'An Inspector Calls' - Essay
Hi! I'm in Year 10 and I am trying to improve in my English Literature. Can somebody please grade my essay on a 9-1 scale and give it marks out of 30.
Thank you!
How successfully has Priestley portrayed a class-ridden and hypocritical society?
Throughout Inspector calls, Priestley portrays a class ridden and hypocritical society very successfully. In Act 2, Mrs Birling says 'girls of that sort would never refuse money'; this shows she feels morally superior because she is upper class. In addition, the adjective 'that' shows her disgust towards the working class. Similarly, when Sheila complains how 'last summer ... [Gerald] never came near [her]', Mrs Birling replies that she will have to get used to it. Through this, Mrs Birling conveys her sexist attitude that men are superior and her lack of belief in women's right even though she is the chair of a women's charity. In fact, the woman's charity is only a veneer for status and respectability because Mrs Birling is able to use her influence as a wealthy, upper-class woman to refuse help for Eva even though the Brumley Women's Charity Organisation should help women in trouble. Moreover, upon the revelation of Eric's drinking problem, she says 'you don't get drunk' as an attempt to preserve her dignity even though Sheila says 'Of course he does, I told you'(Act 3). Through her actions, she is a hypocrite. The charity is a facade for her true nature telling the Inspector with dignity '[the charity] has done a great deal of useful work with dignity'.
Furthermore, Mr Birling views Eva to just be one of 'several hundred women'. By saying 'they keep changing' with the use of a third person pronoun, he shows that to him the workers have no identity as well as the fact Mr Birling does not really care for them. Therefore, by victimising a working-class woman in the play, Priestley may be trying to suggest how vulnerable the working class during the Edwardian Era were in addition to how it was shockingly socially acceptable. Through language and the actions of the Birling family, Priestley portrays the hypocrisy of the class-ridden Edwardian Era.
Though, as an employer, Mr Birling is responsible for his worker, as a parsimonious capitalist, he 'can't accept any responsibility' for her death even though it triggered the chain of events - the metaphor for how everybody in society is responsible for each other - that led to her death. He is self-deluded and blind to how terrible society really was as if he is 'looking through rose tinted glass'. Upon his knowing of Eric impregnating Eva, he becomes furious. However, this is not because he pities Eva but because he fears 'a public scandal' and the loss of his knighthood. All that matters to him is is the retention of a high status despite what it might do to others. Again, through Mr Birling not fulfiling the duties he should as an employer and accepting the responsibility he should as a 'public man', Priestley shows that many capitalists, individualists and employers in society were hypocrites.
Evenmore, by contrasting the different lives of Sheila and Eva, Priestley shows how class-ridden society is as well as how class and wealth causes it to act hypocritically. Though Sheila and Eva are both in their twenties and 'pretty', the cardinal reason behind their difference is class. As a working class, poor woman, Eva has to work in 'cheap labour' and go 'onto the streets' - a euphemism for prostitution. Mr Birling shows much disregard for the death of Eva as he impatiently states 'I don't understand why you should come here'. Nonetheless, when the Inspector informs Sheila of the details of Eva's death, Mr Birling interrupts the Inspector 'angrily' exclaiming 'why the devil do you want to go upsetting the child like that?'. The massive difference between his attitudes for the two situations shows how he feels that bad things could happen to other classes and people but should not happen to his child. Explicitly, Priestley shows the hypocrisy of Mr Birling and of society. In the Edwardian Era, two-thirds of the country's wealth belonged to less than one percent of society in addition to there being a clear divide between the rich and the poor. Wealthier families such as the Birlings lived in 'large, substantial homes' and had a maid - Eva is a reminder of the Birling's wealth - whilst people in poverty represented by Eva Smith lived in rooms out back. Priestley may be trying to convey how the upper classes and the wealthy were blind to how horrible the lives of the working class and poor are consequently trying to convey how hypocritical and class-ridden society really was.
Thank you!
How successfully has Priestley portrayed a class-ridden and hypocritical society?
Throughout Inspector calls, Priestley portrays a class ridden and hypocritical society very successfully. In Act 2, Mrs Birling says 'girls of that sort would never refuse money'; this shows she feels morally superior because she is upper class. In addition, the adjective 'that' shows her disgust towards the working class. Similarly, when Sheila complains how 'last summer ... [Gerald] never came near [her]', Mrs Birling replies that she will have to get used to it. Through this, Mrs Birling conveys her sexist attitude that men are superior and her lack of belief in women's right even though she is the chair of a women's charity. In fact, the woman's charity is only a veneer for status and respectability because Mrs Birling is able to use her influence as a wealthy, upper-class woman to refuse help for Eva even though the Brumley Women's Charity Organisation should help women in trouble. Moreover, upon the revelation of Eric's drinking problem, she says 'you don't get drunk' as an attempt to preserve her dignity even though Sheila says 'Of course he does, I told you'(Act 3). Through her actions, she is a hypocrite. The charity is a facade for her true nature telling the Inspector with dignity '[the charity] has done a great deal of useful work with dignity'.
Furthermore, Mr Birling views Eva to just be one of 'several hundred women'. By saying 'they keep changing' with the use of a third person pronoun, he shows that to him the workers have no identity as well as the fact Mr Birling does not really care for them. Therefore, by victimising a working-class woman in the play, Priestley may be trying to suggest how vulnerable the working class during the Edwardian Era were in addition to how it was shockingly socially acceptable. Through language and the actions of the Birling family, Priestley portrays the hypocrisy of the class-ridden Edwardian Era.
