How is Mr Birling Portrayed in the play An Inspector Calls

A few critiques from an AS Lit student:

- There's quite a lot of grammar and spelling mistakes, which immediately are a turn-off to examiners. For example, 'play write' is actually spelled playwright. In addition, 'So for priestly to use the titanic as a example suggests that Birling is also a arrogant and pompous chracter.' is a very poorly constructed sentence. You could change it to something like: 'Priestley's reference to the Titanic (which sank, despite Mr Birling's faith in its sturdines) further proffers Mr Birling's arrogance and pompous attitude; Priestley's presentation of Birling as an idiotic character who makes false statements prejudices the audience against him.' That sounds much better, plus you've given an idea of what the effect of this quote on the audience is.
- Your quotes aren't consistently well-selected. What does 'public scandal' or 'honours' list add to what you're trying to say?
- Your clarity of expression sometimes needs working on. You describe Arthur as the 'leader of the contemptuous Birling family'. Contemptuous how? Are they contemptuous to the Inspector? To themselves? To the audience? Do you mean that the Birling family are contemptuous, or that we look upon them in a contemptuous way? Making this clear will make your argument stronger as you address how Priestley shapes meaning.
- Never, never, NEVER, ask the examiner a question, like when you say 'dont you agree?'. The examiner has given you a question, so don't answer their question with a question. Your job is to answer it. A lot of the exam is about jumping through the hoops that the examiner has put in front of you. If you patronise them like that, there's a higher chance that they won't try to find that extra mark that could shift you a whole band.

However, despite this, I do see that you understand a lot of the interpretations of what you're trying to say, which is promising. Your context is good at parts, but for 2 hours I'd expect a little more in the way of writing if I was to be honest. Keep trying to stay relevant, use good English (don't use big words if you don't know what they mean, don't use sentence fragments), and good luck c:

Thankyou so much! I guess i have got alot of improving to do!

You're welcome c: Well, sorta, but to be honest, you come up with some good points and interpretations which is good, it's just ensuring that you're relevant with what you say, and that you write it in a way that comes off as fluent and natural. Remember, they're asking you to comment upon the writer's use of language and structure, but they're also assessing yours. The better you write, the more impressed the examiners will be. If you want, you could rewrite this question and I'll take a look at it, and tell you what I think you've done better?

Hello fellow AS lit student! That's some good critique you gave, and I agree with all the points Just to add in my few cents:

• Vary your punctuation; you want your essay to engage the examiner as much as possible, and using repetitive punctuation won't help that. Try including more dashes (—) and semi-colons (, as I've shown in the spoiler below.
• Keep in concise; this will help you to write more in the little time you're given. For example, writing "not aware" instead of "unaware" is such a small change but can make a big difference! It'll also help your essay to flow better.
• Analyse keywords; the quotations you made on the whole were relevant and supported your point, but it's just as important to pick out key words and talk about the type of word, its connotations and the effect it has. For example, the use of the noun 'scandal' in your quotation "public scandal" has a different effect to the word 'misconduct', which could've been used instead.
• Avoid repeating adjectives; the adjectives you did use were impressive—however, you're going to need to expand on your knowledge of synonyms to avoid sounding repetitive and give off the impression that you're "out of ideas".
• Spelling; it might be due to the fact you were typing quickly, but please make sure you spell correctly! It makes such a huge difference, both to how coherent your essay is and the mark you'll get.

Overall, you raised some very interesting points and I liked your political focus. I don't think I even knew what capitalism and socialism were at GCSE!

Also, being the pedantic person I am—below I've decided to highlight areas in red where I have found errors in grammar, punctuation, letter case, spelling and where words that aren't needed should be excluded, and in bold is the amended text. This should hopefully be of some use to you!

Thank you! I was feeling a little guilty because I thought I was being a tad mean, but thank you for assuring me that you agree haha. Those are also some very good points, you clearly have much more time on your hands to go through and edit the essay xD.

Purely procrastination... I have a psychology exam on Monday and I'm trying to get my mind off it.

Also, I'm in the mindset for English as I've helped my sister with this exact exam too

Haha tough times for you, when you'd gladly edit an essay instead of revise xD. Ahh fair enough, I just remember this extract from when I did it last year. What board and course are you doing this year?

