Can I have some feedback - AIC
How does Shelia and Gerald's relationship change throughout the play?
Priestley’s morality play, ‘An Inspector Calls’ (1945) introduces the characters, Shelia Berling and Gerald Croft, exploring their relationship as dynamic throughout the play. Initially, their relationship conforms to that of the Edwardian period, characterised by Shelia’s innocence and a distinct power dynamic. This contrasts to their detached, yet respectful relationship towards the end of the play demonstrating the importance of the Inspector as a catalyst for this change (in both their relationship and in the growth of the characters themselves).
Firstly, in the allegoric drama, Shelia’s naivety is presented as a product of her environment and contributes to her slightly superficial relationship with Gerald. Priestley introduces Shelia with stage directions as, “a pretty girl in her early twenties, very pleased with life and rather excited”, presenting her as the conventional, oblivious, Edwardian woman, with the emphasis on “pretty” alluding to the middle-class’s shallow views in regard to the connection between the outward appearance of a woman and her ‘monetary’ value (given the context of her engagement). This is further highlighted by infantilising Shelia through the use of the childish domestic language, “mommy” and “daddy” despite her age, which again develops a semantic field of immaturity and innocence, symbolic of her (and other upper/middle class women) sheltered life. Priestly also manipulates her name in that ‘Shelia’ is an almost homophone for ‘Shield her’ and also stems from the Gaelic form of ‘Cecilia’ which denotes to blind. Again, this demonstrates that her behaviour is simply a product of her environment and is particularly emphasised throughout the play as she distances her from her parents and begins to adopt more mature, socialist views.
Shelia’s above characterisation is particularly prevalent in Act 1 of the play, during the engagement party, which serves to depict her relationship with Gerald prior to the arrival of Inspector Goole. Specifically, when Gerald presents her with a ring, Shelia exclaims, “Oh- Gerald- you’ve got it- is it the one you wanted me to have”, and flaunts her ring to her mother stating, “Now I really feel engaged”. The fact that she immediately fawns over the ring and kisses Gerald as an afterthought, foreshadows the instability and end of their relationship. This additionally portrays Shelia’s materialistic personality and depicts the significance of the ring, as a form of physical validation of their engagement and each character’s commitment to the other. The ring is a metaphor for their marriage which can be best described as business-orientated (given that Gerald is the Berling family’s’ social superior). Nonetheless, this would have aligned with Edwardian morals and beliefs, given the distinct social classes of the time and the patriarchal families who positioned upper class women as commodities to be passed from father to husband during strategically upwards and advantageous marriages. Furthermore, the financial security symbolised by the ring would have appealed to the audience of 1945. The play is set in 1912, in a hierarchal society in which women were subject to poor education and entirely dependent on their male counterparts to provide for them. Women in general were depicted as inferior, only gaining the right to vote in 1918, with their sole purpose being to marry and fulfil the domestic role in a household. Despite Shelia’s immoral, misogynistic objectification, Gerald’s wealth allows her to maintain her “fairly substantial” and “heavily comfortable” lifestyle, implying the importance of marriage as the only means of sustaining a woman’s life. From this context, the audience is able to assume that this marriage is, albeit not entirely, loveless and on formed on materialism and capitalism.
