0
Which two way would the story be different if it was told from the young king's point of view?
Jay Taylor
The reader would know what the young king thinks about marriage at such a young age and the reader would know what the young king thinks about his father squandering all the money.
Anonymous
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is The climax the of the story?
The climax of a story is sometimes not always the middle of the story but Climax means the highest point so when the problem comes up in a story, the plot, it would be in the climax.
What is the climax of this story?
The climax of a story is sometimes not always the middle of the story but Climax means the highest point so when the problem comes up in a story, the plot, it would be in the climax.
How might the story be different if it had happened somewhere?
It would have had a setting
What is point of view in first person of a story?
The person narrating would be the main character telling the story from his/her point of view.For example: We watched as the fight unfolded. Billy went after Ryan first. They got really bad after a while. That's when I decided to book it and get out of there.The sentences would use words like I, we, and they.
The out siders?
the point of view would be called third-person, when someone who may not be in the story but is a bystander telling the story.
How would this story be different if it were told from the point of view of the prince?
First tell us, which story.
How might a story be different if it was written from a teacher's point of view?
Stories are totally different depending on who is writing them. A teacher would have a different viewpoint than a student or a janitor or a principal or a parent. Depending on what the story is about, the teacher would see and think and feel different things. Every character in a story has their own unique viewpoint of that story. Think of how Harry Potter would be different if Hermione had been the narrator, for example.
How do you think the tone would be different if the story were told from the point of view of Ulrich or Georg?
If the story were told from Ulrich's point of view, the tone might be more introspective and focused on his internal struggle with Georg. On the other hand, if it were told from Georg's point of view, the tone could highlight his sense of duty and righteousness in the confrontation. Each character's perspective would bring a different emotional depth to the story.
How would the story be different if it were told from Aliette's point of view?
If the story were told from Aliette's point of view, the readers would gain insight into her thoughts, emotions, and motivations. We would understand her perspective on the events unfolding in the story, her relationship with other characters, and her own personal struggles and growth throughout the narrative. This shift in perspective could provide a deeper understanding of Aliette's character and her role in the story's development.
How would Puritans get along with kings?
bad because the puritans were different.
How would a story be different if it occurred in a different time and place?
it would have a different setting
How does a story change if the point of view is changed?
Changing the point of view in a story can significantly alter the reader's perception of events, characters, and themes. Different perspectives can provide insight into different characters' motivations, emotions, and experiences, leading to a more nuanced understanding of the overall narrative. It can also create empathy for characters that were previously misunderstood or disliked, or reveal new layers of complexity in the story's conflicts.
Which theory would a seventeenth-century king most likely supported?
Some choices would be nice for a "which" question, but in terms of political theories, most European Kings in the 1600s were absolutist and believed in the divine right of the monarchy, so ABSOLUTE MONARCHY or any derivative of that would be most supported. England, however, was already a constitutional monarchy by this point and the Kings of England knew that they would never be able to assert absolute power again, which meant that those kings would want something slightly different than absolute monarchy, but not terribly different.
Which theory would a seventeenth-century European king most likely support?
Some choices would be nice for a "which" question, but in terms of political theories, most European Kings in the 1600s were absolutist and believed in the divine right of the monarchy, so ABSOLUTE MONARCHY or any derivative of that would be most supported. England, however, was already a constitutional monarchy by this point and the Kings of England knew that they would never be able to assert absolute power again, which meant that those kings would want something slightly different than absolute monarchy, but not terribly different.
What is the climax of the story?
The climax of a story is sometimes not always the middle of the story but Climax means the highest point so when the problem comes up in a story, the plot, it would be in the climax.
Who would have been a greek god but wasn't because his mom saved him in a fire?
As far as I know, there is no such story in Greek Mythology. Feel free to change this answer if you have a different point of view.
What if the story the necklace was told from her hubsands point of view or mathilde?
If "The Necklace" was told from her husband's point of view, we might gain insight into his perspective on their financial struggles and his reaction to Mathilde's behavior. Alternatively, if it was told from Mathilde's point of view, we could explore her thoughts and motivations more deeply, shedding light on her sense of dissatisfaction and desire for a different life.
