An Inspector Calls: Gerald Essay of Relationship

i'm not familiar with the AQA board so i won't give a specific mark on this, however i did study an inspector calls a few years ago (and loved it) so here's a couple of notes, suggestions, and comments:


take this all with a grain of salt of course, but i do hope this somewhat helps! best of luck with your future essays

As I said on another essay you posted, you don't need to use so much sophisticated vocabulary- its repetitive and becomes hard to read. Also please don't double post as mentioned above

As I said on another essay you posted, you don't need to use so much sophisticated vocabulary- its repetitive and becomes hard to read. Also please don't double post as mentioned above

I didn’t think I used much as I’ve had feedback saying it was clear and appropriate

If you've already had feedback why post it on here?

If you look above, someone has already gave me feedback before you did.

PLEASE MARK THIS!
Hello, this is one of my first essays on Gerald I’ve recently just finished AIC study so I might as well have a go at an essay and see what you guys think. Please it would be considered thankfully if you could leave an estimated mark out of 34 on AQA exam board or either if possible a prediction of grade. Thank you and I hope you enjoy it! (Please bare in mind that I haven’t tried to rush and I’ve taken my time thoughtfully)

How does Priestley present Gerald’s relationships with women in An Inspector Calls?

In Priestley’s allegorical play, the presentation of Gerald’s association with women are unforeseeable due to his inheritance of a capitalistic statues. His fluctuating attitudes towards women are shown throughout based on the patriarchal classes of women, their appearances, and uttermost their inherited traits alongside: accessories.

In Priestley’s didactic play, Gerald’s relationship a with women are implied to become fluctuations through his capitalist behaviour investigating their background of class. Priestley highlights Gerald’s character to become a very comforting and lovable character towards Eva Smith, but obscurity lies beneath indicates his controversy; almost like he picks the one with the most accessories (symbol of inherited assets). Gerald indicates his relationship towards Eva and how he “made her take some money to keep her going”. This controversial imagery implicates Gerald coating this purifying soul on himself, implying that perhaps Gerald is manoeuvring this “money” not just for his lovable relationship but implicitly for his financial reputation and the potential corruption ahead if he doesn’t fix it: money. Priestley generated this financial system to perhaps mirror the resemblance of how if profit is unachievable, the business correlates; the same evokes through Gerald’s reputation. During the Edwardian era, men were seen as the exemplifiers within society which would help society grow into a more inherited society full of capitalists due to the ruling of patriarchal. This highlights Gerald’s unforeseeable relationship towards Eva because of the way Gerald gives her comfort, but doesn’t help her out to his full extent: child of an entrepreneur. Gerald could have hired Eva but due to society and the judging of class, he may have become restricted due to his upbringing of a capitalistic behaviour: hubris. This leads Priestley to envelope such capitalist traits through Gerald towards society, encouraging them to support socialism due to their hubristic cowardice towards class, but to perhaps stimulate the seeking of a peaceful generation ahead; abolish a multitude supporting.

Furthermore, Priestley’s cyclical play constructs Gerald’s relationship with women through the judging of character and their appearance towards society. Gerald’s relationship is portrayed through Eva Smith the most appropriately, but seems generated by impressionable inheritance towards Sheila Birling. Gerald is implied to tell the Inspector how “young and pretty and warm-hearted” she was and how “at once become the most important person in her life”. The triadic structure associates with this infantilised semantic field of this younger generation Priestley seeks to attract due to a social change within society. Gerald’s relationship towards Eva is due to her attracted beauty and how Gerald can use this as an advantage to perhaps claim these more profited customers her so fires as a capitalist: successful “business”. It could perhaps be interpreted that Gerald’s relationship with Eva Smith is perhaps this sim which drives us as younger generations to become aware of these narcissistic men in society who control women into generating as human manufacturers to craft profits for their reputation to keep going. Priestley perhaps aims it towards the younger generation, focusing onto the women inclusion because in 1945 (when the play was originally released) women just got the vote which left Priestley realising that there would be as twice as many women to men voting which made him see a way of encouraging these younger women to vote against Conservatives and vote for Labour for these social relations towards one another. This refers back to how Gerald’s relationship is unpredictable due to his capitalist obsession of claiming these profitable amounts in order for the business to succeed. Priestley obstructs this fluctuated relationship to perhaps make an awareness of how capitalist use these vulnerable members (at current time) to get advantage of their own independence, leaving an younger generation womanhood to feel discredited by capitalist.

