GCSE English : Writing To Describe

Sensuous Imagery

Senses

Writers often use description in an attempt to allow their readers to imagine characters, moods and settings.

One way of making these descriptions effective is by appealing to the readers' senses. Your readers should be able to see, feel and taste the world you are describing.

Sensual imagery is an excellent way of bringing your writing to life.

Sight

Visual details are probably the most important, especially now when we all watch a lot of films and television. A writer should aim at creating a kind of film of images running through a text, so that their readers can imagine themselves there.

Sound

Without sounds, your film of images would be a silent one. Details of sounds can be particularly effective in creating atmosphere. Think how the sounds of a busy building site would be different from those of an empty beach and you'll get the idea.

Writing has a few advantages over TV, computer games, or videos. In all of those only two senses can be directly stimulated: Sight and sound. Writing can appeal to three other senses.

Smell

Our sense of smell is strongly linked to our memory. Smells can instantly conjure up a feel of a particular place or time. The salt wind on a sea shore, the smell of boiled cabbage that is intimately linked to school dining halls.

Touch

For readers to believe in the world you are creating, it is important that this world is physical, that it has textures. Using lines that appeal to our sense of touch can help to achieve this.

Taste

Closely linked to the sense of smell, touch is generally a more difficult sense to express through your writing. However, like the others, it can help to bring writing alive and make it vivid for its readers. Even for tired old examiners!

In the following interaction, match the different senses to the passages listed by dragging them onto the question marks. Mark your answer to see how you got on:

Alliteration and Onomatopoeia

Alliteration is when two or more words in a line begin with the same letter or sound.

In 'The [u]s[/u]hingle [u]s[/u]crambles after the sucking surf',for instance, the poet has used alliteration of 's' sounds to create the sounds of the sea.

Onomatopoeia is when the sound of a word re-enforces its meaning. Words such as crash, slither, scrape, whizz, boom are onomatopoeic. Onomatopoeic words are bursting with energy; we hear their actions as if spoken aloud. They are words bursting with energy and liven up any writing.

Onomatopoeia can work in lines as well as in single words. The alliterative line quoted above is clearly onomatopoeic.

What do you think the war poet, Wilfred Owen, was trying to imitate in thefollowing, famous, onomatopoeic lines:

'Only the stuttering rifles rapid rattle can patter out their hasty orisons (prayers)?'

In comparison, we do not 'hear' words such as 'chair' or 'justice'; these words are not onomatopoeic.

Using alliterative and onomatopoeic effects in your writing will help to bring any piece to life.

Varying Sentences

Length

You should adapt the length of your sentences to fit the subject youare describing.

Long sentences can be used to slow a description down to create a sense of relaxation or time dragging. Short sentences are more punchy, quick and dynamic, and are good for describing dramatic events or action.

By varying the length of your sentences you will be able to show the examiner that you are thinking carefully about your writing, and that you are consciously creating effects for the reader.

For example: "The English lesson seemed, to Kevin, to be dragging on forever, as Mr Drake's voice droned on and on,in its weary, low monotone, about the apparently fascinating poetry of somelong-dead writer, who seemed to Kevin at least, to be unhealthily and unnaturally interested in scenes of empty countryside and quiet decay".

For Example "The waves crashed. The moon shone brightly. All else was silent on the deserted beach. From the distance came the sound of thunder."

Rhythm

Repeated use of short sentences will create a choppy, staccato rhythm. Longer sentences will create a more fluid, fluent rhythm.

The key idea is to try to fit the right rhythm to the right subject.

So to summarise:

Long sentences:

Slow, descriptive or explanatory.

Can create a sense of relaxation, flow, or time dragging.

Using long sentences can create a fluent style and rhythm.

Short sentences:

Good for action, and dramatic lines. For example, 'a shot rang out.'

Short sentences can create a punchy choppy rhythm.

Structure

As well as varying the length of your sentences you should try to vary their construction.

If you look back to your work in Year 7, you will probably find that in yourstories you had sections like the following:

"He walked carefully into the narrow room. Then he saw a picture above the fireplace. He wondered who was in the picture. He walked over toit. He was sure he had seen that face before. Then he looked at the grey hair and the cruel eyes. He didn't know where he had seen them. Then he remembered that he had once met a friend of his father's..."

Try listing the elements of this story that make it repetitive.

How would you re-write it, to make it more fluent and less repetitive?

The important thing is to create variety.

Getting rid of 'he did this and did this and he did that' can also erase purposeless repetition, and turning a sentence around can create variation. So 'he saw a picture above the fireplace' becomes, 'above the fireplace hung a picture.'

Sentences in which the subject is kept to the end are sometimes called 'suspenseful', because the reader has to wait to see who or what the subject is. These suspenseful sentences can be used to create effects.

For example: "Claire ran through thelong crowded corridors, where her school mates stopped to stare at her, out through the big double doors at the front of the school and down the main road that led to her home."

This conventionally structured sentence can be made more effective by putting the subject (Claire) and her verb (ran) at the end: .

"Through the long-crowded corridors, where her schoolmates stopped to stare at her, out through the big double doors at the front of the school, and down the main road that led to her home Claire ran"

In what ways do you think the second version is superior?

Subject:	Object:
the sunshone hazily	through the low grey clouds.
Object:	Subject:
through the low grey clouds	the sun shone hazily

Now have a go at turning these sentences around:

"Macbeth is a play about many things including murder and betrayal, guilt and love, evil and power."

"The clouds drifted gently across the long stretch of the horizon."

"The house looked very small, with only three windows facing the busy road and a narrow strip of overgrown lawn leading up to a battered front door."

GCSE English : Writing to Argue, Persuade, Instruct

Points against

When planning to write this piece it is a good idea to use a for/against box. For your work to reach the highest marks you will need to have considered both sides of the argument, although you can come down heavily on one side in your conclusion.

Start your writing with your strongest argument, written in a short, punchy style. This way your audience should be immediately interested and engaged.

Next you should write all the counter arguments.