You're welcome c: Well, sorta, but to be honest, you come up with some good points and interpretations which is good, it's just ensuring that you're relevant with what you say, and that you write it in a way that comes off as fluent and natural. Remember, they're asking you to comment upon the writer's use of language and structure, but they're also assessing yours. The better you write, the more impressed the examiners will be. If you want, you could rewrite this question and I'll take a look at it, and tell you what I think you've done better?

Hello fellow AS lit student! That's some good critique you gave, and I agree with all the points Just to add in my few cents:

• Vary your punctuation; you want your essay to engage the examiner as much as possible, and using repetitive punctuation won't help that. Try including more dashes (—) and semi-colons (, as I've shown in the spoiler below.
• Keep in concise; this will help you to write more in the little time you're given. For example, writing "not aware" instead of "unaware" is such a small change but can make a big difference! It'll also help your essay to flow better.
• Analyse keywords; the quotations you made on the whole were relevant and supported your point, but it's just as important to pick out key words and talk about the type of word, its connotations and the effect it has. For example, the use of the noun 'scandal' in your quotation "public scandal" has a different effect to the word 'misconduct', which could've been used instead.
• Avoid repeating adjectives; the adjectives you did use were impressive—however, you're going to need to expand on your knowledge of synonyms to avoid sounding repetitive and give off the impression that you're "out of ideas".
• Spelling; it might be due to the fact you were typing quickly, but please make sure you spell correctly! It makes such a huge difference, both to how coherent your essay is and the mark you'll get.

Overall, you raised some very interesting points and I liked your political focus. I don't think I even knew what capitalism and socialism were at GCSE!

Also, being the pedantic person I am—below I've decided to highlight areas in red where I have found errors in grammar, punctuation, letter case, spelling and where words that aren't needed should be excluded, and in bold is the amended text. This should hopefully be of some use to you!

Purely procrastination... I have a psychology exam on Monday and I'm trying to get my mind off it.

Also, I'm in the mindset for English as I've helped my sister with this exact exam too

Also, what grade would you give this?

I'm doing OCR F661/F662, for poetry I'm doing Robert Browning and Henry James' 'The Turn of The Screw' for prose. How about you?

Like many of you, i also have my english lit edexcel exam on Monday , anyway, some people are saying that Mr Birling may be on the exam, so please can you mark this and give me feedback!
Also, what else is most likely to come up?

Mr Birling is the father, and leader of the contemptuous Birling family. He is described by Priestly as a ''Portentous'' man. Throughout the play, we see Arthur Birling being conveyed by the play write as a rather pompous and injudicious character. He shows no remorse or concern for his wrongful actions, unless they affect his social status. Birling is also portrayed as a defiant capitalist and extreamly narrow minded.
Priestly presents Mr Arthur Birling and a ignorant and foolish character with us use of Dramatic Irony. As Mr Birling was delivering his speech at his daughter, Sheila's engagement, he mentioned that the titanic, was ''unsinkable, absaloutley unsinkable''. As the play was written in 1945, we know that this bold statement is far from correct. Instantly, Priestlys use of dramatic irony not only proves that it is a mistaken view, but it allows the audience to understand that Arthur Birling is not wise, but infact a rather stupid and injudicious character.
Priestly is also conveying that Arthur is very narrow minded. He is only intrested in the present, and does not look to the future, Mr Birling does not have a open mind. Like most men at that time, they believed that nothing could change. They believed that the rich would always rule over the poor, that the labour ''cranks'' could never be a ruling government, and Arthur Birling represents these views.
Moreover, Priestlys use of repetition on the word ''unsinkable'' suggests that Mr Birling in certain that he is correct, when infatc he is far from it, making him appear to be foolish.
On the other hand, not only does Priestlys use of the infamous titanic make Arthur look stupid, but it is also a symbol of arrogance. The titanic was a ship for the rich aristocrats of 1912, those who thought they were the hierarchy of society, much like what Mr Birling would like to see himself as. So for priestly to use the titanic as a example suggests that Birling is also a arrogant and pompous chracter.
Alternitavely,the dramatic quote ''unsinkable, absaloutley unsinkable'' is Priestly foreshadowing the Birlings sinking fate. Mr Birling is so certain that he knows about everything, yet he is not aware that soon he will have a mysterious visitor at the door.