This relationship begins to mature towards the end of Act 1, with the revelation of Gerald’s relationship with Daisy Renton. Daisy Renton or Eva Smith is a victim of capitalism and a main character throughout the play who, even though the audience never meets, is essentially a social construct that represents all working-class women. The name Daisy Renton is particularly important with Daisy referring to the common fragile flower as well as the idiom “pushing up the daises”, a euphemism for being dead. Renton, on the other hand, is derived from and a play on the word ‘renting’ which was typically used in reference to prostitution in 1912. This is evidenced with her rather sexual relationship with Eric and Gerald, making her whole name an oxymoron and another method utilised by Priestly to criticise capitalism. Her impact on Gerald and Shelia’s relationship is similar to the Inspector’s role in that: she serves to uncover the secrets between the characters, forcing honesty. This is apparent with the news of Gerald’s affair where Shelia states, “Were you seeing her last spring and summer, during that time when you hardly came near me and said you were so busy?”, which is only confirmed by Gerald’s failure to reply. Shelia’s overall reaction to the affair is one of acceptance as seen when she hands Gerald the ring stating that, “I don’t dislike you as I did half an hour ago, Gerald. In fact, in some odd way, I rather respect you more than I’ve ever done before”. As she is exposed to the corruption and exploitation of the lower classes in society, Shelia rejects Gerald’s proposal indicating her growth as a character from naïve to remorseful and mature. She also acknowledges that they aren’t, “...the same people who sat down to dinner here”, demonstrating her developing sense of social responsibility and her challenging communist opinions. Therefore, Shelia and Gerald’s relationship changes significantly with her discovery of the injustices of society.
Unlike Shelia, Gerald does not particularly change through the play. Priestly manipulates the character of Gerald to represent the individualism of the upper class and is extremely similar to Mr and Mrs Birling in that his capitalist and self-centred attitudes do not change. On whole, Gerald is primarily a static character. This is further supported by his exclamatory dialogue towards the end of the play when he discovers that Inspector Goole is not actually a police officer. For example, the stage directions ‘smiling’, ‘triumphantly’ and ‘jovially’ in reference to the older characters demonstrates their disregard for the livelihoods of the lower class and show that their only fears were about the impact of the scandal on their reputation. This is also highlighted by the reverse syntax in Shelia’s phrase, “It frightens me the way you talk”, creating uncertainty and disappointment about the adults’ lack of social responsibility. Moreover, Gerald once again proposes to Shelia at the end of the play, demonstrating his desperateness to return the situation to normality to which Shelia replies, “No, not yet. It’s too soon. I must think”. Despite everything, Shelia’s inability to completely reject Gerald is symbolic of her acceptance of nepotism and patriarchy. Thus, Shelia and Gerald juxtapose one another by the end of the play with the relationship being characterised by caution.
In conclusion, Shelia and Gerald’s relationship changes significantly throughout the play with the development of Shelia’s character. Initially it is portrayed as superficial though innocently happy, conforming to the “newlywed” stereotype. The characters seem to be in love with each other on a shallow level in contrast to their mutual respect (but not affection) to each other towards the end. This change is spurred on by the revelation of Gerald’s relationship with Daisy Renton and Shelia’s maturity.
Priestley’s morality play, ‘An Inspector Calls’ (1945) introduces the characters, Shelia Berling and Gerald Croft, exploring their relationship as dynamic throughout the play. Initially, their relationship conforms to that of the Edwardian period, characterised by Shelia’s innocence and a distinct power dynamic. This contrasts to their detached, yet respectful relationship towards the end of the play demonstrating the importance of the Inspector as a catalyst for this change (in both their relationship and in the growth of the characters themselves).
Firstly, in the allegoric drama, Shelia’s naivety is presented as a product of her environment and contributes to her slightly superficial relationship with Gerald. Priestley introduces Shelia with stage directions as, “a pretty girl in her early twenties, very pleased with life and rather excited”, presenting her as the conventional, oblivious, Edwardian woman, with the emphasis on “pretty” alluding to the middle-class’s shallow views in regard to the connection between the outward appearance of a woman and her ‘monetary’ value (given the context of her engagement). This is further highlighted by infantilising Shelia through the use of the childish domestic language, “mommy” and “daddy” despite her age, which again develops a semantic field of immaturity and innocence, symbolic of her (and other upper/middle class women) sheltered life. Priestly also manipulates her name in that ‘Shelia’ is an almost homophone for ‘Shield her’ and also stems from the Gaelic form of ‘Cecilia’ which denotes to blind. Again, this demonstrates that her behaviour is simply a product of her environment and is particularly emphasised throughout the play as she distances her from her parents and begins to adopt more mature, socialist views.
