The Modern Prometheus Essay Example for Free

The Modern Prometheus Essay Frankenstein, costing just over $30 million dollars needed to re coup the costs. Therefore changes had to be made; such as the plot, character or action. The director had to edit and cut scenes to make it fit into the one hour and 40 minute time slot. The scenes had to be carefully put together to create a particular style and to create a certain effect. The director edited the scene where the daemon was being created. In this scene there was huge sets, dramatic music and a lot of hand-held camera work and many effective camera angles to capture the enormity of the laboratory. Many images were cut closely together to build up tension and suspense. This was a set piece designed for a modern audience. It is a very visual climax; where as in the book the creation of the monster is shown by, I became myself capable of bestowing animation upon lifeless matter. As a film is intense for a long time and when read a book you graze and they are much more complex; the director has to make it appealing and want to make you watch on. Often commercial pressures mean that the film is not a true or faithful adaptation of the novel. The film Frankenstein is lavish, sumptuous and has high production values. It is full of action sequences and set pieces. Frankenstein is a horror film and its purpose is to scare the audience. But the film cannot be all blood and gore of it would be given an 18 certificate, which would mean that not as many people could see it. Films are censored so that we can restrict groups of society from seeing them. But it is far more difficult to restrict people from reading published novels. In literature authors can truly express themselves. The film s a serious adaptation of the novel and there is an attempt to recreate authentically the period in which the novel is set. There is great care over detail such as costume, sets and props. The first half of the film sets about establishing the relationships, especially between Elizabeth and Victor, this way; if anything happens to them it would have a greater impact on us. It is hard to make a film and still stay faithful to the novel. When reading a novel, the reader has to use his or her imagination to what the characters look like and the background. But in a film it is laid out for you to take in. Because of this most people prefer to read the book rather than watch the film. When the director came to make Frankenstein he had to make a careful decisions about Victors mothers death. In the novel she dies peacefully in her sleep of Scarlet fever, but this had to be changed to fit the film. In the end the director made it, that his mother dies whilst giving birth to his brother. It is very dramatic and looks painful. The stains of blood on the white gown and the birthing chair made the scene very horrific and much more gripping. It also gave Victor and incentive to go and create life and rid the world of disease. The biggest dilemma for the director is to know what scenes to keep and which to change. The directors job is very demanding. The director is the person with ultimate responsibility for everything that takes place on a film set, from the technical aspects up to the movements of the actors. Many directors make a contractual obligation that the released film is their cut. However many directors come under great pressure from the producers to make compromises for commercial reasons. The producers make suggestions in what happens but it is the directors who have the final say in how the film is put together to create a certain effect. The producers represent those who have given financial backing to the film. They can have significant influence on how the film develops. They want to make a high grossing film, with high ratings to bring in the money. The whole project has to be some kind of compromise. The director will highlight the main elements of the novel and remain faithful to those. The rest of the film will be subject to dramatic licence. The film Frankenstein tries very hard to stay to the book. It shows the essence of the novel. The film employs a technique of voice-over briefly at key points within the narrative and this helps to summarise a characters actions, thoughts and motivations. A voice-over can help to cover significant sections of the novel in a short time, as the story is very long and complex. Amy Barrett Show preview only The above preview is unformatted text This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Mary Shelley section.

