(c) One of the main themes of An Inspector Calls is that of lies. Show how Priestley exposes deceit, both in his characters and in society as a whole. Discuss with close reference to the novel.
Lies is one of the main themes of “An Inspector Calls.’ We discover that in this play, much deception is practiced in a tangled woven web of lies.
Sybil Birling, a social snob, is revealed as a liar when she states that she has never met Eva Smith. In fact, she has met Eva, when the latter appealed to the Brumley Women’s Committee for help. As she is a liar, Goole is accordingly harshest with her, when he exposes her.
Eva, the deluded victim, lied to Sybil for survival, calling herself “Mrs. Birling.” In fact, she is unmarried and is the mother of Eric’s unborn child. Why should she presume to call herself “Mrs. Birling”? Perhaps it is because Birling is Eric’s surname and she represented herself initially as an abused married woman. Perhaps she hoped that Sybil would pity her, or she wished to blackmail Sybil for concealing the shameful secret. However, her unfortunate indiscretion led Sybil to spurn an subsequently lie to Goole.
Arthur, as a parsimonious Capitalist, insists that he is not responsible for Eva’s death. He lives in a world of self-delusion, in which he figures as the hero.
When this is viewed in the perspective of society as a whole, Arthur is living a lie. As an employer, he ought to provide Eva with benefits yet denies his responsibility when she commits suicide. He is clearly responsible for her death as he had fired her. His mask of shallow hypocrisy is exposed in the revelation of Eva’s impregnation by Eric. He is furious with Eric for seducing Eva not because he pities the latter. Instead, he says, “There’ll be a public scandal.” He wishes to keep the scandal under wraps in order to protect his reputation and this is living a life of deceit.
Sybil as the member of the Brumley Women’s Committee, is supposed to offer assistance to battered women. However, she rejects Eva’s appeal for aid, dismissing her. The Committee, in fact, is but a mere lie – it is a veneer for status and respectability rather than a helper of unfortunate females. Priestley portrays his contempt for the upper classes that use facades for prestige but do little. Goole, too, is ultimately revealed as a liar as he is not an Inspector. He serves to trip the masks of the others and expose deceit. In this way, deceit reveals deceit.
Hence, deceit in a society as a whole is extremely prevalent. Eva used it to survive; the Birlings practiced it for a secure reputation. However, deceit is a destructive force that eventually pulls us down when it is revealed as in the cases of Eva and the Birlings; and this way, Priestley conveys his opinions on the shallowness of deceit, particularly when exposed.
Marls: 11/12
Sunday, November 11, 2007
An Inspector Calls by J.B. Priestley
(b) Sheila represents the younger generation that Priestley hops is still open-minded enough to learn to accept responsibilities for others. Describe Sheila.
Sheila, being a member of the younger generation in an upper-middle class hierarchy, is initially naïve and spoilt. We see her spite and malice when she had Eva Smith fired for humiliating her by looking pretty. The Inspector observes that she was “jealous of her.”
However, she is open-minded and not truly conservative. I n one instance, she tells Eric, “You’re squiffy” which was considered unladylike in 1912, for “squiffy” is a slang for “slightly drunk.” Furthermore, she affectionately kisses Gerald in a state of excited elation upon receiving a ring from him. In those days, girls were expected to be modest, virtuous and constrained. “Oh, darling!” she exclaims in delight.
Furthermore, when the revelations of her spite acted on Eva and the dilapidated conditions of laborers are brought to her, she is genuinely shocked. Certainly she has a sensitive nature hidden within that is brought out when she is undeceived. When the Inspector informs her that there are girls who live in poverty-stricken states due to parsimonious employers, she protests, “But these girls aren’t cheap labour – they’re people.”
In the end, she is shown to be impressionable, being affected by Goole’s harangue and accepting responsibility for Eva’s death; she clearly sees her luckless wrongs, and is honest enough to face up to her gross misdeed. “It doesn’t much matter” that Goole turns out not to be an Inspector, she feels.
Hence, through Sheila, Priestley wishes to show that the younger generation is open-minded enough to learn to accept responsibilities for others. As they are young, mutable and inexperienced, such radical responsibility can be inculcated in them, being receptive to new ideas.
Marks: 7/8
Sheila, being a member of the younger generation in an upper-middle class hierarchy, is initially naïve and spoilt. We see her spite and malice when she had Eva Smith fired for humiliating her by looking pretty. The Inspector observes that she was “jealous of her.”
However, she is open-minded and not truly conservative. I n one instance, she tells Eric, “You’re squiffy” which was considered unladylike in 1912, for “squiffy” is a slang for “slightly drunk.” Furthermore, she affectionately kisses Gerald in a state of excited elation upon receiving a ring from him. In those days, girls were expected to be modest, virtuous and constrained. “Oh, darling!” she exclaims in delight.
Furthermore, when the revelations of her spite acted on Eva and the dilapidated conditions of laborers are brought to her, she is genuinely shocked. Certainly she has a sensitive nature hidden within that is brought out when she is undeceived. When the Inspector informs her that there are girls who live in poverty-stricken states due to parsimonious employers, she protests, “But these girls aren’t cheap labour – they’re people.”
In the end, she is shown to be impressionable, being affected by Goole’s harangue and accepting responsibility for Eva’s death; she clearly sees her luckless wrongs, and is honest enough to face up to her gross misdeed. “It doesn’t much matter” that Goole turns out not to be an Inspector, she feels.
