The Grade 9 Essay
The Inspector’s voice and views are a proxy for Priestley’s socialist message, that “we are all one body” and “responsible for each other”. Sheila and Eric are made to learn this lesson, that we must look after everyone, all the “John Smiths and Eva Smiths”, symbolising the working classes.
Priestley creates these young characters in 1912 because they will have most power in this capitalist society through their inheritance of wealth and status. They represent the ruling classes of 1945.
Although Eric shares socialist views, “we try for higher profits, why shouldn’t they try for higher wages”, Gerald disagrees and Priestley makes Gerald behave as “though nothing has happened”. Therefore, Priestley questions whether the younger generation will actually turn out like Gerald, rather than like Sheila and Eric.
Like Gerald, Birling worships profit. He even describes Sheila’s marriage to Gerald as a business “alliance”. This is also why Mrs Birling suggests Sheila should accept Gerald’s infidelity and should expect “men of business” to have affairs. Wealth and status are more important than their children, so capitalism destroys their humanity.
Priestley shows Mrs Birling’s lack of humanity is caused by her love of status. Although denying charity to Eva, and apparently losing her grandchild, she refuses to admit she did “anything wrong”. For her the class barriers are too great, and “girls of that class” will never be entitled to her sympathy or understanding.
In contrast, Birling appears to repent: “I would give thousands, yes thousands". However, once Gerald convinces him it was all “a hoax”, he ridicules his own children, “the famous younger generation” who “can’t take a joke”. Priestley symbolises the apparently huge distance between the Birling parents and children.
In contrast, Eric and Sheila both reject their parents’ views, and will “always remember” The Inspector’s teaching. Eric believes, “We did her in all right.” Sheila is scared of the consequences of their refusal to learn, “And it frightens me.” Consequently, she ends her engagement, saying it is “too soon” to accept Gerald, even though she will not find a better economic match in this patriarchal society.
Gerald, however, feels little guilt, as The Inspector judged he “made her happy for a time”. He arrogantly asks Sheila to take back the engagement ring. Surprisingly, Priestley doesn’t make her refuse. This causes us to wonder if The Inspector’s lesson, though fully learned, will be retained by the younger generation in the years to come.
We have seen Sheila move from vanity, getting Eva sacked because she was “pretty”, to social responsibility, sympathising with working class girls “counting their pennies”. Eric shifts from an alcoholic abuser, stealing from his father’s business, to being determined to create a fairer society: “I agree with Sheila.”
In contrast, Birling’s arrogant belief that a man “has to look after his own business and family”, doesn’t change, which summons the final phone call and a second death. The audience will remember The Inspector’s last words, that they will “learn a lesson in fire and blood and anguish”, reminding them that this capitalist viewpoint led to the tragedies of both world wars.
Thus Priestley subtly portrays the younger generation, suggesting society did not change between the wars. After 1912, Eric was probably influenced by his father. Sheila probably accepted Gerald’s offer of marriage. Birling’s arrogance, represented by believing we “will never be war with Germany”, leads to World War Two. The refusal to learn the lessons of Eva’s death, leads to the second death, which is a metaphor for The Second World War. They are a symbol of the ruling classes’ refusal to learn from war and social unrest.
But, Priestley’s contemporary audience is filled with adults in their fifties, the Geralds, Erics and Sheilas who can create a socialist society. Priestley also directly addresses the “younger generation” who have just fought the war, teaching “we are all of one body”. History shows this “younger generation” created a socialist future, with Labour’s landslide victory in 1945.
659 words
· The words in bold are subject terminology.
· The words in italics are where I keep explaining Priestley’s purpose, using context like an embedded quotation.
What, why didn’t you make it 700 words?
I spent just as long editing this essay as I did writing it. My original essay was over 1000 words long. I could write that in a 45 minute exam, but I wanted to give you an essay length that most readers would be able to hit. If I can make it this short now, I can write less expertly in the exam, where under pressure I will write more words to make the same points.
But I also train myself to be a much better writer, something that will repay me again and again, for the whole of my life. Sure, it will also make it much easier for me to get top grades at GCSE, but that’s a tiny benefit compared to the next 70 years, isn’t it? That’s why I teach anyway. I hope it works for you.
