2017

How far does Priestley present Mrs Birling as an unlikeable character?

Write about:
• what Mrs Birling says and does in the play
• how Priestley presents her by the ways he writes. [30 marks]
In An Inspector Calls, JB Priestley uses the character of Mrs Birling to portray a
typical higher-class woman. In multiple occasions in the play, Mrs Birling (Sybil)
is presented as dismissive and a snob. This behaviour is evident from the very
start of the play where she tells off her husband for thanking the chef in front
of a guest, Gerald. She says “Arthur, your not supposed to say such things.”
This authoritative tone of Mrs Birling shows that she takes pride in her social
respectability and so wants her whole family to not ruin it. Mrs Birling is from a
higher social status than Mr Birling so she is socially superior. This is a reason
why she is telling off Mr Birling as well. We learn that she takes high
responsibility in social etiquette, which are the ways society expects you to
behave.
In the same conversation, JB Priestley presents Mrs Birling as traditional in the
lines “Sheila, the things you girls pick up these days.” Here it is clear that Sybil
is quite ashamed of the language that her daughter is using because it is not
sophisticated and not how the higher class should talk. The repeated telling off
of two members in her family echoes and emphasises her social superiority.
The collective noun “girls” shows that Mrs Birling is distancing herself from
them and is appalled that Sheila is part of them, and not behaving traditionally.
This again shows that Mrs Birling is a bit of a snob and so presents her as an
unlikeable character.
When the Inspector arrives and begins interrogating the family members, both
Mr and Mrs Birling tried to use a commanding tone and their social influence
to get him to leave but he does not. As each character’s acts are revealed, Mrs
Birling repeatedly shows no sympathy for Eva Smith. This echoes her social
class because she as a higher-class woman was not expected to feel sympathy
for the lower class person. This however contrast with the charity that Mrs
Birling runs for woman in need. Therefore, the audience can think that Mrs
Birling is not running the charity for the good of lower-class woman but more
to earn social respect and show off her status. This presents her as an
unlikeable character because she is selfish, self centred and doesn’t really care
about the good of those in lower classes.
When Gerald confesses that he had Eva Smith, but at the time known as Daisy
Renton (with Renton suggesting (renting and prostitution), as a mistress, Mrs
Birling is appalled as says “that’s disgusting”. Here, Mrs Birling’s dismissive
attitude is showing that she is totally against the idea of men having mistress,
but she doesn’t further accuse Gerald, which could suggest that she is aware it
happens with higher class men and so accepts it. When she is interrogated by
the Inspector, Mrs Birling repeatedly lies and tries to avoid the truth, but the
Inspector starts asking deliberate questions to prevent her from doing this.
This behaviour presents Mrs Birling as a snob and shows off her higher-class
attitude because she is trying to avoid the truth and make it suit her. When she
finally does reveal that she “used her influence” to deny Eva Smith from
receiving help at her charity she says, “unlike the other three, I am not
ashamed of what I did”. Here Mrs Birling is distancing herself from the rest of
the family to try and keep up her respectability. By doing this, she is once again
presented as a snob, and it suggests that Mrs Birling feels more strongly
towards building up and protecting her social respect than her care for her
family. This is further emphasised later in the play when Eric says, “You never
loved me”. This quote provides evidence to Mrs Birling’s attitude towards her
family because it states that she never showed love towards her children.
Therefore, due to her lack of motherly responsibilities and love that every child
deserves to receive, she is presented as an unlikable character.
Mrs Birling tries to blame someone else to avoid her reputation being ruined.
When she confesses that she prevented Eva Smith from receiving help, she
begins blaming the father who “impregnated” Eva Smith. The Inspector’s
cleverness is showed in this part of the play because he has laid a trap for Mrs
Birling, and she has fallen straight into it. This suggests that Mrs Birling is not
very smart, unlike Sheila who realises and tries to warn her, but Sybil doesn’t
listen. Mrs Birling says that the father should make a “public confession” and
that there should be “a scandal” about this. This echoes to her dismissive tone
as she is again trying to blame someone else. She doesn’t even think that the
man could be her son, and this is being she is of too high of a class that she
can’t even imagine that. When she does find out, she bursts into tears and
can’t bear what her son has done. In this situation, the audience will feel some
sympathy towards her but others (especially lower-class audience) will think
that she deserves this for her inhumanly attitudes to the lower class. This
attitude is evident when she says, “a girl of that sort”. Here she is referring to
Eva but is distancing her and showing no sympathy to her situation by classing
her in a group of people who are not appreciated by society. As a result of this,
she is seen as an unlikeable character.
When Sybil finds out that the Inspector is a hoax, she instantly forgets all that
had happened that evening and goes back to what she was doing earlier on. By
showing no remorse for Eva Smith through the character of Mrs Birling, JB
Priestley is suggesting that there is no chance that the higher class can change
to be able to have equal rights and equal morals. He speaks to his audience
through the voice of the Inspector where he says, “We are all members of one
body”. This states that we are all the same kind, we are all human beings, so
everyone needs to treat each other equally and as they would be liked to be
treated. JB Priestley contrast Mrs Birling’s character with Sheila’s to show that
there is hope in the younger generation for change. This is evident when Sheila
says, “between us we have killed a girl”. This shows that Sheila feels strongly
guilty for her actions and shows remorse, but Mrs Birling doesn’t accept this. In
fact, she criticizes Mr Birling for not interrogating the Inspector at the start, or
letting her question him at the start of the evening. This emphasises how Mrs
Birling has behaved throughout the course of the play and shows that she has
not changed one bit. This presents her as unlikeable because she is showing no
sympathy for Eva and JB Priestley has intentionally made the character of Mrs
Birling unlikeable to show that there is no hope in the older generation for
changing and accepting moral views, but there is hope in the younger
generation.
How does Priestley use the character of the Inspector to suggest ways that
society could be improved? Write about:
• what society is shown to be like in the play and how it might be improved
• how Priestley presents society through what the Inspector says and does. [30
marks]
In ‘An Inspector Calls’, Priestley depicts society in 1912 as capitalist-ruled,
segregated and unfair, using the Birling family as a symbol for all upper-class
aristocrats. The character, Inspector Goole, acts as Priestley’s social
mouthpiece to portray the idea that socialism is the future. The Inspector
could be the technique that Priestley uses to convey his own ideas and
opinions, because in 1944-1945 (when the play was written) Priestley was a
figure who campaigned for a social welfare state and a more ‘moral’ system. It
is plausible that Priestley wrote the play, set in 1912, to convey the contrast
between the pre- and post-war societies (1945).

At the start of the play, stage directions indicate to us that the Birlings are
having an engagement meal in celebration of Sheila and Gerald’s pending
marriage. When Birling, the head of the house, and possibly the most
passionate capitalist, says “a man has to make his own way” in life, the
doorbell rings – signalling the entrance of the Inspector. This stage direction
indicates to us that the Inspector will turn the Birlings’ artificial world upside
down, sobering them to the harsh realities of the life for the poor.

Equally, the entrance of Inspector Goole turns the stage lighting from “pink
and intimate” to “brighter and harder”. This, to the audience, would visually
appear as if the rose-tinted spectacles, filtering out negativity and realism in
their lives, would have been lifted and replaced with a “brighter”, “harder”
light of an interrogation room. This theatrical device acts as dramatic irony,
because the audience can see how Priestley is changing the physical setting to
change the tone of the atmosphere, and to foreshadow change that the
Inspector represents. As an audience, one can infer that Priestley is using the
Inspector to criticise and reveal to the upper classes their sins.

When being questioned by the Inspector, Birling relates how Eva Smith had
“far too much to say” and therefore “had to go”, just for asking for a small
raise – an amount Birling could have easily spared. Instead, the “hard-headed
business[man]” sent her on her way, beginning the chain of events that would
lead her to her untimely demise. Sheila often seems like a character heavily
influenced by the Inspector’s questioning of her father’s actions. This is
particularly evident when she says that “these girls” are people too, not just
“cheap labour”. In the context of a society in 1912, if you were female your
options were considerably limited. Firstly, the expectation was that women
should marry and be a faithful housewife; or secondly, to become “cheap
labour” for those within power. The Inspector also concludes that Birling’s
reactions were hasty, ill-advised and wrong, because he later mentions how
we are all of “one body”. This phrase “one body” indicates to an audience that
he believes in order to prevent such tragedies occurring in the future, we must
act as a communal “body”, in a socialist revolution.
The Inspector’s appearance too tells us that he will have great influence and
strengthens his societal ideas - increasing their importance even further. The
fact that he “at once” created an “impression of massiveness, solidity and
purposefulness”, despite lacking stature, indicates to an audience that his
presence will change things and his character holds all the power to instil these
changes. In fact, once the interrogation is over, the Inspector states a brief but
ominous warning – if people don’t change, “we” will pay the price in “fire,
blood and anguish”. This biblical reference indicates to us that Priestley is
giving the Inspector God-like status, as if this change is so urgently necessary
that even God is enforcing it. The use of the words “fire”, “blood” and
“anguish” create a semantic field of hell and doom, hinting that without social
conformity, acceptance of culpability and an increased moral radar, we as “one
body” face turmoil in the hands of our own capitalist selfishness. Priestley
truly did believe this, evidently from the Inspector’s interrogation, because in
1945, he along with twelve million others, voted Labour (socialists) in the
election, causing a landslide win for the first time in history.

The Inspector also subtly hints at how society can be improved upon by his
actions and words. For instance, when Mr Birling tells Sheila to “leave”, for
being the capitalist, misogynistic man he was, believed that Sheila couldn’t
handle staying; however, the Inspector politely asks her to “stay”. This action
foreshadows socialist changes that come after the war, as women’s role in
society became more and more prevalent and significant. In a way, all of the
Inspector’s actions could be indicating how through following his advice, a
better, less tragic society could be formed. This is directly symbolic of
Priestley’s message, as he believed that the future of Britain was socialist. He
wanted all to benefit from a better, more-advanced system than the current
capitalist one.

If a socialist welfare system existed in 1912, ultimately Eva Smith and “millions
and millions” more would have survived. Workers would also be on a fair
regulated wage, which would have prevented any “strike”, and therefore Eva
would have remained in employment. Effectively, the Inspector opens
audiences’ eyes to the devastating effects that a capitalist nation could bring.
2018
How far does Priestley present Eric as a character who changes his attitudes
towards himself and others during the play?
Write about:
• what Eric says and does throughout the play
• how far Priestley presents Eric as a character who changes his attitudes. [30
marks]
During ‘An Inspector Calls’, we can see that Eric is presented as an agitated
character who is very much miserable with his life. He has a notable shift in
attitude towards himself and others – from someone who takes advantage of
others for his desires to a young man with a socialist outlook on life. He
reaches a point where he finally understands Priestley’s moral message, taking
full responsibility for his actions because ‘the fact remains that [he] did what
[he] did’.
From the beginning, it is clear to see Eric’s nervous nature which emanates
from his lack of confidence. In the opening stage directions of Act One, he is
described as ‘not quite at ease, half shy’ and ‘half assertive’. We get the
impression that Eric is quite unstable, unable to relax, perhaps indicating he
has something on his conscience, a burden he is constantly carrying. Taking
into consideration that he is sitting with his family and feeling this way, his
description alone hints at the distance in the relationship between the
characters. His confidence by the end of the play contrasts immensely to the
start and he admits to his father that ‘he’s not the kind of father a chap could
go to when he's in trouble’. Eric shows that he’s not the only person in the
wrong.
Priestley’s use of symbolism can be used additionally to emphasise the
weakness in the father-son relationship within the family. In Act 1, the
furniture is described as ‘substantial and heavily comfortable, but not cosy and
homelike’. This perfectly reflects the relationship between the two Birling men
– although they have wealth, class, and luxuries, they lack the things that
money cannot buy. The household seems to be a house, not a home. Eric is
quite unsure of himself because although he has opposing views to his father,
he can’t find the words to explain himself, allowing his father to override his
words whenever he gets a chance. ‘What about war?... Yes, I know – but still-
….’ ‘Just let me finish Eric?’ As the play progresses, Eric’s confidence increases,
and this leads to him eventually standing up to his father and confronting his
outdated capitalist ideas.
Mr Birling seems to think that he knows best, mocking the ‘famous younger
generation’ by the end of the play. The generational gap between Eric and his
father results in lots of conflict between them.
In Act Three, we ultimately find out how Eric becomes involved and
intertwined in the ‘chain of events’ that resulted in Eva Smith’s suicide and the
death of his unborn child – he was drunk at the Palace Theatre and raped Eva
Smith/Daisy Renton. As a consequence, she realises that she is pregnant with
Eric’s child. Although Eric tries to help Eva by persuading her to marry him and
offering stolen money, she refuses his suggestions and turns to his mother’s
committee for help instead. His actions depict him as an immature and
irresponsible man, letting himself get ‘in that state where a chap easily turns
nasty’. This displays a thoughtless abuse of power how insignificant a young,
unmarried, working-class woman was in Edwardian society. He recklessly took
advantage of a lower-class young woman, without considering the
consequences, claiming that he ‘wasn’t in love with her or anything’ and that
‘she was pretty and a good sport’. His attitude towards women lacked empathy
and compassion, but it’s only after acknowledges the Inspectors words that he
significantly matures - he understands the need for change in society and
shows genuine remorse for his actions.
Eric as a character has developed positively, in terms of social responsibility.
When he starts to explain his relationship with Eva, his use of euphemisms
show how Eric is reluctant to accept responsibility for his actions at first.
How does Priestley explore the importance of social class in An Inspector
Calls?
Write about:
• some ideas about social class in the play
• how Priestley presents the importance of social class. [30 marks]
Priestley presents the importance of social class through the naivety of the
upper class, by exploring the authority and rights one’s social class bestows.
This is conducted through the Inspector, who is a proxy for Priestley’s social
and political views.
Initially, Priestley depicts the “comfortable” life of the upper-class Birling
family. In the play’s opening stage directions, Sheila is described as being “very
pleased with life”, which acts as a stark contrast to the “fire and blood and
anguish” which the Inspector suggests society will become if people do not
change their ways and take some “responsibility”. The adjective “very”
emphasises Sheila’s contentedness and implies a satisfied, safe and secure way
of life. Symbolically, however, it depicts a metaphorical bubble in which the
upper classes live, unaware of the “anguish” just outside their door,
completely alienating the lower classes and creating a callous, frugal and
emotionally detached society.

