How can I close-read the following selection from Flaubert's Parrot? "…[I]f novelists truly wanted to simulate the delta of life’s possibilities, this is what they’d do. At the back of the book would be a set of sealed envelopes in various colours. Each would be clearly marked on the outside: Traditional Happy Ending; Traditional Unhappy Ending; Traditional Half-and-Half Ending; Deus ex Machina; Modernist Arbitrary Ending; End of the World Ending; Cliffhanger Ending; Dream Ending; Opaque Ending; Surrealist Ending; and so on. You would be allowed only one, and would have to destroy the envelopes you didn’t select. That’s what I call offering the reader a choice of endings; but you may find me quite unreasonably literal-minded. As for the hesitating narrator—look, I’m afraid you’ve run into one right now. It might be because I’m English. You’d guessed that, at least—that I’m English? I … I … Look at the seagull up there. I hadn’t spotted him before. Slipstreaming away, waiting for the bits of gristle from the sandwiches. Listen, I hope you won’t think this is rude, but I really must take a turn on the deck; it’s becoming quite stuffy in the bar here."

There is a significant tonal shift between the first and second paragraphs of this section of text. In the first paragraph, the first-person narrative is authoritative: while the commentary is subjective (writing "that's what I call . . . " rather than utilizing a passive voice) the points are laid out clearly. This reflects the subject matter, the "set of sealed envelopes" the author uses figuratively to "simulate the delta of life's possibilities." These are "clearly marked" on the outside, and the author then offers an array of accordingly clear and unambiguous options ("Traditional Happy Ending; Traditional Unhappy Ending," and so on.) The use of capitalization adds to the sense that these labels are official, or authoritative; the narrator describes himself as "literal-minded" in having defined the options of life in such a way. He also states, with firm decisiveness, that the envelope-chooser should "destroy" (a forceful, active choice of verb) the unselected envelopes, as undone actions and unchosen paths die in the wake of a life lived.
In the second paragraph, the decisive, authoritative tone breaks down completely, disintegrating into a series of fragmentary half-sentences marked by em-dashes, ellipses and diversions. The speaker repeats himself ("I'm English") and addresses the reader directly, apologetically, "Listen . . . " before excusing himself. He attempts to distract the attention of the reader from his confusion by referring to irrelevant details, such as his nationality and "the seagull." The tone is intimate, conveying a sense of immediacy, and the discomfort of the speaker is suddenly palpable. The decisiveness of the first paragraph, it now appears, is a front for the speaker to hide behind, an uncertain, "hesitating narrator."

Why does Miller end the Crucible when he does?

After the dramatic events of Act IV, Miller closes the play with Proctor choosing to be put to death in order to preserve his good name. The Puritan judges have forced Proctor into an impossible and paradoxical situation: If he lies and "confesses" to being a witch, his life will be spared. If he denies that he is a witch, he will be put to death for "lying" and refusing to "confess," since the accusations alone have already "proven" his guilt. At first, Proctor plays along with them and "confesses," but once the judges ask him to sign his name for the whole community to see, he refuses. He delivers his most famous lines here, explaining why he refuses to sign his name to the confession:

"Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!"

The abundance of exclamation marks indicates his outraged, passionate state of mind. Here, he realizes that the rest of his spared life will be a fraud, since he has earned his freedom through lying rather than refusing to play by the impossible rules of the court and keeping his morality intact. While this passage is one of the most powerful moments in the play, the actual ending of the play gives Elizabeth, Proctor's wife, the last word. She says, "He have his goodness now. God forbid I take it from him!" Her statement reaffirms Proctor's redemption. Although he is a deeply flawed man who has sinned and feels tremendous remorse for his actions, he still finds a way to serve his community and take a stand against the insanity that has swept through the village. Ultimately, he dies a martyr, giving his life to preserve his name and to fight against the unjust hysteria that has corrupted the community. With that, the audience might feel a sense of peace, as they know that history will vindicate the innocent victims of this mass hysteria. Proctor, then, can die a hero.

What is the underlying message that Alexie is trying to get across to the reader? How does he achieve “delivering” this theme to the reader?

