How important is Curley to the success of the narrative in Of Mice and Men?

In the narrative of Of Mice and Men, Curley is a pivotal character as the antagonist, especially since his wife is a genitive of him, and, therefore, a part of the conflicts generated by him.

One of the themes of the novella of Steinbeck is the importance of male camaraderie and fraternity. While the men are in the bunkhouse playing cards, for instance, or when they are throwing horseshoes outside the barn, there is an atmosphere that is calm and cheerful. But, when Curley's wife--who has no name but is simply identified as a genitive of Curley--stands in the doorway with her rouged lips, red nails, and red shoes with "little bouquets of red ostrich feathers," this wife of the son of the boss effects discomfort, nervousness, and anxiety among the men, who must control their natural male urges. In short, Curley's wife is an Eve figure, a temptress, who disrupts the peace of her husband and the other men. Realizing this, George tells Lennie,

"...keep away from her, 'cause she's a rat-trap if I ever seen one. You let Curley take the rap."

Certainly, that his wife, the only woman on the ranch, keeps Curley stirred up makes him extremely aggressive toward the other men as he worries about them as rivals.

Thus, he becomes the spoiler of the fraternity of the men, a fraternity that strengthens the spirit and overcomes the terrible alienation of the bindle stiffs. Further in the narrative, after Lennie inadvertently kills Curley's wife, Curley becomes the ultimate antagonist, vowing to kill Lennie. The knowledge that Curley will enact violence upon Lennie, then, propels George to commit his mercy shooting of Lennie.

Who is Boo Radley to Scout and Jem? How do the children and the community shape his identity for him?

Arthur "Boo" Radley is the Finches reclusive, misunderstood neighbor who is the victim of abuse and rumors throughout the community of Maycomb. At the beginning of the novel, Scout and Jem view Boo Radley as the "malevolent phantom" who is responsible for all small crimes committed in the neighborhood. The children view Boo Radley as a legendary figure who dines on squirrels and resembles a monster. Much of their knowledge comes from Stephanie Crawford, the town gossip, as well as their imaginations. Stephanie tells the children she caught Boo peeping in her window one night, and that he stabbed his father with a pair of scissors, which adds to his negative reputation. The Radley's defy Maycomb tradition and do not participate in social events, and even keep their shutters and doors closed, which is virtually unheard of in Maycomb. Miss Maudie tells Scout that they are "foot-washing Baptists" who chose to keep Boo isolated after a series of childhood pranks. Since Boo comes from a family who is considered different and never leaves his house, he cannot defend his reputation, resulting in his mysterious, misunderstood identity. The children hear these stories, pass his spooky home, and let their imaginations run wild. In reality, Boo is a sympathetic, shy character who happens to live in an ominous looking house.

How did London change in the period, 1750-1900?

The period, 1750-1900, roughly corresponds with the Industrial Revolution, a time of rapid economic growth in Britain. As the country's capital, London was hugely affected by these changes, in a number of important ways.

Firstly, by far the most striking change in this period was the population. At the beginning of this period, for example, London had a population of 750,000 people. But this increased substantially over the course of the next century: from 3.1 million people in 1860 to over 6 million by 1900. There are a number of reasons for this population boom, including rising rates of immigration and the rise of urbanisation, as people flocked from the countryside to find jobs in the industrialising cities. You can find out more in the first reference link provided.

Secondly, London transportation underwent significant changes in this period. In the 1700s, for instance, London's roads were in a sorry state of disrepair. They were prone to flooding and journeys out of the capital took a long time. It took over two weeks to get from London to Edinburgh, for instance. But all this changed with the coming of the Industrial Revolution. A great boom in road-building began in the 1780s which made travel far easier than before. By the 1830s, for example, the above journey  to Edinburgh took only two days. The number of stagecoaches (covered wagons) increased too, to ferry people and resources across the capital and beyond. Improved coach architecture continued to improve these coaches, making them bigger, more efficient and able to carry heavier loads. London's first railway opened in 1838, prompting a new era in transportation and connecting London to the rest of the country. The famous London Underground also opened in 1863. Please see the second and third reference links for more information. 

Who are the main characters of the movie, "Much Ado About Nothing?"

The 1993 and 2012 film adaptations of William Shakespeare's play, Much Ado About Nothing, feature the same group of main characters. 

First, there are Benedick and Beatrice, who are both very full of themselves, think marriage to be silly, and seemingly hate one another. Then there is the beautiful Hero, cousin of Beatrice and daughter of Leonato. There are also two brothers, Don John (who is a jealous troublemaker) and Don Pedro (who likes to play at matchmaking). Benedick's friend Claudio is also a main character. Other figures in the plot include Margaret and Ursula (Hero's gentlewomen), Borachio and Conrade (Don John's cronies), Dogberry (a bumbling but charismatic constable), and a meddling Friar.

Throughout the course of the play, Don Pedro makes it his task to set up two couples. After successfully making a match of Hero and Claudio, for whom things do not go smoothly, he plays a long-game of making a match out of Benedick and Beatrice.