Furthermore, the “fire and blood and anguish” that the Inspector mentions
before he departs, could be indicative of the effort and pain that non-
influential (poorer) families have to endure to exist. On the other hand, the
lexical choice suggests images of hell: implying that capitalism is home to
sinners and villains – perhaps referring to the fraud and exploitation which the
upper classes get away with, much like the Birlings. Priestley is clearly
appealing to an audience in 1945 who could bring about change. Secondly,
this could also be reference to the two World Wars experienced by the
audience, acting in parallel to the two deaths of Eva Smith, where society
hasn’t learned from its previous mistakes.

Another reference to the importance of social class, during the Edwardian era,
is the hypocrisy and double standards of the leading powers, highlighted by
the moral subconscious: the Inspector. Sheila proclaims to her father that “it is
better to ask for the earth that to take it”, following the revelation that he
dismissed (“fired”) Eva Smith from his “works”, because she asked for “higher
wages” to avoid poverty. Here the imbalance between the upper and lower
classes becomes evident; perhaps a conscious effort by Priestley to get rid of
social segregation and instead embrace socialism – evidenced as his proxy
proclaims that he “wouldn’t know where to draw the line” between the two
social classes. Furthermore, there is the villainising of Mr Birling, by his
daughter, and the symbolic implication that capitalism is “taking” the beauty
away from Britain and everyone in it. In addition, despite Eva Smith being, as
stated by Mr Birling, a “good worker”, his social class allowed him to fire her
without repercussions, because he was threatened, highlighting the
vulnerability and inferiority of people from lower social classes.
Moreover, Priestley highlights a deep-rooted corruption in society in the way
he exposes influential characters. Mr Birling habitually relies on his social class
in order to get through life, which other social classes simply cannot do. Early
on in the play, Mr Birling emphasises the importance of social class and status
to him, by stating he “was an alderman for years – and Lord Mayor two years
ago”; he has an impending “knighthood”; and that he “play[s] golf” with “Chief
Constable, Colonel Roberts”. Each of these comments hints that there is some
sort of immunity and entitlement that comes with being upper class, and that
you do not need to operate within the constraints of the law. This is further
emphasised by Gerald’s remark that they are all “respectable citizens” and also
Mr Birling’s exploitation of his employees. This can be interpreted as
Priestley’s effort to expose the sinful acts of the upper classes and regain
justice for the poor. This exposure is also evidenced in the stage directions,
such as when the Inspector enters the lights become “brighter and harder”,
metaphorically dispelling the shadows of the wealthy and revealing their
failings.

In conclusion, Priestley presents the importance of social class by comparing

the two contrasting worlds that the rich and poor exist in, encouraging an
audience to embrace his socialist ideals, granting a voice to those who have
been marginalised.
2019
How does Priestley present selfishness and its effects in An Inspector Calls?
Write about:
• examples of selfish behaviour in the play
• how Priestley presents selfishness and its effects. [30 marks]
In ‘An Inspector Calls’ Priestley presents selfishness as a pernicious and
harmful quality, that has disastrous consequences for everyone.

One instance of selfishness is with the Birling family, who appear to live in their
own “comfortable” bubble of wealth and avarice, which inhibits and warps
their views of the world. For instance, the stage directions describe the
“suburban” Birling family home as “pink and intimate”. The use of the
adjective “pink” connotes ‘rose tinted spectacles’; the sense that the Birling
family has a nostalgic, anachronistic and out-of-touch perception of the world,
implying they are detached from the realities of modern Britain. This feeling is
further augmented when the Inspector arrives and shatters their rapacious
ignorance. The lighting changes drastically, going to “brighter and harder”.
The implication of such a change is that the Inspector is shining a light (as
though in a police interrogation) on areas the Birlings had never previously
seen (because of the ignorance afforded to them by their greed and
selfishness). The word “harder” connotes that the process of exposing the
woes of the poor and the Birlings’ transgressions was actually physically
gruelling for the family; perhaps as a result of the years of self-imposed myopia
they underwent. Moreover, the Birlings’ detachment as a result of their
selfishness and wealth has led to a degree of inhumanity, with Eva Smith being
described as a “wretched girl”. The word “wretched” implies pity, not
sympathy, and the word “girl” is demeaning to an adult woman who had
recently died.

Certainly, throughout the play, Priestley conveys the feeling that greed,
profiteering and capitalism are deeply virulent and subversive things that
damage society as a whole. For example, Birling’s obsession with “profits” and
so forth lead him to dismiss Eva Smith, engendering a downward spiral which
ended in her death. The Inspector declared that “we are members of one
body”. This metaphor connotes that people need to work together to survive,
as the body consists of many vital organs and systems that all work together to
thrive. The implication being that if even one component (or person) fails to
work as part of a team, then the body (or society) will fail.

The calamitous consequences of a failure to work as a community and instead

being selfish and acquisitive are enunciated by the Inspector, who warns of
“fire and blood and anguish”. This biblical, prophetic warning is multifaceted.
On the one hand, it urges people to work together lest there be such damage
that physical injury (“blood”) damage and destruction (“fire”) and deep
emotional suffering (“anguish”) take place.

But, alternatively, it paints the Inspector as an almost supernatural figure. This

is because to a 1945 audience, such desperate suffering would have been all
too apparent: all of them would have endured the hellish World War 2 (1939-
1945) and most of them would have suffered through World War 1 (1914-
1918). Such a prescient warning from the Inspector would have instantly
aligned the audience with him and against Arthur Birling, who had previously
fallen victim to dramatic irony (“Germans don’t want war”), making Birling
seem pompous and tumid because of his selfish ignorance, whereas the
Inspector (who embodied Priestley’s socialist ideals) appeared enlightened and
popular with the audience.

Finally, the description of Arthur Birling proves his selfishness and gluttony.
For example, the adjective “portentous” is multifaceted. One interpretation is
that he is an arrogant and hubristic man who is overly self-important.
However, it could also be deduced that he is bloated and swollen; either
because of gluttony and excess consumption or because he is brimming with
arrogance and vanity – this comes from the adjective “portly”, meaning stout
or overweight.

