what is the main conflict in gregor the overlander

Eleven-year-old Gregor is left home alone in his family's New York City apartment to watch his sisters and grandmother. When Gregor's baby sister Boots falls through an old air duct grate in the building's basement, he dives in after her. The two fall miles below into the Underland: a subterranean world home to humans with near-translucent skin; giant sentient bats, rodents, and insects; and an escalating conflict between the human city of Regalia and the rats' King Gorger. They meet several "Underlanders", among them the Regalians' crown princess Luxa, her cousin Henry, and the bats who are "bonded" to them. At first, Gregor wants only to return home, but when he is attacked by two rats during an escape attempt and saved by the Underlanders, he inadvertently brings the conflict between the two groups to a head.

Gregor the Overlander

Gregor the Overlander is a children's epic fantasy novel. The book was written by Suzanne Collins and was published in 2003 as the first book of The Underland Chronicles. It was received well by critics, and was listed as one of New York Public Library's 100 Books for Reading and Sharing.[3] It was featured by the U.S. National Public Radio in 2005.[4] Scholastic has rated the book's "grade level equivalent" as 4.9 and the book's lexile score as 630L, making it reading-level-appropriate for the average fourth or fifth grader.[5]

The novel has been published in several languages and is available as both an audiobook and ebook. Its United Kingdom edition was published under the alternate title Gregor and the Rats of the Underland.[6]

It is then that he learns the real reason for the rats' hatred of Overlanders: a mysterious prophecy written by the human colony's founder Bartholomew of Sandwich hints that an Overland "warrior" will stop an attempt by the rats to take over the underground realm once and for all. The Regalian council believes Gregor to be this warrior, and tries to convince him to undertake the quest mentioned in the "Prophecy of Gray". Though he sympathizes, Gregor is reluctant to help until he learns a surprising fact: his father, who disappeared unexpectedly over two years before, had actually fallen down into Regalia just like Gregor and Boots and been taken prisoner by the rats. Gregor, his sister, and a group of Regalians go on a journey to rescue Gregor's father and recruit allies for a war against the rats.

The quest group is challenged to successfully recruit allies for the Regalians, and then journeys to find Gregor's dad emaciated and tortured in the personal prison of King Gorger. When the rat king discovers their rescue attempt, Henry reveals that he has been helping the rats all along, hoping to ally them with the Regalians and conquer the entire Underland. During the questers' attempt to escape, Gregor sacrifices himself to lure the rats' attack force — King Gorger and Henry among them — off the edge of a cliff. Henry's bat Ares, who had no knowledge of his bond's treachery, chooses to save Gregor rather than Henry as they fall. When the few remaining quest members make it back to Regalia, Luxa and her family are devastated, both because of Henry's treason and death and because Ares has been sentenced to banishment (essentially a death sentence in the Underland) for allowing his bond to die. Gregor saves his life by using his status as the "warrior" to form a new bond with him. When things have settled down somewhat and the Regalian doctors have done all they can for his father, Gregor and his family return to the surface.[1]

Beware, Underlanders, time hangs by a thread
The hunters are hunted, white water runs red.
The gnawers will strike to extinguish the rest.
The hope of the hopeless resides in a quest.[7]

Meaning: The usually uneasy balance of power in the Underland is in flux, with the rats' king planning to launch an attack against the other species in the Underland. The phrase "white water runs red" refers specifically to how the humans deposit the bodies of two rats who try to kill Gregor into a fast-flowing river beneath the Regalian palace. "Hope of the hopeless" may be interpreted as a reference to Gregor, who refuses to "allow himself to think about the future at all", because it makes him sad that he has lost his father.[1]

An Overlander warrior, a son of the sun,
May bring us back light, he may bring us back none.
But gather your neighbors and follow his call
Or rats will most surely devour us all.[7]

Meaning: Gregor is an Overlander and the son of another fallen Overlander (thus a "son" of the "sun", in multiple ways). He brings the Regalians "light" (an Underland idiom for "life") by killing King Gorger and the traitor Henry. The humans ally themselves with the other species of their world, warding off an attack by the rats, who are carnivores and occasionally cannibalistic.[1]

Two over, two under, of royal descent,
Two fliers, two crawlers, two spinners assent.
One gnawer beside and one lost up ahead.
And eight will be left when we count up the dead.[7]

Meaning: Gregor and Boots; Luxa and Henry; the bats Ares and Aurora; two giant cockroaches named Temp and Tick; the spiders Gox and Treflex; and the rat Ripred all journey on a quest to find the "one lost up ahead": Gregor's dad. Out of the original twelve, Tick, Treflex, Gox, and Henry all die during the quest.[1]

The last who will die must decide where he stands.
The fate of the eight is contained in his hands.
So bid him take care, bid him look where he leaps,
As life may be death, and death life again reaps.[7]

Meaning: Henry, the last "quester" to die, decides that he is a traitor to the humans, and seals his fate by failing to notice as Gregor leads him off a cliff. He may be interpreted as controlling the "fate of the eight" because of his powerful connection with the rats, whom he could have manipulated had he lived. The final line may have many different meanings; among them may be a hint about how miserable Luxa is even though she lives, as Henry was her best friend until he had his life "reaped".[1]

Several editions of the novel have been published since the first in 2003, each with new or adapted cover art.[8] To date, editions have appeared in German, French, Spanish, Norwegian, Italian, Polish, Greek, Dutch, Finnish, and Chinese.[8] Scholastic has also licensed the novel's rights to publishers in several other languages.[2] In 2006 The Chicken House produced yet another edition, distributed in the UK by Gardners Books.[9] This edition was published under the alternate title Gregor and the Rats of the Underland.[6]

The novel was available as an ebook as early as 2010, and as part of a boxed set.[10] An audiobook edition was published December 13, 2005, read by actor and narrator Paul Boehmer.[3][11]

Gregor the Overlander has received much critical acclaim, primarily for its new treatment of common themes in fantasy.[12] School Library Journal called it "an engrossing adventure for fantasy fans and for those new to the genre." Common Sense Media gave it a 5/5 and credited the book's "strong characters, vivid descriptions, flawless pacing, breathless excitement, laughs and scares, and a vision that makes this fantasy very different."[13] Readers have also praised the novel; Jane LeGak, an Amazon Reviewer, stated that, "Rats and other wonderfully creepy creatures fill the story's dark underworld, but what makes this book so wonderful is how human it is." A. Reid, also from Amazon.com, praised the believable characters, saying, "Gregor is one of the most warmly believable characters I've encountered in a children's novel in a long time."[14] As of August 2015, users on Amazon.com had given the book a rating of 4.5 stars out of 5, and Barnes & Noble reviews awarded it a total of 4.4 stars.[15][16]

The book has also been praised for covering political themes, such as war and genocide, while still maintaining an adventurous feeling.[17] Collins herself has stated that "she spent hoursÂ ... plotting strategic alliances that would make military sense" in a way that kept such themes accessible for younger audiences.[18] Publishers Weekly's review of the novel was "starred", an honor reserved for books of "exceptional merit".[19][20] The reviewer stated, "Collins does a grand job of world-building, with a fine economy of words-no unnecessary details bog down either the setting or the invigorating story. In her world, a child singing "Patty-Cake" can change the course of history and a stoic rat can mourn the fact that although he is able to read, he cannot write because he has no thumb. Unlike Gregor who cannot wait to leave, readers will likely find it to be a fantastically engaging place."[19]

Despite the mainly positive reviews, the novel has received some negative criticism. One critical review by Children's Literature writer Tina Gregory points out that "the novel lacks at certain points necessary descriptive details of the characters and settings. For instance, the descriptions of Regalia, the Underland city, and many of the book's characters should be so distinct that we visualize them."[10] The same School Library Journal review which praised the novel's "exciting scenes and cliff-hanger chapters" also had this to say: "Gregor is not the most compelling figure at first, but as the story progresses he becomes more interesting, maturing through the challenges he faces."[13]

Gregor the Overlander was named a Kirkus Reviews Editors' Choice and placed third for the Nutmeg Children's Book Award in 2006 in the intermediate category.[21] It was also nominated for the Kansas William Allen White Children's Book Award, the Pacific Northwest Young Reader's Choice Award, and several other awards. It won the Pennsylvania Young Readers' Choice Award for 2005â€“2006[22] and was the first runner-up for the Texas Bluebonnet Award.[23]


what is the name of the youth loved by salmacis

In Greek mythology, Hermaphroditus or Hermaphroditos /hərˌmæf.rəˈdaɪ.təs/ ( listen) (Ancient Greek: Ἑρμαφρόδιτος) was the son of Aphrodite and Hermes. According to Ovid, he was born a remarkably handsome boy with whom the water nymph Salmacis fell in love and prayed to be united forever. A god, in answer to her prayer, merged their two forms into one and transformed them into an androgynous form.[1] His name is compounded of his parents' names, Hermes and Aphrodite.[2] He was one of the Erotes.

Hermaphroditus

Because he was a son of Hermes, and consequently a great-grandson of Atlas, sometimes he is called Atlantiades (Greek: Ατλαντιάδης).[3] Hermaphroditus' father, Hermes, was also called Atlantiades because his mother, Maia was the daughter of Atlas.

