Lord Tom - is he a hero or a villain? How can I support my decision that he is one or the other?

Leon Garfield's Lord Tom is certainly an enigmatic character. In order to determine whether he is a hero or a villain, we must first define what these terms mean in literary fiction. The villain is usually the antagonist, the main nemesis in conflict with the protagonist. Protagonists are the main characters who drive the action in any plot; they are what you and I would call heroes. However, this is where it gets interesting. Heroes can be divided into sub-categories. You can have the classical hero, the anti-hero, the Byronic hero (a type of anti-hero), the chosen one or messianic hero, and more.

Four conceptions of the heroic.

The anti-hero.

Now, when we read the text, we see that Lord Tom isn't the protagonist or the main character in the story. He is what we would call an anti-hero; anti-heroes are not always protagonists, although they can be. However, they are almost always important characters in any story. In Smith, Lord Tom is referred to as a 'toby' or highwayman. Smith, our twelve year old protagonist, worships the ground Lord Tom walks on.

Garfield portrays Lord Tom as a scoundrel of sorts; he's proud of his job as a highwayman. He's also wild, unconventional, and suave. Smith tells us that he's a 'dangerous, glittering, murdering adventurer of a gentleman in green.' He's never without his trusted pistol, and when danger approaches, he laughs in its face. Don't look for him to have any qualms about murdering innocents either. He's quite proud of robbing for a living, and relishes the fact that he continues the legacy of well-known highwaymen such as Turpin, Duval, and Captain Robinson. Alas, all of them were hung for their crimes. This morbid bit of knowledge foreshadows Lord Tom's own doom as the story commences.

Whenever Lord Tom comes around to the little cellar apartment Smith shares with his sisters, Miss Fanny and Miss Bridget, he always has exciting stories to tell. When Miss Bridget chastises him about being irresponsible with his loot, he answers unapologetically:

"...Spent, Miss Bridget-as well you know. That's the way of our lives. Risk all for the chase- then spend the profit in high contempt. The chase and the danger's all!... Eat, drink, and be merry, as they say- for tomorrow, we'll all be nubbed!"

However, Lord Tom has a soft spot for Miss Fanny and Smith. In the story, he is Miss Fanny's suitor. When Smith manages to retrieve an important document from a dead man, Mr. Field, Lord Tom tries to get him to hand over the document for safe-keeping. Smith's life is actually in danger, for two 'men in brown' are hot on his heels, in search of the document. However, Smith, despite his great admiration for his hero, doesn't completely trust Lord Tom's intentions. No one knows what the document says; Smith can't read, so he doesn't know either.

As the story continues, Smith does eventually learn how to read. His benefactors, Mr. Mansfield and his daughter, Miss Mansfield, are responsible for his new skill. However, in a comedy of errors, the document comes into the possession of Mr. Mansfield. As for Smith, he is accused of killing Mr. Field and lands in the infamous Newgate Prison. Smith escapes with the help of his sisters and Lord Tom, but more adventure awaits our young hero.

Lord Tom, ever the resourceful highwayman, plans to retrieve the document from Mr. Mansfield himself. However, Smith spies Lord Tom consorting with the 'men in brown' and he anguishes over his hero's fall from grace. Smith is bitterly disappointed in what appears to be Lord Tom's disloyalty. Here, we see a characteristic of the anti-hero: Lord Tom isn't opposed to working both sides of the issue when it suits him. However, it's not really clear in the story whether Lord Tom is just pretending to align himself with the men in brown or if he's really in sync with Smith's enemies.

Either way, as an anti-hero often does, Lord Tom redeems himself when he gives his life to save Smith. That's the difference between an anti-hero and a villain. A villain usually has no redeeming qualities, while an anti-hero who appears to reject traditional moral norms often cherishes a personal code of honor he will never relinquish. In the story, Lord Tom steps in admirably when the 'men in brown' get ready to shoot Smith.

