Answer:
If your options are:
A. The poem uses variations of meter to affect rhyme.
B. The poem’s sentences flow across stanzas.
C. The poem’s stanzas have varying lengths.
D. The poem uses nontraditional syntax and rhyme scheme.
Then the answer is D.
Explanation:
The nontraditional syntax is best shown in the use of enjambment - interrupting the thought and syntactic structure in the middle and moving the rest to the next line. For example: "and older than the // flow of human blood (...)"
Here, the definite article "the" has been separated from the noun "flow", which means the phrase is visually broken in half.
- A isn't true because this poem conveys its meaning through rhythm and not rhyme. There are virtually no rhymes here and the syntax (sentence structure) is disrupted, invoking the sound of a river flowing in irregular but consistent waves.
- B isn't true because the sentences do flow across lines but not across stanzas.
- The stanzas do have varying lengths. But even though this element was pretty rare prior to the 20th century, it is not exclusive to modernist poetry. That's why C isn't true either.
Answer:
The setting that is used in this excerpt exemplifies the gothic style because the passage has a clear medieval tone used that can be understood by the reader to portray gothic values and morals. Upon further exploration of the text, it can be understood that the speaker or author meant for this passage to be seen in a darker light than most literature was portrayed during that time period.
Explanation:
xoxo, gossip girl
mwah
Answer:
ghost and curses
Explanation:
1 example: I think there was a floating dagger. Haven't read the book since 2016. Hope this helps.(:
Answer:
Nadia Arumugam will completely agree with this cartoon because she clearly stated that 'no one is completely banned from taking unlimited amounts of soda since they are not restricted from ordering two or more bottles of soda if they so desire'.
Explanation:
In the cartoon the picture of a man drinking a giant-sized soda before the ban, was compared to him after the ban buying two cans of soda. There was clearly no difference between the two because the objective of the ban which was to reduce obesity was defeated. The man remained obese.
This is in line with Nadia's argument that the ban does not prevent anyone from drinking an unlimited amount of soda since they could simply buy two or more cans if they so desire.