Discuss Biological Explanations of Schizophrenia Essay Example for Free

Discuss Biological Explanations of Schizophrenia Essay re are several different explanations for the disorder schizophrenia. One of these explanations is the biological model. This model explains schizophrenia through biological faults, for example viral infections and brain abnormalities. Genetic Factors Some psychologists say that schizophrenia can be passed down generations, meaning that some people inherit the disorder from their parents. Twin research has consistently shown that identical twins have a greater risk of developing schizophrenia, if their twin has the disorder, than non-identical twins. Gottesman found monozygotic twins have a concordance rate of 48%, whilst dizygotic twins have a concordance rate of 17%. Evaluation of Genetic Factors This research shows that there is a definite correlation between genetics and the risk of developing schizophrenia. However, no twin research has found a 100% concordance rate; therefore it is impossible the say that genes definitely cause schizophrenia, as other factors clearly have an influence. Also, some psychologists argue that the high concordance rates found could be caused by being brought up in a family with a schizophrenic, so the child mimics the schizophrenic behaviour, rather than by genetics. The Dopamine Hypothesis The dopamine hypothesis says that schizophrenia is caused by an increased reaction to dopamine in the brain. This could be because there is too much of the hormone dopamine in the brain, or conversely because there is an abnormally high number of dopamine receptors in the brain. This model says the excess sensitivity to dopamine results in the brain causes the symptoms of schizophrenia. Evaluation of the Dopamine Hypothesis Autopsies have found an unusually high number of dopamine receptors in the brain of schizophrenics (Owen et al, 1987), however, this evidence is varied and inconclusive. Grilly (2002) found that patients who suffered from Parkinson’s and took the drug L-dopa, which increases dopamine levels, showed signs of schizophrenic symptoms. This suggests the increase in dopamine could result in schizophrenia. Problems with this explanation There are problems of the dopamine hypothesis. One is that antipsychotic drugs, which block dopamine receptor don’t always help patients. This suggests something else must cause schizophrenia as well; otherwise the drugs would help all the patients. Brain dysfunction Using brain imaging techniques, such as P.E.T scans, researchers have found many schizophrenics have enlarged ventricles, on average 15% larger than normal. Some psychologists believe that the increase in the size of these ventricles is what leads to the schizophrenic symptoms. Evaluation The brain imaging scans support this explanation in itself, it’s clear that a lot of schizophrenics have different brain structures to normal people, so there must be some correlation between the two. Research by Meyer-Lindenberg (2002) found that reduced activity of the prefrontal cortex is linked to dopamine abnormalities. This could provide an explanation of why brain dysfunction could cause schizophrenia, not show a correlation. Viral Infection Some researchers suggest that brain abnormalities that lead to schizophrenia could be caused by viral infection. For example, contracting diseases such as Flu or Syphilis in the womb may relate to developing schizophrenia in later life Evaluation of Viral Theory Torrey (2000) found that more schizophrenics are born in the winter, when it is cold and exposure to viruses is higher, than in other months. Although this link is only correlational it suggests viruses do affect the chance of developing schizophrenia

Chinese Room Argument

Chinese Room Argument Searles Chinese Room argumentfails because the room proves nothing Abstract Searle argues that without understanding, computers can never really have mental states. Searles argument that computers can never have understanding depends onhow he portrays the Chinese room. If we pick apart the rooms imitation process, we find that there is a computer-simulation defect and as a result the room would never pass the Turing test. We could of course let the man fix the defect. He would need to remember and change what he does as a result of what he experiences and this, I claim, is precisely what it needs to achieve intentionality. Intentionality, as Searle states, is what distinguishes mental states from physical ones. Given that there is intentionality in the room, it then becomes clear that understanding appears. Searle may counter-claim that the room itself can fix its own defects; but as the room has no semantic understanding and only syntactic translation, we can infer that the room mustve anticipated every question with a predetermined instruction. If a finite room has the capacity to predict every possible question in the universe as well as know the events of the future, then the room is ineffable. If there is understanding, or the room is simply ineffable, then the room proves nothing and Searles argument fails. Essay Searles famous Chinese Room Argument has been the target of great interest and debate in the philosophy of mind, artificial intelligence and cognitive science since its introduction in Searles 1980 article ‘Minds, Brains and Programs. It is no overstatement to assert that the article has been the centre of attention for philosophers and computer scientists for quite some time. Preston and Bishop (2002) is a perfect example of exclusivity into the ongoing debate regarding the Chinese Room, because the significance and importance of the Chinese Room is meant to be obvious. The Chinese Room is supposed to scuttle the thought of strong AI: which implies that computers have mental states. The Chinese Room arises out of the following, now familiar, story: Searle asks us to imagine that a man is seated in a sealed room with 2 doors: one allowing input from one source outside the room (in the form of a slot) and one allowing output to the source