What methods does Steinbeck use in this passage to present Candy?

(a) In the passage Steinbeck uses a metaphor to describe Candy. Candy’s dog is described as getting “painfully to his feet to follow”. Candy’s dog appears to be a metaphor for how Candy himself feels. It also reflects that he is old and like his dog useless. Alternatively, it reflect how Candy follows the life of a ranch worker even though it is not his true place in society, like the dog, it has been forced to live with a kind other than his own. The adjective “painfully” is significant to the reader as it conveys how it pains Candy to be living this life, which he cannot escape and evokes sympathy from the reader. Steinbeck may have used a metaphor to present Candy to reflect how society does not value him and see him as worthless. Steinbeck is trying to convey the harsh realities of a ranch worker in the 1930s.

Steinbeck uses setting to reflect how despite the hopeless situation Candy is in, he continues to have hope. Candy steps out into “the brilliant sunshine”, in the novella, light appears to represent hope. This suggests that Candy continues to have aspirations for the future, even though we know that not many men can escape the ranch. Furthermore, the idea that Candy’s hope is represented by the sunshine suggests that it is inevitable for ranch workers to hope, as hope is just as crucial as the sun. Alternatively, it could reflect how close Candy is to achieving the American Dream and Steinbeck seems to have done this to evoke sympathy from the reader for Candy as we know how close he is to achieving it, but it seems to elude him. The most significant word here is “brilliant” as it suggests that the light is so bright that the ranch workers are simply blinded and so forget the reality of life and begin to believe in wild possibilities. Steinbeck appears to have presented Candy as stepping into the “brilliant” sunshine to reflect how even in the darkest of situations, there is hope. Furthermore, he could be conveying that ranch workers like Candy are perhaps naïve for being fooled by the light and not properly assessing their circumstances.

(b) How do you think Steinbeck uses the character of Candy in the novel as a whole to convey important ideas about society at that time?

Steinbeck appears to have used Candy as a catalyst for the novel, as he makes the dream a possibility, and it appears that the possibility of the dream becoming a reality ends the story for the trio (George, Candy and Lennie), rather than begins it. It is due to Candy that “this thing that they had never really believed in was coming true”. This makes the reader feel happy for them that the dream is a possibility, so Steinbeck is not only building up the trios aspirations, but the reader’s too. Alternatively, this could reflect how this is a belief and there was perhaps reason why it was a belief and George had never really believed in it, this makes the reader feel anxious about their future. The most significant word here is “thing” as it suggests that the dream is unknown to them and they do not truly understand the “thing”. Steinbeck may have used Candy as a catalyst for making the dream a possibility to convey how the ranch workers in the 1930s were easily excitable and this lead to them making decisions which were unrealistic.

Towards the end of the book Candy seems to represent the despair felt by men when they realized the American Dream, was only ever a dream. Candy “dropped his head and looked down at the hay”. This suggests that he is no longer looking up to the sun light and that now all hope is gone. Furthermore, he looks at the “hay” which suggests that he now realizes that his place in life is working on the ranch and that he will be unable to escape it. The most significant word here is “dropped” as it reflects to the reader how volatile the dream is and that it can drop you at any time. This evokes sympathy from the reader, as we understand how much Candy wanted the dream. Steinbeck is perhaps suggesting that Candy’s despair is shared by many and that in the 1930s, many people failed the dream and they too felt the way Candy did.

Priestley criticises the selfishness of people like the Birlings. What methods does he use to present this selfishness?

J.B. Priestley criticises the selfishness of the Birling family by using a range of devices to convey his views of the class system and highlight to the reader the issues with capitalism.