Though, as an employer, Mr Birling is responsible for his worker, as a parsimonious capitalist, he 'can't accept any responsibility' for her death even though it triggered the chain of events - the metaphor for how everybody in society is responsible for each other - that led to her death. He is self-deluded and blind to how terrible society really was as if he is 'looking through rose tinted glass'. Upon his knowing of Eric impregnating Eva, he becomes furious. However, this is not because he pities Eva but because he fears 'a public scandal' and the loss of his knighthood. All that matters to him is is the retention of a high status despite what it might do to others. Again, through Mr Birling not fulfiling the duties he should as an employer and accepting the responsibility he should as a 'public man', Priestley shows that many capitalists, individualists and employers in society were hypocrites.
Evenmore, by contrasting the different lives of Sheila and Eva, Priestley shows how class-ridden society is as well as how class and wealth causes it to act hypocritically. Though Sheila and Eva are both in their twenties and 'pretty', the cardinal reason behind their difference is class. As a working class, poor woman, Eva has to work in 'cheap labour' and go 'onto the streets' - a euphemism for prostitution. Mr Birling shows much disregard for the death of Eva as he impatiently states 'I don't understand why you should come here'. Nonetheless, when the Inspector informs Sheila of the details of Eva's death, Mr Birling interrupts the Inspector 'angrily' exclaiming 'why the devil do you want to go upsetting the child like that?'. The massive difference between his attitudes for the two situations shows how he feels that bad things could happen to other classes and people but should not happen to his child. Explicitly, Priestley shows the hypocrisy of Mr Birling and of society. In the Edwardian Era, two-thirds of the country's wealth belonged to less than one percent of society in addition to there being a clear divide between the rich and the poor. Wealthier families such as the Birlings lived in 'large, substantial homes' and had a maid - Eva is a reminder of the Birling's wealth - whilst people in poverty represented by Eva Smith lived in rooms out back. Priestley may be trying to convey how the upper classes and the wealthy were blind to how horrible the lives of the working class and poor are consequently trying to convey how hypocritical and class-ridden society really was.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Pravi29
Hi! I'm in Year 10 and I am trying to improve in my English Literature. Can somebody please grade my essay on a 9-1 scale and give it marks out of 30.
Thank you!
How successfully has Priestley portrayed a class-ridden and hypocritical society?
Throughout Inspector calls, Priestley portrays a class ridden and hypocritical society very successfully. In Act 2, Mrs Birling says 'girls of that sort would never refuse money'; this shows she feels morally superior because she is upper class. In addition, the adjective 'that' shows her disgust towards the working class. Similarly, when Sheila complains how 'last summer ... [Gerald] never came near [her]', Mrs Birling replies that she will have to get used to it. Through this, Mrs Birling conveys her sexist attitude that men are superior and her lack of belief in women's right even though she is the chair of a women's charity. In fact, the woman's charity is only a veneer for status and respectability because Mrs Birling is able to use her influence as a wealthy, upper-class woman to refuse help for Eva even though the Brumley Women's Charity Organisation should help women in trouble. Moreover, upon the revelation of Eric's drinking problem, she says 'you don't get drunk' as an attempt to preserve her dignity even though Sheila says 'Of course he does, I told you'(Act 3). Through her actions, she is a hypocrite. The charity is a facade for her true nature telling the Inspector with dignity '[the charity] has done a great deal of useful work with dignity'.
Furthermore, Mr Birling views Eva to just be one of 'several hundred women'. By saying 'they keep changing' with the use of a third person pronoun, he shows that to him the workers have no identity as well as the fact Mr Birling does not really care for them. Therefore, by victimising a working-class woman in the play, Priestley may be trying to suggest how vulnerable the working class during the Edwardian Era were in addition to how it was shockingly socially acceptable. Through language and the actions of the Birling family, Priestley portrays the hypocrisy of the class-ridden Edwardian Era.
Though, as an employer, Mr Birling is responsible for his worker, as a parsimonious capitalist, he 'can't accept any responsibility' for her death even though it triggered the chain of events - the metaphor for how everybody in society is responsible for each other - that led to her death. He is self-deluded and blind to how terrible society really was as if he is 'looking through rose tinted glass'. Upon his knowing of Eric impregnating Eva, he becomes furious. However, this is not because he pities Eva but because he fears 'a public scandal' and the loss of his knighthood. All that matters to him is is the retention of a high status despite what it might do to others. Again, through Mr Birling not fulfiling the duties he should as an employer and accepting the responsibility he should as a 'public man', Priestley shows that many capitalists, individualists and employers in society were hypocrites.
Evenmore, by contrasting the different lives of Sheila and Eva, Priestley shows how class-ridden society is as well as how class and wealth causes it to act hypocritically. Though Sheila and Eva are both in their twenties and 'pretty', the cardinal reason behind their difference is class. As a working class, poor woman, Eva has to work in 'cheap labour' and go 'onto the streets' - a euphemism for prostitution. Mr Birling shows much disregard for the death of Eva as he impatiently states 'I don't understand why you should come here'. Nonetheless, when the Inspector informs Sheila of the details of Eva's death, Mr Birling interrupts the Inspector 'angrily' exclaiming 'why the devil do you want to go upsetting the child like that?'. The massive difference between his attitudes for the two situations shows how he feels that bad things could happen to other classes and people but should not happen to his child. Explicitly, Priestley shows the hypocrisy of Mr Birling and of society. In the Edwardian Era, two-thirds of the country's wealth belonged to less than one percent of society in addition to there being a clear divide between the rich and the poor. Wealthier families such as the Birlings lived in 'large, substantial homes' and had a maid - Eva is a reminder of the Birling's wealth - whilst people in poverty represented by Eva Smith lived in rooms out back. Priestley may be trying to convey how the upper classes and the wealthy were blind to how horrible the lives of the working class and poor are consequently trying to convey how hypocritical and class-ridden society really was.
Thank you!
How successfully has Priestley portrayed a class-ridden and hypocritical society?