These should be presented as positively and strongly as you can, so that they sound convincing to the reader, and so that you are seen to be fair.

A sophisticated approach is to cast a little doubt on the counter arguments by using phrases such as 'people say'or 'according to...' as this will make these arguments sound more subjective.

Points for

Having set out the counter arguments now you need to advance your side of things. You should argue against and ideally undermine each point of the opposition's argument.

Once you have done this you can then go on to argue other positive points for your point of view.

Conclusion

You should finish by reinforcing your case with your most compelling argument.

Addressing the reader/audience directly, confronting them with the choice between the two sides is a powerful way to finish.

For example:

'So everything boils down to whether you have more sympathy for the hunters or the hunted, the rich and the powerful who gallop about the countryside filled with bloodlust, or the innocent, terrified animal their dogs tear to pieces. In the end who would you rather save?'

So the structure of your essay should be:

• Your strongest argument for
• Points against
• Points for
• Conclusion

Writing About Poetry

Genres Of Literature

Genres Of Literature

GCSE English Literature : Presents From My Aunts In Pakistan

Moniza Alvi was born of mixed parentage, her father being Pakistani and her mother English. She was born in Pakistan but moved to England at a young age. This poem expresses her confusion in her search for her identity. The tradtional clothes that her aunts sent her from Pakistan are a symbol of a part of her, but only a part of her, and one that she does not feel entirely comfortable with.

The first stanza describes the clothes that were sent: two 'salwar kameez' outfits, which consist of a tunic dress and trousers. The beautiful vivid colours are described, the second one with the simile 'glistening like an orange split open'. Alvi tells us that the style of the salwar trousers changed, just as fashions in England change: they were 'broad and stiff, / then narrow.' The aunts also sent oriental pointed slippers, described as 'embossed', 'gold and black', as though they were very decorative. There were also bangles that were 'Candy-striped', but Alvi relates how these broke and 'drew blood'; this seems to be symbolic perhaps of the fact that her life in Pakistan was cut short. The first stanza ends with a description of a green, silver-bordered sari that the writer received as a teenager.

The second stanza relates how Alvi tried on these clothes 'each silken-satin top' - but felt 'alien' in her sitting-room. There is a definite sense here that the two cultures conflicted. Alvi seems to have felt a degree of inferiority when she says 'I could never be as lovely / as those clothes'. She wanted the 'denim and corduroy' that were typical of England. She describes how the Pakistani clothes 'clung' to her and uses the metaphor 'I was aflame', but, unlike the phoenix, she could not rise from the fire, and thus could not take on the Pakistani identity. She contrasts herself with one of her aunts, emphasising that she herself was 'half English, / unlike Aunt Jamila'.
The shorter third stanza focuses on a camel-skin lamp owned by her parents. Here again, there is a conflict of ideas: Alvi wanted the lamp, but looking at it in her room she simultaneously thought of the cruelty involved in making the lamp and admired its colours which she describes with the simile 'like stained glass'.

Stanza four switches to a comment on Alvi's English mother who 'cherished her jewellery'. The jewellery was Indian, and it was stolen from the family car; this perhaps symbolises the fact that the mother did not belong to the Asian culture. Alvi then alludes once more to the Pakistani clothes that were 'radiant' in her wardrobe. This stanza ends with the irony that the aunts who sent the traditional clothes themselves wanted 'cardigans / from Marks and Spencers'.
Alvi then relates how a visiting schoolfriend of hers did not appreciate the salwar kameez or sari when shown them. This leads into Alvi's expression of her admiration of the mirror-work in the Pakistani clothes. She tells us 'I / ... tried to glimpse myself / in the miniature / glass circles', but the fact that they were so small leads to our realization that Alvi would not have been able to see her whole reflection, just a fragment of herself, which underlines the idea of a split identity. She then tries to remember the journey she made from Pakistan to England at a very young age. 'Prickly heat had me screaming on the way' emphasises the idea of pain and the difficulty of being torn between two cultures. She recalls being in a cot in her English grandmother's home, and stresses being alone with a tin boat to play with after the long voyage.

Stanza six focuses on memories of Pakistan. Alvi looks at photographs taken in the 1950s to help her remember the country of her birth. Later, she read about the 'conflict' in Pakistan in newspapers, seeing it as 'a fractured land', which again reflects her own feeling of having a fractured identity. She can still picture her aunts in Lahore as they wrapped presents. They would have been hidden from 'male visitors' by a carved wooden screen this idea again adds to the sense of not being able to see clearly, of fragmentation.

The final stanza opens with memories linked with poverty: 'beggars, sweeper-girls'. As though it were a dream, Alvi pictures herself as part of the scene, saying 'I was there - / of no fixed nationality'. This phrase tells us exactly how feels, in that she does not belong wholly to any one country. Like her aunts, she is behind a screen, or 'fretwork', looking out at the Shalimar Gardens. This echoes the image of her trying to see herself in the mirror-work of the Pakistani clothes, as in both instances a complete picture would have been hard to see.
The language of the poem is quite informal, appearing to flow from the writer's mind as many of the lines are indented in an irregular pattern. The visual aspect of the poem adds to the sense of uncertainty. The lines seem to move backwards and forwards on the page, echoing the idea of going to and fro between two cultures. This is a creative way of underlining the theme of the poem, the feeling of not really belonging to any one particular place, of being unsure of one's identity.

GCSE English Literature : Search For My Tongue

This poem is about Sujata Bhatt being afraid that she was losing her identity as a Gujarati-speaking Indian. It comes from a time when she was in America studying English, and feared she was being ‘Americanised’, and forgetting her first language (her ‘mother tongue’)

The content of the poem consists of the poet writes about losing her tongue, by which she means forgetting how to speak her mother tongue because she had always to speak English (‘the foreign tongue’).
Then, however, as she dreams, her mother tongue re-asserts itself as her first language.
She writes first in Gujarati (e.g. ), then she gives us the pronunciation of the Gujarati (e.g. ‘munay hutoo’), then she translates it for us (meaning: ‘It grows back’).