His name is the basis for the word hermaphrodite.

Hermaphroditus, the two-sexed child of Aphrodite and Hermes (Venus and Mercury) had long been a symbol of androgyny or effeminacy, and was portrayed in Greco-Roman art as a female figure with male genitals.[4]

Theophrastus's account also suggests a link between Hermaphroditus and the institution of marriage. The reference to the fourth day of the month is telling: this is the luckiest day to have a wedding. Hermaphroditus's association with marriage seems to have been that, by embodying both masculine and feminine qualities, he symbolized the coming together of men and women in sacred union. Another factor linking Hermaphroditus to weddings was his parents' role in protecting and blessing brides.[5][6]

Hermaphroditus's name is derived from those of his parents Hermes and Aphrodite. All three of these gods figure largely among erotic and fertility figures, and all possess distinctly sexual overtones. Sometimes, Hermaphroditus is referred to as Aphroditus. The phallic god Priapus was the son of Hermes by some accounts and the youthful god of desire Eros of Ares and Aphrodite.

Ovid's account relates that Hermaphroditus was nursed by naiads in the caves of Mount Ida,[7] a sacred mountain in Phrygia (present day Turkey). At the age of fifteen, he grew bored with his surroundings and traveled to the cities of Lycia and Caria. It was in the woods of Caria, near Halicarnassus (modern Bodrum, Turkey) that he encountered the nymph, Salmacis, in her pool. She was overcome by lust for the boy, who was very handsome but still young, and tried to seduce him, but was rejected. When he thought her to be gone, Hermaphroditus undressed and entered the waters of the empty pool. Salmacis sprang out from behind a tree and jumped into the pool. She wrapped herself around the boy, forcibly kissing him and touching his breast. While he struggled, she called out to the gods that they should never part. Her wish was granted, and their bodies blended into one form, "a creature of both sexes".[8] Hermaphroditus prayed to Hermes and Aphrodite that anyone else who bathed in the pool would be similarly transformed, and his wish was granted. "In this form the story was certainly not ancient," Karl Kerenyi noted. He compared the myth of the beautiful ephebe with Narcissus and Hyacinthus, who had an archaic hero-cult, and Hymenaios.[9]

Diodorus Siculus in his work Library of History mention, that some say that Hermaphroditus is a god and appears at certain times among men, but there are some who declare that such creatures of two sexes are monstrosities, and coming rarely into the world as they do have the quality of presaging the future, sometimes for evil and sometimes for good.[10]

The oldest traces of the cult in Greek countries are found in Cyprus. Here, according to Macrobius (Saturnalia, iii. 8), there was a bearded statue of a male Aphrodite, called Aphroditos by Aristophanes. Philochorus in his Atthis (ap. Macrobius loc. cit.) further identified this divinity, at whose sacrifices men and women exchanged garments, with the Moon.[11] A terracotta plaque from the 7th century BC depicting Aphroditos was found in Perachora, which suggests it was an archaic cult.[12]

The deification and the origins of the cult of hermaphrodite beings stem from Eastern religions, where the hermaphrodite nature expressed the idea of a primitive being that united both genders. This double sex also attributed to Dionysus and Priapus - the union in one being of the two principles of generation and conception - denotes extensive fertilizing and productive powers.[13]

This Cyprian Aphrodite is the same as the later Hermaphroditos, which simply means Aphroditos in the form of a herm (see Hermae), and first occurs in the Characters (16) of Theophrastus.[14] After its introduction at Athens (probably in the 5th century BC), the importance of this deity seems to have declined. It appears no longer as the object of a special cult, but limited to the homage of certain sects, expressed by superstitious rites of obscure significance.[15]

We find in Alciphron that there was at Athens a temple of Hermaphroditus. The passage proposes that he might be considered as the deity who presided over married people; the strict union between husband and wife being aptly represented by a deity, who was male and female inseparably blended together.[16]

The earliest mention of Hermaphroditus in Greek literature is by the philosopher Theophrastus (3rd century BC), in his book The Characters, XVI The Superstitious Man,[17] in which he portrays various types of eccentric people.

The first mention of Hermes and Aphrodite as Hermaphroditus's parents was by the Greek historian, Diodorus Siculus (1st century BC), in his book Bibliotheca historica, book IV, 4.6.5.

Hermaphroditus, as he has been called, who was born of Hermes and Aphrodite and received a name which is a combination of those of both his parents. Some say that this Hermaphroditus is a god and appears at certain times among men, and that he is born with a physical body which is a combination of that of a man and that of a woman, in that he has a body which is beautiful and delicate like that of a woman, but has the masculine quality and vigour of a man. But there are some who declare that such creatures of two sexes are monstrosities, and coming rarely into the world as they do they have the quality of presaging the future, sometimes for evil and sometimes for good.[18]

The only full narration of his myth is that of Ovid's Metamorphoses, IV.274-388 (8 AD), where the emphasis is on the feminine snares of the lascivious water-nymph Salmacis and her compromising of Hermaphroditus' erstwhile budding manly strength, detailing his bashfulness and the engrafting of their bodies.[19]

A rendering of the story into an epyllion, published anonymously in 1602, was later (1640) attributed by some to Francis Beaumont.[20]

In the Palatine Anthology, IX.783 (980 AD), there is a reference to a sculpture of Hermaphroditus which was placed in a bath for both sexes.[21] The passage IX.317 is in dialogue form, based on the dialogue between Hermaphroditus and Silenus. The latter claims that he has had sexual intercourse with Hermaphroditus three times. Hermaphroditus complains and objects to the fact by invoking Hermes in an oath, while Silenus invokes Pan for the reliability of his allegations.[22]

Algernon Charles Swinburne's poem "Hermaphroditus" in Poems and Ballads is subscribed Au MusÃ©e du Louvre, Mars 1863, leaving no doubt that it was the Borghese Hermaphroditus that had inspired his ode.[23]

A persona named 'Hermaphroditus' appears in the film Fellini Satyricon as a childlike, physically weak god who is able to heal human supplicants afflicted by various ailments but apparently unable to heal him/herself.[28] Hermaphroditus is not mentioned in the original Petronius novel Satyricon, on which Fellini's film is loosely based. According to one source, the film episode "may be based on a Pseudo-Petronian poem sometimes printed along with the Satyricon".[29]


chief minister of a union territory is appointed by

The Parliament of India can pass a law to amend the Constitution and provide a Legislature with elected Members and a Chief Minister for a Union Territory, as it has done for Delhi and Puducherry. In general, The President of India appoints an administrator or lieutenant-governor for each UT.[1] There are seven union territories, including Chandigarh, the joint capital of Punjab and Haryana.

Union territory

A union territory is a type of administrative division in the Republic of India. Unlike states, which have their own elected governments, union territories are ruled directly by the Union Government (Central Government), hence the name "union territory". Union territories in India qualify as federal territories, by definition.

Delhi and Puducherry (Pondicherry) operate somewhat differently from the other five. Delhi and Puducherry were given partial statehood and Delhi was redefined as the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT). Delhi and Puducherry have their own elected legislative assemblies and the executive councils of ministers with partially state-like function.

The seven current union territories are:[2][3]

Union territories of India have special rights and status due to their constitutional formation and development. The status of "Union Territory" may be assigned to an Indian sub-jurisdiction for reasons such as safeguarding the rights of indigenous cultures, averting political turmoil related to matters of governance, and so on. These union territories could be changed to states in the future for more efficient administrative control.[citation needed]


where did the saying wolf in sheep's clothing come from

The phrase originates in a sermon by Jesus recorded in the Christian New Testament: Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves (Gospel of Matthew 7:15, King James Version) [1]. The sermon then suggests that their true nature will be revealed by their actions (by their fruits shall ye know them, verse 16). In the centuries following, the phrase was used many times in the Latin writings of the Church Fathers[2] and later on in European vernacular literature.[3] A Latin proverb also emerged, Pelle sub agnina latitat mens saepe lupina (Under a sheepâ€™s skin often hides a wolfish mind). Although the story of a wolf disguised as a sheep has been counted as one of Aesop's Fables in modern times, there is no record of a fable with this precise theme before the Middle Ages, although there are earlier fables of Aesop in Greek sources to which the Gospel parable might allude.

Wolf in sheep's clothing

A wolf in sheep's clothing is an idiom of Biblical origin used to describe those playing a role contrary to their real character with whom contact is dangerous, particularly false teachers. Much later, the idiom has been applied by zoologists to varying kinds of predatory behaviour. A fable based on it has been falsely credited to Aesop and  is now numbered 451 in the Perry Index. The confusion has arisen from the similarity of the theme with fables of Aesop concerning wolves that are mistakenly trusted by shepherds; the moral drawn from these is that one's basic nature eventually shows through the disguise.

The first fable concerning a wolf that disguises itself in a sheep's skin is told by the 12th-century Greek rhetorician Nikephoros Basilakis in a work called Progymnasmata (rhetorical exercises). It is prefaced with the comment that 'You can get into trouble by wearing a disguise' and is followed by the illustrative story. 'A wolf once decided to change his nature by changing his appearance, and thus get plenty to eat. He put on a sheepskin and accompanied the flock to the pasture. The shepherd was fooled by the disguise. When night fell, the shepherd shut up the wolf in the fold with the rest of the sheep and as the fence was placed across the entrance, the sheepfold was securely closed off. But when the shepherd wanted a sheep for his supper, he took his knife and killed the wolf.'[4]  The conclusion drawn is different from the Gospel story. In the former one is warned to beware of hypocritical evil-doers; Nikephoros warns that evil-doing carries its penalty.

