in these two characters Cervantes gives us the two sides of humor: the ridiculous and the ugly, and does so in ridiculous deeds (like attacking windmills) and ridiculous words (abusing Sancho) 

This abuse is also part of the larger inversion of the world. Everything in this novel is turned upside down. The "knight" is crazy, the monsters are not real, etc. As the question pointed out, knights are supposed to treat their squires with respect. Abusing Sancho is part of this inversion of the natural order--it aligns with insanity.

This, in turn, aligns with Cervantes' purpose for this story. Rather than being a straightforward romance of chivalry, it is a parody.

And finally, it is one of the many ways in which Cervantes signals we should look past the surface of things. Go with the surface, and Quixote is crazy and abusive. Look deeper, and he's a hero (and fond of Sancho, perhaps?).

Who is Johnny Dorset in the story "The Ransom of Red Chief"?

The name Johnny Dorset does not occur in the story until the end.  The kidnappers decide to kidnap a child of a prominent citizen for the purpose of getting money.  They chose the only child of Ebenezer Dorset, a mortgage financier.  They figured they could shake down the old man for about two thousand dollars. 

When they kidnap the boy, he puts up a tremendous fight, but as soon as they get him back to...

The name Johnny Dorset does not occur in the story until the end.  The kidnappers decide to kidnap a child of a prominent citizen for the purpose of getting money.  They chose the only child of Ebenezer Dorset, a mortgage financier.  They figured they could shake down the old man for about two thousand dollars. 

When they kidnap the boy, he puts up a tremendous fight, but as soon as they get him back to the cave where they are staying, the boy starts playing Indians and calls himself Red Chief.  For the rest of the story, he is called Red Chief.  It isn’t until the kidnappers get a response from their ransom note that the name Johnny Dorset is mentioned.  The old man responds,

“You bring Johnny home and pay me two hundred and fifty dollars in cash, and I agree to take him off your hands.“ (pg 7)

That is when we learn that the kidnapped boy is Johnny Dorset.  The kidnappers pay the ransom and gladly leave him with his father. 

My copy of the story comes from the internet.  The page numbers may be different in your copy, but it should give you a basic idea of where to locate the information.  

In To Kill a Mockingbird, why did Dill get sick in the courtroom? Why did the three kids leave? Use evidence from the story to support your answer.

At the end of Chapter 19, Dill begins to weep after seeing the way the prosecutor, Mr. Gilmer, questions Tom Robinson while Tom is on the witness stand. Mr. Gilmer began to "talk down" to Tom as if he were inferior while he was questioning him. When Scout asks Dill why he was crying, Dill says, "That old Mr. Gilmer doin' him thataway, talking so hateful to him----" (Lee 265). Scout tries to...

At the end of Chapter 19, Dill begins to weep after seeing the way the prosecutor, Mr. Gilmer, questions Tom Robinson while Tom is on the witness stand. Mr. Gilmer began to "talk down" to Tom as if he were inferior while he was questioning him. When Scout asks Dill why he was crying, Dill says, "That old Mr. Gilmer doin' him thataway, talking so hateful to him----" (Lee 265). Scout tries to explain that it was Mr. Gilmer's job to talk to him that way, but Dill says that he got sick of hearing Mr. Gilmer call Tom Robinson "boy." Dill says,

"It ain't right, somehow it ain't right to do 'em that way. Hasn't anybody got any business talkin' like that---it just makes me sick." (Lee 266)

The second part of your questions asks, "Why did the three kids leave?" This is confusing because during the trial only Scout and Dill leave the courtroom, which means only two kids left. If you meant to ask, "Why did the two kids leave?" this would be your answer: Jem makes Scout take Dill outside because he begins to weep. When Dill and Scout walk outside, they have a conversation with Dolphus Raymond. Dolphus gives Dill some of his Coke, which Dolphus conceals in a paper bag. Dolphus explains to Scout and Dill why he chooses to feign alcoholism. He also tells the children that as they grow older, they will become used to seeing black people treated unfairly. Dolphus tells the children his "secret" because they are innocent and can understand him.

If the second part of your question is written correctly (Why did the three kids leave?) this would be your answer: Jem, Dill, and Scout leave the courtroom in Chapter 21 after Calpurnia gives Judge Taylor a note from Alexandra asking where the children are. Mr. Underwood speaks up and tells Atticus that the children have been sitting in the colored balcony since 1:18 pm. Atticus tells them to go home with Calpurnia and eat supper. They go home and eat, then come back to the courthouse to hear the final verdict.