Answer: On March 3, 1887, Anne Sullivan begins teaching six-year-old Helen Keller, who lost her sight and hearing after a severe illness at the age of 19 months.
Answer: Rip Van Winkle was a good man and a generous neighbor because he helped the strange man that was climbing up the mountain, as well as assisting neighbors or any person in need.
Explanation: Although Rip Van Winkle was not successful at helping himself, his heart was as kind as can be. He would always help anyone who needed assistance, such as his neighbors, and the man that he saw climbing up the mountain, even when after meeting with the man and his squad, Rip Van Winkle fell asleep in a slumber of 20 years.
Two of the most important qualities in healthy, long-lasting relationships are communication and vulnerability.
Communication involves both <em>transparency to talk about anything which praises or challenges the relationship</em> as well as <em>close attention to listen and internalize feedback</em>. Open, judgement-free communication allows people to feel meaningful and respected as it promotes personal growth through good disposition to let feedback shape us. Therefore, a sense of stability is created which encourages preference for one such relationship over many others lacking these essential elements.
Vulnerability is the act of <em>allowing others to see our true self, (weaknesses, fears and needs included)</em> as well as that of <em>opening trust channels to let others show us theirs</em>. Vulnerability allows people to feel a deeper level of emotional involvement which increases positive attachment in any relationship. It is not easy to accomplish given our drive for self-preservation which naturally avoids potential emotional pain after a let down. However, only by incresingly putting our guard down and creating healthy spaces for others to put down theirs can we assure a relationship to stand the test of time.
Communication and vulnerability contribute to healthy, long lasting relationships.
Answer:
No, none that I am aware of. In Shakespeare’s time, a tragedy meant that the main character falls from fortune to disaster, normally because of a flaw or fate. Obviously, other characters may be unharmed, or may even benefit from the protagonist’s downfall. I’m not writing to make fun of other posters, but we could as easily call the Matrix a tragedy because Agent Smith loses, or say that Titanic has a happy ending for coffin salesmen. Yes, Macduff or Fortinbras do well at the end of their plays, but they are not the protagonists.
For that reason, because a pre-modern tragedy definitionally means that the hero falls, and that’s what happens in Shakespeare’s plays, I’d say no. There are “problem” plays such as the Merchant of Venice, where the opposite happens—a comedy has a partly sad ending, with Shylock’s defeat—but again, it’s all in what the protagonist does, and Antonio (the merchant) wins at its close when his ships return