The feelings of the poet are at first distress that she is losing her mother tongue.
At first she talks about the two languages as though they were at war, and is fearful the foreign tongue seemed to be winning. She seems to think that the foreign tongue is winning because she is not using it (she talks about how it will ‘rot and die’) or because she is consciously not using it (‘I thought I had spit it out’).
However, she finishes confidently, reasserting her knowledge of her Indian identity.
You can sense her happiness when she writes: ‘overnight while I dream … every time I think I've forgotten … it blossoms out of my mouth’.
The allusion to her ‘dreams’ has TWO meanings – one, that she speaks Gujarati literally in her dreams, but also, it is her ‘dream’ (her longing) to speak it always.

The Structure of the poem is that it is written as a single stanza, representing one long coherent assertion to the reader that it is her Gujarati language which is most important to her.
The poem starts in English – because the story starts with her worrying that English is taking over in her life.
But then the entire middle section is Gujarati, a visual assertion that, for her Gujarati is growing back/ re-asserting itself at the centre of her life, and that she is proud of it.
When she writes it phonetically, and then translates it, it is not because English is more important, but simply because she is doing the reader a favour. The result is that the reader reads the story of how Gujarati triumphed over English THREE times!

In her use of language, the poet writes in free verse, so that her poem feels just like a lecture, giving her thoughts as they come out of her head.
She writes in the first person – ‘I’ – to show that this is a personal battle, but also so other readers in the same situation will be able to read it as though it is their personal poem too.
She uses the word ‘tongue’ in three ways, firstly as the physical tongue in her mouth, secondly as her ‘mother tongue’ (her language), but also as a symbol of her personal identity and Indian culture.
The poem consists of an extended metaphor of her language as a plant. At first she is worried that it is going to ‘rot and die’ (that she is forgetting it), but then in lines 30-35: it ‘grows’, ‘shoots’, ‘buds’, ‘blossoms’, representing the poet growing in confidence , remembering Gujarati words, forming them on her lips, and finally speaking them full out fluently in Gujarati.
One a powerful image is of her tongue rotting in her mouth and her ‘spitting it out’, reflecting the horror and disgust she felt at losing her tongue and Indian identity.
The repetition: ‘the bud opens … the bud opens’ symbolises the unstoppableness of the process, but also her excitement that it is happening and that she is re-finding her Gujarati identity.

GCSE English - Past Papers For Revision

For a huge selection of GCSE English Exam papers go to :

http://www.thegrid.org.uk/learning/english/ks3-4-5/ks4/revision/documents/SFOY10-11Anthology.pdf

GCSE English Literature : Of Mice And Men

Of Mice And Men
Setting: south of San Francisco in the Salinas Valley of California; probably during the Depression of the 1930s; three specific locations - along the banks of the Salinas River near the ranch, in the ranch bunk house, and in the barn .

Background Information:George Milton has cared for his mentally slow friend, Lennie Small, since the death of Lennie's Aunt Clara. They travel together to work a various amount of jobs so that one day they will have enough money to live on their own and be their own bosses. Unfortunately, every time they have a job, Lennie gets into some trouble which forces them to run away. This time, they are running from a town called Weed to a ranch where they could work as ranch hands.

Major characters:
George Milton: the small, sharp - witted ranch hand who travels with Lennie, George is a typical, realistic hand who uses his mind to anticipate the future
Lennie Small: a physically large man whose mind is slow; he has a short attention span and acts similar to a child; because of his mental limitations, Lennie never could understand or anticipate the consequences of his actions; travels with and is cared for by George
Slim: a wise, well - respected ranch hand whose word is law; master craftsman who knows things without being told
Carlson: ranch hand who is the exact opposite of Slim; coarse and insensitive, Carlson does not understand the feelings of those around him
Candy: the ranch hand who wanted to join the dream of George and Lennie, Candy's one faithful companion was his dog; anticipates the bleakness of the futures of all the other ranch hands
Crooks: named for his crooked body; proud and independent Negro who also is an outcast on the ranch; bitter against racial discrimination against him, but Lennie and Crooks accept each other as time goes on; also wants to join Lennie and George's dream
Curley: the evil son of the boss, Curley is a small, vicious bully who picks on those smaller than he is and attempts to intimidate those larger than he is
Curley's wife: the bitter wife of Curley attempts to seduce the ranch hands; she has a mean streak and is a vehicle for spreading evil.

Themes:
The American Dream: George and Lennie dream to be able to own a place of their own and be their own bosses
Loneliness: Candy's only companion, his dog, is killed
Friendship: George shooting Lennie to help him escape from a brutal lynching
Innocence: Lennie's not understanding why he shouldn't enter Crooks' room
Discrimination: Crooks, as a ranch outcast, lives in a room all alone