Additionally, Priestley’s didactic play exemplifies Gerald’s changing relationship towards women through their inherited traits and background. This is provoked through Gerald’s determination of giving “this ring” to Sheila as she claims “is this the one you wanted me to have?”. This controversial imagery is highlighted again but showcased through a feminine role within the play. This restricted illusion could perhaps be implied to give a sense of how 1912 femininity were subverted on how much freedom they were allowed access of. This omnipotent aspect of an masculine role is conveyed to give a sense of limited access as soon as a woman enters her family life. It could be added that the “ring” is a dual symbol of the eternal love for one another, but also the imprisonment within a women herself due to the religious connotation of a Christian society being very popular during the Edwardian era; not having this access to get an divorce or either the opportunity of life. Furthermore, Gerald’s fluctuating relationship towards women is again examined through his statues of a “business man” and his capitalist character because of the way he desires a rightful wife who brings him lucky traits from their inheritance: money and alliance of industrial power. Gerald attracts these wealthy women in society to almost take what’s theirs for their own capability. Priestley highlights their instability relationship to show how Gerald (symbolic to capitalists) only seeks to find an alliance to bind with his own Croft business, whilst he simply lacks the desire of becoming a husband Sheila would wanted. It can be interpreted that Priestley highlights this inherited trait as one aspect of a capitalist’s wanting due to their hubristic obsession of money and individuality success; this highlights why Gerald’s changing relationship is promoted throughout the play, typically towards women.

In conclusion, Gerald’s relationship towards women are changeable due to his ideology of a capitalist. His fluctuating relationship towards women are based upon the rate of patriarchal class of the women, their appearances, and their upbringing inherited traits. In. In society, women are treat like accessories for entertainment and wealth.

hi! I'll comment on it bit by bit

intro: you need to stop focusing so much on throwing in big words especially here since it doesn't make sense and is hindering your argument which is not clear at all. i found it helped to make the intro more of a thesis/argument you would explore throughout your essay to help show a coherent answer. you've attempted this with the 'fluctuating attitudes' but imo Gerald treated all women badly. I'd say something more along the lines of this:
In AIC, Priestley presents how Gerald controls the women around him (Sheila and Eva) and uses the imbalance within the relationships as a microcosm for how men dominated Edwardian society and women were designated as ‘the other’. Furthermore, the way he utilises Eva for his pleasure and disposes of her as soon as it’s no longer convenient could be metaphorical for how the upper echelon reduced the working class to menial tools.

1st para: the opening line makes no sense- you haven't made it clear what you mean by 'fluctuations' as in do the relationships 'fluctuate' as in the sense he goes from woman to woman, or a specific relationship 'fluctuates' from loving to not? i think you need to work on your actual writing style; you keep throwing in colons when they make absolutely no sense and just further confuse your essay. your grammar is also quite iffy at points but maybe that's just because you've typed it?? you have made really good and sophisticated links to context though

2nd para: you do a really good job with embedding your quotes in but it's a shame your actual argument is lacking. you need to stop trying to throw in such sophisticated vocabularly especially since it's coming across as forced and artificial in your essay.