His promise, which he reiterates throughout the novel to Smith, rings true:

"Never fear! Lord Tom's beside you! I'll save you, lad! I'll blow blue daylight through 'em!"

Lord Tom dies in a blaze of glory, and Smith comes to realize that the highwayman has always had his back. Lord Tom may have been a scoundrel, but when the chips were down, he came through for his young apprentice.Anti-heroes may be unconventional, but they mimic the characters of real people in real life. They give the message that anyone can choose to be a hero, even if he/she is imperfect. And that, perhaps, may be the greatest message Lord Tom sends to the readers of Leon Garfield's exciting story.

Hamlet and Claudius are seen as well matched adversaries. Do you agree with this statement?

Claudius committed a murder in order to get possession of the Danish throne. It is natural that he should suspect Hamlet of plotting to do something similar, since Hamlet was his father's legitimate heir and successor. As Macbeth says when contemplating the murder of King Duncan:

But in these cases
We still have judgement here, that we but teach
Bloody instructions, which being taught return
To plague the inventor. This even-handed justice
Commends the ingredients of our poison'd chalice
To our own lips.     (Macbeth, Act 1, Scene 7)

(It is interesting that in Act 5, Scene 2, when Hamlet forces Claudius to drink what is left of the poisoned wine in the goblet which killed Gertrude, he is in fact commending the ingredients of Claudius' poison'd chalice to his own lips.)

Claudius refuses to permit Hamlet to go back to Wittenberg but keeps him a virtual prisoner at Elsinore. If Hamlet had freedom to travel he might seek assistance from some foreign power to stage a coup against Claudius, just as Malcolm does in Shakespeare's Macbeth. Claudius is not satisfied with keeping Hamlet confined to the castle. He keeps his nephew under tight surveillance, using Polonius, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Gertrude, and even Ophelia as agents. No doubt Claudius has other unidentified courtiers and servants spying on Hamlet as well.

Hamlet is resentful but he is not plotting against Claudius until he meets with his father's ghost in the last scene of Act 1. Now he and Claudius become adversaries. Claudius almost seems to have brought his suspicions into reality. Hamlet decides to pretend to be mad. Why? Because he knows it will be hard to conceal his new knowledge and his new mission from the wily king, who is a shrewd judge of human character. The king might be able to read Hamlet's thoughts in his behavior and his facial expressions or in slips of the tongue. If Claudius was suspicious of Hamlet's intentions when Hamlet had no intentions, how much more so would he become when he sensed that Hamlet was not only plotting to overthrow him, but that Hamlet might suspect that Claudius was guilty of murdering his father. Claudius, too, must hide his thoughts and feelings from his nephew. As Gertrude comments:

So full of artless jealousy is guilt,
It spills itself in fearing to be spilt. (Act 4, Scene 5)

Hamlet knows he is in extreme danger because his uncle has all the power. Claudius could easily have him killed--and he actually attempts to do just that when he sends Hamlet to England with a sealed letter calling for Hamlet's execution. Both these men are afraid of each other, and for the same reason. Claudius is afraid Hamlet will try to kill him to retrieve the throne, and Hamlet is afraid Claudius will try to kill him to prevent him from doing so. Claudius has the power, but Hamlet is loved by the people and is the legitimate successor to his father.

When Hamlet stages the play which replicates the murder Claudius committed, Claudius is horrified. He fears that his nephew has supernatural knowledge, perhaps picked up from exotic books he read at Wittenberg. After all, the story about a poisonous snake biting King Hamlet in his garden is pretty thin. Do they even have poisonous snakes in Denmark? This is why Claudius decides that Hamlet must die, regardless of his concerns for his wife's feelings for her son. And this is also when Hemlet decides that Claudius must die. The King's violent reactions during the pivotal play within a play have shown Hamlet and his good friend Horatio that Claudius is guilty. Hamlet tells Horatio:

O good Horatio, I'll take the ghost's word for a
thousand pound!    (Act 3, Scene 2)

Hamlet is temporarily delayed in attacking the King because he is sent to England and captured by pirates, then released for ransom. But the fact that the main theme of this play is the adversarial relationship between Hamlet and Claudius, their battle of wits, is highlighted by this statement by Hamlet to his mother:

O, 'tis most sweet
When in one line two crafts directly meet.  (Act 3, Scene 4)

How did the Opium War affect China?