The Plot:
The story opens with two traveling laborers, named George Milton and Lennie Small, on their way to a job loading barley at a California ranch. It is Friday evening, and they spend the night along the Salinas River before arriving at their new place of work, a ranch, the next morning. Here, the reader discovers the main personality differences between George and Lennie. Because Lennie is slow mentally, George acts as Lennie's guardian, taking care of the large child. They've been traveling together for a long time, since the passing away of Lennie's Aunt Clara. Also, it's stressed that Lennie's habit of petting soft things, such as a dead mouse or the dress of a woman, often gets them into trouble - forcing the two men to continuously have to find new work. Their dream is to own their own place and be their own bosses in the future. There, Lennie will be able to "tend to the rabbits".
Upon arriving at the ranch, they are met by an old man named Candy and his dog. It is Candy who explains to them the ways of the ranch and the personalities of the other ranch hands. Soon, the boss enters the cabin to visit with his new workers, quite angry that they had been too late for the morning shift. He asks both George and Lennie questions, which George proceeds to answer. Eventually, Lennie answers one question in his own, unintelligent way. George is angry, but the boss is a bit suspicious.
The reader also meets Curley's seductive wife. As usual, she is "looking for her husband" as an excuse to meet and attempt to seduce the other workers. Of course, George and Candy deny her attempts, but Lennie innocently defends her. As George warns Lennie to stay away from her, Lennie shows that he wants to leave, "It's mean here". George agrees to leave once they have enough money to attain their dream.
Slim enters and announces that his dog has had puppies. He discusses with Carlson the idea of killing Candy's old dog and replacing it with one of his puppies. In addition, George agrees to ask Slim if Lennie can also have one. Later, George confides in Slim his relationship with Lennie. He admits that Lennie isn't bright, but obviously a nice person. Lennie not only provides companionship, but makes George feel smart.
Carlson enters and continues to pressure Candy to allow him to kill his dog. Candy gives in when Slim joins in the argument. Later, he overhears George and Lennie talking about their dream and asks to be part of it, offering to advance half of the money they need. Finally, the dreams appears within reach.
Curley enters and begins to taunt and hit Lennie. Lennie, in turn, refuses to fight back until George tells him to. Lennie grabs Curley's hand and begins to flip him about, until he crushes Curley's hand by accident.
Later that night, while George and most of the other ranch hands are visiting a whorehouse, the outcast Lennie enters the room of the other outcast, Crooks. At first, Crooks objects to this invasion of privacy, but eventually Lennie wins him over. Crooks describes the difficulties of discrimination at the ranch, while Lennie speaks of the dream he, George, and Candy share. When Candy enters and speaks of his part attempting to make the dream a reality, then Crooks wants to join them. Curley's wife, looking for company, enters the room. Crooks and Candy argue with her, but she plays up to Lennie. She leaves when George enters the room. George, in turn is angry to know that another man, Crooks, has entered their dream.
The next afternoon, all of the trouble George predicted begins to come true. Lennie, by handling the puppy too much, has broken its neck. As he tries to hide the animal, Curley's wife enters the barn. She talks to Lennie about her life, seemingly seducing him. When she learns of Lennie's love for soft things, she invites him to touch her hair. He does so, but as always, holds on too tight. The woman begins to struggle and yell. Lennie panics, accidentally breaking her neck, just like his puppy.
After Lennie flees, Candy finds the woman's body. He gets George and asks for reassurance that their dream will still be fulfilled, even without Lennie. But, George has already forsaken the vision. He asks Candy to give him a few minutes head start before telling the others. In that time, he steals Carlson's gun - the same one used to kill Candy's dog. George reenters the barn with the others to discover the body and he attempts to convince the men that Lennie should only be put away because he meant no harm. But, Curley insists on lynching and they all go out to look for Lennie.
The final scene occurs at the same riverbank the book opened. Lennie has remembered to return there after he had gotten into trouble. Several visions taunt him, as he realizes the severity of his actions. Lennie asks George to "chew him out", but George does so only halfheartedly. They discuss their dream one last time....George shoots Lennie in the back of the head with Carlson's gun. The other men arrive, and George agrees with their version of the conflict between George and Lennie that brought about the shooting. The men return to the ranch, some sympathizing, some not.


Key Issues:
Loneliness: Throughout the novel, a main characteristic most of the characters contained was being lonely.
Candy has only his dog as his one companion. Upon the killing of the dog, he has no one and therefore, attaches himself to the dream George and Lennie share. Thus, he will not end up an outcast and therefore, completely alone. Even after Lennie kills Curley's wife and cannot return to his life the way it was before, Candy still wants to carry out the dream.
Crooks feels "...A guys goes nuts if he ain't got nobody. Don't make no difference who the guy is, long's he with you..." He would work for nothing, as long as he could communicate with others.
Curley's wife is so overwhelmed by her loneliness, she seeks friendship from other men. She seeks out the friendship of Lennie for all of the others fear Curley and will have nothing to do with her. "Think I don't like to talk to somebody ever' once in a while?"


The American Dream: Everyone has a dream to strive for. The poor ranch hands wish to be their own bosses, and actually have stability.
George and Lennie have a dream, even before they arrive at their new job on the ranch, to make enough money to live "off the fat of the land" and be their own bosses. Lennie will be permitted, then, to tend the rabbits.
Candy, upon hearing about the dream, wanted to join them so that he would not be left alone, especially after they killed his old dog.
Crooks, the Negro outcast, wanted to join them so that he wouldn't be alone.


Friendship: Every man needs someone to make him feel special.
George and Lennie share a bond so strong that when one is destroyed, the other inevitably is as well. Steinbeck often stresses how ranchers are loners, and George and Lennie are the only ones who travel in pairs. They seem to be two halves of the same person, and they know how special together they truly are. "Guys like us, that work on ranches, are the loneliest guys in the world...They got no family. They don't belong no place...With us, it ain't like that. We got a future. We got somebody to talk to that gives a damn about us..."
Candy's need for the companionship of his dog also stresses the importance of true friendship. For, after the passing of his old dog, Candy attaches himself to the dream Lennie and George share.



Morals/Lessons/Applications:
People need others to talk to to survive. (Crooks' statement about needing someone or going crazy, the attachment of Crooks and Candy to the dream Lennie and George share, Curley's wife seduction of the ranch hands as a buffer against loneliness)
A man's ability to dream is directly attached to having someone to share the dream with. (George lets go of the dream after Lennie is killed.)
Sometimes, even though it's not what you want, you have to do what's best for you and those you love. (George shoots his best friend, Lennie so that Lennie can escape a brutal lynching.)

GCSE English Literature : An Inspector Calls Synopsis

Eva's letterThe Inspector tells Mr. Birling that Eva Smith/Daisy Renton “left a letter…and a sort of diary”. The letter could be to her nearest relative or to Gerald Croft. Write - as you imagine Eva would have done - the letter and diary entries (between 1910 and 1912) for the key events in her life, from her starting to work for Birling & Co. to her suicide.