Throughout Inspector calls, Priestley portrays a class ridden and hypocritical society very successfully. In Act 2, Mrs Birling says 'girls of that sort would never refuse money'; this shows she feels morally superior because she is upper class. In addition, the adjective 'that' shows her disgust towards the working class. Similarly, when Sheila complains how 'last summer ... [Gerald] never came near [her]', Mrs Birling replies that she will have to get used to it. Through this, Mrs Birling conveys her sexist attitude that men are superior and her lack of belief in women's right even though she is the chair of a women's charity. In fact, the woman's charity is only a veneer for status and respectability because Mrs Birling is able to use her influence as a wealthy, upper-class woman to refuse help for Eva even though the Brumley Women's Charity Organisation should help women in trouble. Moreover, upon the revelation of Eric's drinking problem, she says 'you don't get drunk' as an attempt to preserve her dignity even though Sheila says 'Of course he does, I told you'(Act 3). Through her actions, she is a hypocrite. The charity is a facade for her true nature telling the Inspector with dignity '[the charity] has done a great deal of useful work with dignity'.
Furthermore, Mr Birling views Eva to just be one of 'several hundred women'. By saying 'they keep changing' with the use of a third person pronoun, he shows that to him the workers have no identity as well as the fact Mr Birling does not really care for them. Therefore, by victimising a working-class woman in the play, Priestley may be trying to suggest how vulnerable the working class during the Edwardian Era were in addition to how it was shockingly socially acceptable. Through language and the actions of the Birling family, Priestley portrays the hypocrisy of the class-ridden Edwardian Era.
Though, as an employer, Mr Birling is responsible for his worker, as a parsimonious capitalist, he 'can't accept any responsibility' for her death even though it triggered the chain of events - the metaphor for how everybody in society is responsible for each other - that led to her death. He is self-deluded and blind to how terrible society really was as if he is 'looking through rose tinted glass'. Upon his knowing of Eric impregnating Eva, he becomes furious. However, this is not because he pities Eva but because he fears 'a public scandal' and the loss of his knighthood. All that matters to him is is the retention of a high status despite what it might do to others. Again, through Mr Birling not fulfiling the duties he should as an employer and accepting the responsibility he should as a 'public man', Priestley shows that many capitalists, individualists and employers in society were hypocrites.
Evenmore, by contrasting the different lives of Sheila and Eva, Priestley shows how class-ridden society is as well as how class and wealth causes it to act hypocritically. Though Sheila and Eva are both in their twenties and 'pretty', the cardinal reason behind their difference is class. As a working class, poor woman, Eva has to work in 'cheap labour' and go 'onto the streets' - a euphemism for prostitution. Mr Birling shows much disregard for the death of Eva as he impatiently states 'I don't understand why you should come here'. Nonetheless, when the Inspector informs Sheila of the details of Eva's death, Mr Birling interrupts the Inspector 'angrily' exclaiming 'why the devil do you want to go upsetting the child like that?'. The massive difference between his attitudes for the two situations shows how he feels that bad things could happen to other classes and people but should not happen to his child. Explicitly, Priestley shows the hypocrisy of Mr Birling and of society. In the Edwardian Era, two-thirds of the country's wealth belonged to less than one percent of society in addition to there being a clear divide between the rich and the poor. Wealthier families such as the Birlings lived in 'large, substantial homes' and had a maid - Eva is a reminder of the Birling's wealth - whilst people in poverty represented by Eva Smith lived in rooms out back. Priestley may be trying to convey how the upper classes and the wealthy were blind to how horrible the lives of the working class and poor are consequently trying to convey how hypocritical and class-ridden society really was.
Please can somebody mark this
Original post by GASSSEDE
GRADE7
Can you give me some improvements?
this is a pretty good essay, i'd give it grade 6/7 but i'm just a gcse student, so my grading may be too harsh or something. your reason/explanation is really good, however the way you start your sentences sometimes gets a bit repetitive- you don't always need to use an adverb or a time connective
and you may just wanna read over your essay to ensure the setences flow well and make sure you have a sophisticated tone throughout.
this would be better worded as "Priestley explicitly shows the hypocrisy of Mr Birling and of society."
maybe not say society though, it's a bit of a broad term- middle class might be better.
the use of 'they' also shows a disregard for the workers, meaning he's also distancing himself from them- you mentioned something about being blind to working class people's lives in the past paragraph so you could also link it to that.
and you may just wanna read over your essay to ensure the setences flow well and make sure you have a sophisticated tone throughout.Original post by Pravi29
Explicitly, Priestley shows the hypocrisy of Mr Birling and of society.
this would be better worded as "Priestley explicitly shows the hypocrisy of Mr Birling and of society."
maybe not say society though, it's a bit of a broad term- middle class might be better.
Original post by Pravi29
By saying 'they keep changing' with the use of a third person pronoun, he shows that to him the workers have no identity as well as the fact Mr Birling does not really care for them.
the use of 'they' also shows a disregard for the workers, meaning he's also distancing himself from them- you mentioned something about being blind to working class people's lives in the past paragraph so you could also link it to that.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Pravi29
Hi! I'm in Year 10 and I am trying to improve in my English Literature. Can somebody please grade my essay on a 9-1 scale and give it marks out of 30.
Thank you!
How successfully has Priestley portrayed a class-ridden and hypocritical society?
Throughout Inspector calls, Priestley portrays a class ridden and hypocritical society very successfully. In Act 2, Mrs Birling says 'girls of that sort would never refuse money'; this shows she feels morally superior because she is upper class. In addition, the adjective 'that' shows her disgust towards the working class. Similarly, when Sheila complains how 'last summer ... [Gerald] never came near [her]', Mrs Birling replies that she will have to get used to it. Through this, Mrs Birling conveys her sexist attitude that men are superior and her lack of belief in women's right even though she is the chair of a women's charity. In fact, the woman's charity is only a veneer for status and respectability because Mrs Birling is able to use her influence as a wealthy, upper-class woman to refuse help for Eva even though the Brumley Women's Charity Organisation should help women in trouble. Moreover, upon the revelation of Eric's drinking problem, she says 'you don't get drunk' as an attempt to preserve her dignity even though Sheila says 'Of course he does, I told you'(Act 3). Through her actions, she is a hypocrite. The charity is a facade for her true nature telling the Inspector with dignity '[the charity] has done a great deal of useful work with dignity'.