Priestley uses Mrs Birling to highlight how selfish the upper class are. In Act 3, Mrs birling stresses how “I told him quite plainly...I had done no more than my duty”. This shows that Mrs Birling thinks that despite how she is largely to blame for Eva’s death she is in denial of this in order to avoid a potential scandal that could ruin her family reputation. The excessive use of personal pronouns further conveys to the reader that Mrs Birling only cares about herself. The word “duty” is significant here as it highlights one of the key themes, responsibility. This shows that Mrs Birling and the Birling family are oblivious to their true duties as upper class citizens and actually feel that their lives take priority over others. For example, Mrs Birling feels that it is her “duty” to refuse Eva help because she had used the name Birling. This highlights to the reader how shallow the Birlings are and are unaware of how their decisions affect others. Priestley may have used Mrs Birling to convey how the upper classes feel that their lives are more important than the lower class and how they feel that the lower classes are almost sub-human.

Priestley uses metaphors to convey to the reader how selfish the Birlings are. In Act 3, Mr Birling is quick to accept that the “story’s just a load of moonshine”. This suggests that he is quick to forget everything that happened and evidently excited by the idea that there will not be any public scandal. The word “moonshine” appears to be a euphemism here, but nonetheless, is particularly effective because it is a homemade alcoholic drink. This could reflect how the Birlings have all taken part to make such a disaster of Eva Smith. Furthermore, “moonshine” was illegal to make so could reflect the seriousness of their crimes on Eva. Contrastingly, the word “moonshine” could also reflect how Mr Birling is glad that he and his family are out of the limelight. Moreover, the fact that Mr Birling is so quick to brush over the evening, emphasises how he feels that the Birlings are now justified in all their actions because nobody died. This conveys to the reader how selfish he is as he appears to feel no remorse for what he did and encourages this no-remorse behaviour from his children. Priestley may have used Mr Birling’s eagerness to pass pass off the evening for joke to act as an anti-climax. This then creates tension, because the audience is almost expectant for something next to happen, so this cleverly builds up to the dramatic climax of the play.

Priestley uses a semantic field to emphasis the audience how self obsessed the Birlings are with the our own lives and fail to recognise that they are not the only ones alive. Priestley often mentions fairy tale language. There is mention of “knighthood”, “palace” and a “fairy prince”. The use of such language suggests that the Birlings are irrational and naive to believe that they could live in their own castle where they wouldn’t be affected by the lives of the lower class. The word “fairy” is particularly significant here as it conveys to the audience that this isolation from the lower classes is infact not possible. Furthermore, fairies don’t exist, this could reflect how capitalism is simply creating a divide, that shouldn’t exist, between themselves and the poor, because at the end of the day we are all human. Priestley seems to have created a deep sense of irony with the sustaining use of such language. It is ironic because the Birlings appear to be anything but worthy of “knighthoods” and living in “palaces”. This reflects to the reader how immoral the Birlings are and how they simply neglect their social responsibilities and makes the reader feel dislike towards the Birlings for their supercilious attitudes.

Priestley also uses Eric’s careless behaviour to elicit further sympathy for Eva from the audience and emphasise how self-centred the Birlings are. In Act 3, Eric describes Eva as being “a good sport”. This suggests that he does not see other people as real people with lives and futures, but more as entertainment for himself. This makes the audience feel dislike towards Eric for his thoughtless nature. The word “sport” is interesting here, as it conveys that Eric sees other people to be there for his abuse when he wants them. Furthermore, “sport” suggests that he sees Eva as a game and fails to recognise that she is a person. The word “sport” evokes sympathy from the reader because we know that this is a game in which Eva did not want to play and she ended up losing her life to this game. Priestley seems to have used the word sport to convey the idea that the upper class seem to think themselves justified in toying with the lower class and able to simply carry on playing with lives. It is ironic that now the winners, the Birlings, who all have played with Eva’s life, do not appear to be any longer winning and that their constant selfish abuse of Eva will not be forgotten.

To conclude, J.B. Priestley has used a range of devices and characters to emphasise that the Birlings and generally the capitalists in society are selfish and appear to abuse the vulnerable lower classes. Priestley may have conveyed the people, like Mr Birling, in high positions within society, do not care for society at all. Rather they care about themselves and their own reputations and are not really affected to hear of how their prosperity in life often leads to the regress of life for the poor and lower classes. It appears that Priestley is trying to convey that the society of 1912 was very corrupt and perhaps wants the audience of 1945 to respond questioningly and wonder if really, despite two world wars, has society really changed that much. Furthermore, it also reflects with the modern audiences of today and makes the audience also wonder how corrupt modern society and ponder the power that the rich hold over the poor.