Year and month : What happens

September 1910 : Eva sacked by Birling & Co.
December 1910 : Eva employed by Milwards.
Late January 1911 : Eva sacked by Milwards.
March 1911 : Eva becomes Gerald's mistress.
Early September 1911 : Gerald breaks off the affair.
Eva leaves Brumley for two months.
November 1911 : Eric meets Eva.
December 1911/January 1912 : Eva finds she is pregnant.
Late March 1912 : Mrs. Birling turns down Eva's application for help.
Early April 1912 : Eva's suicide/the Inspector calls*
(*Dated by Titanic's maiden voyage.) The diary is also mentioned on pages 179 and 193 (Penguin edition).
Who is to blame?
Who is to blame for Eva's death? Consider how each of the Birlings and Gerald Croft influences what happens to Eva - what part does each play in the chain of events leading to her death?
Give an account of this chain of events in the order in which each event occurs (see dates above).
Say how far each character is at fault for what he or she has done to Eva.
Then judge how far each is right or wrong in his or her attitude now to what was done - admitting or denying guilt.
In conclusion, try to assess how responsible, and how ready to admit responsibility, each of the five is.
Is there any connection between the age of each character and his or her readiness to accept blame?


Responsibility
The most important theme of the play, it could be argued, is responsibility.
See how often the words “responsible” and “responsibility” appear, and in what senses.
At the beginning of the play Mr. Birling gives his (limited) view of responsibility in a long speech. Mr. Birling's definition of responsibility is immediately followed by the arrival of the Inspector. The Inspector gives his (very wide) explanation of responsibility immediately before he leaves.
Comment on these speeches and compare them.

Consider how Mr. Birling's comments reveal his views:
How do Mr. Birling's earlier comments on the unlikelihood of war, the probable success of capitalists in eliminating strikes and on the unsinkability of the Titanic affect our view of what he says on responsibility? (The play's audience, in 1946, would be aware of two world wars, the General Strike and the sinking of the Titanic).
Is Mr. Birling a “hard-headed” businessman, as he claims, or a “hard-hearted” character?

In 1912 there was no welfare state in Britain. Poor people often depended on charity. But wealthy people, such as Mrs. Birling, in the play, usually controlled the charity.
Does Mrs. Birling, in her work for the Brumley Women's Charity Organisation act out of a sense of responsibility or a desire to be seen to be charitable?
Where does she claim the responsibility for Eva Smith and her unborn child lies?
How is she shown to be wrong?



Show how the Inspector demonstrates by bringing out Eva's dealings with the Birlings and Gerald, that his view, not Birling's is right.
What are the “fire and blood and anguish” he refers to in his final speech?
What point is Priestley making by placing this line in a play published in 1946?

The Inspector's identity may affect how we view his comments.
How is our view of the Inspector's statements affected by his apparently supernatural character?
Comment on his claim that “we are members of one body”.
After he leaves, says the Inspector, the Birlings and Gerald can divide responsibility among themselves.
How do they apportion blame when he leaves?
Is Birling concerned about the same things that worry Sheila and Eric?

Sheila is worried earlier in the play by her mother's self-righteous denial of blame. After the Inspector goes she is worried by the attempt to dismiss his visit as a mere practical joke.
Consider the idea that the Inspector, by his visit, gives the family a second chance which is lost by the failure of the majority to learn their lesson.
How significant in determining the play's conclusion is Gerald's eventually siding with the view of the parents (The Inspector has foreseen a suicide about to happen. They may, by a change of heart, prevent it - but the chance is missed and the suicide occurs).

Who is the Inspector?Who or what is the Inspector? In the text there are many clues. Examine each of these and try to interpret it. Write an essay, discussing how these clues and the Inspector's general behaviour contribute to the audience's idea of who he is and how correct his statements are.
The clues are:
The timing of his entry (noted by Eric);
His method of working: “one person and one line of enquiry at a time” (A policeman would not insist on this. A real policeman would interview people alone. This Inspector already knows; he wants the others to see what they have done.)
His asking Birling why he refused Eva's request for a pay rise.
His statement that it is his duty “to ask questions”.
His saying that he never takes offence.
His statement that he does not see much of the chief constable.
His failure to be alarmed by Birling's threats.
His reply to Birling's question: “You sure of your facts?” - “Some of them - yes”. Not all, because not all have happened yet: Eva Smith has not yet killed herself, it would seem.
His concern for moral law not for criminal law.
His statement: “some things are left to me. Inquiries of this sort, for instance”.
Sheila's recognition of his authority and supernatural knowledge - as shown in her warnings to Gerald and to her mother .
His statement about the impression he has made on Sheila: “We often do on the young ones”.
His impatience to “get on” with his questioning followed by his statement that he hasn't “much time”. A police officer would take as much time as was needed. It is as if he needs to finish before the moment at which Eva will decide whether or not to end her life.
His saying, “I don't need to know any more”, once he has shown the Birlings and Gerald what each has done.
His final speech, which has nothing to do with criminal law, but which is a lecture on social responsibiility and the perils of ignoring it.
The Birlings' discovery that no such officer is on the local police force.
The Inspector's telling Sheila there is “no reason why” she should “understand about” him
Eric's saying “He was our police inspector all right” followed by Sheila's comment “Well, he inspected us all right”
His foreknowledge of Eva's death.
His intimate knowledge of Eva's life and despite the fact that he never spoke to her
His prediction of a massive social catastrophe (“fire and blood and anguish”) which clearly refers (for the Birlings) to the First World War and (for the audience) to both World Wars.



In the 1954 film of An Inspector Calls, the Inspector does not leave the Birlings' house as in the play: he is left alone in Mr. Birling's study; Birling returns to ask him a question, and finds the room empty. Is this too blatant a way of suggesting that the Inspector is some kind of supernatural or angelic being? Some commentators on the play have suggested that his name contains a pun - it sounds like “Ghoul”.
A “ghoul” is an evil demon, which eats the flesh of the dead, or, metaphorically, a person obsessed by, or who profits by, another's death. After he has gone the Inspector is said by Birling to have exploited Eva's alleged death to frighten the “victims” of his supposed practical joke. Is it more important to know who the Inspector is, or what he has to say? Should Priestley (the playwright) have made him more obviously spooky?