Hence, through Sheila, Priestley wishes to show that the younger generation is open-minded enough to learn to accept responsibilities for others. As they are young, mutable and inexperienced, such radical responsibility can be inculcated in them, being receptive to new ideas.
Marks: 7/8
The Way THings Are by Roger McGough
c) Children should be taught to face reality. Do you agree with this statement? Discuss with close reference to the poem “The Way things Are” by Roger McGough.
It is true that children should be taught reality. The theme of reality versus illusion is brought out in “The Way Things Are” by Roger McGough through the persona’s lecture to his child.
Take for instance “Bubblegum does not make the hair soft and shiny.” Bubblegum, in fact, is ruinous to our hair. The figurative meaning indicates that things that are pleasurable, such as bubblegum, are not necessarily beneficial. Hence, children should be taught this lesson so that they do not thoughtlessly indulge in disastrous pleasure.
Another example is lectured as “No, the red wooly hat has not been/put on the railing to keep it warm.” This can be interpreted as certain deeds that may appear to have been done with kind intentions may have been done accidentally or selfishly. Literally, placing the hat on the railing “to keep it warm” I persiflage as railings are not living organisms and hence cannot feel.
We cannot subsist on dreams. “Moonbeams, sadly, will not survive in a jar.” Dreams being abstract, unrealistic and unattainable are represented as “Moonbeams” which have similar attributes. We should not be preoccupied with dreams or illusions; the jar symbolizing life or our mind. In another perspective (moonbeams being beautiful and unattainable), the phrase advises us to face reality and not be too over-possessive.
Do not cling on to the unachievable. Children should be taught to accept defeat, and that they cannot always have everything that they desire.
Furthermore, “No trusting hand awaits a falling star” informs us that miracles, represented by a “star” are rarities. W cannot expect fortune to descend to us, and wait meaninglessly. Instead, children should strive to achieve their goals through dedicated efforts.
Therefore, children should be taught to face reality, for childlike innocence may result in eventual disappointment and disillusion as a result of ignorance and naïveté. This message is cleverly conveyed in the woven web of symbolism.
Marks: 10/12
It is true that children should be taught reality. The theme of reality versus illusion is brought out in “The Way Things Are” by Roger McGough through the persona’s lecture to his child.
Take for instance “Bubblegum does not make the hair soft and shiny.” Bubblegum, in fact, is ruinous to our hair. The figurative meaning indicates that things that are pleasurable, such as bubblegum, are not necessarily beneficial. Hence, children should be taught this lesson so that they do not thoughtlessly indulge in disastrous pleasure.
Another example is lectured as “No, the red wooly hat has not been/put on the railing to keep it warm.” This can be interpreted as certain deeds that may appear to have been done with kind intentions may have been done accidentally or selfishly. Literally, placing the hat on the railing “to keep it warm” I persiflage as railings are not living organisms and hence cannot feel.
We cannot subsist on dreams. “Moonbeams, sadly, will not survive in a jar.” Dreams being abstract, unrealistic and unattainable are represented as “Moonbeams” which have similar attributes. We should not be preoccupied with dreams or illusions; the jar symbolizing life or our mind. In another perspective (moonbeams being beautiful and unattainable), the phrase advises us to face reality and not be too over-possessive.
Do not cling on to the unachievable. Children should be taught to accept defeat, and that they cannot always have everything that they desire.
Furthermore, “No trusting hand awaits a falling star” informs us that miracles, represented by a “star” are rarities. W cannot expect fortune to descend to us, and wait meaninglessly. Instead, children should strive to achieve their goals through dedicated efforts.
Therefore, children should be taught to face reality, for childlike innocence may result in eventual disappointment and disillusion as a result of ignorance and naïveté. This message is cleverly conveyed in the woven web of symbolism.
Marks: 10/12
For My Old amah by Wong Phui Nam
(b) What perception do you get of the relationship between the persona and his old amah in Wong Phui Nam’s poem, “For My Old Amah”?
The relationship between the persona and his old amah in “For My Old amah” is close, from what I perceive.
For example, he describes the pitiful conditions of her lodgings with its “spittoon” and “trestle.” He does this with such pity and sympathy that one cannot help but sense his genuine pity for the amah. She, too, is in a dilapidated state of health and he expects that the “branches” will snap “in the dark” indicating her impending demise.
Furthermore, he portrays a close attachment to his amah. When thinking of his past days with her, he is filled with nostalgia. “Your palm crushed the child’s tears from my face.” In his youth, she had consoled him, and for this, he holds her in gratitude.
Moreover, he fact that he understands her situation indicates that he has visited her decrepit lodgings. She is not related to him, yet his close relationship and responsibility compels him to visit her.
The “biscuit tins” and “piles of dresses” in addition are “brutal” as they remind him of her sorrowful condition, as well as feelings of sentimental nostalgia. Seeing these things as “brutal” for they remind him of her, and he feels pangs for her. After her eventual death, these objects which are associated with her will flood him with past reminiscences about her.
Hence, closeness is depicted between the persona and his amah. The fact that he has immortalized her in verse shows that her condition sufficiently affects him to the extent of expressing his feelings in a poem.
Marks: 7/8
The relationship between the persona and his old amah in “For My Old amah” is close, from what I perceive.
For example, he describes the pitiful conditions of her lodgings with its “spittoon” and “trestle.” He does this with such pity and sympathy that one cannot help but sense his genuine pity for the amah. She, too, is in a dilapidated state of health and he expects that the “branches” will snap “in the dark” indicating her impending demise.
