Answer:
Answer in Explanation
Explanation:
As a historian, using sources would better help understand the past. Using mostly primary sources would better help understand the past as you were there or you get information from someone who was involved in the concept. Before we get into this, a primary source provides firs-handed accounts of an event or time period and are mostly considered very useful and best when explaining a period of time where something great happened. A secondary source describes a summary or discussed information originally presented by another source. That means that the words and what actually happened, could have been altered in a way to best fit the story or change the readers perspective. While using a primary source or secondary source, like a newspaper, it's somewhat difficult to tell which source it is, so you have to trust your gut. Now, as a historian, you would much rather use a primary source since it provides first-hand detail of what happened and what you'd want to share. Overall, it may be said that using a primary source when you're working with something with time, or an event, would be best; rather than a secondary source.
I do not think I would be watching the Frankenstein movie, I do not enjoy horror movies especially if it has Iconic characters like Dracula and Frankenstein, while yes, their iconic but that’s what makes it unenjoyable, you already know about them and what they do and what’s gonna happen.
Answer:
C. to indicate actors' onstage movements, positions, and tone
Explanation:
The stage directions are instructions from the author of the play of how the actors should act in certain parts of the work. For this reason, the author places indications that must be followed about the movements, positions and the type of emotion that the actors must transmit when interpreting that character at a certain moment in the play, thus allowing the story to be established as the author imagined.