What next?At the end of the play there are many possibilities, and we cannot say with certainty what might happen.
Will the Birlings try to persuade their children to conceal the truth from the real Inspector who is coming?
Will Sheila and Eric insist on openness?
Where will Gerald stand now? (After his clever theory has been disproved - will he realise that Daisy Renton told him of her two sackings? He knew that at least Mr. Birling, Sheila and himself had all influenced the same girl!)



1912 and 1946
This task is suitable for treatment as a written or spoken response. You should consider the question of why a play first performed in 1946 should be set in 1912. Why does Priestley choose this particular time?
In order to answer this you should consider the following points:
The play opens with a scene of great luxury: a wealthy family is celebrating an engagement in a very lavish fashion. This will be obvious to an audience that has spent the years of the Second World War without the luxuries that the Birlings are so abundantly enjoying (rationing of many luxury - and basic - goods continued into the 1950s). Although Churchill (a Conservative) is seen as a war hero for leading the fight against Nazism (he led a coalition government of Labour, Conservative and Liberal elements) a Socialist government has won a landslide victory in the 1945 General Election. Priestley was a supporter of the Labour party, and made many broadcasts on radio in which he tried to persuade people of the merits of socialism.
In order to do this, Priestley sets the play in a time before there was a welfare state in the United Kingdom, and when employers had great power over their workers.

Lower costs and higher pricesWhat is the playwright's view of Mr, Birling's enthusiasm for joining the two wealthy families of Croft and Birling, and his hope that they can work together for “lower costs and higher prices”?
Lower costs are mostly achieved by paying the workers less. Would the audience see this as a good thing?
How would ordinary people feel about higher prices?



The Crofts and the BirlingsAre the two families exactly alike? What differences can you find between Mr. Birling and the Crofts?
Why are the Crofts not present at the celebration?
Comment on the telegram that Sir George and Lady Croft have sent to the Birlings.

Mr. Birling's idea of progress
What is Mr. Birling's view of the likely results of technological change (see his comments on cars and aeroplanes)?
Is he right to link scientific advances with progress in politics and international relations? Why does he believe that there will be no war? How far do we trust his judgement? What do we know that he does not about the future? Consider his comment that the Titanic is unsinkable.

Being above the law (or playing golf with the Chief Constable)
How does the time in which the play is set enable Priestley to portray Mr. Birling as a man who can use his influence to stop the Inspector from continuing with his investigation?
How would an audience view the idea that the rules that apply to ordinary people do not apply to the Birlings of this world?
Do you know of anyone like Mr. Birling (in your own world, in the past, or in fiction), who believes he or she is above the law?



Charity and the welfare stateBecause this is 1912, there is no system of benefit payments for impoverished people; Eva has to approach a committee of which Mrs. Birling is the chairman, but is refused help.
Show how Mrs. Birling exploits her position to make her feel self-important, while denying help to those who really need it.
Do you think she does this for genuinely charitable reasons, or for other motives?
What might these be?
Mrs. Birling claims that her organization has done a lot of good work in deserving cases: is a deserving case, in her opinion, one of genuine need, or one where the applicant pleases her?

Young men and wild oatsThis play depicts a common situation from the early years of the 20th century - young women from the middle classes would not be sexually active before marriage. This has nothing to do with virtue - but much to do with securing a good match. (After marrying, or even becoming widowed or divorced, middle-class and wealthy women could be more active if they chose.) But poorer women could sometimes be seduced in return for material rewards (that would not be so attractive to those with wealth of their own).
How does Gerald's relationship with Eva reflect the moral atttiudes of his class at this time?
Do you think that it is right for Gerald to begin his affair with Eva, when he has no real commitment to her, and would not consider marrying her?
Why can Gerald not marry Eva, and why is he quite ready to marry Sheila Birling, when it is obvious that he does not really love her?
What do we learn from the various references in the play to the Palace Theatre, “women of the town” and the woman who wanted Eva to go to the Theatre bar?
How does Eric's relationship with Eva reinforce the idea that women of Eva's class can be used as playthings by the wealthy, and then discarded?

The customer is always right
Sheila is able to have Eva sacked from Millwards' shop by threatening the manager that her family will close its account there unless Eva goes.
How does this reflect the class system of the time, by showing the enormous influence that a few wealthy people could exercise?
Could the manager have refused?



Silver spoons and spoilt brats
Eric and Sheila have great faults, of which they become ashamed when the Inspector tells them of Eva's fate.
How far are these faults not so much in the children's nature, as the result of the way they have been brought up?
What do we learn about Eric's education, and why might this explain his lack of responsibility?

The honours systemAt the start of the play, Mr. Birling hints to Gerald, that he will soon be knighted (become Sir Arthur Birling) in return for his work in the Conservative Party.
What is the importance in the play of Mr. Birling's knighthood?
Mr. Birling is concerned when he learns of Eva's death - is he more concerned for Eva's suffering or for his knighthood? What does this tell you?
Do you think it right that Mr. Birling should be given a knighthood in return for his active support of a political party?

ConclusionWhen you have looked at all of these ideas, you should consider the question in a more general sense:
The Inspector, in his final speech, tries to show how both the First World War, and the Second, which had just ended when Priestley wrote the play, were the result of attitudes and behaviour such as those of powerful and wealthy families like the Birlings.
This may explain why all the worst features of such families seem to be present in the Birlings: they represent the worst qualities of their class.
Do you think Priestley has made the play's argument more convincing by the inclusion in it of such people, or are they too awful to be believable?
This play is set in 1912. In what ways might you argue that it has a relevance, not only to the Britain of 1946, but also to the country as it is today?

Use of evidenceThis is critical. Always give examples or refer to details in the story to support your comments. You may use quotation, too: lots of short quotation (where the point of quoting is obvious) is better than very lengthy quotations of less obvious relevance. When you quote, introduce with a comma or colon (, or :), and enclose what you quote in inverted commas.