How does Priestley present Sheila as a character who learns important

lessons about herself and society?
Write about:
• some of the things Sheila learns in the play
• how Priestley presents Sheila as a character who learns important lessons
about herself and society. [30 marks]
In Priestley’s play ‘An Inspector Calls’ Sheila is arguably one of the most
significant characters in conveying the playwright’s messages. Although, at the
start of the play Sheila shows some signs of a left-wing ideology, Priestley uses
her as a device to show how a woman in 1912 may never have had the
exposure to reality she needs in order to enforce her opinions. Her character is
a symbol of his belief in the “famous younger generation” to change their
country’s deeply engrained capitalist thoughts on social equality and begin to
mirror his own – as a cofounder of a socialist party. Priestley has created a
character which has been profoundly affected by the death of Eva Smith and
who realizes her wrongs. At the beginning of the play, Sheila is presented as a
content, easily excitable and slightly shallow woman of 1910. However, as the
events of the evening unfold, Sheila undergoes a dramatic change. It appears
that she, at the beginning of the night was a child and then, towards the end of
the night had matured to become an adult with a greater awareness of the
world and more knowledgeable and independent.
One of the most obvious features about Sheila is how she is infantilised by her
family and in extension, by society. Even in the first stage direction, she is
described as a “pretty girl”, implying that even as an engaged woman she has
restrictions similar to that of a girl. This perhaps juxtaposes her mother’s and
father’s ideas that Eva - a woman of similar age – should be responsible for
herself, but Sheila not so. Their only difference being their position in 1912’s
hierarchical society. In addition to this, Sheila refers to Mrs Birling as
“mummy” which is somewhat the sociolect of a child. However, this
infantilisation of herself was very normal for a woman of her age of an upper-
midddle-class upbringing. On the other hand, to contradict this is the
implication, even to start with of a more forceful personality. She speaks to
Gerald with “mock aggression” which could portray how she wishes to express
her opinion strongly but understands Gerald’s supposed superiority to her.
Sheila’s speech is also litters with tag questions, for instance “do you?”
showing her checking herself, and a need for validation.
At the beginning of the play, Priestley presents Sheila as excited at the
prospect of her marriage and materialistic items, such as the ring that Gerald
gives her. She is so content with the gift that Gerald wanted her to have and
claims that “I’ll never let it out of my sight for an instant”. This suggests that
Sheila is very happy with her marriage and wants to treasure their marriage
forever and keep the ring as almost a token of their marriage. Contrastingly,
that she is simply easily excited by marriage and unaware of what a real
marriage is like as she appears to be blinded by the luxuries (such as the ring)
of marriage. The word “never” her is important because it signifies the change
in Sheila, as we know, that later on in the evening this ring will be returned to
Gerald. The idea that she has returned something that made her so happy,
reveals how affected Sheila has been by the revelations. This makes the reader
sense that Sheila is feeling repent, and remorse and we almost feel proud of
how far Sheila has coming during the revelations of the night. Priestley may of,
at first, portrayed Sheila as an excitable child so that the audience can
understand and have a contrast to how much Sheila has grown over the night
as she becomes less excited with materialistic objects, such as the ring.
Another characteristic of Sheila is her initially narrow-minded priorities which
mirror he elitist upbringing and how blatantly unaware she is to the world
beyond her own. For example, she says “now I really fell engaged” after
Gerald gives her the ring. We can infer from this that she needs the
materialistic symbol of her ring to truly feel secure and content in her
engagement. As well as this, one of the first questions she asks about Eva is
“pretty?”. This highlights that she is only interested in the attractiveness of
Eva, perhaps because she wants to compare it to herself. That fact that it’s a
minor sentence emphasises that she only cares about this one feature –
certainly not the pain that Eva had to go through. This side of Sheila conveys
to the audience how women like her were taught to compare themselves to
others and value their importance (to men) over anything else.
An extremely significant turning point is the gradual metamorphosis of Sheila is
the entrance of the Inspector. After properly “coming in” the room for the
send time she almost immediately opposes her father with “these girls aren’t
cheap labour”, This is Sheila beginning to understand the world away from her
rose-tinted view on life. In addition to this, her idiolect slowly begins to
transition to a more mature and perceptive way of speaking. She stops using
tag questions as she begins to search for answers, not approval, Priestley
highlights how young girls may only need a feminist role model like the
Inspector to make the “impression” they need to make a change for the better
including a more equal society. In Act 2, we experience a different Sheila to the
one we met at the start.
This Sheila has become more like the Inspector. She becomes more knowing
and understanding of goings on. She says to Gerald “why – you fool – he
knows.” She is the first person to begin to question the Inspector and even
understand the Inspector and take on his views. The way she talks to Gerald
suggests that she no longer cares for social divides and calls him a “fool”. This
is interesting as it shows that she has become very opinionated and brave to
stand up to her potential husband and speak to him in such a way that would
have been unacceptable at the time. The word “fool” suggests that she is
beginning to judge people on who they really are, rather than for their social
statuses. This was one of Priestley’s main views, that we judge people on who
they really are and what they really do, rather than where they stand in the
social hierarchy. In this aspect, Sheila becomes almost a mouthpiece for
Priestley’s views. Furthermore, the word “knows” is evidently significant here
as it reflects that Sheila is, like the Inspector a knowing figure, as she becomes
to understand him whilst others don’t. This makes the reader feel like the
Inspectors impact has already taken affect. This also reflects her change in
personality as she becomes knowing, rather than a dependent shallow woman,
as she was presented at the start. Priestley may have portrayed Sheila as a
sharp woman, to perhaps suggest that society is wrong about women and that
they are more useful than society realizes.
Sheila is vital in the attempted breakdown of irresponsible conservatives like
her parents as she contradicts them and challenges their “authority” and
“power”. She tells them “it frightens me the way you talk” which implies with
the verb “frightens” that their actions are extremely harmful. This mirrors the
Inspector’s message that they will be the cause of “fire and blood and anguish”
and emphasises her now socialist ideology. She also changes Mrs Birling’s
maternal title to “mother” which contrasts heavily with “mummy”. This
implies that she will no longer conform to the sexist standards and how she
has matured. She also doesn’t submit to Gerald’s patriarchal dominance,
rejecting him with “no, it’s too soon” which suggests how she has the power to
oppose him, and now he is left begging for her “respect” not the other way
around.
In Act 2, we see that Sheila become more sensitive to Eva’s situation and
embarrassed of her family’s reaction to the death. She states that the
Inspector, “he’s giving us the rope - so that we’ll hang ourselves”. This suggests
that she is very irritated by her family’s negligence to accept their
responsibility for what they have done and by their naivity. Contrastingly, this
could suggest that Sheila is becoming increasingly more unnerved and is
perhaps being too irrational. The word “hang” is important here as it reflects
that Sheila is very troubled by the death of Eva and feels that perhaps her
family’s crimes are even punishable by death. This almost makes the reader
feel sympathy for Sheila as she is so burdened by the situation. However, the
word hang also reminds the audience that it is Eva who is dead and that the
Birling’s crimes were so unjustified. Priestley may have chosen to represent
Sheila as so troubled by the death to convey how society should react to the
death of others and that we should care for others because we all affect one
another’s lives.
At the end of the play, we sense that Sheila becomes even more irritated by
her family’s attitude. She argues that “whoever that Inspector was, it was
anything but a joke”. She feels that her family’s celebration that the event was
a hoax, is unacceptable. The word “joke” is significant here because it conveys
how lightly her family have taken the situation and how they are happy to
simply deny that they had ever done anything wrong. Sheila also feels that this
situation is not to be laughed at, because Eva’s death was certainly not
amusing to her. However, she may feel resigned as she appears to be putting
forward her opinions less forcefully than before. This could reflect that she has
given up and that there is no hope for the older generation, for they are
incapable of change. This is much like Priestley’s view, because from the play,
we understand that Priestley believes that there is hope for the younger
generation and that they can change to become more socially aware.
In conclusion, Sheila’s change for the better throughout the play is a metaphor
for her generation of women’s ability to fight for equality, in a world without
the vote. Perhaps Priestley’s message to his 1945 audience is they can progress
even further. Characters like Mr and Mrs Birling cannot exist in his perfect
world and need to be opposed by women like Sheila.
2020
Mr Birling says, ‘…a man has to mind his own business and look after himself
and his own’.
How far does Priestley present Mr Birling as a man who cares only for himself
and his family?
Write about:
• what Mr Birling says and does
• how far Priestley presents Mr Birling as a man who cares only for himself and
his family. [30 marks]
Priestley presents Mr Birling as a self-centred bigoted ‘business man’ who
Priestley uses to criticize the selfish nature of capitalism and highlight the need
for change in society.
In the exposition, Priestley establishes Mr Birling is a selfish character whose
self-perception is based solely on wealth and social status. While lecturing
Gerald about his utterly wrong views on the economy, Titanic and the war, Mr
Birling highlights to Gerald that ‘a man has to mind his own business and take
care of himself and his own’. The personal pronouns ‘his’ and ‘himself’ clearly
demonstrate to the audience that Mr Birling is a strong capitalist who lacks
care and compassion for those around him. By immediately portraying Mr
Birling as selfish and pompous, the audience are encouraged to dislike not only
Mr Birling as a character, but also his capitalistic views in which he stands for.
This phrase is later repeated in the play when Mr Birling claims that ‘a man has
to look after himself- and his family, of course’. The repetition of the strong
capitalist ideology further reinforces Mr Birling’s selfish nature. As a later
thought, displayed by the hyphen, Birling says that a man should look after his
family. He puts himself before his family, not only in his words, but in his life
also. By adding ‘of course’ to the end, Priestley suggests that Birling is
confident in his speaking and feels others should agree with him however, it
hints to an underlying sense of anxiety and worry surrounding his social status
and authority. Priestley uses Mr Birling and his attitudes towards looking after
himself to represent the blind-eyed and uncaring older generation of
capitalists whose strong morals are the reason that the ‘millions and millions of
Eva Smith and John Smiths’ are in poverty.
After the Inspector arrives (the perfect timing dismissing Mr Birling’s speech on
capitalism) and interrogates Mr Birling, Mr Birling shows little care towards his
role in Eva’s death. He feels he is ‘perfectly justified’ and that he fired her as it
is his ‘duty to keep labour costs down’. The abstract noun ‘duty’ displays to the
audience that he feels he is responsible for his business and suggest he acts
like a dutiful parent for the business. This is ironic, because Eric highlights the
uncaring ways of his father, Mr Birling, as he feels that he's ‘not the kind of
father a chap can go to when he is in trouble’. This insulting phrase
demonstrates a clear contradiction between how Mr Birling treats his family
and children and how he treats his business. The audience knows that parents
are always there for their children, so not only does this phrase allude to
tensions within the family, but it also displays Mr Birling’s uncaring, dismissive
character. He would rather care for his ‘prosperous’ business than his family;
himself before his family.
Priestley once again suggests Mr Birling as a conceited egotistical man by
displaying his need for climbing the ranks of society. After learning that Gerald
is engaged to Shiela, we would expect Mr Birling to celebrate his love for Sheila
and his congratulations. Instead, he sees this almost as a business transaction-
his daughter for ‘higher prices’. He sees his marriage as a way of ‘joining
together’ with Geralds family’s company. He calls ‘lower costs and higher
prices’, signposting his business-minded attitude. The juxtaposition of ‘lower’
and ‘higher’ could be symbolic of the differences between those affluent in the
Upper classes, like Birling, and those less fortunate in the lower classes, like
Eva. Priestley demonstrates Birling’s business-based mind, instead of his
family- based mind as a way of showing to the audience the lack of compassion
bigoted capitalists have- hence, they were the reason so many people lost
their sons and brothers in the second and first World War. Birling also tries to
impress Gerald, who is of a higher class, as a way to climb the social ranks and
grow his business. He buys port that ‘Finchley told me... your father gets’ -
signifying to the audience that he is trying to appeal to Gerald (and his family)
in hopes that the two families will be ‘working together’. He also resorts to
name dropping of ‘Finchley’ to display his authority and tried to befriend
Gerald’s higher status family. The drink port also connotes wealth and
affluence, as it was a drink only the rich could afford and those lacking money
were prohibited from buying.
Overall, throughout the play, Priestley presents Mr Birling as a selfish capitalist
who ‘can't accept responsibility’. Priestley uses Birling as a foil to the socialist-
minded Inspector, who is Priestley’s mouthpiece, as a way of criticizing the
capitalist society that is so damaging to less fortunate people (who are
represented in the play by Eva). In conclusion, I agree with the statement, as
Mr Birling is reinforced to be an egotistical man with a lack of care and
compassion for others.
How far does Priestley present male characters as irresponsible in the play?
Write about:
• one or more of the male character(s)
• how far Priestley presents one or more of the male character(s) as
irresponsible. [30 marks]
In the didactic play ‘An Inspector Calls’ J.B Priestley presents male characters
as irresponsible to highlight the effects of capitalism on the behaviour of men
and how this irresponsibility worsens the lives of others in the working class.
Priestley constructs certain characters in the play with the quintessential
characteristic of irresponsibility to illustrate the much needed changes society
requires after WWII.
Priestley uses the construct of Gerald to illustrate the innate irresponsibility
that upper class capitalist males contain. During his relationship with Daisy
Renton, the audience is led to falsely believe that Gerald had actually
supported her, and that he ended his relationship with her due to his business.
However, in actuality when Gerald says ‘Daisy knew it was coming to an end’,
the reason behind this end was that Gerald’s friend was returning from Canada
and that Gerald would eventually have to pay for a flat. This implies that
Gerald’s true intentions were to exploit Eva sexually as a mistress for cheap
money and dispose of her in due time when his friend returned. This
exploitation is further shown when Gerald says that Eva ‘lived very
economically on what he’d allowed her’. The word ‘allowed’ shows that Gerald
feels that he is superior to Eva because he provided her with money.
Contextually, Gerald represents the deadly sins of lust and greed as he
frequently visits the Palace Bar and lusts to have sex with Eva Smith whilst
being engaged; moreover, he saves money by using his friend’s flat: this
conveys his greed. References to Christian terminology (the seven deadly sins)
were perhaps used by Priestley to imply that the capitalists like Gerald were
antichristian and this would signal to the majority Christian audience to sway
away from Capitalism and be more inclined with Socialism. All in all, Priestley
thereby evokes feelings of disgust within the audience towards Gerald due to
his irresponsibility towards Eva and antichristian behaviour.
Eric is also constructed by Priestley to demonstrate how irresponsibility is an
inheritable trait within a capitalist society. Eric tells the Inspector that he had
paid Eva ’50 pounds’, which is equivalent to 40 weeks of her Eva’s wage. In
spite of this, Eva and Eric were only together for a very short period of time,
insinuating that Eric had actually spent most of the money on himself, most
probably for alcohol. Priestley thereby propagates feelings of contempt within
the audience towards Eric. Eric’s irresponsibility is further exemplified when he
denies stealing his father’s money: ‘No’ implying that he is so irresponsible that
he does not view taking his own father’s money without his permission as
stealing. On the other hand, one might view Eric as responsible as unlike
Gerald he continues to provide Eva with money. However, in my opinion this is
just an exemplification of archetypal capitalist self-deception: Eric is ignorant
of the damage he has inflicted upon Eva, and has deceived himself believing
that he is helping her. This is symbolic of a Capitalist society’s delusion and
blatant irresponsibility, remarking that everyone is free to make their own
choices whereas it is only a substratum of people that command wealth and
authority and the rest of the general population are left with minimal money
and freedom. Priestley is perhaps conveying that irresponsibility is egregious
and severely damaging, as due to Eric’s irresponsibility – Eva smith committed
suicide and additionally that capitalist irresponsibility is a facet of capitalist
delusion. Priestley therefore advocates against irresponsibility and Capitalism
so that ‘millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths’ do not have to be oppressed,
or even enslaved.
The head of the Birling family, Mr Birling, is also used by Priestley to identify
the root cause of irresponsibility and the foolishness which irresponsibility
begets. He mocks Eric and Sheila: ‘the so-called younger generation who can’t
take a joke’, and trivialises the death of Eva Smith by calling it ‘a joke’. He does
not accept any responsibility although being directly told that the Birling family
‘all played a part in her death’ and was showed implausible evidence; instead
he calls the incident a ‘hoax’ and tries to prevent a scandal instead of reflecting
the sins of his family. When the infirmary confirms the death of Eva Smith, Mr
Birling’s foolishness due to his irresponsibility is corroborated and the audience
is shown that Birling’s evident hamartia, irresponsibility, led him to eventual
downfall. Contextually, in quantum mechanics Schrödinger’s cat is a famous
quantum mechanical thought experiment in 1935, where Schrödinger’s cat is
in a box, and is both dead and alive until observed. This parallels Eva Smith, as
Eva Smith is neither dead nor alive until the Birling’s deny responsibility, this is
also synonymous to the world wars. Priestley may be conveying that if society
had reformed in 1912 and accepted responsibility, then WWII would not have
happened.
In conclusion, Priestley successfully presents irresponsibility as a by-product of
capitalism and a catalyst to the downfall of society through the contingent
death of Eva Smith and the behaviour of the male capitalist figures. Overall, he
makes it clear that the main reason for the Birling family downfall was their
grave hamartia: their irresponsibility; and on a greater level, the decisive cause
of WWII was the irresponsibility of society.
2021
How does Priestley use Gerald to explore ideas about responsibility?
Write about:
• what Gerald says and does
• how Priestley uses Gerald to explore ideas about responsibility. [30 marks]
How far does Priestley present society as unfair in An Inspector Calls?
Write about:
• what can be seen as unfair in the play
• how far Priestley presents society as unfair. [30 marks]
Priestley explores multiple types of inequality throughout An Inspector Calls.
Social class and gender inequality are two themes explored in great detail,
throughout the whole play, through Priestley’s use of Eva Smith and two
separate generations.

The first type of inequality Priestley presents is the inequality faced by the
lower class. He personifies the lower class through his use of the character Eva
Smith. Eva Smith is a very carefully chosen name because Eva links to the Bible
story of Adam and Eve, demonstrating Eva is the first, and Smith is a common
name, implying she is just one of many who face class inequality. The lower
class are working for the upper class and are not treated fairly or equal to the
upper class and cannot earn as much money. Priestley wants the audience to
feel this is wrong, as he is a socialist, so he uses the character of Birling to
represent the upper class. Mr Birling is a Capitalist, unlike Priestley. Priestley
turns the audience against Mr Birling right from the beginning of the play
during his speech, when he speaks of the Titanic being ‘absolutely unsinkable’.
Priestley uses dramatic irony, because despite the play being performed after
the titanic sank, it was set before the event occurred. Priestley does this so
that the audience realise at the start of the play that Mr Birling is naïve and
thinks very highly of himself. This means that when Mr Birling reveals that he
did not allow Eva Smith the pay rise she was requesting, the audience view
Birling as a pompous, selfish businessman. This allows Priestley to convey the
message that inequality towards the lower class is unfair and pass his socialist
views to the audience. This is in order for him to be able to present that society
must not go back to how it was before World War Two and the Titanic.

Priestly uses the character of Sheila to help him portray how younger minds
are more impressionable, so if you are going to start anywhere you should
start with young people. Sheila argues against both class and gender
inequality, once she has found out what happened to Eva, when she says ‘but
these girls aren’t cheap labour…they’re people.’ This is a demonstration that
everyone deserves to be treated fairly because we are all people and no one is
inferior. Priestley chooses to use Sheila, at this stage of the play, as she is the
one who can empathise with Eva the most, being a young girl herself. Priestley
does this so that the reader and the audience can relate and empathise with
her, allowing them to comprehend how Eva was feeling and realise how wrong
the inequality she was facing was. As Mr Birling is a Capitalist and treats the
women so harshly, this turns the reader against Capitalism. Consequently,
Priestley is able to successfully inflict his socialist views on the audience by
demonstrating this can be done with equality, so is a better way forward.

Priestley also explores how different generations have different ideas about
inequality and responsibility. Despite both Mr and Mrs Birling being partially
responsible for the fact that Eva Smith committed suicide, due to their unfair,
objectified treatment of her, neither see themselves as having done anything
wrong. Sybil Birling demonstrates this when she said ‘I did nothing that I’m
ashamed of’ which portrays that because Eva is of the lower class, she sees her
as an object and feels no remorse for refusing to help her. Similarly, Birling
tries to blame other people for what he did. Sheila and Eric, on the other hand,
by the end of the play, accept that everyone is responsible for what happened
when he says ‘it’s what we did that matters’. This demonstrates to the
audience that the younger generation bring hope for the future and the
possibility for the inequality to end and all classes and genders to be treated
equally by all of society. This portrays Priestley is demonstrating that it is
possible to have an equal, socialist society and that society should never go
back to how it was before.

