By what means do you learn about the main character? Please support with quotations. "The Chrysanthemums" by John Steinbeck

Having written of his
story,

It is
entirely different and designed to strike without the reader's
knowledge

it is only through
minimal indirect characterization that the reader learns of Elisa in "The
Chrysanthemums." With the use of a limited third person narrator, the description of
Elisa Allen is merely objective:

readability="11">

She was thirty-five.  Her face was lean and
strong and her eyes were as clear as water.  Her figure looked blocked and heavy in her
gardening costume, a man's black hat pulled lowdown over her eyes, clod-hopper shoes, a
figured print dress almost completely covered by a big corduroy apron....She wore heavy
leather gloves to protect her hands while she
worked.

As she works, Elisa
glances at the men talking with her husband, then she is startled at the sound of her
husband's voice because he had neared her quietly.  The conversation between her and her
husband is clipped and told without explanation since the narrator is third-person
narrator.  It is as though the reader hears as Elisa and Henry hear each other and must
guess at the meaning of the words along with them:

readability="9">

"...I mean you look different, strong and
happy."

"...I'm strong," she boasted.  "I never knew before
how strong."

Before this
conversation between Elisa and Henry, the tinker arrives and engages Elisa in talk about
her flowers; then, she surprisingly reveals her aesthetic soul as well as her
suppressed passionate nature.  For instance, Elisa's voice grows "husky" as she
describes looking at at the sky at night,

readability="10">

"...When the night is dark--why, the stars are
sharp-pointed, and there's quiet.  Why, you rise up and up!  Every pointed star gets
driven into your body.  It's like that. Hot and sharp
and--lovely."

Her actions,
too, indicate the yearning of Elisa to express her womanly passion. For example, Elisa
kneels on the ground looking up at the tinker with "[H]er breast swelled passionately"
and "[H]er hesitant fingers almost touched the cloth" of his trousers as she "crouched
low like a fawning dog."  As the tinker leaves, "[H]er shoulders were straight, her head
thrown back, her eyes half-closed" and Elisa whispers, "That's a bright direction,
There's a glowing there," but the narrator reserves
comment.

With the use of limited third-person narrator and
the indirect characterization methods of physical description, the character's words and
actions as well as the speech and reactions of others, Steinbeck develops his main
character, Elisa Allen. 

Discuss how Miller is able to convey the weaknesses of Proctor and Elizabeth's relationship in Act Two.

The opening stage direction of Proctor adding spice to the
broth might be one example of how Miller is able to convey the frailty of the
relationship between husband and wife in Act II.  The mere act of him needing to add
spice to her cooking is reflective of how the challenges in the kitchen are seen
elsewhere in their lives.  The discussion of weather, crops, and other elements seem to
merely be superficial tidings trying to conceal the hollowness that both feel is there. 
Miller creates a mood in the discussion between husband and wife as being one where
there is a gaping hole between them, caused by John's infidelity and Elizabeth's
emotional frigidity, to a great extent.  The lingering feeling of his guilt and anger
and her regret and sadness are still there.  Miller might be saying that the only way
couples can work out such difficulties is through open and frank dialogue, something
that the culture of Salem is not one to embrace, as seen in the opening stage directions
in Act I, and something that both husband and wife in this scene cannot fully accept. 
The fact that he demands to no longer be judged and she responds with the "magistrate"
resides in his heart is reflective of how there is an overall weakness in their
relationship in the scene.  Interestingly enough, there seems to be some level of
reclamation of their relationship as the Act develops. Elizabeth's arrest is one of the
first moments Proctor is seen to be animated to be a better
husband.

What is the connection between Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms and the rule of law? Are they the same thing?

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is,
essentially, a bill of rights for the Canadian people.  It specifies what sorts of
things the government of Canada is not allowed to do to its citizens.  This means that
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an example of one part of the rule of
law.

The rule of law is, among other things, the idea that
the government must abide by a set of rules and cannot simply do whatever it wants to
the people.  The Charter is a good example of this idea.  For example, Section Fifteen
of the Charter tells the government that it must not discriminate against any person one
the basis of things like race, sex, or ethnicity.  The government, even though it makes
the rules and has the power, is not allowed to do this sort of
thing.

So, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an example
of one aspect of the rule of law.

What are the two meanings of the title, "The Most dangerus Game"?

The two meanings are based on the word "Game".  A game can
be something played for enjoyment, or " animals under pursuit or taken in hunting;
especially : wild animals hunted for
sport or food" (see link below). 

Zaroff tells Rainsford
"No animal had a chance with me any more.  That is no boast; it is a mathematical
certainty. the animals had nothing but his legs and his instinct.  Instinct is not match
for reason."(pg 5)  So Zaroff went in search of better game, and he found it.  He says
"it supplies me with the most exciting hunting in the world.  No other hunting compares
with it for an instant.  Every day I hunt, and I never grow bored now, for I have a
quarry with which I can match my wits." (pg 6) That quarry is the only one that can
reason; that quarry is man.  Since man can reason, he can match Zaroff's wits, and
becomes the most dangerous game to hunt.

The second meaning
is the game that is played.  Zaroff has decided to hunt Rainsford.  He tells him "You'll
find this game worth playing".(pg8) Although Zaroff does not admit it at first, the game
is to the death.  That makes it the most dangerous game.  Only one man
survives.

What is the relation between bruno and maria in the first 4 chapters of "The Boy in Striped Pyjamas"?

Maria is the family's maid. She is very subservient and
always keeps her head bowed and her eyes on the ground.  This is shown in the first
paragraph in the book and when the young blond soldier looks into Bruno's room (pg 18) 
Bruno was told by his mother to always treat Maria respectfully and not imitate the way
Father spoke to her. She specifically takes care of Bruno, especially in the new house
because there are other servants who come with the house and take care of the other
duties. Bruno feels he can talk to Maria.  He has always liked Maria and felt as if she
was one of the family. (pg 17) However, Maria knows her place and tries to help Bruno
see that his father has an important job. Even though Maria has been with them since he
was three, he does not want her to see him cry.  He holds back tears when they are
having a conversation in the room at the new house because he doesn't want her to think
he is a baby. (pg 19)

You learn more about Maria in Chapter
Six.  She has a definite history with the family.

From The Bible, could someone tell me what Ephesians 6:1 means?children obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right

This verse instructs children to obey their parents in the
Lord. What this means is that children should obey Godly parents. Parents who are in the
Lord are spiritual parents. In the Lord also means that the Lord expects children to
obey their parents. In the Lord means that we as children are his representatives. In
the Lord means that he has set our parents over us and we should honor them by
obeying.

It is a commandment to honor our parents. Parents
teach children right from wrong. Parents know best because they are older and more
experienced about life. As children, we are to show respect to our parents by obeying
what they tell us to do.

With the commandment of Honor your
father and mother, there is a blessing attached. If you show honor to your parents, all
will go well with you and you may live long upon the
earth.

It is to a child's benefit to honor his or her
mother and father. Honoring those who have authority over us is extremely important.
There is a chain of command set up and it is to our benefit to show honor to our
parents. It is God's system of order. Without order, it would be total chaos. That is
why God wrote the commandment of honoring our parents. God is
orderly.

Biology, race, and geography all influence humanity and therefore our cultural expression. Isn't geographical location a consequence of the need to...

I assume that you are positing this possibility as a way
of arguing that Diamond's thesis is invalid. If so, I think that you are missing two
things.  First, Diamond does not argue that all forms of
cultural expression are dictated by geography.  Second, Diamond's major thesis has to do
with the differences between people on different continents, not between, for example,
French people and Scandinavians.

With regard to the first
point, Diamond is talking about economics and politics, not about culture.  He is not
saying that cultural and spiritual differences are determined by geography.  He is
saying that food production and, thereby, technological levels and population densities
are determined by geography.  These things allow some societies to dominate and others
to be dominated.

With regard to the second point, the kinds
of migrations you are talking about have tended to be within continents.  Diamond's
thesis is that geography caused Eurasia to be dominant, not that it caused England to
become stronger than Portugal.  Since Diamond is arguing about things on such a large
geographic scale, the kinds of migrations you are discussing seem much less relevant to
his argument.