Kate Chopin's Bigarphy Affects Her

What makes an author write the way they write? What makes that writer’s tone of certain characters situation approving and some condemning? What makes the novelist write about the topic that they do? Quite simple, their memoir causes this. Kate Chopin’s background shapes what she writes with the framework of family. Neal Wyatt conveys this through his writing of the biography of Kate Chopin. He conveys this through the rhetorical strategy of diction. “…these unhappy incidents combined to create a strong skepticism of religion in Chopin.” (Paragraph 5). This conveyed how death really impacted her life. This would explain the death that ends the story of some of her fictions. Since her happiness ended with death her stories have to end with death. It also conveys how it makes the woman question what she really is, because back in that time religion was the foundation of self knowledge. If one was to go about questioning one’s religion, one practically was questioning who they really were. This explains why the women would be confused about their feelings or at least confuses the audience, so that they can understand the feelings of Chopin. The incidents also convey why the people die a certain way in Chopin’s stories. Her family, well those who were close to her, died on weird days or in weird ways. One of Kate’s stories conveys how a character died the way her father did. This also could convey the time period or the mindset she had while writing the tale, because evidently she was thinking of her father. Wyatt does not only express that Chopin’s upbringing is the result to her writing through death he also does this through her traits.
Neal Wyatt uses rhetorical devices such as diction to convey that Chopin’s experiences structures her work. “By all accounts he adored his wife, admired her independence and intelligence, and allowed her unheard of freedom.” (Paragraph 6). This conveys why her views of feminism was the way it was. Since she was free to do as she pleased and was not shunned for her intelligence, she could not imagine the life that most women had found horrid at that time. She was allowed this by her husband and not only did he allow it he loved her for it. Therefore, it is reasonable why she has her female characters feel some hostility toward the husbands who did not allow it and kept them in check at all times. Still, she had the women have some love for their husbands; this conveys how she felt that the women should still be grateful that the men were willing to take care of them. How along with the freedom to express their intelligence, they must be able to work independently to provide for themselves. Later, Chopin conveys that she is able to do that but is still criticized for her feminist views. Neal also conveys why Chopin made the women feel they needed freedom. She wanted the women to want the freedom so they can be strong enough to one day become the independent women that she was at the time of her writing the stories. She did not want the women to be full of talk but to be able to stand on their own two feet once they did get this freedom. This also explains the tone of her toward the characters. Why she was sympathetic over the women who did not have the freedom. She put herself in the situation of not being loved by her husband for being her. How she would have had to be submissive if he did not love her enough to allow her to be herself. But she does not hate the male husband characters that are completely controlling over the women. Yes, she condemns them but she does not hate them. She looks down on them for being so weak either to society’s trend or to their mindset. She also sympathized with them because she later was censured for the novels she came out with. She looked at the man as weak characters who should have been somewhat recognized for not having the women condemned and having to deal with the silence she did, but also looked down on them still for not letting them explore their mind. Neal Wyatt conveyed that Kate Chopin’s experiences built the foundation for her fiction.

Analysis of Disturbia Character, Kale

Shia Lebuff’s character, Kale, had a passionate personality. He showed how his passion gets him in good and situations; however it still makes the movie. The situations that were good outnumbered his bad ones, though. For instance, there were several parts of the movie that conveyed how his passion turned out to be an admirable quality. One of these instances were when he told the girl, that played his love interest, how he watched her and noted all the things in detail of what she did and carefully analyzed it. Since he was passionate for her, he was able to take the time to sit down and try to understand why she would do the things she did so that he could, in fact, understand her and be more able to obtain her interest more than other guys that were, most likely, of high competition. In the end, though creepy and bizarre, the female found it intriguing that someone understood her took notice to who she really was. She became Kale’s leading later after that point and eliminated all other guys, but even though Kale was able to make passion work for the best, he also got in some sticky situations from it. A solitary example of this is when his father died. Since he was so passionate for his father, the death of him was a lethal blow for him and he began to shut down in his surroundings and in school. When his teacher mentioned his father negatively, out of pure reflex, he punched him and the punishment for his instinct was to be on house arrest. With house arrest came more trouble than one was to expect, including the audience and the character himself. Without getting into detail, the trouble began to make the story, therefore if it wasn’t for the character’s passion, the story would have not been complete or, maybe, even made.

Frederick Douglas Response (Mmmk I Officially Hate Blogger!)