Question 21: June 2011 Part (a): How do the details in this passage add to your understanding of George and his relationship with Lennie?

Steinbeck uses language to reflect that despite that George has a companion, he is still lonely. George “laid out his solitaire hand”, the fact that solitaire is a one man game could reflect how George feels that he is by himself even though he is with Lennie because Lennie is evidently George’s intellectual superior. Alternatively, it could convey that George has “laid out his solitaire hand” and even though it is a one-man game he is playing for the both of them. This could be metaphorical for how George is looking after them both even though generally ranch workers go it alone. Furthermore, if George has “laid” down his solitaire cards it could also reflect how George is putting all the cards down and putting all his efforts into making sure that he and Lennie are successful and continue to survive this hostile environment.  Moreover, the noun “hand” could be representative of how George is always supporting and is always there for Lennie so George evidently loves and cares for Lennie. This makes the reader feel admiration for George because we can understand that he is a kind and sympathetic character. Steinbeck may have presented George this way to emphasise the loneliness of the life of a ranch worker – as it appears such a relationship was very strange. By using Lennie and George Steinbeck creates a powerful contrast between the realities of the life of ranch workers to such a friendly relationship.

At the beginning of the passage, Lennie picks up a card and “turned upside down and studied it”. This could metaphorically suggest that George is the card and Lennie has taken George’s life and has completely “turned [it] upside down”, as George may have been able to have a different life without Lennie. Alternatively, “turned upside down” could also be foreshadowing how further events will turn George’s and Lennie’s plans “upside down”. The verb “studied” is interesting as it could draw the readers attention to what it is that Lennie is actually studying and actually make the reader study and ponder the relationship between George and Lennie. Furthermore, it may even appear to the reader slightly ironic that Lennie had “studied” the card, as he is not conveyed to the reader as particularly intellectual. Steinbeck may be trying to show here that life is versatile and could change or be “turned upside down” at any moment and that perhaps the life of ranch workers was even more so.

Part (b): How does Steinbeck use their relationship in the novel as a whole to convey ideas about America in the 1930s?

At the beginning of the novella, Steinbeck describes “an ash-pile made by many fires”. This could reflect the theme of the American dream, as it suggests that many people have tried to make “fires” but their fires kept getting burned out and their dream turned into “ash”. During the 1930s, the American Dream was strived to be procured by many. George and Lennie seem determined and willing to test the strength of their relationship by attempting to achieve the American Dream. Alternatively, it could reflect how there is a vicious circle and fires are started then burn out then started again, this could reflect how ranch workers are trapped in their lives and will be unable to escape from them to the American Dream and it will forever stay a dream. It could also foreshadow how George and Lennie will not be successful and the failure will also cost them their relationship. The noun “fires” is significant as the discovery of fire was a moment of great progress, however here it could mean the contrary. It could imply that the 1930s was a time of regress because of the great depression. This conveys to the reader that the 1930s was not only a difficult period for ranch workers, but everyone else also. Furthermore, “fires” are generally seen as one of the most powerful element, this could reflect the strength of Lennie and George’s relationship and like a fire they will keep burning. Steinbeck may have presented the 1930s with such a sense of despair to evoke the reader’s sympathy for the George and Lennie, as we can understand that it will be impossible for them to escape a time of great depression, no matter how strong they are together.