The next version does not appear until three centuries later in the Hecatomythium of the 15th-century Italian professor Laurentius Abstemius. In his telling, 'A wolf, dressed in a sheep's skin, blended himself in with the flock of sheep and every day killed one of the sheep. When the shepherd noticed this was happening, he hanged the wolf on a very tall tree. On other shepherds asking him why he had hanged a sheep, the shepherd answered: The skin is that of a sheep, but the activities were those of a wolf.' Abstemius' comment on the story follows the Biblical interpretation: 'people should be judged not by their outward demeanor but by their works, for many in sheep's clothing do the work of wolves'.[5]

Certain elements of this story are to be found in Aesop's fable of the shepherd who raised a wolf cub among his dogs. When it was grown, it secretly reverted to type. If a wolf stole a sheep and the dogs could not catch it, the guardian wolf continued the chase and shared the meal with the marauder. On other occasions it would kill a sheep and share the meat with the other dogs. Eventually the shepherd discovered what was happening and hanged the wolf. What may be a reference to this story occurs in an anonymous poem in the Greek Anthology in which a goat laments that it is made to suckle a wolf-cub,

Not by my own will but the shepherd's folly.
The beast reared by me will make me his prey,
For gratitude cannot change nature.[6]

The Greek fable is numbered 267 in the Perry Index.[7] As in the case of The Walnut Tree, however, this would not have been the first time that Abstemius adapted one of Aesop's fables to fit a contemporary idiom, in this case that of the wolf in sheep's clothing. Though the commonest retelling of the story in English follows the version by Abstemius, it is often credited to Aesop.

Another variant fable by Aesop is number 234 in the Perry Index.[8] This concerns a wolf that regularly comes to view the flock but never attempts any harm. Eventually the shepherd comes to trust it and on one occasion leaves the wolf on guard. He returns to find his flock decimated and blames himself for being taken in. In neither case is there the suggestion by Aesop that the wolf disguised itself as a sheep.

Yet another variation on the disguise theme was included in the Cento favole morali ("100 moral fables", 1570) of the Italian poet Giovanni Maria Verdizotti. In this the wolf dresses itself as a shepherd, but when it tries to imitate his call it wakes the real shepherd and his dogs. Since the wolf is encumbered by its disguise, it cannot get away and is killed. This is the version followed in La Fontaine's Fables (III.3).[9] The conclusion both poets draw is the same as that of Nikephoros. The story entered the English canon under the title "The wolf turned shepherd" in Roger L'Estrange's 1692 fable collection[10] and in verse as "The Wolf in Disguise" in Robert Dodsley's Select fables of Esop and other fabulists (1765).[11]

Earlier illustrations of the fable concentrated on the hanging of the wolf. More recently the emphasis has been on the disguise.[12] In France the theme of the wolf disguised  as a shepherd is more common.[13]

A number of recent CDs are titled A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, although most are references to the idiom and the fable is not mentioned in the words of any of the songs. The same is true of many songs that have the phrase as their title. One exception is the lyric by Tackhead on their 1991 CD Strange Things, which uses the fable for a satirical attack on Capitalist entrepreneurs.[14]

Zoologists have repeatedly compared predatory animals which make use of aggressive mimicry to a wolf in sheep's clothing, including jumping spiders,[15][16] lacewings,[17] ant-mimicking aphids,[18] hemipteran bugs mimicking chrysomelid beetles,[19] bird-dropping spiders,[20] orchid mantises,[20] cichlid fish,[21][22] and the zone-tailed hawk which flies with and attacks vultures;[23] these animals have evolved to deceive their prey by appearing as other prey, or like angler fish[23] and snapping turtles[23] lure the prey by appearing as the prey's prey.


where does the term spare ribs come from

The term comes from Low German ribbesper (referring to pickled pork ribs, cooked on a spit), the parts of which refer, in order, to rib and spit.[1]

Spare ribs

Spare ribs (also side ribs or spareribs) are a variety of pork ribs cooked and eaten in various cuisines around the world. They are cut from the lower portion of the pig specifically the belly and breastbone, behind the shoulder, and include 11 to 13 long bones. There is a covering of meat on top of the bones and also between them. Spare ribs (pork) are distinguished from short ribs, which are beef.

Spare ribs have also become popular in the American South. They are generally cooked on a barbecue or on an open fire, and are served as a slab (bones and all) with a sauce. American butchers prepare two cuts:

Spare ribs are usually consumed individually by hand, with the small amount of meat adhering to the bone gnawed off by the eater.


who sang count on me by jefferson starship

"Count on Me" is a 1978 song and single by Jefferson Starship written by Jesse Barish for the album Earth.[1] The single, in lighter rock mode, gave Starship another US Top 10 hit after "Miracles".[2][3] It was featured in the end credits to the movies Grown Ups and The Family Stone.[4]

Count On Me (Jefferson Starship song)


where is the soldiers and sailors monument located

The Indiana State Soldiers and Sailors Monument is a 284 ft 6 in (86.72 m) neoclassical monument built on Monument Circle, a circular, brick-paved street that intersects Meridian and Market streets in the center of downtown Indianapolis, Indiana. In the years since its public dedication on May 15, 1902, the monument has become an iconic symbol of Indianapolis, the state capital of Indiana. It was added to the National Register of Historic Places on February 13, 1973 and was included in an expansion of the Indiana World War Memorial Plaza National Historic Landmark District in December 2016.[2] It is located in the Washington Street-Monument Circle Historic District. It is also the largest outdoor memorial and the largest of its kind in Indiana.

Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument (Indianapolis)

It was designed by German architect Bruno Schmitz and built over a thirteen-year period, between 1888 and 1901. The monument's original purpose was to honor Hoosiers who were veterans of the American Civil War; however, it is also a tribute to Indiana's soldiers who served during the American Revolutionary War, territorial conflicts that partially led to the War of 1812, the Mexican–American War, and the Spanish–American War. The monument is the first in the United States to be dedicated to the common soldier.

The obelisk-shaped monument is built of oolitic limestone from Owen County, Indiana. It rests on a raised foundation surrounded by pools and fountains. Broad stone steps on its north and south sides lead to two terraces at its base. Stone tablets above the bronze entrance doors on the obelisk's north and south sides bear inscriptions commemorating Indiana's soldiers. An inscription above the tablets reads: "To Indiana's Silent Victors." An observation deck is accessible by stairs or elevator from the interior. In addition to its commemorative statuary and fountains, made primarily of oolitic limestone and bronze, the basement of the monument contains the Colonel Eli Lilly Civil War Museum, a museum of Indiana history during the American Civil War. At the time of the monument's dedication in 1902, its cost was $598,318. It has been estimated that construction of a similar structure in 2014 would exceed $500 million.

The memorial includes several notable outdoor sculptures, including Rudolph Schwarz's two massive limestone groupings of War and Peace, two smaller scenes named The Dying Soldier and The Return Home, and four military figures at its base. Three astragals, one by Nikolaus (Nicolaus) Geiger and two others by George T. Brewster, surround the stone obelisk. Additional sculptures include John H. Mahoney's bronze statues of George Rogers Clark, William Henry Harrison, and James Whitcomb, and Franklin Simmons's bronze statue of Oliver P. Morton. Brewster's 30-foot (9.1 m) bronze statue of Victory crowns the obelisk. The Indianapolis monument is approximately 15 feet (4.6 m) shorter than New York City's 305-foot (93 m) Statue of Liberty.

Originally the plot of land at the center of Indianapolis was used as a public gathering place, the site of the Indiana governor's residence, and a city park. Construction on the monument began in 1888 and was dedicated in 1902.