Furthermore, Mr Birling views Eva to just be one of 'several hundred women'. By saying 'they keep changing' with the use of a third person pronoun, he shows that to him the workers have no identity as well as the fact Mr Birling does not really care for them. Therefore, by victimising a working-class woman in the play, Priestley may be trying to suggest how vulnerable the working class during the Edwardian Era were in addition to how it was shockingly socially acceptable. Through language and the actions of the Birling family, Priestley portrays the hypocrisy of the class-ridden Edwardian Era.
Though, as an employer, Mr Birling is responsible for his worker, as a parsimonious capitalist, he 'can't accept any responsibility' for her death even though it triggered the chain of events - the metaphor for how everybody in society is responsible for each other - that led to her death. He is self-deluded and blind to how terrible society really was as if he is 'looking through rose tinted glass'. Upon his knowing of Eric impregnating Eva, he becomes furious. However, this is not because he pities Eva but because he fears 'a public scandal' and the loss of his knighthood. All that matters to him is is the retention of a high status despite what it might do to others. Again, through Mr Birling not fulfiling the duties he should as an employer and accepting the responsibility he should as a 'public man', Priestley shows that many capitalists, individualists and employers in society were hypocrites.
Evenmore, by contrasting the different lives of Sheila and Eva, Priestley shows how class-ridden society is as well as how class and wealth causes it to act hypocritically. Though Sheila and Eva are both in their twenties and 'pretty', the cardinal reason behind their difference is class. As a working class, poor woman, Eva has to work in 'cheap labour' and go 'onto the streets' - a euphemism for prostitution. Mr Birling shows much disregard for the death of Eva as he impatiently states 'I don't understand why you should come here'. Nonetheless, when the Inspector informs Sheila of the details of Eva's death, Mr Birling interrupts the Inspector 'angrily' exclaiming 'why the devil do you want to go upsetting the child like that?'. The massive difference between his attitudes for the two situations shows how he feels that bad things could happen to other classes and people but should not happen to his child. Explicitly, Priestley shows the hypocrisy of Mr Birling and of society. In the Edwardian Era, two-thirds of the country's wealth belonged to less than one percent of society in addition to there being a clear divide between the rich and the poor. Wealthier families such as the Birlings lived in 'large, substantial homes' and had a maid - Eva is a reminder of the Birling's wealth - whilst people in poverty represented by Eva Smith lived in rooms out back. Priestley may be trying to convey how the upper classes and the wealthy were blind to how horrible the lives of the working class and poor are consequently trying to convey how hypocritical and class-ridden society really was.
Thank you!
How successfully has Priestley portrayed a class-ridden and hypocritical society?
Throughout Inspector calls, Priestley portrays a class ridden and hypocritical society very successfully. In Act 2, Mrs Birling says 'girls of that sort would never refuse money'; this shows she feels morally superior because she is upper class. In addition, the adjective 'that' shows her disgust towards the working class. Similarly, when Sheila complains how 'last summer ... [Gerald] never came near [her]', Mrs Birling replies that she will have to get used to it. Through this, Mrs Birling conveys her sexist attitude that men are superior and her lack of belief in women's right even though she is the chair of a women's charity. In fact, the woman's charity is only a veneer for status and respectability because Mrs Birling is able to use her influence as a wealthy, upper-class woman to refuse help for Eva even though the Brumley Women's Charity Organisation should help women in trouble. Moreover, upon the revelation of Eric's drinking problem, she says 'you don't get drunk' as an attempt to preserve her dignity even though Sheila says 'Of course he does, I told you'(Act 3). Through her actions, she is a hypocrite. The charity is a facade for her true nature telling the Inspector with dignity '[the charity] has done a great deal of useful work with dignity'.
Furthermore, Mr Birling views Eva to just be one of 'several hundred women'. By saying 'they keep changing' with the use of a third person pronoun, he shows that to him the workers have no identity as well as the fact Mr Birling does not really care for them. Therefore, by victimising a working-class woman in the play, Priestley may be trying to suggest how vulnerable the working class during the Edwardian Era were in addition to how it was shockingly socially acceptable. Through language and the actions of the Birling family, Priestley portrays the hypocrisy of the class-ridden Edwardian Era.
Though, as an employer, Mr Birling is responsible for his worker, as a parsimonious capitalist, he 'can't accept any responsibility' for her death even though it triggered the chain of events - the metaphor for how everybody in society is responsible for each other - that led to her death. He is self-deluded and blind to how terrible society really was as if he is 'looking through rose tinted glass'. Upon his knowing of Eric impregnating Eva, he becomes furious. However, this is not because he pities Eva but because he fears 'a public scandal' and the loss of his knighthood. All that matters to him is is the retention of a high status despite what it might do to others. Again, through Mr Birling not fulfiling the duties he should as an employer and accepting the responsibility he should as a 'public man', Priestley shows that many capitalists, individualists and employers in society were hypocrites.