outside the room (also in the form of a slot). The input from the outside source are Chinese squiggles that have been printed on card, but to the man in the room they are nothing more than incomprehensible gibberish(since he does not know the first thing about Chinese). The man is told that upon receiving the input squiggles, he must open a heavily-indexed reference book, wherein he must scrupulously track down the squiggle he received and find the matching squiggle of another sort. Once the man finds the matching squiggle, he must record it on an output piece of card and send it back through the output doors slot. Unknowingly the man has just performed some sort of translation that is altogether opaque to his understanding. To the outside source, the Chinese room as a whole, is a sort of system and is being treated as a subject of a Turing test. The interested parties of the outside source are typing in questions in Chinese and receiving answers in Chinese. If the Chinese room is of good quality, then it should be possible to convince the interested parties that the room, or something inside it, is intelligent, thus suggested that the room, or something inside it, could pass the Turing. Searle suggests that this is an error, as the man in the room does not have any conscious states that exhibit and sort of understanding of the questions that he receives. To him it is all just squiggles. It seems, therefore, that the Turing test is not a reliable way of ascertaining true thought, and moreover that any machine exhibiting such a formal architecture, no matter how complex, could never be called intelligent in the way that we mean. Certainly it might simulate intelligence impressively, but Searle suggests th at this is precisely the problem, since it means only that we have an automata that is extremely good at fooling our test. Therefore, the Chinese Room argument appears to contain the following argument: 1. The room occupant knows no Chinese. 2. The room occupant knows English. 3. The room occupant is given sets of written strings of Chinese, {Ci, Cj,†¦, Cn} 4. The room occupant is given formal instructions in English that correlate pairs of sets of Chinese strings, hCi, Cji. 5. The room occupant is given formal instructions in English to output some particular Ci given a particular Cj. 6. The room occupants skill at syntactically manipulating the strings of Chinese is behaviourally indistinguishable from that of a fully competent speaker of Chinese. 7. If 1-6 are jointly possible, then syntax is not sufficient for mental content. 8. 1-6 are jointly possible. 9. Therefore, syntax is not sufficient for mental content. Searles contention is that no matter what may happen, the man in the room will never understand any of the Chinese. Searle takes this to broadly mean that formal architectures, such as our great look-up book, can never produce understanding, because real thought requires semantics—meaning—whereas the book gives us only syntax, or relation. Unfortunately, what the Chinese Room argument really implies about mental states and strong AI has always been a matter of great controversy. Much of the controversy and debate today comes from how Searle is challenged. The two most obvious ways to challenge Searle can be understood to be versions of what is known as the systems reply to the Chinese Room argument. The first is to challenge premise (8) of Searles argument by asserting that (1-6) are inconsistent due to premise (1) being incorrect -concluding that, in some sense, the man in the room actually knows Chinese in some important sense when we carefully consider all the details of Searles argument. The second is to challenge premise (7) of Searles argument by asserting that (1-6) are consistent but that the room understands Chinese even if the occupant does not. Searle intelligently built the Chinese Room so that those who try to pick-apart his argument with a systems response get tangled up in a web of truth in regard to strong AI or more specifically, what is understanding. A systems response simply asserts that the man in the room knows Chinese because the mans formal manipulations, or the operations of the man and the room as a whole, are structurally identical to a native Chinese speakers formal manipulations. Searles counter-argument is that if the man memorized the program, then the program has become part of the man—but for the program, which understands Chinese, the man is still simply providing the hardware on which it runs. One might attempt to apply a subtle version of the system, commonly called a virtual mind reply. Yet virtual mind replies, like system replies, do not prove that strong AI is true either: they provide no evidence that the system (or the virtual mind) understands Chinese, other than the hypothetical premise that it passes the Turing Test. Searles argument remains, for neither the systems or virtual minds succeed at challenging Searles argument. That is because both replies have tried to find understanding in the room. Thats a mistake, its playing into Searles hands, as understanding simply isnt there. Understanding is not missing because computers cant have it. Its missing because the claim that Searles claim that the Chinese room can simulate what computers can do is false. The rooms computer-imitation is so flawed that the claim that the Chinese room can produce the appearance of understanding Chinese is also false. We can easily show that there is a defect in the room when we pick apart the computer-imitation (or the rooms process), with a conversation that might take place: Dominic: Hello there. Before we begin our conversation, Id just like to point out that from here on in Im going to use the word ‘hot to mean good looking. Chinese Room: No problem, I speak slang now and then too. Dominic: I heard your cars cooling system was overheating. Did you think that your cars engine was getting too hot? Chinese Room: No the temperature was fine. Dominic: Talking about cars, did you see the yellow Ferrari parked outside your house yesterday! Dont you