The original plan of Indianapolis, founded in 1821, and platted by Alexander Ralston, included a circular, 80-foot (24 m) wide street that surrounded a circular, 3-acre (1.2 ha) plot of land as the focal point at the center of town. The site was originally called the Governor's Circle because of its designation as the future site of the Indiana governor's residence.[3] The Circle was a hub of community life from the town's beginning in 1821. It was used as a gathering place for religious services before the town's churches were built. A weekly market was held on the site from 1822 to 1824.[4]

A governor's residence was built on the Circle in 1827.[5] Due to the mansion's public location and poor construction, no governor ever lived there; however, it was used as offices for Indiana's Supreme Court justices, the Indiana State Library, and the State Bank of Indiana.[6] It was also a site for civic events and celebrations such as inaugural balls for new governors, fundraising events for charity, military receptions, Fourth of July celebrations, and community meetings.[7] By 1851 the building had deteriorated. It was torn down in 1857, and the site became a vacant lot.[8]

As Indianapolis grew and developed during and after the Civil War, the area became a popular meeting place for mass gatherings, public rallies, and celebrations of wartime victories.[9] In 1867 the site was cleaned up, fenced, and designated as the city's Circle Park.[10] The park remained vacant until 1884, when a bronze statue of Oliver P. Morton, Indiana's Civil War-era governor, was erected at its center. Franklin Simmons, an American sculptor living in Rome, Italy, and a noted sculptor of other Civil War memorial statues, created the statue of Morton, which was surrounded by an iron fence. Dedication ceremonies took place on June 15, 1884, with Indiana governor Conrad Baker presiding. Senator Benjamin Harrison and Colonel William Dudley delivered speeches during the event.[11]

Many times after the Civil War suggestions were made to build a monument honoring Indiana's Civil War veterans. The first proposal was made on April 1, 1862, when an anonymous editorial in the Indianapolis Daily Journal suggested a monument be erected in Circle Park; however, no action was taken.[12] Talk of a monument continued in the years following the war. In 1867 governor Morton suggested a monument be erected on the highest point in Crown Hill Cemetery, but nothing came of it.[13] In 1872 William H. English addressed a group of Civil War veterans and expressed his support for a monument at Crown Hill, but a bill introduced in the state legislature failed to pass.[12] Other potential sites for the monument included University Park, Military Park, and the corner of Washington and Illinois streets in the city's downtown business district, along the National Road.[13]

No progress on was made on the monument until August 1875, when George J. Langsdale, a newspaper editor of the Greencastle Banner, presented a plan for a memorial during the first reunion of Civil War veterans, which was held in Indianapolis.[12] Langsdale's idea was favorably received and a monument association was formed. By 1887 the Indiana Department of the Grand Army of the Republic had raised $23,380, before relinquishing responsibility for the monument to the State of Indiana.[14]

Further action was taken on March 3, 1887, when the Indiana General Assembly passed a bill to form a monument commission, whose original members included Samuel B. Voyles, D. C. McCollum, Daniel M. Ransdell, George J. Johnson, James, G. Gookins, and Langsdale, who was elected the committee's president at its first meeting on June 28, 1887.[15][16] Randsell, who resigned two years later, was replaced by Thomas W. Bennett, and William H. English replaced Bennett.[16] Other commissioners included General Mahlon D. Manson, and Thomas A. Morris.[15] The bill also authorized the monument to be built in Indianapolis and appropriated $200,000 for the project.[17][18] Some state legislators disagreed over use of the Circle as the monument's site; however, the legislative act that authorized it specifically identified the intended site as Circle Park.[16][17]

To select a design for the new monument, the commission established an international contest and solicited ten architects to submit sketches. Notices were also placed in leading newspapers in the United States, Canada, England, France, Germany, and Italy, to encourage others to submit their ideas. The contest deadline was set for January 12, 1888, and seventy designs were submitted. The selection committee, who initially did not know the identity of the designers, chose two entries for further consideration. Bruno Schmitz, an architect from Berlin, Prussia, who submitted a design called Symbol of Indiana was the commissioners' unanimous choice as the winner.[19] Schmitz, an architect knowledgeable in the field of monument design, was also a friend and fellow artist of the commission's secretary, James F. Gookins, when the two lived in Munich, Germany. Percy Stone, of London, England, received $500 for his second-prize entry.[20]

Several individuals and companies were involved in the monument's construction. Schmitz received his commission as the project's supervising architect in February 1888. His contract for the project specified his commission as five percent of the monument's total cost.[20] Schmitz arrived in Indianapolis from Germany in January 1889.[19][21] Frederick Bauman, of Chicago, was appointed the project's deputy architect and Schmitz's representative. Enos Hege, of Indianapolis, received the contract to erect the monument's foundation, which was completed in 1888, and Thomas McIntosh, of Greencastle, Indiana, and an expert in stonework, became the project's superintendent. The Terre Haute Stone Works Company was awarded the contract to construct the monument's terraces, approaches, and superstructure.[22] The project's stone and bronze sculptors included Rudolph Schwarz, Nikolaus (or Nicolaus) Geiger, George Brewster, and John Mahoney.[23][24][25] Although ambiguous language in the authorizing bill created some confusion over the type of memorial to be erected, either a single monument or a combination of monument and memorial hall, the controversy was cleared up in 1893, six years after the bill's initial passage, when its confusing statement was repealed.[16] In the meantime, construction continued using Schmitz's design.

The cornerstone was laid on August 22, 1889. Inside, a copper box contained, among other items, an official list of all Indiana soldiers who had served in the Civil War, newspapers, copies of Indiana's two constitutions, a thirty-eight-star American flag, a photograph of Schmitz, the ceremony's program, and other related paraphernalia from the Grand Army of the Republic, the Women's Relief Corps, the Sons of the Republic, and other groups.[19][26] Ceremonies held on the northeast corner of the monument included a speech by President Benjamin Harrison, an artillery salute, and a parade. Members of Harrison's cabinet, Indiana's governor Alvin P. Hovey, and other state officials were present. The Department Commander of the Grand Army of the Republic was master of ceremonies. It was the first monument in the United States to be dedicated to the common soldier.[26]

Public donations and the Indiana General Assembly's initial appropriations were not sufficient to fund the complete project. More funds were required. The state legislature appropriated an additional $160,000, and in 1891, raised over $123,000 with an additional property tax.[27][28] Construction on the monument, which began in 1888, took thirteen years to complete.[29] The obelisk was completed in 1892, the main elements by 1894, and its final installations in 1901.[28] In 1893 the circle was renamed Monument Place.[27] The cost to complete the monument was $598,318. An estimate to erect a similar structure in 2014 suggests it would exceed $500 million.[30]

The monument was formally dedicated on May 15, 1902.[31] Thousands came to the public event, which began at 8 a.m. with a parade of flags and veterans of the Mexican-American, Civil, and Spanishâ€“American Wars, and ended with an evening fireworks display. The formal dedication ceremony was held at 10 a.m. with General Lew Wallace as the master of ceremonies. General David R. Lucas led the gathering in prayer, and Governor Winfield T. Durbin, Wallace, and John W. Foster, the former United States Secretary of State under President Benjamin Harrison, gave speeches. A male chorus sang and poet James Whitcomb Riley read his poem "The Soldier", which was written especially for the occasion. Musicians played John Philip Sousa's "The Messiah of the Nations", a march he had composed for the occasion.[32][33] Following a second parade in the afternoon and an evening vesper service, the bells of Christ Church sounded and its choir sang "My Country, 'Tis of Thee".[34]

The monument has been modified and updated several times since its dedication in 1902.

The monument is built at the center of Monument Circle, a circular, brick-paved street that intersects Meridian and Market streets at the center of downtown Indianapolis. The neoclassical-style obelisk is built of oolitic limestone from the Romana Stone Company quarries in Owen County, Indiana. It rests on a raised foundation measuring 30 feet (9.1 m) in depth, surrounded by pools and fountains.[19][40] Broad stone steps on the north and south sides, each 70 feet (21 m) in length, lead to two terraces at the base of the monument.[40] The obelisk's base measures 52 feet (16 m) in diameter and 12 feet (3.7 m) in diameter near the top, beneath its capital.[27] The obelisk and its crowning figure of Victory measure 284 ft 6 in (86.72 m) tall.[24][31] It is 15 feet (4.6 m) shorter than New York City's Statue of Liberty.[30] Eight stone eagles support the capital, which includes a balcony and a 19-foot (5.8 m) turret to support the Victory statue.[41]

Limestone tablets above the bronze entrance doors on the north and south sides of the obelisk bear inscriptions commemorating Indiana's soldiers who served in the American Revolutionary War and the capture of Vincennes from the British in 1779, the War of 1812 and related Indian wars (1811–12), the Mexican–American War (1846–48), and the American Civil War (1861–65). An inscription above the tablets reads: "To Indiana’s Silent Victors."[27]

Bruno Schmitz hired Rudolph Schwarz, an Austrian-born sculptor, to create War and Peace, two massive limestone groupings for the monument. Schwarz adapted Schmitz's original design and added two smaller scenes, The Dying Soldier and The Return Home, below the main groupings. Schwarz also carved four heroic military figures representing the artillery, cavalry, infantry, and navy for the monument's base and executed its bronze entrance doors.[42]

Three bronze astragals, one by Nikolaus Geiger and two by George Brewster, surround the stone obelisk. The first astragal is placed 70 feet (21 m) above the obelisk's base. The second astragal is 12 feet (3.7 m) above the first. The third astragal is 80 feet (24 m) above the base, below the capital.[41] Geiger, of Berlin, Germany, cast and shipped the first astragal, a battlefield scene of the army, from Germany. He never saw the monument at Indianapolis and died before its completion. Brewster, an American sculptor from Cleveland, Ohio, created the second astragal with a naval theme that includes a portrait relief of Admiral David Farragut. Brewster also designed the third astragal with the dates 1861 and 1865,[25][41][43] the Civil War’s beginning and ending dates.