Furthermore, he portrays a close attachment to his amah. When thinking of his past days with her, he is filled with nostalgia. “Your palm crushed the child’s tears from my face.” In his youth, she had consoled him, and for this, he holds her in gratitude.
Moreover, he fact that he understands her situation indicates that he has visited her decrepit lodgings. She is not related to him, yet his close relationship and responsibility compels him to visit her.
The “biscuit tins” and “piles of dresses” in addition are “brutal” as they remind him of her sorrowful condition, as well as feelings of sentimental nostalgia. Seeing these things as “brutal” for they remind him of her, and he feels pangs for her. After her eventual death, these objects which are associated with her will flood him with past reminiscences about her.
Hence, closeness is depicted between the persona and his amah. The fact that he has immortalized her in verse shows that her condition sufficiently affects him to the extent of expressing his feelings in a poem.
Marks: 7/8
For My Old amah by Wong Phui Nam
(b) What perception do you get of the relationship between the persona and his old amah in Wong Phui Nam’s poem, “For My Old Amah”?
The relationship between the persona and his old amah in “For My Old amah” is close, from what I perceive.
For example, he describes the pitiful conditions of her lodgings with its “spittoon” and “trestle.” He does this with such pity and sympathy that one cannot help but sense his genuine pity for the amah. She, too, is in a dilapidated state of health and he expects that the “branches” will snap “in the dark” indicating her impending demise.
Furthermore, he portrays a close attachment to his amah. When thinking of his past days with her, he is filled with nostalgia. “Your palm crushed the child’s tears from my face.” In his youth, she had consoled him, and for this, he holds her in gratitude.
Moreover, he fact that he understands her situation indicates that he has visited her decrepit lodgings. She is not related to him, yet his close relationship and responsibility compels him to visit her.
The “biscuit tins” and “piles of dresses” in addition are “brutal” as they remind him of her sorrowful condition, as well as feelings of sentimental nostalgia. Seeing these things as “brutal” for they remind him of her, and he feels pangs for her. After her eventual death, these objects which are associated with her will flood him with past reminiscences about her.
Hence, closeness is depicted between the persona and his amah. The fact that he has immortalized her in verse shows that her condition sufficiently affects him to the extent of expressing his feelings in a poem.
Marks: 7/8
The relationship between the persona and his old amah in “For My Old amah” is close, from what I perceive.
For example, he describes the pitiful conditions of her lodgings with its “spittoon” and “trestle.” He does this with such pity and sympathy that one cannot help but sense his genuine pity for the amah. She, too, is in a dilapidated state of health and he expects that the “branches” will snap “in the dark” indicating her impending demise.
Furthermore, he portrays a close attachment to his amah. When thinking of his past days with her, he is filled with nostalgia. “Your palm crushed the child’s tears from my face.” In his youth, she had consoled him, and for this, he holds her in gratitude.
Moreover, he fact that he understands her situation indicates that he has visited her decrepit lodgings. She is not related to him, yet his close relationship and responsibility compels him to visit her.
The “biscuit tins” and “piles of dresses” in addition are “brutal” as they remind him of her sorrowful condition, as well as feelings of sentimental nostalgia. Seeing these things as “brutal” for they remind him of her, and he feels pangs for her. After her eventual death, these objects which are associated with her will flood him with past reminiscences about her.
Hence, closeness is depicted between the persona and his amah. The fact that he has immortalized her in verse shows that her condition sufficiently affects him to the extent of expressing his feelings in a poem.
Marks: 7/8
The Landlady my Roald Dahl
(c) How has the reading of The Landlady by Roald Dahl taught you that one must be cautious and not too trusting? Discuss with close reference to the text.
An evident theme in “The Landlady” by Roald Dahl is that appearances are deceptive. Billy, due to his naïveté, is taken in by the landlady, thus portraying insufficient caution
In one instance, when he rings the bell of the landlady’s house, he is immediately informed that the rent required is “fantastically cheap.” This compels him to stay there. Yet the house is surrounded in comfort and luxury with “a pretty little dachshund” and a “plump sofa.” Such material convenience is synonymous with exorbitant charges but he is not suspicious of the fiendish schemes brewing in her mind. It is ironical that he found the rent reasonable, for his naïveté has, ultimately, to pay an even higher price – his life.
Furthermore, upon viewing her house, he notices a “a pretty little dachshund” and a “large parrot”, enticing him to stay there. “Animals were usually a good sign.” However, little does he know that they have met their demise until later.
The landlady’s external veneer is attractive; she seems warm and kind with “gentle blue eyes.” So courteous is she that she has thoughtfully prepared Bill’s room. She is depicted as being affectionate such as calling him an endearment, “dear.” This draws him to her. Such wonderful treatment is highly suggestive of concealed evil and ulterior motives, yet Billy suspects nothing. She wishes to preserve his corpse, but he believes her to be a good woman. This may result in his luckless demise.
Moreover, the landlady generously prepared tea for him, which he accepts. The tea tastes of “bitter almonds’ and he is still innocent to her devious schemes.
Only while they are seated together does he realize that the dachshund and the parrot are deceased. They looked so homely and indicated a “good sign” initially, nut he is undeceived upon discovering their preserved state. Further abnormal behaviour of the landlady is depicted when she says her previous tenant’s skin was just “like a baby’s.” Upon being informed that she stiffs and preserves her dad pets, Billy, instead of recoiling, “stared with deep admiration.” Her indecorous indiscretion of remarking on the young man’s skin ought to have put him on his guard, yet he is fascinated and thinks little of this. How could she have discovered that “there wasn’t a blemish” on her victim’s body – unless by malevolent means?