think Ferraris are hot cars? Chinese Room: Yes, Ferraris are commonly hot due to their high-performance engine components. The reason the room cant handle this sort of thing is that it cannot write anything that the man in the room can read. According to Searle, it can only write Chinese characters which Searle cannot read. Which is why it cannot remember things like the â€Å"hot† car. If we gave the room the right machinery so that the man in the room has the ability to change the script (similarly compared to a computer changing its own program), then the man would, essentially, be changing the rooms behaviour in response to events. Admittedly, giving the room the right machinery so the man could do this is more complicated than having a giant heavily-indexed book do all the processing, but it would remove the computer-simulation defect. Furthermore, it certainly would make intentionality possible. And it is intentionality that, according to Searle (1980) and Brentano (1874/1973), distinguishes mental states from physical ones. And, if the room had the machinery, or the fundamentals, to produc e intentionality, then the room could be made to understand. According to Searle (1980), intentionality exists in internal states if they are â€Å"directed at or about objects and states of affairs in the world†. This means, to me, that internal states can change appropriately when they are â€Å"directed at† changes. For example, if I always thought that the Chinese room was painted â€Å"green† and I found out that the room was actually painted â€Å"white†, then the Chinese rooms would think that my intentionality is lacking because my â€Å"thoughts of the room† change upon learning of a colour change. Yet, the rooms â€Å"thoughts about me† also lack intentionality because they cannot change when I tell the room that Im temporarily using â€Å"hot† differently. There are other mental states that have intentionality for similar reasons. For example, what gives my belief that â€Å"All elephants are grey† intentionality is that, after I see a few black elephants, my belief can change appropriately, to maybe â€Å"All elephants are grey or black†. Yet not all changes produced by experience are sufficiently complex or flexible enough to count toward intentionality. parent knows. http://degreesofclarity.com/writing/chineseroom/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/

J.B.Priestley’s play, An Inspector Calls :: English Literature

An inspector calls' - what is the main message and is it still relevant today? We get the impression that she is a when Priestly adds, ‘very pleased with life’. She is ignorant to the world of the working class, and is constantly surrounded by her riches without even considering the lives of other people. During the engagement party, Gerald gives Sheila an engagement ring. This is to represent their relationship and love. Her words on receiving the gift are ‘Oh –Gerald-you’ve got it’. The pause in her sentence indicates the excitement in her voice. She then becomes very involved with the present- like a child receiving a birthday gift. Mr. Birling is about to make his speech about the war and the Titanic, however, he pauses when he realizes that Sheila may not be listening, as she is only concentrating on her ring. This is what a child may do when receiving a toy. This as with both her ‘mummy’ and her father gives us the impression that these people are annoying and makes us dislike them. WHOM 2 BLAME After the inspector leaves the house, they are shocked, but then think about the idea whether the inspector really is the guy he pretends to be and they come to the conclusion that he is not an inspector after all. They find this out by contacting the police who then unfold the truth about him. The play finishes when the police calls saying a young lady died and an inspector is on his way to the Birling house. I think the whole play is very important and a good example of collective responsibility. You understand the problem which follows the behaviour of those people. The content shows the bad treatment of a â€Å"normal â€Å"family towards a person, who lives on a lower social standard, without realizing that they destroy this person’s life. This is as significant for the society of that time as it is for the society in our own time. This will never change. The play wants to show that poor people did not have a chance to change their lives to improve it. This is only possible in our world and in our time. My main reason for thinking that Mrs. Birling is responsible is because she was not only the last step before Eva/Daisy ended her life but because in my eyes she was the most powerful one. Eva/Daisy was at a time where she was most emotional and she must have been feeling J.B.Priestley’s play, An Inspector Calls :: English Literature An inspector calls' - what is the main message and is it still relevant today? We get the impression that she is a when Priestly adds, ‘very pleased with life’. She is ignorant to the world of the working class, and is constantly surrounded by her riches without even considering the lives of other people. During the engagement party, Gerald gives Sheila an engagement ring. This is to represent their relationship and love. Her words on receiving the gift are ‘Oh –Gerald-you’ve got it’. The pause in her sentence indicates the excitement in her voice. She then becomes very involved with the present- like a child receiving a birthday gift. Mr. Birling is about to make his speech about the war and the Titanic, however, he pauses when he realizes that Sheila may not be listening, as she is only concentrating on her ring. This is what a child may do when receiving a toy. This as with both her ‘mummy’ and her father gives us the impression that these people are annoying and makes us dislike them. WHOM 2 BLAME After the inspector leaves the house, they are shocked, but then think about the idea whether the inspector really is the guy he pretends to be and they come to the conclusion that he is not an inspector after all. They find this out by contacting