<span>1) Gracie and Helen had not seen each other FOR 50 years.
2) "Tell me ABOUT Grandpa." said Randy.
3) They carried the water packs ON their backs.
4) I would go INTO the garden, but it is muddy.
5) Tommy passed the peas TO his mother.
6) We should meet somewhere BEYOND the city limits.
7) The lights activate automatically AFTER sunset.
8) Please put an umbrella IN the trunk.
9) Add pepper TO the soup.
10) Erika waded INTO the stream and looked at the minnows.</span>
The advantage of changing this excerpt to Avery's first-person point of view would be to get more background on why Maritza treats Avery this way.
When we have a different perspective of the story we can have access to much more complete characters this is the real advantage of doing that.
It is not necessary to compare Rosa Parks and Irene Morgan's stories since the characters we are talking about are in fact, Maritza and Avery.
Literature and the Holocaust have a complicated relationship. This isn't to say, of course, that the pairing isn't a fruitful one—the Holocaust has influenced, if not defined, nearly every Jewish writer since, from Saul Bellow to Jonathan Safran Foer, and many non-Jews besides, like W.G. Sebald and Jorge Semprun. Still, literature qua art—innately concerned with representation and appropriation—seemingly stands opposed to the immutability of the Holocaust and our oversized obligations to its memory. Good literature makes artistic demands, flexes and contorts narratives, resists limpid morality, compromises reality's details. Regarding the Holocaust, this seems unconscionable, even blasphemous. The horrors of Auschwitz and Buchenwald need no artistic amplification.
Answer:
it is a fragment that can be completed by adding "at this time" at the end.
Explanation:
