How was Josef Stalin manipulative? What are some examples of his manipulation?

You would be hard pressed to find a negative adjective that does not describe Josef Stalin and his reign of terror in the Soviet Union. For this reason, the obvious answer is yes, Josef Stalin was manipulative. In his defense, most despotic leaders tend to use manipulation to achieve their ends, so he has plenty of company in the manipulation hall of fame if such a place exists.

Ten years into his reign as the...

You would be hard pressed to find a negative adjective that does not describe Josef Stalin and his reign of terror in the Soviet Union. For this reason, the obvious answer is yes, Josef Stalin was manipulative. In his defense, most despotic leaders tend to use manipulation to achieve their ends, so he has plenty of company in the manipulation hall of fame if such a place exists.

Ten years into his reign as the leader of the Soviet Union, Stalin's manipulation was evident in German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact which was signed with Adolf Hitler in 1939. His actions were manipulative on a number of levels. First, he greatly disliked Hitler and fascism, (the feeling was mutual) and realized that he was going to be at war with Hitler as some point in time. Stalin also knew that an agreement with Hitler would give his people time to build up arms to defeat Germany when the time came. The manipulation was really brought to light when it was discovered that Stalin had secretly negotiated territories in Eastern Europe that he would receive after the war ended. Despite these arrangements, Stalin negotiated trade agreements with the Allied Powers of Britain and France, two countries trying to bring the Soviets into the fold. He conveniently forgot to tell these Western Powers of his future plans for Eastern Europe.

Another more concrete example of the manipulative nature of Josef Stalin was his skillful use of propaganda. What was he possibly promoting? Himself, of course. This was not difficult when his government controlled the media. Stalin built a cult of personality around himself in the Soviet Union in a bold attempt to make himself more powerful. He renamed cities in his honor and had the history books rewritten to make himself grander than he really was. He made every aspect of his life mythical in nature. He even had his name inserted into the national anthem. In a country that was stripped of its God by the Bolsheviks, Josef Stalin attempted to fill that void.

What are some Biblical allusions (including quotes) in Chapters 6 and 7 of the novel Lord of the Flies?

"There was a sudden bright explosion and corkscrew trail across the sky; then darkness again and stars. There was a speck above the island, a figure dropping swiftly beneath a parachute, a figure that hung with dangling limbs." (Golding 95)

At the beginning of Chapter 6, Golding describes the paratroopers decent from the sky following an aerial battle. This scene alludes to the Biblical account of Satan's fall from heaven. According to the Bible, Lucifer...

"There was a sudden bright explosion and corkscrew trail across the sky; then darkness again and stars. There was a speck above the island, a figure dropping swiftly beneath a parachute, a figure that hung with dangling limbs." (Golding 95)

At the beginning of Chapter 6, Golding describes the paratroopers decent from the sky following an aerial battle. This scene alludes to the Biblical account of Satan's fall from heaven. According to the Bible, Lucifer was a prideful angel who was kicked out of heaven by the archangel Michael. The paratroopers fall from the sky alludes to the Biblical event of Satan descending from heaven. The dead paratrooper is believed to be the "beast" which symbolizes Satan.

"Someone's got to go across the island and tell Piggy we'll be back after dark." Bill spoke unbelieving. "Through the forest by himself? Now?" "We can't spare more than one." Simon pushed his way to Ralph's elbow. "I'll go if you like. I don't mind, honestly." (Golding 117)

In Chapter 7, Simon volunteers to journey back to the basecamp to inform Piggy that the boys won't be back for the night. Simon travels alone in the dark forest to give this valuable information to Piggy. Simon's journey alludes to Peter's journey in the Bible. Peter, one of Jesus' disciples, spreads the gospel throughout ancient Rome, ministering to unbelievers. Simon, who interestingly shares the same original name as one of Jesus' leading disciples, selflessly volunteers to share the information, much like the disciples of the Bible shared the gospel. In the book of Acts, Simon, whose name was changed to Peter, travels from Jerusalem to Lydda, Joppa, and Caesarea preaching the gospel to the Gentiles.

In Goethe's Faust, how do both Faust and Gretchen each express an attempt to exceed the limits of social norms and expectations that surround them?...

Let us base the answer to this question entirely on their relationship, specifically, the disparate nature of their origins, the goals that they both have in mind, and how everything ends.

In Daniel Wilson's introductory analysis of Faust (Yale University Press version of 2014), Part One of Faust is much more effective than Part Two, particularly for the social commentary that it elicits. This social commentary comes in the form of the challenging of social norms that is evident in the relationship that Faust wants to start with Margaret. Being that she comes from such a different social status than Faust, we can already sense that the relationship will not turn out so well.

In order to understand exactly how Faust attempts to push the social norms with Margaret, we must know where she comes from and who she is.

In Goethe's Faust Part I Margaret, or Gretchen, is a very pious and innocent woman, and daughter. She is not perfect; she does enjoy the occasional attention of males, and she is aware of her beauty. Nevertheless, she is a woman of good and well-meaning intentions who expects to be married one day.

The problem with Gretchen is not so much her character, but that of the people who surround her. Part of the social commentary discussed by Wilson is the criticism of the "small town mentality".

This is the idea that small town people are equally small in intellect. Hence, those who live with, or around Gretchen, are quite unlikely characters. Her brother, Valentine, is brash and uncouth, her mother is money-hungry, and her best friend Marthe is quite mature in the ways of the world.

That woman seems to me expressly made
To play the pimp or ply a gipsy’s trade.

Still, Margaret is aware of her social limitations and she has an inkling that Faust may be way above her status. This is not to say that Margaret is poor, for she is not; however, she is in no way a sophisticated woman of the world, either.

I am, in truth, of humble blood—
The gentleman is far too good—
Nor gems nor trinkets are my own

How does she push her social limitations? 

She does this by accepting Faust as a potential lover, even knowing what could happen if she gets carried away. Gretchen does get carried away. She accepts gifts, and she even trusts him enough to accept a "sleeping potion" to keep her mother away from her room while she lets Faust in. The potion was actually poison, her mother dies, and Gretchen ends up pregnant with the child of this man, whom she hardly knows that well.  

Still, Gretchen does not demand marriage from Faust; not even love. She could be seen as a modern woman by the modern reader, in that she shows a clear understanding of what is at stake by being a single mother in her society. It is despair that leads her to kill the child (we know that the baby drowns, but we are not told how exactly it happened), and she is eventually sentenced to be hanged.

Therefore, Margaret allowed herself to take a risk in becoming involved with a man who was beyond her "station", and also took another risk in trusting him enough to allow him in her bed. All backfires on her, but God ends up forgiving her.

How Faust pushes his limits:

Faust is not a stupid man, by any means. He is a greedy, narcissistic and self-absorbed man, but not an unintelligent one. When Faust sees Gretchen for the first time, he is aware of her station, and he gets to see the pious side of her. He has been at a higher level his entire life, and knows what is at stake at trying to seduce a less worldly woman. Moreover, he knows that she is a woman of limits. He, of course, wants her to give in and break away from her standards. It is because Gretchen has a truly beautiful character, and is not just a pretty shell of a woman, that Faust starts to develop true and sincere feelings for her.

Unfortunately, even though Faust aggravates Mephistopheles by feeling more than just lust for Gretchen, Faust never really makes his wrongs into "rights". This means that he never really offers Gretchen any solid foundation to the romance that he wants to establish with her. He may have the capricious want to be with a woman of lesser station, but he does not show any indication of being serious enough to change his life for her.

All this being said, which of the two may be considered "successful" at breaking with the social norms?

Arguably, the big winner (as Part Two will anticlimactically show) will be Faust, himself. Leave aside the fact that he faces no consequences for decimating almost an entire family (Gretchen's), nor for ruining the poor woman, nor for never even bothering with the child he had with her... and not even for having sold his soul. After a number of moral deaths, Faust is just "let go" easily from his negotiation and, in an ending that had angered many readers, he gets to just continue to exist despite of everything.

