‘Death of a Salesman’
The Inside Of His Head
We have been studying ‘Death of a Salesman’ which was written by Arthur Miller in 1949. The play is set in America and revolves around a man in his sixties called Willy. Willy is an insecure, self-deluded travelling salesman who is struggling to come to terms with the fact that has not accomplished his lifelong dreams. The play takes place over 48 hours and we see Willy’s fast decline into anxiety which eventually ends with suicide. During this essay, we will be exploring how Arthur Miller shows the audience the inside of Willy’s head.
The main characters in this play are Willy and Biff alongside many other supporting characters. Linda is Willy’s adoring spouse; she is the epitome of a perfect American wife. Happy is Willy’s younger son who is ‘tall’ and ‘powerfully made.’ He is more successful than Biff in the eyes of Willy because he shares Willy’s inclination to exaggerate his success by making himself and everyone around him believe that he is the assistant buyer at his store, when, in reality, he is only ‘one of the two assistants to the assistant.’ Biff is Willy’s oldest son who ‘bears a worn air’ and appears to be ‘less self-assured’ than Happy. He has a simple dream, he wants to ‘find a girl’ and not ‘waste his life.’ He acknowledges his failure and eventually manages to confront it; he refuses to resort to self-deception like his father and brother. The central character in this play is Willy Loman, Arthur Miller’s representation of a working class hero. At the beginning of the play, it becomes apparent that Willy’s state of mind isn’t stable. After arriving back from a business trip, Willy tells Linda that ‘I couldn’t make it.’ Not long after, Willy is in the garden talking to himself and reminiscing about the past.
This is a preview of the whole essay
Peer Reviews
Here's what a star student thought of this essay
Quality of writing
The essay has an okay structure. The introduction adds nothing to the argument as it simply offers a summary to the play. I would advise you use the introduction to set up a coherent argument, and leave the irrelevant contextual information out. You aren't explaining what the play is to someone who doesn't know - you are arguing towards a question where the reader knows the play inside out, so this should be your focus. Paragraphs are used well, and the clear signposts to begin each point shows a focused argument. Spelling, punctuation and grammar are fine.
Level of analysis
The analysis here is good. As mentioned above, there is sometimes a tendency to retell the story rather than analyse techniques. For example, the majority of the second paragraph adds nothing to the argument other than showing the examiner you know the play well. The analysis of structure begins when the essay comments "At the beginning of the play, it becomes apparent that Willy’s state of mind isn’t stable". There is a fine line between narrating and analysing structure, but it's made much clearer when you explicitly talk about Miller using the play to manipulate the audience. For example I would write "Miller makes it clear from the beginning of the play that Willy has a troubled mind, allowing the audience to sympathise with his problems". The analysis of "time-switches" is good, but I would add that Miller himself calls them mobile concurrencies of past and present. It is clear that Miller wants to show the audience Willy's mind is so broken that past and present blur, and so by using this term you'll gain credit from examiners. The contextual evidence here is strong, looking at the materialistic nature that drove Miller to write the play. I just feel it'd be more sophisticated if these comments were linked in with the analysis rather than having a dedicated paragraph.
Response to question
This essay engages well with the question, looking at how success, failure and dreams shape Arthur Miller's tragedy. There is a good focus here on how Miller allows the audience to understand Willy's dilemma. I would've liked to have seen tragedy been discussed more in this essay, as it is key to Miller's intentions. An exploration of Miller's essay "The Tragedy of a Common Man" would've shown some excellent outside reading to support the arguments here. Sometimes this essay retells the plot rather than analysing techniques, which will gain little credit. Yes, you can analyse the effect of the plot, but at GCSE level it is much more sophisticated to look at how the techniques such as language, form and structure shape meanings and then go on to discuss these in regards to the audience. I was pleased to see a sustained exploration of the audience's response here, as it shows the candidate understand the significance of drama as a medium.