Overall, Priestley presents that inequality is wrong and is mostly due to

Capitalists who will not treat the lower class fairly. He uses the Inspector and
the younger generations to voice his socialist views and explore the characters
conscience and his play can be seen as a warning to society. Priestley is
warning the audience at the time, through the death of Eva Smith, that she
was one of many and society should not go back to how it was before. If it did,
it would have had bad consequences for society and all the Eva Smiths facing
inequality. It also conveys to the reader today that we should learn from the
past because it was unjust and they should never let history repeat itself.

2022
‘Priestley shows how inequality in society leads to tragedy.’
How far do you agree with this view of An Inspector Calls?
Write about:
• what happens in the play
• how Priestley presents what happens in the play. [30 marks]
In the enigmatic play ‘An Inspector Calls’, Priestley shows how inequality in
society leads to tragedy especially to the character Eva Smith. J.B Priestley was
a notable socialist who believed in a society where everyone is equal and looks
after each other. The inequality and injustice faced by Eva from the Birlings
causes a chain of events which each member of the family played a part which
ultimately leads to tragedy in this case the suicide of Eva Smith in which she
‘swallowed a lot of a strong disinfectant’ which ‘burnt her inside out’. Priestley
uses grotesque, visual language highlights the devastating effects of inequality
in society and enforces his own socialist views. This evokes an emotional
response from the audience and instills fear in them as they see the unfiltered
result of inequality in society. It could be argued that Eva Smith’s suffering and
suicide is used as a metaphor to highlight the need for society to change or
there will be consequences.
Priestley uses the inspector’s final speech to enforce his own socialist views
and to show how society must change or there will be tragedy and “they will
be taught in fire and blood and anguish.” Priestley could be referring to war
and suggests that if society does not change, inequality could result in war and
the loss of many lives. Alternatively, ‘Fire and blood and anguish’ are heavily
associated with hell. The biblical overtone and hellish imagery and
connotations may have been used to suggest what will happen to the
members of society who aren’t willing to change. The rule of three is used
when the inspector says, “fire and blood and anguish” and this emphasises
how society will be destroyed if capitalist views, and social inequality continue.
Priestley powerfully explores inequality in society between the upper and
lower class. This is exemplified through the character of Mrs Birling. This is
evident through the comment ‘girls of that class’. The diminutive noun ‘girls’ in
this declarative sentence creates a tone of disgust implying that Mrs Birling
was disgusted by the lower class and the use of a declarative sentence shows
how her mindset is fixed. This mindset was reflected in many Edwardian
upper-class women who saw the lower class as inferior and detached
themselves from them. We see how Mrs Birling’s distain to the lower class
ultimately leads to her turning away Eva and depriving her of help and leaving
her in an extremely vulnerable state which leads her to commit suicide. This
was a common plight for lower class, unmarried pregnant women. Many risked
backstreet abortions rather than facing the stigma of having a child out of
marriage. Priestley personifies the lower class through his use of the character
Eva Smith and uses a common name to subtly emphasise how many faced the
same issue as Eva. Thus, emphasising how inequality in society can lead to
tragedy.
Priestley also explores impact of gender and how the inequality within society.
The play was first performed in 1945-a time of great social change. The role of
women within society had improved due to them engaging in a more
prominent role in the workplace during World War 2. This lead to an alteration
of stereotypical perceptions of women. The impact of gender roles is explored
through the character of Eva Smith, who was sexually exploited by both Gerald
and Eric. Gerald describes the character Eva Smith / Daisy Renton using the
adjectives “young, fresh and charming” this off hand manner and only physical
description of Eva suggests that, in his eyes, she was just someone of little
substance that he could amuse himself with until he decided he no longer
needed her. As a desperate woman facing poverty, Eva Smith was a vulnerable
target to exploitation. In the Edwardian Era, upper-class men often took
advantage of desperate women for entertainment. On another occasion Eva is
sexually assaulted by Eric, Eric abuses his power as an upper-class man to force
into Eva’s room as he ‘threatened to make a row’. The verb threatened
highlights his forceful nature as he takes advantage of Eva as a woman. In the
Edwardian Era women were expected to be subservient to men. Eric’s gender
allowed him to sexually assault Eva impregnating her with his child whom he
has no means to support them with. Consequently, inequality within society is
seen to be capable of leading to tragedy.
2023
“How does Priestley present life for women in an Inspector Calls?
Within ‘An Inspector Calls’, Priestley explores forms of themes of social
responsibility and social inequality throughout the play to create a foreboding
sense of conflict between the birling family and with Eva smith. Prestley
represents Eva Smith as being a ‘normal’ lower citizen of the 20th century. She
struggles to cope with living on such as poor salary and feels very vulnerable
and hopeless. Each member of the Birling family represents this idea of social
inequality; they are all selfish and only care for themselves. Prestley is able to
link in his ideas and beliefs about social inequality and attitudes towards
women by representing these ideas through each member of the Birling family
and Priestley is able to create a strong message explaining that “We are
members of one body. We are responsible for each other”. Through creating
this message, he suggests and challenges his audience to think about the
disaster that could happen in the future if they did not learn from their
mistakes in the past.
Within Priestley’s morality play, he expresses this inequality towards women
through the actions of the members of the Birling family. Mr and Mrs Birling
are shown as ruthless and selfish individuals who are self-centred and are both
obsessed about their social status. Mrs Birling is seen as socially superior as she
is from a family with a higher social status compared to Mr Birling. She lives by
strict standards, following the rules of etiquette to help improve the Birling
family’s status. Mrs Birling’s social standards make her prejudiced against
people of lower class and she believes that those of a ‘lower class’ have lower
standards. When Inspector Goole arrives, she derives and forms a snobby
attitude and when questioned about Eva Smith, frequently says ‘Girls of that
sort’ and ‘Girls of that class’ as if she could not imagine ever involving herself in
something or someone so poor and socially inferior. Priestley expresses Mrs
Birling as a mother with traditional values and someone who has a strict
attitude. Mrs Birling also ‘supports charity’- even though she is not at all
charitable herself; however, she only does this in order to help improve and
preserve her social status. She is involved in the Brumley Women’s charity
Organisation, giving her authority to help or turn down those who need her
help. For example, she turned down Eva Smith and was able to do so using her
‘social status’ and only supports ‘deserving cases’. This links in with social
responsibility, and how through Mrs Birling’s traditional values and beliefs
about her class and status, she rejects many women of a lower class who pose
a threat towards her reputation for status and undermine her views on the
class system. She does not want to help those of a ‘lower class’ who need help
and support the most. Mr Birling similarly follows in Mrs Birling's beliefs about
class and social status. As a former mayor of Brumley and a successful
businessman, Mr Birling also has a high social status and is similarly obsessed
with preserving it. He believes that he holds a high amount of authority and is
the head of his family. He does not like to be bossed around or have his
authority/status put at risk by certain individuals. Therefore, when Eva Smith
went on strike and protested about the poor wages, she and the rest of the
women were being given at his factory, he was quick to have her and the
others who went on strike sacked from their jobs. Without even negotiating
with these poor women about the situation, Mr Birling sacked these women in
order to prevent any more dispute that could result in the situation becoming
public- which could have, in turn, lead to his status being damaged.
Priestley reflects Birling as being self-centred like his wife and decided to have
his play set in 1912 to reflect just how bad social inequality was at the time.
Even with the ‘Suffragette Movement’ in 1903, by 1912, there were limited
changes and the equality between men and women was still very distant. The
lower-class women, such as Eva Smith, were working long, hard hours every
day in factories for poor wages and limited rest periods. However, these
working situations were some of the only job opportunities available for
women at the time. Priestley represents Eva Smith as an example of the many
women who were treated very poorly and were very vulnerable towards
coping with situations such as work, violence from men and other deliberate
mistreatment. He explains through his character Inspector Goole that One Eva
Smith has gone – but there are millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John
Smiths still left with us, with their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering
and chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives, with what we think and
say and do. We do not live alone. We are members of one body. His continual
message of respect and the need for equality between men and women is
continually emphasised and he uses Inspector Goole as a main guideline
vehicle towards issuing these ideas towards the audience.
Priestley expresses that Birling, underneath all of his confident and controlled
persona, is anxious and as the play continues, Mr Birling’s confidence and
control is replaced with fear and anguish. He is worried more about his social
status being affected- rather than reflecting on his actions which had been the
reason behind Eva Smith’s death. He explains that ‘there’ll be a public scandal -
unless we’re lucky’. He refuses to accept responsibility for Eva’s death and
goes against the idea of social responsibility. His selfish and business-minded
attitude means that he does not believe in ‘’community and all that nonsense’’
and opposes Priestley’s main idea that “We Are Members of One Body. We Are
Responsible for Each Other”. He sees lower class citizens such as Eva Smith as
“worthless, cheap labour”. We learn that Priestley expresses his main ideas of
equality and social responsibility through certain characters- however he
expresses negative ideas that oppose equality and equal rights between men
and women, through the representatives of Mr and Mrs Birling. The couple are
represented by Priestley as the many selfish individuals during this period who
crave only on self-importance, money, power and social status rather than
wanting to make a difference by helping others-especially women- who suffer
considerably, with poor wages to live on and a lack of help from those who are
anything but charitable.
Priestley also represents Edna the Maid as an individual who is mistreated by
the middle/upper class- in this case the Birling Family. Both Mr and Mrs Birling
treat Edna poorly and expresses lots of imperative language- ordering Edna to
do something. An example of this is when Mr Birling says in Act 1 for Edna to
‘Show him in here. Give us some more light’- a demanding quote. These two
simple sentences are bluntly short and monosyllabic, suggesting no attempt to
politeness towards Edna. Using imperative language, it is as if Birling expects
his orders to be followed. Having these sorts of orders continually pressured
onto women can add to the lack of respect that individuals such as Edna
endure on a daily basis. It is Edna who changes the lighting to a brighter and
harder light- as if Inspector Goole is about to interrogate the family. Through
having Edna change the lighting and bring Inspector Goole into the room could
suggest that it will be the working class who will deliver the truth to the middle
and upper classes about their mistreatment towards the working class. This in
turn results in the Birling family and Gerald having to face the true
consequences of their actions.

By 1912, when the play was set, the use of maids and servants within
middle/upper class families were more common than by 1945. Therefore,
since Priestley’s play was first performed in 1945, the audience would have felt
that Edna’s presence within the play was old-fashioned and outdated and
Priestley deliberately does this to remind his audience of the mistreatment
working-class women received during the early 1900s. Priestley also
deliberately shows that the Birling family expect Edna to follow their
commands. An example of this is when Mrs Birling reminds Mr Birling when
the doorbell rings that ‘Edna will go. I asked her to wait up’. This quote
emphasises the lack of respect Edna is given and how she is expected to work
for longer hours without any extra pay. The Birlings see Edna as an employee
and do not care about her well-being. This links back into the theme of social
responsibility and how the Birling family are so immersed in wealth and self-
centred that they mistreat Edna without even realising it. They are so used to
living a life of riches and happiness that they forget that there are many
working-class employees, like Edna, who are struggling more and more to cope
with poor wages and long hours in their lives.
Priestley delivers his play this way to make the audience feel shocked and in
disbelief about the mistreatment and inequality expressed. Priestley also gives
Edna very few lines to say, to show the lack of freedom of movement she has
compared to those in the middle/upper classes. Therefore, she is unable to
speak out and protest about the suffering she endures through having to work.
For most working-class women at the time, they would have been worried
about speaking out about the mistreatment they endured because they would
have been worried about losing their job. Women at the time were restricted
in the amount of jobs available for them and if they were to get sacked for
expressing their problems then they would struggle even more to try and find
another job or risk having to work in a factory- which was even worse. Through
Priestley’s depiction of Edna, he encourages us to consider how, even when
the working-class are being paid, they are being exploited. Eric and Gerald are
also expressed by Priestley as those who behave badly towards women. Eric
and Gerald both meet Eva Smith at the stalls bar whilst looking for prostitutes
and they both mistreat her, with Gerald treating Eva as his mistress and Eric
making her pregnant whilst he was drunk. Their actions would have been seen
as ‘normal’ for a middle-class man at the time and adds to the themes of
inequality Priestley continually shows within his play. Both of their actions
reflect. the abuse that women such as Eva Smith receive on a daily basis and
Priestley aims to make the audience feel shocked by the whole situation and
understand the need for equality within society.
Priestley represents his ideas of equality and social responsibility through his
main character of Inspector Goole. Unlike the Birling family, Priestley
represents the Inspector with strong opinions and belief that women should be
respected better within society. He emits authority and moral judgement that
shocks the Birling family and results in Mr and Mrs Birling becoming angrier
towards him as they are bossed around by his authoritative personality.
Priestley represents the inspector as classless and this is the reason behind
Inspector Goole’s lack of opinion about class- therefore treating everyone the
same.
It could be argued that Priestley uses the Inspector as a mouthpiece and
reflects his own beliefs and opinions through the character of the Inspector.
This is why both the Inspector and Priestley have similar views on equality.
Therefore, Priestley aims to express his message of respect and care for one
another not just towards the Birling family, but also mainly towards his
audience. This is why the Inspectors main message that ‘We are members of
one body. We are responsible for each other. And I tell you that the time will
soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in
fire and blood and anguish’ is so powerful in the play. Priestley, through the
Inspector, makes sure that his message is not forgotten and will drive a change
in the opinions towards equality between men and women for the future.
Overall, Priestley forces change towards the beliefs of attitudes towards
women within his morality play and makes sure that his message of social
responsibility is portrayed strongly through his characters. He makes sure that
his audience agree that the mistreatment of women is unacceptable within
society, and changes must be made, and mistakes must be resolved in order to
achieve equality and respect for women.

How does Priestley present the differences between older and younger
generations’ in their responses to the Inspector?”