Shelia’s above characterisation is particularly prevalent in Act 1 of the play, during the engagement party, which serves to depict her relationship with Gerald prior to the arrival of Inspector Goole. Specifically, when Gerald presents her with a ring, Shelia exclaims, “Oh- Gerald- you’ve got it- is it the one you wanted me to have”, and flaunts her ring to her mother stating, “Now I really feel engaged”. The fact that she immediately fawns over the ring and kisses Gerald as an afterthought, foreshadows the instability and end of their relationship. This additionally portrays Shelia’s materialistic personality and depicts the significance of the ring, as a form of physical validation of their engagement and each character’s commitment to the other. The ring is a metaphor for their marriage which can be best described as business-orientated (given that Gerald is the Berling family’s’ social superior). Nonetheless, this would have aligned with Edwardian morals and beliefs, given the distinct social classes of the time and the patriarchal families who positioned upper class women as commodities to be passed from father to husband during strategically upwards and advantageous marriages. Furthermore, the financial security symbolised by the ring would have appealed to the audience of 1945. The play is set in 1912, in a hierarchal society in which women were subject to poor education and entirely dependent on their male counterparts to provide for them. Women in general were depicted as inferior, only gaining the right to vote in 1918, with their sole purpose being to marry and fulfil the domestic role in a household. Despite Shelia’s immoral, misogynistic objectification, Gerald’s wealth allows her to maintain her “fairly substantial” and “heavily comfortable” lifestyle, implying the importance of marriage as the only means of sustaining a woman’s life. From this context, the audience is able to assume that this marriage is, albeit not entirely, loveless and on formed on materialism and capitalism.
This relationship begins to mature towards the end of Act 1, with the revelation of Gerald’s relationship with Daisy Renton. Daisy Renton or Eva Smith is a victim of capitalism and a main character throughout the play who, even though the audience never meets, is essentially a social construct that represents all working-class women. The name Daisy Renton is particularly important with Daisy referring to the common fragile flower as well as the idiom “pushing up the daises”, a euphemism for being dead. Renton, on the other hand, is derived from and a play on the word ‘renting’ which was typically used in reference to prostitution in 1912. This is evidenced with her rather sexual relationship with Eric and Gerald, making her whole name an oxymoron and another method utilised by Priestly to criticise capitalism. Her impact on Gerald and Shelia’s relationship is similar to the Inspector’s role in that: she serves to uncover the secrets between the characters, forcing honesty. This is apparent with the news of Gerald’s affair where Shelia states, “Were you seeing her last spring and summer, during that time when you hardly came near me and said you were so busy?”, which is only confirmed by Gerald’s failure to reply. Shelia’s overall reaction to the affair is one of acceptance as seen when she hands Gerald the ring stating that, “I don’t dislike you as I did half an hour ago, Gerald. In fact, in some odd way, I rather respect you more than I’ve ever done before”. As she is exposed to the corruption and exploitation of the lower classes in society, Shelia rejects Gerald’s proposal indicating her growth as a character from naïve to remorseful and mature. She also acknowledges that they aren’t, “...the same people who sat down to dinner here”, demonstrating her developing sense of social responsibility and her challenging communist opinions. Therefore, Shelia and Gerald’s relationship changes significantly with her discovery of the injustices of society.
Unlike Shelia, Gerald does not particularly change through the play. Priestly manipulates the character of Gerald to represent the individualism of the upper class and is extremely similar to Mr and Mrs Birling in that his capitalist and self-centred attitudes do not change. On whole, Gerald is primarily a static character. This is further supported by his exclamatory dialogue towards the end of the play when he discovers that Inspector Goole is not actually a police officer. For example, the stage directions ‘smiling’, ‘triumphantly’ and ‘jovially’ in reference to the older characters demonstrates their disregard for the livelihoods of the lower class and show that their only fears were about the impact of the scandal on their reputation. This is also highlighted by the reverse syntax in Shelia’s phrase, “It frightens me the way you talk”, creating uncertainty and disappointment about the adults’ lack of social responsibility. Moreover, Gerald once again proposes to Shelia at the end of the play, demonstrating his desperateness to return the situation to normality to which Shelia replies, “No, not yet. It’s too soon. I must think”. Despite everything, Shelia’s inability to completely reject Gerald is symbolic of her acceptance of nepotism and patriarchy. Thus, Shelia and Gerald juxtapose one another by the end of the play with the relationship being characterised by caution.