the police who then unfold the truth about him. The play finishes when the police calls saying a young lady died and an inspector is on his way to the Birling house. I think the whole play is very important and a good example of collective responsibility. You understand the problem which follows the behaviour of those people. The content shows the bad treatment of a â€Å"normal â€Å"family towards a person, who lives on a lower social standard, without realizing that they destroy this person’s life. This is as significant for the society of that time as it is for the society in our own time. This will never change. The play wants to show that poor people did not have a chance to change their lives to improve it. This is only possible in our world and in our time. My main reason for thinking that Mrs. Birling is responsible is because she was not only the last step before Eva/Daisy ended her life but because in my eyes she was the most powerful one. Eva/Daisy was at a time where she was most emotional and she must have been feeling

Ancient Near East :: World History

Ancient Near East Millions of years ago the procreant low lands in the river basins of Euphrates and Tigris was probably the home of some animal life, but no great civilizations. However, things change over time, and just a few thousand years ago the same fertile low lands in the river basins of Euphrates and Tigris became the home of a very rich and complex society. This first high society of man was located in what some still call "Mesopotamia". The word "Mesopotamia" is in origin a Greek name meaning "land between the rivers." The name is used for the area watered by the Euphrates and Tigris and its tributaries, roughly comprising modern Iraq and part of Syria. South of modern Bagdad, this alluvial plain was called the land of Sumer and Akkad. Sumer is the most southern part, while the land of Akkad is the area around modern Bagdad, where the Euphrates and Tigris are closest to each other. This first high, Mesopotamian society arose as a combined result of various historical, institutional, and rel igious factors. The reality of these factors occurring at a specific place within the fabric of space / time indeed established the basis for this first high civilization. Items like irrigation, topography, and bronze-age technical innovations played a big part along with the advent of writing and the practice of social conditioning (through the use of organized religion) in this relatively early achievement of man. The factors of irrigation, inherent topography, and useful bronze-age technical innovations paved the way for the agricultural revolution to occur in the land of Sumer and Akkad. The people of the Tigris and the Euphrates basin, the ancient Sumerians, using the fertile land and the abundant water supply of the area, developed sophisticated irrigation systems and created what was probably the first cereal agriculture. This historical factor resulted in an excess of production of cereals, dates, and other commodities. The consequence of excess is the emergence of a productive peasant agricultural system and a redistributive economy that fuels the progress of civilization. Without a doubt, the Sumerians were highly innovative people who responded creatively to the challenges of the both the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Not just any spot on the planet is a good prospect for irrigation, and it is the topography of the land and the intelligence of the people that allowed efficient irrigation systems to develop.

An Analytical Essay Explaining Why Arthur Miller Wrote The Crucible :: Essay on The Crucible

An Analytical Essay Explaining Why Arthur Miller Wrote The Crucible Authors often have underlying reasons for giving their stories certain themes or settings. Arthur Miller’s masterpiece, The Crucible, is a work of art inspired by actual events as a response to political and moral issues. Set in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692, The Crucible proves to have its roots in events of the 1950’s and 1960’s, such as the activities of the House Un-American Committee and the â€Å"Red Scare.† Though the play provides an accurate account of the Salem witch trials, its real achievement lies in the many important issues of Miller’s time that it dealswith. Throughout The Crucible, Miller is concerned with conscience and guilt. Through the character Abigail Williams, he shows how people are willing to abandon their firmly-established values in order to conform with the majority and protect themselves. Those who refuse to part with their conscience, such as the character of John Proctor, are chastised for it. For this reason, the Salem witch trials raise a question of the administration of justice. During this time in the late 1600’s, people were peroccupied by a fear of the devil, due to their severe Puritan belief system. Nineteen innocent people are hanged on the signature of Deputy Governor Danforth, who has the authority to try, convict, and execute anyone he deems appropriate. However, we as readers sense little to no real malice in Danworth. Rather, ignorance and fear plague him. The mass hysteria brought about by the witchcraft scare in The Crucible leads to the upheaval in people’s differentiation between right and wrong, fogging their sense of true justice. When Arthur Miller wrote The Crucible in the early 1950’s, the United States was experiencing a modern â€Å"witch hunt† of its own. Senator Joseph McCarthy, provoked by the Cold War, became fearfully convinced that Communists, or â€Å"Reds,† were polluting American government. He intended to hunt them out, force them to confess, and make them name their associates, almost as the Salem judges had done. In fact, the character of Danforth is based on McCarthy himself. There is a great parallel between the witch trials and the â€Å"Red Scare.† Both created a frenzy among the public, involved people going against each other to prove their innocence, and sought to hunt out those who rebelled against the dominant values of the time.

