Can you mark this essay? I got a level 7 on this one 25 marks out of 30

Watch
Dinda Academy
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 months ago
#1
During the opening stage directions of Priestley’s didactic morality play, Mr Birling immediately portrays himself as self-important and an imperious character. As being described as “portentous” and “provincial in his speech” dispenses the reader with the impression of Birlings wealth and and status and were hard reached rather than inherited. However, Prestley describes his home as “a fairly large suburban house” and refers to Birling as a “prosperous manufacturer” - even though he owns all the wealth and is probably the richest man during the times he still admires himself rather than supporting others. His selfishness and acquisitiveness has made him look like a ‘hard-headed business man’ which then he uses to make predictions of what the future may hold or accomodate - his assertions about how a man should appear or look out for number 1 spot has made him an character who can’t seek redemption and who is confined within a given amount of space/time. It is in these stage directions that we are introduced to Birling as a capitalist success story, it could be argued that Priestley's use of negative adjectives could reflect his own personal negative opinion on men such as Birling.

During Act One, Birling repeatedly refers to himself as a ‘hard-headed business man’, a further reference to his own self-importance, arrogance and taste in his success. He constantly boasts about his success, Priestley uses dramatic irony to foreshadow Mr Birling own downfall considering he is symbolic of the downfall of capitalism and those who represent it. Birling who thus far appeared overly-confident and knowledgeable, states there will be “no chance of war”. As the play was written and performed in post-World War, the 1945 audience would have known this is incorrect: they realise that his confidence is misguided and that he is an illiterate. This is further cemented later into the play when Birling assures his guests that the Titanic is “unsinkable…. Absolutely unsinkable” - making references to how the TITANIC has enough power to withstand even the most harsh, cold-hearted characters like Birling who does not care about any situation he comes across and feels nothing that something second-class has occurred and has manifested throughout the other characters. Priestley’s use of repetition with the inviolable adjective “unsinkable” further solidifies the audience’s wariness of the character: by the time the play has been performed, the Titanic has sunk - linking back to making false references to where saying “unsinkable... Absolutely unsinkable” has been diminished by the fact his false references have come true. At this point of the play the audience would have considered that Birling was not just mislead, but potentially dangerous: his combination of both the elements inside him, ‘Ignorance’ and ‘Power’ have been somewhat threatening and intimidating. It is likely that Prestley would have presented Birling in this type of light to operate him as a symbol of capitalist ignorance.

As the Inspector divulges the nature of his visit and the audience learn about Eva Smith. As seen in the play Birling immediately becomes dismissive and defensive considering his huge responsibility regarding Eva Smith's wellbeing. The statement “if we were all responsible for everything that happened to everybody… it would be very awkward” shows the audience Birling’s complete lack of concern for those outside of his social circle, as well as his disregard featuring Eva Smith’s suicide. Despite Birling’s bragging on making his way to the next Honours list” the audience can see that “honour” is a concept Birling is incapable of understanding. Here, Priestley is reminding his audience that they; as a community. Should honour others with respect and generosity. To further prioritize the use of Birlings arrogance the childish adjective “awkward” connotes that Birling is almost a naive in his opinion. The audience could get an impression that the lack of communication from the lower class people may in fact have left him with little knowledge of suffering and humanity. With the loss and pain of war still fresh in the minds of society and by Priestley dehumanising his symbol for capitalism, the audience would have been much more likely to sway to the socialist views of the Inspector: Birling’s political opposite

Ultimately, Priestley’s representation of Birling has been continuously negative throughout the play. At first, Birling is seen as wealthy and ignorant of those in the lower classes, this later develops into a dismissive arrogance and selfishness. His refusal to accept any responsibility over the upsetting death of his own staff member, whom he seems to view as property rather than human. Cements the audience’s distrust and dislike of the character and cannot agree with the capitalist ideals that have made him excessively wealthy. Through this lack of morality, and the Inspector’s unwavering socialist beliefs and logic, Priestley wholly vilifies capitalism and those who represent it.
0
reply
Nk72
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 months ago
#2
(Original post by Dinda Academy)
During the opening stage directions of Priestley’s didactic morality play, Mr Birling immediately portrays himself as self-important and an imperious character. As being described as “portentous” and “provincial in his speech” dispenses the reader with the impression of Birlings wealth and and status and were hard reached rather than inherited. However, Prestley describes his home as “a fairly large suburban house” and refers to Birling as a “prosperous manufacturer” - even though he owns all the wealth and is probably the richest man during the times he still admires himself rather than supporting others. His selfishness and acquisitiveness has made him look like a ‘hard-headed business man’ which then he uses to make predictions of what the future may hold or accomodate - his assertions about how a man should appear or look out for number 1 spot has made him an character who can’t seek redemption and who is confined within a given amount of space/time. It is in these stage directions that we are introduced to Birling as a capitalist success story, it could be argued that Priestley's use of negative adjectives could reflect his own personal negative opinion on men such as Birling.