The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven is a collection of short stories and poems with many of the same characters. There is Victor Jospeh, who is usually narrating the story to us; Thomas Builds-the-Fire, who is a storyteller at heart who struggles to find a willing audience; Junior; and Crazy Horse. The story tells of a community on the Spokane Indian Reservation that is wrestling with small town drama, survival, and the effects of historical trauma.
The story that is most famous in the collection also happens to highlight the ways Alexie uses storytelling as a method of exploring genocide and survival. In the story, Victor is trying to travel to Phoenix, AZ to collect his father’s ashes. He does not have the funds to cover his cost, and Thomas Builds-the-Fire offers to pay for the cost of both of them to go. They take a Greyhound bus from the Spokane Indian Reservation all the way to the desert. Victor finds Thomas Builds-the-Fire to be annoying and tiresome. He is always standing around town telling outlandish stories to bored audiences. However, over the course of their travels the two become friends with a deeper understanding of one another. We come to find out that Thomas has close memories of Victor’s father and cared personally about their trip to retrieve his ashes. Victor begins to see Thomas as an integral part of the community. Thomas is a storyteller at heart. Though his stories seem frivolous and don’t always make sense we learn that there is purpose behind them. Storytelling is, in fact, a gift that Thomas possesses. Furthermore, it is through stories that Thomas and Victor come to understand and connect with one another. They both come from the same community and have similar struggles with family, alcoholism, and feelings of isolation. They come together and build community through the opportunity to reminisce and share tales. This story inspired the film Smoke Signals.

There are a number of minor themes that thread throughout the short stories in The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven. Some of these themes include poverty, alcoholism, externalized and internalized racism, acceptance or rejection of culture, and isolation. While no one of these themes is the sole primary message of the collection, they combine to paint an overall picture of Native American life on the reservation in the 20th Century.
Sherman Alexie's primary goal, then, seems to be to illustrate the various hardships faced by the modern (20th Century) Native American. In doing so, he is giving the reader a lens to a segment of the American population that tends to be underserved and underexplored in American culture. By giving the reader characters to sympathize with and understand in each story, and having those characters deal with -- and sometimes succumb to -- the very real problems that many Native Americans on reservations struggle with on a daily basis, Alexie helps to connect disconnected contemporary Americans with a group of people they may not know much about.

Why was the story "Uncle Wiggily in Connecticut" written? What purpose does it serve?

J. D. Salinger wrote "Uncle Wiggily in Connecticut" to highlight complacency and futility in post–World War II America. In the story, Eloise and Mary Jane pass an afternoon lounging, gossiping, and drinking heavily while recounting past events from their college days. Mary Jane initially plans to stay a short while and then leave to deliver mail to her boss, but she instead passes out on Eloise's couch and ignores her responsibilities. Eloise insists on refilling drinks repeatedly and is desperate for companionship; she connects with and can be honest with Mary Jane in ways that she has never been with her husband. Eloise reveals that she feels desperation at being trapped in her marriage with Lew; that she is disturbed by her daughter, Ramona's, imaginary friends and social awkwardness; and that she is cruel to Grace, the family's maid.
From a casual glance, Eloise appears to have a perfect suburban lifestyle, but as she drinks and becomes more vocally honest, it is evident that she's deeply discontent. The story concludes with an altercation in which Eloise loses her temper at Ramona's connection to a new imaginary friend. Eloise realizes that, much like Ramona, she has been clinging to someone who doesn't exist: Walt Glass, a former love who has long been dead. This story demonstrates the phoniness that stems from seeking perfection and a false reality, and it shows the futility of living amidst constant distraction and entertainment, which is as relevant today as it was at the time of publishing in 1948.

What is the rhyme scheme of the poem, and what are the effects of the rhyme scheme in conveying the central theme of the poem?

When determining the rhyme scheme of a poem, the first line is assigned the letter A. If the next line rhymes, it also receives the letter A. However, if the next line does not rhyme then it receives the next letter in the alphabet (B). You continue this pattern, moving through the letters of the alphabet, until you reach the end of the poem.
Therefore, the rhyme scheme of "Virtue" is ABAB CBCB DBDB EFEF. All of the even lines rhyme with each other until you reach the final stanza of the poem. The final stanza of the poem does not fit the rhyming pattern that the rest of the poem has followed. This is important because this last stanza delivers the final message of the poem. Just like the rhyme scheme in the final stanza is different, the poem itself has reached a turning point. In the first three stanzas of the poem, the author describes how everything must eventually die or come to an end. Stanza one describes the end of a day, stanza two describes a rose dying, and stanza three describes the end of spring. However, in the final stanza, the author expresses that "only a sweet and virtuous soul" (line 13) does not die. Unlike everything else that the author has discussed in the poem, a virtuous soul can have eternal life even after its earthly body has died. This change in expectation and the delivery of the final message changes the rhyme scheme of the poem so that the final message has a stronger impact.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44375/virtue

How would you compare and contrast the different themes and styles of "Married Love" by Liz Rosenberg and "I heard a Fly buzz—when I died" by Emily Dickinson?