The Opium Wars opened China to foreign trade, which was not something that the Chinese were always comfortable with. The treaties that resulted as a consequence of the war sought to change this tradition. Because of their defeat to the British, the ports of the eastern coast of China were opened and foreign trade was established. The treaties also stripped the Chinese of being able to set the tariff rates, which the European powers took advantage of. In general, the treaties stripped China of its ability to control its own economic destiny. The lower tariffs had the effect of crippling the Chinese economy and destroying industries that had flourished in the past.

The increase in trade also hurt the Chinese financial system. It caused a shortage of copper in China and coins could not be minted. The financial system nearly collapsed when the Chinese introduced paper money in 1853. The introduction of foreigners had a cultural impact as well. The country started to westernize its economy and there was talk of democratizing the government, at least at the local level.

Describe the characters of Ivan Vassiliyitch Lomov, Natalia Stepanovna, and Stepan Stepanovitch Tschukobov in A Marriage Proposal.

A Marriage Proposal is a farce that pokes fun of romance and marriage within the upper class as the consideration and pride in property takes precedence over love and marriage with Chekhov's characters. These characters frequently stop listening to each other, often contradict each other, and constantly contradict each other.

• Ivan Vassiliyitch Lomov 

Tschubukov's neighbor, thirty-five-year-old Lomov decides to formally propose marriage to Natalia Stepanovna, although he has known his neighbor for years. When he formally asks Natalia's father, Stepan Tschubukov, he is hugged by this parent. Nevertheless, he is worried that Natalia will refuse and remains nervous. A hypochondriac, Lomov thinks he is cold, and believes he has a roaring in his ears. Further, he complains of a weak heart, insomnia, strange aches, and other ailments.
When he does speak to Natalia, he does not ask her to marry him; instead, he becomes disputatious soon after bringing up the land between their properties. He and Natalia begin shouting, and Lomov threatens to take the Tschubukovs to court. Complaining of his heart, Lomov collapses. When her father complains about Lomov's audacity to propose marriage, Natalia begs her father to bring him back, so Lomov returns, but begins to argue with Natalia about  their dogs. This prompts more spasms and aches until the father intervenes so that they will marry.

• Natalia Stepanovna

With her father's saying that "a dealer has come to buy something," Natalia enters the front room to find there Ivan Vassiliyitch Lomov. She greets him affably. However, it is not long before she argues with Lomov about the meadows, not realizing that he has come to propose marriage. Instead, she speaks vehemently of the injustice of his accusations: "Say what you will, I can't bear injustice."
When Lomov tries to smooth over the situation, Natalia argues that he can explain all he wants, but the meadows still belong to her family. And, when the father enters, the argument continues. Natalia is tenacious; she adamantly insists that the meadows are theirs.
After Lomov leaves, Natalia calls him a "good-for-nothing," and her father adds other words such as "Loafer! Scarecrow! Monster!"
However, soon her father reveals to Natalia that Lomov came to offer her a proposal of marriage. She shouts, "Bring him back! Bring him back!" Soon, too, she begins to argue with Lomov about his dogs.

• Stephan Stepanovitch Tschubukov

Natalia's father, Tschubukov has a little fun with his daughter as he tells her that a dealer has come when Lomov comes to propose. But, when his daughter and Lomov argue, he, too, becomes hysterical, shouting names at Lomov and complaining,

Oh, I know you, you are only waiting to find an excuse to go to the law! You're an intriguer, that what you are! Your whole family were always looking for quarrels. The whole lot!