Therefore, one must be cautious and not too trusting. This innocent attribute in Billy despite all the subtle hints, leads to his ensnarement, and ultimately, his impending death. This story teaches me this lesson.
Marks: 11/12
An evident theme in “The Landlady” by Roald Dahl is that appearances are deceptive. Billy, due to his naïveté, is taken in by the landlady, thus portraying insufficient caution
In one instance, when he rings the bell of the landlady’s house, he is immediately informed that the rent required is “fantastically cheap.” This compels him to stay there. Yet the house is surrounded in comfort and luxury with “a pretty little dachshund” and a “plump sofa.” Such material convenience is synonymous with exorbitant charges but he is not suspicious of the fiendish schemes brewing in her mind. It is ironical that he found the rent reasonable, for his naïveté has, ultimately, to pay an even higher price – his life.
Furthermore, upon viewing her house, he notices a “a pretty little dachshund” and a “large parrot”, enticing him to stay there. “Animals were usually a good sign.” However, little does he know that they have met their demise until later.
The landlady’s external veneer is attractive; she seems warm and kind with “gentle blue eyes.” So courteous is she that she has thoughtfully prepared Bill’s room. She is depicted as being affectionate such as calling him an endearment, “dear.” This draws him to her. Such wonderful treatment is highly suggestive of concealed evil and ulterior motives, yet Billy suspects nothing. She wishes to preserve his corpse, but he believes her to be a good woman. This may result in his luckless demise.
Moreover, the landlady generously prepared tea for him, which he accepts. The tea tastes of “bitter almonds’ and he is still innocent to her devious schemes.
Only while they are seated together does he realize that the dachshund and the parrot are deceased. They looked so homely and indicated a “good sign” initially, nut he is undeceived upon discovering their preserved state. Further abnormal behaviour of the landlady is depicted when she says her previous tenant’s skin was just “like a baby’s.” Upon being informed that she stiffs and preserves her dad pets, Billy, instead of recoiling, “stared with deep admiration.” Her indecorous indiscretion of remarking on the young man’s skin ought to have put him on his guard, yet he is fascinated and thinks little of this. How could she have discovered that “there wasn’t a blemish” on her victim’s body – unless by malevolent means?
Therefore, one must be cautious and not too trusting. This innocent attribute in Billy despite all the subtle hints, leads to his ensnarement, and ultimately, his impending death. This story teaches me this lesson.
Marks: 11/12
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Analysis of A Prayer for my Daughter by W.B. Yeats, Stanzas 9-10
Stanza 9: Yeats states that if hatred is ridded off, “the soul recovers radical innocence.” Hatred causes sin and violence; hence to be rid of it is to be innocent of these crimes. Innocence is beautiful in women. “Innocence” is radical because it is rooted in the soul. “Considering that, all hatred driven hence, / The soul recovers radical innocence”. A radical is a term for a root. In another perspective, the “innocence” is “radical” or unconventional because after the war, innocence became more uncommon. Hence, it is “radical” or something new to be innocent, as it defies the flow of convention.
“And learns at last that it is self-delighting, / self-appeasing, self-affrighting”. Innocence causes these attributes in the soul. It delights the soul, for there is no hatred; it is peaceful and soothing, yet it is “self-affrighting’ because it is frightening that others can take advantage of one’s innocence.
“That its own sweet will in Heaven’s will; / She can, though every face should scowl / And every windy quarter howl / Or every bellows burst, be happy still.” Goodness is heaven’s will because the soul is supposed to be good. Goodness makes Anne happy: “its own sweet will is Heaven’s will.”
Yeats states that Anne can still be happy amid chaos, unhappiness, quarrels and problems if she is innocent and free of hatred. “She can, though every face should scowl/ And every windy quarter howl/ Or very bellows burst, be happy still. If she is good, no one can harm her. So males will not overwhelm her (?) If the soul knows itself, “wind” or destructive forces cannot harm her, for the mind is at peace with itself.
Literary devices: repetition – “self-delighting/ self-appeasing, self-affrighting”
Parallelism - “self-delighting/ self-appeasing, self-affrighting”
Metaphors – “every face should scowl” – unhappiness and hostility
“bellows burst” – chaos, arguments. May have reference to McBride’s
“hot air” or people’s blaring opinions without effect.
Tone: revealing, fantasizing, prophesizing
Stanza 10: Yeats hopes that Anne will marry “and may her bridegroom bring her to a house/Where all’s accustomed, ceremonious.” He wants her to have a good, traditional husband. Perhaps he wants her to marry into a good, ceremonious family. He wants her to live in custom and ceremony. He does not want arrogance and hatred in her home, as that happens commonly outside in the vulgar, common crowds “thoroughfares” and would demean herself. Possibly referring to the destructive forces outside. It is demeaning, lowering herself and being rude, as one can find “arrogance and hatred” in the “thoroughfares” as though they re common, crude “wares.”
Innocence and beauty and cultivated by custom and ceremony. Yeats brings out his ideal virtues – custom, ceremony, grace, aristocracy and innocence. “How but in custom and ceremony/Are innocence and beauty born?” If we take “born” for its literal meaning, however, Yeats wants his daughter to have innocent, beautiful children and these virtues are inculcated through custom and ceremony.
Couplet: “Ceremony’s a name for the rich horn,/And custom for the spreading laurel tree.” The rich Horn of Plenty is positive now; as it has offerings, it allows ceremony. For it is ceremonious to have good things and offer them. Perhaps Yeats wants Anne to be well-off and comfortable. A horn also represents ceremony when one blows it to announce something.