PEE Paragraphs (or PEA or PEAL or PETAL or PEXEL etc)
Ok, this may be a bit confusing, but I hope I can explain it simply.
When you write an essay, you are writing an argument, to put forward your point of view. You’ll see my first two paragraphs set out what my point of view is - what I am going to prove in the essay.
This is called the thesis statement. I train my students to try to have 3 big ideas in their thesis statement.
Those three ideas are then my essay plan. I don’t have to write that out separately, I just have to prove them in my essay.
Here’s what might feel weird
Teachers invented mnemonics like PEE to help students prove their points and analyse. But, they needed students to see the difference between Point, Evidence, and Explanation. That makes sense, right? So, they wrote about the Point in one sentence. Then the Evidence in another sentence. Then the Explanation in another sentence. Then they often added an extra level of language analysis in another sentence.
Suddenly that’s 3 or 4 sentences to explain an idea.
This is a huge problem under exam conditions. It means that you can’t write about many ideas. It makes it very difficult for you to ‘conceptualised’, or to give more than one interpretation, or to respond to the whole text, or all the other skills at the top of the mark scheme. For example:
What does the AQA mark scheme say?
1. Convincing
2. Critical analysis
3. Conceptualised
4. Exploration of context to author’s and contemporary readers’ perspectives
5. Give interpretation(s)
6. Response to the whole text
7. Analyse it as a play, and deal with the structure
8. Precise references
9. Analysis of writer’s methods
10. Subject terminology used judiciously
11. Exploration of effects of writer’s methods on reader
PEE Sentences
The solution is to include your Point, Evidence and Explanation in the same sentence, or to link several together in one sentence. This takes practice.
Let me show you:
“Priestley shows Mrs Birling’s lack of humanity is caused by her love of status.” Here the sentence starts with a point, and then gives an explanation in italics.
“Although denying charity to Eva, and apparently losing her grandchild, she refuses to admit she did “anything wrong”.” Here, three examples are included in one sentence - more evidence should make me more convincing.
“For her the class barriers are too great, and “girls of that class” will never be entitled to her sympathy or understanding.” Here there is one more piece of evidence, the quotations, and two explanations, in italics.
So, in one paragraph I have 1 point, 4 examples and 3 explanations.
And I took only 54 words to do it!
Now remember, I didn’t manage it first time round. In my first attempt, this probably took about 70 words. I’ve trained myself through editing. In your writing, it will probably take you 50 words to write 1 point, 1 piece of evidence and 1 explanation. But with practice you can get much, much more efficient.
This post is based on an extract from my Guide to An Inspector Calls. All my guides are available on Amazon.
Let’s Translate the Exam Criteria into Clear Steps for Essay Writing
1. Give more than one interpretation of the characters or events.
2. Make sure you write about Priestley’s viewpoint and ideas about his society at the time, in 1945
3. Write about how the society of 1945 would respond to these ideas, characters and events.
4. Write about the ending of the play, to show how characters have or haven’t changed
5. Write about the ending to show Priestley’s viewpoint.
When you do it, make sure you
1. Embed quotations all the time
2. Only use terminology if it helps explain an idea*
*You will notice that I have not named any verbs, adjectives, nouns, adverbs, because that is just dumb. Naming parts of the sentence tells you nothing about the ideas in it, so the examiner realises you are just sticking this in to use terminology, but it is not “judicious”. Your teacher may think that the examiner wants this anyway. If so, ask them what would have happened if they had used terminology in this way in their degree.
Better still, go back and look at the words in bold in the short essay. This is subject terminology.
What does “subject terminology” mean?
The words a student of literature at university would use in nearly every literature essay. You could argue that connectives fall under this category as well, if you want.
What does the Edexcel mark scheme say?
1. There is an assured personal response
2. Discerning choice of references to the text
3. You write in a critical style
4. You have perceptive interpretations
5. The understanding of relevant contexts is excellent (so, Priestley’s context, and the different one of his audience).
6. Context is integrated convincingly into the response (like an embedded quotation)
Are Essays Valuable?
I am soon going to publish essays for paid subscribers. 1 new essay every week. What do you think I should charge per month? Leave a comment if you have a view!
Thanks mr salles.you are amazing 😍
Chat gpt says it achieves around 23-25 marks how accurate is that for this essay?