GCSE English Literature : An Inspector Calls Revision Guide

Section B of the English Literature GCSE is on a play. This post will look at AN INSPECTOR CALLS.

BBC Bitesize revision have a really useful site on this play with lots of resources and revision tips. Click here to go to it.
http://www.bbcbitesize/


You will have to answer TWO questions on An Inspector Calls. The first is an EXTRACT question. An extract from the play will be reprinted, and you will be asked a question on it. In your answer, you should quote a lot from the extract and track how the play and characters change throughout it. You must answer on the WHOLE extract, not just the beginning or end.


The other question will be based on the WHOLE PLAY. This is the question where it would be handy to have memorised some quotes. If you look through this website, I have put together some of the key quotes for each character. Don't try and rewrite long quotations in the exam, or get too bothered about memorising. Short, one or two word quotations are best, as they prove you have a deep understanding of the play. For example, saying something like 'Mr Birling thinks that community is a lot of "nonsense"', or 'Sheila grows increasingly "hysterical" as the play continues.'


As ever, try and focus on EXPLAINING, not describing. Don't fall in to the trap of just retelling the play. Instead of saying "Mr Birling sacks Eva from her job at the factory and Sheila gets her sacked from her job at the shop", say "Mr Birling and Sheila are both responsible for Eva losing a job, but their motives are very different and they react differently when the Inspector explains the results of their actions."

An Inspector Calls - sample whole text question

Here is a sample question for the whole text question, followed by a model answer. You would be expected to write for about 40 minutes for this question.

Write about the character of Mr Birling and his importance to the play.

You may want to consider:

His views and beliefs at the start of the play

The way he reacts to the Inspector

His attitude at the end of the play.

Mr Birling’s views and beliefs at the start of the play show us that he is an arrogant and conceited man. He is very concerned with his place in society and within his family. We know this at the start of the play when he tells Gerald, with great pride, that he may soon receive a knighthood from the Queen.


He enjoys talking a lot, making other people listen to him and telling the younger people in the play how to live their lives. For example, just before the Inspector arrives he speaks at length, in a very didactic manner, to Eric and Gerald, explaining how a man should put himself first and not worry about the community and society, as if we ‘were bees in a hive’ This shows us that he does not worry about the position of those less fortunate, or less wealthy than him, and he dismisses people who do think like this as ‘cranks’. Priestley ridicules these beliefs by including within this speech the statement ‘Look at the Titanic! Absolutely unsinkable!’ – when in fact the Titanic sank shortly after the period the play was written in. Mr Birling can be seen as the main representative of a set of beliefs that Priestley sees as responsible for some of the catastrophes of the early 20th century.



Mr Birling’s reaction to the Inspector shows us his concern for status, as he is constantly trying to influence the Inspector by dropping the names of important local policeman and politicians. This shows us how self-important he is and how he thinks that his power and influence can overcome the law. However, the Inspector is not concerned at all by these names, which seriously affects the attitude and behaviour of Mr Birling. He gets angrier and angrier at the Inspector, calling him ‘officious’ and threatening to report him. There is a definite clash of authority and beliefs between the two men, which again can be seen as the clash between the two main ideas of Socialism and Capitalism.



Finally, Mr Birling’s behaviour at the end of the play shows us that he has not learnt anything at all from the night’s events. At the end of the play, he is less concerned with whether or not he might have been responsible for Eva Smith’s death than whether or not he will be found guilty. He is more concerned that there might be ‘a public scandal’ and that his ‘special reason’ for not wanting a scandal – ie, his knighthood – will be put in danger. He still believes that he can carry on the way he did before, not worrying about other people, sacking the workers in his factory and using his power and influence to ensure nothing is investigated. Therefore, the importance of Mr Birling to the play is to show how strong and unshakeable his beliefs are, but also to show how such beliefs will always end in catastrophe and disaster.


An Inspector Calls - sample extract question

Here is a sample extract question with a model answer. You would be expected to write for about 20 minutes for this question.

How does Priestley build the drama and tension in this extract?

From page 47: ‘MRS B: I’m sorry she should have come to such a horrible end. But I accept no blame for this at all’ to the end of Act Two.


Think about:

• What Mrs Birling says and how she behaves


• What Sheila says


• The effect on the audience.


In this extract, JB Priestley builds drama and tension through the use of dramatic irony. Mrs Birling does not realise until the very end of the scene that her own son is responsible for Eva Smith’s pregnancy. However, Sheila and the audience begin to realise this before her. So, when she says things like ‘I blame the young man of the child she was going to have’, we realise that she is unknowingly incriminating herself and her son. This makes it tense and exciting, because we want to see what will happen when she eventually does realise that the person she is being so harsh on is her own son.



In this extract, JB Priestley builds drama and tension through having Sheila realise the truth of the situation long before her mother. Sheila is constantly interrupting trying to explain to her mother that by blaming the father of the child she is only blaming her own son. For example, she says ‘Mother – stop – stop!’ and ‘But don’t you see -’ As well as her words, the stage directions show that she is getting increasingly ‘agitated’ and ‘hysterical’ in attempting to warn her mother about what is happening. This is very tense and dramatic because Mr and Mrs Birling misinterpret her words and just assume she is overexcited. They assume she is being silly, when in fact she is the closest of all of the Croft family to true insight at this point.



In this extract, the effect on the audience is that we are eagerly, nervously, awaiting the moment of recognition when Mrs Birling will see that her own son is the person she has criticized so thoroughly. Mrs Birling has been so arrogant and smug before this that there may even be an element of excited anticipation, as we long for her to get her comeuppance and realise the hypocrisy of her callous and unsympathetic views on life. We desperately want to see how she will react when the Inspector reveals that the ‘chief culprit’ is her son. Her eventual understanding of the truth comes slowly and dramatically – first she is still ‘triumphant’, then she is ‘frightened’ as the truth begins to dawn, and then finally she retreats to ‘agitated’ denial as Eric appears at the door and his guilt emerges. The scene ends at this dramatic, climactic moment, which has overturned the certainties and smugness of Mrs Birling.


