How does Pound use nature imagery?
What will be an ideal response?
* He uses it to describe the speaker's emotions in the last part of the poem.
* The emotions aren't overtly stated but are presented through the nature imagery. For example, the woman doesn't make a sorrowful noise but the monkeys do.
You might also like to view...
Circle the word or phrase that best completes each sentence.
¿Me preguntas si quiero ir a la playa? ¡Por (acuerdo, último, supuesto)!
Expliquez une différence entre la façon dont les travailleurs américains ont tendance à faire la grève et la façon dont les travailleurs français ont tendance à faire la grève.
Vous allez entendre des remarques sur les grèves en France. Écoutez-les et répondez ensuite aux questions suivantes. Vous entendrez le monologue deux fois. Souvent, quand les travailleurs américains font la grève, c’est pour longtemps, et afin d’obtenir des concessions spécifiques de la part de leurs employeurs. En France, ce n’est pas toujours le cas. Il n’est pas rare que des travailleurs français fassent une grève d’une seule journée — et qu’ils annoncent cela une semaine en avance! Ce n’est pas forcément pour obtenir quelque chose de précis. Il s’agit souvent de montrer à leurs patrons et à leurs concitoyens qu’ils ne sont pas contents de leurs conditions de travail, de la pension de retraite qu’on leur propose, etc. Bien sûr, ils montrent aussi qu’ils ont le pouvoir de bien perturber la vie quotidienne en France! C’est surtout les fonctionnaires qui font la grève comme ça, et bien que les autres Français disent que c’est «scandaleux» ou «inadmissible», ils sont remarquablement tolérants de ces grèves courtes. Pendant l’automne de 1995, il y a eu une grève des transports (trains, bus, métro, etc.) qui a duré beaucoup plus longtemps — plusieurs semaines, en fait. Surtout dans les grandes villes comme Paris, cela a créé des embouteillages horribles, des queues interminables pour les taxis, etc., pendant les heures de pointe. C’était frustrant, mais les Parisiens ont trouvé des moyens pour se déplacer, et les grévistes sont retournés au travail à temps pour assurer à tout le monde un joyeux Noël. What will be an ideal response?
Intellectuals at peace with their era found a justification for great wealth and even dubious business ethics in a series of books, essays, and lectures by the British philosopher Herbert Spencer. Because Spencer seemed to apply Charles Darwin's celebrated theory of biological evolution to human society, his philosophy is known as social Darwinism. According to Spencer, as in the world of animals
and plants, where species compete and those best adapted survive, the fittest people rise to the top in the social competition for riches. Eventually, in the dog-eat-dog world, they alone survive. "If they are sufficiently complete to live," Spencer wrote, "they do live, and it is well that they should live. If they are not sufficiently complete to live, they die and it is best that they should die." The tough-mindedness of social Darwinism made Spencer immensely popular among American businessmen who were as proud of their practicality as of their success. An Englishman, Spencer was never as celebrated in his own country as he was in the United States. Although a vain man, he was mortified by the adulation heaped on him at banquets sponsored by American academics and rich businessmen. Social Darwinism accounted for brutal business practices and underhanded methods with a shrug, justifying them as "natural," the law of the jungle. The language of social Darwinism crept into the vocabulary of businessmen and politicians who represented business interests. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. described the growth of a large business as "the survival of the fittest." But neither he nor many other American millionaires were true social Darwinists. The very ruthlessness of the theory—"Nature, red in tooth and claw"—made it unpalatable to men and women like the Rockefellers, who, in their personal lives, were deeply committed to traditional religious values. Moreover, businessmen are rarely intellectuals, and Spencer's philosophy and writing style were as murky as crude oil. Understanding him demanded careful study, for which businessmen rarely had time. Spencer's explanation of the new society was most influential among intellectuals who wanted to snuggle up to the rich. From the passage, it is possible to infer that a. Spencer's theory was easily understood by everyone. b. Spencer was a friend of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. c. Herbert Spencer was a very modest man. d. Spencer had little sympathy for the poor and disabled.
Where does the dog go at the end of the story?
What will be an ideal response?