During Act One, Birling repeatedly refers to himself as a ‘hard-headed business man’, a further reference to his own self-importance, arrogance and taste in his success. He constantly boasts about his success, Priestley uses dramatic irony to foreshadow Mr Birling own downfall considering he is symbolic of the downfall of capitalism and those who represent it. Birling who thus far appeared overly-confident and knowledgeable, states there will be “no chance of war”. As the play was written and performed in post-World War, the 1945 audience would have known this is incorrect: they realise that his confidence is misguided and that he is an illiterate. This is further cemented later into the play when Birling assures his guests that the Titanic is “unsinkable…. Absolutely unsinkable” - making references to how the TITANIC has enough power to withstand even the most harsh, cold-hearted characters like Birling who does not care about any situation he comes across and feels nothing that something second-class has occurred and has manifested throughout the other characters. Priestley’s use of repetition with the inviolable adjective “unsinkable” further solidifies the audience’s wariness of the character: by the time the play has been performed, the Titanic has sunk - linking back to making false references to where saying “unsinkable... Absolutely unsinkable” has been diminished by the fact his false references have come true. At this point of the play the audience would have considered that Birling was not just mislead, but potentially dangerous: his combination of both the elements inside him, ‘Ignorance’ and ‘Power’ have been somewhat threatening and intimidating. It is likely that Prestley would have presented Birling in this type of light to operate him as a symbol of capitalist ignorance.

As the Inspector divulges the nature of his visit and the audience learn about Eva Smith. As seen in the play Birling immediately becomes dismissive and defensive considering his huge responsibility regarding Eva Smith's wellbeing. The statement “if we were all responsible for everything that happened to everybody… it would be very awkward” shows the audience Birling’s complete lack of concern for those outside of his social circle, as well as his disregard featuring Eva Smith’s suicide. Despite Birling’s bragging on making his way to the next Honours list” the audience can see that “honour” is a concept Birling is incapable of understanding. Here, Priestley is reminding his audience that they; as a community. Should honour others with respect and generosity. To further prioritize the use of Birlings arrogance the childish adjective “awkward” connotes that Birling is almost a naive in his opinion. The audience could get an impression that the lack of communication from the lower class people may in fact have left him with little knowledge of suffering and humanity. With the loss and pain of war still fresh in the minds of society and by Priestley dehumanising his symbol for capitalism, the audience would have been much more likely to sway to the socialist views of the Inspector: Birling’s political opposite

Ultimately, Priestley’s representation of Birling has been continuously negative throughout the play. At first, Birling is seen as wealthy and ignorant of those in the lower classes, this later develops into a dismissive arrogance and selfishness. His refusal to accept any responsibility over the upsetting death of his own staff member, whom he seems to view as property rather than human. Cements the audience’s distrust and dislike of the character and cannot agree with the capitalist ideals that have made him excessively wealthy. Through this lack of morality, and the Inspector’s unwavering socialist beliefs and logic, Priestley wholly vilifies capitalism and those who represent it.
Ok, as a first you absolutely need to check your spelling errors and punctuation.
Secondly the lack of a perfect line of argument have block you the way to achieve higher. Thirdly, I would have added more method in the answer.
Fourtly, you could have add more structural and possible form features, because, even though I never did this text, I can firmly state that at least some form deveuces would be in a so important text like this. But overall I think this answer should be a 26 out of 30. Just for the almost excellent use of embedded quotations, perceptive views, contrast between the audience and the writer and the character ideas about a determined argument or subject ( which only a small amount of people do). Overall it is an excellent work!!! So continue like this!!
0
reply
Dinda Academy
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 7 months ago
#3
Ok thanks for the reply
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you experienced financial difficulties as a student due to Covid-19?

Yes, I have really struggled financially (17)
13.08%
I have experienced some financial difficulties (31)
23.85%
I haven't experienced any financial difficulties and things have stayed the same (58)
44.62%
I have had better financial opportunities as a result of the pandemic (20)
15.38%
I've had another experience (let us know in the thread!) (4)
3.08%

Watched Threads

View All