An Inspector Calls - historical context and allegory

Understanding the historical context is key to understanding An Inspector Calls. If you are sitting the Higher Tier, it will be especially important to show your understanding in the exam.



An Inspector Calls was written in 1946 but set in 1912. This means that there is a lot of opportunity for DRAMATIC IRONY - this is when the audience know more than the characters. There is lots of this in the first scene, when Mr Birling explains to the dinner party his beliefs on the world - that the Titanic won't sink, that there'll never be war, and that workers won't go on strike. For an audience watching this in 1946, all these predictions proved catastrophically wrong.



An Inspector Calls isn't just about the Birling family and an odd inspector. It's an ALLEGORY. An allegory is a story in which people and things represent bigger ideas and themes about life. The Inspector's speech near the end gives us the clue to this. 'One Eva Smith is gone, but there are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us' (56)

So, Eva Smith represents all poor and working class people who are being exploited. The Birlings represent all the privileged and wealthy upper classes who exploit them.



Priestley also tries to link the attitude and actions of the Birlings with the catastrophes of the First World War, the Second World War, and the plight of poor people in Britain. When the Inspector, in his crucial final speech, refers to the 'fire and blood and anguish' that will follow if he is not listened to, the tragic thing is that this 'fire and blood and anguish' did happen, in the form of two world wars, revolutions and social unrest.



All allegories have a moral, or a message. The message Priestley is putting across is that the system for running society that the Birlings represent is unfair and will lead to horrible conflict. The system the Inspector represents is much fairer. Broadly speaking, the Birlings represent Capitalism, and the Inspector represents Socialism. This is a controversial argument, and one that is still hotly debated today. But you don't have to agree with Priestley to understand his motives in writing the play.


An Inspector Calls - Mr Birling

Mr Birling is the father of the family and owner of a factory. He sacked Eva when she went on strike after demanding more money.



'She suddenly decided to ask for more money…I refused of course…so they went on strike.'(14)

He is very concerned with his social standing and is a bit of a snob. He is convinced he is going to get a knighthood and doesn't want any scandal to get in the way of it - 'there's a fair chance I might find my way into the next Honours List.' (8)

He is quite pompous and arrogant - 'we hard-headed practical men of business' (6)

At the start of the play, before the Inspector arrives, he makes a lot of predictions about the future that we know are catastrophically wrong. This means from the start we know his judgment is not to be trusted. 'The Titanic - unsinkable - absolutely unsinkable (7)'

He starts out representing the viewpoint that is the complete opposite of Priestley's and the Inspector's - 'you'd think everybody has to look after everybody else, as if we were all mixed up together...community and all that nonsense' (10)

At the end he, along with Mrs Birling, is more concerned about whether the police know if he's guilty. Unlike Sheila and Eric, he doesn't actually care about what he has done to Eva Smith. 'The whole story's just a lot of moonshine'. (70)



An Inspector Calls - Mrs Birling

Mrs Birling is married to Mr Birling and the head of a charity. She refused to help Eva Smith when Eva came to her and told her she was pregnant.



'She needed not only money but advice, sympathy, friendliness. You’ve had children. You must have known what she was feeling. And you slammed the door in her face.'(45)

Sheila criticises her actions. 'Mother, I think it was cruel and vile.'(45)

She is complacent and arrogant and thinks that her treatment of Eva was 'no more than my duty' (60)

Like Mr Birling, at the end she has learnt nothing, and criticises Sheila and Eric for being upset about Eva. 'They're just over tired. In the morning they'll be as amused as we are.'(71)



An Inspector Calls - Sheila Birling

Sheila is the Birlings' eldest child, and engaged to Gerald. She got Eva sacked from a shop job because Eva laughed at how she looked in a hat.


'And so you used the power you had, as a daughter of a good customer and also of a man well-known in the town, to punish the girl just because she made you feel like that?' (24)

Her views change as the play progresses. When she hears what her father has done to Eva, she says 'but these girls aren't cheap labour - they're people' (19)


As the play progresses and the Inspector reveals their complicity with Eva's death, Sheila gets more and more agitated, and her parents call her 'hysterical.' (48)


At the end she repeats the words of the Inspector's last speech - 'fire and blood and anguish' (71), and unlike the elder Birlings is genuinely changed by the night's events.



An Inspector Calls - Eric Birling

Eric is the Birlings' youngest son, an alcoholic. He had a short affair with Eva, got her pregnant, and then stole money from his father's firm to give her.


There is a suspicion that he treats Eva violently. 'I’m not very clear about it, but afterwards she told me she didn’t want to go in but that – well I was in that state when a chap easily turns nasty – and I threatened to make a row' (52).

He blames his father for his predicament. ‘you’re not the kind of father a chap could go to when he’s in trouble’ (55)

He gets more and more agitated as the truth is revealed and also blames his mother. ‘your own grandchild – you killed them both – damn you, damn you’ (55).

At the end, like Sheila, he has been genuinely changed by the night’s

events and is upset that his parents don’t feel the same way. ‘I agree with Sheila. It frightens me too.’ (71)



An Inspector Calls - Gerald Croft

Gerald is engaged to Sheila. He had an affair with Eva after she was sacked from the shop.


At the start, Gerald seems to agree with Mr Birling that there is no possible link between them and Eva. ‘After all, we’re respectable citizens, not criminals.’ (22)


When his story comes out, he does seem to have treated Eva better than the others, certainly better than Eric. Eva falls in love with him. ‘She told me that she’d been happier than she’d ever been before – but that she knew it couldn’t last.’ (39)

'She became my mistress. She was young and pretty and warm hearted – and intensely grateful.’ (37)

Even then, he rejects any responsibility for Eva. ‘I hadn’t set eyes on the girl for at least six months. I don’t come into this suicide business.’ (26)

Later, he is the character who discovers the truth about the Inspector, but it is left unclear if he has been changed or not by the night’s events.