Compare the relationships of the two sets of sisters from Howard’s End by E.M Foster and Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen

In the books Howard's End and Sense and Sensibility there are two different sets of sisters. I will be looking at the older sisters in each of the books. In Howard's End there are just two sisters, they are very close in age and very alike in the ways in which they show their feelings. In Sense and Sensibility there are three sisters the elder two of the three are very close in age and the youngest is a lot younger than the middle sister. All three have similar qualities and different views on their livelihood. One of the families is the Wilcoxes who are high in the society and well known through out Britain. The mother of the family Ruth becomes very attached to Margaret as she shows concern and friendship towards her in her last few months of her life. Ruth is gentle, selfless, loving and in a way strangely omniscient. Ruth dies in the first half of the novel leaving her husband Henry a widow. Henry is a prominent businessman in London. He is Stuffy, conventional and very chauvinistic, as he points out that woman are in the world to look after the family and bring up children, but also makes sure the Wilcoxes are not seen badly in anyone's eye. Henry then marries Margaret not long after Ruth's death. Also read The Story of an Eyewitness Essay Analysis Henry and Ruth had three children. Charles, Paul and Evie. Charles is the eldest son – self-centred, aggressive man who has many morals that he intends to keep. He represents all the negative sides of the Wilcoxes that they would like to keep hidden away in the cupboard. Charles marries Dolly and she gives birth to a boy who they name Tom. At the end of the novel Charles gets sent to prison for 3 years from killing Leonard Bast. Their second child is Paul the youngest son, who travels to Nigeria to make his fortune after he shares a passionate kiss and brief romance with Helen Schlegel. The youngest of the three children is Evie who is a self centred, petulant girl. Evie marries to Charles uncle in law at the young age of 18. The second family in the novel is the Schlegels. The Mother and the Father of Margaret, Helen and Theobald (Tibby) Schlegel are both dead in the novel right from the beginning. Margaret is the chief protagonist of the story as she encounters many problems and joys. She is a 29-year-old and has English and German heritage like the rest of her family. Margaret is imaginative and committed to relations in the family. She organises most trips and dictates to the others what's happening. Her practical abilities, inner strength and emotional perceptiveness enable her to appreciate the Wilcoxes and strive for a finer life. Helen the second oldest is 21. She is passionate and a very fickle girl she lives for art, literature and human relations like any other upper class woman in the early 20th century. Helen represents the idealistic, intellectual and cultured side to the Schlegel family. Helen is prettier than Margaret is and more prone to excessive and dramatic behaviour as she tends to do before she thinks. In the novel she ends up pregnant with Leonard Bast's child. Lastly there is Theobald nicknamed Tibby who is relatively younger and more intellectual than the girls and only 16. In the book he grows up and ends up going to Oxford. He likes to indulge in luxury and is extremely lazy. Mageret and Helen will be one set of sisters I will be looking at. They are both caring and look after each other by making sure they are truly happy and that the wont marry into the wrong family. The Schlegels are well respected in their town and are in the middle of the middle class in society. Read also Intro to Public Relations Notes They have a lot of money and are wise with all their actions. The Schlegels are also a very conventional family as they do attend social gatherings this is shown when they are returning from a performance of Beethoven's 5th symphony at the beginning of the book. Finally there is one more set of people in the story, the Bast's. These people prove to give the story an unexpected twist, light humour and more depth. Jacky Bast is an extrovert with a sense of people around her. As a former prostitute she had had an affair with Henry Wilcox 10 years ago in Cyprus. Leonard is a poor insurance clerk he has little money – barely enough to live on. He is obsessed with improving himself and reads books constantly to try and improve his education and get a better job. Leonard wants to do a lot better with his life. He has learnt to appreciate that he is alive and to try and get the most out of it he is trying to improve himself so he will be higher and more renowned in society. Sense and Sensibility written by Jane Austen also shows us a strong and well-built relationship between the sisters – Marianne and Margaret Dashwood. Again in this story there are many important characters. It too is set around families and brings and joins them all together in the last few chapters of the book, giving it a wonderful and unpredictable ending. The main family in the novel is the Dashwoods. They are introduced right at the beginning of the novel and the whole story follows the sisters Marianne, Elinor and Margaret. Mrs. Dashwood the kind and loving mother of the three young girls becomes a widower at the beginning of the novel when her husband Henry dies. Mrs. Dashwood inherits nothing from her late husband except the un-known wish from her husband to John that he is to make sure her and her children are looked after and will live well. Mrs. Dashwood