Did slavery affect everyone who is was around or was it only the whites? Did it affect those who weak mentally or even the strong? Did slavery affect everyone in the negative or was some of it positive? Fredrick Douglas conveyed how slavery had a negative effect on everyone including himself. One way he conveys this is through some figurative language such as simile. “Slavery proved as injurious to her as it was to me…Under its influence, the tender heart became stone, and the lamblike disposition gave way to one of tiger-like fierceness.” (Paragraph 2). This conveys how the nicest person’s personality could be devoured under slavery’s influence. How since she was soft both inside and out, simply because lamb has wool, she was most likely to be devoured. How there was no room for softness in the cruel harshness of slavery. It also conveyed how slavery only had a negative effect, hence proved to be injurious. Injury is always harmful therefore making it a negative effect. Douglas conveys how nice she actually was before slavery begun to affect her. He explains twice in one sentence how tender and soft she was but also conveys how the negative effect was extreme how by also conveying twice in the sentence it had affected her harshly. But slavery not only affected the soft people but it also negatively affected the slaves.

Slavery negatively affected everyone it was around, one of its effects happen to fall on Frederick Douglas one of the sufferers of slavery. He conveys this through the diction in his passages. “The plan which I had adopted, and the one by which I was most successful, was that of making friends of little white boys whom I met in the street. As many of these as I could, I converted into teachers.” (Paragraph 4). This conveyed how the negative effect of slavery imposed on Douglas was that he ignorantly became racist himself. He called boys “little white boys” as if they were inferior to him or as if he did not want to be around him but the only reason he was, is because they could teach him something of value. He conveys how they were inferior to him, in his mindset, by how he says, through so many words, they were easily to manipulate. He could easily sway them into teaching him even though there would be many consequences to their actions. He also conveys how he was racist through when he calls the boys “these” instead of “them”. The word “these” conveys how they were just objects to him, objects that could be discarded like nothing. If he would have used the word “them” he would have made it seem as if they were people. It made him seem respectful something that he most likely lacked for them. Overall slavery affected everyone that it was around negatively; Fredrick Douglas only zoomed in on how it affected him and the mistress that once taught him.

Wade in the Water Extra Verse

I’m scared of the men who whip us to bed

God’s a gonna trouble the water

An endless sleep that engulfs the head

God’s a gonna trouble the water

Scarlet Letter Questions

1. The sin that affected Hester was adultery but the consequences that were traced back to her character seemed more beneficial in my eyes. Hester grew stronger mentally dealing with the consequences of her sin and was able to focus with her child more unlike Dimmesdale. Dimmesdale’s sin was also adultery but since he withheld it for so long without confiding to anyone he ended up breaking the sane capacity in his mind. He began to hallucinate which made him feel guiltier during the book and because of this Chillingworth was able to torture him as long as he did. Chillingworth’s sin might have affected him physically and socially because of his demeanor. The deceitfulness and vengefulness worn him down and made him even more repulsive than usual. But I highly doubt that he had gotten this way after hearing about what Hester did, therefore his sin was rooted before the meeting of Hester causing his physical pleasantness to decay even before she met him. It also affected him socially, Hester could not love him and it might have been for his cruelty.

2.

Characteristics	Quote
Symbolism	“framework of his nature” (pg.20)
Metaphor	“dropping the staff of age” (pg. 21)
Diction	“a portion of the virgin soil as a cemetery, and another portion as the site of a prison”(pg. 45)

3. All their names symbolize something; Pearl symbolizes what she means to Hester. She was a rare jewel that over time came from nothing but a grain of sand (sin) and evolved to this beautiful crystal. Chillingworth’s name symbolized his sneaky demeanor and his not so warm deformed shoulders. Dimmesdale’s name conveyed his status and his state of being, he wasn’t at all happy and the dale showed how he was the standard, leader, for the community.

4. Hester when she was on the scaffold was young and naïve, she took a tremendous amount of pride for what she did and crated a beautiful crimson letter “a” with gold trimming which was a very immature thing to do. At first she mocked the Scarlet Letter wearing it proudly upon her chest. Then after a while started to understand the full meaning of what the letter was and what it symbolized. She also grasped the consequences more fluently at that time and began to dwell upon them until the climax of the story. After maturing she began to grow from the mark and not let its appearance label her but now help her develop into the woman she should be. She grew into a woman and let the letter guide her into the right direction even when she walked upon the scaffold once again but that time with Dimmesdale.

5. ?

The scene at the scaffold was the novel’s climax because it brought together all those who were major in the story and all those who knew, and understood the situation fully with none of the details hidden or obstructed from their knowledge.

