Can anyone give me a rough idea of a grade? [AQA English Literature, Woman in Black)Watch
I'd say a high A, to improve you'd probably just need to go into a little more depth which sounds stupid but a deeper analysis would probably bump you into the next boundary Hope that helps x
The Character of Gerald has a mind-set based on social status; he regards people of higher class to be more important to him and more human like than the lowerclass. When the Inspector is questioning Gerald about his relationship with Eva Smith, he tells Sheila to go away as ‘It’s bound to be unpleasant and disturbing’; this illustrates how Gerald sees Sheila in a different light to Eva. Eva Smith was of a poor background so he didn’t mind ruining her life,this presents his hypocrisy as compared to how he is with Sheila, who is from a rather rich background, he didn’t upset Sheila as he knows she is precious because of her family business, he could not afford to lose a business deal.Priestley does this to show the audience that the ruling class is immoral withno value of the lower class. he saw Eva in the bar and she was lonely and seemed as though she had nothing so he took advantage of her gender and her vulnerability to make her his ‘mistress’, this language shows how the upper class doesn’t regard the women of the lower class to be human like, instead they are shown to be animalistic and can be easily manipulated. He kept Eva in thespare house that he had gained from his friend for free and kept her there to‘keep her away from all the tension she was facing’, he saw great advantage inher being there because he knew he was getting sex for free and he didn’t even have to pay for her being there, then later broke his heart which presents how much value he gave her. He displays his views about the idea of socialism and why socialism is better than capitalism through angering the audience by using Gerald’s hypocrisy towards the different kinds of women. His actions wereimmoral and Priestley uses this to show the reader that the upper class had the authority to do anything they wished without getting caught.
On the other hand, Priestley shows the nicer, more generous side of Gerald through his relationship with Eva. In the beginning of the play when he first met her, theInspector makes Gerald confess what he had done to Eva and in return Gerald replied ‘I didn’t like the idea of her going back to the Palace bar. I didn’task for anything in return’, the use of repetition emphasises the point that he is putting across towards the Inspector, Priestley does this to show the audience how Gerald can be nice too; it is not only the bad side of him that is presented. However, the fact that Gerald had a deep sense of remorse as he hears about her death reflects how strongly he felt for her, this could also bethought provoking for the reader as the reader comes to think why Gerald then chose to marry Sheila if he genuinely loved Eva, Priestley is being a humanist philosopher and is presenting the idea of socialism to the reader once again. This could be included by Priestley because he wanted to show his audience that there are some humane people that are considerate towards others, and by the inspector he portrays his socialist views and makes the readers have hope for the people to change.
Moreover,the character of Gerald is shown to be resistant to change as he wants to prove that the girl is not real, he agrees with Mr Birling and says at the end of the play ‘Even then, that may have been all nonsense’, he doesn’t want to admit to himself that they contributed to the death of Eva / Daisy. He dismisses the thought of her dying and the fact that he has helped led a girl to commit suicide by diverting the attention from the girl onto his and Sheila’s engagement by saying ‘what about the ring’, this shows how he is selfish and only cares about himself and his own purposes, Priestley does this to present the ideology of the high class and what they feel about the lower class and this is the main reason why there is no change happening in society, Gerald was celebrating the fact that the inspector was ‘non-existent’ rather than learning from their mistakes, which is what Sheila and Eric learned to do. Priestley uses the character of Gerald to present to the reader that there should be hope for change one day if everyone comes learns from their mistakes, maybe that way there would be no mistakes caused by people and if people were more socialistin 1912, there would not have been a second world war.
