<p>Gryos, sorry man, it's bleak future. It's just one question. Although, it may be a question that matters if you're borderline, I guess.</p>
<p>'Unladylike language! Great God! - to what will she come?' He lifted hands and eyes. (15)</p>
<p>'Never to the altar of Hymen with Sam Wynne.' (16)</p>
<p>'To what will she come? Why are not the laws more stringent, that I might compel her to hear reason?' </p>
<p>Read this. He defines what he means CLEARLY in the second part. If I am wrong about my belief then bleak future does not mean that either.</p>
<p>Gyro, it's one question, and arguing doesn't change whether or not you got it right or whether or not we got it right. You're set in believing it's one thing, most of CC (:P) is set in believing another. Just wait for the QaS to come out and then we can know for sure.</p>
<p>All of you people keep saying. It's "bleak future" through implications. You are not substantiating yourself from words from the passage.</p>
<p>ANYHOW. lets go on to question in the lines about how she responds to him constantly saying the same thing(its 82-85 but I didn't number). I put scornful (know it was wrong). What was it?</p>
<p>Actually maybe posting this wasn't a good idea... the only questions I had was the one I am arguing... (kinda pointless.) and that one about scornful. Can someone answer the scornful one? Its number 13 (check psg to see were 13 is)</p>
<p>The answer was she was deliberately misunderstanding him.</p>
<p>O I never pick answers like that because in this part she seemd as the "right" person who wouldnt do that. But I guess this logic doesn't work on hard questions >.<.</p>
<p>I also remember bubbling in an answer that was "deliberately misunderstanding...." forgot which 1 tho so..</p>
<p>I think this bleak future should go on the "ambiguous" topic. I mean.. it can be argued both ways. I keep on reading this passage and trying to find something that disproves both... i find none that blatantly disprove each. I found more though that support the diversion. And I understand.
"To what will she come" can be interpreted two ways.
"To what will she come" = "How will her future be"
"To what will she come" = "How can I force her to listen"
You see what I mean? Its just how you percieved it. I hope this question is thrown out...
And I am sorry. I should not of said the comments in the fifth or so post about "in your face."</p>
<p>
[quote]
'To what will she come? Why are not the laws more stringent, that I might compel her to hear reason?'
He is asking for laws to be less stringent!! So how is this bleak future?
[/quote]
"why are not the laws more stringent" would mean he thinks they should be MORE stringent not less.</p>
<p>We more than the opinion of one person Gyros.. I don't see any other people with a problem with that question.</p>
<p>Also you may be reading a sentence or part of the passage that is minutely changed, but so the meaning can be turned completely upside down.</p>
<p>Yes, he is asking why they are not more stringent so that he can force her to marry that man. </p>
<p>To what will she come? : Who will she marry? (he thinks she will marry someone not as good as that man signifying a bleak future, one that he does not regard as sufficient, because he does not regard true love as a criteria for marriage.)</p>
<p>Hmm yeah I am re-reading it again. She does say though who are viable candidates for her (artists or something). But I do get what you are saying. He questions her constantly about WHO will you marry. So I DO understand the bleak future part. I just don't get how that this diversion thing.</p>
<p>you know what, diversion...hm. diversion means "to turn aside from a path or course", and indeed, he does later ask "the heavens" if there is any way he can change her mind. or something to that effect. BUT, the key here is the line numbers they gave. i believe it was 48-50. anyhow. in those lines, the ONLY thing he said was "to what will she come", which is a direct reference to a bleak future. you know, when you're parents say, "what's the world coming to?". therefore, had the lines they asked you to interpret included the part where he asks about more stringent laws, HERE he makes a second request, and that is for god to help him divert her from her chosen path.</p>
<p>in summary, he first predicts a bleak future, then pleas for diversion. howevever the question only asked about his first comment. so the answer is bleak future. there ya go.</p>
<p>Yea I basically feel bleak future now. I read it like 23 times. I interpreted the phrase "to what will she come" as "how will i come to terms with her" or "how can I convince her'. I just interpreted that so wrong. GOD i am dumb. Anyhow I don't want this topic to be limited to my dumbness. Post questions you had in this topic about the story.</p>
<p>so does this chick ever get married?</p>
<p>Wat Was The Exact Answer To The Profiglancy Question????</p>
<p>I think she does get married...
it's been awhile though.</p>
<p>The answer is bleak future, for sure.</p>
<p>Profligacy was A, that the shmo wastes his time with reckless things</p>
<p>i am positive with bleak future</p>
<p>by the way ; the question with context :
Take care, madam!'</p>
<p>'Scrupulous care I will take, Mr. Sympson. Before I marry, I am resolved to esteem - to admire - to love.' (13)</p>
<p>the answer have the word Justify right , guys?</p>