3rd para: try not to repeat 'didactic', 'It could be added that the “ring” is a dual symbol of the eternal love for one another, but also the imprisonment within a women herself'. this part was really good but once again you've added it in after something that's made no sense. also, the part about Christianity has no obvious links to women not being able to divorce so you need to expand on that. for example:

Priestley presents how Gerald is controlling towards Sheila to use their imbalanced relationship to criticise how men dominated the patriarchal society so he could evoke a need for gender equality in his audience. He perhaps best does this through his use of prop: an engagement ring. The ring itself is circular, on one hand symbolising an eternal love which in Gerald's situation carries a certain irony. We know in Birling's words that this marriage is not a union between two people but rather a merging of the Crofts and Birlings for 'lower costs and higher prices'. The subversion of connotations of love into money shows the shallowness of the upper class, which is further enforced by how Mr Birling is willing to sacrifice his daughter's happiness for his own material gain, helping us to despise their selfishness. Furthermore, what's even sadder is only Sheila will become subject to the bounds of the ring as Gerald has already proved his disloyalty through his affair with Eva. His multiple relations show the double standards that plagued Edwardian society where men's infedility was forgiven whilst women, like Eva, were unpure for not remaining chaste. Gerald's potential marriage to Sheila is also seen as providing in a sense. In 1912 (when the play was set), women were disadvantaged in society; for example they had no equal pay or the right to vote so the only way to gain financial security was through marriage. Here, Gerald's relationship with Sheila is used to emphasise the absolute lack of autonomy and choice women had, as many were forced into loveless marriages they had to 'get used to' as they had no other means to survive. Priestley has chosen to explore this to emphasise to his audience the need for equal rights.

conclusion: the last sentence is good but the rest doesn't really add anything.

i'd probably put your answer in a high level 3/ low level 4 around 14-17 marks; SPaG wasn't great so probs around 3 marks. your AO1 references are generally good and at times so is your AO2. to improve i'd say:

-stop using the big words/colons since you're just taking away clarity and not using them correctly most of the time
-begin your essay (and each paragraph) by directly linking to the question so a short sentence saying what Priestly has done and WHY he has done it.

Hello, thank you for the feedback, I’m quite disappointed of what you gave me as a score but I have included Priestley’s purpose in each paragraph exploratory and I have followed Mr Salles video of writing a good essay and thesis. If you could I would like to point out where I haven’t clearly outlined my argument and linking to the question because I thought I did it pretty well and others did in the comments. I’m just a bit concerned because I got told by my English teacher to not start with the same purpose of Priestley’s in every paragraph. I am aware that my vocabulary and grammar is weak but that is because I have rushed this essay and one of my first ones of AIC. Thank you for your feedback.

Hi! I'm sorry if it came accross as harsh. I read a few of your other essays after this one (especially your Banquo one from a while back) and they definitely got at least a level 5 (so 21+) so dw at all. I understand what your teacher meant. idk if you'll take my advice but I started to get 30/30 after I didn't just focus on one point. I'd have the main point in my intro (so how Gerald controls women) and then each para (usually had about 2/3) would go into a specific aspect of it. so like para 1 maybe about the ring and his relationship with Sheila, para 2 about his views on Eva's appearance with a focus on misogyny, para 3 on his relation with Eva and a focus on exploitation/class. i had a feeling the grammar was probably just due to typing/rushing but your vocabularly is not weak at all- tbh I'd say you didn't use some of the vocabularly appropriately so it obscured meaning. i think in your case being a bit simpler would actually help! hope this helps and again i'm sorry if it came off as too harsh xx

It’s fine I’m glad I have someone to help me out but I’ve been struggling to write my essays ever since I’ve forgotten to write an argument. Now I’ve been struggling with this and that’s what I think what’s limiting my marks. I would like to know what I should focus on vitally so that I will be able to hit the level 6 band again like I was doing.

Dw at all. You can tell you have really great ideas but your wording imo confuses it. I think this for this one your main point of 'fluctuations' was made clear throughout the essay, but the argument itself was weak. e.g. if you'd written 'Gerald's attitudes are changing' you can clearly see it's a weak argument; changing it to a more sophistacted word (fluctuates) doesn't make it anymore conceptualised. This is what I meant by hold back on the vocabularly because although it gives the impression of a considered argument, you can tell it's letting you down (especially since some of your analysis is super advanced but it just has nothing to actually support) as your essay is centred around such a vague and ordinary point. If you want, I could type up a few of my essays that got 30/30 (i only have photos and my handwriting in exams is not the clearest) and message them to you. xx anyways best of luck with any other essays you write- i'm sure you'll have that level 6 again with just a bit more clarity