In "An Inspector Calls," Priestley successfully presents different attitudes

between the older and younger generations. The younger generation
represent a false sense of hope, because in the end, the capitalist patriarchy
overcomes them. However, the older generation is trapped by hubris, because
they are too obstinate to acknowledge their faults and choose to forget the
inspector's lesson.

Throughout the play, Sheila is seen as the proxy of the inspector, yet ultimately
giving a false sense of hope that she has truly learned her lesson. She changes
from being in the comfort of complacency in capitalist society to being a
representative of socialist change. When she exclaims "these girls aren't cheap
labour, they're people," we glimpse Sheila's change. The contrast of "they’re
people" portrays her raw emotion of being faced with the bitter reality of her
father and fiancé exploiting helpless workers. They are forced to operate
within a cartel, so they do not have the viable option to work in another
factory. However, Sheila refers to the women as "girls" which could suggest
that she too has a diminished identity as woman. Despite her high status in
society, this isn’t enough to overcome the patriarchal dismissal of women.
However, once the inspector leaves Sheila seems powerless to retain the
inspector’s lesson. Gerald confirms Sheila's somewhat reluctant acceptance of
capitalism. When he offers "what about this ring?" Sheila replies, "I must
think," which implies that she has not changed. The fact that she even
considers the potential marriage after Gerald's newfound affair and Eva’s
suicide explicitly portrays how she has not learned her lesson.

For example, she later goes on to say "it was my fault she was so desperate,"
therefore blaming herself for Gerald's affair. In 19th century society, women
were conditioned from birth to blame themselves for men's faults, trying to
pretend that they were content with their unequal marriage. The curtailed
phrase "just out of pity" further emphasises her attempt at deluding herself
that Gerald is truly, in fact, her “fairy Prince” and not someone who, in
actuality, had a premeditated plan to install Eva in his friend's apartment in
order to sexually exploit her for less money than a prostitute at the Palace Bar.

Alternatively, Sheila has learned her lesson, but Priestly suggests that because
of the patriarchy, a woman did not have a voice to advocate for political
change, and therefore, he is also implying the severe inequality of capitalist
society and that having a socialist reform would restore said equality.

Similarly, Eric represents the younger generation, but he follows the attitudes
of Gerald and Mr. Birling in that he, out of cowardice, chooses to delude
himself by trivialising his heinous crimes towards Eva. He normalises his sexual
violation by using the euphemism "I was in that state when a chap easily turns
nasty." The phrase “that state” implies that his behaviour is universally
accepted as typically male because it is so common. He sees himself as a good
“chap”, who is terribly influenced by drinking. Priestley makes Eric use the
third person of "chap" as a way of displaying Eric's deceiving nature, as he used
this to disassociate from his guilt in how he treated Eva. Thus Eric is the
epitome of sexual exploitation in the play.

Mr. Birling represents the upper class exploitation of the working classes, full
of Eva Smiths and John Smiths. Just as Eric knows his behaviour is criminal,
Birling knows his treatment of the strike leaders is criminal. So, when Birling
says "we were paying the usual rates, and if they did not like those rates,
they could go and work somewhere else," he essentially justifies sacking Eva
despite knowing full well that the Birlings and Crofts are an illegal cartel. They
can’t “go and work somewhere else” if that somewhere is a factory. This
criminality reveals there is only a very slight difference between the younger
and older generations.
Furthermore, the Inspector accuses all the male characters of being the issue
in society, regardless of their generation. This is significant because Priestly
conveys that they are equal in attitudes despite their age. So he warns, "If men
will not learn, they will be taught in fire and blood and anguish." The
distinctive address to men portrays how women had no influence or voice in
the patriarchal society of 1912. The triplet "fire, blood, and anguish" is a direct
reference to the war, emphasising how the capitalist regime sees people as
pawns to earn a profit as they are merely expendable, just like a balance sheet
of profit and loss.

Its triadic structure could also arguably imply how capitalism is anti-trinity,
hence socialism would be what Christians should follow.

Therefore, Priestly captures the younger generation's false hope for socialist
reform, as they seem to drown in capitalist conformity by the end, standing
with capitalist constructs (Birling, Gerald), though they have little control
within society. The play ultimately presents a scathing critique of capitalism
and its inherent inequalities, and the failure of individuals to recognise and
change their own complicity in perpetuating those inequalities.

Specimen
How and why does Sheila change in An Inspector Calls?
Write about:
• how Sheila responds to her family and to the Inspector
• how Priestley presents Sheila by the ways he writes. [30 marks]
How does Priestley explore responsibility in An Inspector Calls?
Write about:
• the ideas about responsibility in An Inspector Calls
• how Priestley presents these ideas by the ways he writes. [30 marks]
The theme of responsibility is central to the play An Inspector Calls and through
the actions of the characters, Priestley demonstrates to the watching society
that everyone has a collective responsibility to each other in a successful and
fair society.
Firstly the pompous and arrogant Mr. Birling begins by showing that he believes
that he has a responsibility to “his own” and no-one else. The pronoun “his”
has an implied ownership and this is central to his belief system of materialistic
possession. He calls socialists “cranks” and criticizes what they stand for as he
wants nothing more than “lower costs and higher prices.” This link to
capitalism shows that Mr. Birling believes his responsibility is to business and
money making, and therefore he appears to be quite callous and unfeeling in
his attitudes towards people. The statement could almost be seen as ironic as
Birling is speaking in a purely monetary sense and yet Priestley may also be
trying to suggest that “lower costs” leads to the “higher price” being human
life.
The cost of caring only about money is demonstrated in Birling’s treatment of
Eva Smith who is viewed as “cheap labour” as opposed to a human being. This
makes his a very unlikeable character for an audience who have just lived
through war and have keenly experienced the loss of people and loved ones.
However, as if to further discredit all that Birling stands for, the use of dramatic
irony in mentioning the “unsinkable” Titanic and the idea that “the Germans
don’t want war” shows that his ideals are untrustworthy and, in fact, the
audience should believe the very opposite of this character. Birling refuses to
take any responsibility in the death of Eva Smith and at the end he is relieved,
not to find out no-one has died, but because there will be no “public scandal.”
Priestley is highlighting these self-centred actions as a way of demonstrating to
the audience that the pre-war class system was flawed.
Mrs. Birling also holds similar values to her husband. When discovering her
involvement with the death she repeatedly blames the father of Eva’s child
saying, “it’s the father’s responsibility.” The fact that she is trying to blame
others aligns her to the same ideals as Mr. Birling, along with the use of
dramatic irony again used to discredit what she stands for. She is seemingly the
only character not aware of the implication towards her own son. This is
interesting as Birling at the start stated his main responsibility was to “his own”
and yet both parents seem unaware of what this means, and in many ways
they have failed this responsibility both being linked to the death of Eva and
subsequently their own grandchild.
A character who does demonstrate the true meaning of responsibility is Shelia.
Initially she seems much the same as her parents with quite childish
tendencies, “Oh look mummy,” but as the play develops is seems this was more
through naivety to the struggles of the working classes. Sheila is the first to
defend Eva Smith and thus the working classes declaring, “they’re not cheap
labour, they’re people.” This not only juxtaposes her father’s attitudes but is
the start of her accepting her responsibility as an adult and forming her own
ideals. Priestley presents the character as someone who is able to change and
by the end, she has matured a great deal thus showing the audience that they
too have the power to change and that accepting responsibility can be a
positive experience.
Priestley also shows that Shelia has learnt from the experience and is taking
her new knowledge of social responsibility seriously when she stands up to her
parents saying, “it scares me the way you talk.” The verb “scares” is significant
as it shows that people who do not take responsibility i.e. her parents as
seemingly out of control and could potentially be very damaging to society.
Priestley is perhaps highlighting that there is much to be learnt for the recent
wars and those that refuse to do so are a danger to progression in the future.
The most significant character to link to the theme is the Inspector who,
arguably, reflects the views of Priestley himself. His final speech is almost
entirely focused on the theme and the idea that we are “members of one
body.” This links to the idea of socialism and collective responsibility if society is
to function fully. The reference to “millions and millions and millions of Eva
Smiths and John Smiths” reminds the audience that while Eva Smith in the play
is fictional the experiences and lifestyle she led is not. The use of the repetition
of “millions” is significant is driving home the force of the message and just
how widespread the need for change is. The use if the name Smith is
important, being the most popular surname in the country at the time, the
audience are likely to know someone with the name and therefore it adds a
personal association with the plight of the character. The audience may well
take on the idea of responsibility if linked to a person they know as opposed to
a purely fictional person.
Throughout the play we see characters accept and deny their individual
responsibility in the fictional case and yet is it clear that the message of
collective responsibility is not fictional. It could be argued that that phone call
at the end of the play is history reliving itself as the older Birlings were still not
seeing their collective role in society and until everyone is willing to take their
responsibility seriously such stories of anguish will continue. Priestley is trying
to guard against this happening again by using a visual stimulus for this
message.
A CHRISTMAS CAROL
JUNE 2017
Read the following extract from Chapter 3 of A Christmas Carol and then
answer the question that follows.

In this extract, the Ghost of Christmas Present shows Scrooge the Cratchit
family’s Christmas celebrations.

Oh, a wonderful pudding! Bob Cratchit said, and calmly too, that he regarded it
as the greatest success achieved by Mrs. Cratchit since their marriage. Mrs.
Cratchit said that now the weight was off her mind, she would confess she had
had her doubts about the quantity of flour. Everybody had something to say
about it, but nobody said or thought it was at all a small pudding for a large
family. It would have been flat heresy to do so. Any Cratchit would have
blushed to hint at such a thing.

At last the dinner was all done, the cloth was cleared, the hearth swept, and
the fire made up. The compound in the jug being tasted, and considered
perfect, apples and oranges were put upon the table, and a shovel-full of
chestnuts on the fire. Then all the Cratchit family drew round the hearth, in
what Bob Cratchit called a circle, meaning half a one; and at Bob Cratchit’s
elbow stood the family display of glass. Two tumblers, and a custard-cup
without a handle.

These held the hot stuff from the jug, however, as well as golden goblets
would have done; and Bob served it out with beaming looks, while the
chestnuts on the fire sputtered and cracked noisily. Then Bob proposed:

“A Merry Christmas to us all, my dears. God bless us!”

Which all the family re-echoed.

“God bless us every one!” said Tiny Tim, the last of all.

He sat very close to his father’s side upon his little stool. Bob held his withered
little hand in his, as if he loved the child, and wished to keep him by his side,
and dreaded that he might be taken from him.
Starting with this extract, explore how Dickens uses the Cratchit family to
show the struggles of the poor. Write about:
- how Dickens presents the Cratchit family in this extract
- how Dickens uses the Cratchit family to show the struggles of the poor in
the novel as a whole.

Dickens uses the plight and poverty of the Cratchit family to attempt to shed
light on the lives of the poor, in contrast to the lives of the rich aristocrats in
Victorian society, like Scrooge.

The first exclamatory sentence of the extract stated by Bob Cratchit that it was
a “wonderful pudding!” immediately implies that they are grateful and easily
excited. Despite it being a “small pudding” for a “large family”, they all
regarded it as a “success”. Perhaps this is because they usually did not have
the luxury of a pudding, so any pudding at all was seen as a blessing. The
adverb “calmly” also creates an aura of excitement in the atmosphere, as it
implies that there is an apprehensive glee about the family.

Again, in the extract, Dickens has included the fact that they only possessed
“Two tumblers, and a custard-cup” for which the whole family shared. He then
juxtaposes this with the idea of “golden goblets”, which only serve to
emphasise the Cratchits’ lack of wealth and widens the gap between society’s
rich and poor, that during the Victorian era, was wide and obvious.

We see the Cratchits as a unit – a real family who is bonded by shared affection
and strengthened with love, as opposed to money, status and wealth. The
personal pronouns “my”, “us” and “all” paired with the terms of endearment,
such as “dears”, indicates to the reader that the Cratchit family are a united
force that stands up and rejoices in happiness and joy, despite facing the rough
shame of poverty that flooded Victorian London. The fact that even Tiny Tim,
who “bore a little crutch” and was held up by an “iron frame”, stated, “God
bless us every one!”, only proves to the reader that the Cratchits still remain in
high spirits, regardless of their unfortunate circumstances.

The use of the verbs “wished” and “dreaded” sum up the attitude of the poor
and in particular the Cratchits. They were hopeful and positive, as if they
“wished” and expected their lives to improve, but also “dreaded the future, as
they recognised that if the rich were unwilling to help, they would suffer and
even have their son “taken” by death. Scrooge, a wealthy, well-off, privileged
businessman, refused to donate to the “portly” charity collectors as he, like
many others in the context of the novella, assumed and believed that the poor
were “idle”, as if they were poor from their own laziness and lack of ambition.
Many in Victorian society thought that they were a nuisance. In fact, Scrooge
even went so far as to say that if they were to “die”, they’d better do it quickly
and “decrease the surplus population”. This attitude was the one that Dickens
was looking to expose and combat with the publication of ‘A Christmas Carol’
in the Industrial Revolution. It is speculated that it was written in staves, like a
Christian carol, and published as a book cheaply, rather than advertised as a
play, because in this form it would reach more people. Dickens probably
assumed that a short, witty story would last longer as a Christmas tale, than a
play would – and he was correct.

Throughout the novella, Dickens portrays Scrooge and Bob as opposites who
directly contrast with each other. For instance, as Bob retires to his “dismal
little cell” where the “single coal” that his cruel employer allows him burns, he
is still grateful and thankful for allowing him one day off and in high spirits as
he returns home. This “gratitude” over such as simple, almost necessary, act
of decency from Scrooge shows his “meagre” conditions. Bob is able to rejoice
in the spirit of Christmas far more openly than Scrooge.