Custom is a tradition which is “rooted.” When you plant a tree, it roots, Hence, custom is represented by a tree. The home which inculcates custom is the root of the children’s virtues. Hence, custom is represented by a tree. The spreading laurel tree, is custom but earlier on ,it is mentioned that Anne is a laurel; tree. As laurel tree represents custom, it is “spreading” because Yeats wants Anne to spread custom among her family. A laurel tree may be seen as a family tree. In that case, it is also spreading because Yeats wants Anne to have children – the branches which spread, making a bigger family – and spread custom throughout the generations.
Note that the term “olive-branches” means offspring. This is particularly apt because in this stanza, Yeats speaks of marriage, hence children are born and custom is spread.
Tone: Hopeful, reflective, advisory, lecture-like, opinionated, confident
Literary devices: symbol – “thoroughfares” – world and crowd at large and its
Commonness
“horn” – ceremony
“tree” – custom, family, children, Anne Yeats.
“And learns at last that it is self-delighting, / self-appeasing, self-affrighting”. Innocence causes these attributes in the soul. It delights the soul, for there is no hatred; it is peaceful and soothing, yet it is “self-affrighting’ because it is frightening that others can take advantage of one’s innocence.
“That its own sweet will in Heaven’s will; / She can, though every face should scowl / And every windy quarter howl / Or every bellows burst, be happy still.” Goodness is heaven’s will because the soul is supposed to be good. Goodness makes Anne happy: “its own sweet will is Heaven’s will.”
Yeats states that Anne can still be happy amid chaos, unhappiness, quarrels and problems if she is innocent and free of hatred. “She can, though every face should scowl/ And every windy quarter howl/ Or very bellows burst, be happy still. If she is good, no one can harm her. So males will not overwhelm her (?) If the soul knows itself, “wind” or destructive forces cannot harm her, for the mind is at peace with itself.
Literary devices: repetition – “self-delighting/ self-appeasing, self-affrighting”
Parallelism - “self-delighting/ self-appeasing, self-affrighting”
Metaphors – “every face should scowl” – unhappiness and hostility
“bellows burst” – chaos, arguments. May have reference to McBride’s
“hot air” or people’s blaring opinions without effect.
Tone: revealing, fantasizing, prophesizing
Stanza 10: Yeats hopes that Anne will marry “and may her bridegroom bring her to a house/Where all’s accustomed, ceremonious.” He wants her to have a good, traditional husband. Perhaps he wants her to marry into a good, ceremonious family. He wants her to live in custom and ceremony. He does not want arrogance and hatred in her home, as that happens commonly outside in the vulgar, common crowds “thoroughfares” and would demean herself. Possibly referring to the destructive forces outside. It is demeaning, lowering herself and being rude, as one can find “arrogance and hatred” in the “thoroughfares” as though they re common, crude “wares.”
Innocence and beauty and cultivated by custom and ceremony. Yeats brings out his ideal virtues – custom, ceremony, grace, aristocracy and innocence. “How but in custom and ceremony/Are innocence and beauty born?” If we take “born” for its literal meaning, however, Yeats wants his daughter to have innocent, beautiful children and these virtues are inculcated through custom and ceremony.
Couplet: “Ceremony’s a name for the rich horn,/And custom for the spreading laurel tree.” The rich Horn of Plenty is positive now; as it has offerings, it allows ceremony. For it is ceremonious to have good things and offer them. Perhaps Yeats wants Anne to be well-off and comfortable. A horn also represents ceremony when one blows it to announce something.
Custom is a tradition which is “rooted.” When you plant a tree, it roots, Hence, custom is represented by a tree. The home which inculcates custom is the root of the children’s virtues. Hence, custom is represented by a tree. The spreading laurel tree, is custom but earlier on ,it is mentioned that Anne is a laurel; tree. As laurel tree represents custom, it is “spreading” because Yeats wants Anne to spread custom among her family. A laurel tree may be seen as a family tree. In that case, it is also spreading because Yeats wants Anne to have children – the branches which spread, making a bigger family – and spread custom throughout the generations.
Note that the term “olive-branches” means offspring. This is particularly apt because in this stanza, Yeats speaks of marriage, hence children are born and custom is spread.
Tone: Hopeful, reflective, advisory, lecture-like, opinionated, confident
Literary devices: symbol – “thoroughfares” – world and crowd at large and its
Commonness
“horn” – ceremony
“tree” – custom, family, children, Anne Yeats.
Friday, November 9, 2007
An Inspector Calls by J.B. Priestley - an essay by Claire Wong.
Essay 1 ½ pages
(c) Select one of the members of the Birling family. Write a character study, using the text for reference, to show how Priestley uses the character to convey his own opinions and attitudes.
The playwright of “An Inspector Calls,” J.B. Priestley, was a dedicated supporter of socialism, and by writing this play, he vents his own opinions and attitudes through his characters. The play is set in 1912, two years prior to the First World War, in the home of a prosperous manufacturer, Arthur Birling. It is perceptible to the reader that a prevailing aspect of the play is Capitalism versus socialism. This theme centres on Arthur Birling, a Capitalist.