Evenmore, by contrasting the different lives of Sheila and Eva, Priestley shows how class-ridden society is as well as how class and wealth causes it to act hypocritically. Though Sheila and Eva are both in their twenties and 'pretty', the cardinal reason behind their difference is class. As a working class, poor woman, Eva has to work in 'cheap labour' and go 'onto the streets' - a euphemism for prostitution. Mr Birling shows much disregard for the death of Eva as he impatiently states 'I don't understand why you should come here'. Nonetheless, when the Inspector informs Sheila of the details of Eva's death, Mr Birling interrupts the Inspector 'angrily' exclaiming 'why the devil do you want to go upsetting the child like that?'. The massive difference between his attitudes for the two situations shows how he feels that bad things could happen to other classes and people but should not happen to his child. Explicitly, Priestley shows the hypocrisy of Mr Birling and of society. In the Edwardian Era, two-thirds of the country's wealth belonged to less than one percent of society in addition to there being a clear divide between the rich and the poor. Wealthier families such as the Birlings lived in 'large, substantial homes' and had a maid - Eva is a reminder of the Birling's wealth - whilst people in poverty represented by Eva Smith lived in rooms out back. Priestley may be trying to convey how the upper classes and the wealthy were blind to how horrible the lives of the working class and poor are consequently trying to convey how hypocritical and class-ridden society really was.
I did Inspector Calls and I would give your essay either a 7 or 8. I got an 8 in Literature, and this essay is along the lines of stuff that I would have written. I haven't come across this question particularly, but your context seems really strong and your points are well-developed. Vary how you start sentences- as a previous poster said.
Original post by Pravi29
Hi! I'm in Year 10 and I am trying to improve in my English Literature. Can somebody please grade my essay on a 9-1 scale and give it marks out of 30.
Thank you!
How successfully has Priestley portrayed a class-ridden and hypocritical society?
Throughout Inspector calls, Priestley portrays a class ridden and hypocritical society very successfully. In Act 2, Mrs Birling says 'girls of that sort would never refuse money'; this shows she feels morally superior because she is upper class. In addition, the adjective 'that' shows her disgust towards the working class. Similarly, when Sheila complains how 'last summer ... [Gerald] never came near [her]', Mrs Birling replies that she will have to get used to it. Through this, Mrs Birling conveys her sexist attitude that men are superior and her lack of belief in women's right even though she is the chair of a women's charity. In fact, the woman's charity is only a veneer for status and respectability because Mrs Birling is able to use her influence as a wealthy, upper-class woman to refuse help for Eva even though the Brumley Women's Charity Organisation should help women in trouble. Moreover, upon the revelation of Eric's drinking problem, she says 'you don't get drunk' as an attempt to preserve her dignity even though Sheila says 'Of course he does, I told you'(Act 3). Through her actions, she is a hypocrite. The charity is a facade for her true nature telling the Inspector with dignity '[the charity] has done a great deal of useful work with dignity'.
Furthermore, Mr Birling views Eva to just be one of 'several hundred women'. By saying 'they keep changing' with the use of a third person pronoun, he shows that to him the workers have no identity as well as the fact Mr Birling does not really care for them. Therefore, by victimising a working-class woman in the play, Priestley may be trying to suggest how vulnerable the working class during the Edwardian Era were in addition to how it was shockingly socially acceptable. Through language and the actions of the Birling family, Priestley portrays the hypocrisy of the class-ridden Edwardian Era.
Though, as an employer, Mr Birling is responsible for his worker, as a parsimonious capitalist, he 'can't accept any responsibility' for her death even though it triggered the chain of events - the metaphor for how everybody in society is responsible for each other - that led to her death. He is self-deluded and blind to how terrible society really was as if he is 'looking through rose tinted glass'. Upon his knowing of Eric impregnating Eva, he becomes furious. However, this is not because he pities Eva but because he fears 'a public scandal' and the loss of his knighthood. All that matters to him is is the retention of a high status despite what it might do to others. Again, through Mr Birling not fulfiling the duties he should as an employer and accepting the responsibility he should as a 'public man', Priestley shows that many capitalists, individualists and employers in society were hypocrites.
Evenmore, by contrasting the different lives of Sheila and Eva, Priestley shows how class-ridden society is as well as how class and wealth causes it to act hypocritically. Though Sheila and Eva are both in their twenties and 'pretty', the cardinal reason behind their difference is class. As a working class, poor woman, Eva has to work in 'cheap labour' and go 'onto the streets' - a euphemism for prostitution. Mr Birling shows much disregard for the death of Eva as he impatiently states 'I don't understand why you should come here'. Nonetheless, when the Inspector informs Sheila of the details of Eva's death, Mr Birling interrupts the Inspector 'angrily' exclaiming 'why the devil do you want to go upsetting the child like that?'. The massive difference between his attitudes for the two situations shows how he feels that bad things could happen to other classes and people but should not happen to his child. Explicitly, Priestley shows the hypocrisy of Mr Birling and of society. In the Edwardian Era, two-thirds of the country's wealth belonged to less than one percent of society in addition to there being a clear divide between the rich and the poor. Wealthier families such as the Birlings lived in 'large, substantial homes' and had a maid - Eva is a reminder of the Birling's wealth - whilst people in poverty represented by Eva Smith lived in rooms out back. Priestley may be trying to convey how the upper classes and the wealthy were blind to how horrible the lives of the working class and poor are consequently trying to convey how hypocritical and class-ridden society really was.
Thank you!
How successfully has Priestley portrayed a class-ridden and hypocritical society?
Throughout Inspector calls, Priestley portrays a class ridden and hypocritical society very successfully. In Act 2, Mrs Birling says 'girls of that sort would never refuse money'; this shows she feels morally superior because she is upper class. In addition, the adjective 'that' shows her disgust towards the working class. Similarly, when Sheila complains how 'last summer ... [Gerald] never came near [her]', Mrs Birling replies that she will have to get used to it. Through this, Mrs Birling conveys her sexist attitude that men are superior and her lack of belief in women's right even though she is the chair of a women's charity. In fact, the woman's charity is only a veneer for status and respectability because Mrs Birling is able to use her influence as a wealthy, upper-class woman to refuse help for Eva even though the Brumley Women's Charity Organisation should help women in trouble. Moreover, upon the revelation of Eric's drinking problem, she says 'you don't get drunk' as an attempt to preserve her dignity even though Sheila says 'Of course he does, I told you'(Act 3). Through her actions, she is a hypocrite. The charity is a facade for her true nature telling the Inspector with dignity '[the charity] has done a great deal of useful work with dignity'.