In the beginning of the novella, Steinbeck describes sycamore “branches that arch over the pool”. This could be reflective of Lennie and George’s relationship as the sycamores may be symbolism for Lennie and George. The branches “arch” over the pool, which could convey how George is always trying to help Lennie no matter what the consequences are for him. This makes the reader perceive George as a selfless and loving character. The reader may picture the image in their mind and feel that the trees are arching over the pool to one another, almost defying the laws of nature by stretching to reach one another. This could reflect how Lennie and George’s relationship seems to defy the unspoken laws of ranch workers as they are often alone and do not have such companions. The word “pool” is significant as it could reflect how the future for Lennie and George is uncertain but nevertheless, they choose to stay together and are prepared to tackle anything that life will throw at them. Alternatively, “pool” could reflect how a forth-coming future event will put an obstacle between them that will forever end their relationship. Steinbeck may have symbolised George’s and Lennie’s relationship as the sycamore trees to try and convey that despite the time of great depression in America, there were happy and positive commodities, such as Lennie and George’s relationship and even perhaps that relationships such as Lennie and George’s are significant in a time of great depression to keep one another going in life.

June 2012 – Compare how poets present the effects of conflict in ‘Mametz Wood’ and one other poem from conflict. (36 marks)

In Mametz Wood, Sheers uses a metaphor to represent how the soldiers were fragile and their deaths very regrettable. Sheers describes seeing the “broken bird’s egg of a skull”, this conveys to the reader, that like an egg, people are easily broken. This makes the reader feel sympathetic for these soldiers as we understand that they were vulnerable and not protected when going into battle. Furthermore, the reference the noun “egg” is significant here as it emphasises how unnatural their deaths were and generally how unnatural conflict is. Alternatively, the noun “egg” could be representative of new life and this could highlight to the reader how these men are dead and that they will not have the chance to create new life. This suggests that war is futile and comes at the cost of human life and is not worth it. Moreover, the verb “broken” reflects to the reader that soldiers are not as tough as people may think and that they can easily be destroyed by conflict. Furthermore, it is strange to describe the men as broken because usually men die – they are killed – not “broken”. Perhaps Sheers is trying to convey here that the men were regarded with little significance and simply as pawns and toys in the bigger game of conflict. This makes the reader feel indignation at the brutal treatment the soldiers received and that even though they died, their deaths were unimportant as they were only toys.

In the falling leaves we see a similar theme of expressing regret for the dead soldiers and the idea that their deaths were pointless and avoidable. Similarly to Mametz Wood, Cole uses an extended metaphor to convey to the reader how the deaths of the soldiers were unnatural. The soldiers are described as “brown leaves dropping from their tree”. This is perhaps different to Mametz Wood as Cole seems to be implying here that like the falling of leaves from trees, the deaths of soldiers through conflict is inevitable and part of human life – it will always happen. This is different to Mametz Wood because it seems to suggest more that war is avoidable. Furthermore, the noun “tree” is significant as it reflects how the soldiers are leaves and are powerless and cannot stop themselves for falling, in the same way that they cannot prevent their deaths. This is similar to the idea in Mametz Wood that the soldiers are simply a pawns in war, this is suggested by the word “broken” and in the falling leaves “tree” represents the commanders who have the power and control over soldiers. Furthermore, the constant representation of soldiers as “leaves” conveys to the reader that, like in Mametz Wood where soldiers are described as “eggs”, soldiers are fragile and easily destroyed. This again contrasts to the sense that soldiers are always strong and solid, like in Mametz Wood. Moreover, the noun “brown” is significant here as it emphasises that these men are colourless and dead and that the life has been drained from them. It could also reflect how hopeless war is and that the soldiers felt great despair before their deaths. Cole may have presented the soldiers in this way to, like in Mametz Wood emphasise how their deaths are unnatural and contrast their deaths with nature.

Whilst both poets present the idea that the soldiers are dead and that they were fragile and vulnerable to conflict, there are also vast differences between the poems. One key difference is that Sheers uses a more active side of nature, such as animals with the reference of “bird” whereas Cole seems to use more passive aspects of nature, such as the “leaves”, Cole may have done this to emphasise how the soldiers will be forever still and passive now, like the “leaves”. Contrastingly, Sheers may have used livelier aspects to highlight to the reader that they died in action. Another key difference between these two poems is that the Falling Leaves is from the perspective of a woman from Britain during WWI, so is perhaps why it is more gentle and calm whereas Mametz Woods is from a male perspective many years after WWII at the battle grounds. This could perhaps also explain why the language in Mametz Wood is more violent to express to the reader Sheers indignation of the soldiers treatment.