Then, after his daughter begs him to bring Lomov back, Tschubukov threatens that he will cut his own throat, but he does not. Later, when Lomov collapses, Tschubukov says he should have cut his own throat, after all.

What appeals did the Nazis use? What are some examples?

After World War I, the country of Germany was in a crisis. People were disoriented and looking for answers. As a result, the Nazis were able to use several appeals to encourage people to support them, such as blaming Jews for the country’s problems, lying, and promising peace to the world.

Adolf Hitler, the Nazi and German leader, illustrates a prime example of the appeals that Nazis used. During his stay in prison, Hitler wrote the book Mein Kampf (or in English, My Struggle). Within in this text, Hitler encouraged the Germans to come together to eradicate the Jewish people. By blaming the Jews, Hitler gave the Germans a common enemy, he reunited the country and gave them a cause to fight. As Hitler said in a speech on April 12, 1922: 

It [part of the German government] has completely forgotten that this Jewish democracy with its majority decisions has always been without exception only a means towards the destruction of any existing Aryan [Hitler’s perfect race] leadership.

The Nazis also appeased the Germans by promising them peace and prosperity. Hitler used prolific and passionate speeches to talk with the people and encourage them to join the Nazi’s side. Hitler believed that if a person continued to lie to the people, they would eventually believe it and follow him.

Not only did the Nazis use appeals for their own countrymen, but they also appealed to the rest of the world. After World War I, the League of Nations (similar to the United Nations today) desired peace and rest. Hitler made promises of peace while invading and taking control of entire countries!

What were the effects of Manifest Destiny?

For the United States, the effects of Manifest Destiny were pretty positive.  The main impact was that the United States got much larger and much wealthier.  Manifest Destiny was the idea that God had destined the US to spread out across the continent of North America.  It was not specified how much land the US was to take, but people believed that God wanted the country to expand.  God had destined the US for this because it had the best religion, the best people (racially) and the best culture.  This led to things like the war with Mexico in the 1840s and all of the military actions that pushed Indians off their lands and on to reservations.  These actions greatly increased the size of the US and also made it richer by allowing it to take things like the gold of California and the silver of Nevada.

For others, Manifest Destiny had more negative effects.  For the Native Americans and for Mexico, it meant losing their land.  The Native Americans who were not killed outright in the wars were forced on to reservations where they lost their ability to live freely and to pursue their traditional way of life.  As a country, Mexico was humiliated and weakened by being defeated in a war and by having so much territory taken away.  Mexicans who lived in the areas taken by the US typically found themselves losing wealth and status as they came to be seen as foreigners in their new land.

In these ways, Manifest Destiny affected different groups in different ways.

This question investigates the most extreme differences in the sizes of stars. Compute the ratio of the radii of a M supergiant star to that of a...

The temperature, radius, and luminosity of all stars (not just main sequence stars) are related by this equation:

`L/L_0 = (R/R_0)^2 (T/T_0)^4`

Where L_0, R_0, and T_0 are based on the Sun, which has a radius of 6.96*10^8 meters and a temperature of 5780 K.

From there, we can solve for R:

`R = R_0 sqrt{L/L_0 * (T_0/T)^4}`

Plug in the numbers for the supergiant:

`R = 6.96*10^8 sqrt{2*10^5 * (5780/3000)^4}`

`R = 1.2*10^12 m`

Similarly for the dwarf:
`R = 6.96*10^8 sqrt{10^3 * (15000/3000)^4}`
`R = 5.5*10^11 m`

Despite one being a "supergiant" and the other being a "dwarf", they are not that different in size, because these terms are actually about luminosity and temperature, not about size per se. (Also, they're both huge; the distance from the Sun to the Earth is about 1.5*10^11 meters, so both of these stars would engulf us if they were swapped out for the Sun.)