Furthermore, Mr Birling views Eva to just be one of 'several hundred women'. By saying 'they keep changing' with the use of a third person pronoun, he shows that to him the workers have no identity as well as the fact Mr Birling does not really care for them. Therefore, by victimising a working-class woman in the play, Priestley may be trying to suggest how vulnerable the working class during the Edwardian Era were in addition to how it was shockingly socially acceptable. Through language and the actions of the Birling family, Priestley portrays the hypocrisy of the class-ridden Edwardian Era.
Though, as an employer, Mr Birling is responsible for his worker, as a parsimonious capitalist, he 'can't accept any responsibility' for her death even though it triggered the chain of events - the metaphor for how everybody in society is responsible for each other - that led to her death. He is self-deluded and blind to how terrible society really was as if he is 'looking through rose tinted glass'. Upon his knowing of Eric impregnating Eva, he becomes furious. However, this is not because he pities Eva but because he fears 'a public scandal' and the loss of his knighthood. All that matters to him is is the retention of a high status despite what it might do to others. Again, through Mr Birling not fulfiling the duties he should as an employer and accepting the responsibility he should as a 'public man', Priestley shows that many capitalists, individualists and employers in society were hypocrites.
Evenmore, by contrasting the different lives of Sheila and Eva, Priestley shows how class-ridden society is as well as how class and wealth causes it to act hypocritically. Though Sheila and Eva are both in their twenties and 'pretty', the cardinal reason behind their difference is class. As a working class, poor woman, Eva has to work in 'cheap labour' and go 'onto the streets' - a euphemism for prostitution. Mr Birling shows much disregard for the death of Eva as he impatiently states 'I don't understand why you should come here'. Nonetheless, when the Inspector informs Sheila of the details of Eva's death, Mr Birling interrupts the Inspector 'angrily' exclaiming 'why the devil do you want to go upsetting the child like that?'. The massive difference between his attitudes for the two situations shows how he feels that bad things could happen to other classes and people but should not happen to his child. Explicitly, Priestley shows the hypocrisy of Mr Birling and of society. In the Edwardian Era, two-thirds of the country's wealth belonged to less than one percent of society in addition to there being a clear divide between the rich and the poor. Wealthier families such as the Birlings lived in 'large, substantial homes' and had a maid - Eva is a reminder of the Birling's wealth - whilst people in poverty represented by Eva Smith lived in rooms out back. Priestley may be trying to convey how the upper classes and the wealthy were blind to how horrible the lives of the working class and poor are consequently trying to convey how hypocritical and class-ridden society really was.
Just thought of another improvement.
Mention when the book was written and set. Priestley himself was someone who was concerned about social inequality and politics. I think he actually co-founded the socialist Commonwealth Party.
Thanks!
Original post by entertainmyfaith
this is a pretty good essay, i'd give it grade 6/7 but i'm just a gcse student, so my grading may be too harsh or something. your reason/explanation is really good, however the way you start your sentences sometimes gets a bit repetitive- you don't always need to use an adverb or a time connective and you may just wanna read over your essay to ensure the setences flow well and make sure you have a sophisticated tone throughout.
this would be better worded as "Priestley explicitly shows the hypocrisy of Mr Birling and of society."
maybe not say society though, it's a bit of a broad term- middle class might be better.
the use of 'they' also shows a disregard for the workers, meaning he's also distancing himself from them- you mentioned something about being blind to working class people's lives in the past paragraph so you could also link it to that.
and you may just wanna read over your essay to ensure the setences flow well and make sure you have a sophisticated tone throughout.this would be better worded as "Priestley explicitly shows the hypocrisy of Mr Birling and of society."
maybe not say society though, it's a bit of a broad term- middle class might be better.
the use of 'they' also shows a disregard for the workers, meaning he's also distancing himself from them- you mentioned something about being blind to working class people's lives in the past paragraph so you could also link it to that.
My criticism of your “An Inspector Calls” essay
1. Why have you not utilised a formal essay structure such as SQAE - there are many others suggested on this forum. In addition there is no introduction to this essay. E.g. In the play “An Inspector Call” by J.B. Priestley, Priestlry does indeed portray a class-ridden and hypocritical society. The three areas in the play that I will analyse are…….” Thus you are informing the marker what your position is regarding the question and what areas you intend to examine.
2 “Throughout Inspector calls..” The play is called “An Inspector Call.” It does not bode well that in the first three words you have misspelt the title.
3. A great deal of what you have to say is done through assertion. E.g. “Through this, Mrs Birling conveys her sexist attitude that men are superior and her lack of belief in women's right even though she is the chair of a women's charity.” A reason point, but where is the proof to support this point. Assertion is not the same as criticism.
4. “By saying 'they keep changing' with the use of a third person pronoun, he shows that to him the workers have no identity as well as the fact Mr Birling does not really care for them.” Fair point but this is just assertion. You have not analysed this point and highlighted where the hypocrisy is in Birling’s position is.
5. “Though, as an employer, Mr Birling is responsible for his worker, as a parsimonious capitalist,” O.k. that is an impressive use of language. However what you are saying is that Birling is stingy with spending on his firm and the workers. However having described Birling in this fashion you have given no evidence that he is indeed a “parsimonious capitalist.”