Brewster's Victory crowns the memorial.[44] The statue, which became known as Indiana or Miss Indiana, is 30 feet (9.1Â m) tall and weighs ten tons. It faces south and cost $12,500. The statue also includes a symbolic sword representing victory, a torch that signifies "the light of civilization", and an eagle, a symbol of freedom.[25][41]

Additional outdoor sculptures include Indianapolis sculptor John Mahoney's bronze statues of George Rogers Clark, William Henry Harrison, and James Whitcomb, and Franklin Simmons's bronze statue of Oliver P. Morton. The statue of Morton, Indiana's governor from 1861 to 1867,[45] was erected at the center of the Circle in 1884. When construction began on the new monument, the statue of Morton was removed from its original site. It was reinstalled on the southeast side of the monument, around 1899, to represent Indiana's role in American Civil War.[44][46] In 1895 Mahoney received a commission to create three additional sculptures to represent Indiana's role in earlier conflicts.[41] His statue of Clark, on the northwest side of the monument, represents the American Revolution. The statue of Harrison, hero of the battle of Tippecanoe, is installed on the monument's northeast side and represents the War of 1812. The statue of James Whitcomb, Indiana’s governor from 1843 to 1848, is installed on monument's southwest side to represent the Mexican–American War.[47][48][49]

In 1894 the original cascading fountains were replaced with larger versions.[50] Four large candelabra, each 40 feet (12Â m) in height, were installed on pedestals at the north and south steps, while smaller candelabra were placed around the monument to illuminate the drinking fountains installed into bronze buffalo heads.[51]

An elevator and stairway provide access to the monument's observation deck from the base of its interior.[24] The monument's first interior elevator began service in 1894.[50] The elevator stops at a level just below the observation deck, requiring 31 additional steps to reach the top. The staircase contains 331 steps.[52]

The monument also houses the Colonel Eli Lilly Civil War Museum.[52]

In the years since its public dedication on May 15, 1902, the monument has become an iconic symbol of Indianapolis.[53] It is the first monument in the United States to be dedicated to the common soldier, and the largest outdoor memorial and the largest of its kind in Indiana.[27][54] The monument was included in the National Register of Historic Places on February 13, 1973.[1]

In 2011, the American Planning Association recognized Monument Circle as one of nation's "great public spaces" in its annual "Great Places in America" ranking.[55]

The minor league Indy Eleven soccer team features Victory prominently in their logo.[56]

The Circle is surrounded by retail shops, including the South Bend Chocolate Factory; studios for several local radio stations; the Hilbert Circle Theatre, home of the Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra; financial institutions; the Columbia Club, one of the oldest social clubs of Indiana; Christ Church Cathedral, a historic Episcopal church; and the IPL corporate headquarters.[citation needed]

Monument Circle is the premier public gathering place in Indianapolis to commemorate notable events, including concerts, political demonstrations, and photo opportunities.

The flag of Indianapolis includes a graphic representation of Monument Circle and the two streets (Meridian and Market) that intersect it.[55]

During the Christmas season the monument is decorated as an enormous Christmas tree. This annual city tradition, which became known as the "Circle of Lights", began in 1962. The tree lighting ceremony is held the day after Thanksgiving. The decoration of the monument uses 4,784 lights and 52 strands of garland put in place by volunteers from the local IBEW. More than 100,000 people attend the ceremony and the event is televised to an estimated 50,000 households.[57]

Fountain at the base

Underground arches in the museum

Photochrom of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument ca. 1904

View of the monument from the southwest, with the Salesforce Tower in the background.


where is implicit memory stored in the brain

Some of the child's primary experiences are positive and essential for the physical and mental growth of the child. Others may be traumatic: neglect, parental inadequacy or possible mental illness, physical or psychological violence, child abuse, even of a sexual nature, as well as the constant frustrations and disillusionments that lead the child to organize its defences and boost its phantasies. All these experiences cannot be repressed because the hippocampus, necessary for the explicit memory, which is in turn indispensable for repression, is not mature in early infancy (R. Joseph, 1996; Siegel, 1999). On the contrary, the amygdala, which promotes the organization of the implicit memory, undergoes an earlier maturation (R. Joseph, 1996). Therefore, these early experiences, including those that concern the organization of language, can only be deposited in this latter form of memory and they contribute to the formation of an early unrepressed unconscious nucleus of the self (Mancia, 2003a, in press).[12]

Implicit memory

Implicit memory is one of the two main types of long-term human memory. It is acquired and used unconsciously, and can affect thoughts and behaviours.[1] One of its most common forms is procedural memory, which helps people performing certain tasks without conscious awareness of these previous experiences.

Implicit memory's counterpart is known as explicit memory or declarative memory, which refers to the conscious, intentional recollection of factual information, previous experiences and concepts.[2]

Evidence for implicit memory arises in priming, a process whereby subjects are measured by how they have improved their performance on tasks for which they have been subconsciously prepared.[3][4] Implicit memory also leads to the illusion-of-truth effect, which suggests that subjects are more likely to rate as true those statements that they have already heard, regardless of their truthfulness.[5]

In daily life, people rely on implicit memory every day in the form of procedural memory, the type of memory that allows people to remember how to tie their shoes or ride a bicycle without consciously thinking about these activities. Research into implicit memory indicates that it operates through a different mental process from explicit memory.[1]

Advanced studies of implicit memory began only in the 1980s. In early research, subjects were presented with words under different conditions and were given two types of tests: recognition memory tests and perceptual identification tests. These studies provided evidence that effects of memory on perceptual identification was independent of recognition memory.[6][7] Jacoby & Brooks argued that perceptual identity effects reflect very rapid, context-specific learning. Unconscious influences of memory were found to alter the subjective experiences of participants. In one such study, participants judged that the white background noise was lower when they read words they had already been presented, thus misattributing their ease of perceiving the word to less noisy environment. This provided evidence for specific and long-living influences of past memory even when participants were unaware of its influence. Similar effects have been found with studies where participants made judgments about difficulty of anagrams and recognized famous names.[8]

The effect of implicit memory was tested employing priming procedures.[1] Several studies confirm implicit memory as a separate entity. In one such experiment, participants were asked to listen to several songs and decide if they were familiar with the song or not. Half of the participants were presented with familiar American folk songs and the other half were presented with songs made using the tunes of the same songs from group 1 but mixed with new lyrics. Results show that participants in group 1 had a much higher chance of recalling the songs as being familiar, even though in both groups, the tunes of the songs were the same.[9] This study shows that people are even implicitly making connections amongst their memories. Much memory study focuses on associative memory, or memories formed between two entities, linking them together in the brain. This study shows that people implicitly make a strong associative connection between a song's tune and its lyrics that they can't separate later.

Some clues as to the anatomical basis of implicit memory have emanated from recent studies comparing different forms of dementia. Patients with dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT) have been reported to be severely impaired on both lexical and semantic priming tasks, while patients with Huntington's disease (HD) were able to demonstrate normal priming ability (Shimamura et al., 1987; Salmon et al., 1988). In contrast, HD patients evidenced little learning on a pursuit-rotor task that was easily mastered by both amnesic and DAT patients (Eslinger and Damasio, 1986; Heindel et al., 1988). This possible double dissociation involving HD and DAT patients suggests that different implicit memory tasks are mediated by distinct neural systems and that these tasks can be used to differentiate some of the so-called "cortical" (e.g., DAT) from "subcortical" (e.g., HD) dementias (Cummings and Benson, 1984).[10]

A more recent contribution to the study of implicit memory comes from the experiments with a spatial organization computer game on amnesic patients (Stickgold et al., 2000). Damage to the bilateral temporal lobe and hippocampus had caused the loss of explicit memory. However, despite being unable to recall the game, these patients were able to dream of it at sleep onset. This observation is interesting as it shows that learning can be memorized without the contribution of explicit memory, which requires the activation of the hippocampus and of the temporal and basal cortex. In the cases observed by Stickgold et al., the explicit memory was definitely impaired, but a non-explicit and non-conscious kind of memory was left and could emerge in dreams. This observation shows that an experience can be stored in the implicit memory and can be represented symbolically in dreams.[11]

According to Daniel L. Schacter, "The question of whether implicit and explicit memory depend on a single underlying system or on multiple underlying systems is not yet resolved."[1] The findings display such a variety of phenomena that there has not yet been a theory to account for all of the observations. Instead, two theories have been presented to explain different subsets of the data.