In addition to this, Gerald is given a very high position by Mr Birling and his family and Mr Birling disregards the fact that Gerald had an affair and broke his daughter’s heart because Gerald is of a more wealthy background than the Birling’s are, and as Sheila asks him what he did in the Summer, Mrs Birling told Sheila that she has to put up with it and that she’ll ‘have to get used to it, just as Mrs B did’, Mrs Birling understands the lengths that have to begone through to achieve social status because she must have been put through it too with Mr Birling, and Mrs B knows that Gerald may have been with another woman but doesn’t mention it as they needed this tie to be made between Sheila and Gerald, in order to raise their social status. The acts of Gerald are diminished compared to Eric as Eric’s actions were made public, and he has brought the family name to shame as the people will find out and Mr and Mrs B were in danger of being made fun of in public. Priestley uses language such as ‘Well I’m ashamed of you’, used by,Mrs B to show the audience that the only people that the older generation are ashamed of are the people that are showing hope of changing, this makes the reader hate Mrs B and the whole of the older generation that are showing no signs of change, providing the audience with thoughts rushing through their minds about why they should actually change to avoid making mistakes.
To conclude,the character of Gerald is used as a device by Priestley to show the audience that the higher class is very stubborn, resistant to change and holds very little hope of becoming socialist. He uses the Inspector to portray his message about socialism by being the voice of the Inspector, Priestley uses deliberate language to portray how he is a firm Christian and how he believes that everyone should be one body and help each other and uses the character of Gerald and Mr Birling as people in high social ranks to present the views of the higher class.
Hello, Could you please mark my work too
Posted from TSR Mobile
signs of some good analysis however i would say that this piece of work was worth an A grade. do go into slightly more in depth analysis. however, it seems really good so far maybe offer some more alternative interpretations of certain words. and maybe structure the opening sentence of each paragraph slightly better. message me if you need any more help
Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm hoping that an A will be enough as I got full UMS in the coursework and am usually better at poetry... Just hoping tomorrow isn't an absolute nightmare!
In this passage, how does Steinbeck present the death of Curley’s wife? Refer closely to the passage in your answer.
In the passage, Steinbeck presents Curley’s wife as she “struggled violently under his hands”, which shows the lack of power that she holds in the situation. The use of the verb “struggled” holds connotations of frantic desperation, and reveals that she is helpless under the strength of Lennie’s “hands”. This idea of being unable to break free from Lennie’s hold is shown through the violent verbs “writhed” and “battered”, which elicits sympathy from the reader to Curley’s wife’s fate. Steinbeck’s description of Curley’s wife’s eyes as “wild with terror” shows the reader the fear she feels in the last moments of her life, and the word “wild” highlights the intensity of her feelings. This links back to the idea that even as she “continued to struggle”, there is no chance of survival for her as she’s fated to die, and the reader feels pity at her hopeless actions.
This idea of Lennie having total control over her is echoed later in the passage as he “shook her”, and consequently, “her body flopped like a fish.” The fricative of the repeated f of “flopped” and “fish” causes the mouth to form a baring threatening action, which may relate to the animalistic imagery used to describe Curley’s wife. The verb “flopped” is quite a desperate gesture, and links to earlier in the novella when her husband also “flopped like a fish” at the mercy of Lennie’s hold, suggesting the one thing they have in common is their vulnerability to Lennie. Alternatively, Steinbeck may be suggesting that she is like a fish on the line, making one last attempt to escape and survive before her neck is “broken”. This idea that Curley’s wife can do nothing against Lennie is perhaps Steinbeck portraying an overall message that women are powerless at the hands of men, and therefore considered inferior during 1930s America.
Steinbeck is presenting irony in Curley’s wife’s death as Lennie “carefully removed his hand from over her mouth”, but only after he had “broken her neck”. The adverb “carefully” shows the care he is taking to ensure she isn’t hurt, even though the reader is aware that she is already dead. When it finally dawns on him that he “done another bad thing”, Lennie “pawed up the hay until it partly covered her”. Her Steinbeck may be presenting the idea that just like the puppy he killed earlier, her death can simply be brushed away and forgotten by simply hiding the body. This introduces Steinbeck’s idea that people during the 1930s are disposable, and hold the same importance as animals.
http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects...H-QP-JUN15.PDF for the extract