In conclusion, Shelia and Gerald’s relationship changes significantly throughout the play with the development of Shelia’s character. Initially it is portrayed as superficial though innocently happy, conforming to the “newlywed” stereotype. The characters seem to be in love with each other on a shallow level in contrast to their mutual respect (but not affection) to each other towards the end. This change is spurred on by the revelation of Gerald’s relationship with Daisy Renton and Shelia’s maturity.
Hi Lizy. Much of this is really good, and shows so much promise.
To score more highly, I would aim for correct (and consistent) spellings of the characters' and author's name. (Sheila, Priestley). I'd also focus a little more on the notion that Sheila represents youth, and therefore the future. She also - as you begin to indicate - suggests the development of a social conscience, in the way she implies comparison of herself with Eva. Priestley is hinting at the fact that social attitudes may change in the future, but there is still work to be done.
Despite not being one of the older characters, Gerald is not so young as Sheila, and treads a kind of middle path between past and future. You're right to suggest that Sheila's role evolves, whereas Gerald's perhaps doesn't.
In terms of how you present your views, your paragraphs contain quite a lot of material, which could be broken down and explored discretely and more fully. For example, you say that Sheila grows from being 'naive to remorseful and mature'. I'm sure you're tired of hearing about PEE-paragraphs, but the principle behind the strategy is a strong one. Make your point (which here is a great one), and deep-dive it; with evidence (quotations and/or textual references). Play the psychologist a little bit - why does Sheila change the way she feels (bring in self-comparison with Eva)? How does she compare with her brother, Eric? Sheila can only be a product of her environment, to an extent, and when those with less privileged lives intrude into her world, she must confront some difficult facts.
What is your take on Sheila in these terms? What might an audience's view be? Are we supposed to like her?
There's more that could be said, Lizy. You've done so much groundwork, and I think you have the makings of a good response here.
I hope this helps. Let me know?
To score more highly, I would aim for correct (and consistent) spellings of the characters' and author's name. (Sheila, Priestley). I'd also focus a little more on the notion that Sheila represents youth, and therefore the future. She also - as you begin to indicate - suggests the development of a social conscience, in the way she implies comparison of herself with Eva. Priestley is hinting at the fact that social attitudes may change in the future, but there is still work to be done.
Despite not being one of the older characters, Gerald is not so young as Sheila, and treads a kind of middle path between past and future. You're right to suggest that Sheila's role evolves, whereas Gerald's perhaps doesn't.
In terms of how you present your views, your paragraphs contain quite a lot of material, which could be broken down and explored discretely and more fully. For example, you say that Sheila grows from being 'naive to remorseful and mature'. I'm sure you're tired of hearing about PEE-paragraphs, but the principle behind the strategy is a strong one. Make your point (which here is a great one), and deep-dive it; with evidence (quotations and/or textual references). Play the psychologist a little bit - why does Sheila change the way she feels (bring in self-comparison with Eva)? How does she compare with her brother, Eric? Sheila can only be a product of her environment, to an extent, and when those with less privileged lives intrude into her world, she must confront some difficult facts.
What is your take on Sheila in these terms? What might an audience's view be? Are we supposed to like her?
There's more that could be said, Lizy. You've done so much groundwork, and I think you have the makings of a good response here.
I hope this helps. Let me know?
Original post by Wilf G
Hi Lizy. Much of this is really good, and shows so much promise.