Comaparison of Slave Vouchers

Why was it law for whites to vouch for blacks in order for their stories to be published? What kind of people do these vouchers tend to be? How do the vouchers affect the story of the blacks that they vouch for? If these vouchers had an audience, who would that audience be? Whites had to vouch for blacks in order for their stories to be published because it was illegal for them to read and write at that period in time. Both Wendell Philips and L. Maria Child were whites that vouched for blacks and used their stories to convey their beliefs on slavery to their white audience. One way they convey this is through diction. Both Philips and Child use their black associates’ stories, Fredrick Douglas and Harriet Jacobs, to reveal how they disagreed on slavery.

Childs believed that slavery was immoral and she used Harriet Jacobs’ story to convey this. One way she shows this is through diction. “ I am well aware that many will accuse me of indecorum…no fugitive from Slavery shall ever be sent back to suffer in that loathsome den of corruption and cruelty…her parents were to live together even though they had different masters….as she grew to adulthood, she was sexually threatened by the doctor and abused by his jealous wife.” (H. J. Packet and Child). This conveys how Childs was strictly against the treatment Jacobs had to endure by her master and his wife. That no one not even Negroes should have to endure that. It also conveys the woman that Childs was. She knew that people would say that her taking up for slavery was unacceptable and even still she vouched for a slave. That conveys true bravery and they would be especially harsh on Child because she is a woman, this still did not come to her mind. She thought of the people like slaves who had bigger problems, Childs was not at all selfish. This conveys the kind of people the vouchers were: both selfless and fearless. But Child is not the only voucher that showed their beliefs through a slave’s story.

Like Child, Phillips used the story of an ex-slave, Fredrick Douglas, to convey his beliefs against slavery. One way he establishes this is through diction, also. “I attended an anti-slavery convention in Nantucket, at which it was my happiness to become acquainted with Frederick Douglas…fortunate for the cause of negro emancipation…Reader! Are you with the man-stealers in sympathy and purpose, or on the side of their downtrodden victims...NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS!...slaves know as little of their ages as horses know of theirs, and it is the wish of most masters…to keep their slaves thus ignorant.”(Frederick Douglas Packet and Wendell Philips). This conveys how slaves were treated like animals and how the people that owned them had every intention to keep it that way. This also conveyed the kind of man that Frederick Douglas grew up to be. Even though he was treated like an animal he still had a strong enough mentality to achieve something more than a slave status by meeting a white who was thrilled to meet him. But the white not only was thrilled to meet him but also to vouch for him and to shout out there could be no union with slaveholders. This conveys the kind of person Frederick had influenced and also had to vouch for him. A man willing to profess that there could not be a real standing nation, that there would be no real United States of America, if there was still slave owners showed the bravery he had. Not only did that show his bravery but showed how he did not agree with slavery at all. He didn’t care that his statement did not only bring up a political question but also a moral and loyalist question, this just proved how deeply and strongly he felt. But with Philips were other vouchers and used the stories they vouched for to convey how they felt about slavery.

Both Philips and Child conveyed how they felt about slavery through the stories of the slaves Frederick Douglas and Harriet Jacobs. They both used diction to convey this theory. They also conveyed the kind of people vouchers were, fearless and passionate. Selflessness was also a trait that the vouchers shared. All in all the vouchers vouched for the blacks and made a stance and a trend by doing so and they contributed much to the knowledge of slavery during those times and are idolized for doing so.

Gettysburg Address

1. Truthfully, Abe Lincoln did not miss anything critical in my eyes. He lists all the major things he should have addressed for a burial site. He explains how these men were great and how they will be remembered; he explains how they helped shaped the country that was so wonderfully sculpted years before. Abe covers all important things maybe except that the people’s family was hurt and maybe he should have given them his condolences directly, though he did it indirectly.

2. The significance of Abe’s last sentence to the Gettysburg Address was that they would not let those people who died lives is taken away unnecessarily and that the people of this country should fight for the government because it is for them and by them and revolves solely and purposely around them. The sentence also gives an ending to the speech that is most powerful and also empowering those who were family to the deceased. Those whom are dead only die in body- not in the heart of the soul- not in the nucleus of the spirit- but only in the container in which the essence subsist- those that love and care for the dead can feel them in their heart, in their soul, in their mind, and will contain that piece of them forever more.

3. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address were used to empower a nation and a country in a time of need. The way they were both written made the purpose of the documents different. Jefferson uses a list form to show how many unfair rules were established by Britain, while Lincoln used lasting statements to show the people how much there was to say about the bravery and the courage of the fallen.

4. Martin Luther King’s, I Have a Dream Speech does the same with long statements like the Gettysburg Address, he uses them like Lincoln to get effective emotion and thought into his audience.

A Slave's Dream Analysis

How did the slaves feel when they were enslaved? What was their escape from the prison that they were mentally held in? Longfellow uses his poem, A Slave’s Dream, to convey their place of peace while they had to endure those grueling conditions. One way he conveys this is through diction. He shows that the place of the slave’s peace was home. “in the mist of the shadow of sleep, he saw his Native Land…Once more a king he strode…He saw once more his dark-eyed queen, among her children stand they clasped his neck, they kissed his cheek, they held him by the hand!” (Longfellow). This explains how he felt that the place he would long for is home. How he reminisced of Africa and his family that was there. He conveyed how important his wife was to him by calling her a queen. He explained how he felt about being there, he felt important like a king. He missed his kids, their touch, and their embrace. He missed everything and while he thought of that he was at peace. But that is not the only thing Longfellow said would be the peace of a slave, death was another relief theory through diction that Longfellow mingled with.

What would put a slave to ease when he is down? What would put ease to the pain? Longfellow explains that death would help ease the pain of a slave through diction. “That he started in his sleep and smiled at their tempestuous glee. He did not feel the driver’s whip, nor the burning heat of the day; for Death had illumined the Land of Sleep, and his lifeless body lay a worn-out fetter, that the soul had broken and thrown away!” (Longfellow). He conveyed how he smiled as he was near death. Instead of saying that he died, he explained the place known as the Land of Sleep. This suggested how it would be a place of rest and where he could recuperate from the struggle. Longfellow used the Land of Sleep to convey how important, big, and open the place was. Because when one thinks of land they think of a place vast, far, and wide. To say a place would have made it secluded and not welcoming. Longfellow wanted the audience to understand how comforting that land was and how it embraced a torn soul. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wanted to establish to his audience, through diction, the place in which a torture soul would find ease and comfort in his poem, A Slave’s Dream.

