need to improve english...

If I may steer things in another direction (back to the original question), writing does not have to be difficult. There are any numbers of approaches, but I like POWER - Plan, Organize, Write, Evaluate/Edit, Rewrite.

There is much more than I can offer here, but the Planning involves
deciding exactly what it is you will be writing about - narrow the topic to a thesis statement (e.g. from the too-broad 'sports' to 'Bobby Orr's Played a tremendous role in the Boston Bruins' successful sixties.') That way, the only thing you need to research/write about is whayever supports that statement.

In this case, Organize things according to years (chronological). You can also go from most to least important (or vice-versa), statistics, accomplishments, spatially, by category, etc.

After you have gathered and organized info, Write a draft.

Then, read it over and Evaluate what you wrote. Does everything support your thesis statement or lead you to your coming conclusion? If not, Edit - change - add, delete.

Finally Rewrite the paper, which should now be okay. All of the above takes practice, which comes in time.

I always try to have people think three - (1) opening/introduction (what are you going to tell us), (2) body (tell us), and (3) closing/conclusion (what you told us or what conclusion you reached). The rest is icing.

Good luck.

(The above is a superficial overview of a detailed approach to writing. Truth be told, as you learn, you find what works best for you. There's SO MUCH else re: details, but the above might head you in the right direction.)

Pyko, Interesting idea about the title To Kill a Mockingbird. You're now considering one of the symbols in the book. You think Tom Robinson was the mockingbird. I think it might have been Boo Radley. Why do you think it was Tom?

Remember, the narrator of the book explains that it's a sin to kill a mockingbird--because the bird has such a beautiful song. I think that's right. I haven't read the book in about twenty years.

The reason I saw Tom Robison as the mockingbird was because he was the one who helped other people, and was discriminated against because of his race - therefore making it a sin to kill him.

I suppose Boo Radley could also be considered as the mockingbird because of his innocence and others misunderstanding of him, but my first reaction was Tom Robison.

I agree with santana, you have to think in that languge.
you can go to BBC learning english on the web, they have a ver nice articles weekly, try it and tell me your opinion .

Pyko, Thanks for your explanation. The thing with symbolism is that if you see something that represents something else and you have a good reason for seeing what you do, then you're right. And there can be more than one right answer. Your argument is persuasive.

Could you please explain to me why my argument was persuasive? All I thought I did was say what I felt.
Thanks

Pyko, Your suggestion that Tom Robinson was kind and helpful implies that it would be a sin to kill him. The fact that he was discriminated against isn't really relevant to his being the mockingbird, but it was the driving force in his death.

By the same token, Boo Radley, strange as he was, helped the Finches. So he too could be viewed as the mockingbird. A special, kind, and helpful person.

If you were writing a paper on this subject for class, you would have to expand on the subject. Provide examples of the good person that Tom Robinson was. Explain why it would be a special sin to kill him. It would be a mistake to go in the racial discrimination direction, which was not part of the reason why you view him as the mockingbird.

I hope this is clear. I haven't thought about this kind of thing for many years.

I found the following essay, which shows an approach to symbolism in "To Kill a Mockingbird":
http://www.literatureclassics.com/essays/681/

One caution - using such sites to aid in study of a novel is good (IMHO), but to use the sites to replace the reading is not.

I think there is a different process that I would go through if I were reading a book for an assignment than if I were reading it for sheer pleasure. I think many people are more naturally analytical than others; I can be analytical but I also like to read as if the reading sounding in my head is a bath of words, sounds, meanings, images. I get caught up in that flow of words. When I am reading for pleasure, I read this second way for a while, and then I back track, if I feel like it, and go back and savor sentences I have liked, or recheck just what is happening. If the work is fiction, I'll probably be estimating what might be going to happen next, or at the end if the book. At the end - or maybe earlier - I will mull over whether all the events of the book fit a theme of some sort that the author meant to convey.

If I were reading to make a report on on the book, I would probably immediately have my antennae up for how the author was writing, looking for some form to it, and looking for the key points of his or her argument or story.

I think it is good to be able to read both these ways myself.

As to writing, I may be somewhat famous on a2k for writing incoherent posts, posts which have some word play in them that causes people to respond with "what?" I have one level of my writing that is very off the cuff, instinctual.
When I want to write a friend about some topic, I will just start writing and organize it after I have gotten starting thoughts down on paper or screen, often totally rewriting it. By doing that first spasm of writing I was, to my way of thinking, "breaking the white of the paper", similar to just starting painting on a canvas. Many artists plan out what they are going to paint first, and many don't.

For school work, or reports in a career field, this haphazard mode might help you start out, or it could be a real mistake. It might be better to take a few notes as you read, then think about what you want to say, perhaps outline it to help clarify your thinking, and then say it; you can follow that by fine tuning your writing.