To score more highly, I would aim for correct (and consistent) spellings of the characters' and author's name. (Sheila, Priestley). I'd also focus a little more on the notion that Sheila represents youth, and therefore the future. She also - as you begin to indicate - suggests the development of a social conscience, in the way she implies comparison of herself with Eva. Priestley is hinting at the fact that social attitudes may change in the future, but there is still work to be done.
Despite not being one of the older characters, Gerald is not so young as Sheila, and treads a kind of middle path between past and future. You're right to suggest that Sheila's role evolves, whereas Gerald's perhaps doesn't.
In terms of how you present your views, your paragraphs contain quite a lot of material, which could be broken down and explored discretely and more fully. For example, you say that Sheila grows from being 'naive to remorseful and mature'. I'm sure you're tired of hearing about PEE-paragraphs, but the principle behind the strategy is a strong one. Make your point (which here is a great one), and deep-dive it; with evidence (quotations and/or textual references). Play the psychologist a little bit - why does Sheila change the way she feels (bring in self-comparison with Eva)? How does she compare with her brother, Eric? Sheila can only be a product of her environment, to an extent, and when those with less privileged lives intrude into her world, she must confront some difficult facts.
What is your take on Sheila in these terms? What might an audience's view be? Are we supposed to like her?
There's more that could be said, Lizy. You've done so much groundwork, and I think you have the makings of a good response here.
I hope this helps. Let me know?
To score more highly, I would aim for correct (and consistent) spellings of the characters' and author's name. (Sheila, Priestley). I'd also focus a little more on the notion that Sheila represents youth, and therefore the future. She also - as you begin to indicate - suggests the development of a social conscience, in the way she implies comparison of herself with Eva. Priestley is hinting at the fact that social attitudes may change in the future, but there is still work to be done.
Despite not being one of the older characters, Gerald is not so young as Sheila, and treads a kind of middle path between past and future. You're right to suggest that Sheila's role evolves, whereas Gerald's perhaps doesn't.
In terms of how you present your views, your paragraphs contain quite a lot of material, which could be broken down and explored discretely and more fully. For example, you say that Sheila grows from being 'naive to remorseful and mature'. I'm sure you're tired of hearing about PEE-paragraphs, but the principle behind the strategy is a strong one. Make your point (which here is a great one), and deep-dive it; with evidence (quotations and/or textual references). Play the psychologist a little bit - why does Sheila change the way she feels (bring in self-comparison with Eva)? How does she compare with her brother, Eric? Sheila can only be a product of her environment, to an extent, and when those with less privileged lives intrude into her world, she must confront some difficult facts.
What is your take on Sheila in these terms? What might an audience's view be? Are we supposed to like her?
There's more that could be said, Lizy. You've done so much groundwork, and I think you have the makings of a good response here.
I hope this helps. Let me know?
This is such an excellent piece of feedback.
The last 2 sentences of your conclusion seems more like an introduction than a conclusion- try end it with a repetition of the question. (I'm in Y11 so this is purely my opinion- I must say though, AIC was one of my favourite plays to study)
I find personally theme questions much easier to score the higher grades, so that might be a tip for you. Of course everyone is different and you've secured a fantastic essay.
I have some Quizlet revision cards for top grades in Macbeth and AIC (8/9), if you would like the links don't hesitate to ask
Original post by Wilf G
Hi Lizy. Much of this is really good, and shows so much promise.
To score more highly, I would aim for correct (and consistent) spellings of the characters' and author's name. (Sheila, Priestley). I'd also focus a little more on the notion that Sheila represents youth, and therefore the future. She also - as you begin to indicate - suggests the development of a social conscience, in the way she implies comparison of herself with Eva. Priestley is hinting at the fact that social attitudes may change in the future, but there is still work to be done.
Despite not being one of the older characters, Gerald is not so young as Sheila, and treads a kind of middle path between past and future. You're right to suggest that Sheila's role evolves, whereas Gerald's perhaps doesn't.
