George Bergeron's character is, literally, extremely intelligent, strong, and capable. We know this because of the number of handicaps he is forced to wear by the government. His weights, for example, are so tiring that his wife suggests he risk removing them even thought the consequences are severe for doing so.
Because of his handicaps, George is a character who is incapable of changing, reacting to a situation, or even remembering what he his doing and he is such a rule-follower that he won't use his intelligence or strength to go against the government.
A reader can see that the handicaps put on George are a metaphor for the burdens that the majority of the population of America are encumbered by in real life. While most people don't have pounds of bird-shot strapped to their necks, it is clear that people ARE burdened by great amounts of debt, jobs that pay little, stresses like large families, consumerism, etc that hold them back from participating fully in life. The "handicaps'' of the story are literally meant to show how much weight we are putting on the wrong things in our lives.
Vonnegut uses characters like George to demonstrate how little people are actually living. They are flat, unfeeling, unemotional, and unable to communicate, resist, or change. It is obvious that George SHOULD react to seeing his son's violent death broadcast on national television, but he is completely incapable of doing so because of the handicaps attached to him. The lack of character development, coupled with the excellent description of George's strengths due to his handicaps is what allows a reader to understand that the character is meant to be criticized. Readers are meant to ask themselves, how could he not react? How could he not remember? Why won't he question the ideals of the government? Why won't he risk himself for something that could save his son?
They are alike by they can both be used as like a coloring word as in i spray the painting or I streak the brush along the tips of my fingers. they are different because they also have different meanings
A theme that Geoffrey Chaucer develops through these two excerpts is that of treachery, since both King Peter of Spain and King Peter of Cyprus were betrayed and their lives ended tragically. King Peter of Spain was betrayed by a man named Bertrand, who had agreed to protect him in exchange for a great compensation, but who eventually handed him over to his half-brother, Henry, who promised him an even greater reward and who assassinated Peter in his tent in 1369, becoming the new king. This is narrated in the excerpt, where Bertrand is compared not with Oliver of Charlemagne, friend of Charlemagne, but with the knight that betrayed him ("No, Oliver of Charlemagne... such a trap!").
Peter I of Cyprus devoting his short yet intense life to fight Islam, and he led the short yet devastating Alexandrian Crusade, but his life ended abruptly. Betrayed by his wife and by some of his closer knights, he was assassinated in his bed also in 1369. This is also referred in the poem ("That conquered Alexandria... on thy bed!").
To sum up, both excerpts revolve around this theme, which they present very similarly: after emphasizing the deeds of the two historical characters, they finalize by regretting their tragic endings.
Answer:
Hello. You did not provide the text options, but I can help you by saying that in the ninth paragraph the author says that in the early years as a writer, she had little confidence in her ability to write, but she continued writing and improving even so.
Explanation:
In the ninth paragraph, the author reveals how her resilience was important for her establishment as a writer. This is because she says that at the beginning of her career, she did not feel confident in writing, she did not think that the texts she wrote were good and she was very insecure about her writing skills, but she was resilient and continued writing even thus, believing that it would get better little by little and more each day.
Answer:
To show how different Amy’s family’s customs are from Robert’s
Explanation:
<em>Fish Cheeks</em> is a story about Amy, a Chinese girl, and her family. They invited the minister`s family to Christmas Eve dinner. Amy is in love with their son Robert. Amy was afraid how the evening will turn out because their customs differ a lot and Robert`s family might think something bad about her family. They are loud and their behavior is much more relaxed than it is in a middle-class American family. So what her father did was just an act of courtesy which minister`s family tried to follow. Amy felt so embarrassed. After the dinner was over, her mother said that it is okay that she wants to be socially accepted, but that <u>she should not give up her origin</u>.