A conspicuous trait in Arthur Birling is his egotism. If one analyses deeply, Birling, in fact, is a subject of satire; he is intended to be portrayed as a typical Capitalist. A man of wealth, he is a pompous snob of the upper hierarchy, often ostentatiously displaying his advantageous connections. “I might find my way into the next Honours List … a knighthood… I was Lord Mayor … when Royalty visited us,” he boasts to Gerald Croft. Besides, he is obviously elated to welcome Gerald into his arms as his future son-in-law. “You’re just the kind of son-in-law I always wanted” and “I’m delighted about this engagement” show that he is impressed by Gerald’s genteel family. This is rather amusing. J.B. Priestley wishes to point out his contempt for capitalist class systems by satirizing Arthur Birling; the reader can see that Birling’s vulnerability to high society is indeed shallow; the latter views the veneer of respectability as an honour. We ought to respect those with honour, ideals and determination; Gerald’s character is not particularly radical or persevering, yet Birling admires him for his wealth and gentility.
Further illustrations of Birling’s character are in his eager remarks to Gerald, “we may look forward to the time when Crofts and Birlings … are working together – for lower costs and higher prices.” We can see his greed and parsimony; this is supposed to be a relaxed, joyous celebration, yet Birling must “talk business on an occasion like this.” It is clear that his desire for wealth cannot be restrained, even when he is supposed to be at ease. Later, we find proof of his avarice: he refused to raise the wages of capable employees despite being well-off. Priestley, being a Socialist, is concerned for the ill-paid lower classes. Birling shows an injustice in refusing to reward Eva Smith, a “good worker.” In fact, he can afford to raise her salary, which she deserved as she increased productivity, and hence, his earnings. Yet he is obstinate in his selfishness. Priestley wishes to show how shallow, money-grubbing and stingy capitalists can be; many things are to their advantage, as they held power and dominance over their social inferiors. If their employees go on strike, they are dismissed, as eva Smith was. There was little protection for workers then. Money is a destructive force an Priestley demonstrates his disdain for its risky influence. Its evil influence is portrayed in Birling, the puppet, as it obstructs our finer feelings. We ought to compensate those who work industriously towards higher profits, and give employees a right to live better lives and more equally.
Responsibility hovers around the play. As an employer, Birling is responsible for his workers’ welfare. He is responsible for paying their wages and to provide them with a suitable workplace. /yet, we see that he refused to increase the renumeration of capable workers. It is his responsibility to provide them so that that can enjoy a life of sufficient needs. Indignant, his employees started a strike, and Eva Smith, who spoke out – understandably – for her rights, was dismissed. A young woman in her position had little to live on, and Birling who already behaved graspingly, ought to have re-employed her, to provide her with a job. In another perspective, this solution would have fulfilled his other responsibility – to the consumers. Being capable, Eva Smith and the other ringleaders would have increased productivity, quality of the products and profits. With these girls, Birling could have offered better products to his consumers. After her dismissal, Eva was forced to resort to finding another job, but her earlier dismissal led to a concatenation of disastrous events, torment and ultmtely, her death. When the Inspector confronts Birling with this information, Birling cold-heartedly refuses to “accept any responsibility” for her death as it would be “very awkward.” Eva was helping Birling to make profits; in other words, she shared responsibility. Priestley indicates that we should share our responsibility – fairly. Birling ought to have allowed Eva more freedom for her diligence, and taken her under his wing. It is his responsibility to pay her benefits. Capitalists should be willing to accept responsibility. To ignore their workers’ needs would be inhumane. Capitalists gain profits from their employees’ efforts and drudgery, and should therefore ensure a comfortable living for them. More so, as Birling did not provide benefits, he is even more accountable for Eva’s sufferings. Priestley shows that the rich make the poor suffer, yet give them an unequal share and refuse to be held accountable for their inhumane actions.
Another implication lies in Birling’s role as the autocratic father. He is narrow-minded and prejudiced against the lower-classes, the young and revolution. The revelation of Birling’s hand in Eva’s demise arouses Eric, “why shouldn’t they try for higher wages? We try for the highest possible prices.” Birling instead becomes angry with him and this shows his hypocrisy. He aims to charge higher prices, but disallows his workers from following suit. Sheila voices her sympathy for Eva, but Birling disdains this. He evidently does not believe in the young voicing their opinions. This play is not merely about the pinions of Socialists, but also the ideas of the young. It is the young who bring new ideas, but due to their unestablished position in the world, the old hold them in contempt. A Radical, Priestley points this out. The old cannot change sufficiently quickly for new reforms. They fear this change, and impose their haughty stands on the youngsters. Eric and Sheila express their views that labourers have the right to “try for higher wagers”, Birling puts is foot down. The young are less hardened, but they are exposed to new ideas, and can do better for the labourers. They consider possibilities; Birling retorts that “there isn’t a chance of war.” He is trying to avoid the possibilities of his ruin. It is ironical that he mentions, “Look at the progress we’re making.” For further progress, the ideals and the efforts of the young are required. With Birling’s preconceived notions, society cannot progress to a fairer state. How can we hope for revolution with the young suppressed?
Birling’s bigotry is depicted in his male chauvinism. He treats females with less respect, and with contempt. He views them as mere toys. The discovery of Gerald’s amorous intrigue with Eva Smith does not perturb him. Gerald has committed an indiscretion by seducing Eva and betraying Sheila, and Sheila resents this. Birling, however, states that “you must understand that a lot of young men –” have libidinous flings. It does not anger him. He feels that it is all right in men to philander, but he does not respect Sheila’s resentment of Gerald’s indiscretion, and forces her to marry him. That portrays that he does not respect her rightful opinion. He has little admiration for womanly strength, insisting that “there isn’t the slightest reason why my daughter should be dragged into this unpleasant business.” To him, women are weak, and ought not to know about violence and strumpery. Girls at that time were expected to be innocent. Priestley feels that women should be given the right to know “unpleasant and disturbing things” and express their opinions. As a large component of the workforce, women are exposed to drudgery, knowledge and the ways of the world; they ought to have the right to defend themselves and give opinions. After the war, many men were killed. And women became more significant in the workforce. Should not capable women be free to speak? Being ignorant increases their vulnerability, and girls like Eva Smith do not have the protection of a male figure.