In terms of how you present your views, your paragraphs contain quite a lot of material, which could be broken down and explored discretely and more fully. For example, you say that Sheila grows from being 'naive to remorseful and mature'. I'm sure you're tired of hearing about PEE-paragraphs, but the principle behind the strategy is a strong one. Make your point (which here is a great one), and deep-dive it; with evidence (quotations and/or textual references). Play the psychologist a little bit - why does Sheila change the way she feels (bring in self-comparison with Eva)? How does she compare with her brother, Eric? Sheila can only be a product of her environment, to an extent, and when those with less privileged lives intrude into her world, she must confront some difficult facts.
What is your take on Sheila in these terms? What might an audience's view be? Are we supposed to like her?
There's more that could be said, Lizy. You've done so much groundwork, and I think you have the makings of a good response here.
I hope this helps. Let me know?
To score more highly, I would aim for correct (and consistent) spellings of the characters' and author's name. (Sheila, Priestley). I'd also focus a little more on the notion that Sheila represents youth, and therefore the future. She also - as you begin to indicate - suggests the development of a social conscience, in the way she implies comparison of herself with Eva. Priestley is hinting at the fact that social attitudes may change in the future, but there is still work to be done.
Despite not being one of the older characters, Gerald is not so young as Sheila, and treads a kind of middle path between past and future. You're right to suggest that Sheila's role evolves, whereas Gerald's perhaps doesn't.
In terms of how you present your views, your paragraphs contain quite a lot of material, which could be broken down and explored discretely and more fully. For example, you say that Sheila grows from being 'naive to remorseful and mature'. I'm sure you're tired of hearing about PEE-paragraphs, but the principle behind the strategy is a strong one. Make your point (which here is a great one), and deep-dive it; with evidence (quotations and/or textual references). Play the psychologist a little bit - why does Sheila change the way she feels (bring in self-comparison with Eva)? How does she compare with her brother, Eric? Sheila can only be a product of her environment, to an extent, and when those with less privileged lives intrude into her world, she must confront some difficult facts.
What is your take on Sheila in these terms? What might an audience's view be? Are we supposed to like her?
There's more that could be said, Lizy. You've done so much groundwork, and I think you have the makings of a good response here.
I hope this helps. Let me know?
Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. If you don't mind me asking, do you have any advice on memorising quotes? I have an exam in a few days and I'm quite frankly stuck. Would you by any chance have any exemplar essays that I could read? Thank you so much for you help
Original post by dahlia06
This is such an excellent piece of feedback.
The last 2 sentences of your conclusion seems more like an introduction than a conclusion- try end it with a repetition of the question. (I'm in Y11 so this is purely my opinion- I must say though, AIC was one of my favourite plays to study)
I find personally theme questions much easier to score the higher grades, so that might be a tip for you. Of course everyone is different and you've secured a fantastic essay.
I have some Quizlet revision cards for top grades in Macbeth and AIC (8/9), if you would like the links don't hesitate to ask
The last 2 sentences of your conclusion seems more like an introduction than a conclusion- try end it with a repetition of the question. (I'm in Y11 so this is purely my opinion- I must say though, AIC was one of my favourite plays to study)
I find personally theme questions much easier to score the higher grades, so that might be a tip for you. Of course everyone is different and you've secured a fantastic essay.
I have some Quizlet revision cards for top grades in Macbeth and AIC (8/9), if you would like the links don't hesitate to ask
Thank you for the feedback. Could I please have the Quizlet link? Thank you so much in advance
Original post by :) lizy
Thank you for the feedback. Could I please have the Quizlet link? Thank you so much in advance
Of course
https://quizlet.com/gb/702586537/gcse-grade-9-analysis-of-an-inspector-calls-flash-cards/
it is purely from Mr Salles' videos and Mr Everything English as well as my own notes. It is mainly quotes, context and name symbolism and when you see the thesis opening towards the end of the cards, it can be applied to any text you are using. Best of luck to your exams
(edited 1 year ago)
Hi again lizy.
Sorry to take a little while to get back to you.