These poems at first appear quite dissimilar in theme and style. Thematically, however, there are certainly points of comparison to be made, but it is easier to approach this essay by breaking down each element separately.
Looking at the element of style first, we might consider the following points:
1. "Married Love" is written in free verse, having neither a rhyme scheme nor a strict rhythm or meter. By contrast, "I Heard A Fly Buzz" is written in a regular meter and features examples of both pure rhyme and pararhyme (or assonance) on the second and fourth lines of each stanza. "Married Love" has three stanzas of differing lengths, while "I Heard A Fly Buzz" has four of equal length.
2. There are, however, some points of comparison, despite these marked differences. Both poems are written in the first person, from the perspective of, probably, a woman (although not necessarily so, in the case of Dickinson's poem). Furthermore, both poets impose their personal stylistic touches upon their poems; in Rosenberg's case, the use of free verse marks a departure from the typical constraints of poetry; in Dickinson's case, we see the distinctive use of long dashes, which guide the reader's breathing and represent a diversion from typical poetic structures of the time.
In terms of theme, some points to consider:
1. On the face of it, the two poems are very different thematically as well. The theme of Dickinson's poem is death and the moment of death, the idea of "stillness" at the moment of death and the irritation of having that stillness interrupted by something—in her case, a fly buzzing. The fly interposes itself "between the light" and the speaker, making itself more important even than the "King" the speaker hopes to witness "in the Room," such that all she can perceive is its "uncertain stumbling buzz."
2. The theme of Rosenberg's poem is "married love," or rather, the fear that she will "go sliding down beneath" her husband soon, because the "easy brotherly lust of marriage" is no longer sexually satisfying to the poet. If Dickinson's theme is death, Rosenberg's is love and the humdrum way it sometimes comes to fit into our lives.
3. However, on closer inspection, we can see that there is a common theme between the two poems. Dickinson's poem returns over and over to the fly; the speaker cannot stop thinking about it and focusing on it, making it difficult to argue that the poem is truly about death at all. Likewise, Rosenberg's poem is called "Married Love," but the "throb" to which the speaker continually returns is what actually dominates the poem. This "throb" expresses itself in a series of sexual images, featuring "some man" and "the gas attendant," rather than the speaker's husband. Sexual longing and list is identified as a "smolder," and the words "burned" and "burning" reinforce this association. The thread continues between stanzas, as in the final stanza, the speaker imagines herself as a "burning ship," the "throb" of lust becoming a distraction and an irritation—just as the fly is an irritation to Dickinson's speaker in the moment of death. In both poems, then, the secondary theme of the speakers' distraction and irritation almost overrides the superficial themes of death and marriage, pulling the speakers away from their stated points of focus.

Why did Macaulay favor parliamentary reform? Is he considered liberal or conservative?

Macaulay was a Whig Member of Parliament. The Whigs later became the Liberal Party, one of the two main political parties in 19th and early 20th century Britain. On the whole, the Whigs were strongly in favor of parliamentary reform; indeed, the 1832 Reform Act stands as one of their greatest achievements.
Ironically, Macaulay was a direct beneficiary of the old corrupt system he wished to see abolished. He represented what was known as a pocket, or rotten borough. This was a name given to a parliamentary seat controlled by a great landowner or family, usually of noble blood. Owners of rotten boroughs, such as Macaulay's patron Lord Lansdowne, regarded these seats as their own private property, theirs to do with as they pleased. Only a handful of people had the right to vote, and even then, there was no secret ballot, so everyone could see how everyone else voted. It was a brave man indeed who would openly defy the will of the local landowner on election day.
Macaulay's support for the Whig government's program of parliamentary reform was conservative rather than radical. The proposed measures, as well as abolishing the notorious rotten boroughs, would greatly expand the electorate, enfranchising a large section of the middle-classes for the very first time. Macaulay, like many Whigs, saw this as a necessary measure to stave off the threat of radical reform, or even outright revolution. He saw the expansion of the franchise as a way of giving more people in society a greater stake in government, making it possible to accommodate their political demands through the democratic process without the need for radical upheaval. The various reform measures, taken as a whole, would bind the nation more closely together, narrowing the dangerous divisions that had developed between Britain's social classes.
https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1820-1832/member/macaulay-thomas-1800-1859