What would be a good argument for an essay on the film "No Country For Old Men"?

You might consider comparing the film to the book; in my experience, the film is more faithful to the book than almost any other adaptation of a book that I've seen. You might analyze the content of the story (abstracted from the book or film version) and critically analyze the changes that were made, why they were made, and what they contribute or remove from the story. You might also question what the most essential elements of the story are, and whether the film adaptation, by leaving very little out, represents a 100% "essentialism", suggesting that the story is largely bereft of unnecessary elements.

One significant element that was left out was Llewelyn's "relationship" (a non-sexual one) with a teenage hitchhiker. This probably represented temptation, which Llewelyn denied - he stayed faithful to his wife, but he was killed anyway. By contrast, in the film, the girl is left out, and essentially replaced by an anonymous woman in a hotel that invites Llewelyn in for beers, under what are probably less than wholesome intentions. This, at least to me, portrays the film version of Llewelyn as a distinctly more fallible and corruptible person than he is in the novel.

A common and relatively easy topic for "No Country For Old Men" is the idea of evil being essential, omnipresent or all-powerful, and that the individual is often powerless to stop it. You could address this prompt by discussing whether Chigurh is a real person who simply makes strong ideological arguments, or whether he is a sort of personification of death or some other force of nature.

What is the conflict in Kate Chopin's short story, "The Story of an Hour"?

The central conflict in Kate Chopin's "The Story of an Hour" is between the main character, Louise Mallard, and society. 

The story begins when Louise's sister, Josephine, is attempting to gently break the news of Mr. Mallard's death in a train accident to Louise.  "She did not hear the story as many women have heard the same, with a paralyzed inability to accept its significance.  She wept at once, with sudden, wild abandonment, in her sister's arms" and then retreats, alone, to her room.  From this, we can know that Louise is unlike most women of her society because she did not respond as other women have to this same news.

Though her sister fears that she may be doing herself harm, Louise is actually engaged in much different behavior: she notices

the tops of trees that were all aquiver with the new spring life.  The delicious breath of rain was in the air [....].  The notes of a distant song which some one was singing reached her faintly, and countless sparrows were twittering in the eaves.  There were patches of blue sky showing here and there through the clouds [...].

Instead of grieving her dead husband, remembering their life together, mourning the death of his love, Louise is, instead, noticing all the signs of life around her.  She whispers the words, "free, free, free!" and "did not stop to ask if it were or were not a monstrous joy that held her."  We can understand now that Louise is actually happy, not grieving.  She's not happy her husband is dead, per se, but she is happy for her acquisition of a freedom she could never have possessed while he was alive.

It is not that she didn't love him.  She did...sometimes.  And he loved her.  "She knew that she would weep again when she saw the kind, tender hands folded in death; the face that had never looked save with love upon her, fixed and gray and dead."  There was no conflict between them, and he was not a tyrannical husband.  However, "she saw beyond that bitter moment a long procession of years to come that that would belong to her absolutely." 

Louise didn't take issue with her husband, in particular, but the institution of marriage in this time period (the 1890s), in general.  She was the legal property of her husband, with no rights or legal identity of her own, while he lived.  The narrator even tells us that the lines of her face "bespoke repression."  Louise could not be her own person.  Her purpose, while her husband lived, was to be his wife, to bend her will to his, to compromise.  Now, she will be able to follow her own will, to do just as she pleases when she pleases.  Readers can see now that the conflict is not between Mr. and Mrs. Mallard, but it is rather between Mrs. Mallard and society, along with all of society's expectations and limitations of a married woman. Mr. Mallard is only a representative of those expectations.

What effect does Clarisse have on Montag?

Clarisse has a profound effect on Montag and is the catalyst for him to begin thinking about his life and occupation of burning books.  At the beginning of the novel, we witness Montag burning books and his elation while doing it.  His face is covered with soot, and he has a “fierce grin” upon his face.  He is enjoying his job until he meets Clarisse one night on his way home.  Clarisse’s face is described as being “slender and milk-white, and in it was a kind of gentle hunger that touched over everything with tireless curiosity.”  Clarisse’s hunger to know and experience the world around her is in direct conflict with Montag’s soot covered face hungry to burn the knowledge and experiences found in books. 

From Clarisse, Montag learns about nature and enjoying the outdoors and sunrise.  He learns that she and her family sit around and laugh and talk.  He can hear her from his bedroom window as he watches his wife in the cold, dark tomb of their bedroom saved from an overdose of drugs by hospital workers who make house calls.  Before meeting Clarisse, Montag had become numb to society; he was metaphorically dead inside until Clarisse’s infectious curiosity and love of life changes his way of thinking.  Montag becomes more open and willing to question why society burns books.  Because of his brief encounters with Clarisse, Montag begins his journey of rebelling against the society he lives in and becomes a force in keeping the knowledge found in books alive for future generations.