only wants what is best for her daughters and goes out of her way to accomplish this for them; she also has a romantic side to her and enjoys her daughters being whisked off their feet by romantic callers. Her eldest child Elinor is 19 years old and the heroine in the story, going through many difficulties and trivia's. Elinor is very composed and affectionate to all living things, when she falls in love with the Mr. Edward Ferrars she loses all these traits as she falls in love. She comforts and supports her sister Marianne when she is let down by Willoughby. Marianne is 17 and shines out with her spontaneity and great sense of life. Her romantic idealism leads her to fall in love with John Willoughby even when he disappears and leaves her high and dry. After this change of heart she marries her admirer – for many years – Colonel Brandon. The youngest of the Dashwood daughters is Margaret, she has a great sense of humour and at 13 she already shares her sister's great passion for romance and is stunned by Willoughby's romantic ways. The Dashwoods are a very close family and tell each other everything about relationships and daily walks. They depend on each other to fall back on and are all very well mannered. Throughout the novel the young and beautiful Dashwoods fall in love with many people. The most famous and most loved of all being Edward Ferrars particularly admired by Margaret. Edward is sensible and the older brother in his family. He falls in love instantly with Elinor but escapes from her for a while and is involved in a four year secret engagement to Lucy Steele but in the end turns up and marries Elinor as he as always wanted. His younger brother Robert manages to be the escape route for Edward to get back to his only one true love Elinor, as Lucy falls slowly in love with Robert and ends up marrying him instead. Marianne's first love in the novel is John Willoughby. He is an attractive young man but who deceits Marianne's heart by greedily leaving her for the wealthy Miss Sophia Grey leaving her traumatically distraught. The unexpected Colonel Brandon finally gets his wish when Marianne returns his unrequited love. Colonel Brandon is a retired officer who falls in love with Marianne when he first lays eyes on her. He constantly tries to impress her but is always beaten away by Willoughby. He acts kindly, honorably and graciously towards the whole family throughout the novel, making the family more than glad that Marianne marries him in the end. In Howard's End you notice from the beginning the very strong relationship between Margaret and Helen. In their relationship Margaret takes on the stereotypical role of being the mother because she is the oldest out of the pair. This seems natural to Margaret as her mum and dad have died leaving her and her aunt Juley to look after Helen and Tibby. Margaret feels it is her duty to protect Helen from any pain or embarrassment on her part. We can see this when Margaret and Ruth meet for the 1st time since they meet in Germany. Both the Adults agree it is better that Helen and Paul do not meet, and that it is good that they have no chance of meeting at the moment as Helen is in Germany unaware that Paul is in Nigeria. As they meet Margaret is happy that they both feel the motherly love for the two love lost â€Å"children†. ‘†You've been worrying too! † exclaimed Margaret, getting more and more excited, and taking a chair without invitation. † How perfectly extraordinary! I can see that you have. You felt as I do: Helen mustn't meet him again†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ In Sense and Sensibility Elinor also take the role of being the more organised and the mother of the sisters. She two looks after her younger sibling Marianne, thinking that she knows best and tries to do everything for her. When Mrs. Dashwood exclaims that it may be months before they hear anything of Willoughby again Marianne is angry and says that it is more like a matter of weeks. This pleases Elinor because although Marianne is angry at the thought. Marianne has spoken and that means she is on her way to being mended ‘ Mrs. Dashwood was sorry for what she had said, but it gave Elinor pleasure, as it produced a reply from Marianne so expressive of confidence in Willoughby and knowledge of his intentions'. The quote also tells us that Elinor is not only glad that she had finally spoken, she is also glad that she is able to speak of her and still has faith in him in returning – making that whole family believe that he will return and make her happy and well again. Helen and Margaret are very alike in the way that they are both representing the Schlegel family and household, which represents the intellectual aspect of middle class citizens. When Margaret first excepts the marriage proposal from Henry she presses on him whenever they are in the company of Helen to go and talk to her and make friends. She is determined that they should be friends as they will be in the same family but is very anxious for them to like each other as they are the most important people in her life. If they weren't friends she couldn't see how she could deal with it. She likes Helen so much she can't see why Henry wouldn't. Helen is also very passionate about her relationship with Margaret. When Helen turns up at Evie's wedding she annoyed with Henry for giving them wrong advice. When she is saying this to him she is expecting Margaret to take her side but instead Margaret doesn't have much input. When the Argument had calmed down a little Margaret says to Helen ‘ I am to marry Henry I must take his side' this is the last time they speak