There is a suggestiveness conveyed by Priestley. Birling, as we know, is against Socialism. He does not believe in the possibility of war. “Just because the Kaiser makes a speech or two, or a few German officers … begin talking nonsense … there isn’t a chance of war … The world’s developing so fat …Look at the progress we’re making … we’ll have aeroplanes that will be able to go anywhere … you’ll be living in a world that’ll have forgotten all these Capital versus Labour agitations and all these silly little war scares.” Naturally, the First World War took place after this, in 1914, and the progress in technology aided it. The downtrodden revolted and fought for more equality, despite the fact that rich Capitalists pooh-poohed this notion. It is as though Priestley is telling the reader that although the capitalists believed otherwise, war occurred, and Socialism triumphed. The war caused more equality. Therefore, Priestley suggest, socialism, being an excellent ideal, gained victory, hence it is like a battle between “good and evil.” Priestley is cynical about monetary success under Capitalism. He feels contempt for Capitalists like Birling, who disdain Labour, and expressed this scorn by making Birling a hateable, despicable person.
The truth is beautiful. Birling strives to conceal Eric’s affair with Eva, in order to preserve his reputation. Why should we deny the facts? Birling, besides, disapproves of his daughter’s knowledge about his covetousness and Gerald’s indiscretion. Priestley detests pretension that comes with social stability. That way, we can administer justice and determine our responsibilities. Capitalists are supposed to be law abiding; they do not permit strikes. Yet the truth is veiled.
Therefore, it is evident that Priestley conveys his revolutionary opinions and attitudes toward society through this play, through subtle means. The characters serve as his puppet-like orators, but with an enthralling plot, influence the reader to think, reflect and analyse the differences between then and now. There are many opinions expressed in this drama, and we can discern Priestley’s wrath and contempt in Arthur Birling.
Marks: 12/12
(c) Select one of the members of the Birling family. Write a character study, using the text for reference, to show how Priestley uses the character to convey his own opinions and attitudes.
The playwright of “An Inspector Calls,” J.B. Priestley, was a dedicated supporter of socialism, and by writing this play, he vents his own opinions and attitudes through his characters. The play is set in 1912, two years prior to the First World War, in the home of a prosperous manufacturer, Arthur Birling. It is perceptible to the reader that a prevailing aspect of the play is Capitalism versus socialism. This theme centres on Arthur Birling, a Capitalist.
A conspicuous trait in Arthur Birling is his egotism. If one analyses deeply, Birling, in fact, is a subject of satire; he is intended to be portrayed as a typical Capitalist. A man of wealth, he is a pompous snob of the upper hierarchy, often ostentatiously displaying his advantageous connections. “I might find my way into the next Honours List … a knighthood… I was Lord Mayor … when Royalty visited us,” he boasts to Gerald Croft. Besides, he is obviously elated to welcome Gerald into his arms as his future son-in-law. “You’re just the kind of son-in-law I always wanted” and “I’m delighted about this engagement” show that he is impressed by Gerald’s genteel family. This is rather amusing. J.B. Priestley wishes to point out his contempt for capitalist class systems by satirizing Arthur Birling; the reader can see that Birling’s vulnerability to high society is indeed shallow; the latter views the veneer of respectability as an honour. We ought to respect those with honour, ideals and determination; Gerald’s character is not particularly radical or persevering, yet Birling admires him for his wealth and gentility.
Further illustrations of Birling’s character are in his eager remarks to Gerald, “we may look forward to the time when Crofts and Birlings … are working together – for lower costs and higher prices.” We can see his greed and parsimony; this is supposed to be a relaxed, joyous celebration, yet Birling must “talk business on an occasion like this.” It is clear that his desire for wealth cannot be restrained, even when he is supposed to be at ease. Later, we find proof of his avarice: he refused to raise the wages of capable employees despite being well-off. Priestley, being a Socialist, is concerned for the ill-paid lower classes. Birling shows an injustice in refusing to reward Eva Smith, a “good worker.” In fact, he can afford to raise her salary, which she deserved as she increased productivity, and hence, his earnings. Yet he is obstinate in his selfishness. Priestley wishes to show how shallow, money-grubbing and stingy capitalists can be; many things are to their advantage, as they held power and dominance over their social inferiors. If their employees go on strike, they are dismissed, as eva Smith was. There was little protection for workers then. Money is a destructive force an Priestley demonstrates his disdain for its risky influence. Its evil influence is portrayed in Birling, the puppet, as it obstructs our finer feelings. We ought to compensate those who work industriously towards higher profits, and give employees a right to live better lives and more equally.