This directly contrasts with Scrooge’s flippant, dismissive attitude towards the
struggles of the poor, as when approached by some charity collectors if he
would consider placing a small donation, he replies with the predictably cold,
callous questions, “are there no prisons?” and “union workhouses?” These
rhetorical questions could either signify his ignorance to the issue at hand, or
simply his refusal to engage in helping. Either way, Scrooge demonstrates a
distinct lack of empathy towards the poor and instead returns to his
“comfortable” “set of rooms” where he goes about his daily routine – stopping
not even for a second to think of those who were less fortunate than he.

Dickens also mentions the Cratchit family in some of the visions or ghostly
encounters that Scrooge experiences. For example, when the Ghost of
Christmas Yet To Come – an ominous figure “shrouded in a deep black
garment” that easily “moved like mist”, showed Scrooge the Cratchit family
mourning the loss of Tiny Tim, Scrooge cannot help but to hang his head in
penance and guilt. This suggests that he feels great shame towards his
actions. Similarly, when shown “Ignorance and Want” by the “jovial” giant
Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge was taken aback when his own miserly
phrase “are there no prisons” was used against him to educate him on his
wrong doings. Scrooge feels a “pang” of guilt across his heart. This indicates
that from seeing the effects of the plight of the poor, causes him such grief
that he feels it emotionally and physically. As if the pain is so strong that it can
cross over from the emotional to the physical, like the message he learns
comes over from the supernatural to the real world.

In effect, Dickens contrasts the lives of the Cratchits to the life Scrooge lives
and highlights how despite their obvious misfortunes, they are the ones who
carry the Christmas spirit.
JUNE 2018
Read the following extract from Chapter 4 of A Christmas Carol and then
answer the question that follows.

In this extract, Scrooge meets the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come.

The Phantom slowly, gravely, silently, approached. When it came near him,
Scrooge bent down upon his knee; for in the very air through which this Spirit
moved it seemed to scatter gloom and mystery.

It was shrouded in a deep black garment, which concealed its head, its face, its
form, and left nothing of it visible save one outstretched hand. But for this it
would have been difficult to detach its figure from the night, and separate it
from the darkness by which it was surrounded.

He felt that it was tall and stately when it came beside him, and that its
mysterious presence filled him with a solemn dread. He knew no more, for the
Spirit neither spoke nor moved.

“I am in the presence of the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come?” said Scrooge.

The Spirit answered not, but pointed onward with its hand.

“You are about to show me shadows of the things that have not happened, but
will happen in the time before us,” Scrooge pursued. “Is that so, Spirit?” The
upper portion of the garment was contracted for an instant in its folds, as if the
Spirit had inclined its head. That was the only answer he received.

Although well used to ghostly company by this time, Scrooge feared the silent
shape so much that his legs trembled beneath him, and he found that he could
hardly stand when he prepared to follow it. The Spirit paused a moment, as
observing his condition, and giving him time to recover.
But Scrooge was all the worse for this. It thrilled him with a vague uncertain
horror, to know that behind the dusky shroud, there were ghostly eyes intently
fixed upon him, while he, though he stretched his own to the utmost, could
see nothing but a spectral hand and one great heap of black.

“Ghost of the Future!” he exclaimed, “I fear you more than any spectre I have
seen. But as I know your purpose is to do me good, and as I hope to live to be
another man from what I was, I am prepared to bear you company, and do it
with a thankful heart. Will you not speak to me?”
Starting with this extract, explore how Dickens presents Scrooge’s fears in A
Christmas Carol.
Write about:
- how Dickens presents what Scrooge is frightened of in this extract
- how Dickens presents Scrooge’s fears in the novel as a whole.

Dickens presents Scrooge as a fearful character – one who is driven to change

his negative perspective because of the poignant visions each of the ghosts
reveal to him.

In this extract, from the beginning of Stave 4, both Scrooge and the reader are
presented with uncertainty about this particular spirit. The lexical field
presents the idea of Scrooge’s ability to change, as everything is speculative:
“mystery”, “vague” and “uncertain”. This unknowingness could be argued as a
fear of Scrooge, especially when one considers his numerical and systematic
employment. He is used to being in control in his “counting house”, but now
he is introduced to a mysterious ghostly figure that does not respond to his
questions (“answered not”) and therefore his control has gone; he is
completely oblivious to his pending fate. Contextually, Dickens would be
warning privileged members of Victorian society to consider one’s actions,
because selfishness and unpleasant actions can lead to severe consequences.

Furthermore, the “spectre” is depicted as “gravely”, “shrouded” and

“scatter[ing] gloom”. The connotations of these words implies that this is the
physical embodiment of death, whilst metaphorically implying that his fate is
sealed and his time is up. The adverb “gravely” emphasises the seriousness
and importance of the spirit’s arrival. Also, it conjures images of people dying
and being buried – possibly a hint at the “graveyard” revealed at the end of
Stave 4. The noun “gloom” gives a very ominous and frightening feel, as if the
spirit is casting darkness and sadness everywhere. The semantic field of
“darkness” gives the impression that all hope is lost if Scrooge doesn’t change
his ways. Scrooge is so frightened that his “legs trembled” and he was filled
with “a solemn dread”, which shows he is terrified of what the future might
hold. This contrasts with Stave 1, where the omniscient narrator tells the
reader that “darkness” was “cheap, and Scrooge liked it”. Scrooge’s “hard and
sharp” attitude dramatically diminishes by the time the final ghost appears.

One could argue that the protagonists’ fears could be the ultimate reason for
his change, because he is fearful for his own wellbeing, rather than the benefit
he can bring to society. The main change in Stave 4 is when the Ghost of
Christmas Yet to Come reveals Scrooge’s gravestone. The reader is presented
with Scrooge’s fear as he begs to “sponge” off the “writing on this stone”,
falling in front of the phantom in despair. Scrooge’s desperation to eradicate
his name from the gravestone emphasises his fear and urgency to prevent this
outcome. Perhaps Scrooge has now realised the fickleness of his materialism
and miserly ways, as in death none of that matters. The verb “sponge” has
connotations of absorption – metaphorically representing how Scrooge has
taken on board all of the valuable lessons taught to him by each of the spirits
and that “all Three shall strive within”.

It is evident from our very first introduction to Scrooge that he is a very frugal,
insular and “covetous” character, obsessed with his wealth – as a result of
being fearful of losing it all. The Ghost of Christmas Present indulges Scrooge
in nostalgia: visions of his distant past. Although Scrooge is fond of several
aspects of his past, one senses that he is also fearful of it and hence why he
has neglected it for so long. The text states that Scrooge “wept to see his poor
forgotten self”. Conceivably, his fear comes in the form of regret and remorse:
knowing he has lost companions, a fiancé and a family.

The third ghost takes Scrooge to see several people who would benefit from
his death. At this point in the novella, it is clear that Scrooge’s mannerisms
change as he revaluates his priorities. However, it also shows the
insignificance of being rich when there are so many poor people in society
without basic necessities. Dickens wanted to draw readers’ attention to the
divide between rich and poor in Victorian society. Indeed, one of the most
important ways that he does this is through the Cratchits, and more specifically
Tiny Tim in Stave 4. Without adequate support from richer members of
society, such as Scrooge, Tiny Tim will die. Bob Cratchit seems to be
addressing Scrooge – and the reader – when he declares, “’I am sure…none of
us forget poor Tiny Tim”. Fearful that this has come true, Scrooge interrogates
the ghost: “‘answer me one question. Are these the shadows of the things
that Will be, or are they shadows of things that May be, only?’” The ghost’s
lack of response compounds his fear and he declares that he will “honour” the
“lessons” he has been taught by all of his spiritual visitors.

In conclusion, it is necessary that Scrooge is disturbed by the spirits, because it

is this fear that encourages Scrooge to change his ways. Dickens clearly
wanted to get readers to consider the plight of the poorest members of
Victorian society and how wealthier, inconsiderate people, could do more to
support those less fortunate; thus embodying the Christmas spirit.

JUNE 2019
Read the following extract from Chapter 1 of A Christmas Carol and then
answer the question that follows.

In this extract Scrooge is visited by Marley’s Ghost.

Again the spectre raised a cry, and shook its chain and wrung its shadowy
hands.

“You are fettered,” said Scrooge, trembling. “Tell me why?”

“I wear the chain I forged in life,” replied the Ghost. “I made it link by link, and
yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore
it. Is its pattern strange to you?”

Scrooge trembled more and more.

“Or would you know,” pursued the Ghost, “the weight and length of the strong
coil you bear yourself? It was full as heavy and as long as this, seven Christmas
Eves ago. You have laboured on it, since. It is a ponderous chain!”

Scrooge glanced about him on the floor, in the expectation of finding himself
surrounded by some fifty or sixty fathoms of iron cable: but he could see
nothing.

“Jacob,” he said, imploringly. “Old Jacob Marley, tell me more. Speak comfort
to me, Jacob!”
“I have none to give,” the Ghost replied. “It comes from other regions,
Ebenezer Scrooge, and is conveyed by other ministers, to other kinds of men.
Nor can I tell you what I would. A very little more is all permitted to me. I
cannot rest, I cannot stay, I cannot linger anywhere. My spirit never walked
beyond our counting-house—mark me!—in life my spirit never roved beyond
the narrow limits of our money-changing hole; and weary journeys lie before
me!”

It was a habit with Scrooge, whenever he became thoughtful, to put his hands
in his breeches pockets. Pondering on what the Ghost had said, he did so now,
but without lifting up his eyes, or getting off his knees.

Starting with this extract, explore how Dickens uses the ghosts to help
Scrooge change his attitudes and behaviour.
Write about:
• how Dickens uses Marley’s Ghost in this extract
• how Dickens uses the ghosts to help Scrooge change his attitudes and
behaviour in the novel as a whole.
Dickens presents Scrooge as a fearful character – one who is driven to
change his negative perspective because of the poignant visions each of the
ghosts reveal to him.

Grade 9 GCSE Essay - AQA

Starting with this extract, explore how

Dickens uses the ghosts to help Scrooge
change his attitudes and behaviour.
Write about:
• how Dickens uses Marley’s Ghost in this
extract
• how Dickens uses the ghosts to help
Scrooge change his attitudes and behaviour
in the novel as a whole.
Dickens, in his political diatribe, ‘A Christmas Carol’, introduces the gothic
element of ghosts to bring about a transformation in Scrooge, while
subsequently subverting the notion of an ideal Christmas to haunt his
readers ‘pleasantly’.
At the beginning of Stave 1, Marley and Scrooge are described as “kindred
spirits”. The adjective “kindred” suggests ‘two of a kind’ or in general
suggests the similarities between Scrooge and his colleague. Scrooge is
described as “hard and sharp as flint”. The simile expresses Scrooge to
have the characteristics of a flint – dull and ugly, which reflects his
personality too. Flints are common rocks, which suggests that he is a
representation of the masses: for example, the upper class of 19th
century Victorian England. The adjective “hard” suggests that he is
impenetrable or difficult to change. It also suggests that Scrooge is cold-
hearted and reserved. In addition, the adjective-suffix “sharp” has
connotations of jagged or scabrous, which make Scrooge seem very
unpleasant. However, flints have the ability to ignite, which may hint at
his ability to spread warmth or become open-minded. As readers, we
would expect Marley to be very much alike. In the extract, however, we
see Marley as a ghost, suffering the consequences of his uncharitable
actions in an eternal purgatory. He is bound by “chains” that are
“wrought in steel”, attached to various locks, ledgers and purses. While
these objects suggest his line of work (a money lender) it also hints at the
Industrial Revolution and the poor conditions people were forced to work
in. The word “steel” represents the factories and workhouses in 1843 and
symbolically represents the ignorance of the rich in relation to improving
the lives of the urban poor. Marley is more relatable to Scrooge and
hence acts as a warning to the possible suffering Scrooge may too have to
endure after his death if he does not change his morose and misanthropic
behaviours.

In Stave four, the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come is described as a

“phantom”. This noun has connotations of the Grim Reaper or death. The
spectre is the only one of the three ghosts that does not carry a light
source – perhaps to suggest that Scrooge may not have “hope”, as light
usually symbolises, or a future at all. The ghost does not speak which
reflects that the future is unknown and that only Scrooge has the power to
change it. The ultimate role of the ghost is to instil fear in Scrooge to
catalyse his change. The ghost does this by showing Scrooge the body of
a man (which is himself) that is “unwatched, unkept or uncared for”. The
listing and the use of assonance suggest to Scrooge the loneliness he will
face at his death, or perhaps the lack of respect he will be shown. Mrs
Dilber and Joe display obscene vulgarity by stealing his “bedcurtains and
sheets”, leaving Scrooge almost naked, vulnerable and shaken in the
vision. This possible ill-treatment results in Scrooge changing. He is
described to be “holding up his hands in a last prayer”. The verb “hold”
suggests he begins to amend his ways by perhaps surrendering himself
and his faults. Moreover, “to pray” suggests that he truly is asking
forgiveness or perhaps repenting. One can suggest that he is also
thankful to have been given a second chance at helping those around
him.

In this extract, from the beginning of Stave 4, both Scrooge and the reader are
presented with uncertainty about this particular spirit. The lexical field
presents the idea of Scrooge’s ability to change, as everything is speculative:
“mystery”, “vague” and “uncertain”. This unknowingness could be argued as a
fear of Scrooge, especially when one considers his numerical and systematic
employment. He is used to being in control in his “counting house”, but now
he is introduced to a mysterious ghostly figure that does not respond to his
questions (“answered not”) and therefore his control has gone; he is
completely oblivious to his pending fate. Contextually, Dickens would be
warning privileged members of Victorian society to consider one’s actions,
because selfishness and unpleasant actions can lead to severe consequences.