Gretchen, unfortunately, may have shown signs of strength as a woman of her time undergoing terrible circumstances, but she ultimately suffered every consequence that Faust was spared.

What does Juliet say that shows the depth of her feelings for Romeo?

I think this quote works quite well to show how deeply in love and attracted Juliet is to Romeo.  

Give me my Romeo, and when he shall die,
Take him and cut him out in little stars,
And he will make the face of heaven so fine
That all the world will be in love with night
And pay no worship to the garish sun.
O, I have bought the mansion of a love
But not possessed it, and, though I am sold,
Not yet enjoyed.

What Juliet is saying is that Romeo is so awesome and perfect that if he were a star or a bunch of stars, people would worship him and his beauty instead of the sun.  Compared to Romeo, the star that gives the planet Earth its ability to sustain life is ugly and "garish."  Perhaps you could argue that the quote doesn't expressly show love.  You could argue that it is more descriptive of her physical attraction to Romeo, but I would argue that is a large part of being in love.  

Here is a different quote.  

O, bid me leap, rather than marry Paris,
From off the battlements of yonder tower,
Or walk in thievish ways, or bid me lurk
Where serpents are. Chain me with roaring bears;
Or shut me nightly in a charnel house,
O'ercovered quite with dead men's rattling bones,
With reeky shanks and yellow chapless skulls.
Or bid me go into a new-made grave
And hide me with a dead man in his shroud
(Things that, to hear them told, have made me 
   tremble),
And I will do it without fear or doubt,
To live an unstained wife to my sweet love.

I think this one even more clearly illustrates Juliet's deep feelings for Romeo.  This time she argues that all of the things that she once thought super scary are now ridiculously silly compared to the fear of having to marry somebody other than Romeo.  In this case, that person is Paris, the man that her father is forcing her to marry.  

Why does Lennie become upset with Crooks in Of Mice and Men?

Realizing that he has the intellectual advantage, Crooks tries to rile Lennie, who is looking for George, by telling him that George is not returning. He upsets Lennie simply because he can; this behavior of Crooks demonstrates the tendency of men who are too often alone to become mean and resentful.

Thematic of Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men is the Fraternity of Men that provides individuals strength and companionship. Without this fraternity men become mean...

Realizing that he has the intellectual advantage, Crooks tries to rile Lennie, who is looking for George, by telling him that George is not returning. He upsets Lennie simply because he can; this behavior of Crooks demonstrates the tendency of men who are too often alone to become mean and resentful.

Thematic of Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men is the Fraternity of Men that provides individuals strength and companionship. Without this fraternity men become mean and defensive, and in their alienation they lose meaning in their lives, because meaning comes from sharing. And, so, there is another reason that Crooks taunts Lennie by saying that George may not return from the whore house in town.

Crooks' face lighted with pleasure in his torture...."Le's say he wants to come back and can't. S'pose he gets killed or hurt so he can't come back."

Lennie struggled to understand. "George won't do nothing like that...he's careful....Say, what you doin' anyways?....This ain't true. George ain't got hurt."

Crooks bored in on him."Want me ta tell ya what'll happen?They'll take ya to the booby hatch. They'll tie ya up with a collar, like a dog."

When Lennie becomes threatening, Crooks backs off, and he reassures Lennie that George is all right. Lennie "growled back," Crooks, then, asks him, "Maybe you can see now," meaning now, perhaps, Lennie understands what it is to be alone. Crooks tells Lennie that a man needs someone to be near him.

"A guy goes nuts if he ain't got nobody....I tell ya a guy gets too lonely an' he gets sick."

This companionship helps a man know what he thinks makes sense, or what he sees is really there. There is a necessity for man to have others around him, to have someone against whom he can measure himself. The fraternity of men, the dream of living together and looking out for one another, is thematic of the narrative, and nowhere is it brought to point than in the interchange between Lennie and Crooks in his room.

What does Holmes’ examination of the will indicate?