6. “As a working class, poor woman, Eva has to work in 'cheap labour' and go 'onto the streets' - a euphemism for prostitution.” Yes Eva works in “cheap labour” like in Birling;s factory but she also acquires a well paid job in that clothing shop. I have forgotten the name. Had Sheila not got her fired it is possible she could have done well for herself. She was well thought of. Where is the proof she became a “prostitute”?
7. “Eva is a reminder of the Birling's wealth - whilst people in poverty represented by Eva Smith lived in rooms out back.” You have not explained how Eva is a reminder of “Birling’s wealth.” In Addition what do you mean by “rooms out back”?
My main criticism of this essay is as follows:-
You do not employ a formal structure. There is no introduction, there is no conclusion and there is little formal analysis and no evaluation.
Essentially the content of this essay is assertion. Very little evidence from the text is used to back up what you want to say.
I am not saying that the points you want to make are wrong, but I am saying you have provided no evidence from the text to back up what you want to say.
I would like to give you a higher grade but I am reluctant to go above a 4.
I note others have awarded you a higher mark and maybe I am being too strict - but that is how I read this essay.
1. Why have you not utilised a formal essay structure such as SQAE - there are many others suggested on this forum. In addition there is no introduction to this essay. E.g. In the play “An Inspector Call” by J.B. Priestley, Priestlry does indeed portray a class-ridden and hypocritical society. The three areas in the play that I will analyse are…….” Thus you are informing the marker what your position is regarding the question and what areas you intend to examine.
2 “Throughout Inspector calls..” The play is called “An Inspector Call.” It does not bode well that in the first three words you have misspelt the title.
3. A great deal of what you have to say is done through assertion. E.g. “Through this, Mrs Birling conveys her sexist attitude that men are superior and her lack of belief in women's right even though she is the chair of a women's charity.” A reason point, but where is the proof to support this point. Assertion is not the same as criticism.
4. “By saying 'they keep changing' with the use of a third person pronoun, he shows that to him the workers have no identity as well as the fact Mr Birling does not really care for them.” Fair point but this is just assertion. You have not analysed this point and highlighted where the hypocrisy is in Birling’s position is.
5. “Though, as an employer, Mr Birling is responsible for his worker, as a parsimonious capitalist,” O.k. that is an impressive use of language. However what you are saying is that Birling is stingy with spending on his firm and the workers. However having described Birling in this fashion you have given no evidence that he is indeed a “parsimonious capitalist.”
6. “As a working class, poor woman, Eva has to work in 'cheap labour' and go 'onto the streets' - a euphemism for prostitution.” Yes Eva works in “cheap labour” like in Birling;s factory but she also acquires a well paid job in that clothing shop. I have forgotten the name. Had Sheila not got her fired it is possible she could have done well for herself. She was well thought of. Where is the proof she became a “prostitute”?
7. “Eva is a reminder of the Birling's wealth - whilst people in poverty represented by Eva Smith lived in rooms out back.” You have not explained how Eva is a reminder of “Birling’s wealth.” In Addition what do you mean by “rooms out back”?
My main criticism of this essay is as follows:-
You do not employ a formal structure. There is no introduction, there is no conclusion and there is little formal analysis and no evaluation.
Essentially the content of this essay is assertion. Very little evidence from the text is used to back up what you want to say.
I am not saying that the points you want to make are wrong, but I am saying you have provided no evidence from the text to back up what you want to say.
I would like to give you a higher grade but I am reluctant to go above a 4.
I note others have awarded you a higher mark and maybe I am being too strict - but that is how I read this essay.
grade 9
I'd say your essay is a high 7, bordering on grade 8. Those who have suggested it is a grade 4 are being too harsh with their marking - examiners are perfectly aware that time is limited during an exam and will try to overlook any mistakes that you make due to this as no one can be expected to produce a flawless essay in twenty minutes. They instead award marks for successful ideas you have made and for the quality of your analysis. The fact that you have included relevant literary terminology immediately places you in the grade 7/8 band.
Main areas for improvement would be to include context and link this into Priestley's message and purpose. Why did he construct his characters the way he did? You've mentioned this but delve into it deeper. What does he want his audience to learn from the play? Also, choose individual quotes and analyse these in depth to really prove to the examiner that you understand precise effects of language as this is what the most marks are gained for.
At the end of your essay, pick a relevant quote and link it to society as it is today. What has changed between Priestley's time and now? Perhaps you could talk about how the poverty rates have increased in England (reading through newspaper articles can give you information for this) and how this suggests Priestley's socialist message of social responsibility has not been fully learned. This way of concluding ensures that your essay structure remains original and impressive, and allows you to make a final powerful point.
Keep practising to further develop your writing style as this is what is important for those aiming for grades 8 and 9 - alter your sentence openings so that it refrains from sounding too methodical. Overall, it's a very impressive essay
Main areas for improvement would be to include context and link this into Priestley's message and purpose. Why did he construct his characters the way he did? You've mentioned this but delve into it deeper. What does he want his audience to learn from the play? Also, choose individual quotes and analyse these in depth to really prove to the examiner that you understand precise effects of language as this is what the most marks are gained for.
At the end of your essay, pick a relevant quote and link it to society as it is today. What has changed between Priestley's time and now? Perhaps you could talk about how the poverty rates have increased in England (reading through newspaper articles can give you information for this) and how this suggests Priestley's socialist message of social responsibility has not been fully learned. This way of concluding ensures that your essay structure remains original and impressive, and allows you to make a final powerful point.
Keep practising to further develop your writing style as this is what is important for those aiming for grades 8 and 9 - alter your sentence openings so that it refrains from sounding too methodical. Overall, it's a very impressive essay
Original post by emileejordanxxo
I'd say your essay is a high 7, bordering on grade 8. Those who have suggested it is a grade 4 are being too harsh with their marking - examiners are perfectly aware that time is limited during an exam and will try to overlook any mistakes that you make due to this as no one can be expected to produce a flawless essay in twenty minutes. They instead award marks for successful ideas you have made and for the quality of your analysis. The fact that you have included relevant literary terminology immediately places you in the grade 7/8 band.