Furthermore, the “spectre” is depicted as “gravely”, “shrouded” and

“scatter[ing] gloom”. The connotations of these words implies that this is the
physical embodiment of death, whilst metaphorically implying that his fate is
sealed and his time is up. The adverb “gravely” emphasises the seriousness
and importance of the spirit’s arrival. Also, it conjures images of people dying
and being buried – possibly a hint at the “graveyard” revealed at the end of
Stave 4. The noun “gloom” gives a very ominous and frightening feel, as if the
spirit is casting darkness and sadness everywhere. The semantic field of
“darkness” gives the impression that all hope is lost if Scrooge doesn’t change
his ways. Scrooge is so frightened that his “legs trembled” and he was filled
with “a solemn dread”, which shows he is terrified of what the future might
hold. This contrasts with Stave 1, where the omniscient narrator tells the
reader that “darkness” was “cheap, and Scrooge liked it”. Scrooge’s “hard and
sharp” attitude dramatically diminishes by the time the final ghost appears.

One could argue that the protagonists’ fears could be the ultimate reason for
his change, because he is fearful for his own wellbeing, rather than the benefit
he can bring to society. The main change in Stave 4 is when the Ghost of
Christmas Yet to Come reveals Scrooge’s gravestone. The reader is presented
with Scrooge’s fear as he begs to “sponge” off the “writing on this stone”,
falling in front of the phantom in despair. Scrooge’s desperation to eradicate
his name from the gravestone emphasises his fear and urgency to prevent this
outcome. Perhaps Scrooge has now realised the fickleness of his materialism
and miserly ways, as in death none of that matters. The verb “sponge” has
connotations of absorption – metaphorically representing how Scrooge has
taken on board all of the valuable lessons taught to him by each of the spirits
and that “all Three shall strive within”.

It is evident from our very first introduction to Scrooge that he is a very frugal,
insular and “covetous” character, obsessed with his wealth – as a result of
being fearful of losing it all. The Ghost of Christmas Present indulges Scrooge
in nostalgia: visions of his distant past. Although Scrooge is fond of several
aspects of his past, one senses that he is also fearful of it and hence why he
has neglected it for so long. The text states that Scrooge “wept to see his poor
forgotten self”. Conceivably, his fear comes in the form of regret and remorse:
knowing he has lost companions, a fiancé and a family.

The third ghost takes Scrooge to see several people who would benefit from
his death. At this point in the novella, it is clear that Scrooge’s mannerisms
change as he revaluates his priorities. However, it also shows the
insignificance of being rich when there are so many poor people in society
without basic necessities. Dickens wanted to draw readers’ attention to the
divide between rich and poor in Victorian society. Indeed, one of the most
important ways that he does this is through the Cratchits, and more specifically
Tiny Tim in Stave 4. Without adequate support from richer members of
society, such as Scrooge, Tiny Tim will die. Bob Cratchit seems to be
addressing Scrooge – and the reader – when he declares, “’I am sure…none of
us forget poor Tiny Tim”. Fearful that this has come true, Scrooge interrogates
the ghost: “‘answer me one question. Are these the shadows of the things
that Will be, or are they shadows of things that May be, only?’” The ghost’s
lack of response compounds his fear and he declares that he will “honour” the
“lessons” he has been taught by all of his spiritual visitors.

In conclusion, it is necessary that Scrooge is disturbed by the spirits, because it

is this fear that encourages Scrooge to change his ways. Dickens clearly
wanted to get readers to consider the plight of the poorest members of
Victorian society and how wealthier, inconsiderate people, could do more to
support those less fortunate; thus embodying the Christmas spirit.

JUNE 2020
The suffering of the poor is one of the most prevalent ideas within A Christmas
Carol and Dickens presents the poor and destitute to the reader from the
outset. Dickens depicts the exploitation and ignorance of the poor through
various characters in the novella and he demonstrates how they are trapped in
a system through no fault of their own, which conveys his message for social
change.

In this extract, Dickens uses the two characters, Ignorance and Want, as an
allegory, as they are symbolic of society’s cruelty towards the suffering of the
poor. Dickens uses these two characters to expose the consequences of
society’s greed and avarice. The children are first depicted as emerging from
the spirit’s robe which underscores Dickens’s message of how poverty, and its
devastating consequences, remain largely shrouded, unseen and ignored by
society. Further, Dickens’s imagery depicts the children as emaciated and
wretched which induces both horror and pity in the reader. Further, the
religious undertones depicted in the phrase: “They knelt down at its feet and
clung upon the outside of its garment” suggests how the poor are not provided
with the resources to help themselves and instead must grovel and plead for
assistance as they are reliant on the charity of others. At other points in the
novella, Dickens continues to make the suffering of the poor a serious concern
and he demonstrates how poverty can destroy lives. For example, through The
Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, Dickens depicts the devastating consequences
of a Capitalist system in which Tiny Tim could potentially die. Similar to
Ignorance and Want, Tiny Tim’s potential death highlights the poor living
conditions and malnourishment experienced by many poor children and
Dickens uses these characters to highlight the high levels of child mortality in
Victorian England, especially for those who were poor through no fault of their
own. Dickens uses these characters to highlight to the reader that such
tragedies are avoidable if greater equality is achieved within society.

Structurally, this extract is significant as the spirit references Scrooge’s exact

comments at the beginning of the novella: “Are there no prisons?” … “Are
there no workhouses?” By repeating Scrooge’s words verbatim, Dickens
reveals Scrooge’s former ignorance of the poor when he associated
workhouses with prisons. Although workhouses were very similar to prisons
during the Victorian period (both in terms of their harshness and confinement)
the poor and destitute who inhabited the workhouses were generally there
through no fault of their own. Although Scrooge’s original comments are in
response to the charity collectors in Stave I and while they could be viewed as
representing goodness at Christmas time, it could be seen that Dickens is
suggesting that the poor should be helped at all times of the year. Further, this
extract is also deliberately structured after the spirit has depicted multiple
scenes of abundance, which further serves to highlight the suffering of the
poor as they are forced to do without. Dickens deliberately structures the
chapter in this way to illustrate the idea that there is enough for everyone if it
is shared equally. Indeed, Dickens uses the Ghost of Christmas Present
throughout this Stave to deliver scathing moral discourses about the condition
of the poor and to encourage calls for social reform. Dickens presents the spirit
as authoritative and commanding (evident through its repeated use of
imperative and exclamatory statements) which demonstrates that his views on
the suffering of the poor must be heeded. Furthermore, in Stave III, the spirit
does not refer to Scrooge by his name, but instead by the word “man” which
suggests that the spirit’s message is not just directed toward Scrooge but to all
of mankind. The spirit could be seen as a mouthpiece for Dickens’s views on
poverty and social injustice and through the spirit, Dickens highlights the
selfishness of the rich and their heartlessness towards the plight of the poor.

Dickens uses Scrooge as symbolic of the Capitalist system which Dickens

believed denied others access to wealth and opportunity and he represents
the self-centred businessman as unconcerned about the conditions in which
his employees were forced to work. In the rest of the novella, the suffering of
the poor is highlighted through Bob’s character, and he is used to demonstrate
Scrooge’s cruel and exploitative behaviour. For example, Bob is made to
endure difficult work conditions, though they are less harsh than what many
other poor people would have endured, especially those who would have been
less skilled than him. In Stave I, Bob is too fearful to ask Scrooge for more coal
to replenish his fire and instead tries “to warm himself at the candle”, which
highlights the dreadful conditions that employers could make employees
accept. Indeed, Bob works in a “dismal little cell” which Dickens uses to convey
the gloomy confinement from which he cannot escape and which could be
viewed as a wider symbol of his poverty. Similarly, Bob is also symbolic of the
lower classes and their dependence on their employer as his situation, and
thus the fate of his family depends on businessmen like Scrooge. While Bob
Cratchit is first introduced in Stave I, his character remains unnamed and silent
in this chapter and he is simply referred to as “the clerk”: By omitting Bob’s
name and referring to him by his occupation, Dickens conveys Scrooge’s
myopic perception of Bob in terms of labour, rather than as a human being.
Bob’s silence also signifies his irrelevance and insignificance as a poor person in
the views of the wealthier classes such as Scrooge. Further, by titling the
character “Bob” (a Victorian colloquial term for a shilling) Dickens may be
suggesting the poor are viewed merely in terms of capital and thus their
suffering is inconsequential to them.

To conclude, Dickens presents the suffering of the poor throughout the novella
and highlights the selfishness of the rich and their heartlessness towards the
plight of the poor. While Dickens is keen to highlight the importance of charity
and benevolence, he also illustrates how the poor are not provided with the
resources to help themselves and instead is reliant on the charity of others.
Dickens’s depictions of the cycle of poverty urge the reader to confront the
issues of poverty within their own societies.

NOVEMBER 2021
Charles Dickens: A Christmas Carol Read the following extract from Chapter 2
of A Christmas Carol and then answer the question that follows.
In this extract, the Ghost of Christmas Past shows Scrooge the Christmas party
he attended at Mr Fezziwig’s warehouse when he was a young man.
But if they had been twice as many—ah, four times—old Fezziwig would have
been a match for them, and so would Mrs. Fezziwig. As to her, she was worthy
to be his partner in every sense of the term. If that’s not high praise, tell me
higher, and I’ll use it. A positive light appeared to issue from Fezziwig’s calves.
They shone in every part of the dance like moons. You couldn’t have predicted,
at any given time, what would have become of them next. And when old
Fezziwig and Mrs. Fezziwig had gone all through the dance; advance and retire,
both hands to your partner, bow and curtsey, corkscrew, thread-the-needle,
and back again to your place; Fezziwig “cut”—cut so deftly, that he appeared
to wink with his legs, and came upon his feet again without a stagger. When
the clock struck eleven, this domestic ball broke up. Mr. and Mrs. Fezziwig took
their stations, one on either side of the door, and shaking hands with every
person individually as he or she went out, wished him or her a Merry
Christmas. When everybody had retired but the two ’prentices, they did the
same to them; and thus the cheerful voices died away, and the lads were left
to their beds; which were under a counter in the back-shop. During the whole
of this time, Scrooge had acted like a man out of his wits. His heart and soul
were in the scene, and with his former self. He corroborated everything,
remembered everything, enjoyed everything, and underwent the strangest
agitation. It was not until now, when the bright faces of his former self and
Dick were turned from them, that he remembered the Ghost, and became
conscious that it was looking full upon him, while the light upon its head burnt
very clear. “A small matter,” said the Ghost, “to make these silly folks so full of
gratitude.” “Small!” echoed Scrooge. The Spirit signed to him to listen to the
two apprentices, who were pouring out their hearts in praise of Fezziwig: and
when he had done so, said, “Why! Is it not? He has spent but a few pounds of
your mortal money: three or four perhaps. Is that so much that he deserves
this praise?” “It isn’t that,” said Scrooge, heated by the remark, and speaking
unconsciously like his former, not his latter, self. “It isn’t that, Spirit. He has the
power to render us happy or unhappy; to make our service light or
burdensome; a pleasure or a toil. Say that his power lies in words and looks; in
things so slight and insignificant that it is impossible to add and count ’em up:
what then? The happiness he gives, is quite as great as if it cost a fortune.”
Starting with this extract, explore how Dickens presents ideas about joy and
happiness in A Christmas Carol. Write about:
• how Dickens presents joy and happiness in this extract
• how Dickens presents ideas about joy and happiness in the novel as a whole.
[30 marks]
In the extract, Dickens presents joy and happiness through the generosity of
spirit embodied by Mr and Mrs Fezziwig, who are Scrooge's ex-employers. By
deploying a moment of flashback, the author 'transports' the now-miserly
Scrooge to his youth, and by virtue of the distance in time, produces a clarity of
perspective on Scrooge's part about the role that money plays in happiness.
The overarching idea embodied both in this extract and the novella at large is
that giving, not taking, is the ultimate source of joy and happiness, which is a
message aligned with the dominant Christian teachings and mores in Victorian
England. In the rest of this essay, I will discuss how Dickens presents this idea
through various methods in the extract and beyond.
A central idea in this extract is that magnanimity is a key source of happiness,
which is borne out by Dickens' association of the Fezziwigs with the motif of
light. On the one hand, old Fezziwig is almost portrayed as a saintly figure, as
"a positive light appeared to issue from [his] calves", reminding one of the
illuminating auras that often encircles angels and saints in Christian
iconography. The simile of them having "shone in every part of the dance like
moons" suggests their generous, giving nature. And just as the moon shines its
rays indiscriminately onto everyone on Earth, so the Fezziwigs "shake hands
with every person individually" and "wished... everybody... a Merry Christmas".
Further, the couple's joy is reflected in their lightness of step and their
briskness of movement during the dance, as suggested by the kinaesthetic
diction, clipped clauses, and playful, staccato rhythms of "... advance and
retire, both hands to your partner, bow and curtsey, corkscrew, thread-the-
needle, and back again to your place; Fezziwig "cut" - cut so deftly..." By
hosting a Christmas Party to give back to their employees, the Fezziwigs attain
a level of spiritual contentment that is far more valuable than the "few pounds
of... mortal money" they had spent on the event, as they live out a charitable
state of mind which makes them feel good about themselves, and contrasts
sharply with Scrooge's calculating personality and its resulting misery.
Another, perhaps more nuanced, idea about joy that Dickens conveys in this
moment is that happiness also comes from exercising power in moral,
judicious ways - from knowing that one has the wherewithal of determining
the happiness (or lack thereof) of others but choosing consciously to make
others happy with the resources one has. The fact that Fezziwig could have
easily opted to be a tyrannical, rather than a benign, employer is hinted at by
the triple juxtaposition in Scrooge's riposte to the Spirit's teasing remark, when
he points out that Fezziwig "has the power to render us happy or unhappy, to
make our service light or burdensome; a pleasure or a toil". The line between
deciding to be generous versus cruel is thin as someone in a position of power,
Fezziwig could have inclined towards either orientation and not suffer any
consequences, and yet he earns respect from all because he chooses to be
generous and kind towards his workers. Given the widespread exploitation of
labourers and children at the height of the Industrial Revolution when the
novella was published, this flattering portrayal of a capitalist 'master' shows
Dickens' sensitivity to human nuance. Viewed from a Marxist interpretative
lens, Scrooge would seem to fit the 'heartless capitalist' archetype, but Dickens
resists framing the social relationship between employers and employees in a
simplistic 'exploiter versus exploited' dichotomy and acknowledges through
the more sympathetic characterisation of Fezziwig that there were also
humane employers who cared about their workers' well-being.
The idea that generosity, not wealth, creates joy and happiness is likewise
reflected in the warm, merry atmosphere of Bob Cratchit's family, and
conversely, in the absolute lack of joy from Scrooge's life prior to his
transformation at the end of the story. The Cratchits are materially and
financially poor, with Bob wearing "shabby... cuffs" and "threadbare clothes"
on Christmas Day, and Mrs Cratchit having to make do with meagre amounts
of ingredients for the festive meal. And yet, the family are spiritually rich and
emotionally content for the love and gratitude they feel towards each other.
The Cratchits show that happiness has little to do with acquiring an abundance
of wealth or resources, and this is most vividly captured in the Christmas Eve
meal scene in Stave 3, when as supposedly pedestrian an action as Mrs
Cratchit carving up the turkey elicited "one murmur of delight... all around the
board". The hyperbolic, giddy, and exclamatory tone in the descriptions of the
family's responses to the meal reinforces the sense of authentic joy felt by the
whole family - from Bob's gushing remarks of "There never was such a goose.
Bob said he didn't believe there ever was such a goose cooked", "the youngest
Cratchits... stepped in sage and onion to the eyebrows" from finishing up all
the food, to the excited cries of "Hurrah!", "Hallo!". On the other hand, prior to
Scrooge's moral epiphany at the end, he is never once presented in a joyous
demeanour, but upon realising that charity and generosity are the key to
fulfilment as he raises Bob's salary and commits to helping the struggling
Cratchits, Scrooge's "own heart laughed", with the personification suggesting
that true contentment has finally been achieved within, as he is motivated by
his 'trip down memory lane' to embrace a charitable mindset once and for all.
By drawing an inverse relation between joy and wealth, spiritual fulfilment and
financial success, Dickens conveys through Fezziwig, Scrooge and the Cratchit
family's characterisation the clear idea that happiness stems from a generosity
of spirit and a willingness to give. While both old Fezziwig and Scrooge are
wealthy, their wealth does not determine the level of their happiness: the
former is joyful because he cares about his employees, while the latter - until
his moral conversion - is miserable because he only cares about his self-
interest. With such a strong 'Good Samaritan' message, it is perhaps little
wonder that A Christmas Carol proved so popular with the Victorian middle-
class readership, whose predominantly Christian morals would likely have
aligned with those championed in Dickens' book.