Holmes is gone until around one o'clock in the afternoon. When he returns to Baker Street he tells Watson what he has learned from reading the will of Helen Stoner's mother.

“I have seen the will of the deceased wife,” said he. “To determine its exact meaning I have been obliged to work out the present prices of the investments with which it is concerned. The total income, which at the time of the wife's death was little short of £1100, is now, through the fall in agricultural prices, not more than £750. Each daughter can claim an income of £250, in case of marriage. It is evident, therefore, that if both girls had married, this beauty would have had a mere pittance, while even one of them would cripple him to a very serious extent. My morning's work has not been wasted, since it has proved that he has the very strongest motives for standing in the way of anything of the sort.

Evidently Dr. Roylott could retain the capital from the inheritance but would have to pay either daughter 250 pounds a year out of the income. If both daughters married, he would be left with an annual income of only 250 pounds. This is strong evidence that he must have murdered Julia Stoner to keep her from being married and that he intends to murder Helen, who is engaged to be married very soon. Watson writes that Helen came to see Holmes in early April of 1883, and Helen tells them that she and Percy Armitage are to be married "in the course of the spring."

It would seem advisable for Dr. Roylott to wait at least a little while before trying to kill Helen after she has consulted the famous Sherlock Holmes, but he is under time pressure. He has no idea what Holmes might advise Helen to do. The detective has the option of moving Helen to the home of her aunt, Miss Honoria Westphail, who lives near Harrow, where his client would be out of her stepfather's reach. This is why Holmes wants to go to Stoke Moran that very afternoon. He tells Helen, "Yet we have not a moment to lose." And he tells Watson, "...this is too serious for dawdling, especially as the old man is aware that we are interesting ourselves in his affairs." The whole case is wrapped up in one day. Helen arrives early in the morning, and Dr. Roylott is dead, bitten by his own poisonous snake at around three-thirty the next morning. 

The story shows the dependent position of women in Victorian times. Dr. Roylott can keep the entire income of 750 pounds a year while his stepdaughters are living under his roof. But once either girl marries she will have a man to handle her affairs, and her husband can see to it that Roylott pays him the one-third of his annual income. Helen's long story to Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson indicates that Roylott's big house at Stoke Moran is not only heavily mortgaged but in bad need of repairs. He must be desperate. He couldn't sell the big place in its run-down condition, and he couldn't keep up with the mortgage payments. He is being forced to go ahead with his plan to kill Helen even though he should know it would be wise to lie low until the detective became involved with other affairs. Roylott tries to have his snake kill Helen that very night, but Holmes and Watson are waiting in her bedroom and have sent her to sleep in safety in her old bedroom at the end of the corridor.

Suppose Bella has already saved $60 and earns $15 per hour for summer job. Her boyfriend Edward has already saved $100, but only earns $10 per...

Hello!

We don't know how many hours they work a day, tberefore we can answer in terms of hours only. Also, i have to suppose that they work the same amount of hours.

"The same amount of money" may mean "the same for both persons" or "the same as needed for one iPod for both". Let's solve both variants.

1. Denote the number of hours when they will have the same amount of money as...

Hello!

We don't know how many hours they work a day, tberefore we can answer in terms of hours only. Also, i have to suppose that they work the same amount of hours.

"The same amount of money" may mean "the same for both persons" or "the same as needed for one iPod for both". Let's solve both variants.

1. Denote the number of hours when they will have the same amount of money as x. Then Bella will have 60+15x dollars and Edward will have 100+10x and these amounts were equal:

60+15x=100+10x.

Move 10x to the left and 60 to the right (changing the sign) and obtain

5x=40, or x=8 (hours).

So the answer is: they will have the same amount of money after 8 hours of simultaneous work.

2. In this case Bella again will have 60+15x dollars and Edward will have 100+10x dollars. They will have 60+15x+100+10x=25x+160 and this must be equal to 210.

25x+160=210 means 25x=210-160=50 or x=2 (hours).

For this problem the answer is: they will have enough money for one iPod after 2 hours of each person's work.