1. C. they're
2. A. their
3. B. there
In my view Hedda Gabbler is the most morally ambiguous between the two. Allow me to compare the two characters in order to clarify my views. Hedda Gabbler is an older Norwegian housewife of upper-*Middle class who chose to marry because she was starting to grow older. Her motivations are not always clear and sometimes it seems as though she suffers some kind of mental illness. Also, the etymology of her name is quite revelatory, her name comes from " the Germanic name Hadewig, derived from the Germanic elements hadu "battle, combat" and wig "war" (https://www.behindthename.com/name/hedwig). Hedda is obviously in conflict with the patriarchal society of her time and she aims to not only be in command of her own destiny but also to control her husband. She kills herself in order to deny the power of a man over her. Even in her death she is defiant. Daisy Miller on the other hand is a very young adult and rich American who loves Europe and its ways. She is naive and innocent and her behavior is not as vindictive as the behavior of Hedda Gabbler. Daisy is in opposition to the conservative and patriarchal views of society more because of her exposition ot European cultures and less due to a conscious realization of her condition. Her name is the name of a flower and her death is also symbolic as she dies from malaria. Flowers die during winter and Daisy's winter is the disease that kills her. She is more a victim than a proto-feminist.
Answer:
Summary Of Rethinking The Wild By Christopher Solomon Essay
1530 Words7 Pages
Humanity co-exists with nature in a relationship that periodically shifts between symbiotic and parasitic. We maintain this relationship in order to survive. In exchange, we carefully monitor how our behavior alters the natural environment and affects those living within it. This responsibility is the price we pay for our species’ sentience and dominance. To help fulfill our duty, America established the 1954 Wilderness Act in hopes of becoming passive “guardians” of nature instead of encroaching “gardeners.” However, the Wilderness Act has failed. In his article, “Rethinking the Wild”, Christopher Solomon questions the effectiveness of the law and correctly concludes that, after fifty years of dormancy, mankind must take an active role in environmental protection, the role of the gardener. Though critics may argue that the passivity of the “guardian” should be maintained, realistically, little can be done to preserve the environment when we refuse to do anything. Because mankind has a greater stake in the wilderness than we realize, we must assume a proactive role in protecting the wilderness out of respect for nature and our own ethical standards.
Boundaries and Investments
Assume for the sake of our argument that nature holds no intrinsic value. Why, then, is the wilderness worth protecting? Truthfully, the wilderness can be a valuable indicator of the planet’s overall health, which is not easily gauged in industrialized and populated areas due to human influence.
Answer:
I will help later
Explanation:
Am taking a test right now
When is it due
