In what ways do you think george is different from the other man on the ranch

the play romeo and juliet was one of the most famous love tragedies ever written. this love story unfortunately had a fatal ending. many people argue over why the lovers had died, was it over free will or fate?  

the death of romeo and juliet was partially because of free will. the fact that romeo and juliet got married knowing that there was a bitter feud between their families, the montague and capulet’s. this feud brought on many problems, such as the murder of tybalt by romeo. juliet knew that this might be a problem for her and romeo. juliet had said: “what’s in a name”? which explains her ill fate of being a capulet and romeo being a montague. when romeo tells his servant “ ay, mine own…show more content…

i believe they had died over the love they had for each other, strong enough that their lives could end so suddenly if something horrible had come between them, and that was exactly how it happened. this tragedy occurred within five days of the two meeting, they experienced love at first sight, got married and quickly were dead. free will became a part of this when juliet decided to take friar laurence’s advise in inhaling a potion that will make people assume she is died but will awake in 42 hours prier to when she took it. when romeo had heard the news that juliet was dead, he assumed it was true, and responded with the line; “well juliet, i will lay with thee tonight”. to me this line indicated how he feels for juliet by dying in her will. the fact that free will didn’t take control of the story; it left fate to be the murder of the lovers. fate first kicked in when their eyes met at the capulet party. when romeo and juliet spoke, their words had powerful contentment; they had such a strong feeling for one another that they could lay in each other’s arms forever. their happiness didn’t last long; there were many reasons for this, for example; the marriage lord capulet arranged between paris and juliet. i believe that the plot of the play thus far leads the audience to believe that the deaths were a result of fate. the last act will determine once and for all if it is fate or free will. romeo again challenges fate.

explanation:

3 is blunder, i’m not sure about the last one but the first two look correct

with mrs. linde, nora reveals her insensitivity and lack of shame about the forgery she committed. she implies that mrs. linde has obviously aged since they last met 10 years earlier, which accounts for nora’s inability to recognize her old friend. although nora seems sympathetic to mrs. linde’s plight, she can’t seem to control herself from boasting about her three children, her husband’s recent promotion, and how good she feels to finally have some money to spend. in a way, she seems to be flaunting her good fortune in front of mrs. linde who, deprived of all these benefits, has come to ask nora for . it is also through her interactions with mrs. linde that we realize something deeper lies under nora’s seemingly childish exterior. she reveals the secret of her forgery to mrs. linde and seems to see herself as quite resourceful for having done it.

in the company of dr. rank, nora is freer than she is with her own husband. she openly laughs with joy at knowing that all the other bank employees will be under her husband’s control. she offers dr. rank a macaroon, apparently forgetting that he knows she is forbidden to eat them. she then quickly covers for herself by claiming that mrs. linde brought them. nora seems much more assertive and free with these other characters, as well as unabashedly willing to scheme, lie, and justify her transgressions as altruistic.  

krogstad provides an interesting parallel to nora. like nora, he too is guilty of committing forgery, for which torvald condemns him and decides to fire him. although krogstad is a man and nora a woman, their crimes of forgery unite them. in fact, krogstad might represent what nora would be like if she were a man and were not strictly scrupulous like her husband is. for example, she tells mrs. linde that "a barrister's profession is such an uncertain thing, especially if he won't undertake unsavoury cases; and naturally torvald has never been willing to do that." perhaps nora would have delved into the unsavory, given how opposite she is to her husband. krogstad's is also the only harsh voice of reality that nora is forced to hear, and that is because he blackmails her for her regaining his job at the bank. finally, torvald’s reaction to krogstad’s forgery seems to foreshadow his harsh and cold reaction to nora’s forgery.