J.B Priestly uses Mr Birlings talk of war to convey his socialists views to the audience , and opress Arthurs capitalist views. Mr Birling portrays his narrow minded views on war when he says ''you''ll hear some people say that wars inevitable, and to that, i say- fiddlesticks!". The play was written around the time when the second world war was coming to a end, so the audience are aware that Mr Birlings optimistic views are again, incorrect.
Also, the play was set in 1912, 2 years before the first world war, Priestly uses this small time frame to display Arthur as a injudicious character.
Priestly was aiming to use the post word war vulnerability of the audience to opress capitalist views and project his socialist views. In 1912, the rigid class and gender boundaries ensured that nothing would change, however by 1945, these divisions had been breached. The writer is aware that audience to not want another war, and from watching this play, do not want times to be like 1912, so he used mr birling as a catalyst to project these negative views.
Priestly id also saying that capitalists are also like Mr Birling, they all think they are correct, when infact they are far from it.
Moreover, the writer uses the dramatic quote about ''war'' to remind the audience of what happens when certain individuals seek power for themselves rather than caring for others. His message is to encourage the people of 1945 to seize the opportunity the war had given them to build a better, more caring society.
As Inspector Goole says, ''we are all members of one body'', dont you agree?

Priestly also conveys Mr Birling as a imprudent character who only cares about his social status. His behavious remains like this throughout the play. When the inspector arriced, Arthur had to make in known that his soon to be son in law was aristocrat, the ''son of Sir George Croft''. Birling did not even introduce his own son, but rather dismissed him whenever he spoke. This suggests that because of social status, Mr Birling treats Gerald more like a son to gain some sort of social respect.
Secondly, in 1912 it was uncommon to marry somebody out of your social class, Birling was aware that his family were slightly lower on the social scale than ''Crofts Limited''. However, he made sure that Gerald Croft was aware that he was soon to be added onto the ''honours'' list, so that the Crofts would not dismiss him.
Even when the inspector left, Arthur did not show any sign or sorrow for Eva Smith, but he was rather more worried about it ruining his reputation. He did not want it to become a ''public scandal''. Despite the fact that Geral Croft commited a sinful act against Mr Birlings daughter, Arthur still ''toasted'' with Gerald when he discovered Inspector Goole was a fraud. Arthur was so happy and relieved that it would not become a ''public scandal'' that he would even drink with someone who caused his daugher pain and distress.
Alternitavley, the fact that he ''toasted'' with Gerald suggests that he still wants to hold a relationship with him because of his social status. Arthur would use any excuse not to loose a bond with the son of ''Sir George Corft'', and not to loose the potential chance of going in buisness with the succesful ''Crofts Limited''.
In 1912, witholding a relationship with a aristocrat meant that you could climb up the social ladder, there would be no risk of going on the streets, Eva Smith's summer affair with Gerald Croft is a clear example of this.

Mr Birling did not learn the morals that Priestly presented through the play ''An Inspector Calls'. He did not understand the fact that sacking Eva Smith from his workplace for his own financial benefit was wrong. Unlike his two children, Eruc and Sheila, who actually acknowldge their wrongdoing and showed remorse. Infact, young Eric who was often dismissed by his ''portentous'' father told him he was ''ashamed'' of him for what he did.
Priestlys purpose was to again, opress capitalists, and he used Mr Arthur Birling as a catalyst. Arthur was not willing to take responsiblity for his actions, but he infact only cared about how he would look to society. He does not care for people, or in this case, his employees. Priestly used Mr Birling to represent capitalists. He is presenting the message that like Mr Birling, they are not willing to change, and only care for themselves, not their supporters.
As Mr Birling says '' a man has to look after himself''.
As a reader, i do not empathise with Arthur Birling as he seems to fail to connect with the writers message of fairness and humblesness. The author portrays him as a foolish character and also uses dramatic irony that capitalists are thsikhe cause of diasaster such as war. Birling showed no remorse for a dead girl and even tarseoasted with a adulterer. However, bindiPriestlys use of conveying arthur as a pompous, imprudent and imperious character allowed me to understand socialist views, and to belive that we a''are all responsible'' for eachother, and that ''we are all members of one body''.


Btw, it took me 2hours to write this! Any suggestions on how time saving techniques?

Waaayyyyyyyy tooooooo loooonnnnngggggggg. Seriously, it should be like a third of that!

reallly!? i heard that to get a A* it needs to be 5-6 points