desiree's Baby Link

http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/DesiBaby.shtml

A Real Conquistador named Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca

What makes someone a great explorer? What kind of qualities should one have to reach their greatest potential as a voyager? How about the quality of examination? Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca shows through certain rhetoric techniques how the characteristic of observation is essential to being a wise adventurer. One way he portrays this is through the rhetoric strategies of diction. Another way he establishes his qualities is through irony. One more way he accomplishes showing his audience his traits is through symbolism. Though he had shown how he was wise adventurer through both irony and symbolism, one of the simplest ways was through diction.
Is it not wonderful when one can see how the simplest structure of a paragraph can change the whole meaning of it, or how the simplest addition to the paragraph shows emphasis on a certain subject? Cabeza de Vaca writes in his journal about the things he observed while exploring, through these writings he conveyed how it is important to observe as an explorer and learn through these observations. One way he shows this is from the use of the rhetoric technique, diction. “Against Cabeza de Vaca’s advice, Narvaez sent the ships farther along the shore in search of a rumored port where his army might rejoin them, but the ships were never seen again… he told them…it was never a time when one should command another- that is every man for himself! With that, Narvaez and his crew disappeared, apparently lost at sea.” (pg 29 Cabeza packet). This shows how de Vaca knew what would happen. He had observed these habits and the words used by Narvaez to know that he would not keep up well enough with his men to avoid being lost. They also convey that the likeliness of Narvaez, with his men, surviving was slim to none by saying that “his army might rejoin them” might was the key word. It conveyed that he knew and readers of his journal, also, knew what would happen. If Narvaez would have observed his surroundings and took the time to observe his experience and leadership status at exploring like de Vaca, he might have not went on to disappear and not be seen again. But Cabeza did not just reveal that the quality of observation is important through diction. He also proved his point through irony.
Is it not weird when one can have different views from another when they were born in the same household? But the household only believed in one thing and one of the views happens to favor the household, therefore it is considered to be correct. However, the other outlook on the topic was correct and completely logical, and ironically proves to be very helpful. Confused? Cabeza de Vaca explains this through his writings in his journal. Theses entries convey how observation is vital for the success of survival when voyaging. One way they prove this is through irony. “The Relation of Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca sought to recount (with remarkable understatement) his sufferings and many brushes of death and to explore his complex feelings regarding the Native Americans and his own country men’s dealings with them.” (pg. 30 Cabeza packet). This explains how though Cabeza de Vaca was from Spain he thought differently than them. Spain’s whole outlooks on Native Americans were different than his. He respected them and treated them as people while Spain did not. This would later help de Vaca, for when the Spanish came to escort de Vaca home the Native Americans stood by his side still willing to help him. They refused to believe that Cabeza was Spanish like them, since he had treated them as people. Cabeza de Vaca had an army of his own without realizing it, which is why observation is critical. He knew if he was to be treated that way, he would dislike it, he would have no loyalty, or/ and he would want to fight back. The observation value was not just to observe what you can see but also what you cannot. He does not just capture that theory through irony, but also through symbolism.
A cane is a hollow lightweight stem of a tropical plant, especially bamboo, used in various ways in the house and garden (Encarta Dictionary). Why is cane so important? Cabeza de Vaca enlightens this word while writing his journal. He does this by using the rhetoric strategy, symbolism. “The people we come to know there are tall and well- built. Their only weapons are bones and arrows, which they use with great dexterity. The men bore through one of their nipples, some both, and insert a joint of cane two and a half palms long by two fingers thick. They also bore their lower lip and wear a piece of cane in it half a finger in diameter…..from October to the end of February every year, which is the season these Indians live on the island, they subsist on roots I have mentioned….in these two months, too, do they take fish in their cane weirs.” (pg. 30 Cabeza packet). This conveys why the term cane is so important. Cabeza uses symbolism along with repetition to emphasize it. Cane represented who the Native Americans were, their culture, their source of life, and their mannerisms. He uses the cane to describe things that he observed that he could not explain. The cane shows their strength by mentioning that it pierces them. It conveys how much pain they can take but also their flexibility. By stretching their skin they show that they were an easy society. The cane expressed the Native Americans more than one can describe, that is what Cabeza observed. Only a wise and successful voyager can truly understand the importance of the examination of the cane , and that is why Cabeza was an intelligent explorer. And he proved this through a variety of rhetoric methods.
Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca was an intelligent explorer. He proved this through rhetoric skills while writing in his journal. One way he proved he was wise was through diction. Another way he had established that he was clever was through irony. The last way he conveyed that he was a sensible conquistador was through symbolism. De Vaca proved that he was not just an ignorant conquistador like Christopher Columbus, but was, in fact, quite intelligent.

Christopher Columbus Is Who May I Ask Again?

Who is Christopher Columbus? Is he really the hero everyone has made him out to be? Or is he really just that guy who “in 1492 won the support of The Spanish monarchs, Ferdinand and Isabella, for this enterprise of the Indies” (Stories of the Beginning of the World packet). Christopher Columbus answers these questions through letters sent to the Royals and some lady from the Spanish court. He conveys to his audience, ironically, how he is not this grand hero and how he is this imperialistic antagonist or shall we say conquistador. He conveys this through the use of rhetoric strategies. One way he establishes his contradiction to his so called heroicness is through pathos. Another way he accomplishes his antagonistic ways is through diction. But the most hilarious way that he had officiated his imperialist mindset is through irony. Hough irony happens to be the most comical of the ways that he proves his antagonistic manner; the element that will be shown first is pathos.

A hero is somebody who commits an act of remarkable bravery or who has shown an admirable quality such as great courage or strength of character (Encarta Dictionary). Sorry to say but what Christopher Columbus did is not an admirable quality. He conveys this in his own words. One way he accomplishes conveying what he does not have is through pathos. “I never think without weeping…they are in an exhausted state; although they are not dead, the infirmity is incurable or very extensive; let him who brought them to this state come now with a remedy…” (Christopher Columbus translated by Cecil Jane). Would a hero bring upon natives of a country disease and then speak of it as if he was not the one who started it. As if he is not the one at fault. He conveys his emotion of sadness through saying that he does, indeed, cry when he thinks of the natives. But is that enough? He should come forth with the remedy in which he speaks of. And what would be a good remedy? His retirement or draw back from the island of Hispaniola that he so rudely renamed Espanola. He explains how they are in an “exhausted state” but yet “not dead”. This shows how they were ill, sick, and to the point of death. If they were not at the point of death, then he would not have mentioned it. But still he wept for them. Meaning though Native Americans started getting sick by the numbers all around him and him and his men were in perfect shape, he stayed there and wept. Was Christopher Columbus that ignorant? But that is not the only time that his audience had to think of that question. Christopher Columbus showed his antagonistic ignorance through diction.

