Why do most of the characters in To Kill A Mockingbird have nicknames?

In the South there is a custom of addressing people with
their first names. Usually, when a nickname is becoming of a person's characteristics
they go for a nickname that sort of identifies them. 

With
kids it is not an exception. We know from the beginning of the story that Scout's name
is Jean Louise and this is hardly a name that would fit her. She even admits to hating
it herself.

Jem's real  name is Jeremy and for a child that
is a bit long and serious to be addressed, so they shortened to Jem
.

However, it would be unfair to say that most of the
characters have nicknames because neither Tom, Mayella, Mr. Ewell, Calpurnia, nor the
aunt are addressed by nicknames, but respectfully by their respective
names.

Hence we could safely assume that the practice is
one specifically given to children to shorten their names and allow them a level of
individuality.

How do you write a thesis statment for an an uncommon protagonist or antagonist in the Macbeth.

Even though the prompt you ask about is vague ("uncommon"
in what way?) you still have numerous angles you could use to write a thesis and essay
for Shakespeare's Macbeth.

Of course,
Macbeth is the actual protagonist in the play, and Macduff is the antagonist.  But if
you have to, you could make a case for the witches being protagonists.  After all, they
apparently set out with a goal in mind:  to create chaos in Scotland, to destroy a
righteous king and replace him with a dictator, to bring about the destruction of
Macbeth.  They put their plan into effect, take the necessary steps to accomplish it,
and are successful.  It may be uncommon to think of the witches in
this way, but the fact is that they win, they are successful in achieving what they set
out to achieve. 

Other possibilities might
be: 

• Banquo as antagonist (he suspects Macbeth
  of treachery, yells for his son to flee thereby ensuring that Macbeth will fail to
  create a dynasty with his own heirs, and appears as a ghost which makes Macbeth suffer a
  "fit" in front of his Thanes)


• Lady Macbeth as protagonist
  (she devises the plan to assassinate Duncan and convinces Macbeth to go through with it,
  and she suffers a fall just like a protagonist
  should)

The above are a bit of a stretch, but
they are possibilities for you to use.

How does the narrator develop the contradictions of the theme throughout the poem?really concise "Richard Cory" by Edward Arlington Robinson

Edward Arlington Robinson's "Richard Cory" has two themes
in its verse:

1.  Wealth and its accompanying power have
their lure, but they tend to alienate the
individual

2.  Perception is often
deceiving.

The narrators of this poem are the common
people, those "on the pavement" who have the perspective of looking up at Cory, admiring
him for his appearance and wealth which are suggested in the regal terms of "crown,"
"clean favored," and "imperially slim."

In the second
stanza the people's perception elevates Cory to a more iconic level.  Although Richard
Cory is "always human when he talked," he is set apart as one who "fluttered pulses" and
"glitters."  The only words that Cory speaks are "Good morning"; then he walks away;
this action indicates the alienation of Cory in his elevated
state.

That the people's perception of Cory is flawed
is suggested in the third stanza in which his great wealth is mentioned--"richer than a
king"--and the judgment of Cory's character by the people is
indicated,

In
fine, we thought that he was everything

To make us wish
that we were in his
place

While the people "on
the pavement" envy Richard Cory who is wealthy and admired, he lives a life of "quiet
desperation" as Thoreau once wrote. For, he is alienated from those who feel inferior
and thus uncomfortable talking with him, and he is not to be envied at all, for he is
tragically discontent with his lonely life.

What do you think Faber means when he says, "those who don't build must burn"? Do you agree with him?

What Faber is saying is similar to an old saying from the
'60s -- "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."  What he is
saying is that people who do not want to do things that are helpful (building) are going
to do things that are destructive (burning).

I do not
really agree with this statement.  I think that it is possible to be pretty neutral.  I
think that there are surely plenty of people who do not actively do especially good
things.  I count myself among them.  I am not some big philanthropist or volunteer or
anything like that.  But, at the same time, I don't think I'm tearing anything down.  I
don't think that you have to be either a great benefit to society or a great harm.  I
think you can be neutral.

In Fahrenheit 451, how does Mildred react to Montag being sick?

She has a couple of different reactions worth noting. On
pages 41-42, we see these. She first reacts by questioning if he is drunk. He makes more
noise than usual and she wonders what the deal is. He is a little forceful about having
the light on and won't just comply with her request.

Later,
she actually touches him and finds that he is wet from sweating. The sad part of this
entire section is that Mildred reacts to Montag's sickness by putting her seashells back
in her ears and moving on with her sleep. A true loving wife would probably take care to
help manage her husband's comfort. She gives not one ounce of
care.

What does Montag do to Mildred's friends and what is their reaction?

In the book, what Guy Montag does is a couple of things. 
First, he tries to engage the women in conversation about things like the war and their
families.  This is something that is apparently just not done in their society.  It is
unwelcome because it is trying to get them to think and
feel.

Second, he tries to read poetry to them.  In the case
of the conversation, they react by being very uncomfortable and trying to break it off. 
They fidget and look around nervously.  When he reads to them, they completely freak out
and want to leave.  They talk about how horrible the poetry is and how horrible he
is.

Compare developments in a poor and rich country over time.

I would say that a specific comparison of nations would be
needed in effectively answering this question.  Yet, I do believe that globalization can
be used as a base to compare nations in terms of progress and development over time.  On
one hand, nations that are advancing in the globalization setting are ones that enjoy
and reap the benefits of technology.  Cultural globalism is advanced  by technological
growths in communication and exchanges of information.  This is one point of comparison
between two nations.  Countries or settings that are able to take full advantage of
communication tools via technology, such as India or China, are going to be benefit from
the globalized setting as opposed to ones that are not the benefactors of technology. 
At the same time, I think that another point of comparison would have to be the idea of
embracing fair trade.  One critical element in the globalized setting for nations is the
idea of the globalized setting.  Nations that embrace free trade and actively conduct
political affairs and negotiate treaties in accordance to it are ones that are more
interactive in the global marketplace.