If I were you, I wouldn't get too hung up on memorising quotations; especially not massively long ones! All that shows is that you have a good memory. It's what you do with the quotations that matters, and where that starts is with a clear and proper understanding of what the question is asking of you. Remember : use of quotations is as a means of evidencing and supporting the point you're making about the issue/character ... whatever.
So, bearing in mind I'm not sure which exam board you're with - AQA? - have a look at the public access documents on their site. There are question papers, mark schemes and examiners' reports, as I'm sure you're already aware. Look at what is expected of you from the examiner's point of view. When I've marked exam papers, the mark scheme is the basis of how grades begin to be determined. Examiners' reports give a general overview of candidates' strengths - as well as where improvements could have been made. (You'll notice, for example, that examiners don't favour over-long history lessons, where candidates write a lot about biographical and/or historical details. After all, what's the point? It's the student's understanding, perception, and interpretation that's being sought.)
Since time is running out a little bit, I would stick with basic strategies. Make sure you know 'An Inspector Calls' well. Predicting likely questions is frustrating at best, and pointless at worst. Looking at previous papers (and the Sample set for 2022, if you haven't already seen it) familiarises you with what's been asked recently, and gives you confidence in the whole 'feel' of these papers. In the absence of advance information for English Lit, all you can do is arm yourself with knowledge and understanding (AO1; the key AO).
Memorising quotations?! I wish I had a magic wand! There are no easy answers to this. I used to tell my students to focus on quality, not quantity. As I said earlier, length of quotation may not be the way forward. Students tend to feel good about being able to reel off an author's words, but your interpretation of them - what they mean, what they imply about who speaks them, their impact on other characters and on the development of the play ... that's how you'll get your marks. Nevertheless, visualise the speaker of the quotations you want to learn. Imagine them on a theatre stage, and pick out a few key words. For instance : Arthur Birling's reference to the Titanic being 'unsinkable'. Dramatic irony for a start, but think of him saying those words, in that pompous, conceited and entitled way he has. (BTW, embedded quotations indicate higher achievement, in my view. Incorporate a few key words into your discussions to back up your ideas. I'm not saying there aren't occasions when something more extended is called for, but not every time.) When I did my Law exams, I had all the cases I needed to know in my head before I went into the exam, and then I spent 5 minutes at the start writing them all down on the inside front cover of the answer booklet. I may not have used them all - depending on what was asked - but at least I knew they were there. I could then choose which questions I was going to answer, knowing I had that bit of 'kit' ready. Removes the stress a bit, when you can then concentrate on planning.
Exemplar essays are impossible to get hold of, if only for copyright reasons. You'll probably find examples of people's work on this site. Read some of them, but don't necessarily copy. You should have developed your own style by now, and hopefully some confidence with it.
If you feel you're sufficiently familiar with the play as a whole, get your head round the characters. Priestley developed them for different purposes; match your perceptions in those terms with what you think his purpose in writing the play was. Remember, too, that plays are visual. Consider the context : why would JBP choose a historical context? What do you think he considers his role as a playwright to be? Is he just entertaining audiences, or has he something more signifiant to say? Is he taking it upon himself to try to teach us a lesson?
Sorry (again!) to go on a bit. English teachers don't do 'short'! If you have another question, let me know.
lizy.Sorry to take a little while to get back to you.
If I were you, I wouldn't get too hung up on memorising quotations; especially not massively long ones! All that shows is that you have a good memory. It's what you do with the quotations that matters, and where that starts is with a clear and proper understanding of what the question is asking of you. Remember : use of quotations is as a means of evidencing and supporting the point you're making about the issue/character ... whatever.
So, bearing in mind I'm not sure which exam board you're with - AQA? - have a look at the public access documents on their site. There are question papers, mark schemes and examiners' reports, as I'm sure you're already aware. Look at what is expected of you from the examiner's point of view. When I've marked exam papers, the mark scheme is the basis of how grades begin to be determined. Examiners' reports give a general overview of candidates' strengths - as well as where improvements could have been made. (You'll notice, for example, that examiners don't favour over-long history lessons, where candidates write a lot about biographical and/or historical details. After all, what's the point? It's the student's understanding, perception, and interpretation that's being sought.)