Responsibility hovers around the play. As an employer, Birling is responsible for his workers’ welfare. He is responsible for paying their wages and to provide them with a suitable workplace. /yet, we see that he refused to increase the renumeration of capable workers. It is his responsibility to provide them so that that can enjoy a life of sufficient needs. Indignant, his employees started a strike, and Eva Smith, who spoke out – understandably – for her rights, was dismissed. A young woman in her position had little to live on, and Birling who already behaved graspingly, ought to have re-employed her, to provide her with a job. In another perspective, this solution would have fulfilled his other responsibility – to the consumers. Being capable, Eva Smith and the other ringleaders would have increased productivity, quality of the products and profits. With these girls, Birling could have offered better products to his consumers. After her dismissal, Eva was forced to resort to finding another job, but her earlier dismissal led to a concatenation of disastrous events, torment and ultmtely, her death. When the Inspector confronts Birling with this information, Birling cold-heartedly refuses to “accept any responsibility” for her death as it would be “very awkward.” Eva was helping Birling to make profits; in other words, she shared responsibility. Priestley indicates that we should share our responsibility – fairly. Birling ought to have allowed Eva more freedom for her diligence, and taken her under his wing. It is his responsibility to pay her benefits. Capitalists should be willing to accept responsibility. To ignore their workers’ needs would be inhumane. Capitalists gain profits from their employees’ efforts and drudgery, and should therefore ensure a comfortable living for them. More so, as Birling did not provide benefits, he is even more accountable for Eva’s sufferings. Priestley shows that the rich make the poor suffer, yet give them an unequal share and refuse to be held accountable for their inhumane actions.
Another implication lies in Birling’s role as the autocratic father. He is narrow-minded and prejudiced against the lower-classes, the young and revolution. The revelation of Birling’s hand in Eva’s demise arouses Eric, “why shouldn’t they try for higher wages? We try for the highest possible prices.” Birling instead becomes angry with him and this shows his hypocrisy. He aims to charge higher prices, but disallows his workers from following suit. Sheila voices her sympathy for Eva, but Birling disdains this. He evidently does not believe in the young voicing their opinions. This play is not merely about the pinions of Socialists, but also the ideas of the young. It is the young who bring new ideas, but due to their unestablished position in the world, the old hold them in contempt. A Radical, Priestley points this out. The old cannot change sufficiently quickly for new reforms. They fear this change, and impose their haughty stands on the youngsters. Eric and Sheila express their views that labourers have the right to “try for higher wagers”, Birling puts is foot down. The young are less hardened, but they are exposed to new ideas, and can do better for the labourers. They consider possibilities; Birling retorts that “there isn’t a chance of war.” He is trying to avoid the possibilities of his ruin. It is ironical that he mentions, “Look at the progress we’re making.” For further progress, the ideals and the efforts of the young are required. With Birling’s preconceived notions, society cannot progress to a fairer state. How can we hope for revolution with the young suppressed?
Birling’s bigotry is depicted in his male chauvinism. He treats females with less respect, and with contempt. He views them as mere toys. The discovery of Gerald’s amorous intrigue with Eva Smith does not perturb him. Gerald has committed an indiscretion by seducing Eva and betraying Sheila, and Sheila resents this. Birling, however, states that “you must understand that a lot of young men –” have libidinous flings. It does not anger him. He feels that it is all right in men to philander, but he does not respect Sheila’s resentment of Gerald’s indiscretion, and forces her to marry him. That portrays that he does not respect her rightful opinion. He has little admiration for womanly strength, insisting that “there isn’t the slightest reason why my daughter should be dragged into this unpleasant business.” To him, women are weak, and ought not to know about violence and strumpery. Girls at that time were expected to be innocent. Priestley feels that women should be given the right to know “unpleasant and disturbing things” and express their opinions. As a large component of the workforce, women are exposed to drudgery, knowledge and the ways of the world; they ought to have the right to defend themselves and give opinions. After the war, many men were killed. And women became more significant in the workforce. Should not capable women be free to speak? Being ignorant increases their vulnerability, and girls like Eva Smith do not have the protection of a male figure.
There is a suggestiveness conveyed by Priestley. Birling, as we know, is against Socialism. He does not believe in the possibility of war. “Just because the Kaiser makes a speech or two, or a few German officers … begin talking nonsense … there isn’t a chance of war … The world’s developing so fat …Look at the progress we’re making … we’ll have aeroplanes that will be able to go anywhere … you’ll be living in a world that’ll have forgotten all these Capital versus Labour agitations and all these silly little war scares.” Naturally, the First World War took place after this, in 1914, and the progress in technology aided it. The downtrodden revolted and fought for more equality, despite the fact that rich Capitalists pooh-poohed this notion. It is as though Priestley is telling the reader that although the capitalists believed otherwise, war occurred, and Socialism triumphed. The war caused more equality. Therefore, Priestley suggest, socialism, being an excellent ideal, gained victory, hence it is like a battle between “good and evil.” Priestley is cynical about monetary success under Capitalism. He feels contempt for Capitalists like Birling, who disdain Labour, and expressed this scorn by making Birling a hateable, despicable person.
The truth is beautiful. Birling strives to conceal Eric’s affair with Eva, in order to preserve his reputation. Why should we deny the facts? Birling, besides, disapproves of his daughter’s knowledge about his covetousness and Gerald’s indiscretion. Priestley detests pretension that comes with social stability. That way, we can administer justice and determine our responsibilities. Capitalists are supposed to be law abiding; they do not permit strikes. Yet the truth is veiled.
Therefore, it is evident that Priestley conveys his revolutionary opinions and attitudes toward society through this play, through subtle means. The characters serve as his puppet-like orators, but with an enthralling plot, influence the reader to think, reflect and analyse the differences between then and now. There are many opinions expressed in this drama, and we can discern Priestley’s wrath and contempt in Arthur Birling.
Marks: 12/12
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)