Read this passage from dostoyevsky's novella notes from the underground
but do you know, gentlemen, what was the chief point
about my spite? why, the whole point, the real sting of it lay
in the fact that continually, even in the moment of the
acutest spleen, i was inwardly conscious with shame that
was not only not a spiteful but not even an embittered
man, that i was simply scaring sparrows at random and
amusing myself by it.
in what way is the narrator most clearly a monster?
o
a. he is straightforward about his spite.
o
b. he gives advice, even when not asked for it
c. he is ashamed, even though he has no reason to be.
o
d. he is intentionally cruel for no reason

hey there

use of language is very important in order to write in a good way. each literary genre has its different exploitation of language and, therefore, many differences and similarities can emerge. shakespeare's work (romeo and juliet) is a sample of a drama. its language is full of dialogue to describe the beauty of first love in people; everything it's pink color. it briefly describes fictional scenes and situations. on the other hand, the calypso borealis, by john muirs, it's narrative essay: its language is full of descriptions to describe an experience, a real experience. hyperbole is not used as in drama genre. he falls in love with discovering a real place and his direct feelings.

hope this !

f yes, , mark brainliest : )

have a good night.

what are the choices?

cockroaches and rats often are a symbol for things that are disgusting or vile. though i don't know which play you are talking about, i hope this !

"character is what you are in the dark." dwight lyman moody, in this very witty quotation of his, states we act and think differently when we are "in the dark", that is, when the spotlight is not on us and everyone can see us and consequently judge us. when reading, we tend to be sympathetic to some characters and their dilemmas. by being so, we are saying to ourselves that we agree with those characters' acts and choices, even if they are morally questionable if we have common sense in mind. dwight lyman moody's quotation applies very well to "crime and punishment", by   19th century russian writer fiodor dostoyevsky. raskolnikov, the main character, a former law student who spends his days reflecting upon life and its misery, draws a fatal conclusion: mankind is divided in two main categories: ordinary and extraordinary people. the first are the ones who lead a run-of-the-mill existence and are full of imperfections; the latter are the ones who are spiritually superior, the ones who always know better, and have the right to judge the ordinary ones, as well as eliminate them if for common good. raskolnikov considers himself as belonging to the extraordinary category and decides to kill an old lady who is a money lender and in whose house he rents a small room. raskolnikov compares himself to napoleon, who had the undeniable right to execute tons of people during the war in order to save his nation. of course what the main character decides to do is a horrendous crime, but as readers we feel it is the right thing for him to do, since the victim is a mean old woman who only thinks about money and keeps humiliating her younger sister. what one experiences is a mixture of sympathy and empathy for the character, even though he decides to commit homicide, which is not at all accepted or tolerated by civilized citizens. however, since readers are "in the dark", they allow themselves to feel in ways they would probably never dare to confess to anyone, no matter how nasty or vicious a character can be. after all, they are just reading and doing no harm. in other words, readers are in the dark and can be who they are without being judged.