In Mametz Wood, Sheers also uses an extended metaphor, which is similar to the falling leaves metaphor, of birds and nature. First he mentions the “bird’s egg” and later on he describes how the soldiers walked “towards the wood and its nesting machine guns”. The word “nesting” conveys to the reader that the men were perhaps not aware of the dangers of the woods because they thought that the woods were peaceful and calm and like a bird. Furthermore, it could emphasise how the orders the men were given were wrong. This is because the machine guns were “nesting” which conveys that if they were to leave their “nests” they would be vulnerable and unable to survive. This evokes sympathy from the reader because we can understand here that their deaths were unnecessary here and that they should not have attacked but waited. Morover, the use of the metaphor “nesting” to describe the machine guns could have been done to reflect how the soldiers are like animals and were willing to attack the British soldiers when they were vulnerable and did not stand a chance. Alternatively, “nesting machine guns” is an oxymoron and this could be used to emphasise to the reader that the men stood no chance against such power. Sheers may have described the machine guns with an animal like quality to convey to the reader the brutality with which the soldiers were killed.

Similarly in the Falling Leaves, the soldiers are described to have died an unnatural death by weapons, like the soldiers in Mametz Wood. In the Falling Leaves, Cole describes that the men were “slain by no wind of age or pestilence”. The fact that these men did not die from “pestilence” suggests that they may have suffered even more in conflict. Alternatively, “pestilence” could metaphorically represent how war is like a disease and it is contagious and spreads everywhere. This also emphasises the idea that conflict is inevitable and will continue to occur. Furthermore, the verb “slain” is significant here as it could reflect the soldiers bravery for going to war and strength once they were there. This makes the reader feel pride and gives us the sense that these men were patriotic. However, this is different to Mametz Wood as poem give a more forceful anti-war message and does not focus on the idea that these men were brave for going to war but that their actions were simply regrettable. Also there are not dead because of the “wind of age”, this could reflect how their deaths are unnatural and highlights to the reader that the soldiers do not have any future. Cole may have described the deaths of soldiers in this way to suggest, like in Mametz Wood that the deaths of young soldiers means that they have no future and their lives have been wasted.

Both poems deplore a deep sense of regret and consistently use nature throughout their poems as extended metaphors to reflect how the soldiers deaths were not natural. Both writers evoke the readers sympathy and make the reader remember how the cost of war came at such a great cost because both poems how it was “multitudes” of men that died. Alternatively, the aspect of nature is used in the Falling Leaves to describe the soldiers themselves to perhaps suggest that death always occurs and is unpreventable, whereas Mametz Wood uses nature to repeatedly describe weapons to emphasise their danger.

January 2013 – In the stage directions, Priestley refers to Eric as ‘not quite at ease, half shy, half assertive’. How does Priestley present these and other ideas about Eric in AIC? (30 marks)

Towards the end of the play, Priestley uses Eric to convey the gender divisions during the Edwardian era. Eric states that “she was a good sport”, this clearly shows a lack of disrespect for women however, this was common during this era. The pronoun “she” is significant because it shows how his feelings towards Eva were impersonal and he does not feel compassion for her and she is of no importance to him. Furthermore, the idea that he sees Eva as a “sport” suggests that he thinks that she is a game he can play. This reflects that Eric is foolish and does not see women as equal to men and Eric may feel that women only exist to entertain men and can be played when ever suits him. This makes the audience feel irritated by Eric’s ignorance and feel distaste towards him. Moreover, “sport” could represent Eric’s life and in the end Eric loses the game and Eva and his child. Alternatively, the idea that he sees Eva as a “sport” could suggest that he is naïve and uncertain of the world around him because he does not truly understand life as he has been sheltered from hardships. This also makes the audience feel irritated that a person who is of a higher social class could be so innocent to the realities of life. Priestley may have used Eric to convey how women were seen as second-class citizens and were not respected by the superior males.