until Margaret sees Helen pregnant. Helen is very upset with this because Margaret is he sister she feels like Henry is taking her and their friendship away from her. She feels lonely and befriended and this is why she doesn't contact her because she feels that she is no longer needed as Margaret has someone else now, Margaret as a husband. When Helen leaves for Germany for the second time Margaret is unaware of their fight being so big to her. After not really hearing from Helen for a while apart from in telegrams and postcards she realises something must be wrong. To her it doesn't seem like it is Helen writing. When they meet Helen feels that Margaret can get her anything. This is natural as you expect the mother figure able to get you what you want and need. She asks by saying at Howard's End ‘But it would give me great pleasure to have one night her with you'. Margaret sets out and risks her marriage to get her dear sister this. Their love for each other is so great they will risk anything to keep their friendship from ending. In Sense and Sensibility, Edward comes back to Barton Cottage when Lucy marries his brother instead realising that he has always been in love with Elinor without admitting or realising it. When he lets it be known to the family that he is not married to Lucy and they have all been mistaking, Elinor acts out with joy ‘She almost ran out of the room, and as soon as the door was closed, burst into tears of joy, which at first she thought she would never cease'. Marianne is very happy that her sister has finally found happiness as it means there will be no more worry in the family for her. Marianne could only speak her happiness only be tears. Comparisons would occur – regrets would rise – and her joy, though sincere as her love for her sister, was of a kind to give her neither spirits nor language'. Meaning that she could not speak of her love for her sister as it was too great and too meaningful that there are no words too describe it. In both the novels it ends up that there love for each other finds ways to make them stay together throughout and both sets of sister's end up living near each other. In Sense and Sensibility the novel ends with the sisters being reunited at the colonel Brandon land. With Elinor and Edward working for him in the parsonage that had been promised to Edward months before. After pursuing and courting Marianne she finally recognised his kindness and agreed to marry him. They moved to his estate and once again by fate the sisters were brought together. The two sets of new families brought happiness to Mrs. Dashwood knowing that the sisters were within walking distance of each other, so they could look out for each other as they always had. ‘Between Barton and Delaford, there was that constant communication which strong family affection would naturally dictate †¦ hat though sisters and living almost within sight of each other, they could live without disagreement between themselves, or producing coolness between their husbands'. This means that they can now live practically together without getting into any fights or disagreements because their relationship is so strong. With it being so strong it means that their husbands have become friends and everyone has put all the trivia's of the past behind them and now look forward to enjoying time with each other in the future. In Howard's End it ends with Helen having her baby at Howard's End with Henry and Margaret. They all live together looking after each other. ‘Helen rushed into the gloom, holding Tom by one hand and carrying her baby on the other' This shows that the families are united together as Helen has her baby as well as taking care of Henry's only grandson. This is showing that she has been trusted with their family in her hands. The book ends with Helen saying that the field has been cut and the crop of hay will be the best ever ‘ We've seen to the very end, and it'll be such a crop of hay as never! This could be a metaphor for their life, the sisters have been together throughout all their problems and now they are going to have the best time ever. The relationships between the sisters are strong. The older sisters Elinor and Margaret have very much in common they both look out for their younger siblings taking on the stereotypical role of being the mother figure. The Dashwoods and the Schlegels are very similar as they both at the end put all there differences behind them and love and learn from the past and each other. Throughout the novels they have fights and instances which make them hate each other. One of the differences between the Dashwoods and the Schlegel sisters is that the Dashwoods encounter many relationships and support each other in relationships and urge them to go ahead and comfort each other when they fail. The Schlegels keep by their thoughts and Helen despises Henry for taking Margaret from her and is jealous of there relationship where as in Sense and Sensibility Marianne urges Elinor to go ahead with the relationship as she wants to see her happy more than be happy her self. When they are in relationships the other sister can sense when it is right or wrong to intervene sowing how close the families are. In Sense and Sensibility when Willoughby leaves Elinor knows best not to jump in right away and leaves Marianne so she can have some time to herself. You get the same feeling from Howard's end when Helen becomes pregnant Margaret stands back and allows Helen to make up her own decision on what to do, but when Helen decides to stay with Margaret she is only to happy to have her to stay and welcomes her with open arms.