Modern discoveries in neuropsychology concerning the organization of memory allow us to hypothesize that some synaptical cortical and subcortical circuits form the seat of unconscious mental functions. The possibility of identifying, in the explicit and implicit memory respectively, the repressed and unrepressed unconscious opens new and stimulating perspectives for an integration of neuroscience with psychoanalysis, and for a possible anatomic localization of the functions of these two different forms of unconscious. This depends on a presupposition: that the experiences, emotions, phantasies, and defences that help organize an individual's unconscious psychic reality, from birth throughout life, are stored in the nervous structures concerning memory, both implicit and explicit. This is, after all, in line with Freud's conviction: 'latent conceptions, if we have any reason to suppose that they exist in the mind—as we had in the case of memory—let them be denoted by the term "unconscious"' (1912, p. 260).[12]

There are usually two approaches to studying implicit memory. The first is to define a characteristic associated with explicit memory. If a person with a normal working memory can solve the task (e.g. remembering a list of words), then they are consciously recalling a memory. The second approach invokes neither a conscious nor an unconscious response. This approach is dependent on many independent variables that affect the response of a person's implicit and explicit memory.[13]

Empirical evidence suggests infants are only capable of implicit memory because they are unable to intentionally draw knowledge from pre-existing memories. As people mature, they are usually capable of intentional recollection of memory, or Explicit memory. However, amnesic patients are usually the exception to developing memory, but are still capable of undergoing priming, to some extent. Since procedural memory is based on automatic responses to certain stimuli, amnesic patients are not affected by their disability when behaving habitually.[13]

Although the explicitâ€“implicit distinction was introduced during the 1980s, the sort of contrast that it captures is not new; related distinctions between conscious and unconscious memories, to take just one example, have been around for more than a century (for historical considerations, see Roediger, 1990b; Schacter, 1987). The critical development during the past decade has been the systematic demonstration, exploration, and attempted explanation of dissociations between explicit and implicit memory. Some of these dissociations have been provided by experiments demonstrating that brain-damaged amnesic patients with severe impairments of explicit memory can exhibit intact implicit memory; others come from studies showing that specific experimental variables produce different and even opposite effects on explicit and implicit memory tasks.[14]

The discovery of implicit memory was made by Warrington and Weiskrantz (1974) who studied with priming experiments patients affected by Korsakov's amnesia, in which the structures of explicit memory are damaged. Subsequently, the procedural dimension of implicit memory has been confirmed. As well as this, the emotional and affective dimension of implicit memory is of particular interest for psychoanalysis. It is linked to the earliest, most significant experiences of the infant with the mother and the surrounding environment.[12]

Activation processing is one of two parts in Mandler's dual processing theory. According to Mandler, there are two processes that operate on mental representations. The first is activation, where increased activity causes a memory to be more distinctive. This increases the familiarity component of the memory, which explains results from priming effects. The second is elaboration, which is a conscious memory used to encode explicit memories that involves activation, but also creating new relationships amongst existing memories.[15]

The multiple memory system theory ascribes the differences in implicit and explicit memory to the differences in the underlying structures. The theory says that explicit memories are associated with a declarative memory system responsible for the formation of new representations or data structures. In contrast, implicit memories are associated with a procedural memory system where memories are just modifications of existing procedures or processing operations.[1]

Progress in identifying the structures and connections that make up the medial temporal lobe memory system has been paralleled by gains in understanding how this system participates in memory functions. An important step in this achievement was the insight that the hippocampal formation is important for only a particular kind of memory. The implication was that memory is not a single entity but consists of multiple processes or systems. Converging evidence about the selective role of the hippocampal formation in memory is now available from rats, monkeys, and humans. It took time for the idea of multiple memory systems to become firmly established. In 1962, the severely impaired amnesic patient H. M. was reported to be capable of day-to-day improvement in a hand–eye coordination skill, despite having no memory for the practice sessions (Milner, 1962). Nevertheless, subsequent discussions of memory in general and amnesia in particular tended to set aside motor skill learning and to focus on the unitary nature of the rest of memory. Amnesia was considered to impair memory globally, with the recognition that an exception should be made for motor skills.[16]

Jacoby and Kelly[8] posited that memory could serve as both an object and a tool. Memory is treated as an object in recall or recognition; it can be inspected and described to others. In this case, the focus is on the past. However, memory (from the past) can be used as a tool to perceive and interpret present events. When riding a bicycle, one's focus is on travelling down the road, rather than the specifics of keeping balance. A bicyclist may not even be able to specify the particulars of balancing. In this case, the past memory of keeping one's balance serves as a tool rather than an object.

When used as a tool, the use of a memory is unconscious because the focus is not on the past, but on the present that is being aided by the past memory. Memory can serve as a tool even when one is unable to recall or recognize the influence of the past memory. This distinction between the two functions of memory set the stage for understanding the role of unconscious (or implicit) memory.[8]

The illusion-of-truth effect states that a person is more likely to believe a familiar statement than an unfamiliar one. In a 1977 experiment participants were asked to read 60 plausible statements every two weeks and to rate them based on their validity. A few of those statements (some of them true, others false) were presented more than once in different sessions. Results showed that participants were more likely to rate as true statements the ones they had previously heard (even if they didn't consciously remember having heard them), regardless of the actual validity of the statement.[17]

As the illusion-of-truth effect occurs even without explicit knowledge, it is a direct result of implicit memory. Some participants rated previously heard sentences as true even when they were previously told that they were false.[18] The illusion-of-truth effect shows in some ways the potential dangers of implicit memory as it can lead to unconscious decisions about a statement's veracity.

A form of implicit memory used every day is called procedural memory. Procedural memory lets us perform some actions (such as writing or riding a bike) even if we are not consciously thinking about it.

In one experiment two groups of people, one composed of amnesic patients with heavily impaired long-term memory, and the other composed by healthy subjects, were asked several times to solve a Tower of Hanoi puzzle (a complex problem-solving game that requires thirty-one steps to complete). The first group showed the same improvements over time as the second group, even if some participants claimed that they didn't even remember having seen the puzzle before. These findings strongly suggest that procedural memory is completely independent from declarative memory.[19]

In another experiment two groups of people were given a flavored carbonated drink. The first group was later exposed to motion sickness, and these participants developed a taste aversion against the carbonated drink, even if they were made aware that the drink didn't lead to the motion sickness. This shows that there appears to be an implicit, procedural memory that subconsciously links the sickness and the drink flavor.[20]

It is debated whether implicit attitudes (that is, attitudes people have without being consciously aware of them) belong under the category of implicit memory or if this merely involves a pragmatic approach to asserting knowledge. In some ways, implicit attitudes resemble procedural memory as they rely on an implicit, unconscious piece of knowledge that was previously learned.[21]

Evidence strongly suggests that implicit memory is largely distinct from explicit memory and operates through a different process in the brain. Recently, interest has been directed towards studying these differences, most notably by studying amnesic patients and the effect of priming.

The strongest evidence that suggests a separation of implicit and explicit memory focuses on studies of amnesic patients. As was previously discussed in the section on procedural memory, amnesic patients showed unimpaired ability to learn tasks and procedures that do not rely on explicit memory. In one study, amnesic patients showed a severely impaired ability in verbal long-term memory, but no impairment in their memory for learning how to solve a certain motor task called a pursuit rotor. Patients showed this improvement over time even while claiming on each occasion to have never seen the puzzle before.[22] This result indicates that the mechanism for long-term declarative memory does not have a similar effect on implicit memory. Furthermore, studies on priming in amnesic patients also reveal the possibility of an intact implicit memory despite a severely impaired explicit memory. For example, amnesic patients and a control group showed similar improvements in word completion as a result of priming, even if they had no memory of being involved in a previous test.[23] That priming occurs without the involvement of explicit memory again suggests that the two types of memory have different functions in the brain.

In amnesia, damage has occurred to the hippocampus, or related structures, and the capacity for one kind of neuroplasticity (LTP in hippocampus) and for one kind of memory is lost. The fact that residual learning abilities are accomplished implicitly could be taken to mean that nothing at all has been lost except the ability to engage in conscious remembering. However, by analogy to the loss of form vision in blindsight, it is suggested here that a specific ability has also been lost in amnesia. What has been lost is the ability to store a particular kind of memory, a kind of memory that is flexible and available to conscious recollection.[16]

The tradition of work with amnesic patients explains why the idea of multiple memory systems led naturally to a consideration of what kind of memory depends on the integrity of the brain structures, including hippocampus, that are damaged in amnesia. In addition, the idea that the hippocampus might be involved in only one kind of memory appeared independently in the animal literature, on the basis of the selective effects of limbic lesions (Gaffan, 1974; Hirsch, 1974; O'Keefe & Nadel, 1978; Olton et al., 1979). The sections that follow suggest that the findings from humans and experimental animals, including rats and monkeys, are now in substantial agreement about the kind of memory that depends specifically on the hippocampus and related structures.[16]

Process dissociation is a framework proposed by L. L. Jacoby as a procedure to separate the contributions of different types of processes to performance of a task. This method uses the 'dissociation' paradigm of comparing performance on two tasks.