Since time is running out a little bit, I would stick with basic strategies. Make sure you know 'An Inspector Calls' well. Predicting likely questions is frustrating at best, and pointless at worst. Looking at previous papers (and the Sample set for 2022, if you haven't already seen it) familiarises you with what's been asked recently, and gives you confidence in the whole 'feel' of these papers. In the absence of advance information for English Lit, all you can do is arm yourself with knowledge and understanding (AO1; the key AO).
Memorising quotations?! I wish I had a magic wand! There are no easy answers to this. I used to tell my students to focus on quality, not quantity. As I said earlier, length of quotation may not be the way forward. Students tend to feel good about being able to reel off an author's words, but your interpretation of them - what they mean, what they imply about who speaks them, their impact on other characters and on the development of the play ... that's how you'll get your marks. Nevertheless, visualise the speaker of the quotations you want to learn. Imagine them on a theatre stage, and pick out a few key words. For instance : Arthur Birling's reference to the Titanic being 'unsinkable'. Dramatic irony for a start, but think of him saying those words, in that pompous, conceited and entitled way he has. (BTW, embedded quotations indicate higher achievement, in my view. Incorporate a few key words into your discussions to back up your ideas. I'm not saying there aren't occasions when something more extended is called for, but not every time.) When I did my Law exams, I had all the cases I needed to know in my head before I went into the exam, and then I spent 5 minutes at the start writing them all down on the inside front cover of the answer booklet. I may not have used them all - depending on what was asked - but at least I knew they were there. I could then choose which questions I was going to answer, knowing I had that bit of 'kit' ready. Removes the stress a bit, when you can then concentrate on planning.
Exemplar essays are impossible to get hold of, if only for copyright reasons. You'll probably find examples of people's work on this site. Read some of them, but don't necessarily copy. You should have developed your own style by now, and hopefully some confidence with it.
If you feel you're sufficiently familiar with the play as a whole, get your head round the characters. Priestley developed them for different purposes; match your perceptions in those terms with what you think his purpose in writing the play was. Remember, too, that plays are visual. Consider the context : why would JBP choose a historical context? What do you think he considers his role as a playwright to be? Is he just entertaining audiences, or has he something more signifiant to say? Is he taking it upon himself to try to teach us a lesson?
Sorry (again!) to go on a bit. English teachers don't do 'short'! If you have another question, let me know.
Original post by :) lizy
Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. If you don't mind me asking, do you have any advice on memorising quotes? I have an exam in a few days and I'm quite frankly stuck. Would you by any chance have any exemplar essays that I could read? Thank you so much for you help
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- English Lit Precdtions
- OCR GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (J352/01) - 17th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Is rereading my Literature texts now (AQA GCSE) going to help me at all?
- How to get better at GCSE english
- An Inspector Calls: Gerald Essay of Relationship
- Mr Salles English Textbooks
- WJEC eduqas english literature predictions 2023
- love and relationship poem predictions 2023
- which poems are going to come up in english lit tomorrow?
- AQA English Literature Paper 2 Predictions
- Transferrable English Literature Questions
- WJEC Eduqas English Literature prediction 2024
- english lit eduqas predictions
- AQA English Literature 2023
- Anyone else Eduqas English Lit?
- Edexcel GCSE English Literature Paper 1: 1ET0 01 - 25 May 2022 [Exam Chat]
- WJEC GCSE English Literature (AIC and Heroes)
- English Lit Help
- Make it More Witch-ey !!
- ai inspector calls
Latest
Trending
Last reply 23 hours ago
A-level English Literature Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A-level English Language Paper 1 (7702/1) - 25th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day 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 23 hours ago
A-level English Literature Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A-level English Language Paper 1 (7702/1) - 25th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day 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]