An arrangement of words could easily make you look like something that one did not want them to. Christopher Columbus himself has proved this. Christopher is now known as a protagonist but through the letters that he had written to the royals and some lady from the Spanish court, he contradicts this. He helps convey this through diction. “They traveled three days’ journey and found an infinity of small hamlets and people without number, but nothing of importance.” (Christopher Columbus translated by Cecil Jane). This conveys how Christopher Columbus, our hero, thought these natives, people actual people, were nothing of importance. How selfless right? This passage also conveys how there were many people there before Columbus and how he still felt they were nothing of importance. Even though they could have helped him explore the land, but no since they were not Europeans they were nothing of importance. This provides the proof of the ignorant imperialistic attitude Christopher Columbus had. But he would not have seemed this way is he would have worded the previous passage correctly. He could have said they traveled three days’ journey found nothing of importance except, an infinity of hamlets and people without number. That way he would have seemed like he cared for people. But no it was almighty Chris Columb. Was he, once again, just that ignorant? But diction was not the only way Christopher Columbus showed his antagonistic ignorance. He also conveyed those mannerisms through irony.

What one expects sometimes comes around and bites them in the butt. Christopher Columbus shows this in his letters. He conveys his antagonistic imperialistic mindset through his use of rhetoric strategies. One technique he uses is irony. “As I know that you will be pleased at the great victory with which Our Lord has crowned my voyage, I write this to you, from which you will learn how in thirty days, I passed from the Canary islands to the Indies with the fleet which the most illustrious king and queen our sovereigns gave to me.” (Christopher Columbus translated by Cecil Jane). This conveys how Christopher Columbus gloated at what he thought an successful voyage. Little did he know that his voyage was not the great success he thought it to be. But, in fact, he had landed on the islands of Cuba and Hispaniola. He had not reached the Indies, land of spices. His expedition was not triumphant. He also stated how the Royals must have been pleased with him. However, Columbus probably wasn’t expecting to be imprisoned and trialed by the same Royals that had to be pleased with him. Not only was his journey a failure at the time, but he also got imprisoned for his failure to manage the trip correctly. This is why irony happens to be one of the most hilarious techniques used by Christopher Columbus, this is only an opinion.

So what exactly is a hero? Simple, it is not Christopher Columbus. Christopher Columbus conveyed his antagonistic and imperialist outlook through his letters. These letters included rhetoric techniques that hinted on his frame of mind. One of these rhetoric techniques were pathos. Another one of those rhetoric strategies were diction. But the most hilarious of the rhetoric methods was, in fact, irony. So what is one left with when they think of Christopher Columbus: the one who did not accomplish what he had started? How about some words of wisdom to conclude who Christopher Columbus really is: “Done in the Indies in the island of Jamaica, on the seventh of July, in the year one thousand five hundred and three.” (Christopher Columbus translated by Cecil Jane).

Diction

A rowan like a lipsticked girl.

Other than a color what comes to mind when you think of a lipsticked girl?

My answer is simple a young sophisticated self pleased female. No she's not stuck-up or conceited, she's simply pleased with herself and is concerned about her appearance. To have lipstick shows how this female has the time or went out her way and taken the time to think about what she has on, wearing, smelling, feeling, or just what makes this unknown "lipsticked girl" that "lipsticked girl". What comes to mind is that it is not often that you see this lipsticked girl being plain or awkward, it seems as if she always goes and comes looking her best. She finds comfort in looking and feeling her best, and feels accomplished when she is complimented on it. She feels she has achieved something.

How would it change the meaning and the feeling of the line if instead of lipsticked girl, the author wrote girl with lipstick on?

When you change it to that sentence it just seems as if this girl is plain. This girl would go unnoticed among those with lipstick on and with those without lipstick. She's no longer the girl wearing the lipstick, and that the lipstick, if it did have feelings, should be proud that it is being worn by her, that it has even graced her lips. Now it only seems like the lipstick is wearing the girl. Meaning that the lipstick out does her...if someone had seen her they wouldn't want to talk to her, they would want to know where she got the lipstick from and then that's the end of the conversation. She, as the lipsticked girl, would have been able to hold that conversation and instead of just wanting the lipstick they want to be like her. When you just change the words around you get a totally different character.

Write a simile comparing a tree with a domesticated animal. In your simile, use a word that is normally used as a noun (like lipstick) as an adjective (like lipsticked).

An evergreen like an aged puppy.