Jacoby employed this technique in his false fame experiment. Participants in this experiment were provided a list of names in the first session. In the second session, participants were given one of the two kinds of tasks. In the 'exclusion task', participants were told that none of the names they read in session one belonged to famous people and they should respond "no" when judging fame in the second session. In the 'inclusion task' condition, participants were informed that the names from the first session were famous but obscure and they should respond "yes" for famous if they remember a name from the first session or otherwise know it to be famous. Theoretically, the probability of saying "yes" in the exclusion condition is the probability of the name being remembered only unconsciously. The probability of saying "yes" in the inclusion condition was the probability of a name being remembered either consciously or unconsciously. Comparison of these two yields an estimate of conscious influences.[24]

The process dissociation procedure provides a general framework for separating the influences of automatic processes from the intentional processes and can be applied to a variety of domains. Later, Visser & Merikle also employed the process dissociation method to demonstrate the effects of motivation on conscious and unconscious processes.[24][25]

Besides the study of amnesic patients, other evidence also indicates a separation between implicit and explicit memory. Basic patterns that exist for explicit memory development do not apply to implicit memory, implying that the two are two different processes. Children tested at various increasing ages, in different stages of development, do not exhibit the same increase in performance in implicit memory tasks the way they always do with explicit memory tasks. The same is true for elderly people. Studies show that as people grow older, their performance on explicit memory tasks declines, however their performance on implicit memory tasks does not decline at all.[26]

Neuropsychology has used imaging techniques such as PET (positron emission tomography) and MRI (magnetic resonance imaging ) to study brain-injured patients, and has shown that explicit memory relies on the integrity of the medial temporal lobe (rhinal, perirhinal and parahippocampal cortex), the frontal–basal areas and the bilateral functionality of the hippocampus. The amygdala is mainly responsible for the emotional component in the process of information storage (see Gazzaniga,1999; Mancia, 2000b, 2004, in press), and can modulate both the encoding and the storage of hippocampal-dependent memories (Phelps, 2004).Implicit memory, by contrast, is not conscious and concerns data that can be neither remembered nor verbalized. It presides over the learning of various skills: a) priming, which is the ability of an individual to choose an object to which he has previously been exposed subliminally; b)procedural memory, which concerns cognitive and sensorimotor experiences such as motor skills learning, everyday activities, playing instruments or playing certain sports: c) emotive and affective memory,2, which concerns emotional experiences, as well as the phantasies and defences linked to the first relations of the child with the environment and in particular with the mother.[12]

Many experiments have been performed to demonstrate the differences between implicit and explicit memory. One such method of differentiation is revealed through the depth-of-processing effect. In a 1981 study by Jacoby and Dallas, subjects were first given a list of words and asked to engage with them in some way. For some of these words, subjects were asked to interact with the words in a relatively superficial way, such as counting the number of letters in each given word. For one set of words, subjects performed tasks that required elaborative processing (denotation), such as answering questions about a word's meaning. They were then given a test that assessed their ability to recognize whether they had seen the word in the studying part of the experiment. Because depth of processing aids in the explicit memory of a word, subjects showed better memory for the words that required elaborative processing on this test. When implicit memory was tested through flashing words on a screen and asking subjects to identify them, however, the priming effect was extremely similar for the words that involved elaborative processing as compared to the words that did not. This suggests that implicit memory does not rely on depth of processing as explicit memory does.[6]

The same study also tested the effect on memory by priming the words via an auditory test and then testing through visual stimuli. In this case, there was little decline in the priming effect when patients were tested explicitly by merely being asked whether they recognized hearing the word in the first part of the experiment. On the word identification test of implicit memory, however, the priming effect was severely reduced by the change in modality from the studying part to the testing part.[6]

Both implicit and explicit memory experiences can be present in transference, influencing each other just as they do in the normal development of the infantile mind (Siegel, 1999). If the work on implicit memory can facilitate the emergence of phantasies and memories stored in the explicit memory, so the work of reconstruction, which relies on the autobiographic memory, can facilitate the emergence in the transference and in the dreams of the most archaic experiences, with their relevant phantasies and defences, stored in the implicit memory of the patient. This corresponds to Davis's (2001) description of declarative and non-declarative processes in the psychoanalytic perspective.[27]

A later study showed that attempts to interfere with the memory of a list of words significantly impacted subjects' ability to recognize the words in a test of explicit recognition, but the interference did not have a similar effect on the subject's implicit memory of the words.[28] Also, there seems to be no statistical correlation between a person's ability to explicitly remember a list of words and their ability to subconsciously use the priming effect to aid performance in identifying previously seen words in tests of word completion.[29] All of these results strongly indicate that implicit memory not only exists, but exists as its own entity, with its own processes that significantly differ from explicit memory.

One of the key findings from the foregoing research that implies a fundamental difference between implicit and explicit memory is provided by studies that have examined the effects of elaborative processing on these two forms of memory. It is well known that explicit recall and recognition benefit substantially from semantic elaboration during study (e.g., Craik & Tulving, 1975; Jacoby & Craik, 1979). In contrast, the results of several experiments suggest that performance on implicit memory tests does not benefit from elaborative processing relative to nonelaborative processing. This finding was observed initially with a word-identification task, which requires subjects to identify words from extremely brief presentations (Jacoby & Dallas, 1981), and has since been demonstrated with various other implicit memory tests. For example, on a word-completion task, which requires completing fragments of recently presented words and new words (e.g., rea___ for reason), the magnitude of priming effects is comparable after an elaborative study task (e.g., rating the pleasantness of a word) and a nonelaborative study task (e.g., counting the number of vowels in a word; Graf et al., 1982). Similarly, when subjects study linguistic idioms (e.g., sour grapes) and are then given a free association test (e.g., sourâ€”?), they show similar amounts of priming following elaborative and nonelaborative study tasks (Schacter, 1985b). Finally, it has also been demonstrated that elaborative versus nonelaborative processing activities have little or no influence on priming effects in a lexical decision task (Carroll & Kirsner, 1982).[30]


falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is rule of evidence

Today, many jurisdictions have abandoned the principle as a formal rule of evidence and instead apply the rule as a "permissible inference that the jury may or may not draw."[11] However, some courts continue to apply the doctrine to discredit witnesses that have previously offered false testimony.[12] In 2013, for example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that in immigration cases, a court may "use an adverse credibility finding on one claim to support an adverse finding on another claim."[13] Likewise, at the O.J. Simpson murder trial, Judge Lance Ito applied the doctrine to instruct the jury that "[a] witness who is willfully false in one material part of his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others."[14]

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a Latin phrase meaning "false in one thing, false in everything."[2] At common law, it is the legal principle that a witness who testifies falsely about one matter is not credible to testify about any matter.[3] Although many common law jurisdictions have rejected a categorical application of the rule, the doctrine has survived in some American courts.[4]

The origins of the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus in the common law have been traced as far back as the Stuart Treason Trials in the late seventeenth century.[5] However, the widespread acceptance of the principle in seventeenth century English courts suggests that the doctrine has much earlier roots.[6] In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the principle functioned as a mandatory presumption that a witness was unreliable if they previously lied while offering testimony.[7] By the early nineteenth century, English courts began instructing juries that they may presume a witness who testified falsely was unreliable, but such a presumption was not mandatory.[8] In 1809, Lord Ellenborough rejected a categorical application of the rule, stating that "though a person may be proved on his own shewing, or by other evidence, to have foresworn himself as to a particular fact; it does not follow that he can never afterwards feel the obligation of an oath."[9] Although some American courts disfavor the mandatory application of the doctrine, others continue to uphold a mandatory presumption of unreliability for witnesses that have previously testified falsely.[10]

Many legal scholars have criticized the continued use of the doctrine of falsus in uno to discredit a witness' entire testimony.[15] For example, Judge Richard Posner once remarked that falsus in uno was a "discredited doctrine" based on "primitive psychology."[16] Judge Posner argued that because witnesses "are prone to fudge, to fumble, to misspeak, to misstate, to exaggerate," few trials would reach a judgment if "any such pratfall warranted disbelieving a witness's entire testimony."[17] Additionally, evidence scholar John Henry Wigmore was an outspoken critic of the doctrine.[18] In his Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law, he wrote:

It may be said, once for all, that the maxim is in itself worthless, first, in point of validity, because in one form it merely contains in loose fashion a kernel of truth which no one needs to be told, and in the others it is absolutely false as a maxim of life; and secondly, in point of utility, because it merely tells the jury what they may do in any event, not what they must do or must not do, and therefore it is a superfluous form of words. It is also in practice pernicious, first, because there is frequently a misunderstanding of its proper force, and secondly, because it has become in the hands of many counsel a mere instrument for obtaining new trials upon points wholly unimportant in themselves.[19]


did sam make it home on quantum leap

As stated above, in the final episode of the show Sam learned from a bartender named Al (played by Bruce McGill, who also appeared in the first episode as a different character) that he was in control of his leaps and could have returned home whenever he wanted. The bartender reminded Sam that he created Project Quantum Leap to help the world, and that in each leap he changed people and events for the better. Although Sam wanted to go home, he instead chose to return and inform Beth that Al was still alive. The final caption of the show tells the audience that, in the end, Sam never returned home with the title card at the end somewhat unceremoniously announcing it, and also with his last name misspelled: "Dr. Sam Becket never returned home."[4]

Sam Beckett

Dr. Samuel "Sam" Beckett is a fictional character and the protagonist on the science fiction television series Quantum Leap, played by Scott Bakula.[1]

Initially, the audience knows very little about Sam, much as Sam knows little about himself due to holes in his memory dubbed the "Swiss cheese effect."

Sam Beckett was born at 12:30 pm EST on August 8, 1953, in Elk Ridge, Indiana to dairy farmer John Samuel Beckett and his wife Thelma Louise Beckett.[2] As a child, he had two cats, named Donner and Blitzen, but never had a dog. Sam was a child prodigy, learning to read at age 2 and do advanced calculus in his head at age 5. By the time he was 10, he could beat a computer at chess. Sam also played piano in a concert at Carnegie Hall when he was 19, plays guitar, is a good dancer, sings tenor, and his favorite song is John Lennon's "Imagine".