SPECIMEN
First and foremost, Dickens creates a harsh first image of scrooge. The name
Scrooge is a portmanteau. Dickens joins the words screw and gauge together
to immediately paint scrooge as an unpleasant character to the audience. The
word screw gives an image of force and sometimes excess force. Gouge, on the
other hand, is used almost exclusively when talking about gouging someone's
eye; using excess force to inflict pain. Both of these words give an image of
excess force and form a harsh meaning and sounding name. Furthermore, we
see later on how Scrooge has excess "coal" and but uses only a little for himself
and even less for his clerk. This, paired with the portmanteau, creates an image
of excess wealth. Overall, our unpleasant first impression of scrooge paired
with a strong image of avarice paints scrooge as an outcast to society. Dickens
does this to show that even someone as seemingly hostile and greedy as
scrooge can overcome the Human Condition has to capacity to change.
Moreover, throughout the extract, there is a lot of repletion of the word "no".
The anaphora here emphasis how he is as "solitary as an oyster". He is pushing
away everyone and has alienated himself in the process. No "men", "women",
"children" or even those "beggars" in need of desperate help stop to ask him.
Even animals sense his bad nature. The word itself, "no", is very powerful. It is
a short exclamation that is exclusively used to give a negative response. There
is no leniency. Its brick wall: there is no way of getting past it. The anaphora
and the word itself make it abundantly clear to the reader that this man has
pushed every aspect of society away from him and there is no way of getting
past this and into his heart- the peart inside the "oyster". The reader sees
scrooge as a cold, stubborn misanthrope excluded from society, and is certain
that there no room in his heart for change. Dickens does this purposefully to
show how despite this, he can and will change, becoming a role model for the
audience proving that we all have the capacity to change and embrace
Christmas as a time of goodwill and charity.
Dickens presents Scrooge as a complete outsider to society and shows how
even someone as "cold" and misanthropic as he can be reverted to becoming a
"warm" philanthropist. Dickens does this to "raise a ghost of an idea" and uses
scrooge to show how we all have the capacity to change and fight past parts of
the Human Condition. This is because at the time, Dickens watched as
Christmas was increasingly being celebrated in a secular, materialistic way and
more and more were forgetting the poor and charity, just like Scrooge, and he
wanted society to revert to how Christmas was supposed to be celebrated.
Ultimately, Dickens presents scrooge as harsh and isolated to show that even a
man how has been so devoured by avarice can still change. Dickens does this
to promote social change and attempt to resurrect a "ghost of an idea"- which
was that Christmas was intended to be a time of good will and charity,
celebrated spiritually with family; not materialistically, which was on the rise.
In addition to this, there is heavy amount of periphrasis as well as copia. This
creates an overwhelming description and shows that despite all this, he
remains numb and tucked away from society. When Dickens says "The
heaviest rain, and snow, sand hail and sleet" is an example of periphrasis. The
author could have used a much simpler and efficient way to describe this but
doesn't and lists all the different types of precipitation. This makes it
overwhelming to read aloud. The copia also achieves this effect. Dickens did
this purposefully as the novella was intended to be read aloud, which is one of
the reasons for its short length. Dickens himself had even toured America
reading the book to audiences. When read aloud, it is overwhelming and
leaves the reader almost breathless. The audience thus gets overwhelmed with
information. Dickens does this to show that despite all this, Scrooge is still
unresponsive to it and continues to lock himself away from nature and society.
Avarice has rendered scrooge numb to all feelings and the audience are left
wondering "what could possibly change this man". Dickens intentionally raises
questions like this to show that everyone has the capacity to change.
Throughout the novella, Dickens uses semantic fields to contrast embracing
society and rejecting it. When we see the Ghost of Christmas Present taking
scrooge to the Cratchits celebration, Dickens uses a lexical set of words
associated with warmth: "roaring fires" "brightness" and "glow" among others.
This is juxtaposing Scrooge in this extract where there is a lexical set of words
associated with cold: "wintery weather", "snow", "foul weather" and "cold".
Contrasting these two extreme temperatures highlights the importance of
celebrating Christmas spiritually and as a family. Scrooge has vast amounts of
wealth, yet he and his home remain cold and freezing. The Cratchits have
virtually nothing yet are much brighter and more animated. This clearly
separates and shows to the readers the two sides of how Christmas is
celebrated: materialistically and spiritually. The author leaves it to the reader
to decide which side he would rather be on. Dickens does this to separate the
materialistic from Christmas and shows you don't need money to enjoy
Christmas as it's a spiritual and holy time.
After the first commercial use of "Christmas cards" and "Christmas trees" and
an increasing interest in celebrating Christmas in a secular way.

JUNE 2022
"The school is not quite deserted," said the Ghost. "A solitary child, neglected
by his friends, is left there still,”
Scrooge said he knew it. And he sobbed
They left the high-road by a well remembered lane, and soon approached a
mansion of brick, with a little weathercock-surmounted cupola, on the roof,
and a bell hanging in it. It was a large house, but one of broken fortunes for the
spacious offices were little used their wo damp and mossy, their windows
broken, and their gates decayed. Fowls clucked and strutted in the stables and
the coach houses and sheds were over nun with grass. Nor was it more
retentive of its ancient state, within for entering the dreary hall, and glancing
through the open doors of many rooms, they found them poorly furnished,
cold, and want. There was an earthy savour in the air chilly bareness in the
place, which associated itself somehow with too much getting up by candle-
They went, the Ghost and Scrooge, across the hall, to a door at the back of the
house. It opened before them, and disclosed a long bare, melancholy room,
made borer still by lines of plain deal forms and desks. At one of these a lonely
boy was reading near a feeble fire and Scrooge sat down upon a form and
wept to see his poor forgotten self as he used to be.
Not a tent echo in the house, not a squeak and souffle from the mice behind
the panelling not drip from the hall chawed water spout in the dull yard
behind, not a sigh among the les bough of one despondent poplar, not the idle
swinging of an empty store-house door, no, not a clicking in the fire, but fell
upon the heart of Scrooge with a softening influence, and gave a free passage
to his tears.
Starting with this extract, how does Dickens present the effects of loneliness
and isolation in the novella?
Dickens presents Scrooge as lonely and isolated throughout the majority of the
novel. This is influenced by his inwardly selfish mindset which was influenced
by a combination of capitalism in the Victoria era and his childhood familial
neglect. Therefore, it can be argued Dickens using Scrooge as a tool to criticise
the alienating effects of capitalism while also emphasising the importance of
family relationships combatting this isolation.
At the start of the novella, Dickens uses an analogy/pathetic fallacy comparing
Scrooge to highlight his isolation from society. Dickens invites the reader to
make links between the cold beings. The way “No warmth could warm, no
wintry weather chill him” suggests Scrooge is impervious and unyielding in his
ignorance towards humanity. Dickens makes use of hyperbole by suggesting
“no wind that blew was bitterer than he to suggest Scrooge is a caricature of
evil. The harsh plosive sounds highlight Scrooge's vicious hostility towards the
rest of society. Similarly negates humanity. Scrooge's indifference towards
society is matched by society's indifference towards him. Again, Dickens uses
an asyndetic list to emphasise the length people go to avoid Scrooge's
company. Dark humour is used with the reference to “blind men's dogs”
intentionally from the world. Earlier in Stave 1 Scrooge has already been
established as a loner through the simile 'solitary as an oyster. This image
depicts as having built a tough outer shell protect and insulate him from the
world. The noun choice of ‘oyster’ is interesting as it links to his redemption
later in the story as it suggests he does contain pearls of goodness underneath
his hard exterior. Later in Stave 1, the extent of Scrooge's isolation from
society becomes starker to the reader when they learn his home is playing at
hide and seek from the other houses. The personification suggests Scrooge
intentionally positions himself away from the rest of society so as to go
unnoticed. The reference to the childhood game of hide and seek could
suggest he has never fully recovered from his childhood isolation that was
forced upon him by his cruel father. Indeed, Dickens' novels regularly create
pathos for children. He was conscious of the stigma that society placed on
children in the Victorian era. He believed strongly in the value of childhood,
not simply a time when children obtain education, but also as a time when
they are able to play and exercise their imagination. He also noted that, by the
demands of society and family circumstance, children were often forced into
adulthood much too early his novels are full of children who either have to
take care of their parents or must fend for themselves in the absence of their
parents or must fend for themselves in the absence of their parents.
In Stave 2 Dickens may have tapped into his own experiences of loneliness and
isolation after his father was sent to a debtor's prison when he was 12. The
featured extract from Stave 2 represents a pivotal moment in the novel. The
reader's interpretation of Scrooge softens when they learn his isolation from
society as an adult was undoubtedly influenced by the isolation he was forced
to experience as a child. Scrooge is made to visit his former school where he
meets his younger self- “a solitary child neglected by his friends”. The adjective
“solitary” on this occasion evokes pathos rather than disdain when we learn his
father's neglect forced Scrooge to spend his Christmas alone at school.
Similarly, the image of “the lonely boy reading by a feeble fire” furthers the
idea of Scrooge's isolation. The image of the “feeble fire” links back to the cold
analogy in Stave 1 suggesting Scrooge's cold-hearted nature was formed by the
coldness he experienced as a child. The poverty Scrooge experienced as a child
may explain why when Scrooge is a young man. Belle says he “fears the world
too much”. It appears Scrooge's desire to avoid returning to his childhood
poverty causes Nim to overcompensate to the extent that he becomes a selfish
miser only interested in money. The image of “another idol…a golden one”
highlights how his worship of money has overwhelmed his feelings for Belle.
When Belle cancels the engagement, it marginalises Scrooge further away
from society and from the prospect of having a family and a satisfying life.
Instead, Scrooge is forced to confront the image of the life he could have had
when he sees Belle's children who “might have been the spring-time in the
haggard winter of his life” highlight Dickens message about the importance of
family in humanising an individual. This message was especially vital in a
Victorian era when the effects of the industrial revolution was placing a huge
strain on families. “Springtime” has obvious connotations with joy, happiness
and growth which juxtaposes heavily with “haggard winter” suggesting
Scrooge is exhausted as he reaches the end of Stave 2 as he uses abrupt
exclamatory imperatives to ask the ghost to “Leave me! Haunt me no longer”.
At this point in the novel, Scrooge is beginning to realise his greed throughout
his adult life has prevented him from enjoying the benefits of being included
within society.
The contrast between the hyperbolic and harsh description of Scrooge's
isolation in Stave I with the more emotional description in Stave 2 is used by
Scrooge to show how a combination of the alleviating effects of capitalism and
the absence of familial love caused Scrooge to be isolated from society.
Dickens is clearly using Scrooge as a tool to both criticise the capitalist
mentality of the Victorian era and highlight the importance of family love in
combating the negative effects. The way Scrooge, a caricature of the selfish
mindset of the rich in Stave 1 can be completely transformed by experiencing
familial love suggests both the importance of family and the capacity within
everyone, even the stingiest of misers, to redeem and reintegrate themselves
back into society. Therefore, Scrooge's nation both as a child and an adult is
vital in communicating Dickens Christian message about the importance of
family.