In Act one, Priestley uses Eric to show that there is hope for change in future generations. Eric wonders “why shouldn’t they try for higher wages?”, which  conveys that Eric is perhaps quite thoughtful and that despite having grown up in a plentiful life he is wise and can still understand the hardships of others. The fact that he questions his father about how he runs his business, suggests that Eric is beginning to become more confident in himself. This perhaps foreshadows that Eric will become more confident and braver as the night continues and become more willing to stand up for what he believes. It also highlights to the audience the key differences in the older and younger generations. Alternatively, the adverb “why” is significant as it suggests that Eric is unsure about his fathers business and hence has a lack of understanding of the world around him. Furthermore, it could reflect how Eric is generally confused and does not understand his purpose in life or what to do with himself other than to drink. This makes the audience feel sympathy for Eric as we understand that he is perhaps feeling this way because of his family’s behaviour. Priestley has used Eric to convey the generational conflict that could occur during the Edwardian era to show that times were changing and that there was hope that younger generations understood that they had responsibilities to each other.

Priestley uses Eric to convey to the audience that the upper classes were out of touch with the times and that their arrogance had lead them to become naïve. In Act three, Eric states that “she treated me – as if I were a kid”, which conveys that he does not enjoy this. The use of the dash puts emphasis on the idea that he was treated like a “kid”, this suggests that Eric is perhaps uncertain as to why a woman could make him feel this way when he should be superior because of his sex. Furthermore, the reference to the personal pronouns, “I” and “me” conveys that he is selfish and cares only about himself, just as the upper classes usually did. This angers the audience because when the tragedy is Eva’s death he is still concerned about the way she treated him. The verb “treated” conveys that he expected Eva to treat him respectfully and admire him because he was upper class. This focus on the treatment Eric received reminds the audience that Eva was not treated as she should have been and so Eric deserved treatment. To some extent Eva appears to be defying the class system by making Eric who is upper class feel this way. This makes the reader feel pride for Eva’s courage and defiance and anger at Eric’s arrogance because he feels that he is upper class and Eva should refer to him with respect. Priestley may have used Eric to convey how crucial change was within society and how we should judge people on their abilities and personalities – not on their social status.

January 2012 Part (a) How does Steinbeck use details in this passage to present the bunkhouse and its inhabitants?

Steinbeck uses symbolism to reflect how the bunkhouse workers are insignificant but also the hierarchy of a ranch. Steinbeck describes a “table littered with playing cards”, the cards symbolise the ranch workers. The verb “littered” conveys that the cards have been carelessly thrown down onto the table, this suggests that like the ranch workers, they are of little value. Furthermore, “littered” suggests that they have been scattered like rubbish. Alternatively, cards have different values and these values could reflect the hierarchy within the ranch. For example, the low working cards would represent the out cast ranch workers such as Candy, Crooks and Lennie and the higher ranking cards would be the boss, Slim and Curley. The verb “playing” is significant because it could reflect how ranch workers are stuck in a vicious cycle and cannot escape their lives and like a game it just continues again, as they work up a stake on month, blow it at the end and then do it again next month. This evokes sympathy from the reader because the ranch workers are trying to achieve the American Dream but are stuck endlessly in a cycle, which they cannot escape. Alternatively, it could signify that life is like a game and they do not take it seriously. Steinbeck may have presented the ranch workers as lowly valued to reflect how they were worthless and as soon as they left another ranch worker could easily replace them because it was a the time of the Great Depression and the job market was competitive.

Steinbeck also presents the ranch workers as “whitewashed” to reflect that they are all individual people. In the passage, Steinbeck describes that the “walls were whitewashed”. The noun “whitewashed” explicity shows that the walls are white and could suggest that the ranch workers too are boring and plain just like the walls. This makes the reader feel sympathetic towards the ranch workers as we get the idea from this description that ranch workers were not viewed as individuals and hence with a lack of personal value. Furthermore, “whitewashed” could portray the ranch workers as innocent; this reflects that they are innocent and powerless to dictate their own lives because they are stuck in a viscious circle from which they cannot escape. Alternatively, “whitewashed” could convey that the ranch workers all have something of their own to hide and are covering up their faults and flaws and even secrets. This makes the reader feel almost hopeful that the ranch workers all secretly aspire for something greater than working on a ranch but cautious of their hidden sides and which dangers the ranch worker could pose to Lennie and George’s possibilities of attaining the American Dream. Steinbeck may have presented the ranch workers as “whitewashed” to perhaps convey that the ranch workers during the 1930s faced such hardships because of the Great Depression that they may have lost all the colour in their faces.