Sam has a photographic memory, an IQ of 267, likes dry or light beer, and microwave popcorn. Sam also knows several kinds of martial arts and has been afraid of heights since he was 9 years old. In his teen years, Sam's family was dealt a hard blow when his older brother, Tom, was killed in Vietnam on April 8, 1970, but Sam leaps into his brother's unit and saves him on that day. Tom (Thomas Andrew Beckett) was a good athlete, an All-State basketball player, an Annapolis graduate, is a Navy SEAL Commander, and has a wife named Mary. Sam has one sister named Katie (Katherine Elizabeth Beckett), born during a flood in 1957, whose first husband was an abusive alcoholic named Chuck. They divorced and she is now married to Navy officer Lt. Jim Bonnick. They have lived in Hawaii with Thelma Beckett since 1974.

Sam graduated from high school at age 16 and, following his brother's advice, attended MIT in the early 1970s. While at MIT, Sam and his mentor, Professor Sebastian LoNigro, developed a string theory of time travel ("Her Charm"; see below). Sam went through four years of MIT in two years, and continued through various colleges to eventually obtain seven doctoral degrees in music, medicine, quantum physics, archaeology, ancient languages, chemistry, and astronomy, but not psychiatry or law. It should be noted that, in the pilot episode, Sam is told he only has six doctorates; this was later retconned to seven. He speaks six modern languages including English, Spanish, French, Russian, German, and Japanese, but not Italian or Hebrew. He knows four extinct languages, including Egyptian hieroglyphics. He's proficient in martial arts such as Judo, Karate, Muay Thai, and Taekwondo. He has won a Nobel Prize for physics, which he remembers during one leap ("Disco Inferno"). For this, TIME called him "the next Einstein". Sam's father suffered a fatal heart attack in 1974 while Sam was in college; the guilt of his absence during his family's time of need would stay with Sam for years. One of the few things that Sam cannot do is cook; two of his onscreen attempts at this, in the episodes "Another Mother" and "Good-bye, Norma Jean" failed humorously, as did his attempt at baking in "Liberation." He did however cook a meal for the colleagues of the husband of the woman he leaps into in "Liberation," and there was nothing to suggest that it was anything other than a normal meal that everybody ate with no problems. No one ate the breakfasts he made in "One Strobe Over the Line," "What Price Gloria?" or "Liberation." He was able to make chitlins with Al's help in "The Color of Truth," but it isn't shown whether or not anyone ate them.

As a young adult in the 1980s, Sam was a key member of the Starbright Project (details on the nature of the project were not revealed on the show), where he would meet some of his closest and most trusted friends: Al Calavicci, a decorated naval officer; a brilliant computer programmer known simply as Gushie; and Dr. Donna Eleese, the love of Sam's life, whom he met in 1984. Five years after the Starbright Project, Sam and Donna were engaged, but Sam was jilted at the altar on June 5, 1989 and never saw Donna again.

On Sam's third leap, he meets Donna years before their actual engagement. Realizing that Donna's damaged relationship with her father is the reason why she can never commit to a relationship (as her father left her, she subconsciously feels that any man she meets will inevitably abandon her and thus prevents them from doing so by leaving herself), Sam drives Donna out to reconcile with her father so that she might get some closure. We learn later in the episode "The Leap Back" that as a result of this, Donna never leaves Sam at the altar, and they are married to this day.

However, before "The Leap Back" Sam has no memory of Donna and his marriage. The reason for this is twofold. First, Sam's "Swiss cheesed" brain caused him amnesia in regards to his marriage. Second, Donna understood that in some cases, in order for Sam to successfully leap, it would be necessary for Sam to have romantic encounters with various women. In order to spare the "choir-boy" Sam mental anguish (it is established that, unlike Al, Sam takes vows of marriage very seriously) and to facilitate his leaping, Donna forbids Al or anyone else from alerting Sam that he is married.

A few months later in 1989, Sam and Al spearheaded Project Quantum Leap, a time travel experiment based on the string theory Sam had developed while at MIT. The PQL facility was located in Stallion's Gate, New Mexico, in a primarily underground complex. In 1995, after constructing the necessary machinery, including a holographic imaging chamber and a supercomputer ("Ziggy") with access to vast historical databases, the project's funds were running thin. Eager to prove his theories, Sam prematurely stepped into the nuclear accelerator chamber and propelled himself back in time.

In the pilot episode, Sam awoke in 1956, having exchanged places in time with an Air Force test pilot. He is startled to see a stranger in the mirror as he prepares to shave. Others also see Sam as the person he displaced. As Sam would soon discover, quantum-leaping had an unforeseen side-effect: He was struck with partial amnesia; he describes his own situation with the analogy of his brain being like a hunk of Swiss cheese, with his memory full of holes and lacking some personal information about his past, the most consistently absent detail being his marriage to Donna (with Donna preferring that Sam not be reminded of their marriage so that he can more easily commit to the people his hosts are in love with and thus solve whatever he is there to accomplish, consoling herself about Sam's 'cheating' by reasoning that his amnesia means that he isn't technically cheating on her but is the equivalent of a man unaware that someone else is in love with him).

To lead Sam and the audience from this confusion comes Al, an observer from Sam's own time, except Al has to convince Sam he is not a hallucination; as a hologram tuned to Sam's brainwaves that only Sam can see and hear, convincing an amnesiac he is real is difficult. Al conveys to Sam a theory to return Sam to the present: that an unknown influence (God, Fate, or Time) was using Sam to correct a mistake in the past â€” in this case, saving the life of the pilot Sam had displaced, who was killed in an experimental aircraft in the original history.

When Sam corrected the timeline, he leaped forward, but not all the way home; this time, he found himself assuming the identity of a minor-league professional baseball player named Tim Fox. For the rest of his life (an epilogue in the series finale tells us Sam never gets home, but in our terms, it was the next four years/five seasons, the duration of the show) Sam would continue to travel back and forth through time; swapping identities with various people and as a tagline for the show reiterated, "setting right what once went wrong."

Sam's theory of time travel, developed with Professor LoNigro, is based on an expanding, but finite, universe. A person's life is like a length of string; one end represents birth, the other represents death. If one were to tie the ends of the string together, their life becomes a loop. Next, by balling the loop together, the days in one's life would touch one another out of sequence. Therefore, jumping from one part of the string to another would allow someone to travel back and forth within their own lifetime, thus making a "quantum leap" between each time period. (How exactly these things are accomplished is never explained, but it has been suggested that this theory borrowed heavily from van Strickumâ€™s closed timelike curve.[3])

Keeping this principle in mind, Sam's leaps were generally limited to periods within his own lifetime; he could not leap to a date prior to his birth or into his own future. There were, however, a few exceptions. In "The Leap Back," Sam switched places with Al, who leaped back into 1945, and later in the episode was able to leap himself back into Al's place in the past. The explanation was that the simo-leap with Al had left Sam with enough of Al's genetic coding that he could leap back past his own lifetime (since it was still within Al's). In "The Leap Between the States," Sam was able to leap outside of his own lifetime and found himself in the American Civil War in the life of his great-grandfather; the explanation was that Sam's close genetic link with his ancestor allowed him to do this. This was also partly due to an "error" that was referenced and then corrected by Ziggy, implying that Sam would not be able to pull off a similar feat again and was once more limited to his own timeline. Two early episodes, "Play It Again, Seymour" (which took place on April 14, 1953) and "The Americanization of Machiko" (which took place on August 4, 1953) had Sam leaping into dates prior to the date later given as his birthday, August 8, 1953. Although these would appear to be continuity errors on the part of the show, creator Donald P. Bellisario has proffered the explanation that Sam's life dates from his conception rather than his actual birth, and thus dates such as these which are less than nine months prior to August 8, 1953, would be valid leap dates. However, once Sam's proper birthday is established, there are no further leaps prior to that date aside from the exceptions mentioned above.

Al explains the string theory in the pilot episode, and Sam, recovering his memory of the theory, turns around and explains it to Donna in the second episode, "Star-Crossed." This theory is later revealed to have been relayed to by the leaped Sam Beckett to an actor and would-be time traveller Moe Stein in "Future Boy" (whose original theory was simply connect the beginning and end of one's life) who explains the full version on his television show in response to a viewer question from young Sam Beckett who, at that time, was still a child living in Indiana; only his own lack of resources prevented Moe from creating Project Quantum Leap decades before Sam.

Though explicitly forbidden by his own guidelines to alter the past for his own benefit, Sam did alter his own history and those of his loved ones on a number of occasions:


what is the theme of dear dumb diary

Dear Dumb Diary is a series of children's novels by Jim Benton. Each book is written in the first person view of a middle school girl named Jamie Kelly. The series is published by Scholastic in English and Random House in Korean. Film rights to the series have been optioned by the Gotham Group.[2]

Dear Dumb Diary

Critical reception for the series has been mixed to positive,[3] with Publishers Weekly writing that the lead character "makes the occasional funny observation, more often her stabs at humor miss their mark or are so protracted that the comic moment fizzles".[4] A reviewer for the Indian Express compared My Pants are Haunted! to the Diary of a Wimpy Kid series, saying that fans of Wimpy Kid would like the series.[5]

See: Dear Dumb Diary (film)

A film version had been filmed in Salt Lake City, Utah, starring Emily Alyn Lind and Mary-Charles Jones.

The movie premiered on Hallmark Channel on September 6, 2013 and is now on Netflix and other streaming services.