Main areas for improvement would be to include context and link this into Priestley's message and purpose. Why did he construct his characters the way he did? You've mentioned this but delve into it deeper. What does he want his audience to learn from the play? Also, choose individual quotes and analyse these in depth to really prove to the examiner that you understand precise effects of language as this is what the most marks are gained for.
At the end of your essay, pick a relevant quote and link it to society as it is today. What has changed between Priestley's time and now? Perhaps you could talk about how the poverty rates have increased in England (reading through newspaper articles can give you information for this) and how this suggests Priestley's socialist message of social responsibility has not been fully learned. This way of concluding ensures that your essay structure remains original and impressive, and allows you to make a final powerful point.
Keep practising to further develop your writing style as this is what is important for those aiming for grades 8 and 9 - alter your sentence openings so that it refrains from sounding too methodical. Overall, it's a very impressive essay
Main areas for improvement would be to include context and link this into Priestley's message and purpose. Why did he construct his characters the way he did? You've mentioned this but delve into it deeper. What does he want his audience to learn from the play? Also, choose individual quotes and analyse these in depth to really prove to the examiner that you understand precise effects of language as this is what the most marks are gained for.
At the end of your essay, pick a relevant quote and link it to society as it is today. What has changed between Priestley's time and now? Perhaps you could talk about how the poverty rates have increased in England (reading through newspaper articles can give you information for this) and how this suggests Priestley's socialist message of social responsibility has not been fully learned. This way of concluding ensures that your essay structure remains original and impressive, and allows you to make a final powerful point.
Keep practising to further develop your writing style as this is what is important for those aiming for grades 8 and 9 - alter your sentence openings so that it refrains from sounding too methodical. Overall, it's a very impressive essay
Thanks!
Original post by jamesg2
Have I misunderstood the grading system being employed?
As I understand it a Grade 9 is an A* on the new system.
Would you please explain why you feel that essay deserves such a grade.
As I understand it a Grade 9 is an A* on the new system.
Would you please explain why you feel that essay deserves such a grade.
1. yes i agree with the fact the introduction is feeble, it could be improved with a little work.
2. there is no need for a conclusion, in fact a conclusion makes your essay worse as to the examiner it shows you have now run out of ideas.
3. yes, i agree very little evidence is used so AO2 would be graded down miserably unfortunately.
4. this would get a grade 7 no lower and no higher because there is virtually no A02 but there is extremely strong AO3 and AO1 is fairly good.
5. i really don't think you have any knowledge in the grading system of 9-1 because a 4 is ridiculous. I have graded many works and THIS IS NOT A GRADE FOUR
Original post by numoru1
1. yes i agree with the fact the introduction is feeble, it could be improved with a little work.
2. there is no need for a conclusion, in fact a conclusion makes your essay worse as to the examiner it shows you have now run out of ideas.
3. yes, i agree very little evidence is used so AO2 would be graded down miserably unfortunately.
4. this would get a grade 7 no lower and no higher because there is virtually no A02 but there is extremely strong AO3 and AO1 is fairly good.
5. i really don't think you have any knowledge in the grading system of 9-1 because a 4 is ridiculous. I have graded many works and THIS IS NOT A GRADE FOUR
2. there is no need for a conclusion, in fact a conclusion makes your essay worse as to the examiner it shows you have now run out of ideas.
3. yes, i agree very little evidence is used so AO2 would be graded down miserably unfortunately.
4. this would get a grade 7 no lower and no higher because there is virtually no A02 but there is extremely strong AO3 and AO1 is fairly good.
5. i really don't think you have any knowledge in the grading system of 9-1 because a 4 is ridiculous. I have graded many works and THIS IS NOT A GRADE FOUR
Thank you!
Original post by Zamanu.15
What question did u answer what was the question
How does Priestley present hypocritical society?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Critical essay an inspector calls
- I struggle writing essays for english
- Grade 9 answers (English Lit)
- gcse aqa english lit
- How does Priestley present ideas about responsibility in 'An Insector Calls'? (30 Mar
- Flashcards needed
- Nat 5 English exam
- An Inspector Calls
- Could someone please give feedback and/or a mark for my essay on AIC?
- Can someone please give me feedback on this essay?
- Please can someone mark my essay about Sheila in Inspector Calls:)
- How to actually plan an essay
- Inspector calls predictions?/ tips 2023
- Full marks from English lit essay?
- How does Priestley use the character of the Inspector to suggest ways that society co
- Can someone please mark my AIC essay (my teacher is such an unreliable marker)
- Please please help- english lit
- How do you like to revise for english lit and lang?
- essay
- An Inspector Calls Essay
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 hours ago
A-level English Literature Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 3 hours ago
AQA A-Level English Literature B Paper 2 (7716/2) - 8th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A-level English Language Paper 1 (7702/1) - 25th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 days ago
AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (8702/1) - 13th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 6 days ago
Edexcel GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (1ET0 01) - 17th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level English Literature Paper 2 (H472/02) - 8th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA GCSE English Language Paper 1 (8700/1) - 7th November 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
Please mark my gcse english language paper 2 question 5!!!Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A-level English Language Paper 2 (7702/2) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 2 hours ago
A-level English Literature Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 3 hours ago
AQA A-Level English Literature B Paper 2 (7716/2) - 8th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A-level English Language Paper 1 (7702/1) - 25th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 days ago
AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (8702/1) - 13th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 6 days ago
Edexcel GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (1ET0 01) - 17th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level English Literature Paper 2 (H472/02) - 8th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA GCSE English Language Paper 1 (8700/1) - 7th November 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
Please mark my gcse english language paper 2 question 5!!!Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A-level English Language Paper 2 (7702/2) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