Part (b) In the rest of the novel, how does Steinbeck present the lives of the ranch workers at that time?

In chapter 3, Steinbeck uses personification to reflect how the ranch workers during the 1930s felt as if they were under attack and hopeless. The silence when Carlson is shooting Candy’s dog is described to have “came out of the night and invaded the room”. This could be symbolism for how ranch workers feel under pressure and as if they could lose their jobs at anytime because this was the time of Great Depression and their was fierce competition for jobs. Furthermore, the verb “invaded” conveys that they feel under attack, this could reflect how the Great Depression had “invaded” their dreams and hopes and made it impossible for them to ever achieve the American Dream. Alternatively, “invaded” could symbolise how ranch workers feel lonely and when ever they are in presence of others they may feel “invaded” as they are so used to lonliness, as we see in chapter four with Crooks. This makes the reader feel sympathy for them as they are isolated and also evokes hope for the reader that George and Lennie are together so are not lonely and may not suffer the same fate as the rest of the ranch workers. It could also reflect how ranch workers prefer to keep themselves to themselves as they feel that their business is no one else’s. The fact that the silence “came out of the night” could reflect how the ranch workers do not have much chance of achieving the American Dream because darkness is often a symbol of a lack of hope. Furthermore, ‘the night’ could reflect how ranch workers lives were unpredicatable at this time and they may have felt as if they were walking around blindly in the night. Steinbeck may have personified the silence in this way to convey to the reader how they were alone and did not have someone with whom they could truly talk to and be honest with.

At the beginning of chapter one, Steinbeck uses setting to symbolise how hopeless life was for ranch workers during the 1930s. He describes “an ash pile made by many fires”, this could reflect how ranch workers lives were difficult and endless. The “ash pile” could reflect how ranch workers who had dreams always had their dreams burned as they could never realistically achieve them because this was the time of the Great Depression. Furthermore, the adjective “many” reflects how lots of ranch workers tied to escape the endless circle that they were trapped in. This makes the reader feel a lack of hope as we can understand that Lennie and George may too be stuck in this cycle and unlike the rest of the ranch workers they may be unable to escape. Moreover, the noun “fires” is also significant as it conveys that dreaming for the ranch workers was almost dangerous because it meant that like Lennie and George, they had got their hopes up only to have them destroyed. This could reflect that some ranch workers were quite naïve for ‘secretly believing’ and hoping that they can ahieve the American Dream even though they know that it is near impossible and it will probably elude them, just as it has to ‘many’ others. Alternatively, “fires” could convey that the life of a ranch worker was also dangerous because they always had to be on guard from others such as Curley, Curley’s wife and other ranch workers such as Carlson because he shot Candy’s dog. Steinbeck may have presented the ranch workers as naïve and hopeful to make the reader feel sympathetic for them but also so that the reader obtains some of their hope and desires for the ranch workers to be able to escape the cycle.

How does Priestley present the change in Sheila during the course of the play An Inspector Calls? How do you think this change reflects some of Priestley’s ideas? (30 marks)

How does Priestley present the change in Sheila during the course of the play? How do you think this change represents some of Priestley’s ideas? (30 marks)

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.

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.

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.

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 anothers 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, we she Sheila’s views and personality undertake a dramatic change as she becomes more opinionated and more aware of the world. She almost becomes an accomplice to the Inspector, by encouraging others to take the path of remorse. She is also a mouthpiece for Priestley’s views as she becomes an increasingly socialistic character towards the end of the play and begins to disagree with the ideals of capitalists. Furthermore, Sheila symbolizes the hope that Priestley believes there is in the younger generations.